U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

62–522 2010

PLANNING COMMUNITIES FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE—SMART GROWTH, PUBLIC DEMAND AND 

PRIVATE OPPORTUNITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2008 

Serial No. 110–40 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

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

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 11 

Hon. John Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

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

Tennessee 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 14 

WITNESSES

David Goldberg, Director of Communications, Smart Growth America 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 17 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 77 

Steve Winkelman, Transportation Director, Center for Clean Air Policy 

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

Gregory Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 83 

Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, CEO, Masdar Initiative, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 53 

Steve Hewitt, City Administrator, Greensburg, Kansas 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 58 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(1) 

HEARING ON ‘‘PLANNING COMMUNITIES FOR 

A CHANGING CLIMATE SMART GROWTH, 

PUBLIC DEMAND AND PRIVATE OPPORTUNITY’’ 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:27 a.m., in room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Solis, 

Cleaver, Hall, Sensenbrenner, and Walden. 

Staff present: Danielle Baussan, Jeff Sharp. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Good morning, and welcome to the 

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

We look forward to this very exciting hearing. 

It is of historic importance that a few years ago, the launch of 

Sputnik challenged America to build a better scientific community. 

Today, skyrocketing gas prices and the threat of global warming 

challenge us to build green communities. Green communities offer 

relief from high gasoline prices and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They employ renewable energy, rely on energy-efficient 

buildings, and adopt Smart Growth principles to reduce the distances between destinations and foster a diverse local economy. 

Through these actions, green communities reduce vehicle emissions, lower energy demand, and reduce the need for costly road 

and energy infrastructure. The result is reduced global warming 

emissions and lower taxes. The growing demand for green communities overwhelms supply. With gasoline priced at over $4 per gallon, and a housing crisis hurting many areas of the country, young 

professionals, smaller families, and aging populations seek the 

Smart Growth lifestyle in increasing numbers. Despite this shift, 

local and federal law can make it simpler to build on whatever 

open land is available, scattering people, workplaces, and resources 

far apart. 

This hearing will examine whether the government can help 

communities return to a lifestyle that does not depend on long 

drives to work, and hassle-filled drives to schools, grocery stores, 

and shopping. Smart Growth communities were once the norm 

across the country. Like many of you, I have lived for years in a 

green community without even realizing. When I grew up in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

2 

Malden, Massachusetts, I walked to school. We took the bus 

around town. My parents did not buy a car until I was 9 years old. 

It is hard to think that Malden was green when we would take 

field trips to find a park. But the truth is that close-in experience 

was typical of many towns and cities in the 20th century America. 

How communities achieve Smart Growth principles varies widely. 

The select committee is fortunate to have two very different examples of attempts to build successful green communities. 

The rural community of Greensburg, Kansas was destroyed by a 

tornado last May. Now, it is rebuilding using the highest green 

building standards, developing a wind-power economy, and retaining the businesses and neighbors integral to a close-knit community. Rural Smart Growth may not be a phrase heard often, but it 

should be. The small town principles of walking to school, 10– 

minute driving commute, and shopping at local stores are identical 

to those of urban smart communities like Portland, Oregon. 

Masdar City in Abu Dhabi represents the future of green communities. They are working with the private sector, engineers from 

MIT and American architects to build a city that will be a net exporter of energy. Masdar will incorporate basic services like schools 

and libraries with power streets, photovoltaic awnings, and an academic and commercial center focusing on the latest energy technology. 

Despite having a century’s supply of oil, Abu Dhabi has chosen 

to invest in a new clean energy climate-conscious economy by building a Smart Growth zero-net energy city. Make no mistake, Masdar 

is our new Sputnik. It should be a wake-up call to America and a 

challenge to each of us. The city of tomorrow creating the technology of the future is now underway in another country. 

We must rise to the challenge of building Smart Growth energy 

efficient communities. We have the scientific ability to do so, and 

as the story of Greensburg will demonstrate, we also have the 

heart and the American spirit to make it happen. 

My time has expired for an opening statement. 

We now turn and recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

3 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 9 here 62522A.001
4 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 10 here 62522A.002
5 

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

Most communities want to grow, and I will bet if you ask governors, mayors and council members of these communities how 

they want to grow, I am sure nearly all would say they want to 

grow smartly. After all, it is only common sense for community 

leaders to use the most up-to-date planning methods and ideas. 

Today’s hearing will highlight many smart ideas that can help 

communities grow bigger and more prosperous without subjecting 

themselves to some of the problems that are often associated with 

large urban areas, such as traffic, air pollution and congestion. 

However, while some of the concepts to be presented today could 

simply be described as common sense, others might be described as 

a waste of money. 

While reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a good policy, it is 

a policy that should be properly balanced with economic realities. 

The testimony of Gregory Cohen, the president and CEO of the 

American Highway Users Alliance shows us that many Smart 

Growth policies don’t have to be expensive at all. For example, improved signal timing and intelligent transportation systems are 

among the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases. I 

welcome Mr. Cohen here today. 

Where feasible and practical, I would encourage communities to 

enact some of these Smart Growth principles based on their unique 

needs. One global warming principle that I consistently advocate is 

that policies need to produce tangible environmental benefits. Local 

elected leaders will be pressured to adopt many Smart Growth policies, but they should diligently research exactly how these changes 

might affect these communities. In many cases, there might not be 

very much bang for the buck, if any at all. 

Also, I do not think the federal government should dictate to 

local government how they should grow. Managing growth is a 

local decision, and the local elected leaders should be free to take 

local conditions under consideration, without taking burdensome 

one-size-fits-all regulations from the federal government. I do believe in local home rule. In my state, the Wisconsin constitution 

gives local home rule to incorporated municipalities. 

One argument that will be forwarded today is that Smart 

Growth will help reduce reliance on oil, presumably leading to 

lower gas prices in the future. I don’t dispute that reducing demand for gas will help lower the price. However, people should not 

confuse Smart Growth planning for policy that will help lower gas 

prices in the foreseeable future. 

The American people want solutions to today’s high gas prices. 

They need relief now. While this hearing will help lay out a vision 

for the future, Americans want us working today on policies that 

will help reduce gas prices in the near term. By dropping restrictions on domestic oil exploration, Congress could take the first big 

step towards making gasoline more affordable in the U.S. and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. 

This, of course, is not the only thing that Congress can do, but 

it should be the first thing that we do. Yet common sense principles 

like this don’t seem to be anywhere on the Democratic majority’s 

radar. Of course, there are many long-term steps that Congress can 

take to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and to reduce greenhouse 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

6 

gas emissions. One of these is to encourage Smart Growth where 

feasible. But today’s first priority should be to increase domestic 

supplies of oil and gas. 

I would hope that the speaker and the majority start focusing the 

House on this important priority. 

I thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now will recognize the gentleman from Portland, Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize that there isn’t a witness from Oregon here today. 

The group from the metropolitan area actually is traveling in Europe, exchanging views, but I think we will be able to deal with 

some of these elements. I commend you and your staff for the excellent memorandum that I think lays these issues out. 

We got into the Smart Growth movement in Oregon, first, to deal 

with legislation to help protect our farmland. From there, we found 

that there were a wide variety of other benefits by strengthening 

communities. The things that you talked about in the Smart 

Growth community that you grew up in, we got away from. Unfortunately, dumb growth is alive and well across the United States 

today. 

Our congressional delegation just had to fight the federal government that was going to take the INS office and move it out of the 

heart of the central city 12 miles out into the suburbs where it 

wasn’t even accessed by bus. Hopefully, there is an opportunity for 

the federal government to learn from this as well. 

But it does make a difference today. Our local residents are 10 

times more likely to bicycle to work than the national average. 

They drive 20 percent less than residents of other major metropolitan areas, saving by some estimates up to $2,500 a year in transportation costs. It hasn’t resulted in our not growing. Indeed, our 

metropolitan area grew by 85 percent between 1986 and 2006. We 

just didn’t expand the carbon footprint, and ironically the homes 

have actually maintained value, as is represented in your memo. 

They actually were increasing in value, rather than decreasing in 

this last year. 

This is important business. While I agree with my good friend 

that we don’t want a one-size-fits-all federal prescription, the fact 

is that the federal government through its tax policies, transportation policies, and its stupid infrastructure decisions with some of 

its own facilities has a profound effect on this. For us to get it right 

with transportation, with energy, with tax, it can help set a framework that will make a huge difference. 

And last but not least, the federal government itself should lead 

by example as the largest manager of infrastructure in the world, 

the largest consumer of energy, and the largest landlord and property owner. 

I appreciate having this hearing, and I do apologize that the Oregonians are off proselytizing other parts of the world, but Mr. 

Walden and I will try and step into the gap. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

7 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 16 here 62522A.003
8 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 17 here 62522A.004
9 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, 

for an opening statement. 

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

I think Oregon has been a real leader, both in terms of laying 

out a plan for best uses of its great resources and certainly in the 

urban areas for dealing with growth in a thoughtful way, although 

not altogether without controversy from time to time, as my colleague from Portland can tell us. But clearly in those areas, having 

mass transit that works, being on the innovative side of the transportation equation made a lot of sense. 

I have in the legislature and elsewhere supported a lot of those 

transportation initiatives because you have to be able to move people in a congested area in an efficient way. That makes sense. 

Now, I represent a district that is 70,000 square miles. I have 

counties where there is one person for every 9 miles of power line. 

We have a problem making sure that Wal-Mart moms and dieseldriving truck dads can get access to fuel they can afford. While we 

need to do these things that help in the urban areas and need to 

foster renewable energy resources—and my district is home to a lot 

of wind energy, enormous geothermal energy potential, great solar 

potential we are working on a project there—I haven’t seen too 

many diesel trucks being powered by windmills, at least not yet. 

Maybe we will get to a plug-in hybrid version that will work 

down the road, and I hope we do, but right now we need to access 

our own natural resources like every other industrialized country 

in the world. That is why I have supported lifting the ban on outer 

continental shelf drilling. I think it is a real hardship being foisted 

on top of Americans that we don’t access our own oil and gas reserves. It is long overdue. We are paying an enormous price for it 

now, and that needs to change. 

