U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

61–727 2010

BUILDING GREEN, SAVING GREEN: CONSTRUCTING 

SUSTAINABLE AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT BUILDINGS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 14, 2008 

Serial No. 110–37 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative of Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative of Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Hilda Solis, a Representative of Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative of Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative of Congress from the State of 

Missouri, prepared statement ............................................................................. 13 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative of Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, prepared statement .......................................................................... 15 

WITNESSES

Hon. Gavin Newsom, Mayor, City of San Francisco, California .......................... 17 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 20 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 93 

Mr. Kent Peterson, President, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating 

and Air Conditioning Engineers ......................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 104 

Mr. Edward Norton, Trustee, Enterprise Foundation .......................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 44 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 117 

Ms. Michelle Moore, Senior Vice President for Policy and Market Development, U.S. Green Building Council .................................................................... 53 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 56 

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

Mr. Tony Stall, Vice President of Marketing, Dryvit Systems, Inc. .................... 71 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 74 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

BUILDING GREEN, SAVING GREEN: CONSTRUCTING SUSTAINABLE AND ENERGYEFFICIENT BUILDINGS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

2358A, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Solis, 

Cleaver, Sensenbrenner, and Sullivan. 

Staff Present: Joel Beauvais. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

Today’s hearing is a most important hearing because it deals 

with an issue that most people aren’t really aware of. Because if 

you ask most people what contributes up to one-half of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, they will likely say automobiles, SUVs. But 

the truth is as plain as the wall that each of us faces right now: 

The building sector is responsible for up to 48 percent of our Nation’s emissions. On a local level, buildings can account for an even 

higher percentage of emissions. Seventy-eight percent of Boston’s 

heat-trapping gases are attributable to buildings. 

Energy-efficient buildings must be part of a comprehensive fight 

against global warming. Efficient design, low-emission construction 

materials, and decreased energy use in buildings can combat global 

warming and simultaneously reduce the rising costs of lighting, 

heating and cooling structures. 

Energy efficiency in buildings is only a starting point. A truly 

‘‘green’’ building should help preserve natural resources. Water use 

should be minimized. Construction materials should be nontoxic 

and travel shorter distances. Appliances and furnishings should 

use less energy and fewer toxic chemical compounds. Most importantly, we must ensure that all buildings receive this treatment, 

whether they are new or already built, commercial or residential, 

public or private. 

Though measures to improve building efficiency can cost an additional $1 to $5 per square foot, consumers could get a good return 

on their investment. The average green building can save 25 to 30 

percent more energy than a traditional one. The overall economic 

and environmental benefits of more efficient buildings are clear. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
2 

However, the competing interests of the building sector can obscure the long-term benefits. A developer may have concerns about 

recovering the initial costs of green design or energy-efficient features. A commercial tenant may not want to pay for efficiency upgrades on a 5-year lease. A homeowner may not have the initial 

capital needed to improve home efficiency, or may not be planning 

to be in the house for another 10 years to get the full return on 

investment. 

In a recent survey, only 7 percent of the public identified buildings as a major source of global warming emissions. Today, we 

hope to change that perception by discussing various approaches to 

improving building efficiency. 

The witnesses are collectively utilizing innovative local approaches, materials, mandatory codes and voluntary guidelines to 

reduce this massive source of emissions. Mayor Newsom has sustained and implemented a myriad of green building initiatives, 

among other notable environmental efforts in San Francisco. The 

Engineering Society here today, whose mission is to advance energy-efficiency technology, they have developed building and energy 

codes used by local, State and Federal governments. And the U.S. 

Green Buildings Council has developed LEED, one of the most 

commonly used certification programs for a green building. Enterprise Community Partners now helps low-income housing, buildings with the tightest construction budgets, become sustainable in 

a cost-efficient manner. And we will also hear from Dryvit, a corporation working to improve the efficiency of buildings with what 

they call Outsulation. 

As a final note, I would also add that three of you are actually 

seated, for a change, in environmentally friendly chairs. These 

chairs were built from recyclable materials, created using alternative energy, and can be nearly fully recycled as well. 

We thank each of you for being here, and we look forward to your 

testimony. 

Let me turn and recognize the ranking member of the committee, 

the gentleman from the State of Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The information follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
3 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 61727A.001
4 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 61727A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing on green buildings touches on many of the same 

issues the select committee examined during last week’s hearing on 

energy efficiency. For the most part, policies that promote green 

buildings is simply policy to promote efficiency in building, construction, maintenance, and operations. There are several reasons 

to encourage more productive uses of energy. Improved efficiency 

gives us the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near 

term without enacting punishing regulations that would cripple our 

economy. 

According to the U.S. Green Building Council, buildings consume 

40 percent of the energy used in the United States. That is more 

than both the industrial and transportation sectors. Buildings are 

responsible for 39 percent of CO2 emissions and 71 percent of electricity consumption. As Tony Stall from Dryvit Systems will tell us 

today, 80 percent of the buildings constructed before 1960 are poorly insulated. Energy literally seeps through the walls of these 

buildings. 

It is clear that increasing energy efficiency in buildings should be 

a high priority in our energy policy, but it shouldn’t be just a Government priority. With the potential savings in cost that these energy savings would create, I think that many building owners 

would want to make these improvements. 

Mr. Stall says in his testimony that his company’s insulation 

product will help lower annual energy costs by 10 to 20 percent. 

The Green Building Council says that energy-efficient buildings 

could generate up to a 9 percent decrease in operating costs, a 

nearly 8 percent increase in building values, and a more than 6 

percent increase in return on investment. Who wouldn’t want to 

reap those kinds of savings? 

Unfortunately for my good friends in the majority party, their 

legislation to date has not been where their words are. In the energy bill passed during the previous Congress, there were certain 

tax credits for energy improvements that many people around the 

country have taken advantage of. I am one of those that did that. 

I replaced the furnace in my Menomonie Falls, Wisconsin, condominium, and I have been able to recoup, in just a year and a half, 

the cost of the additional furnace. We have not had global warming 

in Wisconsin. We had one of the coldest and snowiest winters in 

the last 30 years there. 

However, all of these credits expired at the end of last year. And 

nobody facing bad gas bills, bad electric bills or, if they heat with 

fuel oil, extremely bad fuel oil bills has been able to do the type 

of work that has been given the tax credit, because they don’t know 

whether the tax credit will be there when the time comes to file 

their 2008 tax returns. 

Now, I am told that the majority party is going to put an extender bill on the floor next week. I hope it is not stuck with a 

whole lot of other things that don’t relate to energy and R&D tax 

credit. But the fact is that we have had almost 5 months slip by 

with no tax credits for doing these good things on the books. And 

that is the responsibility of the majority party, and they ought to 

put their legislation where their hot air has been. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
6 

Now, last week I said that energy efficiency can produce great 

results when encouraged, but, when mandated, these policies have 

the same effect as a tax. Please note that I am talking about tax 

breaks rather than higher taxes directly or indirectly. And I think 

the same principle applies with policies to encourage green buildings. The amount of savings generated by energy-efficient buildings 

should be encouragement enough for building owners to make 

these changes. I also think that the Federal Government can help 

through R&D funding and tax credits. Additionally, establishing industry standards will go a long way toward ensuring that buildings, old and new, are as energy-efficient as possible. 

However, the Government should not take it upon itself to be 

issuing mandates for green buildings, because that will be a tax for 

many. Not only that, I certainly don’t have confidence that the 

Government regulators will mandate the best, most effective energy solutions. It is not a stretch to think that these regulations 

will be much less efficient than the buildings that they seek to 

manage; witness our off-again/on-again tax credit policy. 

I think that a mechanism already exists in the U.S. economy to 

encourage energy efficiency in buildings. The potential savings that 

green buildings create, coupled with the rising cost of energy, creates a compelling incentive for building owners to improve the efficiency of their structures. 

When it comes to efficiency, free-market forces are far more efficient than regulations in turning buildings green. While the regulations may make buildings more efficient, only the free market and 

a more enlightened tax policy can make buildings and their owners’ 

wallets greener at the same time. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Again, witnesses, welcome to the debate here. You are arriving 

at a historic time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

I do want to assure my good friend from Wisconsin that we will 

be voting for the fourth time on the extenders, that has passed the 

House three times already, and I hope that we will have, finally, 

some help on the part of the administration and the Senate. 

I take modest exception with the notion that regulation from the 

Government plays no role. Look how the brilliant market forces 

have encouraged our friends in Detroit to keep pace with auto efficiency standards. Not. They didn’t change for 30 years. We finally 

re-established them this last year, which I think we would all be 

better off had we continued to move forward. 

We need a balance between regulatory process and free market. 

We are going to hear from California, where there are some great 

initiatives that have taken place in terms of the building codes. 

I am hopeful that we, as a committee, spend more time on this, 

because we are going to be replacing almost 200 billion square feet 

of new offices, stores and other nonresidential construction, and we 

are going to freeze that carbon footprint in place for 50 or 100 

years or more. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
7 

I am pleased with what we have done in our community. I am 

hopeful we still get out to Portland to see what we have done in 

terms of some of these green building initiatives. 

I would like to enter into the record the Green Building Initiative 

that the Portland Green Building—Green Globe’s rating tool that 

I think has some merit, because we have seen that it makes a difference in our community. 

[The information follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
8 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 61727A.003
9 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 61727A.004
10 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. But I would hope that there are two things 

that we could focus on with the committee. One deals with the location. Yes, businesses are critical, but if you have to burn a gallon 

of gas to go to lunch, we are in trouble. And we need to coordinate 

the green building with the green location, location efficiency. 

Last but not least, I am very interested in working with this 

committee and our witnesses about what the Federal Government 

does to lead by example. We are the largest consumer of energy in 

the world; we are the largest manager of infrastructure. The Federal Government has an inventory of 300 million square feet, scattered in 60 locations across the country. 

