U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

62–453 2010

SOLAR HEATS UP: ACCELERATING WIDESPREAD 

DEPLOYMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 

Serial No. 111–10 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri, prepared statement ............................................................................. 7 

WITNESSES

Mr. Steve Kline, Vice President for Corporate Environmental and Federal 

Affairs, Pacific Gas & Electric ............................................................................ 8 

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

Mr. Frank De Rosa, Chief Executive Officer, Nextlight Renewable Power ........ 17 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 19 

Ms. Nada Culver, Esq., Senior Counsel, The Wilderness Society ....................... 28 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 31 

Dr. Stephanie A. Burns, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Dow Corning ......................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 45 

Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Economics Professor, King Juan Carlos University .......... 49 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 51 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

Hon. Edward J. Markey letter of July 16, 2009 to the Hon. Ken Salazar .......... 65 

Hon. Edward J. Markey letter of September 8, 2009 from the Hon. Ken 

Salazar .................................................................................................................. 67 

Hon. Edward J. Markey letter of July 16, 2009 to the Hon. Steven Chu ........... 70 

Hon. Edward J. Markey letter of September 1, 2009 from Steve Isakowitz 

on behalf of the Hon. Steven Chu ....................................................................... 72 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Response to the Report Study of 

the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources 

from King Juan Carlos University by Eric Lantz and Suzanne Tegen ........... 77 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

SOLAR HEATS UP: ACCELERATING 

WIDESPREAD DEPLOYMENT 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:37 p.m., in Room 2318, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, and Sensenbrenner. 

Staff present: Jonathan Phillips. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Our 

hearing today is going to focus on solar power, which will play a 

critical role as policymakers around the world promote renewable 

energy as part of the global response to climate change. 

It is important to see this hearing in the larger context. In his 

first address, yesterday, to the United Nations, President Obama 

highlighted the unprecedented investment in American renewables 

as a concrete sign of American progress on global warming. China’s 

Premier, Hu Jintao, also made an important announcement at the 

U.N., stating China’s commitment to draw 15 percent of its total 

primary energy from nonfossil sources by the year 2020. The announcement by China’s Premier has been backed by billions of dollars and there is more to come. 

Last week the Speaker and I met with Mr. Wu, who is the chairman of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress. 

He had just arrived from Arizona, where they had signed an agreement with First Solar for a 2,000 megawatt photovoltaic farm to 

be built in the desert of Inner Mongolia. This will be the world’s 

largest solar photovoltaic power plant project, and is projected to 

cost nearly $5 billion. But it is only a small part of a nearly 12,000 

megawatt renewable energy park that is planned there as well. 

Thankfully, after years of neglect, America is no longer just 

watching other countries racing ahead. We are now making real 

strides to reclaim a leadership role in a technology that was invented on our shores. 

The Bureau of Land Management has received more than 150 

large-scale solar plant applications with a projected capacity of 

97,000 megawatts of electricity, mostly in the sunny Southwest. 

Imagine that; we have healthy competition for clean energy techVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:57 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062453 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B453.XXX B453

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
2 

nology between the barren steppe of Inner Mongolia and the hot 

desert of Nevada and Arizona. 

In just over 70 days, the nations of the world will convene in Copenhagen to commit to solutions for the common good. Here in the 

United States, the need to position American industry for new 

areas of long-term growth is also urgent. As Americans across the 

country can attest, pink slips at work can be as personally devastating as the threat of melting ice caps, rising seas and, more frequent, floods, droughts and hurricanes. 

The climate and the economy are two challenges facing our country that will impact us globally and locally. Clean energy technology will be a clean solution to both. The global transition to 

clean energy presents an opportunity for job creation in all areas 

of the country. Solar power in the West and Southwest, wind turbines in the plains and Texas, and offshore in New England and 

the Mid-Atlantic. Biomass in the South and Northwest. 

All areas of the country have energy resources that can be made 

and be used that are plentiful, clean, renewable, affordable and 

made in America. And that is a statement that cannot be said 

about most of the oil which we consume, because that comes 

marked with ‘‘made by OPEC.’’ 

We have taken the first step in assuring that these clean energy 

jobs stay in the United States and unleash a global energy revolution. 

In June the House passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean 

Energy and Security Act. When enacted, this bill will cap the carbon pollution causing global warming, require the widespread deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and invest 

$200 billion in energy technology. 

The clean energy revolution will not happen magically. We need 

to put in place the policies that will accomplish that goal. 

I am pleased that we have such a distinguished group of panelists that will be testifying today. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
3 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 here 62453A.001
4 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 here 62453A.002
5 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me turn now and recognize the Ranking 

Member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

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

There is no good or evil with energy sources because every energy 

source carries distinctly different positives and negatives. 

Developing a new energy system from the ground up is proving 

to be an impossible task for policymakers. While solar power promises to deliver an endless supply of clean energy, high costs and 

other environmental concerns are raising significant problems. 

State mandates, like California’s renewable portfolio standard, 

have led to small amounts of growth in the solar energy sector, but 

that growth is already being hindered by environmental concerns. 

Last week, BrightSource Energy was forced to give up its plan 

to build a 5,130-acre solar farm in the Mohave Desert after Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein responded with plans to make the 

area a national monument. 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has met similar resistance with 

his plan to fast-track solar development on Federal lands, because 

of concerns that the development will disturb the habitat of federally protected wildlife. These issues stem from mandating the use 

of an energy source before the ramifications are fully understood. 

Spain’s experience with renewable energy should serve as a cautionary tale. President Obama has frequently argued that we 

should look to Spain as an example of how taxpayer subsidies for 

renewable energy projects will create so-called green jobs. But economics professor Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Rey Juan Carlos University examined the Spanish policies and advises against adopting 

their approach. Professor Calzada’s study questions the effectiveness of pumping massive subsidies into renewable energy. As the 

Washington Post reported yesterday Spain’s subsidies for photovoltaic, solar, or power jumped from $320 million in 2007 to $1 billion, 600 million last year. 

While the Spanish Government argues that its subsidies created 

200,000 jobs, Dr. Calzada found that for every job the subsidies created, they eliminated up to 2.2 more. Furthermore, only one in ten 

of the newly created jobs proved to be permanent. Most were created to build infrastructure, but were no longer needed once it was 

done. 

I have often argued that there is no free lunch in our response 

to climate change. Dr. Calzada’s study confirms this. He found that 

each newly created job in the solar industry cost the Spanish Government and its taxpayers $855,000. 

Solar energy did initially thrive in response to Spain’s massive 

government investment; however, in 2008 Spain withdrew the subsidies. With the subsidies gone, the solar bubble burst and many 

of the new jobs were eliminated. In other words, the green jobs created by the subsidies proved to be anything but sustainable. 

The subsidies have also introduced market volatility. Professor 

Calzada found that Spain’s subsidy of solar energy was 500 percent 

higher than the market price. While these subsidies thus far only 

cause modest rises in electricity prices, Spanish Government officials are already warning that prices might suddenly jump as the 

true cost of these renewable energy projects reach consumers. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
6 

I am not against solar power. I am in favor of an all-of-the-above 

approach to energy production that includes solar power, along 

with wind, coal, hydropower, nuclear power and increased energy 

efficiency. But I am also opposed to government policies that pick 

winners and losers based on popular sentiments. And I am opposed 

to policies that will increase our energy prices. 

Spain’s massive use of government subsidies is not an all-of-theabove approach but, rather, an attempt to choose winners and losers. And the one last thing to consider before following Spain’s lead 

on green jobs, Spain’s unemployment rate is currently 181⁄2 percent 

and growing. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about both the 

positive and negatives about relying on solar power, and I thank 

the Chairman for the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 

my good friend from Wisconsin laying out a fundamental difference 

in approach. 

You know, it is ironic. All American energy sources have been 

heavily subsidized at one point or another throughout their development. We have a long history of the Federal Government subsidizing everything from jet aviation, semiconductors, computers, 

the Internet, global positioning systems, laser technology, MRI— 

the list is extensive—that has developed into major job engines in 

the United States. 

I find it a little frustrating that our friends have chosen not really to engage the issue directly of the hearing, but they are ignoring 

information provided by established credible experts, and pull out 

of right field a single report that uses unproven theories, 

unaccepted assumptions, lacks basic statistical analysis to show 

that a program that only does not exist in the United States, and 

is not being proposed by anyone, did not work. 

In my home State of Oregon we are watching, even though it 

rains all the time, we are watching an emergence of a solar energy 

industry. We are watching in New Jersey, the Garden State, where 

they have some climate issues, the second largest State of installations. We are moving in an era where it is expected that the solar 

photovoltaic will soon achieve grid parity. 

And in an era when the United States, unlike what happened in 

the technology explosion, Mr. Chairman, that you were involved in, 

and actually our Ranking Member has been deeply concerned with, 

where the United States was an innovator and a global leader in 

energy technology, today the United States has only 4 of the top 

30 countries. 

The rest of the world is moving on. I think our witnesses here 

today can help give a picture of where the world is going. And I 

appreciate your having this hearing because I think it is an important part of the picture to round out. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

Time for opening statements of members has been completed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
7 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 62453A.003
8 

The CHAIRMAN. We will turn to our panel. Our first witness is 

Steve Kline, Vice President for Corporate Environmental and Federal Affairs for the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. We welcome 

you, sir. 

STATEMENTS OF STEVE KLINE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL AND FEDERAL AFFAIRS, PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; FRANK DE 

ROSA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEXTLIGHT RENEWABLE 

POWER, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; NADA CULVER, ESQ., 

SENIOR COUNSEL, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; STEPHANIE A. BURNS, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DOW CORNING 

CORPORATE CENTER, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN; GABRIEL 

CALZADA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF APPLIED ECONOMICS, 

KING JUAN CARLOS UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSIDAD REY JUAN 

CARLOS, FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS JURI ́DICAS Y SOCIALES, 

MADRID, SPAIN 

The CHAIRMAN. Whenever you are ready, Mr. Kline, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE KLINE 

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

Sensenbrenner and members of the committee. I am delighted to 

appear before you on behalf of PG&E Corporation and its subsidy, 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to offer some thoughts on this 

very important subject. 

