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

76–057 2012

ENERGY TAX POLICY AND TAX REFORM 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES 

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

Serial No. 112–SRM04 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio, Chairman 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana, Chairman 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

TOM REED, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of September 22, 2011 announcing the hearing .................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

PANEL 1: 

The Honorable J. Russell George, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Washington, DC. .................................................. 7 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Mr. Richard E. Byrd, Jr., Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, 

Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC. ..................................................... 17 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

PANEL 2: 

Dr. Donald B. Marron, Director, Tax Policy Center, The Urban Institute, 

Washington, DC. .................................................................................................. 36 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 39 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 51 

Mr. Kevin Book, Managing Director, Research, Clearview Energy Partners, 

LLC, Washington, DC. ......................................................................................... 52 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 54 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 64 

Mr. Neil Z. Auerbach, Founder and Managing Partner, Hudson Clean Energy 

Partners, L.P., Teaneck, NJ. ............................................................................... 65 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 67 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 97 

Mr. Will Coleman, Partner, Mohr Davidow Ventures, Menlo Park, CA. ............ 98 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 100 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 111 

Mr. Tim Greeff, Political Director, Clean Economy Network, Washington, 

DC. ......................................................................................................................... 111 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 114 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 118 

PANEL 3: 

Mr. Andrew J. Littlefair, President and Chief Executive Officer, Clean Energy 

Fuels, Seal Beach, CA. ......................................................................................... 156 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 158 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 163 

Dr. Lawrence B. Lindsey, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Lindsey 

Group, Fairfax, VA. .............................................................................................. 119 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 121 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 129 

The Honorable Calvin Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chemistry Council, Washington, DC. ......................................................... 164 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 166 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 171 

Dr. David W. Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate 

Change, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC. ....................................... 172 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 174 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 184 

Mr. Hank Ziomek, Director of Sales, Titeflex Corporation, Springfield, MA. .... 185 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 187 

Truth in Testimony ....................................................................................... 191 

MEMBER QUESTION FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Peter Roskam ................................................................................. 206 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

A Royal Flush Inc. ................................................................................................... 207 

ACAA AHRI HARDI ................................................................................................ 209 

American Gas Association ....................................................................................... 216 

AGC Flat Glass ........................................................................................................ 219 

Algal Biomass .......................................................................................................... 223 

American 99ers ........................................................................................................ 231 

American Biogas Council ........................................................................................ 234 

American Public Power Association ....................................................................... 238 

Bridgeport Biodiesel ................................................................................................ 240 

Biomass Thermal Energy Council .......................................................................... 242 

CALSTART ............................................................................................................... 246 

Center for Fiscal Equality ....................................................................................... 252 

Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association .............. 258 

Cummins Westport Inc ........................................................................................... 260 

Delta Bulk Transport .............................................................................................. 261 

Edison Electric Institute ......................................................................................... 263 

Element Partners ..................................................................................................... 272 

Enviro Express ......................................................................................................... 279 

Environmental Working Group .............................................................................. 281 

Fox NAT GAS .......................................................................................................... 286 

Geothermal Energy Association ............................................................................. 288 

Hoopes Turf Farming .............................................................................................. 292 

Infinia Corp. ............................................................................................................. 294 

JP Noonan Transportation ...................................................................................... 297 

National Association of Home Builders ................................................................. 299 

National Association of the Remolding Industry .................................................. 309 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association .................................................. 311 

National Biodiesel Board ........................................................................................ 318 

National Propane Gas Association ......................................................................... 322 

Natural Gas Vehicles for America .......................................................................... 325 

National Hydropower Association .......................................................................... 336 

Propel Fuels ............................................................................................................. 341 

Public Power Council ............................................................................................... 344 

Rep. Sullivan ............................................................................................................ 347 

Earth Power Solutions ............................................................................................ 350 

Solar Energy Industries Association ...................................................................... 351 

Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio .................................................................. 358 

South Jersey Industries .......................................................................................... 363 

The American Institute of Architects ..................................................................... 364 

VAT Info.org ............................................................................................................. 369 

Window and Door Manufacturers Association ...................................................... 372 

Industrial Energy Consumers of America ............................................................. 377 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ENERGY TAX POLICY AND TAX REFORM 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Patrick Tiberi [chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue 

Measures] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Chairman Tiberi and Chairman Boustany 

Announce Joint Hearing on Energy Tax Policy 

and Tax Reform 

September 22, 2011 

Congressman Pat Tiberi (R–OH), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, and Congressman Charles Boustany (R–LA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, both of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the two Subcommittees will hold a joint hearing on the intersection 

of energy policy and tax policy, with a focus on the dual priorities of comprehensive 

tax reform and a sustainable energy policy that addresses our economic, security, 

and environmental needs. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 22, 2011, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building at 

9:30 A.M. 

The hearing was originally scheduled for 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, August 3, 

2011, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building, but was postponed. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A 

list of invited witnesses will follow. 

BACKGROUND: 

As part of the Ways and Means Committee’s tax reform agenda, the Committee 

and its Subcommittees intend to hold hearings on how comprehensive tax reform 

would affect particular sectors of the economy. Given the critical economic, security, 

and environmental considerations surrounding the energy sector, Chairman Camp 

requested that Chairmen Tiberi and Boustany begin with an inquiry into energy tax 

policy. The current Tax Code includes numerous provisions intended to advance various energy policy goals, including provisions dealing with production, efficiency, 

and conservation, and ranging from transportation fuels to electricity generation. 

There are three general views regarding energy tax policy. Some believe that 

many of these energy tax provisions are an effective and efficient way to advance 

important public policy goals. Others suggest that the current structure of energy 

tax incentives picks winners and losers, rather than applying technology-neutral 

tests that would encourage investment in the most promising technologies. Still others believe that the Tax Code should not subsidize energy at all, because doing so 

interferes with the free market and violates tax reform principles such as simplicity, 

fairness, and economic growth. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–5) included several provisions intended to promote so-called ‘‘green’’ energy. Among these were the 

Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit, the Residential Energy Efficient Property 

Credit, and various Plug-in Electric and Alternative Motor Vehicle Credits. The 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) subsequently reviewed 

IRS’s effectiveness in identifying and preventing erroneous claims for these credits 

during the 2010 tax return filing season. TIGTA issued two reports on its findings, 

which included millions of dollars in erroneously claimed credits and a lax review 

process that resulted in credits successfully claimed by children, prisoners, and others who did not qualify. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

On April 6, 2011, Rep. John Sullivan (R–OK) introduced H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of 2011. The 

bill currently has 184 bipartisan cosponsors, although a number of Members of Congress have removed their names as cosponsors. Referred primarily to the Ways and 

Means Committee, H.R. 1380 includes tax credits related to compressed and liquefied natural gas (CNG and LNG), including credits for the fuels themselves, credits 

for the purchase and production of vehicles powered by CNG and LNG, and credits 

for refueling property related to CNG and LNG. Whether such credits represent 

good energy policy or an intrusion into the free market has been the subject of vigorous debate. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Tiberi said, ‘‘Energy security and comprehensive tax reform are two of the most important priorities we can pursue to create jobs and ensure the long-term strength of the U.S. economy. 

As the committee with jurisdiction over energy tax policy, the Ways and 

Means Committee should examine whether there sometimes can be tension 

between these priorities, and how this Committee can design tax policies 

that achieve our energy security goals while also staying true to the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth that drive the Committee’s tax reform agenda.’’ 

Chairman Boustany said, ‘‘With so much of our energy policy driven by the 

Tax Code, comprehensive tax reform needs to consider whether these tax 

incentives promote a sound energy strategy. This hearing will examine 

how IRS implements and enforces rules on energy credits, and it will explore the role of the Tax Code in energy policy.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on the questions of whether energy policy should be conducted through the Tax Code, and if so, how best to design provisions that advance 

the principles of both sustainable energy policy and tax reform. In asking these 

questions, the hearing will conduct oversight of the administration of certain existing energy tax provisions to determine whether they have been implemented efficiently and effectively. It also will consider how the specific case of H.R. 1380, the 

NAT GAS Act, stacks up against the principles of tax reform and sustainable energy 

policy. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit written comments for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page 

of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here 

to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close 

of business on Thursday, October 6, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the 

change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical 

problems, please call (202) 225–3625 or (202) 225–2610. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman TIBERI. The hearing will come to order, a series of 

hearings on comprehensive tax reform. Today we will begin an examination of the energy tax policy and tax reform. I am glad this 

hearing will be a joint effort between the Select Revenue Measures 

Subcommittee and the Oversight Subcommittee. Both subcommittees play an important role in reviewing energy tax issues, the 

Oversight Subcommittee by examining the IRS’s administration of 

existing energy tax provisions, and the Select Revenue Measures 

Subcommittee by examining energy tax policies. 

Today’s hearing will feature three panels of witnesses. The first 

panel will examine the IRS’s administration of so-called energy 

green tax credits included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The second panel will examine different viewpoints on the proper role of the Tax Code in promoting energy policies. And finally, the third panel will examine H.R. 1380, the New 

Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solution Act of 2011, 

introduced by Representative John Sullivan of Oklahoma, and fellow member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee, Representative 

John Larson of Connecticut. 

I look forward to hearing from all three panels, so I will be brief 

and now yield to the ranking member of Select Revenue, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for conducting this hearing. 

Some may be surprised by how much the United States Government spends on energy policy through our Tax Code. According to 

the Energy Information Administration, for 2010 the value of direct 

federal financial interventions and subsidies in energy markets was 

estimated at about $37 billion. Of this total, about $16 billion, or 

approximately 44 percent, can be attributed to tax incentives. 

In calling this hearing today, the chairman is raising an important point that warrants consideration: Should we be pursuing energy policy through the Tax Code? And if so, how do we do so in 

the most effective manner? 

Over the years, Congress has enacted a number of energy tax incentives that have been quite successful. For example, the Recovery 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

Act included the 48© clean energy manufacturing tax credit, providing a 30 percent credit for investments in facilities that manufacture clean energy products. According to the Department of Energy, the $2.3 billion allocation of tax credits will result in more 

than 17,000 jobs. This investment will be matched by as much as 

$5.4 billion in private sector funding, likely supporting up to 41,000 

additional jobs. 

On the other hand, when I read in late July that the largest oil 

companies reported another quarter of profitability, with one company reporting a 97 percent increase in profits, I had to once again 

question whether some profitable companies really need taxpayer 

subsidies. We spent about $2 billion each year on subsidies for the 

largest oil companies. In this time of record deficits, do we really 

see this as a smart investment by the government? 

In focusing on oil production today, an interesting point to note 

is the emerging oil boom right here in the Americas. From Brazil 

to Argentina to Canada, even North Dakota, the Western Hemisphere is seeing an increase in oil discovery and production. This 

is a significant development that may ease our country’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil. 

So, I am glad we are having this conversation—and I emphasize 

the word ‘‘conversation,’’ Congress once worked upon the basis of 

a conversation—examining our energy tax provisions. And I look 

forward to the testimony of all our witnesses today. 

But I am also particularly pleased that we will be joined by one 

of my constituents, Hank Ziomek, who is the director of sales at 

Titeflex company in Springfield, a terrific success story. And Hank 

will be discussing how this formerly old-line manufacturer has benefitted from and become more dependent on growth of the natural 

gas vehicle market. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Neal. I am going to yield now 

to my good friend, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Dr. 

Charles Boustany, for an opening statement. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Chairman Tiberi, for holding 

this hearing. I would also like to welcome everybody to this morning’s hearing on energy tax policy and administration. 

Let there be no doubt. This country lacks a comprehensive energy strategy to achieve energy security and create good-paying 

American jobs. 

Louisianans know natural gas will be an important part of our 

transition to new fuel sources for the 21st century. In addition to 

natural gas, we must ensure that traditional energy sources are affordable, and innovative technologies are allowed to flourish. Yet 

the Administration continues to advocate for job-killing tax hikes 

on American energy producers. And these tax hikes will hit small, 

independent oil and gas companies, hurting job growth in this 

country, and really hurting our energy security. 

At today’s hearing, we will consider the role of the Tax Code in 

our country’s energy policy, as well as IRS’s effectiveness in implementing existing tax incentives. In recent years, Congress has 

sought to promote the development and use of renewable energy by 

offering tax credits to businesses and individuals. Whether tax 

credits are an effective way of pursuing this policy, and whether 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

the Tax Code is the appropriate way to do so are questions up for 

debate. And that’s why we’re having this conversation. 

Critics have argued that incentives included in the Recovery Act, 

such as the non-business energy property credit, the residential energy efficient property credit, and numerous plug-in, electric, and 

alternative motor vehicle credits have not only failed to stimulate 

the use of alternative energy, but have also become a target of 

fraudulent claims, leading to billions of dollars a year in improperly 

claimed credits. 

There is the case of the residential energy efficient property credit meant to promote energy-saving home improvements. And the 

Treasury inspector general for tax administration found that hundreds of thousands of dollars of the credit went to prisoners and 

children, and nearly a third went to individuals with no proof of 

home ownership. The IRS was unable to verify whether tax payers 

that claimed these credits were indeed eligible to receive the credits, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in 2009 alone. 

Plug-in, electric, and alternative motor vehicle credits have similarly suffered from poor administration and fraud. According to a 

recent report, although these credits were intended to promote the 

purchase of hybrid and electric vehicles, a lax eligibility review resulted in millions of improper payments. 

For instance, even though the credit only applied to new vehicles, 

IRS allowed credits when returns listed years such as 1991, 1979, 

and, strangely enough, the year 1300. And they even allowed plugin and hybrid credits for vehicles such as Cadillac Escalade, Hummer H–3, and the Harley Classic. One taxpayer successfully 

claimed a bicycle. 

Given these problems, this morning’s hearing will examine 

whether these credits have served their intended energy policy 

goals, or whether these goals have been overshadowed by waste, 

fraud, and abuse of these credits. Further, it is our duty to ask the 

IRS what is it doing to detect these fraudulent claims, to ensure 

that taxpayer dollars spent on economic recovery are safeguarded 

from abuse. I look forward to hearing testimony today to help us 

craft responsible energy policy to unleash America’s energy potential. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. I now yield to the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, my friend from Georgia, Mr. 

Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank you, 

Chairman Tiberi and Chairman Boustany, for holding this hearing. 

Energy tax policy is an important topic as we work toward a 

greener America and the creation of jobs in the United States. 

I am pleased that we will start this hearing by reviewing the administration of energy tax credits. In this context, it is important 

that we discuss the proper funding of the Internal Revenue Service. 

We need to examine whether the agency has the resources it needs 

to ensure compliance with these provisions. Simply put, agency 

funding impacts tax administration. 

The testimony clearly states that the agency has limited resources to examine claims after the credits have been paid. I have 

serious concern that the Republican plan to cut $600 million from 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

the agency’s budget will further damage its ability to administer 

energy and other tax credits. 

The Republican budget will result in the furlough of over 4,000 

employees. This furlough will harm administration and hurt the 

agency’s ability to detect and fight fraud. This cut will also increase 

the deficit and widen the tax gap. The agency collects between $4 

and $7 for every $1 of funding. The Republicans’ attempt to save 

$600 million actually will cost taxpayers more than $4 billion each 

year. 

Any serious discussion of energy policy and tax reform must 

begin with fully funding the agency. 

Investment in agency funding and tax incentives are critical to 

energy policy. They result in more choices for consumers and increased competition. Most importantly, they create jobs in the 

United States. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I would like 

to extend a special welcome to the gentleman from the great city 

of Atlanta, Commissioner Byrd. Welcome. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I introduce 

the witnesses for the first panel, I ask unanimous consent that all 

Members’ written statements be included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Chairman TIBERI. Without objection, so ordered. We will now 

turn to our first panel of witnesses, and I welcome the Honorable 

Russell George, Treasury inspector general for tax administration. 

And I also welcome Mr. Richard Byrd, Jr., commissioner, wage and 

investment division, Internal Revenue Service. Thank you both for 

joining us today. You will have—you each have five minutes to 

present your testimony. And, obviously, your full written testimony 

will be submitted for the record. 

General George, you can begin. 

STATEMENT OF J. RUSSELL GEORGE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Chairman Tiberi. Good morning, 

Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member Lewis, Ranking Member 

Neal, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Internal Revenue Service’s administration 

of energy-related tax credits. 

The Recovery Act of 2009 contained 20 provisions, applicable to 

individual taxpayers, including a number of tax credits and deductions. The energy and motor vehicle provisions of the Recovery Act 

were non-refundable credits and deductions. 

The Plug-in Electric and Alternative Motor Vehicle Credits provide taxpayers with a credit for the purchase or conversion to 

motor vehicles that operate on clean, renewable energy sources. 

During the period of January 1st through July 24, 2010, approximately 69,000 individuals—who electronically filed tax returns— 

claimed $164 million worth of those credits. 

The Act provided two types of Residential Energy Credits to individuals to install energy efficient products in their principal residence, or install alternative energy equipment in their principal or 

secondary residences. Approximately 6.8 million individuals 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

claimed $5.8 billion in Residential Energy Credits on their tax year 

2009 returns. 

The Qualified Motor Vehicle Deduction provided individuals with 

an additional deduction for State sales taxes and excise taxes on 

the purchase of certain motor vehicles for tax year 2009. Approximately 4.3 million individuals claimed $7.2 billion in Qualified 

Motor Vehicle Deductions. 

Our reviews of the effectiveness of IRS processes to identify and 

prevent wrongful claims for these energy-related credits and deductions identified erroneous claims for millions of dollars in these 

credits and deductions. It must be stressed that these claims could 

have been minimized if the IRS had taken the actions I am about 

to describe. Importantly, these changes would also help minimize 

erroneous claims for other tax credits as well. 

First, the IRS must establish effective processes to verify eligibility for these credits at the time tax returns are processed. Second, it needs to design the tax forms used to claim the credits and 

deductions in such a way as to request key information that can 

be used to verify eligibility. And, third, the Service must use the 

data it already possesses to identify non-qualifying claims. 

In January, we reported that for paper-filed returns with plugin and alternative vehicle claims, the IRS did not establish processes to record data from tax forms for the credits. This prevented 

the IRS from accounting for these claims, and also identifying potentially false ones. Furthermore, we identified 12,920 individuals 

who electronically filed their tax returns and erroneously claimed 

$33 million in Plug-in Electric and Alternative Motor Vehicle Credits. 

The processes used by the IRS did not ensure the plug-in electric 

and alternative vehicles claimed met the requirements to receive 

the credit. There was information on these tax forms that the IRS 

could have used to identify and stop these credits at the time tax 

returns were processed. We recommended that the IRS develop 

procedures to disallow credits for vehicles with non-qualifying 

years; initiate actions to recover faulty credits; and either develop 

a coding system to identify vehicles, or require the Vehicle Identification Number on the forms used to claim these credits. 

Concerning the Residential Energy Credits, we reported that the 

IRS could not verify whether individuals claiming these credits are 

entitled to the credit at the time their tax returns are processed. 

The form used to claim these credits does not request specific information that could be used to verify the requirements of the law. 

Furthermore, using data the IRS already has, we identified 362 

ineligible individuals who were allowed to wrongly claim over 

$400,000 in Residential Energy Credits on their tax returns. These 

individuals were either prisoners, or were under the age needed to 

enter into a contract to purchase a residence. The IRS does not 

have a process in place to use its data to identify these cases. We 

recommended that the IRS revise the form used to claim Residential Energy Credits to request specific information supporting eligibility requirements; examine the returns of the 362 individuals 

who appear to be ineligible to claim it; and implement processes to 

identify and review returns filed by prisoners or underage individuals, to verify whether they qualify for the credit. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

We also identified similar issues with the Qualified Motor Vehicle Deduction. This deduction expired on December 31, 2009, and 

has not been extended by law. 

I am pleased to report that the IRS agreed to all of our recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, we at TIGTA appreciate the opportunity to assist 

you in your oversight of the IRS. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.001
10 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.002
11 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.003
12 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.004
13 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.005
14 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.006
15 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.007
16 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you so much, General George. 

Mr. Byrd, you may proceed with your testimony. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.008
17 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. BYRD, JR., COMMISSIONER, WAGE 

AND INVESTMENT DIVISION, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BYRD. Thank you, and good morning. Chairman Tiberi, 

Ranking Member Neal, Chairman Boustany, and Ranking Member 

Lewis, my name is Richard Byrd, and I am Commissioner of the 

Wage and Investment Division at the Internal Revenue Service. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittees 

on the residential energy property tax credits and plug-in electric 

and alternative motor vehicle tax credits, and the ongoing efforts 

by the IRS to ensure proper administration of the laws relating to 

them. 

The number of tax credits affecting individuals and businesses 

has grown in recent years. For example, the Recovery Act contained more than 50 tax provisions, including tax credits, which 

cover a broad spectrum of tax relief. However, it is important to 

note that the tax credits being discussed today are not refundable 

tax credits. 

The residential energy property tax credits and the plug-in electric and alternative motor vehicle tax credits reduce, dollar for dollar, a person’s tax liability. While such credits could not reduce a 

person’s tax bill to less than zero, they can increase a taxpayer’s 

refund if he or she paid too much in estimated tax, or had too 

much tax withheld over the year, as many people do. 

In administering tax credits, the IRS must deliver the benefits 

that the legislation provides in the intended time frame, while ensuring that appropriate and prudent controls and filters are in 

place to minimize errors and fraud. This is not an either/or proposition. We must do both well. 

During 2010, the residential energy property credit and the resident energy efficient property credit provided nearly $6 billion to 

6.7 million homeowners who weatherized their homes and made 

them more energy efficient. Both credits include multiple types of 

eligible expenditures with differing restrictions and unique criteria. 

Over the same time period, 34,724 individual taxpayers took advantage of the plug-in vehicle tax credits for personal and business 

use, for a total of $150 million, with each credit subject to different 

and complex eligibility requirements. 

As with any new tax provision, we continually adapt our programs to improve the screening process as we gain experience with 

them. Over the course of administering these energy credits, a 

number of compliance concerns were identified. The IRS took quick 

action to correct these issues, and continues to make additional improvements for the future. We have put in place procedures to prevent taxpayers from receiving credits in excess of the limitations, 

and are revising forms to request more specific information. We 

have also worked with the software providers to better improve information related to these credits. 

As part of our ongoing examination program, we are reviewing 

the energy credit claims, including returns of prisoners and underage taxpayers to ensure that their credit claims are proper. The 

IRS also continues to audit claims as we need to. The IRS continually assesses and evaluates present and emerging compliance risk 

across all taxpayer segments. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
18 

And as part of the IRS’s ongoing research and its 2011 examination plan, we will review a sample of residential energy credit cases 

in a post-refund environment. Those that warrant examination will 

be selected for audit, and the results will be factored in to future 

examination plans. 

In conclusion, tax credits such as the residential energy and 

plug-in vehicle tax credits play an important role in fulfilling congressional energy policies and intent, but are inherently subject to 

a number of administrative challenges. As with all aspects of tax 

administration, the IRS must determine the proper balance of taxpayer service and enforcement to ensure that the benefit is afforded only to those taxpayers who are eligible. We are committed 

to that goal. 

That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to take your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Byrd follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.009
20 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.010
21 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.011
22 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.012
23 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.013
24 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.014
25 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Eight seconds to spare. Thank you, Commissioner, for your testimony today. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.015
26 

I am going to now yield to Dr. Boustany and Mr. Lewis for questions. 

Dr. Boustany. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Chairman Tiberi. Gentlemen, thank you for being here today, and for your testimony. And, 

Mr. Byrd, it is encouraging that steps are now being taken to remedy some of these problems. And I am certainly cognizant of the 

fact that a lot of complexity was added to the Tax Code in a very 

quick way, which makes your job very difficult. And as we work on 

policy, we clearly have to understand that this growing complexity 

in the Tax Code is a problem we have to address, because it certainly creates problems from the administrative standpoint, as 

well. 

But, you know, as we have tried to conduct aggressive oversight 

over the course of this year, there has been a common theme running through many of our hearings. And whether the subject has 

been Medicare fraud, or earned income tax credit problems, energy 

tax credit fraud, we often have, as a government, have approached 

this sort of a pay-and-chase strategy for improper payments. And 

what concerns me is if that is where we are, what are we doing 

on the chase side? Are we actually recouping some of this money 

that was improperly paid out? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir. We have what we call a pre-refund strategy, 

where our goal is to block the bad refund before it goes out, and 

we’ve been very successful there. 

