S. HRG. 111–1205 

CLEAN ENERGY JOBS, CLIMATE-RELATED POLICIES 

AND ECONOMIC GROWTH—STATE AND LOCAL 

VIEWS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS 

AND THE NEW ECONOMY 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 21, 2009 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
CLEAN ENERGY JOBS, CLIMATE-RELATED POLICIES AND ECONOMIC GROWTH—STATE 

AND LOCAL VIEWS 
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

95–164 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1205 

CLEAN ENERGY JOBS, CLIMATE-RELATED POLICIES 

AND ECONOMIC GROWTH—STATE AND LOCAL 

VIEWS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS 

AND THE NEW ECONOMY 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 21, 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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 21, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 5 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 8 

Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ................. 11 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 12 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 14 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 17 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 18 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 21 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 22 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 23 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 24 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 26 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 26 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 370 

WITNESSES 

Ritter, Hon. Bill Jr., Governor, State of Colorado ................................................. 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 34 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 37 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 40 

Gregoire, Hon. Chris, Governor, State of Washington ......................................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 56 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 59 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 63 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 64 

Hoeven, Hon. John, Governor, State of North Dakota ......................................... 67 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 72 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 75 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 76 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 78 

Corzine, Hon. Jon S., Governor, State of New Jersey .......................................... 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 90 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 96 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 100 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 102 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo ................................ 104 

Kiss, Hon. Robert, Mayor, Burlington, Vermont ................................................... 164 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 167 
Page

IV 

Kiss, Hon. Robert, Mayor, Burlington, Vermont—Continued 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 177 

Euille, Hon. William D., Mayor, Alexandria, Virginia ......................................... 179 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 182 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 277 

Lowery, Hon. John, Representative, District 6, Arkansas House of Representatives ..................................................................................................................... 279

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 281 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 291 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 292 

Response to an additional question from Senator Crapo .............................. 294 

Palmer, Hon. Douglas H., Mayor, Trenton, New Jersey ...................................... 304 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 306 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 361 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter to Arkansas State Representative John Lowery, Jr., from Chemtura, 

July 20, 2009 ........................................................................................................ 372 

Green Jobs, Ole: Is the Spanish Clean-Energy Push a Cautionary Tale?, 

article from the Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2009 ...................................... 373 

Pages from U.S. House of Representatives bill H.R. 2454 ................................... 374 
(1) 

CLEAN ENERGY JOBS, CLIMATE-RELATED 

POLICIES AND ECONOMIC GROWTH—STATE 

AND LOCAL VIEWS 

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

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

Sanders, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Voinovich, Vitter, 

Barrasso, Crapo, Bond, and Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. 

We all welcome our distinguished panel, and of course, the one 

after. 

I am going to ask Senator Sanders to sit right next to me because this is really a hearing of the full committee organized by his 

subcommittee, so he is going to be chairing the hearing. 

The focus of today’s hearing in on clean energy jobs, economic 

growth and global warming policies from a State and a local perspective. 

Providing incentives for clean energy is a win-win for our country, because it helps to address the threat of global warming and 

it builds a foundation for long-term recovery and long-term prosperity. 

Right now, our States, cities and counties are leading the way in 

adapting smart policies to drive the transition to a clean energy 

economy. I tell my colleagues often, if we fail to act, we are going 

to have the cities, the counties, the States and the regions acting. 

We already know that my State of California, the Western 

States, and the Northeastern States are acting. So we are going to 

have a number of jurisdictions acting to protect our children from 

pollution, and we if do not act it will be a patchwork as well as 

the EPA doing its job under their endangerment finding. 

I want to again thank our distinguished witnesses for being here 

today. 

On our first panel, we have Governor Bill Ritter from the State 

of Colorado, Governor Chris Gregoire from the State of Wash-
2 

ington, Governor John Hoeven of the State of North Dakota, and 

we hope that Governor Corzine from New Jersey will join us shortly. 

On the second panel, we have Mayor Robert Kiss from the city 

of Burlington, Vermont; Mayor William Euille from the city of Alexandria, Virginia; State Representative John Lowery from the 

State of Arkansas; and Mayor Douglas Palmer from the city of 

Trenton, New Jersey. 

We are facing two historic challenges today: the current recession 

and the dangers of unchecked global warming. We have the opportunity to address with a single solution what will create millions 

of clean energy jobs in America, reduce our dependence on foreign 

oil, and protect our children and grandchildren from pollution. 

I agree with President Obama, who said, ‘‘We can remain one of 

the world’s leading importers of foreign oil, or we can make the investments that would allow us to become the world’s leading exporter of renewable energy. We can let climate change continue to 

go unchecked, or we can help stop it. We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad, or we can create those jobs right here in 

America and lay the foundation for lasting prosperity.’’ 

Legislation that provides incentives for clean energy will create 

jobs and will increase our energy efficiency. In the long run, it will 

save families and businesses money and energy costs, and it will 

drive technological innovation. 

When we provide incentives for clean energy development, we invest in American jobs. What kinds of jobs are needed to build the 

clean energy economy? The University of Massachusetts at Amherst found that clean energy industries employ construction workers, electricians, boilermakers, mechanics, plant operators, farmers, 

engineers, scientists and teachers. 

My State of California is a national leader in clean energy job 

creation. A June 2009 Pugh Charitable Trust report found that 

more than 10,000 new clean energy businesses were launched in 

California from 1998 to 2007. During this period, clean energy investments created more than 125,000 jobs and generated jobs faster than the State’s economy as a whole. 

We all know that the recession has taken a great toll on my 

State and on most States. However, this is our bright spot in our 

State’s economy. 

I look forward to today’s testimony from State and local officials 

who are implementing innovative policies to help build a foundation for the clean energy economy. 

So, at this time, I am going to call on my friend, the Ranking 

Member, Senator James Inhofe, I am going to hand the gavel over 

to Senator Sanders and stay as long as I can. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

As a former Mayor, I always enjoy these hearings where you 

have people coming from the, well, I often say to my friends back 

home, I know what a hard job it is; I used to be a Mayor. If you 

are a Mayor or a Governor, there is no hiding place like there is 

here in Washington. 
3 

States differ in many respects as you will hear in the different 

perspectives today. As I have stated before, cap-and-trade benefits 

the coasts at the expense of the heartland. Cap-and-trade divides 

rather than unites America behind a sensible, workable energy policy. 

This fact is clear in the testimony of Arkansas State Representative John Lowery, who is Democrat and will be on the second 

panel. When it comes to Waxman-Markey, Representative Lowery 

is clear. Unfortunately, he said, this bill will devastate my region. 

It will kill jobs, harm our school system, throw back our economic 

progress gained the last few years, and impose a disproportionate 

burden on Arkansans. 

Representative Lowery also speaks eloquently about a way of life 

that would perish under cap-and-trade. He is referring to life in Arkansas and rural America. Cap-and-trade supporters see rural 

America as wasteful, environmentally backward. They say they see 

those in rural America as mere contingencies in the battle to save 

the planet. But these are real people with real jobs and real families. And for them, cap-and-trade will spell economic disaster. 

When they lose their jobs because the factory moves overseas, 

they will struggle to put food on the table. When they are forced 

to pay high prices for gasoline, groceries and electricity, they will, 

in some cases, have to choose between heating their homes and 

feeding their families. 

Last week, I would say to my good friend from Arkansas, I went 

to Mountain Home, Arkansas. There was the regional meeting of 

all of the farmers’ co-ops. They stated publicly that they have more 

to lose than anyone else, the farmers of America. 

The debate over cap-and-trade is not partisan. It is regional. I 

can tell you, when it comes to energy policy, Democrats in the Midwest and the South think differently than Speaker Pelosi and 

Henry Waxman. On the one hand, the policy of the coasts is to ration energy and make it more expensive through regulations and 

mandates. On the other hand, the policy of the heartland is to increase domestic energy supplies including wind, solar, geothermal, 

as well as oil, gas, nuclear and coal to make energy cleaner, more 

affordable and more abundant. 

You know, if we did just what I mentioned up here, really exploited that, we would end our dependence on the Middle East for 

our ability to run this machine called America. 

In our part of the world, we invite new energy development, 

whatever its form, because we know it creates jobs and expands 

our economy. This is the policy of North Dakota, as Governor 

Hoeven will describe in his testimony. North Dakota is finding success in deploying new technologies to burn coal more cleanly and 

to drill and extract oil and gas with a minimal environmental footprint. North Dakota is not taxing or creating new layers of bureaucracy. It is developing domestic resources and creating jobs 

and energy security. Thus, it is no surprise that North Dakota currently has a budget surplus. 

Those in the heartland are rightly skeptical about the promises 

of green jobs in the new economy. They ask a simple question: 

what does this mean for my community and my State? There is 

nothing inherently wrong with green jobs as long as they do not 
4 

replace existing jobs. But this is exactly what Speaker Pelosi and 

Henry Waxman are talking about. They, along with President 

Obama, want to emulate the Spanish model, which has been a miserable failure. 

Let us look at Spain for a minute. Now, it is true that new wind 

farms and other forms of alternate energy have created jobs in 

Spain. But a new study concludes that these jobs are temporary 

and have received $800,000 per job in subsidies while the wind industry jobs cost $1.4 million each. And do not forget that each new 

job entails the loss of 2.2 others. 

Just do the math. The Waxman-Markey bill will destroy far more 

jobs than it will create. In fact, the authors of the bill assume that 

it will kill jobs. When I read through it, I found an unemployment 

program that is written into the bill. In other words, you pass this 

bill, you are going to get an unemployment program with it because it is going to lose jobs. 

