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

53–827 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 110–1026 

STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON 

GLOBAL WARMING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 1, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 5 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 42 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 44 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 46 

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 48 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 49 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 50 

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New York ........ 52 

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................... 53 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 138 

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 147 

WITNESSES 

Corzine, Hon. Jon S., Governor, State of New Jersey .......................................... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Thomas ......................................................................................... 59 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 60 

Perata, Hon. Don, President Pro Tem, California State Senate .......................... 80 

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

Nun ̃ ez, Hon. Fabian, speaker, California State Assembly ................................... 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Response to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ................................. 104 

Adkins, Dennis, chairman, House Committee on Energy and Technology, 

Oklahoma State House ........................................................................................ 104 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

Harvey, Hon. Ted, Senator, Colorado State Senate .............................................. 108 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

Nickels, Hon. Greg, Mayor, City of Seattle, WA ................................................... 110 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 124 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 124 

Cownie, Hon. Frank, Mayor, City of Des Moines, IA ........................................... 125 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126 

Homrighausen, Hon. Richard P., Mayor, City of Dover, OH ............................... 128 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 130 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 133 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Reports: 

EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990– 

2004, April 15, 2006 ...................................................................................... 68 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

United Nations Foundation, The Scientific Research Society, Confronting 

Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable, February 2007 .............................................................................30–41 

Letters from: 

Schwarzenegger, Arnold .................................................................................. 3 

California Economists ...................................................................................... 85 

Bruton, John, Ambassador, European Union, Delegation of the European 

Commission ................................................................................................... 11 

Lists: 

Bipartisan Elected Officials ............................................................................. 9 

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in 

Man-made Global Warming-Now Skeptic ................................................... 20–28 

Article, Bay Journal, December 2004 .................................................................... 140 
(1) 

STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL 

PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL WARMING 

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Boxer (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Voinovich, Lautenberg, Clinton, 

Cardin, Sanders, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Craig, Thomas and Bond. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. The committee will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is about State, regional and local approaches to 

global warming. We have wonderful witnesses today who can really, I think, help us as we grapple with these issues. I do want to 

welcome all of our witnesses, including the good Governor, former 

Senator Jon Corzine, a former member of this committee. 

I also particularly want to welcome the two members of the California State legislature. I never know in which order to introduce 

you, because to me you are partners and you are equals. I am very 

proud that Don Perata is here, President pro tem of the California 

State Senate and Speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Fabian Nun ̃ ez. 

I also want to welcome Mayor Nickels, from Seattle, and the 

Mayor of Des Moines, IA, Frank Cownie. In addition, I want to welcome State Representative Dennis Adkins of Oklahoma. Welcome, 

sir. State Senator Ted Harvey of Colorado, welcome, sir. And 

Mayor Richard Homrighausen of Dover, OH. Are you here? He is 

on the way. 

Let me say that we will have a more formal introduction of Governor Corzine by Senator Lautenberg and hopefully by Senator 

Menendez if he arrives on time. 

Every day we learn more about how global warming is threatening the well-being of the plant. Just a few weeks ago, the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report, which 

makes it clear that global warming is happening now and there is 

a 90 percent certainty humans are causing most of the warming. 

Just yesterday, I was at a press conference with Senator Bingaman 

and former Senator Tim Worth to discuss this latest report Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. It is another United Nations report by the 
2 

United Nations Foundation, the Scientific Research Society. So yet 

more and more studies are coming in on this. 

The warming could have enormous consequences for mankind. 

Left unchecked, global warming will lead to increased extreme 

weather events, to sea level rises, to more floods and hurricanes 

and to change in our weather patterns that could reduce our water 

supplies. These are but a few of the effects that global warming 

will have on our States and cities in the years to come unless we 

act. 

Today’s hearing is about those States, regions and cities that already recognize these facts and have taken strong, bipartisan action to help stop global warming. In my opinion, they are leading 

the way for the rest of the Nation. They understand what is at 

stake for our future and for our grandkids and their kids. They are 

sending us a signal that we must heed. 

I want to show you a map. It shows you that 29 States already 

have some form of climate action plan. Senator Inhofe, I wanted to 

call this to your attention to show you that 29 States already have 

some form of a climate action plan. These 29 States have a combined population of nearly 180 million people. Fourteen of the 

twenty-nine States shown in yellow have set greenhouse gas reduction targets. Eight northeastern States, including New Jersey, have 

agreed to reduce emissions from powerplants through the regional 

greenhouse gas initiatives. More States, such as Maryland, are expected to join in this effort. 

On Monday, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and New 

Mexico announced a regional initiative to address global warming. 

It is only a matter of time before more States follow. I am especially proud of my State, California, which enacted A.B. 32, the Nation’s first economy-wide global warming bill, authored by State 

Assembly Speaker Nun ̃ ez, who is here today. Under the leadership 

of State Senate President pro tem Perata, California has also set 

strong emission standards for new electricity generation. 

Now, I met yesterday with Governor Schwarzenegger. We had a 

terrific meeting. He again continued to speak out for us to pay attention to this issue. I am going to ask unanimous consent to place 

the letter that he wrote to me for today’s hearing into the record. 

So without objection, it will be done. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
3 
4 
5 

Senator BOXER. I will just read simply one paragraph: ‘‘Global 

climate change is one of the most critical environmental and political challenges of our time. The debate is over, the science is in, 

and the time to act is now. Only by putting aside our political differences and bringing all parties and stakeholders together will we 

truly be able to confront this crisis.’’ I thank the Governor for this 

letter. 

Governor Corzine’s recent executive order requires New Jersey to 

reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent from 

current levels by 2050. I commend his leadership. 

Our cities have also taken action. Led by Seattle Mayor Nickels, 

a bipartisan group of 407 mayors, representing over 59 million people, have signed onto the Climate Protection Agreement. Finally, 

Mayor Cownie will tell us about the actions he is taking in Des 

Moines to help his city and his actions take action to fight global 

warming. They are fueling their fleets with ethanol and biodiesel, 

they are building more bike paths in Des Moines, they are encouraging their citizens to use compact fluorescent light bulbs. 

Now, these may seem like very small things. But in the end, they 

add up. People everywhere are waking up to the reality of global 

warming. Earlier this week, the investment community announced 

plans to take over a major Texas utility and to scrap its plans to 

build 11 new coal-fired powerplants. That decision took heed of the 

editorial that Senator Bingaman and I wrote, which made clear 

that permits for such plants to emit greenhouse gases would not 

be granted for free. The days when investors could ignore the possibility of greenhouse gas limits are coming to a close. 

There is increasing bipartisan consensus that we need to move 

now to limit emissions. The States and cities that we will hear 

from today are leading the charge. I am an optimist, and like the 

States and cities who are taking action today, I believe we can 

solve this problem, and in doing so, we will be better for it in every 

single way. I look forward to hearing all of the witnesses’ testimony 

on this issue today. 

It is my pleasure to call on the Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. You 

mentioned a couple of things, some comments in your opening 

statement. As far as the TXU is concerned, that is a huge success 

that you guys have had in what I call divide and conquer, to be 

able to get the natural gas people and the nuclear people to realize 

how much money they can make by shutting down coal-fired 

plants. It is something perhaps the board of directors had a lot of 

pressure in getting them to do. 

As far as the IPCC fourth assessment is concerned, the interesting thing about this is, first of all, as we have said before, this 

is not any kind of a science report, this is a summary for policymakers. It has nothing to do with science. At the same time, the 

United Nations came out by reducing man’s contribution by 25 percent. That is huge. And reducing the anticipated sea level by onehalf and also coming out with a statement that livestock emissions 

are greater than man emissions and even the transportation sector. 
6 

But we have an honest difference of opinion, and it will surprise 

a lot of people to know that we agree on a lot of things, such as 

the WRDA bill coming up that everyone in this room is very much 

concerned about today. We will be discussing the State perspectives 

on climate change. I would say to my friend, Governor Corzine, I 

used to say, and I am sure that Senator Voinovich would probably 

agree with me, with his background, I tell my fellow Senators 

sometimes, I know what a hard job is, I have been a mayor of a 

major city. The same thing is true with being Governor of a State. 

So I recognize you have a hard job right now. 

We are discussing, as you know, the States are, I consider to be 

50 laboratories in this Country, each one taking a unique policy 

pathway forward. In doing so, the experiments give Federal policymakers examples of what policies work, what policies don’t work. 

And of course, the Federal Government also has examples of failed 

ideas it should avoid repeating at all costs. Cap and trade ranks 

high among these. 

Multiple approaches have been taken that purport to address climate change. Some States have clean coal R&D programs. Others 

have tax credits for renewable energy and/or hybrid cars. Still others have renewable portfolio standards. Most of these States have 

taken a pragmatic approach that recognizes the uniqueness of their 

circumstances. A group of northeastern States and California have 

enacted cap and trade programs to reduce emissions. Additionally, 

four Governors have pledged to come up with plans to reduce emissions. Today we hear how ambitious and important they are and 

what they plan to accomplish. 

But these programs haven’t accomplished anything so far. They 

are simply open promises that won’t be kept and denials about 

costs that will surely be paid. 

California is a good example of an empty promise. It passed a 

law bringing emissions back to the 1990 levels by 2020. This baseline was not chosen arbitrarily, but to support the Kyoto Protocol, 

which also uses 1990 baseline. Since Kyoto is the only cap and 

trade program that is underway, I think it is worth asking, how 

well has that worked? Of the 15 western European countries that 

have signed onto Kyoto, and have ratified it, only 2 will meet their 

targets, that is Sweden and Britain. Great Britain only because it 

eliminated its coal industry in the early 1990s. 

Like most signatories, Canada and Japan won’t meet their targets. The simple fact is that the United States has spent more Federal dollars on basic science as well as research and development 

and done more to reduce our emissions rate than Europe has since 

2000. It is interesting, we have actually reduced our emission rates 

more in the United States than western Europe has. One thing, as 

long as we are talking about Canada, it is very interesting, even 

though they were one of the first ones to sign on, to ratify the 

Kyoto Treaty, the 60 scientists that advised the Canadians are now 

petitioning Prime Minister Harper to withdraw, saying that ‘‘If we 

had known 10 years ago what we know today, we would not have 

been a part of Kyoto.’’ 

The simple fact is, jobs are fleeing the European Union because 

of its experiment into cap and trade. China, which will become the 

world’s biggest emitter of greenhouses in 2009 and India and other 
7 

developing nations will never sign on. As the Deputy Director General of China’s Office of Global Environmental Affairs said in October, ‘‘you cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to 

eat that they need to reduce their emissions.’’ That is why California and the RGGI programs, I believe, will fail. Although each 

of these regions has yet to pay the cost, there will be costs and jobs 

will flee these States. Cost will go up and purchase power will decline. 

In RGGI States, for instance, the Charles River and Associates, 

the CRA estimate, estimated a similar proposal which would cost 

the region some 18,000 jobs in 2010. Electricity prices, according to 

them, this is CRA, will rise by 9 percent, hitting the elderly and 

the poor the hardest. The poor are having to shoulder the increased 

burden of more than double that of the rich, due to the cost of energy. Similarly, purchasing power would decline by $270 per family. 

It is interesting that this is based on this reduced program, while 

the Wharton Econometric Survey uses figures 10 times greater, the 

average family of four, costing them in what we would refer to as 

a tax increase, some $2,750 a year. So let’s be honest about these 

programs and their companion proposals are here in Congress. 

They are the biggest tax increases in history. In fact, they are 

worse than taxes, because they will cost more and be less effective. 

The only reason the alarmists have not proposed an outright tax 

yet is that they know it will be more difficult to reward the climate 

profiteers supporting them in their efforts, such as we witnessed 

down in TXU only in the last few weeks. 

So I would simply say in closing that I find it ironic that 

deliverables are so openly crafting programs to directly benefit 

powerful corporations and interest groups at the expense of the 

poor, the elderly, the fixed income and the working class. Thank 

you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman. 

Today we are discussing State perspectives on climate change. As you know, the 

States are 50 laboratories of this country—each taking a unique policy pathway forward. In doing so, the experiments give Federal policymakers examples of what policies work. Of course, the Federal Government also has examples of failed ideas it 

should avoid repeating at all costs—cap and trade ranks high among these. 

Multiple approaches have been taken that purport to address climate change. 

Some States have clean coal R&D programs, others have tax credits for renewable 

energy or hybrid cars, and still others have renewable portfolio standards. Most of 

these States have taken a pragmatic approach that recognizes the uniqueness of 

their circumstances. 

A group of Northeastern States and California have enacted cap and trade programs to reduce emissions. Additionally, four Governors have joined Governor 

Schwarzenegger in pledging to come up with plans to reduce emissions. Today we 

will hear how ambitious and important they are, and what they plan to accomplish. 

But these programs haven’t accomplished anything. They are simply empty promises that won’t be kept and denials about costs that will surely be paid. 

California is a good example of an empty promise—it passed a law bringing emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. This baseline was not chosen arbitrarily, but to 

support the Kyoto Protocol, which also uses a 1990 baseline. Since Kyoto is the only 

cap and trade program that is under way, it’s worth asking—how well is that program working? 
8 

Of the 15 original EU countries, only two will meet their targets—Sweden and 

Britain, and Britain only because it eliminated its coal industry in the early 90s. 

And like most signatories, Canada and Japan won’t meet their targets either. The 

simple fact is that the United States has spent more Federal dollars on basic 

science, as well as research and development, and done more to reduce our emissions rate than Europe since 2000. How did we do that?—By rejecting Kyoto’s cap 

and trade approach. 

The simple fact is jobs are fleeing the EU because of its experiment into cap and 

trade. And China—which will become the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse 

gases in 2009—and India and other developing nations will never sign on. As Lu 

Xuedu, Deputy Director General of China’s Office of Global Environmental Affairs, 

said in October: ‘‘You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat 

that they need to reduce their emissions.’’ 

That is why the California and RGGI programs will fail. Although each of these 

regions has yet to pay the costs, there will be costs. Jobs will flee these States, costs 

will go up and purchasing power will decline. 

In the RGGI States, for instance, Charles River Associates estimated a similar 

proposal would cost the region 18,000 jobs in 2010. Electricity prices would rise 9 

percent, hitting the elderly and poor the hardest, with the poor having to shoulder 

an increased burden more than double that of the rich due to the costs of energy. 

Similarly, purchasing power would decline $270 per family in 2010 and worsen annually. 

California will fare as badly. While the program they plan to implement the law 

is so uncertain economic modeling is difficult, the targets and timing suggest that 

the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates Kyoto Protocol study is useful. 

That study found California would see its economy decline by about 1 percent and 

278,000 jobs. 

Let’s be honest about what these programs and their companion proposals here 

in Congress really are—they are the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. In fact, 

they are worse than taxes because they will cost more and be less effective. And 

the only reason the alarmists have not proposed an outright tax yet is they know 

it will be more difficult to reward the climate profiteers supporting them in their 

efforts. 

In closing, I will simply say that I find it ironic that the liberals are so openly 

crafting programs to directly benefit powerful corporations and interest groups at 

the expense of the poor, elderly and working class. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I am a bit speechless after that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I would like to put in the record the list of bipartisan elected officials who have attacked this issue and include 

Democrat and Republican Governors. So I would like to ask unanimous consent to place this in the record, showing the bipartisan 

list of officials who have taken action. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
9 
10 

Senator BOXER. I also would like to ask unanimous consent that 

I be able to place into the record a statement from the European 

Union which says they are on track to meet their Kyoto commitment. It is a letter to me on that point. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman, for the record, I would like 

to submit a list of scientists who at one time, 10 years ago, were 

very strong supporters of reducing man-made gases, and now realize that science has changed and they are on the other side of the 

issue. 

Senator BOXER. We would be happy to put that in the record. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Senator BOXER. In addition, we are also going to put into the 

record without objection, I hope, a list of the scientists who issued 

the IPCC report and also this latest report of scientific experts just 

yesterday who issued this report for the United Nations, Confronting Climate Change. So we will have the list of scientists who 

change their mind and the list of scientists who are actually putting these reports out as well as the letter from the European 

Union. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Senator BOXER. We are going to continue now, we are going to 

try to stick with the 5-minute opening statement. I am going to call 

on Senator Lautenberg for his opening statement, and then Senator, you can speak about your Governor now or you can wait until 

we have all statements made and you can then introduce him at 

that time. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Can I do it without charge to my timeframe? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. First, I want to thank Senator Inhofe for 

his encouraging view of our intentions to reduce greenhouse gas, 

thank you very much. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, before I introduce Governor Corzine, I just want to say that States are leading when it 

comes to combating global warming. Now the Federal Government 

needs to catch up. Our witnesses hail from States with innovative 

and active programs to cut greenhouse gases and control climate 

change. 

In addition to Governor Corzine’s initiatives to cut emissions 

within our State, New Jersey has also joined six eastern States to 

launch their Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which will help 

curb emissions from powerplants. 

Thirty-six of New Jersey’s cities have joined nearly 400 other cities from across the Country to do what the Bush administration 

won’t do, and that is meet or beat the Kyoto Protocols. New Jersey 

and other States are beginning to weave a web of smart environmental regulations across the Country. But the Federal Government is not doing its part to strengthen that web. We can change 

that. 

I strongly support Senator Sanders’ Global Warming Pollution 

Reduction Act, which calls for an 80 percent cut in global warming 

pollutants by 2050. If we don’t take the steps now, we will continue 

to threaten succeeding populations, including my grandchildren’s 

grandchildren. It is not something I am willing to throw away. 

I have also been joined by Senator Boxer and Senator Snowe in 

introducing the High Performance Green Buildings Act. Buildings, 

from apartments to skyscrapers, account for nearly 40 percent of 

our greenhouse gases. The Federal Government is the biggest landlord in the Country. By getting Federal buildings to go green, we 

can put a significant dent in our emissions. 

But the Federal Government needs to do more. We need caps on 

greenhouse gas emissions from all powerplants and other facilities 

that produce pollution. We need to increase cap-based standards to 

get vehicle emissions and dependence on foreign oil down. We need 

incentives for cities and businesses to build in ways that are better 

for the environment. 

We have to end the censorship and suppression of Government 

scientists who do research on global warming. The public is taking 

better care of our environment and they want to do more. People 

are buying hybrids, cars based on fuel efficiency, for example. Some 
43 

in the private sector are also taking some positive steps, the CEOs 

from some of America’s largest companies, like General Electric 

and DuPont are now calling for Federal legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. So it is time for the Federal Government to step up, 

do its part and support our States, cities and towns that are already doing theirs. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Madame Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on how the States are 

leading when it comes to combating global warming—and how the Federal Government needs to catch up. 

Among today’s witnesses is my Governor, Jon Corzine. Our witnesses hail from 

States with innovative and active programs to cut greenhouse gases and control climate change. 

In addition to Governor Corzine’s move to cut emissions within our state, New 

Jersey has also joined six eastern States to launch the Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative, which will help curb emissions from powerplants. 

And 36 of New Jersey’s cities have joined nearly 400 other cities from across 

America to do what the Bush administration won’t do: meet or beat the Kyoto Protocols. 

New Jersey and other States are beginning to weave a web of smart environmental regulations across the country. But the Federal Government is not doing its 

part to strengthen that web. 

We can change that. 

That is why I strongly support Senator Sanders’ ‘Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act,’ which calls for an 80 percent cut in global warming pollutants by 2050. 

I have also been joined by Senators Snowe and Boxer in introducing the ‘High 

Performance Green Buildings Act.’ 

Buildings—from apartments to skyscrapers—account for nearly 40 percent of our 

greenhouse gases. The Federal Government is the biggest landlord in the country 

and by getting Federal buildings to ‘‘go green,’’ we can put a significant dent in our 

emissions. 

But the Federal Government needs to do more. 

We need caps on greenhouse gas emissions from all powerplants and other facilities that pollute. 

We need to increase CAFE ́ standards to get vehicle emissions and dependence on 

foreign oil down. 

We need incentives for cities and businesses to build in ways that are better for 

the environment. 

And we must end the censorship and suppression of government scientists who 

do research on global warming. 

The public is taking better care of our environment—and they want to do more. 

People are buying hybrids and cars based on fuel efficiency, for example. 

Some in the private sector are also taking some positive steps. 

The CEO’s from some of America’s largest companies, such as General Electric 

and DuPont, and now calling for Federal legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. 

It’s time for the Federal Government to do its part—and to support our States, 

cities and towns that are already doing theirs. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, if I might just say a 

few words about Governor Corzine, no stranger to Capitol Hill. The 

Governor and I used to be Senate colleagues. Both of us initiated 

a job change, and I hope he enjoys as much as I do mine. Now I 

am one of his constituents, he is one of mine. New Jersey is proud 

of our Governor, because he is willing to step up and do the right 

thing, even if it looks at the moment like it is putting more pressure on us. But someone has to take a longer view, and Governor 

Jon Corzine is willing to do that. We see it in his leadership here 

to fight the fight against global warming. 

I am proud of New Jersey today, because New Jersey is among 

a small group of States that is leading the Nation when it comes 
44 

to reducing global warming. Two weeks ago, Governor Corzine 

signed an order to reduce New Jersey’s total emissions from cars, 

buildings and factories alike by 80 percent by 2050. New Jersey 

and California are two of just a few States to take such action. 

So I am happy to see Jon Corzine here, back in his familiar surroundings. But New Jersey needs him, so we will try not to keep 

him here too long, and let the Federal Government do what it 

needs to do. Please welcome Jon Corzine. 

Governor CORZINE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, and we will go to Senator 

Voinovich. Welcome, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Madam Chairman, I thank you for holding 

this hearing today and I am glad that we have State and local perspectives on global warming. I have often said this is a difficult and 

controversial topic, with some declaring it a hoax and some declaring that the end of the world is near. I share neither of these beliefs, and it is going to be really nice that we are having local government officials, State officials. Because ordinarily, this is about 

maybe the 12th hearing I have had in 8 years. Senator Corzine, 

you will remember that some of the hearings we have had, at the 

end they started out, the witnesses being very nice to each other, 

and at the end I thought we had to stop them from going after each 

other. I am sure that we are not going to have that today, Madam 

Chairman, with our State and local government officials. 

The reality is that not all global warming skeptics are denialists 

or idealogues. Those in the environmental movement are not all 

alarmists. We can learn a lot and achieve more if we listen a little 

more to each other, and I suspect that is what Americans believe 

and they expect, they expect us to work together. 

I do believe that global warming is something that will need to 

be addressed, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

today. I am particularly happy that an Ohioan has been asked to 

testify, Mayor Richard Homrighausen, from Dover, OH. As a 

former mayor and Governor, I can relate to the problems cities and 

States face with respect to balancing both environmental and economic needs. Mayor, you have to deal with it every day. I have long 

advocated the need to harmonize our environment, energy and economic needs. I hope this hearing today helps us better understand 

how States are trying to achieve these goals. 

For the past 2 years, I have called for a second declaration of 

independence: independence from foreign sources of energy. For our 

Nation to take real action toward stemming our exorbitantly high 

oil and natural gas prices, instead of considering them separately, 

we must harmonize our environment and energy and economic 

needs. This is an absolute must as we consider any additional actions to address climate change. From my own humble opinion, I 

agree with much of what Senator Inhofe has had to say, too often 

we just don’t get our energy, economic and environmental people 

to sit down together. In fact, the problem we have had for the last 

8 years and why we haven’t made any progress is because we can’t 
45 

get them together to put each others’ shoes on and come up with 

something that makes sense. 

I think we also have to become well aware of the fact that what 

we do is also going to be impacted dramatically by the developing 

countries. For example, we know that China is building a new coalfired plant every week to 10 days, and many of them lack modern 

pollution control devices. Those of you from California are already 

feeling the effects of what is going on in China. 

This is a worldwide problem. We have to realize that we have a 

role to play, but we also must recognize that others have a role to 

play. The more we can engage them in this debate the better off 

we are going to be, and so is the world. I think that as a result, 

and some of you may not be familiar with this, as a result of legislation we passed last year, we now have an international initiative 

that is called the Asian Pacific Partnership. It involves Australia, 

China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States. These are 

developing countries, many of them, and what we are trying to do 

is come up with technology that will not only benefit us but benefit 

the world. 

We just can’t say we are going to deal with this in the United 

States. We have to understand this is a global problem and that 

by 2009, the Chinese are going to exceed our emissions here in the 

United States. We were the bad guy for a long time. But these 

other developing nations are coming along and we have to be just 

as concerned about them as we are ourselves. 

I would like to reiterate that I believe that global warming is occurring. The ongoing debate is over how much is due to natural 

causes and man-made causes. The issue is what do we do from a 

responsible public policy perspective to deal with the problem. It is 

something I hope this committee can work together on to develop 

responsible global warming policies that ultimately harmonize our 

energy, environment and economic needs. 

I want to point out one other thing, Madam Chairman, that the 

technology, particularly to deal with emissions from coal-fired 

plants, is still in its infancy. The only real major thing that this 

Government has done is FutureGen, and that won’t be built for the 

next 2 to 3 years. We ought to have a crash program of getting into 

that kind of research, so that we have these coal-fired plants that 

are out there, so they can retrofit, have the technology to retrofit 

them, make sure that the new plants that are being built deal with 

greenhouse gases responsibly. 

I know that some of the States represented here really don’t care 

about it, because you get very little energy from coal. But the fact 

is, it is a reality. The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. 

Coal is going to be a part of our energy fix for a long, long time. 

Some of you from environmental group say, well, we don’t want 

any coal. The fact of the matter is we are going to have coal. We 

had better get with it as soon as we possibly can to deal with technology that is going to limit those greenhouse emissions from those 

coal-fired facilities. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. I agree with your comments 

on coal. I think we are going to absolutely need to find a solution, 

because we have 250 years worth of it. It makes sense. 
46 

Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 

Governor. Welcome. It is my belief that we have seen a major sea 

change this year with our committee focused not just on whether 

or not there is global warming, but clearly we are focused on the 

solutions. A big part of this is going to be the innovative efforts 

going on in the States across this Country. 

Think globally, act locally used to be a bumper sticker, and now 

it is a necessity. I can tell you that in my State, we are not content 

to just sit around and wait for things to happen. We have seen how 

long it has been taking to get the fishhouses out on the lakes. We 

have seen the effects that it has had for some of our hunters and 

activities. While we believe the scientists and we believe in science, 

we are actually seeing first-hand the effects of climate change in 

our State. 

Today’s hearing is especially timely for local people in Minnesota. 

Just last week we passed a new law that is now considered the Nation’s most aggressive standard for promoting renewable energy in 

electricity production. It is a 25-by-25 standard. By the year 2025, 

the State’s energy companies are required to generate 25 percent 

of their electricity from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, 

water and biomass. 

The standard is even higher for Minnesota’s largest utility, Excel 

Energy, which must reach 30 percent by 2020. Excel, which supplies half the electricity in Minnesota, has said that it expects to 

meet the new standard without a price increase for consumers. Already, it has announced that it will build a $210 million wind farm 

in Minnesota. 

Almost as important as the renewable energy standard itself is 

the bipartisan political energy that produced the new law. It was 

adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support, the vote was 123 to 

10 in the State House and 61 to 4 in the State Senate. It was 

quickly signed into law by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. 

The same thing is happening at the local level. I just went across 

our State, and talking about middle-class tax cuts and the Farm 

bill. Every place I went, people were bringing up climate change. 