And then, of course, we have a variety of tools if we subsequently 

determine that we sent the wrong amount our—we have what we 

call a post-refund strategy, and there are a number of things that 

we can do. The most successful tool we have, of course, is examination. We communicate and/or meet with the taxpayer, and allow 

them to share with us their documentation to support their claim. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. General George, are you satisfied that 

the IRS has followed the recommendations that you all have made? 

Mr. GEORGE. I am satisfied that they are committed to doing 

so. But have they done so completely? Not yet. I don’t disagree at 

all with what Mr. Byrd stated, but what he neglected to point out 

is that once the money is out the door, it is extraordinarily expensive and difficult to recoup it. 

And so, if they could do so at the outset more effectively, they 

would be much more successful, in terms of recouping or stopping 

the improper payments of—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you. If I’m an individual intent 

on defrauding the tax system with these credits, what disincentive 

do I have from claiming, for example, a vehicle credit on a bicycle, 

or something of that nature? What are the disincentives? 

I would like both of you to comment on it, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. BYRD. TIGTA recommended to us that we put some controls 

and request additional information from the taxpayer, which we 

have done for this past filing season. And we found that quite helpful in enabling us to ID and block those claims that are improper. 

The suggestions that they made were good suggestions, and we 

have implemented them. If a person claims a plug-in car that is not 

in a qualifying year, then we can take that credit out of the return 

before we send them the rest of their refund. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Can you give us an indication of the 

kinds of resources that are required in chasing money after the 

fact, as opposed to working on the front end to have the proper filters and controls in place? 

Mr. BYRD. When a tax return comes in, if it comes in electronically, then it will be matched up against the filters. That is the 

way that we prefer the tax returns come in. If it comes in on paper, 

then it has to be touched by a person, which makes it more expensive and more time-consuming. 

So if we send out an erroneous refund, then normally what happens is we have to examine that tax return, which requires some 

correspondence, and in this case it would probably be an examination through correspondence. So it is an examiner who is communicating with the taxpayer, and then the taxpayer would send in 

their documents, and we would review them and make a decision. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. In other words, it is more labor-intensive, and ultimately more costly to the agency to have to go in after 

the fact. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir. The least expensive way is for the taxpayer 

to file electronically. Then the next way would be if they file on 

paper. And then the most expensive, of course, is if we have to do 

an examination. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Lewis is recognized 

for five minutes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiberi. Now, Commissioner Byrd, in the report on the administration of vehicle credits, TIGTA made eight recommendations to improve compliance 

and the IRS accepted all of them. Now, how long does it generally 

take to implement recommendations received from TIGTA? 

Mr. BYRD. Well, if it is a recommendation that we change the 

way we electronically review or filter the tax returns, it could take 

us months and months, just because of the workload and the complexity of our computer systems. There are often things that 

TIGTA recommend that we implement in a short time period. 

Mr. LEWIS. Now, one recommendation was to establish a system 

to track credits claimed on paper-filed tax returns. Why do you 

need to establish a separate system for paper returns? Is there a 

reason that the IRS does not convert all paper returns to the electronic version during processing? 

Mr. BYRD. Well, we would like to be able to convert all the 

paper returns to electronic returns, but that would cost a lot to 

make that conversion. When you have to track claims, or track information from the tax return, you have to transcribe the information. You have a person who has to transcribe the information from 

the tax return. 

So, again, it adds cost. It adds time to the processing of that tax 

return. 

Mr. LEWIS. Do you have some idea how much the cost would be? 

Mr. BYRD. Right now, it costs about $.17 to process an electronic 

return. And it costs about $3.66 to process a paper return. And 

since we received about 124 million electronic returns, you can see 

the savings that we have if we can get the taxpayers to come in 

electronically. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
28 

Mr. LEWIS. Commissioner Byrd, in your written testimony you 

stated that hard-to-detect fraud presents a challenge to your compliance efforts for energy tax credits. 

Now, the Republican budget proposal for the IRS, as passed by the House Appropriation Committee would cut $600 million from 

the agency. The Appropriation Committee report notes that the cut 

will have a significant impact on the ability of the IRS to find tax 

cheats. The report states that the agency will be forced to furlough 

between 4,100 and 5,000 employees. Is this estimate correct? 

Mr. BYRD. Sir, we, of course, don’t have our funding yet for this 

coming year. But we can imagine, with that type of dollar cut, we 

are going to have to dramatically reduce our staffing in a number 

of places. So that would be information technology, that would be 

how we serve the taxpayers, how we answer the phones, how we 

look for fraud, how we examine the tax returns. 

We cannot absorb that type of cut without it having an impact 

on the service we provide taxpayers, and the enforcement of the 

IRS code. 

Mr. LEWIS. So you are suggesting that these employees mainly 

would be enforcement agents? Are you stating this? 

Mr. BYRD. Well, sir, what we need to have is exactly what it is 

that our funding will be for this year. But that is why we are saying that we imagine that it would be across the board that we 

would have to take some action. 

Enforcement people would be included in those cuts that we 

would have to take. And enforcement people are the people who examine the tax returns. 

Mr. LEWIS. The enforcement agents are the people that help the 

IRS detect fraud, right? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. So the Republican budget would hurt enforcement compliance efforts and the administration of energy and other 

tax credits 

So, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter to the 

record an excerpt from the House committee report on IRS funding. 

Chairman TIBERI. Without objection, so moved. 

**INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED** 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Inspector General, we appreciate your recommendation to improve the administration of the energy-related 

tax credit. In your written testimony, you stated that the IRS has 

little resources to examine claims after the credits have been paid. 

If the IRS had more resources, would it be better able to perform 

its duties? 

Mr. GEORGE. There is no question that—— 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you 

may answer—— 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI [continuing]. The question. Thank you. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. I believe that it is the case. If they had additional resources, they would be able to do more. It is a zero sum 

game, as Mr. Byrd noted. If they have to take money away from 

compliance to support customer service or vice versa, it ultimately 

impacts the taxpayer, in terms of whether or not they are having 

a more friendly interaction with the IRS—that is, the ability to 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
29 

walk into a taxpayer assistance center, or to call the 800 number 

and get a quick response, as opposed to having letters sent to them 

or, even a worse case, people visit them in their homes or businesses. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. I will now recognize the ranking 

member from Massachusetts, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our witnesses, actually 

a threefold question. 

First, I am pleased with the efforts that the IRS has made, based 

upon bank secrecy. And I think the effort that’s been made in Switzerland is a good example of what can be done when enforcement 

techniques that utilize the computer are applied. That is a good 

story. I can’t imagine that there is anybody in America who would 

object to the efforts that the IRS has made in trying to sift through 

these offshore accounts. 

But the second part of the question—and it is a follow-up, actually, to what Mr. Lewis said—some of the errors that you have 

identified today, some are, I assume, mistakes that have been 

made by the filer. And, as Mr. Lewis pointed out, I think correctly, 

the proposed cuts in the agency are going to make it more difficult 

for you to assist an honest mistake that has been made by the filer. 

And with respect to the audits that you have cited, there are taxpayers who erroneously claim tax credits, but they did it by mistake. And if there is no fraudulent intent, if some of these errors 

indeed were mistakes, do you have suggestions on how we might 

help the taxpayer, the citizen, better comply with these rules? 

And in addition, if you could, speak to another issue that tends 

to draw attention here, and that is some of the prisoners across the 

country who erroneously received credits, and what the IRS can do 

in these arenas to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Thank you, sir, for that question. Our experience 

has been that taxpayers, normally make mistakes, as opposed to 

fraud. That is primarily around the point of the complexity of the 

law. 

And for a—for those of us who like the Tax Code, and read it, 

and enjoy it—the majority of Americans don’t—— 

Mr. NEAL. Who are they? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BYRD. Me. So just those of us at the IRS. But I think your 

average taxpayer finds, often times, the law is very complex. And 

I think the software folks have done a great job to help. 

In answer to your question, I think simplification of the Tax 

Code would be key to help taxpayers not make the mistakes that 

they make to date. The majority of taxpayers make mistakes, and 

then I think there is a small part that is involved with fraud. 

As it concerns the prisoners, we have stepped it up. We have 

blocked an increase of 250 percent of the fraudulent returns filed 

by prisoners. We actually have a strategy where we have dramatically improved the data that we receive from the prisons. A key 

piece when a tax return comes in is we match it up against this 

information we get from the prisons, so that we could see who is 

in jail. We have refined that criteria so it is much more improved. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
30 

We have started to work with each prison to allow us to share 

information with them. When a prisoner files a fraudulent return, 

we can now share information with the prison, so that they can 

take action against that prisoner. We have also worked with all of 

them so that if a check does go to a prison, that we have streamlined and improved the processes for the prison officials to return 

those checks to us. 

And, of course, we would like to encourage you all to strengthen 

the legislation that is out there in regards to how we can share, 

and what we can share with the prison officials about these fraudulent tax returns. 

Mr. NEAL. That is consistent with Mr. Lewis’s testimony. Mr. 

George? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, Mr. Neal. I have testified on this issue a 

number of times before this committee, as long ago as five years. 

And while Mr. Byrd is accurate that they have these procedures 

and policies in place, we have found that they have not effectively 

implemented them. 

There is no question that you have a defined population of people 

incarcerated. And after my initial testimony, Congress enacted legislation that helped facilitate this exchange of information. But we 

recently reported that they did not do so effectively, and they were 

still in the process of doing so many, many years later. So, we are 

troubled by the delay that the IRS took in terms of implementing 

this, and they still have a ways to go in that regard. 

There is no question that if people are given the opportunity to 

readily file their taxes in an understandable way—going back to 

what Mr. Byrd said—that is something quite appropriate. But we 

have found that, in many instances, the IRS has made it cumbersome, both in terms of the language within the tax form and the 

accompanying materials, among other factors. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank the witnesses. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Neal. Ms. Jenkins is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you for holding this 

hearing. Thank you, Gentlemen, for joining us. 

In recent decades, Congress has increasingly tasked the IRS with 

administering programs that aren’t focused on revenue collection. 

For example, through the earned income tax credit, the IRS administers one of the nation’s largest welfare programs. The Taxpayer 

Advocate has warned that the IRS’s increasingly dual mission of 

revenue collector and program administer diverts IRS resources 

away from the agency’s core revenue collection function, and can 

diminish taxpayer service. 

So, for the both of you, as Congress through the years has sought 

to implement more and more public policy through the Tax Code, 

could you both just describe to us what effects this has had on tax 

administration? 

Mr. GEORGE. Congresswoman, you have hit an important point 

here. The Earned Income Tax Credit still, as estimated by the IRS, 

has improper payments in the $10 billion to $12 billion a year 

range. The Additional Child Tax Credit, it is in the billions, in 

terms of improper payments. The First-Time Homebuyers Credit 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 

we found millions, hundreds of millions of dollars which were improperly paid. 

We just recently completed a review on the implementation of 

the Affordable Care Act. And while we will conclude that the IRS 

is being effective in planning on how to implement portions of that 

legislation, it is taking away from their traditional role of collecting 

revenue and assisting taxpayers in paying their taxes. 

So, unless the IRS is able to more effectively allocate its resources, it is going to make its primary mission—that is, again, collecting revenue—much more difficult. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you. Commissioner. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I have been here a long time, and I don’t know 

that I would ever say we have had sufficient resources to do our 

job, because I understand that there are competing priorities that 

our country has. But I wanted to assure you that when Congress 

decides to write a law, and they send it to us to implement, that 

we are trying to do it in the most cost-efficient way possible 

through innovation, through the use of technology, through the use 

of all the enforcement tools that we have. 

We believe that the majority of our taxpayers want to and do file 

an accurate tax return. When the IG discusses these or shares 

these numbers, one could get the impression that our taxpayers are 

not honest, and I don’t believe that’s true. I believe that you have 

an area of fraud that we have to always deal with, and we had it 

before we had the credits, and we have it today. But what I want 

to assure you is that we, in the IRS, are going to use the resources 

that you all provide as efficiently as possible to deal with the priorities that you all send our way. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay, thank you. I would yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Paulsen is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, thanks for joining us here as a part of this testimony today. 

Let me ask this question, because we have talked a little bit 

about some erroneous payments and duplicative credits that get 

paid out as a part of these credits. 

I am just curious, because it seems like every time Congress creates one of these new energy credits or this green energy or other 

areas, we end up creating new tax shelters and issues like that 

that have applied to synthetic fuels and biodiesel and alternative 

fuels, et cetera. And, you know, the abuses end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars, billions of dollars, and the fraud and the 

abuse is a part of it. 

What is it about these credits, in general, that make them so 

susceptible to this kind of fraud, overall? Mr. Byrd. 

Mr. BYRD. Well, I am not sure, sir, that we are here today to 

talk about credits. You know, our examination program is designed 

to look at a wide range of issues and concerns that we see as taxpayers file their returns. So our experience has been that in all 

parts of the code, that taxpayers sometimes take liberties with the 

rules. 

So, sir, I am not sure that I would say that because it is a credit 

it is susceptible to more fraud. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. George. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
32 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. I would just say, sir, that they do not utilize 

the information effectively that they have. 

I am not going to necessarily argue with Mr. Byrd about whether 

or not there are more instances of fraud or whatever the case may 

be there. But there is no question that if the IRS were to use the 

information that the taxpayer provides and, more importantly, gain 

access to third-party information, which—again, at various settings 

I cite this information, sir, and I beg your indulgence here. 

The IRS itself estimates that individuals whose wages are subject to withholding report 99 percent of their wages for tax purposes. Self-employed individuals who operate non-farm businesses 

are estimated to report only 68 percent of their income for tax purposes. And the shocking number is self-employed individuals operating businesses on a cash basis report only 19 percent of their income. 

So, the bottom line is if the IRS were to require additional information from third parties, by their own estimates, they would gain 

much more revenue. If they used the information that was supplied 

by the taxpayers on their tax forms, either electronically or in 

paper form, they would also have more information that they could 

use. 

So, again, it’s a question of how the IRS allocates its resources 

to determine whether or not a taxpayer is complying with their tax 

obligation. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, and Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting 

point, because we have had hearings, actually, in the human resources subcommittee and talked about other government programs that are used to provide benefits to certain folks that—of 

modest means—that use government programs, and there is not an 

access, or there is more of an increased need to use an access to 

third-party information to weed out some of the fraud and abuse 

that is out there. That is a good point. 

Now, someone, I think, had mentioned earlier—and I cannot remember who testified—in terms of the cost filing electronically 

versus mail-in. And it’s like 124 million that use electronic. What 

can be done to encourage more use of electronic filing? Because ultimately, electronic information and using third-party matches, et 

cetera, is going to help weed out some of these issues, and save taxpayers money. What can be done to promote that? 

Mr. BYRD. First, I did want to assure you that we are expanding 

our systems to use more third-party information, merchant cards, 

those types of things. I think part of the challenge around thirdparty information is that sometimes it is not completely accurate. 

And so, you don’t want to deny a taxpayer a refund based on information that might not be complete. 

In specific response to your question, sir, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of returns that have been filed electronically. We have got the eFile mandate, where preparers that 

prepare more than 10 returns have to send them in electronically. 

That is being phased in through last year and this year. We are 

seeing a dramatic increase in the number of taxpayers who are 

going to file electronically. 

The other thing that has happened is the software providers, for 

the most part, no longer charge taxpayers to electronically file their 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
33 

return. Those things together have allowed us to see a large increase. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Marchant is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

focus for just a moment on the—it looks like it is 100,000 individuals who claimed energy credits that did not own a home. Was the 

law, as it was passed, did it require that an individual own a home 

to seek the credit? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, they needed to own it at the time of—yes. 

The short answer is yes. 

Mr. BYRD. It is their primary. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. 

Mr. MARCHANT. So it couldn’t be their second home, it couldn’t 

be their vacation home. It had to be their primary home. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. 

Mr. MARCHANT. So, a very common-sense thing. But 100,000 

people felt like they could take the credit without very clearly 

meeting the criteria of the law. 

What percentage of those that claimed that credit does the 

100,000 represent? 

Mr. BYRD. I actually don’t know, sir. I would have to get back 

to you on that. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Do you think the 100,000 would represent 10 

percent of those that claimed that credit? 

Mr. BYRD. You know, I did not bring the numbers of taxpayers 

that claimed that particular credit. 

Mr. MARCHANT. I would appreciate it if we could find out what 

percentage of those that claimed clearly made a fraudulent claim, 

right up front. 

Mr. BYRD. It is important to note, sir, that I think when TIGTA 

made that recommendation it was based on information from a 

third party. And so, part of the struggle for us is around trying to 

have information that we can rely on to make sure that it is accurate. 

As I said before, we don’t want to deny somebody a credit. We 

don’t want to deny them a credit without us being sure. 

Mr. MARCHANT. But if—— 

Mr. BYRD. We have learned in other places—the adoption credit, 

the first-time home-buyer’s credit—that what you see on the face 

of the return appears that it is fraudulent. But when you communicate, and ask that taxpayer for documentation or information, 

they are able to provide it. 

Mr. GEORGE. But that, Mr. Marchant, is part of the problem. 

The IRS, as Mr. Byrd noted, does not have the ability to give the 

type of information that you just sought. And it is not necessarily 

their fault. 

They are in the process now, with a National Performance Review—I believe you call it the NPR—and they are in the process 

now of helping to determine what the ultimate tax gap is in various areas. And once that is completed, that will provide them additional information so that they are in a position to respond precisely to your question. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
34 

Mr. MARCHANT. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. The gentleman from Washington 

State, Mr. McDermott, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner 

Byrd, I understand that the taxpayer service is part of the IRS 

strategy for tax compliance. The Republican budget would cut over 

$105 million from taxpayer service. Now, we understand this cut 

would result in fewer calls being answered and fewer taxpayers receiving in-person service. I mean that seems like that would be the 

result, if you have less people. 

A statement of Administration policy was issued in response to 

the budget. The policy states that this level of funding provided 

would seriously degrade the quality of services to taxpayers, to the 

extent that only one out of every two taxpayers would be able to 

reach the IRS customer service representative. 

Do IRS customer service representatives answer questions about 

energy tax credits? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir. And so this year we are on track to take 32 

million calls from taxpayers. And we are going to see about six million taxpayers come into our taxpayer assistance centers. And so 

there we provide a wide array of services and information, including answering questions about tax concerns. But then we also enable the taxpayers to pay us, to set up installment agreements, 

and, in essence, to deal with compliance things on the phone or in 

person. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, if I could restate what you said, the Republican budget would hurt taxpayer service and administration of 

energy and other tax credits. That is correct? 

Mr. BYRD. If our funding is not the same, then we would not 

be able to serve the numbers of taxpayers that I just described, sir. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, without objection, I would like to submit 

into the record the statement of the administration of policy—of 

H.R. 2434. And I ask the chairman to put it into the record. 

Chairman TIBERI. Without objection. 

**INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED** 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I understand, Mr. Byrd, that the IRS does 

not have a dedicated funding source to invest in its program integrated effort—integrity efforts. I understand that funding for enforcement and compliance must come out of the current IRS budget. Is that correct? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, the Republican budget would cut $600 

million of the IRS. This would hurt the program’s integrity efforts. 

Right? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, because, you know, if we have less people and 

less funds to examine, filter, follow up with the returns, that 

means we can get—we will be able to accomplish less work, because we have less employees—fewer employees. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. As you know, the President set forth a plan 

that would provide dedicated funding for the IRS for program integrity efforts. The plan states that ‘‘tax enforcement and compliance activities are critical to the fairness and integrity of the U.S. 

tax system, and also generate a return on investment for taxpayers 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
35 

of roughly $7 for every $1 invested.’’ You are aware of that, is that 

correct? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I would like to enter that into the record for 

the future record of the committee, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Berg is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my first question 

goes back to the residential energy tax credit. What is the total 

number of people that received or made a claim? 

Mr. BYRD. I am sorry, sir, I did not bring those stats, but I will 

be glad to get those back to you. 

Mr. BERG. Okay. Mr. George. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. Well, for tax year 2009, there were 6.8 mil- lion claims equaling $5.8 billion. 

Mr. BERG. Okay. And in the earlier testimony it was mentioned 

there is about 100,000 of those that you identified or thought didn’t 

own a home. That correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. Correct. 

Mr. BERG. Mr. Byrd, in the testimony you kind of say the IRS 

has adopted programs to kind of improve this process and really 

keep up with compliance issues. But as has been reported, obviously it is kind of ineffective at that. 

And my question is—in part, because of maybe a lax process— 

I guess my question is, what is being done, really, to improve the 

administration of these tax credits right now, specifically? 

Mr. BYRD. So, as you probably saw in the TIGTA report, they 

made a number of recommendations to us. For example, on the 

plug-in car, they suggested that we ask the taxpayer to put the 

VIN on the form. We have put things in place so that we will 

manually check to make sure that the qualifying year of the car 

is correct. 

So, what I am sharing with you, sir, is that those things that 

TIGTA suggested that we put in place, we have. And we feel confident that those things will help us to reduce the number of fraudulent claims. 

Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it is possible if we—if I 

could ask that again we get those recommendations. 

I understand you said that you have agreed with all of those recommendations, but if you could, again, just have a short summary 

of, ‘‘Here is the recommendations,’’ and then you say, ‘‘We agree 

with these recommendations,’’ and when the timetable is to fully 

implement those recommendations, would that be possible for you 

to share that with the committee? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir, because what we do, in terms of how we 

track the recommendations and our implementation, we have a 

process in place. So that will be easy for me to provide you. 

Mr. BERG. Okay, thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Apparently that is all the questions that we have of this panel. We do appreciate both of you coming forward, giving your input, General George, on how we can improve efficiency and, Mr. Byrd, Commissioner Byrd, thank you for 

your thoughts about how we can simplify the Tax Code and make 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
36 

your life easier. We do appreciate both of your testimony today. 

Thank you for taking the time out. That concludes our first panel. 

We are going to now move to the second panel of testimony, and 

we are going to have a bit of a change to the second panel. 

Without objection, I would like to move that we add Mr. Lindsey 

from the Lindsey Group to the second panel. There was some 

miscommunication, and Mr. Lindsey has a conflict, and will not be 

able to stay for the third panel. So, without objection, Mr. Lindsey 

will be added to the second panel. 

Mr. Lindsey, you will be added at the end of the second panel— 

so on the far left, or my far right—and you will be the last person 

to testify on the second panel. 

So, as the second panel gets seated, I would just like to welcome 

all of them. And I am going to ask Ranking Member Neal in a moment—no, you have got the third panel, right? 

Mr. NEAL. Yes. 

Chairman TIBERI. Okay. I will go ahead and introduce our— 

generally introduce our panelists, and welcome them to the second 

panel. 

Dr. Donald Marron, director of Tax Policy Center, The Urban Institute; Mr. Kevin Book, managing director of research, Clearview 

Energy Partners, LLC; Mr. Neil Auerbach, founder and managing 

partner of Hudson Clean Energy Partners, L.P.; Mr. Will Coleman, 

partner, Mohr Davidow Ventures; Mr. Greeff, political director, the 

Clean Economy Network; and, as I said, from the third panel who 

will now be part of the second panel, Mr. Lawrence B. Lindsey— 

Dr. Lawrence B. Lindsey, president, chief executive officer of The 

Lindsey Group. 

And with that, thank you all for coming, taking time out of your 

busy schedules to be here with us today. Dr. Marron, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD B. MARRON, DIRECTOR, TAX POLICY 

CENTER, THE URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. MARRON. Great, thank you very much. Chairman Tiberi, 

Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member Neal, Ranking Member 

Lewis, Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for inviting me 

to appear today to discuss energy policy and tax reform. 

As you know, our tax system is desperately in need of reform. It 

is needlessly complex, economically harmful, and often unfair. Because of a plethora of temporary tax cuts, it is also increasingly unpredictable. We can and should do better. 

The most promising path to reform is to re-examine the many 

tax preferences in our code. For decades, lawmakers have used the 

tax system not only to raise revenues to pay for government activities, but also to pursue a broad range of social and economic policies. Those policies touch many aspects of life, including health insurance, home ownership, retirement saving, and the topic of today’s hearing, energy production and use. 