I just look forward to the day where at least we could have a vote 

on the floor on that issue. Then we could actually fund the services 

that we need in this country and perhaps be not a debtor nation, 

if you will, but rather maybe create our own sort of sovereign 

wealth fund. That wouldn’t be a bad thing, pay down our debt a 

little bit. 

So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the topic today. I think it is 

going to be real good to hear about. We have other issues we need 

to attend to as well. Thank you. 

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

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think this is a critically important hearing. As the former 

mayor of Missouri’s largest city, I and other mayors have bragged 

over the years about the fact that Kansas City, Missouri is a city 

of 322 square miles. We brag that you could place the entire city 

of St. Louis inside our city limits three times, or San Francisco 30 

times. We have more circumferential highway miles per capita 

than any city in the nation. We bragged about it. 

The truth of the matter is that is one of the worst things that 

is going on in our community is continuing to expand the city. It 

hurts the taxpayers because when we provide tax increment financing for a project in the suburbs, and when we do some kind of tax 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

10 

abatement for a major development, we are actually causing the 

use of utilities to rise because the further out that people move 

from the generators, the more costly and the more waste. 

We don’t have a major transportation system. We have no light 

rail. We have buses. The sad thing is that we have track running 

all through the city. We at one time had a very good rail system 

up until the 1950s when the bus companies came in and convinced 

city leaders that the bus was the vehicle of the future, almost like 

a Flash Gordon rocket. So we paved over all of the rail. 

I think mayors around the country now realize that the people 

in the past had it right. There was a time when if you lived in the 

central city, which was also surrounded by walls, you were of 

course a big-time resident. If you lived in the suburbs outside the 

walls, you were not only in peril because if there was an attack you 

were going to get hurt first, but you also were not considered to 

be a part of the major community. 

We have to go back to that. I am very, very much interested in 

getting your take on some of the major issues facing cities even as 

we sit here today. Decisions are being made in metropolitan areas 

all over the country that could use the benefit of your wisdom. 

Thank you very much. I yield back no time. I don’t have any time 

remaining. [Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

11 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 22 here 62522A.005
12 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I comment on the topic of the day, I just want to observe 

that our distinguished members on the other side of the aisle seem 

to have read the same memo that all Republicans are reading from 

lately, which is to blame Democrats for high gas prices. It is interesting when our President George W. Bush said back when oil was 

$50 a barrel that from now on no more need for an incentive for 

oil companies to drill, yet they have 9,700-plus leases that they 

have already leased in the lower 48 and adjacent offshore leases, 

in excess of 26 million acres of land that has been environmentally 

cleared, ready for metal to meet earth, and for some reason they 

are not drilling on land they already own the right to drill on. 

Two cases in particular offshore that have been well publicized 

where Republican governors, Jeb Bush in Florida and Arnold 

Schwarzenegger in California, have been fighting offshore don’t get 

mentioned nearly as often as the fact that somehow we or our 

speaker are standing in the way of the oil companies doing that 

which they already have leased the right to do on our national 

lands. 

Today’s hearing, however, on Smart Growth speaks to what I 

would believe is one of the fundamental keys in our ability to confront climate change. I know for a fact that most of the commuters 

that I know in the 19th district of New York would love to be doing 

things other than watching their life go by three car lengths at a 

time in good-luck traffic. They way we live takes a toll on our environment, degrades our public health and the quality of life. 

The good news is that contrary to widely held perceptions, we 

can usher in a smarter, more sustainable future without forcing 

people to make radical decisions or extreme changes in their daily 

lives. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

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

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

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. I am 

kind of losing my voice here from congestion and pollution in the 

air. [Laughter.] 

I want to thank the chairman for having this meeting and for inviting our panelists here today. You know, in California and the 

San Gabriel Valley where I live and reside, there are some innovative Smart Growth projects going on. In some cases, the federal 

government has been helpful. In some cases, they have not. I wish 

they would be more helpful, especially when it comes to transportation and when we are looking at other modes for communities 

that are transit-dependent, more so than in other communities. 

I am talking particularly about low-income, African American 

and Hispanic residents. In my district, one project that we are looking to hopefully seek funding from the federal government is a 

metro line that would go right through my district. It would help 

take students to classes. It would help eventually even take people 

possibly from L.A., Pasadena, downtown, all the way to LAX. But 

we are looking at some support from the federal government and 

our local authorities to do that. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

13 

That is something that I think is smart and wise. We have invested in our communities. They have already developed transit 

centers that are ready to go to accept this project, but now it is just 

the federal government that has to say yes, we are going to get behind it. Lord knows, the pollution in our communities is very, very 

bad, and gotten worse in Los Angeles County and the San 

Bernardino area. 

So we know that there have to be better modes for us, particularly with the cost of gasoline now in my district about $4.69 a gallon. I filled up a quarter of my tank—$25 for four gallons. I 

thought it doesn’t hurt me, but it does hurt a lot of the residents 

that I represent who only make minimum wage in the eastern San 

Gabriel Valley. 

So I would just say that we need to have new remedies, new 

ideas, and we have to get people to use other modes of transportation, whether it is bikes, whether it is skateboards or whatever. 

We have to do something to make it more user-friendly for people 

to use different modes of transportation. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. I thank the gentlelady. 

All time for opening statements from the select committee members has been completed. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackburn follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

14 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 27 here 62522A.006
15 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 28 here 62522A.007
16 

Now, we are going to turn to our very distinguished panel. Our 

first witness, David Goldberg, is the director of communications of 

Smart Growth America. Prior to joining Smart Growth America, 

Mr. Goldberg was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University and a journalist covering issues for the Atlanta Constitution. We welcome 

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

STATEMENTS OF MR. DAVID GOLDBERG, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, SMART GROWTH AMERICA, WASHINGTON, 

DC; MR. STEVE WINKELMAN, TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR CLEAN AIR POLICY, PORT CHESTER, NEW 

YORK; MR. GREGORY COHEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE, WASHINGTON, DC; MR. 

SULTAN AL JABER, CEO, MASDAR INITIATIVE, ABU DHABI, 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; MR. STEVE HEWITT, CITY ADMINISTRATION, GREENSBURG, KANSAS 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GOLDBERG 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Thanks very much. Am I audible? Can you hear 

me? Okay, great. 

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

the committee. Thank you all for holding such an important hearing on such a critical set of interrelated issues and for inviting us 

to testify on the opportunity to harness the profound changes we 

see happening in the marketplace right now to the benefit of energy independence, climate stability, and America’s prosperity. 

With your indulgence, I will summarize my written testimony, 

which I respectfully submit for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in the record. 

[The statement of Mr. Goldberg follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

17 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 31 here 62522A.008
18 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 32 here 62522A.009
19 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 33 here 62522A.010
20 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 34 here 62522A.011
21 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 35 here 62522A.012
22 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 36 here 62522A.013
23 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 37 here 62522A.014
24 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 38 here 62522A.015
25 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 39 here 62522A.016
26 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 40 here 62522A.017
27 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 41 here 62522A.018
28 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 42 here 62522A.019
29 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Our nation today faces a number of very difficult 

challenges. The committee has taken on two of the greatest challenges—over-dependence on high-priced oil and climate change. 

Smart Growth America comes today with encouraging news. We 

can significantly reduce our nation’s dependence on oil and shrink 

our carbon footprint, while helping Americans avoid high gas prices 

and the time they spend in traffic, merely by meeting the growing 

demand for conveniently located homes in walkable neighborhoods 

and by serving those neighborhoods with good public transit. 

Even better news: We don’t have to wait for someone to invent 

green neighborhoods. We have the know-how right now to build 

them and we have since the dawn of civilization. It is a low-cost 

or a no-cost solution to oil dependence and climate change that 

comes with multiple benefits for our pocketbooks, for our environment, and for our quality of life. 

Communities and private sector developers across the country 

have rediscovered this approach to building in recent years, creating neighborhoods and towns according to 10 principles that have 

come to be labeled as Smart Growth. I won’t read the whole list 

here. You can see it in my written testimony. 

The label itself, Smart Growth, is not important. The goal is 

what is important, and that is to help people find homes and communities where they can accomplish more, while driving less, 

meaning they can spend less and they can emit less greenhouse 

gas. 

Creating walkable green neighborhoods requires building a mix 

of housing types, such as stand-alone houses, apartments, or townhouses within a short distance of shopping and job opportunities. 

It means re-using existing buildings in developed areas, whether 

those be former industrial sites, declining shopping centers, or 

blighted neighborhoods. It also means using green building techniques when we build new things. 

It means providing multiple ways to get around, public transit in 

addition to complete streets that serve cars, walking and biking. 

Above all, it means involving people, the people who live and will 

live in these places, in planning ahead for their community’s development. 

The demand for homes in places that meet these principles, the 

neighborhoods where daily life requires significantly less gas consumption, has been growing for several years now, but it is exploding literally as we speak. Just yesterday, CNN, the Wall Street 

Journal and the Los Angeles Times all reported on this phenomenon. CNN reported, and you can find it on their Web site, 

that ‘‘while the foreclosure epidemic has left communities across 

the United States overrun with unoccupied houses and overgrown 

grass, underneath the chaos another trend is quietly emerging that 

over the next several decades could change the face of suburban 

American life as we know it.’’ 

The story notes that 40 percent of home-seekers say they want 

to live in walkable urban neighborhoods. A consumer survey that 

we at Smart Growth America did with the National Association of 

Realtors a couple of years ago found that six in ten prospective 

buyers are looking for close-knit neighborhoods close to work. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

30 

The Wall Street Journal yesterday also had an interesting story 

headlined ‘‘Demographic Changes, High Gasoline Prices May Hasten Demand for Urban Living.’’ That story noted that ‘‘transportation is the second biggest household expense after housing. Distant suburbs where housing growth was predicated on cheap gas 

have experienced the greatest decline in home values.’’ 