I was in the little town of Lanesboro, MN, in a high school gym, 

Madam Chair, and all they wanted to talk about is the new light 

bulbs that their city council had ordered them to put up. They were 

very excited about their own efforts on the local level. 

That is what we are seeing across this Country, with the work 

in New Jersey, with the work just recently announced in the five 

western States and the work that is going on in California. I admire the States and communities for their initiative, and what they 

are doing should inspire national action. With all of these many efforts and initiatives at the local, State and regional levels, I ask, 

how many bills has Congress passed to actually limit the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and climate change? 

Right now, the answer is zero. My hope is that we will be able to 

change that number sooner rather than later. 
47 

We are all students of government, so we know the famous 

phrase, laboratories of democracy. That is how Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the special role of States in our Federal system. ‘‘It is one of the happy incidents of the Federal system,’’ Brandeis wrote over 70 years ago, ‘‘that a single, courageous 

State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel 

social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the 

Country.’’ 

But Brandeis did not mean for this to serve as an excuse for inaction by the national Government. Good ideas and successful innovations are supposed to emerge from the laboratory and serve as 

a model for national policy and action. That is now our responsibility. The courage we are seeing in the States as they deal with 

global warming should be matched by courage right here in Washington. We should be prepared to act on a national level, especially 

when the local and State communities are showing us the way. 

In this spirit, I look froward to our discussion today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MINNESOTA

I look forward to today’s discussion of local, State and regional perspectives on 

global warming and climate change. 

Some observers have suggested that public attitudes on global warming may soon 

reach a ‘‘tipping point’’ that will spur sweeping changes in our society. 

Already, many of the most innovative efforts are coming at the local, State and 

regional levels. 

Think globally, act locally’’ used to be a bumper sticker. Now it’s a necessity. 

I can tell you that, in my state of Minnesota, people are growing ever more concerned. Minnesotans love being out in nature. This winter I have heard from ice 

fishermen, snowmobilers and cross-cross skiers who tell me they personally see the 

signs of global warming and climate change: 

In our State, when we see something that concerns us, we’re not content to sit 

around. We want to do something to make a difference. We want to take action. 

Today’s hearing is especially timely. 

Just last week, Minnesota passed a new law that is now considered the Nation’s 

most aggressive standard for promoting renewable energy in electricity production. 

It’s a ‘‘25-by-25’’ standard. By the year 2025, the State’s energy companies are required to generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as 

wind, water, solar and biomass. The standard is even higher for Minnesota’s largest 

utility, Xcel Energy, which must reach 30 percent by 2020. 

Xcel, which supplies half the electricity in Minnesota, has said that it expects to 

meet the new standard without a price increase for consumers. Already, it has announced that it will build a $210 million, 100-megawatt wind farm in Minnesota. 

Almost as important as the renewable energy standard itself is the bipartisan political energy that produced this new law. 

It was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support. The vote was 123 to 10 in 

the State House, and 61 to 4 in the State Senate. It was quickly signed into law 

by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. 

This new law is further demonstration that elected officials and policymakers 

across the spectrum understand what’s at stake. 

The same thing is happening at the local level. St. Paul, our capital city, has implemented a creative and forward-thinking Urban CO2 Reduction Plan to reduce its 

carbon footprint. 

It’s not only about combating global warming and climate change. It’s also about 

reducing pollution and improving air quality. It’s about promoting economic development and technological innovation. And it’s about ensuring our future energy independence and security. 

We are seeing other major climate change initiatives elsewhere in the country. 

Earlier this week, governors from five Western States (including California and 

Arizona) announced that they will work together to reduce greenhouse gases by setting regional targets for lower emissions and establishing a regional ‘‘cap-and-trade’’ 

system for buying and selling greenhouse gas credits. 
48 

This new regional project builds on the greenhouse gas emissions measure that 

the California legislature passed and California Governor Schwarzenegger signed 

into law last year. 

And it builds on other regional initiatives—especially the landmark Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative with seven northeastern and mid-Atlantic States that 

have also agreed to a regional ‘‘cap-and-trade’’ system aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. 

One of the States in that initiative is New Jersey. I am pleased to see Governor 

Corzine with us today. I look forward to hearing more about the executive order he 

signed last month setting a State economy-wide goal for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

I also look forward to hearing from Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who has led the 

way with the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. More than 400 mayors 

(representing over 59 million Americans) have pledged to meet or beat the Kyoto 

Protocol greenhouse gas reduction goals in their own communities. 

I admire these States and communities for their initiative. And what they’re doing 

should be an inspiration for national action. 

With all of these many efforts and initiatives at the local, State and regional levels, how many bills has Congress passed to actually limit the greenhouse gases that 

contribute to global warming and climate change? 

Right now, the answer is zero. My hope is that we will be able to change that 

number—sooner rather than later. 

As Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano explained the other day: ‘‘In the absence 

of meaningful Federal action, it has been up to the States to take action to address 

climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the country.’’ 

We are all students of government. So we know the famous phrase ‘‘laboratories 

of democracy.’’ That’s how Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the special role of States in our Federal system. 

In this model, States are where new ideas can emerge . . . where policymakers 

can experiment . . . where innovative proposals can be tested. 

‘‘It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,’’ Brandeis wrote over 70 

years ago, ‘‘that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of 

the country.’’ 

But he did not mean for this to serve as an excuse for inaction by the national 

government. Good ideas and successful innovations are supposed to emerge from the 

laboratory and serve as a model for national policy and action. That is now our responsibility. 

The courage we’re seeing in the States as they deal with global warming should 

be matched by courage right here in Washington. We should be prepared to act on 

a national level—especially when the States and local communities are showing us 

the way. 

In this spirit, I look forward to our discussion today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be short. 

I think it might kind of nice to listen to the witnesses that we have 

today. 

I thank you for having this hearing, however, and I believe hearing from the regional and about the regional impacts is very, very 

important. I am very concerned about having an energy mix. I believe we have to have an understanding of how important it is to 

deal with our resources as we look forward here, of course, as there 

has already been some discussion about coal. As you might imagine, I have a strong feeling about that. 

But we need to make sure what we do here doesn’t injure our 

national economy. So I will file my report. I would tell you that we 

don’t produce enough gas to provide for our energy. We have coal, 

as has been pointed out here, for about 200 years worth of energy. 
49 

So our real challenge is how do we use the resources we have in 

an environmentally clean way and an efficient way to be able to 

do that. That is really where we are. 

So I will submit my statement. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

First, I’d like to thank the Chair for convening this hearing. I believe that the 

regional impacts of greenhouse gas reductions are the most important part of the 

climate change debate. I would have liked to hear from a witness that is as concerned about the role that coal plays in our economy and energy mix as I am. I believe several witnesses have a rational understanding of how important this resource is, however. 

I will repeat what we’re all very used to hearing at this point. It is extremely important that any actions taken by the Federal Government do not harm our economy or our national energy security. I fear that extreme measures proposed by some 

will, in fact, cause this to happen. As an example, compliance with some proposals 

would require a shift to more natural gas. We can’t produce all of that natural gas 

here in the United States. We’re trying to help in Wyoming but it’s not enough, and 

folks are growing tired of the breakneck pace of development in my State. Unless 

our coastal States begin to share more of this production burden, we will be in a 

very difficult situation. 

What we’ll end up needing to do, of course, is building liquefied natural gas terminals in coastal States like New Jersey to import what we cannot produce here at 

home. The gas we’ll import will come from countries like Iran and Russia. The leaders of these countries have already started talking about forming a cartel, like 

OPEC, for natural gas exports. 

I’d like to hear from Governor Corzine about what he thinks of liquefied natural 

gas terminals and drilling offshore. My guess is that he doesn’t support either one. 

I support drilling off our coasts, but I am opposed to importing natural gas. We already depend on foreign countries for oil to run our transport sector. I do not want 

to become reliant on these same volatile regions to generate our electricity. That 

would harm our national security. 

What do we do about this problem then? Well, we have 200 years worth of energy 

sitting 60 feet underground in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming in the form of 

coal. What we need to do is advance clean coal technologies so this domestic resource can be used in a more efficient and environmental way. 

Another one we hear a lot about is that greenhouse gas emissions are an international problem. I agree. China is putting a coal powerplant into service every 10 

days and India is growing just as fast. These countries will rely heavily on coal as 

their economies develop—that is a fact. Everyone, though, must understand that a 

liquefied natural gas terminal on our coast does nothing to reduce the emissions of 

China and India. Advancing clean coal technologies and sharing them internationally does a lot of good, however. 

Wyoming’s perspective is one of a State that is willing to help, but we need to 

have a rational conversation about the best way to do these things. I hope that effort can begin today. I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Sanders, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

then you for holding this important hearing. 

Let me be very clear. There are some people who say, well, we 

shouldn’t be alarmists. Madam Chair, I am an alarmist. I think 

that the debate is over. I think global warming is real. I think global warming is man-made. I think if we as a Nation and as a planet 

do not get our act together, we are looking at disasters to come for 

our kids and our grandchildren. There are some people who say, 

well, gee, if we act too strongly, and you and I have proposed some 
50 

very strong legislation, if we act very aggressively on global warming, it will have a negative impact on the economy. 

Let me tell you, if we do not act aggressively on global warming, 

the impact on the economy will be far, far more severe. I believe, 

there is no question in my mind that the Congress has been much, 

much too slow in moving forward and I hope this year we will 

change that pattern. To my mind, what this Country has to do is 

move toward a new Manhattan-type project. We moved aggressively on World War II, President Kennedy moved us forward in 

getting a man to the moon. Now is the time for a partnership between Government and the private sector to in fact say, we are 

going to break our dependency on fossil fuels, we are going to move 

toward energy efficiency and we can do that. The technologies are 

out there. What has been lacking for many years is the political 

will. I hope that that will be changed right now. 

I happen to believe that if we move forward in that direction we 

can create millions of good paying jobs, as we save the planet for 

our kids and our grandchildren. 

Now, in fact, while the Federal Government has not been aggressive, while we have a President who virtually refuses to acknowledge the reality of global warming, the truth is that cities and 

towns and States have been moving forward. As Senator Klobuchar 

mentioned, one of the beauties of our system is that if Minnesota 

moves forward or Vermont moves forward, the rest of the Country 

learns from that process. So I have been impressed by what States 

are doing. I have been impressed by what municipalities have been 

doing and I very much look forward to hearing the testimony 

today, so that we as a Federal Government can learn best practices. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Bond. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is always 

a pleasure to be able to join with you in these continuing discussions of global warming. I know this committee has other responsibilities, but we are having lots of opportunities and I thank you 

for holding this hearing to get the important impact from the 

States. 

One of the things I think we are going to learn today is that 

some of the current climate change proposals have the ability to 

hurt certain regions more than others. I think we have to account 

for the differences among the areas of the Country to ensure that 

actions we require are fair and affordable to all of our families and 

workers. 

There is an old principle, where you stand depends upon where 

you sit. That applies across bipartisan lines as well. The chart 

here, this chart shows why carbon plans will hit States differently. 

These pie charts show how different States derive their electricity 

from different fuel sources. 

Now, Missouri, we depend upon coal for 85 percent of our power. 

New Jersey depends upon coal only 20 percent, and California only 
51 

1 percent. So coal cost don’t have an impact in California, much 

less in New Jersey. But these climate plans that hit coal hard will 

cause real economic distress, relatively speaking, States already 

emphasizing lower carbon energy with natural gas or nuclear are 

not going to be hit so badly. 

There are some economic consequences, Madam Chair. You have 

to have a strong economy to be able to afford environmental improvements. The strength of the American economy has allowed us 

to do a better job in controlling greenhouse gas emissions than our 

European Union friends who so loudly proclaimed their love for 

Kyoto but have not been able to cut the mustard. Keeping the economy strong will allow us to make more gains in dealing with environmental problems. 

I saw first-hand, Madam Chair, the environmental disaster of socialist East Germany. I went there just after the wall fell. I saw 

chemical plants with terrible smells putting fluid, liquid into open 

creeks, flowing into the sea. It looked like very dark coffee. But it 

smelled like something that I won’t describe, because we are too 

close to lunch time to describe it. Getting the East German economy revived, West Germany with its strong economy, is the only 

way that we can make that progress. 

But there is also another problem. Putting heavy costs on coal 

can have major unintended consequences. I hope they are unintended. But the more you put pressure on coal, the less resources 

will be available to develop the clean coal technology that we must 

have. On the regional basis, plans that place an unfair degree of 

pain on midwestern families and workers would include caps set 

too low or too soon, lack of safety valves or requiring auctions that 

force consumers to pay twice for their energy, once when it is produced and again through the auction process. 

Now, the witnesses here today from New Jersey espouse this, 

just the same sort of anti-coal bias. Indeed, it is easy to determine 

who are for the plans that are unfair and unaffordable by many 

looking at this chart. Here are the States in the tan, our States 

that depend upon coal. The States not so colored are the ones, like 

the northeast and the west coast that don’t depend upon coal. No 

wonder the people who are champions of carbon caps come from 

the white colored States. We in the Midwest don’t intend to stand 

by and see it happen. 

I would say in my remaining seconds that one of the things that 

we have to do is wean the greedy natural-gas burning electric utilities off of that valuable resource. I have quoted before, but maybe 

somebody hasn’t heard it, 25 years ago, Professor Glenn Seaborg, 

a Nobel laureate, said burning natural gas to produce electricity is 

like throwing your most valuable antique furniture into the fireplace to heat your house. 

Madam Chair, I have lots more, but I see my time is up, and I 

thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Bond, it is really great to have you here, 

because you really are very animated on this. I just want to repeat, 

there seems to be an argument, I personally believe clean coal technology is absolutely essential. We have to deal with it, and I am 

very open to it and want to do it. 
52 

I also wanted to mention, to get 20 percent of your power from 

coal is a lot of energy. So I do think we will look forward to hearing 

Senator Corzine on that. 

Senator Clinton. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I could not disagree more with Senator Bond’s description of the problems we 

face. We have heard an eloquent, passionate description of why we 

can’t do anything. I reject that. I think that we can do whatever 

we put our minds to. We just haven’t been willing to do that in the 

last several years. 

So I commend the Chairman, because she is willing to lead us 

on a path that will not only be good for the environment, it will 

be good for the economy and it will be good for our security. On 

Monday, I was at a coal-fired plant outside of Buffalo, NY, that is 

looking to be one of the very first in our Country to move toward 

an integrated gasifcation system. It is going to take some help in 

order for them to do that. We have subsidized the oil and gas industry for decades. It is time to take those subsidies, those tax 

breaks, and put them to work on behalf of clean coal and renewables. I hope that we can address that. I have a proposal to do that 

with a strategic energy fund that would get us on the right path 

for deploying new technologies in a way that will begin to let us 

seriously deal with climate change. 

I am delighted to see our former member of this committee here. 

If we ever stop talking, he will have a chance to testify. Governor 

Corzine and I shared a great, great time on this committee early 

on trying to deal with some of the consequences of the attacks of 

9/11. He was the strongest voice with the best plan on dealing with 

chemical plants. He is back again to talk about more of his farreaching ideas that will really make a difference. 

I notice, too, that there are representatives from California, both 

the President pro tem of the California State Senate, and the 

Speaker of the California State Assembly. Because it is interesting 

to note that when people talk about how we cannot deal with climate change without wrecking our economy, California has had a 

flat per capita usage of electricity for 30 years. Why? Because California took steps to try to reduce demand, to do more energy efficiency and conservation. The rest of the Country has had an increase in 50 percent of the use of electricity on a per capita basis. 

So when people say we can’t do this, I say, ‘‘well, I don’t think 

that is true.’’ In fact, California is doing it. 

There are a lot of good ideas that are at work right now across 

our Country. I commend the Chairman for giving us this opportunity to learn more about what is actually working in the States. 

It is our challenge to take it to scale, to put into place a framework 

for a national program. That is what we are going to do under your 

leadership, and again, I thank you for leading the way. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Clinton. 

Senator Craig. 
53 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, I came late, and I apologize. 

So because of the patience of our former colleague here and his 

presence before the committee today, I say let the show begin. 

Senator BOXER. Well, the show began a long time ago. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. So I noticed. 

Senator BOXER. But you are most generous of spirit and we 

thank you. 

Just to delay it a tad more, I have asked Senator Menendez, because he felt so strongly about saying a few words, as Senator Lautenberg did, about his Governor. Senator? 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairlady, and thank 

you and Senator Inhofe for the opportunity to join in the honor and 

privilege of introducing my predecessor here in the Senate and our 

Governor Jon Corzine to the committee. In the years since Governor Corzine has taken office, he has exhibited tremendous leadership on a broad array of policy issues, taken on some of the toughest issues in our State. He has demonstrated a steadfast determination to work to improve the quality of life for all New 

Jerseyians. 

One of the areas that I am proud to say that he is leading New 

Jersey into excellence in is his stewardship of the environment, to 

a commitment of making the tough decisions that need to be made 

in order to ensure that our children and grandchildren are left with 

a healthier world than the one we are living in today. I think our 

Governor knows the tremendous risk that our State, our Nation 

and our planet face if we do not take serious action to combat global warming and that we do not do so sooner rather than later. 

But he also has the foresight to recognize the tremendous opportunities that New Jersey can take advantage of quickly and decisively, the advantage that the Nation as a whole could enjoy relative to the rest of the world if we, as Congress, act similarly. Now, 

having some of our colleagues’ comments, I would say that what is 

not acceptable is to put any part of the Nation to put our collective 

health, security and well-being at risk. We are all in this together. 

I think that when we come to that conclusion we will all be able 

to move forward in a way that will achieve our collective goals. 

Individual actions to reduce greenhouse gases, either by making 

your home more energy efficient or purchasing carbon offsets are 

good starts, as are State and regional actions like the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative. But they are no substitute for a robust national climate policy. 

So I want to applaud Governor Corzine for his steps in New Jersey, making New Jersey one of the leaders on this issue. I applaud 

your leadership, Madam Chairlady, and the committee, for making 

this one of the highest priorities of the new Congress. Again, thank 

you for the opportunity to introduce our Governor and my good 

friend, Jon Corzine. 
54 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, GOVERNOR, STATE 

OF NEW JERSEY 

Governor CORZINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate very much the kind words of Senator Menendez and Senator 

Lautenberg, who are great partners, by the way, in framing the 

issues for the public in the State of New Jersey in making sure 

that we are addressing these issues and moving forward. We are 

really in a partnership. I hope that we will have one more broadly 

with the Federal Government. 

I commend both Chairperson Boxer and Senator Inhofe for inviting me. Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk about an 

issue that, I guess I would concur that I am pretty well convinced 

we have a problem. I read the IPCC report and find it chilling. 

We have tried to, as you mentioned, Madam Chairman, set statewide targets for stabilizing New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions, 

both resetting to 1990, but also putting together a long-term vision 

that will have to be matched with restructuring the 80 percent 

below 2006 levels by 2050. It should not be achieved on a precipitous basis. It needs to be done over a period of time, and restructuring our economy will be good. It is important that those of us 

at State and local levels are addressing this issue. I am proud of 

the steps that are being taken. 

I may not be the terminator of greenhouse gases, but we are 

working very hard to actually be a part of a broader movement 

that is occurring across the Country that recognizes the need, the 

vulnerability, but also accepts that there is a challenge, but not a 

prohibitive challenge, to make sure that we do the best job we can 

to keep our economy strong. In fact, I think it is a false choice. I 

will try to comment about that in a second. 

I look at this whole debate as one of both recognizing vulnerability and also recognizing opportunity. There is no question, I 

identify with the icehouses, fishing, if you go to the Jersey shore 

and its barrier coast and see the erosion of our beach line in a very 

tangible way, you can do the scientific research, which you can see 

for yourselves the reality. Something is changing. I believe it is the 

unchecked human caused emissions that are a part, if not the driving force of this. They have severe adverse impacts to our environment, and I believe the economy, since we are driven so much by 

our tourist economy and so much of our densely populated State 

lives within 50 miles of the coastline. I don’t think this is just an 

issue that you can only look at what it is going to do to your business climate. You have to look at it much more broadly. I think 

New Orleans is a pretty clear case that there are vulnerabilities 

that end up costing money. 

That is the vulnerability side. On the opportunity side, and by 

the way, I could have talked about national security and energy 

independence with regard to vulnerability. I will leave that to other 

folks. The opportunity is this can be an economic driver in our society. We look at it as a driver for new markets in efficiency and 

clean energy technologies, technological innovation. New Jersey 

wants to be at the forefront, including by the way, clean coal technologies. We want to see that happen. We think we can change 

that carbon footprint. 
55 

And I will say that there is another advantage. The States that 

are the first movers in this will have a competitive advantage when 

they speak to what happens in the world as we go forward. This 

change is going to be addressed. It is just when, not whether, in 

my view. If we in the State of New Jersey or California or New 

York or wherever it is that you have addressed these issues, will 

be in a much better position to have a stronger economy as time 

goes on. It shouldn’t, again, be precipitous. It needs to be as we go 

forward. 

So I am very, very keen on making sure our State fulfills its responsibilities in being a strong voice for change here. It is important, though, that we begin to deal with this at the Federal level. 

I think I have heard these debates some time before, as Senator 

Clinton mentioned. I think we heard them actually in 2001 and 

2002. But we need to do this for very serious reasons that apply 

to people’s lives, like businesses need to make long-term capital 

plans. We need to make sure that the leakage problems that go on 

when we do it in one region or one State don’t end up undermining 

the efforts. We all live in one world. So I think it is important that 

we do it. 

We need resources from the Federal Government to go along, 

whether it is developing new technologies like the strategic energy 

investments that Senator Clinton talked about or others. We need 

to be working on developing the output. That is going to take dollars, and I think the Federal Government needs to be working on 

that with us. We are going to put together, we are going to ask for 

a Governor’s climate protection leadership council. I am going to 

call for all the Governors, hopefully we will get as many as possible 

to participate in this, both as a voice to push forward, the kinds 

of things that I think have been suggested, to improve it on targeting, but also in implications for policy. We need to move forward 

there. 

So I hope that you all will pass meaningful legislation, not just 

legislation that checks the box, but something that actually gets us 

into a position where we are changing. I think you need a portfolio 

approach. It is not just about energy production and powerplants. 

It is also about CAFE standards. It is about making sure that we 

have building codes that work and produce efficiencies. It is about 

renewable portfolio standards. It is a composite of things. If we 

don’t think of it on a holistic basis, I think we will fail. 

In my formal statement I have laid down several principles that 

I think should be included in Federal legislation. There certainly 

should be a strong science basis to that, we ought to have a portfolio approach, as I talked about. You ought to look to the States 

for that laboratory of experimentation that was talked about. 

But maybe just as important, I am a little fired up about this 

with respect to chemical security efforts, we shouldn’t have Federal 

legislation that preempts States that actually are taking aggressive 

stands with regard to pushing forward on this. So I commend the 

committee and the Chairwoman for the efforts to put together the 

leadership to move this forward. This is one of those issues that is 

most important to the future of our children and children’s children. It is bipartisan and there is bipartisan support for us taking 
56 

this on. I hope that you will come to a positive conclusion in embracing many of the ideas. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Corzine follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JON S. CORZINE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Thank you Chairwoman Boxer and Senator Inhofe for inviting me to testify. I particularly want to thank my good friend, the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has long been a leader on environmental protection. I am 

happy to be back among friends and I want to commend all my former colleagues 

and committee members on both sides of the aisle for holding this hearing and taking the steps necessary to begin tackling the issue of climate change on a national 

level. 

As most of you know, I recently issued an Executive Order that sets statewide 

targets for stabilizing New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 

and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050. 

Yes, it is true that the challenges New Jersey faces are merely part of a much 

larger global problem. And, yes, we need to overcome the most crippling barrier we 

face—the false idea that we can’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions without hurting 

the economy. 

But I took this action because climate change, driven by unchecked human-caused 

emissions of greenhouse gases, will result in severe adverse impacts to both the environment and economy of New Jersey. 

New Jersey is especially vulnerable to the environmental and economic effects of 

climate change, including the effect of sea level rise on the State’s densely developed 

coastline from increased incidence and severity of flooding. Likewise, New Jersey’s 

economy is also especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change with our active 

ports, a vibrant agricultural sector and a significant coastal-based tourism industry. 

While climate change presents acute risks for New Jersey, addressing this challenge also provides great opportunity. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will support New Jersey’s economic growth strategy by creating economic drivers that build 

markets for energy efficiency and clean energy technologies, and spur technical innovation and job growth. 

In short, reducing our carbon footprint can and should go hand-in-hand with increasing economic vitality. 

Moving aggressively now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also place New 

Jersey’s economy at a competitive advantage in responding to the requirements of 

an anticipated Federal program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

I am not alone in recognizing the economic opportunities presented by reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. My counterparts in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, 

New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland, 

along with New Jersey, are leading the charge through our work on the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). 

Governors Schwarzenegger of California, Napolitano of Arizona, Richardson of 

New Mexico, Gregoire of Washington, and Blagojevich of Illinois have all set aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for their States. Additionally, Governors of five western States have formed the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative. 

Each day, additional States make commitments to fight the battle against global 

warming—regardless of whether they are red or blue—in large part because of the 

vacuum of leadership at the Federal level. 

While States are currently taking the lead, we need Federal action to set minimum requirements that allow businesses to make long-term capital planning decisions. State efforts will provide many useful lessons to inform the design of Federal 

legislation. However, absent unifying Federal policy that sets minimum requirements, multiple State efforts will create an environment of uncertainty for business. 

States’ actions are the foundation for future Federal programs and, as such, the 

Federal Government needs to recognize the critical resources States bring to bear 

on this issue. Federal monies need to be made available now to States who are leading in the development of policies on this issue, acknowledging the critical role that 

those States’ planning and actions have on development of Federal programs. 

To build momentum for Federal action, I intend to reach out to other governors 

that have asserted strong leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to call 

for the formation of a Governors’ Climate Protection Leadership Council. I believe 

that the time is ripe for States demonstrating leadership in reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions to coordinate their efforts, both to accelerate progress in implementing 
57 

emissions reduction policies at the State level and to drive the policy debate at the 

Federal level. 

A coalition of leadership States will provide a more effective voice of advocacy for 

a strong Federal greenhouse gas regulatory program that acknowledges a role for 

States in its design and implementation. 

It is imperative for Congress to act, but it is also imperative for Congress to act 

to create meaningful—not symbolic—Federal laws. Weak or marginal Federal laws 

will only turn back the progress States have made. 

Today I ask you to redouble your efforts to pass meaningful Federal climate 

change legislation. The long-term wellbeing of New Jersey ultimately depends on a 

strong Federal program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a reengagement by the Federal Government in international negotiations to further develop a 

global response to climate change. 

Additionally, more emphasis needs to be placed on energy efficiency initiatives, 

such as new appliance standards and enhanced building codes. I urge you to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (‘‘CAFE’’) standards. In New Jersey, 

nearly 50 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions are from the transportation sector. 

Increased fuel mileage standards at the Federal level will greatly assist in our efforts to meet our climate change goals. 

I have attached a list of principles for Federal action on climate change that 

draws from the approach my administration has taken to designing emissions reduction policies and measures, both at the State level and through regional efforts, 

such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 

I hope that you will find these principles useful as you consider the multitude of 

Federal climate change bills that have recently been introduced. 