Rural America wants a different policy, one that recognizes the 

need to produce all forms of energy ranging from wind to clean 

coal. No policy that includes 1,400 pages of mandates, taxes and 

regulations will produce jobs in the energy industry. 

And by the way, there are a lot of people who agree with me on 

this. I was noticing Jim Hanson, who has been the real hero of the 

global warming people, he said cap-and-trade is a temple of doom. 

It would lock in disasters for our children and grandchildren. Why 

do people continue to worship a disastrous approach, and on, and 

on, and on. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

As a former Mayor, I have a unique appreciation for this hearing. Whether a 

Mayor, Governor, or town councilman, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, local officials have a keen, first-hand understanding of their States and 

communities and the issues that affect them. I look forward to your testimony 

today. 

Because States differ in many respects, you will hear differing perspectives on 

cap-and-trade and green jobs. As I’ve stated before, cap-and-trade benefits the coasts 

at the expense of the heartland. Cap-and-trade divides rather than unites America 

behind a sensible, workable energy policy. This fact is clear in the testimony of Arkansas State Representative John Lowery, who is a Democrat. 

When it comes to Waxman-Markey, Representative Lowery is clear: ‘‘Unfortunately,’’ he said, ‘‘this bill will devastate my region. It will kill jobs, harm our school 

system, throw back our economic progress gained the last few years, and imposes 

a disproportionate burden on Arkansans.’’ 

Representative Lowery also speaks eloquently about a ‘‘way of life’’ that would 

perish under cap-and-trade. He is referring to life in Arkansas and rural America. 

Cap-trade supporters see rural America as wasteful and environmentally backward. 

They see those in rural America as mere contingencies in the battle to save the 

planet. But these are real people with real jobs and real families. And for them, capand-trade will spell economic disaster. 

The debate over cap-and-trade is not partisan; it’s regional. And I can tell you, 

when it comes to energy policy, Democrats in the Midwest and the South think differently than Speaker Pelosi and Henry Waxman. 

On the one hand, the policy of the coasts is to ration energy and make it more 

expensive through regulations and mandates. 

On the other hand, the policy of the heartland is to increase domestic energy supplies—including wind, solar, geothermal, as well as oil, gas, nuclear, and coal—to 

make energy cleaner, more affordable, more abundant, and more reliable. In our 

part of the world, we invite new energy development, whatever its form, because 
5 

we know it creates jobs and expands our economies. This is the policy of North Dakota, as Governor Hoeven will describe in his testimony. North Dakota is finding 

success in deploying new technologies to burn coal more cleanly and to drill and extract oil and gas with a minimal environmental footprint. 

North Dakota isn’t taxing or creating new layers of bureaucracy; it’s developing 

domestic resources and creating jobs and energy security. Thus it’s no surprise that 

North Dakota currently has a budget surplus. 

Those in the heartland are rightly skeptical about promises of green jobs and a 

new economy. They ask a simple question: what does this mean for my community 

and my State? 

There’s nothing inherently wrong with ‘‘green jobs,’’ so long as they don’t replace 

existing jobs. But this is exactly what Speaker Pelosi and Henry Waxman are talking about. They, along with President Obama, want to emulate the Spanish model, 

which has been a failure. 

So let’s look at Spain for a minute. Now it’s true that new wind farms and other 

forms of alternative energy have created jobs in Spain. Yet a recent study by Dr. 

Gabriel Calzada of the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos calculates that the programs 

creating those jobs destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy—or 2.2 

jobs destroyed for every ‘‘green job’’ created. 

The study also concludes that these jobs are temporary—in fact, only 1 out of 10 

jobs has been created for actual operation and maintenance of new plants. And the 

authors conclude that the costs of creating green jobs ‘‘do not appear to be unique 

to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.’’ 

This math just doesn’t add up. The Waxman-Markey bill will destroy far more 

jobs than it will create. In fact, the authors of the bill assume that it will kill jobs. 

When I read through it, I found an unemployment insurance program designed specifically for workers who lose their jobs because of Waxman-Markey. It also includes 

Federal assistance for job relocation and job searching. 

Rural America wants a different policy, one that recognizes the need to produce 

all forms of energy, ranging from wind to clean coal. No policy that includes 1,400 

pages of mandates, taxes, and regulations will produce jobs or energy. And any such 

policy will threaten the rural way of life. We must defeat this bill or anything like 

it and pass a common sense energy policy for America. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Let me begin by thanking Senator Boxer for the leadership that 

she has shown for so many years on environmental issues, on the 

crisis in global warming and on job creation, the creation of green 

jobs. Thank you, Senator. 

And let me, as a former Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, let me 

welcome our guests. I think we understand that one of the advantages of our Federalist form of government is that a lot of great 

ideas are taking place at the local level, they are taking place at 

the State level, and in fact the function of this hearing is to see 

how we can work together, how we can learn from you, how you 

can learn from us, and how together we can address some of the 

major crises this country faces, the issue of energy independence. 

Does anybody here think it is a good idea that we spend approximately $450 billion every single year importing oil from abroad? I 

do not think there is anyone here who thinks that is a particularly 

good idea. 

Many of us, including the leading scientists in the world, are 

worried about what this planet will look like if we do not reverse 

greenhouse gas emissions and do not deal with global warming. 

And these are some of the issues that you have been dealing with. 

And more importantly, as Senator Boxer indicated, we are in the 

midst of a major recession, and we need to create millions of good 

paying jobs as we break our dependency on foreign oil and as we 
6 

lower greenhouse gas emissions. That is what this hearing is 

about. 

It seems to me that what we need to be doing is waging an energy revolution, nothing less than an energy revolution. What that 

means is that we need a future in which we create millions of good 

paying jobs in areas in wind, in solar, in geothermal, in biomass, 

in mass transportation, in areas that not only cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, but have the side effect of cleaning up our 

country and making us a healthier Nation so that the kids in 

Vermont are not breathing particulates which cause asthma. 

So, we are moving in a direction for a win-win-win situation. Energy independence. Think about what it means to invest $450 billion a year in our economy, and all of the things that we can accomplish. Think about where we could be in 2025, where we could 

be producing a quarter or more of our electricity from clean, sustainable energy sources. 

I see a revitalized American manufacturing base where, instead 

of importing 90 percent of the batteries used in hybrid vehicles, 46 

percent of solar PV cells and modules, and half of all wind turbines 

used in the U.S., we can be producing these products right here in 

the United States of America. 

I see a future where, instead of creating 330 jobs to build yet another fossil fuel plant, we create 4,000 jobs building a solar thermal 

plant that has no carbon dioxide emissions and does not pollute our 

air and whose only fuel is endlessly renewed, at no cost, from the 

sun. 

I see a future where, by 2020, our Nation is far more energy efficient than it is today. In Vermont, we have recently seen 2 consecutive years where our electricity demand has been lowered, lowered thanks to our energy efficiency efforts. And this is the greatest 

investment that we can make in terms of energy. It costs only 3 

cents for each kilowatt hour we save through energy efficiency, 

while it costs 14 cents for each kilowatt hour we buy from new generation, and we can put large numbers of people to work in terms 

of energy efficiency and weatherization. 

I see a future where, by 2020, we can do nationally what 

Vermont has been doing on a State level, making major savings 

through energy efficiency. 

By stressing efficiency, we will also create the framework for innovative technology development and economic growth. We will see 

companies like Cree, based in North Carolina, which produces LED 

lighting, create jobs and expand all across the Nation. In 2002, 

Cree had 893 employees. Now, they have more than 3,000 in a rapidly growing industry with LED light. 

I see a future where getting to work or to school or to the store 

does not have to cause pollution. There is extraordinary opportunity, not only in hybrid plug-ins manufactured in the United 

States, but electric vehicles as well. 

I see a future where we have reinvested in our mass transportation and rail systems. So that when we go to Europe, or Japan, 

or China, we do not have to say, why can we not do that in the 

United States? Why can we not have the kind of mass transportation, the kind of rural transportation, that this country des-
7 

perately needs, and in the process, creates millions of good paying 

jobs? 

So, we have, right now, enormous opportunities in front of us. 

We can lead the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, we can 

lead the world in creating the kind of good paying jobs that our 

people desperately need, and in the process we will create a cleaner 

and healthier America. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sanders follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Let me welcome our guests to this committee today, Governors and Mayors and 

elected officials. A great deal of exciting and innovative work has been taking place 

in States and cities throughout our country in breaking our dependence on fossil 

fuel and foreign oil, in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and in the process, moving us to the creation of millions of good paying jobs in the years to come. We are 

here today to learn from your efforts and see how Washington and States and cities 

can go forward together in transforming our energy system and our global environment. 

THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINVEST IN AMERICAN JOBS

Today, as a Nation we spend some 350–450 billion dollars a year importing oil 

from abroad—from countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mexico, Russia, Venezuela, 

and Iraq. Think for a moment what an incredible impact $450 billion a year could 

have on our economy and job creation here if that money were invested in this country in weatherization, energy efficiency, sustainable energies like wind, solar, geothermal, bio-mass and other technologies, public transportation and automobiles 

that are far more energy efficient or not using fossil fuels at all. 

What we are talking about is an energy revolution—a revolution that leads us toward energy independence and the ability to avoid Mideast wars fought over oil; a 

revolution that not only has the potential to save the planet from the devastating 

damage being caused by global warming, but which will also, as a side effect, clean 

up our air and water and make us a healthier Nation. This is a big deal. 

