U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–157 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1199 

MOVING AMERICA TOWARD A CLEAN ENERGY 

ECONOMY AND REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING 

POLLUTION: LEGISLATIVE TOOLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 7, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 7, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 5 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 6 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 7 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 8 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 10 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 11 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 12 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 13 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 14 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 15 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 17 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 18 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 19 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania .................... 20 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 297 

WITNESSES 

Chu, Hon. Steven, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy .................................. 21 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 27 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 31 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 38 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 39 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 44 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 49 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 59 

Jackson, Lisa P., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .......... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 66 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 68 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 70 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 80 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 87 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 89 

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture .................... 91 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 94 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 100 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 102 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 104 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 106 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 110 
Page

IV 

Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior .......................... 115 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117 

Barbour, Hon. Haley, Governor, State of Mississippi ........................................... 166 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 170 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 173 

Wells, Rich, Vice President, Energy, the Dow Chemical Company ..................... 181 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 184 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 195 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 195 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo ................................ 196 

Hawkins, David, Director of Climate Programs, Natural Resources Defense 

Council .................................................................................................................. 198 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 200 

Fetterman, Hon. John, Mayor, Braddock, Pennsylvania ..................................... 278 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 280 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Pages from H.R. 2454 .............................................................................................. 299 

Pages from July 2009 summary on H.R. 2454 from the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce ....................................................... 302 
(1) 

MOVING AMERICA TOWARD A CLEAN ENERGY 

ECONOMY AND REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION: LEGISLATIVE TOOLS 

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

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

Bond, Cardin, Specter, Sanders, Alexander, Barrasso, Crapo, 

Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, and Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

We want to welcome everybody here. I am very happy to see this 

excellent turnout. A couple of comments before we begin. 

We received a letter, I guess we just received it, from the Republican side, asking for a number of hearings on a number of topics. 

I am happy to inform them that they are already scheduled and we 

have been working on this, particularly with Senator Voinovich because he asked for several of these. So, all of this that you have 

requested will be handled over the next 2 weeks, and we appreciate 

your interest. 

I also am going to ask people if they can keep their opening 

statements to 2 minutes, if possible. But I understand that members on the other side of the aisle wanted to have 5, so you are welcome to take 5 if you need it. The reason I am trying to expedite 

things is we have four very important leaders of the Administration here and I would like to get to them. But if anyone needs to 

go 5 minutes, that is fine. 

Senator INHOFE. How about 3 and a half? 

Senator BOXER. You can go up to 5 minutes. It is fine. 

Let me open this way. Today’s hearing is the kickoff of a historic 

Senator effort to pass legislation that will reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil, create millions of clean energy jobs, and protect our 

children from pollution. 

The central theme in Thomas Friedman’s book, Hot, Flat and 

Crowded, is this: the nation that aggressively addresses the issue 

of climate change will be the nation that will thrive, the nation 

that will lead, and will be the nation that will prosper. Here is 
2 

what Friedman writes, in his own words: ‘‘The ability to develop 

clean power and energy efficient technologies is going to become 

the defining measure of a country’s economic standing, environmental health, energy security and national security over the next 

50 years.’’ 

We know that this premise is being borne out even in this recession. In California, which has been one of the hardest hit by the 

housing crisis, the financial crisis, and by a State budget crisis, the 

area that has outperformed every other has been the creation of 

clean energy jobs and businesses. 

A recent report by the Pugh Charitable Trust found that more 

than 10,000 new clean energy businesses were launched in California from 1998 to 2007. During that period, clean energy investments created more than 125,000 jobs in California and generated 

jobs 15 percent faster than the economy in our State as a whole. 

Our committee has held more than 40 hearings and briefings on 

global warming since January 2007, and we are going to hold many 

more, as I stated before. We are well aware of the work done on 

the dangers of global warming by the Bush administration and the 

Obama administration. A few weeks ago, this Administration released a sobering report on the impacts global warming is having 

across the United States and the devastating effects that will come 

if we do not take action: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution. These are examples. 

Today, I am so pleased to welcome leaders of the Obama administration as they encourage us to act, to act on the heels of the passage of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the House. Today I expect you 

will hear fierce words of doubt and fear from the other side of the 

aisle regarding our legislative efforts. This is consistent with a pattern of no. No, we cannot. No, we will not. I believe that this committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect 

our President’s attitude which is yes, we can, and yes, we will. 

Colleagues, this is the challenge to our generation that offers 

hope, not fear, and a way out of the environmental and economic 

challenges we face so that our children and our grandchildren will 

have a bright future. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Despite the 77-seat majority in the House, Speaker Pelosi passed 

her cap-and-trade energy tax bill on June 26 by just one vote over 

the margin. In other words, the majority in the House is 218. She 

had 219 votes. 

Against this backdrop, the Senate will begin the process of considering yet another cap-and-trade bill. I would like to note that 

the Senate is not new to this, like the House was. The Senate has 

actually debated this five times. We have had three votes in 2003, 

2005 and 2008, each time defeating it, substantially, and a little bit 

more each time. 

As I understand it, you intend to hold a series of hearings with 

the hope of marking up a bill before the August recess. Let me just 
3 

say, Madam Chairman, I commend you for holding the hearings. 

The minority jointly issued the letter that you referred to outlining 

our request for a series of legislative hearings that are based on 

legislation. Based on legislation. We have got to have something in 

front of us. 

As I look at the calendar, it appears that we are going to be considering a massive bill in a very low and narrow window of time. 

So, the question arises: when will we see the bill that you intend 

to mark up? I hope we do not repeat the process of the House, and 

that is having a substitute appear at 3 a.m. of the very day that 

we are going to vote. That is totally unacceptable by, well, it should 

be by everyone. 

The American people and their elected representatives deserve 

an open transfer and thorough review of any legislation that, as 

the Washington Post described it, ‘‘will reshape America’s economy 

in dozens of ways that many people don’t realize.’’ You can be sure 

of this: once the American public realizes what this legislation will 

do to their wallets, they will resoundingly reject it. Perhaps that 

explains why we are rushing cap-and-trade through the Senate, the 

tack so fast. 

The public is already on record rejecting energy taxes, considering a new poll, a Rasmussen poll. Madam Chairman, this was 

just issued 6 days ago. Fifty-six percent of Americans are not willing to pay anything to fight global warming. This includes higher 

utility costs, which, under cap-and-trade, as President Obama said, 

would necessarily skyrocket. 

The bottom line is this. However you spin the debate, or whatever schemes we concoct to hide the higher costs consumers will 

pay, the public will find out. And when they do, they will reject 

those schemes and reject the spin and they will look instead for solutions that create jobs, strengthen energy security and increase 

our global competitiveness. 

Now, Madam Chairman, when it comes to legislative tools, there 

is a better way. Whether it is reducing dependence on foreign oil 

or increasing access to clean, affordable and reliable sources of energy, we do have answers. You have stated that we are the party 

of no. Well, that is true. We say no to higher energy costs, no to 

subsidizing the East and West Coasts at the expense of the heartland, no to more bureaucracy and red tape, no to the largest tax 

increase in American history, and no to sending our manufacturing 

jobs to China and India. 

And we yes to an all-of-the-above domestic energy policy, which 

includes nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal. 

We say yes to a greater access to all sources of clean and reliable 

energy we have right here at home. And if we did this, we could 

stop all reliance on the Middle East. 

So, I am looking forward to the hearings, and I am most anxious 

to see what kind of a document we will have a chance to debate. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Despite a 76-seat majority in the House, Speaker Pelosi passed her cap-and-trade 

energy tax bill on June 26 by just one vote over the majority required, 219–212. 
4 

Against this backdrop, the Senate will begin the process of considering yet another 

cap-and-trade bill. I would note that the Senate has voted on cap-and-trade three 

times: in 2003, in 2005, and in 2008. In each and every instance, we defeated it. 

Now, Madam Chairman, here we go again. 

As I understand it, you intend to hold a series of hearings with the hope of marking up a bill before the August recess. Madam Chairman, let me say I commend 

you for holding hearings. The minority jointly issued a letter today outlining our requests for a series of legislative hearings that are based upon actual legislation. 

In the letter, the Republican members of this committee express concern about 

the process involved in considering the most complex piece of legislation ever before 

this committee. 

Madam Chairman, as I look at the calendar, it appears that we will consider a 

massive bill in a very narrow window of time. So the question arises: when will we 

see the bill that you intend to mark up? I hope we don’t repeat the process in the 

House, when the majority released a 300-page manager’s amendment at 3 a.m., the 

morning of the vote. 

The American people and their elected representatives deserve an open, transparent, and thorough review of any legislation that, as the Washington Post described it, ‘‘will reshape America’s economy in dozens of ways that many don’t realize.’’ 

You can be sure of this: once the American public realizes what this legislation 

will do to their wallets, they will resoundingly reject it. Perhaps that explains why 

we are rushing cap-and-trade through the Senate. 

The public is already on record rejecting energy taxes. Consider a new poll by 

Rasmussen, which found on July 1 that 56 percent of Americans are not willing to 

pay anything to fight global warming. This includes higher utility costs, which 

under cap-and-trade, as President Obama said, would ‘‘necessarily skyrocket.’’ 

The bottom line is this: However you spin this debate, or whatever schemes you 

concoct to hide the higher costs consumers will pay, the public will find out. And 

when they do, they will reject those schemes and reject the spin, and they will look 

instead for solutions that create jobs, strengthen energy security, and increase our 

global competitiveness. 

When it comes to legislative tools, there is a better way. Whether it is reducing 

dependence on foreign oil or increasing access to clean, affordable and reliable 

sources of energy, Republicans have answers. 

We have been accused of being the party of ‘‘no’’ for too long. Well, it’s true that 

we say no to higher energy taxes, no to subsidizing the East and West coasts at 

the expense of the heartland, no to more bureaucracy and red tape, and no to sending our manufacturing jobs to China and India. 

We say ‘‘yes’’ to an all-of-the-above domestic energy policy, which includes nuclear, 

clean coal, natural gas, wind, solar, and geothermal. We say ‘‘yes’’ to greater access 

to all sources of clean and reliable energy right here at home. 

Finally, I welcome our witnesses before us today, including members of the Administration and the Governor of the great State of Mississippi. I look forward to 

questioning the panel, and in particular I look forward to hearing from Administrator Jackson regarding my letter sent last week on the Agency’s commitment to 

transparency. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you for your constructive words, 

and I think our bill will reflect your yesses. 

I just want to correct the record, and I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record, the Markey Bill, the portion which 

deals with the tax credit. There are no new taxes but there is a 

tax credit for consumers. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me make an inquiry here, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Because, in the event that after each statement 

is made, you want to refute them, I think that we should have a 

chance to do the same thing and that would just be endless. So, 

if we start on that—— 

Senator BOXER. OK. Sure. That is fair enough. 

Senator INHOFE. So, let us just watch it. Thank you. 
5 

Senator BOXER. That is fair enough. I do not mind if you want 

to refute it. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, OK. 

Senator BOXER. Just go ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. What we are dealing with here is going to be 

a large tax increase. I was interested in some of the CBO reports 

that said, well, what we are going to do is take this large sum of 

money that comes in under cap-and-trade and we will go ahead 

and return it to the people who are paying taxes. 

Well, it is coming from them originally. So, I would certainly not 

want to give any credibility to any kind of an evaluation as to the 

cost to the American people if they are predicated on the assumption that we have a cap-and-trade tax raising huge amounts of 

money from the American people in the form of energy costs and 

then turning around and giving that energy back to them. 

Senator BOXER. I stand by my words. Now, I am going to say 

who came here in order. If there is any dispute, let me know. 

Merkley, Klobuchar, Cardin, Lautenberg, Alexander, Barrasso, 

Crapo, Bond and Voinovich. Is there agreement on that? Oh, Senator Gillibrand. Is she at the end of the list? OK. 

Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

This is indeed a critical conversation for the future of our Nation. 

Transforming our energy economy is essential. The status quo is 

simply unacceptable, whether that be $3 to $4 a gallon for gas, a 

foreign balance of trade fiasco in which we are spending $1 billion 

to $2 billion a day on foreign oil, a historic connection of burning 

geological carbon to drive industrialization that we can break, and, 

certainly, our national insecurity that comes from dependence on 

just a few foreign nations for critical energy supplies. 

This status quo must change to strengthen our Nation, in this 

generation and the next. We need to end our dependence on foreign 

oil and foreign energy. We need to take and break the connection 

between burning geological carbon and turning it into carbon dioxide pollutant in the atmosphere to drive industrialization. 

We need to lead the world in renewable resources so that we can 

become a critical source of the strength of our economy, selling both 

the intellectual capital and products to the world. We certainly 

need to underwrite the innovation of our capitalist economy in 

surging ahead of the world and creating these products. 

We can do all of this by restructuring energy economy through 

this bill. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be dependent 

upon a few small nations for a critical energy supply. We will continue to spend $1 billion to $2 billion or more every day overseas 

rather than spending it here in the United States on clean energy, 

creating jobs. And we certainly will continue to contribute to a 

planetary catastrophe in the form of global warming. 

So, it is a critical debate. I am honored to be here and I look forward to your testimony. I do apologize in advance. I will be running back and forth to the health care mark up. 
6 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Before I call on Senator Alexander, if it is OK with the committee, Senator Inhofe and I thought that, as long as we have a 

quorum, we could approve a couple of nominees that have been 

waiting to be approved. 

Why do we not hear from Senator Alexander and then we can 

go to that process, if it is OK. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Madam Chairman, thank you. Senator 

Bond has to leave, and I was going to ask if he could go before me. 

If that would be all right, it would be all right with me. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you 

very much. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am indebted to my colleagues. 

I thank you for holding this hearing, and I thank you very much 

for the commitment to hold additional hearings on the very important legislative matters we will be marking up when we have an 

opportunity to learn about them. 

I think the American people, and certainly my Missouri constituents, deserve to know how the legislation we consider will impose 

new energy taxes on them, kill their jobs, punish the Midwest and 

South, help China and India, and construct a new bureaucratic 

nightmare to implement a carbon cap-and-trade program. 

Some say we should just look to the bill the House passed this 

month, and to that I would have to say, which one? We have the 

648-page discussion draft. We have the 932-page introduced bill. 

We have the 946-page committee substitute. We have the 1,201- 

page floor-filed bill. We have a 500-page red lined version. We have 

a 743-page committee report. We have the 309-page manager’s 

amendment filed at 3 a.m. the morning of the floor debate. And we 

have the 1,427-page House bill. In total, 6,706 pages of legislative 

material. 

For those who say we should work off the House-passed bill, we 

have a prominent advocate for the environment here today who 

will testify that we should abandon the floor compromises benefiting agriculture and go back to the committee-passed version. And 

we have the fresh experience of the most recent legislation the 

committee considered, where the chair adopted a complete substitute the day of the mark up and then berated members for not 

reading the substitute. We deserve better. And the people of America deserve better. 

The American people and my Missouri constituents deserve to 

know why it takes all of these pages to address energy issues. This 

past week, calls in my office ran 929 against cap-and-trade to 3 for. 

What needles are the majority trying to hide in the haystack? 

What back room deals were made to buy support? What provisions 

were added in the middle of the night? How will a bureaucratic 

nightmare create work? 
7 

And what a nightmare it will be with EPA at the center of a 

great web of Government mandates, programs and taxes. EPA will 

have help from nearly two dozen other Federal agencies. The black 

box is on the bottom, some represented here today and many not, 

implementing Government programs that will tax and spend trillions of dollars. The gray, green, purple and brown boxes are on the 

side and in the middle. All of this we will focus the costs on us 

through our power bills, cooling and heating bills, food prices, product prices, gasoline prices and jobs, threatening families with higher prices, farmers with higher prices, drivers with higher prices, 

and workers with lost jobs. 

All of this is to ask, what are our Democratic colleagues afraid 

of? If they are not afraid of us knowing what this will do to our 

families, why do we not get into the hearing on the legislation 

itself? 

I hope we will get these answers soon. I certainly appreciate the 

opportunity to show the concerns I have. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

So, we are going to take a quick break, if it is all right, and go 

to the nominations at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BOXER. I thank my colleagues very much for your cooperation. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I know that our distinguished panel here understands that new 

energy legislation is truly about creating jobs here in America. And 

it is about developing homegrown energy and breaking our reliance 

on foreign energy. 

I spent the 4th of July week up north in Minnesota, meeting 

with people everywhere. I will tell you, up there the unemployment 

rate is at 20 percent. In Minnesota, our people want good paying 

jobs across the spectrum, miners to mine more iron ore, manufacturing workers to make wind turbines, workers to fill our barges 

with those turbines to ship them on Lake Superior to countries 

across the world, and scientists to develop fuel cells and new cellulosic ethanol technology. 

But an energy bill has to take account not just the captains of 

the energy industry, but also the people who buy the energy. Middle class families need protection from a jolt in their electricity 

rates and they also need an energy bill to provide job opportunities. 

I believe a new energy bill done right will mean new business, 

like retooling and reopening manufacturing facilities to make the 

nuts and bolts of new energy systems, electric car batteries, solar 

panels and geothermal heat pumps. It is also about our farmers, 

which I know Secretary Vilsack understands. A new energy bill can 

help our farmers grow our fuels right here in America and reward 

them for developing and adopting new farming methods that will 

capture carbon pollution from our atmosphere. It is time we invest 
8 

in the farmers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast. 

I believe the opportunities here are enormous and we cannot let 

them go to waste. After decades of delay, it is time for action. We 

know what happened when gas prices went up last year. They approached $5 per gallon. It is not acceptable. Our energy supply is 

extremely vulnerable to disruption. Domestic disputes in Africa, or 

a broken pipeline in Russia, result in massive price spikes at gas 

stations and heating bills right here in America. 

We need an energy bill that allows America to lead the rest of 

the world in the production of energy and the development of new 

technology including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, new techniques for coal and new development of nuclear power. 

Legislative priorities for me with this bill is first, does the legislation protect the middle class from higher energy costs resulting 

from putting a cap on carbon emissions? Second, does the legislation take into account agriculture and community? I know there 

was some good work done in the House to acknowledge their contributions to this. Third, for traditional companies, industries that 

are not subject to the same carbon constraints, to make sure that 

they do not have an unfair advantage. And finally, does the legislation give a sufficient boost to renewable energy? I personally would 

like to see a more aggressive portfolio standard. I know that is 

being worked on more in the Energy Committee than we saw in 

the House bill. 

But overall, I do not think we can stick with the status quo. I 

do not think we can just throw daggers at this bill. I think we have 

to work to improve it. I think the people of my State, and the people of our country, depend on it. 

I thank you very much for all of your work and contribution. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to the hearings and to participating in them. 

I would like to take a little different tack on this. The Chairman 

quoted Tom Friedman and the importance of a nation that hoped 

to lead addressing clean energy. I think you left out an adjective. 

I put the word cheap in there. Inexpensive, if you prefer. Because 

a nation that does not have cheap energy is not a nation that will 

lead the world. That is especially true of the United States, which 

uses 25 percent of all of the energy in the world. 

Why is that? Well, if we want to build cars and trucks in Minnesota and Tennessee and Michigan and Ohio and Missouri, instead of Japan and Mexico, we have to have cheap electricity. I 

mean, the auto suppliers in my State are just like this, every little 

cost addition moves a job to Mexico, or to Japan, or to somewhere 

else. Even the new polysilicon plant, to make materials for solar, 

uses 120 megawatts and they are in Tennessee because they can 

have large amounts of cheap electricity. 