At a minimum, Federal climate change legislation should establish strong sciencebased emissions reduction limits. An emissions reduction on the order of 80 percent 

relative to current levels by 2050 will likely be needed to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system. 

Federal legislation should also acknowledge that a portfolio approach is required, 

and that implementing a Federal cap-and-trade program alone would be ill advised 

and insufficient. State climate change action plans have evaluated a multitude of 

policy measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This portfolio approach 

should inform the development of Federal legislation. 

Federal legislation should acknowledge an ongoing role for States in the design 

and implementation of a Federal emissions reduction program. Congress can learn 

a great deal by reviewing the work already done at the State level to evaluate and 

develop greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies. One prominent example is the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is the only effort in the United States 

to date to actually articulate the detailed design of a CO2 cap-and-trade program 

for the power sector. A role for States should be institutionalized through Federal 

legislation. 

Finally, I want to underline the following. States are currently the leaders in addressing climate change, and will likely continue to push the envelope after Federal 

legislation is enacted. Federal legislation should facilitate the role of the States as 

policy innovators by explicitly preventing Federal preemption of State programs 

that go beyond Federal minimum requirements, as well as preventing preemption 

of State programs outside the scope of Federal initiatives. 

New Jersey is a great example of this innovation. While the goals I have set for 

New Jersey are aggressive, we believe they can be met, and we intend to meet them 

by building on actions already underway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

We have played a leadership role in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

(‘‘RGGI’’), the first-ever cap-and-trade program addressing CO2 in the United States. 

RGGI will cap power sector CO2 emissions in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States 

at approximately current levels through 2014 and reduce emissions to 10 percent 

below this level by 2019, a reduction of 16 percent relative to projected 2020 business-as-usual emissions. 

We have enacted California’s greenhouse gas tailpipe standards for light-duty vehicles, which is projected to result in an 18 percent reduction in CO2 equivalent 

emissions from the New Jersey light-duty vehicle fleet in 2020 relative to projected 

business-as-usual emissions. 

We have increased the New Jersey Renewable Portfolio Standard to 20 percent 

by 2020, which will require 20 percent of all electricity sold at the retail level in 

New Jersey to come from Class I renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and 

sustainable biomass. 

I have directed our Energy Master Plan Committee, a multi-agency initiative, to 

develop recommendations for reducing statewide energy use by 20 percent in 2020 
58 

relative to business-as-usual projections. Approximately 85 percent of New Jersey’s 

greenhouse gas emissions are due to combustion of fossil fuels for energy. 

I have appointed a Director of Energy Savings in the Department of Treasury to 

set targets for reducing energy usage in State facilities and reducing fuel consumption by the State vehicle fleet. 

These measures take us a long way toward meeting New Jersey’s 2020 emissions 

target, but further actions will be necessary. I have directed New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, in coordination with representatives of the Board 

of Public Utilities, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Community Affairs, to provide recommendations to me within the next 6 months for 

achieving New Jersey’s 2020 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue. I look forward 

to working with you as we jointly tackle the historic environmental challenge of climate change at both the Federal and State level. 

ATTACHMENT 

PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE, SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE

LEGISLATION

Emissions Reduction Requirement.—Incorporate a science-based, long-term emissions reduction requirement with a goal of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Based on current state of the science, legislation 

should stabilize and begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the next 10 

years, and achieve emissions reduction of 80 percent relative to current levels by 

2050. 

Legislation should institutionalize a periodic review of climate science and allow 

for a revision of emissions reduction requirements based on the current state of the 

science. 

Policy Approach.—Pursue a portfolio approach to reducing emissions, acknowledging that a cap-and-trade program may be appropriate for some sectors (e.g., 

large stationary sources), but that other policies may be more appropriate for addressing emissions from other sectors. States have a unique capacity to implement 

a portfolio of policies and measures that address energy production, energy efficiency, transportation, waste management, agriculture, and other economic sectors. 

Design Process.—Learn from and build upon the policy work already completed 

or underway at the State level when crafting federal emission reductions programs 

(e.g., RGGI, California AB 32, state climate action planning processes). 

Implementation Process (Role for States).—Institutionalize a role for States in designing and implementing statutorily mandated federal emissions reduction regulations under the auspices of a federal portfolio approach. This would provide a role 

for States to help articulate the details of Federal emissions reduction programs, 

building upon the analyses being done by leadership States through their climate 

action planning processes and regional emissions reduction programs such as RGGI. 

Explicitly prevent federal preemption of State programs that go beyond federal 

minimum requirements, as well as preemption of State programs outside the scope 

of federal initiatives. 

Cap-and-Trade Program Design.—Avoid the use of safety valves or price caps. 

Allocate allowances in a manner that maximizes consumer benefits and market 

transformation impacts. In the electric power sector, allowances should be auctioned, in recognition that large portions of the United States have instituted competitive wholesale electricity markets. The monies from the auctions should be used 

for measures that both reduce our carbon footprint and enhance our competitiveness, such as energy efficiency projects. 

Signal that new conventional coal-fired powerplants constructed from this day forward will not be grandfathered under a federal cap-and-trade system, and will need 

to purchase allowances on the open market. 

Limit the use of emissions offsets, to ensure that a majority of emissions reductions are achieved from the capped sector or sectors. Emissions offsets should be incorporated as a flexibility mechanism that is designed to be supplemental to on-system emissions reductions. 

Design robust requirements to ensure that emissions offsets are of high quality 

and represent incremental emissions reductions beyond business-as-usual reductions. Should include strong additionality criteria to avoid crediting of ‘‘anyway 

tons’’ and provide a reasonable assurance that the cap-and-trade program is what 

is actually driving emission reductions achieved through offsets. Quantification and 
59 

verification protocols should be rigorous and detailed, and apply conservative assumptions when appropriate. 

RESPONSES BY GOVERNOR CORZINE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. New Jersey is one of many States that have adopted regional efforts 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am concerned that the costs associated with 

making these changes are inevitably passed onto consumers. Can you describe to 

us what you believe are the top 3 most affordable ways to achieve these greenhouse 

gas emissions cuts? 

Response. The backbone of any greenhouse gas emissions reduction program is 

the implementation of aggressive mandatory policies and financial incentive structures to improve end-use energy efficiency. Very significant potential remains to reduce energy use through improvements in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Energy efficiency improvements provide net financial benefits and 

often increase economic competitiveness. Aggressive energy efficiency improvements 

can also serve to reduce the market price of primary fuels, such as natural gas. In 

the electricity sector, aggressive energy efficiency and demand-side management actions have been shown to reduce the price of wholesale electricity at times when 

these prices are at their peak. Energy efficiency and demand-side management also 

enhances electricity reliability and defers the need to expand electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, providing additional cost savings to consumers. 

Question 2. You discussed the Executive Order you’ve issued to stabilize gases at 

1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them further by 2050. Can you explain the enforcement mechanism that was included in the Executive Order to make sure that those 

targets are in fact, achieved? 

Response. The greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets I set through Executive 

Order No. 54 were intended to focus multiple State agencies and policies on a unified objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Pursuant to the Order, a number of key State agencies, led by the Department of Environmental Protection, were 

tasked with providing to me specific recommendations by the end of the summer 

for policies and mechanisms to meet both the 2020 and 2050 targets. In addition, 

the DEP will be required to report progress towards meeting the targets every 2 

years to measure progress and recommend whether additional measures are necessary. 

A number of actions New Jersey is taking now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions place the State on a trajectory to meet the 2020 target, although additional 

measures will be necessary. The State is already targeting the two largest greenhouse gas-emitting sectors through mandatory programs and has proposed an aggressive statewide energy efficiency goal. Key measures enacted or under consideration include the following: 

• The New Jersey Energy Master Plan goal of reducing statewide energy use by 

20 percent in 2020 relative to projected business-as-usual energy use, and recommended measures to achieve this reduction, would achieve significant greenhouse 

gas emissions reductions (more than 85 percent of New Jersey greenhouse gas emissions are due to combustion of fossil fuels for energy). Completion of the Plan is expected in late 2007. 

• Enactment of the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program greenhouse 

gas omissions standards for tight-duty vehicles is projected to result in an 18 percent reduction in CO2-equivalent emissions from the New Jersey light-duty vehicle 

fleet in 2020 relative to projected business-as-usual emissions. The adopted rules require automakers to reduce fleet-wide average greenhouse gas emissions from the 

vehicles they sell in New Jersey 30 percent by 2016. 

• Implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is projected 

to result in a 16 percent reduction in regional power sector CO2 emissions in 2020 

relative to projected business-as-usual emissions. The first mandatory market-based 

program to reduce carbon emissions in the United States, the RGGI cap-and-trade 

program will cap regional powerplant CO2 emissions at approximately current levels 

from 2009 through 2014 and reduce emissions 10 percent by 2019. 

• The increase of the Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2006 to 20 percent by 2020 

will support achievement of the RGGI cap and will lead to supplemental greenhouse 

gas emissions reductions that occur outside the geographic scope of RGGI (e.g., portions of the PJM electricity control area not subject to the RGGI program). 
60 

Question 3. You discussed the economic advantages of acting early to make abiding by a federal requirement to reduce these gases easier. Do you believe that the 

economic advantages for your State remain intact if Congress decides against implementing a mandatory national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 

Response. The economic advantages to New Jersey of acting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are apparent. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will support 

New Jersey’s economic growth strategy by creating economic drivers that build markets for energy efficiency and clean energy technologies, and spur technical innovation and job growth. While I believe that a national program is inevitable and crucial, given the compelling scientific consensus that human activities are driving climate change, New Jersey would still derive a competitive advantage through efforts 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, were Congress to decide against implementing 

a federal program. Energy efficiency, which is the backbone of New Jersey’s strategy 

for meeting the 2020 emissions reduction target, will provide net economic benefits 

for the State and reduce our vulnerability to fossil fuel price volatility. In addition, 

improving energy efficiency will provide an engine for job growth, as saving a unit 

of energy creates more jobs than supplying one. Rather than shipping dollars out 

of State to purchase primary energy we will be investing dollars in the State to tap 

the large available energy efficiency ‘‘virtual supply’’ to meet a greater portion of 

New Jersey’s energy needs. As a result, I strongly believe that aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction policy is well aligned with sound energy policy in 

supporting the long-term sustainable growth of the New Jersey economy. 

RESPONSES BY GOVERNOR CORZINE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Governor, given that the Kyoto Protocol cap and trade program is providing to be such a colossal failure, would you tell us how New Jersey’s situation 

is different that would explain your optimism that a cap and trade program will 

work in New Jersey? 

Response. Emissions trading programs addressing SO2 and NO have demonstrated that cap-and-trade programs spur innovation and achieve emissions reductions at a significantly lower cost than originally projected by policy makers. 

Given the numerous potential measures and technologies for reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions in the context of a multi-sector emissions trading program, and the 

wide variation in control costs for different measures and technologies, there is 

every indication that greenhouse gases are even more amenable to a cap-and-trade 

approach than criteria pollutants. 

Question 2. Do you plan to build more nuclear plants in your State and do you 

support nuclear power? 

Response. Nuclear energy provides approximately 52 percent of New Jersey’s instate generation and obviously plays a significant role in our energy portfolio. A new 

nuclear facility has not been ordered in the United State in 28 years, however recent changes in the federal policy have brought about a resurgence in nuclear energy. Several reactors are in various stages of planning, international nuclear vendors are forming new alliances and rising uranium prices have led to the development of new mines. 

In spring 2007, PSEG announced that they were in exploratory talks with another 

company to build another reactor, most likely at their Salem Generating Station in 

southern New Jersey. The company cited the need to identify its intentions by the 

end of 2008 in order to take advantage of federal incentives, including tax credits, 

risk insurance and loan guarantees. 

Question 3. Where are you going to get your emission reductions to meet this target? Are you planning to shut down all remaining coal plants in your State and replace them primarily with natural gas? 

Response. The emissions reduction targets I have set for the State are multi-sector and are not limited to the electricity sector, as the question suggests. I have 

tasked an interagency working group to provide recommendations to me by the end 

of the summer for how best to meet both the 2020 and 2050 Statewide emissions 

reduction targets. 

ADDRESSING ELECTRICITY SECTOR EMISSIONS

New Jersey is a leader in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a 10- 

state CO2 cap-and-trade program for the power sector slated to begin in 2009. Extensive electricity sector modeling during the development of the RGGI program, 

using a model widely used by the industry itself, has shown that the costs of the 
61 

1The MOU defines these terms as including ‘‘use of allowances to promote energy efficiency, 

to directly mitigate electricity ratepayer impacts, to promote renewable or non-carbon-emitting 

energy technologies, to stimulate or reward investment in the development of innovative carbon 

emissions abatement technologies with significant carbon reduction potential. . . .’’ 2 As mentioned previously, there are emerging end-of-stack options in the early commercialization and deployment phase. Absent end-of-stank controls, a number of compliance options are 

available to electric generators subject to RGGI, including heat rate improvements, fuel switching, co-firing of biofuels, environmental dispatch of a company portfolio of units that considers 

the CO2 emissions rate of individual units, and the use of emissions offsets. 3 Allowances will have a market value, irrespective of the original allocation method. 

program will likely be modest and are not projected to result in a significant retirement of existing coal-fired electric generating capacity in the region. 

While there are currently no fully commercialized end-of-stack control technologies for CO2, there are emerging end-of-stack options in the early commercialization and deployment phase, including carbon capture and storage technologies 

and carbon scrubbing technologies. Placing a price on carbon through a cap-andtrade program is critical to speeding the commercialization of these technologies, 

which will lower long-terms emissions reduction costs. These technologies will facilitate a continued role for coal-fired generation in a carbon-constrained economy. Absent end-of-stack controls, a number of compliance options are available in the nearterm to electric generators subject to RGGI, including heat rate improvements, fuel 

switching, co-firing of biofuels, environmental dispatch of a company portfolio of 

units that considers the CO2 emissions rate of individual units, and the use of emissions offsets. 

RGGI will also address the demand-side of the equation, through an auction of 

allowances and the use of the realized revenue to provide incentives for improvements in electricity end-use energy efficiency. This approach is discussed in more 

detail in response to question no. 4. 

Question 4. It is a fairly well understood economic phenomenon that closing significant numbers of coal plants increases gas demand and increases both the average cost and volatility of natural gas prices. Aren’t you worried about higher electric 

costs in your State, lost jobs in the manufacturing sector which is heavily reliant 

on natural gas as a feed stock? 

Response. While RGGI is not expected to lead to a significant retirement of coalfired generation, the RGGI program is addressing emissions reduction from both a 

supply-side and demand-side approach. The demand-side component of RGGI will 

mitigate both electricity and fuel price increases resulting from the imposition of a 

carbon cap. 

The RGGI cap-and-trade program establishes a regional emissions budget (the 

cap), and creates allowances, each of which allow a regulated source to emit one ton 

of CO2. These allowances may be traded freely among both regulated and non-regulated parties. At the end of a compliance period, a regulated source must submit 

allowances equivalent to its emissions. In past cap-and-trade programs for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), allowances were distributed to sources for 

free, often based on historic operation. The RGGI memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) sets forth a different approach. Under the MOU, the RGGI-participating 

States agreed to allocate a minimum of 25 percent of the allowances to support ‘‘consumer benefit or strategic energy purposes.’’1 The understanding among RGGI-participating States is that these allowances would be auctioned and the revenues 

would be used to support the general program goals outlined in the MOU. 

During the negotiation of the MOU, New Jersey was at the forefront in advocating for a large consumer allocation, and also advocating that a primary focus of 

this allocation be on reducing electricity demand in the RGGI region. No end-ofstack controls are now commercially available to limit CO2 emissions.2 As a result, 

a CO2 cap-and-trade program will benefit from having a strong end-use component 

integrated into its design. This allows RGGI to adopt both a supply-side (electricity 

generation) and demand-side (electricity use) focus, facilitating the achievement of 

emissions reductions at least cost. 

Electricity market dynamics also support the use of CO2 allowance value to reduce electricity demand, which will in turn reduce aggregate RGGI compliance 

costs. RGGI is being implemented in a restructured, competitive wholesale electricity market. Electric generators are therefore expected to factor the opportunity 

cost of using CO2 allowances into their bid prices whether allowances are given out 

for free or they are required to purchase allowances on the market.3 As a result, 

the carbon compliance cost of the marginal generation unit will be factored into the 

market-clearing price of electricity, which will allow generators subject to RGGI to 

recover a significant portion of their compliance costs through an increase in the 

wholesale market price of electricity (assuming generators must purchase allow-
62 

ances). If allowances are distributed for free, this allows the generation sector as 

a whole to realize a net increase in revenues as a result of the cap-and-trade program, because revenue received through a rise in wholesale electricity prices will 

substantially exceed CO2 compliance costs. This dynamic has in fact been borne out 

through the initial experience of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme for 

CO2 which allocated the vast majority of allowances to regulated sources for free. 

Early market impacts in the EU have generated significant controversy and led for 

a call by many to auction allowances. 

Question 5. New Jersey relies far more heavily on natural gas for home heating 

than in other States on average. Aren’t you worried about heating costs for the elderly, poor and working class in New Jersey? 

Response. As mentioned previously, aggressive efforts to reduce energy demand 

will provide net economic benefits and employment gains while reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. A distinction should be made between energy prices and energy costs. 

A carbon constraint will increase prices for conventional fossil energy. However, the 

price signal from a greenhouse gas constraint will also incentivise energy efficiency, 

which if pursued aggressively, could reduce total energy costs paid by consumers. 

I do acknowledge that the poor face a higher energy cost burden as a percentage 

of their total income. For this reason, I support channeling energy efficiency incentives to low-income communities to help low-income consumers reduce their energy 

costs through the implementation of energy efficiency improvements and the provision ratepayer assistance where appropriate. We intend to dedicate a significant 

percentage of the revenue from the sale of RGGI allowances to support the energy 

needs of low-income households. 

Question 6. Since oven the Bingamnan proposal here in the Senate—which covers 

the entire economy—would only reduce temperatures by 0.008 Celsius, what good 

do you think your plan will do in reducing global temperatures and do you think 

it is worth the harm it will do to the working class in your State? 

Response. Addressing climate change requires a global commitment from multiple 

nations, States, and localities. No action by single actor can solve a global environmental problem. However, the fact that multiple parties must take collective action 

does not negate the environmental value to be derived by the actions of each party, 

nor argue against action by individual parties. Such logic is an excuse for inaction, 

and ignores the reality that the global emissions reductions necessary to stabilize 

the climate will be achieved through incremental emissions reductions by many nations, States, and localities. 

As a State uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, New Jersey has 

a responsibility to take aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. New 

Jersey is especially vulnerable to the environmental and economic effects of climate 

change, including the impact of sea level rise on the State’s densely developed coastline from increased incidence and severity of flooding. Likewise, New Jersey’s economy is also especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change with our active 

ports, a vibrant agricultural sector, and a significant coastal-based tourism industry. 

The actions by New Jersey and other States, collectively through regional programs and individually, is in fact bearing fruit beyond State borders. State action 

is driving action at the federal level, which is vital if New Jersey hopes to mitigate 

the impact of climate change on our economy, infrastructure, and environment. Action at the federal level in the United States is in turn vital if we hope to bring 

large developing nations such as China and India into a mandatory international 

emissions reduction framework. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Governor. It is wonderful to 

have you back in the Senate. 

I am going to keep, if it is OK, including myself, keep the question period to 4 minutes so we can get to our next panel. 

Governor, I want to ask this question based on your expertise in 

the financial sector that you bring to your work. Earlier this week, 

Goldman Sachs, together with other investment firms, announced 

takeover plans for TXU, a Texas utility. Part of the deal was that 

the new TXU would scrap plans to build traditional style coal-fired 

powerplants. Do you think the investment community is waking up 

to this new reality and taking global warming into account as it 

plans for the future? 

Governor CORZINE. Yes. 
63 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Do you see other example? 

Governor CORZINE. I think actually what you are seeing is investors realizing that change is in process. It is entrained. That to invest in a power company that is not going to reflect that over a period of time is to actually impair the rates of return on capital for 

the buyers. The people that are actually involved in this TXU, 

aside from the Goldman Sachs people, who I don’t know, are going 

to demand long-term rates of return on capital that are commensurate with the best alternatives. I think they are reflecting through 

those decisions what a lot of investors are doing, is we ought to get 

ahead of the curve as opposed to being behind it, which would be 

the case if you continue to build the 11 powerplants without the 

new technology. 

Senator BOXER. Sticking with the economic approach, are you familiar with the Stern Review? 

Governor CORZINE. I am not. 

Senator BOXER. Sir Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist of 

the World Bank, conducted a recent study, October 2006, of the 

cost of climate change. His principal conclusion is that the overall 

cost of climate change are equivalent to losing at least 5 percent 

of global GDP each year. The worst case scenarios increase the loss 

to 20 percent of global GDP. Based on the report’s findings, a dollar 

invested now can save $5 later. 

Now, I am not asking you whether you agree with this, obviously 

you haven’t read the report. But he is extremely well thought of. 

So I think the false choice, as you used that expression, that we 

have to choose between a terrible, if we do anything about global 

warming we are going to see terrible economic atmosphere is absolutely refuted by the experts. Coming from California, where we 

have done an amazing job in a bipartisan way, and I would say it 

is nothing to do with liberals, it is just smart, common sense steps 

on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we are energy efficient. 

We are actually saving money. Our businesses are saving money. 

So in my minute that I have left, I would like you to just expound a little bit about this shibboleth, as I call it, or if you do 

something for the environment you are going to have a weak economy. Because I think it is the opposite. 

Governor CORZINE. Well, as I said, if you use a portfolio approach, you are looking to energy efficiencies, which hopefully will 

use less energy to accomplish the same ends if you have a renewable portfolio standard, that you don’t implement precipitously but 

you do it over a period of time, you will have alternative sources 

that are competing. If everyone is operating with cleaner technology and we have a more healthy environment, I think it will 

show up in some of our costs with regard to health care and other 

issues. 

I believe there is a tremendous economic opportunity for those 

that are the creators of new technology and bring innovation to 

this. That is what you are seeing by this TXU investment. I think 

this is clearly a situation where there are some identifiable costs 

by not dealing with it, whether it is the shoreline along New Jersey, 127 miles of Atlantic Ocean that is no longer as productive as 

it would be otherwise, or the other elements that I talked about 
64 

against, yes, there will be some short-term costs. But those will be 

more than paid for, in my view, by the positives that come through 

this process. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Governor Corzine, thank you for being here. It 

is nice to see you again. 

Let me just ask you a question. New Jersey is different than 

most other States in that you are reliant upon coal for only 20, 19 

percent, I understand, of your energy. 

Governor CORZINE. Something in that nature, yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Something like that. I saw the charts that were 

held up by Senator Bond, which showed the differences. I would 

suggest that my State of Oklahoma is very similar to Missouri. So 

it really would affect different States differently, and I think we 

understand that. 

It is hard to compare your Executive Order to meet the 1990 levels by 2020 and then 80 percent reductions by 2050. Because that 

is not exactly what Kyoto did. But it is more stringent if you take 

it all the way out to 2050 than Kyoto. 

Now, Senator Boxer brings up, and I am glad she did, the cost 

of this. You are probably familiar with the Wharton Econometric 

Survey, because that was made actually when you were in the U.S. 

Senate. In that, they take the Nation as a whole and say that it 

would be very, very punishing economically to the Country. I think 

the best way to characterize it is that it would cost the average 

family of four $2,750 a year. 

I know that you are debating this, the other side of this issue, 

but you do not agree with that survey, is that correct? 

Governor CORZINE. I think that is what an economic analysis 

might show, other things being equal. But I don’t think other 

things are going to be equal at the same time. There are other 

issues that will provide for efficiency, alternative sources of energy 

and hopefully that there will be useful support for these alternative 

energies and clean fuels that come from the Federal Government 

in the same way that we supported the oil and gas industry. 

Senator INHOFE. I have to try and cut it a little bit short here, 

because it is a 4-minute timeframe. Would you, if you are going to 

meet these goals, you are going to have to have some kind of energy in New Jersey. Are you suggesting more nuclear powerplants 

in New Jersey? 

Governor CORZINE. Well, not at this point, we certainly aren’t. 

But that is an alternative. There are other alternatives that we are 

very closely examining right now, wind power, offshore, we are examining methane and other biofuels. We are talking about all 

kinds of other ethanol approaches to try to improve and we are 

looking at clean coal. We are building LNG plant in southern New 

Jersey. 

Senator INHOFE. So the clean coal, that is interesting, and I 

would agree with that. Actually the plants that were shut down as 

a result of the lawsuit in Texas, under TXU, were clean coal technology plants. In fact, they were replacing existing plants with 

newer technology. So I am glad to hear you say that, because there 

has to be a place in this mix for coal. 
65 

Governor CORZINE. We are in the mist of an energy master plan 

which is examining both likely demands, considering what we look 

to use alternative energies and efficiencies, and then we will lay 

out where we think we will generate that power from. But it is, it 

needs to be a very comprehensive approach that one takes in all 

these areas. 

On the TXU issue, I understand, at least from the conversations 

that I have had from some of the people that are involved in it, 

that there is a very strong sense that they will put the most powerful clean coal technology in place. But I am not familiar with the 

details. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I would hope that would be true. However, 

if they are cutting down the number of new plants from 11 down 

to 3, that makes it much more difficult for them. Of course, this 

is, this in a way is a Texas problem. But it is one that Governor 

Perry had the courage to stand up and say, we have to have energy 

for our citizens without taxing them disproportionately. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

Next we are going to go to Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Governor Corzine, thanks for your leadership in New Jersey, in 

more areas than this. It is really appreciated by the citizens across 

the State. 

Is it possible to achieve the goals that are set out in our plans 

for New Jersey unless we have like programs developed to the west 

of us? 

Governor CORZINE. We would do a lot better if the programs, the 

States to the west of us implement these kinds of initiatives. But 

it is not impossible for us. We are going to implement, as you well 

know, higher mileage standards for light vehicles and other issues. 

As a matter of fact, the greatest producer of greenhouse gases in 

New Jersey comes from cars. So to not include CAFE standards 

and changes in requirements with regard to tailpipes is a huge 

mistake. We can do a lot of self-help work in New Jersey by addressing some of our own issues. As I talked about the renewable 

portfolio standard and efficiencies in building codes, can take us a 

long way toward getting to our 2020 objectives. Getting to our 2050 

objectives, I really believe is as much in your hands as it is in ours, 

although we will be able to accomplish some of our ends. A lot of 

leakage will occur if we don’t have the help of the Federal Government. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So many things we do here directly affect 

or are affected by other programs that are underway. For instance, 

in transportation, we know very well that if we put more into railroads, efficient railroads, we are going to reduce some of the pollution that comes from the cars sitting out there and that stuff. 

Senator Inhofe, I think maybe tried to throw you a slider. That 

was in the question about nuclear energy. I want to say this to you. 

There was a time that in this house you wouldn’t even use the 

word nuclear. Now the NRC has applications for plants that are 

being widely of interest, trying to process these. Because in desperation to do something to protect our citizens, to protect this 

globe of ours from disappearing in a fog that they are looking for 
66 

opportunities to reduce it. Maybe the politicians aren’t always in 

tune with the people, but that is usually a lagging thing, anyway. 

It comes after elections, often, that you see the measure of the performance. 