Now in terms of green job creation let me say a few words about where we are 

today, what some other countries are doing that we can learn from, and the direction that we should be going in the next 5 to 10 years. 

Today, it is estimated by the Pew Charitable Trusts that there are some 770,000 

green jobs in America. These include a wide range of jobs at every level of education 

and for every skill set. These are jobs for machinists, engineers, and electricians. 

These are jobs for workers who weatherize older homes and buildings—making 

them far more energy efficient, and in the process, saving substantial sums for the 

inhabitants on their fuel bills. These are jobs for factory workers who are now producing the most advanced insulation material, energy efficient windows, and improved roofing materials. These are jobs being created in companies in America that 

build, distribute, install and maintain wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, solar hot 

water systems, geo-thermal heating and cooling systems, and bio-mass heating systems. These are jobs being created on our farms and in our forests as workers 

produce bio-fuels and use farm waste to generate electricity. These are good paying, 

domestic jobs that put people to work while turning the tide against global warming 

and pollution. 

MY VISION FOR A NEW AMERICAN GREEN ECONOMY

I see a new future for this Nation where our need for energy independence and 

environmental sustainability drives our economic growth. While today we have hundreds of thousands of green jobs, tomorrow we can have millions of green jobs. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, green jobs grew by 9.1 percent between 1998 

and 2007, and during the same period other jobs grew by just 3.7 percent. According 

to the Center for American Progress and Green for All, if we invest $150 billion per 

year in the public and private sectors in sustainable energy, we can create 1.7 million net new jobs per year. That is almost 2 million jobs a year—17 million new 

jobs over a decade. And although these are good paying jobs, roughly 870,000 of 

them each year would be available to workers with high school degrees or less. 

Green investments, green energy, green jobs: this is how we will replace our lost 

manufacturing jobs. 
8 

I see a future where by 2025 we are producing a quarter or more of our electricity 

from clean, sustainable energy sources. I see a revitalized American manufacturing 

base where instead of importing 90 percent of the batteries used in hybrid vehicles, 

46 percent of solar PV cells and modules, and half of all wind turbines used in the 

U.S., we make these products here. In 1970, Denmark made a commitment to renewable energy and now gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind alone. In doing 

so, it also created a new export industry: Danish companies now earn billions and 

lead the world in wind energy. I see our Nation’s commitment to renewable energy 

producing a similar influx of good jobs in this country. I see a future where instead 

of creating 330 jobs to build yet another fossil fuel plant, we create 4,000 jobs building a solar thermal plant that has no carbon dioxide emissions and does not pollute 

our air—and whose only fuel is endlessly renewed, and no cost, sunlight. 

I see a future where by 2020 our Nation is far more energy efficient than it is 

today. In Vermont we have recently seen 2 consecutive years where our electricity 

demand has been lowered thanks to our energy efficiency efforts. This is the greatest investment truth in sustainable energy: it costs only 3 cents for each kilowatt 

hour we save through energy efficiency, while it costs 14 cents for each kilowatt 

hour we buy from new generation. I see a future where States compete with one 

another to see which can be the most efficient and where businesses seek out efficient States in which to locate so they can reap the economic and environmental 

benefits for their businesses and employees. I see a future where by 2020 we can 

do nationally what Vermont has been doing on a State level—making major savings 

through energy efficiency. Efficiency can save utility customers $168 billion, avoid 

the need for 390 medium-sized coal plants, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions so 

much that it would be the same as taking 48 million cars off the road. Efficiency. 

By stressing efficiency, we will also create the framework for innovative technology development and economic growth. We will see companies like Cree, based 

in North Carolina, which produces LED lighting, create jobs and expand all across 

this Nation. In 2002, Cree had 893 employees; now they have more than 3,000, and 

these workers are producing environmentally friendly products for a fast growing 

global marketplace. 

I see a future where getting to work, or to school, or to the store does not have 

to cause pollution. I see a future where plug-in hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles 

are commonplace, producing a fraction of the emissions of conventional vehicles 

while providing the same mobility for drivers. Already today, a Chinese company 

called Build Your Dreams is producing plug-in hybrids for sale in China. We need 

to see American companies producing such advanced vehicles and exporting that 

technology to other nations, instead of the other way around. 

I see a future where we have reinvested in our mass transportation and rail systems. For every $1 billion we invest in public transportation, we see 30,000 jobs created, thousands of dollars saved annually by individual commuters, and dramatic 

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for each mile traveled. 

I see this future already being planned in Vermont, where our cities and towns 

are working to develop district energy systems that capture ‘‘waste’’ heat from 

power plants and use it to heat buildings. I see it in our efforts to power and heat 

our schools and public housing with clean technologies such as wood chips and solar 

hot water heating. I see it in the Vermont National Guard’s facilities, which we are 

working to convert to solar, geothermal, and biomass powered and heated facilities. 

I hope to see these and other world changing innovations and common sense practices replicated throughout our country. 

CLOSING

I am pleased to have worked with Chairman Boxer to convene this first hearing 

of the Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee. I look forward to learning what 

each of our witnesses is doing in their State or city to create green jobs and build 

a foundation under our vision of a new, green future for our Nation. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. I think our next is Senator Bond. 

Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Are we going to have the demonstrations through the testimony? 

[Laughter.] 
9 

Senator BOND. As a former Governor, I know the pressure that 

elected officials face to create jobs and promote economic development. During these tough economic times, new jobs are needed now 

more than ever. At the same time, regrettably, carbon cap-andtrade legislation threatens to kill millions of jobs through higher 

energy costs that help our competitors in China. 

We are learning in this debate that green jobs are not the full 

answer. Some make a good deal of economic sense, like nuclear 

power and energy conservation efforts. Others, like wind and solar 

jobs, are not so much created as bought. Last week the National 

Black Chamber of Commerce told us how even after considering 

the gains from new green jobs, cap-and-trade legislation will kill 

approximately 2.5 million jobs. 

On Senator Sanders’ committee, as the Ranking Member, I put 

out a report earlier this spring on green jobs, Yellow Light on 

Green Jobs. We found that some green jobs, especially wind and 

solar, kill existing jobs to pay for new green jobs. They pay low 

wages and require expensive taxpayer subsidies to create. 

The disturbing information comes from green jobs advocates 

themselves. A coalition of labor organizations, Teamsters, SEIU 

and the Sierra Club, found in a report entitled High Road of Low 

Road, Job Quality in New Economy, that State and local taxpayer 

subsidies of tens of thousands and dollars, and sometimes hundreds of thousands are dollars, per green job, total tens of millions 

of dollars spent. This means green jobs are not created but instead 

must be bought with heavy taxpayer subsidies. 

An example is the Vestas wind power turbine tower manufacturing plant in Pueblo, Colorado. State, county and local officials 

spent nearly $32 million in incentives and tax breaks to attract 

this Danish wind turbine company to build a new facility in Pueblo. 

This chart shows how officials gave away economic development 

funds, training funds, incentives, matching grants, investment tax 

waivers, sales tax waivers, employee tax credits, enterprise zone 

credits and healthcare tax credits. A grand total of $32 million attracted 450 jobs. That comes out to $71,000 per job. 

I understand that these are local decisions. The people of Pueblo 

think 450 jobs are worth $32 million. What I do know is that the 

citizens and taxpayers in my State do not want their energy taxes 

raised or their other jobs killed to pay for green jobs. 

The ironic thing is that this thing will operate in Pueblo next to 

the GCC Cement Plant, the Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel Mill and 

the Xcel Energy Coal Fired Power Plant. It is ironic because the 

drive for cap-and-trade legislation being justified with Vestas’ 

green jobs will likely doom the steel, cement and affordable power 

jobs. 

High power and carbon allowance costs will make America’s cement and steel uncompetitive and force closure of those plants. 

Emission reductions cut too fast and too deep will cause the closure 

of coal fired plants. Pueblo may well lose more jobs than it creates. 

Do not get me wrong. I support American green jobs. Expanding 

our affordable American clean energy sources will produce them. 

My State has led the Nation is biofuels from corn and soy beans. 

We are working on cellulosic fuels and fuels from biomass and 
10 

algae. We are a center of new battery technology and are beginning 

production of all-electric delivery trucks and hybrid SUVs. Domestic mass production of hybrid and plug-in vehicles will help the environment, lower costs for consumers and provide good paying 

manufacturing work. 

Nuclear power, clean coal technology, environmentally friendly 

drilling for oil and gas off our shores, conservation in existing 

buildings and other facilities—these are American sources of energy that will create American jobs, keep us independent of our adversaries, and ensure plentiful supplies to keep prices lower. 

Clean energy, American energy, affordable energy, an all of the 

above strategy that does not kill jobs and raise energy taxes is 

what we need. This is the path I urge the committee, this Congress 

and America to take. 

I thank the Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on cap-and-trade legislation 

and State and local green jobs. 

As a former two-term Governor of the State of Missouri, I know the pressure that 

elected officials face to create jobs and promote economic development. During these 

tough economic times, new jobs are needed now more than ever. 

At the same time, carbon cap-and-trade legislation threatens to kill millions of 

jobs through higher energy costs and help our competitors in China. 

We are learning in this debate that green jobs are not the answer. Last week, 

the National Black Chamber of Commerce told us how even after considering gains 

from new green jobs, cap-and-trade legislation will still kill 2.5 million net jobs. 