The L.A. Times story quoted a Pasadena real estate agent who 

noted that ‘‘compared to 2 years ago, home-seekers are staying in 

closer proximity to their jobs. They are more focused on the neighborhood they want.’’ 

And lest one conclude that this is only a big-city phenomenon, 

Maine’s leading newspaper a couple of days ago had a front-page 

story headlined ‘‘Mainers begin making life changes that could slow 

urban sprawl to a crawl.’’ This is in Maine, which is not exactly a 

heavily urbanized state. 

Families in areas with good transit and walkable neighborhoods 

pay less than 10 percent of their income for transportation on average, while families living in areas with fewer transportation options pay upwards of 25 percent of their income and often much 

more than that. Access to transit can reduce the need to have a 

car, which would save a family $6,000 a year just on that, and a 

30 percent reduction in transportation-related carbon-emissions 

whether or not they own the car simply by driving less. 

The measures I have talked about here and in my written testimony apply in towns large and small, in cities, in metro areas, and 

even rural areas. For smaller cities, this can mean reclaiming existing Main Streets and ending the tendency to hollow-out our 

towns, our business districts, and spread the development across 

the countryside. In larger cities, it can mean providing millions 

more Americans with more transportation and living options. 

Americans who live within a half-mile of rail transportation—— 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could summarize, please? 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes. Americans who live within a half-mile of rail 

transit drive significantly less by their own choice. On average, 

one-third use that transit to commute and they drive one-third less 

than other people do. The upshot here is that we need to build 

more homes within reach of existing transit and we need to expand 

public transportation to more areas. 

I hope during the questions I will have an opportunity to expand 

on some of these thoughts. Thank you. 

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

Our second witness is Steve Winkelman, who is the transportation director of the Center for Clean Air Policy. Mr. Winkelman, 

along with Mr. Goldberg, is an author of the book ‘‘Growing Cooler,’’ a recent and comprehensive report on Smart Growth and global warming. We welcome you, sir, and whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE WINKELMAN 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, members of the committee, good morning. I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

My name is Steve Winkelman. I am the director of the transportation and adaptation programs at the Center for Clean Air Policy, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

31 

also called CCAP, a Washington, D.C. and Brussels-based environmental think tank. I respectfully request that my full statement 

may be part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will. 

[The statement of Mr. Winkelman follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

32 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 49 here 62522A.020
33 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 50 here 62522A.021
34 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 51 here 62522A.022
35 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 52 here 62522A.023
36 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 53 here 62522A.024
37 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 54 here 62522A.025
38 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 55 here 62522A.026
39 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 56 here 62522A.027
40 

Mr. WINKELMAN. I will summarize it now. 

CCAP helps governments at all levels design and implement energy and climate solutions that balance economic and environmental considerations. CCAP conducts technical and economic 

analyses and facilitates dialogue among stakeholders from government, industry, and environmental groups to craft practical and effective solutions. 

For example, CCAP’s VMT and climate policy dialogue brings together four secretaries of transportation from four different states, 

two directors of metropolitan planning organizations, members of 

local government, federal agencies, industry and environmental 

groups to advance Smart Growth policies within climate policy and 

to integrate climate considerations into transportation policy. 

If we could go to the next slide, please? 

Transportation sector CO2 emissions account for almost one-third 

of U.S. CO2 emissions and are growing rapidly. CCAP characterizes 

transportation emissions as a three-legged stool, as you can see in 

the graphic here. The first leg is vehicle efficiency. The second is 

fuel characteristics. And third is vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, 

which is a measure of how much we drive each year and the wacky 

acronym of the day. 

Energy and climate policy discussions to date have focused exclusively on the first two legs of the stool—vehicles and fuels. With 

my testimony this morning, and the full written testimony, I aim 

to demonstrate that it is both necessary and beneficial to address 

the third leg of this stool—VMT. 

As indicated in this graph on the next slide, transportation CO2

emissions depicted here in blue are 25 percent above 1990 levels, 

and climate protection requires reductions to 30 percent below 1990 

levels by 2030. That is the orange line in the graphic. If you go to 

the next slide, we can see that the 2007 energy bill with its new 

standards for vehicle efficiency and fuel requirements would reduce 

transportation CO2 emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels in 

2030. You see the blue line is now on top of the orange line, right 

on path to climate protection. 

However, if you go to the next slide and watch the red line, the 

U.S. Department of Energy forecasts a 50 percent increase in driving, bringing CO2 emissions back up to current levels and wiping 

out the benefits from the energy bill. Climate protection will clearly 

require reductions in all three legs of the stool. We cannot afford 

to ignore VMT. 

I am the co-author of the book ‘‘Growing Cooler: The Evidence on 

Urban Development and Climate Change,’’ in which we review the 

empirical evidence on the relationships between land-use development patterns and travel activity. We find that people drive fewer 

miles in places where things are closer together and where they 

have more travel options such as walking and transit. 

In my written testimony, I provide some examples from places 

with successful and promising policies for slowing VMT growth. 

The Sacramento region is especially compelling because they have 

calculated that Smart Growth policies can reduce infrastructure 

costs by $9 billion by 2050 and reduce consumer fuel expenditures 

by more than $600 million per year. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

41 

With high gas prices and a robust federal climate policy debate, 

the timing has never been better to increase travel choices, thereby 

lowering consumer fuel expenditures and reducing transportation 

emissions. CCAP has therefore developed a policy proposal for a 

federal incentive program that requires state and local governments to develop goals to slow VMT growth and greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Allowance values from a cap-and-trade system would be used to 

fund goal development and implementation. Importantly, CCAP believes that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that solutions 

must be developed locally and not dictated by the federal government. 

We anticipate that a diversity of measures applicable to urban, 

suburban and rural areas ranging from in-fill development, transit 

improvements, signal timing improvements, and intermodal freight 

will be required. CCAP recommends a bottom-up discovery process 

in which states and local governments conduct scenario analyses 

and engage stakeholders to determine goals appropriate to local 

conditions. 

Finally, CCAP sees federal climate policy as setting the stage for 

climate-friendly transportation policy, what we refer to as greenTEA. Federal transportation policy actually contributes to VMT 

growth because key funding formulas reward VMT and fuel consumption. The challenge is how to ensure that the next $300 billion 

we spend on transportation infrastructure actually builds upon the 

savings in the energy bill instead of wiping them out. 

The new federal efforts that CCAP recommends to improve travel 

choices for all Americans can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

lower consumer fuel expenditures, and strengthen the economy. 

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions. 

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

Our next witness, Gregory Cohen, is the president and CEO of 

the American Highway Users Alliance, which is an alliance of businesses and nonprofit corporations dedicated to highway funding 

and maintenance. Prior to joining the alliance, he served on the 

staff of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

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

STATEMENT OF GREGORY COHEN 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Chairman Markey and members of the 

committee. I appreciate being allowed the opportunity to provide 

an alternative view in the spirit of debate. I am honored to be here 

to present testimony on highway needs, land-use planning, and 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

A recent national survey of 1,000 likely voters found the following: 88 percent feel that congestion relief is needed; 76 percent 

see cars, roads and bridges as a benefit to society; and 69 percent 

say congestion relief is a better environmental policy than policies 

aimed at reducing driving. 

We urge this committee to promote greenhouse gas solutions that 

are cost effective and provide benefits to the overwhelming majority of people whose transportation mode of choice is the personal 

automobile. The IPCC recommends finding solutions that reduce 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

42 

emissions at a cost of $50 or less per ton. By minimizing the cost 

of carbon removed, we believe you will find solutions that are effective and fair, rather than based on ideology, the latest planning 

fad, or special interest lobbying. 

Among surface transportation modes, highway investments have 

a dominant role to play both in reducing wasted emissions and 

fuel. Traffic congestion results in nearly three billion gallons of 

wasted fuel each year. With each passing year that it is not addressed, that waste grows. Yet over 20 years, a strategic congestion 

relief program could reduce on-site carbon emissions by an average 

of 77 percent, save 40 billion gallons of fuel, and reduce carbon 

emissions by 390 million tons. 

Although VMT would increase, carbon emissions would be reduced. This demonstrates that VMT is not a valid measure of 

greenhouse gas nor pollutant emissions. Instead of attempting to 

reduce travel, a national policy to reduce the time wasted in traffic 

congestion would be an effective win-win, both for people and the 

environment. 

Some have proposed that the United States should make Smart 

Growth a national land-use policy. Some even believe that the federal government should try to direct people where to live and how 

to travel, and particularly how to commute to work. Yet emissions 

from commutes and cars and light trucks represent only one-sixth 

of transportation emissions and only about 5 percent of the total 

U.S. carbon emissions. 

Even a tripling of commuter transit—and I don’t mean to speak 

against transit—but even a tripling of commuter transit would only 

reduce those emissions by a fraction of a percent. Some have suggested that EPA should take over DOT’s role in approving transportation plans to ensure that they promote Smart Growth concepts and reduce VMT. But such a plan would stop federally funded highway projects that already have been delayed in many cases 

by a decade or more, and create serious problems to freight mobility, deficient bridges, aging pavements, snarl and congestion, and 

most importantly, safety improvements. 

In fact, some travel reduction ideas actually increase road congestion and waste emissions. For example, Smart Growth advocates have found that doubling an area’s density would reduce per 

capita VMT by 20 percent, thus twice as many people would drive 

80 percent as much. Clearly, the result is more traffic, more congestion, increased travel time, and even some serious unintended 

consequences as response times would slow, trucking logistics 

would be more unreliable, and road rage would increase. 

But there are solutions that are more promising. Along with congestion relief, the great opportunity for mobile source emission reductions lies in fuel and vehicles technology. Even if VMT could be 

reduced dramatically, would it still be necessary in a future of 

lower zero-emission vehicles? With the new national CAFE standards and new congressionally authorized tax incentives, these technological solutions would allow for increased mobility and all of the 

economic and quality of life benefits that travel brings. 