As PG&E’s chief sustainability officer and Vice President of Corporate Environmental and Federal Affairs, I lead PG&E’s climate 

change strategy programs as well as our habitat conservation planning programs. Investments in renewable resources, including solar 

resources, create jobs, reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas 

emissions, and move us toward a low-carbon economy. 

Vitally important is the support and role of the Federal Government in expanding the development of solar energy, including policies related to Federal lands, that could help or hinder renewable 

energy development. 

The Federal Government in the economic recovery package has 

made important investments to support and lay foundation for expanding renewable energy resources, including financial and program support, but there is an opportunity and a need to do more. 

Before going further, let me tell you just a bit about PG&E’s support and development of solar and other renewable resources. We 

provide electric and gas service to approximately 15 million people 

throughout a 70,000 square mile service area in northern and central California. We deliver some of the Nation’s cleanest energy. On 

average, approximately one-half of the power that we deliver to our 

customers is carbon-free. In 2008 approximately 12 percent of the 

electricity delivery mix was from California eligible renewable resources, and we forecast that to rise to 15 percent this year. 

We are actively pursuing a diverse portfolio of renewable generation resources on behalf of our customers, and I think the critical 

word there is ‘‘portfolio.’’ Since 2002 we have signed more than 66 

contracts with existing and new facilities that use or plan to use 

wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass and solar as their fuel. Solar enVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:57 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062453 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B453.XXX B453

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
9 

ergy is an especially attractive source for us because it is available 

when power is needed most in California during the peak midday 

summer period. Our portfolio includes both solar PV and solar 

thermal technologies. 

Since early 2008 we have entered into 14 solar contracts, 5 using 

solar PV technology and 9 using solar thermal or concentrated 

solar power technologies. In addition, we have a 500-megawatt photovoltaic program pending before the California Public Utilities 

Commission to help stimulate immediate renewable energy development through both distributed utility-owned generation and 

power purchase agreements with third parties. 

Given the current state of the capital markets, we strongly recommend further extending tax credits, grant programs and loan 

guarantees. To help assure that we will have the renewable energy 

resources we need to meet California’s RPS—and we assume, soon, 

a Federal RPS obligation—we are also exploring the possibility of 

developing commercial-scale projects ourselves. 

In addition, we support exploration of a ‘‘Green Bank’’ to provide 

longer-term certainty and expanded options for financing renewable energy programs. Establishing a clean energy deployment administration, as is being discussed in both the House and the Senate, would assist in reaching those goals. 

We are encouraged by the Department of Interior’s actions to facilitate large-scale production of renewables. A positive step has 

been BLM’s recent release of its draft scoping document or the programmatic environmental impact statement for development of renewables on public lands in the West. This study will capture 24 

solar energy study areas to expedite technologies that are ready for 

deployment at utility scale. 

Given the dual imperatives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

as soon as possible and of bringing renewables on line while protecting natural and cultural resources, we believe that Federal 

agencies and their State agency analogs must proceed along two 

parallel paths. One path in the short term is identifying and permitting the solar projects most likely to be shovel-ready in time to 

be eligible to receive stimulus funds. The other path is longer-term; 

namely, developing a process to manage solar development on public lands in a more orderly and comprehensive fashion. Clearly a 

great deal is being asked of BLM staff in connection with this effort, which we strongly support, to get more renewable energy generated on line to consumers. 

It is critical that BLM have sufficient resources to ensure that 

these efforts can move forward in a timely and efficient manner, 

while ensuring robust environmental review. A significant challenge. 

And it won’t be a surprise to this committee that what we face 

in bringing renewable energy on line is the lack of transmission 

lines located where resources are located. Across the West, thousands of miles of transmission lines will be needed to significantly 

expand renewable energy production and link those remote resources to areas where electricity is needed most, where people 

live, including paths on or around Federal lands. 

It would be no exaggeration to say that only with increased 

transmission capacity can the benefits of renewable resources be 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
10 

fully realized. One way to facilitate that would be through better 

coordination among agencies. 

In addition to better coordination, streamlining the reviews required by State and Federal agencies to remove unnecessary overlap and duplicative requirements could greatly enhance the development of transmission lines needed to link renewable resources to 

the grid. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you please summarize. 

Mr. KLINE. We appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in these 

vital issues and look forward to working with you and other policymakers and stakeholders on this journey to find consensus. I thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you. 

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

[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
11 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 62453A.004
12 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 62453A.005
13 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 62453A.006
14 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 62453A.007
15 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 62453A.008
16 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 62453A.009
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Frank De Rosa. He is the 

Chief Executive Officer of NextLight Renewable Power. We welcome you sir. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK DE ROSA 

Mr. DE ROSA. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the 

progress and the challenges we face in developing large-scale solar 

generation. 

NextLight Renewable Power is a developer of competitively 

priced utility-scale solar generation. We are not a technology company, we are power plant guys. Our expertise is in the siting, permitting, financing, construction and operation of power plants. We 

apply the technologies to our projects so as to provide the best 

products to our utility customers. 

NextLight has approximately 1,000 megawatts of solar generation in development and permitting in the West, in Arizona, California, Nevada and the other Western States. That is sufficient to 

meet the needs of approximately 200,000 residential homes. It 

would create about 1,500 construction jobs and 100 to 200 permanent jobs during operation. 

I have three main points today. First is to restore the $2 billion 

that was transferred to Cash for Clunkers back to the DOE Loan 

Guarantee Program. The second is to extend the ITC grant beyond 

the December 2010 expiration date. And the third is to establish 

the Green Bank. 

Now, why do we need these programs? Our biggest obstacle in 

developing these projects is the upfront capital cost of renewable 

energy generation. Without carbon costs explicitly included, when 

a utility looks at their supply portfolio, they see renewable generation as more expensive than fossil. If we can close that gap, utilities would gladly procure more renewable generation and more 

generation would get built without impacting electric rates. 

These three measures go a long way to close the gap, at little 

taxpayer expense, by reducing the financing costs of these projects. 

So, very briefly, the Loan Guarantee Program, $2 billion would 

accelerate $20 billion of renewable generation. The ITC grant was 

enacted to address the current shortage of tax equity, but the fact 

is that the ITC grant is more efficient than the investment tax 

credit. Every dollar of the grant goes to a project, as opposed to the 

investment tax credit where we need to bring in tax investors who 

require more than a dollar for a dollar of tax offset, and it requires 

a substantial structuring transaction cost to do these very complicated financing arrangements. We estimate a 15 to 20 percent 

loss with the investment tax credit compared to the ITC grant. 

Lastly, the Green Bank, which was passed by this House and is 

in the Senate here, like the Export-Import Bank, the purpose 

would be to lend to renewables at rates—basically at Federal rates. 

And if you compare, say, a 5 percent rate, long-term debt rate, 

under something like the Green Bank to the 8 or 9 percent interest 

rates in the market today, that translates to about 4 cents a kilowatt hour reduction in the cost of renewable generation. That is a 

lot. That is enough to close the gap between renewables and fossil 

generation. So it is the most cost-effective way to build renewable 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
18 

generation with minimal impact on electric rates or on the Federal 

budget. 

So in conclusion, our biggest obstacle is the upfront cost of these 

very capital-intensive projects. And Congress can materially reduce 

that cost, without significant taxpayer expense, by enacting the 

three points that I mentioned before. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. De Rosa, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. De Rosa follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
19 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here 62453A.010
20 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 62453A.011
21 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here 62453A.012
22 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here 62453A.013
23 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here 62453A.014
24 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here 62453A.015
25 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here 62453A.016
26 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here 62453A.017
27 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here 62453A.018
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Nada Culver. She is the senior counsel at the Wilderness Society. She has many years of experience in environmental law. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF NADA CULVER 

Ms. CULVER. Thank you, Chairman Markey and members of the 

committee. And thank you for pronouncing my name correctly. 

Wandering around the Southwest with a name like this has been 

a challenge. 

I work in the public lands campaign of The Wilderness Society. 

Our mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to protect our wild places. For more than 70 years we have worked to ensure that land management practices are sustainable and based on 

sound science. 

I lead a part of the organization called the BLM Action Center 

which tracks land-use planning and policy and is dedicated to helping the public effectively engage and participate. 

We appreciate the leadership that Chairman Markey and others 

on the committee have demonstrated in seeking clean energy solutions to the impacts of climate change to recently passed legislation. You have asked us to present testimony today regarding how 

public lands can contribute to these solutions through large-scale 

solar energy development. My written statement lays out in a lot 

of detail the key considerations for The Wilderness Society. 

Today my testimony is going to focus on our optimism regarding 

the direction that Secretary Ken Salazar is already leading us in. 

Our wildlands in our communities are threatened by global warming and our reliance on fossil fuels. We see solar energy development and other sources of renewable energy as an important part 

of responding to these threats, and the public lands have a role to 

play. 

Secretarial Order 3285 set the stage for a new approach to energy development on the public lands, focusing on development and 

transmission of renewable energy from appropriate areas. This 

thoughtful approach is reflected in the ongoing efforts of the Department on solar energy, and we hope honestly to see it applied 

to other types of energy development. 

The key elements of this strategy are identifying the places that 

are most appropriate for large-scale development, while protecting 

places that are not appropriate or needed, and providing the financial tools needed to incentivize responsible development and 

proactive involvement of other interested and knowledgeable parties. A robust program in this model would be able to increase the 

likelihood of timely approval of projects and decrease the unacceptable environmental impacts and the resulting controversy and opposition to projects that come with that. 

Secretary Salazar has committed the Department to identifying 

and prioritizing the specific locations in the United States best 

suited for large-scale production. This is really the centerpiece for 

responsible development, locating it in the right places and with 

the right protection. 

The Department has commenced a programmatic environmental 

impact statement for solar energy and is designating solar energy 

zones that will be prioritized. These zones are being designated 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
29 

with important criteria, both for proximity to transmission and 

suitability of terrain and potential for energy; but also by, from the 

start, excluding sensitive resources from consideration, resources 

like the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System and critical habitats for endangered species. 

Because solar energy development involves long-term use of land, 

damaged natural resources, and really effectively precludes other 

uses, it is extremely important for it to be directed to lands that 

do not have other sensitive resources. And, for example, 

NextLight’s Silver State North and South projects in Nevada are 

being sited to avoid BLM areas of critical environmental concern 

in lands proposed by citizens for wilderness protection. 