If we get serious, if we make a commitment that we are not 

going to build, buy, lease or rent anything that isn’t green-certified 

with a twist in 2 years, it will have a transformational effect and, 

I think, help bring to pass what our witnesses will be talking about 

much sooner. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this important hearing today on green buildings. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I appreciate 

you being here, especially Tony Stall, from Dryvit, a leader in 

green building techniques. I am proud to have a Dryvit manufacturing facility in Sand Springs, which is located in Oklahoma’s 1st 

Congressional District. 

Last August, I visited this facility and was able to meet with 

many of the hardworking men and women that make this green 

technology possible. And it really is a fascinating technology. 

Dryvit Systems began manufacturing exterior insulation and finish systems in 1969 and was the first company to do so in the 

United States. Today, more than one in every 11 commercial buildings in the United States features Dryvit on its exterior. 

Companies like Dryvit are innovating technology for both commercial and residential buildings so that these properties can become more environmentally friendly. In fact, homes that use the 

Dryvit technology on their exterior can save over 40-percent per 

year on their heating and cooling consumption. 

I look forward to the intriguing discussion regarding green buildings during today’s hearing. And I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis. 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to congratulate you for introducing us to the 

new recyclable chairs that are here in our hearing room. I hope 

that members will take that to heart, and hopefully we will be able 

to have a demonstration of our own to see how they fit. Because, 

lately, the chairs that we do sit in are very uncomfortable and take 

up a lot of space. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
11 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for having 

the hearing. This is a very important topic that we need to discuss 

here. 

And I am very concerned about what is happening in our schools, 

some of our school buildings, particularly in low-income areas. We 

have a lot of Title I-funded schools that are found not just in urban 

and suburban areas but also in rural America. And we would like 

to see more opportunity so that the greening of America can also 

happen in our schoolhouses for low-income and under-represented 

children. 

But I would like to thank also our mayor, Gavin Newsom, for 

being here from San Francisco, a leader in the green movement. 

And also I want to recognize the City of Los Angeles. We are slowly 

getting together the pace where we understand the importance of 

what this all means. And in communities like mine, in east Los Angeles, where a heavy burden is placed on energy consumption and 

air pollution, many of the contaminants that affect our communities are a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions and all those 

negative things that have been going on for years that we have 

been struggling to try to clean up. 

But, more importantly, I think where we live and work, in particular in low-income communities—we have most of the blighted 

areas. We have many warehouses that could be retrofitted. We 

could find, I think, ways of even helping to train our workforce to 

get into these jobs. 

And that is something that some of us have worked very hard, 

and I know the chairman has, in terms of helping us also retool 

those individuals that live in our community through the Green 

Collar Job Act. And that is helping to invest in our workforce so 

that we have enough people that are going to be out there placing 

and installing the solar panels and also working in renewable energy. 

So those are things that I care about and I know many members 

of the caucuses that I work with are very interested in hearing 

about. So I want to thank all of you for being here, and look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I appreciate this hearing. 

I just want to note three groups I met with this morning in my 

office. It was just an accident that I met with these folks. 

First, I met with some folks from utilities. We had one of the 

presidential candidates out in Seattle yesterday who is urging a 

massive expansion of nuclear power as part of our baseload; correctly pointed out that it was zero CO2-emitting. But this utility 

person reminded me that in every single city and every single State 

and in every single circumstance, efficiency in reducing load is always cheaper than nuclear power, virtually any other system of 

generation we have. And it was interesting to me, talking to a person on the front lines, a person really in the utilities, whose job it 

is to deliver electrons, the first thing out of this person’s mouth 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
12 

was: Efficiency first, because that is where it’s always cheaper. And 

this was right before this hearing. 

The second group I met with were sheet metal contractors, and 

they told me that efficiency in building is the best job-creation system we have in America, because it is not in China, it is here. 

When we build efficient housing and green buildings, those jobs are 

right here. They are not going to China. They are right here. This 

is the one thing you can assure, if you want a stimulus plan, spend 

money on retrofitting weatherization and clean and efficient utilities and heating and cooling systems. 

The third group was the Environmental Entrepreneurs Association. Some people may not have heard about this group, but this 

is a group with several hundred members of companies across 

America whose job it is to grow jobs in clean energy. And these 

people are growing like gangbusters. And a significant portion of 

them are invested in this type of technology you are talking about, 

including findings ways—and here is a great one—to sequester carbon in building materials. There is a company out there, whose 

name escapes me, that is close to finding a way to sequester carbon 

dioxide in cement. And the scale of this is much larger than one 

would think. 

So here are three groups who wandered by a lone Congressman’s 

office this morning, all of whom see economic growth potential in 

what you all are going to talk about. Thanks for coming. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

All time for opening statements from the members has been completed. And we now turn and recognize our witnesses for their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
13 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 61727A.005
14 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackburn follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
15 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 61727A.006
16 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 61727A.007
17 

The CHAIRMAN. First, we will hear from Mayor Gavin Newsom, 

who is serving his second term as the Mayor of San Francisco. He 

is working to meet Kyoto Protocol targets through a variety of 

ways, including green buildings. San Francisco has developed energy ordinances, initiatives to build to LEED and other green 

standards. 

And I am also pleased to announce that Ameresco, an energy-efficiency company in my congressional district up in Boston, was 

awarded a contract to green the San Francisco Housing Authority. 

And, Mayor Newsom, we are very honored to have you here with 

us today. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. GAVIN NEWSOM, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; MR. KENT PETERSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATING 

AND AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERS; MR. EDWARD NORTON, 

TRUSTEE, ENTERPRISE FOUNDATION; MS. MICHELLE 

MOORE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL; MR. 

TONY STALL, VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, DRYVIT SYSTEMS, INC. 

STATEMENT OF GAVIN NEWSOM 

Mr. NEWSOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for this 

opportunity. And I appreciate, to Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, 

the debate and the passion and conviction that you have all demonstrated in your opening remarks. This is a very exciting topic, 

from my perspective, and an exciting time, and I appreciate all 

your leadership and your conviction and your constancy on this 

issue. 

Green buildings—you said it, Congressman Markey, at the top— 

this is one of the areas where we are not focusing enough attention. And most people are not familiar with the costs associated, 

not only with the operation of buildings, but the construction and 

demolition of buildings, as it relates to the environment. 

In San Francisco, we began over a decade ago and became one 

of the first big cities in the United States of America to require, 

to legislate all of our municipal buildings to be built to LEED certification. At the time, people thought, again, another typical San 

Francisco idea, San Francisco values, the sky is going to fall in, the 

world is going to come to an end, major tax increases, companies 

are going to run out of San Francisco. We heard it all. 

The reality is it couldn’t have been further from the truth, and 

we are quite prescient now, for the same reasons the ranking member said: We are paying less in energy bills, we are paying less in 

insurance. And another big point I want to make here today: Fireman’s Fund and others are charging less for insurance for some of 

our buildings that the city was wise enough to invest in as it relates to these LEED certifications. 

But that wasn’t good enough. We represent as a property owner 

a de minimus amount of office space in our city. So we put together 

a work group in 2004 which came up with the first standards in 

our city’s history to advance some incentives for green buildings, 

with LEED Gold certification. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
18 

What happened in 2004 was interesting. We fast-tracked permits 

through these incentives, and we ended up having a bigger line, a 

bigger queue for people in the construction and building side of the 

ledger trying to get in the fast-track permits for LEED-certified 

buildings than in the traditional lines at our Department of Building Inspection. And it occurred to us then that we have a much bigger appetite and a bigger market for this than we had realized. 

The consequence of our 2004 legislation is we decided to more 

formally advance an initiative to require all residential, all commercial, and all remodels that are done in the City and County of 

San Francisco to meet similar LEED certification, going to LEED 

Gold within the next few years. 

It is the most aggressive green building standards of any city in 

the United States of America. It was done with broad consensus 

and overwhelming support. In fact, perhaps after today, I will receive my first letter of opposition, but I have yet to receive a letter 

of opposition from anybody. 

It was an industry-led initiative, because they get it. They know 

they ultimately need to get into this business. The fact is, though, 

they need to be pushed into it. Some of the largest developers in 

San Francisco, which happen to be the largest developers across 

this country that do business in almost every major city, they get 

it. They get it, because it ends up costing them less, it ends up 

being more attractive from a leasing perspective, higher occupancy 

rates. Businesses get it, because that is why they want to go into 

these green buildings, because they have greater workplaces, which 

drives lower costs associated with sick days, higher morale. These 

are objective measures that have been analyzed, and I hope you 

have a chance to read some of these reports, which are extraordinary. 

This is inevitable, whether we like it or not. This is the direction 

we need to be going. This is not difficult for anyone to do. 

The idea that the private sector is just going to somehow do it, 

well, maybe. But the fact that the U.S. Government hasn’t done it 

is suggestive. And if the U.S. Government won’t do it, if you won’t 

do it to save energy costs, and HUD won’t do it to save on $4 billion-plus a year they are spending on electricity, for the life of me, 

I don’t know necessarily how the private sector is going to end up 

doing it on their own. 

We, again, have been able to establish a framework where we 

brought parties together. We did it in an environment which was 

supportive of the private sector; didn’t take anything away. We 

have done it in a way where we have raised the standards and 

raised the bar. 

Now, by the way, we are doing LEED Platinum certification on 

a lot of our new buildings, not even LEED Silver or LEED Gold. 

In fact, We have a new one. The Academy of Sciences in San Francisco is the largest LEED Platinum building of its kind in the 

United States, where someone well described it as lifting up Golden 

Gate Park, our park, and placing a building underneath it and 

then placing the park right back on top of the building. 

And already in terms of its identity, already in terms of its purposefulness, it is creating a lot of excitement and enthusiasm. And 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
19 

it will be now the new benchmark, the new bar for all subsequent 

construction. 