Those preferences often support important policy goals, but they 

have a down side. They narrow the tax base, reduce revenues, distort economic activity, complicate the tax system, force tax rates to 

be higher than they otherwise would be, and are often unfair. 

Those concerns have prompted policy-makers and analysts across 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

the political spectrum—including, most notably, the Bowles–Simpson Commission—to recommend that tax preferences be cut back. 

The resulting revenue could then be used to lower tax rates, reduce 

future deficits, or some combination of the two. 

In considering such proposals, law-makers should consider how 

tax reform, fiscal concerns, and energy policy interact. Six factors 

are particularly important. 

First, as I just mentioned, our tax system needs a fundamental 

overhaul. Every tax provision, including those related to energy, 

deserves close scrutiny to determine whether its benefits exceed its 

cost. Such a review will reveal that some tax preferences do make 

sense, but many others should be reduced, redesigned, or eliminated. 

Second, the code includes numerous energy tax preferences. The 

Treasury Department, for example, recently identified 25 broad 

categories of energy preferences worth about $16 billion in 2011. 

These include incentives for renewable energy sources, traditional 

fossil fuel sources, and energy efficiency. In addition, energy companies are also eligible for several tax preferences that are available more broadly, such as the domestic production credit. 

Third, tax subsidies are an imperfect way of addressing concerns 

about energy production and use. Such subsidies do encourage 

greater use of targeted energy resources, but, as I discuss in greater detail in my written testimony, they do so in an economically inefficient manner. 

Subsidies require, for example, that the government play a substantial role in picking winners and losers among energy technologies. The associated revenue losses also require higher taxes or 

larger deficits. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are bad policy, but it does raise the hurdle for them to satisfy in order to be 

counted as good policy. 

Fourth, a key political challenge for reform is that energy tax 

subsidies are often viewed as tax cuts. It makes more sense, however, to view them as spending that is run through the Tax Code. 

Reducing such subsidies would make the government smaller, even 

though tax revenues, as conventionally measured, would increase. 

Similarly, introducing new tax preferences would expand the scope 

of government, even though technically, in budget accounting, they 

would be scored as reducing future revenue. 

Fifth, tax subsidies are not created equal. Some are more efficient than others. In particular, production incentives tend to be a 

more efficient way of accomplishing energy policy goals than are investment incentives. 

Finally, well-designed taxes can typically address the negative effects of energy use more effectively and at lower cost than can tax 

subsidies. I understand that higher gasoline taxes or a new carbon 

tax are not popular ideas in many circles, but please bear with me. 

As I explain in greater length in my written testimony, well-designed energy taxes are a much more pro-market way of addressing 

concerns about the production and use of energy. Taxes can take 

full advantage of all market forces on the demand side and the 

supply side, and in so doing can accomplish many policy goals at 

least cost and with minimal government intervention in the economy. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

Subsidies, in contrast, make much less use of market forces, and 

inevitably require the government to pick winners and losers. Energy taxes also generate revenue that law-makers can use to cut 

other taxes or to reduce deficits. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marron follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
39 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.016
40 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.017
41 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.018
42 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.019
43 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.020
44 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.021
45 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.022
46 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.023
47 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.024
48 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.025
49 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.026
50 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.027
51 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Book is recognized for five minutes. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.028
52 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN BOOK, MANAGING DIRECTOR, RESEARCH, CLEARVIEW ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BOOK. Good morning, Chairman Tiberi, Chairman 

Boustany, Ranking Member Neal, Ranking Member Lewis, and distinguished committee members. My name is Kevin Book, and I 

head the research team at Clearview Energy Partners. Thank you 

for inviting me to contribute to your discussion today regarding energy tax policy. 

Economic weakness has compressed energy demand. Since the 

employment trough of the Great Recession, the nation has consumed only about one-third as much energy per job recovered as 

it did during the 2001/2002 recovery. That would be good news if 

efficiency explained the change. But data show, for example, that 

we are driving older cars and driving them less, rather than purchasing new, higher-efficiency vehicles. 

Because demand can move faster than supply, stable energy production incentives are important. Stable policies may not encourage 

new supply side investments when market conditions do not warrant it, but inconstant policies may discourage supply side investment when it is needed. 

So, what works best? And how do you know? Investors judge investments against benchmarks. Similar analysis could guide energy policy, too. Evaluating incentive costs per million British thermal units measures how many bucks the U.S. Government directs, 

simply put, at the energy bang the nation receives. The note published by the committee staff in preparation of this hearing addresses this calculation. 

Between 2006 and 2010, my analysis suggests that incentive 

costs for renewable sources were considerably higher than conventional sources. For green power, incentive costs averaged about $6 

per million Btu. Biofuels, about $5.50. Conventional power, about 

$.19. Coal production, excluding programmatic spending, about 

$.07. And a broadly inclusive rack-up of oil, natural gas, and refined products incentives, including some line items that are generally regarded as ordinary tax treatment, averaged about $.26 per 

million Btu. 

Implied abatement costs quantify the emissions reduction benefits of federal spending on lower-emitting fuels, even if spending 

wasn’t aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. Two sources came in 

at or below the current price of emissions allowances trading in Europe: wind, at about $4 to $20 per metric ton, depending on your 

assumptions; ethanol, at about $16, if you count only the VEETC; 

solar, at about $62 to $200 per metric ton, was above the current 

trading market in Europe; cash for clunkers was about $263 per 

metric ton. And if the Nat Gas Act were to cost $5 billion over 5 

years for 140,000 heavy haulers, the resulting gas emissions reductions, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, would be about $120 

per metric ton. 

Displacement costs quantify the extent to which federal energy 

incentives reduce our reliance on imported petroleum. As a benchmark, the strategic petroleum reserve through the end of last year 

had a displacement cost of about $67 per barrel, or $11.50 per million Btu. The real dollar value of ethanol capacity historically subVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:45 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 076057 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\76057.XXX GPO1 PsN: 76057

anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

sidized by the VEETC through its scheduled expiration at the end 

of this year implies about $148 per barrel or $42 per million Btu. 

But evaluated over a 15-year finance life, that’s about $10 per barrel, and $3 per million Btu. Again, assumptions are important. 

The displacement cost from nat gas, based on those prior assumptions, the Nat Gas Act, would be $118 per barrel, or about 

$20 per million Btu if you looked at it as a one-time deal. But amortized over 5 years, it would be about $23.50 per barrel, or about 

$4 per million Btu. 

A couple of caveats before I finish up. First, comparing alternative fuels to the strategic reserve is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The strategic reserve is surge capacity. Alternative transportation fuels replace petroleum imports, and they are already in 

use. 

Second, none of these metrics captures the total cost of delivered 

energy, just the part the U.S. Government covers. Consumers and 

producers pay the rest. Trying to change their decisions in defiance 

of economic reality may prove both difficult and expensive. 

There are also metrics you can apply to look at the efficiency of 

financial incentives. My testimony provides an example of something I call return on tax to describe simplified wind farm financing. That example shows that production tax credits are the least 

efficient, in terms of delivering both internal rate of return and a 

return on each taxpayer dollar, in terms of lower generation cost. 

Incentives like investment tax credits and grants become more efficient in both regards, but the best balance turns out to actually be 

loan guarantees. Now, loan guarantees, obviously, will not be more 

efficient without adequate due diligence. 

In conclusion, in thinking of all of these incentives, they should 

be thought of, probably, as a portfolio. It allows one to balance innovation with environmental and security benefits. Balancing 

moonshot technologies with lower risk reward profiles may preserve financial stability. And it may be worth revisiting whether 

the current Title XVII appropriations-backed solicitation-driven 

debt financing program has the autonomy to structure an appropriately balanced portfolio. 

One final point. Tax policy is not always the fastest energy policy 

tool. But the high cost and long life of energy investments means 

that fast can sometimes translate to expensive. Prescriptive environmental and fuel standards do deliver rapid results. But non-economic shut-downs can lead to wealth destruction and job losses. 

This concludes my testimony; I will look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Book follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.029
55 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.030
56 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.031
57 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.032
58 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.033
59 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.034
60 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.035
61 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.036
62 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.037
63 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.038
64 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Book. 

Mr. Auerbach, you are recognized for five minutes. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.039
65 

STATEMENT OF NEIL Z. AUERBACH, FOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER, HUDSON CLEAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., 

TEANECK, NJ 

Mr. AUERBACH. Chairmen Tiberi and Boustany, Ranking Members Neal and Lewis, and the rest of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Neil Auerbach, and 

I am the founder and co-managing partner of Hudson Clean Energy Partners, a leading private equity firm exclusively dedicated 

to investing in the clean energy sector, globally. 

Although the firm is only four years old, I have been an active 

investor in this sector since 2002, and have been fortunate to have 

generated substantial investment gains in this sector, investing in 

this sector over the course of my career as an investor. And, therefore, I am offering you an investment perspective on how government energy policy influences investment activity. 

I also happen to be a conservative, and I believe in limited government, because experience tells me that the private sector does 

most things better than government. When government does act, it 

needs to search for least cost, highest impact ways to achieve its 

goals. 

This committee has been charged with the task of examining energy tax incentives, and I applaud that effort. My written testimony contains a lengthy review and analysis of energy tax incentives, and includes a strong endorsement of the use of reverse auctions to support renewable energy deployment such as that found 

in H.R. 909. 

To explain why I draw that conclusion, I want to articulate several core principles underlying my thinking. First of all, I think 

that three policy drivers are behind smart energy policy: supporting economic growth, fostering energy security, and also fostering environmental security. I support portfolio diversity. The approach is very instructive to getting us there. When markets function properly, we can allocate capital rationally in the private markets. 

Another aspect of my view of energy policy reflects that energy 

is a commodity, not a product. It is the backbone of our economy, 

and it needs to be there when we need it, and it needs to be as 

cheap as possible. 

Scale is everything in driving down cost. Consumers generally 

don’t drive innovation in the energy sector. During the 20th century we scaled successfully fossil fuels first. They were expensive 

at first, and only with scale do they get cheaper. Renewable energy 

scaled later in time, and government support has been essential in 

helping renewables overcome a late start. 

Tax credits have been very helpful incentivizing investment and 

production of energy from renewables, and they played a vital role 

in moving capital into the sector. And, therefore, have contributed 

to dramatic reductions in the cost of these power sources. In the 

two slides that I show on the screen, I show just how impactful this 

scale-up of renewable energy has been in driving down the cost, 

and in this slide show our forecast, proprietary forecast, of continuing dramatic reductions in the cost of renewables. 

But I am here today to suggest that it is time to re-examine the 

way the Federal Government supports clean energy investment. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
66 

Specifically, I support adoption of a very different approach to federal support of our sector, and it is the use of reverse auction mechanisms, such as that advocated by Congressman Nunes and over 

70 congressmen in H.R. 909. The reverse auction principle is simply a market-making technique where buyers invite sellers to 

transact at the lowest possible price. It encourages competition 

among sellers. 

Now, H.R. 909 has 3 important aspects that merit attention. 

First of all, the market sets the price for government support payments, not a government-mandated view of what that price should 

be. The mechanism ultimately weans the industry off support payments all together over the course of time. 

Number two, it draws revenue from expanded access to domestic 

energy such as oil and gas leases to support the scale-up of new 

energy resources. 

And then, third, it uses cash as a currency for providing support 

to industry, rather than a tax credit which, from experience, is way 

too complex for most renewable energy developers to access without 

incurring enormous friction costs. My testimony explains that this 

friction cost can be as high as $.30 to $.40 for every tax credit dollar expended. 

And for that reason, I am also an advocate on fiscal efficiency 

grounds of extending the 1603 cash grant until the more modern 

reverse auction system can be implemented. Because what we want 

to do is have $1 of taxpayer money buying $1 of renewable energy 

development, rather than only $.60 to $.70 with the friction-laden 

tax credit system. 

In conclusion, I believe that it is time to phase out the Tax Code 

and phase in more efficient support mechanisms for renewable energy, and I encourage this committee to signal that the—to the industry that it is serious about energy tax reform, and finds merit 

in H.R. 909 as a better way to support renewable energy in the future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Auerbach follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
67 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.040
68 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.041
69 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.042
70 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.043
71 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.044
72 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.045
73 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.046
74 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.047
75 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.048
76 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.049
77 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.050
78 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.051
79 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.052
80 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.053
81 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.054
82 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.055
83 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.056
84 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.057
85 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.058
86 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.059
87 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.060
88 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.061
89 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.062
90 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.063
91 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.064
92 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.065
93 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.066
94 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.067
95 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.068
96 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.069
97 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Coleman, you are recognized for five minutes. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.070
98 

STATEMENT OF WILL COLEMAN, PARTNER, MOHR DAVIDOW 

VENTURES, MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

here today. My name is Will Coleman, I am a partner at the venture capital firm Mohr Davidow Ventures. Since 1983 we have been 

investing in early stage technology, and we were one of the first 

mainline funds to move into the energy space. We have seen firsthand the challenges of building new companies in energy, and are 

quite aware of how public policy impacts these markets and investing decisions. 

As venture investors, we invest in innovation. Energy represents 

one of the largest opportunities of our time, but the market conditions here in the U.S. are difficult to penetrate, and our policies 

still perpetuate the status quo. I am here to suggest that there is 

an opportunity to reform our energy tax policies, and to focus on 

innovation in a way that activates the private market and fosters 

real growth. 

Globally we are undergoing a transition to the next generation 

of energy technologies. Our ability to lead in that transition is essential to our ongoing economic competitiveness. In prior energy 

transitions, the government has always played an active role. In 

fact, the Federal Government spent 5 times as much per year supporting the early growth of oil, and 10 times as much supporting 

nuclear as we have renewables. Even today, layers of tax credits 

are woven into the investment and operating decisions of the energy industry, and the vast majority are focused on sustaining incumbent technologies. 

My point is not to question the appropriateness of these credits. 

But I am questioning whether the current approach is conducive to 

growth. According to the Department of Commerce, we owe threequarters of our growth since World War II to technology innovation. But in energy, the top five oil companies spend almost nothing on R&D. The challenge we see to investing in new energy technologies has not been a lack of technology solutions or the underlying economics. It has been overcoming the market resistance to 

adoption of new technology and investment in innovation. 

The current tax approach compounds the problem in two ways. 

First, it biases investment decisions towards tax advantage primary extraction, rather than the kind of innovation that can create 

a step change in cost and performance over time. And second, it 

makes it more difficult for new entrants to compete. 

Our premise in our requirement as investors has always been 

that we invest in technologies and companies that, regardless of political regulation or subsidy, will be able to stand on their own two 

feet and compete on a level playing field within the life span of our 

investment. The problem in energy is that we don’t have a level 

playing field, and we don’t have a tax policy that encourages continuous innovation. 

Today’s technology-specific approach forces government to pick 

winners and losers. The semi-annual debate over whether certain 

credits are still needed causes uncertainty in the market, and it 

misses the fact that each sector includes a range of companies at 

very different stages of development, scale, and cost reduction. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
99 

We need a new approach. It needs to be simple, transparent, 

technology-neutral, accessible to large and small companies, enduring, and fundamentally focused on stimulating innovation and 

growth. I would like to suggest that this committee considers an 

approach that would create a simple, volume-based production tax 

incentive designed to support technologies as they scale, and roll 

off as they hit maturity. 

In the same way that an infant needs more support than a teenager, innovative technologies require more support than mature 

technologies. At some point, established technologies must be able 

to compete on their merits. A credit would be specific to individual 

companies, but available across a broad array of technologies. 

For example, I know of American solar companies that have very 

reasonable paths to produce modules for under $.50 a watt. This 

would be well below the projected cost of Chinese silicon manufacturers who are at $1 a watt today. However, these companies are 

still in early stages of production, and their costs are over $1.30 a 

watt per day, which is not competitive. They will need to ramp to 

250 megawatts before they drop below a dollar, and 750 megawatts 

in order to hit $.50. These technologies could be highly profitable, 

but they need to get to scale. Once it is scaled, their incentives 

could roll off. 

This is a common story. While different technology categories 

each have different measures for maturity, a volume-based approach would be based on generalizable metrics such as megawatts 

generated, gallons produced, or units sold. Eligibility criteria could 

be defined by whether a solution servers agreed-upon policy objectives. This approach would provide transparency and certainty to 

investors, and draw investment to those technologies that can ultimately compete without government support. 

A shift in tax policy to such a structure would, one, end the current practice of picking long-term technology winners; two, refocus 

federal support on early technology deployment, where it is needed 

most; three, eliminating the sun-setting challenges associated with 

current policy; and four, encourage private investment and innovation, which is critical to new economic growth. 

In closing, I recognize that tax breaks are ensconced—once tax 

breaks are ensconced in the code they are incredibly hard to 

change. But I believe we have a rare opportunity to reassess 

whether the existing credits accomplish the goals that they were 

created to serve, or the priorities we now need to meet. In today’s 

fiscal environment we need to make every dollar work towards 

stimulating growth. I am not saying that we should cut all energy 

credits, but I am saying that we need to simplify and refocus them 

when encouraging the next generation of energy solutions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
100 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.071
101 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.072
102 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.073
103 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.074
104 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.075
105 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.076
106 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.077
107 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.078
108 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.079
109 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.080
110 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.081
111 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. Greeff. 

STATEMENT OF TIM GREEFF, POLITICAL DIRECTOR, CLEAN 

ECONOMY NETWORK, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GREEFF. Thank you, Chairmen Tiberi and Boustany, Ranking Members Neal and Lewis, and subcommittee members. Thank 

you all for affording me the opportunity to testify today. My name 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.082
112 

is Tim Greeff, and I am the political and policy director for the 

Clean Economy Network. CEN is the largest national networking 

advocacy and educational organization representing clean economy 

companies. We have over 12,000 members nationwide, as well as 

17 affiliate chapters across the country. Our members include venture capitalists and project financiers, as well as businesses that 

manufacture, assemble, and install energy and efficiency capacity 

at home and abroad. I am appearing today before the subcommittees in my personal capacity, and my remarks represent my personal opinions. 

Tax policy has long been an essential component of the effort to 

shape and influence our energy policy. The two are so closely 

linked, in fact, that it is difficult to imagine a material separation. 

Further, we must recognize that the U.S. economy does not exist 

in a vacuum. Our competitors, such as China and Malaysia, use 

tax policy to invite investment and build domestic champions in 

this sector, with a strategic eye towards capturing manufacturing 

capacity. 

Thus, rather than focusing on whether energy policy should be 

conducted through the Tax Code, it is important to focus on when 

and how the Tax Code should and should not be used in relation 

to energy policy. 

It is necessary to mention that market signals, economic growth, 

and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy can not be fixed solely 

through the Tax Code. Ultimately, the long-term market signals 

that will drive the advanced energy economy require a more robust 

and comprehensive energy policy vision. Tax policy that is not a coordinated part of this larger vision runs the risk of leading us down 

the same path that we are currently on. 

Historically, tax policy has taken a piecemeal, technology-specific 

approach. Decades of tailoring the Tax Code to fit needs of discreet 

technologies at specific points in time has created a patchwork of 

inconsistent policy that too often necessitates equally piecemeal 

fixes. In order to change course, we must begin to rethink the use 

of energy-related tax policy to fit the realities of today’s energy 

economy. 

Moving forward, there are several criteria that should be considered to increase the efficacy of energy tax policies. Very simply put, 

tax policy, to the extent possible, should be technology agnostic, 

predictable, and finite. I would like to go into each of these in a 

little more detail. 

First, tax policy should aim to be technology agnostic, and avoid 

picking winners. Tax policies are sometimes written with one technology or domain in mind. This approach mutes market signals 

and puts the government into the driver’s seat of determining 

where investment dollars should go. Further, such an approach can 

unknowingly freeze out next-generation technologies. The innovation cycle is dynamic, and the best available technologies today will 

almost assuredly not be the best several years down the line. 

Second, tax policies should be predictable, and provide certainty. 

Most clean energy credits and programs are very short-term, 

whereas energy investments are typically long-term. Investors in 

businesses need certainty in order to make the investments and set 

their plans necessary to grow. If the credit is too short in duration, 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
113 

it can harm the innovation cycle, and drive money only towards 

technologies that are current in market scale. 

Finally, tax policy should not attempt to set or replace the market. If left in the code too long, the incentives can distort the marketplace and chase off private capital in the long term from new 

and emerging technologies. Tax incentives should strike the balance of being long enough to send a market signal, but sunset predictably and appropriately to avoid market distortion. 

Using performance metrics to determine the duration of a particular tax policy is one alternative that can more accurately reflect 

and absorb market variables, while also including a predictable 

cut-off. 

Tax policy does hold a couple of advantages over other mechanisms to incentivize advanced energy. First, tax credits are fairly 

transparent. They are relatively easy to understand and apply for, 

thus requiring businesses to spend little on overhead. Second, tax 

policy is also relatively size and technology agnostic. In other 

words, almost any company can access a given credit by meeting 

the baseline criteria, and the value of the tax credit can be distributed efficiently, relative to the size, need, and performance of the 

individual company. 

When it comes to energy, tax policy should serve two fundamental purposes. One, tax provisions play an important and constructive role in the innovation cycle to drive new technologies to 

market. Innovation in the energy sector is very capital-intensive, 

and current economic realities make private investment dollars 

hard to come by. Furthermore, there are various points in the life 

cycle of a business that the private sector is sometimes unwilling 

to fund. Tax policy can provide small businesses with one more option to make it through this period. 

Two, tax policy can help nascent technologies and industries 

achieve competitive scale so they can stand on their own two feet. 

Cost competitiveness if fundamentally achieved through market 

scale. With increased production insulation comes lower cost and 

higher quality products. Normally, market demand will drive scale 

up, but in a globally competitive marketplace, sometimes scale 

must occur before demand alone can drive it in order to be competitive, especially in capturing manufacturing capacity. 

As discussions about comprehensive tax reform begin, Congress 

has the unique opportunity to create more consistent and streamlined tax policies for the energy sector that provide the accessibility, transparency, and certainty that investors need to invest, 

that entrepreneurs need to innovate, and that businesses need to 

grow and compete. 

I look forward to working with the committee in the future to 

achieve this goal. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greeff follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
114 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.083
115 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.084
116 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.085
117 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.086
118 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Lindsey, you are recognized for five minutes. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.087
119 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE LINDSEY GROUP, FAIRFAX, 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. LINDSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members 

of the Committee. Thank you very much for inviting me, and for 

your forbearance, having me on this panel. 

I am not normally a supporter of legislation to steer private decision-making through government incentives, including the Tax 

Code. My testimony today is going to focus on an example that is 

in the Natural Gas Act, but it is more generic, in that it reflects 

the kind of standards that I think the committee should apply in 

cost benefit analysis. 

First, I think that any such legislation has to be held to a very 

high cost benefit standard. And I have three basic tests that: first, 

any government incentives that affect private decision-making 

should be tied to a clearly-defined reason why the market would 

not correct on its own; second, that there be an externality at the 

national level which would justify that such change in private sector behavior is in the national interest; and third, that the subsidy 

be done in a rigorous cost benefit analysis way, and that that cost 

benefit analysis be clearly in the direction that the benefits exceed 

the costs. 

I think an example in the Natural Gas Act shows how one might 

do this. Let me begin with why the market might not correct on 

its own. 

Right now we have a very unusual disparity in the pricing of 

natural gas versus oil. The—on a normal Btu basis, one would expect that a barrel of oil would sell for about 8 times that of 1,000 

cubic feet of natural gas. But currently, oil is around 80, natural 

gas is around 4, so you have a ratio of 20 to 1. So the question 

comes up: Why isn’t the market correcting? In particular, why 

aren’t we converting motor fuels in that direction? 

I think that the answer is a pretty standard one in economic 

thought, and that is that what you have is a technology in place. 

And once you have a technology in place, it is very hard to make 

the transition. The example that I think of every time—and I am 

sure it applies to all of us—is the keyboard on a typewriter. We call 

it the QWERTY system, Q–U–E–R–T–Y [sic]. 