Another key element of the strategy is that once energy zones 

are identified, development is limited to those lands. This stands 

in stark contrast to the Department’s approach to oil and gas development, which has been to make all lands available for leasing 

without considering other values or strategically prioritizing these 

lands. This has resulted, as we have all seen, in significant controversy, and precluded thoughtful management of the public 

lands. 

Focusing on lands that don’t have sensitive resources and are 

close to transmission will minimize environmental damage and loss 

of other uses that is honestly associated with large-scale solar development. 

An important siting option is found on brownfields and other already disturbed lands, like abandoned mines or fallow agricultural 

lands. These are found on both public and private lands. Both the 

EPA and the National Renewable Energy Lab have estimated that 

these types of lands could provide up to 950,000 megawatts of utility-scale solar. These sites are close to population centers and 

transmission, and they are already zoned for industrial uses. They 

actually improve communities by reducing blight. They were in 

place already in Colorado at Fort Carson, and, in my home State 

of New Jersey, a landfill has recently approved a brownfield as 

well. 

Both the EPA and Arizona BLM have active brownfield programs, and these really could and should be expanded and 

incentivized, including through a renewable electricity standard. 

Chairman Markey, you raised a profile of this earlier in this year 

in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and we hope to see 

this continue. But because development of a solar utility scale will 

transform the land and preclude most other uses, it is important 

that we look at all types of onsite and offsite litigation measures 

based on credible science, and take into account the many other 

uses and values of the public lands; things like wilderness values, 

wildlife habitat and recreation. Everything from backcountry hunting and mountain biking should be accounted for. A new transmission is needed, but, again, this must be done with a thoughtful 

approach to protect the environment and avoid further contributions. 

We would also encourage that while the Department of Interior 

is hard at work, simultaneously developing a program, identifying 

zones and analyzing many pending applications, including those receiving stimulus funding, they will need to be assisted with addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:57 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062453 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B453.XXX B453

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
30 

tional resources so that they can actively manage this program. 

Similar funding was assigned in the prior administration to fund 

oil and gas permitting, and the BLM will need similar funding 

from this administration. They have a unique opportunity, although a challenge, to develop this from the ground up. 

In conclusion, we believe that we can move forward with largescale solar energy development while protecting and valuing other 

resources. I just wanted to note that the Secretary’s order specifically noted that additional policies might be needed to fully support 

renewable energy, including revising Geothermal, Wind, and WestWide Corridors Programmatic EISs. We believe it is imperative 

that we improve those, as well as the oil and gas development program. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

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

[The statement of Ms. Culver follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
31 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 here 62453A.019
32 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here 62453A.020
33 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 here 62453A.021
34 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 here 62453A.022
35 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 here 62453A.023
36 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 here 62453A.024
37 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 here 62453A.025
38 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 here 62453A.026
39 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 here 62453A.027
40 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 here 62453A.028
41 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 here 62453A.029
42 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 here 62453A.030
43 

The CHAIRMAN. And our next witness is Dr. Stephanie Burns. 

Dr. Burns is the President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer 

of Dow Corning. She is the recipient of the 2008 Commercial Development Marketing Association Award for Executive Excellence. We 

welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE A. BURNS 

Ms. BURNS. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. And thank 

you, Chairman Markey and Representative Sensenbrenner, for extending an invitation to join today. It is an honor and a pleasure 

to be here. 

As you know, America is at the dawn of a new energy era, a 

transformation that will provide us with more clean energy-producing options like solar, wind and other renewable energy sources. 

Dow Corning is one of the world’s leading producers of 

polycrystalline silicon which powers the solar industry. I know 

firsthand that America’s energy transformation is inexorably linked 

to our Nation’s economic and manufacturing future. Such a transformation will require that we forge a new path forward through 

Federal leadership, the investment and innovation of private industry, and integrated policy prescriptions that address each step in 

the renewable energy value chain, from education and workforce 

development to raw material and end-product manufacturing to deployment and market readiness. With forward-thinking leadership 

and management, this transformation could bring with it a whole 

new set of industries, hundreds of thousands of new jobs, a sustainable source of economic growth and a reduced carbon footprint that 

is good for our country and for our global environment. 

Other nations have enacted aggressive policies to support the 

growth of the renewable energy industry. For example, China—as 

you mentioned—India and Germany offer large subsidies for solar 

manufacturing facilities. As a result, the U.S. global market share 

of solar manufacturing has dropped from about 45 percent to only 

7 percent in 12 years. It is time for America to enact policies that 

will keep the solar industry here and at home. 

With that in mind, let me thank you for including the alternative 

energy investment credit in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This credit is a significant first step towards establishing 

new clean energy technology manufacturing jobs here in the U.S., 

and encouraging companies such as Dow Corning to manufacture 

solar and other renewable energy-related materials in America 

with the potential to create more than 315,000 jobs in construction, 

engineering, science, skilled trades and others. I hope that this 

credit can be made permanent in an energy bill now under development, or in any other tax extender packages, as it will propel 

America into an era of sustained renewable energy use and help 

put Americans back to work. 

Dow Corning is already leading by example. We are one of the 

only companies in the world that is able to provide advanced silicon-based materials and services throughout the entire solar value 

chain, from solar cell and panel manufacturing, to modular assemblies, right on through the panel installations, and we are making 

significant progress. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
44 

Earlier this month we announced the commercial availability of 

a breakthrough solar cell encapsulation technology that improves 

performance of solar panels and effectively lowers the cost for a kilowatt hour of solar power, making solar power less expensive to 

both produce and to use. In the past 4 years we have announced more than $41⁄2 billion 

in investments in solar technology, including last December’s announcement of more than $2.2 billion to increase polysilicon production, creating 1,800 construction jobs and more than 1,000 permanent jobs in the months to come, all of this to be put in America. 

And we have begun construction on a new manufacturing facility 

for use in thin film solar production which will produce even more 

solar-related jobs and help attract other supply-chain investments 

to the U.S. 

This is a start, but in order to truly implement the transformation which is before us, Dow Corning proposes a four-point 

plan to address the technical, legislative, regulatory, manufacturing, and workforce-related factors. America’s ability to develop 

a thriving domestic renewable solar power depends on this. 

First, we encourage Congress and the Obama administration to 

enact new Federal policies and regulations that will encourage the 

rapid growth of a viable renewable energy industry and consumer 

adoption of renewable energy, through Federal tax incentives for 

domestic manufacturing, a robust Federal renewable electricity 

standard and Federal interconnection and net metering standards. 

Second, we advocate increased Federal funding for research and 

development to accelerate solar technology innovation in advanced 

solar manufacturing jobs. 

Third, we support the need to develop a green-collar workforce 

by supporting training programs like the programs Dow Corning 

has cosponsored with local colleges in Michigan and in Tennessee. 

Fourth, we need the Federal Government to lead by example in 

the implementation of clean technologies through procurement of 

onsite generation, building retrofits for energy efficiency, and new, 

green building standards. 

Finally, but certainly no less important, Congress must ensure 

that new policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon tax or cap-and-trade, do not inadvertently discourage growth 

in the manufacturing and production of renewable energy resources. 

In closing, as I said earlier, America is at a dawn of a new energy era. My company is doing its part to encourage a climate of 

collaboration, creativity, and commitment to greener energy security. It is more than just smart business. As a global company, we 

know it is fundamental to protecting our Nation’s competitiveness 

in the decades to come. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Burns, very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Burns follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
45 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 62453A.031
46 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 62453A.032
47 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 62453A.033
48 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 62453A.034
49 

The CHAIRMAN. And our final witness today is Dr. Gabriel 

Calzada. Dr. Calzada is an Associate Professor in the Department 

of Economics at King Juan Carlos University in Spain. He is also 

the author of the report ‘‘Study of the Effects on Employment of 

Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.’’ 

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

STATEMENT OF GABRIEL CALZADA 

Mr. CALZADA. Chairman Markey, Congressman Sensenbrenner, 

and members of the Select Committee, thank you for the invitation 

to testify today on the Spanish experience in renewable energies 

and, specifically, in solar energy production. 

Spain, as you know, has become a world leader in the production 

of solar and renewable energy, thanks to a mix of political determination and a huge amount of subsidies. In the year 2004 Mr. 

Zapatero promised, and I quote, ‘‘a reorientation of the energy 

model towards renewables and particularly solar energy.’’ And he 

added, quote, this is the model of the future, end quote. And we 

did it. 

From the year 2000 to 2008, we went from having almost no 

megawatt in solar energy, to be one of the world leaders. How we 

did it? The way we did it is through subsidies, as I said, public aid 

and specifically primes. In the case of solar we went so far as giving 575 percent prime over the market price in the so-called feedthe-entire-system. In this way, we provided $40 billion to the renewable industry and $13 billion to the solar industry. So we are 

talking about an industry, the solar, that provides less than 1 percent of the electricity and gets committed 13 billion Euros to that 

industry. 

Obviously, every Spaniard wanted to enter this business and we 

got waiting lists. We have a large waiting list from Spaniards 

wanting a license to produce solar energy; and, related to this, a 

lot of corruption. You may have read in the newspapers a lot of corruption arose because nobody wants to be at the end of the queue, 

everybody wants to be on the front. 

But even worse than this has been the bubble, the renewable 

bubble and the solar bubble that was created. In order to understand the bubble, you just have to think that most of the jobs, the 

so called ‘‘green jobs’’ that has been created are an installation of 

those. So if you want to keep those jobs, you cannot maintain a 

level of subsidy, you have to increase it. You have always to increase it because you have to keep them working, so it means you 

have to keep them producing new plans. But if they produce new 

plants, you will have to subsidize more more electricity that is produced by those plans. In this way it is a bubble that grows and 

grows. 

And the Spanish Government now has a lot of problems related 

with this bubble. Nobody knows exactly how to solve the problem. 

Another big question is who pays for this, all these billions. The 

first thing a Spanish politician did is look to the consumer, but 

they thought this was not a good idea because the price of electricity would have to be increased quite a lot. Then they looked at 

taxpayers. But politicians do want to be reelected, and they 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
50 

thought the taxpayers are also voters, and they dismissed this possibility. 

The third possibility was the distributors of energy. And finally 

they obliged the distributors of energy to pay these high primes. 