Recent research suggests that hybrid vehicles will soon yield 

lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger than transit. These 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

43 

new technologies are another win-win for people and the environment. 

When the House pursues greenhouse gas legislation, we ask that 

highway programs are treated fairly. After all, it will be highway 

users paying the increased fuel costs associated with the carbon 

tax, the cap-and-trade program, or a fuel tax. One idea is that the 

carbon or fuel tax paid by highway users at the pump be deposited 

in the highway trust fund and used for projects regardless of mode 

that reduce carbon emissions cost-effectively. 

Like a tax or cap-and-trade proposal, it would also increase fuel 

costs paid by highway users, and some have suggested that capand-trade credits only be used for transit, bike paths, and VMT reduction projects. We are not aware of any data analysis that justifies this massive diversion of motorists’ money. It appears to be 

simply a give away to special interests. Reality, rather than rhetoric, should be the basis for policy. 

In conclusion, we are ready to help reduce carbon emissions. We 

look forward to supporting congressional action to reduce traffic 

congestion and invest in fuel and vehicle technology, but we implore this committee to fully consider and reject the unintended 

negative consequences of a nationally mandated land-use or VMT 

reduction scheme. 

Instead of trying to socially engineer behaviors, let’s provide the 

win-win solutions that allow people the freedom to live, work and 

travel as they wish. Embracing this freedom rather than restricting 

it preserves the American dream of opportunity and prosperity. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

44 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 66 62522A.028
45 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 67 62522A.029
46 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 68 62522A.030
47 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 69 62522A.031
48 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 70 62522A.032
49 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 71 62522A.033
50 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 72 62522A.034
51 

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

Our next witness, Dr. Al Jaber, is the CEO of the Masdar Initiative in Abu Dhabi of the United Arab Emirates. We thank you, sir. 

We thank you for coming that long distance to testify before the select committee today. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SULTAN AL JABER 

Mr. AL JABER. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and members of the committee, thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to testify on such an important issue. Sustainable 

development is essential to the United Arab Emirates and to Abu 

Dhabi in particular. It is integral to my company and personally 

important to me. 

Today’s hearing helps illustrate our belief that aggressively addressing these fundamental issues can help bring communities together, even those as diverse as Abu Dhabi and Greensburg, Kansas. 

Let me begin with a brief overview. In April 2006, the government of Abu Dhabi established a new economic development program that is entirely dedicated to sustainable energy. Masdar is a 

multifaceted undertaking to address future energy-related issues. 

The government of Abu Dhabi has committed $15 billion to the 

Masdar initiative, and we are leveraging additional funds through 

partnerships and the private sector. 

Masdar includes investments in current technologies, new solar 

manufacturing plants, renewable energy infrastructure, and carbon-management projects. We are creating a one-of-a-kind research 

institute in Abu Dhabi, and developing Masdar City, the world’s 

first carbon-neutral, zero-waste city. 

Given the subject of the hearing, I want to focus on Masdar City, 

which is really the centerpiece of the entire program. Imagine a 

city built in the desert that will house 50,000 people, technology 

companies, a research institute, R&D facilities, light manufacturing plants, stores, schools and libraries, all powered by renewable energy. 

There will be no cars. People will move around on personal rapid 

transit, light rail, Segways, and bikes. A net of photovoltaic collectors will create shade along narrow streets. Green spaces will be 

fed with purified, recycled water. We expect that the city will be 

the blueprint for cities of the future. 

We will do this by completely re-engineering the way modern cities are built and use energy. In planning the city, we did not look 

at the cost of energy per kilowatt hour. Instead, we looked at the 

cost per square meter. Integrated design is a core element of our 

planning. It will help reduce energy and water demand to unprecedented levels. 

Specifically, Masdar City will require only 200 megawatts of 

power, instead of the 800 megawatts normally required by a conventional city of the same size. Desalinated water consumption will 

drop from 20,000 cubic meters per day to only 8,000. And through 

intensive reuse and recycling, we will eliminate the need for millions of square meters of landfill. 

Masdar City will be more than just an efficient, environmentally 

friendly place. It will be a platform for long-term innovation. Resimstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

52 

dents of the city will be part of a community that includes global 

leaders in business, academia, and finance who can collaborate on 

a common goal. 

When I travel, the most frequent question I get asked is: Why? 

Why would a major oil-producing country proactively seek a keyhole in the alternative energy space? The answer is simple. First, 

we want to reduce our own carbon footprint. The UAE ratified the 

Kyoto Protocol, and we must be prepared to meet future commitments to reduce emissions, while ensuring continued growth. 

Second, as part of our diversification and long-term economic 

strategy, Abu Dhabi seeks to be a developer and exporter of technology, rather than being an importer. We will continue to be a 

leader in the global energy markets, but go beyond hydrocarbons. 

We also believe we can act as a catalyst to encourage nations with 

greater human, technological and institutional resources to accelerate the adoption of clean and sustainable technology. 

We also see this as an opportunity to be a part of a growing business sector. According to the International Energy Agency, the 

world’s energy requirements could grow by as much as 50 percent 

or more by 2030. We want to help meet those needs. That is why 

we are taking these proactive steps. 

Finally, I want to inform the committee about the significant 

contribution of American innovators. MIT is working with us to establish the world’s first research-driven graduate university focused on sustainable energy, which is called the Masdar Institute 

of Science and Technology. 

Investments by the Masdar Clean Tech Fund include U.S.-based 

DuraTherm, Enertech, Halosource, Nanogram Corporation, 

Segway, HelioVolt, and Solargenics. Colorado-based CH2MHill 

serves as program manager for the overall development of Masdar 

City, and there are more American innovators very much involved 

with the Masdar initiative. 

Things are happening fast at Masdar. We broke ground on 

Masdar City in February, 2008. Students are being enrolled in 

MIST. We invite you to come to Abu Dhabi and to see it all firsthand. I welcome our American friends and partners to join us. 

Thank you again for inviting me here today. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Al Jaber follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

53 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 78 62522A.035
54 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 79 62522A.036
55 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 80 62522A.037
56 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Now, we will move to our final witness, who is Steve Hewitt, who 

is the city administrator of Greensburg, Kansas. When this rural 

town in southwest Kansas was destroyed by a tornado last May, 

they chose to rebuild, not in the cheapest way, but the smartest 

way. Mr. Hewitt helped lead the charge to rebuild using energy-efficient building technology and green community principles. 

Greensburg intends to transform the wind that destroyed it into 

the power that will rebuild it. 

They recently received a sustainable cities award from the Financial Times and the Urban Land Institute, edging out all of the 

other communities in America. So that is quite a tribute to you. 

Whenever you are ready, Mr. Hewitt, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE HEWITT 

Mr. HEWITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Select Committee. I am Steve Hewitt, the city administrator of Greensburg, Kansas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Move the microphone in a little bit closer, please. 

Mr. HEWITT. Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today. 

I first want to start off with a small video about our community. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. HEWITT. Out of crisis emerges opportunity. As you saw, on 

May 4, 2007, an EF–5 tornado that was nearly two miles wide 

ripped though a community that was approximately 1,500 residents and destroyed nearly everything, from the schools to downtown to government buildings to infrastructure. 

Before the storm, this community was a community trying to get 

by, a rural community in western Kansas basically struggling to 

make sure that it can live and survive every day. What has happened since May 4 of 2007 is an opportunity. Through detailed 

planning, we now have an opportunity to plan a new community. 

Though planning, we are blessed with an opportunity to create 

a strong community devoted to family, fostering business and working together for future generations. Future generations and future 

decisions will come directly from our planning. 

We are focused on goals such as community, family, prosperity, 

environment, affordability, growth, renewal, water, health, energy, 

wind and our environment. We see this as an economic development tool as well. 

I cannot compete as a small town with much larger cities around 

our area. However, though, we see sustainability in the direction 

to build a community green as an opportunity to foster new businesses and green-collar jobs, something that we feel is smart. 

Building back a community fiscally responsibly and being smart 

with your tax dollars is building green. Sometimes it is a struggle, 

but it is the smart thing to do. 

In good decisions on infrastructure, buildings, and energy plan, 

we want to be 100 percent renewable 100 percent of the time. We 

have a wind energy plan that will feed our energy in our community. And then we will buy energy from the grid when wind is not 

blowing that is renewable 100 percent of the time. We think that 

is innovative. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

57 

To prove our point, our city council passed a resolution that was 

devoted to making sure all our community buildings are built at 

the highest level of sustainability. We feel like our opportunity is 

to show the world that building a community smart, with 

walkability, connecting our community, and sustainability, is the 

right decision with our tax dollars. It is smart for future generations, productivity, energy, and health. It is the right thing to do. 

We hope our decision to go green and to build a sustainable community will help future communities hopefully do the same thing. 

In conclusion, we are trying to be a model sustainable community that creates opportunities that didn’t happen before that do 

happen now. We accept this opportunity. We are blessed with it 

and we hope to build a community that is better in the future. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Hewitt follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

58 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 85 62522A.038
59 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 86 62522A.039
60 

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

We thank all of our witnesses. 

Now, we are going to turn to questions from the select committee 

members. The chair will recognize himself. 

Mr. Hewitt, you have brought us one of the most inspirational 

stories that I think Congress has ever heard. Rather than leaving, 

the community has decided to stay and to rebuild and create a 

model for the United States and for the rest of the world in using 

green technologies. 

What is the role that the federal government is playing in your 

redevelopment of the community using these green principles? 

Mr. HEWITT. Unfortunately, when building the community back, 

it is expensive. When you make smart decisions, the up-front costs 

are obviously a percentage higher. But the long-term savings are 

evident, and you can see those. We have been told by some agencies that they will not fund our rebuilding efforts at the highest 

level of sustainability. It doesn’t make sense to them, and to be a 

little bit more moderate. 