Now, that was put in place when we did some tests about 100 

years ago on how people typed, and they figured that worked. Well, 

we have now done a lot more tests. And, believe it or not, there 

would be another keyboard design that would actually about double 

all of our typing speeds. Here is the problem. We would all have 

to relearn all the new typing speed. And frankly, sir, at my age I 

am too old to learn stuff like that. So that is why we are stuck with 

QWERTY. 

Well, the same thing is true in the case of oil and natural gas. 

In the case of 18-wheel truckers, for example, we have a dieselbased system. It was put in place a long time ago. It made sense 

back then. Although now, with the ratios I was talking about in 

cost, it would make a lot of sense to actually do the conversion. 

Well, the problem, and the reason we have a QWERTY problem, 

is that you cannot just develop a natural gas truck unless you have 

a way of refueling it. So, even though the cost incentives of running 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
120 

a natural gas truck make it highly, highly competitive—the cost is 

about one-sixth that of diesel—you don’t have a place to refuel it. 

It doesn’t do you any good. 

On the other hand, if you run refueling stations, it doesn’t make 

a lot of sense to add natural gas to your product line unless you 

have a lot of trucks who are going to use it. And so, what we have 

to do—and here is why I think that there is a reasonable case for 

incentives on natural gas trucking. We have to break that 

QWERTY problem. 

When I look at the analysis, the second question is: Would it be 

in the national interest? And here, the intent is largely one of energy independence. And if you compare it to other tax provisions 

to encourage us to use less oil—in fact, as my testimony shows, it 

would be quite advantageous relative to things like the renewable 

fuels credits, and it would be many times more advantageous relative to the electric vehicle plug-in credit: $7,500 per car. So, I do 

think that, on a cost benefit test, it meets that standard as well. 

Again, I thought the—some of the suggestions on the panel were 

quite good on how we might redesign. But I would go back to saying, you know, do you have a—something like a QWERTY problem 

that needs fixing, and that should be test one. Secondly is the 

change in the national interest. And third, are we doing it in a 

cost-effective way? And I would urge the committee to take that approach in everything they do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindsey follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
121 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.088
122 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.089
123 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.090
124 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.091
125 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.092
126 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.093
127 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.094
128 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.095
129 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Well, thank you all. And I will remind you 

that your entire testimony will be submitted for the record. 

First question to the panelists. You all know that I have been 

publicly supportive of being a proponent of comprehensive tax reform, primarily to simplify our Tax Code, make it more of a progrowth Tax Code, grow our economy, create jobs. Spoke to some tax 

professionals yesterday and had a pretty good discussion with them 

about the competition that they face with respect to competitors 

who are headquartered in other countries, and the Tax Codes 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.096
130 

around the world. And I asked this question to them, and I am 

going to ask it of all of you, as it applies to energy. 

What can we do, as the United States Congress, to make our Tax 

Code not only more competitive for our employers, but more competitive to attract additional out-of-country employers to create jobs 

and investment in America? 

In the news lately we have all read about the unraveling of 

Solyndra—that case is yet to close—the increase in solar panel production in China. 

And so I ask each one of you, starting with Mr. Lindsey, as we 

move to reforming our Tax Code through the efforts of Chairman 

Camp, as we apply it to energy, what can we do to make the Tax 

Code a Tax Code that makes energy—investment in energy production, energy security, energy production—more market-driven with 

respect to our United States Economy? And I start with you, Mr. 

Lindsey. 

Mr. LINDSEY. Well, narrowly, with respect to energy, I think 

the first thing one has to do is identify what the objective is. You 

mentioned energy independence. And then, once you do that, you 

really want to equalize the incentive across different ways of doing 

it. 

Right now, for example, the electric car technology has a subsidy 

that is many, many times what it is for other ways of substituting 

one fuel for the other. That really doesn’t make a lot of sense. You 

are not designing it efficiently. And I think that the—what was 

said earlier on the panel would conform to that. 

Second question you have to decide, you mentioned domestic production versus imports. That is a threshold question. If you really 

want to develop domestic fuels, then I think what you want to do 

is you have to lower the cost—the tax-based cost structure of production in America. 

Right now we have, in general, a Tax Code that discriminates 

against any kind of production in America for almost all industries. 

And I think—and I have testified before other committees on this 

subject—I think, fundamentally, that is the kind of reform we have 

to move to. It is one that has to be border-adjustable. 

And I think, in the end, some kind of substitution of a cashflowbased tax for a—income-based tax is going to be necessary, and I 

think that applies to the energy side, as well as to the general production side. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Greeff. 

Mr. GREEFF. I think I would go back to my several criteria. The 

first one is certainty. The investment cycle in energy is usually 

longer, and a number of the credits for renewable energy, most notably the PTC for wind energy, is very intermittent. And you have 

these boom bust cycles. And if investors are really going to make 

long-term investments in energy and build a manufacturing capacity and a resource base in the United States, they need the certainty that the length of the investment—so instead of attaching 

the credits to sort of arbitrary timelines of two years, you can attach it to production tax credits that are focused on when a particular technology would achieve scale. 

And I think the second key criteria is that we need to come up 

with a sense of common goals. So if you look at, for example, how 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
131 

we incented corn ethanol, you know, it was agreed that ethanol 

needed to be—or alternative fuels needed to be incented, but the 

government went as far as to say, ‘‘We’re going to mandate this 

many gallons of corn,’’ whereas we would say, ‘‘If the overall goal 

is to reduce petroleum use, or create petroleum displacement, then 

let’s set the goal as generally as possible, set the rules of the game, 

make them long term, and then let the market determine which 

technologies and fuels within that category are actually going to 

meet that standard and achieve that credit. 

Chairman TIBERI. Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, so I agree with the points around leveling 

the playing field, in particular, and creating certainty. I think that 

what we have seen is a dislocation, in terms of the types of credits 

that go in, and also a level of rifle-shooting around particular technologies. 

And I think that the challenge that we face is how to create a 

levelized code that actually induced innovation across a whole 

bunch of different technology categories, and does so in a way that 

actually allows investors to invest ahead of those upticks in the 

market, the uptake of those technologies. 

As was mentioned, the stop-start approach around a lot of the renewables credits has been a challenge, and that is largely because 

what we, as investors, have to look at, then, is how predictable the 

political process is, in terms of renewing these credits, as opposed 

to part of what we were proposing—what I was proposing in my 

testimony is if you understood that those credits would be in place 

for a given company by the time they got to that stage, then you 

could actually invest in that. You could rely on that. And so, you 

can actually, then, account for those credits in the finances of the 

company. 

Today you can’t do that. And so I think what we really need is 

that level of certainty over time. 

Chairman TIBERI. Mr. Auerbach. 

Mr. AUERBACH. Thank you. I won’t repeat what the other witnesses have said, but I will just note that my testimony recommends moving away from the Tax Code as the primary vehicle 

through which the Federal Government expresses energy policy. 

I recognize that there are limitations on tax incentives, and that 

they work best for individuals in businesses that actually pay tax. 

If you are not a taxpayer, it is very inefficient to access those benefits that Congress is trying to bestow. 

One recommendation I would make, just to directly answer the 

point, though, is that if you are going to use the Tax Code, let’s 

recognize that taxes are a drag on economic activity. And so, by 

lowering tax rates overall, you incentivize more economic activity. 

And if you want to encourage increased domestic production of energy, lower the tax rate on those producers all the way to zero, and 

that is going to get you a lot of activity to produce more domestic 

energy. The lower you go, the more activity you get. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Book. 

Mr. BOOK. Yes, I think the message of stability and metricsbased decisions has been loud and clear. And I can only add more 

volume and more clarity. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
132 

I do think, though, there is a difference between picking a winner and knowing whether you are a buyer or a seller. A couple 

years ago I had a discussion with an advisor to DoE, and I said, 

you know, ‘‘Why are we trying to become an exporter of clean energies, when we have been a consumer for so long?’’ And she said, 

‘‘Because we should try to compete.’’ And I understand that. 

But if the original premise was to install, to encourage the installation of clean, renewable power, which it has done admirably, then 

shouldn’t we be buying the cheapest, most efficient clean, renewable power, and look for ways perhaps to support and supplement 

the technologies where we are not likely to be dominant? We are 

the third largest oil-producing nation in the world, and we have become more prolific. It is possible that you may not want to pick 

winners or losers, but you may still want to be a seller when you 

can be a winning seller. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. And finally, Dr. Marron. 

Mr. MARRON. Well, I think all the good answers have been 

taken, so I just want to go back and echo something that Larry 

said in particular, which is, you know, I would start answering this 

question by thinking about investment incentives for the United 

States generally, not just in the energy sector. And I think there 

are a lot of problems in our current corporate Tax Code. And I 

think moving towards something that looks like a cash flow tax 

that gives favorable treatment to new investment is the right place 

to go fishing. 

And then second, let me just echo the level playing field argument, that if we want to encourage investment in energy, there is 

no particular reason to play favorites among which type of clean 

energy is going to be used. Design incentives that provide a comparable incentive to each type, including ones that haven’t been invented yet, and then let them fight it out in the marketplace. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Neal is recognized. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panelists, particularly Mr. Greeff for his comments on ethanol. Singularly one of the best and most strident arguments I have ever 

heard in this room many years ago was between oil and ethanol. 

And that strident argument was amongst the Republicans. They 

were at battle over that issue. 

Now, Mr. Coleman, I thought you and Mr. Greeff both did a good 

job explaining why the nature of short-term tax credits in the code 

with expiration dates that are fairly sharp discourage small business and investment. Would you reiterate that, please, again, the 

two of you? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Sure. The—in terms of early-stage technology 

companies, the kinds of companies that we invest in, we often invest years ahead of when they actually hit the market. And so the 

challenge is what level of predictability is there that the policies 

that are currently in place are still going to be in place by the time 

they actually hit the market. 

And so, a more reliable approach would be an approach that 

would allow us to invest in a company, knowing that, as it scaled 

its production, it would actually be able to leverage certain credits 

in the marketplace. That means that you either have to reduce the 

expiration dates around a lot of the credits that already exist, or 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
133 

you have to create a policy that doesn’t have expiration dates in 

the same way. 

Mr. GREEFF. I think, just to add to that, if you want to meet 

a person who can really stretch the value of a dollar, go find an 

entrepreneur. And it is—the marginal value of money to a small 

business is so much higher than to a larger company. 

And I think one point that I would add to Will’s comments is we 

also need the tax policy to be helpful and send a signal. But we 

don’t want it to set the market. I think too often times we have 

Tax Codes that have existed for too long for very, very mature industries. And so, when you try to crack into a marketplace as heavily regulated as the electricity and energy sector, it is really hard 

for new technologies and small businesses to compete in the first 

place. 

So, there is an added level of pressure and a bigger hurdle for 

them to get over. And it makes the money that can come from tax 

policy that much more important for smaller businesses, because 

they face such an uphill climb just to reach the marketplace with 

innovation. 

Mr. NEAL. The current discussion here is focused on moving the 

corporate rate to 25 percent. And that seems to be a very desirable 

goal, if it could be accomplished. But to get there, everybody acknowledges that there are going to have to be some long sacred 

credits that will be sacrificed along the way. 

And as we move in the direction of this discussion, and centered 

on the idea of eliminating some of these provisions, what would the 

impact be in the energy area, in particular, some of the tougher energy areas, which all of you seem to agree upon? What would you 

give up? 

Mr. GREEFF. It is an excellent question. I mean I think that it 

comes down to when we have to determine tax policy and determine where to sunset and where to cut, there is a time frame that 

we should work on. So the idea that we would just turn the switch 

off tomorrow is going to send a shock wave, not just through the 

renewable and clean energy sector, but energy sector in general. 

And so, we do need to make a commitment to sun-setting a lot 

of these long-standing tax policies, and put a finite time period on 

them, as we reform the Tax Code. 

However, I will say ultimately it comes down to a value judgement of how important the energy sector overall is to the economy. 

And we would argue that it is very important, and that, regardless 

and irrespective of what happens with the overall statutory tax 

rate versus the effective tax rate with credits, the energy tax policies are some of the most important to continue in the short term. 

And again, let’s set predictable time lines for when these turn 

off. So when you look at the PTC for wind, for example, we need 

to set a long-term extension on the PTC of, you know, four to five 

years to allow that industry to go before we start talking about 

where we are going to turn all this off, because we have to allow 

the markets to adjust to tax reform in the long term. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Mr. Lindsey, I always appreciate your 

candor here, you know. You know what I am speaking of. And I 

also appreciated your comments this week on income disparity. I 

thought that you and, I think it was, Glen Hubbard had some comVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:45 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 076057 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\76057.XXX GPO1 PsN: 76057

anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
134 

ments in the Wall Street Journal. I thought that was a worthwhile 

discussion that we might have down the road, as well. 

But the American Chemical Council has argued that many of the 

subsidies in the Natural Gas Act distorts the market. And you 

spoke to that issue. And I thought the objective that you laid out 

of energy independence is one we all ought to be able to rally 

around. And how might you respond to their suggestion that we 

are really stifling investment and job creation by the use of the current incentives? 

Mr. LINDSEY. Well, where I would agree is, generically, if we 

leveled the playing field in the ways that everyone on this panel 

is talking about—— 

Mr. NEAL. Yes. 

Mr. LINDSEY [continuing]. That would be a win-win. Again, it 

makes no sense to subsidize technology X this amount and technology Y a different amount. 

As I understand the concern of the chemical industry, they are 

a consumer of natural gas, and therefore compete as a consumer 

with other consumers. In this case, I think that they would be concerned about a diversion of natural gas into motor fuels, because 

it would raise the cost of their feed stock. I think that is their primary concern. 

I am less sympathetic to that concern, because I think the issue 

is—here is a specific technological change which, to me, makes a 

lot of sense. I do think we have to move more toward a natural gasbased motor fuels system. I think the market is screaming for that. 

And I think that the existing technology barrier, the QWERTY 

problem, is the identified problem. 

I don’t see a similar problem for the chemical industry, and that 

is why I am not convinced by their argument. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. I 

want to make a few points and then pose a question. I think it is 

pretty clear right now across the country that we don’t have a real 

coherent energy strategy. And one of you mentioned that in your 

testimony. 

And in trying to look at this as a policy-maker, and understanding, okay, how do we do this, how do we really move forward 

and jump-start a real process that gets us to an energy strategy, 

I think you have to, number one, understand where you are today, 

and what fuels we are dependent upon, and some sort of a reasonable time line of about how long we will be dependent on these. 

Secondly, don’t push policies that will punish your current energy production. I think that is a no-brainer. And some of the 

things we have seen coming from the administration would, in fact, 

do that. 

Thirdly, you have to have a transition strategy, and you have to 

look realistically across the board, current state of R&D, innovation, and so forth to understand what is that transition strategy. 

And there are very few things, given the current state of R&D, that 

get us quickly to that point that we are trying to get to, which is 

ultimately energy security for the United States. 

And one transition strategy, in my mind, after having spent a lot 

of time looking at this, is clearly natural gas. Because we know we 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
135 

don’t have biofuels that meet our needs yet on a big scale. Solar 

and wind are not going to do it. And natural gas is really the only 

alternative at this stage. 

And I agree with Chairman Tiberi that we want to do comprehensive tax reform. We want to clear it up, clean up the code, 

simplify, lower rates. And so for someone like myself, the question 

is: At what point do we use tax policy to drive some of these decisions, rather than having tax policy driving all of our energy decisions in a very incoherent way? 

And I think, Mr. Lindsey, you offered a lot of clarity in your testimony about how we should approach this when you have an issue 

of national interest. And I found myself very much in sympathy 

with what you said in your testimony. 

I thought all of you did a tremendous job in helping us work 

through some of these very complex issues of, you know, tax credits, deductions, loan guarantees, and so forth. It is a pretty complex 

issue, as you look at it. But what ultimately gets us to the right 

policy? 

And so, I am curious. As we look at all of this, I am still trying 

to parse down where that role for tax policy is as we look at energy 

security and driving this. 

And I mean I agree, Mr. Lindsey. I was reluctant. I looked at 

this bill, the Nat Gas Act, I said, ‘‘Well, it is going counter to what 

we want to do with tax reform.’’ But does it hit that threshold, 

where we have a national interest and we need to do something on 

a temporary basis to jump start a change, a shift in technology that 

allows us to transition to whatever R&D takes us to next? 

And I would love for you to just comment a little bit more on 

that. Let’s just explore that topic. 

Mr. LINDSEY. Mr. Chairman, if you told me that we were going 

to get comprehensive tax reform, and there was no room for something like this, I would say go for the comprehensive tax reform. 

With all respect to the committee and the process of the Congress, I am not holding my breath. And so, given that we have a— 

why don’t we say an existing flawed system, to me, having another 

flaw, but a cost-effective one, really doesn’t shock my conscience, 

and that is why I would be there on that one issue. 

But absolutely, comprehensive tax reform would so benefit every 

industry involved that if that were the choice, I would go with that 

route. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you. Others, please. Mr. Greeff, I 

think you looked like you wanted to comment. 

Mr. GREEFF. Yes. Well, I mean I think, as part of a comprehensive plan, I think you have really hit the nail on the head. And we 

would say that tax policy certainly serves a role. But ultimately, 

we need to have a vision. And I think, again, it comes back to what 

are our agreed-upon goals? 

If we think that national security is a big part of what our energy policy should be—which I would agree with, because there is 

a lot more at stake here than just the failure of a company or a 

sector—we are really talking about much bigger issues. We need to 

step back and look at, okay, well, what is really the problem? If we 

can agree upon, for example, that we need to decrease our imports 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
136 

of foreign oil, then the codes and also standards need to be targeted 

at what would help us do that, without dictating the pathway. 

So, again, you know, we need alternative fuels. Does it have to 

be corn ethanol? Not necessarily. Does it even have to be ethanol? 

Not necessarily. And so, we need to make sure that the rules of the 

game are written at the highest level possible of an agreed-upon 

vision, and then let the market adjust to figure out which technologies are going to be the best ones to get us there. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. And I think each of you have given us 

a reasonable framework in which to think about this. 

My time has expired, but I just wanted to make one last comment. 

Mr. Coleman, you mentioned the issue about R&D investment in 

oil and gas. And I think you have to look behind those numbers, 

because there is a certain level of maturation, obviously, in that 

technology. But at the same time, it is the R&D that has allowed 

us to do horizontal drilling, deep water exploration, and those 

kinds of things. And so those things have had value, significant 

value, in helping us meet our energy security needs. Because without it, yes, we probably would have hit some peak oil issue much 

earlier. 

And so, as technology advances, and as this type of research and 

development and going after new types of reserves, we have to look 

at that as part of that equation. 

My time has expired, and we will go next to Ranking Member 

Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to thank each of you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Greeff, I would like to start by asking you a very basic question. Backed by the recent flurry of budget cuts, there has been 

more and more talk about significantly reducing the size and role 

of government. It is sometimes seen as unreal and unbelievable, 

but there are forces loose abroad in the land. 

Can you tell me, do you believe the Federal Government has a 

role in accelerating the adoption of renewable energy technologies? 

If so, can you tell me why? 

Mr. GREEFF. Yes. I mean unequivocally yes, we do—— 

Mr. LEWIS. And share with me and the Members of the Committee your vision, your vision of the role of the Federal Government. 

Mr. GREEFF. We believe fundamentally two things. Number 

one, that the Tax Code and the role of government can really be 

used to help set a vision, and help emerging nascent technologies 

achieve market scale. We fundamentally believe that it really is demand and market scale that is going to achieve the most efficient 

companies and technologies, and also the best cost savings for consumers when you implement these technologies and they reach maturity. 

But because we have a very heavily-regulated energy sector, because we have a very unlevel playing field, it is very difficult for 

these early-stage companies and new technologies to crack in. And 

often times, unintentionally, we do pick winners, and have picked 

winners in the past, that freeze out new technologies. So we need 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
137 

to make sure that when the government is involved, that we are 

really focusing on getting towards a vision, driving innovation, 

driving new technologies, and helping these technologies stand up 

and compete, so that eventually they are attracting private capital 

into the system, and that it is the private capital in the marketplace that is driving these companies once they hit a certain spot. 

But Mr. Coleman had some really good comments on this, and 

probably has something to add about exactly how we get there. 

Mr. LEWIS. I would love to hear from you, Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I mean, I think that it is—to Tim’s point, 

I think that it is very much around how we get from here to there. 

And I think getting from here to there can take a short time for 

some technologies, and a very long time for other technologies. 

And the question is: What role should the government play in 

doing that? I think it is really where there is market failures. And, 

you know, we, as investors, would like to see the government play 

as little a role is possible where we think that the market is functional, and where we think that we can invest and grow on our 

own accord. And to the degree that we see areas that are broken. 

We either stay away from those areas as investors, or we look to 

the government to actually make them more functional so that we, 

as investors, can get off the sidelines and be productive. 

And I think in energy, in particular, the challenge is really 

around the innovation question. It is really around how we move 

very large infrastructure, how we transition from decades and decades of spending to—from one paradigm to another paradigm. And 

that doesn’t—you know, as much as I like to think that we as investors in early-stage companies change the world—I think we do, 

in a lot of cases—but it is not the early-stage companies alone that 

need to solve this problem. 

And so, part of the challenge, I think, is figuring out how to 

structure these incentives so that they drive both an opening of the 

market, so that you can have early-stage companies participate, 

and they drive investment from some of the existing corporations 

into the next generation of technologies. 

Mr. LEWIS. Would anyone else would like to respond? 

Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, if I might. I just note that when we are 

in the commodity business—as the energy is a commodity business—that incumbent technologies that have already scaled crowd 

out innovation naturally, because there is no place to express consumer preference for something that is innovative, and that there 

are certain values that the nation should express, like energy independence, and also environmental benefits that are social benefits 

that cannot be expressed today as a price signal to encourage alternative forms of energy production. 

And so, what we are trying to do is, in effect, add externalities 

into the equation. But in my testimony I pointed out that even 

without those externalities, by virtue of the scale, the increasing 

scale of the wind and solar industries, that costs are already coming down dramatically, and that if we have increased expansion of 

those industries, that we are going to see further benefits in lowering costs, and therefore, increasing competition. 

Mr. LEWIS. Now, each of you realize, as Members of Congress 

our most important role right now is to create jobs to get people 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
138 

back to work. If we do away with these incentives, what impact 

would that have on the economy? 

Mr. GREEFF. It would have a pretty profound impact. If we cut 

these incentives tomorrow, as I mentioned earlier, there would be 

a shock wave that goes through the energy sector. Again, going 

back to the wind example, we don’t even have to guess. We know 

that when the PTC credits have expired in the past, you see anywhere from a 70 to a 90 percent decrease in orders and installation 

of turbines. So—and the corresponding jobs that go with it. 

I think to the manufacturing piece, I would say that we have a 

crisis in manufacturing in this country that has existed for several 

decades. And a lot of the manufacturing jobs that we have lost are 

very hard to get back. 

I think one of the things that the government can play a role in 

is really capturing and going after the industries where the manufacturing jobs are still largely up for grabs. And in the emerging 

energy economy, that is true. And if we look forward and help drive 

these companies before the market may dictate that the supply 

would be there, we can keep some more of these companies here, 

and the manufacturing jobs that come along with them. 

Mr. LEWIS. I think my time is up. But Mr. Chairman, Mr.—— 

Mr. BOOK. Could I just add to that? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. 

Mr. BOOK. I mean I think the cartoon-like image that one gets 

is that you are sort of a cat running away from a pack of dogs, you 

run up the tree, out to the end of the branch, and then you start 

sawing off the branch while the dogs are down below. 

These two things that are being discussed here, sort of the existing energy infrastructure we have, and the innovation we must 

have, are not incompatible. And the question is always one of balance. But it is important to remember that when you are talking 

about these mature industries, you are talking about mature commodity players, where gasoline stations, for example, make money 

at a fraction of a cent per gallon. If you start to take away anything, the market will equilibrate. The big well finance companies 

will always be better off, and the less well-financed, smaller, and 

in some cases more innovative but conventional companies, will be 

worse off. 