However, the distributors said immediately, Wait a minute, if we 

have to pay these very high primes to the producers of renewables, 

but you, government, set the very low price in the electricity that 

we have to sell, we will go bankruptcy. And the government immediately said, Don’t worry, what we will do is that we will repay you, 

we promise we repay you in 15 years, in 15 years from now when 

I am not going to be here anymore, another politician is going to 

repay you. And they encouraged the companies to do securitization, 

securitization of this debt. 

However, since year 2007, the utilities have not been able to sell 

the securitization, these packages, in the market, and a lot of troubles have arose in the Spanish electricity market. And many many 

so-called ‘‘green jobs’’ has been fired since then, because the government had to change a little bit the subsidies to the solar industry. 

Thanks to this scheme 50,000 green jobs have been created. 

However, if you take into account the huge amount of resources 

that I just mentioned that has been taken away from the rest of 

the economy and put into this sector, you can see that for every job 

that has been created, these same resources and the rest of the 

economy would have created 2.2 jobs for every job. So it means 

that, in fact, you are losing jobs and you are not creating them. For 

every solar megawatts that was installed, nine jobs were lost. 

This is the sad experience that your President suggests should 

be taken as a model. I am sure that Spain has many many good 

things to show, many economic good things to show your country, 

but I believe as an economist that this policy related to renewables, 

specifically solar industry, is not one of them. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Calzada follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
51 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 62453A.035
52 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 62453A.036
53 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 62453A.037
54 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 62453A.038
55 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 62453A.039
56 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 62453A.040
57 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 62453A.041
58 

The CHAIRMAN. Now I will turn and recognize the gentleman 

from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your 

courtesy. I appreciate the interest from a number of our witnesses 

dealing with our current tax policies. And as a member of the Ways 

and Means Committee, I am very interested in our being able early 

in the game to extend the investment tax credit, working with you, 

and welcome any suggestions or assistance to make sure that investment funds that include tax-exempt entities are in fact eligible, 

so we can dramatically increase the pool of investment that is 

available—which seems to me to be very common sense and would 

have effectively no economic impact as far as the Federal Government is concerned, but open up a pool of capital. 

I was interested—and Mr. De Rosa or others might have some 

information for us about the effectiveness of the various tax credits 

as opposed to using a direct grant. You mentioned the effectiveness, where you are not paying a premium to other investors, you 

are not having as much complication in terms of accountants and 

attorneys, some of whom are my best friends—I have nothing 

against them—but if there would be a way that you might be able 

to help us clarify the impact. And I am not expecting that you have 

something here that you can pull out of your briefcase, but if you 

could help us just generate information about what the difference 

is for projects that you are involved with, with the grant versus tax 

credit; at a minimum, maybe some suggestions that we might simplify the tax credit application as we move forward, I would appreciate it. 

I do appreciate Dr. Burns’ notion about the Federal Government 

leading by example, as the largest consumer of energy in the 

world—the Department of Defense or GSA. There are lots of things 

that potentially we could work on together. 

I was interested, Dr. Calzada, as I am listening to your comments and I am looking at information that we have been provided, 

we find that the United States National Renewable Energy Lab, 

which we think is pretty reputable and straightforward, repudiates 

your report, suggesting it lacks transparency in reporting statistics, 

fails to compare renewable energy technologies with comparable 

energy industry metrics. It fails to account for issues such as the 

role of government in emerging markets, fails to account for the 

success of renewable energy exports in Spain, fails to account for 

the fact that renewable energy deployment creates additional indirect jobs in communities where renewables are being deployed and 

produced. 

I am from a community that benefits from one of your renewable 

energy companies that has its American headquarters in Portland, 

Oregon. 

But I would like to focus on one element that concerns me. An 

account of your report in the Wall Street Journal says, and I quote, 

‘‘The study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed 

by renewable energy spending.’’ Could you elaborate on specifically 

what jobs were destroyed and provide the committee with a list of 

them? 

Mr. CALZADA. Yes, sir. Well, the first or the second—— 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. A list of the jobs that are destroyed. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
59 

Mr. CALZADA. About the NREL, this agency, this State agency, 

what they have criticized, they criticize us for using consensus economics about the crowding-out effect. They criticize us for not speculating about this year or future years. But it turns out that this 

year has been very bad for green jobs. Many have been fired. 

They criticize us for not speculating about hypothetical export 

sales, when the reality is that we have taken them into account, 

we have incorporated them. We looked at what is and what was, 

but an export was part of it. And they criticized us specifically 

for—— 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Excuse me, Doctor. The question I asked you 

was: What are the jobs that were destroyed? 

Mr. CALZADA. What are the jobs? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes, what are the jobs? Do you have a list of 

the jobs that were destroyed? 

Mr. CALZADA. The jobs destroyed are 2.2 jobs for every job created, because you took the resources away. This is an opportunity 

cost analysis, this is a real-world analysis, and it is a way the companies do their analysis. 

The other way of doing it, as NREL suggests, is using a methodology that was designed for central planning, economic central 

planning, this methodology. You might want one or the other. But 

ours is a real-world methodology and shows that for every job, 2.2 

jobs were destroyed. If I take all your resources away that you use 

for your staff, you cannot hire your staff. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. My time is expired. I would appreciate it if 

you would provide to the committee—I don’t want to put you on the 

spot and limit you just to a minute or two—if you could provide to 

the committee a list of the jobs in Spain that were destroyed by virtue of this, we would appreciate it. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CALZADA. Congressman, you will have to ask this to the 

Spanish trade unions or to the Spanish Government. I can provide 

you with what has happened, with what has been the reality. How 

many jobs—this is standard economic procedure—how many jobs 

would have been created in the rest of the economy if we wouldn’t 

have taken the resources away from the economy. It is very standard, and I am sure you understand. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Excuse me. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can have as much as time as he 

would like. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I am most appreciative. I am very embarrassed because I can’t recall which is—and I missed your testimony—the folks from the NRDC; is there someone from NRDC 

here? The Wilderness Society, excuse me. And that is Ms. Culver. 

Thank you very much. My apologies. 

I just want to ask you a question. I have read your testimony, 

I just missed your name. But I have actually been reading your testimony, and you were talking about having a no-net-loss policy on 

a variety of characteristics on Federal land for habitat, for recreational activities, those kind of things. I just wonder if you could 

address to what extent you think we are doing that in the current 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
60 

permitting process and how you would suggest we move forward to, 

in fact, effectuate that idea? 

Ms. CULVER. I don’t think it has been explicitly laid out in the 

permitting process. I think it has been happening; it may be happening in an informal way. More of the permitting process to date 

has focused on the siting issues where we have been able to have 

input about relocating or redesigning projects. It is coming up more 

in California already, I would say, where we are having more anticipated losses of habitat that we can quantify. So I haven’t seen 

it happening to date. 

The BLM has some internal guidance on both onsite and offsite 

mitigation that is very broad and allows them to design offsite 

mitigation policy that can take into account a myriad of ways to— 

as long as they identify the values that are being lost, be it habitat 

or recreation opportunities, they can design ways to do the mitigation. It could be done through a fund that was created as part of 

a project, it could be done by identifying additional lands that could 

be acquired for the agency to manage. It could also be done at a 

level of identifying similar areas that could be protected or managed specifically for a lost resource. 

One of the analogies that I had heard was for instance when 

FERC permits dams, they also require an applicant to build boat 

ramps so that the recreational opportunities can be replaced. Now, 

it doesn’t fit quite as well for solar energy, but that type of model 

I think could work. 

Mr. INSLEE. So is the Bureau doing that at least to some degree 

now? Are they looking to mitigate some of these? 

Ms. CULVER. They are not doing it at this point, that I have seen, 

but I talk to them a lot and they are thinking about how best to 

do it. And they could use some direction about how to move forward with using this very broad guidance they have on mitigating 

impacts, which, as you can imagine, is extremely broad. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Calzada, I read some criticisms that I had proposed essentially a Feed-in Tariff—we use a different name on this side of the 

water, but we will use this name because it is one you have used 

for the moment—suggesting that it was unwise for us to pursue, 

that since Spain had had this bubble developed. And I am not the 

total expert on the Spanish system, but I think that our proposal 

has learned from the Spanish experience. 

We have in our proposal incorporated some measures that would 

prevent a bubble. One, a step-down of the price to take into consideration the economics of the situation. I think our proposal has a 

more realistic time frame as far as the rate of acceleration. I would 

characterize the Spanish acceleration, as you have to some degree, 

as precipitating a bubble that was unsupportable and just the rate 

of acceleration was too great. And in our legislation we have sought 

to learn from that experience, build in some safeguards. 

And I think looking at the German experience, we can succeed 

in this. The Spanish experience I don’t think should be taken as, 

you know convicting a Feed-in Tariff for all time and should never 

be pursued; it is just that you need to design it correctly. That is 

what I would take from the Spanish experience. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
61 

So if you want to comment on that, feel free. Is that really what 

the lesson should be? We should show some care when we design 

a Feed-in Tariff system. 

Mr. CALZADA. I would say that what has started is the Spanish 

case, obviously. And as long as the other cases, other new cases, 

are similar to our case, the results should be very similar to the 

one. The warning of my team, of my researchers, is this. 

Mr. INSLEE. So just to let you know, at least from my review, I 

think the NREL research is credible. It is the one we will be looking to to guide us in this regard. And I think they have concluded 

that your research, although I am sure sincere, was not necessarily 

the gold standard on evaluating this issue. And we are going to be 

following their conclusions and going to be moving forward with 

this. 

By the way, the Chinese are now looking. They have indicated 

they will be adopting a similar policy. This has been spectacularly 

successful in many places in the world, not the least of which is 

Germany, and I hope that we will be able to pursue this. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Mr. 

De Rosa’s point about the Cash for Clunkers. I found myself voting 

against that, even though I think it is probably a nice thing to do. 

But tripling that program when we didn’t know what we were penalizing gave me pause. 

I am wondering if you have some thoughts about how we rebalance the equities in terms of replacing that money? Do you have 

any targets as subsidies for other types of energy? Anything come 

to mind to put the money back in the bank? 

Mr. DE ROSA. I appreciate the question. I have not looked into 

that. We would be happy to look into it and see if we can come up 

with some ideas for your consideration. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, let me elaborate, because we have got 

three witnesses who are very much in the business of trying to develop an American presence in one of the most rapidly growing 

areas of economic activity globally, which the majority of us on the 

committee think is critical to the survival of the planet, the way 

that we know it, and our economic competitiveness. 