Unfortunately, that is not our direction, so we have gaps. We are 

still going to fill those gaps. We would like to partner-up with the 

government so that as communities rebuild or try to grow, that any 

tax dollars they use, it is the smart decision to build it sustainable. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what you are saying is that there are some 

federal agencies that don’t want to help you to reach the platinum 

level, the best level of energy efficiency in the buildings that you 

are constructing. Is that correct? 

Mr. HEWITT. That is correct. Let me be very clear. The government has been very helpful and they will continue to be helpful in 

the future in our rebuilding efforts. However, our decision to build 

platinum, the LEED platinum, the highest level you can build in 

sustainability, has come with resistance from certain agencies. 

The CHAIRMAN. What I would recommend to the members of the 

select committee is that we write a letter to those federal agencies 

and we urge them to help Greensburg reach the highest levels of 

efficiency so that it can be a model to the rest of the country. I 

would urge the members. I am going to circulate a letter so that 

we tell the federal agencies that if we have a community willing 

to pay this huge price in terms of their personal commitment after 

the community is destroyed, the least that we can do as a federal 

government is to help them to reach the best standards that our 

country can provide. 

If they are willing to be the leader, I think that we should have 

a federal government willing to follow. So I am going to write that 

letter and circulate it to the members so that we send it off to the 

federal agencies. 

What has been the most extraordinary result, Mr. Hewitt, of this 

decision that you have made to rebuild Greensburg as the greenest 

community in the United States? 

Mr. HEWITT. I think the fact that a community that was struggling and was unsure, it would be very easy to pick up your insurance check and move to a community that was a community. There 

is no community. As you can see, it was completely destroyed. But 

we have all ages and all levels of different people that want to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

61 

come back. They are vested in their community. They want to see 

it rebuilt. 

One example is a few different senior couples, and they are retired—it would be very easy for them to leave town and go to a 

community where their kids or grandkids were at. It is exciting to 

know that they have committed to come back to the community 

and build a home that is energy efficient and green. 

There are also young students that are now talking about, with 

the new opportunities and economic development and green jobs, 

they want to go to school and come back and work in their community. It really is changing the face of rural America. Rural America 

has struggled because of being away from supplies, and the cost of 

fuel. But we still believe it is the right thing and the right direction 

because the long-term savings are our main goal. 

The CHAIRMAN. And what lessons do you think other rural communities in America can learn from Greensburg’s experience? 

Mr. HEWITT. I believe the biggest thing is that as a community, 

you decide the direction. Through community planning, and I believe Smart Growth is evidence of that, you decide the direction 

and you decide how you want to see your community rebuild. By 

taking the decisions we have done, you can have community wind. 

You can have new energy to help power your community. 

You can use sustainable designs in your government buildings, 

as well as your schools, your hospitals, so that you are not reliant 

on so many outside sources. You can shop local. You can spend 

your tax dollars locally. I think that can help revitalize rural America which is struggling so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank you, Mr. Hewitt, for your leadership and for everyone’s leadership in Greensburg. I think because 

of the leadership of the citizens of your community, Greensburg is 

going to become the most appropriately named community in the 

United States and an example to every other community that 

wants to go down a new energy path. We thank you. 

I now turn and recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for his questions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hewitt, I want to follow up with you on a couple of points. 

Obviously, I know it makes sense in many cases, having been in 

small business 21 years, to make an up-front investment that may 

be more expensive in the short term, but pay off real dividends in 

the long term. 

Can you tell me, as you approach rebuilding Greensburg, the differential in construction costs from traditional rebuilding to the 

platinum level that you are trying to achieve? What is that upfront differential? And then what is the payback period? 

Mr. HEWITT. What we are seeing at this point in time is that the 

up-front costs range from—well, typically, it runs from 3 percent to 

5 percent additional for green building up front, and that payback 

is anywhere from 8 to 15 years depending on the level. What we 

are seeing in rural America is that that cost is actually running 

closer to 10 percent to 15 percent and higher in some cases. 

Mr. WALDEN. Which higher—on the payback period or on the 

construction? 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

62 

Mr. HEWITT. Up-front, I am sorry, on the up-front costs. The payback period then will be extended out to possibly 20 years. But I 

want to make something clear—that we are not building 20-year 

buildings. When we talk about government infrastructure, we are 

talking infrastructure that will last 100 years, or 100-year decisions. So we still see it as an excellent payback. 

But yes, there is a long-term payback and an up-front cost that 

is significantly higher in some cases in rural America. 

Mr. WALDEN. And then let me ask you about the energy costs. 

If I heard you correctly, you said that you are going to put in wind 

energy generation, sell that into the grid as a surplus, but then buy 

only green energy off the grid. Is that for everybody in the community or just the government buildings? 

Mr. HEWITT. That is for everyone in the community. We own the 

electrical utility. We produce our wind and sell it to the grid and 

then through a power agreement we purchase renewable energy 

back for all our citizens. 

Mr. WALDEN. And how have you been able to negotiate the sale 

into the grid of the power—at what rate? And then what is your 

expected costs coming off the grid for green energy only? Will that 

be all wind? 

Mr. HEWITT. No. It would actually be wind and some hydro as 

well. How we are doing that is through our local power pool. Our 

pool has made a commitment they are willing to buy the wind from 

us. We are currently negotiating at what rate they will purchase 

that from us. We will purchase that back from them because they 

have the ability to sell us hydropower when the wind is not blowing. They want to increase their renewable portfolio as well as we 

do. 

So it is a partnership that continues. We hope to wrap that up. 

But we feel very confident in our early negotiations that this is 

definitely a community wind project that can be replicated in other 

communities. 

Mr. WALDEN. So how many megawatts of wind power do you anticipate generating? 

Mr. HEWITT. Well, our community is a small community. We are 

currently going to start with probably four megawatts of power for 

a small community of 1,500 people. 

Mr. WALDEN. And four megawatts will satisfy all the energy 

needs of your community? 

Mr. HEWITT. At this point in time, yes. Obviously, we hope to 

grow, but at this point that will satisfy our needs. 

Mr. WALDEN. And that is the plate power production, not the 

firm load, right? 

Mr. HEWITT. That four megawatts would handle us at a peak 

load. Our average load before the storm was closer to three 

megawatts, but to handle larger loads, we will have four 

megawatts. 

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. So the power that you would purchase would 

be a mix of hydro and wind energy? 

Mr. HEWITT. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. In the Northwest, as my friend and colleague from 

Oregon can tell you, that is a lot of the mix we have, with the 

hydro system that we have, and it is upwards of I think 60 percent 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

63 

of our power is hydro, and then we have been very aggressive in 

our wind energy development. They work well together. The hydro 

almost works as a battery, because you can store some of the 

water, and then when the wind isn’t blowing, you can release a little more and rely on the hydro. 

But we still have to back that up with peak generation power 

from natural gas and obviously a lot from coal. So your system 

wouldn’t use either natural gas or coal, then? 

Mr. HEWITT. That is our goal—not to use any fossil fuel or coal. 

Mr. WALDEN. That is terrific. That is terrific. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your input and good luck in your reconstruction effort. That is a monumental task and a great set for the rest of the 

country to observe and learn from. Thank you. 

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

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hewitt, I just wonder what your calculations are going to 

look like when the evidence is that oil prices are going to continue 

to go up. There will be costs associated with carbon no matter who 

is elected president. There is an effort to control or have a carbonconstrained economy. And we are looking at utility rates for gas 

and electricity that are going up dramatically. 

I am wondering what your calculations are going to look like. I 

would be willing to bet you a lunch that the payback period is actually going to get shorter, not longer, as technology is enhanced, and 

we are looking at models like Abu Dhabi. What we are looking at 

in our community with the green buildings, the premium that is 

attached to it, the payback periods appear to be getting shorter. So 

I am rooting for you to continue. 

I deeply appreciate the chairman’s suggestion that we encourage 

the federal partners to get real about these opportunities, particularly because you have been sort of a show-piece. But I think that 

it is a profound policy adjustment that we ought to explore because 

natural disasters are escalating. We are seeing more of them here. 

The evidence from climate change is that the horror that was visited on your community is something that we are going to be seeing more, not less, even if we start turning this carbon ship 

around. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a policy adjustment that bears 

serious analysis. 

I appreciate your bringing it forward, Mr. Hewitt. 

I must say that I am impressed with the model of Abu Dhabi. 

We are having a number of people from Oregon that are traipsing 

over and being part of the team to encourage the streetcar as part 

of your long-term formulation, and we look forward to having a 

chance to accept one of the invitations we have been receiving to 

look at it on the ground. 

Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat perplexed by the testimony from 

Mr. Cohen who is suggesting something that nobody is suggesting, 

that the United States government be some sort of mega-zoning 

board, but instead start changing the incentives and the priorities, 

how we behave as a government. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

64 

I have legislation that I will circulate in draft form to each of the 

members of the committee that talks about a VMT land-use strategy on the part of the federal government, to get your feedback before it is introduced, because I think it is absolutely not anything 

you are talking about, Mr. Cohen. I don’t know people that are 

making that argument that the federal government—it is not something that we have done in Portland, Oregon, as you are well 

aware. 

We have given people choices in Oregon, but the most effective 

trip is the trip not taken. If we can enhance urban environments, 

if we can deal with the problems of small-town America, everybody 

is going to benefit. But I will circulate that to you and each member of the committee, and invite your feedback. 

But I wondered if I could just invite comment from Mr. Goldberg 

or Mr. Winkelman about the federal policies that you think ought 

to be adjusted to be able to promote that smarter growth. I mentioned the federal government and the goofiness of GSA and INS 

locating something miles from the central city. Do you have other 

thoughts about policies and adjustments that would reinforce what 

you are saying? 

Mr. WINKELMAN. As I mentioned, I think one of the biggest opportunities is looking at the big pot of money that we will spend 

on transportation infrastructure. The zeitgeist is really to look at 

system performance, performance metrics. There have been a couple of national commissions looking at this set of issues. So having 

greenhouse gas emission considerations be part of that I think is 

key. 