But while that is equilibrating, the jobs are going to be falling 

away. And so I don’t think that it is particularly useful, from a job 

creation perspective, to make the economics of a global consumer 

of a global commodity worse at any given time, and certainly not 

going to help our producers here. And you very well might not 

want to make it harder to compete within the country, because as 

people compete they will cut jobs with the margins. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Ms. Jenkins. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you all. Mr. Coleman, your written testimony stresses the need for long-term stability in federal policy, and also calls for targeting federal incentives by connecting the technologies directly to firmly bipartisan 

policy objectives. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
139 

But it appears that there is widespread disagreement about what 

relative weight, if any, should be given to various energy policy 

goals, such as those identified in your testimony. And even if there 

are firmly bipartisan policy objectives at any given point, they seem 

to be shifting. 

So, it seems federal subsidies create inherent uncertainty in the 

marketplace, and I would just appreciate your thoughts on the 

whole issue of uncertainty. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I think there is all sorts of different kinds 

of uncertainty. And it is part of what we invest in every day, is trying to understand what the market is going to look like. And part 

of that, in the energy sector, is trying to understand what the politics are going to look like. 

And so, I think we already deal with that uncertainty today. I 

think, in terms of an approach to overcoming some of that, within 

the existing code there are a number of different structures that 

were mentioned in a bunch of different testimonies here today that 

have expiration dates. And there is an element of, if we are not 

going to change the code, then we probably need to figure out how 

to extend those expiration dates and make more certainty there so 

investors can invest ahead. 

In terms of the approach that I was recommending, it is really 

focused on the innovation side of the equation, the earliest stages 

of these companies’ development, and also the early stages of the 

technology development. And the idea being that we can find some 

generalized numbers, some milestones around scale of production, 

and things like that. So megawatts produced, units sold, et cetera. 

And we have seen these rebates and tax programs work in other 

places that use these kinds of metrics. 

But we can use those generalized metrics to create certainty for 

individual companies. And in terms of which companies would 

qualify, which is, I think, to your point, I do think that debate 

needs to happen. And I don’t know that we are going to solve that 

on this panel here today. But I do think that a lot of people agree 

around one particular one, and that is energy security. 

And I think that here in the U.S. the idea of growing our domestic supplies is a really important one. And we have focused on that 

politically for the last century. So, hopefully we can continue to do 

that, and I hope we can continue to do it on the innovation side 

of the equation. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay, thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Marchant is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you from 

my constituents back home what they favor is not giving loans like 

have just been given to Solyndra and seeing a half-billion dollars 

wasted, which has hurt the entire energy credit reputation. And 

what they are telling me when I go back home and have town hall 

meetings and meet with my small business people is, ‘‘Do away 

with all of these credits, lower our tax rate, and let the best product win, the best service win, and get out of the whole business of 

subsidy.’’ 

Realizing that that is going to be a struggle, and realizing that 

is a goal and this committee is really working on it, I have been 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
140 

very interested today in a couple of the concepts that have been 

discussed. 

Mr. Auerbach, could you walk through the reverse auction strategy for me, and how would it maximize any taxpayer dollar that 

was invested? 

Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, thank you very much. The reverse auction 

mechanism, it relies more on the market than on government mandates to set a price. And it is self-limiting, because what we start 

off with is, say, ‘‘Let’s encourage more domestic production of energy.’’ And we talk about wind, solar, biomass, and also oil and gas. 

All of those are—what we are talking about in reverse auctions— 

are made-in-America energy. 

And so, the reverse auction mechanism would divert revenues 

from expanded oil and gas drilling. Part of it will pay down the deficit, which is, of course, a national priority. And then some of it will 

be allocated to a trust fund and allow renewable energy developers 

to compete for that access to that capital. 

In the slides that I pointed out, I pointed out that renewable energy costs are coming down already. And I believe if you opened 

it up to competitive auctions, that fewer and fewer dollars would 

need to be allocated for every megawatt hour of renewable electricity produced, and you let the market do it. 

In the proposal that we are advocating, every year the ceiling 

price from the reverse auction would go down five percent automatically. And so, we are phasing out—again, with a market-based 

mechanism, the support for renewable energy technologies, and we 

are letting that go. 

One comment I would make to your constituents, though—and I 

understand the concern, I understand very well; as an investor, I 

don’t like losing money, and Solyndra is a black eye—but if you 

analogize where we are today as driving on the highway at 70 

miles an hour—65, let’s say, because that’s the speed limit, so I’m 

not saying we should be going faster than the speed limit—a light 

hand on the steering wheel is understandable, and that is the way 

I believe government should operate. Taking your hands off the 

steering wheel at 65 miles an hour is perilous. 

And so, just abandoning all responsible oversight and government activity to support the growth of the industry would be taking your hand off the steering wheel at a time it is hurtling down 

the highway at 65 miles an hour. And I believe that the overreaction to some very bad news and distressing news about the 

Solyndra situation would also create problems and unintended consequences. 

Mr. MARCHANT. And as a follow-up question to Mr. Coleman, 

I don’t think I misheard you, but maybe I did. You said that the 

top five oil companies in America spend almost nothing for R&D. 

Would you clarify that a little? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, they spend less than two percent of their 

profits on R&D. It is one of the lowest numbers of any industry. 

And while I think that is an eye-opening number, at the same time 

I agree with the chairman’s statement, which is we have had a tremendous number of innovations over the last 50 to 100 years, particularly in oil and gas, and that is a large reason why we continue 

to have increased access to supply here in the U.S. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
141 

Our point is more that, as an industry that is not investing as 

much as other industries in R&D, there is an enormous amount of 

opportunity for new innovation in next generation technologies. 

And we believe that it is not just going to come from start-up companies and emerging technologies. It is going to come from the oil 

and gas industry, and it is going to come from some of the biggest 

players who already exist in the energy industry. And we see those 

folks as partners. 

And so, the hope is that you can create a policy that brings those 

companies to the table and encourages them to realign their investment choices around not just the things that will increase supply 

today, which I think is critical, but around those things which will 

increase supply and decrease cost over the long term. 

Mr. MARCHANT. But even at two percent, that gross dollar 

amount that they are spending, if you compare it against the gross 

dollar amount that is being spent by all of the other combined industries, aren’t they comparable numbers? 

Mr. COLEMAN. I don’t have the absolute numbers sitting in 

front of me. I don’t believe that they are, although I do—I would 

say that the oil and gas industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world. So—— 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you. 

Mr. COLEMAN [continuing]. It is a good number to have. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. McDermott is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. President—or Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

As I look out on this committee, or this panel, I am really 

pleased to see people who believe in the market. And they think 

the market is the thing that we must worship at. And as I look— 

I watched what happened yesterday on the floor, when the floor 

was controlled by people who really believe that government should 

have no role in doing anything. 

I have a question for all of you, because we had a bill. We had 

a 48© extension here in the committee. Members of this panel all 

signed on, said we ought to extend the manufacturing credit for 

solar things and other things, and it died. Okay? 

Now, 1603, direct payment for wind and solar credits, is going to 

expire at the end of this year. Ethanol expires at the end of 2011. 

Renewable diesel and biodiesel expires at the end of this year. And 

alternative fuel credit, natural gas, expires at the end of this year. 

If this Congress acts like they acted yesterday, and said, ‘‘We don’t 

want the government involved in this stuff,’’ what is going to happen in the market? 

How will the market react if the Congress pulls out of all of 

those programs which are set within four months to be gone? I 

would like to hear you all respond to that. Sir? 

Mr. BOOK. I would be happy to answer that, since I talked to 

some of those investors every day. And it scares them very badly. 

And their job is to make money. They are very conservative, and 

they dump investments that they think are overweighted with risk. 

The gentlemen to my left are all very good at making money, so 

the analogy that I was suggesting was a portfolio. And they don’t 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
142 

put all their eggs in one basket, but they also don’t get out of the 

market entirely, or there wouldn’t be anything in it. 

I don’t think anyone here is advocating dumping all of subsidies—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. You think the Congress is going to extend all 

these? 

Mr. BOOK. I certainly don’t, and that is the point of a metricsbased analysis. Figure out what you want to do that is working 

well, allocate a certain amount to that. Look at the things that are 

sort of higher risk, given an amount to that, based on efficacy and 

numbers you can quantify, and then save a little bit for the moonshot, and make sure that you have a balanced returning portfolio, 

in terms of energy security, environmental benefit, and innovation 

and the benefit that brings it home. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Maybe I should have asked the question a 

little differently. Which ones of these should we save to save the 

market? 

Mr. AUERBACH. Well, can I start off? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Sure. 

Mr. AUERBACH. First of all, I am a believer in the market, I 

don’t worship the market nor government. 

But I do believe that the Federal Government, by abdicating any 

responsibility for the market that exists would create chaos. And 

as a capital committer that has committed hundreds of millions of 

dollars of investment capital in the United States, the expiration 

of some of these incentives is going to create chaos and is going to 

create job losses. 

What I advocated in my testimony, both oral and written, is really—one point about Section 1603. Some people don’t like it because 

it is associated with stimulus. But it represents efficient use of government dollars, as I think every—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. You mean it was a good idea? 

Mr. AUERBACH. I think it was a—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. From the Obama Administration? 

Mr. AUERBACH. It was a great idea. I was one of the ones who 

actually was involved in working with the Administration and both 

Houses of Congress in talking them through how it would benefit 

the industry. 

Ultimately, since I believe that cash is a better way—when cash 

transfers hands it is a much easier currency than the foreign currency called a tax credit, that the vast majority of our industry cannot efficiently utilize. 

Interestingly, 48©, well, if you look at 48©, we were a beneficiary 

of 48©, and we could not access a dollar of it, because we were not 

a taxpayer. One of our companies was afforded a $51 million tax 

credit that we couldn’t use. If we got the cash payment, we would 

have been creating more jobs. And 60 percent, in my estimate, of 

the recipients of 48© will not be able to access that tax credit. 

So, the more we understand about how tax credits are used by 

taxpayers, I think the more effective your policy can be. 

Mr. GREEFF. Just one comment to that to sort of clarify the 

point, I think that the discussion we are having here now makes 

the point of where we think the role of government should be. If 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
143 

you have tax credits that are based on things like arbitrary deadlines, then every couple years we are back here making a decision. 

What we would argue is we shouldn’t be making this decision. 

The government can set metrics-based performance standards or, 

you know, whatever the metrics are, make them long term and predictable enough that the market knows where it is going to head. 

And I will use an anecdote. 

One of the things that I would say in the clean energy sector of 

the emerging companies that we would say makes a difference between a young and a more mature company is the more mature 

companies actually have a line item on their spreadsheet that has 

public affairs, government affairs, as a cost of doing business. And 

I think that when we have a system that forces companies to have 

to interact with the government all the time to make sure that 

every other year, that there is more consistent policy, that is not 

a helpful system. 

We want to have it so that they are spending their money building factories, and they are spending their monies hiring people. 

They are not spending their money having to interact with the government all the time to make sure that these credits become more 

consistent, or that a better energy vision is laid out. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired, but anybody else want to reply? Mr. Lindsey. 

Mr. LINDSEY. Senator, I think if you actually look at the cost 

per gallon on a lot of those, I think you would—I would be one who 

would certainly want to phase some of them out. I think you mentioned ethanol. I think that is one of the most highly subsidized, 

and it definitely doesn’t meet any kind of standard of cost benefit 

analysis. You may not want to yank it right away, but it makes 

sense. I think the same thing is probably true with biodiesel. I 

think solar credits generally do not pass the cost benefit test. So 

I would be sympathetic to at least phasing many of them out. 

If I might indulge—if you would give—please, related to that— 

and I have heard the word ‘‘jobs’’ a lot—and, Mr. Lewis, I agree 

with you 100 percent on the importance of that. To show you how 

old I am, 29 years ago I was working with a guy named Larry 

Sommers in the Council of Economic Advisors, and he wrote a 

memo on Thanksgiving 1982 to the President. There was a proposal then that we create jobs with infrastructure, road building. 

And Larry Sommers wrote the memo and said, ‘‘You know, Mr. 

President, if you do this, you have to think, ’Compared to what?’ ’’ 

Turns out that infrastructure is a less labor-intensive part of the 

economy than the general economy. So if you take money from the 

general economy and put it into infrastructure or, frankly, if you 

put it into energy creation, you are not creating jobs net/net, you 

are actually destroying jobs. Now, so a lot of what you are talking 

about will cost jobs in the industries here. But on an economy-wide 

basis, if your sole objective is to create jobs, I would axe most of 

those subsidies. 

Chairman TIBERI. As I said, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Anybody else want to—very good questioning, Mr. McDermott. 

Thank you for always providing some interesting—anybody else? 

Mr. BOOK. Could I just add a—— 

Chairman TIBERI. Sure. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
144 

Mr. BOOK. I think that what we are talking about here—in 

many cases, we are all saying the same thing in different ways. 

But what Mr. Auerbach said, I thought, was really important. He 

was asking how much of that money that you are putting into any 

of these sources flows through to the actual purchase of the thing 

you are buying? That is the thing I call the return on tax. 

And I know it sounds like a crazy thing for people who believe 

in free markets to say, but if you want to give away money, give 

it directly away—is a very sensible proposition. What Mr. Lindsey 

said very eloquently is that, guess what, capitalism works. And the 

reason why you have lower labor intensity in the things that work 

at big scale is because that is why they are successful in a capitalist economy. 

That does not mean, however, that you won’t lose jobs. If you 

take things that currently benefit those industries away, it does 

mean—I think you would have to agree—that allocating—if jobs is 

your only criterion, there is some very labor-intensive things you 

could do, and renewable energy, in some forms—agriculture-based 

renewable energy can be very labor-intensive. 

We don’t necessarily want to live in an agrarian economy, 

though. I mean I think this is a balanced question. We are an industrial economy, and we want to create high-value jobs. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, thank you. I now recognize the 

gentleman from the booming energy state of North Dakota, Mr. 

Berg. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been anxiously 

awaiting to ask questions here. You know, obviously, in North Dakota we have taken a strong approach the last 10 years to not just 

look at oil, but look at all energy sources, and try and remove barriers and encourage their production. 

So, Mr. Greeff, I would like to kind of start just in kind of the 

big picture. I mean what can Congress do to provide certainty in 

the energy industry overall, encourage economic, you know, growth, 

and also, from a big picture, I think our goal should be energy 

independence. 

So, if you were going to say, ‘‘Here is three things that Congress 

can do now,’’ what would they be that would move us towards that 

end? 

Mr. GREEFF. I think, based on energy independence being the 

goal, I think, number one, we have to set—all policies need to have 

that fundamental goal as the bottom line. And that would include, 

you know, reducing our dependence on foreign oil—and I would say 

oil, overall—diversifying our energy portfolio, like anyone would diversify their investments. We depend far too much on far too few 

sources of energy. And we would want to make sure that we capture and produce as much of that energy at home as possible, so 

that the dollars that we do spend on energy are being spent domestically, and driving the economy. 

I think a second point is that we can’t ignore—because there is 

often times a focus on the role of the Federal Government, but 

again, when you get down to the local level, most energy markets 

are protected monopolies, and they are limited. And getting into— 

cracking into some of these industries is difficult. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
145 

When you look at, for example, that in the rate base of some utilities there is an economic and financial disincentive to be more efficient, that is a failure of the policy system. And we have got to 

start to fix that, so that actually you are not expecting utilities to 

lose money if they help end use users become more efficient. Because that is in the public good, that is in the public interest. And 

so, we can’t necessarily just separate the federal policy for more 

local policies. And we know that that is tricky, but that is something that we need to walk into with our eyes open. 

And I think the last point is that we do need to have a more comprehensive view that doesn’t just depend on tax policy, doesn’t just 

depend on performance standards. We can’t evaluate everything in 

a vacuum; we have to look at it and make sure it functions together. And if we can look at where we want to get to, if we can 

set the rules of the game, put them long-term, so that the touches 

of government intervention and the number of times that we have 

to have these conversations become fewer and further between, 

that is going to allow the market to adjust in the long term. 

Mr. BERG. Well, thank you. I have been in the commercial real 

estate investment world for 30 years, so I understand how—I mean 

we would think that your whole decision is based on tax policy, but 

the reality is that is just one component of making your investment 

decisions. 

Mr. Lindsey, you had mentioned that the Tax Code discriminates 

against production. Could you just expand on that, briefly? 

Mr. LINDSEY. More precisely, it discriminates against domestic 

production. So, if you produce something in North Dakota, the 

workers have to pay both employer and employee side of FICA, 

they have to pay income tax, they have to pay corporate income 

tax. If you import the same good from Manitoba, none of that tax 

is borne. 

Now, Canada has got a similar tax structure, so it is there. But 

if you think about it as China, none of that is taxed. We have a 

tax—we disadvantage our own manufacturers. What you need is a 

border-adjustable tax system, and it should be based on cash flow, 

and not on income, because income is not the thing you really want 

to tax. You want to tax something more generic than income. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. Mr. Coleman, you had mentioned—I may 

not have it quite right, but one solution would be a volume-based 

energy incentive system. I know you talked about it a little bit earlier. Could you just briefly recap that and give me an example of 

how that would work in real life, if we are transitioning from 

where we are now to maybe no incentives? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. So a volume-based system would be one 

that shifts from the current approach. So if you think about the 

way we currently approach tax policy around energy, typically it 

is—we have technology buckets. So we incent solar a certain way, 

wind another way, oil and gas a different way, natural gas a different way. And the challenge there is that the government necessarily has to figure out not only what the appropriate allocation 

is to those individual buckets, but has to listen to us sit here on 

these panels say whether, you know, one technology is better than 

the other on a pretty repeatable basis. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
146 

And so, the issue there is that when you are trying to figure out 

how to most effectively then incent those technologies, you also 

have to figure out when they are ready to move off of subsidies. 

And we have this semi-annual debate associated with whether or 

not a technology category is ready. 

The challenge is that when you look at the technologies inside 

even a single bucket—let’s just take solar, for example—you have 

some technologies that have moved all the way down their cost 

curve to the point—the chart that was brought up here earlier— 

those cost curves come down very steeply, based on innovation, and 

then on scale. They may have gotten to the point where they are 

at the bottom of the cost curve, and there is others that are just 

beginning to come down it. But they are also solar companies. 

And so, the question is, if you roll that tax credit off at that 

point, the most mature companies may well be able to compete. 

But the ones that are most innovative—and they may have a cost 

curve that goes well below where the most mature companies are— 

the ones that are most innovative won’t get any portion of that 

credit. 

And so, when we are investing in some of those early innovative 

technologies, we look at those policies and we say, ‘‘Well, will they 

be there by the time that these companies actually hit the marketplace?’’ 

And so, the approach that I am proposing is one that looks at the 

scale of the technology and says there will be a credit for companies that innovate in a given set of categories, and it will last until 

they get to a certain volume, and then it will start to roll off for 

that given company. And we have seen it happen in programs all 

over the place. 

One of the ones that is closest to home—and I am going to dare 

drop a California example here—is the hybrid rebate that was put 

into place, where, basically, for the initial volume of hybrids, there 

was a rebate put into place and then it rolled off once an individual 

company got to a certain volume. So, other companies could enter 

the market with a new hybrid, and it would roll off for them over 

time. 

But effectively, what that does is it gives us a level of certainty, 

as investors, to look at how that policy structure—and say that will 

be there by the time the market hits that scale, and so we can factor it in, and we can invest ahead of it. And it should be applicable, 

not just to start-ups. It should be applicable to any company that 

is undertaking technology innovation. 

Mr. BERG. So the point is you get to a point where the goal is 

to make money for the company, and they are making more money 

by increasing their volume, increasing their sales, and as that happens their incentive reduces. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes—— 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired—— 

Mr. BERG. I will yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI [continuing]. Go ahead and answer the question. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, the point is to help these companies get to 

a scale where their cost is fully reduced. And by the time they are 

mature, and their cost is fully reduced, they should be able to comVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:45 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 076057 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\76057.XXX GPO1 PsN: 76057

anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
147 

pete in the marketplace alone, rather than be reliant on subsidies, 

going forward. We want to invest in the companies that ultimately 

compete without subsidies. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Reed is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been very informative. I really do appreciate the panel’s input. Obviously, as we 

deal with energy policy going forward, tax policy in the energy field 

is going to be a critical piece to that comprehensive plan. 

I am a guy who believes in all of the above: domestic, renewables, alternatives, fossil fuels, et cetera. And one consistent theme 

that I am hearing here, and I have heard it before, is the certainty 

in the tax policy is critical to getting this correct. And, as a new 

Member—new member of this committee, new Member of Congress—there is a reason why the Tax Code is in the condition that 

it is, with the short-term extenders and things of that nature. 

Mr. Lindsey, you have been around quite some time. I appreciate 

your candor with us. Could you offer some advice or insight to a 

new Member as to what is the primary reason why we have the 

code in the condition that it is? How can we—what are the barriers 

to that certainty of getting the long-term tax policy initiated? 

I have some personal opinions, from the short term I have been 

here, that there are some institutional issues, the scoring issues 

and things like that, but could you offer any insights that maybe 

I am—that would be helpful to me as we develop this policy? 

Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, I have been through this quite a few times. 

The first thing is—and this is something you can’t do anything 

about, it is the nature of our democracy—obviously, the nature of 

the committee changes, the Congress changes, and different Members have different objectives. You know, it might be jobs now, it 

might be inflation another time, and it might be energy production. 

You can’t do anything about that. 

I think, though, that the thing you can do something about is the 

focus on income-based taxation. There is a saying on Wall Street 

that cash is a fact, income is an opinion. And when you are dealing 

with an opinion, it is very, very easy to change your opinion. And 

that is why, ‘‘Well, let’s see, is this really income now? Maybe we 

should have a deduction here,’’ I mean all the complexity really 

comes down to defining income. 

On the other hand, if you have a cash flow tax you are really 

looking at something called receipts. And it is very, very hard to 

argue about the definition of a receipt, much, much harder than it 

is income. And I think if you—as a new Member, I think what you 

would want to do if you actually want to have certainty in the code 

and everything else, you want to move away from income-based 

taxation and toward receipts-based taxation, or cash flow-based 

taxation. 

Mr. REED. Any other insights from anyone who has been here 

a while? 

Mr. AUERBACH. Well—— 

Mr. REED. Mr. Auerbach. 

Mr. AUERBACH. Yes. I started my career, actually, as a tax 

lawyer, and made a living off of the uncertainty, advising taxpayers 

or clients that were very nervous. And I also worked in Washington 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
148 

for a couple years in the government, being on the other side of 

that. 

Part of the problem—and I don’t want to say this in an impolite 

way—is, you know, I would actually like to get energy policy outside of this room. And H.R. 909 and the reverse auction mechanism 

that I am advocating here—and I hope is going to enjoy bipartisan 

support, but right now is supported mostly by Republicans—is trying to set up a mechanism that is long-lasting, self-implementing, 

and does not require the constant review before Congress every 

other year that has been built into a code incentivizing renewable 

energy since 1993. 

There have been 5 times over the last 18 years where the credits 

just died in their tracks, thousands of people were laid off, capital 

flows stopped, and then they started again. And so, if we can set 

up a system that has already been architected—and we have been 

commenting on it, about how to make this long-lasting and selfimplenting—and get revenue sources that are monitored by Congress but actually outside of Ways and Means, I actually think it 

is going to provide a lot more certainty for capital committers. It 

is a much more natural way for the system to work. 

So, that was—that would be my advice to you. 

Mr. REED. I appreciate that. Yes, Mr. Marron. 

Mr. MARRON. I guess just—the one other thing I would add is 

the way the budget process and budget discussions happen in Congress—— 

Mr. REED. Amen. 

Mr. MARRON [continuing]. Which is, as you have experienced, 

10-year budget estimates are the coin of the realm. 

Mr. REED. Yes. 

Mr. MARRON. And that just creates a natural incentive for people who want to extend something to extend it in little bite-sized 

chunks at a time. And so folks can get enough political will to extend it for a year, and then revisit the next year. And that is not 

something that necessarily leads to a good long-run policy. 

I don’t know how you would solve it as a process thing. But if 

you and all your colleagues could say, ‘‘Look, if we are going to consider a tax incentive to encourage some activity, we will commit to 

either do it for five years, or let it die,’’ that would be kind of the 

place you would want to end up. 

Mr. REED. I appreciate—— 

Mr. MARRON. At the moment, the budget dynamic is year-byyear. 

Mr. REED. Yes, that is exactly what I was looking for on the 

record. 