As ranking member of the Green Jobs and the New Economy subcommittee, I 

issued a report entitled Yellow Light on Green Jobs that found that green jobs efforts will kill existing jobs to pay for new green jobs, pay low wages, and require 

expensive taxpayer subsidies to create. This disturbing information came from green 

jobs advocates themselves. 

A coalition of environmental and labor organizations including the Sierra Club, 

Teamsters, and SEIU found in a report entitled High Road or Low Road? Job Quality in the New Economy, that State and local taxpayer subsidies of tens of millions 

of dollars oftentimes produced only a few hundred jobs. At this rate, taxpayer green 

jobs subsidies cost tens of thousands, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, per green job. 

Thus, green jobs are not created but instead must be bought with heavy taxpayer 

subsidies. 

An example is the Vestas wind turbine tower manufacturing plant in Pueblo, Colorado. State, county and local officials spent nearly $32 million in incentives and 

tax breaks to attract this Danish wind turbine company to build a new facility in 

Pueblo. (From the Pueblo Chieftain) 

This chart shows how officials gave away economic development funds, training 

funds, incentives, matching grants, investment tax waivers, sales tax waivers, employee tax credits, enterprise zone credits, and health care tax credits. The grand 

total of $32 million attracted 450 jobs; that works out to $71,000 per job. 

I understand that these are local decisions. Perhaps the people of Pueblo think 

450 jobs are worth $32 million. What I do know is that many taxpayers in Missouri 

do not want their energy taxes raised or their own jobs killed to pay for green jobs. 

The ironic thing is that this plant will operate in Pueblo next to the GCC cement 

plant, the Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel Mill, and the Excel Energy coal-fired power 

plant. Ironic, because the drive for cap-and-trade legislation that is being justified 

with the Vestas green jobs will likely doom the cement, steel and affordable power 

jobs right next door. 

High power and carbon allowance costs will make American cement and steel uncompetitive, likely forcing the closure of those plants or plants like them. Emissions 

reduction cuts too fast and too deep will force the closure of coal-fired power plants, 

to be replaced by more expensive natural gas. Pueblo may very well lose more jobs 

than created by this effort. 
11 

Don’t get me wrong. I support new American green jobs. Expanding our affordable, American, clean energy sources will produce them. 

Missouri has led the Nation in biofuels from corn and soybeans and is working 

on new cellulosic fuels from biomass and algae. We are a center of new battery technology and are producing all electric trucks and hybrid SUVs. Domestic mass production of hybrid and plug-in vehicles will help the environment, lower costs for consumers, and provide good paying manufacturing work. 

Nuclear power, clean coal technology, environmentally friendly drilling for oil and 

gas off our own shores—these are American sources of energy that will create American jobs, keep us independent of our adversaries and ensure plentiful supplies to 

keep prices lower. 

Clean energy, American energy, affordable energy—an all of the above strategy 

that does not kill jobs and raise energy taxes. This is the path I urge this committee 

and America to take. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Bond. 

With the indulgence of the committee, if we could take a little 

bit of a break, Senator Menendez is here to introduce Governor 

Corzine. He is going to have to run, so I would like to have Senator 

Menendez say a few words. Then we will come back to Senator 

Lautenberg or Senator Cardin. 

Senator Menendez. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I appreciate the courtesy. And thank you to you, the Chairlady of the 

full committee, and the Ranking Member. 

It is my sincere honor today to join my senior Senator from New 

Jersey in recognizing and introducing Governor Corzine to this 

hearing on clean energy and job growth. 

As Governor Corzine himself has said, a healthy economy and a 

healthy environment are inextricably linked. By leveraging existing 

industries and creating new ones, New Jersey is paving the way for 

a clean economy and a healthy one. 

The Governor’s past experience in finance and as a United States 

Senator has allowed him to appreciate how important it was to embrace the Recovery Act and use its resources as quickly and effectively as possible. The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated 

that New Jersey’s use of these funds from the Recovery Act will 

create or save over 100,000 jobs over the next 2 years. 

Many of these jobs, by virtue of the work the Governor is doing, 

are in the clean energy and environment protection sectors. For example, New Jersey is distributing $20 million in competitive grants 

for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at 

State facilities including public colleges and universities. 

The Governor has recently announced that the State will use Recovery Act Funds for a much-needed wetlands restoration project 

that, in turn, will create 100 new construction-related jobs, as well 

as being a good steward for the land for future generations of New 

Jerseyans. 

The Governor is also working with businesses to close the skill 

gaps in the emerging green economy. The New Jersey Green Job 

Training Partnership Program builds on existing partnerships between industry and educational institutions and offers apprenticeship opportunities for a 21st century energy industry. Over the 
12 

past 3 years alone, nearly 2,000 New Jersey workers have been 

trained in the clean energy sector. 

I could go on and on about Governor Corzine’s statewide Energy 

Efficiency Program, his Clean Energy Manufacturing Fund, his 

ground-breaking energy master plan or his continued efforts to finance mass transit and smart growth policies. All of these impressive programs will not only create jobs, but they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the quality of life for millions of 

New Jersey citizens. 

He is leading the State out of this deep recession by creating 

jobs, saving energy, and building foundations of a green energy 

economy that will serve New Jersey for decades. So, I cannot think 

of anyone better who will be before the committee to help you as 

you deal with this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Senator Menendez. 

We will get back to regular order, Senator Cardin followed by 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the interest of time, I am going to ask that my entire statement be put in the record and just welcome the Governors that are 

here and welcome our local officials. 

I think one thing is very clear: the United States has always 

been the leader in the development of new technology. We have 

done that in telecommunications, we have done that in manufacturing, and we have done it in every critical area of our economy. 

And we are doing it on energy. We have developed the technology. 

The problem is that we have allowed the jobs to be exported overseas because we have not had the right incentives in America for 

the creation of clean jobs here in our own country. 

The Lieberman-Warner bill last year, a bill that this committee 

worked on, would have created jobs here in America. I think one 

of our prime tests in moving forward with energy legislation and 

environmental legislation is not just energy security for America, 

which is critically important, we need to do that, it is not just the 

fact that we need to clean up our environment and be a leader 

internationally in bringing down global climate change and greenhouse gases, but we also need to keep jobs and create jobs in America. 

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I was so pleased that you put together this panel of the leaders that are in the forefront of dealing 

with the economic realities in their individual States and communities. They know what it is to be competitive in attracting jobs 

and expanding jobs. 

In clean energy, we have a real opportunity to give them additional tools from a national perspective in order for our States to 

energize job creation in America and, at the same time, have a 

clean environment and, at the same time, be energy secure. 

So, I am looking forward to our witnesses, and I thank them for 

being here. 
13 

1Or $150 billion. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Chairmen Boxer and Sanders, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Robust clean energy and climate legislation will transform the American economy. 

The United States has always been a world leader in technical innovation and production. From automobiles and airplanes to communication, computing and information technologies, all started and flourished here in the United States. So it comes 

as no surprise that clean energy production technologies such as wind and solar also 

got their start here in the U.S. 

The first wind turbine used to generate electricity was constructed in 1888 outside 

of Cleveland, Ohio, and small scale wind power was a part of rural energy production in the United States throughout the 20th century. 

Similarly, modern photovoltaics used to capture and generate power from the Sun 

were developed at Bell Laboratories and were an integral part of the NASA space 

program from the start, including the Apollo 11 lunar mission which we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of this week. 

However, unlike information technology or modern defense systems, the companies leading the way in research, development and production of clean energy technologies are overseas. This has to change, and it starts with a policy framework that 

reflects the country’s desire to lead. This opportunity for American workers and 

American entrepreneurs cannot be allowed to pass them by. 

In May 2007 I toured BP Solar’s U.S. headquarters, located in Frederick, Mary- land, just after the company had completed a $25 million facility expansion. At the 

time, BP Solar employed 2,000 workers at their Frederick headquarters and was 

planning a second facility expansion. 

During my visit I had the chance to meet and speak with dozens of Marylanders 

working at ‘‘green jobs.’’ The experience reaffirmed my commitment to the United 

States’ leadership in developing renewable energy technologies. 

As was noted at last Thursday’s hearing by venture capitalist John Doerer from 

KPBC, current U.S. policy stifles innovation and competitiveness. And my State 

knows firsthand what it means to lose good paying, skilled, green jobs in the energy 

sector to countries that are outpacing the U.S. toward the goal of clean energy future for the world. 

A year after breaking ground on the second expansion of their Frederick headquarters, BP Solar altered its plans. The company decided to move the manufacturing facility to Spain where government programs create greater incentives for renewable energy companies to do business. BP Solar’s decision did not just impact 

projected job growth at the Frederick facility but was a factor in the elimination of 

140 existing jobs at the plant. 

I would like to see those 140 jobs and many more come back to Maryland in a 

new green economy, but it is not likely to happen without a firm commitment to 

clean energy from the U.S. Government. 

A study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute and the Center for 

American Progress estimates that investing just a little over 1 percent 1 of the annual U.S. gross domestic product into clean energy technologies nationwide would 

generate 26,000 new jobs for Maryland and hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide. 

We cannot rely on corporate altruism or the American ‘‘free market,’’ which under 

current Federal regulation heavily favors the fossil fuel industry, to move the American economy toward clean energy and green job development. There are many 

other countries around the world competing for these industries to do business on 

their soil, and they are implementing policy frameworks that make it much easier 

for clean energy companies to do business abroad than to do business here in America. 