So, the choice is really between a high cost clean energy plan and 

a low cost clean energy plan. So, my question to the committee, and 
9 

it will be throughout all of this, is why are we ignoring the cheap 

energy solution to global warming, which is nuclear power? 

I mean, this is really fairly simple. If what we are really interested in is reducing carbon, which is the principle greenhouse gas, 

we could focus first on smokestacks and say, let us start building 

100 new nuclear power plants. Increase nuclear power. Nuclear 

power is 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. Solar, wind and 

all of these other things are 6 percent. Nuclear is 70 percent. 

So, over the next 20 years, we want to do that. We could build 

100 more nuclear power plants. And then, as we did that, we could 

begin to close dirty coal plants or find some new, I said to Dr. Chu 

before, let us reserve a Nobel Prize for the scientist who finds a 

way to deal with carbon from existing coal plants. We could either 

have clean coal plants or we could have much cleaner existing 

plants. 

A second thing to do is to electrify half our cars and trucks. That 

is the fastest way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and the use 

of oil. The third thing we could do is to explore offshore for natural 

gas, which is low carbon, and oil, which we should use less of but 

use our own. And fourth, several mini-Manhattan Projects much 

like the ones Dr. Chu is beginning to do to find a way to make 

some of these newer forms of energy cost effective and more reliable. 

But for the next 20 years, if we really want to deal with global 

warming, we really only have one option. And that is to double the 

number of nuclear power plants we have. There is no other technological way that we have to have a large amount of reliable, cheap 

electricity other than nuclear power. 

So, if we are in the business of saying yes, we can, if the President would give the same kind of aggressive interest to building 

100 new nuclear power plants that he does to building windmills, 

we could solve global warming in a generation. We keep beating 

around the bush. 

And instead, the House has come up with this contraption, much 

like the one last year which Senator Bond had on the table, and 

which is $100 billion a year in new costs. Somebody is going to pay 

that. That works out to be about $900 per family the way my math 

figures it. It will begin to suffocate large sections of our economy 

and drive jobs overseas. 

High pricers want mandates of taxes. Cheap energy advocates, 

who include almost all Republicans and a growing number of 

Democrats, say build nuclear plants, double research on renewable 

energy in the meantime to make it cheaper and reliable. 

We must remember at a time of 10 percent unemployment that 

high priced energy sends jobs overseas, working for cheap energy. 

Cheap energy not only helps create jobs, Madam Chairman, it is 

the fastest way to reduce global warming. One hundred new nuclear plants would reduce global warming faster than taxes and 

mandates. 

So, I intend during this debate to keep bringing this up. A low 

carbon fuel standard is a more effective way to deal with carbon 

from fuel than an economy-wide cap-and-trade which only raises 

prices and for years might not reduce the carbon. That is 30 percent of the carbon. Forty percent of the carbon is in smokestacks. 
10 

We could begin to build nuclear plants and then, as they come online, we could do something about the dirtiest coal plants. 

So, I thank the Chair for her time and I urge our committee and 

the Senate to look at the cheap energy clean solution if we really 

want to keep jobs in this country. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, we look forward to working with you on 

that. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Madam Chair, thank you very much for 

this hearing. 

Let me start by saying that there is much that what Senator Alexander said that I agree with, although I reach a different conclusion. I think the bill that we marked up last year, the LiebermanWarner Bill, and I think much of the provisions included in the 

Waxman-Markey Bill, encourages the type of activities that Senator Alexander was talking about, including the expansion of nuclear power, which I also support and believe is necessary for us 

to meet our energy needs and to accomplish our other goals. 

I think we can improve the bill that came over from the House, 

but I think we need to act on legislation. I think it is critically important for many reasons, the first of which is jobs. It is about 

keeping jobs here in America. It is about we have developed the 

technology, now let us use that technology, let us create the green 

jobs here in America that will not only help our economy, but will 

help our national security by less dependence on foreign energy 

sources. And it will certainly help our environment by dealing with 

the problems that we have on carbon emissions. 

I think we can accomplish all of that. The bill we worked on last 

year, and the bill that came over from the House, will allow us to 

do exactly what I think Senator Alexander wants us to do, and that 

is to become less dependent upon foreign energy sources and to use 

more energy sources here in America and create jobs in this country. 

Let me just mention that yesterday I was out in Frederick County where BP Solar is located. They strongly want to see the jobs 

created here in America. I went to Fort Detrick. Madam Administrator, thank you very much for the environmental clean up work 

and putting it on the National Priority List to clean up Fort 

Detrick. It is interesting that there can be a membrane on top of 

about 14 or 15 acres and one of the uses that you are looking at 

is to put solar panels there, which will create additional jobs in 

Frederick County. 

The largest part of our economy in Maryland, and this might surprise you, is agriculture. If there is just a 2 degree increase in temperature in our State, it will have a devastating impact on our agricultural industry, including the spread of diseases. So, this bill is 

about keeping jobs and expanding jobs here in America. And I 

could go to any one of the Senators in my own State, and I hope 

that we can work together, Senator Alexander, and come up with 
11 

a bipartisan bill which I think would be in the interest of the 

American public. 

But it needs to make us energy secure and keep jobs here in 

America. And I believe the bill we worked on last year, and the bill 

that has come over from the House, give us the framework in order 

to achieve those results. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

As we begin debating climate change, I believe we must first look 

at transparency. Because we must have transparency. Transparency on scientific data on climate change and transparency on 

economic data on climate change. 

Madam Chairman, you said we would hear fierce words of doubt 

and fear but that the President says yes, we can and yes, we will. 

But what I have seen so far is an Administration which is saying 

yes, we can hide the truth, yes, we can ignore the facts, and yes, 

we will intimidate career Government employees. This has become 

a culture of secrecy and suppression. 

You quote Thomas Friedman. I would like to go to article by Kim 

Strassel in the Weekend Issue of the Wall Street Journal, The EPA 

Silences a Climate Skeptic. I am going to read from this. 

One of President Barack Obama’s first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government and science. The 

nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, as Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crisis of today are rooted in 

three fundamental values—science-based policies and programs, 

adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency. 

In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot 

at his predecessor in April, vowing that the days of science taking 

a back seat to ideology are over. Except, that is, when it comes to 

Mr. Carlin, a Senior Analyst in the EPA’s National Center for the 

Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the Agency. 

In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global warming debate in an astounding new way: by issuing an endangerment 

finding on carbon. It established that carbon is a pollutant and, 

thereby, gives the EPA the authority to regulate it, even if Congress does not act. 

Well, around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 

98-page analysis, arguing that the Agency should take another look 

at the science behind manmade global warming, and they say that 

it is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by the 

EPA, the report read. 

The response to Mr. Carlin was an e-mail from his boss, Al 

McGartland, forbidding, forbidding him, from any direct communication with anyone outside his office with regard to his analysis. 
12 

When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. 

McGartland decreed that the Administrator and the Administration have decided to move forward on endangerment and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can 

only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the 

process and that would be a very negative impact on our office. 

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email. With the 

endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other 

issues, move on to other issues and subjects. I do not want you to 

spend any, any, additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, 

no research at least until we see what the EPA is going to do with 

climate. 

Ideology? No, not here. Just us science folks. Honest. That is Kim 

Strassel in the Wall Street Journal. 

Well, Madam Chairman, as the Ranking Member of this committee’s Oversight Subcommittee, I believe we can no longer allow this 

type of behavior to go unchecked. Behavior where the best advice 

and counsel is ignored, or it is blocked, and where it is kept hidden 

from the public. 

It is for this reason that I visited with Senator Whitehouse this 

morning, who is the Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, and I am 

requesting that the EPA Subcommittee launch our own investigation into these recent troubling events. 

A culture of intimidation has no justification in any administration. This Administration has publicly promised to hold itself to a 

standard of openness, transparency and accepting of opinions from 

individuals with differing opinions. The Administration has so far 

failed to make the grade. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome to 

this panel of experts and people who are committed to improving 

the quality of our environment, and I thank you for taking the position, taking the let me call it darts that might be thrown along 

the way. Fear not. Stumble on. Whatever we have to do, we have 

got to do it. 

What we saw on the wall here, on these plaques, were no. No, 

no, no. Saying no to the whole process. But at least we have come 

a long way, because was it not too long ago that we heard that this 

was all a hoax? That global warming was a hoax? That is no longer 

the case because our friends on the other side have finally agreed 

that things have to be changed. So, maybe the hoax issue went 

away. It was a bad joke and thank goodness that has disappeared. 

What we are saying here now is, we are saying no, no to the fact 

that 26 million Americans, 9 million of them children, are asthmatic. The rates have doubled since 1980. Do we really want to say 

no, you really do not have asthma? Here is a physician, a distinguished physician here. I am sure that he would not say that there 

is no longer any asthma to worry about. The fact of the matter is, 
13 

we do not have an easy task. But our children and grandchildren 

are depending upon us. 

We are taking the advice of a majority of members of the Union 

of Concerned Scientists. Well, these folks are willing to say no, 

coral is not really dying. No, species are not really declining. No, 

things are really not bad at all. Well, they are terrible. They are 

terrible. And States across the country finally have the right to decide what they want to do in their own States, and I congratulate 

California for having done what it has. 

We are looking at legislation. It is pretty darn good. It has come 

over from the House. We have an opportunity to review it, to 

change it, to do what we want to do. We cannot measure the volume of paper that has gone into it as indicative of whether it is 

good or bad. What we have got to do is just not just use the trees, 

but plant more trees. 

My friends, this, unfortunately, has disintegrated in some ways 

to either you are for a cleaner environment or you are not. We talk 

about things like transparency. Let us talk about what it is to protect our children in the future. And look at the facts in front of us 

and not deny that they exist. 

Madam Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. Press 

on. We are going to work on it. And, hopefully, we will convince 

some of our friends on the other side of the aisle that this is a serious project and we have got to get on with it. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I 

also appreciate our witnesses being here with us today. This is a 

very critical issue to our country and to our people. 

I do have to take exception to the argument that either side is 

simply saying no. You know, I guess I could look back to the times 

when the Republicans were in the majority and we had major energy legislation to try to move forward and the answer from the 

other side was no. 

What we have is a debate about how we should best approach 

the national energy policy of our country. And we have very true 

and sincere and real concerns about how we should proceed. On 

both sides. And I think it is incumbent upon us in this committee 

to roll up our sleeves and get down to the kinds of solutions that 

will work for the American people. I believe these solutions can be 

found, and can be found in a way that does not generate unbelievably high costs or impacts to the America people and does not drive 

our industry offshore. 

I want to share some of the concerns that were raised by Senator 

Alexander. In particular, as we look at the renewable energy alternatives that are discussed, and the renewable energy standards 

that are being discussed in both the House and the Senate, and I 

realize that the Senate Energy Committee is the one dealing primarily with that, I am very concerned that one of the most obvious 

sources of solution is largely untreated in the legislation that we 

expect to see coming before us. And that is nuclear power. 
14 

I do not think there is much debate among any of us here, on 

either side of the aisle, that our Nation is far too dependent on petroleum and carbon-based resources for our energy. And that we 

are far too dependent on foreign sources of that energy. And that 

we as a Nation need to become independent, much more independent in our own development of energy. 

I look at it similar to how one would look at an investment portfolio. We would not, most people do not believe that it is a prudent 

thing to invest all of their assets or all of their energy or the largest portion of them, into one asset. And it is not prudent for America to have an energy policy that is so dependent on one type of 

energy. 

We need to diversify. We need to develop wind and solar and geothermal and hydro. And we need to develop the opportunity for, 

frankly, expanded utilization of petroleum as we transition to these 

other sources of energy. But we cannot ignore what is probably the 

biggest piece of the answer, and that is nuclear power. 

I do not believe there is that much disagreement across the aisle 

except that we do not seem to see the kind of provisions in proposed legislation that will truly help us expedite and move forward 

some of these very significant answers, like nuclear power. 

I simply want to say that, as we move forward, there are very, 

very obvious solutions available. And there is agreement on the 

issues that we must deal with in regard to our national security 

and our national energy independence. What we have to find are 

ways to get past the partisan differences and reach those solutions. 

I hope that this committee will seriously get down to that business. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Crapo, thank you. 

I just wanted to note for the record that we did pass an Energy 

Act in 2005, 2006 and 2007. We did work across the aisle. So I 

hope that you are right, that we can do it this time. 

Senator CRAPO. Very much tamed down, but nevertheless—— 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your 

leadership on this issue. I agree with you that we have an extraordinary opportunity here. I want to thank the panelists for joining 

us, and I will thank you in advance for your testimony. 

The opportunity that we have in front of us is to address this 

economic crisis, and new energy markets are the greatest market 

opportunity of our generation. What this bill will be able to begin 

to address is how we can turn our economy around and how we 

create jobs in these new green sectors. 

We have enormous opportunities in New York State, from wind 

to solar to biofuels to hydropower. There is an enormous amount 

of natural resources that we can draw upon. We have a very strong 

agricultural sector, a very strong manufacturing sector. And we 

have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. We have lost over 160,000 

manufacturing jobs in New York State alone. 
15 

The potential for growth in these new sectors, whether it is 

through new technologies or all the manufacturing that follows 

along from those new technologies, whether we are building new 

cars that use fuel cell technology or cellulosic ethanol, whether we 

are building new building materials that have carbon neutral abilities in terms of conservation, that is opportunities for growth for 

our economy and for New York. 

So, I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership. We have a number of issues that we must address as we look 

at the global climate change legislation. I think that we do need 

to look at the carbon market and make sure that we have a capand-trade policy that is going to be efficient, effective, and have 

proper oversight and accountability so that we can have a vibrant 

market. 

The resources that we can create through those credits are extraordinary. And the billions of dollars that will be generated that 

we can then reinvest in this new economy and in these new technologies can be transformational. It is also very significant, as my 

colleague mentioned, for our national security. We very much have 

to wean ourselves from Middle Eastern oil in this new economy. 

And we can do that with homegrown, American industries. 

So, I just want to thank my colleagues for their participation. I 

want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership, and 

I want to thank the participants today. I think we have so much 

potential, both through the agricultural sector, through the manufacturing sector, and through innovation and entrepreneurialism 

that we can truly drive our new economy and create jobs for decades to come. 

Thank you for being here. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. We are still to hear from 

Senators Carper, Sanders and then, if Senator Whitehouse comes 

back, we will hear from him and then we will get right to the 

panel. Thank you for your patience. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. To our panelists, it is great 

to see each of them. Thank you, not just for being here, but thank 

you for serving our country in the roles that you now play. I just 

wanted to add that we miss you very much here in the Senate. 

However, I am delighted to see you serving and contributing in this 

new role. 

I want to reflect briefly on a couple of comments that were made. 

I thought Senator Crapo said a lot of things that I agreed with. It 

is not uncommon that that happens, but it gives me cause for some 

hope as we move forward. 

Senator Alexander and I often agree on things, and I certainly 

agreed with the importance of nuclear as we go forward. It is not 

cheap. It costs us billions of dollars to build a new nuclear power 

plant. But they are pretty good in terms of how much carbon dioxide they put out and how much of any bad things that they put 

out and they are very helpful in terms of what they do not consume 

in terms of energy. So, I think there is a lot to be said. How about 
16 

4,000 people to build a nuclear power plant? How about 500 or 600 

to run a nuclear power plant? 

The applications are in, 17 applications to build 26 nuclear 

plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is processing those, 

and we are pleased. To that, I want to say to Dr. Chu, thank you, 

I very much appreciate your perspective on nuclear power, and I 

just hope that, as time goes by, that my colleagues here in the Senate can better understand what your views are and the advice you 

give us. 

We just finished a recess for the last week or so. I love recess. 

I did as kid when I was in elementary school. I still love recess. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I learned a lot in recess. And I just want to 

share briefly with you some of what I learned. 

I learned, or I was at least reminded of this, that the cleanest, 

most affordable form of energy is the energy we never use. My wife 

and have been shopping for refrigerators this week and found ourselves buying the nicest refrigerator I have ever seen in my life. It 

is going to use a whole lot less electricity than the 20-year-old refrigerator that it is going to be replacing. 

I spent part of a morning at a pharmacy in New Castle, Delaware, and in the back of the pharmacy they are putting on a new 

meter that will enable the folks in that pharmacy to actually use 

their electricity more wisely, more efficiently, more cost effectively 

and, similarly, through meeting the smart grid approach, enable 

the utility to be a lot wiser in the way that they do their business, 

too. 

I spent some time out at the DuPont Company. They have introduced a new solar film. It is about one-1,000th of a thickness of a 

human hair. It is going to allow, among other things, for us to put 

out solar panels that do not weigh 40 pounds, but may weigh only 

a couple of pounds. 

Our friend, the Secretary of the Interior, has been good enough 

to help move along regulations that will actually allow ocean-based 

wind power to go forward. We are grateful for that. And we expect 

to harness that wind starting about 3 years from now off of the 

coast of Rehoboth Beach, off of the coast of New Jersey, off the 

coast of Maryland, and other States up the northeast corridor. 

We are going to, hopefully, build the foundations for the windmills at a steel mill in northern Delaware. A lot of the components 

for them will be built right there, shipping out down the Delaware 

River to Delaware Bay to 12 miles off of Rehoboth Beach. There 

are a lot of jobs that are going to be involved in doing that as well. 

We are going to be running electric cars up and down the East 

Coast before long. They are going to be powering them with electricity that we harness from the wind off of our coast. That seems 

to make sense to me. 

And the other thing that I learned is that the solar energy emitted by the Sun in 1 hour is enough to provide the power that we 

use on this earth for 1 year. I will say that again. The solar energy 

emitted by the Sun in 1 hour is enough to meet our power needs, 

or energy needs, on this planet for 1 year. 

Einstein used to say, in adversity lies opportunity. God knows we 

have faced plenty of adversity in our lives and on our planet and 
17 

in this country. But boy, there are some terrific opportunities. We 

have to be smart enough to capture and make it happen and turn 

this adversity into not just cleaner air and arrested dependence on 

foreign oil and so forth. We have to turn it into jobs. 

And we have a great opportunity to do that, whether building 

nuclear power plants or deploying windmill farms, or deploying 

these new lightweight solar energy panels, building those refrigerators that are so much more energy efficient than anything else 

we have ever seen before. There is great opportunity here. 

We appreciate your helping us to find the path to that opportunity. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me thank 

all of our guest panelists for being here. What is important is that 

you are not just listening to all of these brilliant speeches, as important as that is. But more important, that was a joke actually—— 

[Laugher.] 

Senator SANDERS. More important is your presence here together 

indicates your understanding that all of these agencies have got to 

work together. And that has not always been the case as we attempt to go forward tackling these important issues. 

I think the issue that Chairwoman Boxer and others are attempting to bring us together on is, in fact, the most important 

issue facing not only this country but the world. It has everything 

to do with energy independence and the war in Iraq. We are now 

winding our way out of that war, which many people thought was 

involved in the need for oil. If we become energy independent, we 

do not need to be getting involved in wars like Iraq. 

We are spending $350 billion every single year purchasing oil 

from abroad. Do you know what we could do with $350 billion investing in energy in the United States? We would transform our 

Nation. 

In terms of global warming, I know some of my friends may not 

believe in the phenomenon of global warming. And they may pick 

up an individual here or a scientist there who has doubts. And that 

is fair enough. But the evidence is very clear. The overwhelming 

numbers of scientists who have studied this issue not only worry 

about global warming, but tell us that the situation today is far 

more dire than they thought a few years ago. That is what the 

overwhelming scientific evidence seems to suggest. 