One last question, just a quick yes or no. Because I am an allof-the-above person, can we achieve energy independence solely on 

alternative renewables? Does domestic fossil fuel production and 

development have to be part of that equation? 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired. Everybody 

will answer yes or no. 

Mr. REED. Thank you. 

Mr. LINDSEY. No to the first, yes to the second. 

Mr. GREEFF. No to the first, yes to the second. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes to the first and yes to the second. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
149 

Mr. AUERBACH. I would say no to the first, and yes to the second, as well. 

Mr. BOOK. No the first, yes to the second. 

Mr. MARRON. We will never achieve energy independence within the lives of the grandchildren of the folks here in this room. 

Mr. REED. Thank you for that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman TIBERI. We have two more Members who are going 

to ask questions, and I—yes, cancel the next panel, right. No, I am 

just kidding. 

Mr. Lindsey, I know you had to go, and if you do need to go, you 

are excused from this panel. Thank you for your generous time 

commitment. I know you had—— 

Mr. LINDSEY. Thank you for your forbearance. I appreciate it. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Kind for five minutes. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that happy note, first 

of all, I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony, and thank 

the committee for holding this important hearing. I think it is very, 

very helpful that we have periodic hearings like this to see whether 

or not we are getting a good bang for the buck that we are trying 

to incent or invest as a nation. And these periodic reviews might 

be a little easier if we went to a biannual budgeting process, as opposed to trying to move everything every year, which provides very 

little time for oversight with a lot of these programs, and the discussion that we are having today. 

One of the concerns I have—and I think it was addressed earlier 

in the hearing with a question—is if we have got a national strategic energy policy, I don’t know what it is. I don’t know where we 

are going, as a country, with all of this. It is just a hodge-podge 

of a lot of things, and we see it riddled in the Tax Code, too, seeing 

what might work or what might stick and what doesn’t. 

And I appreciate the testimony we heard in regards to some predictability and longevity with some of these decisions, so that businesses know what to wrap their arms around, and what is going 

to be certain in out-years, as opposed to being taken away from 

them after they are willing to invest capital and time and energy 

to start moving in that direction. 

But what makes this conversation a little bit difficult to have is 

a lot of the hidden costs with our energy policy today. And let me 

just cite one example of that. I think it was back in 2002 or 2003 

I cited a Department of Interior’s website where they had listed the 

cost of maintaining safe shipping lines to the Middle East to our 

shores of roughly $80 billion a year. And I started publicizing that 

on my own website and started talking a lot about it. And then 

suddenly the Department of Interior dropped it from their website. 

And that is one of those hidden costs in our own energy needs as 

a nation that never really gets explored or factored in to everything 

else that we are doing. And that makes these type of conversations 

a little bit problematic to have. 

But I also know that, as an example, the 25© tax credit for residential efficiency has had an economic impact for manufacturers in 

my district, from Trane to A.O. Smith that have benefitted, the Andersen Windows that have benefitted through the increase in sales, 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
150 

which has meant hiring, but also the impact that it has had for a 

lot of families. 

I recently visited an older couple’s house earlier in the year that 

made an investment with new insulation and high-efficiency furnace and that, because of the tax incentives. That spurred them to 

do it. And they went from $410 a month in heating costs to roughly 

$90 a month in heating costs. Huge difference in that family’s life, 

but it was because of the tax incentive that spurred them to take 

that type of action. 

So, I guess I would be interested to hear your feedback on how 

valuable it is to have some of those incentives out there, just to 

overcome the battle of inertia that we often face in the nation, getting people to do something which makes complete economic sense 

for them to do, but without that incentive they probably wouldn’t, 

because of the power of inertia. 

Does anyone want to take a stab at that? Mr. Book. 

Mr. BOOK. Well, Congressman, I have enjoyed conversations 

about renewable energy with you in the past, and efficiency. And 

I would have to say that I haven’t done the quantifying of that particular example. But what you have just described is something 

that seems like it had tremendous MMBtu for the buck. And you 

know, if you are going to judge the efficacy of these policies on a 

metric—and that was one of the ones that I think a lot of us recommended—it sounds like it is a highly effective policy. And that 

might be a reason why you would explore continuing the things 

that are working, saving some for the things that are possible, and 

allocating a small amount, because we need innovation, irrespective of performance to generate ideas. 

Mr. KIND. Yes. And I think it is kind of two different questions 

here, too. One is: What do we need to do to build in business predictability on what we are doing? But also, what do we need to do 

to get people to take action? 

And part of a way of achieving that is by letting these things expire, and people knowing that they are going to expire, so they got 

to move now in order to take advantage of it, which, I think, is a 

lot behind the American Jobs Act, trying to get something done 

now, rather than knowing it is going to be there for another five 

years and we have got time to wait. 

Mr. BOOK. That just shifts demand forward, it doesn’t actually 

create anything. It creates a lot of lobbying dollars locally spent 

here in the District of Columbia—thank you for my home value appreciation—but the real effect of creating an innovation center that 

generates ongoing value is much bigger. And the problem with 

shifting demand forward is that it is not new demand. And so, I 

mean you do get a short-term pop. It is like cash for clunkers. But 

then there is a lag if nothing fundamentally recovered to replace 

what you shifted forward. 

Mr. KIND. I understand and appreciate with the economic models the need to develop something more long term, but we are stuck 

right now as an economy, because of the lack of aggregate demand. 

People are scared, and they are hunkered down, they are paying 

down bills, they are not making purchases, and jobs are not being 

created. So shouldn’t we be trying to juice short-term demand, just 

to get things going again? 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
151 

Mr. BOOK. It is messy. It works sometimes very well, but it usually has problems and conflicts. And some of what the first panel 

was describing sounded like some of the conflicts that come up with 

it. The rich man’s rebate for hybrids for people like me who drive 

3,000 miles a year is being spent on vehicles that low-income families can’t source. Insulation in walls is what a lot of these families 

need, but people in my neighborhood can buy solar panel systems 

for $80,000. 

You do have to look at how these demand-side incentives work. 

And they are very hard to get right. 

Mr. KIND. Great. Thank you. Thank you all again. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Ms. Black is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think I am bringing up the tail end here. Thank you, panel, for being here today. 

Very informative. 

I want to go to the issue of winners and losers when tax credits 

are created. And in specific, I have a manufacturer of water heaters in my district. And because of the way the tax credit was written, it benefits foreign manufacturers over our U.S. manufacturers. 

And that means U.S. jobs. 

And so, what I would like to hear from you all is how can we 

be sure that we are not picking winners and losers, and that we 

are having a level playing ground and, in particular, that we are 

looking at making sure that playing ground is level, so that our 

jobs are kept here, in the United States? Anyone want to jump on 

that one? Yes, Mr. Marron. 

Mr. MARRON. Okay, I will be brave and go first. I think the unfortunate reality is that if you try to use the tax system to provide 

subsidies for these kinds of activities, it is virtually impossible to 

literally accomplish a level playing field. You will see in the testimony of some of my colleagues up here on the panel the complicated calculations they go through in order to figure out what 

the implied value per MMBtu or value per CO2 saved, or value per 

gallon is. It requires an enormous amount of math. 

Now, try and imagine to do that here in the committee to design 

subsidies to target each possible way one might save energy. And 

the reality is just you are never going to get there. So a fully level 

playing field is incredibly hard to accomplish on the subsidy side. 

I know it is an unpopular message, but actually you can accomplish a level playing field if you are willing to do things on the tax 

side. If you say, for example, that oil is a bad thing to use because 

of national security concerns and you have an oil tax, if you believe 

carbon emissions are bad you tax carbon emissions, that can then 

filter through the economy and establish a level playing field. 

Now, I am not offering that as a raise-tax thing. You can then 

couple that with cutting other taxes, so that it is net-revenue-neutral. But I recommend that if you really take seriously the level 

playing field, that that is a place to look. 

Ms. BLACK. Others have a comment on that? Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I would just say, at the risk of sounding 

like a broken record, I think the issue is you really need to simplify 

the code, number one, and I think that means trying to figure out 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
152 

how to carve out the hidden components of the code, and trying to 

put them all sort of above the table. 

And the other is really making sure it is a metric-based system. 

So, you know, to the points that were made earlier by a number 

of different panelists, making sure that we align it with the metrics 

that define the priorities we have. So if it is energy security, then 

there are certain metrics associated with that, making sure that 

those that are eligible and those that take those credits fit the bill, 

and that they get the credits based on the amount that they actually produce, and the amount that they actually meet that objective, I think, is the simplest way to do it, and make sure that you 

have a level playing field. 

Mr. AUERBACH. I would just add that, again, there have been 

a number of ideas, I think, proposed by the panelists in their testimony, including myself, that go to encouraging increased domestic 

production of energy of all sorts. We have to be careful, as we design policy, that we do not violate international trade agreements 

to block out foreign competition, because they are going to retaliate 

and do that to us, as well. But there is nothing wrong with encouraging domestic production. 

But again, the more that we can create market-based mechanisms for all of this, I think the better off we are all going to be. 

Mr. GREEFF. I would go back to my comments earlier about the 

need for a comprehensive vision, that, you know, tax policy is a 

role, but let’s look at international security. And if we look at, for 

example, our dependence on foreign oil, there is demand side and 

supply side, and you probably need to have a separate set of policies for that and focus on the demand side, the biggest use in the 

transportation sector. 

Instead of going back to the earlier example about corn ethanol 

and saying, ‘‘That’s the one that we are going to pick,’’ you have 

things that work in concert, such as the cafe ́ standards that say, 

‘‘We want to set a fleet average of miles per gallon.’’ It doesn’t dictate to the auto makers what type of car technology they have to 

use. It sets an aspirational target for what the fleet average needs 

to be. So they still get to make SUVs, but it also pushes them to 

make more advanced technologies with better combustion engines, 

hybrids, electric vehicles, et cetera. 

And then, at the same time, you can also use tax policy to bolster 

the next generation technologies. And, to Will’s point, not just for 

start-ups, but also for the large companies, so that they are actually looking and innovating to what is that oh-wow, next big thing 

that they wouldn’t necessarily invest in otherwise. If we have more 

of a vision and we use all of the different tools in our toolbox, we 

will have a much more comprehensive policy that picks less winners, and lets the market adjust to what the aspirational goals are. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you all very much. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Thank you 

very much. 

Last, but not least, the gentleman from Connecticut is recognized 

for five minutes. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so 

much for holding these important hearings. And thank all of our 

panelists, some of which I know had to leave already. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
153 

But just a general question. I think all of you are in agreement, 

in terms of the need for comprehensive tax reform and how that 

would benefit, overall, all of our industries. And I think there is 

probably broad agreement on this committee with respect to that, 

as well. 

I am concerned, however, that if the United States doesn’t supply 

various types of technology in commercial adaptation, that we run 

the risk of having other nations—I come from a state that is a fuel 

cell sector state, and we see with the great interest that Korea has 

in making sure that that industry has a place to grow and thrive 

over there, through government investment. 

It is always a concern about picking winners and losers, but in 

new and breakthrough technologies, what is the feeling of the committee with respect to that? And if we could, just briefly go through 

whether or not government should be involved. Or is this something that you purely leave up to the marketplace, especially when 

other countries, especially in the energy-related areas, are looking 

to eat our lunch? 

Mr. AUERBACH. Well, I will just start by pointing out one thing 

that we haven’t talked about. There has been some mention about 

some due diligence failures associated with one loan guarantee for 

an innovative company, which is unfortunate. But put in context, 

where some of our competitors are—that I view also as trading 

partners—China, the Chinese Development Bank, CDB, which is 

somewhat equivalent to our Ex-Im Bank, has provided over $30 billion in loans to support their native industries, scaling up their renewable energy. And many of those are innovative companies that 

are increasing their scale and lowering their cost. 

And so, if we abandon, if we don’t provide systems of support to 

encourage domestic innovation through whatever means we think 

is most economically efficient, we are going to end up increasing 

our trade deficit because, ultimately, we will find those products attractive. And instead of having our share of American products, it 

is going to all be coming from overseas. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, I would just add that I do think we need 

to support emerging technologies, and that was the brunt of my 

testimony. I think the way that we need to do it, though, is in a 

technology-neutral way. So I think the closer we can get to a metric-based system, the better off we will be. 

Mr. LARSON. There is a great deal of conversation currently in 

the Congress and several bills that abound with respect to an infrastructure bank that is both partially funded by government providing the base for seed capital, but then with a board, and with 

investment coming from the private sector. Could the same kind of 

innovation bank work for the country? 

Mr. BOOK. Congressman, I have testified on this before the Senate in the past, and I was sad to see that the—some folks tend to 

talk about a green bank as a Fannie and Freddie for clean energy, 

and they don’t mean it nicely. 

There is actually a problem with the current loan guarantee program that has nothing to do with due diligence. It has to do with 

the way financing has to work for real industry at a real-time 

basis. The portfolio that you are able to catch is probably not going 

to out-perform the portfolio Mr. Auerbach has. He can turn around 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
154 

a term sheet quickly. He has the autonomy to choose financing 

mode, he can decide whether he is going to take warrant coverage 

or equity, he can decide if he’s going to debt finance something 

with venture convertible security interest. 

If you give that kind of autonomy to a government agency it has 

to be limited, because you don’t want to crowd the folks who do it 

for a living out of business, because they do tend to yield an awful 

lot of it. But having it done right probably would involve giving it 

autonomy and the ability to work in real time, as the Ex-Im Bank 

does. 

Mr. LARSON. Would that enhance or detract from your efforts, 

Mr. Auerbach. 

Mr. AUERBACH. I think it would enhance. First of all, thank 

you for the question; it is a very important one. Let me just point 

out that there are various versions of a bill for supporting a clean 

energy deployment administration. Some of them call for agencydriven locale for it, others independent. So it is somewhat different, 

but similar to the infrastructure bank illustration that you have 

shown. 

Let me give you one personal example. We went through the loan 

guarantee program and successfully procured a loan guarantee. We 

started our application in December 2008. We were finally awarded 

the loan guarantee about two months ago. Nearly three years in 

due diligence and then in documentation in order to get a loan is 

not exactly fleet-footed, and is not going to support American competitiveness. 

We understand the grave concerns about the due diligence process and the capacity of the government to do this efficiently. Ultimately, I believe that it needs to be outsourced to independent 

folks who have the autonomy to act as quickly as we act in the private equity business. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired. Anybody 

else want to answer that question? 

Mr. GREEFF. The last thing that I would just add is we think 

that any time that you can create a public-private partnership as 

opposed to a wholly public operation, we think that that generally 

works better. And we would also argue that moving the money 

closer to the source of the innovation increases the chances that it 

is going to be spent wisely. So the solutions in Louisiana are going 

to be different than in Ohio or Massachusetts or Georgia. 

And we would say that the public-private partnership done at a 

more regional, local level actually helps to increase the efficacy 

with which that money is distributed, and makes sure that that innovation is happening at the ground level, in conjunction with the 

national labs, in conjunction with the universities, and all the talent that we have in the United States. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Thank you all. One last question 

on behalf of the panel. If you guys were up here, just a yes or no 

answer—starting with Dr. Marron—with what you know, would 

you vote yes or would you support or oppose the Nat Gas Act, 

which is our next panel? Because I am going to go to our next—— 

Mr. MARRON. Pass. 

[Laughter.] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
155 

Chairman TIBERI. Pass? Pass it, or pass? 

Mr. MARRON. Oh, sorry. Pass on the question. 

Chairman TIBERI. Okay. 

Mr. BOOK. I don’t know enough until you can give me a comprehensive accounting. 

Chairman TIBERI. Stick around. 

Mr. BOOK. But leaning oppose. 

Chairman TIBERI. Okay. 

Mr. AUERBACH. I would have to pass, I haven’t studied it closely enough. I apologize. 

Chairman TIBERI. All right. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I hate to say it, but I haven’t studied it closely 

enough, either. 

Chairman TIBERI. All right. 

Mr. GREEFF. Pleading the Fifth. 

Chairman TIBERI. Pleading the Fifth? 

Mr. GREEFF. I am just kidding. It is the same thing; I haven’t 

read the bill. 

Chairman TIBERI. You guys should stick around the for the next 

panel, then. 

Mr. GREEFF. Might just do that. 

Chairman TIBERI. Really appreciate your testimony today. You 

guys did great. Gave us a lot of great information. And thank you 

so much for coming. 

We will now seat the third panel. Our third panel today, while 

they get seated, I will introduce them to save a little time as the 

second panel departs. Very informative second panel. Again, thank 

you so much for coming. 

We have our third and final panel with us today: Mr. Andrew 

Littlefair, president, chief executive officer of Clean Energy Fuels; 

Dr.—oh, not—Dr. Lawrence Lindsey is now gone, he had to leave 

so he was part of the second panel; our former colleague, the Honorable Congressman Calvin Dooley, president and chief executive 

officer of the American Chemistry Council, welcome; Dr. David 

Kreutzer, research fellow in energy economics and climate change 

of The Heritage Foundation; and finally, our last witness, I will 

yield to my good friend from Massachusetts, Ranking Member 

Neal, to allow him to introduce our final witness. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to introduce 

one of my constituents, Hank Ziomek, who is the director of sales 

for the Titeflex commercial division, with global responsibility for 

the automotive and industrial markets. Titeflex is headquartered 

in Springfield, and I must tell you it is a very neat story. We are 

all very proud of what has happened at Titeflex. 

Before joining Titeflex, Hank spent nearly 20 years with the 

Dana Corporation, including as a business unit manager for the 

Boston weatherhead division. So it is extremely helpful to get the 

input of individuals like Hank, and I am appreciative of the fact 

that he has taken the time to come to Washington today to give 

us his perspective. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Neal. Thank you all for joining us. You will each have five minutes to present your testimony, 

and your full written testimony will be submitted for the record. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
156 

So, with that, Mr. Littlefair, we will begin with you. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. LITTLEFAIR, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CLEAN ENERGY FUELS, SEAL 

BEACH, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tiberi, 

Chairman Boustany, and Members of the Committee, my name is 

Andrew Littlefair, and I am president and chief executive officer of 

Clean Energy Fuels. I am also the immediate past chairman of 

NGV America, a national trade association, over 120 companies involved in natural gas vehicles and related production distribution 

and transmission. 

I am here to speak in favor of H.R. 1380, the Nat Gas Act, introduced by—on April 6th—by Representative John Sullivan and Congressman Larson, cosponsored by both subcommittee chairmen, 

along with 181 other bipartisan Members of the House. I would 

like to focus on the advantages to our economy of jump-starting a 

natural gas vehicle industry in the United States. 

The changeover from diesel to natural gas is going to make huge 

strides over the next 10 to 15 years. With this short-term boost, we 

can accelerate that just about five years. 

The benefits to natural gas as a vehicle fuel are numerous, wideranging, and vital to America’s national interest. It is abundant, 

domestic fuel, it is a proven technology, it is cleaner than petroleum, and it will generate 400,000 new jobs over the next 5 years, 

and it will reduce our dependence on OPEC oil. Natural gas is one 

of the most abundant natural resources in America. From just a 

few years ago, when natural gas was considered an extremely limited resource, it is now widely believed we have enough natural gas 

reserves to last between 100 and 150 years. 

Given the amount of natural gas, we must consider how best to 

deploy such a widely distributed domestic natural resource. Natural gas is a proven vehicle fuel. There are some 13.2 million natural gas vehicles operating in the world today. Globally, over 4,000 

natural gas vehicles are being put on the road each and every day, 

and 8 new natural gas fueling stations are being opened every day. 

However, of the 250 million cars and trucks and light-duty 

trucks on America’s highways, only about 110,000 are natural gas 

vehicles. The argument against moving from gasoline or diesel to 

natural gas as a principal transportation fuel for passenger vehicles has been a matter of infrastructure. And that is why H.R. 1380 

focuses on the 8 million medium and heavy-duty trucks which burn 

more than 35 billion gallons of fuel each year. 

Over-the-road trucks tend to run the same routes on a regular 

schedule, and we have determined that the beginnings of a nationwide network is possible with as few as only 150 natural gas stations at existing truck stops along interstate highways which can 

provide fuel from coast to coast and border to border. 

The private sector is doing its part. Recently my company announced an investment by Chesapeake Energy to help build 150 

strategically located L&G truck stops. This process, too, can be 

greatly speeded up through common sense incentives in the bill. 

H.R. 1380 takes direct aim at the incremental cost of a basic class 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
157 

A truck, which includes regional tractors, trucks, refuse and recycling trucks. Built to run on diesel, the base cost is approximately 

$125,000. A similar truck manufactured to run on natural gas 

today costs between $35,000 and $40,000 more. 

To show how quickly the market is changing, just three years 

ago the incremental cost of a natural gas truck over a diesel was 

between $60,000 and $100,000. So we are moving in the right direction. H.R. 1380 is not a hand-out to major corporations, grocery 

chains, and retailers. There are over 360,000 trucking companies in 

the U.S.; 82 percent of these operate 6 trucks or less, and 1 in 10 

over-the-road truck drivers is independent, and most own their own 

rigs. These small businesses will retain a larger share of their 

earnings in the form of a tax credit to purchase natural gas trucks. 

And that, plus the savings of $1.50 per gallon running on natural 

gas instead of diesel, provides a significant life cycle reduction in 

cost, and will go a long way in helping to create additional demand 

for trucks and engines built in America. 

Studies have shown that moving America’s heavy-duty truck 

fleet from diesel to natural gas will have the effect of providing 

over 400,000 direct and indirect new jobs over the next 5 years 

throughout the NGV supply chain. Every person we hire, every position we create, has to make sense for us so it can help us make 

money. Yet we believe that 400,000 of new permanent, good-paying 

jobs to be conservative. These jobs will be created through an anticipated private sector investment of up to $50 billion over that 

same 5-year period that we are talking about with the bill. 

Using domestic natural gas instead of foreign oil is also a security issue. In June 2011 we imported—this is really staggering— 

343 million barrels of oil at a cost of $39 billion in one month 

alone. That is $1 million per minute every minute of every day. 

The cost of importing oil for the first 6 months or so this year is 

$227 billion, over a quarter of a trillion dollars. 

A look at the list of countries in which we are sending all those 

dollars is chilling. After Canada and Mexico, the next largest suppliers of oil to the United States are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Colombia, Russia, and Angola. This is not a list of 

countries we should be counting on for stable, fairly-priced supplies 

of oil. 

In converting America’s heavy-duty truck fleet of about eight million vehicles to liquified natural gas would save 2.5 million barrels 

of oil per day, meaning we could reduce our reliance on OPEC oil 

in half. At $100 per barrel, that means $250 million per day will 

stay in the U.S. to circulate through our economy, rather than 

being shipped off to the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, 

and Nigeria. 

Natural gas is abundant, it is available, and it is safe. Natural 

gas is cleaner than gasoline or diesel, produces in between 20 and 

30 percent fewer greenhouse gases, and natural gas is cheaper. A 

typical over-the-road truck running on natural gas will save 

$40,000 per year. 

Chairman TIBERI. If you could kind of wrap it up—— 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Thank you for your time, and attention. I am 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Littlefair follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
158 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.097
159 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.098
160 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.099
161 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.100
162 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.101
163 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. Congressman Dooley, you are recognized for 

five minutes. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.102
164 

STATEMENT OF CALVIN M. DOOLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Well, thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and our 

members. 

Your hearing today acknowledged that the United States Tax 

Code is often used to drive energy policy and influence markets, 

sometimes with unintended and detrimental results. The Nat Gas 

Act is an example of one such proposal offered at a time when our 

nation can least afford it. 

Most people don’t realize that natural gas is vital to the productivity of U.S. manufacturers. This is particularly true of the chemical industry, which uses natural gas both as a power source and 

a raw material to develop and produce everything from the packaging that keeps our food fresher longer, and to the building products that make our homes more efficient and affordable, to the 

parts and materials, including high-tech composites that make our 

cars and planes lighter, stronger, and more fuel-efficient. 

Our products and materials are then used by other industry to 

create new goods on which American families, farmers, and business rely. In fact, more than 96 percent of all domestically-manufactured goods are embraced and enabled by chemistry. 