So I am just here to say we have to get over the idea that this 

is somehow extreme. We have to get over the idea this somehow 

it is even controversial in this day and age. 

And from the perspective that Congresswoman Solis said, this is 

where the jobs are coming from. This is in the photovoltaic and the 

solar and the energy retrofits. If we are going to get serious about 

green-collar jobs, get serious about the loss of manufacturing, get 

serious about environmental justice issues, which Ed and others 

will talk about in a moment, then we have to get serious about the 

opportunities as it relates to the green building industry. 

And I couldn’t be more enthusiastic as a mayor of a city where 

the people of San Francisco get it. Republicans and Democrats get 

it. This is not about politics. They understand the economic imperative, they understand the moral and ethnical obligation, and they 

understand that this works. 

And so that is, in essence, what I wanted to leave you with. 

[The statement of Mayor Newsom follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
20 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 61727A.008
21 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 61727A.009
22 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 61727A.010
23 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 61727A.011
24 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 61727A.012
25 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 61727A.013
26 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 61727A.014
27 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 61727A.015
28 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 61727A.016
29 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate it, Mr. Mayor. That was 

great testimony. 

Now our second witness. You know, when you are thinking about 

energy efficiency, what is it that causes all these greenhouse gases? 

Well, it is keeping this room cool in the summer, making sure it 

is warm in the winter, making sure that the food that we eat in 

this building is kept refrigerated winter, summer, spring and fall. 

But if you can make it all more efficient, then we will be all the 

better off, because you could reduce by 30, 40 percent the amount 

of energy we consume. 

We have with us today the president of the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers in the 

United States. And his organization, for 114 years, has been advancing technologies in each one of these related fields. And at the 

request of the Federal Government, his organization has developed 

the first Federal energy efficiency standards 30 years ago, and they 

continue to develop new building and energy codes used by local, 

State and Federal governments. 

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

STATEMENT OF KENT PETERSON 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner and members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak to you today about energy use, buildings, and 

the opportunities to reduce our impacts from buildings on our climate change. 

My name is Kent Peterson, and I am the current volunteer president of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, better known as ASHRAE. We were founded in 1894, and ASHRAE is an international technical society with 

over 50,000 members in 140 countries. Our members really represent the breadth of technical professionals in the building industry, from building designers to building owners to manufacturers 

and building operators. 

You know, ASHRAE fulfills our mission by advancing heating, 

ventilating and air-conditioning and refrigeration technologies to 

serve humanity and promote a more sustainable future through not 

only our research, but our standards writing processes, our publications and our continuing education programs. 

But turning our attention on today’s topic, with increased energy 

costs and climate change considerations, design guidance related to 

energy efficiency is more important than ever. Nowhere is it more 

important than in the building industry, given that buildings do 

consume roughly 40 percent of the primary energy in the United 

States. 

Today, building energy efficiency still represents a vast and underutilized energy resource within the United States. Building energy efficiency is the single most important opportunity for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. 

In my opinion, today’s buildings mortgage our energy and environmental future. In the past, our industry really focused on the 

minimum energy-efficiency requirements. But today, we are really 

focusing beyond minimum energy-efficiency requirements, into 

green buildings, what are the requirements for people that want to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
30 

build buildings that perform much better than the minimum requirements required by code. 

Given the concerns regarding climate change, our industry really 

is undergoing a market transformation. It is going to change the 

way that buildings are designed, built and operated. 

In the past, we have been able to provide comfortable, healthy 

and safe buildings. But on the flip side, it is the energy consumed 

by these buildings that is helping fuel this new crisis. And it is a 

crisis of global energy availability, and it certainly is impacting us 

in the United States. 

Unfortunately, the energy consumed by these buildings is starting to increase. In May of 2007, it was the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration that released a report that projected that world energy consumption is projected to increase approximately 57 percent 

from the year 2004 to 2030. And while energy consumption and 

prices continue to rise, the true costs of using energy are even 

higher when we consider its impacts not only on climate change 

but on future generations. 

The sad thing is that most Americans know how fuel-efficient 

their automobiles are but very few understand how much energy 

buildings consume. ASHRAE is working to change this in a variety 

of ways. We are developing significant improvements in the minimum energy-efficiency requirements in ASHRAE’s Standard 90.1, 

which serves as the basis for model U.S. energy code for buildings 

today. 

We are providing for advanced energy design guidance through 

special publications, working with partners like the United States 

Green Building Council, in trying to get this information out to the 

marketplace as free resources, so not only building owners but 

building designers, architects and consumers understand what the 

possibilities are to build more efficient buildings than what the 

minimum code requires today. 

We are also in the process of developing a building energy label 

that will provide builders and occupants with a standard energy 

metric that can be easily compared across different building types. 

It is providing these minimum code requirements and above-code 

requirements is really what is critical to provide improved energy 

efficiency in buildings in the United States. We must continue on 

the path of our Nation’s buildings to be more efficient, but it is 

going to require significant commitment from all the stakeholders. 

I offer the following recommendations to ensure that we meet future requirements and demands placed on our buildings. We really 

do need to adequately fund the Federal agencies to advance the development and enforcement of energy standards, guidelines and 

technologies. 

We should support research and development necessary for the 

development and deployment of technologies necessary to achieve 

our Nation’s energy goals as we move forward. This includes technologies that are going to be envisioned under the Zero-Net-Energy 

Commercial Building Initiative that was established in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of late last year. 

Additionally, sufficient investments are going to be made in research and development for renewable energy technologies as we 

strive for net-zero carbon buildings and net-zero energy buildings. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
31 

We also need to enact policies and encourage individuals and 

businesses to implement energy-efficient technologies and practices 

that go beyond the minimum requirements that are required by the 

building energy codes today. This includes the commercial building 

tax deduction and setting realistic depreciation schedules for heating, ventilating and air-conditioning equipment, which are currently set at 39 years. 

We need to continue to support the utilization of voluntary consensus standards and regulation and codes, as required by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could summarize, please. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

We must apply our knowledge and experience to really provide 

effective, practical and innovative solutions as we try to transform 

the U.S.-built environment to green buildings. 

It has been an honor to testify before the committee, and I welcome any questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Peterson follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
32 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 61727A.017
33 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 61727A.018
34 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 61727A.019
35 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 61727A.020
36 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 61727A.021
37 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 61727A.022
38 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 61727A.023
39 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 61727A.024
40 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Peterson, very much. 

Our next witness is Edward Norton, who is an accomplished 

actor and native son of Boston. But he is here in the role of trustee 

of Enterprise Community Partners, an enterprise developing the 

first national green building program focused entirely on affordable 

housing. 

Mr. Norton has been environmentally active for many years and 

recently worked to improve the carbon footprint of the filming process in his upcoming movie, ‘‘The Incredible Hulk,’’ a green monster 

indeed. [Laughter.] 

So we actually have one in Boston at Fenway Park, a green monster. And now we have one in Hollywood that is working to serve 

as an example for other movie-makers. 

Mr. Norton, we are really honored to have you with us here 

today. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD NORTON 

Mr. NORTON. Thanks, Chairman Markey and all the members of 

the committee. It is a great opportunity to testify on this subject. 

As you said, I am testifying on behalf of Enterprise Community 

Partners. Enterprise, for those of you who don’t know, is a national 

nonprofit organization whose mission is to ensure that all low-income people in the United States have the opportunity for fit and 

affordable housing. Enterprise provides financing and expertise to 

community-based organizations for affordable housing development 

and other community revitalization activities. 

We have invested more than $8 billion and created 240,000 affordable homes, strengthened communities through hundreds of cities across the country. And Enterprise also works very closely on 

a bipartisan basis with policymakers at all levels of government to 

develop solutions to low-income housing needs. 

Now, I feel like I need to give a little context here. You gave 

some. If you happen to occasionally go to the movies during the 

summer recess, then you are probably wondering why I am here. 

But Enterprise was founded by my grandfather, James Rouse, and 

his wife Patty in 1982. My grandfather was a very well-known 

urban philosopher, developer, planner, and a champion of American cities. He was fond of saying that, ‘‘To build a better city is 

to work at the heart of a civilization.’’ And I have always tried to 

keep thinking of that. 

After retiring from his career in commercial development, he 

spent the remainder of his life committed to expanding opportunities for low-income people, and he was awarded the Presidential 

Medal of Freedom for this work in 1995 by President Clinton. He 

was a great inspiration to me, he is the main reason that I am 

here, and to all who knew him as well. Enterprise reflects his convictions today and his entrepreneurialism and his innovation. 

I worked for Enterprise for a few years right after college while 

I was moonlighting in a theater. And when the moonlighting started to become a paying occupation, I went on the board. [Laughter.] 

So I have been on the board since 2000. And my principal interest and contribution has been to push Enterprise to lead on the 

issue of greening the affordable-housing development model. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
41 

So hopefully now nobody will write this off as Chairman Markey 

pulling cameras into his committee room and you will indulge me 

in the actual testimony. 

Obviously, all of you are well aware, as everyone here at the 

table has been saying, of the impact that residential and commercial buildings have on the greenhouse gas production. We are very 

pleased that the committee is focused on buildings as part of its 

leadership on climate change and energy issues generally. And we 

feel, at Enterprise, that what we can speak to specifically are the 

unique aspects of affordable housing in this context, which is often 

left out of these conversations. 

I think a lot of people assume that green practices are the provenance of commercial real estate, and that is absolutely not true, 

and we are determined to include affordable housing in this conversation. 

Enterprise recently published a white paper laying out a comprehensive case for connecting affordable housing to climate change 

and energy needs and solutions through a Federal policy platform 

called, ‘‘Bringing Home the Benefits of Energy Efficiency to LowIncome Households.’’ The paper is enclosed in our written testimony, so all of you have it, and I will address it only briefly. 