A recent Environmental Law Institute study suggests that—well, 

it didn’t suggest, it found that the United States provide fossil fuels 

with about 21⁄2 times the subsidy of renewables. 

Any thoughts about sort of rebalancing the playing field here so 

that we aren’t in the position—which my friend Mr. Sensenbrenner 

talked about—in terms of picking wilderness and losers, but trying 

to promote sustainable evolution, particularly of emerging important technologies for the future? 

Ms. BURNS. I would just support the concept that you are putting 

forward. I mean, we sell our starting material to almost all of the 

manufacturers in the value chain. Over 65 percent of what we 

make goes offshore to someone in Asia or Europe, or someplace 

else, to convert into the finished module. Then it comes back onshore, and these guys install it. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
62 

And I think anything we can do, number one, to grow the market 

demand for solar and renewables in America, shift from fossil to 

incentivizing this growth, and secondly, attract the solar manufacturers in the value chain to this country, those two things to me 

are a winning combination. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Any further thoughts? 

Mr. KLINE. I would offer, sir, that just one way of thinking about 

it is looking forward, as we seek to decarbonize the entire economy, 

one way of looking at evaluating the need for incentives would simply be on carbon content that would naturally move you towards 

investments in clean energy. 

Mr. DE ROSA. If I could echo that, we consider ourselves market 

participants. And this committee has documented the consequence 

of climate change. The—I will say simple, it is the most difficult 

thing—but is to account for the externalities. And then you are not 

picking winners and losers. What you are doing is you are making 

an economy more efficient. 

Right now our economy is not efficient. We are using too much 

energy because the true cost of that is not accounted for. So that 

is the challenge, is to put a price on carbon. I mean, I would argue 

that of all of the alternatives out there to reduce carbon emissions, 

the one that is most proven is renewables. 

[2:36 p.m.] 

Mr. DE ROSA. And we are just starting in things like carbon sequestration. So I would say that it is renewables that is actually 

the market clearing price for what the true cost of carbon reduction 

is. Now, you have a difficult task of stepping into 200 years of 

precedent and trying to figure out how to make that right, given 

the hand that we are dealt, but to me it is the—it is not—framing 

it is not difficult. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I am very appreciative of the emphasis to make sure we get this 

money taken out of a renewable account restored. I know the 

Speaker is totally committed to this. I think we all up here are 

committed to this. I spoke to the Chief of Staff of the White House 

last week. They are committed to this. We are going to be diligent 

in making sure that happens. 

I have a question about the cost of solar power has declined on 

a real basis with increase in volume in a fairly consistent level and 

gradient. Is there any reason to believe that that will not continue 

at that same gradient per volume? Is there some hope that it will 

actually go down faster? Can you give us any predictions in that 

regard, or thoughts? 

Ms. BURNS. Yeah. The cost is declining with volume and with investment in research that is showing how to make these cells more 

and more efficient. And our view of it is a linear line. What will 

help is if we do increase demand, and that increases significantly 

and exponentially, then those costs should go down even greater 

than the linear line today, because you are going to start to get 

some efficiencies of scale and more investment in new technologies. 

You have seen this in the electronics industry as we become more 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
63 

and more efficient in semiconductors and other things. So I anticipate that would happen. And you have seen great changes. 

I just read the Department of Energy payback analysis, which 

was from 2004. Their assumption in that analysis was a 12 percent 

efficiency cell. People are up to 16, 18 percent, and then film is 

even higher than that. So I would anticipate any time you put this 

much research investment into a field, you are going to continue 

that trend. 

Mr. INSLEE. Of course, the Boeing subsidiary, Spectra Lab, is 

even higher than that, but they are the world leader. I want to get 

the parochial local plug in that regard. 

One of the attractions of the feed-in tariff, I think, is that it has 

an incentive that is appropriate to the state of a given technology. 

A renewable energy portfolio we have is a great tool, we are going 

to adopt it, but it is really sort of a one price for all technologies, 

and technologies are at different levels of development. So it really 

is an incentive for the next most affordable renewable energy, not 

the second most affordable energy. Right now, frankly, wind is still 

cheaper in most places than solar. 

One of the benefits of a feed-in tariff is that it provides an incentive for multiple technologies appropriate to the level of maturation 

of that particular technology, and this has been successful in places 

that have done that. By the way, governments have been successful 

in ramping down that price. I was talking to a solar cell manufacturer in Dresden, Germany, last year, and he was tearing his hair 

out because the German Government was forcing down the price. 

That was appropriate to do with increasing scale and decreasing 

cost. 

Is that a fair assessment? Is that a virtue we should pay attention to, move forward with the feed-in tariff? Any thoughts in that 

regard? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Sure. The best—I think the biggest advantage of 

a feed-in tariff is its predictability. You know what the price is. I 

think we need to be careful about where we set that, and, in fact, 

the California Public Utility Commission is grappling with that 

issue right now. They have issued a report that is recommending 

a feed-in tariff for a certain category of renewables. I believe it is 

up to 10 megawatts with another caveat for 20, and they are inviting comments on how to set that price. 

So I think that the—so far what we have done in the United 

States—and Steve Kline can speak to this—is we have had a competitive process where we have an RPS, and people like us bid competitively to meet that demand. I think that that has been slower 

than people’s expectations. And so something like a feed-in tariff 

carefully drafted, I think, could address that. 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me tell you, here is my concern. My concern is 

if we rely exclusively on the renewable energy standard, it will develop ultimately the next technology in line for cost quite effectively, which, frankly, is wind at the moment in most places, but 

it will not in a time-sensitive manner develop the second, third and 

fourth technologies in line of maturation. And it is clear to me that 

we are going to have to have technologies three, four and five to 

get to that 80 percent reduction by 2050 that we need. So I believe 

that it is imperative that we adopt another tool that will jumpVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:57 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062453 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B453.XXX B453

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
64 

start numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5, that I believe this is really the best 

mechanism for doing that. 

The alternative is to continue with our RES, and 10 years from 

now we will get to technologies 2, 3, 4 and 5. But we don’t have 

10 years to wait in that regard. We have to start now on all of 

these. So I will be looking to your advice on how to pursue that, 

and I hope that we do so. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

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

first I ask unanimous consent to have included in the record correspondence with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy on solar development, and ask for unanimous consent that these letters be included in the record. Without objection, 

so included. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
65 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 62453A.042
66 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 62453A.043
67 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 62453A.044
68 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 62453A.045
69 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 62453A.046
70 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 62453A.047
71 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 62453A.048
72 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 62453A.049
73 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 62453A.050
74 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 62453A.051
75 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 62453A.052
76 

The CHAIRMAN. And I also ask for unanimous consent to have a 

report from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory responding to the Spanish jobs report study also be included in the 

record at the appropriate point. Without objection, that also is so 

ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
77 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 62453A.053
78 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 62453A.054
79 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 62453A.055
80 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 62453A.056
81 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 62453A.057
82 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 62453A.058
83 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 62453A.059
84 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 62453A.060
85 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 62453A.061
86 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 62453A.062
87 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me turn to you, Dr. Burns, if I may. Could 

you explain the relationship between Dow Corning and the fiber 

optic revolution of the 1980s? 

Ms. BURNS. That would be Corning, Incorporated, and actually 

using our materials in fiber optics. But Corning is a shareholder 

of our company. 

The CHAIRMAN. But they used your technology. 

Ms. BURNS. They used our technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your fiber optic technology. 

Ms. BURNS. Our advanced materials that they converted into 

fiber optics. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very interesting story, is it not, that 

up until 1983, the only way in which we transmitted information— 

AT&T, of course, was the only meaningful telecommunications company in the United States—was over copper wires. And then we 

broke up AT&T as a Nation, and the first call that went from MCI 

went to Corning to use your materials that Corning of New York 

was putting into these new fiber optic technologies, using light as 

a means of transmitting information. And that is where the fiber 

optic revolution began, using your materials. 

Ms. BURNS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And it seems kind of funny that you look back 

and you say, well, Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the phone 

100 years before, by the way, using lights, but he couldn’t figure 

out a way of dealing with weather and other circumstances. So he 

was kind of waiting for the kind of materials that you were developing so that it could be transmitted in a way that wouldn’t be subject to weather and other sources. So all of a sudden, Alexander 

Graham Bell up until 1983 is actually still able to recognize the 

phone system because it was the way he invented it. It is the way 

a phone call had been moving all those years. 

And in a lot of ways, that is really what we are talking about 

over here with the smart grid. The smart grid makes it possible for 

us to use the telecommunications revolution to bring in the sun 

and the wind from the deserts and the prairies, off of the ocean, 

off of people’s rooftops, and to begin to integrate it more into the 

totality of the grid that we have in our country. It makes it a lot 

more affordable. Of course, it took the Dow Corning revolution in 

fiber optics in order to make all of that possible so ultimately we 

could move to a broadband technology, but now we have this next 

revolution, and people are arching an eyebrow and saying, well, 

could we have the same kind of revolution here in energy that we 

had in the telecom sector? 

So my question to you is this: You have heard the conversation, 

Dr. Burns, about solar, and you talked about a thin-film solar technology, which Dow Corning has. Could you expand a little bit upon 

that and what your hopes are for thin-film solar, and especially in 

terms of its price point as each year goes by, and maybe using 2020 

as kind of an outside year in terms of what you believe the price 

of solar-generated electricity can be using thin-film solar? 

Ms. BURNS. Well, first of all, I think there is going to be a lot 

of different solutions to this renewable challenge, from wind to 

photovoltaics. And I think there is going to be a place for thin-film 

in that equation as well as the more rigid modules, depending on 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
88 

the needs and the building design, if you are putting it on a building. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the reason we are having this hearing is just 

solar. Can we try to put—bring in the sunshine and put it on the 

solar issue? Wind gets a lot of attention, and hybrid vehicles and 

batteries. 

Ms. BURNS. Solar cells have come a long ways from the one that 

is hanging behind your chair. We are marching on a path where 

we are going to reach grid parity with these technologies. 

The CHAIRMAN. When do you think that will happen? 

Ms. BURNS. There is a lot of variables in that whole equation, 

and I believe we are going to find it in the next 2 to 5 years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Two to five years? 

Ms. BURNS. Yes. It depends on where you are located and how 

much sunshine you get, et cetera, et cetera. But these solutions are 

moving more and more efficiently and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when you say grid parity, are you talking 

about equating the cost of generating electricity from solar with 

generating electricity from coal? 

Ms. BURNS. Yes, from traditional sources, from coal, natural gas, 

hydro. 

The CHAIRMAN. So 2 to 5 years did you say? 

Ms. BURNS. In some countries, as you know, like Japan, they are 

at grid parity now, and certainly at grid parity during peak use 

hours. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. So that is a big news story. People don’t 

talk in those terms. People still think of solar as some distant 

dream that might be achieved in the next generation, not something that is basically right over the hill and could be in place 

within 5 years competing effectively with coal. 

So where do you think that would be possible? That is, in what 

percentage, for example, of American consumers do you think could 

benefit from those kind of breakthroughs? 

Ms. BURNS. These guys probably have a better answer than I do 

because I am so far up in the value chain. But my view is that 

where solar right now is less than 1 percent of our energy contribution, that should be up in the 5 to 7 percent over time. And I don’t 

know how much time that is going to take, but that is a huge expansion in solar power as a source of electricity. 

The CHAIRMAN. We had Dr. Emanuel Sachs testify in July before 

our committee, and he is the founder of the company Evergreen, 

and now he has founded a new company called 1366 Technologies. 

He testified that he believed that 7 percent of all electricity in the 

world could be generated from photovoltaics by the year 2020. Do 

you think that is just some Panglossian number that is pulled out 

of the sky, or do you think there might be some basis in that? 

Ms. BURNS. I think if we are smart about it, we could achieve 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is just amazing, because again, people focus 

so much, as Mr. Inslee said, on wind. And even in our deliberations 

on the bill, we spent so much time on biomass and other issues. 

But this solar issue really has a capacity with the proper funding 

and public policy? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
89 

Ms. BURNS. Exactly. The right investment in research, policies to 

grow the market, and policies to encourage manufacturing investments. 

The CHAIRMAN. And do you believe that your technology at Dow 

Corning is at the cutting edge in terms of thin-film solar? 

Ms. BURNS. I think our specialized silicon-based materials are at 

the cutting edge. There are other companies that design the cells, 

design the modules, design the thin films, who—you know, there 

is a whole array of companies. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are—you provide the materials. You are 

like the arms merchant. All these solar companies will come to you, 

and they are going to have their—— 

Ms. BURNS. We hope they do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are they coming to you? 

Ms. BURNS. Yes, absolutely. And they are coming to us to get advice on investing in the U.S., to make their—whether it is their 

cells or their modules. 

The CHAIRMAN. And how many companies have come to you? 

Ms. BURNS. I would say more than five. 

The CHAIRMAN. More than five. 

Ms. BURNS. Five major players. 

The CHAIRMAN. Major players. How do you define a major player? 

Ms. BURNS. Either as a cutting-edge innovator or a leader in 

their segment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. And amongst the—are they well-funded 

companies? 

Ms. BURNS. Uh-huh. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. And are they buying into this idea that 

there is a 2- to 5-year horizon on thin-film solar? 

Ms. BURNS. They are making some tremendous investments, and 

that is always based on your business evaluation of your potential. 

The CHAIRMAN. So this is private-sector venture capital money 

being put up to place money on this bet? 

Ms. BURNS. Or large public companies who are choosing to invest 

as part of their portfolio. We do have some smaller companies coming and working with us, and to echo some of the issues that were 

raised here, they do have an issue with access to capital and ability 

to get the loans that they need to make their investments. 

The CHAIRMAN. So as you use 2 to 5 years as the horizon to establish parity between photovoltaics and coal as a source of generating electricity, even if you are wrong, do you think 10 years from 

now there is a chance that you would be wrong? 

Ms. BURNS. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. By 10 years it is a done deal? 

Ms. BURNS. I think so. I think so. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. Do you agree with that, Mr. Kline? 

Mr. KLINE. I think that it is very possible. I think one of the 

challenges will be—it will be somewhat dependent on two things: 

One, on the extent to which we use wise land planning and are 

able to actually take advantage of areas where there is great 

solarity; and secondly, on building the transmission—— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
90 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess we are talking about two different technologies. You are talking about thin-film solar, which isn’t as dependent upon the Bureau of Land Management. 

Ms. BURNS. I am talking about the absolute efficiency of the 

technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Of solar in general? 

Ms. BURNS. Yes, exactly. These are even bigger and more important issues in terms of how—where do you put it, how do you 

transmit it and how do you consume it? 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are saying—just so we can divide the 

question, you are saying the technology is going to be there, the 

breakthroughs that are just happening so quickly, the improvement and the efficiency, the lowering of the cost? And then the 

question becomes, where are we going to put it? How quickly can 

we do it, and how do we raise the capital in order to ensure that 

we do it in a way that we capture the benefits here in the United 

States? 

So—then we come back—let me go to Ms. Culver, if I may, for 

a second. We will go over here to our Bureau of Land Management 

expert. Let me ask this: What is the land requirement for a large 

solar project, Ms. Culver? 

Ms. CULVER. That might be something better for our friends from 

NextLight to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I will come back to you with a related question. 

Ms. CULVER. It is significant. 

The CHAIRMAN. Give us an idea in terms of square miles. 

Mr. DE ROSA. Sure. So our Antelope Valley, California, project 

with which we have a power purchase agreement with Pacific Gas 

& Electric, It is 230 megawatts, and it will cover about 2,100 acres. 

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-one hundred acres. 

Ms. CULVER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. So let me come back to you, Ms. Culver, if I 

could. How much acreage does the Bureau of Land Management 

have under its control; do you know? 

Ms. CULVER. Well, that I do know. Over 260 million. About 

260—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Two hundred sixty million acres? 

Ms. CULVER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how much of that acreage it leases 

out to the oil and gas industry for its—— 

Ms. CULVER. I believe at last count we were well over 40 million. 

The CHAIRMAN. So 40 million acres of public land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management is now leased to the oil 

and gas industry, 40 million? 

Ms. CULVER. Yes, over 40—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. De Rosa, what are you looking for? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Twenty-one hundred acres, the size of a farm. 

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-one hundred acres. Okay. Wow. So that 

is quite a difference in terms of the use of public lands in the 

United States, and you will be able to generate how much electricity? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Two hundred thirty megawatts. It is a midsized 

power plant. It is a good-sized power plant. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
91 

The CHAIRMAN. So out in California, Diablo Canyon is probably 

a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant? 

Mr. KLINE. Twenty-two hundred. 

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-two hundred. It ruins my train of 

thought here. San Onofre is 1,000 megawatts? 

Mr. DE ROSA. I think that is right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. De Rosa. That is the correct answer, 1,000 megawatts. 

So you are going to produce approximately a quarter of a nuclear 

power plant’s generating capacity with your use of essentially a 

farm to install your solar technology? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Yes, based on capacity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Based upon capacity, yes. Thank you for that 

clarification, but yes. 

So I am just trying to tell a story here so the people can have 

an idea of the ballpark we are in. It is Fenway Park, it is not Yellowstone Park. But just so people are in the conversation and they 

can understand the scale of what we are talking about. 

Again, going back to Ms. Culver, 44 million acres for oil and gas 

industry, and over here we are looking for some policy that allows 

for wind and solar, but solar today, to also be put on public lands 

and to be giving them that opportunity. 

Mr. Kline, why don’t we come back to you and talk a little bit 

about the amount of space, acres, square miles that you think 

PG&E is going to need in order to generate the solar that you are 

going to need to meet your goals for renewable electricity in California. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I would have to go back and actually 

look at those numbers and add them up and give you a precise 

number. But I think if you used Mr. De Rosa’s acreage as an example, and you multiply that by about 20, say—again, this is off the 

top of our collective heads, but—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. KLINE [continuing]. That would give you an idea. 

The CHAIRMAN. But very knowledgeable heads. So in terms of 

megawattage, what are you talking about? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Well, 20 would be about 4,500. 

The CHAIRMAN. Forty-five hundred megawatts. 

Mr. DE ROSA. And if you just scaled up the amount of acres, it 

would be 20 times 2—40,000 acres. 

The CHAIRMAN. Forty thousand acres to match two Diablo Canyons or four San Onofres, nuclear power plants. So that is big 

news. That is incredible. And you are committed to doing that, your 

two companies? 

Mr. KLINE. Yes. 

Mr. DE ROSA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You would not be going down this path if it was 

not economically viable? 

Mr. KLINE. Well, with the caveat that in California we have an 

RPS. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a renewable electricity standard. A certain percentage of your electricity has to come from renewables, 

yeah. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
92 

Mr. KLINE. Yes. So we are driven to find the most cost-effective 

renewables, and that is where they are right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Solar is—— 

Mr. KLINE. Is where we are focusing a huge amount of our attention, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, a lot of people think that wind is the future. But you have chosen solar. 

Mr. KLINE. The issue for us is there is bountiful wind in California, but it tends to all blow at night, and frequently very late 

at night. And until we get a means of storing that energy and 

being able to use it when we need it—the beauty of solar for us 

is that it is right at the time we need it absolutely the most. 

The CHAIRMAN. And again, that is why we put so much money 

into the stimulus package for battery technology and why we will 

continue to fund battery technology. 

Again, the good news here is that if we could store the electricity 

generated from wind and solar, and then use it when we need it 

and have battery technology, massive battery technology, which 

makes that possible, then we have really got a good thing going, 

and the good news here is that we are not talking about putting 

a man on the moon and sending them up there. 

By the way, that was 49 years ago President Kennedy was talking about that, can you believe that? And we put a man on the 

moon and brought him back 8 years after the President challenged 

our Nation to that. And by the way, they were up there all alone. 

It was tough up there. They were riding around—remember they 

were riding around in their vehicle up there, and whatever was 

powering that probably—some renewable energy was definitely 

powering that vehicle as they were bouncing around on the moon, 

and then they figured out how to get back in that thing without 

Houston ground control right next to them, and they came back. 

So we are not actually challenging people to do that. We are just 

asking people to build a better battery. It seems like a more prosaic 

job; we just don’t pay attention enough to it. And once we put our 

minds to it, it seems like we should be able to develop batteries 

that can store electricity. 

Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. I would just offer that it is even broader than batteries. I mean, there is a whole assortment of compressed air and 

other technologies that we and others are experimenting with. So 

I think the beauty is—again, we have technologies competing 

against each other. It may be batteries, or it may be compressed 

air. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. But again, once you say there is going to 

be a renewable electricity explosion in California and across the 

country, you give a huge incentive to private-sector companies to 

start investing in the storage technology, because those companies 

are going to become very, very wealthy, whoever can provide the 

storage capacity to all 50 States and to every utility in the country 

that is now going to be generating electricity. 

So again, one revolution begets the next. So the telecom revolution creates the fiber optic broadband revolution that then makes 

the electricity Internet possible because all it is a broadband management of electricity. And then that revolution begets the smart 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
93 

grid revolution, starts to beget the battery revolution and other 

revolutions, because you have to—now private sector companies 

can see the opportunity as to where they are going to make a fortune, maybe become the wealthiest people in the history of the 

world, whoever can develop the battery technology, competing, of 

course, with the people who become the thin-film solar leaders in 

the world. They might—everyone is going to be in a race here to 

pass Bill Gates as the wealthiest person in the world. It is whoever 

makes the breakthrough, patents it and starts selling it to everyone else. And you have to believe this in order to move in this direction. 

But again, we are not talking about putting a man on the moon. 

We are talking about things that are relatively prosaic and incrementally—Dr. Burns referred to this drop, this kind of Moore’s law 

in photovoltaic, how it drops 18 percent in cost with every doubling 

of production and improvements in efficiency, and it has occurred 

steadily since 1979. So this is not something that is fantastical. It 

is something that is happening in the real world and has reached 

a point where she is saying in 2 to 5 years it will match coal and 

match natural gas in terms of the cost if we can create the marketplace. 

Mr. De Rosa. 

Mr. DE ROSA. We at NextLight, we believe that, and we think 

that not only will there be cost reductions due to technology efficiency, but there will be cost reductions for the other half of the 

cost, which is the construction of these facilities. The construction 

of it, the balance of plant, is half of the cost, and those economies 

are just getting started. 

I think the obstacle we face now is—and I agree with Dr. Burns, 

we are going to need all the applications. We are going to need the 

smaller rooftop applications. We are going to need the smaller, 

more urbanized solar applications, as well as the large power 

plants. Those large power plants have not been built yet. And so 

it is not a technology question. It is a financial—it is a financing 

question. We need to demonstrate to the people who are going to 

put up the money that they will get their—that they will get their 

money back. 

The CHAIRMAN. What are the financial people concerned about 

right now? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Lenders, equity investors are—they are cautious of 

investing in something that hasn’t been done before. 

The CHAIRMAN. So are they most concerned about—Dr. Burns 

talked about kind of the incredible advances made in the technology. You have as well. Is it the technology that they are uncertain about, or is it the BLM regulations, the ability to get access 

to the land, the guarantee that it is a predictable investment, tax 

policy? Could you go down the list of the things that you think are 

most important in terms of creating uncertainty in the minds of the 

private sector? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Sure. So at NextLight we deal with proven technologies. We are not trying to advance that second or third generation. We want to get that first generation in first. And we need to 

deliver to investors a project with four corners around it that does 

not have environmental problems, that has its permits, that is a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
94 

good product for the utility, that has an interconnection, viable 

interconnection. So that is a given. 

Then what the investor will look at is has it been done before on 

this scale, and that is the hurdle that we are at right now. It has 

been done in 1-megawatt blocks. It has been done in 5-megawatt 

blocks. But a 230-megawatt project—and it is not just our company. There are many companies out there developing utility scale, 

and we all think that is what we need to meet our goals. 

Even though one could say, well, it is just 230 times the 1-megawatt project, but it—if you are the one putting up the money, there 

is a lot of questions that you ask. And you ask about supply chains, 

and you ask about construction process and all of those things. And 

so that is our challenge. It is to take this proven technology and 

convince the investors that it is proven, and it will—just by scaling 

up, there is nothing different about it. And that is where—if I could 

just—one more thing. That is where the DOE loan guarantee program comes in; that is where the ITC grant comes in as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. And by the way, on that Cash for Clunkers temporary depletion of the renewables program, on the House floor, the 

Speaker and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee did 

promise that the money would be completely restored. So that was 

all part of that very same-day debate that included the Cash for 

Clunkers in this room. So the commitment was made in the floor 

debate at that time. So I think you can pretty much take that to 

the bank. 

So let me come back to you again, Ms. Culver. The Interior Department estimates that there are 2.9 million megawatts of solar 

potential in the Southwest on public land. We have in the whole 

country right now, we have 1 million megawatts of electricity that 

exist. That is the capacity. And we use about 450,000 megawatts 

of that on a daily basis. 

It is about 1 million megawatts of capacity that is out there. And 

the Department of Interior has estimated again that there are 2.9 

million megawatts of solar potential in the Southwest on public 

lands. So that would be almost three times the total electrical-generating capacity over the whole country today. It is a fantastic 

number. So the Department of Interior, including BLM lands, 

equals about 500 million acres. 

So talk a little bit, Ms. Culver, about kind of the regulatory tensions that exist here between the preservation of the environment 

and the installation of these technologies that put us on a very fast 

path towards energy independence and solving the problem of global warming. 

Ms. CULVER. Sure. I think there has been a lot made of the tension that has not quite come to bear. We have, of course, had a few 

conflicts over project siting, but the solar energy study areas that 

were recently identified and where the comments have been pouring into the Bureau of Land Management are looking at 670,000 

acres that have been identified as close to existing transmission, 

not having a lot of environmental conflicts, and being very much 

suitable for solar energy development at the utilities scale in terms 

of both the potential it would generate and the terrain. 

So I think at the first stage that the tension has—the tension is 

interesting for people to write about, but the tension in the actual 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
95 

process itself has not been quite as high. And we are talking about 

260 million acres, as we just talked about. Of that, the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System, which is basically the 

crown jewels of the wilderness, wilderness study areas, national 

monuments, conservation areas, it is about 26 million acres. So we 

are not talking about a giant portion of the public lands that are 

currently locked up from energy development. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you again give those numbers again, the 

denominator and the numerator? 

Ms. CULVER. Of the 262 million acres of the Bureau of Land 

Management’s lands, approximately 26 million, a little bit more 

has been added in the last omnibus, but of those are dedicated to 

the National Landscape Conservation System, which incorporates 

wilderness, wilderness study areas, national monuments, national 

conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national and historic trails. So we do not have a situation where the vast majority 

of the lands are somehow locked up, and we are going to have to 

do drastic measures of things like fighting over wilderness study 

areas. It doesn’t need to come to that. It shouldn’t come to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, great. 

Let me come back to you, Mr. De Rosa. How much public land 

are you going to be using? 

Mr. DE ROSA. We have a combination. Our projects—some of 

them are on public lands, and some are on private land. We have 

two active BLM projects right now roughly in the 2,000- to 4,000- 

acre range, about the same size as we mentioned before, 250 

megawatts. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any environmental issues surrounding 

those, the land under the management of the BLM, the projects 

that you are focused on? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Those are going well. We have one in southern Nevada that was designated by the BLM and the Department of Interior as a fast-track project in southern Nevada, and we have one 

in Arizona that is in the second tier of the package of projects. 

The CHAIRMAN. And is this all part of the 230 megawatts that 

you are talking about? 

Mr. DE ROSA. No. These are separate projects. 

The CHAIRMAN. Talk about the 230-megawatts project. 

Mr. DE ROSA. That is in the Antelope Valley of California. It is 

on private land that we own. It is a former farm that is not being 

farmed anymore because there is not enough water, so it is fallow 

land. It is a great location, great site for solar, because as we would 

describe it, it is previously disturbed land; it has been cultivated 

before. So far we have unanimous community support and support 

from the environmental community as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what are the obstacles then? You don’t appear 

to have any land management issues, environmental issues. What 

are your issues that are remaining in terms of the construction of 

that project? 

Mr. DE ROSA. It is financing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Financing. And the financing is contingent upon? 

Again, if you can just say the words: ‘‘The confidence of the private 

sector.’’ And they are waiting for what? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
96 

Mr. DE ROSA. They are looking for—they are looking for a demonstration that they will—they will get their money back; it will 

work, and they will get their money back. 

The CHAIRMAN. What can demonstrate that to them? 

Mr. DE ROSA. I think it is a combination of, as I said, a solid— 

a rock solid project with a creditworthy off-taker for 25 years 

and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. An off-taker is—can be differentiated from an 

undertaker? I have never heard of that before. 

Mr. DE ROSA. Sorry for the trade lingo. It is the purchaser of the 

power, the electric utility who purchases the power. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And so what is your level of—what level of confidence, Mr. Kline, 

can PG&E give to Mr. De Rosa and his project and to the—are you 

the principal investor in this project? 

Mr. KLINE. We are the purchaser of the power. We are the offtaker. 

The CHAIRMAN. So are you partnered with the investors, or are 

you just standing on the sidelines waiting for the project to work, 

and then you will take it if they can get it done? 

Mr. KLINE. It is the latter. And historically when the markets 

were working, projects like Mr. De Rosa’s, when they had a signed 

contract from a creditworthy entity like PG&E, could take those to 

the bank and finance them. And the issue right now is they cannot. 

The CHAIRMAN. They cannot. Well, and the reason they cannot, 

Mr. Kline? 

Mr. KLINE. Because the credit markets are frozen, and that kind 

of lending project financing just isn’t occurring. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see. So in this state of the economy—it is kind 

of cryogenically frozen right now, and we are waiting for it to warm 

up. But let me just ask this: But you are basically saying—PG&E 

is saying to—your company’s name again? 

Mr. DE ROSA. NextLight. 

The CHAIRMAN. NextLight—you are saying to NextLife— 

NextLight. NextLife gets back into undertaker. But NextLight— 

you are saying to NextLight, if you build it, Mr. NextLight, we are 

buying it from you? 

Mr. KLINE. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are saying that to them? 

Mr. KLINE. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are saying, Mr. De Rosa, to the investment community, PG&E says if we build it, they are going to buy 

it, we have a letter promising us that. Huh? So this cryogenically 

frozen credit market is in pretty sad shape; if you can’t rely upon 

this Rock of Gibraltar, which is PG&E, it is not going anywhere. 

It has a State law saying they have to buy renewable electricity. 

You are going to be able to produce it. And if you get it done, you 

have got a guaranteed market, and your investors are smiling all 

the way to the bank, right? 

Mr. DE ROSA. It is our job to get it done, as you say. 

The CHAIRMAN. So that introduces, then, the importance of the 

DOE loan guarantee program, huh? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Yes. Absolutely. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
97 

The CHAIRMAN. So if you have got a loan guarantee program that 

you can also rely upon, then that gives more confidence to the private sector investors that they are not in this alone, huh? 

Mr. DE ROSA. Absolutely, absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. So I actually—I am kind of heartened by 

this. 

Ms. Burns is—Dr. Burns is—I am married to a doctor, so I apologize for that. Dr. Burns is telling us that the technology is there, 

it is moving along, she has got the materials, she is willing to sell 

to anyone, and she is guaranteeing improvements as the years go 

by. Ms. Culver is saying there is public land available, 90 percent 

of it, that would be usable for solar technology, and that it is out 

there and wouldn’t have a lot of environmental or regulatory problems in using it. Mr. De Rosa is saying that he believes that utilityscale technology is the way to go, and that if you can have a marketplace—and California is building it here—with the mandate 

that the utilities have to come—we have to receive a high percentage of their electricity from renewables, that—and with the DOE 

loan guarantee program, that it might not be today, it might not 

be tomorrow, but it is happening pretty soon. It is a lot like Corning Dow back in 1983 with the fiber optic revolution. It is just 

now a question of when this inevitable revolution just breaks 

through, because we are going to continue to see the dramatic decline in the cost of producing this solar-generated electricity. 

Mr. DE ROSA. For this and other projects, it will be 2010, it will 

be next year, that many—hopefully many projects will start construction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, why do you point as 2010 as the date that 

you think kind of the dam breaks? 

Mr. DE ROSA. 2010 is the—December of 2010 is the deadline for 

the Investment Tax Credit grant, and that is an important component in the financing because it makes the financing just that 

much more streamlined. It eliminates the need for this complicated 

tax equity investor in the projects. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the combination of State renewable electricity 

standards and the existing—and the existence of an investment tax 

break is going to put a lot of pressure on investors to kind of close 

the deal to get the benefits? 

Mr. DE ROSA. We are spending millions of dollars at risk developing these projects, and I think the investors and lenders would 

be eager to invest with that combination. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is great. 

You know what I am going to do? I am going to ask each one 

of you to give us your summary of 1 minute of what you want us 

to remember about this hearing and what the takeaway is from 

this incredibly optimistic view of the role that solar can play that 

I take from this hearing. We will go in reverse order and begin 

with you, Dr. Calzada. 

Mr. CALZADA. I would say that when you look at the new investments, especially when there are technologies that are not ready 

now, you should have the feet in the air and look at past experience. And, of course, there is a place for new technology. This is 

wonderful. But there is an institutional place for those, this venture capital. This is the stock market. And I think that those techVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:57 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062453 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B453.XXX B453

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
98 

nologies have to be improved there because forecast—they have 

many, many forecasts in the history. For example, I have here a 

forecast that President Carter was making in 1978 saying that by 

year 2000, 20 percent was going to be solar, and forecast—there 

are—forecasts when the private citizen does the forecast and 

makes a bet, nothing happened, because it is money. But when a 

politician does this, the problem might be that it puts people’s 

money there. And I would say keep feets in the air and look at past 

experience not only in Spain, but in other countries, too, to see 

what has happened in reality. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Calzada. 

And since there is no one else here, I am going to alter what I 

was already putting in process here of getting the final statements 

just to say to you Dr. Calzada that, yes, Jimmy Carter did say that, 

and he was putting the policies in place to do that. He did not predict that he was going to lose to Ronald Reagan in 1980, however, 

and he did not predict that Ronald Reagan would name a dentist, 

James Edwards, as the Secretary of Energy in February of 1981, 

and that Doctor, quote—dentist—Dr. Edwards would then pledge 

to abolish the Department of Energy by May of 1981, which was 

his cause. 

That was his goal, to abolish the Department of Energy, because 

he did not want any national planning for energy policies. And 

while there was a beautiful analogy there between Doctor—Dentist 

James Edward and the drilling that he had perfected in that profession and kind of the affinity that he had for an equivalent technology in oil and gas that also had drilling, it did exclude, unfortunately, wind and solar and geothermal and biomass from his vision. 

And unfortunately, the Reagan administration lasted 8 years; 

also something Jimmy Carter did not predict. And unfortunately, 

the next Bush administration and the Republican control of the 

House and Senate for 12 years did not accommodate that technology either. 

And so if you look backward, you can learn from history, but you 

have to understand that sometimes history does not repeat itself. 

And here it is not going to repeat itself. Okay? We are actually on 

day 1 at 8 a.m. of the Obama administration. It is going to last at 

least 4 years. The States now have, in the absence of Federal action, put their own renewable electricity standards on the books. 

And last year there was 9,000 new megawatts of wind and solar 

installed in the United States and 9,000 new megawatts of natural 

gas and only 1,500 new megawatts of coal. So the revolution is on. 

Okay? It is just how quickly now we are going to accelerate it, as 

Dr. Burns said. It is 2 to 5 years if we are optimistic and it continues to move at this pace. But in 10 years, it is a done deal. 

So that is a different world. And while I love the Carter focus 

on these issues, that was 30 years ago, and we did miss a huge opportunity. We should have already completed the revolution now, 

but we were focusing too much on drilling and not enough on relatively prosaic technologies if they had been given the right kinds 

of incentives. 

So I turn to you, Dr. Burns, for your final word. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
99 

Ms. BURNS. I believe we are in a new era of renewable energy, 

and solar is extremely promising. I encourage us to put in policies 

and regulatory practices that grow demand, because we are on the 

precipice of achieving energy efficiency and parity. 

I think we should do more to attract manufacturing investments. 

I think it is a crime that most of the manufacturing is done offshore for our needs. And I can tell you green jobs are real. I look 

them in the face every day with the investments that we are putting in place. 

The CHAIRMAN. And just to follow up here on Dr. Burns, China 

is already the leading exporter of solar technology. So it is no 

longer just Jimmy Carter talking about the United States. China 

is now industrialized. India is industrializing. Germany has targeted solar as one of their principal long-term manufacturing sectors. So we no longer have the luxury of just sitting on the sidelines here; otherwise we will end up importing it all anyway because we are going to have all these State and national requirements that we have renewable electricity, and the only question 

now is where is it going to be manufactured, here or overseas? Because these laws are not only not going to go away, they are going 

to get strengthened as the green generation of young people come 

along and demand that they be strengthened as every year goes by. 

So that is the challenge for us. It is to make sure that Dow and 

other American companies are producing the jobs here. 

Ms. Culver. 

Ms. CULVER. Well, on the BLM lands, we do have under—44 million or so acres under lease for oil and gas, and we don’t have 

large-scale solar projects. So what this really shows is we are starting from the ground up. It is an opportunity. There is a challenge. 

But there is an opportunity, and I really want to encourage us to 

learn the lessons that some of us have learned from the oil and gas 

program and to embrace this opportunity. 

The program that is being built right now is a revolution of its 

own in management, and I think we need to support it and go forward with this approach of actually identifying and prioritizing and 

targeting the right lands for development and acknowledging that 

there are lands that are not appropriate for development right from 

the start. 

What we have been seeing here is a very different approach 

where we have multiple opportunities for participation from the 

public and from the State and local experts. So we have people who 

know and people who care, and some of us actually both know and 

care, and we are getting a chance to improve the projects and to 

be able to support them. So I think if we continue down this path, 

we are going to be able to achieve some development. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Ms. Culver, do you know how many acres 

the BLM leases for coal development? 

Ms. CULVER. I don’t know that number off the top of my head. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a large number, huh? 

Ms. CULVER. It is a large number. 

The CHAIRMAN. Powder River Basin, et cetera, that is a lot of 

area. I bet you that area alone is enough to generate a lower—— 

although it probably isn’t as sunny as it could be in Powder River 

Basin. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
100 

Ms. CULVER. I think you could ask them to share their land. 

There is a lot of land that is under lease that is not being developed, and they could share it with our solar industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sharing. Kind of a good ‘‘king to garden’’ concept. 

We could try to apply that here to solar and coal and oil and gas. 

Mr. De Rosa. 

Mr. DE ROSA. Thank you, Representative Markey. 

The ingredients are in place for near-term, I think, dramatic acceleration of solar energy development, that the market demand is 

there. We have heard today the technologies are there today, with 

even more impressive technologies coming in the future. We have 

a determined Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management to utilize Federal lands for renewable development, and we 

have a DOE loan guarantee program. We have an ITC grant. Let 

us keep those in place, and let us pass the green bank so that this 

isn’t just a first wave, but it is a sustainable development of solar 

energy. 

The CHAIRMAN. And the green bank that you are referring to is 

the provision in the Waxman-Markey bill which will leverage upwards of $75 billion worth of investment in advanced technologies, 

not just solar and wind, but nuclear and other advanced technologies, but that green bank would be there as a permanent fund 

to be used in order to fund these new technologies. 

Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Three things, Mr. Chairman. The first, mechanisms 

to create scale nationally. As Dr. Burns suggested, that is some 

form of a national RES. That is a very well, carefully constructed 

feed-in tariff. It is something that creates national scale beyond 

California and a few other States who are doing this. Continued financial support, as Mr. De Rosa described; and predictable transparent land use programs for Federal land that allow these projects 

to get constructed and the transmission related to them get constructed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kline, very much. And we thank 

all of you. This was a 2-hour hearing to the minute, And it was 

very helpful. It will be on the record. And it is going to help us a 

lot over these next several months to ensure that we put the right 

permanent policies on the books to ensure that we complete this 

revolution. 

Thank you all so, so much for your help. 

[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
101 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 62453A.063
102 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 62453A.064
103 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 62453A.065
104 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 62453A.066
105 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 62453A.067
106 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 62453A.068
107 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 62453A.069
108 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 62453A.070
109 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 62453A.071
110 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156/200 here 62453A.072