But I think it is likely that all kinds of sources will be examined, 

the problems that we have are not unique, there are just more of 

them. Governor, I commend you for always being willing to take 

the path that is a little bumpy to get to a smooth ride at the end. 

We thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Governor Senator, I am not going to ask you 

which title you like the best for the job. 

Governor CORZINE. They have other titles in New Jersey. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. One of the things that I think is real important, and I am glad you brought it up, is that greenhouse gases are 

caused by lots of sources. It seems to me, Madam Chairman, we 

ought to have a chart up here about where it is all coming from, 

because so often we have a tendency just to concentrate on the 

emissions coming from fossil fueled utilities. 

I am suggesting to you, when I was chairman of the National 

Governors Association, we tried to get together, when I was going 

through the chairs, to get the northeast doing lenders together with 

the midwest and the far west on a policy. We couldn’t do it, because at that time we were fingerpointing that, you know, your 

problems with emissions in New York was because of the Ohio 

plants and then we had, and you understand this because of your 

background in finance, you had the utility companies that all had 

their oar in the water also, because whatever you did would affect 

their rates. There was that competitive thing. 

Since that time, we have had an enormous number of mergers. 

So a lot of these utilities are wearing the same pair of shoes, for 

the most part. 

It seems to me that one of the most constructive things that you 

could do, now that the States are getting into this, would be to see 

if you can get Ray Shepach and the Governors Association to really 

sit down and look at this issue, talk about No. 1, some type of reasonable cap and trade, and I know that frightens a lot of people, 

what is reasonable in that area if you are going to go that route. 

Second of all, to talk about the issue of technology. It is one that 

I brought up in my opening statement, that the technology really 

isn’t out there. There is this concept that, oh, yes, you can do it tomorrow, but the fact is, we can’t. If you look at them, the way we 

are spending in the Department of Energy out of the 2005 bill, we 

are really not doing very much at all in terms of technology dealing 

with greenhouse gases, particularly from utilities. 

Now, Senator Clinton talks about a Manhattan project. The fact 

of the matter is, we don’t spend the money that is necessary. It 

seems to me that the Governors could put together a kind of a consensus and come up here and really put the pressure on us to say, 

look, whether we have coal-fired or not coal-fired, we know this is 

an important issue that needs to be taken care of, not only for the 

United States, but for the world. We should be the leader in clean- 
67 

coal technology, and take care of us and take care of the rest of the 

world. 

The other thing is that to recognize that we have an international problem and get them to come back here and talk about 

some initiatives that the Federal Government should be taking in 

order to have more of these Asian Pacific partnerships to deal with 

that issue, too, to put things in the kind of perspective that we 

need. 

But I think if you keep going the way we are, every State doing 

this and that, this issue, I know you don’t want to be preempted, 

but you get, if you are out in the business, you can go crazy with 

all the various roles that you have. What do you think about that? 

Governor CORZINE. Let me take that last piece. The reason that 

States are being so aggressive is that there isn’t a feeling of action 

that is occurring with regard to this issue. Now, maybe that, different people respectfully can have different views about that. But 

the overwhelming weight of evidence in most of our minds in at 

least the States that were white, that Senator Inhofe showed up, 

is that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. From 

a practical standpoint, it doesn’t matter whether it is natural or 

whether it is because it is man-made. Something is going on. The 

reality is that we need to take action to protect the quality of life 

we have. 

So if it is not going to happen on the Federal level, we want to 

be aggressive in trying to mobilize as much of the Country as we 

can. That is what, not on my watch, but under Governor Pataki’s 

watch, the RGGI, or the cap and trade program was put together 

in the northeast and it is a Republican Governor in the west that 

is taking the initiative on elements of lead here. 

We need to be moving. If it is not going to happen, we shouldn’t 

be preempted by the Federal Government writing regulations that 

are weak-kneed with regard to it. I hope we don’t do that. 

I couldn’t agree more that we need to invest in these technological advances. We have spent billions of dollars over decades on 

oil and gas production. We ought to turn that into alternative ways 

to produce energy that both reduce our dependence internationally, 

which is good for this Country to start with, and also, addresses 

this fundamental issue. 

Senator BOXER. Governor—— 

Governor CORZINE. Last, I would just say, you have to take a 

portfolio approach. Cars, how we transport ourselves is an important ingredient in this whole process. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Voinovich, I think you are right. I will put in the record 

the U.S. emissions as of 2004 that show each greenhouse gas, carbon dioxides 85 percent of the problem, methane 8 percent, nitrous 

oxides 5 percent and fluorinated gases 2 percent. I will put that 

into the record just because I think it is an important part of this 

discussion. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Senator BOXER. Now Senator Klobuchar, we are going in order 

of arrival and back and forth. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Governor Corzine. That was 

just to explain that I am not the most senior member. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. As if anyone didn’t notice. 

I just wanted to follow up on some of the things you were saying 

about trying to move forward together and not divide people. I was 

thinking about what Senator Bond had been saying about the 

States in the midwest versus the other States represented here. I 

want to again reiterate that in our State just this week we passed 

a 25 percent renewable portfolio standard for electricity, by 2025. 

It was voted on 123 to 10 in the house, 61 to 4 in the State Senate, 

signed into law by a Republican Governor. I also point out that 

again, it is in the midwest, one of the States that showed up on 

Mr. Bond’s chart. 

Along those lines, I want to follow up on what Senator Voinovich 

was asking about, and that is the technology issues. One of the 

things that I see with this issue is not only should we have an obligation to lead morally, but if we don’t start leading technologically, 

other countries are going to pick up the slack. Could you comment 

about that, with your background in the Senate, Governor, and in 

the investment world? 

Governor CORZINE. Capital is going to flow to where the returns 

are most attractive. As a business person I have seen that happen 

over and over again. If other countries come up with the clean coal 

technology that allows you to sequester it, allows you to produce 

the energy, those companies that generate that technology are 

going to win. It takes investment to be able to get to the answers 

on a lot of these questions. Some of it is basic, fundamental research that doesn’t have immediate paybacks. It may have paybacks in 10 years. Sequestration is one of those areas where there 

is a lot of work that needs to be done if you want to use coal. 

We need to get on with that, or we are going to get left behind. 

Because other people are focusing on it and it is absolutely essential that we be at the cutting edge. We are not always going to win 

in the manufacturing sector in this world. We need to be at the cutting edge on innovation. So all of the Senators that have made this 

point, I underscore and put an exclamation point after it. I can assure you that New Jersey is going to do everything we can to make 

sure that our State uniquely is in the front edge of that curve. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One last business question. You talked 

about in your written testimony about the effect that climate 

change could have on the economy in New Jersey. Specifically you 

mentioned the agricultural community. Could you talk a little bit 

about that? 

Governor CORZINE. I think I actually said the tourism industry. 

I would hate to see Atlantic City covered with a foot of water. It 

wouldn’t be good for the gaming business. But it is, we have had 

a series of floods on the non-Atlantic coastline of New Jersey on the 

Delaware River on a repeated basis. I think 3 out of the last 5 

years, we have had major floods, because something is changing. 

Fifty-year floods, not just your normal floods, ones that have exceeded expectations. That is extremely expensive for the agricul-
73 

tural elements that are there, but it is very expensive for the community at large. 

So I think the practical dollars and sense that are going on year 

in and year out tell us we need to act. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Perfect timing. 

Senator Craig, and I understand that Senator Sanders, you have 

yielded your spot to Senator Clinton? Am I right on that? 

OK. So it will be Senator Craig then Senator Clinton. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

again, Governor Senator. Thank you for coming before the committee. 

There is so much of what you say I agree with, even though some 

of my critics would not agree that I agree. It is always fascinating 

to watch how we all try to stereotypically create certain images. My 

frustration with what you are doing is not in the microsense, it is 

in the macrosense. Our Country, this Senate, some years ago refused to deal with Kyoto because they knew they could not, based 

on current technology, do so in a uniform way without damaging 

the economy and because there were major players in the world out 

there, like China and India, who simply refused to play. They 

couldn’t afford to based on their perception of their economy and 

what was going on. 

I say that based on the context that we all believe in, especially 

those of us who have been in State legislatures, that States are 

marvelous laboratories from which to do things that Congress cannot collectively do. If you are a big enough State, I don’t compare 

you with California, California has some uniqueness, you set it 

apart and it is still one of the world’s larger economies. But the reality is quite simple, that some things that know no boundaries, 

i.e., like pollution, greenhouse gases and all of that, while States 

can create some uniqueness, they really don’t become significant 

players. That is why national policy and broad-based international 

policy is so much more valuable in a concept like this. 

It is my observation, and I don’t blame you for the politics of 

your State, that you could shut the economy of New Jersey off completely and make it the greenest State in the world and convince 

Harry Reid to take your nuclear waste. If you did all of that, you 

wouldn’t change the temperature in the increasing warming pattern of this earth one-tenth of 1 percent, if at all. Now, I think that 

is what frustrates all of us here, not of your effort. That is yours 

to do and that is for the citizens of New Jersey to choose. 

But we are not happy with where we are as a Country. I am not. 

We have passed some significant energy policy and we have to do 

more. But in the process of doing more, none of us want to turn 

the economy off. It is so interesting, I was kind of Peck’s bad boy 

week before last when I appeared before the G–8 plus 5 and suggested to them that in the last two quarters, as a unit of production, based on CO2 emissions, the United States had become the 

cleanest country in the world. It was viewed as a statement of arrogance. I found that really quite fascinating, Governor, because it is 

a true statement. Because we are now all about technology and all 

technology being clean technology. 
74 

So I applaud your efforts, I don’t criticize them. I have one of the 

cleanest States in the Nation, because I have the great privilege of 

having hydro-based power as a dominant force. We are inexpensive, we make California look like a pauper when it comes to energy prices. We do very well. 

But we also have some coal-fired that we would hope down the 

road we retrofit and make cleaner. I say that as an observation, 

but to welcome you to the committee, and appreciate your presence 

here. 

But Madam Chairman, I become very skeptical of a piece-bypiece solution to a very big problem. The reality that why Idaho 

won’t be a player until we have a national solution is because we 

could impact our own economy but have zero effect in reality. That 

is, I think, a concern. We are clean now, we are going to stay clean. 

The citizens of our State and our legislature have said so. We are 

fortunate. Other States are less the case, at the same time, you 

heard the Senator from Missouri talking about the risk of shutdown of their economies and concerns. 

My time is up. Madam Chairman, Governor, again, thank you. 

I don’t have a question for you, but I do what to recognize your efforts and I don’t collectively criticize them. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Clinton. 

Governor CORZINE. Madam Chairman, I want to say—15 seconds? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Governor CORZINE. This is an issue that is bottoms up in its solution. We will find it. We have a community, West Orange, that is 

putting itself on an energy diet. The kids are out trying to convince 

folks to go from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent bulbs. You are 

right, we can’t change what is happening in the global environment, because we are just a little slice of it in the State of New 

Jersey. 

But if we don’t take our steps, just like those children who are 

out selling this concept of going from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent bulbs, we won’t change the world. It is important that those 

of us stand up and stand together and that increasingly is happening on a broader basis. So I think that is positive, and hopefully 

that will lead to a national response. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Clinton? 

Senator CLINTON. Amen, amen, Governor. Thank you, Senator 

Sanders. I appreciate that. I have to get to the Senate Armed Services Committee Afghanistan hearing. 

I just want to make three points. No. 1, as we move forward, I 

think it is important for this committee to try as best as we can 

to establish an evidence base for the decisions we are going to 

make. My understanding is that the European Union since 1990 

has actually declined in its CO2 emissions by .8 percent and the 

United States has gone up by 16 percent. So I think that it is important that we get an evidence base on which to make policy. 

No. 2, I am absolutely in agreement with what Governor Corzine 

said, and we have some mayors who are going to be testifying in 

the next panel, the Mayor of Seattle, the Mayor of Des Moines, the 
75 

Mayor of Dover and others. We have to have as much activity at 

all levels of society as we can. 

I remember when Sputnik went up, and my fifth grade teacher 

came in and said, children, the President wants you to study math 

and science. I actually thought that President Eisenhower had 

called Mrs. Krause and told her to go tell us to study math and 

science. 

We need a similar level of engagement. Now, my studying math 

wasn’t going to change the world. But at the same time, having the 

political support starting in my household going up for President 

Eisenhower to do DARPA, for President Kennedy to do the space 

program and the Apollo program did change the world. So we are 

asking for action at all levels, both of Government and in the private sector as well as at the individual citizen level. 

No. 3, I really wish Senator Voinovich were still here, because he 

and I worked together in the last Congress to pass legislation to 

clean up diesel. Again, it wasn’t going to change the world overnight, but it was an important marker to lay down. We put in legislation with appropriations to begin to try to clean up school 

buses, construction equipment and other ways that said, you know, 

we can do better. By the way, American companies will produce the 

technology that we need for these pollution controls. So it was a 

win-win. 

That is how I see the coal issue. I am very sympathetic to the 

concerns of those from the midwest and other States that have a 

very high percentage of their energy coming from coal. But I guess 

I would reverse the concern by saying, if we don’t start now to 

come up with an American manufacturing base for clean coal technology, we will eventually get around to it, but the technology will 

be made and imported into our Country instead of made and exported from our Country. 

So when TXU decided not to build 11 plants and to only build 

3, that was a step forward. The problem is they are still pulverized 

coal plants. What they should be are new generation clean coal 

technology that will capture and store the carbon. We need those 

experiments. This Congress is the only place where that money and 

direction can come from, to put in at least five demonstration 

projects, one of them I hope is outside Buffalo, NY, because they 

are all ready to go. The private utility is moving forward as quickly 

as it can within the investment environment as it exists now. 

But we could do more to incentivize that. So, I hope that Senator 

Voinovich and the Chair and others of us working together, we will 

deal with this coal issue. It is real and we can do better on it. 

I guess to Governor Corzine, you mentioned the need for new 

technology and new thinking about climate and energy. I also have 

proposed a model based on DARPA, which again, President Eisenhower created after Sputnik, the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency. It took our best minds from our universities, our 

private sector, and just let them loose, figure out what we were 

going to do. 

Well, out of it did come the Internet and many other advances 

that have revolutionized our economy, put people to work, raised 

our standard of living. I am convinced if we did this in the energy 

field, we would have the same results within a decade. So there is 
76 

work for all of us to do. I am thrilled that under the leadership of 

Senator Boxer, our Congress is going to begin to address that. 

Again, thanks to Governor Corzine for being such a leader in this 

and helping to set the stage for the rest of us. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Clinton, thank you so much. I like your 

idea of this evidence-based record. Because we do have different 

Senators putting out different comments and we just need to collect 

that. I will task the staff with that. 

Senator Sanders, to be followed by Senators Whitehouse and 

Cardin. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, what we seem to be hearing from a number of 

Senators is the idea that it is absolutely imperative and Governor 

Corzine, you mentioned as well, I think, that we move forward in 

whether you call it a Manhattan project or new Apollo project, that 

in fact for the first time we recognize that we have a global crisis, 

a national crisis and that it is imperative that we harness the resources on the Federal leadership, the Federal Government has the 

resources, the private sector and the State and local government, 

that we begin to bring people together to say we have a crisis and 

we are going to solve this crisis within the next 20 or 30 years with 

the United States of America playing a leadership role. 

The components of going forward are breaking our dependence 

on fossil fuel, increasing energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. I think what the Governor has said, if I understood 

him correctly, that you believe as we go forward in fact we can create jobs. While there will be certainly some economic dislocation, 

overall it can be a positive. 

Governor CORZINE. It is a long-run win, absolutely. 

Senator SANDERS. What I would like to ask you is, based on your 

background both in the private sector and in Government, how 

would you envisage a new Manhattan project? What would be the 

relationship between the Federal, State and local governments and 

the private sector? How can we harness the energy to develop new 

technologies and make this economically successful? 

Governor CORZINE. Well, first of all, I think that there does have 

to be serious investment dollars made in the core research functions. Whether it is taking solar technology and actually making it 

practical, whether it is sequestration, whether it is the kinds of 

things that Senator Clinton talked about, and some of that may actually need some subsidization. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you this. I just talked to a fellow 

from Germany the other day who helped write legislation in Germany which pays people if they have solar paneling in their own 

house, they get a very good price for producing that solar paneling. 

It is part of a decentralized subsidy. Is that something that New 

Jersey—— 

Governor CORZINE. Sure. We actually have a clean energy plan. 

It is, I wouldn’t write home to mom about it being the best thing 

in the world, but it is trying to subsidize the applications of solar 

and other alternative fuels. But we have to do that. We have to do 

it actually in the energy production field. We need, if TXU is only 

going to produce three clean coal plants, because that is all they 

can afford to do, it might be possible that we would want to give 
77 

them tax credits in the same way that we have given it for oil drilling and exploration, so that they could do four or five, if that were 

the demand. I don’t know the layout. 

We need practical work on basic research in our universities and 

in our research communities. Then we need real effort in bringing 

that into an applied context. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you this. I know New Jersey is not 

generally considered to be a major agricultural State, but in 

fact—— 

Governor CORZINE. We are the Garden State, remember. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. Right. What are you doing, what ideas do you 

have with regard to biofuels in the east? 

Governor CORZINE. We have, unfortunately, far too many garbage dumps. So we have a lot of methane tapping that ends up producing gas. We also do—— 

Senator SANDERS. You are using the methane from the landfills? 

Governor CORZINE. Right. We do geothermal. 

Senator SANDERS. Do you do much biofuels? Are you farmers 

growing—— 

Governor CORZINE. We do not do biofuels. We are about to make 

a commitment on our first biofuels plant, which started out to be 

corn based, and we are trying to get it into cellulose. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cardin is going to pass, is that right? And Senator 

Whitehouse. Then we are going to the next panel. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Governor, I am delighted that you are 

here. You have the experience of executive leadership, you have the 

experience of having been in this building and know what we are 

all going through. You have considerable experience in the financial and capital worlds. 

Governor CORZINE. I used to sit in that chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You were this junior once. 

I see a lot of the problems that we face here as ones in which 

the market forces operate very effectively and properly in a defined 

market. But they create externalities. Whether they are the negative externalities of pollution of positive externalities, in this case, 

of being able to seize export products in this new technology, protecting our climate from what unfortunate things we seem to see 

coming and the ability to concentrate both capital and expertise, so 

that we become sort of a center of energy and center of expertise 

in terms of this new technology. 

Now, when you have a situation like that in which there are 

huge positive externalities and you don’t want to just leave it to the 

market, because it is not reflecting those positives, to drive the 

public policy result, you have to accelerate the market a little bit, 

what from your experience in the financial world would be, I understand what you told Senator Cardin about funding research and 

doing all the things we traditionally do. Are there ways to jump 

start or accelerate in the financial and capital markets their investment in this area and what are the ones that in your experience 

have proven either more effective or less effective? Are there ones 
78 

you would give us caution about, ones you would encourage us to 

try to apply? 

Governor CORZINE. That is a terrific question. I have seen loan 

guarantees that reduced the cost of capital that are wraparounds, 

you see it in the nuclear power industry, that was very important 

in the early stages of production of it that were really the foundation on which a lot of powerplants were built in another period and 

time. You see it in the housing industry. I would like to see more 

of it, actually, in the housing industry, so that we could have greater development of affordable housing. It is a way to both mix private capital and public capital. This is in the application fields. 

I think the basic research effort is going to have to be grant work 

and you have to get—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Understood. 

Governor CORZINE [continuing]. The NSA and other national 

science foundations and other elements focused on this as an issue. 

But I think using loan guarantees as opposed to outright grants 

has often been successful in other avenues where you wanted to get 

broad bases to it. 

Now, you know, the oil and gas industry has benefited from oil 

depletion allowances. This is not new work. So you can accelerate 

depreciation as another technique and it has been very successful. 

That might very well be the appropriate way to approach this issue 

with regard to restructuring the powerplant industry and applying 

clean coal technology when billions of dollars would be applied. You 

know, somebody asked about nuclear power earlier, you have to 

check, we will have to review if that were the direction that society 

wanted to take particularly as a transitionary step. Some of the 

most adamant environmentalists have actually switched to say we 

have to do that as an intermediate bridge. I am not advocating 

that, but we need to make sure that those kinds of capital elements 

are in place that would allow that to happen, if that is the direction 

we want to take. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank you for your testimony, and I 

thank the Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senators. 

Governor, you have triggered a most amazing debate. Something 

about you that just brought out, I think, the best in everybody 

here. It has been wonderful and we thank you very much. 

Governor CORZINE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Our next panel, please come forward as fast as 

you can, because we are going to hold your statements to 4 minutes 

each instead of 5. We didn’t expect it to go so long, but we had such 

a terrific turnout of colleagues. 

Senator Cantwell is here to introduce our Mayor of Seattle. Senator Cantwell, you can just sit on the end here, in Senator 

Whitehouse’s seat, because he has left. I would love you to, because 

I have already given a very flowery introduction of my two wonderful friends from California, why don’t you introduce to us the 

Mayor of Seattle, and then we will start with Senator Perata, we 

will work our way right down this way. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to introduce the Mayor 

of my State’s largest city, Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle. I am 
79 

proud to be here today to introduce Mayor Nickels and even 

prouder of what the citizens of Washington State and Seattle have 

been able to do in our ongoing efforts to reduce our climate footprint and leave a livable planet for future Washingtonians. 

As most of you know, the United States contributes about onefourth of the world’s greenhouse emissions, but to my frustration 

and I am sure many of the people on this committee, the Administration has refused to engage in an international effort to begin 

tackling this critical challenge. Fortunately, in the absence of Federal leadership, a number of cities and States have taken it upon 

themselves to try to reduce their carbon footprints and the results 

have been impressive. 

In 2005, Mayor Nickels launched an initiative to get cities to 

pledge to cut their greenhouse emissions by 7 percent below the 

1990 levels by 2012. His initiative is filling a vacuum nationwide. 

It has received enthusiastic reception and now has been endorsed 

by over 400 mayors in every State in America who collectively represent 60 million citizens. In our State, all our major cities have 

signed onto the agreement, and we are very proud of that fact. I 

know that our former colleague and now Governor noted the Garden State motto. Well, they don’t call Washington the Evergreen 

State for nothing. So we are very proud of this effort. 

I believe that you will hear from the Mayor and these cities that 

they are reaping the economic and environmental and security benefits of these initiatives. I believe these more localized efforts are 

part of a growing groundswell of public awareness of the threat of 

climate change and the urgency to do something about it. As I can 

say from my own State, it is very important for us to deal with this 

issue. I know that members of this committee may look at it as a 

security issue or an economic issue or the opportunity to take advantage of new, high-energy wage jobs. But for us, it doesn’t matter 

what the motivation is. The need to act and act immediately is important. 

Climate change, as the Mayor will tell you, is impacting every 

corner of the world. But for us in the pacific Northwest, we can become particularly hard hit, because our temperatures are rising 

faster than the global average. Glaciers in the Cascade Mountains 

and the Olympic Mountains have retreated for over the last 50 

years, and climate change is expected to alter our region’s historic 

water cycle, threatening drinking water, salmon recovery efforts 

and the availability of emission-free hydropower. As my colleague 

from the northwest was mentioning, the northwest hydro system, 

we are 70 percent reliant on our electricity from that hydro system. 

So impacts in global warming directly have impacts on that hydro 

system, and these changes will likely impact billions of dollars of 

our economic infrastructure associated with irrigation systems, municipal water supplies, national forests, ski resorts and a variety of 

other things. So we can wait no longer. 

So thank you, Madam Chair, for your committee’s work and their 

importance of this hearing today. Thank you to Mayor Nickels and 

the other panelists. 

As a member of the Energy Committee, Finance Committee and 

Commerce Committee, we will all work with you to get legislation 

to the Senate floor and onto the President’s desk. You will have an 
80 

ally in me, and you couldn’t have found a better witness for today’s 

hearing than Mayor Greg Nickels. Again, I thank the Chairwoman 

and the committee. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. You are welcome 

to sit with us as long as you would like to. 

Now it is with great pride I introduce our first two panelists: 

Senator Don Perata, a real leader on this, and to be followed by 

Speaker Nun ̃ ez. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON PERATA, PRESIDENT PRO TEM, 

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE 

Mr. PERATA. I thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished Senators. It is an honor to be here today to participate in this discussion. To date, it is very enlightening. I hope I add to that. 

I am not a climate scientist nor an economist. I am a former high 

school teacher and a native Californian, and like all of you, an 

elected official that has a singular concern, and that is the planet 

that we leave to our kids and our grandkids. 

I am going to cut more directly to something that has been riveting through the committee in the discussions, and that is whether or not you can reduce global emissions and stop climate change 

without doing injury to the economy. In California, we have been 

working on these issues for 30 years. As has been cited by Senator 

Boxer and Senator Clinton, we have made progress. Today, we are, 

in fact, Governor Reagan before he became President signed the 

State’s first major energy efficiency law in 1974, when the first oil 

shock hit California and the United States. 

We have in California some of the best cutting edge technology 

in the world. What we are seeing right now is our policies that we 

are making in Sacramento are being implemented down the street, 

across the State. We are making it possible for others in the industry to break new ground. They are investing in California, they are 

investing in technologies because it is good for business and jobs 

are being produced. In the Silicon Valley, which is better known 

than for anything than technology chips and things of that nature, 

we are finding jobs being developed in the areas of solar panels, 

new computers that trigger the efficiencies as we discussed in your 

office yesterday, where now light coming into a room can adjust the 

lights in the room. So you are always one step ahead of where you 

need to be. 

In southern California, there have been great strides made for 

electric cars. In my own district, there is something very curious 

going on. We have been talking about diesel emissions. In the Bay 

area, there is a company that has developed and manufactures in 

California a device to be placed on school buses, tractor trailers, 

anything that has a diesel engine and can reduce immediately to 

zero emissions the carbon coming out of those engines. 

There are 280,000 trucks traveling daily to southern California 

ports. That bad air ends up being blown into the Central Valley 

and into the Inland Empire, the middle parts of our State. So by 

that one device being developed, we are in effect cleaning up the 

air around the coast and inland. For people who say, well, that is 

only California, yes, but it is California. If every State is able to 
81 

do that, we first show by doing, and that is what we are finding 

effective in California. 

California has just passed $42 billion in bonds. In that are efficiencies and green legislation, so that as we do things, we build or 

rebuild California, we are doing it clean and green and we are 

making money and creating jobs. It can be done. 

I would ask only one thing in conclusion. Whatever you do, 

please don’t do anything to preempt the strides that are being 

made in New Jersey, Washington, California and elsewhere. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perata follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON PERATA, PRESIDENT PRO TEM, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE

Madam Chair and Distinguished Senators: 

Thank you for holding this hearing, and for the privilege of addressing the committee. I’m honored to be here with my fellow Californian, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nun ̃ ez, and Mayor Nickels, both of whom are national leaders in the fight 

against global warming. 

I’m not a climate scientist or a resource economist—I’m a former school teacher, 

a native Californian and—like all of you—an elected official who worries about what 

kind of world we’re leaving our kids and grandkids. 

Today, I want to make three points to the committee: 

First, California can serve as a model for federal efforts to combat global warming 

and its impacts. Last year we passed two very important laws: one prohibiting utilities from entering into long-term contracts for power produced by dirty coal-burning 

plants, and another setting a target to reduce the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions over time. 