Also, if we are going to ask state and local governments to do 

something new, they need the proper tools, resources and data and 

models to plan, implement and measure. So transportation spending is a key influencer of land-use and therefore VMT. So it is a 

critical part of the solution. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Goldberg. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Certainly I appreciate Mr. Blumenauer’s comments, noting that no one has called for a federal mandate or federal dictate to the local government. We strongly believe in local 

home rule and in community empowerment, and communities 

being able to make their own decisions about how they grow. We 

strongly encourage them to think ahead about that growth and not 

just let it happen to them. 

We would back up also the post–World War II era when we came 

out of World War II and we adopted a whole lot of policies that basically put us on a path of car dependence. We have been going 

along that route now for several decades, and the headlines I was 

reading to you before demonstrate we have reached a point where 

that is not working anymore. The federal government now can back 

away from promoting some of those policies and begin to support 

the communities that are exploring ways. 

In fact, the federal government already has done some of that 

through the EPA’s Smart Growth division, supporting communities 

who are exploring innovative ways to accommodate their growth in 

ways that make a community stronger and preserve their existing 

assets. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Goldberg. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

65 

I would just note, Mr. Chairman, in closing, that after World 

War II, FHA would not finance developments like the livable community that you grew up in. It was single-home detached housing, 

not mixed-use, for instance. So in effect, our financing mechanism 

doomed people to a fall-in development pattern and the congestion 

that concerns Mr. Cohen’s members. 

Thank you. 

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

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Al Jaber, I am intrigued about Masdar City. I have seen 

shots of it from the air on television. It is one of the most amazing 

feats. Congress will need to pass something to have a ninth wonder 

of the world. I am going to introduce that bill on your behalf. 

[Laughter.] 

It would appear to me that Greensburg, Kansas may be the only 

city in the nation that is moving toward what you are doing. I am 

just curious about the vision of that city. Something you said in 

your statement, which was I think intriguing also, and that is that 

this will be a platform for long-term innovation, which means what 

is being done now is not the end of where you are going. 

Is there a vision of where you ultimately will go in terms of the 

development of Masdar City? Has someone already envisioned 

2030? 

Mr. AL JABER. We have a clear objective through the development of Masdar City. One objective is to make renewables become 

good parity as soon as we can. That is one clear objective we have. 

Our other objective is that by developing Masdar City, we want the 

city to become a model that can be affordable, applicable and transferable to other nations and other cities around the world. 

It will be a long-term investment and it will be a platform for 

long-term innovation. What we are experiencing today is that the 

commodities that we are integrating in the Masdar City development are actually available, but with the current commodities that 

we have access to today in the market do not actually achieve our 

objectives of making it today a zero-carbon emission city. But with 

the integration of all the technologies together, we will be able to 

achieve a carbon-neutral city. 

Now, our objective is by implementing these technologies, by deploying these technologies on the large scale of a city like Masdar 

City, is to make these technologies, once implemented, produce zero 

carbon emissions from day one. That is a long-term objective, but 

it is something that we are very much committed to developing. 

Mr. CLEAVER. We have an ideological discussion any time we talk 

about anything here in this country. We don’t want the government 

to get involved. And then there is the let’s protect the businesses. 

Your country is rich in oil. I am wondering if the oil barons are 

fighting the concept, saying that the government is trying to tell 

people how to live and where to live and so forth. 

Mr. AL JABER. As a matter of fact, what we are finding is a phenomenal positive response and support, as well as commitment 

from the senior leadership. They see a natural extension for our involvement in the global energy market. They see a logical step for 

us to venture into this. This is considered to be a nation-building 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

66 

exercise that will continue our environmental stewardship, as well 

as our leadership in the global energy markets. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Is it possible that you could export to our country 

some of your business people to conduct workshops with the big oil 

companies, sing kum-ba-yah, and then listen to what you are experiencing? I am being facetious, but in a way I am just so awed by 

what is going on, and then I look at what we are doing and the 

push-back we get on everything related to the real need for us to 

change the way we live here in this country and change our policies, and look toward the future. 

So I appreciate very much your presence here today. I apologize. 

I am running back and forth between committees, and I will return, but I just have to have an opportunity to discuss with you 

what is going on and what I think is one of the most amazing 

projects in the world right now. 

Mr. AL JABER. Thank you. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Solis. 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you. 

I want to thank the panelists for your time and your commitment, especially to the Honorable Steve Hewitt for coming out and 

being so brave to tell us exactly what your community is doing. 

I just wanted to mention that in the area that I represent, it is 

very heavily low-income and struggling all the time. We almost feel 

like we don’t have enough resources to do anything either. But I 

give credit to you the political will, the courage that the residents 

have there, and you in terms of foresight, to see something like 

that happen, that renewable energy would really be a part of the 

community. 

I run up against some of our local schools who are now passing 

bonds, using that money to restructure and restore old school 

buildings, but are somehow not able to utilize the highest quality 

renewable technology to make their schools green. So we do have 

a problem with a lot of our agencies, as well as some of our state 

and local agencies that are not also flexible in terms of allowing for 

people to hit that gold standard. I know that that is going to be 

a challenge for us. 

You have already been asked how the federal government might 

be able to help, and I am more than happy to help do that as well. 

I am very intrigued by your thought about creating green-collar 

jobs. You know, last year the president signed into law in December a bill that would help provide for $125 million. 

It hasn’t been appropriated yet, but it would be helping to singleout communities like yours that would be eligible for funding so 

that we could have a pathway to careers that allow people then to 

come back home and actually those that want to stay there can get 

into a job career that provides incentives in the solar energy area, 

renewable energy, biofuels and everything. I just wondered if you 

are aware of that as of now. 

Mr. HEWITT. I wasn’t aware of that exact bill, but I will definitely 

look into that. We are looking for incentives to bring in the biofuels 

and the renewable products that can be manufactured in our community. Thank you very much. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

67 

Ms. SOLIS. Right. Thank you. 

And to Mr. Cohen, I didn’t hear anything about some other models that have been used by the federal government. One as of late 

that is trying to be imposed upon L.A. County and parts of San 

Bernardino is this whole issue of congestion pricing. I just want to 

get your thoughts if you have any idea if that is one of the ways 

that we should be going to try to change behavior and convert our 

HOV lanes to toll lanes. 

Mr. COHEN. My view is that we should not price existing lanes 

that have been paid for with taxpayer dollars, but that we should 

consider tolling and pricing for new capacity. If you have an underutilized HOV lane, then perhaps it might be a better use of space 

to make it a hot-lane and allow HOV riders to ride free and others 

to pay a toll as long as you keep the road moving. 

But we strongly oppose the administration’s efforts to toll the 

Interstates, cordon price areas of town. I think it is particularly 

painful on the poor, those who don’t have the luxury of choosing 

when they go to work. Frankly, I think that the administration 

sometimes feels that many trips are not important, but when you 

ask people who are taking those trips is your trip was important, 

they feel it was. So I would be opposed in general, with some exceptions, to congestion pricing of our existing capacity. 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Al Jaber, I wanted to just ask you, I don’t know much about 

the area that this planned renewable community is being structured, but I would like to get an idea about what the economics are 

there and the wealth, and what revenue is being used to help sustain this and to provide for the growth there. I mean, where is that 

revenue coming from? 

Mr. AL JABER. Well, as you know, the Masdar City development 

is being seeded by the government of Abu Dhabi, and we are 

leveraging those funds with international partnerships through the 

private sector companies that are interested in being part of the 

Masdar initiative. 

Ms. SOLIS. When you say ‘‘the government,’’ do you mean also 

that oil revenue is also being used then to help provide for this infrastructure? 

Mr. AL JABER. What better investment would we ever have to invest oil revenues into securing the future energy? 

Ms. SOLIS. I would hope that that is something that other partners in the Arab League would also look at and adopt. 

And then one question I have is also the creation of opportunities 

for people to get into these kinds of technologies. I am really looking more at your labor force, because you have a very growing, diverse population, and in many cases I understand you have to import labor. Is that the case here, where you had to import labor to 

help structure this facility? Or did you have an ample labor force 

already available? 

Mr. AL JABER. Well, the construction is going to happen with existing companies that already have access to their labor workforce 

within Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates and the DCC 

countries. The way the city is going to be structured is going to be 

very sustainable from day one. We are building our own sustainmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

68 

able labor workforce housing that is going to be absolutely sustainable. 

Ms. SOLIS. Okay. 

I don’t know if I am over. Do I still have 1 minute? 

I wanted to ask Mr. Goldberg, you know, some of our smaller 

communities really are trying their hardest to focus on Smart 

Growth. In fact, the community I am thinking about right now is 

an older 1930s community that is actually revitalizing two-story 

buildings that have now been reinforced. They were brick, actually, 

which isn’t great for California because of earthquakes, but they 

have been able to restructure that and really create kind of a transit and more mobile community for seniors. 

Can you maybe elaborate on some of those schemes that have actually been working well? How are they able to negotiate zoning 

and things like that? Sometimes you get a whole lot of folks that 

say NIMBY, I don’t want this to happen; I don’t want more people 

coming into my community. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Well, it can be difficult many times for developers and many developers around the country are trying to help 

these areas revitalize and become more walkable and meet this demand that I mentioned before. 

In many places, we have a set of zoning codes that were actively 

promulgated by the federal government back in the last century 

that mandate the separation of uses that says that the houses go 

over here, apartments go over here, or maybe they are not even allowed, and shopping goes over here, schools and businesses and all 

are completely separated so that we have to drive from one to the 

other. 

Actually, it can take a series of variances and many, many meetings and many opportunities for the community to speak out in 

order to get these changes done. 

What has worked very well in many communities is to think 

ahead and to say, all right, the denser development, the walkable 

neighborhoods, they go here. Here is how we want them to look. 

And over here, if it is a single-family neighborhood that we don’t 

want to change, it stays that way. 

So then developers know where to go, and you make it easier for 

them to do what you consider to be the right thing. The icing on 

the cake is if you also happen to have the transit investment there 

that makes it really work for people. 