Enterprise primarily works to bring benefits of sustainable development to low-income people on a fairly unprecedented scale 

through something that we started called the Green Communities 

Initiative. Through Green Communities, Enterprise is providing 

funds and expertise to build and rehabilitate for-sale houses and 

rental apartments that are healthier for low-income residents and 

more energy-efficient and better for the environment. 

Green Communities homes are built according to our Green Communities criteria, which, before LEED even, was the first national 

framework of standards and practices for green affordable housing. 

We have invested over $570 million in this initiative and have built 

11,800 affordable green homes in 28 States, as of now. 

We feel we have gained a couple of key insights through the 

work. 

The first is that green and affordable are not just intertwined 

but that they are, in fact, inextricably linked agendas, insofar as 

low-income people and communities suffer disproportionately from 

housing challenges, energy costs and effects of climate change. 

The good news is that we can now demonstrate very conclusively 

that those agendas to create and build green and meet affordablehousing demand can be one and the same. We can show that the 

costs are only about 2 to 4 percent higher, and that this premium 

tends to come down for developers as they gain experience. 

We can show that most of the marginally higher costs attributable to these measures generate financial savings for low-income 

families, to whom those savings definitely matter the most. In 

other words, those techniques do pay for themselves in an affordable context, and usually very quickly. 

We can show that greening affordable development at scale does 

result in measurable improvements in health and reduced healthcare costs, especially asthma; that green and affordable housing at 

scale reduces carbon emission very measurably. And the evidence 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
42 

to back these assertions is included also in the written statement 

that we have given you. 

The other key insight that we have derived pursuing these goals 

is that Federal leadership is essential and that a national commitment to this agenda in affordable housing is sorely lacking. We 

need national, bipartisan commitment to this effort. 

Our 10-point plan lays out key elements of what we think that 

commitment should entail, and it is included in our statement. But 

in the broad strokes, a Federal commitment of $5 billion a year 

over 10 years could deliver huge benefits across the board: 25 to 

40 percent energy savings in up to 25 million residential units; up 

to 50 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided; and hundreds of thousands of green jobs created annually. 

This Federal commitment is relatively modest if one considers 

that HUD, as Mayor Newsom mentioned, currently spends more 

than $4 billion annually just to pay utilities in very inefficient, 

Government-assisted properties. $5 billion is a very small share of 

the projected revenues that would be generated under proposals to 

curb greenhouse gas emissions currently under consideration in 

Congress and supported by all three major presidential candidates. 

The solutions are definitely available, but there is no more time, 

we feel, for small-scale, incremental progress. We think that policymakers need to act with urgency and seriousness of purpose, for 

starters. Congress just simply should not allow taxpayer funds to 

support building of any kind that does not meet a more demanding 

minimum standard for energy efficiency and indoor air quality and 

lower carbon emissions. 

To wrap it up, I mean, to make it a more personal statement, I 

am sure that many of you saw, as I did, the recent paper that was 

submitted by NASA’s chief climatologist, James Hansen. I met him 

with Congressman Markey, the other day. 

The abstract attached to it argued that, and I will quote him, ‘‘If 

humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and on which life on Earth is adapted, 

paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggests that 

CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 parts per million 

to, at most, 350 parts per million.’’ 

And that is a tough diagnosis, and it is a monumental challenge. 

So the significance of these issues that you are debating really 

can’t be overstated. 

We talked about this at the Earth Day rally, the other day. I 

think that every generation is called on in different ways to serve 

a higher purpose. I think I am the youngest person at the table, 

and I wanted to comment that my grandparents’ generation rose 

up, faced a great war against fascism and totalitarianism. My parents’ generation carried the torch of civil rights and social equality. 

I have very little doubt, personally—I am 38 years old—I have very 

little doubt that the legacy of my generation is going to hinge on 

how we respond to these revelations that we are not living 

sustainably and that we are altering the environment. 

And I feel very confident in saying that my generation and even 

those younger than us have truly embraced this as our cause and 

that we are ready to rise to this challenge. But bluntly, we are not 

yet running things; you are. And this is a problem, because the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
43 

scale of this challenge is going to require bold action on a national 

level. And our generation does not want to be told to ‘‘go shopping’’ 

right now. We are ready to sacrifice, as our parents and grandparents did. We want to do nation-building, but we want to start 

at home by playing our part in creating the next prosperous American century. 

But somebody has got to call on us to do this by defining this 

as a test of our American character, much as Lincoln and Franklin 

Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy and other great leaders did in their 

time. And we need it clearly articulated as a national priority, and 

we need the bar set very high, much higher than it has been, because timidity is going to squander our generation’s resolve and resourcefulness. 

So all of us at Enterprise commend you for convening this hearing, and we are available to answer any questions. Thank you for 

the opportunity. 

[The statement of Mr. Norton follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
44 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 61727A.025
45 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 61727A.026
46 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 61727A.027
47 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 61727A.028
48 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 61727A.029
49 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 61727A.030
50 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 61727A.031
51 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 61727A.032
52 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 61727A.033
53 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Norton, very much. 

In fact, your grandfather, James Rouse, came to Boston in the 

middle of the 1960s and looked at our oldest buildings—Fanueil 

Hall, Quincy Market—and said, ‘‘We can take those old buildings 

and redesign them for the 20th and the 21st century.’’ 

Mr. NORTON. He would have done them more efficiently if he had 

known what we know now. 

The CHAIRMAN. But even with his vision, though, he did that in 

Baltimore. He went city after city and took the oldest structures 

and redesigned them for the new era. And you are here following 

in his footsteps, asking for us to do it once again for the 21st century, and we thank you. 

Mr. NORTON. Thanks for the opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness, Michelle Moore, is senior vice 

president of policy and market development of the U.S. Green 

Building Council. This council develops the LEED standard, one of 

the most popular green building certification programs in the country. 

We welcome you, Ms. Moore. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE MOORE 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you very much. And thank you so much not 

only for giving us the opportunity to address you here today with 

so many colleagues and leaders from around the world on this 

topic, but also for your explicitly stated intent to raise the level of 

awareness of green buildings as a source of solutions for climate 

change, for energy and a myriad of other issues. 

As Americans, we spend 90 percent of our time indoors. Our 

buildings have an extraordinary, if little understood, impact on our 

health and well-being. And there are so many issues that they are 

able to help us address. 

So, to begin with, just a little bit about the U.S. Green Building 

Council. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. We have been 

in existence for about 15 years. And USGBC’s mission is the market transformation of the built environment to sustainability. And 

that concept of market transformation is extraordinarily important 

in understanding the intent and, really, the uses of the LEED 

green building rating system, which many of the other speakers 

here today have referenced. 

Our membership is composed of, to date, about 16,000 organizational members. So those are companies, educational institutions 

and governmental agencies who are a part not only of USGBC as 

an organization but who also participate in the consensus process 

that develops and advances the LEED rating system. 

Our vision in creating LEED and our intent in its use is that it 

would set a high bar, challenge the leaders and innovators in the 

marketplace to achieve it, and, in doing so, gradually raise the floor 

of the industry. 

Now, in the climate in which we currently exist, obviously the 

U.S. Green Building Council feels a tremendous sense of urgency 

associated with energy and climate, again, like so many of the colleagues on the panel here today. And that sense of urgency is expressed in our work. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
54 

And if you had an opportunity to read the written testimony that 

I shared, there has been extraordinary growth in the green building marketplace, certainly over the course of the past 8 years since 

the introduction of the LEED green building rating system. 

USGBC’s growth is a reasonable proxy for understanding how 

the market has been pacing forward, by every measure, by registered and certified buildings, membership in USGBC, or LEEDaccredited professionals in the community. So these are professionals from the engineering community, from the architectural 

community who have committed themselves to greener buildings. It 

has been doubling at the rate of about 50—well, every 2 years, doubling every 2 years, growing at a rate of 50 percent a year, which 

is good, but it is not enough in terms of what we need to achieve 

in a very short period of time. 

Other statistics in terms of market growth that I think are important to understand are that McGraw-Hill projects that by the 

year 2010 there will be about a $60 billion marketplace for green 

building products and services. So all of the projections that we 

have heard about the potential for green job creation, for driving 

tremendous innovation and entrepreneurialism in our economy 

around the building sector, which is 14.7 of U.S. GDP and generates 9 million American jobs, are coming true today. 

But the single greatest obstacle to that is the perception that, to 

do something good, to do something better, to do something that is 

better for the environment, it is going to cost you a pound of flesh. 

And if you look at some of the research that has come out, even 

over the course of the past year, about perceptions of green building, while there is an increasing understanding that, indeed, it 

does save money, and if there is a first-cost premium associated 

with building green—and the research out there right now says 

that that first-cost premium typically stands at 1.5 percent of total 

cost—it is paid back within the first year just based on utility savings. But the challenge is that the vast majority of the population, 

even in professional communities, overestimate that first-cost premium by more than 300 percent. So it is a mindset that needs to 

be transformed through demonstration, through research, through 

case histories, that could make a tremendous impact in accelerating change. 

Most of what we have talked about here today so far have been 

new buildings, you know, how to really change the impact of new 

structures that are being built today in America—homes, schools, 

commercial buildings, governmental buildings—can make. We 

would put forth that the single greatest opportunity that we have 

is with our existing building stock. It is 90 percent of the opportunity, quite literally. 

And a recent McKinsey study that was published put forth that 

it was a negative cost, which I guess means a profitable opportunity for CO2 emissions reductions—negative cost is kind of a 

funny way to say that. We can actually make money and generate 

jobs and generate economic opportunity by investing in the buildings that we already have. That is true in the commercial space, 

and that is true in the residential space as well. 

It is not as sexy as solar panels. And it takes a lot of additional 

training, you know, people whose skills we don’t have today, but 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
55 

it is an enormous opportunity. We have done some initial calculations, and it suggests that 1.2 million jobs could be generated by 

a complete commitment. 