Foreign government policies are not establishing lax environment or labor standards; rather countries like Spain, France, Japan and Germany have merely established robust renewable energy standards creating lucrative markets for companies 

to do business there. It is unfortunate that we import so much of our finite energy 

resources from abroad as it is, and it is unconscionable that we would do the same 

with renewable energy sources in the future. 

Given America’s historical ingenuity and manufacturing capacity we can become 

the world’s leading supplier of essential renewable energy technologies. Revamping 

the American economy for the 21st century will put us in charge of our own energy 
14 

supplies. The Clean Energy and Green Jobs legislation we pass will put us on a 

path to energy independence, and that’s a path to improved national security, increased GDP and increased job growth. 

I thank Chairmen Sanders and Boxer for holding this hearing. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also looking forward to the witnesses. I like to see Governors come to Washington, and thank you very much for taking time to be here. 

Of course, we are talking about the wisdom of Governors and 

Mayors and what a great decentralized country this is. But the 

Waxman-Markey bill starts out by denying that, by imposing on all 

the States a so-called 15 percent renewable energy standard, which 

is to tell you exactly how to make your electricity and by when. 

The goal is laudable. It is no carbon, zero carbon. So, in that 

spirit, I am going to be asking, when my turn comes, what you 

each think of the idea of a base load energy standard. 

Renewable energy, solar and wind, and mostly wind, is really 

part-time energy. It is only available about one-third of the time. 

Today, you cannot store it. The wind blows a lot at night when we 

have plenty of extra electricity, and solar during the day, which is 

a good peak time. But altogether, it is about 3 or 4 percent of all 

of our electricity. 

So, let us just assume that is a good idea and we double or triple 

that in the next several years, and that gets us up to around 10 

percent. Since the United States uses 25 percent of all of the electricity in the world, where are we going to get the rest of it? I 

would assume that we would want that also to be zero-carbon electricity, as much as possible. 

If it is a good idea for those of us in Washington to tell you that 

you have got to make, say, 15 percent of your electricity from zerocarbon renewable energies, which are very narrowly defined, why 

is it not a good idea for us to tell you that you need to make 20 

percent of your electricity from zero-carbon base load electricity? 

Now, that could be anything, but it probably would be mostly nuclear. The Senator from Vermont talked about how clean his State 

was, and I congratulate him for that. I believe it is the No. 1 State 

in terms of low carbon emissions. It also the No. 1 State in terms 

of the amount of power it gets from nuclear energy, about 75 percent. 

Sometimes we forget that nuclear energy produces 20 percent of 

our electricity but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. Conveniently, nuclear is excluded from the renewable energy standard. 

Nuclear, of course, is a base load. That is a most-of-the-time electricity. Those plants generally operate at 90 percent, while solar 

and wind is operating at a third. 

So, let us grant that it is a good idea to require you, from Washington, to make 15 percent of your electricity from solar and wind, 

etc. But let us say why is it not also a good idea to go to base load. 

My argument is some like nuclear, some do not. Some like wind, 

I do not. In the Southeast, it does not work because the wind does 
15 

not blow. A policy such as the current renewable standard that is 

proposed has the effect of requiring an area like the TVA region, 

which has the only wind farm in the Southeastern United States 

and which operates only about 19 percent of the time, it has the 

practical effect of forcing us to buy wind from other parts of the 

country when we would rather be spending the money on conservation, on cleaning up our coal plants, and on carbon-free nuclear 

power. 

Let us give States some choices. Or maybe fewer choices. Let us 

just say we are wise enough to require you to have a renewable 

zero-carbon standard for wind and solar; let us do it for base load, 

too. Nuclear would qualify. I do not know if hydro would qualify. 

You could build new reservoirs. That would work. Or you could use 

biomass. That is what they keep telling us we can do in the Southeast, although it would take about a forest the size of Florida and 

Georgia to produce enough electricity to equal 20 percent of the 

U.S. consumption on nuclear. 

And on the question of jobs, California is proud of its growth in 

renewable energy. But I would like to place in the record a report 

from the News section, not the Editorial section, of the Wall Street 

Journal, which says that California officials are beginning to worry 

that the State’s focus on transitioning to renewable energy sources 

could lead to power shortages in the near term. California’s utilities are barreling ahead to meet a State mandate to garner 33 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, and some officials are concerned this might push up electricity prices, cramp 

supplies, the State Auditor warned this week, a high risk to the 

State economy, and that California could find itself uncomfortably 

tight on power by 2011 if problems continue to pile up. 

I would rather have a clean energy standard that would let 

States make their own decisions about whether to have wind, 

which as I have said in our region is about like having hydropower 

in the desert. But as long as we want to have a narrowly defined 

renewable energy standard that mostly is devoted to wind and 

solar, why not a 20 percent zero-carbon base load energy standard 

to go with it? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
16 
17 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lautenberg followed by Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I was pleased to hear from my colleague in the Senate, Bob 

Menendez, who has been a fighter for a long time to improve environmental conditions. And I am delighted to see Governor Corzine 

here. We used to know Jon Corzine as Senator Corzine and saw 

him establish a record there fighting for a cleaner environment. We 

are pleased to see Governor Corzine here and to hear his views on 

things. 

It has been our State’s luck to have Jon Corzine as Governor, 

and it has been his hard work and the smart decisions of people 

in New Jersey that have made our State a leader in clean energy 

and a model for others to follow. 

It was New Jersey, for example, that worked with California and 

won the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. 

It was New Jersey, led by Governor Corzine, which passed a law 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 within our 

State. It was New Jersey that enacted one of the most aggressive 

renewable electricity standards in the country. And as a result, 

more than 2,000 clean energy companies now call New Jersey 

home, employing over 25,000 people. 

Our State is setting a pace. But in the race to build a clean energy economy and the millions of clean energy jobs that come with 

it, our Nation is dangerously close to falling behind. 

We are all warned that China is the world’s largest exporter of 

the materials needed to build solar panels and exports 95 percent 

of its goods to Europe and the United States. We have got to wake 

up and move the ball. Stop the woe be unto us, and get on with 

doing the job, making the investments. 

You know, China is building wind farms that can generate as 

much as 20,000 megawatts of electricity. But, by the way, China 

now has surpassed the United States in the emission of greenhouse 

gases. So, we can improve China’s position by establishing a leadership role for America. It is time for Congress to get our country 

back up to speed. 

Last month, the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill 

that would fundamentally change how America uses energy and 

fights global warming. The world’s eyes are now on this body of the 

Senate, and especially on our committee, to pass a bill to move our 

country away from dirty, unstable sources of energy and toward 

clean, sustainable and efficient ones. 

But we cannot accomplish our clean energy goals relying only on 

the technology we have today. We need to be building the technology that we need for tomorrow. We have to make the investments in research and development. That creates jobs in the short 

term and gives our country the tools to compete in the long term. 

New Jersey is home to some of the most prestigious companies 

that do some of the most important research in the world. Johnson 

& Johnson, for instance, spends about 12 percent of its revenue on 
18 

research and development. But the legislation that passed the 

House devotes only 1.5 percent of allowances to research and development. So, we have got to increase this money and make sure our 

technology matches our policies. 

I want to say this. We heard, and I think it is a legitimate concern, that farmers have the most to lose if we impose these costs 

and these rules to clean up the environment. I disagree. I think 

families across America have the most to lose. I think those families who have children and grandchildren yet to grow up have the 

most to lose. Because we know that there are more respiratory diseases growing at a rapid pace, asthma in particular. 

And we also know other things. We also know that it is not just 

conventional farming, but it is the farm that feeds the fish in our 

world, as we see coral dying, and as we see less opportunity for nutritional development of fish and marine life. 

So, we have all got a price to pay here. The question is, are we 

going to continue with our heads buried in the sand, complaining 

about what the costs might be, instead of having the vision that 

people took when they went to the Moon as we just celebrated? Are 

we going to step up to the plate and say, no, America leads, American does not, and America does not just say no. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very concerned about preserving and creating jobs in America and especially in my own State of Wyoming, green jobs as well 

as red, white and blue jobs. Unfortunately, decisions are being 

made in Washington that threaten that. 

On Friday last week, Vice President Biden’s Chief of Staff was quoted in the Washington Post defending the President’s $787 billion economic stimulus proposal by saying, ‘‘The point of these programs on the jobs front is to cushion the blow.’’ 

Now, this statement ignores the fact that the President’s bill was 

supposed to create or save 3.5 million jobs and keep unemployment 

no higher than 8 percent. The Administration promised immediate 

results, immediate, but that has not turned out to be as the Administration expected. 

Since the economic stimulus package was signed into law over 5 

months ago, 2 million American jobs have been lost. Unemployment rates have soared to above 9.5 percent, all of this occurring 

after the passage of the $787 billion stimulus proposal. 

Vice President Biden has stated that the Administration misread 

the economy. The President’s stimulus package did not cushion the 

economic blow for working families. It has intensified it. It intensified it by putting America deeper into debt and by not stopping the 

rising unemployment. The Vice President stated just last week that 

we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. It made all 

the news shows, and especially the comedy shows. 

This is the type of economic thinking that has led to the apparent failure of the President’s stimulus package. In yesterday’s 
19 

Washington Post editorial page, an editorial by Robert Samuelson, 

The Squandered Stimulus, said the program crafted by Obama and 

the Democrat Congress was not engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise designed to claim 

credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies, 

and signal support for fashionable causes. 