The latter measure, known as AB 32, has received plenty of attention. It’s a good 

law authored by Mr. Nun ̃ ez. The best thing about it is it commits the state to reining in its greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the details of how to do this must be 

worked out, but we’re on the right track. The other law is one I wrote to promote 

cleaner coal technologies. I’m glad to see that the Chairwoman of this committee 

has included provisions of that measure in her bill. There are more than 30 new 

coal plants proposed in the Western United States, and 150 for the nation as a 

whole. California is a big customer for the electricity from those plants. Taken together, those plants could produce up to 120 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions; by contrast, the total emissions from all sources in the entire state of Oregon 

is about 70 million tons. 

California enacted SB 1368 to send a strong signal to the western energy markets. 

Our energy must be clean—we won’t buy power from coal plants spewing greenhouse gases by the ton. To be clear, California has not said ‘‘no’’ to coal; rather, 

we’ve said that we want cleaner coal plants that can provide us energy without producing massive global warming pollution. 

Similar measures to SB 1368 are being considered in the Oregon and Washington 

legislatures. While it’s gratifying to know that other states are following California’s 

lead, there is no substitute for a national policy. So I encourage all of you to move 

forward with the Chairwoman’s legislation. 

Now, what we have done in California is much more than just pass two landmark 

bills. Climate change and its dramatic effects are front page news today. But long 

before global warming began grabbing headlines, California worked to protect the 

environment and reduce air pollution. California has led a quiet revolution for decades to achieve one of the lowest per capita carbon emissions rate in the country. 

Over the years, state lawmakers have boosted energy efficiency, increased the diversity of our energy sources and improved our air quality. 

It was in fact Governor Ronald Reagan who signed the state’s first major energy 

efficiency law in 1974, in the wake of America’s first foreign oil scare. Today, the 

same energy efficiency programs created 30 years ago serve as a cornerstone of California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. By 2008, our state’s energy efficiency 

programs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions—a major cause of global warming— 

by more than 3 million tons per year. That’s the equivalent to taking 650,000 polluting cars off the road. And since the cheapest kilowatt of electricity is the one not 

used, it will save Californians millions of dollars on their monthly utility bills. 

In California, we’re proud to be trendsetters. And much of what we’ve done could 

easily be adapted at the national level. That brings me to my second point: We need 
82 

your leadership to win this battle. Only with your help can we transform our current fossil-fuel based economy into the new energy economy needed in the 21st century. 

As you know, there are many things a state like California can do for itself, and 

there are many things it cannot. The challenge before you is to craft federal legislation that helps bend the curve, as California is doing, so that overall U.S. climate 

change emissions begin to head downward. That demands the same comprehensive 

approach taken by California to cover all major sources of global warming pollution—not a piecemeal plan affecting only one set of emission sources, one type of 

emissions, or one type of mechanism to achieve reductions. It means direct and 

measurable emission reductions, flexible financial and tax incentives, and addressing more than just carbon dioxide. 

We also need Congress to provide tools, such as a 10-year extension of the renewable production and investment tax credit. The uncertainty over this important incentive is a big problem for new renewable energy investments. 

And finally, we must have Washington’s leadership to get off what the President 

has called ‘‘our national addiction to oil.’’ We can do this through more efficient cars, 

clean alternative fuels and better transportation policies. 

My third and final point is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions creates jobs 

and stimulates the economy. Over the past several decades, California has adopted 

the most aggressive clean air, energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in the 

United States. During that same time, our gross state product increased by 83 percent, the second largest rate of growth of any state in the country. Key business 

incubators—such as Silicon Valley in the north and the biotech corridor in the 

south—generate jobs, revenues, and clean technologies. The super-efficient solar 

panels produced by Powerlight Corporation in my district, and the sleek new electric 

cars manufactured by Tesla Corporation in the South Bay area, are examples of 

these technologies. Just two weeks ago, British Petroleum announced a new $500 

million investment in a clean fuels research facility on the University of California 

campus in my Senate district. 

The evidence is clear: California’s climate policies are attracting business and jobs 

to the state, not driving them away. Business and industry leaders support strong 

state climate change policies like the laws we have passed in California because 

they know it’s good for business. 

In California, voters last fall approved the single largest infrastructure invest- ment bond in the history of the United States. It provides $42.7 billion to revitalize 

transportation, housing, flood protection, and schools. The public wants us to overhaul our aging and inadequate infrastructure—and doing it will be good for our 

economy—but not at the expense of our air or environment. That is the overriding 

challenge of this new century: To continue to grow our economy while holding ourselves to higher standards of environmental protection. 

In closing, I want to emphasize that, for all of the work we’ve done, even states 

as large as California can’t do it alone. We need strong and decisive action at the 

federal and international levels. After all, this is a global problem. The job ahead 

isn’t easy or painless, as some would have us believe. We’ve only just begun to understand the scope of global warming and the magnitude of the changes it may 

bring. Today, more than ever, the state and Federal Government must cooperate 

and attack this problem together. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Senator BOXER. Very important message. 

Mr. Speaker, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FABIAN NUN ̃ EZ, SPEAKER, CALIFORNIA 

STATE ASSEMBLY 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I hope it is politically correct in Washington to say Madam Chair as opposed to 

Madam Chairman. 

I want to thank you very much for inviting Senator Perata and 

I to express our thoughts on why California did what it did to confront the climate change concerns that we have. First of all, and 

certainly to all of the members of this committee, I want to be clear 

that when we approved Assembly Bill 32 in California, we didn’t 

do it out of an altruistic sense that we wanted to do the right thing 

for the sake of doing the right thing, although that is important as 
83 

well in some case. But in California, we saw a real threat, a threat 

to places like Los Angeles, residents of the Central Valley as well, 

and farmers who, if they saw that their fresh water that they needed wasn’t available to them, or could be contaminated with salinity, 

it was a real challenge. 

We saw the threat to our natural resources, for example, including key environmental and economic treasures like the beautiful 

coast of California, Yosemite and Lake Tahoe. In response, through 

an unusual partnership between the Democratic legislature and a 

Republican Governor, last year in California we passed gold standard legislation, Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions 

Act. AB32 establishes regulations that will phase in a 25 percent 

cut in carbon dioxide emissions from the State’s largest emitters by 

the year 2020, which in essence is a reduction below the 1990 levels in that 16-year period. In 2008, the California Air Resources 

Board is going to begin to require industries to report carbon dioxide emissions. The Board is also going to establish a cap on those 

greenhouse emissions. 

The data that we collect over that 4-year period is going to determine which industries are the most significant on the dioxide footprint. From 2008 to 2012, outreach programs are going to begin to 

educate industries on how to best achieve these reductions. Then 

from 2012 to 2020, industry will begin to implement efforts to reduce their carbon output and take advantage of established market 

mechanisms that may be required to reduce some of these emissions. Those cuts, in essence, are going to bring us down to the 

1990 levels. 

I want to stress that this simply was not an effort supported by 

Democrats in the legislature and a Republican Governor, but businesses came to the table. One of the largest utilities in California, 

Pacific Gas and Electric, Senator Boxer, you are very familiar with 

them, were strong supporters of this legislation. Entrepreneurs 

stepped up to the plate. Several CEOs and venture capitalists came 

on board, people like John Doerr, whose firm has invested in venture capital efforts such as Amazon.com and Google and many 

other technology firms also came to the table because they saw the 

importance of making this investment in alternative fuels. 

Let me just say for me, on a very personal level, representing an 

inner city from Los Angeles, issues of environmental justice and 

economic opportunity are vital and are powerful, very, very powerful motivators. I want the economy for the future of the children 

of California to be a clean economy. I want the neighborhoods that 

children live in to be clean neighborhoods. I think that our enforceable limits provide clear market incentives that are going to reduce 

pollution and unleash entrepreneurs to pursue clean technologies 

in our State. 

U.C. economists predict a boom in our State’s annual gross product of $60 billion. One study suggests that we are going to create, 

over a 12-year period, 83,000 jobs in this area, Senator. Just in 

closing, let me say that gold built the California economy. I believe 

that through AB32, green is going to be what sustains it. 

Thank you very much, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nun ̃ ez follows:] 
84 

STATEMENT OF FABIAN NUN ̃ EZ, SPEAKER, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to discuss California’s experience confronting climate change. In California, we saw the threat to Los Angeles residents 

and Central Valley farmers if the fresh water they need is contaminated with salinity. We saw the threat to our natural resources, including key environmental and 

economic treasures like the coast, Yosemite and Lake Tahoe. 

In response, through an unusual partnership between Democratic legislators and 

a Republican governor, we passed gold-standard legislation, AB 32, The California 

Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 establishes regulations that will phase in a 

25 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from the state’s five largest emitters by 

2020. In 2008, the California Air Resources Board will begin requiring industry to 

report carbon dioxide emissions. The board will also establish a cap on greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

The data we collect over a 4-year period will determine which industries are the 

most significant on dioxide. From 2008 until 2012, outreach programs will educate 

industry on how to achieve reductions. From 2012 on to 2020, industry will begin 

to implement efforts to reduce carbon output and take advantage of established 

market mechanisms. That cut will bring carbon emissions down to 1990 levels. 

In addition to strong environmental support, even one of our State’s largest utilities, PG&E, backed AB 32. Several high tech CEOs and venture capital leaders also 

came on board, including John Doerr whose firm provided venture capital to Amazon.com, Google, Intuit and other technology firms. I think they see the clear market signal we are sending to spur a high-tech, green economy for our state. For me, 

elected from inner-city Los Angeles, environmental justice and economic opportunity 

are powerful motivators. I want the economy for our children to be a clean economy. 

I want the neighborhoods they live in to be clean neighborhoods. 

Our enforceable limit provides clear market incentives to reduce pollution, 

unleashing entrepreneurs to pursue clean technologies. One study found meeting 

the limit we’ve established will create 83,000 jobs. UC economists predict a boost 

to our state’s annual Gross Product of $60 billion. Gold built the California economy. 

Green will sustain it. 

This year, in addition to overseeing the implementation of AB 32 the Assembly 

is advancing legislation on green building and alternative fuels; developing R&D opportunities; reducing emissions from landfills, and using bond funds to promote sustainability. And in all of these efforts, we are at this committee’s disposal to help 

replicate California’s experience at the national level. 

Thank you for this opportunity Madam Chair. And thank you for your dynamic 

leadership on this issue. 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

RESPONSES FROM FABIAN NUN ̃ EZ TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. I am shocked that you would divert your State’s economic resources 

toward reducing greenhouse gases when California is the dirtiest air pollution State 

in the Nation. Thousands of people die in your State every year because California 

has refused to take the actions necessary to meet existing laws. The elderly, those 

with children and anyone with respiratory problems should be outraged you would 

choose to make this symbolic measure more important than their health, their very 

lives. How do you respond to this statement? 

Response. The Senator’s ‘‘shock’’ is misplaced. California has some of the strongest 

air pollution laws in the Nation, yet there are areas of our state where topography, 

traffic congestion, and concentrations of specific industries do continue to present 

air quality issues. As a response, last year the California Legislature worked in a 

bipartisan fashion with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to pass not only AB 32 to 

address global warming, but also to put over $40 billion of transportation, flood protection, parks and affordable hosing bonds before the voters. Embedded within each 

of these bonds are specific provisions to address a variety of environmental issues, 

particularly air quality issues. For example, within the transportation bond there 

is over $1 billion dedicated to address air quality issues. The bonds also commit billions of dollars to such air quality measures as alternative fuels, new/advanced technologies to move goods through California’s ports, traffic congestion issues, and 

clean construction equipment and school buses as well as transit orientated development, urban infill housing, land conservation and proper land use planning. Additionally, in terms of fighting global warming, the American Lung Association notes 

that several studies have shown that increased emissions of air contaminants, higher temperatures and the increased smog that accompanies higher temperatures 

make many health conditions worse. Warmer temperatures would also increase the 

likelihood of increased wildfires along with the carbon dioxide and particulates they 

produce. Rather than the ‘‘outrage’’ Senator Inhofe calls for, all these actions have 

proven to be popular with the people of California. 

Question 2. What is the estimated impact on global temperature that AB 32 will 

have over the bill’s lifetime? 

Response. If, as I expressed my hope for during my testimony before the committee, AB 32 is replicated in other states and by the Federal Government, I believe 

the global impact of AB 32 will indeed be significant. As you must know, AB 32 

is just one step toward the ultimate goal of having the United States working with 

the global community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore global temperatures. Through AB 32’s mandated requirements, California will reduce its 

greenhouse gases by 25 percent to 1990 levels, roughly 174 million metric tons. 

Even the most committed global warming denier has to acknowledge the significance of that reduction. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Speaker. 

The Republican side has asked if we could break up the, let us 

just say, pro-action side of this debate. I think they are right, I 

think they are fair. So we are going to have the Hon. Dennis 

Adkins, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology, Oklahoma State House, go next, and after him, the Hon. 

Ted Harvey, Senator, Colorado State Senate, if that is OK. 

So the Hon. Mr. Adkins. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS ADKINS, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY, OKLAHOMA STATE 

HOUSE 

Mr. ADKINS. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe 

and members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 

I am Dennis Adkins and I am from the great State of Oklahoma, 

representing District 75, which includes parts of Tulsa and Broken 

Arrow in Oklahoma. I also serve as the Energy and Technology 

Chairman for the State of Oklahoma in the House, and I have 

served in that capacity since 2005. 

The Committee on Energy and Technology has jurisdiction on all 

State legislation affecting oil and gas, and it also has utility regula-
105 

tion under its jurisdiction. Oklahoma is an energy State. We have 

10 percent of this Nation’s proven reserves of natural gas. The oil 

and gas industry as a whole in Oklahoma has produced energy valued in excess of $10 billion for the past 2 years, representing more 

than 10 percent of our gross State product. 

During the past 15 years, Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas producers have paid a gross production tax of more than $400 million 

annually. In this most recent fiscal year, that figure was increased 

to $1 billion. This tax revenue from the energy industry funds our 

schools, roads, bridges, health care and other vital State services. 

No other industry in Oklahoma provides such a significant portion 

of the State’s resources. 

Additionally, the energy sector employs 55,000 Oklahomans. In 

the past 24 months, this industry has created 4,000 new jobs. Oil 

and gas in Oklahoma is important and the salaries double for the 

Oklahoma workers if they are in the oil and gas industry. 

In electricity generation, Oklahomans heavily rely on coal and 

natural gas. Roughly 56 percent of the total electric generation is 

coal-based and roughly 38 percent is from natural gas-based generation, with a growing wind power sector as well. These percentages of electricity generation, of course, can and do vary greatly 

from State to State. For example, hydroelectric and nuclear resources can be and are reliable in other parts of the Nation. 

Like the rest of the Country, we in Oklahoma see many scientific, Government and media reports about climate change. We 

are interested in knowing the facts, also. 

I am not a scientist by profession, but I do intend to testify from 

this perspective. I am a State legislator and I believe that my job 

is to pass legislation to deal with problems facing my State based 

on the best available information. Therefore, I am greatly concerned by one fact. That fact is that there does not seem to be an 

agreement on climate change, and yet there does seem to be a 

great rush to action. 

The States represented here today can capably comment on what 

their States are doing or what their States are doing in conjunction 

with other States to address greenhouse gas emission controls. The 

representatives from these States certainly understand their 

State’s energy profiles, needs and economic impacts better than I 

do. Instead of me describing what California does or doesn’t do or 

what the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast may 

or may not be doing right or wrong, it is better for me to describe 

what I think States like Oklahoma will be concerned about as any 

legislation addressing climate change is considered. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, could you try to wrap up with your most important thing, because we only have 20 seconds left on your time. 

Mr. ADKINS. Sure. Our own Senator Inhofe is a national leader, 

especially on issues like climate change. I understand that he has 

said that carbon cap proposals would be the largest single tax increase to date, costing the American public more than $300 billion. 

However, regardless of the investments in renewable fuels, renewables can only provide a small part of the U.S. electric power. Oklahomans realize that we need a diversified energy supply, such as 

clean coal, natural gas and renewable sources. 
106 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee, and 

I appreciate the committee allowing a representative from an energy State to come and testify. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adkins follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS ADKINS, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

TECHNOLOGY, OKLAHOMA STATE HOUSE

Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the 

Environment and Public Works Committee. I am Dennis Adkins, and I am an Oklahoma State Representative for District 75 that includes parts of the cities of Tulsa 

and Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. I am also the chairman of the Oklahoma House Committee on Energy and Technology and have served in that capacity since 2005. The 

Committee on Energy and Technology has jurisdiction on all state legislation affecting the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and utility regulation. In addition to serving in the state legislature, I am involved in the American Legislative Exchange 

Council (ALEC) and the Energy Council. Both ALEC and the Energy Council are 

organizations comprised of state legislators from throughout the country. 

Oklahoma is an energy state. We have 10 percent of this Nation’s proven reserves 

of natural gas. The oil and gas industry as a whole in Oklahoma has produced energy valued in excess of $10 billion for the past 2 years representing more than 10 

percent of our gross state product. During the past 15 years, Oklahoma’s oil and 

natural gas producers have paid gross production taxes averaging more than $400 

million annually, and in the most recent fiscal year that figure increased to $1 billion. This tax revenue from the energy industry funds schools, roads, health care 

and other vital state services. No other industry in Oklahoma provides such a significant portion of the state’s revenue sources. 

Additionally, the energy sector employs more than 55,000 Oklahomans. In the 

past 24 months, this industry has created more than 4,000 jobs. Oil and natural gas 

workers are paid more than double the average salary for Oklahoma workers. 

In electricity generation, Oklahoman’s heavily rely on coal and natural gas. 

Roughly 56 percent of total electricity generation is coal based followed by roughly 

38 percent of natural gas based generation with a growing wind power sector as 

well. These percentages of electricity generation sources, of course, can and do vary 

greatly state to state as, for example, hydroelectric and nuclear sources are very viable in certain other parts of the nation. 

Like the rest of the country, we in Oklahoma see the many scientific, government, 

and media reports on climate change, and we are interested in knowing the facts. 

Respected people on both sides of the issue present seemingly very compelling 

facts about their particular point of view. 

I am not a scientist by profession, and do not intend to testify from that perspective. I am a state legislator. I believe it is my job to work to pass legislation to deal 

with problems facing my state based on the best available information and facts. 

Therefore, I am greatly concerned by one clear fact. That fact is that there does not 

seem to be agreement on the issue of climate change, and yet there seems to be a 

great rush to action. 

Without the facts, I think it would be very possible to pass federal legislation or 

legislation in the states that might cost people substantially. I do not wish to be 

misunderstood and simply labeled as a naysayer, but a rush to pass legislation addressing climate change may make it appear that we, as elected officials, are doing 

something to address a problem, but in reality, not accomplish anything meaningful 

toward solving climate change. I understand that even if all industrialized nations 

would have faithfully followed the caps implemented by the Kyoto Protocol, the result would only shave a fraction of a degree Celsius of earth’s temperatures. After 

all, what we are principally talking about is controlling carbon dioxide emissions. 

However, this gas is non-toxic to humans. It does not impair visibility. It does not 

foul the air we breathe, neither does it cause respiratory diseases, all of which hardly are characteristics of a bona fide pollutant. In fact, I have even heard it argued 

that moderate warming from 0.5 to 1.5 degree Celsius might enhance agricultural 

productivity, which is also extremely important to my state and other states like 

Oklahoma. 

We already have seen at least a couple of examples of what states have developed 

or enacted into state law addressing greenhouse gas emissions. With Assembly Bill 

32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, California will require 

monitoring and annual reporting from the state’s most significant contributors to 

greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 

to 1990 levels by 2020 and achieve additional reductions into the future. The Re-
107 

gional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an agreement among some Northeastern 

states, seeks to develop a northeastern regional cap and trade program covering carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants in that region, placing a cap on current carbon dioxide levels, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions levels by 10 percent by 

2019. 

The States represented here today will capably comment on what their state is 

doing or what their state is doing in conjunction with other states to address greenhouse gas emission controls. The representatives from these states certainly understand their states’ energy profiles, needs, and economic impacts perhaps better than 

I would. Instead of me describing what California and what states in the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast may have done wrong or right, which 

may simply be my opinion, perhaps it would be more productive to use my time to 

describe what I think a state like Oklahoma will be concerned about as any legislation addressing climate change is considered. 

First and foremost, we would be concerned about the impact on Oklahomans. We 

would want to carefully weigh the proposed benefits of any action to the impact it 

will have on our citizens’ pocketbooks, our economy, as well as on the environment. 

Oklahoma is blessed to have an abundant supply of electricity at rates below the 

national average. Unfortunately, we are not as blessed when it comes to cool summers. Oklahoma can get hot in the summertime driving up power consumption as 

a result and that translates into high electric bills. I know because I hear from my 

constituents, and I am a ratepayer too. 

Frankly, while I am aware of polling that suggests that many Americans are concerned about climate change, I am not sure they have calculated the impact the cost 

of addressing it will have on them. 

As state and federal legislators, we all heard the public uproar when the cost of 

gasoline began climbing. A few winters ago, we heard loud and clear that citizens 

were not at all pleased with the increase in natural gas prices. Now, we are talking 

about taking steps that could drive energy prices even higher without a clearly articulated benefit. 

I suppose the easy thing to do would be to pass legislation federally or in the 

states to attempt to address climate change. But if we do, absent the facts surrounding the cost and benefit, I do not believe we have served our constituents very 

well. 

If I have ever heard of an issue that needs more comprehensive study, climate 

change is it. I think our nation is poised to make massive investment on the backs 

of consumers, not knowing if the proper technology even exists and if those investments will even help. 

Generally speaking, measures such as carbon caps, cap and trade systems, and 

emission allowances would inevitably raise energy prices, raise costs of consumer 

products and services, reduce profits, impair productivity and may not achieve global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, under the Kyoto Protocol, 

emissions reductions are imposed on developed countries, while developing countries 

such as India and China, which will ultimately surpass the United States in carbon 

dioxide emissions, are left out. 

I have read forecasts estimating various costs from compliance with carbon dioxide caps. For instance, I have read that implementing the Kyoto Protocol would 

have cost the entire U.S. economy over $300 billion by 2010 and implementing the 

standards in Kyoto would have resulted in an annual lost of nearly $3,000 per 

household by 2010. Information published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that cutting carbon emissions five percent below 1990 levels, as 

required in the Kyoto Protocol, would have reduced the U.S. Gross Domestic Product 

to up to $340 billion by 2012 which it estimated would translate into a cost of 

$4,500 for every family of four. There have been many proposals circulating in Congress for the past number of years, and they all address greenhouse gas emission 

reductions from various industrial sectors in various manners. I am not going to 

pretend to be an expert on each proposal and their forecasted reductions and costs. 

However, what they all seemingly have in common are substantially increased energy costs for consumers. 

Our own Senator Inhofe, who is a national leader especially on the issue of climate change, I understand has said that carbon cap proposals would be the largest 

single tax increase to date costing the American public $300 billion annually. 

Does that mean we in Oklahoma are simply taking the posture of standing still 

in the meantime, of course not. 

In Oklahoma, for example, our utilities are becoming leaders in wind power. Without mandates, our state has over 500 megaWatts of wind power. Although I realize 

this falls behind larger states that have developed their infrastructure over a longer 

period of time, over the last three years, Oklahoma now has the fifth largest wind 
108 

generation base in the country. In fact, as transmission costs climb to $1 million 

per mile, our largest problem is transmission of this energy from the western portion of the state throughout the rest state. 

Pending in the Oklahoma Legislature presently is a measure that will establish the Oklahoma Bio-fuels Center over the next four years. Oklahoma will invest $40 

million in a consortium among the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the Noble Foundation to engage in research developing the bio-fuels 

sector focusing on cellulosic feedstock. 

At the same time, while the majority of the electricity capacity in Oklahoma is 

natural gas fired at roughly 58 percent, I know the utility sector is presently investing in building a new coal-fired plant in the central part of the state, and they are 

going above and beyond the standard technology. We are planning to build a cutting 

edge plant that will reduce greenhouse gases and other emissions. 

However, regardless of the investments in renewable fuels, renewables continue 

only to provide a small part of the total U.S. electric power. Oklahomans realize we 

need a diverse energy supply making use of clean coal, natural gas, and renewable 

sources with limited constraints on development and economic impacts. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee this morning and appreciate this committee allowing a representative from an energy state like Oklahoma to share their views. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

The Hon. Ted Harvey, Senator, Colorado State Senate. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED HARVEY, SENATOR, COLORADO 

STATE SENATE 

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the 

committee for having me here today. It is an honor to be here. 

My name is Ted Harvey and I currently serve in the Colorado 

State Senate. For the last 6 years, I have served on the Agricultural, Natural Resource and Energy committees in the House and 

now in the State Senate. Additionally, I have a master’s degree in 

public administration, with a concentration in environmental policy 

and law. 

As you are aware, there are many academic specialties in the 

field of environmental sciences. Trying to get the experts to agree 

on anything is almost impossible. The debate over global warming 

change is no different, and the debate has been going on for almost 

100 years. ‘‘Geologists think the world may be frozen again,’’ this 

was the headline in the New York Times on February 24, 1885. On 

January 2, 1939, an article claimed the earth was warming again. 

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published an article entitled ‘‘The 

Cooling World.’’ Indeed, the temperature of the earth’s climate had 

been falling for 30 years, according to Newsweek’s 1975 article. Climatologists everywhere were offering doomsday scenarios if public 

policymakers such as yourself did not act quickly. 

Yet only 13 years later, in 1988, a NASA scientist testified before 

Congress that global warming was in effect and was serious. Thus 

began the current debate on global warming. Since 1988, studies 

on the cause of the current increase in the temperature of the 

earth’s climate have resulted in contradictory conclusions regarding 

man’s involvement. Scientists and politicians alike are using these 

findings to pursue their own political and geo-economic agendas. 

In his documentary, ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth,’’ Vice President Al 

Gore argues that unless we do something about CO2 emissions, 

much of Greenland’s ice will melt into the ocean, rising sea levels 

over 20 feet by the year 2100. This is a serious claim. The U.N.’s 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, recently 
109 

released the summary for policymakers, that you all received, that 

predicts a rise in sea level between 8 and 17 inches. There is a big 

difference between 20 feet and 17 inches. 

Research following the IPCC’s climate change 2100, the scientific 

basis, reveals that much of their conclusions have been called into 

question or totally disproved, specifically, the famous hockey stick 

graph that was the basis for much of the Gore movie and the Kyoto 

Protocol. In fact, just this month, Science magazine published an 

article stating that the recent loss of Greenland’s glaciers has reversed. 

Over the last 40 years, this body has encouraged the development of new technology that is clean, renewable and economically 

viable. For example, through technology, competition and scientifically sound regulation, Colorado has made tremendous strides in 

cleaning its environment. Denver is no longer known for its brown 

cloud. In fact, one might argue that our air is as clean as it was 

in 1893, when America the Beautiful was written from the top of 

our very own Pike’s Peak. 

Colorado very proudly leads the world in the development of 

clean technology from power generation. The National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, NREL, is located in Colorado and is pioneering 

this new frontier. 

On the eastern plains, our spacious skies have winds strong 

enough to sustain large wind farms. Colorado was on the cutting 

edge of this new development. Our eastern plains are blanketed 

with miles of amber waves of corn, and we are using this resource 

to develop ethanol in impressive quantities. Colorado’s purple 

mountain majesties are covered by pine forests that are being decimated by pine beetles. In true western ingenuity, we see this problem as an opportunity to reinvigorate a once-dying lumber industry, using these dead stands as biomass and biofuel, another renewable energy source. 