I would like to close just by offering one additional important 

focus, and it is a focus that Congresswoman Solis brought up early 

on, and that is our schools. In the commercial marketplace, our 

schools are the single largest market sector. It is a $37 billion marketplace this year alone. And 20 percent of America goes to school 

every day. 

Congress has taken a leadership position on this with the Green 

Schools Caucus, which many members of this committee have 

joined as well. But it is an extraordinary opportunity not only to 

dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, dramatically reduce energy 

consumption, but, to Edward Norton’s point, demonstrate in very 

concrete terms to the next generation that we have a real commitment to a more sustainable future. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Moore follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
56 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 61727A.034
57 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 61727A.035
58 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 61727A.036
59 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 61727A.037
60 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 61727A.038
61 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 61727A.039
62 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 61727A.040
63 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 61727A.041
64 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 61727A.042
65 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 61727A.043
66 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 61727A.044
67 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 61727A.045
68 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 61727A.046
69 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 61727A.047
70 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 61727A.048
71 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Moore, very much. 

And our final witness is Tony Stall, who is the vice president of 

marketing for Dryvit Systems, Incorporated. Dryvit is a Rhode Island-based company that has been building exterior insulation and 

finishing systems for over 30 years. This Outsulation offers improved insulation and energy efficiency benefits. 

We welcome you, Mr. Stall. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF TONY STALL 

Mr. STALL. Thank you, sir. 

Before I begin, I would like to thank Mr. Norton for, as he wondered aloud if he was the youngest member at the table, you did 

glance in my direction. [Laughter.] 

And I know you were looking at Ms. Moore, but I am flattered 

by that, as well as flattered to be in your presence and included 

among you. So thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, for the opportunity to address this committee on the issue 

of energy efficiency in construction and strategies to reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions, both of which are inherent benefits of the exterior cladding system manufactured by my company. 

I would also like to offer special thanks to Congressman Sullivan, 

who last year visited our Oklahoma office and greatly impressed 

me with his sincere interest in both our company as well as the 

contributions our products can make toward improving the environment and, importantly, our national energy security. Thank you. 

Headquartered in West Warwick, Rhode Island, Dryvit also owns 

manufacturing facilities in Georgia, Oklahoma and California, as 

well as in Poland, China and Canada. Our parent company, RPM, 

is a publicly traded American company which owns major construction-related brands, such as DAP, Rustoleum, Zinsser and Tremco. 

Seventy-five percent of Dryvit’s business is in the United States, on 

new construction as well as in the renovation of older structures. 

Ours is not a new or unproven technology. In 1969, we brought 

the concept of a highly energy-efficient exterior cladding system to 

the United States. This system, as its name, Outsulation, suggests, 

is uniquely defined by the placement of the insulating component 

of the system on the exterior of the wall. That is where building 

science has proven it to be most effective. 

Dryvit Outsulation Systems have been used on over 400,000 

structures in North America. A vast majority of the Nation’s architects and general contractors have specified and used Dryvit 

claddings over the past 40 years, in both private- and public-sector 

construction, residential and commercial, in all 50 States as well 

as around the world. 

Dryvit Outsulation Systems have been a popular choice for building owners because they are design-flexible, durable, cost-efficient, 

and, most effective, more energy efficient than any other common 

exterior cladding system available today. 

This energy efficiency is validated by the Oak Ridge National 

Laboratories, which evaluated seven common cladding systems: 

brick, stucco, glass, concrete, wood, masonry, and the Dryvit 

Outsulation System. Their findings are extremely compelling: Our 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
72 

system tested 84 percent more energy-efficient than next-best, 84 

percent. What does that translate into for the building owner? An 

average energy savings of between 20 and 30 percent. That is a significant benefit and one that can contribute enormously to meeting 

our national energy policy objectives. 

Approximately 80 percent of buildings and virtually all those 

built prior to 1970 are more poorly insulated than required by current building codes. That is a significant problem when you consider that the USGBC asserts that more than 40 percent of all energy used in the United States is used to heat, cool and operate 

buildings. 

Developing cost-effective energy-efficient strategies for both new 

and existing buildings are of the highest national priority. We can 

immediately and meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign, 

nonrenewable energy sources by raising standards for the energy 

efficiency of all types of buildings. 

Importantly, such policies need not be more expensive to building 

owners, residential or commercial. While precise costs are variable 

to geography and project conditions, Dryvit Outsulation Systems 

are a cost-effective method of achieving greater energy efficiency. 

In a case study developed by a Nashville architect, 10 percent of 

the shell construction costs on a typical three-story office building 

were saved by substituting our Outsulation Systems for masonry. 

This amounted to $570,000 in savings on a $5 million shell, a savings in concrete, steel, cladding, and HVAC systems. 

Energy savings, however, are only half the story. The other half 

involves our carbon footprint. We have always known that 

Outsulation Systems reduce energy use. 

What we did not know and needed to find out was whether the 

energy needed to create, transport, and recycle our products was 

greater or less than the energy saved by using them. To determine 

this, we turned to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a division of the U.S. Commerce Department. NIST conducted a full 50-year lifecycle analysis, cradle to grave, of all 

Outsulation system components, including the expanded polystyrene insulation. In nearly every category considered by NIST, 

the Outsulation systems were superior to all other tested claddings. 

Put it in terms we can all understand, Outsulation systems produced an overall lifecycle carbon footprint more than seven times 

smaller than brick and five sometimes smaller than stucco. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could conclude, please. 

Mr. STALL. I would like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by thanking 

you and your colleagues again for your time and the opportunity 

to share this vitally important information with you. Cladding systems that place insulation on the outside of the wall have been 

proven by independent U.S. Government agencies to be significantly more energy efficient, and leave a significantly smaller carbon footprint than those that do not. 

With that in mind, I encourage you to strongly consider both 

simplifying existing guidelines as well as recommending additional 

legislation which will provide incentives to building owners that 

choose to invest in building technologies that have already been 

proven to significantly improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon 

emissions. Current technology can accomplish these goals. Building 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
73 

green with the right mix of products does not have to cost more. 

It is responsible economic and environmental policy to encourage 

the use of these technologies to every possible extent. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Stall follows:] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
74 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 61727A.049
75 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 61727A.050
76 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 61727A.051
77 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 61727A.052
78 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 61727A.053
79 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 61727A.054
80 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stall, very much. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions. 

And again, my mother always used to say, Eddie, you have got to 

learn how to work smarter, not harder. And she would always say 

that immediately before she said that she was going to donate my 

brain to Harvard Medical School as a completely unused human 

organ. But, essentially, her message was, let’s just be more efficient. Think smarter here. Why waste energy, money, time when 

you can be smarter? 

So, Mayor Newsom, you heard the debate here. Let’s just leave 

the private sector go and do it. You don’t need any regulations. You 

don’t need any government intrusion. Now, if you had not acted, 

Mr. Mayor, what had been the case before you had put all of these 

new codes and regulations on the books? 

Mr. NEWSOM. I appreciate the spirit of the debate, and I appreciate the question. And the reality is they just simply weren’t doing 

it. They were constructing to old standards. The designers and architects weren’t working together, weren’t coordinating, weren’t collaborating. Engineers were in a silo. And folks just weren’t focused 

on it. In fact, a lot of developers, they are not operating or managing the buildings. They are just happy to get a product up and 

gone, and then some new independent manager comes in, and they 

just pass through the energy costs to the businesses. So the fact is 

there was really no incentive. 

So when you get everybody in the same room and you start creating some rationale on these things and explaining those costs, 

and the fact they are going to be borne down the line, and be borne 

in ways that are actually not economic stimulus, meaning they are 

going to actually hurt our economic output and the economy, then 

folks start saying, well, wait a second. You are telling me 1 percent, 2 percent. I have stats. We have a new study came out zero 

to 2 percent, meaning de minimis. Some as high as 2 to 4 percent. 

The reality is there is not much of a cost differential. It is the quality of imagination. That is all that’s missing here. Common sense. 

As you say, work smarter, not harder. So the fact is, as we push 

people together, as we force them to think differently, they are acting differently, and they are happy to do it. 

Private sector is a hundred percent on board. And we have some 

of the exact same developers in every one of your towns that say 

you know what, we get it. And we get it because we have a better 

product that we can insure for less money, operate for less money, 

get better workforce by getting better businesses here. It is a winwin. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

Mr. Norton, when people think about low-income housing, they 

say, well, let’s kind of spend less money on it, and it won’t be some 

big luxury home. But how can you make something efficient with 

green technologies if you can’t spend money on it? What is the rationale? Can you explain it to the committee so people can understand why it makes sense to make these low-income units green? 

Mr. NORTON. Well, there are lots of easy ways to make low income green. And in a strange way, low-income development, good 

low-income development, has always been more efficient in the 

sense that most good nonprofit community development of housing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
81 

has involved efficiency training anyway for the economic reason 

that the people in the lowest income brackets need the most relief 

from the high nut of home energy use and things like that. That 

is increasingly true as energy costs rise. Obviously, people in the 

lowest income levels are suffering disproportionately from increasing energy costs. 

But to your point, efficiency, there are lots of ways to make a 

home more efficient that are not high cost premium items, from the 

materials that are used to the efficient appliances, the Energy Star 

appliances that are coming on line, and frankly just training people. Someone mentioned it, many people just aren’t aware how they 

are using energy in their home. They are aware what their car 

mileage is but not how they are using energy in their home. 

But, as Mayor Newsom was saying, we are finding, in the affordable housing context, it is the same. There are a lot of the same 

misperceptions that the various things that go into making the 

footprint more efficient have a high-cost premium on them. And we 

are finding also that it is in the 1 to 3 percent range and, as I mentioned, tends to drop with the learning curve. I think it is one of 

the most salient points; I heard three different people say it, the 

bottom line, the impact on the bottom line argument is based on 

a lot of outdated information I think. The assumption that these 

techniques carry a high-cost premium is sort of a canard at this 

point that shouldn’t be indulged too much longer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask one final question on my round. And 

that would be to Mr. Peterson, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Stall. 

You heard Mayor Newsom talk about his regulations and how it 

telescoped the timeframe to get the real benefits. And then once everyone was in, they realized they were benefitting from it. Do you 

think that it is good to have regulations on the books that then everyone understands? Does that help to accomplish these goals, or 

should we just leave it wide open to every single citizen of our 

country and private sector individual to move forward on their own 

pace? 

Are regulations necessary, Mr. Peterson? 

Mr. PETERSON. I believe that regulations offer the ability to set 

goals for people in our industry. And as we talked about with green 

buildings, we are changing the way that we design and construct 

buildings. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the answer is yes. 

Mr. PETERSON. The answer is, it will accelerate the marketplace 

by setting regulations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And ultimately help, not hurt those who are affected by the regulations. 

Mr. PETERSON. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Moore. 

Ms. MOORE. The consensus process that Mayor Newsom described I think is extraordinarily important. 

The CHAIRMAN. But then the consensus has to be made the regulation. You agree with that? 

Ms. MOORE. Consensus has to drive local decisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Great. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
82 

Mr. Stall, would your company be better off if we had a national 

standard that everyone had to meet? How wealthy would you become and how fast? 

Mr. STALL. First of all, there are many standards that apply to 

exterior cladding systems such as we make. I mean, the code testing that is required to become compliant—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that good? 

Mr. STALL. I believe that is very good, because it acts on public 

safety. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. That is all I need to hear. 

My time has expired. Let me turn and recognize the gentleman 

from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mayor, I was going to ask, you said a lot of good things, what 

about like low income people that their houses aren’t very efficient, 

do you have any innovative programs to address how they can afford to maybe update their homes? 

Mr. NEWSOM. Yeah, we are very proud, we have a Power Savers 

Program. We have other programs with our utility, PG&E, Pacific 

Gas and Electric, and our California Public Utilities Commission, 

which have been remarkable partners that go in doing energy audits in low-income communities primarily as well as small businesses. And we have all kinds of grants that are provided by the 

private sector that basically make it de minimis again. The cost is 

pretty negligible to retrofit. So we, as a consequence, have been fortunate enough that we have done so much on CFLs that we are 

now restricting certain types of CFLs. So we are moving beyond the 

incandescent-compressed fluorescent debate to what kinds of CFLs 

we are using by eliminating T–12s and requiring now T–8s and 

moving toward LEDs. 

But the point I really want to underscore is Ed’s point, the issue 

of environmental justice and the fact that the environmental movement in this country looks a lot like us, and the fact that four out 

of five toxic waste dumps in this country are in African-American 

communities. And here we are subsidizing $4 billion a year in HUD 

for utilities. I mean, the idea that Republicans, not just least of 

which Democrats, would sport with these increased utility costs; 

that kind of subsidy is beyond me. It puts pressure on municipal 

government, puts pressure on Federal and State government to increase taxes. And that is why I think the issue of particularly linking these requirements that focus on your question of how we can 

address low-income communities and how we can insulate, literally 

and figuratively, the costs that would otherwise be borne by people 

on fixed income by investing up front in quality construction I 

think is self-evident. I think it is an easy question to answer. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Are people taking advantage of it now? 

Mr. NEWSOM. Unbelievably so. And it is something we market 

consistently. And we are very proud of the programs. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And Mr. Peterson, and I guess Ms. Moore, does 

your organization support any mandates, I guess national, State or 

local, for the LEED rating system or certification program? 

Mr. PETERSON. I will speak, obviously first, for my organization. 

My organization actually writes most of the standards. They are 

consensus-based standards by which the LEED rating system is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
83 

modeled after. And so we write the energy efficiency standards for 

buildings. We are working with the United States Green Building 

Council with a new high-performance green building standard that 

could be a standard adopted by local jurisdictions for minimum requirements for green buildings also. 

Ms. MOORE. From our perspective, as I mentioned earlier, LEED 

was developed as a voluntary rating system for green buildings. 

And in many leadership-oriented communities, like San Francisco, 

they have made a decision to move from incentives-based programs 

like permitting, which is low or no cost for the city and puts a lot 

of money back in the developers’ pockets to create that reason to 

go green, to a community consensus-based decision to adopt LEED 

across the board. Now a couple of years ago when USGBC decided 

to partner with ASHRAE to create Standard 189, we did so explicitly because we thought the market was at a place at which there 

needed to be that minimum standard that could set the level floor 

for the level of green building achievement that any commercial 

construction should be able to hit. And I believe that that standard 

will be completed and available in the marketplace sometime early 

next year. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And, Mr. Stall, did you bring a piece of Dryvit 

with you? 

Mr. STALL. I did not, sir. I am sorry. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I was just going to ask if you could, let’s say I 

have an old house and I want to save on my electric bill, heating, 

cooling my home, it is a typical wood, I guess, house, how would 

your product be applied to it? What would you do? And just how 

much would it cost for I guess just a small house to have that 

done? 

Mr. STALL. Well, costs are of course variable according to the job. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. 

Mr. STALL. You are looking at an average of probably between 

$5 and $10 a square foot, depending upon the design you ultimately wanted. You may be doing other things to your home, such 

as changing windows, improving the sealants that may be old and 

may need remodeling. You may be changing your roof. You are 

probably going to involve an architect. If all you wanted to do was 

add Outsulation to the exterior of the home, you would need only 

contact Dryvit to start the process. And we would have a trained 

applicator out there looking at what needed to be done and coming 

up with a quote and—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Just putting that on, though, that would be significant, just applying that to the outside of the home, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. STALL. It would probably be, for a couple of thousand square 

feet on the exterior of a home, it would probably take a couple of 

weeks to do. Not a complicated process. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And how is it applied to let’s say a house? You 

have the wood. Does the wood have to be taken off or—— 

Mr. STALL. Typically, the cladding, the exterior cladding, would 

be removed down to the substrate, which would likely be plywood 

or OSB. And then the expanded polystyrene insulation board would 

be attached directly to the plywood. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is a neat product. I think it is a wonderful innovation. I appreciate you being here. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
84 

Mr. STALL. Chairman, if I might, you asked a question about—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

But you should be proud, Mr. Stall, because on C-SPAN you just 

had the first commercial infomercial in C-SPAN history. So you 

should be happy right where you are right now. 

Let me turn here and recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Political infomercials don’t count. 

I appreciate the testimony here talking about the impacts. I think the reference several of you made to $4 billion that the Federal Government is currently spending on utilities, I am very interested in the thoughts that you have about how we would redirect 

this, how we get the people to have government leading by example 

to actually bring this to pass. Any thoughts and observations? 

Mr. NORTON. Well, there is a forthcoming piece of legislation 

from Representative Perlmutter, I believe—— 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Right. 

Mr. NORTON [continuing]. That is entitled the Green Resources 

for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act, which is an attempt to just 

basically legislate that HUD can incorporate environmental priorities into its various programs. For starters, just to have HUD actually—— 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. You would rather have us change that to 

‘‘should’’ or ‘‘will.’’ 

Mr. NORTON. Yeah, I would. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is there any reason that we don’t mandate 

that? 

Mr. NEWSOM. I am at a complete loss. I mean, if the idea is to 

reduce the costs of government, and here you have one of the easiest ways to reduce the cost of government, and everyone says, my 

gosh, this is very challenging and difficult. I mean, this is simple. 

You know, with all due respect, I am dumbfounded and at a complete loss when we are down at the local level where we can do it 

in dysfunctional cities like San Francisco. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Your words, not mine. 

I appreciate, Mr. Norton, your referencing that bill. I think we 

are ready to introduce it this next week. And I think Mr. 

Perlmutter and Mr. Hodes have done a great job. I am planning 

on being an original cosponsor of it. 

This notion, though, of having a mandate, none of you would object to mandating the Federal Government have the highest standards? 

Ms. MOORE. Congressman Blumenauer, if I might add, there are 

about a dozen Federal agencies that have taken very far forward 

leadership positions today in green building practices. It hasn’t 

been adopted across all Federal buildings obviously, but the Department of Energy, for instance, was one of the earliest investors 

in the development of the LEED rating system, and helped to advance it. And GSA is doing extraordinary work as well that is exemplary. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I guess what drives me crazy, I am as incredulous as some of our witnesses, I have been in Congress 13 years; 

we have been having these conversations. We still don’t have a uniVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:06 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 061727 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A727.XXX A727

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
85 

form policy. The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the world. We are not setting the bar very high. And it 

frustrates me. One other area, you mentioned issues that deal with 

low-income consumers. And I appreciate you referenced Mr. Rose, 

who was part of a panel we had last week here. 

Mr. NORTON. You are talking about Jonathan Rose, who is also 

on our board. Yeah. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Jonathan Rose does a great job on your board. 

We have got people back home that are committed to actually having buildings that generate more energy than they use, that use 

more waste than they produce. So we know kind of what to do with 

it. Is there an opportunity to go to the private sector in terms of 

the private utilities that are trying to figure out how to use, how 

to meet the needs that are coming down the line, and give them 

a higher rate of return on projects, insulation, swapping out hot 

water heaters? And nobody in America should have an electric hot 

water heater bubbling away while they are not home, for instance. 

Is there a role for the regulatory process with utilities themselves 

to accelerate, to jump-start this? 

Mr. PETERSON. Utilities play a very important part in actually 

implementing these strategies. Especially in my home State of 

California, as the mayor would tell you and he did actually indicate, utility companies need to understand that energy efficiency is 

the first measure in providing return to their investors. And in 

many States, as I travel across the United States, many States 

have not understood that business model yet. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I guess my question is, shouldn’t we be pushing to make that a part of the State regulatory framework and 

maybe have some FERC incentives? 

Mr. PETERSON. I believe that we need to mimic some of the lessons that have been learned in the State of California and some of 

the other States with respect to the public utilities on what energy 

efficiency offers for the return on investment of those investors in 

those utilities. 

Mr. NEWSOM. And California is a great example, where we are 

incentivizing our public—through the California Public Utilities 

Commission, is incentivizing utilities like Pacific Gas and Electric 

to do the right thing. They make money by doing the right thing. 

And it is an extraordinary successful model. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I see my time is wrapping up. Could I leave 

a question for you to ponder and perhaps share with us at a later 

date? I mentioned the location efficiency. We are having a problem 

where some of the most desirable, from a transit perspective, is the 

most expensive. Some of the cheapest housing is the most expensive for transportation. And it drives the greenhouse gas footprint. 

Any thoughts or reflections that you or your organizations have 

about ways that we might incent location efficiency to supplement 

what you are doing would be welcome. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if you could provide that in writing to the 

committee from your organizations, we would very much appreciate 

that. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
86 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you. And I apologize for having to step out earlier. I didn’t hear all the testimony. But I am sure—my staff tells 

me it was very much on target. 

I am concerned about the issue regarding environmental justice 

communities, and the fact when we talk about the environment 

and the greening, it very much looks like this room. It doesn’t reflect many of the communities that some of the Members of Congress represent. And how do we incentivize our partners who want 

to get involved in the greening of the environment and our buildings? What kinds of things or action can the Federal Government 

take to help build that ability to have a workforce? 

And Mrs. Moore, if you could answer, and also the mayor. 

Ms. MOORE. The focus on investing in green job skills training 

is extraordinarily important. The statistic I mentioned earlier, that 

100 percent commitment to energy efficiency in building could 

drive more than a million green jobs. The skills that are needed to 

retrofit our buildings, the skills that are needed to retrofit our 

homes for energy efficiency aren’t necessarily present in the workforce today. You know, any of us who live in Washington D.C., if 

we wanted to do a deep energy retrofit on our houses, market price, 

affordable or otherwise, good luck finding someone you could call 

to help you do that. There are some wonderful programs out there 

that begin to provide benchmarks, like Energy Star performance 

for homes that even work for existing structures. 

But in making an investment in the workforce, and for those of 

us who represent the nonprofit community, cultivating stronger 

partnerships with trade unions and with other organizations that 

represent the workforce that stands to benefit from this is very, 

very high on our agenda, as well as partnerships with Enterprise 

Community Partners and others who help bring affordability to the 

agenda. Because I think that we would all agree that we can’t afford as a society to allow living in a green home or working in a 

green office to be eco-bling. 

Mr. NEWSOM. Well, this is the great opportunity, is to lock people 

into the green sustainable economy that have been locked out of 

the old industrial age economy and really focus on the issue of environmental justice in the context of looking at its racial implications, and taking advantage of the opportunity to look at your Federal workforce dollars and your workforce training dollars in a way 

that advances that and focuses on underserved communities and 

focuses on the creation of these jobs that are jobs that were wisely 

stated earlier that can’t be outsourced. These are the jobs that need 

real bodies to do real work within the community. 

I will just give you a brief example in San Francisco. We have 

a solar incentive program. We actually have a solar incentive program that will provide up to $6,000, just a cash rebate. That assumes, though, that the individual that wants to put solar on their 

roof gets—rather uses resources from the city and invests it back 

in through an organization that does workforce training targeted 

within ZIP codes in our city that are in underserved communities. 

You get only $3,000 if you don’t. Meaning we are actually putting 

real money up. We will double the incentive if you go through 

workforce training programs within the city and county of San 

Francisco in underserved communities. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
87 

So there are all kinds of ways to create incentives that create 

market decisions that are in line with I think the broad ideology 

here represented in Congress. 

Ms. SOLIS. Are any other cities doing that of, say, your size? 

Mr. NEWSOM. None. In fact, we very notably are proud that we 

are taking the lead on this. But there are hybrids of it all across 

the country, Portland of course being one of the most progressive 

and extraordinary examples, but in smaller ways. San Francisco 

will be the first to do that. 

Another thing I also think is important, we are about to replace 

our payroll tax with a carbon tax. We will be the first city in the 

United States to do that. Which gets into that whole issue of all 

those buildings we are not talking about. And we are looking to address some of the issues of inequality, looking at more 

grandfathering. We don’t want to burden people on fixed income 

with an increase in their utility users tax or businesses in turn. 

And so we are looking at very progressive grant funds as well and 

other incentives that would lock into some of the points in question 

that you were mentioning earlier. 

Ms. SOLIS. Just one comment if anyone wants to comment on the 

notion of trying to create some kind of a carbon tax fund, investment fund that could then be made available to low-income communities or areas that are blighted or could be identified as green 

zones. Is there any talk about that out there in the private sector 

world? 

Mr. NEWSOM. That is literally what we have done. When I say 

ZIP codes, we have created zones on the basis of ZIP Codes and on 

the basis of asthma rates and all other kinds of indices that we 

have determined. One of the exciting things—— 

Ms. SOLIS. Do you think the Federal Government should consider 

that? 

Mr. NEWSOM. Absolutely. Yes. I will leave it at that. 

Ms. SOLIS. Quickly, quickly, because my time is running out. 

Mr. NORTON. Certainly. We feel very strongly that Enterprise did 

some of the—you know, we are exploring extensively the way that 

these investments, these initial investments in greening affordable 

housing will actually pay dividends, real dividends in the sense 

that, as the carbon economy becomes more defined, there might be 

quite a bit of revenue available to the nonprofits, the community 

development corporations, things like that available, you know, to 

come back to them out of the carbon economy in terms of carbon 

credits and things like that. So, literally, not just in terms of, is 

there a cost premium on it, but that there actually might be a return on investment over time because, you know, the carbon trading is here. And we are already figuring out ways for the low-income development community to tap that as a source of revenue. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I was struck by Mr. Norton’s request for 

a challenge, you know, from Washington D.C., and his regretting 

the fact that a bunch of old guys are still running this joint. You 

know, and I just want to assure him we got guys, you know, Eddie 

Markey pushing 90, he has got some good ideas. Earl Blumenauer, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
88 

the leader of transportation and planning pushing, you know, 80, 

and he has still got good ideas. So you are seeing some challenges 

here. 

Mr. NORTON. You need to get a microphone. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yeah. 

I just wondered what is the best way to frame that challenge? 

You know, I was struck by your language saying we need a challenge that will challenge people to the better angels of their nature 

to rise to this new enterprise. What is best way to talk about that? 

And the reason I ask you is, I have talked about it, and some people have criticized me the way I talk about it. I talk about we got 

to recreate the Apollo project. Americans still have the right stuff. 

This is for America to fulfill its destiny. 

And some people say, no, no, you should talk in some terms 

about sacrifice, that somehow we have to sacrifice. That should be 

part of the language. I just wondered, you are a master of the popular culture, what do you think is the right way to talk about this 

revolution? 

Mr. NORTON. I am glad you brought that up. It does strike me, 

listening to the appropriate debate about the cost-benefit analysis 

and what is the best instrument of these changes, is it the free 

market, that part of what in my mind, without being an alarmist, 

what breaks the validity of that debate down is to some degree the 

environment of crisis that we are facing. I mean, this country has 

done what it needed to do historically when it faced crisis. And the 

question that—you know, the question that was put to the forefront 

was not in those scenarios, you know, well, should the market handle this or not. You know, we didn’t ask if the market would handle—the market created the Depression. We didn’t look to the market, the free market to fix, you know, the country in the crisis of 

the Depression. We didn’t look to the free market to figure out how 

to take on the challenge of—a global challenge like World War II. 

This country has many times in its history acknowledged that it 

needed to meet a challenge that the free market was not the best 

instrument of for that. 

And I think, you know, you reference Lincoln and the better angels of our nature. I think that, in those moments, I think that people, you know, young people—my father still talks about being a 

sophomore in college and hearing Kennedy say the phrase, ‘‘ask not 

what your country can do for you but what you can do for your 

country.’’ Nobody is saying things like that to us. They are just not, 

not in a meaningful way. I think they are not calling—you know, 

people my age and younger I think look at government these days 

as an argument between parties as opposed to a conversation about 

the country. And I think that a framing, a framing context, framing this as an epochal challenge, saying this is what your grandchildren and their grandchildren are going to remember this era 

for, how you stood up and faced this problem, is inspiring. We want 

to be inspired. We want to be inspired by language that—and when 

you reference the Apollo project or something like that, I think 

that, at core, I do think that is a part of it. I think it is about leadership creating a narrative really for people, a narrative that gives 

them something to engage in, a role that they can play in a collective agenda. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
89 

And I think you talk about the popular culture, the downside of 

it is the fragmentation of our popular culture, our national culture. 

It is a function of our diversity. But what we are missing, I think 

what we have been missing for a long time is that narrative that 

unites us in a sense of common purpose. 

Mr. INSLEE. There are a couple books that I think fulfill that. I 

will give one of them after this hearing is over. 

But one other quick question, as far as greening the as-built environment, one of the great challenge is financing this. You know, 

everybody can save energy if they will put a few grand down to 

green their house, their as-built house. But getting that financing 

is a real issue. And it seems to me that we need some structure 

of an industry who will essentially assume your energy ownership 

of your home that will in fact put up the capital, do the improvements, and have the homeowner pay what they would have paid 

otherwise, less some money for their savings over time to a company that has assumed the risks for the energy costs. That doesn’t 

really exist right now. Can it? Should it? What do we do to get that 

type of structure just in 30 seconds? 