Last, but not least, is the issue of economics and jobs. I think, 

as others have suggested, we have the possibility over a period of 

years of creating millions and millions of good paying jobs as we 

transform our energy system. 

Madam Chairman, it just seems to me that we want to focus on 

at least three areas. No. 1, we need to enact strong, near term targets for emissions reductions. No. 2, we have got to meet President 

Obama’s renewable energy goal, which is passing legislation that 
18 

produces 25 percent renewable energy by 2025. Third, and very importantly, we must ensure rigorous and transparent market oversight. We need to ensure that we have legislation that does not 

simply become a windfall for speculators and traders. Let us not 

underestimate the importance of that. 

Senator Carper talked about his vacation. This is like Show and 

Tell. I also was on a break and I went around Vermont, and let 

me tell you what I saw. I went to Middlebury College, which fairly 

shortly will be providing energy for their fairly large campus from 

both sustainable energy and energy efficiency, virtually, completely, 100 percent. I went to a plant that they have on campus 

which is using wood chips, replacing oil, and they are saving 

$700,000 a year and creating local jobs and cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions. They are not doing an experiment to plant 

willow trees, which will be used as part of that fuel. 

I think the potential, as I mentioned to Ken Salazar and many 

others, for solar thermal in the southwest part of this country is 

extraordinary. There is evidence out there, Madam Chairman, that 

we could produce significant part of the electricity from solar thermal plants, and I congratulate Secretary Salazar for beginning to 

move us in that direction. 

In terms of energy efficiency, Vermont has been a leader in the 

country in that area. Many of our major utilities are not producing 

any more electricity today than they did years ago, despite normal 

economic growth. And, in fact, if the rest of the country did what 

Vermont and California are doing in terms of energy efficiency, 

there would be a huge drop in energy use in America. 

So, we are sitting on an enormous issue. The fate of the planet 

is at stake. We can transform our economy. We can break our dependence on foreign oil. Now is he time to be bold and to go forward. And I thank you all of our panelists for their efforts in that 

direction. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. Colleagues, we have three more Senators in 

order of appearance originally, Whitehouse, Udall and Specter. And 

then we are, absolutely, going to get to you. 

Thank you for your extreme patience. It just shows you the excitement on both sides of the aisle that there is on this issue. 

So, I will ask for Senator Whitehouse at this time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. I welcome the Administration officials, with a particularly warm welcome to our 

former colleague, Secretary Salazar, whose tenure here was brief 

but marked by great achievement and immense goodwill on both 

sides of the aisle. So, it is wonderful to see you back. 

I would just make four simple points that I think are the crux 

of what we have to do going forward. 

The first simple point is that the Earth’s climate is being 

changed by carbon pollution, and if we do not do something about 

it, our children and our grandchildren will bear that cost, and it 

promises to be a very high cost, and it is simply wrong not to act. 
19 

The second point is that, right now, polluters are allowed to pollute for free. And, as long as they are allowed to pollute for free 

and take the costs of their pollution and put it on everybody else 

in America, they are going to keep doing it. That is the American 

way. And it is the American way of government to try to set things 

up so that those perverse incentives do not continue. 

The third point is that behind that problem a new economy beckons, with clean energy jobs and a future of energy independence for 

this country. It is an enormously powerful strength that we can tap 

into if we do this right. 

And the last thing is that we have the choice now to be on the 

front end or the tail end of progress. I saw in the newspaper the 

other day that Toyota has something like 2,000 patents that it has 

filed to protect its hybrid technology to keep people from competing. That is the privilege that you get when you are the 

frontrunner. 

China and Japan and Europe, countries all over the place, are 

investing to put their industries at the front. And I do not want 

to see American industry at the back of that parade with a broom. 

I want to see us at the front, leading. 

The four of you have the capacity to make, to solve those four 

problems, to solve those issues for our people. We look forward to 

supporting you. We know that this is probably, along with the 

ExxonMobil board room, the last place in which people, sober people, debate whether or not these problems are real. But we intend 

to work with you anyway and we hope to give you as strong legislative as we can. 

We thank you for your efforts. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Udall followed by Senator Specter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I very much appreciate you holding this hearing today and appreciate having 

these four brilliant witnesses that I hope we will hear from very 

soon. 

I would like to put my opening statement in the record. But I did 

want to—— 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. But I did want to answer something that seems 

to be said over and over again by the other side and I hope the 

panel will focus on this. 

When you put a price on carbon, you are, in fact, helping the nuclear power industry. As has been said in this hearing and other 

places, nuclear power is not being helped, nuclear power is eliminated from the equation, all of those kinds of things. Well, that, in 

fact, is not true. You put a price on carbon, what you end up doing 

is sending a very strong signal in the marketplace that carbon dioxide emissions, that these kinds of emissions are to be reduced in 

the future, and that you move in the direction of technologies 

which do not create carbon dioxide. Nuclear is one of those. 

So, I hope that, when we focus on the idea of having a cap-andtrade system, we focus on the idea that we are encouraging all 
20 

sources, whether it is the renewables, wind and solar and biomass 

and geothermal, or whether it is nuclear power. We have to be 

really clear, I think, that our objective here is to do it all, to increase all the sources that are not contributing, and I think that 

is a very important point as part of all of this. And I hope that all 

of you that are here today on this panel will cover that side of it. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Madam Chair, thank you for kicking off a thorough series of hearings to debate 

and consider legislation to promote clean energy economic growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Climate change legislation does not cost jobs, it creates them. If we do not act 

clean energy technology jobs will go to China, not our States. We often hear about 

China’s coal use, but China is arguably ahead of the U.S. on clean energy. 

Chinese fuel economy standards in 2008 are significantly higher than the new 

U.S. standards President Obama announced in May. Their combined average fuel 

economy is at almost 36 miles per gallon for 2008 and is set at over 42 miles per 

gallon by 2016. Our standards do not reach 35 mpg until 2020. 

China already generates a greater share of their power from wind than we do in 

the U.S., and next year, the Chinese plan to have installed 10 gigawatts of wind 

power, reaching their goal 3 years ahead of schedule. 

The Chinese have already set a 15 percent RES by 2020. Both the U.S. House 

and the U.S. Senate have separately passed a renewable electricity standard, but 

in different sessions. It is imperative that we get on the same page this year. 

China is also the world’s largest producer of solar power cells. New Mexico is also 

a leading producer of solar power equipment, but we have a weak domestic market. 

China has also entered an agreement with the EU to demonstrate near-zero coal 

emissions technology by 2020, an area where the U.S. should be a technological 

leader instead. 

Overall, China invests $12 billion per year in renewable energy, second only to 

$14 billion per year in Germany. From Silicon Valley, to Wall Street, to Main 

Street, U.S. investors want to join in, but they need Washington leadership. 

During this debate, we should be afraid about U.S. jobs leaving to China, but we 

will lose those clean energy jobs if we fail to enact climate change legislation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Specter, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I join my colleagues in welcoming this distinguished panel and also Mayor John 

Fetterman, who is here from Braddock, Pennsylvania. 

I compliment you, Madam Chairwoman, for your vigor in pursuing this issue with many hearings and determination to get a 

consensus. There is no doubt of the great importance of this issue 

in many directions: cleaning up the environment, stopping this 

threat of carbon, reducing our dependence on OPEC oil, which has 

tremendous ramifications politically with Iran being strengthened 

by its oil revenues and Venezuela being strengthened. 

We have a mammoth bill from the House of Representatives that 

has been cobbled together in the most extraordinary way. But that 

is part of the legislative process, and we know of the difficulties. 

In order to reconcile a lot of very difficult interests on cleaning 

up the atmosphere, we have the important consideration of jobs 

and the ramifications from coal. Many of us have been trying for 

a long time to get clean coal technology to ease that issue. But, as 
21 

a Senator from a coal producing State, that is a factor that I have 

to take into account, along with the concerns I have for my four 

granddaughters and their grandchildren on cleaning up the atmosphere. 

This committee is determined to do the job. The Senate is determined to do the job, and I am determined to end on time. 

Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

So, I think we have now heard from everybody, so it is time to 

call on our distinguished panel. Among yourselves, have you decided any particular order? So, why do we not start with Dr. Chu. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. CHU. Thank you. 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on moving America 

forward toward a clean energy economy. 

We face many serious and immediate challenges. American families and businesses are struggling in a recession and an increasingly competitive global economy. We have become deeply dependent on a single source of energy to power our cars, trucks and airplanes. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to import 

60 percent of the oil that we use. And we face an unprecedented 

threat to our way of life from climate change. 

To solve these challenges, the Administration and Congress need 

to work together to spur a revolution in clean energy technologies. 

The President and I applaud the historic action in the House to 

pass a clean energy bill, and we look forward to working with the 

Senate to pass comprehensive energy legislation. 

I want to speak today about the threat of climate change. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that carbon dioxide from 

human activity has increased the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide by roughly 40 percent, a level one-third higher than at any time 

in the last 800,000 years. 

There is also a strong consensus that human carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gases have caused our planet to change. Already, 

we have seen the loss of about half of the summer arctic polar ice 

cap, a dramatic accelerating rise in sea level, and a loss of over 

2,000 cubic miles of glacial ice. And these changes are not occurring on a geological time scale, but in a time period of less than 

100 years. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected in 2007 that, if we continue on this course, there is a 50 percent chance of a global average temperature increasing by more 

than 7 degrees Fahrenheit in this century. A more recent 2009 MIT 

study found a 50 percent chance of a 9 degree rise and a 17 percent 

chance of nearly an 11 degree increase. 

Eleven degrees may not sound like much, but during the last ice 

age, when Canada and the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania were covered year round in a glacier, the world was only 

11 degrees colder. A world 11 degrees warmer will be a very dif-
22 

ferent place. Is this the legacy we want to leave our children and 

grandchildren? 

Denial of the climate change problem will not change our destiny. A comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and then 

reduces carbon emissions will. 

America has the opportunity to lead a new industrial revolution 

by creating sustainable, clean energy. We can sit on the sidelines 

and deny the scientific facts. Or we can get in the game and play 

to win. 

Opponents of this effort claim that the Nation cannot afford to 

act at this time. I disagree. And so does the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office. These organizations estimate that meeting the greenhouse gas targets in the 

House bill can be achieved at an annual cost of somewhere between 

22 and 48 cents per day per household in 2020. This is about the 

price of a postage stamp per day. 

History suggests the actual cost could even be lower. The costs 

to save our ozone layer, to reduce smog with catalytic converters, 

to scrub the sulfur dioxide from power plants were all far less than 

estimated. For example, according to the EPA, the sulfur dioxide 

reductions that are being achieved are one-fifth of the original industry estimated costs. The right clean energy incentives will rev 

up the great American research and innovation machine, and I am 

confident that American ingenuity will lead to better and cheaper 

energy solutions. 

We can make significant near-term carbon reductions through 

energy efficiency. We use 40 percent of our energy in buildings. I 

firmly believe that, with today’s technologies, we can reduce our 

energy bills by 40 to 50 percent in new buildings. By developing 

a system integration approach, I believe we can eventually build 

buildings that use 80 percent less energy with investments that 

pay for themselves in less than 15 years through reduced energy 

bills. Similarly, we can retrofit existing buildings to achieve 50 percent energy savings with investments that pay for themselves. 

A comprehensive energy and climate bill will drive American innovation to fuel efficient automobiles and development of advanced 

batteries for electric vehicles. It will offer incentives to re-start our 

nuclear power industry and encourage utilities to invest in carbon 

capture and sequestration. It will drive investments in wind and 

solar power and next generation biofuels from grasses and agricultural waste. 

In addition to developing and deploying the technologies we have 

today, we must pursue truly transformative solutions. Climate experts tell us we must reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent 

by mid-century to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will avoid the worst consequences of climate 

change. 

To achieve our long-term goals in the most cost effective way, we 

will need a sustained commitment to research and development. 

Only R&D can deliver a new generation of clean technologies. 

Let me close with a quote from Martin Luther King. His words, 

spoken in 1967, seem so fitting in today’s energy and climate crisis. 

He said, we are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow 

is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this 
23 

unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as 

being too late. 

Now if the time to take a comprehensive and sustained action. 

With the leadership of the President, the actions of this Congress, 

and the support and participation of the American people, I am 

confident that we will succeed. 

Thank you. I would be glad to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chu follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much for your eloquent words. 

Administrator Jackson, welcome again. You are a frequent visitor in this room, and we welcome you again. 

STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. It is good to be home, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you for having me. And to you, Ranking Member Inhofe 

and members of the committee, thanks first for the confirmation 

votes today. EPA appreciates the support. And thank you for inviting me to testify about new legislation to get America running on 

clean energy. 

Let me begin by commending you for starting Senate hearings on 

this, the second legislative day after the House of Representatives 

passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Immediately 

after that historic vote on June 26th, President Obama called upon 

the Senate to demonstrate the same commitment, the same commitment that we saw in the House to build a clean energy foundation for a strong American economy. I am grateful that this committee has wasted no time in answering that call. 

The House bill reflects the principles the President believes are 

essential for our Nation’s energy future: decreasing our dependency 

on foreign oil, creating millions of new jobs in emerging clean energy technologies, and reducing the pollution that endangers our 

children. 

I know there are a variety of proposals pending in the Senate 

that have the same goals. I look forward to working with all the 

committee members as you engage in this effort. 

Clean energy is, to this decade and the next, what the Space 

Race was to the 1950s and 1960s. And America is behind. Governments in Asia and Europe are ahead of the United States in making aggressive investments in clean energy technology. American 

businesses need strong incentives and investments now in order for 

this Nation to lead the 21st century global economy. 

We are also coming late to the task of leading the world’s major 

greenhouse gas emitters to reverse our collective emissions’ growth 

in time to avert catastrophic climactic changes that would severely 

harm America’s economy and national security within our children’s lifetimes. The necessary shared effort will not begin in earnest unless and until the United States leads the charge. 

The advantage of the kind of legislation the President has called 

for is that it ramps up investment in developing new clean energy 

technologies while giving companies an effective incentive to use 

those technologies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. It does so 

without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. 

I do not mean to say that we can get something for nothing. But, 

according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the 

American Clean Energy and Security Act, the net cost to the average American household in 2020 would be less than 50 cents a day. 

For the wealthiest fifth of American households, the net cost would 

be less than 70 cents a day. The poorest fifth would actually see 

a net gain of more than 10 cents a day. That is what your economists have reported to you. 
63 

People have pointed out that the per household impact would not 

be uniform across the country, that the costs would be higher in 

those States where people drive very long distances and rely almost 

exclusively on coal for electricity. Yet, even if the cost borne by the 

average family in such a State were double the national average, 

it still would be just a dollar a day. 

That figure does not account for the economic benefits of saving 

our children from living with increased drought, fire, pests, flooding, and disease. Nor does it account for the benefit of decreasing 

our dependency on foreign oil. 

Can anyone honestly say that the head of an American household would not spend a dollar a day to safeguard the well being of 

his or her children, to reduce the amount of money that we send 

overseas for oil, to place American entrepreneurs back in the lead 

of the global marketplace, and to create new American jobs that 

pay well and cannot be outsourced? 

Labor unions support this kind of legislation because they know 

it will, indeed, create millions of high paying American jobs that 

cannot be exported. Manufacturing companies support it because 

they know it will provide needed investment in research and development while creating markets for the American clean energy technologies born from that investment. Electric utilities support it because they know it will expand our use of reliable domestic sources 

of energy like wind, solar, geothermal and yes, safer nuclear power, 

and yes, cleaner coal. 

Consumer advocates support it because they know it will 

strengthen the long-term economic foundation for all Americans 

without imposing short-term economic hardship on any Americans. 

And environmental groups support it because they know it is our 

best chance of preventing catastrophic harm to public health and 

our natural environment. 

Of course, there are still interest groups out there opposing this 

effort. But I think the tide is turning against the defenders of the 

status quo who want more of the same policies that made us dependent on foreign oil and that caused America to forfeit the lead 

in the burgeoning global competition to sell clean energy technology. 

I think Americans want reform that harnesses the country’s can 

do spirit. I think they want to fuel long-term economic recovery 

with a wise investment. This is what the President wants. That is 

what I want. I believe many Senators want the same thing. 

Please consider the Environmental Protection Agency as a partner in this effort to get America running on clean energy. And 

please, please, keep up the momentum. 

Thank you, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

And so we turn to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. VILSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the 

committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 

role of agriculture and forestry in addressing climate change and 

building our Nation’s renewable energy capabilities. 

I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues today, and I commit 

to them, and to you, that the USDA will maintain a close partnership in our work on climate change and renewable energy. 

Climate change is indeed one of the great challenges facing the 

United States and the world. The science is clear that the planet 

is already warming. While climate change will affect all of us, there 

are particular vulnerabilities and challenges for farmers, ranchers 

and those who make a living off the land. 

I would like to commend the House for its extraordinary efforts 

in developing historic, comprehensive energy and climate legislation that creates the framework for U.S. leadership on climate 

change. 

I, along with Secretaries Chu, Salazar and Administrator Jackson, look forward to working with the Senate as you begin your deliberations. Our hope is that Congress enacts a bill that meets 

President Obama’s objectives of creating an efficient, cost effective 

and comprehensive approach that leverages the Nation’s capacity 

for innovation, creates jobs, reduces dependence on foreign oil, and 

protects our children and grandchildren from ills associated with 

pollution. 

I believe it is crucial that we engage the participation of farmers, 

ranchers and forest landowners. This issue is too important for agriculture and forestry to sit on the sidelines. A viable carbon offsets 

market, one that rewards farmers, ranchers and forest landowners 

for stewardship activities, has the potential to play a very important role in helping America wean itself from foreign oil. It also 

represents a significant building block to revitalizing rural America. Landowners can also play an important role in providing lowcarbon renewable energy. 

The potential of our working lands to generate greenhouse gas 

reductions is significant. In fact today, our lands are a net sink of 

greenhouse gases. Based on the latest statistics from EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, forest and agricultural lands in the U.S. take up more greenhouse gases in the 

form of carbon dioxide than is released from all of our agricultural 

operations. 

The situation is different in developing countries where agriculture and deforestation play a far greater role in emissions. In 

aggregate, land uses are responsible for over one-third of global 

greenhouse gas emissions. It is difficult to see how greenhouse gas 

concentrations in the atmosphere can be stabilized without policies 

that target emissions and carbon sequestration on agricultural and 

forestlands. 

As a result, it is vital that America demonstrate how the inclusion of agriculture and forests in a domestic approach to climate 
92 

change can, in fact, produce real and lasting benefits to both landowners and the climate. 

Under climate change legislation, the farm sector will experience 

both costs and benefits. Energy price increases can impact row crop 

production and other agricultural activities. For example, fertilizer 

and fuel costs account for 50 to 60 percent of variable costs of the 

production of corn. Because of the high personal transportation expenditures, rural households are more likely than urban households to feel the pinch of increased gas prices. 

But, and this is an important but, I believe that there are significant opportunities for rural landowners in a cap-and-trade program 

that recognizes the contributions that farms, ranches, and forests 

can make in addressing climate change. 