Finally, Colorado is known for its blue skies and over 300 annual 

days of sunshine. NREL is capitalizing on our environment to develop the next generation of solar technologies. The United States 

of America is the greatest Nation on the face of the earth. Through 

Government policies that encourage ingenuity and responsibility, 

our free market system has brought forth environmental advancements that man could have only dreamt of 40 years ago. 

To impede innovation and dictate policy through draconian regulation would only harm our economy and endanger our Nation’s 

competitiveness and security. I pray the Lord will give you wisdom 

as you deliberate the interests of our Country, and may God shed 

His grace on thee. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harvey follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED HARVEY, SENATOR, COLORADO STATE SENATE

Thank you Madam Chair and thank you committee for having me here today. 

My name is Ted Harvey, and I currently serve in the Colorado State Senate. For 

the last 6 years I’ve served on the Agriculture, Natural Resource and Energy Committee. Additionally, I have a master’s degree in public administration with a concentration in environmental law and policy. 

As you are aware there are many academic specialties in the field of environmental sciences. Trying to get the experts to agree on anything is almost impossible. 
110 

The debate over global climate change is no different. The debate has been going 

on for almost 100 years. 

‘‘Geologists think the world may be frozen again.’’ This was the headline in the 

New York Times on February 24, 1885. 

A January 2, 1939 article claimed the earth was growing warmer. 

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published an article entitled ‘‘The Cooling World.’’ 

Indeed the temperature of the earth’s climate had been falling for 30 years prior 

to Newsweek’s 1975 article. Climatologists everywhere were offering doomsday scenarios if public policy makers did not act quickly. 

Yet, only 13 years later in 1988, a NASA scientist testified before Congress that 

global warming was in effect and was serious . . . and thus began our current debate on global warming. 

Since 1988 studies on the cause of the current increase in temperature of the 

earth’s climate have resulted in contradictory conclusions regarding man’s involvement. Scientists and politicians alike are using these findings to pursue their own 

political or geo-economic agendas. 

In his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Vice President Al Gore argues that 

unless we do something about CO2 emissions much of Greenland’s ice will melt into 

the ocean, raising sea levels over 20 feet by the year 2100. This is a serious claim. 

Where did he get his data? 

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released 

their Summary for Policy Makers that predicts a rise in sea level between 8 and 

17 inches by 2100. There is a big difference between 17 inches and 20 ft. 

Research following the IPCC’s Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis reveals 

that many of their conclusions have been called into question or totally disproved— 

specifically, the famous ‘‘hockey stick’’ graph that was the basis for much of the 

Gore movie and the Kyoto Protocols. 

In fact, just this month Science Magazine published an article stating the recent 

loss of Greenland’s glaciers has reversed! 

Over the last 40 years Congress has encouraged the development of new technology that is clean, renewable and economically viable. For example, through technology, competition and scientifically sound regulation, Colorado has made tremendous strides in cleaning its environment. Denver is no longer known for its brown 

cloud. In fact, one might argue that our air is as clean as it was in 1893 when 

‘‘America the Beautiful’’ was written from atop our very own Pikes Peak. 

Colorado proudly leads the world in the development of clean technology for power 

generation. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), located in Colorado, is pioneering this new frontier. 

On the eastern plains, our spacious skies have winds strong enough to sustain 

large wind farms. Colorado is on the cutting edge of this development. 

Our eastern plains are blanketed with miles of amber waves of. . . corn, and we 

are using this resource to develop ethanol in impressive quantities. 

Colorado’s purple mountain majesties are covered by pine forests that are being 

decimated by pine beetles. In true western ingenuity we see this problem as an opportunity to re-invigorate a once dying lumber industry using these dead stands as 

biomass for biofuel—another renewable energy source. 

Finally, Colorado is known for its blue skies and over 300 annual days of sunshine. NREL is capitalizing on our environment to develop the next generation of 

solar technologies. 

The United States of America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. 

Through government policy that encourages ingenuity and responsibility, our free 

market system has brought forth environmental advancements that man could have 

only dreamt of 40 years ago. 

To impede innovation and dictate policy through draconian regulation would only 

harm our economy and endanger our Nation’s competitiveness and security. 

I pray that Lord will give you wisdom as you deliberate the interests of our country and may God shed his grace, on thee. . . . Thank you for your time. 

Senator BOXER. I pray we do something about global warming. 

God is testing us, that is for sure. 

The Mayor of Seattle. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREG NICKELS, MAYOR, CITY OF 

SEATTLE, WA 

Mayor NICKELS. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the 

committee. As the others have observed, it is an honor to be here 
111 

and a pleasure to be able to talk about this important issue. I want 

to thank Senator Cantwell for her kind introduction. 

It is also a pleasure to be in front of the committee with three 

former mayors sitting on the committee, because I know we are in 

good hands. 

I am here today representing the 600,000 people of Seattle, and 

as co-chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection 

Council. I have submitted longer comments for the record, but I 

will keep my remarks before the committee brief this morning. Five 

years ago, when I became Mayor of Seattle, I was like a lot of people in this Country. I knew about global warming, I thought it was 

a serious problem, but I thought it was a long way away and far 

into the future. 

The ‘‘aha’’ moment for me came during the winter of 2004 and 

2005, which in the Cascade Mountains was a winter without snow. 

That is a bad thing. There was no ski season, and of course, that 

is a tragedy in and of itself. But for Seattle, we rely on that snow 

for our water and for our hydroelectric power. We have century-old 

systems, sustainable systems that captures that snow melt and 

turns it into drinking water and into very clean power. 

As I got weekly reports from my directors of water and power, 

it became clear that global warming was not a distant threat and 

it was not far in the future: it was happening today and it was happening in our community. In fact, according to the University of 

Washington’s climate impact group, the average snow pack in the 

Cascade mountains has declined by about 30 percent since the end 

of World War II and even more in some of the lower elevation 

areas that we rely on for our water and our power. 

That winter, of course, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 141 

countries but not in the United States. I was frustrated by the lack 

of action by our Country at the Federal level, so I pledged that Seattle would take local action to meet or exceed the reductions set 

by the Kyoto Protocol, specifically 7 percent reduction by the year 

2012. But I also realized that if Seattle did this alone, as Senator 

Craig pointed out, it would be purely a symbolic gesture, it would 

mean very little. 

So I challenged other mayors around the Country to join with me 

in this effort, and as of today 409 mayors have signed onto the U.S. 

Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and each and every one of 

them has pledged to take local action to reduce global warming pollution. Just to put that into perspective, if we were a country we 

would be slightly larger than the population of Italy, we would be 

equal to the population of the United Kingdom and we are catching 

up on France. These are mayors who are Democrats, Republicans 

and Independents. They are leaders of some of our largest cities, 

New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and Philadelphia and 

some of our smaller cities as well. They range from Boozman, MT 

to Akron, OH, from Belleview, NE to Burlington, VT, and Cleveland, OH, to Des Moines, IA. 

We are very much not a symbolic effort. You have not 50 laboratories, you have 409 laboratories that are working to find creative 

ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

I pulled together community leaders in Seattle to figure out what 

we could do to reduce our emissions by 680,000 tons, which would 
112 

1See Attachment A: U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The resolution can also be 

found at: http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/resolutions/73rd—conference/env—04.asp 

be equivalent to that 7 percent. We are building our first light rail 

system. The cruise ships that visit our port plug into shore power, 

instead of running their diesel engines when they are in our city. 

We have among the most energy efficient green buildings of any 

city in the United States, and we are encouraging more and more 

people to give up long commutes and live instead in the heart of 

our city. 

Our publicly owned electric utility, Seattle City Light, is the first 

major power supplier in the Country to be greenhouse gas neutral. 

We literally are powering our city without toasting the planet. But 

we have a much bigger challenge ahead of us, Madam Chair, and 

I want to just suggest three things—— 

Senator BOXER. If you do it quickly. 

Mayor NICKELS [continuing]. That I would like this committee to 

face. One, like California, we believe a strong cap on emissions is 

necessary, 80 percent by the year 2050, we see as supported by 

science. Second, we believe that a cap and trade system will encourage markets to behave in a way that will reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. Those are top down approaches that will get us part 

of the way. 

But in order to get all of the way, you are going to need to engage the people of America in this effort at the grass roots. Recognize the role of cities. For the first time in human history, we represent more than half of the people who live on this planet and we 

consume more than 75 percent of the energy that is consumed on 

this planet. Use us as laboratories. Create, based on the very successful Community Development Block Grant model, an energy and 

environment block grant, so that we can take these ideas and bring 

them up to scale, that can make a difference not only for our Nation, but for our globe. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Nickels follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GREG NICKELS, MAYOR, SEATTLE, WA 

INTRODUCTION

Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the committee, thank 

you very much for the invitation to testify before you today. More importantly, 

thank you for your leadership on an issue of paramount importance to our nation: 

global climate disruption. 

We are at a historic juncture in this country. The scientific consensus on global 

warming is increasingly clear and unequivocal—it is happening and human activities are causing it. 

My message to you today is twofold: 

First, let’s act now. Let’s not wait until the 111th or 112th Congress. Let’s seize 

the moment. Put in place a clear, strong and effective federal policy that is necessary to stabilize the climate: 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 

2050, based on 1990 levels. 

Second, America’s mayors are ready, willing and able to work with you to develop 

and implement this policy. We are ready to build public support in our communities—including our business communities—to meet this challenge. We are ready 

to implement local solutions. In fact, many of us are already doing just that. 

U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement 409 mayors across the country have 

signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement1 that I initiated with 

eight other mayors just over 2 year ago. These mayors represent over 60 million 

people—nearly a fifth of the U.S. population—in all 50 states, plus the District of 
113 

2See Attachment B: Map of the Participating Cities. The map is updated at: http:// 

www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/default.htm#who 3These examples and others can be found in Energy and Environment: The United States 

Conference of Mayors Best Practices Guide, January 2007. To learn more about the Burlington, 

Continued 

Columbia. They are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. They are leaders of 

some of our biggest cities and smallest towns—from Richmond, Virginia and Bozeman, Montana to Akron, Ohio and Cookeville, Tennessee. 

Like most economic and environmental issues, climate disruption does not follow 

geographic or political boundaries. Its impacts affect us all; however the opportunities that global warming solutions present are open to all. That’s why the U.S. Mayors Climate Agreement has resonated across the country, regardless of where cities 

are on the map, and where mayors sit on the political spectrum. That’s why Republican mayors from cities such as New York; San Diego; Bellevue, NE; and Arlington, 

TX have joined Democratic mayors such as myself. 

In signing the Agreement, these 409 mayors2 are pledging to take local action to 

significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their own communities. Cities 

across our nation are pledging support for bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes (1) clear timetables and emissions limits and (2) a flexible, 

market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries. 

We are not just signing a piece of paper. We are making tough choices. We are 

investing our taxpayers’ money. We are transforming our cities into laboratories for 

climate protection. In short, we are making a difference, and laying the groundwork 

for strong federal policies and programs. 

For example, we are making the sometimes difficult but necessary changes to 

land-use policies and regulations. We are reining in sprawl and increasing density 

in our urban cities, changes that reduce energy and fuel use by cutting greenhouse 

gases an average of close to 30 percent. 

We are investing heavily in public transit, building more bike paths and making 

it safer for pedestrians to walk to work, school and parks. By doing this, fewer people will need their cars to get around. 

We are walking the talk. City governments are using their purchasing power to 

buy electric hybrid vehicles and biodiesel for our fleets, energy-efficient computers 

for our offices, and super-efficient LED (light-emitting diode) bulbs for our traffic 

signals. We’re designing ‘‘green,’’ energy-efficient buildings and re-using methane 

gas at our landfills and wastewater treatment plants. 

We are doing many of these things in Seattle. But we are most proud that our 

publicly-owned utility—Seattle City Light—is the first electric utility in the nation 

to be greenhouse gas neutral. It has achieved this through conservation, using renewable energy resources and investing in offset projects that lower our city’s carbon footprint, encourage new business opportunities and improve local air quality. 

For example, City Light is working with the cruise ship industry to connect ships 

to shore power while in port rather than burn diesel. We have launched a biodiesel 

program that pays for the use of this cleaner fuel in local buses, Washington State 

ferries and city trucks. These and other programs are economically efficient and will 

help us lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

Seattle is certainly not alone in such pioneering efforts. 

The city of Irvine, California, the city is supporting the Zero Emission Vehicle 

Network Enabled Transport program (ZEV–NET), which makes zero-emission vehicles available to participating employers and their employees. 

Burlington, Vermont has a Climate Action Plan and joined the 10 Percent Challenge Campaign. The campaign challenges everyone—individuals, businesses, the 

city and others—to reduce their emissions by 10 percent or more. 

In Dayton, city leaders are switching traffic signals to LED technology at hundreds of intersections, reducing carbon emissions significantly. They have also developed a co-generation facility at their wastewater treatment facility. Its engines use 

methane gas produced at anaerobic digester plant. 

Alexandria, Virginia, the historic city just across the Potomac, is modernizing its 

buildings to LEED standards. They have funded this project through bond revenues 

and the annual budget. 

In St. Paul, Minnesota, the city initiated the Saint Paul Environmental-Economic 

Partnership Project in 1993 to implement its Urban CO2 Reduction Plan. This plan 

includes diversifying transportation options, reforesting the urban landscape, increasing energy efficiency, promoting alternative energy and increasing recycling 

and reducing waste. 

The list goes on and on. Our nation’s commitment to climate protection grows 

stronger each day.3
114 

Vermont example, please go to: http://www.burlingtonelectric.com/SpecialTopics/Reportmain.htm 

. 4See Attachment C: Seattle, a Climate of Change: Meeting the Kyoto Challenge-Climate Action Plan Executive Summary, September 2006. The Executive Summary and the full report can 

also be found at: http://www.seattle.gov/climate/. 

Why are a growing number of mayors and communities making global warming 

a local priority? There are three key reasons. 

First, we’re increasingly concerned about local impacts, not only on our urban environments, but on our economies and overall quality-of-life. We are the first responders to emergencies and we will feel the most immediate effects of rising seas, 

more fires, more unpredictable weather patterns. In Washington State we are already beginning to see some of the impacts of global climate disruption in the Cascade Mountains, where changing snow melts and shrinking glaciers threaten our 

major source of water and electricity. 

Second, we’re excited about the economic opportunities presented by this challenge to make our cities more climate-friendly—opportunities for our families and 

businesses to save money through increased efficiencies, and opportunities for our 

companies to create jobs and revenues by inventing and producing cleaner energy 

sources and technologies. In the Seattle area, for example, green building and biodiesel production already are emerging as strong and growing sectors of our economy. 

Third, we feel a strong sense of responsibility. A large percentage of the world’s 

energy—something on the order of 75 percent—is consumed in or by the world’s cities. So we can’t solve global warming without making our cities significantly more 

energy-efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels. Cities are on the critical pathway 

to a global solution. And American cities, in particular—among the wealthiest on 

Earth—have a responsibility to lead the way. 

SEATTLE’S EXPERIENCE

That’s why in February of 2005— a year in which we were nearly ‘‘snowless in 

Seattle’’— I challenged my own community to meet or beat the climate pollutioncutting goal of the Kyoto Protocol, and invited my fellow mayors across the country 

to do the same. In the longer term, I believe much deeper cuts are necessary. But 

I wanted to challenge the government and the community to make significant cuts 

in the short-term, on my watch as mayor: 7 percent reductions from 1990 levels by 

2012. 

By that time, we already had reduced our city government emissions by about 60 

percent from 1990 levels, thanks in large part to the efforts of our publicly owned 

utility—Seattle City Light—to make itself the Nation’s first ‘‘climate-neutral’’ utility. We also had aggressive recycling, green building and green fleet management 

programs underway. 

But despite our success as a city government, we saw that community-wide emissions were rising dramatically, driven in large part by motor vehicle emissions. So 

we turned our attention to shrinking the community’s ‘‘carbon footprint.’’ We established a Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection consisting of about 20 of 

our community’s most-respected leaders and experts. It was co-chaired by Denis 

Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation and founder of Earth Day, and Orin 

Smith, the now-retired CEO of the Starbucks Coffee Company. And it includes the 

president of the board of REI, Inc., Bill Ruckelshaus, the three-time U.S. EPA Administrator, and many other leaders from the business, government, and nonprofit 

sectors. 

The commission spent a year poring over data and reviewing best practices from 

around the world. Their work culminated in the Seattle Climate Action Plan, which 

I released in September of 2006.4 This is a blueprint for significantly reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions in our community. It features a variety of strategies for 

reducing car-dependence in Seattle, increasing fuel efficiency and the use of biofuels, 

and improving energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. 

We’ve created the Seattle Climate Partnership, a voluntary pact among Seattlearea employers to assess and reduce their own carbon footprints, and to come together to help meet our community-wide goals. Thirty employers have joined the 

Partnership already, including Starbucks, REI, the Port of Seattle, the University 

of Washington, GroupHealth Cooperative, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research 

Center and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. 

Seattle does all this because our citizens are demanding it. They expect leadership 

from their elected officials, their business leaders and their public power agencies 

to step up to this tremendous challenge we all face. 
115 

5A copy of 10-Point Plan, for Strong Cities, Strong Families, for a Strong America can be 

found at: http://usmayors.org/uscm/news/press—releases/documents/10-PointPlan.pdf 

In addition to the activities we are undertaking in Seattle, the State of Washington is also moving toward implementing a climate plan. The governor has just 

issued an Executive Order calling for the state to implement a climate action plan 

that includes greenhouse gas reduction targets. Likewise, there are over a dozen 

bills pending before our state legislature calling for actions dealing with climate 

change. And this past Monday, my governor announced that Washington will join 

with Oregon, California, Arizona and New Mexico to form the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, pledging to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

However, while voluntary actions by cities or state mandates are important what 

we really need is federal leadership. Not just because it is the most powerful way 

to confront this problem but also because it will allow us to achieve the most reductions for the least costs to our economy. 

We believe this is the year for federal action. Specifically, we believe Congress 

needs to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction plan that calls for a hard and declining 

cap on emissions and allows for carbon trading among entities. To achieve the most 

reductions at the lowest possible cost we believe that this trading program should 

allocate allowances in ways that encourage hydropower and other renewable resources, rewards past and future conservation and energy efficiency, and recognizes 

credit for early action. 

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND THE 110TH CONGRESS

I am pleased that the U.S. Conference of Mayors has been the leading local government organization on this issue. The U.S. Conference of Mayors led by Mayor 

Douglas Palmer of Trenton, New Jersey, recently released its 10-Point Plan, for 

Strong Cities, Strong Families, for a Strong America at our 75th Winter Meeting.5

The mayors were so pleased, Madame Chair, that you could join them to share your 

vision on the need for action by Congress to further the nation’s progress on climate 

protection. 

In our 10-Point Plan, the nation’s mayors have made action on federal climate legislation our lead issue. As I have noted, the mayors want to play a strong role in 

helping you and members of this committee make the federal policy changes that 

will further progress in our communities, in our states and the nation. 

The mayors are proposing an Energy and Environmental Block Grant initiative, 

modeled after the very successful Community Development Block Grant program. 

We believe such an initiative is particularly critical at this juncture as cities strive 

to expand their climate protection efforts. The nation has a real interest in expanding the many local initiatives that are underway in my city and others all across 

the country. This block grant would accelerate the many innovations emerging in 

our cities, which are the laboratories of future solutions to this vast challenge before 

us. 

Our goal with this block grant initiative would be to use federal grants to (1) improve community energy efficiency; (2) develop and implement community strategies 

to reduce carbon emissions, including but not limited to achieving ‘‘carbon free’’ 

buildings by 2030; (3) develop and implement community and transportation energy 

conservation programs; (4) encourage the development of new technologies and systems to decrease our dependence on foreign oil; and (5) promotion and development 

of alternative/renewable energy sources. 

We need the Federal Government to take on a leadership role now so that we 

move beyond the grassroots innovation that is blossoming in every state in the country. This Congress needs to move quickly to adopt meaningful carbon policies— 

ideally through a broad-based cap and trading program to reduce this country’s 

greenhouse gas emissions. This will harness market forces and allow the powerful 

engine of our economy to find the most innovative and cost-effective solutions to this 

global challenge. 

Mayors from across the United States look forward to working with you on this 

challenge. 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 

RESPONSES BY GREG NICKELS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CARDIN

Question 1a. I noted with interest your reference to an effort at the Port of Seattle 

to have ships ‘‘plug-in’’ while at dockside, enabling vessels to turn off their diesel 

engines and thus reducing air emissions. 

Response. Seattle City Light, Seattle’s municipal electric utility, worked with the 

Port of Seattle, Princess and Holland-America cruise lines, and the Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) to provide shore power connections to four ships that 

visit the Port of Seattle facilities. These ships are in Port on Friday, Saturday and 

Sunday during the cruise season, May through September. Princess has been using 

shore power since 2005 and Holland-America since 2006. City Light engineers 

worked closely with the Port and cruise lines on tight deadlines to make the project 

a reality. A grant from the EPA West Coast Diesel Collaborative helped defray some 

of City Light’s costs. The cruise lines pay for the electricity they use, and City Light 

purchases the greenhouse gas reduction rights (offsets) that result from using electricity rather than diesel. In addition to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the use 

of shore power also eliminated diesel particulate emissions while the ships are in 

port, an important health benefit. 

Question 1b. Would you please provide additional information to the committee 

on this innovative approach, including: Who pays for/maintains the electrical hookups at dockside? 

Response. The cruise lines pay for and maintain the dockside electrical connections. 

Question 1c. Is the program voluntary or mandatory? 

Response. The program is voluntary. 

Question 1d. Is there an estimate of emissions reductions associated with this initiative? 

Response. When electricity is used instead of diesel, there are zero emissions at 

the dock location, an important health benefit since ports are often near major population centers. Studies by the Port of Seattle indicate that ‘‘hoteling’’ of ocean-going 

vessels is a source of criteria pollutants such as NOx, SO2, and particulates and diesel particulate matter. The overall emission reductions will depend on how the electricity is produced, and the emissions of the ship’s diesel engines. If the northwest 

regional electricity market mix is assumed, Seattle City Light has estimated that 

several thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide are avoided each cruise season 

through the use of shore power. 

Question 1e. Are these air emission reductions part of the Clean Air Act Washington State Implementation Plan? 

Response. The cruise ship electrification is not part of the Washington SIP. It was 

implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sulfur dioxide and particulate 

emissions in the vicinity of the cruise ship terminal. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

negotiated it with the port and cruise lines after the cruise lines rejected the use 

of lower sulfur fuels while at the dock. 

RESPONSES BY GREG NICKELS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. It is estimated that even full implementation of Kyoto would impact 

global temperature by only 0.07°C. What impact on global temperature will this program have? And at what cost to the 60 million residents of the 409-member cities? 

(Currently there are 527-member cities.) 

Response. The Kyoto targets embedded in the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement (MCPA) are intended to be a first step to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

by local governments and to spur action at the state and Federal Government levels. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has established the emission reductions necessary to truly normalize climate variability. Seattle endorses a 

long-term target of 60 percent emission reductions from 1990 levels, while remaining committed to the near-term target in the MCPA of 7 percent below 1990 levels 

by 2012. 

There are significant economic costs associated with inaction which could easily 

overwhelm costs associated with reducing greenhouse gases. Globally, the most recent report from the IPCC lists many widespread changes that are already being 

observed; many are considered warning signals of an already changing climate. For 

example, since the 1970’s we have seen harsher and longer droughts in the tropics 

and subtropics and an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the Northern 

Atlantic. Heavy rain storms have increased over most land areas. 

The Pacific Northwest, where we are overwhelmingly reliant on hydropower, is 

particularly at risk. Seattle City Light, our city’s publicly owned electricity provider, 
125 

receives 90 percent of its electricity from hydropower, much of it from dams operating in the Northern Cascades. Snow packs have already been reduced in the Cascades since the end of World War II and University of Washington climate scientists 

expect to see this trend continue and even accelerate in the coming decades. Reductions in snow pack will reduce the viability of hydropower in the Pacific Northwest 

at great potential expense to area utilities and residents. 

Question 2. Were you aware that Claude Allegre—the former Socialist party Leader and geophysicist who is a member of both the French and U.S. academies of 

science who used to be a leading alarmist about global warming—has now reversed 

his position? He now thinks it may be due to natural variability and that this is 

about money. How do you respond to this statement? 

Response. The City of Seattle believes that human-related climate change is real; 

that it poses the single largest environmental threat with consequences for economies and communities throughout the world; that it is underway; and that Congress 

should act soon to pass legislation calling for greenhouse gas reductions. While continuing to press for national leadership to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the City 

of Seattle has chosen to take actions now, believing that local governments, citizens 

and businesses must lead by example. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for that excellent testimony. 

Now we are going to hear from the Mayor of Des Moines, Frank 

Cownie, the Hon. Mayor. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK COWNIE, MAYOR, CITY OF DES 

MOINES, IA 

Mayor COWNIE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Frank Cownie 

and I am the Mayor of Des Moines, IA, which is the capital of the 

great State of Iowa. 

As I thought about what I was going to testify to when I came 

here, one of the reasons we are so concerned about global warming 

and climate protection has to do with quality of life. We think that 

is our No. 1 asset. We have committed, in the city of Des Moines, 

to minimize all the costs and the causes that would jeopardize it 

and try to make strategic investments that we hope will improve 

that. 

It takes guts at every level of government, whether you are sitting in a Federal office or a State office or a local office, because 

the people are going to see the results of what we do or the consequences of what we don’t do, and they are going to be people that 

we don’t even know. They are generations away, mostly, and quite 

frankly, they will never vote for us. But we have to do it for them, 

that is part of our future and our calling. 

I will cite a few of the things and the initiatives that we have 

pursued in the city of Des Moines and were provided in my written 

testimony. We have a Mayor’s Task Force that convenes citizens of 

every walk of life, whether they are low or moderate income, or 

those more well to do, that are coming together and looking at 

things that they can do in their homes, in their businesses, in their 

households. Our task force’s written directives to the city council 

and the city manager, we have written resolutions, we have held 

town hall meetings with many national level environmental advocates, including Interfaith Power and Light president and founder, 

Sally Bingham. 

We have purchased hybrid vehicles for our police department. 

We have replaced other vehicles in other departments that operate 

on biofuels and we are told have a 30 percent increase in fuel efficiency. We are retrofitting municipal buildings to become more energy efficient and improve the lighting and insulation and signifi-
126 

cantly reduce not only greenhouse gas emissions but operating 

costs. 

We have replaced incandescent street lights and stop signals 

with more efficient LEDs that already have saved us over $120,000 

a year. We are encouraging the use and expanding our mass transit system, the Des Moines Area Rapid Transit System. We have 

recently entered into a contract for the development of a 100 million gallon ethanol production facility at our ag-emergent park 

which will be lead certified. Our regional solid waste landfill captures enough methane to provide electric power to 10,000 homes. 

All of our actions have not only benefited our bottom line, but we 

feel have improved the environment. Every level of government has 

its role, and Federal action, we feel, is needed now, because the 

challenge to protect our quality of life for every citizen is one that 

every city and every town across this Country faces. 

We cannot address this problem alone, quite frankly, we need 

your help. 