That is one reason why new supplies of natural gas from previously untapped shale deposits are such a game-changer for our 

industry, and for American competitiveness. In recent months, numerous chemical manufacturers have announced new investments, 

thanks to the outlook for a predictable domestic natural gas market. And a recent ACC study found that reasonable increases in 

natural gas, on the order of about 25 percent, would result in nearly 400,000 new jobs in the chemical sector and supplier industries, 

generating more than $132 billion in U.S. economic output, and 

nearly $4.4 billion in local, state, and federal taxes, annually. 

As we move to take advantage of this vast resource, we must not 

introduce expensive distortions into the natural gas market. The 

Nat Gas Act would do just that. The act aims to boost the production and use of natural gas vehicles through up to 5 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies. But, frankly, the bang for the buck just 

isn’t there. A revenue analysis by Ernst & Young conducted on our 

behalf estimated that the Nat Gas Act would result in about 22,000 

new natural gas vehicles on the road. That is a cost to taxpayers 

of roughly 135,000 per vehicle, regardless of whether Congress has 

identified a way to pay for the bill or not. 

Perhaps most troubling, though, is the bill’s potential to create 

an unbalanced, volatile natural gas market plagued by price 

spikes. A return to volatile natural gas markets similar to those of 

the previous decade would undermine a growing resurgence in domestic chemical industry. Data from the last 50 years show that 

natural gas prices go up, exports from our industry fall precipitously, and manufacturing jobs go right down with them. For example, in the last decade, in large part due to the volatility in natural gas prices, our industry lost over 120,000 jobs. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
165 

I think, though, you know, we heard testimony from Mr. Lindsey, 

for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I think in his testimony that I had the chance to read, I think it even embodies some 

of the most compelling arguments on why this legislation is not appropriate. In his testimony, he identified that the differential between a truck running on natural gas versus diesel, that it was— 

it would generate—in 100,000 miles it would generate a fuel savings of $57,000 for a year. That would have a payback on that conversion of only 15 months, a return on capital investment of 80 percent. 

What this legislation would do, if you back up and think about 

it, if you look at what companies have the largest fleets in the 

United States, you have FedEx, you have UPS, you have Waste 

Management, you have the Cokes, you have the Pepsis, you have 

the Wal-Marts. All of those have central fueling stations today. So 

we would be putting the taxpayers on the line. A good share of that 

$5 billion that we are going to be asking them to pay would go to 

companies that have the ability to have centralized fueling stations, that would go to their conversions of their heavy vehicles up 

to $64,000, when today the market forces would allow them to recoup a return on that investment in 15 months without a tax subsidy. 

You know, as we are striving to try to get our country’s fiscal 

house in order, it is important for us, more than ever, to try to define the appropriate role of government. We need to allow the marketplace to work, and the marketplace is working. And Mr. 

Littlefair’s company is a good example. With Chesapeake, they already have announced that they are going to establish 150 natural 

gas fueling stations throughout the country. 

Give this industry time to work. Allow the marketplace to work. 

Do not pick winners and choosers [sic], and do not put the taxpayers on the hook for subsidies that will create a distortion that 

aren’t needed at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
166 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.103
167 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.104
168 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.105
169 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.106
170 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.107
171 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Kreutzer, you are recognized for five minutes. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.108
172 

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. KREUTZER, RESEARCH FELLOW IN 

ENERGY ECONOMICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. KREUTZER. Thank you very much. Chairmen Tiberi and 

Boustany, Ranking Members Neal and Lewis, and other Members 

of the Committees, thank you for this opportunity to address you 

concerning the economic consequences of subsidizing natural gas 

technologies. My name is David Kreutzer. I am research fellow in 

energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation. 

The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not 

be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage 

Foundation. 

I would like to make several points regarding the Nat Gas Act. 

Among them, the act would pick winners by providing subsidies in 

the form of preferential financial benefits for select natural gas 

technologies, the act would lead to inefficient allocation of resources 

and lower national income, the act would not necessarily reduce 

variability in transportation energy prices, the act’s national security impact is muddled, and an equivalent impact on petroleum imports could be more quickly achieved by allowing access to our domestic energy supplies. 

The act subsidizes preferred natural gas technologies, and should 

not be considered a tax cut in any meaningful sense. An example 

illustrates how the act picks winners and losers. Suppose a trucking company considers two options for improving its fleet. The first 

option is to trade in trucks for new diesel-powered trucks at a net 

cost of $80,000 per truck. 

The second option is to retrofit its current trucks to run on nat- ural gas, also at a cost of $80,000 per truck. If the firm has a marginal tax rate of 35 percent, choosing the natural gas retrofit leaves 

the firm with 41,600 additional bottom line dollars for each truck, 

when compared to trading in for new diesel trucks. Natural gas is 

the chosen winner, diesel and gasoline power are the chosen losers. 

If the preferred natural gas technologies were, in fact, more cost 

effective overall, there would be no need to subsidize them. This 

firm will choose natural gas without a subsidy. However, with a 

subsidy in place, the firm will choose the natural gas option even 

if it were $41,599 worse than the diesel option. The firm may make 

$41,599 less with the natural gas option, but the $41,600 subsidy 

leaves them with a net $1 gain. But that net $1 gain is for the 

firm. Unfortunately, the taxpayers must cough up the other 

$41,600 to cover the difference. 

And this sort of incentive could lead to inefficient resource use 

and lower national income. 

Switching to natural gas does not guarantee price stability. As 

chart one in my written testimony shows, natural gas prices are 

volatile over both the short run and the long run. For one day in 

February of 2003, natural gas prices tripled. Investigations determined that a cold front sweeping across the northeast after a relatively cold winter was the culprit. 

I am a strong supporter of expanded use of hydraulic fracturing, 

which I believe to be quite safe. And natural gas prices may well 

stay low for a long time. But betting on continued low prices is a 

bet that the government shouldn’t subsidize. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
173 

If we face a security threat from funding oil exporters, the Nat 

Gas Act better not be anti-terrorism plan A. Chart two in my written testimony shows the impact of cutting our petroleum imports 

in half. The calculations used in these projections are for the year 

2035. However, the results would not be dramatically different for 

earlier years. A 50 percent import cut is several times larger than 

the impact proponents of the Nat Gas offer as a goal. However, 

even this larger cut, with its 10 percent reduction in exporter revenues, is not likely to scare terrorists or unfriendly regimes any 

time soon. 

In addition, this cut on our part will lower incomes for friendly 

exporters, and lower the import bills for all importers. For example, 

in the case just described, China would see its oil import bill cut 

by $50 billion because of the cost that we incur. 

Expanded production from domestic resources, offshore and onshore, could produce more petroleum than the Nat Gas Act proposes to save, and do so while adding revenues to the Federal Government instead of cutting them. 

In summary, the Nat Gas Act would pick winners and losers by 

subsidizing specific natural gas technology, add inefficiency to the 

economy and reduce national income, not guarantee low-cost transportation fuel, and not defund terror organizations. 

I thank you for this opportunity to address the committees and 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kreutzer follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
174 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.109
175 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.110
176 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.111
177 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.112
178 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.113
179 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.114
180 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.115
181 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.116
182 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.117
183 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.118
184 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Ziomek, you are recognized for five minutes. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.119
185 

STATEMENT OF HANK ZIOMEK, DIRECTOR OF SALES, 

TITEFLEX CORPORATION, SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. ZIOMEK. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiberi, Ranking 

Member Neal, Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member Lewis, and 

the other Members of the Committee. Thank you for affording me 

the opportunity to come before you on behalf of the people of 

Titeflex in support of the Nat Gas Act. 

Headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts, Titeflex is in its 

95th year of operation with locations in Springfield, Massachusetts; 

Vista, California; Laconia, New Hampshire. Titeflex is a subsidiary 

of Smiths Groups, PLC, and under the FlexTech division, Smiths 

Group is a world leader in the practical application of advanced 

technologies, and delivers products and services for threat and contraband detection, medical devices, energy, communications, and 

engineer devices markets worldwide. 

We have a long history of supplying high-quality fluid-handling 

components for fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic systems, ranging from 

implant robotics, automobile brakes, to the space shuttle landing 

gear. Titeflex Commercial Group manufactures PTFE Teflon hose 

and fittings for the automotive, industrial, aerospace industries, 

and the leading supplier of C&G flex hoses for the natural gas vehicle market. 

I come before you today to support—in strong support—of H.R. 

1380, the Nat Gas Act. You have already heard today the facts 

about natural gas are clear. Natural gas is the cleanest commercially available fuel for transportation today. Domestic reserves of 

natural gas are estimated to be twice that of petroleum. Natural 

gas has been between 25 and 42 percent cheaper than diesel over 

the last 14 years. Ninety-eight percent of all natural gas consumed 

in America is produced in North America, while sixty-four percent 

of crude oil is imported. 

Natural gas vehicles in use are approximately 12 million worldwide. There are only 110,000 NGVs in the United States. With appropriate government policies, use of domestic natural gas to power 

the nation’s trucks and buses could reach as high as 10 billion gallons per year by 2020 and displace up to 20 percent if diesel fuel. 

Should the Natural Gas Act pass, heavy duty haulers and fleet vehicles can immediately displace some of the foreign oil we rely on 

today. 

For Titeflex, total sales have increased by over 50 percent over 

the last 2 years. That is 400 percent in the natural gas segment 

for us. There has also been a 12 percent increase in overall employment for Titeflex. However, in the processes related to natural gas 

vehicles, it has increased 41 percent. And since the tax credits were 

in place in 2006, our sales have increased 600 percent for natural 

gas vehicles. Smiths recently also invested $4 million in the Titeflex plant, 

and a lot of it had to do with this market and other markets which 

are fast-growing. Also employed locally over 100 people in construction and trades. And as far as new technology, we also put some 

very efficient new technology that were more efficient and also 

more environmentally friendly. 

The short-term benefits for our economy from NGV market 

growth are evident. The Nat Gas Act would provide the additional 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
186 

impetus needed to achieve the step change that will achieve—will 

advance technology, lower overall cost to users, further enhance 

employment, and bring the United States closer to energy independence. 

To close, the Natural Gas Act provides a limited five-year program that accelerates wider adoption of this American vehicle fuel. 

This legislation is a real solution to our nation’s challenges. On behalf of the people of Titeflex, thank you again for affording me the 

opportunity to come before your committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ziomek follows:] 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
187 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.120
188 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.121
189 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.122
190 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.123
191 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Well, thank you all for your very good testimony. 

Mr. Littlefair, you just heard Mr. Dooley talk about the fact that 

the marketplace is working, and that you and others are making 

significant investments. So why is the legislation needed? Can you 

tell us? 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. You know, first off, 

put it in context. We have seen some growth. You today have 1,500 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.124
192 

heavy-duty trucks on natural gas, and you have 8 million that are 

on diesel. So we think this is exactly the right place to use tax policy to spur the growth. 

Now, what Mr. Dooley talked about, I think, is—I understand 

that he wants cheap natural gas. And if I was running the chemical industry, I would want that too. The beauty about this today 

is we have enough natural gas for both, relatively reasonablypriced natural gas for chemicals, and also moving our gas into 

transportation. 

You know, there are winners and losers, I think, as we look at 

this. And the winner is domestic natural gas resource that happens 

to be clean, that creates jobs. And the loser is foreign, imported oil. 

But I think if we will just give a little bit of a boost here, it will 

drive the manufacturers in to bring down the cost, and I think that 

we can—what do you call it—sunset this bill over the next few 

years, and I feel confident that we don’t require an ongoing long 

incentive. 

You know, the Congress passed a version of the Nat Gas Act 

years ago. And I think it is very instructive. It took a while—I 

think it was passed in 2006, and it took a while for it to actually 

get implemented through the IRS. It really hit its stride in about 

2008, and at that time we really only had trash trucks. We didn’t 

have the engines for these big, heavy-duty trucks that could really 

impact foreign oil. But we had trash trucks. 

The first year that the tax incentive was in place, the penetration was three percent of the new trash trucks purchased in the 

United States. This year, this coming year, 2012, it will be 35 percent. And that tax credit is now gone, as you know. I think that 

is the same exact thing that you will see if we can have a few years 

of tax—this doesn’t go to us, this goes, the incentive, to the 

trucks—you put that in place today, you will kick-start a huge 

business, moving us off of imported, dirty diesel fuel and using our 

own domestic fuel. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Kreutzer, you—in your testimony you talk about the fact that national security is muddled. 

One of the arguments the proponents have had with respect to this 

bill is weaning ourselves off of foreign oil. And I am a supporter 

of what you talked about, expanding offshore and inland drilling 

for oil and natural gas. 

But in addition to that, can you tell us why you believe that expanding domestic production, or domestic tax credits to—as Mr. 

Lindsey said earlier—to get the private sector over the hump of an 

established private sector already in the petroleum and diesel market on a temporary basis kind of muddles that national security 

issue? 

Mr. KREUTZER. Yes, yes. First, as the chart shows, even cutting 

our imports by half, 4 million barrels a day—if we cut from 8 to 

4, in 2035 the EIA projects we will import 8 million barrels—cuts 

OPEC revenues from 2.3 trillion per year to 2.1. Now those are 

huge numbers. But I don’t know that anybody said that the terrorists get their funding from the last 10 percent. 

So, I—what I think it muddles is it takes our focus away from 

actual security policies that we need to implement, not pretending 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
193 

that cutting our oil imports a decade or two from now is going to 

make us safer any time soon. 

Second, when you implement policies that make the economy less 

efficient, that reduces the robustness of the U.S. and its economy 

and its ability to support a military. So that is my only thing. 

There are lots of questions about who should support the transportation lines for oil. Why is it the U.S. instead of the Persian 

Gulf nations, and so on? And I don’t have the expertise to talk 

about that. And those may be great questions. But would cutting 

our imports by 2.5 million barrels a day eliminate the need for the 

Navy? We had a tremendous amount of money that we spent countering the Soviet Union’s military might, and we got nothing from 

them. We imported zero. 

Chairman TIBERI. Okay. 

Mr. KREUTZER. Yes, okay. 

Chairman TIBERI. Last question. If all of you could, answer this 

question. 

We have heard from the other panel, we have heard about not 

all tax credits are created equally. Using different kinds of metrics 

with respect to tax credits and overall tax reform, I think everybody has agreed to reduce the number of credits, reduce the number of tax breaks across the board. 

Starting on this side if you care to answer it, and then moving 

down the line, what makes the Nat Gas Act different, in terms of 

those metrics, in terms of job creation, in terms of energy security, 

in terms of cheaper natural gas for vehicles versus what we have 

on the books today? 

Mr. ZIOMEK. Well, from the basic sense of looking at this tax 

credit, looking at natural gas as a fuel, in general, you have a situation where the rest of the world has supported this technology, 

and the United States has not. Why is that? 

Every nation, almost bar none, supported it with a tax policy, including Venezuela, that had abundant oil and decided, well, it is 

cheaper, it is much more profitable for us to export the oil, and we 

are going to have our citizens use natural gas. So they incentivized 

them to use natural gas. And this has happened in a lot of other 

areas, as well. 

But the bottom line is we have pretty much not supported the 

natural gas part of our economy, and we have plenty of it. It is 

something that we produce here, and it is something that will 

allow us to grow faster. And what you need, why the tax policy is 

important, is we need to have this change. 

We need to take the curve from where we are today to—like a 

hockey stick. We need to move the technology faster, we need to 

get that money to people in manufacturing, particularly, who can 

invent new things, who can lower the cost of all the equipment that 

is put into this economy of the natural gas vehicles. And it is happening, but we need to have it happen faster so that we can compete. Bangladesh thinks we are an opportunity for growth for them 

to sell their products here. We are that far behind when it comes 

to technology in that area. 

Chairman TIBERI. Mr. Kreutzer, you might have a different 

view? 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
194 

Mr. KREUTZER. Yes, I do. If it comes to choosing—guiding our 

policies according to what Hugo Chavez in Venezuela does or what 

American markets choose, I am going with American markets, no 

questions asked. 

But getting back to your question of how does this differ, I don’t 

think it does. I think this is a tax credit subsidy scheme, like many 

others we have, that needs to be simplified. We need to weed those 

out, get down to a simpler tax structure. And this is going in the 

wrong direction. 

I would like to say I am not against natural gas. I am not 

against shifting the trucks over. But I think—I don’t know, and I 

don’t think anybody here actually knows—all of the costs that all 

of the trucking companies have to go through and the trade-offs 

they have to make. And it is for them to decide. I fully believe if 

the numbers are as they said with Congressman Dooley, Coca Cola, 

FedEx, all those companies will switch over. There is not a chicken 

and egg problem here. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. Congressman Dooley. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, I would respond in this manner, is that, you 

know, I think, you know, it really is your charge to really define 

what the appropriate role of government is. And how can you allocate the resources, which are taxpayer resources, in a way that 

achieves societal or economic objectives? 

Mr. Littlefair talked about in 2006 that there was a tax credit 

to try to encourage natural gas vehicles. You know what the price 

of natural gas was in 2006, 2007? It spiked up to $12 and sometimes $14 an MMBtu. It is $4 today. Now, from a policy-maker’s 

standpoint, you can make—you have to question. Are the circumstances the same that you need a tax credit today when the 

fundamental driver is much different, in terms of the price of natural gas? And I would suggest no. 

And that is where I go back. Do you want to tell your constituency out there that Congress is enacting a taxpayer subsidy that, 

by our calculations that were done by Ernst & Young—and we 

would be more than pleased to share with you—amounts to about 

137,000 per vehicle that is converted. Do you want to tell your constituents that you are supporting a tax subsidy for the conversion 

of a vehicle that if the private sector, where the market forces are 

in place today, if they made that investment on their own they 

would get an 80 percent return on that investment for that conversion without any tax subsidy? And I suggest they would say no, 

that is not the appropriate role of government. 

And so, I contend we are all for natural gas. We want them to 

be successful. We want a domestic energy policy that enhances our 

domestic security. But this isn’t the policy that is going to achieve 

that, and it is going to be one that creates distortions in the marketplace. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Littlefair. 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Well, what we hear from a couple of my fellow 

panelists, ‘‘We want the status quo.’’ And I think when you go 

home and you talk to your constituents, I think the real question 

is, ‘‘Do you want to continue to import oil from people that don’t 

like us,’’ or should you do something, use your tax policy to create 

jobs? 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
195 

And I think that this is a unique position in history. Yes, it is 

because it is cheap, because we have so much of it. That is why 

all your factories are using all the natural gas right now. But we 

are in a unique position to be able to move our country away and 

create jobs. And only natural gas can really do that. That is the 

truth here, is that we only really have one resource that can make 

this kind of bold shift. And in order to move it, I think we are talking about a very modest tax policy. And so I think it is a unique 

opportunity that you don’t have in hardly anyplace else. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. 

Neal is recognized. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hank, certainly the priority here, as you have expressed it and the other panelists have 

expressed it in different ways, is to create more jobs. And could you 

spend a couple of minutes talking about what has happened at 

Titeflex, given the use of the Natural Gas Act? 

And because the issue has been raised by other panelists, why 

you think that keeping the credit for only a handful of more years, 

five more years, is necessary. So we are talking, I believe, from 

your perspective, sunsetting the credit down the road. Could you 

respond? 

Mr. ZIOMEK. Well, I think that right away the evidence for us 

is very clear. We have been engaged in this market for quite some 

time. Since the credits were established, that market has accelerated tremendously for us. We have made decisions, including $4 

million in a plant renovation, some advanced technology that is— 

environmental technology for one of our processes. We have also 

now done some innovation in the process of making the hose that 

goes into this market based on the future growth we anticipate. 

And we believe this kind of credit is going to allow that growth to 

happen. 

In fact, we are counting on this type of policy in the government 

to allow that—as I said before—this leap forward, so that we can 

continue to advance technology in our own business. Like I said, 

we have increased our employment in Springfield. I mean Massachusetts, manufacturing has been beat, beat to heck in Massachusetts. And we have had some winners there, but we have had more 

people leaving Massachusetts. 

So, to be able to do this, there had to be some technological improvements. There had to be something that we do that no one else 

can do in the world. And this kind of policy is allowing us to grow 

in that area, where we do have advanced technology in our product. And that is for the support of natural gas vehicles. 

And the five-year—the reason you only need five years is if you 

could get that infusion, you get that hockey stick, you have advanced far enough that you have a competitive market. We are not 

asking you to support this for the rest of our business lives. We are 

asking for a fairly short period of time here. And bottom line is I 

think it will be even more—it will be faster than that, and you will 

find that the jobs are going to multiply, based on this policy. 

Mr. NEAL. For you and for Mr. Littlefair, the Natural Gas Vehicle America has suggested that there are 12 million natural gas vehicles on the road, worldwide, and only 110,000 of them can be 

found in the United States. We are ranked 16th in the world, as 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
196 

far as natural gas vehicle deployment, behind countries such as 

India, China, and Bangladesh. Why? 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Well, part of the reason is some of those countries have put in place incentives to encourage it because they are 

importing oil, much like we do, and so they have natural gas and 

they want to move to natural gas vehicles. And we have certainly 

seen that in China, and we are seeing it—and China has just 

adopted a policy to build 4,000 natural gas vehicles and put in an 

L&G truck corridor. And we are selling equipment in China right 

now, natural gas fueling stations, and they are going at it, big 

time. So—and that is what is happening in South America. I mean 

Peru is doing the same thing. 

I mean we look like the odd man out. And it didn’t happen here 

for a long time, because we had cheap oil. Well, we don’t have 

cheap oil any more. And so they have put in place tax policy to 

move the industry along. 

Mr. NEAL. Hank, do you want to comment to that? 

Mr. ZIOMEK. Well, I agree. Again, what I said earlier about 

what happened in Venezuela, I know Hugo Chavez is a different 

person in the way we look at that, but if you look at all the countries in South America, every one of them put tax policy in place 

to drive their people to want to use natural gas. It is more environmentally responsible, and it also is cheaper for them, because it is 

more accessible. And now we are finding out, here in the United 

States, natural gas is probably way more accessible to us than oil. 

So, to me, it is kind of like—I have had a couple of people in your 

bodies, both Senate and House over the last couple of years—it is 

a no-brainer. That is the way I look at it. And it is going to advance employment. 

The other thing is we have to understand. By us being able to 

advance the technologies into this market, just like we have done 

in so many—aerospace, I mean the space shuttle, yes, okay, you 

can call that a big WPA project like somebody told me once, but 

that was—we needed that kind of a catalyst to get the kind of technologies to go to space. 

The same thing is true in an economy like this. We are developing new things. And we are just a hose manufacturer. Just imagine what is happening with tanks and valves, and everything else. 

So, bottom line is we just need that five years to get this thing 

going. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. Dr. Boustany is recognized for five minutes. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come from 

Louisiana, and my congressional district is on the Gulf Coast. And 

we are a leader in oil and gas production, we have got lots of pipelines, the Henry Hub, where gas prices are set for the market, I’ve 

got one of the largest strategic petroleum reserves in my district. 

So it goes on and on. 

In fact, in 2005, the newest L&G facility in the country was built 

in my district. And now they are retrofitting, planning a retrofit to 

export natural gas, which we would have never thought this, five 

years ago. 

And it is interesting, with the shale plays that have come online, 

now five shale plays, which not only hold the potential for gas, natVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:45 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 076057 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\76057.XXX GPO1 PsN: 76057

anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
197 

ural gas, but also for oil, we are seeing sort of a shifting environment with regard to our energy security in this country. And it is 

exceedingly frustrating to me to see that we don’t have a strategy, 

going forward, for our country on energy security and to move us 

forward. 

And I think all of you were here—I am not sure with the previous panel—but when I made my comments I said, you know, I 

want tax reform, I want to clean up this Tax Code and simplify it. 

But at some point you have to make a decision, how do you move 

the ball forward and jumpstart the movement in the right direction 

for an energy strategy for this country, which means we have to 

have a transition. 

First, don’t punish your current energy production. And, Mr. 

Kreutzer, I share your sentiments about expanding the access to 

our reserves, not increasing taxes, getting rid of this de facto moratorium on drilling, and in fact, a moratorium on areas that are currently off limits. We could do a lot for our country if we were to 

do all these things. 