Ms. MOORE. Two quick things. One, there is some wonderful 

models that are working. In California, of course, for on bill financing for home energy efficiency improvements. And in the commercial sector, ESCOs, Energy Service Companies, that effectively finance investment today based upon recapturing the energy savings 

tomorrow are both models that are replicable. They are just not implemented in a very large scale today. 

Mr. INSLEE. I will work on that. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My concern is whether or not the poorest people are going to also 

be the last people to benefit by the higher level of consciousness 

surrounding—around the environment. I grew up 300 yards maybe 

from the landfill and from the waste treatment plant. I was in— 

I did my annual examination 2 months ago, and I was scared to 

death that, when the doctor called me in afterwards to tell me I 

had little scratches on my lungs, that he was going to say that I 

did in fact have some form of cancer, which I think has devastated 

my high school class. 

But we have a difficult job to do. And I am interested in your 

response to this, because I think we are going to need your help. 

Dan Quayle, former Vice President, had a grandfather who was a 

United Methodist minister. He was a master of elocution. He was 

a fabulous person. Mr. Quayle got things mixed up sometimes. And 

on one occasion, as he was trying to quote the theme of the United 

Negro College Fund, he said, ‘‘a mind is a terrible thing to lose.’’ 

And I agree with him. He was trying to say, ‘‘a mind is a terrible 

thing to waste.’’ But I think a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. 

And I think we are in the middle of a crisis. And I really don’t 

want to waste it. 

I think it is a time that we can create consciousness about what 

is happening in the urban core, with people still today living close 

to landfills, living close to waste treatment plants. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
90 

And the other part of it is there are 20,000 foreclosures a week 

in the United States, 20,000. And one of the things that I have 

been hoping for and talking about is that if we pass—well, actually, 

the Senate has a bill it is struggling with now with FHA, but if 

we are going to have legislation that would make it more possible 

for FHA to come in and save homes that are in foreclosure and reduce interest rates and so forth, that maybe we ought to have another opportunity or requirement that we do some kind of weatherization. Because even if they save their home, even if we are helpful in saving their homes, Mr. Mayor, the other problem is they live 

in the oldest part of the city; they are going to still end up paying 

more money out even if you save your home. You are still going to 

be paying out more money because you are poorer than people who 

are living in an affluent area. 

And I guess this is more of a plea. We need some preachers, you 

know, people who are going out, talking and getting across the reality of what we are facing in this country. 

Mr. NEWSOM. It is faith and works. You need preachers and people to take that passion, twin it with some action and demonstrate 

it. 

Look, I think what Ed is doing with Enterprise is extraordinary. 

And this legislation is incredibly principled in terms of linking Federal dollars to public housing, HOPE VI in particular, to these 

green building standards. If no place else, we should establish some 

framework of some minimum standards with some local autonomy 

and some flexibility perhaps. 

Mr. CLEAVER. We did do that on the Hope VI Program in New 

Orleans and Mississippi. 

Mr. NEWSOM. Perfect model then. 

Mr. CLEAVER. We are requiring that all of those one-for-one replacements are in fact green construction. 

Mr. NEWSOM. And then twin it with workforce training dollars 

to get those residents working on rebuilding their own homes in 

their home communities. And I think that is then how you begin 

to reconcile some of these issues, address some of the institutional 

issues and generational issues in a meaningful way. But I appreciate your passion. And I know that Ed and others, I think everyone on this dais shares those same passions. 

Mr. NORTON. I think you are getting into something that is definitely a strong point in our position paper that we have submitted 

to you, is that apart from bold, bold ideas, you know, paradigmshifting ideas, there is so much in the public sector that you could 

do to easily just align existing incentives with these goals. And if 

you were to do nothing else, you could have your staff go back, 

pour through what already exists, what the government is already 

doing and bring the standards a little bit more in line with these 

things. It would be an incredibly effective way just to begin. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. And all time has expired because there are a 

number of roll calls on the House floor. So we will have to end the 

hearing. 

Here is how I would like to end the hearing. I would like each 

one of our witnesses to give us their 1-minute concluding stateVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:06 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 061727 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A727.XXX A727

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
91 

ment, what you want us to remember. We are going to go in reverse order that we started with. And while you are thinking about 

that, I also want to thank Ann Blackwell and Design Within Reach 

for their three green chairs here. It is a start. Okay. 

We will begin here and try to do it for—do you want to come out 

here so we can recognize you, Ann, for your work? Thank you so 

much. We appreciate this precedent-setting set of chairs that we 

are using here today. 

So let’s begin with you, Mr. Stall. You have 1 minute. 

Mr. STALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I didn’t get to comment on public policy, so now is my chance. When shopping for a car last week, I was offered a $2,400 tax credit for buying a Nissan Altima hybrid. I would save approximately 

$400 worth of gas a year by driving that car. You offer currently 

a homeowner $300 on the old energy tax credit for making energy 

conservation improvements to his home. By using exterior insulation, he can reduce his energy bills by 20 to 30 percent per year, 

which in my State of Rhode Island, my heating oil costs of $8,000 

per year would be roughly $2,000. I get a $300 tax credit to save 

$2,000 a year. If I buy a car that saves $400 a year, I get a $2,400 

tax credit. 

Change it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stall. 

Ms. Moore. 

Ms. MOORE. Given all the conversation around the room today, 

particularly about issues related to social justice, social equity, I 

would urge all of you and everyone in the room to remember green 

schools is a critical priority. There is no reason that today in America that every school being built shouldn’t be green. And that every 

school that exists shouldn’t be greened as well. Because, as Congressman Cleaver mentioned, his high school class has been decimated by lung cancer and other kinds of environmental issues. And 

this is a solution that we can bring today. The technology exists 

today, and it does not cost more for a healthier future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Norton. 

Mr. NORTON. I think that it is terrific that you are focusing, 

within the context of the overall energy and global warming crisis, 

on the built environment. That is, I think, underappreciated as one 

of the core sources of these problems. I think, from Enterprise’s 

perspective, we would like to add emphasis to not forgetting about 

the affordable housing development community within that built 

environment. Many, many people don’t think that the affordable 

housing equation can support the same standards and practices 

that are going on in the commercial building environment, and 

they absolutely can. And so, as you look at it, don’t forget about 

affordable. 

And in a much broader sense, as Congressman Cleaver said, 

please don’t squander the opportunity of the crisis. I think, don’t 

be afraid to frame these challenges in the kinds of, not panicky, but 

epochal term terms that they deserve. There is not a lot of time all 

the best minds are telling us. And I think for people of my generation, we want to hear it framed as a national challenge. We want 

to hear it invoked as something that needs to become a national 

priority. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
92 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Norton. 

Mr. Peterson. 

Mr. PETERSON. Energy availability and climate change are a crisis, a crisis that is starting to grow year by year as we start to 

move forward. I would ask the panel to consider, as we move forward, what type of leadership we can provide in the United States, 

leadership that provides and frames what that cause would be for 

Americans, leadership that also shows what the challenges will be, 

leadership that includes vision, vision that goes out at least 20 

years. Where will we be as a Nation and what type of immediate 

action can we start to take in order to lead this country towards 

energy independence and reduction in carbon emissions? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. NEWSOM. Chairman Markey, entire committee, thank you. 

You give me optimism and hope. And I mean that with sincerity. 

It is not a throw-away line. And all I can say is please LEED by 

example. And what I mean by lead is not l-e-a-d. In this case LE-E-D. At least create some framework for Federal taxpayers’ dollars to do the right thing and begin to substantively address by example these issues and address the issue of environmental justice. 

There is nobility in that cause. And that is exactly the kind of leadership that you can do in the short run that will make a huge difference in the long run. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mayor Newsom, very much. 

We thank each of you. 

And as we were at this hearing today, Secretary of Interior 

Kempthorne just announced that he is listing the polar bear as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, which 

sounds great. 

But then, he also announced that he is using a loophole so that 

he has to do exactly nothing to help the polar bear in its now newly 

established endangered species position. Not exactly a conversion 

on the road to Damascus, but consistent with this administration’s 

policies of preaching temperance from a barstool. You cannot have 

a beer in your hand as you tell the kids it is really bad for them. 

You can’t have a cigar in your mouth as you say smoking is bad 

for you. And you can’t be out there preaching while at the same 

time saying there is no role for the government. Okay. 

And so what we learned here today is that if the government sets 

the standards, then the private sector will show up. 

Mr. Stall will get even exponentially richer than he is already. 

And that is a good thing, because the private sector will then compete to solve the problem. And that is really what today is all 

about. It is this sense of community that the United States has to 

have to solve the problem. 

This has been one of the most important hearings we will have 

during this first 2 years of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. We thank you all so much. This 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
93 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 61727A.055
94 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 61727A.056
95 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 61727A.057
96 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 61727A.058
97 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 61727A.059
98 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 61727A.060
99 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 61727A.061
100 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 61727A.062
101 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 61727A.063
102 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 61727A.064
103 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 61727A.065
104 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 61727A.066
105 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 61727A.067
106 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 61727A.068
107 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 61727A.069
108 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 61727A.070
109 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 61727A.071
110 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 61727A.072
111 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 61727A.073
112 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 61727A.074
113 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 61727A.075
114 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 61727A.076
115 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 61727A.077
116 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 61727A.078
117 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 61727A.079
118 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 61727A.080
119 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 61727A.081
120 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 61727A.082
121 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 61727A.083
122 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 61727A.084
123 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 61727A.085
124 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 61727A.086
125 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 61727A.087
126 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 61727A.088
127 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 61727A.089
128 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 61727A.090
129 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 61727A.091
130 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 61727A.092
131 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 61727A.093
132 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 61727A.094
133 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 61727A.095
134 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 61727A.096
135 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 61727A.097
136 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 61727A.098
137 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 61727A.099
138 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 61727A.100
139 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 61727A.101
140 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 61727A.102
141 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 61727A.103
142 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 61727A.104
143 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 61727A.105
144 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187/400 61727A.106