Ms. SOLIS. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER [off mike]. 

Ms. SOLIS. I would also like to ask our next speaker, Steve, if you 

could maybe elaborate also, Mr. Winkelman, regarding Smart 

Growth. I mean, it is something that is very timely. In fact, the 

California state legislature is proposing giving out special funding 

for targeted communities who integrate transit villages and Smart 

Growth. I just want to get your reaction to that. What other states 

are doing that? I think Oregon is or Oregon has, and others that 

are innovative, but what can we do to help incentivize some of our 

states? 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Thank you. Actually, a couple of months ago I 

testified to the California Resources Board on this set of issues. 

They come to the same set of conclusions as I lay out in my graphs 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

69 

that basically you can’t get there from here without dealing with 

vehicle miles traveled. 

One of the points, going to your last question to David in terms 

of local zoning, local governments need tools to change zoning. 

They may have one person in their zoning office who needs model 

code, needs some help to do things that people want and to engage 

the community to understand this. If we really want to do this, we 

need to provide the right tools and resources. 

So there are a host of policy measures that can help, ranging 

from local, state and regional. California has these blueprint planning grants starting from the Sacramento region’s planning efforts, 

where a community does a visioning process that says how can our 

community grow, and what will that means for things that people 

care about—congestion, air quality, how much they spend on fuel. 

One of the interesting things, if we look at cost and how the federal government will spend money on climate change, I calculate 

for the Sacramento region a negative $200 per ton CO2 from the 

Smart Growth policies. ‘‘Negative cost’’ means that it is a net savings for society with reduced infrastructure costs, reduced costs. If 

you look at carbon capture and storage, $30 a ton; ethanol, $200 

a ton. 

So if we ask the climate question for new things that we build 

or plan and say what does that do to emissions, we will get very 

far and find common sense solutions that actually can reduce costs. 

Ms. SOLIS. Do either of you have an idea of how this model would 

work in, say, low-income and depressed communities that are really on the edge there? If there are any models out there where you 

have seen this change, this metamorphosis that has actually taken 

place. Because that is really I think something that a lot of members of Congress are trying to grasp is how can we revitalize our 

low-income communities that continue to kind of be out there on 

the edge and not really have the tools to prepare for this. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Well, a couple of things need to happen. One is 

that we have had a tradition of low-income people isolated in areas 

of poverty. We have I think begun to address a lot of the policies 

that caused that to happen, but we haven’t addressed them all. 

One of them is the habit of zoning out people from certain areas 

and not allowing to be built the kinds of housing that would support them. 

The other aspect is giving them access to jobs and making sure 

that they have the transportation that actually works for them. 

That means that they don’t have to own and maintain a car or 

multiple cars in a low-income household to be able to get around. 

Ms. SOLIS. So there almost has to be a plan overall that integrates all that so that it is built in from the beginning. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. We are seeing around the country so much demand now for closer-in housing that we are going to have to figure 

out some really creative ways to provide housing that is affordable, 

not just to low-income people, but also to teachers and firefighters 

and people who are making working-class wages. 

Ms. SOLIS. Right. Okay. Thank you. 

Did you want to comment, Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I appreciate it. Let me provide a different view. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

70 

You mention that a lot of people don’t like to see their area densify. I was recently at a Senate briefing. Mr. Winkelman was there 

with me. The community experience has been that people don’t like 

sprawl and people don’t like densification. The problem is that 

those are the two options that are provided. 

So I admire the Smart Growth community in using terms like 

‘‘sprawl’’ for bad things, but the reality is that communities also 

when they understand the densification and congestion that could 

come from their plans, are not happy with those. 

The other issues you mentioned was low-income communities. 

Another reality is that Smart Growth communities, many are extremely unaffordable. This is a very serious problem with Smart 

Growth development. It might be cool to live in a community with 

mixed-use housing and be able to buy your latte and bike to it, but 

these communities typically are priced out of range for folks who 

you are wanting to serve. 

Ms. SOLIS. I think that is going to be our challenge, because we 

do want to integrate all our communities, especially communities 

of color. We want to create jobs. We want to create incentives so 

that there is a clean environment for them, and they should not be 

short-changed on any of this. So some of us feel very strongly about 

that and will work very hard to see that the models can be replicated everywhere, especially in rural communities as well where 

access and affordability also is a high standard. 

I think it can all be done. I really do believe that we can start 

addressing the issue. And because of energy costs, people want to 

stay closer to where they work and live. So that is forcing behavior 

to change right now in my state of California. That is all I can tell 

you. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate what you are saying in that regard. One of the things that you run into problems is that you have 

to link transportation and housing costs together. In California, 

you had people move further and further and further away. They 

may save a little on housing, but they end up paying more in total 

because they spend so much time and money in transportation. 

So I think part of what the Smart Growth advocates are talking 

about is integrating those pieces together. If we actually have communities that are well planned and integrated, it actually can end 

up reducing total costs for people. 

I was listening to Mr. Cohen’s comment. I have had the same experience where in these big planning meetings you find people are 

opposed to only two things: sprawl and density. But I also find that 

when you, in the planning like you have in Abu Dhabi or you are 

talking about doing in Greensburg, when it is put together in a 

way that is reasonable, people love it. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Cohen’s concerns, in our community the 

most valuable real estate is those areas that have regained their 

historic population levels. Most communities, yours and mine, actually have far fewer people than they had a generation ago. What 

we have is two or three times more cars, so that people have the 

congestion on the roads. They have the traffic. They are concerned. 

It is not the people, it is the cars. The real estate market suggests 

that those are in fact the most valuable areas. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

71 

If you are done, I am going to go to just the last couple of questions to the panel before we adjourn, because I do think that it is 

important for us to think about this comprehensively in ways that 

will give people choices. We haven’t talked about the demographic 

shock-wave that is about to hit our communities. We quote in our 

survey here Dr. Chris Nelson, who has some other fascinating research that talks about how our households—and some of us great 

up in the ‘‘Leave It To Beaver’’ era where half the families had children. We are going into an era where by 2030 when there will be 

more single person households than families with children, and the 

impact that that is going to have is one that I think is worthy of 

our consideration. 

I would like to invite our panelists to move away from the transportation side of the equation when we are dealing with Smart 

Growth. I appreciated the experience in Abu Dhabi. You are talking about being a net producer of energy and reduce or recycle the 

water. We are finding in communities across the country just as 

much concern about the rise in gas prices is the utility costs—the 

line loss for electric power extension, the costs for water and gas 

transmission are all going up. 

I am curious if there are observations, and we can just go down 

the row here or out witnesses, about the impacts we are going to 

have with saving land, because if we don’t start having more compact development in this country, we are going to take another 68 

million acres that will give us a developed footprint in this country 

about the size of Texas if we don’t change things. I wonder if we 

can start with our Smart Growth advocates and go down and conclude with the Greensburg notion of what you are doing with the 

footprint on land utilization, if you wouldn’t mind—footprint, water 

and energy. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. I think one thing that we are going to find is 

that we really don’t have the luxury of developing 80 percent of our 

commercial area as parking anymore, surface parking. Taking the 

land for that particular use is terrible for the watershed. It exacerbates urban heat islands, and it is a big waste. In fact, I think we 

are going to see that recycling parking lots, redeveloping these old 

shopping centers into places that are actually inhabitable villages 

is going to be one of the big solutions that we will find. 

If we just go out on the orange line and look at Arlington, they 

were able with advanced planning to get the community together 

and support what would happen around those transit stations out 

there, and leave the single-family neighborhoods alone. They got 

the development that they wanted, where they wanted it, and they 

were able to keep the other places the way they wanted them, with 

the result that there is significantly less traffic than anybody 

thought there would be because they are managing the parking 

very well. In just 7 percent of the land area, they are receiving 

about one-third or more of their tax revenues. So this can be a win 

on several different levels. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Thank you. I commend the organization of this 

panel because when you talk about Smart Growth, what gets built 

are buildings. If we look at the climate change issue, we walk 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

72 

about mitigation, reducing emissions, and then adaptation, and 

how do you start to increase your resilience to the impacts. 

When we look at green buildings, those issues really come together. You have the efficiency, savings from transportation, building energy use, building water use savings, and then when you integrate green roofs and building materials, you can start to mitigate the impacts of urban heat islands. So it is really looking at 

how these issues come together to make us more resilient to the 

impacts of climate change. 

We are seeking urban leaders adaptation initiatives working 

with communities around the country to find where are those overlaps between energy and greenhouse gas emissions reductions and 

measures that strengthen a community’s resilience to the impacts 

of climate change, whether it is the flooding we are seeing in the 

Midwest now or the fires in California. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. All these things are nice things. They all cost money. 

The reality is we have to look at them on a cost-per-carbon-reduced 

basis, if that is the goal. If the goal is to maximize the amount of 

carbon we can reduce with the dollars we have, then we can do a 

lot of these things. 

So I think that is a really important thing, to focus on not the 

things that are cool, but the things that we are getting the most 

bang for our buck. Some of these ideas probably fit in within these 

IPCCs recommended estimate of $50 per cost or $50 per ton removed. So I think if we focus on those things, we can do a lot. 

I don’t agree, respectfully, that we have a land shortage in the 

country or that we should ration land. While I don’t have my statistics with me, I would be happy to provide for the record information on land available in this country, but I think we might just 

disagree, and respectfully, at that. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I would welcome that. It is not a shortage of land. It is going back to your criterion about effective development in terms of the cost and consequences for the utility lines, 

for the pollution, for the congestion, for taking away other infrastructure investments for the movement of freight. 

So I welcome your assessment of land, but it is things that have 

environmental and real-life consequences to continue paving. So if 

you put them both together, I would appreciate it. 

Doctor. 

Mr. AL JABER. As far as we are concerned, we are very much 

aligned with your thoughts. But let us go back to Abu Dhabi as an 

example. A couple of years ago, Abu Dhabi announced the launch 

of the new Abu Dhabi 2030 urban plan. It is simply an urban 

framework structure that will implement new criteria for the new 

developments in Abu Dhabi. 