Rural landowners can benefit from incentives in climate and energy legislation that reward production of renewable energy such 

as wind and bioenergy. A number of renewable energy technologies, 

such as anaerobic digesters, geothermal and wind power in particular can reduce farmers’ reliance on fossil fuels. In cooperation 

with the Department of Energy, USDA will continue to promote 

these technologies and our outreach and extension networks will 

help to make them available to farmers, ranchers and land managers. 

These technologies and the promotion of a clean energy economy 

will also stimulate the creation of new jobs. As farmers, ranchers 

and land managers look to install these digesters or build a wind 

farm, people will be needed to build the machines and install the 

systems. And because many of these technologies will be utilized 

in rural areas, many of these jobs will be created in rural America. 

These farmers, ranchers and forest owners can also benefit from 

legislation that creates markets for greenhouse gas offset credits. 

To be effective in addressing climate change, the offset market 

will need to accomplish two goals. First, the market will need to 

recognize the scale of the changes needed and the infrastructure 

that will be required to deliver information, manage data and resources, and maintain records and registries. Second, ensuring the 

environmental integrity of agricultural and forest offsets is critical 

to addressing climate change and maintaining public confidence in 

the carbon offset program. 

To produce meaningful emissions reductions, an offsets program 

will likely require the participation of thousands of landowners. We 

look forward to partnering with our fellow agencies to work with 

the Senate in designing a credible offsets program. USDA is prepared, with its managing over 750,000 contracts with landowners 

under the NRCS program, to meet this challenge. 

It is important that agriculture and forestry offsets have high 

standards of environmental integrity. Quantification and reporting 

systems need to be vigorous, verifiable and transparent, and review 

and auditing systems will need to be in place. Uncertainties must 

be accounted for and reduced, and greenhouse gas benefits accrued 

through carbon sequestration will need to be monitored over time 

to ensure that benefits are maintained and reversals are accounted 

for if they occur. If these principles are followed, the resulting offsets will be real, additional, verifiable and lasting. 
93 

USDA is prepared to support this effort through its scientific expertise, technical capabilities specific to greenhouse gases, carbon 

sequestration and offsets. 

I would like to close again by thanking the committee for taking 

up this important issue for agriculture, rural lands and the environment. I believe that agriculture and forestry can play a vital 

role in addressing climate change and that, if done properly, there 

are significant opportunities for landowners to profit from doing 

right by the environment. 

USDA is ready to help make this happen, and I am ready to answer questions, when appropriate. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vilsack follows:] 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Salazar. I mean, Senator Salazar, is that wishful thinking on my part? Secretary Salazar. We miss you, and we welcome 

you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. SALAZAR. I miss you as well, Madam Chairman, and Ranking 

Member Inhofe, and members of the committee on both sides of the 

aisle. Thank you for your distinguished service and the opportunity 

to come before you today and speak about the energy issues facing 

our country, 

Let me first say that the energy and climate change legislation 

that is before you that you will be dealing with really, in so many 

ways, is a signature issue of the 21st century and for our world. 

And embedded in that legislation and the debate that you will 

have, it seems to me that there is huge agreement, frankly, between Democrats and Republicans on some of the key principles. 

And those key principles are, as President Obama has often said, 

first of all reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, second of all, creating millions of new energy jobs here in the United 

States of America, and third, safeguarding our children from the 

dangers of pollution. 

Those are three areas where it seems to me there could be significant agreement between Democrats and Republicans in an effort to move legislation forward that really addresses one of the signature issues of our time. So, it is my hope that you will find ways 

of coming together and moving this legislation forward. 

Let me say a word about the Department of the Interior and our 

role with respect to energy independence and climate change. First, 

the Department oversees about 20 percent of the land mass of the 

United States of America. We have thousands of units in our National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM units and Bureau of Indian Affairs and reservation lands across this country. As 

the stewards of 20 percent of the Nation’s land mass, we have a 

significant role to play with respect to addressing the issues of energy as well as climate change. 

Within the Department we have 6,000 scientists that work with 

USGA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies, as well as 

14,000 land managers who can help us address the issues of climate change adaptation. It is my hope that as we move forward 

with this signature issue of our time that the expertise of the Department of the Interior will be fully utilized in addressing the 

challenges that we face. 

Now, as we look at energy and moving forward with energy independence, it is also important to note that we are producers of a 

large part of the energy that America currently consumes. We 

produce over 50 percent of the coal that comes into electrical generation, comes from the public lands of America overseen by the 

Department. We also produce more than 25 percent of the oil and 

gas resources for the country, including both onshore as well as offshore. 

And we have, in very recent times, opened up a new chapter for 

renewable energy. It is our hope that the renewable energy agenda 
116 

will be one in which we can participate fully on behalf of President 

Obama. 

Let me say just a word about renewable energy and its importance to our country. We have, in the last several months, opened 

up renewable energy permitting offices in places across the Southwest and have ushered in what will hopefully be a new era of wind 

energy production off the Atlantic and the Outer Continental Shelf. 

We can talk about a lot of statistics relative to the potential of 

renewable energy from the public lands, but I would just like to 

point out one. Just from the Southwestern sun, it is our belief that 

we can produce, just on the pending applications that have been 

filed with the Bureau of Land Management, we can produce 29 

percent of the Nation’s electrical energy needs just from the power 

of the Sun. That goes to the point that both Senator Carper and 

Senator Sanders were referring to. So, I think the whole effort on 

renewable energy is one that we are just beginning to get underway and there is huge potential there. 

Let me finally say that, within the Department of the Interior in 

the U.S. Geological Survey, they have produced, through the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, 

the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, a 

booklet which I would ask to be entered as part of the record and 

it is on the ecological impacts of climate change. 

In this booklet, Madam Chairman, as you go through that booklet, you will find why it is that this issue is so important to our 

country. First, look at the impacts in Alaska. We are looking at the 

fast defrosting arctic ice, which is very important to ice-dependent 

animals. 

If you look at the Western mountains from where I come from 

and Senator Udall and Senator Crapo and others, we are looking 

at wildfires, drought, bark infestation beetles that are attacking 

many of our forests. You look at the Pacific coastline, the ravaging 

wildfires and the problems we are having there with fisheries. 

If you look at the Southwestern desserts, the wildfires and 

invasive species issues, the pinion pine devastation that we are 

seeing in places like New Mexico. In the Central United States, agricultural shifts that are being seen because of the warming of the 

temperature. The migratory waterways in places like the prairie 

potholes in the Dakotas, and in the Southeast the Florida Everglades and the northward movement of tropical species. Those are 

all the kinds of issues that are being impacted by climate change. 

So I would commend this document to all of you, which has been 

looked at and produced by the National Academy of Sciences and 

other partners. 

In summary, Madam Chairman and Senator Inhofe, I look very 

much forward to working with the members of this committee of 

the U.S. Senate and with my colleagues, Steven Chu, Lisa Jackson 

and Tom Vilsack as we address this signature issue for our times. 

And again, at the heart of this, this is about reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. It is about making sure that we 

save our children from the dangers of pollution and that we create 

jobs right here in the America. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar and the referenced booklet follow:] 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senators, we need to make a decision. Senator Inhofe and I have 

conferred, and see if you agree with this. Because we took so long 

with opening statements, God bless us all, we are running quickly 

out of time to get to our second panel. We have some very good people we want to hear from. 

If it is OK with everyone else, Senator Inhofe and I are recommending that we have just 3 minutes each to ask questions of this 

panel so that we can at least hear from the next panel. Is that all 

right with everyone? 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator BOXER. And I will be strict, so do not be angry. OK. Here 

we go. 

First, let me respond. Senator Bond held up a chart. You can do 

that with any piece of legislation. He said that the Waxman-Markey Bill was unusually long and the rest. When we back, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that was brought to us by the Bush administration, the Republican Congress, was 16 titles. The House bill, 

Waxman-Markey, was 5 titles. So, I think you can just do this with 

every piece of legislation and I want the record to reflect that. 

The next thing, I just really wanted to see if I could get a yes 

or no. It is going to seem pretty obvious what the answer will be, 

but I want to make sure I have you on the record and we will go 

down, just yes or no. 

Given the problem of global warming as you see it, and the opportunity for clean energy jobs if we address it correctly, do you 

agree that this committee should do its job and move forward with 

a climate change clean jobs bill? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I just wanted that to be clear. 

You know, I was very disturbed by Senator Barrasso’s comments. 

He said the following. As we begin debating climate change, I believe we must first look at transparency, transparency on the scientific data on climate change and transparency on economic data. 

Madam Chairman, you said we would hear fierce words of doubt 

and fear but that the President says yes, we can and yes, we will. 

And this is the part that disturbs me. But what I have seen so far, 

said Senator Barrasso, is an Administration that is saying yes, we 

can hide the truth, yes, we can ignore the facts and yes, we can 

intimidate career Government employees. 

Now, I think that is a brutal charge to levy and I would like to 

ask Administrator Jackson a question on this. Would you discuss 

this charge of Senator Barrasso? I do not believe it, but he is saying that EPA has dismissed or suppressed scientific material relating to the endangerment finding. Could you please address that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to, Madam Chairman. And I will be 

brief because I do think this committee has more important and 

substantive issues to deal with this morning with my colleagues 

and myself. 

I will say it again for this committee that transparency and scientific integrity will be the cornerstone principles of my time at 
153 

EPA, and they will guide our actions. It occurs to me that that kind 

of change in openness does not sit easily or well with some interests and some special interests that just refuse to believe that I 

will ensure that science and the law guide our actions at EPA. 

Recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute issued a press release and accused EPA of preventing an economist in our office, his 

name is Alan Carlin, from voicing his scientific opinions with respect to the endangerment finding that we issued back in April. 

But I think it is important to look at the facts because here the 

facts do not actually justify their release. In fact, they get in the 

way of the story, and I think it is important to understand them. 

First, the economist in question was given permission and encouraged to speak his mind. He participated in conferences and 

symposiums around the country. He was encouraged to host brown 

bags for other EPA staff on his views, and he was encouraged to 

find peer reviewed works that back up his perspective. 

His views are reflected in the endangerment finding, in the technical support documents which is a synthesis of the science of global warming and public endangerment. And when I personally 

learned of his feeling, justified or not, that his memo had not been 

circulated widely enough, I immediately instructed my staff to inform him that he should feel free to circulate it to whomever he 

wished. Those are the facts and, as you can tell, they are anything 

but suppressive. 

I honestly do not believe that process debates like this are serving the American people. I believe the way to serve them is to find 

real solutions that will end our dependence on foreign oil and that 

will ensure a healthy climate for our children. I am sure that we 

will continue to have discussions like this, but I hope that we will 

move on to substantive issues. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for clearing the record. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

If we had had time, I had a lot of responses to make also, but 

there is not time for that. I will only say that the Strassel article 

that Senator Barrasso referred to, I want to ask that that be made 

a part of the record, the entire article. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced article was not received at time of print.] 

Senator INHOFE. And the reason is that it lists several countries 

that have been a part of the Kyoto Treaty who are now having second thoughts. Some of them are going to withdraw because the 

science is not there. I think that article is an excellent article. 

Now, I have a question for each of the members of the panel. I 

will make this real quick. It is very obvious that China has said 

that they are not going to be involved in this thing. They are not 

going to, in fact, they said in Kyoto they would have to have 1 percent of the GDP of the developed nations to actually be plowed into 

their economy before they would play with us. That amounts to 

about $140 billion a year. 

China, by the way, is the largest emitter now. We also know that 

closely behind them, India will not do anything. I am going to 

quote now the Environmental Minister Ramesh. He said ‘‘We will 

not accept any emission reduction targets, period. This is a non-ne-
154 

gotiable stand.’’ Third, if you go back and you look way back during 

the Clinton administration, when it was Tom Wigley who was 

given the responsibility of determining how much would it lower 

the temperature in 50 years if we had, if all developed nations 

were to sign onto and live by the Kyoto Treaty, the results came 

out seven-one hundredths of 1 degree Celsius, which is not even 

measurable. 

Now, with that, the question, I would say, if the United States 

unilaterally adopts a climate bill, will it make any material change 

in terms of climate, of temperature? Start with Secretary Chu. 

Mr. CHU. Yes, it would. 

Senator INHOFE. So you disagree with all of the others who 

are—— 

Mr. CHU. I would say right now, China and the United States, 

yes, you are quite right that China has exceeded the United States 

in its emission of carbon dioxide, but that is two countries that are 

roughly half of the carbon dioxide emissions of the world. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I want to get on down there. So you say 

yes, it would. Administrator Jackson? 

Ms. JACKSON. I say yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I do not have a choice here. We are out 

of time. And by material, what? Five percent? Or what percentage 

do you think? Five degrees? Would you like to quantify anything 

that would happen if we do not have the developing countries participating in this, if it is just the United States unilaterally. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, maybe I can—— 

Senator INHOFE. OK, OK, OK. Let me just go ahead and say, this 

is what we determined during the Warner-Lieberman last year, 13 

months ago, and that was the EPA that said this is the difference 

it would make. Let us keep in mind that the IPCC said they wanted to keep it down below 550 parts per million. This shows by the 

EPA chart that, with or without the developing nations, it makes, 

it would be virtually no change. 

Do you still agree with this chart? I am sure—— 

Senator BOXER. Could you direct that to Dr. Chu since he is the 

scientist? 

Senator INHOFE. OK, Dr. Chu, the Chairman wants me to address that at you. 

Mr. CHU. No, I do not agree with that chart. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you, Administrator Jackson? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that the essential parts of the chart are 

that the U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels. But, 

as we have all said, and as many members of this committee said, 

the race is on for us to enter into a clean energy future. There is 

technology in this country that can be used to move markets, not 

only here, but abroad. And that means jobs for Americans that we 

are apparently losing. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate your answer very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. Let us see. Senator Merkley 

is not here nor Senator Klobuchar. Senator Cardin, you are next. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me just, following up the last questions, if the United States 

were to act alone, and no other country in the world were to take 
155 

action, I personally believe it would be good for our economy, it 

would create more jobs here in America and keep jobs here in 

America. 

But I must tell you, that is not the issue. The issue is what is 

going to happen in Copenhagen, and I can tell you, in my conversations with my colleagues and fellow parliamentarians around the 

world, particularly in Europe, they are looking forward to America’s leadership. They believe America’s leadership will play a critical role in getting other nations to move and to set the bar high 

enough so we really can make an impact on global environment. 

So, I think that is what we are all trying to do. But, looking at 

the legislation we are considering, we are trying to improve quality 

of life here in America, trying to make it easier for people to deal 

with their everyday needs, make it healthier for Americans and 

keep jobs and create jobs in our own country. 

I want to mention one area which seems to me we are out of step 

with much of the world, the industrialized world, and that is the 

way that we transport people in public transportation. 

I represent Maryland. I know the stress that WMATA is under. 

It is the second busiest system in the country. I have seen the stations and see the conditions that need to be improved. I know, historically, we have put a lot of Federal funds into our highway system, which I support. I believe we need that. But public transit has 

not gotten the same attention in America. 

I would just like to get, from Dr. Chu or Ms. Jackson, your view 

as to the advantages of public transportation from the energy and 

environment point of view. I know from quality of life, getting people out of these traffic jams is going to be adding to the health 

styles of America. I know that it adds to productivity if people do 

not have to spend 2 or 3 hours a day in traffic. But if you could 

just tell us, from the point of view of energy savings and on the 

environment, an investment in public transportation, what it would 

mean. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will go first. Transportation, from an environmental perspective, is on average across the country about 20 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. And that comes from people 

who primarily commute, oftentimes because they have no choice, by 

single auto, by single passenger in a car. 

So, any opportunities to change that or to revise that issue deal 

with quality of life but also mean fewer cars of the road which 

means fewer greenhouse gas emissions. And not only greenhouse 

gases, but other criteria pollutants as well. NOx is a big byproduct 

of automobile emissions. 

You asked as well about energy. I will let the Secretary of Energy answer that question. But, clearly part of cracking the-of 

greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution that comes from greenhouse gases is dealing with the transportation sector. 

Mr. CHU. Very simply, I would say that increasing public transportation, use of public transportation, especially in suburban and 

urban areas, would do a lot in decreasing our oil dependency and 

decreasing our carbon emissions. 

I would also add that using trains for long distance freight would 

also do a lot. Then using the trucks for the more local distribution. 

There is an ad that has been running for a couple of months. For 
156 

every, I think it is metric ton of freight, it is something like 400 

or 700 miles per gallon if you use a train. So, trucks cannot get 

there. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senators, if you could please try to, before you 

do a 2-minute leading up to your question, but leave a minute. 

Otherwise, we are not going to get to everybody. 

OK. Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Jackson, David Green from the Oakridge National Laboratory testified before our committee that a low carbon fuel standard 

was a more effective and efficient way to reduce carbon from fuel 

than a cap-and-trade system. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I would not say, I will not make a judgment as to 

whether it is more or less. I think it is an important tool that—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you do not agree with it? I have only got 

3 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think it is important. I will not say whether it 

is more or less important—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, would you please look into it? Because 

he testified that it is very inefficient and that a low carbon fuel 

standard would be more efficient. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to look into it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Dr. Chu, do you believe that the 100 or so 

nuclear power plants that we have operating in America today and 

the, I guess it is classified ,number of nuclear submarines with reactors that we have operating today, are being operated safely? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Do you agree roughly with the figures that 

carbon is the principle greenhouse gas that is contributing to global 

warming? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, I do. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And would you agree that coal plants contribute about 40 percent of that carbon to—— 

Mr. CHU. I am not sure of the exact number, but something 

around that, yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And that nuclear plants, while only producing 20 percent of the electricity, produce about 70 percent of the 

carbon-free electricity? 

Mr. CHU. I agree with that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Then would it not be true, if we are just 

looking at the next 20 years while we are figuring out how to lower 

the cost and improve the reliability of renewable energy, that the 

fastest way to produce clean, large amounts of clean, reliable, lowcost, clean electricity would be nuclear power? 

Mr. CHU. I believe that restarting the nuclear power industry is 

very important in this overall plan of reducing our carbon emissions in the United States. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But is it not true solar and wind and other 

renewables on which the Administration seems to be absolutely fixated, and which I think are fine and useful, only produce 6 percent 

of our carbon-free electricity? Nuclear produces 70 percent and, as 

you said, it is being operated safely here. France is 80 percent nu-
157 

clear. Taxpayers are helping India and China build nuclear plants. 

The President has said Iran may. 

Why do we not have the same level of enthusiasm for nuclear 

power that we do for wind turbines? I noticed that Ms. Jackson 

said yes, safer nuclear power. But she did not say yes, more reliable wind or yes, more competitively priced solar power. What is 

the reluctance here? 

Mr. CHU. Well, actually, from me, you are not going to get any 

reluctance. As you may know, I think that nuclear power is going 

to be a very important factor in getting us to a low-carbon future. 

The Department of Energy is doing, with its tools, everything 

that it can to help restart the American nuclear industry. With the 

loan guarantees, we are pushing as hard as we can on that. We are 

going to be investing, in the future, in bettering the technologies 

and, quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead in industrial nuclear power and utility nuclear power. We have lost that lead as 

we have lost the lead in many areas of energy technologies, and we 

should get it back. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. That was well 

done. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

I ask Secretary Chu. You are a Nobel Prize winner in physics. 

We congratulate you for the ability to earn that kind of recognition. 

Is it possible that global warming could be a conspiracy to mislead, 

or could it be a hoax in any way? Or is it really related to human 

activities? 

Mr. CHU. I think one has to understand how science works. The 

entire reason for doing science, and the feedback of this, is that if 

a scientist can prove what might be generally accepted as wrong 

and that scientist, that lone voice is right, that person becomes 

very famous. So, there is in the intimate structure in science this 

ability to say, give it your best shot. If this is what is a strong consensus, give it your best shot and prove it to me. 

So, what has happened over the last several decades, quite 

frankly, is there were many, many people who still continue to look 

very, very hard at the facts, at the analysis, and the whole peer 

review system is a very strong check and balance against a global 

hoax. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Administrator Jackson, are 

you aware of the fact that America in 2006 had 250 million vehicles on the road? In 1990, 189 million vehicles were on the road. 

Sixteen years later, there are 62 million more cars on the road. 

Could that create air quality problems for us? 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I was not sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I want to ask you this, Ms. Jackson. Are 

you aware that there are now 26 million Americans, including 9 

million children, with asthma? These rates are double what they 

were in 1980. Does that indicate, is there any indication of poor air 

quality that would be consistent with that kind of growth? 
158 

Ms. JACKSON. I am well aware of it, Senator. I am the mother 

of a child who has asthma, and we know that air pollution and air 

quality are directly linked to problems with asthma. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, so my grandson is not unique. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, not at all. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, I had earlier talked about an article in 

the Wall Street Journal saying the EPA is silencing a climate skeptic. Well, you know, that is not an isolated case. 

I sent you a letter on May 13, 2009, to you as well as to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, regarding the leaking of a Small Business Administration attorney’s name who wrote 

part of an internal OMB memo highlighting the negative economic 

and the additional consequences of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. 

Once this memo was released to the media, the attorney was 

smeared as a Bush appointee despite her being hired during the 

Clinton administration. There is really bipartisan concern about 

the leaking of that person’s name. Even in the House, the Small 

Business Committee Ranking Member, Nydia Velazquez, stated 

with regard to leaking that attorney’s name that that attorney’s 

ability to serve now in three Administrations, Democrat and well 

as Republican, speaks to her professional and talent. Her abilities 

and objectivity should not be questioned. 

Well, I have not yet gotten a response back to my May 13, 2009, 

letter from you. I included information on that in my letter to Senator Whitehouse today calling for an investigation. Do you know 

when I will receive a response to that letter? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do not now, but I am happy to check on it for 

you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. I would appreciate if 

you would. 

There was an article in the Washington Post yesterday, 

Deconstructing the Climate Bill, Questions and Answers on the 

Mammoth House Measure. It said the Climate Bill approved by the 

House last month started out as an idea, fight global warming, and 

wound up looking like an unabridged dictionary. And Senator 

Bond, I think, had the big copy of that unabridged dictionary. It 

runs to more than 1,400 pages swollen with loopholes and giveaways meant to win over un-green industries and wary legislators. 

And they go through a number of questions. 

It said would this bill stop climate change? Would this bill stop 

climate change? And there answer is no, it would not. 

Do you agree with the Washington Post’s assessment that this 

bill will not stop climate change? Or do you disagree with the 

Washington Post on this? 

Ms. JACKSON. I did happen to see that article, Senator, and I 

agree with their assessment that this bill is the right start and 

that it sends a strong signal and that you all, in the Senate, have 

work to do and I respect the fact that you are starting that work. 
159 

Senator BARRASSO. So, your impression is that this bill, as we 

are looking at it right now, will not impact on climate change? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we already had a discussion earlier about the 

fact that what the United States does is important in terms of entering the clean energy race in terms of reducing our dependence 

on oil that comes from outside of our country and in terms of creating millions of jobs. So, this is a jobs bill, it is an energy bill, and 

it is also a climate change bill and we will need to work internationally to affect changes on global climate change. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like 

to add some written questions, if I may, now that I have run out 

of time. 

Senator BOXER. Surely. 

Senator Carper is next. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Dr. Chu, a number of our Republican colleagues on this committee, and a number of our Republican colleagues in the Senate, 

are very enthusiastic about nuclear energy. They see there is no 

end to how much we can accomplish with it. I am a strong advocate 

of expanding nuclear power as well. 

One of the things that I would urge you to do, they are looking 

for somebody in the Administration who is as excited and interested and passionate about it as they are. When I look at the line 

up of the people who lead in the Administration, I come to you as 

somebody who knows more about this stuff, who can really be an 

advocate and can help us figure what, if anything, we can do in climate change legislation to be supportive of nuclear. I would just 

ask you to put your thinking cap on and help us to do that if you 

would, please. 

[Mr. Chu’s response follows:] 

During the hearing you asked me to provide my thoughts about how to incentivize 

an expansion of nuclear power in the context of the pending energy and climate 

change legislation. I appreciated your work to organize a bipartisan meeting with 

you and a number of Senators on August 4th to further discuss this issue. At that 

meeting, we explored a number of issues, including work force development, incentives for component manufacturers and utilities, and several other ideas. I look forward to continuing to work with you and other interested Senators on this vital 

issue as the legislative process moves forward. 

Senator CARPER. Second, Ms. Jackson, thank you so much for 

joining us here today. Senator Lautenberg already mentioned this. 

I am going to come back to it again. In 2007, we passed the CAFE 

legislation, as you will recall. At the time, it was estimated that we 

effectively took 60 million cars off the road in terms of the emissions and the reduction in gasoline consumption. Sixty million. 

When the Administration, a month or two ago, moved ahead by 4 

years the effective date of CAFE from 2020 to 2016, that is roughly 

36 miles per gallon, we basically doubled the effect of what we had 

done in 2007. 

The last time we raised the CAFE standards before 2007 was 

about 1975. Without oil, we are going to save a lot of energy and 

reduce a lot of fuel consumption. But you know? We did not. Because we kept driving more cars, we go further, and we continue 

to drive more. Given what we have done in 2007 and what the Administration has done to CAFE now, we may end up making no 

progress if we do not figure out how to get us to drive less. 
160 

I would like for you to be helping us as we approach the mark 

up of this bill. How do we think differently, act differently in the 

transportation sector to make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes that we made between 1975 and 1985 and, frankly, up to this 

day. 

Last, I want to ask of former Governor Vilsack, Thomas Vilsack. 

Good to see you, pal. My question to you. In the Waxman-Markey 

Bill, the agricultural offsets are now being controlled, I am told, 

and verified by the Department of Agriculture. At least they will 

be. How will your agency, how will the U.S. Department of Agriculture, adapt to the role of regulator? It is a role I do not think 

USDA has tried to assume over the years. Take that, if you will. 

We have got this situation where the EPA has adopted, or is considering adopting, USDA conservation standards as a way for farmers to show they are meeting air quality requirements. I do not 

know. Is that true or not? Could a similar partnership work between EPA and USDA, maybe for climate? 

Mr. VILSACK. Senator, we already work as partners on a number 

of environmental issues. I see this as a partnership with all of my 

fellow colleagues at this table. Obviously, USDA has unique assets 

in terms of its ability to be in virtually every county in the country. 

It has technical expertise in this area that it needs to lend and add 

to discussion. But I certainly see this as a partnership. I think EPA 

has a set of unique tools as well and we need to figure out how 

best to use our unique characteristics and assets. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Because of our limited time, Secretary Chu, I am going to focus 

all of my questions on you. I want to come back to the question of 

nuclear power. There are so many other issues that we do want to 

deal with, but the issue of nuclear power is one that I do think we 

need to pursue more fully. 

First of all, I appreciate your stand on nuclear power and your 

efforts to work to help us make it an integral part of our national 

energy policy. As I am looking at some of the efforts to develop a 

renewable energy standard here, both in the Senate and in the 

House, one of the things that strikes me is that nuclear power is 

not allowed to be counted as part of renewable energy base, I think 

in all of the proposals that are surfacing right now. 

Can you see any reason why we would not allow nuclear power 

to be counted in that process? 

Mr. CHU. Well, it is being assisted, as already pointed out by the 

fact that it is a carbon-free source of energy. Strictly speaking, it 

is not a renewable energy. So, that is the short answer. 

Senator CRAPO. Neither are some of the other things that are 

counted, but go ahead. 

Mr. CHU. But it is being assisted in, when you have a carbon cap 

and you reduce that cap, it greatly favors nuclear power. We have, 

we are administering $18.5 billion loan guarantees that we hope 

will bring four nuclear power plants up. We are looking at ways to 

help the Nuclear Regulatory Agency speed up. Using our expertise 
161 

and our modeling analysis capabilities, I think we can help them 

speed up the approval process. 

So, I think that ultimately the rate setting commissions around 

the country, these are local jurisdictions, should look toward nuclear power as, you know, is it worth it to invest in this clean 

source of energy? 

Senator CRAPO. But is there any reason why we should not count 

nuclear power in the base for those calculations? 

Mr. CHU. In the base of what? 

Senator CRAPO. For a renewable energy standard. 

Mr. CHU. Well, it certainly is counted in the base of getting off 

of carbon—— 

Senator CRAPO. I understand. Well, let me ask this. With regard 

to the loan guarantees that you mentioned, which I think are one 

of the key issues that we should focus on in terms of strengthening 

nuclear power, do you have a time line for advancing the next 

round of loans? 

Mr. CHU. We are working very hard. I hope, by the end of the 

summer or early fall, to make announcements. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. As you 

know, that is very critical and I would say that it seems to me that 

the question Senator Carper asked you is one that, if I had more 

time, I would ask you right now. 

I would hope that you would provide some written answers, perhaps, following this hearing on this, and that is, what can this committee do in an energy bill as we are crafting one to do the best 

job that we can to facilitate our country’s reenergizing of the nuclear energy industry? I know you do not have time in 4 seconds 

to answer that right now, but if you would give that some thought 

and give us a written reply, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. CHU. I certainly will. I have a couple of requests and they 

are no problem. I will be glad to do that. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Here is what we are going to do. We 

have to go fast now because we have a swearing in on the Senate 

floor and our good panel has been here forever, so we are going to 

do Sanders, Bond, Udall, Merkley and we have got to end on time. 

Go ahead, Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

There has been discussion about nuclear and questions to the 

panel, what is the reluctance? Well, I have a reluctance. You know 

why? Nuclear waste is highly toxic. We do not know how to get rid 

of it. The folks in Nevada, Yucca Mountain, have said they do not 

want it. Maybe the people in Wyoming want it. Maybe the people 

in Missouri want it, and we will send it there. But right now, to 

the best of my knowledge, no State in the Union wants this highly 

toxic waste. 

Now, in terms of loan guarantees, Secretary Chu. I am going to 

ask Ken Salazar a question in a moment. But are you providing 

loan guarantees to solar thermal plants? 

Mr. CHU. Pardon? 

Senator SANDERS. Solar thermal plants in the Southwest. 

Mr. CHU. We are certainly reviewing the applications at present. 

We have not provided a loan guarantee yet. 
162 

Senator SANDERS. My understanding is there are over a dozen 

plants on the drawing board ready to go. And if we are talking 

about putting money into nuclear energy, we do not know how to 

get rid of that waste, I would hope very much that we are prepared 

to entertain projects which are based on solar thermal. 

Let go right to Secretary Salazar. You mentioned a moment ago, 

in your testimony, which I strongly agree with, I think you said 

that we have the potential to produce something like 28 percent of 

the electricity in this country from solar thermal. Is that what you 

said? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Twenty-nine percent. 

Senator SANDERS. Could you elaborate? I think that is an extraordinary statement. I agree with you. How are we proceeding, 

and when are we going to see the creation of solar thermal plants? 

Mr. SALAZAR. The renewable energy revolution, I think, is something that we have begun with some help from this Congress but 

under President Obama’s leadership, opening up this new great opportunity for all of us. Just to give you an example, Senator Sanders, in Nevada, just 10 days or so ago, we announced moving forward with renewable energy applications for solar which we expect 

we will have some 14 solar power plants that will be under construction by the end of next year, 2010. Those projects alone will 

create some 50,000 jobs here in the United States of America. 

Senator SANDERS. It is extraordinary. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And that is just the beginning of this effort—— 

Senator SANDERS. That is extraordinary. And thank you very 

much for your leadership on this. 

I wanted to ask Secretary Vilsack a question. In Europe right 

now, there is a huge growth in use of wood pellets. In my State, 

we have over 35 of our schools heating with wood. Middlebury College switches from oil to wood and saves huge sums of money. 

What do you see is the potential in terms of biomass as an important part of the energy revolution? 

Mr. VILSACK. Senator, it is a very significant part of it and it is 

recognized by the energy title of the farm bill that was passed in 

2008 that created opportunities for the USDA to provide grant 

money to encourage woody biomass opportunities, as well as the 

Recovery Reinvestment Act also provided additional resources. 

Those moneys are being put to use in a number of projects. So 

there is a significant potential. 

The whole point of this is to diversify and to have as many options in terms of energy production that occur in the United States, 

and certainly woody biomass is a key component. 

Senator SANDERS. And the potential there is also to create a 

whole lot of jobs in the woods as well? 

Mr. VILSACK. No doubt about it. And these are jobs that will 

most likely be in rural communities which helps significantly revitalize the rural economy. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Bond. 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

We are looking forward, Dr. Chu, to having a real effort to reprocess the nuclear waste that we already have as France has so 
163 

successfully shown that we can get rid of that waste using what 

we already have. 

I would direct a couple of questions to my former neighbor, Secretary Vilsack, about farmers. 

The strong signal that this bill seems to be sending to farmers 

in my State is that they are going to face higher costs for farm 

equipment, fuel, fertilizers, drying costs, transporting, inputs in 

and goods to the market. Do you have any information to show that 

farmers will not be heavily impacted by this particular, or this 

Waxman-Markey Bill, or whatever we come up with here? 

Mr. VILSACK. Senator, we are in the process of completing a review of the economic analysis. But I would say two things. First, 

there is no question that innovation is going to make a significant 

difference in terms of costs. Speaking recently to a seed company 

executive, he told me that he believed it possible to increase productivity in our part of the world by as much as 100 bushels to the 

acre and still reduce input costs by one-third. So that has to be 

factored into it. 

Second, there is no question in my mind that if the offset program is administered properly and fairly with credible and 

verifiable offsets that, at the end of the day, farmers and ranchers 

will benefit from this. 

Senator BOND. How are farmers going to get benefits from the 

offsets? I mean—— 

Mr. VILSACK. Well, they will be able, through the use of land, 

through cover crops, through altering how they use fertilizer, to 

how they raise livestock, to what they do with their land, there are 

a series of steps that can be taken and will be taken that will generate opportunities for offsets. 

Senator BOND. Well, I look forward to working with you. As we 

have discussed before, there are tremendous opportunities. We 

have got new technology that will lower the cost of enzymes with 

a genetically modified soy bean to move forward cellulosic ethanol 

from wood. But these do not affect the basic farm costs because you 

have still got to dry, you have still got to transport, you have still 

got to buy. If we drive natural gas through the roof, as many of 

these plans would, we are going to see the end factor going up. 

You mentioned, for example, in your testimony, that manure digesters would be a great thing. Now, sure, if we can reuse it. But 

in California they are costing between $2 million and $3 million. 

How do you make that pencil out for a farmer? 

Mr. VILSACK. Senator, there is tremendous innovation opportunity in terms of livestock feed that actually will, potentially, reduce those gases. That is also an offset opportunity. There is also 

no question that when you create biorefineries and regional opportunities to use the waste product of agricultural production for fuel, 

you have created less transportation costs and you have created yet 

another income source. 

I think we are just on the cusp of a revitalized rural America and 

I am very confident with the Broadband money, with the climate 

change, with energy policy that you are going to see a significant 

increase in economic opportunity in rural America. 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Secretary. 
164 

Senator BOXER. New plan in order to make sure that Governor 

Barbour can do his role. In the next panel we have Rich Wells, 

Dow, David Hawkins, NRDC, Mayor Fetterman from Braddock, 

Pennsylvania, and Hon. Haley Barbour. Haley Barbour has a tough 

schedule. Happily, Jeff Merkley, our hero of the day, is going to 

come back here at 12:45 with Senator Inhofe, because Senator 

Inhofe wants to be here for that, and any other members that can 

be here to just hear from the Governor. Then I will come back at 

2 p.m. and hear from the three other panelists. So, with that, we 

have got to continue to move quickly. 

Senator Udall, you are on. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Salazar, great to have you back. As you know, Western 

States face immediate impacts from climate change according to 

the report on climate change impacts. That report found that 

human induced climate change appears to be well underway in the 

Southwest. Recent warming is among the most rapid in the Nation. 

This is driving declines in spring snow pack and Colorado River 

flow. This report found that the Colorado Compact was based on 

unrealistic assumptions when it allocated the water in the river 

among the seven basin States, which include California, Nevada 

and California. 

According to climate scientists, if we fail to reduce global warming, vast areas of the United States will likely face severe water 

shortages. How would you describe the specific costs and benefits 

of action and inaction to the average Western farmer and rancher 

or residence of Western cities like Denver and Albuquerque, particularly as it relates to water resources? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. I think for 

all of us from the West and dry arid places, we know that water 

really is the lifeblood of those communities. We see what has happened with drought in New Mexico and now in California and in 

many other States. That is why most water managers, including 

farmers and ranchers, are very concerned about what is happening 

with climate change in terms of the changing precipitation patterns 

that we see in the Southwest. 

What is happening is that the snow packs are melting a lot sooner than they used to, which then impacts the capacity of storage 

that was built under other assumptions, in some cases over 100 

years ago. So it is an area of major concern among water users, 

farmers, ranchers, municipalities, industrial users of water from 

California to Arizona to New Mexico and Colorado. So we are going 

to continue to see more of a concern with respect to those precipitation pattern changes. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. And Secretary Vilsack, you have a 

few seconds here to also comment, I think, on that with respect to 

the forests and water supply and watersheds. 

Mr. VILSACK. Well, first of all, Senator, the cost of inaction, I 

think, is unacceptable. I can tell you from my visit recently to Colorado that there are significant economic consequences to the forest 

problems that are being experienced as a result of invasive species 

and the beetle. 

Second, that is one of the reasons why I think, as you discuss 

this and why the House discussed this, that they focused on the 
165 

fact that forests, private land forests, State forests, and, I also believe the U.S. Forest Service, has an opportunity to participate in 

a meaningful way in terms of adaptation and also mitigation. And 

I think that needs to be factored into your deliberations and considerations. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I want to address this to Secretary Salazar and possibly Secretary Vilsack. Oregon has a tremendous amount, millions of acres, 

of second growth forest that is overgrown. It is a disaster in terms 

of carbon dioxide because those forests are prone to burn down. 

They are bad for disease. They are not growing in a fashion that 

is most productive for either timber or for good ecosystems. 

Thinning strategies and healthy forest management strategies can 

address that. One possibility is that, by changing those practices on 

those lands, we have a significant impact on carbon dioxide. But 

since you do not have a private partner, it is not clear how the offsets would work if purchased from the Forest Service, if you will. 

The communities greatly need revenues in order to conduct forest 

thinning programs, and the communities need revenues to offset 

the lock-up of these lands. This goes back to basically the Secure 

Rural Schools challenge that we have had. 

So there is a real potential win-win, and I just wanted to ask if 

you have thought about that issue, about how changing practices 

on public forest land could benefit this issue and how we could direct revenues to assist the health of our forests and our communities? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Senator Merkley, the answer is yes, we have 

thought about it. I think there are two different things that can be 

done. One is utilizing some of the biomass that is coming off of our 

forests. Within just the Department of the Interior alone, we oversee about 500 million acres, so that is a huge amount of land that 

is out there and there is a tremendous fuel there that could be converted over to biomass fuel in a renewable energy world. 

Second, as we look at legislation that deals with energy and climate change, one of the things that should be on the table for consideration is the whole sense of offsets that would include private 

lands for agriculture, as Secretary Vilsack has spoken. We also 

might want to take a look at that with respect to some of the public 

lands, including those in Oregon. 

Mr. VILSACK. Senator, if I can add, the U.S. Forest Service is in 

the process of putting together a new strategic vision for the Forest 

Service which is focused on managing and operating the forests 

with a climate change and water direction. We think that if we do 

this, we will manage and maintain the forest more properly. We 

will provide better maintenance. We will provide greater opportunities, economic opportunities, both in terms of timer and also in 

terms of recreation. So, you can be assured that we are taking this 

into very serious consideration in terms of the strategic vision and 

direction for the Forest Service. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you both of your comments. I really 

look forward to working with both of you on this because currently 
166 

we have viewed our forests as a source of dimensional lumber. But 

we can view them, as you have made note, as a source of biomass 

that can be utilized in biofuels or used cogeneration and produce 

jobs in energy. 

But there is also the chance of changing those practices and 

viewing our public forests as an opportunity for offsets or sequestration and that also could be a source of revenue. So we might get 

a triple view of our forests and I think that is very appropriate in 

the type of review that you are all talking about. It would be tremendous for the health of our forests, certainly for our ecosystems, 

for the impact on carbon dioxide in the air and the strength of our 

forest communities. So, thank you very much for your interest and 

pursuit of these issues. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. 

I want to say to this panel, thank you so much for working with 

us on this. This is the challenge of our generation. We are all going 

to work together. 

So, just to reconfirm, Governor Haley Barbour will be a witness 

at 12:45 p.m. and Jeff Merkley will chair that. And then we will 

come back at 2 p.m. for the rest of the panel. Thank you again. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Recess.] 

Senator MERKLEY [presiding]. We will open and we will drive 

right into business. 

We are resuming testimony, and we are fortunate to have the 

Governor of the State of Mississippi with us, Hon. Haley Barbour. 

We will be taking his testimony, and then I believe that there are 

a few questions that the Senators may have. 

So, welcome. It is good to have you joining us today. 

Mr. BARBOUR. Thank you very much, Senator. 

[Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator MERKLEY. I think that is an excellent idea. 

Mr. BARBOUR. This is my bride of 37 years, Marsha, and our 

younger son, Reeves, who lives up here. So, thank you for that 

courtesy, Senator Merkley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HALEY BARBOUR, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. BARBOUR. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you on 

the critical issue of the energy policy in America’s future. America’s 

future is so tied to our energy policy that this hearing could be held 

before the Senator Arms Services, Foreign Relations, Finance, Energy or Budget Committees and be equally important and relevant 

to their work. 

Energy policy significantly impacts every aspect of American foreign and domestic policy. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. 

Our national security depends on it. So, when we think about energy policy, it must be in the broadest context. 

As we all know, our country is in the worst economic crisis in 

decades. It has been felt at the kitchen table of every family. Unemployment is at its highest rate since 1983, and the average work 

week has fallen to 33 hours. Our Government is vastly increasing 

our national debt to get our economy back on track, even though 

everybody knows that national debt is increasing at an 
167 

unsustainable rate. We are taking the risk because robust economic 

growth is the only way to solve our economic problems. 

Yet, as we strive and stretch to get our economy back growing 

and more Americans back on the job, our Government is considering an energy policy, as set up in the Waxman-Markey Bill and 

the President’s budget, that would make it much harder for the 

economy to grow. A policy that is, in fact, anti-growth because it 

will necessarily and purposefully raise the costs of energy for families and businesses, especially manufacturing, but for our economy 

as a whole. 

The cap-and-trade tax, the $81 billion of tax increases on the oil 

and gas industry contained in the President’s budget and the Waxman-Markey renewable energy standard would all drive up costs 

and drive down economic growth. 

Do not take my word for it. President Obama, then a candidate, 

said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, Under my 

cap-and-trade plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. 

And before becoming Energy Secretary, Steven Chu told the Wall 

Street Journal, Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the 

price of gasoline to levels in Europe. 

President Obama’s OMB Director, Peter Orszag, in April of last 

year said under a cap-and-trade program firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances, but instead would 

pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. 

Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions 

and would occur regardless of whether the Government sold emission allowances or gave them away. 

Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of 

a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would 

be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that 

reduce CO2 emissions. 

Just last month in an interview with Forbes Magazine, the CEO 

of American Electric Power, one of our biggest utilities, Mike Morris, said the cap-and-trade tax would cause AEP’s electricity rates 

to go up 30 to 50 percent. 

The gigantic effect of the energy policy on American life means 

Congress should work particularly hard to ensure that Americans 

know the facts about the energy policies that you are considering. 

On the contrary, the House of Representatives added more than 

300 pages of its 1,200-page energy bill just a few hours before it 

was brought to the floor and passed. That is just the opposite of 

what is needed. 

Last month, the Southern Growth Policy Board, a 40-year-old regional economic development group for 13 Southern States, held its 

annual conference. More than 400 attendees were most concerned 

about the costs associated with the cap-and-trade tax, the renewable energy mandate, and the $81 billion in tax increases on the 

oil and gas industry. They were concerned about the costs to families as well as to our economy. 

At this conference, there was a great deal of support for conservation and energy efficiency, both of which are indispensable to 

our energy future. And there was a lot of hope and confidence ex-
168 

pressed about renewables like wind, biofuels, solar and even more 

exotic sources in the future. 

Nevertheless, it was agreed that for a long time there will be a 

need for traditional fuels like oil, gas and coal, and for nuclear, 

which generates no greenhouse gas emissions. Clean coal technologies and projects were presented and praised. But the biggest 

and most discussed issue at this conference was the cost of energy 

policy proposals like the cap-and-trade tax, the renewable electricity standard and the tax increases proposed for the oil and gas 

industry. 

I should note that there were five Governors who participated in 

this conference, including three Democrats. There was little dissent 

about who would bear the cost of this energy policy. The consumer. 

The one who turns on the light switch, starts the washing machine, 

fuels up the car with gas, or drives the truck delivering goods 

across town or across the country. That is who will pay. 

Moreover, these increased energy costs hit small businesses hard 

and will particularly hit energy-intensive industries, like manufacturing or even computer processing. Some manufacturers even predict that these energy policies will cause electricity rate increases 

that would make their manufacturing facilities uncompetitive to facilities in China and India. 

Dan DiMicco, the CEO of Nucor Steel, America’s largest steel 

manufacturer, said the cap-and-trade tax would mean his company 

would close U.S. plants, shifting production to China. I thought he 

made a very powerful point when he said making a ton of steel in 

China results in five times greater emissions of greenhouse gases 

than to produce that same ton of steel in the United States. 

It is hard to believe at a time when growing our economy is our 

No. 1 goal that Congress is considering a bill that would reduce 

economic growth. When families are suffering from a serious recession, Congress is considering a bill to drive up the costs of the electricity that cools those families’ homes and the gasoline that runs 

their cars. When U.S. manufacturing faces stiff foreign competition, 

Congress is considering a bill that will make our manufacturers 

less competitive. 

The concerns I have cited are serious, even if cap-and-trade 

works as planned. Many Americans worry that it will turn out to 

be an Enron-style financial scheme where Wall Street manipulators make huge profits while rate payers, motorists and Main 

Street businesses pay greatly increased costs. 

Environmentalists widely worry about the assumed large scale 

use of international offsets that are not verifiable. Others say that 

the foreign offsets are planned by CBO to reduce the price of allowances by 70 percent. But that is highly questionable. 

To me, a particularly scary feature of the cap-and-trade tax regime is that anyone can purchase emissions permits or credits. 

There is nothing to stop a large government like China from investing heavily in CO2 emission permits instead of U.S. Treasuries. 

The effect, of course, would be that U.S.-located industries could 

not buy those permits or they would have to pay a much higher 

price for the permits, thereby making our businesses even less competitive with foreign—read: Chinese—manufacturers. Market ma-
169 

nipulation by speculators is bad enough. Driving up demand and 

prices by foreign companies is anathema. 

The right energy policy for our country is more American energy, 

using all sources of American energy, all of the above. We have 

abundant, affordable, reliable American energy. Let us use it rather than having a policy that means less affordable American energy. 

Senator, I apologize that I ran over, but I do have an accent. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barbour follows:] 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Governor. We appreciated that accent in your thoughtful delivery. 

I was wondering if you could take us back to the memo in 2001 

which you wrote to Cheney urging the Bush administration to reverse course and reject regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. 

Less than 2 weeks, I believe, after you wrote this memo, news stories reported that under strong pressure from conservative Republican industry groups, President Bush reversed a campaign pledge 

today and said his Administration will not seek to regulate power 

plants’ emission of carbon dioxide. 

Could you bring us up to date a little bit about the role that you 

played, and who you represented in asking the Bush administration to reverse policy on his campaign promise? 

Mr. BARBOUR. Sure. My firm and I represented a number of people in the American business community, utilities, oil and gas companies, manufacturers, various types of industries from Microsoft 

on the one hand to Southern Company on the other hand. The 

memo, I think, was more about new source review, if it is the 

memo that got published in the New York Times, and things like 

that. I believe that memo was about new source review. 

But if it was a separate memo about carbon dioxide, the position 

that the Bush administration ultimately came out in favor of was 

that, at the time, there was insufficient evidence that carbon dioxide was a pollutant according to the standards set in the law at the 

time. That is a position that I agreed with. It would nice as a 

former lobbyist for me to take credit that the Administration did 

it because I asked them to, but I think that I was one of many, 

many, many people in the United States that did not believe it met 

the standard and that was the purpose of the memo, to say that. 

Senator MERKLEY. Governor, this was the memo, not about new 

sources, but about carbon dioxide, in which you noted that controlling carbon dioxide is eco-extremism. Do you feel any efforts to control carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere, that there is no legitimate partnership between what is good for the environment 

and what can be good for our economy? 

Mr. BARBOUR. The reason I am here, the reason we held the conference on the coast, is on how best to deal with climate change, 

and whatever role carbon dioxide plays in it. I am not a scientist. 

But I accept, for our purposes of going forward here, the idea that 

it would be good for the climate if we reduced emissions. 

One of the concerns I have, Senator, is that this legislation would 

affect CO2 emissions so little, because it has no effect on China, 

who has passed us as the biggest emitter and is building about five 

coal-fired power plants a day, I mean a week. As Dan DiMicco, the 

CEO of Nucor Steel, said, the way the Chinese coal-fired plants 

work, it emits five times more CO2 to make a ton of steel in China 

because of the way their coal-fired plants work than it does to generate a ton of steel in the United States. 

But the direct answer to your questions is, the reason I am here 

is that we do need to look at how best, in the best interests of the 

United States, and most effectively, to deal with the threat that 

scientists are saying CO2 has for the future of the climate. 

Senator MERKLEY. That is why we are here. Well, Governor, I 

appreciate that and there are several points that you make that I 
177 

think I would agree with completely. Certainly, that carbon dioxide 

is an issue for our atmosphere. I think all of us who look into the 

next generation need to wrestle with that and exercise the use of 

our legislative responsibilities to address it. Your note about China, 

certainly China is a serious source of carbon dioxide, far more per 

capita than is the United States. But we need to be a part of the 

international conversation. We need to pull China into that, certainly. That is a point well taken. 

I will turn to our minority leader, our Republican leader of the 

committee, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Governor, for being here and I am sorry for the all mix up in the scheduling. 

Let me just share with you, first of all, on the science. And we 

are going to go back to talking about that because the last three 

times we had this bill on the floor, I was the one who led the opposition. One reason was that I was the Chairman of the Environment, the Works Committee, this very committee, when we were 

a majority. 

One of the things that we are seeing is that people realize that 

the science is mixed. And the louder they say the science is settled, 

the greater, to me, it seems that they have nothing else to say. Because right now, if you look at the changes that are taking place, 

Senator Barrasso entered something on the record this morning. It 

is an article that was reprinted in the Wall Street Journal and it 

listed five countries where they are changing their position now because they realize that the CO2 is not the villain that they thought 

it was. 

The public perception has totally changed. Right now the polling 

shows that when you talk about the top 20 concerns, sometimes it 

makes number 20, sometimes it does not make it at all. And it 

used to be 2 or 3. So, clearly, it is a wake up call. 

I have to share with you my two greatest frustrations. My two 

greatest frustrations are that when you look, you see people talking 

about lowering our dependence on foreign countries for our ability 

to run this machine called America. And yet those same individuals 

will not let us drill offshore, will not let us get into the tar sands, 

will not let us get into nuclear, will not let us work on our marginal wells that we have in both of our States, and really do not 

want to increase the domestic supply. 

We are the only country in the world that does export our own 

domestic supplies. And yet, they still say that they want to reduce 

our dependence. And we could do it overnight, as I said and documented in my opening statement today, if we were to open things 

up. 

The second thing is, as you alluded to, and I am so happy this 

morning that the Administrator of the EPA came out and agreed 

with me when I was making my case, is that if we were to pass 

this bill, the one that passed the House, unilaterally, that would 

cause our manufacturing base to leave. We know that, that is a 

fact. It would go to countries, as you pointed out, China, that have 

no emission requirements, restrictions. It would have a net increase in CO2. 
178 

So, if you are one of those who believe that CO2 is causing all 

of these problems, you ought to be opposed to this because unilaterally it will not work. As the Administrator said this morning, she 

said I believe essential parts of the chart, and that is the chart that 

I use, are that the United States action alone will not impact CO2

levels. And this morning I quoted the top leaders of both India and 

China saying that under no circumstances were they going to have 

any reductions. 

That is not my question. That is my statement. Do you agree? 

That is my question. 

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes sir, I do. I will say I was surprised to hear 

the Administrator of EPA say that this morning. That it would not 

have any effect. But also I was interested in EPA’s report on this 

bill back when it was traveling through the House, made the point 

that it would not have any effect on importation on foreign oil. 

Their report says it essentially has no effect on petroleum. And I 

am like you. We need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, at least 

the excessive reliance we have, and this will not do it. According 

to EPA, this will not do it. But we do have a lot of production capacity that we are not taking advantage of and we ought to be producing. 

I was also glad to hear the Secretary of Energy talk about more 

nuclear. You know, that emits no greenhouse gases. To have more 

nuclear and get ourselves off foreign oil and gas ought to be a big 

goal of what we are doing. 

But we need to try to do it in a way that does not have huge 

costs for families, and does not do grave damage to our economy 

when at the same time we are stretching so hard to do everything 

we can do to get our economy back strong and people back working. 

Senator INHOFE. You have problems in Mississippi, I know, you 

have a lot of low income people, and they are the ones who are hit 

the hardest by this. So, you did a great job in trying to preclude 

something like this from happening. 

Senator MERKLEY. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, it is great to see you. Thank you for being with us 

today. 

Mr. BARBOUR. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Just following up on what Senator Inhofe 

said. What could the impacts of this be on the families in Mississippi? I know how detrimental they are going to be to families 

all across the State of Wyoming. 

Mr. BARBOUR. Senator, there have been a number of studies on 

this, and from the Brookings Institution, whose study says it will 

cost 600,000 to 700,000 jobs a year, to the National Black Chamber 

of Commerce study which says it will cost 2.25 million to 3 million 

jobs per year, every study that has looked at that question says it 

will cost jobs. That yes, there will be some green jobs created, but 

they will be more, far more, outnumbered by the lost jobs. 

The House bill has got something I did not know Congress did. 

It has got a huge unemployment section in it for the people who 

lose their jobs because of this bill. And it is very generous: 3 years 

of unemployment, and the Government pays 80 percent of your 

health insurance when this costs you your job. So to talk about this 
179 

as a jobs bill and then have huge unemployment and benefits in 

it is to me a little bit disconcerting. 

We do, in our State, we try very hard to do all of the above. We 

are trying to build a new nuclear power plant. No greenhouse gas 

emissions. The first commercial scale carbon capture sequestration 

project in the United States is in Kemper County, Mississippi. 

The States have been very supportive of it. It is going to be the 

first time, and being from and oil and gas State you will understand this, we are going to take lignite, which is indigenous in coal, 

we are going to gasify it, burn it to make electricity from a gas to 

make electricity and reduce the emission, but then we are going to 

capture the emissions and use them for tertiary recovery in our old 

oil fields. 

Today, we have three big tertiary recovery projects going on 

where they are having buy, to mine, the CO2, and pay for it. This 

way, they can buy the CO2 as a waste so that the electric utility 

gets a benefit, and these people get to buy CO2 for a whole lot less 

and we sequestered an old well. 

So, we are trying to do things that are consistent with what Senator Merkley was talking about, and that is, how do we do things 

in a positive way that reduce CO2 emissions? What we do not want 

to do, and are worried about, are things that will have terrific 

harm to families and to our economy. 

One of the initial studies of a previous cap-and-trade bill, done 

by McKenzie, said it would increase the price of electricity per kilowatt hour by 5 to 15 cents a kilowatt hour. If you take the very 

low end of that, 5 cents per kilowatt hour, in Jackson, Mississippi, 

that is a 56 percent increase in the electricity rate for a home, from 

8.9 cents. 

And the penalty for violating the renewable energy standard in 

the Waxman-Markey bill is 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour. Well, our 

rate is only 8.9 cents per kilowatt hour. We have got three big utilities, that is for our one in Jackson. That is an enormous increase 

for our people to have to live with. So those are the kinds of things 

that we are trying to avoid. 

If there one thing that I would just say to the three of you and 

to Chairman Boxer, it is just the more the public can learn the 

facts, and not rush through this. This affects every element of our 

economy and our national security. So let the public know the 

facts, and then make decisions based on the facts. 

Senator BARRASSO. I just have 1 minute left. Governor Barbour, 

is there anything else that you would like to share with the committee that you did not have the time to do in your prepared statement? Is there anything else you would like to recommend to the 

Senate? Because you have just seen a bill where they threw in 300 

pages at the last minute and that is no way to make legislation, 

it is no way to come to solutions. 

Mr. BARBOUR. Well, it is such a huge issue. I mean, it is an issue 

that affects every single person in the United States, every job in 

the United States, for the good or bad. And just that the public 

needs to know the facts. And the longer the facts are in front of 

the public, then the better decisions they will call their Senators 

about on the phone and understand this and understand what is 

safety. 
180 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. Any closing comments? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, yes, just one. I know you have a commitment. 

You and I are both old enough to remember the BTU tax in 1993. 

I referenced that this morning. The interesting thing, and let me 

let you get on your plane and leave, let me share with you, I do 

not think this bill is going to pass. It will pass out of this committee. I mean, there is nothing that will not pass out of this committee. But on the floor it will not. 

In 1993, when they had the BTU tax, it passed the House by the 

same margin of one. It was 219 votes. That is what this passed. 

And, of course, it was overwhelmingly defeated when it got to the 

Senate because people had time to look at it, people had time to 

know that it was a regressive tax, and, while it was not nearly as 

a high a tax as this bill would provide, still, the American people 

did wake up. And I am confident they will do that again. 

Mr. BARBOUR. Senator, thank you. I hope that you are right. 

There are a bunch of things that we could do, and that I would be 

in favor of doing. I just think the cap-and-trade tax, I know it is 

not your jurisdiction, but the increase in taxes on the oil and gas 

industry by $81 billion over 10 years—— 

Senator INHOFE. That was in the budget. By the way, I might 

say that some our new Democrats are very supportive of our position on that, such as Senator Begich from Alaska. He is trying to 

help us right now do that. Eighty-one billion dollars, that would 

just be the death knoll of some of our oil and gas producers. 

Senator MERKLEY. Governor, I am appreciating the exchange, 

but we are 10 minutes over schedule and I know you also need to, 

we need to make sure you get off to your plane. I appreciate you 

adjusting your schedule to meet now and not when the panel is 

here later. 

The committee will recess until 2 p.m. At that time, we will hear 

from other members of the second panel, Rich Wells, David Hawkins and John Fetterman. 

We appreciate your bringing the views from your home State, 

and I know that, I think for all of us here at the panel, jobs are 

right at the top of this agenda, and how we restructure our energy 

economy so that we are not dependent on a few foreign nations, 

compromising our national security, spending $2 billion a day overseas rather than spending it here creating jobs in the United 

States of America. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

The committee will recess. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome our panel, and I thank you from the bottom 

of my heart for coming back. We had a huge turnout here today, 

this morning. I am sure you may have watched it or were somehow 

here. It just went on so long that we had to go to Al Franken’s 

swearing in, and then we had other meetings and so on. 
181 

I understand that we had Governor Barbour here. Is that correct? And he answered questions and put his statement in the 

record. 

So, why do we not get started? But, before we do, I know that 

the Mayor has a very nice contingent of people here. So, Mayor, 

would you introduce them to us please? 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Sure. Chairwoman Boxer—— 

Senator BOXER. Turn on your mic though. 

Mr. FETTERMAN. OK. Chairwoman Boxer, please let me introduce 

the kids of the Braddock Youth Project who are here in our Nation’s capital for the first time. Could they stand up? 

Senator BOXER. Would you stand up? We will applaud you and 

we are very happy to see you. 

[Applause.] 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Mayor, I could use you as I walk around the 

Halls of Congress. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FETTERMAN. I am sure you can pay me more than I make 

in my current role, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Very impressive. 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Make an offer. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Oh, that is so great. 

Well, we are going to get right to it. We have a very good group, 

Rich Wells, Vice President, Energy, the Dow Chemical Company, 

and David Hawkins, Director, Climate Center, NRDC. We are so 

happy you are here, David. And, of course, last but not least, the 

Mayor. And, Mayor, you were welcomed this morning by Senator 

Specter, who I hope will come back, but I know he is busy with 

markups and hearings and the rest. 

So I am very happy to have you here. This will be part of a very 

important record as we approach the legislation that we will be introducing soon. 

Why do we not start with Mr. Wells from the Dow Chemical 

Company. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RICH WELLS, VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGY, THE 

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on future energy and climate change 

policies in the United States. 

I am Vice President of Energy for Dow Chemical, a leading advanced material and specialty chemical producer with over 46,000 

employees, half of which are located here in the United States. 

As an energy intensive company, we use the energy equivalent 

of 850,000 barrels of oil every day in our global operations. Therefore, it is imperative that we be good stewards of this precious resource. And we have been. Since 1994, Dow has achieved energy 

efficiency gains of 38 percent. As a result, we have saved more 

than 1,600 trillion BTUs of energy. Now, that is a large number. 

It is equivalent to all of the power used in every home in California 

for 1 year. 

Our track record—— 
182 

Senator BOXER. Would you repeat that? Because that is amazing. 

Mr. WELLS. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. Say it again. 

Mr. WELLS. Since 1994, our cumulative energy savings is 1,600 

trillion BTUs, a very large number. To put that into terms that 

people can understand, that is the equivalent of all of the electrical 

energy used by the homes in the State of California for 1 year. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for that. 

Mr. WELLS. Our track record on greenhouse gas emissions reductions is equally impressive. At Dow, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 percent since 1990. This has 

resulted in preventing more than 86 million metric tons of CO2

from entering our atmosphere. 

Our company’s commitment to reducing its energy and greenhouse gas footprint is consistent with our position on climate 

change policy. Dow accepts the conclusion of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change that it is very likely that human activities are causing global warming. We believe the cost of inaction 

will far exceed the cost of comprehensive, far ranging and expeditious action today. 

We therefore support the enactment of environmentally effective, 

economically sustainable and fair climate change legislation to 

slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. 

This is a global problem that requires a global solution. All major 

emitting countries should commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the United States can help secure such a global 

commitment by first taking action to reduce its own emissions. We 

believe Congress should enact legislation establishing an economywide program, the centerpiece of which should cap-and-trade. 

A price signal on greenhouse gas emissions is the most powerful 

tool to spur innovation and deployment of new low carbon technologies. Such technologies will be needed if we are to grow the 

economy and achieve the significant reduction in emissions that 

are required. 

We prefer cap-and-trade over a carbon tax as cap-and-trade provides more certainty in achieving emission reductions over a specified period of time. Complementary policies, such as those to advance energy efficiency in buildings and homes, will also be necessary. 

We believe the EPA should not regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the existing Clean Air Act because it would not provide the flexibility required by businesses to reduce their emissions 

in the most cost effective way. 

Legislation establishing a cap-and-trade program needs to be designed in a way that maintains the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and avoids carbon leakage, which is the shifting of U.S. 

production and U.S. jobs to countries that lack comparable climate 

policies. In order to keep carbon leakage from occurring, we believe 

the climate policy should not penalize fossil energy use as a feedstock. When energy is used as a feedstock, no combustion occurs 

and there is no emission of CO2. 

We also believe that free allowances should be provided to energy 

intensive and trade exposed manufacturers until such time as 

there is a globally level playing field. And the climate bill should 
183 

minimize fuel switching from coal to natural gas in the power generation sector. Such movement would cause a steep increase in demand for natural gas, harming industrial companies like Dow who 

depend on natural gas as both a source of energy and as a feedstock. 

My written testimony provides more detail on these and other 

issues related to the design of a cap-and-trade program. Dow commends the U.S. House of Representatives for passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which reflects many of the 

recommendations of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, of which 

Dow is a member. 

In our opinion, the bill could be further improved, and we look 

for the Senate to develop and approve a bill that reflects the recommendations raised in my testimony. We are pleased to see several Senate committees delving into this topic, and we urge a bipartisan approach to ensure Senate passage of a thoughtful and deliberate bill. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity today, and I look forward 

to any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:] 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hawkins, welcome again. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HAWKINS, DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE 

PROGRAMS, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. 

To paraphrase John Gardner, global warming is an opportunity 

brilliantly disguised as an insoluble problem. What we mean by 

that is that the things that we need to do to attack global warming 

pollution are going to help us achieve economic security, energy security and climate security. 

Analysis that NRDC and others have done show that climate legislation like the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which I will call ACES, can actually reduce household energy bills and create more than a million new jobs in the next decade. 

As the maps before you show, in 2020, average U.S. household electricity bills can be $6 a month less with the ACES bill than 

with business as usual. So, if you have that one up? Turning to 

transportation, transportation household bills could be as much as 

$14 a month less. Why is this possible? Well, it is possible because 

of energy efficiency, because of reduced demand for otherwise highpriced fuels that are driven by the climate policies that are in the 

legislation. 

The ACES bill makes a good start on energy efficiency. But the 

Senate could place even more priority on energy efficiency, and we 

urge you to do that to provide greater rewards for consumers and 

the economy. 

The third element that I will mention about the benefits of a 

comprehensive bill is jobs. Again, our calculations, and they are not 

our calculations they are done by the University of Massachusetts, 

show 1.7 million new jobs. And these are net jobs. These are net 

of any losses in jobs in any other sectors, or shifts in jobs, that 

would be created under this legislation. 

So, our view is that we cannot let the opportunity for progress 

pass us by. It is vital to enact the legislation this year, to help deliver the economic energy and climate security that we all agree we 

need. 

I thought it was interesting this morning that all of the Senators 

agree on the objectives for the country. What they disagree about 

are the actions that Congress should take to do it. 

The second point I would like to make is that a national cap on 

emissions can be designed so that it is fair to different regions of 

the country and different economic sectors. We saw this in the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, which, because of its 

make up, required the committee to craft a bill that was fair to the 

needs of regions of the country, like the region represented by 

Mayor Fetterman, that are heavily dependent on coal and trade 

sensitive industries. 

That bill combines many of the recommendations of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, as well as the Labor Environmental BlueGreen Alliance. That is a very interesting thing, that we have coalitions of businesses and environmental groups, we have coalitions 

of labor and environmental groups, which is really stronger than 
199 

anything I have seen in now almost 40 years of participating in 

complex environmental legislation. 

I will mention a couple of issues that we have with the bill in 

my remaining time. The testimony I submitted goes on at length 

about the many strengths. 

In terms of improvements, we think that the Senate needs to improve the near-term target, the 2020 target. We think that a 20 

percent reduction in emissions is doable and is definitely needed by 

the science. 

Second, as I mentioned, we think that it important to direct more 

allowance value to energy efficiency. This is definitely a double dividend investment. And it is a jobs creator, too, because a lot of 

these energy efficiency programs employ lots of people. 

The third is that we think it is important to preserve the effective Clean Air Act tools. We think that this new law needs to build 

on the existing Clean Air Act, not replace it. And we think there 

is a continuing role for new source performance standards, as well 

as new source review for very large sources. 

A fourth area is the importance of retaining State authority. 

There are some impacts on State authority in the House bill. We 

would like to see those dealt with in a somewhat less intrusive 

way. 

The fifth issue has to do with offset integrity. You had some discussion with the Department of Agriculture this morning. We have 

some serious concerns with the way in which offsets are managed 

in the House bill. 

And finally, we have serious concerns with several provisions relating to biomass, relating to calculations of emissions under the 

cap, calculations of emissions under the RFS, and finally the safeguards for sourcing of biofuels. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:] 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 

Senator BOXER. Thanks for that. I am going to ask you a little 

more specifically later, David, on a couple of these. 

Mayor, we welcome you again. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FETTERMAN, MAYOR, 

BRADDOCK, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Thank you. Chairwoman Boxer, thank you for 

inviting me here today. 

I am John Fetterman. I am the Mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County’s poorest community, which is the region 

that encompasses the city of Pittsburgh and the most populous 

area in Western Pennsylvania. 

My testimony this afternoon will be short and straight to the 

point. I do not pretend to be an expert in economics or energy policy. But I do know what I have seen with my own eyes: the path 

we are on has failed. 

In my part of Pennsylvania, we have lost over 250,000 jobs in the 

steel industry in the last several decades. Braddock, my town, once 

was a thriving steel community of over 20,000. It is not a shattered 

town of under 3,000 residents today. Ninety percent of our community is gone. Communities and families face desperate times. We 

need change and we need it now. 

For decades, we have watched jobs leave America. For decades, 

we have heard about the dangers of America’s oil addiction. For 

decades, we have seen real change blocked by those who profit from 

the status quo. And if there is a silver lining in the current economic crisis, it is that America may now finally be ready to find 

a new path and to face tough questions that we have ignored for 

so long. 

I believe that new path starts today with a cap on carbon pollution. By driving massive private investment dollars into the clean 

energy industry, a cap offers us a chance to create jobs, and not 

just high tech positions making solar cells or exotic technology, but 

the kind of blue collar jobs that can provide towns like Braddock, 

or Akron, or Detroit, with jobs making the 250 tons of steel, or the 

8,000 parts it takes to build every wind turbine. Jobs making windows, like they do in an old factory in Vandergrift, Pennsylvania, 

a factory that was shut down until it was revived to make these 

windows. Or LED lights like they make in North Carolina and export to China. Or one of the thousands of other products that it will 

take to build this new energy economy. 

The Government investment in the Clean Energy Recovery Act 

was a good start. But we will not truly transform the economy 

until we spur the private sector to action. This Nation is full of entrepreneurs, investors, inventors and steelworkers prepared to 

jump start a true energy revolution. And that will only happen 

once you pass a cap on carbon pollution. 

To win the most jobs, the most economic opportunity, we must 

be a market leader in these new products and technologies. A cap 

on carbon in the U.S. will spur our companies to be the early movers in these markets, supplying solutions at home and subsequently selling them across the globe. 

Two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This legislation was sup-
279 

ported, among others, by the United Steelworkers, the United 

Autoworkers, the AFL–CIO and the AFL–CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, which includes the International 

Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, 

Forgers and Helpers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and the 

Sheet Metal Workers International Association. These workers of 

America recognize that a cap on greenhouse gas pollution is the 

surest way to create jobs for the clean economy. 

So, I respectfully ask the Senate to be as bold as the House has 

been, to overhaul the economy and free us from our addiction on 

imported oil. I ask that you ignore the scare tactics of these well 

funded interests, and answer the call of Braddock to build a new 

energy future and a new American century with the ready hands 

of America’s workers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fetterman follows:] 
280 
281 
282 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mayor. 

I wanted to note that Senator Specter’s staff is here, Paul Robos, 

we are very happy that he is, and I hope that you will let Senator 

Specter know the passion that the Mayor has displayed. 

I would just like to ask you, Mayor, how did you get interested 

in this? Did you work through the Conference of Mayors or is this 

something that you have been working on for a while? 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Well, one of the keys for helping revise Braddock is green initiatives. 

Senator BOXER. Tell us where Braddock is. 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Braddock is about 10 miles from downtown 

Pittsburgh. It is part of the region known as the Monongahela Valley which, at one point in the last century, made a significant portion of the steel in the world. And, as a result of the export of the 

steel jobs, our region as a whole has suffered greatly. As I mentioned in my testimony, our community went from 20,000 from 

mid-last century to under 3,000 today. 

We got involved with a lot of green technologies. These young 

people, among others that are working in our community, will be 

designing and working on the first green roof in the Mon Valley 

this summer as part of their training. So, it is something that really kind of naturally evolved. And when I was asked to partner with 

the Environmental Defense Fund, I took the option. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am very glad that you are here, and you 

make a lot of sense because, right now, the information that I have 

been given, we are not making all of the solar panels in this country that we should. We are not making all of the parts of the wind 

turbines. We are losing out, and we have this tremendous opportunity, as was said, coming at us in the form of a big problem. But 

we have this amazing opportunity. 

David Hawkins, I wanted to ask you, what parts of the Clean Air 

Act would you restore, and why? Taking it from the Markey-Waxman bill. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. Well, the ACES bill repeals several provisions 

with respect to carbon dioxide pollution. Some of them make sense, 

frankly—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, tell us what makes sense and what does 

not make sense. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. The ambient air quality standard system does 

not make sense for CO2, and there is no reason to leave that in the 

act as technically applying even though it could not be implemented. Similarly, the toxic air pollutant sections do not really 

have a sensible application to carbon dioxide. 

However, the technology-based standards, the performance provisions, the new source performance standard and the new source review, we think are important to retain. This has been, actually, a 

battle since the Lyndon Johnson administration. There was a debate in the Lyndon Johnson administration about having emission 

standards or only an ambient management program. 

And, interestingly enough, when President Nixon sent up what 

became the 1970 Clean Air Act, he included both. So, this hybrid 

program of an ambient overall management program together with 

performance standards for key sectors is something that can be 

traced all the way back to the Nixon administration. It has been 
283 

in the bill. It was in the law in the acid rain bill. We kept new 

source performance standards for sulfur dioxide even though we 

had a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. It has worked perfectly well. It can work just as well for carbon dioxide, in addition. 

Senator BOXER. Right. David, would you do me a favor and put 

that in a letter form? We have your testimony, which we will get 

transcribed, but if you would not mind just directly saying, in response to your question as to what parts of the Clean Air Act 

should be restored, if you could just do it that way, that would be 

very, very helpful. 

In terms of allowance value for energy efficiency, do you know if 

that is a big score-able item by CBO? 

Mr. HAWKINS. The CBO has taken the position that it is something that is score-able because it affects the tax status of the recipient, or the tax benefits of the recipient. Frankly, we think that 

the CBO position is really difficult to defend as a matter of sound 

public policy because essentially they are saying that Congress will 

have a more difficult time passing a better piece of policy than 

passing a worse piece of policy because of the scoring aspect. 

Everyone agrees that the more money we can put into energy efficiency, the better off we will be. We will reduce the demand for 

allowances in the electric sector, and we can reduce the demand for 

natural gas, which will benefit companies like Dow Chemical. You 

know, we are completely aligned on the importance of energy efficiency. 

But CBO is saying that if you put in a criterion that says that 

some of this money has to be spent on energy efficiency, they are 

going to score the bill differently. Frankly, we think that this is 

something that should be taken up at the member level with the 

head of CBO. We have been batting our heads against a variety of 

walls at the staff level and have not gotten anywhere. 

Senator BOXER. Right. Well, I will talk to CBO about this. We 

will have a meeting with them. And again, you know, frankly, in 

that same letter, if you would not mind saying that we think that 

CBO is off base for the following reasons in terms of their scoring 

provisions regarding allowance values for energy efficiency. That 

would be very, very helpful. 

Let us see. Again, the State preemption, obviously, you do not 

want to have a series of cap-and-trade systems all over the country. 

So, if you could again, in that same letter, well, maybe I can just 

ask you this. What areas do you think we should preempt and 

what areas do you think we should not preempt? 

Mr. HAWKINS. We do not think there should be preemption. We 

think that the record of the Clean Air Act, going on 40 years now, 

has been quite good. Preemption is the exception rather than the 

rule in the Clean Air Act. 

Senator BOXER. So, you think it is OK to have four different capand-trade systems? 

Mr. HAWKINS. As a practical matter, we do not think that is 

what will happen. 

Senator BOXER. OK. But you know what? Do not be so sure 

about that, because I think there are a lot of people that want to 

benefit from that. So, I am just saying, what troubles you more 

than that about, I agree that we do not want to shut down our 
284 

States. They are the laboratory here. So, is there a way that we 

can reward the States rather than say we are not going to preempt? In other words, if States do better, maybe there is an award 

system. Is that some approach that you would think would be 

good? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. We think that provisions which say that some 

allowance allocations are directed preferentially to States that 

forgo the use of their authority—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Or, comply with certain harmonizing requirements 

so that there is one set of harmonized requirements rather than 

multiple sets. We think those are the innovative ways to essentially make it worth the States’ while to be part of a single harmonized system. And you do not have to breach what is a very important precedent about having Federal authority not preempt the 

States. 

Why we care about this is that in the first few years of a Federal 

program, and maybe it is the first 5 or 10 years of a Federal program, the Federal program may be strong enough to do everything 

it needs to do and there may not be a role for any State activity. 

But what we have seen, historically, is that the States usually are 

a step ahead in recognizing the need for a change in the law. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Lieberman-Warner-Boxer did have that approach and—— 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, it did. 

Senator BOXER. So we are going to definitely look at that. One 

more question for you, David. I hope I am not working you too hard 

here—— 

Mr. HAWKINS. I am enjoying it. 

Senator BOXER. OK, good. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. It just shows you how exciting our lives are. 

Right? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Are there alternatives, like performance standards, based on the age of plants or birthday provisions that you 

would support? And how does that compare to restoration of Clean 

Air Act provisions? 

Mr. HAWKINS. NRDC would support provisions that would guarantee that the emissions from the fleet of the existing power plants 

should decline over time. We think that is a sensible approach. The 

power plants in the U.S., especially the coal-fired power plants, are 

aging, and sometime in the next 5 or 10 years they are going to 

face an investment decision. Do they continue to patch up that 

power plant and try to run it for another 15 or 20 years? Or do 

they replace it with advanced technology? 