So, I have a question. Mr. Kreutzer, I saw that chart looking at 

the volatility of prices. And at the very tail end it seems to be 

smoothing out a bit. We don’t know what is going to happen. But 

with all the shale plays coming on, and everything else, I suspect— 

and given what these L&G guys are going to do in planning exports—that we should see some price stability. But we don’t know 

that. 

And so, are you aware of any studies, analyses projecting what 

is going to happen with natural gas prices in this country? And I 

would ask the same question to my friend, Congressman Dooley, as 

well. 

Mr. KREUTZER. Well, the Energy Information Administration 

certainly makes their projections regularly, and they have been 

dramatically revising them because of the hydro-fracturing giving 

access to the shale gas. But they are also maybe revise them back 

a little bit because the USGS came out with their estimates of the 

likely natural gas reserves that are available. 

And I am not the geologist or the engineer. I am fully willing to 

believe we are going to have low natural gas prices that some of 

these experts tell us. That argues against needing subsidies to get 

people to shift over. 

I would also just briefly—because we are talking about energy 

independence and security—a previous panel member said he absolutely didn’t think under anybody’s lifetime, his grandchildren, we 

would have energy independence. And that is a bet that I might 

have gone with him a couple of years ago. But they have just found 

20 billion barrels of petroleum and natural gas in Ohio. We are 

going to get three million barrels a day from resources in Texas 

that we didn’t think we were going to get anything from. 

So, it is not inconceivable that just without any strategy—this is 

the markets working, looking to find this stuff, getting access right 

now on private lands—if we could get it on public, make it even 

better—that we are getting lower prices, access to more energy of 

conventional types. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you. Congressman Dooley, I have 

a lot of refineries in my district, as you are probably well aware. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
198 

And I certainly do have that concern about what is going to happen 

with prices, and what is the impact on our energy, whether you are 

talking about upstream, downstream, and so forth. 

So, are you aware of any analyses projecting the concern you expressed with regard to natural gas prices? And could you provide 

those analyses to the committee? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Let me respond this way, is that we are not, as 

an industry—I mean we are not—it is not that we are for cheap 

natural gas. We are for competitively priced natural gas, and however you define that. And we are in a situation now where we are 

coming off a decade where we had great volatility in natural gas. 

And that is what, in large part, drove a lot of the chemical industry 

outside the United States. 

We have moved in the last—if you look at the five years, if you 

looked at a cost curve, five years ago the U.S. chemical industry 

was a high-cost producer. We were more expensive than even Western Europe. We compete with the rest of the chemical industry 

globally. They are primarily NAFTA-based, which is oil based. The 

break-even point for us was about one to six, with gas to oil. So 

when you had a $24 barrel of oil, we would have $4 gas. We would 

be in relative equilibrium. We didn’t have that, and that is why we 

were at the high cost. 

Now we have a distinct advantage, and that is why you have our 

companies lined up to invest billions and billions of dollars in new 

capacity. But what we are concerned about is not solely about the 

market distorting and picking winners in the Nat Gas Act. If you 

look since 2000, power generation shifting from coal to natural gas 

has increased by 42 percent. Last year it was by seven percent. 

Now, we have a lot of promise. I was in Ohio yesterday at Governor Kasich’s energy summit, touting the potential of the Utica 

and the Marcellus shale. There is—a lot of this natural gas isn’t 

out of the ground yet, and we are making some of these projections. 

There is a lot of public opposition to how you can bring that out. 

So, we are kind of looking at what are all the uncertainties that 

are out there. There is the regulatory uncertainty in order to capitalize on all this natural gas. There is also market uncertainty, because of regulatory policies that might have even a more rapid shift 

from coal-based generation to natural gas, and then we overlay another tax policy that drives demand for natural gas through tax 

subsidies, and that is what is our concern here. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. No, I appreciate that, because I am certainly concerned about our competitiveness, especially with the 

chemical industry in my state, and it is our second largest export, 

and we are fourth in exports among the 50 states right now. 

So—but if you have data, or an analysis, I would love for you to 

share—— 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes. No, we will—and you have been—we appreciate the openness of your office, and we will provide that information. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired. But Mr. 

Littlefair, you had a comment, I could—— 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Well, I was just going to say—and I don’t 

have it right here in front of me—but, Congressman, if you look at 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
199 

the 10-year strip price—and the former congressman knows this— 

I mean you have pretty low natural gas prices. I don’t know if it 

ticks up—I don’t believe it hits $6. I think you go out 10 years and 

it is $5. And so you are going to have, I believe, long, stable, relatively cheap natural gas prices. 

Chairman TIBERI. Mr. Lewis is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

being here. Good to see you, Congressman Dooley, again. Welcome. 

I have a question for each member of the panel. As a member 

of the Oversight Subcommittee, I am always concerned with how 

we administer tax policy. Our subcommittee works hard to make 

sure that government has the necessary tools to detect fraud and 

abuse of taxpayers’ dollars. Could you tell me what kind of documentation you think the IRS service should use to verify peoples’ 

claims for deduction under the Nat Gas Act? 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. I am not an expert, Congressman, on this, 

though—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Just try. 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. A lot of our customers have, until they expired. So when a trucking company in the port of Los Angeles buys 

a truck, they basically provide the bill of sale, and that is what 

they use to verify that they have paid an incremental cost, and 

they submit that to the IRS. Same with fuel. So it is very similar 

to the fuel credits, very similar to what goes on today. You make 

that available to the IRS, and they can audit it if they don’t believe 

you. 

So I don’t think we have a very complicated way to monitor the 

effectiveness and the distribution of the tax incentive. In what I 

have seen it is through the sale of the vehicle, and it is through 

the sale of the fuel. 

Mr. LEWIS. Any of you want to respond? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, I would just—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Is there another recommendation you would have? 

Mr. DOOLEY. I would just suggest you could eliminate that as 

a concern by not passing the Nat Gas Act. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LEWIS. Oh. Wouldn’t you consider that the easy way out? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KREUTZER. I guess not quite as jovial, I was going to suggest—yes, when you make the tax system more complicated, it 

makes compliance, honest compliance, more difficult and evasive 

activities easier. So the simpler the tax structure is, the better 

compliance we will have. The Nat Gas Act adds a lot of complexity 

for just a few pages. It is amazing. And in my testimony, my written testimony, I copied just one section, which is gibberish to most 

anybody. 

Mr. ZIOMEK. From my perspective, since we are really what we 

call tier two, we are way down the chain, as far as the customer. 

But as Mr. Littlefair said, it is with the purchase of the vehicle, 

they provide a receipt, and that is the way this is being paid for. 

I think it is pretty straightforward. I don’t—I cannot profess to give 

you any more information on that, because I am not that close to 

that end of the curve here. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
200 

So, my position is that it is very straightforward. You buy a vehicle, you submit the receipt, and that is how you get the credit. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LEWIS. I asked the panel just before you a basic question, 

and I would like to hear your thoughts on this same question. In 

these tough economic times, more and more people are saying we 

want to reduce the deficit. Many of them would prefer we do it by 

making deep and severe budget cuts. With this in mind, please answer the question for us. 

Do you believe the Federal Government has a role—and I mean 

not just a role, but a meaningful role—in accelerating the adoption 

of these renewable energy technologies? Why or why not? 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Congressman, I do. I look at the role of Congress—and I think one of the most important roles you have is to 

provide for the national security for the country. And I don’t think 

anybody here today would say that energy—the reason we are talking about it is because energy is key to that security. 

And so, I think you do have a role to do it, and I think the tax 

policy is a perfectly legitimate way to go about it. 

Mr. DOOLEY. My response would be—is that our industry is one 

of the most innovative in the country. A lot of people don’t realize, 

but the chemical industry has issued more patents than any other 

sector in our economy, about 1 out of 10 patents. We benefit by 

broad-based tax policies that encourage, you know, investment in 

R&D. So the R&D tax credit, which is—doesn’t pick winners and 

losers, is across the board, is something that we think is very important. 

Mr. LEWIS. I don’t want to cut you off, but my time is running 

out. But with the Nat Gas Act, do you believe that we would be 

picking winners and losers? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Absolutely. And—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Do you believe we would be picking winners and losers? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Absolutely, in terms of consumers. And, you know, 

prior to joining the American Chemistry Council I was part of, you 

know, the Grocery Manufacturers. And we were concerned there, 

with our ethanol policy picking winners and losers—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Let me just—— 

Mr. DOOLEY [continuing]. Among consumers there. 

Mr. LEWIS. You know I come from a city like Atlanta. And when 

I am driving my own car, moving around the city, I see so many 

trucks: Coca Cola, UPS, Federal Express, and many others. I even 

see buses, part of our transit, saying, ‘‘This vehicle is operated by 

natural gas.’’ So seem like there is a movement. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. LEWIS. There is a movement. So how do we catch up with 

this movement? 

Mr. DOOLEY. The movement is even—— 

Mr. LEWIS. It is natural—it is cleaner, isn’t it? 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Absolutely. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes. And, Congressman Lewis, what I would say 

is the movement is going to accelerate. It is going to accelerate—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Should we be part of the acceleration? Should we be 

left behind? 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
201 

Mr. DOOLEY. We—you know, it is—our position is that when 

you have the market forces at work now, when we both would acknowledge that you are going to have relatively sustained, competitively priced natural gas, maybe in that $6 range, you are going to 

continue to see market forces encourage the conversion of fleets to 

natural gas. You don’t need a tax subsidy to accelerate that at this 

time. It is not needed. 

And it does pick winners and losers. When I am competing—my 

member companies are competing for a product, and they—you are 

enhancing, through tax policy, increased demand that increases— 

it is going to have an impact, to some degree, on increasing the 

price of that product, that works to the detriment of those folks 

that aren’t benefitting from that tax subsidy. And that is what we 

conclude is picking winners and losers. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentlelady from Kansas is recognized. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here. 

As today’s testimony points out, the cost of operating on natural 

gas is significantly cheaper, when compared to diesel fuel, about 40 

percent cheaper on a per-gallon equivalent. With the price of diesel 

at $4 per gallon, this translates into an annual savings of $60,000, 

or roughly the same amount as the tax credits proposed by this legislation. And I believe, as Congressman Dooley has already pointed 

out, the savings can be covered in less than 15 months. 

So, it seems to me that the certainty the market needs is that 

of supply. While we have an abundant domestic resource in natural 

gas, it is under constant threat of halting or significantly curbing 

its production. So, Congressman Dooley, I have just a few questions 

for you in that regard. 

Would that certainty, together with the tremendous fuel savings, 

provide the market incentive to shift investments toward natural 

gas? And does this legislation do anything to ensure that we would 

have access to our natural gas? And finally, can you elaborate on 

what tax credits and other incentives currently exist for installing 

natural gas fuel infrastructure? 

Mr. DOOLEY. There was a lot of questions in there, but let me 

respond that, no, I don’t think there is anything in this legislation 

that has any impact on encouraging the development of natural gas 

supplies and the production of it. And I think that is what we 

think, in terms of—you know, I personally think we are poised in 

an era that we are going to see a renaissance in manufacturing. 

But that renaissance is going to have to be built upon a foundation 

of a sound, comprehensive energy policy. 

Whether it was Congressman Kind or—I think it was a congressman as well that said, ‘‘All of the above.’’ It needs to be—I mean 

we have, basically, from our industry’s perspective, you know, we 

are an energy-rich nation. We have chosen to make ourselves, you 

know, in some ways, dependent on imported oil because of our regulatory policies put in place, and those energy resources that we 

have put off limits. And that is why we are so excited about the 

shale gas and the natural gas supplies, and are committed to develVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:45 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 076057 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\76057.XXX GPO1 PsN: 76057

anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
202 

oping those regulatory policies that fully allow us to access those 

supplies. 

And this is where we have the benefit of not having to have a 

policy now to encourage the use of natural gas, because the marketplace is dictating that that is a good choice. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay, that is fair enough. Thank you. Switching 

gears a bit, Congressman Dooley, I am sure everybody is aware the 

cost of fertilizer depends primarily on the price of natural gas, and 

natural gas costs represent between 70 to 90 percent of the cost of 

producing ammonia, the building block of nitrogen fertilizers. And 

being from a farm state, Kansas, I am concerned about family 

farmers getting hit on both sides, one with decreasing support for 

agriculture programs, and also seeing a dramatic rise on their 

input costs. 

While seemingly a small issue, an affordable supply of natural 

gas is very important to the fertilizer industry, and on which 60 

percent of the world’s food supply also relies. Forecasts for 2011 

show that fertilizer costs for wheat were up 30 percent from the 

2010 levels. The last time we saw a spike in natural gas prices, 

over two dozen ammonia plants in the U.S. were forced to close 

their doors. 

So, as someone familiar with the industry, Congressman Dooley, 

again, would you mind talking just a bit about your concerns regarding demand for natural gas on the ag industry? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Well, prior to coming to Congress, I would even 

have had greater concerns, because I was a farmer in the Central 

Valley of California. And so now it is my family that is still operating the farm that is concerned about the ability to access, again, 

affordable fertilizers, particularly NH–3 ammonia, which is obviously an integral component to the production of many crops. 

And so, you know, this again is—you know, we are looking at not 

only an enhanced global competitive situation for the chemical industry, but also for our United States farmers, because of the ability to access natural gas at a price that looks, for the foreseeable 

future, to be very affordable and competitively priced. And that is 

why we have become very concerned—the fertilizer manufacturers 

and farmers, as well as chemical manufacturers—when we see 

Congress considering policies that are going to increase demand 

through tax policies or regulatory policies that will then drive up 

prices. 

And so, you know, we would—the fertilizer and a lot of the farm 

industry would share some of our concerns, again, about this interference in the marketplace that create market distortions that result in some constituencies benefitting over the expense of others. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay, thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. The gentleman from Connecticut 

is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again 

for holding this hearing. And I want to thank our panelists, and 

I especially want to welcome my old friend and dear colleague, Cal 

Dooley. While I might not agree with everything that he said, I am 

glad that he is here, participating. In fact, all the panelists have 

done an extraordinary job, and I commend the chair and the ranking members for creating this kind of opportunity. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
203 

I am—would have to say that I am more of a student of Thomas 

Friedman than I am of Milton Friedman as we get—evolve into 

these discussions. But I do think, at the heart of this, is something 

that is vitally important to the Congress. 

The winner here actually, if you talk about picking winners, was 

Mother Nature. She happened to create, in this instance, an opportunity for us to capitalize on. And to capitalize in on a time, frankly, when it has been very difficult for Congress to act at all. Again, 

I am very proud of the fact that there are 180 cosponsors of this 

bill, and growing. And why? Because Congress does need to act. 

Yes, we would all love to have a comprehensive energy policy. Yes, 

we would all love to have comprehensive tax policy. The fact of the 

matter is we don’t. 

But where are we in agreement on? We are in agreement on the 

critical issues before us, as it relates to foreign policy that happens 

to be coupled by an environmental benefit, an economic benefit, in 

terms of jobs that we have heard about, and also in terms of an 

energy benefit. Finally we have a source that is abundant, accessible, and it is ours. 

And so, we have this enormous advantage. I agree with Cal 

Dooley. We are going to see the opportunity for an industrial renaissance. So, as other countries gather strategically and are looking 

to eat our lunch, shouldn’t we be doing everything within our 

power to gain the advantage, recapture that industrial base, augment what we have already, and provide the opportunity to move 

forward? 

Friedman points out—Thomas, not Milton—that what we are 

doing here is exporting our dollars abroad, sending our money to 

fund the very countries and nations that are attacking our troops. 

It becomes a subsidy that is unthinkable, and consequences that 

we will live with for a number of years. 

And so, that becomes the rallying point, and also a point that 

Mr. Pickens has made testifying before this committee. The United 

States currently in negotiations globally, as it impacts everything, 

is on the outside looking in. It is time to put the United States 

back at the center of these discussions and negotiations that transpire globally. And that is why I think that it is so important. 

But I do think two things have to be underscored. And Mr. 

Littlefair, I would ask you to again review. In terms of national security and reducing our dependance on foreign oil, how much foreign oil would be displaced if the Natural Gas Act passed? 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Well, Congressman, over time we believe—as 

you know, over 5 years, we think you will be on your way to 

100,000 vehicles—actually, about 150,000 vehicles in the fifth year. 

But that is going to set you up to a point where you would be able 

to reduce Middle Eastern OPEC oil by 50 percent, which is about 

2.5 million barrels a day. So it is significant. 

It doesn’t make—the real answer to—the question on the earlier 

panel was can we be energy independent. I don’t think you can be 

energy independent. Nobody else on that panel. But you can sure 

go a long way to make sure you are back at the table, and reduce 

your dependence. And so, reducing OPEC by 50 percent is a hell 

of a first step. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
204 

Mr. LARSON. And the other aspect of this, with 14 million 

Americans unemployed, the jobs here that you discussed. What is 

the jobs—what are the jobs that you see immediately available? 

And then long term—all the panelists—— 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. Sure. The ones that I have here—and I have 

them right in front of me, Congressman—direct jobs. And I know 

our company is building things right now, we are spending millions 

and millions of dollars, and we are hiring people. In the 5 years 

you get 100,000 direct jobs. That will happen in the first 2 years, 

27,000 jobs in vehicle fuel system, hardware installation, production of fuel stations, production of plants. And then you get, you 

know, about 330,000 indirect jobs. 

I am not even counting what happens in the oil patch and in the 

gas patch. I am talking about, really, fueling stations and vehicles 

and the money that is spent. It is really breathtaking. I don’t think 

there are that many kinds of deals out there before Congress right 

now that can generate that kind of jobs. 

Mr. LARSON. And is there any other source of energy that can 

get us there? 

Mr. LITTLEFAIR. No. And that is the other thing. You know, I 

sit here and get a little frustrated because I—look, I want there to 

be cheap gas for chemicals, and I want cheap gas for a fertilizer 

plant. But, you know, that assumes that we are just going to continue to import foreign oil. And we kind of act like that is fine, you 

know, let the market worry about that. Sixty-three percent of our 

foreign oil every day is being imported—or oil is being imported 

every day, and seventy percent of that goes to transportation. 

We now are the world’s—you know, we have three times the 

amount of—if you take our natural gas today and convert it in oil, 

we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia does. And 

here, we are not doing anything about it. We are going to talk 

about exporting our natural gas. Now, wouldn’t that be something? 

Export our natural gas and import more oil? 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman’s time has expired. If anyone 

in the room doesn’t know what your position is, Mr. Larson, I think 

they probably know objectively where you are on this piece of legislation. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman from New York is recognized 

for five minutes. 

Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad 

to hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle join me in support of natural gas development in a clean and responsible way. 

And that is my question to this panel. 

You know, I come at this from a cosponsor to this act. I come at 

this from the founder of the Marcellus Shale Caucus in Congress. 

And I do believe that this shale development is a game changer 

when it comes to our energy policy. And so I was intrigued, and 

I am very excited to hear the immediate response to Mr. Lewis’s 

question about this is a clean energy. I heard yes, yes, yes, yes, immediately. 

Yet there are some people that are out there that have indicated 

that, with hydrofracking and other issues and concerns, that it is 

not a clean energy, and that there are significant risks with it. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
205 

Would anybody care to respond to the criticisms of exploring natural gas because of the environmental concerns about it? 

I guess, Mr. Kreutzer, you have—— 

Mr. KREUTZER. No, I have said I would fully support 

hydrofracking. I think it is safe. I hope they go forward with it. But 

that is different than saying I think we should subsidize users of 

natural gas. 

Mr. REED. Understood. 

Mr. KREUTZER. We wouldn’t have the hydrofracking if we depended entirely on government policies to run our energy policy— 

run our energy markets. 

Hydro fracturing technology was developed by George Mitchell at 

Mitchell Energy using his own money, no government subsidies. 

And so we didn’t need an energy policy to get this huge increase 

in domestic energy. And that is why I support markets. 

Mr. REED. Yes. And I understand that point, and that is why 

I am kind of deviating, because all the good questions—when you 

go last, all the good questions are taken before you get an opportunity to ask the questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. REED. So I am kind of deviating from the jurisdiction of this 

committee, because I do see a concern, or a potential barrier to the 

positive development of this resource that is floating out there. 

I hear the director of the EPA, Ms. Jackson, talk about 

hydrofracking and how she is going to try to get at it and regulate 

it at the federal level. Are there any concerns coming from any of 

the panelists as to any other threats to the potential development 

of natural gas, outside of the tax disagreement? 

Mr. DOOLEY. No, and that is where I made a statement earlier, 

is that we are making a lot of projections on a energy resource that 

is still in the ground, by and large. And we do have some concerns 

about the regulatory impediments that could develop and emerge 

that could preclude our ability to really develop this resource. You 

know, EPA is involved in a study, you know, and we hope that that 

will come out and will demonstrate, as the industry has great confidence, that we can extract this resource in a very environmentally-responsible manner. 

But we are also concerned, as an industry, when we are seeing 

local municipalities that are implementing more of land use restrictions that have the potential to impede the development of this resource. And there is obviously some questions on the constitutionality of some of those. 

But you know, the regulatory arena here is not entirely clear yet, 

which gives some uncertainty in terms of the ability to have the 

great confidence in the long-term supplies that we can actually 

transform into the chemicals that are critical to the entire manufacturing sector. 

Mr. REED. Excellent. With that, Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. This has been a fabulous panel. 

We thank the four of you for your time today, and for waiting until 

now to give your testimony. 

This concludes today’s hearing. Please be advised that Members 

may submit written questions to the witnesses. Those questions 

and the witnesses’ answers will be made part of the official record. 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
206 

I would like to thank the participants of all three panels today for 

appearing. It has been a great discussion on energy ta 

Thank you so much. This hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m. the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

MEMBER QUESTION FOR THE RECORD 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.125
207 

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.126
208 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.127
209 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.128
210 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.129
211 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.130
212 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.131
213 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.132
214 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.133
215 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.134
216 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.135
217 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.136
218 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.137
219 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.138
220 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.139
221 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.140
222 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.141
223 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.142
224 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.143
225 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.144
226 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.145
227 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.146
228 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.147
229 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.148
230 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.149
231 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.150
232 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.151
233 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.152
234 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.153
235 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.154
236 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.155
237 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.156
238 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.157
239 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.158
240 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.159
241 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.160
242 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.161
243 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.162
244 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.163
245 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.164
246 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.165
247 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.166
248 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.167
249 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.168
250 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.169
251 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.170
252 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.171
253 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.172
254 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.173
255 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.174
256 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.175
257 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.176
258 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.177
259 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.178
260 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.179
261 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.180
262 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.181
263 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.182
264 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.183
265 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.184
266 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.185
267 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.186
268 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.187
269 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.188
270 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.189
271 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.190
272 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.191
273 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.192
274 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.193
275 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.194
276 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.195
277 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.196
278 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.197
279 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.198
280 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.199
281 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.200
282 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.201
283 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.202
284 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.203
285 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.204
286 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.205
287 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.206
288 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.207
289 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.208
290 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.209
291 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.210
292 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.211
293 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.212
294 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.213
295 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.214
296 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.215
297 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.216
298 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.217
299 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.218
300 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.219
301 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.220
302 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.221
303 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.222
304 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.223
305 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.224
306 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.225
307 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.226
308 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.227
309 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.228
310 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.229
311 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.230
312 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.231
313 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.232
314 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.233
315 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.234
316 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.235
317 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.236
318 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.237
319 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.238
320 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.239
321 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.240
322 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.241
323 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.242
324 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.243
325 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.244
326 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.245
327 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.246
328 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.247
329 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.248
330 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.249
331 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.250
332 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.251
333 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.252
334 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.253
335 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.254
336 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.255
337 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.256
338 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.257
339 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.258
340 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.259
341 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.260
342 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.261
343 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.262
344 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.263
345 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.264
346 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.265
347 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.266
348 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.267
349 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.268
350 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.269
351 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.270
352 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.271
353 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.272
354 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.273
355 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.274
356 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.275
357 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.276
358 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.277
359 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.278
360 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.279
361 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.280
362 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.281
363 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.282
364 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.283
365 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.284
366 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.285
367 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.286
368 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.287
369 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.288
370 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.289
371 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.290
372 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.291
373 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.292
374 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.293
375 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.294
376 

f 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.295
377 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.296
378 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.297
379 

Æ 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING76057A.298
ENERGY TAX POLICY AND TAX REFORM 


anorris on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING