U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–163 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1206 

ENSURING AND ENHANCING U.S. COMPETITIVENESS WHILE MOVING TOWARD A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 16, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 16, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 5 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 7 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 15 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 16 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 17 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 18 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 44 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 220 

WITNESSES 

Doerr, John, Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers .................................... 21 

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

Krenicki, John, Vice Chairman, GE; President and CEO, GE Energy Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 54 

Wong, Julian L., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for American Progress Action 

Fund ...................................................................................................................... 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 71 

Alford, Harry C., President and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce . 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 172 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of the Portland Cement Association .................................................... 227 

ExxonMobil Public Information and Policy Research reports for 2003–2005 ..... 243 

Exxon Mobil Corporation 2006 Contributions and Community Investments ..... 265 

Exxon Mobil Corporation 2007 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments .............................................................................................................. 272 

(1) 

ENSURING AND ENHANCING U.S. COMPETITIVENESS WHILE MOVING TOWARD A 

CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY 

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

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

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, 

Udall, Merkley, Voinovich, Barrasso, Bond, and Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everyone. 

Welcome to our distinguished panel. We are very happy that you 

could join us. Some of you have been here before. I am looking at 

Mr. Doerr, who has been just remarkably available to this committee. We are so grateful to all of you. 

Today’s hearing will focus on creating clean energy jobs right 

here in America and ensuring that this country is the world’s economic and technological leader in the 21st century. Our witnesses 

today will testify about the powerful incentives for investment that 

well-crafted clean energy legislation will provide. 

When we unleash the American innovative spirit, we will drive 

economic growth and create jobs and create whole new industries 

here at home. American entrepreneurs will create jobs, including 

jobs building wind turbines so that we can export those to the 

world, jobs installing solar panels on homes and businesses, and 

jobs producing energy efficient products and a new fleet of electric 

and hybrid vehicles. 

At the same time, we must ensure that our existing industries 

receive fair treatment as we transition to a clean energy economy. 

We need to make sure that our industries that require a great deal 

of energy operate on a level playing field with manufacturers in 

other countries. 

We also have to make sure that our consumers are kept whole 

during the transition. You are going to hear some wildly differing 

views on how much it is going to cost consumers. But we have the 

modeling, and we know what it is. We know what the WaxmanMarkey bill shows. And in our Senate work we are going to do even 

more to protect consumers. 
2 

The legislation recently passed in the House contains several 

provisions to assist industries that are energy intensive and that 

are subject to internal competition. We are carefully reviewing 

these provisions as we do more work on that bill. 

At the end of the day, our competitiveness in the world economy 

will depend on how we face the challenge of global warming. I believe strongly that Thomas Friedman got it right in his book when 

he wrote that the ability to develop clean power and energy efficient technologies is going to become the defining measure of a 

country’s economic standing, environmental health, energy security 

and national security over the next 50 years. 

Other countries, especially China and Germany, are already 

building their clean energy industries. I believe that when we pass 

strong clean energy legislation that cuts our dependence on foreign 

oil and protects our children from pollution, we will also provide 

the impetus that will restore American leadership in the world 

economy. 

I alluded to the distinguished members of our panel. But I wanted to mention now that we will hear from, after we hear from colleagues, and colleagues I am asking you to keep your comments to 

3 minutes if you can, as I did, John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; John Krenicki, Vice Chairman, General 

Electric, President and Chief Executive Officer, General Electric 

Energy Infrastructure; Julian Wong, Senior Policy Analyst, Center 

for American Progress; and Harry Alford, President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. 

So, with that, I will turn to my Ranking Member. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Do not start the clock yet because I want to clarify something. 

Our side wants to have a full 5 minutes, up to 5 minutes. I would 

ask, respectfully, that they be granted that. That has been kind of 

our tradition, that is what I did when I was chairing—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, I would debate that is what you did all of 

the time—— 

Senator INHOFE. Always. 

Senator BOXER. Well, absolutely, they can have up to 5 minutes. 

I was just asking out of courtesy because, the last time we did this, 

we did not get, we had a problem and we had to—— 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I think that the gravity of the nature of 

this hearing—— 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Senator INHOFE. I think it is important to—— 

Senator BOXER. Right. I think colleagues have to decide if they 

want to speak their opinion or hear some views and then ask questions. It is up to everybody to decide that. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. That is very fair. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. So, let us start the clock at 5 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. I would welcome our witnesses today, particularly Harry Alford. We have met before, and you have been here, 

and you represent a very fine group. 

I think Harry, as well as many in this country, would say that 

today’s hearing rests on some faulty logic, which kind of goes as follows: If Government imposes taxes and mandates, increases bureaucracy and spends without restraint, then Government can 

transform the economy and create jobs. This is a faulty logic of capand-trade designed to hide in cap-and-trade what it truly is. 

I have often said, and you have heard me say it, that if you want 

to do this, which is come out and get rid of, reduce the CO2, just 

have a tax on it. That is straightforward, and you do not have to 

hide anything, and everybody would know what it is. 

The Democrats should familiarize themselves with the work of 

Christina Romer, who is the Chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors. She has published multiple studies on the 

impact of tax policy changes over the past 100 years. What she 

found was straightforward. She concluded: ‘‘Tax increases appear 

to have a very large sustained and highly significant negative impact on output.’’ In other words, as the Wall Street Journal stated, 

tax hikes are anti-stimulus. 

Let us be clear. Waxman-Markey is a tax increase on the American people, and that is the whole point of cap-and-trade, which is 

to make energy more expensive so that we will use less of it. We 

have many quotes along that line. 

With that in mind, I read an economic analysis of the WaxmanMarkey Commission by Harry’s group, the National Black Chamber of Commerce. The report found, and I am quoting from your 

report now, Mr. Alford, claims that greenhouse gas cap-and-trade 

can boost total employment have become commonplace. These 

claims are incorrect, and the hopes that spring from them are destined to lead to disappointment. 

Waxman-Markey supporters say the bill will create green jobs. 

That is fine. I support such jobs. But, as the Black Chamber study 

found, the number of these new green jobs will be lower than the 

number of other jobs that might be created, in other words, the 

green jobs. 

In total, the Waxman-Markey would cause a net reduction of 

somewhere between 2.3 million and 2.7 million jobs. Again, that is 

a net reduction. That is taking all of the green jobs that are out 

there, and then doing your math. So we will want to talk a little 

bit about that during the question time. 

Now, this is a fact that the cap-and-traders do not want the public to know. In the final analysis, despite what its supporters say 

over and over again, Waxman-Markey is not a jobs bill, it is a big 

bloated Government spending program. 

We heard claims about the Government creating jobs before, earlier this year. The Obama administration said, let us do a $787 billion stimulus bill, and it is going to create jobs. And at that time, 

they were saying that the jobs were going to be reducing by increments that actually were pretty well published, and at the time of 

the passage, Obama said the stimulus would create or save 3.5 mil-
4 

lion. But since that promise, unemployment has increased from 8 

to 9.5 percent, hitting a 26-week high. 

As Morton Zuckerman wrote in the Wall Street Journal, the cumulative job losses over the last 6 month have been greater than 

for any half-year period since World War II, including the military 

demobilization after the war. 

So, I think we need to take the analysis a little bit further. And 

the so-called jobs bill is a 1,000-page contradiction which its supporters implicitly acknowledge but do not want to talk about. 

So, I ask, why does a jobs bill include the Unemployment Insurance Program? Why does a jobs bill include Federal assistance to 

relocate people who lose their jobs because of the legislation? It is 

written into the legislation. It presumes that is the case, and I believe it is. If the bill actually creates jobs, then there would be no 

need for any of this, no need for a section on unemployment benefits, job relocation and all the rest of that. 

The Republican plan is different. It rejects new taxes and mandates and instead encourages open access to domestic energy resources, removes barriers to innovative clean energy and so forth. 

We have taken the position that we want all of the above. We 

want renewables. We also want clean coal technology. We want nuclear. We want oil. We want gas. We want all of the above. And 

I would remind this panel, I do not think I have to, but we are the 

only country in the world that does not exploit its own resources. 

I think that is what is going to have to quit for us to become energy independent. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I want to welcome our witnesses today, especially Harry Alford, president of the 

National Black Chamber of Commerce. It’s good to see you again, Harry, and I look 

forward to your testimony. 

I think Harry, as well as many in this country, would say that today’s hearing 

rests on faulty logic, which goes as follows: if Government imposes taxes and mandates, increases bureaucracy, and spends without restraint, then Government can 

transform the economy and create jobs. 

This is the faulty logic of cap-and-trade, designed to hide what cap-and-trade truly 

is—a massive new tax on American families—and what it would do—destroy jobs 

here at home and send them to China and India. 

The faulty logic of cap-and-trade has no basis in history. The Democrats should 

familiarize themselves with the work of Christina Romer, who is chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors. 

Before she became a White House economist, Romer published multiple studies 

on the impact of tax policy changes over the past 100 years. What she found was 

straightforward. She concluded that ‘‘tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly significant negative impact on output.’’ In other words, as the 

Wall Street Journal wrote, ‘‘tax hikes are an anti-stimulus.’’ 

Let’s be clear: Waxman-Markey is a tax increase on the American people. That’s 

the whole point of cap-and-trade, which is to make energy more expensive so we 

use less of it. You could call it tax and ration. 

With that in mind, I read an economic analysis of Waxman-Markey commissioned 

by Harry’s group, the National Black Chamber of Commerce. As the report found, 

‘‘Claims that GHG cap-and-trade can boost total employment have become commonplace . . . these claims are incorrect, and the hopes that spring from them are destined to lead to disappointment.’’ 

Waxman-Markey supporters say the bill will create ‘‘green jobs.’’ That’s fine, I 

support such jobs, but as the Black Chamber study found, ‘‘the number of these new 

‘green jobs’ will be lower than the number of the other jobs that [Waxman-Markey] 

would destroy elsewhere in the economy.’’ 
5 

In total, Waxman-Markey would cause a net reduction of 2.3 million to 2.7 million 

jobs. Again, that’s a net reduction, including green jobs. 

This is a fact that cap-and-traders don’t want the public to know. In the final 

analysis, despite what its supporters say over and over again, Waxman-Markey is 

not a jobs bill, it’s a big Government pink slip. 

We heard similar claims about Government creating jobs before. Earlier this year, 

the Obama administration and the Democrats said the $787 billion stimulus bill 

was desperately needed to create jobs. They sold a big Government spending bonanza as a jobs bill. So what’s happened since the stimulus bill became law on February 17th? 

Thanks to Vice President Biden, we know that the ‘‘Administration misread how 

bad the economy was.’’ At the time of passage, President Obama said the stimulus 

would create or save 3.5 million jobs. But since that promise, unemployment has 

increased, from 8 percent to 9.5 percent, hitting a 26-week high. 

As Mort Zuckerman wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ‘‘The cumulative job losses 

over the last 6 months have been greater than for any other half-year period since 

World War II, including the military demobilization after the war.’’ 

So the question is: how can you trust those who now talk about creating green 

jobs, when under their watch, and I would argue because of their policies, more and 

more people are losing their jobs? In the case of Waxman-Markey, the same advocates of the failed stimulus bill are pushing another big Government scheme to ‘‘create’’ jobs. It hasn’t worked with the stimulus, and it won’t work with cap-and-trade. 

Let’s take this analysis a step further. This so-called jobs bill is a 1,400-page contradiction, which its supporters implicitly acknowledge but don’t want to talk about. 

So I ask: why does a jobs bill include an unemployment insurance program? Why 

does a jobs bill include Federal assistance for relocation and job searching? 

This bill hands out pink slips to workers and then promises the unemployed that 

they will get assistance from the Government. Message to the Waxman-Markey unemployed: don’t hold your breath. 

If this bill actually created jobs, then there would be no need for any of this. The 

Republican plan is different; it rejects new taxes and mandates and instead encourages opening access to domestic energy resources, removing barriers to innovative 

clean energy technologies and allowing all forms of energy to power this great machine called America. 

We don’t have unemployment provisions in our plan because it puts people to 

work, right here at home. That means a stronger economy and a Nation less dependent on foreign energy. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, you ended exactly at 5 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. I did. 

Senator BOXER. Congratulations. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

To our witnesses, good morning, everyone. Thank you very much 

for joining us. It is great to see some of you back again and others 

to be with us for the first time. 

I must say, I step back just a moment and say that I find it ironic, as some of colleagues demonize cap-and-trade, that to the extent 

that I studied anything as an undergraduate at Ohio State, I studied economics. One of the things that has fascinated me for a long 

time, both in my time in the Navy, my time as Governor, and here 

in the Senate, was how to harness market forces to shape public 

policy behavior, the kind of public policy behavior that we want. 

I am amused that sometimes people say, well, why do we not just 

have a tax, put a tax on carbon? A lot of times I think, would those 

people really vote for a tax on carbon? I do not think that they 

would. So, a lot of times I find that the people who call for a tax 

on carbon would not vote for one anyway. 
6 

I never heard much of cap-and-trade, in fact, until 1990 when a 

fellow named George Herbert Walker Bush, our President, in signing the Clean Air Act into law, called for establishing a cap-andtrade regimen to help deal with a problem called acid rain. We had 

a problem with too much sulfur dioxide largely coming out of coalfired plants in the Midwest, putting a lot of sulfur dioxide into the 

air and destroying our forests and our rivers, lakes and streams in 

the Northeastern part of our country. 

By golly, people said, well, we think it going to work. But we 

have to put a very big price on sulfur dioxide if we are going to 

put in a tax. So, it turns out we did not put in a tax. We used a 

cap-and-trade approach. 

And we ended up with a price on sulfur dioxide that is less than 

half of what it was expected to be. It worked. It worked then, and 

I think it is regarded as maybe one of the most, maybe the most, 

successful environmental program that we have had in this country, certainly in my lifetime. So, I just ask my colleagues to keep 

that in mind. 

We have a number of States who have in recent years, because 

of the inaction here in Congress, decided to take matters into their 

own hands. They have adopted, as part of RGGI, adopted cap-andtrade systems on their own. We have done that in Delaware. I do 

not think anyone has really noticed if you want to know the truth. 

But we are actually realizing several millions of dollars to be able 

to put into clean energy initiatives, and those are creating jobs and 

also doing good things for the quality of our air. 

The last thing I would say, and I love to quote Albert Einstein, 

and I am the only person on this panel that ever quotes him for 

some reason. But among the things that he says is, in adversity 

lies opportunity. 

We have plenty of adversity in this country today. As we all 

know, aside from our economic challenges and challenges in Iraq 

and Afghanistan and the Middle East and all, we face huge problems with people looking for jobs, losing jobs and not being able to 

provide for their healthcare and other needs of their families. 

Where we face challenges is with a huge trade deficit, and about 

one-third of that is related to the consumption of oil. What we need 

to do is to turn that challenge into building vehicles that will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, vehicles that we 

can build here. We can build the components here. We do the R&D 

here. And we sell them here, and hopefully export that technology 

abroad. That is making sure that opportunity comes out of adversity. 

We have problems, still, with too much sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxide and mercury going up into our air. We have perfected technology that will enable us, over the next several years, to reduce 

by 90 percent the amount of mercury emitted from coal-fired power 

plants. Ninety percent. 

Today, there are about 600,000 women carrying children onboard, and the moms have high levels of mercury in their bodies. 

They are going to give birth to babies with, in many cases, brain 

defects. We have the ability now, for about $1.20 a month on a 

family’s utility bill, to cut in half that number of 600,000, bring it 

down to 300,000, and hopefully, further beyond that. 
7 

That is taking a challenge and making something good come out 

of it. And an economic opportunity that will enable us to take that 

technology for reducing mercury by 90 percent in emissions from 

coal-fired plants and sell that technology all over the world. 

So, I would say to my colleagues, we are lucky to have this panel 

here. I do not know some of you well, but some of you I know pretty well. I especially look forward to hearing from John Doerr again. 

I am hoping that he will tell us, it is advice that I have heard him 

give before, what are the three most important things that we can 

do in order to make sure that we do find that opportunity, that 

pony in that pile of manure, if you will, and find that opportunity 

that we all looking for, the economic opportunity. It is here, if we 

are smart enough to find it. 

Thank you so much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Let us see. According to arrival, I have got this list. Let us see 

if this is right. I have got Barrasso, Bond, Alexander, and 

Voinovich. Does everyone agree? 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I want to welcome our guests. 

Madam Chairman, the Waxman-Markey bill has been entitled 

the American Clean Energy and Security Act. It is also known as 

ACES. And ACES to me is a bad bet, a bad bet for enhancing U.S. 

global competitiveness and for creating jobs. 

The American people do not want Congress gambling with their 

future. With the so-called stimulus bill, taxpayer money, I thought, 

was gambled on the bet that 3.5 million jobs would be saved or created and unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. 

The supporters of ACES claim that this bill is not so much a climate change bill, they claim it is more of a jobs package. They say 

it is going to create 1.7 million jobs, new jobs, green jobs. 

Well, this might make sense to people inside Washington, but I 

think most folks outside the Beltway would find it odd that this socalled jobs package includes language that subsidizes and retrains 

workers who lose their jobs because of the bill. 

The authors of this bill, to me, are overstating their case, and the 

taxpayers should be concerned about taking another major gamble 

in allowing for this massive energy tax scheme to pass. 

The United States cannot be competitive with foreign countries 

if we increase the costs of doing business in the United States. 

China and India have not accepted the Administration’s leadership 

on this issue, especially when binding limits were proposed by the 

Administration to the Chinese at the Group of Eight Summit last 

week. According to the New York Times yesterday, Chinese officials have strenuously opposed binding limits on emissions of 

greenhouse gases by developing countries. 

Professor Pan Jiahua, one of China’s top advisors on climate 

change diplomacy and economics, was quoted in the Sydney Herald 

in the weeks leading up to the summit as saying that China is not 
8 

at all impressed with Obama. Obama’s statements are certainly insufficient, he says, and his demands for developing countries are 

unrealistic. 

So to me, no action by the United States in slowing down and 

limiting our own economy through a cap-and-trade scheme is going 

to change China’s position. 

In the New York Times today, American Officials Press China on 

Efforts to Curb Greenhouse Gases. A little before this committee 

met, I visited with Governor Huntsman from Utah, who has been 

nominated to be Ambassador to China, about this specific article. 

There is a picture of Secretary of Energy Chu, who is in Beijing. 

In today’s New York Times, they talk about Secretary Chu. It 

says if China’s emissions of global warming gases keep growing at 

the pace of the last 30 years, the country will emit more such gases 

in the next three decades than the United States has in its entire 

history. Now, this is not me. This is said by Mr. Chu, a winner of 

the Nobel Prize in Physics. 

So that is what we are looking at. To me, our Nation must remain competitive globally. To do so, we need to make America’s energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy 

prices on American businesses and on American families. 

Our end goal must be to do everything we can to keep the jobs 

that we have now in the United States and then also find ways to 

add more green jobs. Americans want all of these jobs and more. 

We need them all. 

Senator Carper left. He said no one on the committee ever quotes 

Einstein. You know, Einstein had his magic formula, E equals MC 

squared. I do not want to quote the specific formula, but to paraphrase, to me energy is the E and MC means my country. Energy 

for my country squared. That is the way we get energy independence. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Let me put into the record the article that 

you quoted. I think that was really good that you brought it up. 

I will put that article into the record. 

But, there is also an article in the Washington Post that talks 

about how the leaders of Asia are ‘‘pouring money into renewable 

energy.’’ I think we will hear more about that from folks who have 

spent time over there. But I will address your other comments 

when I get a chance in my 5 minutes. 

So, we will move now to Senator Bond. 

[The referenced articles follow:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you to our distinguished witnesses. I am particularly delighted to 

see a distant cousin, Mr. Doerr, as we pronounce it from the original German. 

We will have other discussions about the investments that China 

is making, which is good, in clean energy, but I also agree with 

China that they are not going to accept something like our cap-andtrade. 

We are here today to talk about jobs. We have a disturbing report that will be presented by Mr. Alford that cap-and-trade legislation will kill millions of U.S. jobs, even after including green job 

gains. 

The National Black Chamber of Commerce, as the Ranking 

Member has outlined, commissioned an economic analysis of the 

House bill which found that ‘‘cap-and-trade would cut net employment by 2.5 million jobs per year, even after accounting for new 

green jobs.’’ And next week we will have an opportunity to talk 

about jobs, green jobs that are productive and green jobs that are 

simply subsidized, to a great extent, by the U.S. taxpayer, us. 

It is important because, no matter what you say about green 

jobs, we will have under Waxman-Markey significant job loss. The 

higher energy costs will make it desirable to have green jobs. There 

are green jobs that we must pursue. But we can only afford to buy 

so many. 

The findings of the National Black Chamber of Commerce shows 

that there will be 2.5 million more jobs killed than created. Some 

have tried to question the integrity of the chamber, but I do not. 

What I do question is how we would even consider killing 2.5 million jobs in America when we are in the middle of the worst recession since World War II and suffering high unemployment. 

The chart here shows the current unemployment rate in each 

State. The darker States are those suffering unemployment rates 

over 10 percent: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. My State of Missouri, regrettably, is up there at 9 percent. We 

see the Midwest and the South are currently suffering some of the 

highest rates of unemployment in the Nation. Why would we hit 

that region with more job loss? 

Cap-and-trade would hit the Midwest and South with higher 

power bills. Now, this chart calculates a State-by-State increase in 

power bills in 2015 from Waxman-Markey. It is based on data from 

the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as well as the National Black Chamber of Commerce. The darker States represent 

those States which will suffer power bill hikes of over $500 million 

per year, States across the Midwest and South. 

Cap-and-trade is a double-barreled shotgun of lost jobs and higher energy taxes pointed at the Midwest and the South. We must 

ask ourselves, who will we hurt when you take their jobs and raise 

energy costs? Who are these Midwestern manufacturing workers 

suffering now and who will suffer more? 

Here is the cover of the New York Times Magazine from June 

28th. It is a picture of Augustine Powell and his son, Marvin. Their 

story is entitled, GM: Detroit and the Fall of the Black Middle 
16 

Class. As the story describes, the Powell family left the South in 

the 1960s seeking better opportunities in the North in the auto industry. ‘‘Now the life that they built is in danger of slipping away.’’ 

A good paying manufacturing job in the auto industry gave the 

Powells a middle class way of life: healthcare, education, vacations. 

The Powells were able to leave the city of Detroit for a quiet, racially integrated suburb of modest middle-income homes north of 

the city. Now, families like the Powells and plenty of families like 

them at closing assembly plants in Missouri are threatened of falling out of the middle class and slipping down into the working, or 

even out-of-work, poor. 

My fear is that what the recession and the faulty management 

decisions did to the auto industry the U.S. Congress is planning to 

intentionally do to the rest of the U.S. manufacturing in the Midwest, killing our jobs and driving many overseas to China. 

For the sake of the Powells and millions of threatened blue collar 

workers like them, I urge my colleagues to oppose job killing and 

energy tax raising cap-and-trade legislation. 

I thank the Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Bond. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

I appreciate very much my friend from Missouri’s passionate defense of union wage scales and the kind of middle class life that 

unionized employment can bring to the middle class. I am very 

glad to hear him make that point. 

We are in the middle of a very interesting debate here. There is 

an underlying premise to many of my colleagues’ questions, which 

is that if we would just leave well enough alone, let the polluters 

continue to pollute for free, listen to the sweet nothings that the 

oil companies are dribbling into our ears, and continue the happy 

hemorrhage of billions and billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer 

dollars into the pockets of foreign nations that run oil economies, 

everything will be just fine. 

And it is only the dreaded interference in the economy by trying 

to impose some form of cost on companies that are now polluting 

for free that presents any downside to us. 

I wonder, starting with Mr. Doerr, if I may, if you have any 

thoughts on what the baseline proposition is here. Is the baseline 

proposition just a happy continuance of the status quo with no 

harm or cost to anyone and the downside on our side—— 

Senator INHOFE. Is this an opening statement? 

Senator BOXER. This is an opening statement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am sorry. I thought we are still on opening statements. 

Senator INHOFE. We are. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, make that my opening statement. It 

is a tee up for the question to come. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Now, next on our list is Senator Alexander. 
17 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Thanks for having the hearing. And thanks to the four of you for coming. 

I am glad to have this discussion about jobs and to try to put it 

in some perspective. When I think of jobs, I think of my State. So 

here is what is going on in my State: people are looking for cheap 

energy. 

Alcoa shut down its smelter where my dad worked all his life. 

They are waiting for a cheaper electricity contract from TVA. A 

major air conditioning company in Fayetteville, they make a large 

percentage of all the air conditioners in the United States, tells me 

that if their electricity prices go up, they go overseas. 

Eastman Chemical has hired 10,000, 12,000, 14,000 people in the 

upper east Tennessee area for a long, long time. Natural gas is 

their feedstock. If their electricity and energy costs go up, overseas 

those jobs go. 

We are lucky to have big new computers coming into Tennessee, 

affiliated with the Oakridge National Laboratory. One reason they 

are there is that we have lots of low cost, reliable, cheap electricity. 

I believe computers are probably 5 percent of our electricity use 

today. 

We are making solar power a major objective of our State. Our 

Governor is, which I totally agree with, trying to focus on research 

and development. And we have attracted two plants that make 

polysilicon. Each of those plants uses 120 megawatts of electricity. 

They are huge users of electricity. They would not be in a State or 

country where electricity costs are high. They want to be a place 

where they have cheap electricity. 

A third of our manufacturing jobs are auto jobs. They tell me, the 

suppliers, that every day they are looking at costs, and there are 

many costs, but if electricity costs go up a lot, energy costs go up 

much more, they will be in Mexico and Japan building cars instead 

of Tennessee and Michigan. 

And last December, 10 percent of Nashvillians, even with TVA’s 

relatively low electric rate, said they could not pay their bills because the rates were too high. 

Somewhere in this debate I think we have overlooked the importance of cheap energy. Because high priced energy means jobs, 

which we are discussing today, go overseas looking for cheap energy. Also, we now are especially looking at clean energy. Senator 

Carper and I have introduced legislation several times to remove 

mercury and sulfur and nitrogen, and I believe we need to slow the 

use of carbon. 

Is there some way we can have carbon free as well as cheap energy? And I am wondering, and I hope to hear from the four of you, 

why the strange silence about nuclear power? Nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity and solar and wind, 

and all of the things that you are writing about produce 3 or 4 percent of our carbon-free electricity. Oh, 6 percent, excuse me. 

Mr. Doerr, I read your testimony. You went all the way through 

it without mentioning nuclear power. And I read the GE testimony, 

and GE has been a leader in nuclear power, and you do talk about 

it, but not about the future. It is all about wind. And I read the 
18 

testimony about China, and it overlooks the fact that China is creating more new nuclear power plants than the rest of the world 

combined. 

So, if we are really serious about clean energy, as well as cheap 

energy, why this strange silence about nuclear energy when it is 

70 percent of our carbon-free electricity? 

Maybe we need a nuclear power mandate for States. If it is not 

a renewable power, I mean, if it were included in the renewable 

power definition of the renewable mandate, Tennessee would be 40 

percent clean. Not 20, but 40. So maybe we need a definition of 

clean energy that is 40 percent or 50 percent and includes nuclear 

power. And if it not a renewable power, maybe we need a clean energy mandate for base load power. 

But why the strange silence about this? We invented it. France 

is 80 percent nuclear. They have the lowest carbon emission rates, 

almost the lowest, and among the lowest electrical rates in the European Union. I am all for doubling our energy R&D, or even more. 

But I wonder why we seem to have a national windmill policy instead of a national clean energy policy, and I hope to hear more 

about that as we go. 

I have expired, Madam Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You have not expired. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would apologize, right from the beginning, that I am going to 

leave, after my words, because I am the Ranking Member on another committee, and we have two of the Administration’s nominees up for confirmation. I just want you to understand that. 

The impact this legislation will have on jobs, workers and families is the heart of my concern with the Waxman proposal. Indeed, 

few regions of the country will be impacted more than the Midwest. 

Ohio gets 87 percent of its energy from coal. 

That this bill will cost my State and the country jobs, I think, 

is without dispute. Despite wild claims of green job creation, there 

is no credible analysis that suggests that this bill will be a net job 

creator. I think that Senator Inhofe did a good job and said the bill 

includes a provision called the Climate Change Worker Assistance 

Program which basically anticipates that we are going to lose jobs, 

and they are going to try to compensate for those lost jobs. 

It is interesting that we had a hearing with all of the coal producers yesterday, Senator Carper and I did, and they said that 

they are really concerned about the impact of this on manufacturing. We have got residential taxpayers whose energy bills will 

be impacted, but they are really concerned about the manufacturers. 

GE, you know, a lot of jobs are gone from Ohio. In 2007, 425 jobs 

were eliminated. The company decided to close six of its U.S. lighting factories. Where are they making the products now? They are 

making them in China. It is our fault. Quite simply, we are not fostering an environment that is friendly to business. 
19 

I saw what happened with the poorly calibrated energy policy we 

had toward natural gas. The spike in natural gas in 2001 was the 

beginning of the recession in Ohio. And we definitely, I can show 

you thousands of jobs that we lost in chemical and plastic industries because of the increase in natural gas costs. And many of us 

believe that we are going to see a continuing increase in those costs 

because of this legislation, where many companies will be shifting 

from coal over to natural gas. 

The other thing that I think that we need to talk about, candidly, 

is that unless we can bring China and India and the other developing nations in to this new regime, no matter what we do, it will 

not matter. We asked the question yesterday of the six people that 

were at our hearing. I said if the United States shut down completely and had no greenhouse gas emissions and the developing 

countries continued to do what they were doing, what impact would 

we have? And the answer to that was zippo, nothing. 

And I think Senator Barrasso did a really good job today of 

quoting what is going on today in the world. In other words, we 

are in the real world. We are in a competitive environment, and 

we need to look at it. 

My feeling is that until we can sit down with the WTO and work 

out something in terms of folding in emissions in terms of the consideration of the WTO, our going ahead without that is just foolhardy. 

The other thing that I want to mention is this. The biggest problem that we have today in terms of emissions is coal. We have coal; 

the Chinese have coal. If we really wanted to do something about 

greenhouse gas emissions, we would have a, what did we call it 

when we developed the atomic bomb? What’s the word? We would 

have a Manhattan Project that would get the best and the brightest people the world together to try to come up with technology 

that would capture and sequester coal, because I think that if we 

do not do that, we are finished. 

With the Chinese putting two coal-fired plants on a week, we are 

in trouble. And I think we need to reevaluate our priorities as to 

where we are putting our money. I am all for wind. I am for solar 

power. But by golly, we know that coal is going to continue to be 

a major producer of energy in this world, and unless we get it 

under control, we are in deep trouble. 

I want to thank you very much for your being here today, and 

I apologize for not being here to hear what you have to say. Hopefully, I will get back so I can hear some of the questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Madam Chairman, the impact this legislation will have on jobs, workers and families is at the heart of my concerns with the Waxman proposal. Indeed, few regions 

of the country will be impacted more than the Midwest. Ohio, which relies on coal 

for more than 87 percent of its electricity demand and has a large manufacturing 

base, has much to lose under this proposal. 

That this bill will cost my State of Ohio and the country jobs is without dispute. 

Despite wild claims of green job creation, there is no credible analysis that suggests 

that this bill will be a net job creator. In fact, the authors of the legislation included 

in the proposal numerous provisions to provide assistance to workers who will lose 
20 

their jobs as a result of the program. For example, the bill includes provisions called 

‘‘Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance (CCWAA),’’ which provides a form 

of unemployment insurance for those who are going to lose their jobs because of 

Waxman-Markey. I find it very disturbing that this provision is included in what 

proponents are calling a ‘‘jobs bill.’’ 

The job losses that will come from this legislation stem from the bill’s overlapping 

and redundant requirements, including cap-and-trade provisions, an RES, and numerous other source specific requirements, many of which are unachievable with today’s technologies. Recognizing the disconnect between what technology can deliver 

and the bill’s objectives, the authors allow for up to 2 billion offsets annually to 

meet the targets. And because 1 billion of these offsets can be obtained from outside 

the U.S., what we’re looking at is transferring tens of billions of U.S. dollars overseas to meet the bill’s compliance obligations. Indeed, a simple calculation based on 

the bill’s allocation formula and Ohio emissions reveals that Ohio families and 

workers would be subsidizing their competitors to the tune of $688 million (assuming a modest carbon price of $15 per ton) in the first year of the program alone. 

Perhaps the green jobs that the Waxman-Markey proponents are referencing aren’t 

actually U.S. jobs, but jobs in China. 

I note that GE is here today to discuss competitiveness issues associated with this 

bill. Unfortunately because of increased globalization and ever complex and increasing environmental compliance, companies such as GE are shuttering many of their 

U.S. facilities, including some in Ohio, and are relocating to developing countries. 

Indeed, in 2007 about 425 jobs were eliminated in Ohio when the company decided 

to close 6 of its 26 U.S. lighting factories. And where is GE now making those products? China. I don’t fault GE for this move. It’s our fault: quite simply, we are not 

fostering an environment that is friendly to business. And this trend is nothing new. 

It is the continuation of a disturbing pattern that I fear will be exacerbated by the 

many overlapping mandates contained in the Waxman bill. 

Residential consumers, small businesses, manufacturers and industrial operations 

all depend on reliable and affordable energy. Poorly calibrated environmental policies have already resulted in sharp increases in energy and natural gas prices, impairing the competitive position of U.S. manufacturing companies in domestic and 

world markets. According to the Department of Labor, these increases have contributed to a loss of over 3.1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs. 

Many people engaged in this debate down-play the impacts that climate policy 

will have on our economy. And although the ‘‘green jobs’’ movement as advanced by 

the environmental establishment is trying to convince us that rationing energy resources will save the world and our economy, there is little to support these claims. 

Cap-and-trade will not result in net job creation any more than it will result in reduced energy costs. 

Recognizing that the bill will put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage to overseas competition, proponents seek to offset compliance and fuel and input costs 

through a system of rebates and border tariff provisions. Yet many manufacturers 

from my State tell me that they don’t qualify for the rebates and that the bill’s costly requirements will force plant closures and relocation overseas. In fact, the president of US Steel, John Surma, representing a company supposedly protected by 

these provisions, recently told me that if the bill passes, no more steel plants would 

be built in the U.S. and that existing facilities would be phased out and moved overseas. This is bad for the environment and the economy. Similarly, the border tariff 

provision, a holdover from last year’s climate bill, is of dubious merit. Even if it is 

found to be consistent with WTO requirements—and many believe that it isn’t—the 

Obama administration does not support the provision, and it is therefore likely to 

be stripped before final passage. 

Yesterday, Senator Carper and I had a roundtable discussion on this bill and the 

future of coal. Witnesses included representatives from industry and environmental 

groups. There was much agreement, including recognition that the U.S. could eliminate all CO2 emissions and global temperatures would not be impacted unless developing countries take similar measures. Meanwhile, China and India remain resistant to mandatory controls. This is not to say that we should do nothing. But the 

steps we take should be measured and consistent with the goals to be realized. 

So, Madam Chairman, I think we have a lot of work to do to get this right. My 

goals throughout this process are to keep the Nation’s economy, and that of Ohio, 

on a sure footing while decreasing emissions. Congressman Waxman’s bill just 

doesn’t get the job done and in fact is a threat to the economy when people are already hurting. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 
21 

Well, now we are going to move to our distinguished panel. And 

by the way, we are going to each have 7-minute rounds to question 

because I think we have a lot to learn from this panel. 

So, we are going to start with John Doerr, a partner of Kleiner 

Perkins Caufield & Byers. I would say, just for those who do not 

know Mr. Doerr, and most of you do, he has been involved in making decisions about the future that have proven right in a lot of 

very famous cases. I believe one was Google. Was one Amazon? So 

that is two. 

I think that, as we sit here thinking about the future, this is a 

man who has put his money on the future and that of his clients. 

So, I think that his words should carry some weight in the business 

community and also to elected leaders and to working people. 

With that, please go ahead Mr. Doerr. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN DOERR, PARTNER, KLEINER PERKINS 

CAUFIELD & BYERS 

Mr. DOERR. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and members of the committee. 

My name is John Doerr. I am a partner at Kleiner Perkins 

Caufield & Byers. I am here because America confronts three interrelated crises today: an economic crisis, a climate crisis, and an energy security crisis. But my message is about a fourth, and that is 

a competitive crisis. 

There is no topic of greater importance for America’s economic 

future. The decisions you are going to be making are going to determine whether we lead or lag in tomorrow’s global energy markets. And the difference between those two futures is really dramatic. 

In the United States alone, our energy costs are more than $1 

trillion per year. That is for oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable energies. That is on top, that $1 trillion is on top, of another $2 trillion that we spend on our homes, our shops, our factories and our cars. So, that is $2 trillion a year that is at stake 

in the United States of America, right here, every year. 

Is that money that we want to send overseas to import oil? Are 

those goods we want to purchase from our competitors or make 

here in the United States? Do we want to produce that energy and 

make those goods and create those jobs here, or there? That is the 

question. 

Do we want to be the worldwide winner in the next great global 

industry, which is clean energy? We are clearly not in the lead 

today, and that position is held by China. China understands clearly that controlling its energy future is fundamental, and its commitment to develop and own the clean energy technologies and 

markets is breathtaking to me. 

China’s cars are already more than one-third more fuel efficient 

than U.S. cars. China is investing 10 times more than the United 

States on clean power as a percent of GDP, 10 times more. And 

they are on track to deploy 120 gigawatts of wind by 2020. That 

is equal to the entire global total and 10 times that of the United 

States. And, incidentally, it will create 150,000 jobs. 
22 

As a result, they are curbing their emissions substantially today 

compared to business as usual. In fact, they are going to abate 350 

million tons of CO2, as much of all of Argentina emits. 

Now here is the point. The United States led in the electronics, 

the biotechnology, the information technology, the Internet, the IT 

industry revolution. But as we sit here today, we are in danger of 

letting the energy technology revolution pass us right by. 

What do Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have in 

common? Those are the five global leaders in the IT industry, and 

every one of them is American. When you look at the global wind 

industry, look at the top five players, only one, General Electric, 

only one, is American. So, the United States is now home to only 

1 of the 10 largest solar PD producers. Only 2 of the top 10 advanced battery manufacturers. 

I want to bring this home and make it very personal, Senators. 

The question is: when our sons and daughters go get jobs in the 

world’s great new clean energy companies, are those companies 

going to be headquartered in China or the United States? 

I am an American engineer and businessman. My partners and 

I have helped build 500 new U.S. companies, creating 400,000 jobs. 

In fact, just last month we announced 1,500 new jobs for a new 

American low carbon car company in Louisiana, with the support 

of Senator Vitter and other members of the delegation. 

So, I am trying to do my part. But I want to tell you, our Government’s energy and climate policies are our principal obstacle to success. To repeat that, the current policies are the principal obstacle 

to creating even more new jobs in this next great global industry. 

You have not given us any clear, long-term market signal, to our 

companies or our consumers, that we value low carbon energy. We 

have no policies to discourage sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas every year for energy. We do not even have adequate 

R&D to compete in this huge industry. So, today’s policies are stifling America’s competitiveness and America’s entrepreneurs. 

Now, good policy can turn this around. We can turn this thing 

around and give us a fighting chance to lead in these industries. 

There are just four elements of really very good policies. 

Yes, Senators, the top three policies are to put a cap in price on 

carbon, a cap in price on carbon, and a cap in price on carbon. Easy 

to say. Why? Without a long-term market signal, without a cap on 

carbon emissions and a price on carbon, we are not going to get serious innovation at scale in our domestic markets, we are not going 

to create local demand, and we are not going to have great American success stories. 

There are other important policies. Let us get the rules of the 

road right for our utilities. Let us set smart standards that are 

steadily stronger so that America has the most efficient buildings, 

and the most efficient cars and appliances in the world. And let us 

be sure to take those savings and stuff them in the pockets of our 

consumers and our businesses. And as I have said before, let us get 

serious about research and development and deployment. 

These policies, they are proven. There is no risk in these policies. 

We have seen them work in other States and in other countries. 

They unleash America’s competitiveness, tempered by market 
23 

forces. They are broadly endorsed by multi-national companies and 

by the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. 

There is still time for us to get in this global race, although I am 

here today to tell you that the window is closing, and it is closing 

really very fast. We have got to have low carbon policies to exploit 

America’s strengths, our innovation and our entrepreneurs. 

I understand that putting these policies in place is a pretty 

heavy political lift. But without a doubt, Senators, bad energy policy has cost our country dearly, and the costs of continuing it are 

incalculable. That is because our competitors have woken up. We 

need to do the same, or we are going to be buying our future from 

them. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doerr follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Doerr. 

I just want to say something here. Because Senator Merkley is 

in between committees, I think it would be only fair now if he 

would like to make an opening statement. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. 

Senator BOXER. It is OK with Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I 

will be very brief, that is to say that in Oregon, green energy jobs 

are growing at seven times the rate of other jobs in the economy. 

It is our brightest hope for putting our economy on track. 

It is my belief that our economy and our energy strategies are 

joined at the hip, and I am very interested in the details that you 

are presenting today. Because this committee has to figure out how 

do we take and produce a triple win, that is to end our dependence 

on foreign oil, which is costing us nearly $2 billion a day, and how 

many more jobs could we create if those funds are spent here in 

the United States, and I think of our increase in our national security. So, it is the impact on national security, the impact on our 

economy and creating jobs, and our impact upon the environment 

of this planet. 

All three are closely tied together. We need to make sure that we 

put the United States at the forefront of energy policies that will 

create stable, low cost energy over the long term, a strategy that 

will create jobs, and a strategy that will address global warming. 

So, I am deeply interested in your testimony, and thank you for 

coming today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Now we will hear from John Krenicki, Vice Chairman, General 

Electric; President and CEO, General Electric Energy Infrastructure. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN KRENICKI, VICE CHAIRMAN, GE; 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, GE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE 

Mr. KRENICKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and members of the committee. 

I am John Krenicki, GE Vice Chairman, President and CEO of 

GE Energy. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss global competitiveness in cleaner energy. 

GE believes that leadership in cleaner, smarter energy technology is vital to economic growth, job creation and energy security. 

This could become the dominant job creator of the 21st century and 

companies, and countries that move quickly to seize that opportunity will reap the rewards going forward. 

Energy is a scale driven business. For the United States to lead 

in the area of clean energy technology, I believe we need to do five 

things. 

No. 1, we need a very big domestic marketplace that spurs investment and job creation and to be relevant on a global scale. Second, a scalable, competitive supply chain has to be put in place 

that delivers the lowest possible unit cost over a long period of 

time. Third, absolutely the best technologies because the best prod-
45 

ucts win, time and time again. Fourth, strong intellectual property 

protections need to be put in place so that investors can generate 

a fair return on their investments. And fifth and finally, we need 

free and open markets. Given the global scale involved here, we 

need to be able to spread those costs over many geographies. 

Over the past 4 years, for example, the U.S. has become a world 

leader in the deployment of wind energy. The U.S. wind industry 

hits its high water mark in 2008 when over 8.5 gigawatts of wind 

power were installed, enough to power roughly 7 million homes. 

That capped a 3-year run during which the U.S. added over 16 

gigawatts of wind power and now supports more than 85,000 jobs. 

Unfortunately, due to the economic crisis, the U.S. now is projected to install only half of what was installed in 2008. And we 

now find ourselves worried about the health of the renewables industry going forward. 

The good news is that Congress is considering a national renewable electricity standard which has the potential to reinvigorate the 

industry and keep jobs in the United States. The bad news is that 

both the House and Senate versions of the RES are too weak to 

keep the U.S. wind industry from collapsing over the next 3 years. 

The current targets for 2012 are equal to or below the status quo. 

It would not add a single wind turbine to the install base over the 

next 3 years. Our projections show that such RES would actually 

move the United States from No. 1 in 2008 to No. 3 behind the EU 

and China in new wind installations. 

One way to address this challenge is through stronger near-term 

requirements. GE believes that it would take approximately a 12 

percent RES standard by 2012 to keep U.S. wind deployment up 

and continue to grow U.S. jobs. 

It is important, too, to understand that other countries are also 

on the move. China has doubled its wind power capacity in each 

of the last 4 years and is on track to pass the United States this 

year as the country with the largest number of wind installations. 

Europe also has strong targets, and over 70 countries have national 

renewable energy policies. 

If the wind industry moves to China and Europe, small and medium-sized companies that supply key components for the U.S. industry will close factories and slash employment. In many quarters, orders have already begun to dry up, and this is a trend that 

no one in the United States wants to see continue. 

As the person responsible for GE’s energy portfolio, I have seen 

firsthand that the jobs will go where the big markets will develop. 

And strong markets can develop from good policy. The U.S. is, indeed, at a crossroads. And you and your colleagues can make the 

difference between retaining a strong U.S. clean energy industry or 

losing it to foreign shores. 

I encourage you to address the need for strong national energy 

policy quickly so that the United States markets can continue to 

drive economic growth for the 21st century and the U.S. clean energy industries will have the scale, and the products, to enable the 

larger climate goals ahead. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krenicki follows:] 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Krenicki. 

Our next speaker is Julian Wong, Senior Policy Analyst at the 

Center for American Progress Action Fund. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JULIAN L. WONG, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND 

Mr. WONG. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

I am Julian Wong, Senior Policy Analyst for the Center for 

American Progress Action Fund. I will describe China’s plans to 

build a low carbon economy, a strategy for economic growth, something I am pleased to do after spending most of last year in China 

as a Fulbright Scholar actively researching China’s clean energy 

initiatives. 

In the U.S. debate over clean energy policies, China has been 

used as a scapegoat for domestic inaction. Yes, China remains 

heavily reliant on coal, and yes, it has surpassed the United States 

as the largest annual emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. But 

U.S. total cumulative emissions in the atmosphere are three times 

that of China, and the U.S. per capita annual emissions are still 

four to five times that of China. 

China was slow to acknowledge the threats posed by climate 

change. But once it did, it acted swiftly and decisively to reduce 

both emissions growth and to seize the economic opportunity to create a new period of prosperity out of reduction, deployment and 

sale of clean energy technologies. 

China’s Vice Premier, Li Keqiang, repeatedly said that the development of new energy sources represents an opportunity to stimulate investment during this economic slowdown, to achieve stable 

export opportunities, all while building international economic competitiveness. 

So what has China done so far? Let me describe three aspects 

of China’s green leap forward. 

First, energy efficiency is now a pillar of China’s growth policy. 

China plans to reduce its energy intensity by 20 percent from 2006 

to 2010. There are now efficiency benchmarks for many industries 

including thermal power, steel and cement. This will reduce over 

1 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, starting at 2010, compared 

to business as usual, equivalent to taking over 200 million cars off 

the road. 

China’s fuel economy standards are higher than the U.S. standard in 2016. As a result, China is now a leading innovator in various technological sectors including advanced efficient coal combustion and plug-in hybrid vehicles. 

Second, China has national targets for clean electricity production leading to the emergence of innovative technologies. It plans 

to produce 10 percent of its electricity from low carbon sources by 

2010 and 15 percent by 2020. China’s total wind energy capacity 

doubled in each of the past 4 years. This year, it will surpass the 

U.S. as the largest installer of new wind capacity. 

China is the world’s largest supplier of solar panels, accounting 

for 40 percent of the world’s market share. Of the top 10 solar companies by output, 3 are Chinese while just 1 is American. 
57 

Third, China has new industrial zones dedicated to the manufacture of low carbon technologies. For instance, the city of Baoding, 

a hub for development, is an emerging leader. When I visited 

Baoding last December, I was amazed to see factory after factory 

of wind and solar component manufacturers. There are now over 

150 wind and solar and other low carbon companies accounting for 

12 percent of Baoding’s GDP in 2007, and this percentage will be 

up to 40 percent by 2015. Baoding is not just an isolated example. 

Together with Tianjin and Jiangsu, these economic hubs are the future of China’s low carbon economy. 

The United States won the race to the Moon. But we are losing 

the race for a sustainable Earth. As The Post said this morning 

said, we are not only behind China, but also Korea, and in some 

respects even India, which recently set the world’s most ambitious 

solar energy target of 20 gigawatts by 2020. 

Opponents of clean energy policies often cite costs. This confuses 

cost with investment. When temperatures rise, when increased 

droughts and floods wreak havoc to our food systems and when our 

rivers run dry, these are the true costs of inaction. When we spend 

money fostering innovation in clean technologies, developing the 

talents of a work force, these are investments that will have returns many times over and truly enhance our economic competitiveness. 

The House Energy Bill provides a historic opportunity to turn 

the corner and regain global economic leadership. It sets clear electricity and efficiency standards that will spur new investments 

while saving consumers money. It proposes an independent clean 

energy deployment administration, or Green Bank, an idea that the 

Center for American Progress helped shape, to finance emerging 

clean energy technologies. 

The bill also provides funds to help U.S. manufacturers retool 

plants, retrain workers to produce the components of a clean energy economy. Jobs installing and operating new technologies will 

stay within the United States and cannot be outsourced. The bill 

puts a price on carbon pollution so that the energy investments are 

more attractive. 

To conclude, President Obama has said the Nation that leads the 

world in creating a new clean energy economy will be the Nation 

that leads the 21st century global economy. Americans look to the 

Senate to seize the clean energy economic opportunity and reestablish our leadership. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wong follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Our last speaker is Harry Alford, President of the National Black 

Chamber of Commerce. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HARRY C. ALFORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The National Black Chamber of Commerce was incorporated in 

May 1993 for the purpose of developing economic policy for AfricanAmerican communities. 

We have been looking at energy policy since 1996. And in 1999 

we took a delegation to Brazil, where the country of Brazil gave us 

a very formal presentation on their energy policy. Envious, intimidated and quite impressed, we came back to the United States to 

help the United States develop an energy policy. So far, we have 

failed. We have no energy policy. 

I come to you, not as an economist, but with a deep understanding of small and minority-owned businesses and as someone 

who has experience with consumer behavior. 

Climate change is a vital issue that must be addressed. It will 

take time and cost real money to mitigate humanity’s influence on 

climate. But any legislation must take into account the costs that 

will be shouldered by small and minority-owned businesses. 

Unfortunately, the current legislation from the House of Representatives will negatively impact the most vulnerable. It does not 

do what it is supposed to do. I learned a long time ago to beware 

of any document that has more authors than readers. 

The costs associated with the House bill are not readily understood. Let me quote from our study with Charles River Associates. 

Businesses and consumers will face higher energy and transportation costs that could lead to increased costs of other goods and 

services throughout the economy. 

Household disposable income and household consumption would 

fall. Purchasing power would decline by $730 in 2015 and $940 in 

2050, adjusted against 2010 base income levels. 

Wages and returns on investments would fall, lowering productivity growth and reducing employment opportunities. Wages 

would be $170 a year less by 2015, $390 a year less by 2030, and 

$960 less by 2050. 

Green jobs, whatever they are, gained would be swamped by jobs 

lost in old industries and businesses, leading to a net loss of 2.5 

million jobs. 

These impacts would adversely affect some groups more than 

others. They will also put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage, vis-a`-vis the Chinas and the Indias of the world who will open 

factories and businesses that we cannot afford to build here. 

And what about the emissions permits that we would give away? 

Are we really contemplating handing the reins of our economy over 

to Wall Street emission traders who will deal in politically generated emissions permits and foreign offsets? 

The bottom line is this: any climate legislation that fails to 

meaningfully reduce the human impact on the climate or does so 

in an economically unsustainable manner cannot be effective. 

While consumers may not have much choice but to pay the higher 
75 

costs that will be passed on to them if the current legislation becomes law, the actions they would take to deal with those costs 

would affect us all. 

I urge the Senate to take a different path, one that marries our 

need to address climate change with our economic realities. I am 

not an expert, but I have to believe that there are better options 

than the one currently on the table. 

We not only need to get the politics right when it comes to climate change, we need to get the economics right. If we do not, we 

will not truly get to where we want to be on the climate front, the 

economic front or any other front. 

We, the United States, the No. 1 power among nations, are 

threatened because we cannot get ourselves together to formulate 

a viable energy policy. And there are examples out there from other 

countries. 

Madam Chair, I am through. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alford follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. We are going to start 7-minute 

rounds. 

I just want to say, Mr. Alford, I want to share with you the Pew 

Charitable Trust study from California which shows that in this 

terrible economy, the only, as Senator Merkley has said about Oregon, the only area of growth in jobs, the only one, has been clean 

energy. And Mr. Doerr knows this because he has been following 

a very tough time right now in our State, tough, tough, tough. And 

the only bright light for job creation has been that. 

Also, what I want to encourage you to do, I understand that the 

Black Chamber of Commerce hired Charles River Associates to do 

their study. I would love you to see who did hire them to do the 

study. 

Mr. ALFORD. We teamed with Charles River Associates. 

Senator BOXER. OK, then you and Charles River Associates did 

the study. I would like to suggest that you look at the other studies, and we will make them available, because you are clearly an 

outlier on that. You know, we actually have not had anyone that 

we know challenge the fact that in the Waxman-Markey bill, the 

poorest households actually come away with a surplus of $40 because of the rebates in the bill. 

So, we will share all of that with you in the hopes of opening up 

your mind to what we see, many of us here, not the minority side 

but the majority side, see as a major opportunity. 

The other thing I want to share with everyone here is one of the 

great things that we have on our side is that we heard these same 

arguments when we wrote the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, 

and we set up, in America, the first cap-and-trade system to combat acid rain. 

Let me tell you what the Chamber of Commerce said back then. 

Industry has estimated that the total cost, and they made this prediction as you are here, the total cost of the new Clean Air Act as 

high as $91 billion annually by the year 2005. The last cost estimate that we did on the bill, we are talking about the Clean Air 

Act Amendments, was around $50 billion a year once the major 

controls kick in. That was a statement by Mary Bernhard of the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

In reality, because we have had all of these years to look at it, 

here is what happened. Actual costs were only 4 percent of original 

industry estimates, one-quarter of what the Government estimated. 

The benefits of the program exceeded the costs 40 to 1, resulting 

in more than $70 billion in human health benefits. 

Now, I have been around for a while, and I started in local government way back before, just as the environmental movement 

started. And every argument was always about when you go after 

pollution, you are going to hurt the economy. At the end of the day, 

many, many jobs have been created and actually, if you look at the 

ratio, whenever we pass a well thought out piece of legislation, a 

landmark piece of legislation if you will, we see jobs grow. 

The basic fact is, if you cannot breathe, you cannot work. The 

fact is, when you talk about global warming and you look at even 

George Bush’s administration’s predictions of high tides and more 

hurricanes and all the rest, it is really hard to get to work in a hurricane. 
177 

We need to stop the ravages of global warming, and as we do 

that, create the kinds of jobs about which Mr. Doerr, Mr. Krenicki 

and Mr. Wong have so ably testified. 

I will say that the Congressional Record is littered with gloomers 

and doomers. And we have got some great ones here. Gloomers and 

doomers. And if you go back to their predecessors, you will see the 

same exact thing, every time we have passed a landmark law. 

And as we get deeper into this debate, I will be putting all of 

those in the record because the beauty of it is many years have 

passed. So, we can see who was wrong and who was right, the 

gloomers and doomers or the optimists that said when we do this, 

we will create jobs. 

Now, I would like to ask Mr. Doerr this question. If we say, do 

not do anything because China is not doing exactly what we are 

doing, it seems to me we hurt ourselves. It seems to me that we 

are essentially saying that China should lead the world. It really 

bothers me to think that people would sit and here and say China 

should lead the world. 

Do you agree that, if we do not do anything, the winner will be 

countries like China and the losers will be countries like America 

who sit back and say, we will just wait and see what they do? 

Could you comment on that? 

Mr. DOERR. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you. I would like to comment with two points. 

I want to go from China to Denmark for a moment, because before the rest of the world did anything, Denmark put in place 

standards, as well as policies, caps and incentives around carbon. 

They started that in 1970, and it has made a huge difference. 

Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come 

from Denmark. 

Denmark’s energy technology exports last year were $10 billion. 

They are No. 1 in wind. And that is from a country that is smaller 

than Missouri or Tennessee or Michigan. It has resulted in jobs. 

Unemployment in Denmark was 2 percent last year. And they 

moved before anyone in the rest of the world moved. 

Now my second point goes directly to China. I believe that you 

can, we can, carefully design these policies to bring in other nations. And we can look at Copenhagen as an opportunity to create 

really worldwide markets with worldwide momentum for a low carbon future, in exactly the same way that the Internet created 

worldwide markets and worldwide momentum for information technology. 

I have heard, and some people say, that we should not move 

ahead unless China moves. Well, I want you to know that China 

is moving full speed ahead right now, with or without us. 

Senator BOXER. Any comments from the rest of the panel on that 

question about China? Mr. Krenicki. 

Mr. KRENICKI. The only thing I would add is that as we look at 

the market for power generation equipment for the next 3 years, 

India will be twice as large as the United States, and China will 

be 5 to 6 times as large. So, given a scale business, we need to act 

very quickly and decisively just because they have such greater 

growth going forward is another dynamic we have to phase into. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, Mr. Alford, and then Mr. Wong. 
178 

Mr. ALFORD. I do not believe that there is any argument that we 

should be doing more and we should be aggressive in pursuing answers. I certainly think we should compete with China and India 

and other countries. I think that is what we are saying. But we 

need to do it intelligently and need to do it without hurting ourselves. 

I am still trying to find out what a green job is, and I have asked 

the green job gurus from various sources to draw me pictures as 

to what a green job is. I have yet to understand it. It reminds me 

of the dot-com bubble. You know, everything is going to be seamless, and it is all virtual. There are no green jobs. And, for us to 

say, leave Detroit, go to Montana and get a wrench and work on 

a windmill, and that is going to be a green job, it is not going to 

happen. 

Senator BOXER. Well, sir, I would invite you to come to my home 

State. And I am sincere about this. 

Mr. ALFORD. I am a native Californian, madam. 

Senator BOXER. Well, then, let us go. 

Mr. ALFORD. I go all the time. 

Senator BOXER. Let us go to the Apollo Alliance. Come with me. 

I spent a whole week looking at young people getting trained. The 

last one was on Richmond, California, and we saw the training to 

put the solar rooftops on, to do the insulating, all of the energy efficiency. 

I am stunned that you would say what you say coming from my 

home State, given the fact that the small business, and this is important, the California Small Business Association says California 

small businesses’ competitive edge over their counterparts is because while they are wasting money on inefficiency, we are spending it on employees building a better product because they are 

making their offices efficient. 

I also would be kind of shocked that you would dismiss the computer revolution as you did. 

But the last word on this, Mr. Wong. 

Mr. WONG. Yes, thank you. 

Well, just to follow up on Mr. Doerr’s point. Yes, China is exactly 

moving ahead, whether we like it or not and whether we move ourselves. I think it is really important to separate the rhetoric and 

politicized nature of the international climate process from what is 

actually happening on the ground in China. They are two very different things, and you cannot mix the two. 

What I described earlier in my testimony about what is happening in China is happening today. These are not pie in the sky 

goals or statements. These are real wind farms and real solar 

farms that are being deployed and manufactured today. 

To Mr. Alford’s point, I would like to refer you to a report that 

the University of Massachusetts did in conjunction with the Center 

for American Progress that looked at a State by State level, and 

also a clean energy sector by sector and almost component by component level, about where these green jobs are being created. 

The conclusion of the report is that 1.7 million new net jobs, that 

is net, will be created with appropriate and proper investments in 

the clean energy sector. 
179 

Mr. ALFORD. May I respond to that since my name was called, 

Madam Chairman? 

Senator BOXER. Well—— 

Senator INHOFE. I will give you a chance. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe will give you a chance to respond. 

Since I have gone over time, I am going to give you an extra couple 

of minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. Three minutes, yes. 

Senator BOXER. Three minutes minus several seconds because I 

did not go all the way. 

Senator INHOFE. Minus 3 seconds, that is right. 

Well, there is just too much to respond to here, and I think everyone kind of feels the same thing. Let me just mention a couple 

of things. 

Where is that statement from the, yes, I will just read this here. 

A recent study by economists from California State University 

found that small businesses would be destroyed by California’s 

global warming regulation. Now, they are talking about what they 

have already adopted there in California. 

The professor found that the State would face an annual loss of $183 billion in gross output from the small business sector, or a 10 

percent drop in total State output. And it goes on and on. I wanted 

to get that statement into the record because I think that is significant. 

The next thing that I would like to get in, there is all this talk 

about the wonderful things that China is going to do, out of the 

goodness of their heart, and that sounds good. But let us keep in 

mind that, if they are doing anything now, as you claim they are, 

both Mr. Wong and Mr. Doerr, they are doing it without caps, without a cap-and-trade. 

Now, I would like to read, because it needs to be in the record 

at this point since we are talking about China, their statement of 

position in the post-Kyoto Treaty that will be discussed in Copenhagen, and that is that the right to develop is a basic human right, 

and it is undeprivable. Economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing 

countries. That does not surprise us. The right of developing countries shall be adequately and effectively respected and ensured in 

the process of global common efforts. 

They go on to say, and I do not know how else you can interpret 

it, that the Chinese and other developing countries collectively 

argue that the price for reducing their emissions, in other words, 

what they demand to get for this, is 1 percent of the GDP of the 

United States and of all developed countries. Now, I have done a 

calculation, and we are talking about something in excess of $200 

billion a year. And I do not think that is really sellable to the 

American people. 

Let me do this. I do not want to be discourteous, let me just compliment you. I would say to Mr. Krenicki, I was 25 years in the corporate world. I know how it works. I have served on boards of directors. 

If I served on the Board of Directors of GE, instead of being in 

the U.S. Senate, I would be here today testifying as you are testifying, because you guys are going to make a fortune off this thing, 
180 

if it comes. You have been in on the negotiations, and it is very 

clear. And that is not just me saying it. I just want to get into the 

record, Madam Chairman, that the CEO of GE stated in his shareholders meeting that the current events present an opportunity of 

a lifetime because capitalism will be reset. 

It goes on to say, well, here is another one. This is Mr. Steve Sargent. He was head of your operations in Australia and New Zealand. He says that for us, we look at this, climate change, as the 

biggest business opportunity of the century for your company. 

Now, I know the response would be, and I will let you respond 

for the record because we are under time constraints here, but you 

stand to make a lot of money, and if I were on your Board of Directors, I would be encouraging you to do exactly what you are doing 

today. 

I want to turn to Mr. Alford because I appreciate your being 

here. You have been once before, and I wonder sometimes, I expected you to have in your written statement a little more attention to the regressive nature of the tax that we are talking about 

passing here, in terms of a percentage of expendable income, I 

would have to say, looking after the Black Chamber of Commerce, 

lower income level in many cases, is it not true that a larger percentage of expandable income would come from the poor people 

with this kind, any kind, of an energy tax? 

Mr. ALFORD. Without a doubt. Sixty percent of black households earn less than $50,000 a year—— 

Senator INHOFE. They have to heat their homes, use the fuel to 

get to their jobs—— 

Mr. ALFORD. We are not talking about spending too much energy 

or being wasteful. We are talking about keeping your kids warm, 

or cooking dinner, or getting to work. Going back to these jobs, I 

have got 18 chapters in California, and I want them to go and find 

these green jobs. I want these green jobs in their face. I want them 

to see these green jobs, including Richmond and Oakland and San 

Francisco and others. I want to go out there personally and see 

these green jobs. I have been looking. I have not seen them yet. 

Senator INHOFE. I assume that you agree with the statement of 

the professor from California State University that questions the 

jobs and the net loss that they are already experiencing from just 

what California has done on its own. 

Mr. ALFORD. The last time I checked, Senator, California is an 

economic basket case, and these green jobs are not going to solve 

it. 

As we do know today, we need to find a green solution, true. We 

need an energy policy. And this law, as it is written, is not a policy, 

it cannot compete with Brazil and other countries, it overlooks, or 

underlooks, nuclear energy and other phases. 

We need to look at this thing intelligently. I do not think we 

need to argue. But I think if we go down this path, it is going to 

be bad. And African-Americans are going to pay, and Hispanics, 

are going to pay a disproportionate share. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I would say that just looking at energy 

policy that, I think I could speak for myself and everyone to my 

right at this podium, we have an energy proposal, a policy, and it 

is called all of the above. We want green jobs. We want wind. We 
181 

want geothermal. We want solar energy. But we also want oil and 

gas. We have all of these opportunities right now. We could become 

energy sufficient in a matter of 1 year if were to open up the opportunities and exploit our own resources in this country. 

We need clean coal technology. We cannot do it without coal. 

Right now, we are 50 percent dependent on coal. And we are working on clean coal technology. We have got to have, of course you 

are going to hear a lot about this, you have to have the nuclear aspect of this thing. 

But before my time runs out, I want to get into one other thing. 

We had a quite a week last week because we had the EPA Administrator. I just applaud her for her honesty in response to the question that I asked. And that question was, if we were to pass the 

bill that was passed in the House, the Waxman-Markey bill, would 

that have a net reduction in CO2 emissions? She thought, and she 

said, no, it would not. 

Now, I have seen studies that show that it would have the opposite effect. You drive our manufacturing jobs overseas, they are 

going to go where they do not have the emissions standards that 

we have in this country, and the regulations, and those other 

things. 

So, I think last Tuesday, the EPA Administrator confirmed that 

the cap-and-trade tax bill, whether it is Waxman-Markey or Warner-Lieberman or McCain-Lieberman or any of the rest of them, or 

any of the new iterations of that, is no longer about solving global 

warming. 

The following day, the G8 announced, and I read some of the reports there, they vehemently deny any interest, and I am talking 

about developing countries, in doing this. If they do not do it, we 

are going to have a net increase. 

So, I guess this is now a jobs bill and that is what this is all 

about now. And I would like you, because I read your study that 

you had, is there anything that you did not have time to talk about 

in terms of this study and how it affects the jobs? 

Mr. ALFORD. It is going to affect the jobs immensely. I think we 

are being very conservative when we say a 2.5 million net loss. We 

are going to come out with some other studies that are going to 

zero in on the city of Chicago, or the State of Michigan, to be more 

specific, and also to hit home on African-American communities. 

But I think, getting back to the loss, if Brazil does not import 

a drop of oil in the next 15 years, they are going to be OK. They 

have got the reserves because they have got a strategy. Petrobras 

has a strategy for that. We do not have a strategy. If the sheiks 

wake up tomorrow morning mad at us, we are in trouble. 

Senator INHOFE. Or Chavez. But at least you are aware that 

there is a strategy that we have been trying desperately, I know 

a day does not go by that one of us is not down on the floor saying 

what I just said a minute ago about how we can be energy independent. 

Last, since I am running out of time, and I assume that you have 

a Board of Directors that meets and talks about these issues—— 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. I want you to take back a question to that 

Board of Directors and then, for the record, send me back the an-
182 

swer. That would be, and I think you are aware that, in order to 

reduce costs to our manufacturing sector from the provisions of this 

so-called jobs bill, and other sectors, the bill authorizes, now listen 

to this, Mr. Alford, the bill authorizes an international offsets program that allows our industries covered under the cap, including 

the manufacturing and refinery and other energy intensive industries, to indirectly pay for offset projects that originate in China, 

India or Malaysia. 

The question I want you to take back is, do you think that helps 

to create more American jobs or Chinese jobs? 

Mr. ALFORD. We have a board meeting next Wednesday at 4 p.m. 

I see some of our board members saying, I see some of our board 

members doing, taking their business to China and Singapore and 

places for opportunities and leaving the United States. No, I think 

it is going to have net loss and ill effect on the United States. 

We talk about China, Brazil and India. These are countries that 

we have not built out yet. But there is another 20 or 25 percent 

of this world that does not even have access to energy, and when 

they decide to have roads and running water and electricity, that 

is another impact that is going to be a strain on this world. And 

we need to take all that into effect. 

Senator INHOFE. One last thing, Mr. Alford. I will not be able to 

respond to it because it has not been said yet, but I suspect that 

when it is someone else’s turn to ask questions, they are going to 

comment on the NAACP. I have a copy of the resolution that was 

passed and nowhere in that resolution do they endorse in any way 

any type of a cap-and-trade bill. And I think you are aware of that. 

So, anticipate that question will come up. I hope that you will have 

an answer ready. 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOXER. Since Senator went over 1 minute and 20 seconds, I will add that to my time. 

Senator INHOFE. One minute 13 seconds. 

Senator BOXER. So, here is the thing. I am going to place in the 

record of a couple of important documents. Mr. Alford, we have 

your address as Washington, DC—— 

Mr. ALFORD. That is correct, madam. 

Senator BOXER. You live in Washington, DC, or California? 

Mr. ALFORD. Personally? I live in Bethesda, Maryland. 

Senator BOXER. OK, because you said you were from California. 

Mr. ALFORD. I am a native Californian, born and raised. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, but right now—— 

Mr. ALFORD. I was there when you came. 

Senator BOXER. You do not know when I came. 

Mr. ALFORD. It was 1962. 

Senator BOXER. Actually, you are right on target. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ALFORD. It is all in the manual, Madam. 

Senator BOXER. Actually, it was 1965. 

Here is what I want to tell you. You do not live there now—— 

Mr. ALFORD. I am a property owner and I pay taxes in California. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, let me talk to you. 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, madam. 
183 

Senator BOXER. This is friendly. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I want us to go back there together. I want you 

to come with me and John, and let us go see those jobs that you 

say do not exist. So, we are going to—— 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, madam. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Put in the record the Pew Charitable 

Trust report which says, and I am reading one sentence, jobs in the 

clean energy economy grew at a faster rate than total jobs in the 

Golden State between 1998 and 2007. And it talks about all of that, 

and being driven by venture capital and the laws on the books. So, 

we are going to put that in the record. 

Then we are going to put the NAACP resolution that passed, saying this: the NAACP approved a historic resolution addressing climate change legislation for the first time in the organization’s history. 

Mr. ALFORD. What does that mean? 

Senator BOXER. Sir, we are going to put that in the record, and 

you can read it because I do not have the time but I will—— 

Mr. ALFORD. But what does that mean though? I mean, NAACP 

has a resolution. What does that mean? 

Senator BOXER. Sir, they could say the same thing about what 

do you mean? I am just telling you—— 

Mr. ALFORD. I have got documentation. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, they passed it. Now, also, if that is not interesting to you, we will quote John Grant who is the CEO of 100 

Black Men of Atlanta. ‘‘Clean energy is the key that will unlock 

millions of jobs and the NAACP support is vital to ensuring that 

those jobs help to rebuild urban areas.’’ So, clearly, there is a diversity—— 

Mr. ALFORD. Madam Chair, that is condescending to me. I am 

the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you are trying to 

put up some other black group to pit against me. 

Senator BOXER. If this gentleman were here, he would be proud 

that he was being quoted, just—— 

Mr. ALFORD. Then he should have been invited. 

Senator BOXER. He would be proud just—— 

Mr. ALFORD. It is condescending to me. 

Senator BOXER. Just so you know, he would be proud that you 

are here. He is proud, I am sure, that I am quoting him—— 

Mr. ALFORD. Proud. Proud. All that is condescending, and I do 

not like it—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, sir—— 

Mr. ALFORD. It is racial. I do not like it. 

Senator BOXER. Excuse me, sir. 

Mr. ALFORD. I take offense to it. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. ALFORD. As an African-American, and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that. 

Senator BOXER. Offense at the fact that I would quote—— 

Mr. ALFORD. You are quoting some other black man. Why do you 

not quote some other Caucasian or some other—— 

Senator BOXER. No, well let me—— 

Mr. ALFORD. You are being racial here. 
184 

Senator BOXER. Let me be clear—— 

Mr. ALFORD. And I think you are getting on a path here that is 

going to explode in the Post. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to respond right now. I am going to 

ask everyone to listen to what I said. 

First, I placed in the record the Pew Charitable Trust study, a 

very important study for our State, our home State of California. 

Then I wanted to make a point that the fact is, there is definitely 

differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my 

community. 

Mr. ALFORD. You are speaking on behalf of the black community? 

Senator BOXER. No, I am putting in the record a statement by 

the NAACP. 

Mr. ALFORD. Why? 

Senator BOXER. Because I think it is quite relevant. I think—— 

Mr. ALFORD. I understand the Pew study. But why are you doing 

the NAACP? Why are you doing the Colored People Association’s 

study with the Black Chamber of Commerce? 

Senator BOXER. I am trying to show the diversity of support—— 

Mr. ALFORD. Diversity? 

Senator BOXER. And I will go ahead and do one more diversity 

of support. The oil companies. The oil companies. I think they are 

an important part of this conversation. The oil companies are the 

ones who funded the very first CRA report that you support. I 

think it is important to note—— 

Mr. ALFORD. I have no idea of it. 

Senator BOXER. I am putting it in the record, sir. Exxon Mobile 

gave hundreds of thousands of dollars for that report. So, I think 

it is important, when we have a debate here, that we look at the 

diversity of opinion and who agrees and disagrees—— 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman, I have something to put in 

the record. 

Senator BOXER. And that is what I have decided to do. 

Senator INHOFE. I have something to put in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. I think if you are going to enter the NAACP 

paper in the record, I want to enter the actual resolution—— 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. Because it does not endorse this. And I would 

also say that CRA is well-respected, it represents a broad group of, 

whoever goes to them and wants a study, they do it. 

Mr. ALFORD. Senator, as I said, we have been looking at energy 

policy since 1996. We are referring to the experts, regardless of 

their color. And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army, that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in 

here, this has nothing to do with the NAACP and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We are 

talking energy. And that, that road the Chair went down, I think 

it is God awful. 

Senator BOXER. OK, let me say, as someone who is married to 

a veteran, that has nothing to do with this conversation. I just 

want to say to you, sir, and all of my panelists, how much I respect 

your views. I will put a number of other documents into the record 
185 

from many other organizations because right now the whole point 

is to build support. I am trying to build support. Your organization 

opposes. I am showing you organizations that support. And I will 

continue to do this. And they are diverse. They represent America, 

just as the opposition does. And that is what I will continue to do. 

Now we will move forward, and we will hear from Senator Carper. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

I have a question. I want to ask Mr. Doerr and Mr. Krenicki to 

talk to us a little about the green jobs that you are creating, and 

seeing created. 

But before I call on you to do that, let me just note that, on the 

issue of whether or not global warming legislation, cap-and-trade 

legislation, cap-and-trade regime, would somehow disproportionately impact minority families, or low income families for that 

manner, I believe that in the legislation that the House has sent, 

it is not a perfect bill, I am not here to say it is a perfect bill, and 

there are ways that we can improve it, and hopefully we will get 

some good ideas from the four of you today as we will from others, 

but I believe they have tried to address the concerns that low income families would bear a disproportionate burden here. 

I believe that they have crafted the legislation so that the lowest 

20 percent income families would basically get a pass in terms of 

any increase in their energy costs because of this legislation. For 

those who are not covered, who are not among the lowest quintile, 

the lowest 20 percent, I am told the CBO, which is not a Democrat, 

not a Republican, but is non-partisan, in looking at the legislation, 

they have estimated that the impact on the average American family for the legislation on the utility bills would be about $170 a 

year. That is about, it works out to about, $1 or $1.20 per day. It 

may be not even that much, it may be half that much. 

Congressman Rick Boucher, who comes from the coal part of Virginia, told us earlier this week it is about the cost of a postage 

stamp for most families. That is not a huge burden, even on folks 

who might be in the lowest 20 percent, but certainly not for those 

of use who might be more fortunate. 

Let me just hear from our first two witnesses. Talk to us a little 

bit about some of the green jobs that you have been involved in creating, and others. I was with the DuPont Company about a week 

ago. They are working on a very thin film that will be used on their 

solar operations, a permeable film that is about one-three-thousandths the thickness of a hair. 

Part of what they hope to be able to do with that is to enable 

us to create power generation capabilities, solar power generation 

capabilities, for our soldiers. Instead of carrying around these battery packs that weigh 30 or 40 pounds, they will carry around 

something that weighs a couple of pounds. 

We are going to be building a DuPont windmill farm off the coast 

of Delaware, the first in the Nation, about 3 years from now, providing about 20 percent of our energy needs in the DelMarVa Peninsula. We hope to actually build a steel mill in Northern Delaware that will actually build the windmills, the foundations for the 

windmills, and provide a lot of jobs for that. 

The DuPont Company out in Tennessee, they started working 

with the energy research grant for DuPont with energy several 

years ago on the idea of how do we use biofuels, how do we use 

corncobs, cornstalks, and so forth, to actually create a more energy 

efficient biofuel, and that, we think if it will take off, it will be a 

big deal for not just for DuPont but for our country. 
202 

So, those are just a couple of the ideas that I have seen in the 

last week in my own little State. Let me ask Mr. Doerr and Mr. 

Krenicki for some of your examples. 

Mr. DOERR. Thank you, Senator. I will take your question in 

three parts: jobs, costs and then innovations. 

On the job costs, Ranking Member Inhofe, in California, the global warming bill has not yet been started. We have not pressed the 

start button. The surveys I saw, I was involved in working on this 

legislation, showed that it would generate 84,000 net new jobs in 

California and almost $100 billion a year in additional income. And 

of course we have not seen it yet because we have not pushed the 

start button on that important legislation. 

I said besides jobs, I would speak to costs. Senator Carper, you 

are exactly right. And by the way, I have read all of these cost 

studies. We could get into dueling modeling wars until the sun 

sets, but I want to say very clearly about the CBO study of Waxman-Markey, which is respected, that for the lowest income quintile—— 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman, since our witness mentioned 

my name, I want to at least respond. 

Senator CARPER. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I was very patient, 

listening to others talk. I want to have him respond to my questions. I am a very patient guy but, damn it, I want to be given the 

respect that I gave you. 

Senator INHOFE. You are implying that the study, it was a study 

that was made by California State University, not studying what 

is already happening. 

Senator BOXER. Let me talk. 

Senator INHOFE. I will submit this for the record. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to add just 60 seconds, Senator Carper, because you could lose your train of thought by being interrupted. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. Interruption is not appropriate, regardless of 

who is interrupting whom. So, Senator Carper, please continue. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. I ask our witness to proceed. 

Mr. DOERR. Senator Carper, to your point, the CBO study showed that, in fact, there would be a net benefit of $40 per year 

per household by 2020 of the Waxman-Markey legislation. 

What I want to say about all of these modeling studies, to everyone here in the room, and I read them all, is none of them, not any 

of them, factor in any kind of innovation. They assume that Americans do not invent, or that costs get lower as we saw with the sulfuric rain emissions legislation. 

So, I see entrepreneurs today working on technologies that will 

lower the costs by 90 percent of separating the CO2 from coal to 

make carbon capture and sequestration economic. I see entrepreneurs today working on these third generation solar films, so 

that we can have solar across the country, not just in sunny Nevada, that is equivalent to the grid prices. 

I have seen entrepreneurs who are working to take CO2 and instead of burying it under the ground, turning it into valuable products, building products like asphalt for roads. All of this innovation 
203 

is possible. But it is not enough, and we do not have strong domestic markets, to encourage its development without this legislation. 

So, whether it is on the point of view of the costs and its effect 

on the lowest incomes in our country, from the point of view of the 

jobs, or the possibility of innovation, we need to put a price on carbon and a cap on carbon emissions or, as Mr. Krenicki said, we will 

not develop the large domestic markets that will give us a chance 

to lead. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Krenicki. 

Mr. KRENICKI. Senator, GE Energy employs approximately 

65,000 employees. Seventy percent of our revenues come from outside of the United States. So, we are an export-oriented American 

business. I will give you just a couple of quick examples. 

Greenville, South Carolina, is one of our large manufacturing 

sites. We make heavy duty gas turbines. But it is also our second 

largest wind turbine site. We entered the wind turbine business 7 

years ago. We brought Enron’s wind turbine business out of bankruptcy. Today, we are vying for No. 1 worldwide in wind and have 

created several thousand direct jobs on the GE payroll as well as 

indirect jobs based on our purchases of raw materials in the United 

States, including things like transportation. Our transportation bill 

alone in wind turbines is over $700 million a year. So, you can see 

what we feed into the economy building up that business. 

But it is not just wind. In Greenville, South Carolina, we are 

manufacturing heavy duty gas turbines that will supply the largest 

combined water and power plant in the world in Saudi Arabia, 10 

percent of the electricity and 20 percent of the water for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

We are also building, with our customer Duke Energy and Bechtel, the world’s largest coal gasification plant in Indiana, which is 

employing many thousands of construction jobs on sites. So, there 

are many ways to turn some of these older sites and give them new 

purposes going forward. 

In Schenectady, New York, where we started GE, Thomas Edison 

started GE over 100 years ago, we are building and will be dedicating the largest wind technology center in the world, which will 

employ 500 engineers this year. 

So, we are creating new jobs, and a lot of it is driven based on 

activity outside of the United States, and we would like to make 

sure that we are participating in the U.S. market as well. 

Senator CARPER. A number of us on this panel, certainly my colleague Lamar Alexander and I, are strong advocates of nuclear energy. We have about 104 power plants that currently create nuclear energy. We have got 17 applications to build 26 new nuclear 

power plants. I understand GE is still in the nuclear business. As 

far as I am concerned, that is an area that we want to continue 

to develop. Do you want to comment on that for us, please? 

Mr. KRENICKI. I totally agree with Senator Alexander that nuclear has to be part of the mix in the United States. It also requires 

very strong clear policy. The 2005 Energy Policy Act was 4 years 

ago, and we still are not moving forward aggressively on nuclear. 

It needs more support, more certainty. 
204 

It also is critical that we are competing on a global scale. We are 

chasing projects in the Middle East today, where we compete 

against sovereign companies. We need strong signals from an energy security standpoint, from technology, climate change, but also 

to be active in the proliferation discussions going forward. We need 

a healthy, vibrant civilian nuclear industry. So, I agree with Senator Alexander that nuclear has to be a big part of the solution as 

well. 

Senator CARPER. So, what I think I hear you saying is that if we 

are interested in meeting our energy needs, nuclear has got to be 

part of it, wind has to be part of it, solar has to be part of this, 

clean coal has to be part of this, and conservation. 

No one has really talked about conservation. We just bought a 

new refrigerator. I have told my colleagues about it. It reminds me 

of our new air conditioner that we bought about a year ago. It cuts 

our electricity almost in half by virtue of both of those. 

One of my friends likes to say that the cleanest, most affordable 

form of energy is the energy that we never use. And I do not want 

us to forget about conservation. Mr. Wong, you were trying to say 

something. I have about 50 seconds. Please. 

Mr. WONG. Just a comment on nuclear energy. You know, this 

cap-and-trade aspect of the energy bill that we are considering, it 

does not pick technology winners. In fact, if it is true that nuclear 

is going to be the solution, or part of the solution, and science bears 

this out and the costs bear it out, then putting a price on carbon 

is going to benefit nuclear. It is going to be good for nuclear. 

That being said, I think it is important to be cautious about nuclear for two reasons: costs and water. Studies have shown that the 

costs of nuclear, of just putting up one plant, is going to be anywhere between $8 billion and $10 billion. So, to build 100 nuclear 

plants, that is going to cost $1 trillion. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Wong, my time has expired. Let me just 

say thank you. 

Thank you for the extra minute, Madam Chair. This has been a 

good exchange. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator Carper earlier asked why he was the only one quoting 

Einstein. Well, my crack staff got me this quote from Einstein: 

When one considers the difficulty of predicting the outcome of a 

complex system, one need only think of the weather, in which case 

the prediction, even for a few days ahead, is impossible. So, as we 

are here discussing and debating these kinds of issues, I will kind 

of get back to Einstein. 

Mr. Alford, I appreciate your being here today. In your written 

testimony, you talked about green jobs gain would be swamped by 

jobs lost in old industries and businesses, leading to a net loss, I 

think you said, of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs. You went on to 

say that the impact would differ across regions, across industries 

and across income levels. 

I wonder if you would just take a little bit of time to elaborate 

further on what regions of the country you think might lose some 
205 

of these jobs, where that would be the greatest, and if you think 

small businesses would be disproportionately affected. 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, I think it was Senator Bond who had a map, 

a chart, up there that identified various States. If you look at the 

geography, the demographics of black population of the United 

States, the worst hit areas happen to be these areas, such as Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. Then you look at the renewable energy 

standards. Yes, that map there. Those darker colors are probably 

the most populated, the biggest black populations in the United 

States. You have Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and such. 

Those are going to be affected. 

Is there going to be a mass migration? Is this going to be the 

Grapes of Wrath where you leave Detroit and Cleveland and head 

out to Idaho where the green jobs are and start over again? I do 

not think so. What is going to happen to those families? What is 

going to happen to those children, what is going to happen to their 

futures? 

I think we need to look at this, take a hard look, and come up 

with a strategy. As we do make a better world, a cleaner world, I 

think we also should make a world that has opportunity for all of 

us. 

Senator BARRASSO. In looking through the report by your Chamber, one of the quotes was, the judgment about what action to take 

cannot be made simply on the grounds that a cap-and-trade program will create additional jobs and stimulate economic growth. It 

will not, you say, but on whether the benefits are worth the cost. 

That is where I spend a lot of time, on the benefits as well as 

the costs. Are the benefits of this bill worth the cost to you and also 

to the small business community and the American economy? 

Mr. ALFORD. What are the benefits? The U.S. would produce less 

carbon than we are today, but what is the benefit worldwide? What 

does that do to Los Angeles County Basin, where I used to play 

football and used to have to cough during a football game immensely because of the smut coming across the Pacific Ocean, not 

because of what Los Angeles was doing, but because of what was 

coming from elsewhere, from the other parts of the world? 

So, what is the benefit? If China, and frankly, if I were China, 

if I were India, yes, I am going to build out, and I will deal with 

the United States on the top of the mountain, not while I am 

climbing the mountain, but when I get to the top of the mountain. 

I understand that philosophy. 

We need to come up with a solution that is going to be a winwin for everyone. But the benefits do not meet the costs, especially 

for urban communities. And let me speak for the African-American 

community since I am African-American. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Alford. 

Mr. Krenicki, I am impressed with the commitment to try to 

keep cleaner sources of energy. I have been saying we want to 

make energy as clean as we can as fast as we can without raising 

the costs to American families. 

You have a project going on right now in Wyoming to use coal, 

which is an affordable, available, reliable and secure source of energy, but do it in a cleaner way. I was wondering if you could give 

us an update and talk about that a bit. 
206 

Mr. KRENICKI. Yes. We are working with the State and the University of Wyoming to develop advanced technology for Powder 

River Basin coal and also carbon capture and sequestration. What 

the coal industry needs is a future and a future technology, a new 

branch of the tree. We think gasification with captured storage is 

the way to go. We can create a synthetic natural gas. 

I think one idea, also in concert with what we are doing in Indiana with Duke, is we ought to build a half a dozen large scale demonstration projects in this country and get China to go along with 

us. I think if we did six, they would do six. And we can put in place 

a technology future for the next 100 years. 

So again, we appreciate the support from the State, and we are 

working very closely there. But it is a linchpin of our strategy of 

a diversified solution. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. 

And we will go to Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I saw in the news the other day that the Toyota automobile company has just filed its two-thousandth patent for its hybrid motor 

technology, which obviously represents an enormous store of intellectual property now protected by law. And that seems to be a pretty stark example of the advantages versus the disadvantaged of 

being the tailing versus the leading edge of technology. The intellectual property you gain at the front can have enormous future 

value. We do not seem to be adequately aware of that in this discussion. 

It comes home to me because on Aquidneck Island in the middle 

of Narragansett Bay we have just put up two enormous wind turbines. The people who live on Aquidneck Island are very proud of 

them. When they were being assembled and put up, crowds came 

to watch. People brought sandwiches to see it. I mean, it was sort 

of a community event. It was almost like a barn raising. So we are 

very, very proud of it. 

And for the folks who put them up, it is a good financial proposition. One of them estimates a 100 percent payback in 5 years, 

and after that a pure profit at about a quarter of a million dollars 

a year in electricity savings. So it is a good business proposition on 

that element of it. 

But one of them was manufactured by a Danish company. It was 

put up in Rhode Island, but the manufacturer was Danish. And the 

other one was manufactured by a Canadian company that had licensed Austrian technology, and the turbine was assembled in Austria, shipped over to Canada for further assembly, and then just 

the big pieces put together onsite. So, even our good stories have, 

right behind them, a story of lost competitiveness. 

I would like to ask you to go back to my earlier question, during 

the opening statements, about what the opportunity costs are. Because, as you have seen in this incredibly frustrating room, there 

is a very strong do nothing caucus in the Senate. Their emotion is 

fear, their goal is doubt, and their arguments are precisely aligned 

with the polluting industries and with big oil. But the premise of 

their arguments is that it is going to be just OK if we do nothing. 
207 

If you could comment on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. DOERR. Thank you, Senator. We need to look no further than 

the U.S. automobile industry to see what the consequences, the 

enormous consequences, are of doing nothing. Our policies sheltered the U.S. automobile manufacturers from meeting high standards for emissions, for fuel efficiency, every year, year after year, 

in defense of American jobs. The European and Japanese automobile manufacturers rose to high levels of efficiency and were certainly not put at a disadvantage as their nations enacted those 

standards. 

I am confused. The private sector is confused. And we are waiting. And honestly, we are also frustrated. If a large number of 

multi-national companies, if six to eight American utilities who 

reach into 35 States in our country, have all endorsed the Waxman-Markey bill, they are in favor of that specific piece of legislation, does that matter at all? Does that mean anything about 

America’s economic future and jobs? I think it should. 

Pacific Gas & Electric, National Semiconductor, eBay, Starbucks, 

the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the FPL Power Group, Siemanns, 

the Evangelical Lutheran, it goes on and on and on and on. There 

is not one of these organizations that does not care about jobs or 

does not care about America’s future. 

I submit that this should not be a partisan matter. This is about 

whether or not our country is going to be one of, I did not say the 

hands down, but just one of the worldwide winners in the next 

great global industry. 

The wind is free that you spoke about. Let me name the top five 

producers of wind in our country. No. 1 is Vestas. No. 2, GE. There 

is Gamessa, there is Intercon and there is Suzlon. Only one of the 

five is American. That is not acceptable. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Krenicki. 

Mr. KRENICKI. I agree with Mr. Doerr that these are highly competitive global industries. We compete against a multiple number 

of competitors in the United States, also in Europe and China. Let 

me give you an example. In the wind industry, we have 70 Chinese 

competitors that we compete against. So, the stakes are high, and 

it is tremendously competitive. 

But I think that one advantage of acting sooner rather than 

later, acting now, making a down payment on climate change, taking advantage of a softer environment when commodity prices are 

lower, we could install and change the energy mix of this country 

earlier and make a down payment on where we want to take this 

country going forward. Because that is what other countries are 

doing. 

China installs, per year, the equivalent capacity to the U.K. grid 

per year. And I can tell you, as a company that operates in China 

fairly effectively, they are moving forward on all fronts, on nuclear, 

on wind, on hydro, on biomass, because one of the key elements of 

their 5-year plan is self-sufficiency. They want to be energy independent. I think we can learn from them. And they will execute 

and follow through and get it done. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I just would like to conclude my time with 

the observation that I think we would do better if we had a common understanding of what our situation is. I see it as time sweep-
208 

ing us relentlessly into a point of change in which a decision has 

to be made. 

It is not enough to say, stop the world I want to get off, as the 

do nothing caucus would have us do, however beneficial that might 

be for the polluting industries that would like the status quo to 

continue. The status quo simply will not continue. That is not a 

live option. Even though, if we fail, certain industries might benefit, we have to take the view that we have to put in place the parameters for America to succeed as a Nation. 

In addition to the economic point of it, some of us, particularly 

me from a coastal State, I come from the Ocean State, our capital 

has been leveled by hurricanes. If the ocean level increase that is 

widely anticipated happens, we will lose whole towns to the encroachment of the sea. For our Ocean State, this is, in many respects, a life and death matter. 

And the notion that we can hear these alarm bells going off from 

very responsible sectors of the scientific community and not act, 

and not feel any urge to an appropriate precaution, seems to be 

completely at odds with the reality of this situation. 

I would suggest that many of my friends on the other side would 

be far more cautious in their own lives. I do not think there is one 

of them, if they woke up in the middle of the night in their home 

with their family and heard the smoke alarm going, would say, 

well, I have here a report from the Department of Firefighters Who 

Would Rather Stay in Bed which says that, you know, 9 percent 

of these are because of battery failure, so I am not going to check 

it out, I am not going to wake up the kids. Do not worry; we are 

just going to stay here in bed. 

It would be irresponsible. It would be reckless. It would be taking 

risks with an important trust, the health of their children. I do not 

know why it is that, in this room, we behave differently than we 

would in our own lives if we had a real appreciation of what the 

circumstances were. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and thanks 

again to the witnesses for coming. 

Senator Whitehouse got fired up there as far as his friends on 

the other side. Here is our policy. We have a low cost, rather than 

a high cost, clean energy policy. 

No. 1, all 40 of us want to build 100 new nuclear power plants 

in 40 years. That is 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity today, 

and it would double it to 40 percent of our total electricity. 

No. 2, we would like to electrify our cars and trucks for conservation. I believe, personally, that we can electrify half of them in 20 

years without building one new power plant if we plug them in at 

night. 

No. 3, we would explore offshore for natural gas, which is low 

carbon, and oil. We need to use more of our own. And No. 4, we 

would double research and development for energy. In my view, we 

should launch several mini-Manhattan Projects on grand challenges such as solar batteries, advanced biofuels, making solar 

costs competitive, fusion even for the long term, etc. 
209 

So that is our position. And I would rather characterize it myself 

rather than have someone who apparently had not read it characterize it. 

Now, let me ask Mr. Doerr a question. The Senator from Rhode 

Island talked about inaction. I say this as someone who would like 

to see a climate change solution. I have sponsored one ever since 

I have been here. I am trying to still figure out why this deafening 

silence about nuclear power. Not only did the three of you not write 

about it much in your testimony, you did not even talk about it except when asked. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Doerr, do you consider nuclear power a renewable energy? 

Mr. DOERR. Nuclear power is a carbon-free energy. My focus and 

expertise is renewable energies. I am not an expert in nuclear. But 

I want to tell you this, Senator. I do believe it needs to be part of 

our portfolio of low carbon solutions for the energy problem. 

I would also like to tell you further that I am a supporter of Senator Bingaman’s CEDA, the Clean Energy Deployment Act. I understand that is developed in another committee here, but these 

issues are so important that I know they are coming together. Climate and energy are very complimentary policies, and as I understand it, the Nuclear Energy Institute supports the CEDA because 

it can help—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, that is not my question—— 

Mr. DOERR. Help meet those goals. I am telling you where I 

stand, Senator. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, I asked you if you believed it was a 

renewable energy. 

Mr. DOERR. It is a low carbon energy. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Right. Well, I want to talk, and I am honestly trying to understand this, I am trying to get the bottom of 

this, if nuclear energy produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity, and our goal is to reduce carbon, why is it not at the top 

of your list, is it not the major thing you would want us to do? 

Would you agree, you did say it was carbon-free and ought to be 

included, does that mean you think it ought to be part of the renewable energy resources like wind and solar and geothermal and 

renewable biomass that are encouraged in the renewable energy 

mandates that the Waxman-Markey bill contains? 

Mr. DOERR. My personal opinion? Sure. I think it ought to be encouraged. The scientists would tell us that it actually is not renewable. We are expending resources, uranium, when we are producing 

this energy. But that is not the reason that it is not at the top of 

the list. 

The reason it is not at the top of my list is it takes 20 years to 

permit, approve and build a new plant. We need more nuclear in 

our country. But we also need action on the matter that I came 

here to talk about today and that matters the most, and that is 

competitiveness. If we wait a decade to get America in this race, 

we are out of it. It is gone. As Tom Friedman said, China is going 

to clean our clock. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, Mr. Doerr, would you agree that to 

encourage carbon-free nuclear energy it ought to be included in the 

Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, which provides 3 cents 
210 

per kilowatt hour for carbon-free electricity produced by, primarily, 

wind? 

Mr. DOERR. What I would agree with, Senator, and I am not an 

expert on legislation, I come here as a businessman to build 

jobs—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, should it have the same Government 

support that wind does? 

Mr. DOERR. Well, it has considerable Government support. Who 

pays for the costs of disposing of all of the nuclear waste today? 

The American taxpayer. If we adopt—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. The American ratepayer, sir. Let me, if I 

may ask the questions, my questions are, if it is carbon-free, as you 

have said it is, should it have the same kind of Government support that other carbon-free energy does? 

Since 1992, 75 percent of the Production Tax Credit went to support wind. It did not go to solar. So, I would ask you, should nuclear also be supported by the Production Tax Credit, by the Investment Tax Credit, such as supports solar, and should it also be 

included in the renewable fuel definition so that we encourage all 

carbon-free energies and, in fact, have a clean energy policy rather 

than just a windmill policy or a solar policy or a geothermal policy 

or whatever we might be invested in or think is important to us? 

Mr. DOERR. So, I would say no, and here is why, Senator. I think 

the most important thing for us to do is to get the big policy right. 

A cap on carbon emissions, and a price for those, as the legislation 

sets forth, will favor nuclear energy based on its competitiveness, 

or wind, or solar, and at the highest levels, I do not believe the 

Government should be in the business of picking the winners and 

losers. Now let me continue please—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. But Mr. Doerr, I only have 4 minutes left. 

The Government has enacted a Production Tax Credit so narrowly 

defined it is mainly a windmill tax credit. Those of you who are interested in solar energy got the Government to enact support for 

an Investment Tax Credit, which also includes solar, and which I 

support. 

Mr. DOERR. I do, too. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So, now we have Government picking wind, 

Government picking solar, and wind and solar together produce 6 

percent of our carbon-free electricity. And nuclear produces 70 percent. Why should it not be treated the same? 

And then our renewable energy mandates, if we included nuclear 

power, if it were a carbon-free mandate instead of a narrowly defined mandate, we would, I mean, Tennessee would be 40 percent. 

Let me ask you this. What if I proposed a 20 percent nuclear 

power mandate for California because nuclear is 100 percent carbon-free. Would you support that? 

Mr. DOERR. Senator, you know how much I respect you. I deeply 

do. And I was not able to finish my response to your earlier question. 

We have got to get a big policy right. It should not pick winners 

and losers. But that will not be enough. We have a multi-billion 

dollar incentive right now to get American battery manufacturing 

in Michigan, which I wholeheartedly support, and we must have it 

to electrify the American automobile fleet, unless we to trade our 
211 

dependence on oil from the Middle East for a dependence on batteries from Asia. 

So, my point is the following: in addition to getting the big thing 

right, the cap-and-trade, it is totally appropriate and necessary for 

us to target, on a temporary basis, for a period of time, declining 

over time, wind and solar. 

Senator ALEXANDER. What is the period of time? We have been 

subsidizing wind since 1992. 

Mr. DOERR. My guess is it is about another 10 years. Denmark 

has been subsidizing wind since 1970, and now they are No. 1 in 

the world. And watch my words, it is for a declining amount over 

time. Let me get through—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. You and I agree that wind and solar are not 

base load energy, that they are a supplement to the base load energy that we need, and that nuclear is really the only source of 

electricity that we have that is cheap, clean and reliable. 

I mean, in order to build the polysilicon plants in Tennessee, you 

have to have the nuclear plant or the coal plant. You could not operate it based on the solar plant or the windmill. 

Mr. DOERR. I would agree with you that nuclear is a base load 

technology, and it is very low carbon. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It is zero-carbon. 

Mr. DOERR. It is zero-carbon. I will also tell you, with innovations in the labs, not out in the marketplace, we are seeing breakthrough battery technologies that can make wind, in fact, together 

with the batteries, dispatch able. And that is the kind of American 

innovation we want to encourage. 

If I can return, not to be a broken record, but return to the most 

important refrain—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Leave me about 30 seconds of my time, if 

you would. 

Mr. DOERR. We have got to put a price on carbon and a cap on 

carbon emissions across the whole economy without picking winners or losers if we really want America to compete and to get 

these innovations into the market quickly. I have nothing against 

nuclear except that it takes 20 years to deploy a new facility. 

Senator ALEXANDER. The Tennessee Valley Authority just restarted Browns Ferry. They built it in 3 years. They thought it 

would take 10 years to recapture the $1.8 billion construction costs. 

It took 3. And now all those profits are going to have low cost energy so we can build polysilicon plants in Tennessee, keep jobs in 

Tennessee for auto companies instead of putting them overseas. 

See, my concern is that you are exclusively focusing on winners 

and losers with a renewable energy standard, and you are not having an across-the-board clean energy standard. And you are focusing just on green jobs, and you are not remembering that cheap, 

clean energy is what will provide the largest number of American 

jobs. Green jobs are a very small part, a very good part, but very 

small. 

Mr. DOERR. I agree with you that green jobs is a misnomer. And 

green jobs is limiting. I am talking about jobs that are engineering 

jobs, they are manufacturing jobs, they are construction jobs, they 

are blue collar jobs, and they are white collar jobs. But those jobs 
212 

are going to come from America committing to a low carbon energy 

future. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And the way to create the largest number 

of those green kinds of jobs, or those kinds of jobs, would be to 

build 100 new nuclear plants in 100 years. The welders, the construction jobs, the manufacturers would be many more than these 

others that you are describing. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, you have been generous with the 

time. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senator, I know I have been. And I am 

going to, therefore, put a few things in the record. One of them is 

that the Waxman-Markey bill modeling shows that more nuclear 

plants would be built under the Waxman-Markey bill than you are 

proposing, and the cost would be offset with tax credits, and the 

ratepayers would not have to pay. That is No. 1. 

No. 2, the record needs to show that since the 1950s, we have 

had the Price-Anderson Act, and the Price-Anderson Act is the taxpayers backing up a nuclear accident. So, to say that there is not 

taxpayer involvement is not correct. 

Also, in recent energy bills, one of them gave long guarantees for 

nuclear plants, and a Production Tax Credit was in the latest act. 

So, I just think that when it comes to nuclear, I understand your 

position, but I really hope you would take a look at Waxman-Markey because, if nuclear is your passion, you are going to have more 

plants built under that than you would and the consumers pay 

less. I do not know why we continue to have these arguments. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Could I make a correction, Madam Chairwoman? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, you can. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Under the Price-Anderson Act, the taxpayers never paid a penny for a nuclear accident, and under the 

way it operates today they would not because, the way it operates, 

is that every one of the 104 nuclear power plants are liable for up 

to $100 million in the event of an accident. So, the money would 

come from the ratepayers and the nuclear plants. 

The loan financing that you spoke of is available to all clean energy, which is what I think all of these policies ought to do, and 

I do not know why nuclear is not included. 

And while we are at it, well, I will leave it alone. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senator, I just have to let the facts speak 

for themselves. The fact is that there is a limit on the insurance 

that nuclear power plants have to pay because they cannot get the 

insurance that is required, and the taxpayers are on the hook if 

there is a major crisis. That is not debatable. That is the fact. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, $100 million—— 

Senator BOXER. Let me finish. And then I will call on you. 

We know the costs if there is a tragedy. What they would be, 

$100 million may not be enough. That is why the taxpayers, since 

the 1950s, have stood behind this. I do not know why we argue 

about everything. That is the fact. And I think you should be grateful for the Price-Anderson Act and the fact that American taxpayers are on the hook. But to say that there has been no involvement of American taxpayers, that just flies in the face of the law. 
213 

I think we should, perhaps, have an exchange of letters on the 

point. But I do not see—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. I will come visit with you. We do not have 

to get formal about it. 

Senator BOXER. You can visit with me any day of the week. But 

I will have, when you visit me, a copy of the law, and I would challenge you to show me where we say to our windmill companies and 

to our solar companies or to even our coal companies that the taxpayers back them up in case of an accident. So, let us not, you 

know, paint a one-sided picture. 

Every major nuclear company that I am aware of supports the 

Waxman-Markey bill. I met with Entenergy, and there are many 

others—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, absolutely they do, because they make 

loads of money from it. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I do not know. On the one hand, you 

want—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. It collects $100 billion every year, and a lot 

of it goes to businesses, and a lot of it goes to certain power companies. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am glad that you admit that they support 

it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I will come see you about Price-Anderson—— 

Senator BOXER. Please. That would be great. 

Senator ALEXANDER [continuing]. Because the fact of the matter 

is, taxpayers have never paid a penny as a result of that—— 

Senator BOXER. We know. We know that. 

Senator ALEXANDER [continuing]. And today, if there were any kind of accident, $100 million would come from every one of 104 

nuclear power plants. They are self-insured. 

Senator BOXER. Well, if you do not think we need it, then let us 

cancel it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I did not say that. I am just correcting the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you are saying that $100 million should 

cover it. You are implying that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I said $100 million times 104. Every one of 

the 104 plants is responsible if there should be any problem at any 

nuclear power plant. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let us take another look at this act then. 

Maybe we do not need it. Maybe the coverage the nuclear plants 

have is enough and we do not need Price-Anderson. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It created a mechanism for self-insuring, 

which does not cost the taxpayer any money—— 

Senator BOXER. Unless there is a humongous accident—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Which there never has been. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is what insurance is all about. You 

might have heard of Chernobyl. But I think we will just move on, 

because the fact is, the reason I am perplexed by your opposition 

to Waxman-Markey is because the nuclear power industry understands that they would build more plants under that than any command and control system that the Senate could devise. I am going 

to leave it at that. 
214 

Senator ALEXANDER. But, Madam Chairman, I did not say a 

word about Waxman-Markey. All I was talking about was the renewable fuel standard, the Production Tax Credit and the other 

Federal policies and mandates and asking whether nuclear should 

not also be included because it is our principal supplier of low carbon electricity. That is all. 

Senator BOXER. And my point is that any bill that comes out of 

this Senate is going to be a boon to the nuclear industry. 

Now, I would like to call on Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the nuclear 

industry should feel very good about having this argument over 

whose plan provides more subsidies for nuclear power. 

I guess I would have to say that I would like to see nuclear 

power compete on the same level playing field. I am concerned that 

by the time you address the possibility of human error, the possibility of natural catastrophe, the possibility of protection against a 

terrorist attack, you include the life cycle cost of dismantling the 

plant, you include the costs of reproducing and storing fuel, and I 

have not seen numbers yet that show it is cost competitive. 

What I do not want is an energy policy that drives up the cost 

of energy in the United States of America. It is simply an economic 

argument. But there is also an environmental concern if we do 

have that catastrophe. 

But if we can keep the argument in the context of how we create 

affordable, reliable energy addressing life cycle costs, I think it 

probably would be helpful. 

I wanted to ask about the impact of staying on the course we are on right now. I look at a situation where we had $4 per gallon gas 

last summer, just a year ago, the fact that we have 3 percent of 

the oil reserves, that we burn 25 percent of the world’s oil in terms 

of annual consumption, and it looks like a path to me of catastrophe if we do not proactively change our energy strategy, a catastrophe for our economy. 

So, I invite insights in very quick form, if I could. 

Mr. WONG. Well, Senator Merkley, I think you hit the button on 

the nail. The cost of inaction, like I was alluding to in my testimony, the cost of inaction is going to be so much far greater than 

the cost of action. 

NOAA came up with a report that was completed under the 

Bush administration, and they released it about a month ago, that 

itemized and in very fine detail described the costs of inaction of 

climate change, what it would do to our agricultural sectors, what 

it would to our physical environment. So there is really no point 

in talking about the costs of complying with a climate legislation 

or climate law if there is not going to be a physical environment 

for us to live on. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, and you have made those points very 

well. But I am really asking the economic argument over what happens to the price of oil and the cost to our economy and the impacts 

of that on jobs if we stay on the current course and we are looking 

10 years down the road. 

Mr. WONG. Right. I think current policies do not embrace energy 

efficiencies. As Senator Carper said, the cheapest form of energy is 

the energy that we do not use. If you stay on the current course, 
215 

we will not be picking the low hanging fruit that is right before us, 

we will not be seizing the economic opportunity to save costs. Oil 

and gas prices, particularly oil prices, are going to fluctuate, but 

they are on the upward trend, undeniably. We have already seen 

oil prices rebound, doubling the price since the beginning of this 

year. 

We really need to pass legislation that is really aggressive in saving consumers electricity energy efficiency standards and renewable electricity standards. 

Mr. KRENICKI. I would just add, Senator, that, as we model the 

next 20 or 25 years, the demand for electricity will double worldwide, the needs for clean water will triple, and in the oil and gas 

space, the world will have to develop another five or six Saudi Arabias to meet demand. So, the challenges are dramatic, and a lot of 

that is driven by what happens outside of the United States. But 

those are how we see the macro-environment. 

Mr. ALFORD. Senator, I think supply and demand cannot be overlooked. Also, I think offshore drilling. We have enough natural gas 

supplies and oil reserves within the United States that we probably 

could exploit far more than what we are to keep us for being so 

vulnerable to price fluctuations with oil. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me turn to a different question. The goal 

of the House bill is to reduce carbon dioxide by 17 percent over the 

2005 levels. That is an interesting number, because the bill also 

concludes 2 billion tons of offsets, which is actually 28 percent of 

the 2005 emissions. 

Is anyone worried that with so many offsets it will mean really 

insufficient investment in building a clean energy economy right 

here in the United States? 

Mr. DOERR. Well, Senator, I think you have identified correctly 

that the design of offsets is a really key issue. I am convinced that 

we can design offsets so that they add to environmental certainty, 

not subtract from it, while maintaining price controls. But that is 

a separate issue and apart from the issue of competitiveness. 

Turning to your question about the 17 percent reduction target, 

I favor a more aggressive target because I think we are well behind 

the climate change curve. But I am a pragmatist. The 17 percent 

target appears to be the one that will allow us to start down the 

march toward a low carbon economy, and it therefore has my full 

support. 

I am convinced, as I have said before, that carbon abatement 

would be cheaper and faster than most people suggest because of 

innovation. And if we start with this 17 percent early, and do it 

at a profit instead of at a cost, then our whole political discussion 

is going to change. 

By the way, every major company that I know of that has set 

any kind of carbon targets has beaten them and has made money 

while they are doing that. So, our experience on this is very, very 

positive. Let us start with 17 percent, or if the Senate can improve 

it, please do, and get going. 

Senator MERKLEY. If I caught that right, you said you are a pragmatist, so you can deal with 17 percent, but you think that to really drive the transformation, we should have a higher number? 
216 

Mr. DOERR. Almost. I said I would personally prefer a higher 

number. But I think if we set any meaningful price on carbon and 

a cap, for certainty, with respect to the emissions, we are going to 

unleash a wave of American innovation that is going to make it 

profitable to go even faster. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I would certainly agree with that, as 

long as the offsets do not end up being the way that we pursue 

this, because if it only offsets and then we do not have, essentially, 

a market in allocations, then I think that would severely undermine, am I on the right track there, severely undermine the pace 

of innovation. 

Mr. DOERR. I agree. 

Senator MERKLEY. Anyone else want to join in on that point? OK. 

The point was put forward about a guaranteed market, if you 

will, in terms of a renewable energy standard. Oregon established 

a 25–25 standard. That is 25 percent of renewable energy by 2025. 

That is on top of the hydropower that Oregon currently has, so it 

really amounts to a 65 percent standard by 2025. 

What would be the ideal standard and what would be the stepping, if we took a near-term approach, what should be the standard 

at 2012 and 2025, from a policy point of view, not from a political 

pragmatic point of view? 

Mr. KRENICKI. In order to stay on the path we have been on for 

the last 3 years, 12 percent by 2012 would keep things moving forward on the same path. If a broader concept was considered where 

nuclear or cleaner coal was included, and it was a clean energy 

standard versus a renewable energy standard, of course the target 

would have to be even higher. But 12 percent on an as-established 

standard, because we will finish 2009 at around 6 percent, and 

what is in current legislation is 6 percent or lower by 2012. So, 

there would be no incentive for any incremental investment. 

Senator MERKLEY. Any argument? Do the other folks agree that 

12 percent might be about right to aim for by 2012? Any other further thought on that? OK, that is great. 

I am going to turn to the issue of energy efficiency and how much 

effort should be, well, right now we have it as kind of a junior partner in this bill. Should it be promoted to being a senior partner, 

and if so, in what format? 

Mr. DOERR. If I may, Senator, I think you are on to a very important issue, the power of efficiency. I do not consider myself qualified to determine what part of the bill ought to be this and what 

part of the bill ought to be that. But I want to make this point, 

because it goes to jobs, and jobs right away. The most expensive 

wasteful energy we have in our country is when millions and millions of American homes use their furnace to heat the cold atmosphere, or use their air conditioner to cool the hot atmosphere. 

A McKinsey study has demonstrated that the highest return investment in clean energy is home insulation. We have over 1 million out-of-work construction workers right now. And if this legislation was crafted, just modestly, to do two things, provide our utilities a profit incentive for using their scale to employ these millions 

of out-of-work construction workers insulating American homes, 

starting at the end of this year, we know how to do this, they know 

how to do it, the savings for the American consumer would be real-
217 

ized in less than a year, and those savings would re-circulate in our 

economy. 

Our utilities can be much more powerful allies in driving our 

country to a clean, more prosperous future. They have a 100 percent market share. They have very low costs of capital. They have 

vast cash-flows. Modest incentives from our Federal Government 

can get them to be allies in this most important part of efficiency. 

There are standards for appliances that are incredibly important, 

standards for cars. I think you are on to a very, very important 

topic, Senator. It should be a senior partner. 

Senator MERKLEY. My time is up, but I really appreciate all of 

your testimony and assistance in the committee pursuing a smart 

energy policy. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you to the panel. You have endured a lot here, and I think it has 

been a very, very good discussion. 

One of the things that I wanted to ask about, in particular Mr. 

Doerr and, Mr. Wong, to you, the contrast here. We have heard 

with some of the questions a position that this is just going to cost 

jobs, and repeating it over and over again, if you do the WaxmanMarkey bill, it is going to cost jobs. Then you all have been very 

strong advocates of the other side. 

Why do you see such a disagreement here on this? Please, go 

ahead. 

Mr. DOERR. All of the surveys, sorry, all of the claims that I have 

seen that this will cost jobs are based on surveys, surveys from 

academicians. They are not based on experience building jobs or 

building companies. 

I want to say another important thing I said earlier, and stress 

it. All of these surveys from the academicians take no account for 

innovation. No account whatsoever for innovation. 

It is as if we ran a survey 15 years ago that said what impact 

computes are going to have on America without taking into account 

the Internet. Fifteen years ago there was no Web browser. How 

many of us could do our work today without this idea? Point, click, 

innovation. It has transformed the way we live, work, play, conduct 

commerce, entertain, inform and educate. 

That is what happens when you rely on an economic survey from 

respected economists in universities and do not take into account 

innovation. That is my line of business. I have seen the innovations 

that could be possible. These innovations will occur. They are not 

going to occur in America if we do not create large American markets, and we need a cap on carbon and a price on the emissions 

to get there. 

Senator UDALL. And I think you are also an advocate of a renewable electricity standard? 

Mr. DOERR. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL. And that you believe, too, as I think you responded to a question that if we do Investment Tax Credits for 

solar and wind and biofuels, those kinds of things, to jump start 

them for a short period of time. And your argument is that you put 

all of that together, and you have the Government not picking win-
218 

ners or losers, but moving us in the direction of a clean energy 

economy. 

Mr. DOERR. That is absolutely correct, Senator. There is going to 

be no silver bullet. The biggest bullet we have got is putting a price 

on carbon and a cap on emissions. But that alone is not sufficient. 

That will not get us to electrified clean automobiles fast enough. 

That will not get us to a competitive world class wind industry 

with multiple leaders, leaders in addition to the fine work that GE 

is doing. 

So, I believe in targeted incentives. But I believe in getting the 

No. 1 thing, the big thing, right. 

Senator UDALL. Now, the other side of this is, and this has been 

asked several times in several ways, inaction. We have not taken 

decisive action in this area. We have debated a lot. The House, in 

the last couple of years, passed a Renewable Electricity Standard. 

The Senate passed one. We never came together. We have not been 

able to. The Chairwoman has been the only one to be able to bring 

a bill to the floor that was a climate change global warming bill. 

So, what are the costs to inaction, as the way you see it? Have 

those been studied? And where do you think we are headed when 

we talk about costs of inaction? 

Mr. DOERR. I think the real costs of inaction I find terrifying. I 

think we underestimate how long it is going to take to turn this 

around. We have no accounting for the true costs to our health, to 

our competitiveness. 

We are dumping 70 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every 

day as if our skies were some kind of free, cheap, open sewer. We 

have done no accounting for this. 

We have done no accounting for what the science tells us will already happen in the rise of temperatures, the hundreds of millions 

of people around this earth that are going to starve because of climate change. The people who are the least responsible for these 

problems, who are least capable to cope with them, are going to be 

visited with the most severe consequences. 

But I am not an expert on those matters. I come here as a businessman who helps people build jobs and build industries. And I 

know we have barely got a dog in that fight. We are not in the 

game right now. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Doerr, if we did all of the things that we just 

talked about there, an RES, a price on carbon, cap emissions, Investment Tax Credits into the renewable area, is it your opinion 

that there is venture capital waiting out there? I have heard 

amounts thrown out, billions of dollars of venture capital if you 

send the right signals, wiling to go into these areas and innovate 

and experiment and do things in terms of creating jobs. 

What are your thoughts on the amounts of capital we could attract by taking this? 

Mr. DOERR. Senator, that is an excellent question. Last year, 

there was about $3 billion of U.S. venture capital in North America 

devoted to clean technologies. It was No. 3, I must tell you, behind 

the Internet and behind the life sciences area. I must tell you also 

that my overwhelming conclusion is that it is not enough. It is not 

enough by a lot. 
219 

But, this is the beauty of Waxman-Markey. This is the beauty of 

a price and cap. When we send a long-term steady signal to the 

marketplace that we are going to put a price on carbon and favor 

the innovative energy that does not rely on it, we unleash enormous, you will unleash enormous market forces. More money flows 

through the world’s financial markets in a day than through all the 

governments of the planet in a year. 

So, with this modest 17 percent cap, with this price that the market determines, we should be investing $50 billion a year of venture capital in North America in clean tech energy innovation. At 

the height of the Internet boom, we invested $100 billion a year in 

some very great valuable companies and in a bunch of otherwise 

inconsequential, anonymous, socially networked chatting Web sites 

that do not make any difference. 

This is vital. This is America’s economic future. It is the health 

of our planet. It is the health of our kids. It is whether or not we 

are going to lead in the next great global industry. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Wong, please. 

Mr. WONG. Thank you. To answer your first question, I think the 

reason why a lot of these studies that paint this doom and gloom 

picture, that say that clean energy policies are going to lead to a 

loss of jobs and increased costs, is that they do not have the vision. 

They do not have the vision that we have an opportunity to create 

new sectors that unleashes an incredible amount of innovation and 

create an incredible new era of job creation. 

Some of these studies, they predict that renewable energy costs 

will remain the same, remain high and never decrease. They underestimate the learning curve that we can work on to reduce these 

costs as we scale up these new technologies. 

I think we can take a page from what China is doing. They have 

made energy efficiency the pillar of their, not just environmental 

policy, but economic policy. They recognize that the five most, and 

this is from Todd Stern who delivered a speech a couple of months 

ago, they recognize that the five most polluting industries, heavy 

industries which account for 50 percent of carbon emissions, only 

provide the employment of 14 million people. That is a lose-lose 

strategy, which is why they are aggressively working to restructure 

the economy to move toward the high tech, to move toward clean 

energy. 

They recognize that clean energy jobs create three times as many 

jobs as their fossil fuel counterparts. That is the kind of strategy 

that we should be learning from other countries. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. I know, Mr. Krenicki, that you, and 

it is a little bit off of this committee, but you had advocated for a 

stronger RES standard, the Renewable Electricity Standard. Could 

you just tell us briefly, as a businessman, how the lack of a strong 

Federal standard impacts a multi-national firm’s investment decisions about to locate a manufacturing facility or create new clean 

energy jobs? 

Mr. KRENICKI. OK. Just in the wind business, we have the same 

capabilities in China and Europe, and will have in India shortly, 

that we have in the United States. Our employments and levels of 

production will fluctuate based on the local market. 
220 

One thing about the wind industry is transportation costs are 

very, very high. Components are large. So, it makes sense to manufacture in the largest markets, and that is how we see the dynamic. 

So, if the U.S. market, on a relative basis, is big, our employment 

here will follow that trend and vice versa. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. It has been an excellent panel. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

The naysayers on climate change say that we could hurt our competitiveness if 

we act ‘‘unilaterally.’’ I believe the naysayers have it exactly backwards. In fact, we 

have been unilateral in our failure to act. There is mounting evidence that nations 

like China are moving ahead of us in the race to clean energy. 

Chinese fuel economy standards are higher today than ours will be in 2020. China 

is at 35 miles per gallon for 2008 and going to 42 miles per gallon by 2016. We do 

not reach 35 MPG until 2020. 

China has already set a 15 percent renewable electricity standard (RES) for 2020, 

and their government recently said they could reach 20 percent. In the United 

States, the House and Senate have separately approved an RES in recent years but 

have failed to achieve final passage. 

The EU has a 20 percent RES which is projected to create 2.8 million jobs in solar 

panel and wind turbine manufacturing where they already outrank us. 

Germany has a 30 percent RES by 2020 and a 50 percent target by 2030. Germany is a global leader in solar power, despite being at the equivalent latitude as 

Alaska. 

In fact, at least 66 nations by our count have a national target for renewable energy, including China and India, meaning that the U.S. is isolated for its lack of 

an RES. 

Brazil is the world’s largest producer and consumer of renewable transportation 

fuels, and 45 percent of Brazil’s energy comes from renewable energy. 

China and Germany are vying for the world’s leader in renewable energy investment, with each over $12 billion per year. 

South Korea will invest $84 billion in renewable and efficiency over 5 years. 

Including energy efficiency, China is investing over $220 billion between now and 

2010 to green their economy as part of their fiscal stimulus package, over $12 million each hour. 

In 2009, China became the world’s largest clean energy investor and plans to 

spend nearly a half-trillion dollars over 10 years. 

China is the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and looking to expand to the 

U.S., and they have 65 percent of the solar thermal water heating market. 

China generates a higher percentage of its power from wind power than we do 

in the U.S.; in fact the U.S. ranks only 10th worldwide. 

In the early 1990s, the U.S. invested solar photo-voltaic technology, but now 

China is the largest producer, and we rank 5th, behind Japan and Germany. 

India has launched its National Solar Mission, which plans to install 20 gigawatts 

of solar by 2020 to bring the cost down to fossil fuel levels. 

Investors across America, from Silicon Valley, to Wall Street, to Main Street, to 

the innovation hubs of New Mexico want to join in, but they need leadership from 

Washington, DC. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. I have been going back and 

forth to another hearing where there are a lot of cameras and 

lights, so it is nice and cool in here. Thank you. 

I wanted to focus a little bit about our competitiveness in this 

clean energy new world. I was thinking that we had, in the 1960s 

we had a space race, in the 1980s we had an arms race, and now 

we are in the middle of an energy race. 
221 

I am one to think that we have to look at all kinds of energy 

sources, including nuclear, and I am glad that we are discussing 

that and that it will be, I believe, part of a solution. 

Last week, a fellow Minnesotan, Tom Friedman, published an article where he talked about how China’s views on energy have 

changed over the years and that they have set some very aggressive standards. I think it is $462 billion in renewable energy by 

2020. 

In each of the last few years, China has increased wind power 

by 100 percent. They are increasing solar power, and in fact, he 

quotes someone in this article, a guy named Hal Harvey, the Chief 

Executive of Climate Works. This guy says China is moving, they 

want to be leaders in green technology. 

China has already adopted the most aggressive energy efficiency 

program in the world. It is committed to reducing the energy intensity of its economy, energy used per dollar of goods produced, by 

20 percent in 5 years. They are doing this by implementing fuel efficiency standards for cars that far exceed our own, and by going 

after their top thousand industries with very aggressive energy efficiency targets. And they have the most aggressive renewable energy deployment in the world for wind, solar and nuclear and are 

already beating their targets. 

I was just recently there with Senator McCain and Senator 

Graham and sort of scraped the surface on some of the energy 

issues there, but also visited some of the surrounding countries like 

Japan, which has been doing more with nuclear and we visited a 

nuclear reprocessing plant there, as well as in Vietnam where the 

Prime Minister of Vietnam said his No. 1 issue is climate change 

for their country. So, you see concern growing in Asia, but you also 

see some of the solutions coming from Asia. 

I get very concerned that, while we may have won the space race 

and got all of the benefits out of it from the technology that came 

out of it from GPS monitors to pacemakers to CAT scans to those 

little chocolate space tics that my family used to take on camping 

trips in the 1970s, that if we do not really jump start the standards 

for energy efficiency and for new energy that we are going to fall 

behind, and we are going to lose this energy race. 

That is really where I am coming from in terms of looking at jobs 

in my own State where, as some of you may know, we have a very 

aggressive renewable portfolio standard, 25 percent by 2025 and 30 

percent for excel energy. And out of that has come a higher percentage of these energy jobs, the renewable energy jobs, in our 

State than other States. 

I think I saw a report recently that while jobs overall had increased something like 2 percent, we were at 11 percent for those 

clean energy jobs, and the rest of the country was at 9 percent. I 

am sure that it has something to do with the fact that we worked 

on a bi-partisan basis with the Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature to get these aggressive standards through. 

So, I guess I would start with you, Mr. Doerr. You made a powerful statement your testimony that China is winning the race to 

lead the world in producing clean energy. What will it take to tip 

the scales back for U.S. entrepreneurs? 
222 

Mr. DOERR. Thank you, Senator. I agree with all of the observations that you made. They are just right. 

Here is what I think it takes. Fifty years ago our country got a 

signal. The signal was Sputnik. It was a long-term signal. And it 

told us that America had fallen behind the Soviet Union in the race 

for innovative technologies. And because of that signal, in less than 

10 years and, indeed, 40 years ago last week, we put a man on the 

Moon. A coordinated effort throughout our country. No one would 

have thought it possible. 

We do not have, in our country, such a signal for clean energy 

or for innovation. And what it is going to take is for your committee, our Congress, to put in place a simple, clear, long-term signal that clean carbon energy is valuable and energy with carbon 

is more costly. 

Just enact a cap on carbon emissions, a price on carbon, and your 

action will be the signal, it will be the Sputnik for decades of innovation in our country, for our country and for the world. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Krenicki. 

Mr. KRENICKI. I have nothing to add other than I agree. 

I think you mentioned nuclear in Vietnam. We have four nuclear 

plants under construction, all in Asia, none in the United States. 

This is 4 years after the 2005 Energy Policy Act. So, nuclear needs 

help as well. And we are building a big manufacturing site in Hai 

Phong, Vietnam, precisely because it has a big market. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I was there. 

Mr. KRENICKI. It has a big market. We think Vietnam is going 

to be a big market where we will sell product into for the next 50 

years. So, we agree. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. General Electric has been a leader in nuclear for many decades. What do you think we could do here? I 

know that the bill that the House passed has some incentives, I 

think the Chairman mentioned, for 200. What more do you think 

we could do in the Senate bill? 

Mr. KRENICKI. I would say two things. One is this concept of allowing nuclear to be part of a cleaner energy standard could be 

very powerful, opening up the envelope and setting a higher target. 

So, giving companies more room to maneuver in a low carbon environment is one possible solution. 

The other is, the nuclear industry is heavily impacted by the financial crisis, so the level of loan guarantees if insufficient to restart the industry. You know, $18.5 billion, that could build maybe 

three nuclear plants. Three nuclear plants do not create a U.S. nuclear industry. It creates an incremental export opportunity for 

non-U.S. nuclear suppliers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I mentioned that our State has this aggressive renewable standard, and it has created more jobs in our State. 

I have been disappointed by the House renewable standard. I just 

really do not think it is going to get us to where we want to go. 

Senator Snow and I have a bi-partisan bill which we put forward 

with a standard similar to what Minnesota has with expansive 

definitions of what would be counted. Could you comment on that? 

Why do you think it is important to increase the near-term target, 

and what are your thoughts on a longer term target? 
223 

Mr. KRENICKI. I think the reason it is important to increase the 

near-term target is that the industry is going to react to 2012 much 

more so than to 2025. In order to continue to grow this industry, 

and keep jobs increasing versus being cut in half, a 12 percent target by 2012 would keep that going. 

If I look at other countries as a proxy for where the United 

States could be, a country like Spain operates at well over 20 percent today. And they do not have a greater renewable energy resource than the United States. If you look at the U.S., it is blessed 

with tremendous renewable resource. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So you are talking about non-nuclear, you 

are talking about solar, wind and these things—— 

Mr. KRENICKI. And biomass. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And biomass. Geothermal, I do not 

know—— 

Mr. KRENICKI. Geothermal. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So that is, we have waste energy, we include that in our bill. So, these other countries are much higher 

and have seen—— 

Mr. KRENICKI. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And do you have job figures on them? What 

they have seen out of this? 

Mr. KRENICKI. We could certainly provide that, but right now we 

believe roughly about 85,000 jobs have been created through 2008 

and that is a trend that we think we would see continue over the 

next three or 4 years at 12 percent. If what was proposed today in 

the House bill or the Senate bill, we think at least half of those 

jobs would go away. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Mr. Wong, do you want to add anything? 

Mr. WONG. We definitely support a rigorous renewable energy 

standard because I think it demonstrates the farsightedness in that 

such signals will create new clean energy sectors and create jobs 

and unleash the innovation that we need. China has already embraced this. 

The U.S. has been stuck on a path of business as usual, especially for the past 8 years. Now we have the opportunity to turn 

the corner. 

In China, it is no longer business as usual. Since 2006, in the 

Eleventh Five Year Plan, they have thrown down the gauntlet. 

They have made energy efficiency a priority. They have made new 

energy development a priority. And as we know, the Eleventh Five 

Year Plan is like the 10 Commandments to the Chinese. 

And so, I think that we have to ask ourselves the question: do 

we want to be a buyer of clean technologies in the future, or the 

sellers? We really endorse the climate legislation that is before us, 

and we really urge the Senate to seize the economic opportunity. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Alford, beyond the legislation, I know 

you do not agree with it, do you see the potential here for jobs with 

this new energy potential? 

Mr. ALFORD. I am on the record for saying I see a loss in jobs. 

I think the key is self-sufficiency, Senator. I do not think China is 

concerned about being the leader. They are trying to be self-sufficient. So should we. 
224 

So, I think self-sufficiency is the key from a national security 

point of view, and I think we need to look at all of the aspects. Certainly, nuclear has got to be a key player in this. My Paris Chapter 

raves about nuclear energy. It is the salvation of their country. And 

Denmark is happy, and Spain is happy. 

We could be happy, too, if we just had a policy. And self-sufficiency is the key. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Homegrown energy. Mr. Krenicki, with 

Spain, it was not just nuclear, it is also renewables, is that right? 

Mr. KRENICKI. Spain has been heavily renewables but also has 

some nuclear plants. It also has invested a lot of money in high efficiency gas turbines. So, state-of-the-art technology there is pushing 60 percent efficiency. They have been very active. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. I have gone beyond my time. Thank 

you so much to all of you. It is helpful. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. I am just going to ask a 

couple of questions, and then we are going to close this hearing. 

I thought that Senator Barrasso was interesting when he quoted 

Einstein and he said that you cannot predict the weather let alone 

try to predict the outcome of legislation. Well, that was his point. 

But here is the beauty of this. History; history does not lie. 

In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, there was Edison Electric Institute, who is now supporting our efforts on cap-and-trade, 

thank you, this is what they said in fighting the cap-and-trade bill 

back then. They said, we estimate that the acid rain provisions 

alone could cost electric utility rate payers $5.5 billion annually between enactment and the year 2000, and increasing to $7.1 billion 

from 2000 to 2010. Therefore, the total costs to consumers from enactment by 2010 could reach $120 billion. 

On the record, what happened? The exact opposite. Electric rates 

declined by an average of 19 percent from 1990 to 2006. Adjusted 

for inflation, they were still 5 percent lower than when the Clean 

Air Act Amendments were passed, and coal State residents saw 

rate decreases averaging 35 percent. 

Here is my point in repeating these historical facts. I think we 

need to learn that every time we move forward to clean up pollution there are all these dire predictions, loss of jobs, economy slowing down, gloom and doom. Honestly, every single time they have 

been proven wrong. 

And as I said, the Congressional Record is littered with the 

gloomers and doomers. You know, one thing I remember, I have 

served with four Presidents. And I remember that the thing about 

Ronald Reagan that everyone loved, you could not help but love, 

was this optimism that we are America, and we can do it. 

I have to say, Mr. Doerr, all of our panelists have been extremely 

effective in their rhetoric, their words, their vision, whether they 

are for or against, but you just said a few things in this that just 

spoke from the heart that I found to be extraordinary and would 

like to extract them from the record and really quote you as often 

as I can. 

This challenge presents this amazing opportunity. Even if the 

scientists were wrong, doing what we are doing is going to make 

us energy independent, as Mr. Alford has stated is important for 

us. It is part and parcel with what will result if we do this right. 
225 

So, I wanted to put again into the record the rhetoric and the reality with the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

I also wanted to talk with Mr. Alford about his statement in the 

record that he read to us where he said, climate change is a vital 

issue that must be addressed. I assume that you believe that we 

should address climate change? 

Mr. ALFORD. Absolutely. That is a no-brainer. Something is going 

on out there, and we should address it. I think it is a no-brainer, 

climate change, the issue. How we go about doing it, that is the debate. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Alford, I want you to know that there 

are some people in the Senate that do not believe that it is really 

happening. I am happy to know, on the record, that you think 

something is going on and it has to be addressed. You said that 

quite clearly. 

You also said it will take time and cost money to mitigate humanity’s influence on our climate. I do not think there is any disagreement. 

And then you said, the thing that concerns me and many of the 

95,000 business members of the National Black Chamber, is that 

any legislation Congress enacts must consider the impacts that 

costs will have on small and minority-owned businesses, their ability to create jobs, and the impact on the communities they serve. 

Regretfully, the current legislation out of the House will negatively 

impact the vulnerable of our society. 

Now, I do not think you will find any disagreement that we believe that we do have to look at the impacts, not only on the small 

businesses in your organization, but all small businesses, whether 

they are minority-owned, majority-owned, whoever owns them. 

I am assuming that you think that we should spend our time 

looking at that impact, or some of our time. Is that correct? 

Mr. ALFORD. Certainly. You should spend much time looking at 

that impact. 

Senator BOXER. Good. I would like you to know that the bill we 

are putting together, the biggest priority is softening the blow on 

our trade sensitive industries and our consumers. I just want you 

to know that. That is the goal. 

Now, at the end of the day, your organization may not think we 

have not achieved it. But I also want you to know that with Waxman-Markey, and their analysis comes out with a different opinion 

than yours, shows that, the analysis by the Congressional Budget 

Office shows that the lowest quintile, the people you say are the 

most vulnerable, actually come out ahead by $40 due to the automatic refunds that people will be getting on their utility bills. 

The only thing I am asking from you, because we went at it pretty hard, is that I hope you will take a look at that analysis. And 

ask CRA to take a look at it as well. Would you do that and get 

back to me as to whether there is any change in your opinions? 

Mr. ALFORD. Madam Chair, I will do that. 

I have been around the block a few times. People are not going 

to get that refund. It is not going to hit them. People are going to 

be unemployed, and they are not going to have any recourse whatsoever. The Government will have failed them again. 
226 

Also, I want to take you up on, I want our board to hold a board 

meeting in San Francisco, and the topic will be the green jobs of 

California, and we want to get on a bus and go see them. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, Madam. 

Senator BOXER. I have already called ahead to the Apollo Alliance, and I asked them if we can do something like this. We will 

decide where we want to go, both of us, together, and I definitely 

would like you to see Richmond Build and Solar Richmond because 

it is amazing. 

I also wanted to say that, when you raised the fact that you are 

a veteran, for which we are all deeply grateful, it reminded me of 

the days when my husband volunteered for the Army. He went in 

for active duty, and then for 6 years he was in the reserves. It 

brings back memories of those years of not knowing whether or not 

he would be called. It was the Berlin crisis, and we did not know. 

And the job insecurity. He was in law school. Would he have to 

leave, and if he came back? 

So, I want you to know that one of the other things I would like 

to do with you when we are out in California is to look at the reach 

out to the veteran’s organizations that these groups are doing, because it is very heartening to see what they are doing. I am very 

excited at the fact that you have taken me up on my invitation. 

I also have another question. I think I have the answer, but I 

want to make sure that I understand you. I am sure you agree 

that, within each community, regardless of whom they are, there 

is diversity of opinion on this issue. Is that correct? 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Because I did get a call from my friends at 

the House, and they said please put in the record the statement 

from the Chairwoman of the Black Caucus over there, just because 

they want to know there are differing opinions. They wanted it included in the record. So, I am going to do that. 

[The referenced statement was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. The heat that we felt in this debate is very 

strong. The reason is we all care so much about this country and 

its future. And there is such a divide on this issue. The reason I 

so want to do these hearings, even though they are not easy on any 

of us, you, me, my colleagues, is because we have to hear 

everybody’s views. We have to see where people are coming from. 

We have to judge what is best. 

There is not book written on this. We are writing it. We are writing one of the chapters today. This is about the 55th hearing we 

have had on global warming, and we have more to come. So, you 

really are part of history, everyone here today. And I am ever so 

grateful. 

With that, I certainly feel that I have spoken enough, and I think 

all of you have had your opportunity. Does anybody on the panel 

want to say a final word in closing? 

If not, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your 

patience, for your intelligence, for your eloquence, and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the full committee was adjourned.] 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 

Æ