Having a well crafted performance standard that kicked in for 

aging capacity could tip the decision in favor of replacing it with 

new, advanced technology rather than patching it up and having 

it limp along until it is finally shut down. 

Senator BOXER. Now, how does that compare to restoration of the 

Clean Air Act provisions? This idea of performance standards. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, this would be a concept that is not currently 

implemented in the law. There are arguments about whether EPA 
285 

might have the authority to do it, but it certainly is not implemented in the law. And I think it is fair to say that it might be 

possible to craft some compromise language where some of the current provisions for new source review might arguably be replaced 

by a system that was along the lines that we have been discussing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. You know, any work that you do 

with your colleagues on this particular issue would be extremely 

helpful because we all want the same thing at the end of the day. 

We want to get the carbon out of the air. I am not ideological on 

how to do that and I do not think you are, either. You have shown 

a lot of flexibility. So, as we get this bill going, I just need to know 

what you think is the most effective way to get where we want to 

get. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 

Senator BOXER. I understand that Senator Whitehouse is on his 

way. So I will just ask a couple of questions because this is such 

a great chance for me. 

Mr. Wells, I thought that your point about energy efficiency 

should not be lost on anybody. You have done that because it is in 

the best interest of your company. Is that right? 

Mr. WELLS. That is correct. The one number that I did not give 

you was the dollar savings. Since—— 

Senator BOXER. Tell me. 

Mr. WELLS. Since 1994, we have accumulated savings of over $8 

billion. 

Senator BOXER. How much? 

Mr. WELLS. Eight billion dollars. 

Senator BOXER. With a b. 

Mr. WELLS. With a b. 

Senator BOXER. Over how many years? 

Mr. WELLS. Since 1994. And that never stops, right, because once 

you implement something with energy efficiency it just keeps on 

giving. So it is $8 billion and climbing. Every day it climbs. It was 

said earlier today that energy efficiency is our cleanest, cheapest, 

easiest fuel. And at Dow, we have demonstrated that in spades. 

Senator BOXER. It is phenomenal. I just wanted, before I call on 

Senator Whitehouse, which I am going to right now, Mr. Wells, if 

you would reiterate two numbers, the first one that you talked 

about, the savings in BTUs and relating it to California, and the 

second, again, this one you just gave me now. 

Mr. WELLS. Sure. It all evolves around Dow’s energy efficiency 

program and Dow’s energy efficiency results. We have always been 

very in tune to energy efficiency. We have to be. We are a company 

full of engineers. But back in the mid-1990s, we made a concerted 

effort. And since 1994, as a company we have cut our energy intensity by 38 percent. That has allowed us to save over 1,600 trillion 

BTUs of energy since that time, a very large number that equates 

to, that is the energy equivalent of all of the electricity used in all 

of the homes in California for 1 year. 

For a bottom line perspective, we have saved over $8 billion since 

that time. Those are dollars straight off the bottom line of the company. 

Senator BOXER. So, the Senator heard that. 

I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor, I do not know if you have undertaken or had the capital to undertake any energy efficiency in this 

City Hall or in the building that you operate. Have you done anything like that? 

Mr. FETTERMAN. In fact, next month we are having some people 

provide a presentation about upgrading all of our street lights and 

city lights to LED. It is something we are looking at and they 

would be paid for by the guaranteed energy savings that would accrue with their installation. 

As I said earlier, green technologies, green initiatives, really 

have driven our summer youth employment in our community, too, 

which has led to not only a healthier community, but one where 

young people are learning quantifiable skills, job skills. 

Senator BOXER. Excellent. 
292 

Senator Whitehouse, would you be willing to take the gavel over 

because this is it, and you can ask as many questions as you want. 

Is that all right? Can I give you the gavel? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You certainly can. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Here is the gavel. You have it. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am gaveled. 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank our wonderful panel. And just 

for David, we appreciate your direct answers and we look forward 

to working with you as we put the finishing touches on our bill. 

Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE {presiding]. Thank you, Chairman. 

My first question is for Mayor Fetterman. I am delighted that 

you are here. I am also interested that you are here and I wonder 

if you could tell me a little bit more about Braddock and your community and how—— 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Well, aside from the fact that there are a dozen 

of young people here that would like to say hello, it is their first 

trip to Washington, Braddock is a real historic community in what 

is known as the Monongahela Valley which is just outside of Pittsburgh. It was actually where Andrew Carnegie built the first Bessemer mill, and it was the place where he started off his empire. 

Braddock, at its height, was about 20,000 residents and now it 

is significantly under 3,000. So, we have lost 90 percent of our population, and that corresponds to our housing stock, building stock, 

businesses, what have you. So we are a community that has really 

suffered the most in the region when the steel industry basically 

moved offshore. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you see the climate change legislation 

not as a threat and an economic burden to your population, but as 

an opportunity? 

Mr. FETTERMAN. We see it absolutely as an opportunity. For example, right next to our town border is what is known as the Kerry 

Furnace site, which is an abandoned steel mill. It is 150 acres that 

we re-purposing for, essentially, a green enterprise zone and encouraging manufacturers to effectively set up shop and bring jobs 

into the Mon Valley. 

And, tangentially speaking, Braddock has the highest youth 

asthma rate of any community, I believe, in Western Pennsylvania. 

So, air quality is something that we take very seriously, and the 

impacts are measurable in our children’s quality of life. 

So, we do not see it as a threat. We see it as an opportunity. And 

to our critics or detractors, I would say, well, if not this, then what? 

Come take a walk with us down Braddock Avenue, and if this is 

not what you would select, help us out, what would you suggest? 

We are a community that did not get any bail out dollars, did 

not get any help when the region lost 250,000 jobs. We are not just 

looking for a handout. We are looking for a hand up. I believe that 

this legislation not only is good for our air quality but for jobs and 

business in general. 

When I participated with the Environmental Defense Fund, all 

the steelworkers that were involved were the ones that have lost 

their jobs. All of them were unemployed or laid off. They never 

counted themselves as environmentalists or, you know, they kind 
293 

of rolled their eyes at tree huggers and thought that they all had 

to wear Patagonia and drive Subarus. But this all made sense to 

them. It is like, hey, there are 250 tons of steel in a windmill. If 

we are selling millions less, millions of fewer cars, where is our 

steel production going to come from? 

With each new round, with each new quarter, there is additional 

lay offs. So, we see this as a positive force in the Valley. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What is your primary source of electricity 

there? 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Coal-fired. In fact, we have, I guess you would 

call it a middle man, who ships by barge down the Monongahela. 

In fact, that is where Senator Specter was just at in our community a few weeks ago, the Braddock Locks and Dams, that sends 

it to the Conemaugh Power Station. So, this is something that are 

very steeped in, this is part of our day in and day out. And everyone that I have spoken to gets the concept of why this, I think, 

would be a good thing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that. 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Hawkins, on the subject of asthma, 

that is a subject near and dear to Rhode Island. I think we have, 

like many other States, a dramatic increase in asthma. One of the 

reasons, we believe, is that we are downwind of Midwestern coal 

plants that pump enormous amounts of pollutants up into the sky, 

and the prevailing winds bring them our way, to the point where, 

back when I was Attorney General, even if we had shut down every 

engine in Rhode Island, we still would not meet the top air quality 

standards because of what was being blown in from out of State 

from people who have stayed on coal. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We have absorbed considerable expense in 

my home State going off of coal. The Brayton Point Power Station 

used to be fueled by coal and now it is fueled by natural gas. The 

power station right in downtown Providence is now fueled by natural gas. 

My concern is that we need to think of a way to be fair to communities like Rhode Island which took the hard step of getting off 

coal early on, whose economic situation is as bad as any State in 

the country right now, with over 12.5 percent unemployment. We 

continue to face the costs of coal pollution, but it is beyond our control. It is coming from the Midwest and falling in on us. We find 

it in our healthcare system in particular. 

What we see is a bill that does a lot of good for the people who 

kept polluting and not much by way of a credit for the people who 

acted early. There is sort of a laggard’s benefit. As a matter of public policy, and as a matter of simple justice, and as a matter of constituent service, I am interested in what thoughts you may have 

on what ways the bill could provide some value to folks who were 

early adopters of getting off of coal so that the benefit is not so lopsided in favor of those who continued to pollute and continued to 

export healthcare costs to other States through this period when it 

was widely know what was going on. 

I mean there has been litigation about this. As Attorney General, 

I sued over these things. I think your organization was actually in 
294 

that litigation with us. At various times the EPA was with us or 

again us, depending on which way the winds were blowing. What 

is your thought on that subject now? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, it is a challenging issue. Of course, as you 

noted, NRDC has been involved in this transported air pollution 

problem for a long time, and we have really appreciated the willingness of the States at the end of the tailpipe to step up and protect their citizens. 

The climate legislation is addressing some of the transitional 

costs of controlling carbon dioxide. But we must not forget the existing Clean Air Act where there is a lot of work to be done on the 

conventional pollutants. Unfortunately, in the last Administration, 

the industry manipulated the process with, in my view, the willing 

complicity of the Administration officials, to essentially stretch out 

through two terms of the presidency a do nothing approach on conventional pollutants. 

That clean up of the conventional pollutants from existing coalfired power plants is long overdue. There would be value in including in the legislation, and I know that Senator Carper and others 

would be interested in this, some spur to accelerated, accelerated 

is the wrong word to use, it would have been the right word 20 

years ago, but now accelerated clean up of some of that existing capacity. 

I was just answering a question a moment ago from Chairman 

Boxer about what to do about these old coal-fired power plants, and 

the issue is completely entangled by the conventional pollutants, 

too. If an old power plant faces a list of additional clean up obligations, then the decision might be a sensible one to just shut it down 

and replace it with something that is highly efficient. 

And that does not necessarily mean that it will not be a coal 

plant. We have the technology today to build a new coal plant that 

has minimal emissions of all of the conventional pollutants, as well 

as with carbon capture and storage, minimal emissions of carbon 

dioxide. 

So, we have actually progressed to a point where we do not have 

to choose whether we are going to use coal or not. I know this is 

a controversial position in the environmental community. But we 

have the technology that allows us to enable coal to play a role as 

a resource in the economy. 

In addition to the air pollution that we are discussing, we have 

to deal with atrocious practices like mountaintop removal. If we do 

not, then coal is never going to be accepted by the environmental 

community as a responsible fuel. 

But these are all fixable problems. We do not have to throw up 

our hands and say, gee, we have to choose between having a quality of life that protects our kids, that protects our forests, or giving 

up coal. That is a phony choice. We have the technology to have 

that resource available in appropriate amounts and used, but used 

without all the damage that is associated with it today. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Fundamentally, what we are about here is 

to make sure that people cannot externalize internal costs of pollution and harm to others so that the full cost of a particular product 

is actually born by the manufacturer, the way it should be. In the 

same way that we allow them bear the full profit of it, they should 
295 

bear the full costs so that they are making economically sensible 

decisions. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Exactly right. To show you how far we had to 

come, one of the first cases that I was involved in at NRDC involved the construction of tall stacks in the Southeast and the Ohio 

River Valley, which were literally intended to move the pollution 

from the local area as far away as possible by building a very tall 

stack. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. States like Rhode Island, for instance. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, it worked. It worked if that was your objective. It did not work to solve the problem. We ultimately won that 

case, but it took about a dozen years. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I appreciate the effort that NRDC 

has put into this for many years. 

I want to thank the panel for their efforts and for their testimony 

today. We have a long battle ahead of us, as those of you who have 

seen the discussion back and forth here today can appreciate. 

There are a wide range of views and even the fundamental science 

of what we are doing to our climate is challenged, again, I think 

only in this room and the board room of ExxonMobil, but in this 

building. We do have to face those challenges, and our colleagues 

bring those points of view and they have to be addressed, they have 

a vote just the way anybody else does. So, I do not think it is going 

to be an easy situation. 

I hope that Dow, in particular, and other members of the manufacturing community will ramp up your level of advocacy, particularly in the business community, to help us get through this. I 

think that there is a very strong and responsible business voice 

that has emerged and that is growing, and I hope that it can carry 

the day against the voices of the past and the voices of self-interest 

and the voices of those who seek to continue to pollute for free. But 

you have a bit of a job ahead of you. 

Mr. WELLS. We recognize that, but we are also proud of what we 

have accomplished so far, and we look forward to working with you 

and the rest of the committee in moving this forward. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I guess, let me ask one last question, 

which is, the allowances seem, shall we say, overabundant? I would 

be interested in either of your assessment on what the hard base 

is of how much allowance revenue the various industries really require and how much compared to what was given away on the 

other side. I think we are at kind of a danger point in that if anybody adds anything over here, the whole enterprise begins to lose 

credibility. 

If I am not mistaken, we have given away 107 percent of the allowances in the first year. We have not only given all of them 

away, but even more than there are. We have borrowed from the 

future in order to be able to give them away. That is not really a 

promising start for a market and for a price signal, and I also think 

it leaves the bill open to criticism that we are already seeing. 

In fact, some criticism that we are seeing from the Republican 

side is that this is irresponsible and too much of a pay off to industry. And it strikes me that we need to scroll it back. 

I would love to have Mr. Wells, Mr. Hawkins, and Mayor 

Fetterman, any of your thoughts on how far you think we have 
296 

room to maneuver back before you start to hit a really hard base 

for people who have a legitimate claim on the allowances as opposed to just trying to get all they can through the legislative process. 

Mr. WELLS. Let me give an answer for that. I will speak for the 

trade exposed energy intensive industries, which Dow is one of. In 

that case, if I am not mistaken, the House bill allocates 15 percent 

free allowances to that industry. In our analysis, that is a good 

number. 

The issue with the trade exposed energy intensives, as we have 

seen, as energy prices have done what they have done in this country since the turn of the century, where, in our case, we are a huge 

natural gas user and natural gas prices through the last summer 

increased over 400 percent. And we saw industries start to move 

to places where natural gas is cheaper. That same thing will happen with respect to allowance if we have to pay the full allowance 

value. 

And then you have the unintended consequences. The industries 

moving, the jobs move with it, they move to geographies that probably are more carbon intensive than we are here, and so the environment actually suffers and the U.S. suffers. It is truly a lose-lose. 

Whereas, if we get the free allowances, the industries can stay 

here, we have some certainty as to our investment, and those investments, particularly in the basic industries like chemistry, can 

then be used to help develop the solutions, the breakthrough technologies, whether they be wind or solar, or whether they be something that we have not yet imagined. That is what it is going to 

take to get us out of that. So, we think in that case, that is very 

important. 

If you look at the other allocations, there is also an issue of transition here. We have to have a transition. I talked about that in 

my testimony, slow, stop and reverse. If we go straight to reverse, 

the economic consequences are going to be pretty bad. So, I have 

not examined for other industries, but I will leave it that we have 

to make sure that we have the transition to allow us to move 

through slow, stop and then head to reverse so that this can be effective the first time through. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Hawkins. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I would say that an area to focus on, in addition 

to the amount of allowances that go to a sector, perhaps even more 

importantly is what are the conditions for use of those allowances? 

The allowances can go to a sector, but if they are directed in the 

statute to be used for a public purpose, for example, investment in 

energy efficiency, then at least from our standpoint there is nothing wrong with that. That creates a benefit because, by investing 

in energy efficiency, you are reducing the allowance price for everybody in the system, including the payers in Rhode Island, because 

you reduced demand for allowances. 

So, one opportunity in particular for the allocations to the local 

distribution companies, gas and electricity, is to put a greater emphasis on requiring a certain fraction of those allowances to be 

used for cost effective energy efficiency investment programs. And 

if they are cost effective, then by definition they pay and they 

should be pursued. But having that directive in the statute would 
297 

help overcome traditional biases or blind spots against exploring 

those areas. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. Well, I look forward to working with 

you on that. I have been talking to my friends in the electric utility 

industry. They got used to TransCos and DisCos and GenCos, now 

they need ConsCos, and I think that provides a good vehicle for 

that conservation side to take place. I look forward to working with 

you on it. 

I thank you all for your courtesy. I know that we have gone over 

this afternoon as a result of the lengthy time this morning and that 

may have been an inconvenience to you, and I hope it was not too 

serious an inconvenience. We much appreciate your testimony. 

The hearing will remain open for a week if anybody seeks to add 

to its record. 

Otherwise, it is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Madam Chairman, I appreciate you convening today’s hearing. I am hopeful that 

it will serve as the beginning of a very serious commitment on the part of this committee to recommend an intelligent and informed course of action on the issue of 

addressing climate change to the full Senate. 

It is my understanding that additional hearings have been scheduled for next 

week. I hope that these hearings continue to inform us about the policies that may 

be implemented to address global climate change. One question I believe many 

members here share is whether we will use legislation that was recently passed out 

of the House Energy and Commerce Committee as a basis for our hearings and a 

mark-up or whether we will consider a separate bill. Your personal commitment to 

me to hold additional hearings on the legislation was appreciated. But the most important thing is that we have actual legislative language to work with and have the 

time necessary to have our concerns addressed in the committee. 

Another area where I have concern is with the impacts the legislation would have 

on the economy. In this regard, I continue to have concerns with EPA’s evaluation 

of legislation that was recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. To help us fully understand how this bill will impact emissions and our Nation’s energy infrastructure and economy, I joined Senator Inhofe and my other colleagues in asking that EPA address a number of flaws in its analysis. Those flaws 

centered around assumptions the agency made regarding the availability of new nuclear power, carbon capture and sequestration technology and the availability of 

international offsets. 

EPA’s response to these particular issues was insufficient, at best. Other aspects 

of our request were not addressed at all: particularly with regard to economic impacts of a cap and trade system combined with a national renewable energy requirement. The Senate is now set to consider legislation that mirrors that bill. We therefore requested an analysis that provides a comprehensive picture of the economic 

impacts of implementing these two policies simultaneously. As it stands now, EPA’s 

analysis is of limited value in determining how families and workers could be impacted if things don’t work out exactly as the Administration hopes. 

Indeed, the Administration continues to use this analysis to paint a rosy picture 

of the costs of the proposed legislation, which stands in stark contrast to analyses 

of previous less-stringent bills, showing the potential for significant economic burden. Statements suggesting that the bill would cost but a ‘‘postage stamp a day’’ 

don’t stand up to scrutiny. EPA’s modeling is only as good as the assumptions that 

are built into it. And here, optimistic assumptions about technology and offset availability and the lack of a comprehensive analysis of the entire legislative proposal 

greatly limit our understanding of the potential costs of the program. 

These oversights may point to very serious problems in the design of the proposal. 

The time to take a detailed look at these issues is now. These are not issues that 

can be simply fixed on the Senate floor. Indeed, the very reason we employ a committee process in the drafting of legislation is so major problems can be resolved 

prior to moving to the floor. 
298 

In closing, I would ask for your commitment to release the language of the bill 

you intend to mark up and hold hearings on that language before proceeding to a 

committee vote. I would also ask that you join me in calling on EPA and the Energy 

Information Agency to refine their economic impact analyses so that a more accurate picture may be drawn as to the bill’s potential impacts. 

I want to make clear that my request for this information is not to slow the bill’s 

movement through the committee, but to see if we can work on a bipartisan basis 

to address some of the major problems many of us have with Chairman Waxman’s 

bill—or in the alternative—problems we may have with legislation you introduce. 

Madam Chairman, only through a deliberate and inclusive process can we ensure 

the best outcome for our country. We must refrain from taking the politically expedient path and do the hard work the American people deserve. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 

Æ