Now the Administration and the majority in Congress are saying 

that the Waxman-Markey bill is a jobs bill. This is despite the fact 

that this so-called jobs package includes language, as Senator 

Inhofe said, to subsidize and retrain workers who lose their jobs because of the bill. The authors of this bill and this Administration 

will deal another blow to the American taxpayer. This means taking away more jobs and then subsidizing a few green jobs in their 

place. To the folks back home beyond the Beltway, this is Alice in 

Wonderland economics. 

Let me give you an example of the blow that is being felt by 

Waxman-Markey to American jobs. In Wyoming, and in California, 

here is the American soda ash industry. Now, these are the only 

two States in America that produce soda ash. It employs thousands 

of Americans, hardworking men and women who make the basic 

necessary ingredient for glass, fiberglass, toothpaste and baking 

soda. 

Under this bill, there is no protection for this industry. The result will be that higher energy costs and new regulations will drive 

the soda ash manufacturers from Wyoming and California overseas 

to China. 

Now, the China soda ash industry is highly energy intensive and 

polluting, consuming over 220 trillion BTUs of energy and emitting 

nearly 20 million tons of carbon dioxide on an annual basis. That 

is because they use synthetic production methods. 

This is going to cause irreparable environmental damage by moving the businesses from America to China. Under Waxman-Markey, thousands of hardworking Americans will lose their jobs in the 

soda ash industry in Wyoming and in California. They will lose 

their jobs even though they produce a natural, more environmentally respectful product than the Chinese. These jobs will shift 

overseas to China and spur their economic growth, not ours. 

The Chinese will then sell back to the United States a synthetic 

product with a much higher environmental cost. The synthetic 

product is what will go into the glass and fiberglass that this country will use to build the green homes and buildings that are being 

constructed in the future. 

So, according to the Administration, if Waxman-Markey passes 

and the soda ash industry go overseas, Americans will pay additional tariffs on the synthetic soda ash that we now will have to 

buy, all of it, from the Chinese. Only in Washington can we develop 

these thoughtless policies. 

This is not an isolated case. So, I ask each of my colleagues to 

examine the real impacts to the jobs in each of your States as a 

result of this bill. Please make sure the so-called green jobs that 

are being promised by this bill are not being created in China at 

the expense of each of our constituents’ jobs. 

It does not have to be that way. We need an all of the above energy strategy that includes nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, hydro, 
20 

wind, solar, all the renewables. We need it all. We need to make 

America’s energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without 

raising prices on American businesses or families. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Senator Bennet has dropped in to introduce Governor Ritter. 

Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Senator. 

I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for 

holding this important hearing. It is fascinating to have the chance 

to listen to the work that you are all doing and for extending to 

me the courtesy of introducing our Governor, Bill Ritter, who has 

been Colorado’s Chief Executive since 2007. 

Prior to assuming the Governorship, Governor Ritter was Denver’s District Attorney, earning a reputation as one of the country’s 

most effective prosecutors. He was educated as Colorado State University and the University of Colorado. Before becoming District 

Attorney, he and his wife, Jeannie, lived in Africa for 3 years serving as missionaries, educating people in Zambia about nutrition 

and health care. Bill Ritter’s very life and work experience make 

him a tremendous asset for our State. 

Colorado’s Governor Ritter is sure to tell you in detail that it is 

a State that is blessed with an abundant array of energy resources, 

both traditional, like our abundant supply of clean burning natural 

gas, and renewables, namely our rich wind and solar resources. 

There is perhaps no one more qualified to talk about how Colorado 

is harnessing this vast supply of resources, thereby creating thousands of clean energy jobs and attracting substantial new investment in our State than Governor Ritter. 

As Governor, he has led the Nation in spearheading initiatives 

to transition our economy toward clean, renewable energy. For example, in 2007, he signed legislation into law that spurred our 

State’s large investor-owned utilities to procure at least 20 percent 

of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020. 

Initiatives like these contributed to a recent Pugh Charitable 

Trust finding that clean energy job growth in Colorado is more 

than double—double—that of normal job growth, 18.2 percent as 

opposed 8.2 percent, respectively. Furthermore, the study found 

that venture capital investment in green technology in Colorado 

topped $620 million over the past 3 years. 

These numbers are proof positive that Governor Ritter’s leadership is cementing Colorado’s place in the forefront of the new energy economy. Governor Bill Ritter is the sort of leader who can 

help us reach all of our important goals moving to this new energy 

economy. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce to the Committee Governor Bill Ritter. 

Senator SANDERS. Not quite yet. 

[Laughter.] 

Thank you, Senator Bennet. 

Senator Udall, to be followed by Senator Voinovich. 

Senator Udall. 
21 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. We really are going to hear from you at some 

point, we really, really are. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. I will make it short and put my opening statement into the record, and thank the Governors. Christine Gregoire 

and I served as State Attorneys General. I know that Sheldon overlapped with you also. And it is wonderful to have our neighbor, 

Governor Ritter, here. 

I want to thank the Chairs for highlighting the fact that States 

and cities are really laying the groundwork out there on the clean 

energy economy. I think that it is terrific, what you are doing. And 

I want to highlight a couple of the facts. 

No fewer than 23 of 50 States have already agreed to regional 

cap-and-trade programs to reduce greenhouse gases. Three regional 

gas-and-trade programs cover one-half of the U.S. population and 

one-third of U.S. emissions. 

Emission trading has already begun in 10 Northeastern States in 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. New Mexico is a member 

of the Western Climate Initiative, another bi-partisan regional capand-trade program of seven States and four Canadian Provinces. 

Then we also, in the Midwest, have the Greenhouse Gas Accord. 

So, the States and cities, I think, are moving very aggressively 

to create this clean energy economy. 

Just to highlight a little bit about what New Mexico has done. 

On the solar front, Governor Richardson and our delegation are 

working hard to create solar jobs. We have had companies come 

from overseas and locate in New Mexico. They are creating jobs 

now, even in this very, very difficult economy. 

We are planting wind turbines around New Mexico like trees. We 

have a community college that has installed what they call the tallest classroom in the world, which 410-foot wind turbine, and those 

students are studying how to service and maintain the wind turbines. So, they are starting to educate people for these clean energy 

jobs. 

Los Alamos National Lab has developed technology for geothermal, and there is going to be the creation of geothermal jobs 

in New Mexico and other States. I know that both Governor Ritter 

and Governor Gregoire know every well that the forests have huge 

potential for biomass, and we are going to be creating jobs there 

with some of the older overgrowth we have in our forests. 

So, I think that it is clear that there are the jobs out there. We 

are getting it done. And it is great to have you here today to talk 

a little bit about that. 

Thank you very much, and I appreciate the leadership of the two 

Chairs. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No fewer than 23 of the 50 States have already agreed to regional cap-and-trade 

programs to reduce greenhouse gases. Three regional cap-and-trade programs cover 

half of the U.S. population and one-third of U.S. emissions. 
22 

Emission trading has already begun in 10 Northeastern States in the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Known as ‘‘Reggie,’’ this bi-partisan cap-and-trade program includes three Republican Governors: Jodi Rell of Connecticut, Jim Douglas 

of Vermont and Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island. 

New Mexico is a member of the Western Climate Initiative, another bi-partisan 

regional cap-and-trade program of 7 U.S. States and 4 Canadian Provinces. Republican Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jim Huntsman of Utah 

led their States to become full members. 

The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord is yet another bi-partisan regional capand-trade program, also with 7 U.S. States. Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty of 

Minnesota is a full member, and Republican Governors Mitch Daniels of Indiana 

and Jim Rounds of South Dakota also signed the accord as observers. 

We should not be surprised to see such broad, bi-partisan momentum for cap-andtrade legislation in the States, because the concept has a rich, bi-partisan history. 

The bi-partisan 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments included cap-and-trade for sulfur 

dioxide emissions as the key feature. The House voted 401 to 25, and the Senate 

voted 89 to 10, and that cap-and-trade program was enthusiastically signed into law 

by President George H.W. Bush. This cap-and-trade program practically eliminated 

acid rain within a few years at very low cost. 

In 2008 both parties’ presidential candidates supported cap-and-trade in the campaign. Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman are the fathers of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate. McCain cosponsored the first Senate greenhouse gas cap-andtrade program in 2003, and he introduced two cap-and-trade bills himself in 2005. 

Senator John Warner, the former senior Senator for the Republicans in 2007, led 

the charge for cap-and-trade legislation just last year. 

Cap-and-trade has bi-partisan support because it is market-based, and it is designed to take advantage of innovation and the natural business instinct to cut 

costs. Command and control regulation might be more effective in the near term, 

but cap-and-trade can get the same result in the long term, at lower cost. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Vitter, followed by Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, want to thank all of our witnesses very much. 

I welcome a hearing on green jobs and the jobs impact of all of 

the climate change and energy policy we are considering. I just 

hope that we all bring a thorough, rigorous analysis to the topic, 

because way too often, in my opinion, as Senator Bond and others 

have mentioned, we just do not do that in Washington. It is fuzzy 

math, and it is a one-sided analysis. 

On the subject of green jobs in particular, usually it is an ideologically driven analysis that focuses on one side of the ledger only 

and does not look at what you have to look at, which is the cost 

of any of these jobs in terms of taxpayer subsidies or in terms of 

other jobs in the economy which are lost. 

There is a very important study that came out a few months ago 

from Spain. Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in 

Madrid actually did the sort of thorough, rigorous analysis I am 

talking about, about green jobs in Spain. Pretty interesting results. 

For every 1 green job financed by the Spanish taxpayer, 2.2 real 

jobs were lost as a result of the same policy put in place. Nine out 

of 10 green jobs created by Spain over the past 10 years are no 

longer in existence today. 

Since 2000, Spain has spent the equivalent of $754,000 to create 

each green job including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per 

wind industry job. These programs resulted in the destruction of 

nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy. Finally, each green 
23 

megawatt installed destroyed 5.4 jobs in non-energy sectors of the 

Spanish economy. 

So, I welcome green jobs that make sense at a reasonable cost. 

I just hope that we bring real, rigorous and thorough science to 

bear, including rigorous and thorough economic science as we figure out what policies make sense. 

As I said before, I do not think that is being done in much of this 

debate. When you hear claims about Draconian cap-and-trade proposals like Waxman-Markey will cost Americans a postage stamp 

a day, that is just absolutely ludicrous on its face, particularly as 

supporters of the very policy admit in other venues that utility and 

energy costs will necessarily ‘‘skyrocket.’’ And that is quote from 

President Obama on the campaign trail. 

So, I look forward to a real and a rigorous discussion so that we 

can focus on green jobs and other jobs that make sense and that 

we can procure in a reasonable way at a reasonable cost. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing what the States are doing. 

Certainly, Oregon is a laboratory, invested on the market side 

with an aggressive renewable energy standard, invested on the production side with green energy and tax credits, invested on the efficiency side ranging from the highest standard in the country for efficient appliances to encouraging utilities to increase the amount 

dedicated to efficiency, to the most aggressive building codes in the 

United States of America for future buildings. 

We also have here a State Representative who is very involved 

in a program to help overcome the up front costs, Representative 

Jules Bailey, State legislator from Oregon, who laid out a strategy 

in partnership with our utilities to cover with low cost loans the 

up front costs of energy improvements on residential and commercial buildings so that the energy savings would more than pay for 

the costs of the up front installation, greatly to expand, and it is 

a model that certainly I am pursuing here at the national level. 

The result is that jobs in Oregon, green energy jobs, are growing 

seven times as fast as the rest of the economy. And we are addressing key strategic interests of the United States of America, from 

ending our dependence on foreign oil, to strengthening our economy 

by converting the $2 billion a day we spend overseas to spending 

it here in America creating jobs, to addressing the challenge of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. 

I look forward to the work that your States are doing and the 

innovations that we can help inform the debate we are holding 

here in the U.S. Congress. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Crapo. 
24 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing, and 

the important issue that we are facing today requires all of us to 

focus very carefully on the details of how this legislation works out. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to hear from our State and 

local officials on climate-related policies and clean energy jobs. I 

would like to take just a moment to talk about Idaho’s record as 

a leader in clean energy. 

Nearly 50 percent of Idaho’s electricity comes from hydroelectric 

power. Idaho’s energy plan aims for a total of 8 percent non-hydro 

renewable electricity production by 2015. Development of clean energies is an important investment in Idaho’s energy future and in 

job creation. 

Like Governor Ritter, I am pleased with the potential for wind 

manufacturing jobs in my State. Recently, the Department of Energy announced a conditional loan guaranty to expand Nordic 

Windpower’s manufacturing plant in Pocatello, Idaho. In fact, my 

State ranks 13th in the Nation in wind potential and has tremendous potential for geothermal expansion as well. Nearly 100 

megawatts of geothermal and biomass landfill gas plants are 

planned on behalf of Idaho customers through 2015. 

I am also looking to hear more from Governor Corzine and Governor Gregoire about ongoing algae to fuel research in their States. 

Algae has tremendous potential as a second generation biofuel, and 

I have introduced a fuel bill that would ensure that algae-based 

biofuels have the same tax treatment that cellulosic biofuels have 

today. 

That said, I am concerned that some of the avenues that are 

being explored in the name of taking us forward toward clean energy and job creation will actually take us backward and destroy 

jobs. I agree with a number of the comments that some of my colleagues have made today. 

The example of Spain has just been brought up where invested equivalents of $37 billion for wind, mini-hydro and photovoltaic energy programs has resulted in only 50,200 jobs which, as I said has 

already been indicated, totals over $700,000 of investment for each 

job. We should be careful not to construct a national energy policy 

that produces this kind of return on investment. 

My point here is that we should let—I think we should 

incentivize and support a broad diversity of different types of energy in our country. I think we all agree that we need to move 

away from such a heavy dependence on carbon-based forms of energy and that we need to have a broad diversity in our energy portfolio in our country. 

We should not, however, as a Congress, make the decision that 

we will pick the winners and losers. Instead, we should let research 

and the market and other dynamics lead us to where we can have 

the most dynamic and effective move toward a diversified energy 

policy. In that context, I echo concerns that will be expressed here 

today about the effect of this legislation. 

One specific example, which has been mentioned by Senator Alexander, is nuclear. For some reason, new nuclear power is not al-
25 

lowed to be included in this legislation in terms of meeting renewable energy standards. I think one of the reasons for that is there 

has been a conscious decision made that wind, solar and geothermal are preferred forms of energy and that we will direct the 

way that the marketplace should operate in our legislation, rather 

than letting a true market and true, meaningful research guide our 

decisions and the application of this policy to diversify our energy. 

One example, in terms of constructing a new nuclear plant, between 1,400 and 1,800 jobs per plant are created, sometimes, depending on the job, sometimes even 2,800 jobs during peak employment. Nuclear energy creates long-term jobs as well. By 2020, U.S. 

demand for electricity is expected to grow by 355 gigawatts. If only 

64 gigawatts of the demand is satisfied by nuclear energy, between 

18,000 and 32,000 permanent full-time jobs could be created. 

So, again, as we move forward in focusing on these issues, my 

effort is to try to find a way for us to allow true market forces and 

valid research, not guided by political decisions, take us to where 

we need to be in our energy policy. 

We do need to diversify. We do need to move away from our 

heavy dependence on petroleum. But in the meantime, we need to 

be very careful about making sure that we do not simply decide 

what the preferred forms of energy will be and that we allow research and true market forces help us to get to the kind of powerful, new, diversified energy policy that our country needs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share a few words. I would also 

like to thank the witnesses for being here with us today. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to hear from State and local officials on climaterelated policies and clean energy jobs. I would like to take a few moments to talk 

about Idaho’s record as a national leader in clean energy. 

Nearly 50 percent of Idaho’s electricity comes from hydroelectricity, and Idaho’s 

Energy Plan aims for a total of 8 percent of non-hydro renewable electricity production by 2015. Development of clean energy is an important investment in Idaho’s 

energy future and in job creation. Like Governor Ritter, I am pleased with the potential for wind manufacturing jobs in my State. Recently, DOE announced a conditional loan guarantee to expand Nordic Windpower’s manufacturing plant in Pocatello, Idaho. In fact, my State ranks 13th in the Nation in wind potential and has 

potential for geothermal expansion as well. Nearly 100 MW of geothermal and biomass/landfill gas plants are planned on behalf of Idaho customers through 2015. 

I am also looking forward to hearing more from Governor Corzine and Governor 

Gregoire about ongoing algae-to-fuel research in their States. Algae has tremendous 

potential as a second generation biofuel, and I have introduced a bill that would ensure that algae-based biofuels have the same tax treatment that cellulosic biofuels 

currently enjoy. 

That said, I am concerned that some of the avenues that are being explored in 

the name of taking us forward toward clean energy and job creation will actually 

take us backward and destroy jobs. Spain, for example, has invested the equivalent 

of $37 billion for wind, mini-hydro and photovoltaic energy programs, resulting in 

only 50,200 jobs, totaling over $700,000 per job. We should be careful not to construct a national energy policy that produces this kind of return on investment. 

Moreover, I would like to echo the concerns that will be expressed here today 

about Waxman-Markey’s effect on refineries and jobs. This legislation is likely to 

have serious negative implications for fuel prices everywhere, including Idaho. The 

bill reserves only 2 percent of allowances for refineries, which will be responsible 

for 44 percent of all covered emissions. 

We should be looking more seriously at nuclear as an emission-free source of energy and job creation. For example, the construction of one new nuclear plant cre-
26 

ates between 1,400 and 1,800 jobs per plant, potentially even 2,800 jobs during peak 

employment. Nuclear energy generation creates long-term jobs, too. By 2020, U.S. 

demand for electricity is expected to grow by 355 gigawatts. If only 64 gigawatts 

of the demand is satisfied by nuclear energy, 18,400–32,200 permanent full-time 

jobs can be created. 

So, I would ask that as we look to the benefits of renewable energy like solar, 

wind, and geothermal, we also continue to look to the job creation benefits of nuclear energy and job retention in conventional sources of energy. After all, maintaining affordable energy and keeping Americans working are imperative to achieving 

the desired advances in clean technology and emission reductions. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, it has been a long ordeal for our witnesses. So, all I will say is that we look forward to your practical, 

forward looking and optimistic voices around here. It will be something of a breath of fresh air, as you have noticed. I feel sometimes 

it is like scuba here. You have got to bring your own fresh air in 

with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I welcome you, and I particularly welcome 

Governor Gregoire, who I had the privilege of serving with when 

we were Attorneys General together. I was a new Attorney General, and she looked out for me, and I am very glad to have her 

here today. Welcome to the halls of denial, fear and partisan negativity. Thank you for being here with something different. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Welcome to all of the Governors. I particularly wanted to welcome the Governor of my neighboring State, North Dakota, Governor Hoeven. North Dakota is home to not just oil but also some 

developing new technologies, big wind manufacturing and other 

things. So, thank you for being here. 