Now, in order for Abu Dhabi to continue its planned growth, and 

in order for Abu Dhabi to continue meeting its energy requirements, we have no way of doing it except by us being able to be 

more energy efficient and conserve energy and develop cities that 

are more compact. 

Let’s go back in time, 200 years ago when we had no access to 

oil, no access to the wealth we have access to today—our grand-, 

grand-, grand-, grandparents. How did they live? They lived very, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

73 

very efficiently. Their homes were very compact. They were very 

close to each other, with narrow streets, all shadowed, automated 

air conditioning through this bargil structure. 

Now, we are not saying let’s go back and revisit the way we used 

to build our cities before, but we have to be very energy efficient. 

We have to conserve energy and we have to conserve water and we 

can use that as a model for us moving forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hewitt. 

Mr. HEWITT. When we went through our comprehensive master 

plan, which is very important—planning in a comprehensive way 

is the right thing to do. We talked about land use. Land use is very 

important. Our footprint as a community, it would be very easy for 

people to begin to add mini-lots and expand their properties. That 

is actually against our comprehensive plan. 

We think that the density and the connectivity of a community 

is very important. Without that, you are fragmented, and that 

struggles with parks and schools. We understood that the footprint 

of our current community can handle much more growth than we 

ever had before if we plan correctly. 

So your Smart Growth methods are exactly the right decisions 

for Greensburg because Greensburg is not just looking at long-term 

planning that deals with future decisions, but the future of the 

present decisions, and that is important to us. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Hewitt, we have been working for years to try 

to get Congress and America to move in the direction that your 

community has. We as a country don’t have the luxury of a tornado. We don’t have this sort of life-altering event. We just have 

this slow, long-term collapse of the climatic system of the earth to 

deal with. I hate to think of a tornado as a cleansing thing because 

you had such a disaster, but it apparently did give you a chance 

to change the direction of your community. 

Can you just give us any thoughts that we can share with our 

colleagues about what insights this whole experience gave you and 

your community that you might not have had but for that disaster? 

Mr. HEWITT. It is sometimes hard to believe that an opportunity 

can come from such a devastating event. However, though, in our 

decisions, we understand that the world is watching us. The decisions we are making as a community hopefully can be replicated. 

So that is one of the biggest issues we have battled, is that what 

happens to communities that don’t have devastation that are just 

surviving, but want to thrive and revitalize their community. One 

of the things we see is education. In green building and sustainability, you have to educate, which is a struggle in rural America, 

especially in rural Kansas. 

It is educating contractors, suppliers, engineers, architects that 

you have to step outside the box of your normal routine and think 

about educating and connecting people and collaborating together 

so that the growth and sustainability rebuild of our community can 

be replicated in a community that says, okay, we are going to build 

a new city hall and we have the tax dollars saved up from all these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

74 

years. How do we do it in our budget? Where can we find the information about it? How can we do things, from all infrastructure 

from schools to hospitals? 

We are hoping that what we are doing in rural America in Kansas right now can be one step forward in the education process so 

that communities can revitalize themselves without a disaster happening. 

Mr. INSLEE. So I know a homebuilder in my community, it is actually my oldest son, if he wants to come and do volunteer work 

to learn how to do some green building in his community, can he 

do that? 

Mr. HEWITT. Absolutely. We would love to bring anybody out to 

learn from our mistakes, from our successes, from our growing experience that hopefully that builders, contractors, suppliers, architects can hopefully take something back to their community and 

see that this is a good thing for them. 

Mr. INSLEE. Are you receiving any sort of additional federal assistance because of this green commitment that you have made? 

Mr. HEWITT. No. We actually have larger gaps because we are 

going in this direction. We have been told by some agencies that 

they will not fund the level of sustainability that we want to go towards. 

Mr. INSLEE. So given your extraordinary commitment, wouldn’t 

it make some sense for the U.S. to look at this as a test case and 

have a little federal help for you along this way? 

Mr. HEWITT. We think it would be a perfect test case. We would 

encourage all government agencies, schools and hospitals, to take 

a hard look at what we are doing because we do believe it is the 

future that is in Smart Building. 

Mr. INSLEE. You know, the fellow to your right, Dr. Al Jaber 

from Abu Dhabi, they have sort of made this test-case city, and we 

have this really impressive brochure that I have taken a look at. 

It just seems to me that the United States ought to be able to make 

a much smaller commitment in the heart of Kansas like this 

project in Abu Dhabi. I would like to talk to you when this is over 

maybe about a thought about that. 

Mr. HEWITT. Thank you. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. 

Dr. Al Jaber, this is kind of interesting. Your presence here is 

timely. We have a debate in this country right now. Some think 

that our answer to our energy woes is just drill more. You just drill 

more holes. You just drill more oil and gas wells, and that will 

solve the problem. We have this debate right now in Congress 

about that. 

Why hasn’t Abu Dhabi, sitting where it is, made that decision? 

Why have you decided to go a different route? 

Mr. AL JABER. Abu Dhabi is looking at it from a different perspective. In order for the world to be able to meet its energy requirements, we believe in a basket of solutions. Hydrocarbons will 

pay a role, but renewables are also going to be able to play a very 

important role. 

We are very much supporters of the world looking at it from a 

different angle now. It is no longer one or the other. It is a basket 

of solutions and it is a portfolio of energy sources. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

75 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I appreciate it. I will echo your comments in our next speech. Thank you very much. 

I want to ask Mr. Cohen. I want to brag because Mr. 

Blumenauer is too humble about his home town of Portland. Portland became I think the first major city to reduce its vehicle miles 

per person driven in America’s history. I think that happened in 

2007. They did it through a combination of good planning, which 

includes some very nice density, public transportation, and just a 

very coordinated approach to try to reduce vehicle miles driven per 

person. 

Did they do anything wrong? 

Mr. COHEN. I think respectfully that they did for a number of 

reasons. One is that they created a growth boundary around the 

town that increased the price of land. Even though carbon per capita was reduced, as I mentioned in my testimony, congestion greatly increased because when you double-density and you reduce per 

capita VMT by, say, 20 percent, you are still increasing congestion. 

So I think that is a concern and that also increases the cost of living. 

Secondly, there is sort of a theory, I think an idealistic theory, 

that if we just went back 80 years and we lived in smaller communities with street cars and everyone lived close together that this 

would be a terrific way of life. As Billy Joel said, the good days 

weren’t always good, and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems. 

The suburban development that we have had created the prosperity in this country. The Interstate system created the prosperity 

in this country that has given us the wealth able to make the air 

quality and water quality progress that we have made in the last 

30 years. So just going back to the way things were with a revisionist idea of how ideal it was I think is seriously problematic. 

There are a lot of unintended consequences that we are not considering when we think in terms of pictures like that. 

Mr. INSLEE. I will just tell you that the view from up the I–5 corridor from Portland has had the most extraordinary success creating a livable community, attractive to all, that people are dying 

to get into to live in. If this congested area that you are talking 

about is seen as essentially an urban nirvana compared to most of 

the cities in the country, I don’t know when you have been to Portland recently, but you won’t have a nicer Saturday afternoon strolling and using public transportation in Portland, Oregon. You ought 

to come out, especially in July and August. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. When the rain is warmer. 

Mr. INSLEE. When the rain is warmer, yes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would refer Mr. Cohen to the Texas Transportation Institute, where according to them, our congestion is not 

getting worse; that proportionately it has actually been reduced 

compared to other major cities. So I would like to have your experience about how your assertion that our urban growth boundary has 

increased congestion, when places that don’t have urban growth 

boundaries have had worse congestion according to my information 

from the Texas Transportation Institute. I would like your evidence 

to back up your assertion. 

The second point I would make for your observation is that land 

prices were maintained, but housing prices have been more affordmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

76 

able than most other major cities. In this recent collapse when people are worried about not being able to sell their homes for what 

they are worth, for what their mortgages are, that we have maintained housing values. They haven’t been as high elsewhere, but 

they have been maintained. They haven’t been on the roller-coaster 

like in Las Vegas, which I would imagine you would think would 

be one of the best places. 

So I would like your evidence to the contrary about the congestion. I would like you to look at the Texas Transportation Institute 

and then look at what has happened actually with home values, because my evidence is slightly different than yours. I would like 

your evidence to the contrary to be a part of the record. 

Thank you. 

The last word, Mr. Winkelman? 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Thank you. 

If we look at congestion, we care about people more than we care 

about cars. So exposure to congestion is a metric that the Sacramento region has used. If you have more transportation choices 

and shorter trips, you spend less time in that congestion. 

I also want to make the point that the state departments of 

transportation across the country have an association called 

AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. They conclude that we have to cut VMT growth 

in half to deal with growing capacity needs. We can’t build our way 

out. There is not enough money, so they are actually supportive of 

Smart Growth principles, as well as system efficiency improvements to make the best use of existing infrastructure and take into 

account existing financial considerations. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. I would just also like to briefly note as somebody 

who lives in Atlanta and has for a long time and followed the 

growth and development there, that there are absolutely no constraints to growth in Atlanta. The growth has gone absolutely everywhere. They have built roads like mad and it is the lowest density major metro area in the country and it continues to move up 

in congestion ranks nevertheless. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And then there are issues of energy consumption and a whole host of things. 

Well, I appreciate the committee’s indulgence. I appreciate your 

kind words in defense of our beleaguered upper-left coast region. 

We appreciate the panel joining with us and adding an important 

dimension to the land-use and VMT planning consumption element 

of this. I think it is very useful, and your contributions have been 

very helpful, particularly given the bookends that we have had 

with Abu Dhabi and Greensburg. It is inspirational. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

77 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 128 62522A.040
78 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 129 62522A.041
79 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 130 62522A.042
80 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 131 62522A.043
81 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 132 62522A.044
82 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 133 62522A.045
83 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 134 62522A.046
84 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 135 62522A.047
85 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 136 62522A.048
86 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 137/300 62522A.049