If I might take just a moment, a personal comment, we serve at 

the base level of government. We really are at the pothole level, 

people are in our faces every day. It seems to me that we cannot 

really impact climate change without people change. What people 

do in their everyday lives is the key. I sense a new awareness and 

a willingness on the part of Des Moines’ citizens to seek change for 

the sake of the environment. If you can empower us at this pothole 

level of government to work directly with our citizens to develop 

grassroots solutions, we can achieve real progress. 

First, it is important for you to enact legislation to create Federal 

tax credits or other incentives that will promote energy efficiency. 

If I—— 

Senator BOXER. Do you want to summarize the other action 

items for us? 

Mayor COWNIE. Yes. I think we could look at other opportunities, 

like tax shifts from things that we want to things that we don’t 

want, set standards, CAFE standards, renewable electric standards, packaging standards, recycling standards, water use standards, pedestrian-oriented development standards. Second, it is essential for you to fund research and development, so that we can 

commercialize some of the things through those programs with 

demonstration projects in our municipalities across this Country. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Cownie follows:] 

STATEMENT OF FRANK COWNIE, MAYOR, CITY OF DES MOINES, IA 

Chairman Boxer, distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and 

thank you for inviting me to testify about the important role of local governments 

in responding to global warming. My name is Frank Cownie, and I am the Mayor 

of the City of Des Moines, Iowa. My testimony today will focus on the leadership 

role that my city has played in practicing and promoting energy conservation. 

As both the capital and largest city, Des Moines is the cultural, economic, and 

geographic center of the State of Iowa. About 200,000 people live in Des Moines, 

and the City is recognized as a center for government, education, business, culture, 

and the arts. Des Moines is also quickly becoming a national leader in using energy 

conservation and environmental protection strategies. 

I signed the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement along with over 400 other 

Mayors because our residents recognize that there is a finite amount of energy and 

resources available. Scarcity of resources increases costs. We view this as a crucial 

issue in protecting our economic vitality and our high quality of life. Our quality 
127 

of life is our single greatest asset in Iowa, and we are committed to protecting it 

and to minimizing costs that would jeopardize it. 

That is why we have taken action at the local level. Last year I established the 

Mayor’s Task Force on Energy Conservation and Environmental Enhancement to 

examine energy usage and environmental protection in Des Moines. We, as the local 

government, united the broad-based support of residents, businesses, faith-based 

and non-profit organizations. In addition to the direction set by the Mayor’s Task 

Force, my colleagues and I on the City Council have made sustainability part of our 

overall goals for the City. Our objective is to become a leader in promoting environmental sustainability and transportation alternatives. To that end, we are pursuing 

a number of green initiatives. 

One of our first major initiatives was introducing hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles into our city fleet. Our Police Department now uses hybrid vehicles for neighborhood patrol and in the detective bureau. As a routine practice, our centralized 

fleet management staff strives to obtain greater fuel efficiencies every time they 

purchase replacement vehicles. This is accomplished by writing bid specifications for 

smaller vehicles or vehicles that utilize alternative fuels, like biodiesel and ethanol. 

Another important piece of our goal for sustainability in Des Moines is about providing transportation options to give our residents alternatives to driving their cars. 

The Greater Des Moines region is building a one-of-a-kind trail system, with over 

300 miles of recreational trails to connect Central Iowa. The City of Des Moines 

alone maintains 29 miles of trails, and we are adding more bike lanes to make it 

easier for our residents and visitors to bike and walk rather than drive their cars. 

The Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) was created last year 

as a regional approach to public transit. DART is planning to expand its routes and 

hours of operation. This year, for the first time, buses will run on Sundays, which 

will make it more convenient for our residents to get around without their cars. The 

City is also leading by partnering with the State and the business community to 

provide the initial seed money for a downtown shuttle. This service will encourage 

downtown workers to choose transit, again—instead of their cars, to get around the 

central city during the day. This will ultimately reduce energy consumption and 

emissions. 

We’re also working to improve the energy efficiency of our municipal buildings 

and infrastructure. We have improved lighting and installed timers in our City 

parking facilities and in some municipal buildings. We have replaced incandescent 

traffic signals with more energy-efficient LED bulbs to reduce our electricity consumption. This alone is saving the City $120,000 on energy costs. We have done numerous facility roof insulation upgrades to reduce heating costs and emissions. 

We have completed comprehensive upgrades in our fire stations and parks facilities. These include energy efficient windows and improved roof insulation. In one 

building, the roof insulation alone will reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas 

emissions by approximately 40 percent. As another unique improvement, we are installing a solar hot water heating system to augment an existing gas-fired water 

heater. A solar hot water heating system can supply, on average in the Midwest, 

65 percent of the demand for hot water. This will result in significant energy savings and reduced carbon dioxide emissions. The City is also working on LEED 

(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for municipal buildings, with one currently under construction. All of these improvements are part of 

previously planned and budgeted upgrades. In Des Moines, we view routine maintenance as an ongoing opportunity to pursue energy efficiency. 

Our Park and Recreation Department staff and volunteers have been strong leaders in the sustainability movement, particularly as it relates to preserving our open 

land and green spaces. The Park and Recreation Department is pursuing water 

quality projects, natural management plans for parks, natural forest regeneration, 

and planting native species. By planting more trees and native prairie grasses, we 

reduce the need for irrigation, conserve water, and use less chemical fertilizers. In 

short, conservation has become our way of doing business in Des Moines parks. A 

‘‘Green Design Checklist’’ helps to ensure conservation efforts are infused into the 

design of all parks projects. 

For its efforts, the City of Des Moines Park and Recreation Department won a 

2006 Urban Steward Award from the Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District. The City of Des Moines was recognized for its recycling program as well. 

MidAmerica Recycling awarded Des Moines with a Certificate of Recognition for Recycling Excellence for recycling nearly 6,800 tons in 2006. 

The City of Des Moines is also engaged in promoting the research and development of alternative fuel sources. We are in the process of selling land in our 

Agrimergent Technology Park to a company for a 100 million gallon ethanol production facility. As part of the contract, the business is required to produce a LEED- 
128 

certified project and to pursue innovative technologies to reduce its natural gas consumption through alternative fuels that will be more environmentally beneficial and 

more cost-effective, such as biogas. 

Finally, the Metro Waste Authority in Des Moines is recovering enough methane 

at our solid waste landfill to provide electricity for 10,000 homes. This electricity 

is sold and provides a revenue stream for the Authority. Like our other initiatives, 

this action not only benefits the environment, but it helps our economic bottom line. 

In closing, I want to encourage the committee that federal action on this issue 

is needed now, because the challenge to protect our quality of life is one that every 

city and town in the country faces. We cannot address the issue on our own. We 

need your help. 

First, it is important for you to enact legislation to create incentives to promote 

energy efficiency and reduce resource consumption. These incentives might include 

federal tax credits, CAFE standards, recycling standards, water use standards or 

packaging standards that take into account the life cycle costs of product manufacturing, use and disposal. 

Second, it is essential for you to fund (a) research and development activities that 

can be commercialized, (b) greenhouse gas emissions inventories, and (c) demonstration projects in which municipalities like Des Moines can participate to engage our 

residents to DO JUST ONE THING. 

Many of our local initiatives have been aimed internally at improving energy efficiency in our municipal buildings and fleet. The next step is to help our residents 

to recognize the environmental and economic benefits of practicing energy conservation. It can be as simple as using compact fluorescent light bulbs, dialing the thermostat down in winter and up summer, buying vehicles that use bio-fuels or hybrid 

technology, taking the bus to work, planning trips for efficiency, carpooling, walking, 

biking, and planting trees—all that result in saving money and in protecting resources for future generations. These are steps that every citizen can take. 

Similarly, we need to convene our business partners and key greenhouse gas 

emitters and begin to empower them to take actions that will make a difference. 

Imagine all of the resources that could be conserved and costs averted. Imagine all 

of the new business opportunities that could result from increased market demand. 

We have a choice. Either we can stay the course, working on our own with marginal success, or we can move forward in partnership with the Federal Government 

to create a significant, positive impact upon on our environment and economy. We 

choose to go forward. It is now time for federal action to invest in our future, our 

children’s future, our grandchildren’s future and with a vision for the next seven 

generations. We are committed to improving the quality of life in our communities 

and appreciate your leadership to assist us in accomplishing this far-reaching goal. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

And last but not least, we welcome the Mayor of the city of 

Dover, Ohio, the Hon. Richard Homrighausen. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD P. HOMRIGHAUSEN, MAYOR, 

CITY OF DOVER, OH 

Mayor HOMRIGHAUSEN. Good afternoon, Chairman Boxer, Senator Voinovich and committee members. My name is Richard 

Homrighausen and I am the Mayor of Dover, OH. 

Dover is a small community in southeastern Ohio with a population of approximately 13,000 members in the heart of the industrial midwest. There are more than 900 commercial and industrial 

business interests located in the city. As you would expect, our goal 

is to provide reliable, affordable services to these businesses and 

residents, including electric power. Our 97- year history as a municipal electric community certainly supports these efforts. 

Dover’s effort toward achieving our goal of affordable, reliable energy is accomplished by a diversified resource portfolio. With our 

onsite capacity, the city is able to generate 30 percent of its electric 

needs through a mix of coal-fired, coal with natural gas and diesel 

generation. In addition, the city owns 9 megawatts of capacity from 

AMP-Ohio’s coal-fired Richard Gorsick station in Marietta, 1 mega-
129 

watt of hydropower generated by New York Power Authority, 3 

megawatts from a landfill gas joint venture and 3 megawatts generated by AEP. Any additional generation is purchased through our 

wholesale supplier, AMP-Ohio, a joint action organization with 119 

municipal member communities in five States on an as-needed 

basis. 

The reliability and security value of our onsite capacity was 

punctuated by the events of the August 2003 blackout in our part 

of the Country. While surrounding communities were without 

power for hours and in some instances days, the city of Dover 

never lost power. I am proud to say that Ohio is working to leave 

behind its outdated image as being the heart of the rust belt. 

Ohio’s public power communities are leading the way in terms of 

environmentally responsible electric generation in our region, collectively, wind, run-of-the-river hydropower, and landfill gas are all 

part of the generation portfolio to available to AMP-Ohio member 

cities. 

Energy conservation is also a priority and something we have 

been working to implement and raise awareness of in the city of 

Dover. All of us share a concern about the environment and the recent attention being given to climate change, and the impact of 

greenhouse gas emissions is an important discussion. But as is 

usually the case, how best to address these issues is at the heart 

of the debate. 

My main concern is that the cost will fall disproportionately on 

the poor and the elderly, those least able to afford such measure, 

and that impact will hit especially close to home. Following the 

death of my wife Linda’s father at age 45, my mother-in-law was 

able to raise her other two sisters and send them to school on her 

social security income alone. Today, her only source of income is 

her $720 social security check. She lives in a 928 square foot apartment that we were fortunate enough to be able to build for her 

next to our house. Twenty-four percent of her social security goes 

toward her utilities, $92 in gas and $80 for electric, water and 

sewer. Thankfully, she lives in a public power community that provides affordable and reliable electric generation by coal, or she 

would not be able to live alone. Granted, it is also a big help that 

we don’t charge her any rent. 

[Laughter.] 

Mayor HOMRIGHAUSEN. My point is that it only leaves her $548 

for food, medicine, insurance, gasoline and automobile expenses, 

cable and phone. Any increase beyond what she has to pay now 

would be devastating. Fortunately, she is not alone, but others are 

not as lucky. 

My point is to stress the importance of a message that there is 

no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing these issues. States are 

unique and have engaged on this issue in ways that make sense 

and work for them. A Federal program that sets limits on carbon 

dioxide and other greenhouse gases would disproportionately penalize some regions, including my own. 

Nationally, coal represents roughly one half of our available 

power supply, and that figure is higher in my region, with utilities 

emitting approximately 40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. 

Compare this to California, where coal has limited use in the gen-
130 

eration of resource mix, and utilities are responsible for about 20 

percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, California’s 

economy does not reflect the same industrial base that exists in our 

region of the Country, an industrial base that supplies products 

throughout the Nation and is highly sensitive to electric prices in 

a global market. In-State generation of coal has not been an option 

for California utilities for decades, while the midwest region is 

highly dependent on coal-fired generation. 

Looking specifically—— 

Senator BOXER. If you would like to wrap up, you have gone over 

time. If you want to leave us with one final fabulous idea. 

Mayor HOMRIGHAUSEN. As the committee continues to investigate climate change and consider possible new regulatory regimes, I urge you to remember cities like Dover, OH. Please recognize that we have an industrial base that helps supply the Nation, 

that we are located in a region with a still-struggling economy and 

that our part of the Country is historically dependent on coal-fired 

generation and doesn’t have the ability to rely on renewable resources to the same extent as other regions. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Homrighausen follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. HOMRIGHAUSEN, MAYOR, CITY OF DOVER, OH 

Good morning Chairman Boxer, and members of the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works, my name is Richard P. Homrighausen, and I am the Mayor of 

the City of Dover, Ohio. As a Mayor from a small Southeastern Ohio town, I am 

honored to be invited for the third time, to testify before this committee and offer 

a state and local government perspective on climate change. I will focus my remarks 

on my concerns about how the regulations being discussed would impact local governments—especially those like my community, which owns and operates a small 

coal-fired generation facility. 

Dover, Ohio, with a population of approximately 13,000, is in the heart of the industrial Midwest, and I believe our experiences are shared by a great number of 

small to mid-sized municipalities across the region. There are more than 900 commercial and industrial business interests located in the City of Dover. As you would 

expect, our goal is to provide reliable, affordable services to these businesses and 

residents—including electric power. Our 97-year history as a municipal electric community certainly supports these efforts. 

Dover’s effort toward achieving our goal of affordable, reliable energy is accomplished by incorporating a variety of different processes. The city-owned, 14-megawatt coal-fired powerplant (which is also co-fired with natural gas) is our main 

source of generation. An additional 18-megawatts of ‘‘stand-by’’ electricity can be 

generated by our natural gas turbine. We have seven diesel generators with a total 

capacity of 13.4 megawatts. Four of these diesel units are solely owned by the city 

and three are jointly owned by the city and AMP-Ohio. In addition to our on-site 

generation capacity, the city owns nine megawatts of capacity from AMP-Ohio’s 

coal-fired Richard H. Gorsuch Generating Plant in Marietta, Ohio, one megawatt of 

hydro power generated by the New York Power Authority, three megawatts from 

a landfill gas joint venture, and three megawatts generated by AEP. Finally, any 

additional needs we have are purchased through our wholesale supplier, AMP-Ohio, 

on an as-needed basis. 

With our on-site capacity we are able to generate approximately 30 percent of our 

energy demand locally. The reliability and security value of this local resource was 

punctuated by the events of the August 2003 blackout in our part of the country. 

While surrounding communities were without power for hours, and in some instances days, the city of Dover never lost power. As noted, our partner in our effort 

to supply affordable reliable power to our community is American Municipal PowerOhio, a joint action organization with 119 member-municipal electric systems in five 

states. 

I’m proud to say that Ohio is working to leave behind its outdated image as being 

the heart of the ‘‘rust belt’’. Ohio’s public power communities are leading the way 

in terms of environmentally responsible electric generation in our region. Collectively, wind, run-of-the-river hydropower and landfill gas are all part of the genera-
131 

tion portfolio available to AMP-Ohio member utilities. Energy conservation is also 

a priority—and something we’ve been working to raise awareness of in the City of 

Dover. 

All of us share a concern about the environment, and the recent attention being 

given to climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions is an important 

discussion. But, as is usually the case, how best to address these issues is the heart 

of the debate. I’ve read about various statistics relating to the impact of the different climate change proposals on the economy, on energy production and on energy prices. Since I am not a scientist or economist, I cannot debate the validity of 

such studies and whether their results are high, low or right on. However, I am concerned that the cost impact will fall disproportionately on the poor and elderly— 

those least able to afford such measures. And, that the impacts will hit especially 

close to home. 

Following the death of my wife Linda’s father, at age 45, my mother-in-law raised 

Linda’s two sisters on social security alone, and she was able to put them through 

college. Today, her only source of income is her $720 Social Security check. She lives 

in a 928-square-foot apartment we were able to build for her next to our house. 

Twenty four percent of her Social Security goes for her utilities—$92 in gas and $80 

for electric, water and sewer. Thankfully, she lives in a public power community 

that provides affordable and reliable electricity generated by coal or she would not 

be able to live alone. Granted, it is also a big help that we don’t charge her rent, 

but my point is that almost a fourth of her income goes for utilities, which only 

leaves her $548 for food, medicine, insurance, gasoline and automobile expenses, 

cable and phone. Any increase beyond what she has to pay now would be devastating. Fortunately, she is not alone—others are not as lucky. 

My point is to stress the importance of the message that there is no ‘‘one size fits 

all’’ approach to addressing these issues. States are unique and have engaged on 

this issue in ways that makes sense and works for them. Some states have clean 

coal research and development programs, others have tax credits for renewable energy, and still others have renewable portfolio standards. A federal program that 

sets limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could disproportionately 

penalize some regions. For example, for regions that are highly reliant on coal for 

delivery of electricity, or on natural gas for manufacturing, a federal mandatory program could be economically devastating—natural gas used for manufacturing would 

be diverted to electricity production and prices would become higher and much more 

volatile. This is something we have already experienced in recent years, although 

to a much smaller degree. 

One of the issues I was asked to consider in my testimony today was the California plan. There are obvious and important differences between California and 

other regions of the country. I believe that we need to strive to find answers that 

work to achieve desired goals—yet balance the needs of the entire nation, and in 

my case, Ohio in particular. 

Nationally, coal represents roughly one-half of our available power supply, and 

that figure is higher in my region with utilities emitting approximately 40 percent 

of all greenhouse gas emissions. Compare this to California where coal has limited 

use in the generation resource mix, and utilities are responsible for about 20 percent 

of the greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, California’s economy does not reflect 

the same industrial base that exists in our region of the country—an industrial base 

that supplies products throughout the nation and is highly sensitive to electricity 

prices in a global market. In-state generation of coal has not been an option for California utilities for decades, but the Midwest region, and indeed the nation as a 

whole cannot shut coal out as a resource option—not if we also want to maintain 

our national goals of energy independence, reliability and affordability. 

One component, as I understand, of the California Plan is a utility-specific ban 

on long-term power supply agreements with coal-fired plants that emit more carbon 

than a combined cycle natural gas plant. Presumably, this is a stocking horse for 

integrated gasification combined cycle technology, which has become the belle of the 

ball in terms of coal generation in recent years, and many people feel represents 

the future of coal generation. They may be right, and I certainly support advancements that allow us to burn coal more cleanly. But, with respect to IGCC, the reality is that there is not enough operational data on the performance of IGCC in 

real world applications to crown it the only option. 

There are, however, promising back-end control technologies for traditional coal 

facilities, such as ammonia and amine scrubbing, with the potential to capture carbon as well. As the debate moves forward in Congress, I believe it is important to 

focus on the desired end result and take a technology-agnostic approach to allow for 

the development and deployment of as many innovative options as possible. We 

need to ensure that workable options to reduce carbon emissions from coal plants 
132 

are both viable and credible and take into account not only costs, but also operational considerations. 

Looking specifically at my community of Dover, Ohio, we are highly dependent on 

coal-fired generation, both through our local facility and our purchases from the 

wholesale market. However, unlike larger private utility companies, we do not own 

or have access to a fleet of powerplants that we can selectively control or shut down. 

Any new climate program must recognize these differences and provide meaningful 

options for cities like Dover. 

Of course, the logical question is ‘‘What is Dover doing?’’ As I mentioned, Dover 

generates a portion of our electric needs by operating a 14-megawatt coal-fired boiler, co-fired with natural gas burners. Dover was the first municipal electric utility 

to install co-firing in a commitment to reducing emissions at start-up. Dover is also 

investigating wind generation by planning to install wind monitors at three of our 

water towers and at a fourth site the city owns. Although Dover is located in the 

Tuscarawas Valley, which experiences intermittent wind flow, we won’t know if 

wind generation is feasible until all pertinent data is collected. By late August of 

this year, Dover’s new bag house will be in operation, which will further reduce the 

emissions from our coal-fired unit. As we speak, our antiquated Boilers #1, #2 and 

#3 are in the process of being demolished to provide the needed space in our generating facility to install new, state-of-the-art clean coal generation should it become 

affordable. In the mean time, through our wholesale power supplier, Dover is a participant in the development of new coal-fired generation utilizing proven generation 

technology with innovative back end control technology, and we are participating in 

a pilot studying potential carbon capture methods. Through our wholesale supplier, 

we are also part of the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership. 

Public power communities in my region have taken important steps to diversify 

our existing generation supply and utilize ‘‘clean’’ resources, including wind, landfill 

gas and run-of-the-river hydro power—and have been recognized statewide and nationally for those efforts. These investments have been at a scale and scope that 

work for our region—and we are looking at additional generation investments that 

are carbon free. 

The City of Dover has been designated a ‘‘Tree City USA’’ for 26 consecutive 

years. During that time we have planted 3,540 curb strip trees. Additionally, for the 

past 23 years the city has distributed an average of 235 Dogwood trees to all firstgrade students in the Dover grade schools, for a total of 5,405 additional trees. The 

city has three parks with several thousand trees, or an additional +/- 6,000 trees. 

Since the mid 1980’s the city has developed 13 residential allotments ranging in size 

from 12 lots to 150 lots, with each lot required to have a least one tree planted. 

(The majority of these trees are included in the curb strip tree numbers). This does 

not take into account all of the other trees in the city that are on private property 

and in addition to our curb strip trees. All combined, a minimum of 15,000 trees 

have been planted within the city over the last 26 years. 

Energy efficiency is clearly a critical component in the climate change equation, 

since reduced consumption of electricity in most cases reduces emissions and in all 

cases postpones the need for new generation. We are utilizing tools that provide 

practical advice in energy conservation available from our national association, the 

American Public Power Association, for use with our consumers. The city has an energy audit program, working with our largest customers to help them identify the 

benefits of increased use of energy efficient lighting and other measures to reduce 

energy demand. We have made conservation a theme in communications with our 

residential customers through festivals and other events, emphasizing the critical 

importance of reducing demand. We routinely distribute energy information and energy conservation tips in our monthly utility bills. The city has also accomplished 

system upgrades, improving voltages and increasing overall efficiency of our electric 

system. The city has changed our street lighting program by replacing high voltage, 

high energy street lights with energy efficient street lights. Dover has 2892 total 

street lights. To date we have replaced 2250 or 78 percent of our street lights. The 

monthly savings in kWhrs realized is 18,667. It takes 1.35 pounds of coal to generate 1 kWhr of electricity. Multiplying 18,667 kWhrs by 1.35 equals 25,200.45 

pounds of coal or 12.6 tons of coal per month which equals 151.2 tons of coal the 

City of Dover does not have to burn just by changing our street lights. Once we complete our change-out program this year, the City of Dover will save an additional 

43 tons of coal on an annual basis. In addition, we have held mercury thermometer 

recycling events, which not only keep these devices containing mercury out of our 

solid waste streams, but also serve to remind residents to ‘‘think globally and act 

locally.’’ These are outward and visible examples of a commitment to a clean environment and to future generations. 
133 

As the committee continues to investigate climate change and consider possible 

new regulatory regimes, I urge you to remember cities like Dover, Ohio. Please recognize that we have an industrial base that helps supply the nation, that we are 

located in a region with a still-struggling economy, and that our part of the country 

is historically dependent on coal-fired generation and doesn’t have the ability to rely 

on renewable resources to the same extent as some other regions. 

Please also recognize that we understand the need to be responsible environmental stewards and are looking for ways to balance the desire to do so with our 

need to maintain a viable economy. A plan that starts everyone at ‘‘square one’’ and 

doesn’t recognize the investments already made is neither viable nor credible. In 

short, don’t penalize us for our past good behavior, nor unreasonably restrict our 

ability to meet the needs of our community. We also encourage you not to pre-empt 

state efforts to tailor programs that work to balance the unique needs of the varying 

regions of our great country. 

I would hope that any regulatory structure enacted would be economy-wide and 

apply to all industry sectors, would take into account the financial impacts on consumers and protect the ability of the United States to compete in a global marketplace, and would recognize the need to maintain reliability and protect national security. I also whole-heartedly welcome investments the Federal Government can 

make in advancing a range of clean-coal technologies, renewable energy generation 

and energy efficiency programs that benefit all utility sectors and consumers. 

This committee, and Congress, has an enormous task at hand. I would ask you 

to consider the information I have presented, the information presented by my fellow panelists and all other pertinent information available, prior to finalizing any 

legislation. Please keep in mind that passing legislation too quickly increases the 

risk of passing the wrong legislation. 

Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity and your work on this issue, and 

I look forward to responding to any questions you might have. 

RESPONSES BY MAYOR RICHARD HOMRIGHAUSEN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Mayor Homrighausen, if a federal law were enacted similar to California’s and the Executive Order signed by Governor Corzine, what impact would that 

have on people like your mother-in-law? 

Response. The impact these measures will have on people like my mother-in-law 

will be devastating. While the intent of these measures is noble the reality is that 

the average American cannot afford the costs associated with compliance. As I see 

it, these measures are a back door attempt to achieve the Kyoto Protocol, which the 

majority of the American people and Congress do not agree with. 

It would be a different story if the 2 largest contributors to global warming, China 

and India, were made to comply, but they don’t so the majority of the burden will 

lie on the backs of the American people. Additionally, Mexico, where a great deal 

of America’s jobs have been outsourced to, does not have to comply, which only 

makes this burden the more unbearable. 

If we are to be serious in our attempt to curb global warming Congress must take 

measures to invoke serious economic sanctions on all countries, whether they be developing countries or not, who are not being good stewards of our environment by 

emitting vast quantities of pollutants into our atmosphere. If these measures are 

not taken then enacting these measures on our own people will be a hollow attempt, 

and fall far short in curbing a worldwide problem. 

As I have pointed out in my testimony, my mother-in-law cannot afford any additional cost beyond those she already has. Any increase in compliance costs will directly impact, not only my mother-in-law, but all people in our country. 

Question 2. Mayor, you testified about the industrial base in your region which 

supplies the nation. If draconian policies are put in place which dramatically increase natural gas price volatility, what will that do to your local economy and those 

of neighboring Ohio towns and cities? 

Response. Dover is already experiencing the effects of high natural gas prices. 

Dover was the first Municipal Electric Utility in the country to install natural gas 

burners to co-fire our start-up process in an attempt to reduce our emissions. The 

high cost of natural gas has caused the city to limit the use of these burners because 

the cost far exceeds the benefit gained by burning natural gas. 

As natural gas prices increase the cost of doing business increases. As the cost 

of doing business increases the cost of goods produced increases. As the cost of goods 

produced increases profit margins decrease so does the competitive edge of any 

given company. As the ability to compete is reduced the desire to outsource these 
134 

goods is increased. Once goods are outsourced these jobs are gone. The City of 

Dover, and/or any city in the country, need only look at the number of manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the past several years to determine what any 

major spike in natural gas prices will do to our economy. 

If you have an entire country dependant upon the majority of its electricity being 

supplied by natural gas generation then you have a recipe for disaster. The United 

States cannot afford to continue to put us at a disadvantage by placing more and 

more stringent requirements on our industry. Congress has to be serious about its 

desire and commitment to developing clean coal technology in order for us to continue to be the leader of the free world. 

During the hearing I was appalled when Senator Sanders made the following 

statement (on page 79 of the transcript) ‘‘ . . . I am wondering what we could do 

at the Federal level. There have been some indications that if we literally gave 

away, gave away compact fluorescent light bulbs, we end up saving money.’’ Now 

I totally understand the intent is to lower our energy usage which in turn reduces 

the amount of electricity needed, which reduces our demand for energy and the 

emissions from generation, which saves money everyone money. However, what I 

don’t understand is why anyone in the Federal Government would even consider 

giving billions and billions of dollars to one of the worst polluters in the world— 

China—where these bulbs are made? 

Dover is home to one of the last incandescent light bulb manufacturing facilities 

in the country, General Electric, where they manufacture the filament used in incandescent bulbs. If the Federal Government were to supply billions of CFB’s to our 

citizenry then GE in Dover will close. Why not expend these monies on producing 

affordable CFB’s ‘‘MADE IN AMERICA’’ instead of funding our major competitor? 

Senator BOXER. I think that is a very important point, Mayor. 

So we have heard from everybody, it has been a terrific panel. 

I am going to use my 4 minutes to make a couple of comments, ask 

a question of my Californians. But I just wanted to point out, Mr. 

Harvey, before you leave, I want to give you this interesting article. 

It is so amazing that today this article would run. In the Washington Post, rapid warming spreads havoc in Canada’s forests, tiny 

beetles destroy pines. Millions of acres of Canada’s lush green forests are turning red in spasms of death. A voracious beetle whose 

population exploded with the warming climate is killing more trees 

than wildfires or logging. ‘‘It’s pretty gut-wrenching,’’ said Allen 

Carroll, a research scientist at the Pacific Forestay Center in Victoria, whose scientific studies tracked a lockstep between warmer 

winters and the spread of the beetle. ‘‘People say climate change 

is something for our kids to worry about. No, it’s now.’’ 

Then, this is what really caught my attention in the article. Ironically, the town is booming. The beetle has killed so many trees, 

the officials have more than doubled the allowable timber harvest, 

just taking a lead from you, so loggers can cut and haul away as 

many dead trees as possible before they rot. The icy roads are 

choked with giant trucks growling toward the mills loaded with 

logs, marked with the telltale blue stain fungus. But the boom will 

end when what people hear called beetle wood is removed or rots 

out, and no one is sure how long it will take. The forest industry 

will be running at about half speed. 

So the point of this is, it is ironic that you mentioned the great 

opportunity you had. But this is a tragedy in the long run. We need 

to avoid the tragedy. I don’t think it is a great thing to sit here 

and say, well, we will preside over the end of the forests. It is not 

right. We did inherit God’s green earth and we do have an obligation. By the way, I agree with those of you from the coal States 

who are throwing up a red flag. We have to work together to make 

this work. 
135 

So here is my question for my Californians, my heroes of the day 

here, along with Mayor Nickels and Mayor Cownie. But they are 

my home-grown heroes. Here is the thing. The others are making 

it sound like, some of the others who oppose what you are doing, 

in essence, or don’t seem to understand it or don’t get it, they are 

saying it was a piece of cake. Now, I don’t understand how it could 

be so easy. It wasn’t easy. The fact is, we drive more cars than anyone. Cars are responsible, mobile sources, for about at least a third 

of the problem. 

So I just want to ask you politically, it makes it look like this 

was the easiest thing in the world. If you could give us a sense of 

how it was. I don’t think it was that easy. 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Well, it certainly was a big challenge to pass Assembly Bill 32 in California last year. Just ask the oil refinery industry, for example, or the cement industry, for that matter, or heavy 

manufacturing in California, the utility industry. But I think in essence people realize that we are seeing the effects of global warming, as others are, at the local level. 

Just a quick example, the Sierra snow pack started melting in 

2004 in mid-March, which was the earliest in 90 years. In essence, 

we rely on that snow pack to eventually get us water to southern 

California and to sustain the agricultural industry in the Central 

Valley. So I think in essence what happened is people were thinking that perhaps this was not a good idea, this was a tough thing 

to do, these standards were tough standards, albeit California has 

already played a major role in conserving electricity and gas and 

energy. Conservation has always been a big part of our home stay 

in California, as you know, Senator. We have always been very conscientious about water quality and air quality. 

But we felt that we needed to go further. Here is the reason why. 

I listened very carefully to what some of the Senators said earlier, 

who perhaps feel that we need to wait until countries like India or 

China act. Here is the problem. We represent, at the global level, 

as a Country, less than 5 percent of the population of the world, 

yet we are responsible for over 30 percent of the world’s emissions. 

In China, they are building a coal plant a week. India is going 

through the same type of industrial revolution that we went 

through over 150 years ago. Yes, they are big polluters. But if we 

wait for them to act and don’t play a central role at the global level 

as a Nation, there is a lot to lose. I believe that we owe it to our 

children and our children’s children to act now. 

This wasn’t easy to do in California. It was tough. It was a tough 

choice to make, not just for us as legislators, certainly for the Republican Governor in our State, Governor Schwarzenegger. It was 

a tough decision for him to make. But we did it because we believed that it was not only our responsibility, Senator, but our obligation to act. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. Don, do you have anything quickly to 

add? 

Mr. PERATA. California is really a self-contained laboratory. 

What we have found, the Speaker mentioned cement. We found 

that once we started talking about putting caps on it, they started 

talking about, can we add more limestone, which would cost less 
136 

to produce, less energy and would have the same strength. In an 

earthquake State, that is important. 

Again, there is money to be made, there are jobs to be created. 

I think why most Californians understand that this is a valuable 

exercise, and beyond the environment, is that we have lost our defense base, we have lost our manufacturing base. These are the 

technologies that are going to create the new wave of jobs. We will 

develop something in California that at the time India and China 

decide that they are no longer going to choke on their air, we will 

be able to clean it for them. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is such an important point. This is 

such a plus. It is not gloom and doom and beetles and cutting down 

trees. It is avoidance of those things. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. I just couldn’t help but think, 

looking at all of you here, that I was before this committee as a 

member of the State legislature in Ohio, was the father of the Environmental Protection Agency and came down here and testified. 

As Mayor of the city of Cleveland, I was here testifying before this 

committee. I was here before this committee as Governor of Ohio. 

This is my 40th year in this business. 

I would like you to know that for the last 8 years, we have been 

trying to come up with some kind of compromise to deal with NOx, 

SOx, mercury and greenhouse gases. The problem has been, we 

have never been able to get any agreement on the greenhouse 

gases, because there is such a difference of opinion in terms of the 

science and so on. As a result of that, we really have not done a 

good enough job on NOx, SOx and mercury. So we are at the stage 

where we are probably going to continue to do nothing for the next 

couple of years, because of a lot of a difference of opinion. 

But one of the things that has come out here today, and Mayor 

Homrighausen, thank you for being here. I know you had a real 

health problem, thank you for being here. He has been here two 

or three times to testify. What I would like to do is to challenge 

each of you, I was very active in an NGA, and we had the Big 

Seven. We had the National Council of State Legislators. They 

have committees that deal with the environment. You are in charge 

at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in terms of their committee. In 

fact, when I thought of you, I thought of Charlie Royer, I don’t 

know if you know Charlie or not. 

Mayor NICKELS. Saw him night before last. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Really? If you see him again, say hello to 

him for me. Great, great guy. 

And then we have the National Governors. Madam Chairman, I 

think it would be really good if we would convene, we call it the 

Big Seven, to come together to talk about this issue, to see if we 

can get some consensus out there among State and local government organizations and come here to Congress with some reasonable proposal. Cap and trade has always been kind of a no, no, no. 

But I think that if done properly and with the right timing, it 

might be something that we could get done. 

But if you could get together and agree to something, representing, I gave you the statistics, I mean, it is different. Cali-
137 

fornia has hardly any coal, and Mayor, we have about 90 percent 

coal. It falls all over the Country differently. 

But the point that Mr. Nun ̃ ez made, we are not looking to delay 

anything. I believe that we need to get going full blast to deal with 

this. But the real issue here is this whole issue of technology. It 

is the thing that is holding us back. What we need to do is get that 

technology, make it work here in the United States and then deal 

with what is going on around the world. Because a lot of those 

plants are going to be built without dealing with greenhouse gases. 

How do you put something on them that does deal with the greenhouse gases? 

So the only question I have is that, what do you think about the 

idea of all of you getting together and trying to come up with some 

policy that you can come up here and lobby us in terms of, this is 

what we want to do? You have taken the leadership, the States 

have, the cities have. You have done a great job. You have actually 

done more than we have done, a lot more. What do you think of 

that? 

Mr. PERATA. I am up for it. 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. I certainly think that you have some great minds 

here in the Congress as well. I do believe that ultimately, there is 

a saying that says something like necessity is the mother of invention. I believe that until and unless you create a market through 

real specified mechanisms that require a reduction in our carbon 

footprint that the time with which the new technologies, for example, coal, I hear a lot of discussion about coal, coal gasification and 

other alternative ways to make our air cleaner and not depend 

upon the antiquated forms of energy that we continue to use. Until 

and unless we have a real necessity and an urgency to produce 

them, then those technologies will not come. I think we have to create them. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Let me say this. Senator Clinton talked 

about a Manhattan project. In other words, I think we are at that 

stage right now. If we are going to get a cap, reasonable cap and 

trade program, you have to have the prospect that we have the 

technology out there to really do a job with greenhouse gases. I 

think we have a role to play. I think if we wait for the market to 

do this, it is not going to happen. By the way, we don’t have time 

to wait. There are people saying, well, put the caps on, and then 

all of a sudden, this is going to sprout. I think that it hasn’t. I 

think we need to, we have a role in the Federal Government to get 

on this thing now. 

Mr. PERATA. Senator, if I might, there are some great things 

going on in our State. We would love to have you come. We just 

got a $500 million grant from British Petroleum for the UC Campus at Berkeley to do renewable energy research. There are many 

things going on. It might be just the thing you need is a little time 

in California and we will show you some of the things that are happening. It is very stimulating. It really is. 

Mayor COWNIE. Senator, I think that one thing you might do immediately that the Conference of Mayors has worked on is that energy and environmental block grant that is kind of patterned after 

the CDBG. My problems in Des Moines are different than they are 

in Seattle. 
138 

Senator VOINOVICH. By the way, you had better lobby for CDBG, 

because they are going to try and knock it out again. 

[Laughter.] 

Mayor COWNIE. As soon as we leave this meeting, we will head 

right over—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mayor COWNIE. But I think that whether it is Honolulu or it is 

New Orleans or Seattle or Des Moines, or any place across this 

Country, we all have different needs. Certainly we need to do baseline studies, we need to know what our emissions are, where they 

came from. Then we can put a plan together to try to reduce them. 

But there are things people can do every single day in their lives, 

and I think we need to empower them to do that and educate them. 

That is something else that we can do also with these dollars. Let 

local governments decide and State governments how they are 

going to use it and where it is needed in their particular localities. 

Senator BOXER. Mayor Nickels, you have the last word, and then 

we are going to go to Senator Cardin, who has been so patient. He 

hasn’t even had round one yet. 

Mayor NICKELS. And Senator Mayor, I think the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors would be very excited to engage in that kind of a process. We have sensed this year a real climate of change here on this 

issue, both here in the Senate and on the House side. We think 

that is very encouraging and we would like to participate in moving this issue forward, not next Congress or the Congress after, but 

this Congress. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Cardin, you have been so 

patient. Please go ahead. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to listen to 

our colleagues from State and local government, because I think we 

can learn a lot from the initiatives that have taken place. I believe 

in federalism, and I think it is very important. 

In order to get in two rounds, I am going to ask that my opening 

statement be included in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, yes. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing today. Justice Louis Brandeis 

famously said that ‘‘States are the laboratories of democracy.’’ This hearing certainly 

attests to the truth of that dictum. The regional, state, and local initiatives to slow, 

stop, and ultimately reverse the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that we 

will hear about today are truly significant. 

Consider California: if it were its own country, it would have the world’s 8th largest economy. So when Californians set out to reduce their GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels over the next several decades, we shouldn’t underestimate 

the impact that will have in fighting global warming. 

I applaud the witnesses here today who are taking the lead in fighting global 

warming on behalf of their states, cities, and communities. 

What’s disheartening about today’s hearing is that these officials feel compelled 

to act in large part because the Federal Government is abdicating its responsibility. 

As important as all of these regional, state, and local actions are, we still need leadership from President Bush and from Congress. 

We have heard from the scientists. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that global warming is happening and the 

causes are largely anthropogenic. 
139 

We have heard from enlightened business leaders who formed the Climate Action 

Partnership to advocate national strategies for fighting global warming. 

I appreciate the fact that private sector and state and local public sector leaders 

are stepping in to fill the breach created by the current administration’s inaction 

on the most pressing environmental issue of our generation. But the fact is, we need 

national leadership. And we need it right away. 

I’m proud of what Maryland is doing to fight global warming. Several cities, including Baltimore, Annapolis, Rockville, and Gaithersburg, are participating in the 

U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which commits them to voluntarily implement Kyoto agreement within their municipalities. 

Later this year, Maryland will become a full partner in the Regional Greenhouse 

Gas Initiative (RGGI). ‘‘REGGIE,’’ as it is known, is a cooperative effort by several 

Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 

powerplants by stabilizing CO2 emissions at current levels from 2009 to 2015, and 

then cutting them 10 percent by 2019. 

Maryland is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming. Tide gauge 

records for the last century show that the rate of sea level rise in Maryland is nearly twice the global average. Studies indicate that this rate is accelerating and may 

increase to 2 or 3 feet along Maryland’s shores by the year 2100. 

More than 12 percent of the State’s land is designated under the National Flood 

Insurance Program as a Special Flood Hazard Area. An estimated 68,000 homes and 

buildings are located within the floodplain, representing nearly $8 billion in assessed value. Allstate Insurance, one of our largest insurers, recently announced 

that it will stop writing new homeowners’ policies in coastal areas of the State, citing concerns that a warmer Atlantic Ocean will lead to more and stronger hurricanes hitting the Northeast. 

About a third of the marshes at Blackwater Wildlife Refuge on Maryland’s Eastern Shore have been lost to sea level rise over the past 70 years. Smith Island, the 

only inhabited island community in Maryland and the subject of a recent documentary on global warming, has lost 30 percent of its land mass to sea level rise since 

1850. 

According to 2005 report of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency, Maryland is the 3rd most vulnerable state to flooding and has the 5th longest evacuation 

times during a tropical storm or hurricane event. 

So we don’t have a choice. We need to do everything possible to curb global warming and rising sea levels. But we can’t do it alone. The Federal Government has to 

join us in this effort. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 
140 
141 
142 
143 

Senator CARDIN. Speaker Nun ̃ ez, I held your position in the 

Maryland legislature when we initiated the Chesapeake Bay program, worked first with the entities in Maryland, then our surrounding States, and then ultimately came to the Federal Government as a partner. I think we made great progress, because we 

tested the issues at the State level, the local level then the regional 

levels before coming to Washington. I think you are doing the same 

thing with the laws that you are passing. 

The California law is now being looked at in the Maryland legislature. I expect the Maryland legislature is going to pass a bill very 

similar to your initiative. That is what federalism should be all 

about. Mayor Nickels, seven of our municipalities, a part of your 

initiative, including Baltimore City. So we are working together, 

trying to come up with a proposal that will reflect what we need 

in this Country. 

I respect the different views that have been expressed by this 

panel. There are different views as to what we need to do as far 

as our environment is concerned. But I don’t believe there is any 

disagreement that we need to become energy independent. We need 

to do that for many reasons. I think everyone on this panel would 

agree that for national security, we don’t want to continue to give 

money to entities that are very much against our national security 

interest. Every time we fill up our tank, we are helping to support 

extremists who disagree with our way of life. 

I don’t think there is any disagreement here about the economic 

impact, about becoming energy independent, so we don’t have to 

worry about OPEC countries changing the price of oil affecting our 

economy. I would think we would also acknowledge that becoming 

energy independent will be much friendlier to our environment, 

something that we all have sensitivity to. 

So I would hope that we would frame this debate, rather than 

as Senator Voinovich has pointed out, there are different views 

here in Congress and our ability to pass legislation this year is 

very much compromised by that. But I don’t think we can wait. 

States and local governments have done their job and they are continuing to do that. But there is a need for Federal action here. 

There is a need for leadership at the national level. We have a lot 

from what has been done at the State and local governments. We 

need, for the sake of our security, economy and environment, we 

need to move forward. 

I would hope that we would follow some of the recommendations 

that we have heard from our States. They have tested these programs, they know what works, they know the economic impact. 

They know how businesses have been able to respond and deal 

with the challenges of caps and the other issues. We have that information, thanks to the good work done by your States and your 

municipalities. 

I think it is now incumbent upon us to take a look at that and 

develop some national leadership, so that we can work in stronger 

partnership with the work that has been done here. Madam Chair, 

I thank you for taking us down this path. I have found this hearing 

to be extremely helpful. I just want to thank all the panelists for 

being patient and presenting your information. This will not be the 

last time that we are going to call upon you to help us as we wres-
144 

tle with a national policy that I think will be good, not just for our 

environment, which we need to deal with, Madam Chair, I agree 

with you, we need to deal with our environmental risks of global 

warming. But it is also important for our national security and for 

our economic interests. I think all of us should be able to come together with the programs so the Federal Government has a more 

aggressive partnership in this effort. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a 

fascinating and important hearing. We are one Country with States 

that have very different needs. While I disagree with our friends 

from the coal and oil producing States, I understand what you are 

talking about. Your economies are dependent upon that type of production, you are part of an America that has to be understood as 

we move, I believe, in a new direction, in the same way that I hope 

you understand the needs of Vermont, in a State where the weather gets 20 or 30 below zero, and we all have our needs and we work 

together. 

It seems to me, in listening to the testimony, that what they call 

the lowest hanging fruit seems to be energy efficiency. I would like 

to hear some discussion from our local and State officials about 

what they are doing in terms of light bulbs, for example. In Australia, they are literally talking about banning incandescent light 

bulbs. The compact fluorescents are far more energy efficient. I 

want to hear what some of your cities and States are doing. I want 

to hear what you are doing in terms of moving your own transportation systems away from cars that get bad mileage, the hybrids, 

how far you have gone in that direction. 

I know in Burlington, when I was Mayor, we passed the bond 

issue. The result is that despite a lot of growth in Burlington, we 

are consuming less electricity today than we did 20 years ago. 

So let’s talk about it, let’s start with California. The other question for my friend in California, who killed the electric car and 

what can we do about that? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Nun ̃ ez, can you start on that one? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. Sure, I will start. Senator Clinton alluded to that 30- 

year timeframe, in which California, in terms of our per capita consumption, has been flat while the rest of the Country has actually 

gone up 50 percent. That is true because of the laws that we have 

passed over the years in California, both in the area of the protection of the environment, but also in conservation. In the last 6 

years, a lot of has been done also in terms of transportation and 

emission standards, which now in California, you know, we drive 

somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 percent of the hybrid 

vehicles. 

Senator SANDERS. Is the electric car still being discussed? 

Mr. NUN ̃ EZ. It is being discussed, but there were some problems 

in terms of how efficient it was to move people from point A to 

point B. But I think there is no question that with the new technologies that are coming to bear, there certainly is the opportunity 

for electrical vehicle to once again make their way back into the 

California market. 
145 

Senator SANDERS. OK, let me ask anybody who wants to respond, 

just something as simple as light bulbs. I know Senator Boxer has 

been talking about that for the Federal Government, just moving 

away from incandescent light bulbs. What your cities or States 

been doing? Mayor Nickels, do you want to say a word on that? 

Mayor NICKELS. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator. Our 

electric utility, which is owned by the city, recently gave away 

13,000 of the compact fluorescent bulbs. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you a question, and Madam Chair, 

I am wondering what we could do at the Federal level. There have 

been some indications that if we literally gave away, gave away 

compact fluorescent light bulbs, we end up saving money. Is that 

what you are saying, Mayor Nickels? 

Mayor NICKELS. They are many times more efficient, and while 

the initial cost is higher, they last many times longer. The payback 

is remarkably short. 

Senator SANDERS. So do you see a potential in encouraging them? 

Mayor NICKELS. Yes. In Seattle, we decided we would lead by example. So we reduced the city government’s emissions first by 60 

percent from 1990 levels. We did that by converting to many hybrid 

vehicles, we have converted our diesel to biodiesel. In fact, in my 

neighborhood, the local Safeway, which is the largest grocery chain, 

opened up a biodiesel pump at their station, first one in the Country in the Safeway chain. They are buying the biodiesel from a 

company in Iowa. 

We have traded in the beloved mayoral Town Car for a hybrid, 

a tough decision, but one I thought was important. We are striving 

to become the green building capital of America, so that the architects and engineers and suppliers in Seattle have a chance to create jobs in those industries that we can export the services and 

products elsewhere in the Country and the world. 

Senator SANDERS. Mayor Cownie. 

Mayor COWNIE. We are doing many of the same things that 

Mayor Nickels is doing. Additionally, when we go out and meet 

with citizens, and I talk about empowering citizens, they all were 

sitting around, tell us what to do, tell us what to do. So we have 

a Just-Do-One-Thing program that we are doing, and we give them 

a little bag, when we go to these town hall meetings, and we put 

a compact fluorescent in there. We tell them it takes 18 seconds 

to go switch out an old one, put in a new one. We give them a 

whole list of other things that they can do in their households each 

day to make a difference. 

Senator SANDERS. That is great. My time has run out, Madam 

Chair, but I would also say that one of the areas we want to look 

at as we move away from incandescent to compact fluorescents, is 

we don’t manufacture those bulbs, I don’t believe, in the United 

States of America. If we are talking about getting millions of people 

to use those bulbs, we could make some money if one of these companies would start producing these things in one of our towns. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. You are so right about that. Every single one of 

those bulbs, because believe me, I did a survey, made in China. 

The irony of all this. Basically with China saying, we are not ready 

to do anything. But they are making these light bulbs. 
146 

Anyway, let me thank everyone so much. As my colleagues said, 

this has been a very long hearing for good reason. Because all of 

you are very provocative in what you said, and I thought Governor 

Corzine was as well. Colleagues are so interested, and it makes me 

so happy as a committee chair. It is like, what if you called a meeting and nobody came. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. As you know, as Speaker, that does happen now 

and then. Here it is just a lot of attendance and it makes me really 

feel good. We even went to New Orleans on Monday for a field 

hearing and we had seven Senators there. So that was wonderful. 

OK, so in closing this, I get a chance to say the last word, which 

is always hard for people who don’t agree with me. But let me just 

say, on the question of whether global warming is occurring, it always sort of breaks my heart when people say the science is confused and so on. I would love to share with those of you who are 

skeptics the latest scientific reports and the bona fides of the people who have signed onto these documents. Because it is one thing 

to keep saying there is no consensus. I am sure there were always 

those who said, the earth is flat. There are still people who say 

HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. There are even people who say there is 

no link between tobacco and cancer. You always have a few. 

But the preponderance of the evidence on global warming is in. 

I just hate to see us waste time on it. I think the legitimate things 

that the antis said today are very important for us to hear, that 

please be mindful in a coal State, that if you move forward, we 

have to ease the burden on the consumers. Absolutely. I think that 

Senator Voinovich’s call and Senator Clinton’s and my own feelings 

on clean coal and a Manhattan-like project to find truly clean coal, 

those things are necessary. The technology piece has to go along 

with everything else we are doing. 

But I do agree with Speaker Nun ̃ ez when he says that, if you are 

clear about the caps, then somehow the smart money will follow. 

We already see it happening with the biggest corporations coming 

forward and supporting us as we strive to find some common 

ground to become partners with those of you who have taken action. I think that is what I want to be, is a partner. I want to do 

things that enhance what you are doing and that allow you to still 

keep on going, because you are the laboratories in the best sense 

of the word. 

So in closing, I think we could put our hands over our eyes and 

then over our ears and our mouths and just say, we are not going 

to pay attention to this. Believe me, it is a lot easier. But the greatest generation, what they did for us, our grandpas and our greatgrandpas, they did it for their great-grandkids that they may never 

see. We have this challenge. It is not as immediately life-threatening, obviously, as what they faced. But it is life-threatening to 

the future. 

So we can’t just hide behind feel-good statements here. We have 

to get down and do it. I am, as I said in the beginning, an optimist. 

I am filled with hope. This is the greatest country on the face of 

the earth, Mr. Harvey, I totally agree. That is why we are up for 

this challenge. We can do this in the right way. I am so proud of 

my State, and Mayor Nickels, of what you have done, Mayor 
147 

Cownie. All of you who are grappling with this on the ground, I 

used to be a county supervisor. I know the buck stops right there. 

They have your phone number, they meet you in the street. It is 

hard either way, and we have to have answers. 

So let’s work together. I think that’s the key. Let’s not have these 

great divides, because time is clicking and it is not our friend. 

Thank you very much, and this hearing has come to a close. 

Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 1 o’clock p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for keeping the attention of this 

committee focused squarely on the supremely important need to curb global warming. 

Many of us here in Congress have been aware for some time that, when it comes 

to global warming, state and local governments have been filling the vacuum left 

by federal inaction. It was only in preparing for this hearing, however, that I had 

an opportunity to learn just how many state and local governments have taken 

strong steps already. Fourteen states have actually set state-wide targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty-nine states have completed climate action 

plans. Thirty-one states are involved already in regional greenhouse gas reduction 

initiatives. I am not sure whether the various members of Congress who still oppose 

federal legislation to mandate greenhouse gas reductions realize how many of their 

constituent businesses are already subject to such mandates. All of the businesses 

I talk to prefer, for several reasons, a uniform national system to a patchwork of 

state and regional ones. I would think the same would be true of many large employers in my colleagues’ states. 

Of course, creating political pressure for a comprehensive national strategy is by 

no means the only virtue of these local, state, and regional initiatives. For one thing, 

the non-federal initiatives are reducing greenhouse gases right now. For another, 

they are doing invaluable design and testing work—dealing with emissions registries, monitoring and compliance programs, trading markets, and offsets—that will 

inform the inevitable federal system. The comprehensive national system that I believe Congress will soon enact will be more effective, more efficient, and more durable because of the ingenious and courageous work that is being done today at the 

local, state, and regional levels. 

I cannot discuss genius and courage on the issue of global warming without mentioning Connecticut. I am extremely proud to represent a state that has always 

been, and continues to be, a national leader on policies to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. Connecticut is a founding member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for powerplants. In 2004, the state passed laws and issued executive orders 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all major sectors of the state’s economy. 

For example, those laws adopt California’s automobile emissions standards, set efficiency standards for products and appliances, require greenhouse gas emissions reporting, and mandate a plan to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 

levels by 2010 and to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. In early 2005, Governor 

Rell’s administration submitted the plan to the Connecticut General Assembly. That 

document, encompassing 55 separate initiatives, represents one of the most, if not 

the most, comprehensive, economy-wide state plans for curbing global warming pollution. Many of the initiatives comprising Connecticut’s plan are now in place and 

reducing emissions. 

Madame Chairwoman, I could not resist the temptation to brag a bit about Connecticut’s enormously productive efforts in this area. I appreciate my colleagues’ patience. I am just extremely proud of my constituents and Connecticut’s government. 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Æ