Last week, we heard from a panel of experts about how China 

is moving ahead with full force toward a new energy economy. I 

was thinking this morning as I woke up and heard on the radio 

about how this is the 40th anniversary—I see our NASA kids back 

there, wave, very good—the 40th anniversary of Neil Armstrong 

and Buzz Aldrin landing on the Moon. We are engaging in what 

will be this generation’s version of the space race, an energy race 

to provide the technologies that will power the 21st century. 

But the finish line for this race will not be Neil Armstrong landing on the Moon. It will not be the great technologies that we got 

out of the space race, everything from GPS monitors to CAT scans 

to those little chocolate space sticks that my family took on camping trips in the 1970s. 

This time, the finish line will be the wind turbine manufacturing 

in North Dakota, the new car battery manufacturing in Youngstown, Ohio, the solar panel companies in Starbuck, Minnesota. The 
27 

home grown energy is going to be everything from wind to new 

technology for coal to nuclear facilities to biofuels. 

We will not reach the finish line for another decade. But we 

know we are going to be there because we will either be buying the 

wind turbines and the car batteries from China, or we will be selling the wind turbines and the batteries to China. It is going to be 

our choice. 

Recently there was a quote in a Tom Friedman—a Minnesota native—column by Hal Harvey, the Chief Executive of Climate 

Works. And he talks about how China has already adopted the 

most aggressive energy efficiency program in the world. It has committed to reducing the energy intensity of its economy, energy use 

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 aggressive efficiency targets. They have the most 

aggressive renewable energy deployment in the world for wind, 

solar and nuclear. They are already beating their targets. 

In Minnesota, I was just up in Northern Minnesota where our 

unemployment rate is 20 percent right now, and we want good paying jobs across our State. The iron ore workers, the workers to 

make the wind turbines, the workers to fill our barges with the 

wind turbines to go on Lake Superior, and scientists to develop fuel 

cells and new cellulosic ethanol technology. 

But one thing we know for sure. When we look at our job growth 

in our State, overall job growth is up 1.9 percent, but jobs related 

to the new energy economy are up 11.9 percent. Part of this is because, as a bi-partisan effort, a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature adopted one of the most aggressive renewable 

portfolio standards in the country: 25 percent by 2025, 30 percent 

for Xcel, our biggest energy company. 

We adopted that. And you can see the clear difference, just as 

Senator Bennet was mentioning when he introduced the Governor, 

in Colorado, the clear difference in the job growth that we have 

seen in these energy jobs compared to other States and compared 

to the growth overall in our job rate. 

We did it because we felt it was important, we felt it was this 

time’s space race, we felt we had to get there. And we got it done. 

That is what we need to do in this country. 

So, I am dismayed by some of the, I think, unwarranted attacks. 

I agree that we need to make changes to this bill that came out 

of the House. I am the first one to say that we need to make some 

changes for the middle class and a more aggressive renewable portfolio standard that is more broad in what it includes. 

But I do think that we cannot just sit on our hands and do nothing. Because if we do, other countries are going to fill the void, 

other countries are going to beat us, other countries are going to 

just jump start us, and they are going to beat us out in every way 

for technology. 

We only have one-sixth of this technology when you look at the 

rest of the world. This is not what our country is all about. Our 

country is about being No. 1. And we can do it. 

Thank you very much, Governors. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator. 
28 

Governors, thank you very much for your patience. 

Governor Ritter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RITTER, JR., GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. RITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Remarks off microphone] Governors and those on the next panel 

to be here today. 

Please enter the written version of my remarks into the record. 

As Congress debates energy and climate legislation, it is hopefully helpful for you to hear how those laws are working at the 

State and local levels. In Colorado, our new energy economy is creating new jobs. It is attracting new companies. And it is leading 

the way to a new energy future for America. 

It did not happen by accident. It happened through a concerted 

and aggressive effort starting in 2004 when it was Colorado voters 

who became the first voters in the country to adopt a renewable 

energy standard at the ballot box. One of your colleagues, Senator 

Mark Udall, helped lead that campaign. 

One of the first bills that I signed into law after becoming Governor in 2007 doubled our renewable energy standard. I have 

signed four dozen energy bills into law since then, laws that encourage manufacturing, laws that increase demand for renewable 

energy, laws that make them more affordable. 

We even passed a law that lets residents sell excess electricity 

back to their utility company, our Net Metering Law. I also issued 

Colorado’s first climate action plan. We are greening Colorado’s 

State government so that we can lead by example. 

We are diversifying our energy portfolio and doing all we can to 

increase the demand for Colorado-produced natural gas. I know 

there has not been a lot of discussion about natural gas this morning, but I think it is part of this new energy economy that I speak 

of. 

The job benefits are real. Vestas, one of the world’s largest makers of wind turbines, is building four manufacturing plants in Colorado which will employ about 2,500 people. It is an over-$700 million investment. Two solar companies, Abound Solar and Ascent 

Solar, they are just examples of our new energy economy. But they 

recently opened new manufacturing plants in Colorado during the 

downturn and hired hundreds of new workers. 

Last month, we announced a new wind farm and 150 construction jobs on Colorado’s eastern plains. In the first year I was Governor, we quadrupled the amount of wind in the eastern plains 

with substantial benefit to the farmers who have the land where 

those wind turbines are located. 

Clearly the new energy economy is energizing our entire economy, even in the worst downturn in 75 years. While unemployment 

is just one barometer, it is important to note that Colorado’s rate 

is 7.6 percent, nearly 2 points below the national average and 

lower than rates in 30 other States. It has been stable now for 4 

months running. The new energy economy is certainly part of the 

reason we are in such relatively strong shape. 

What is next in Colorado? We are making sure that we educate 

students so that they can succeed in green jobs, so they can help 
29 

lead a new wave of energy innovation and energy technology. We 

have established a P–20 Education Council and a Jobs Cabinet. We 

are strengthening job training programs and are giving community 

colleges a renewed mission in work force development. 

President Obama recognized Colorado’s new energy economy can 

serve as a national model when he came to Denver to sign the Recovery Act. Secretary Chu recognized it when he came to Colorado 

to tour the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. We thank them 

for acknowledging our leadership and for working with Congress to 

accelerate the progress. 

We thank you for looking at how States and cities are turning 

energy and climate challenges into tangible economic opportunities. 

Colorado’s new energy economy could be a model for all of America. Our new energy economy can be America’s new energy economy. It must be, because our children and our grandchildren will 

produce energy differently than we do today, they will consume energy differently than we do today. To help prepare them for that 

future, we must hand over a world that is more energy secure, 

more environmentally secure, and more economically secure than it 

is today. 

There are, of course, the cynics and the skeptics who want to 

freeze time or even go back in time. But the world is marching forward. Our energy future is changing, our climate future is changing, and certainly our economic future is changing. We should not, 

and we cannot, get left behind. We must act now. 

So, I thank you again for the opportunity to present testimony, 

and I appreciate the fact that you are listening to Governors and 

local officials. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Governor. 

Governor Gregoire. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS GREGOIRE, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Ms. GREGOIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to come before 

you today to talk about Washington State’s view on energy and, 

particularly green jobs. I have submitted longer testimony for the 

record. 

In Washington State we believe that many of the jobs of the 21st 

century economy will be related to energy. In 2006, like Colorado, 

by initiative of the people of our State, they affirmatively declared 

that their future would include a growing use of clean energy. 

We have had tax incentives for wind and solar energy projects 

in place since 1996. And earlier this month, we added State tax incentives for biomass energy, for ocean energy, for geothermal, for 

anaerobic digestion and waste heat energy. 

With these commitments, Washington State is now the fifth largest producer of wind power in the Nation, up from nothing in 2001. 

We are building solar power components, growing and refining 

biofuels, and making breakthroughs in tidal energy. 

Just 2 weeks ago, a company announced that it would build the 

largest solar panel energy generation plant in the United States in 

a town called Cle Elum. Interestingly enough, it was once a coal 

town. 

Our energy strategy is a job creation strategy. In 2007, when we 

adopted a set of climate change goals, we related to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced fuel use. We also set a goal to triple the new of green jobs we had in our State, to reach 25,000 

green jobs by the year 2020. We are less than 2 years after that 

goal, and rather than 25,000 by 2020, we are today at 47,000 green 

jobs. 

Our green jobs are growing much faster than what we had predicted. These jobs range from computer software engineers for the 

smart grid to power line workers, from green building architects to 

weatherization technicians, from bioenergy venture capitalists to 

oil seed farmers. We learned that green jobs are not necessarily 

some brand new kind of job. They are often jobs that we all know 

about today, only they are getting the new skills for the 21st century economy, such as, for example, the electrician who can wire 

a smart home. 

In Washington State, our commitment to green jobs is fundamentally a commitment to high quality living wage jobs, and this 

means high skilled workers. The key to these jobs is innovative 

companies and highly skilled workers. We are doing our part with 

innovative curriculum throughout our robust community college 

system that includes examples such as Bates Technical College, for 

green construction and remodeling, Bellevue College certificate in 

green sustainable design, Columbia Basin College, for solar and 

photovoltaic design. 

I also encourage you to look at apprenticeships as a model for 

green jobs training. Apprenticeship programs have the industry expertise, the established networks, and the needed flexibility to 
43 

meet the challenge of this rapidly evolving new industry sector. Because registered apprenticeship is controlled at the local level by 

employers and employees, created jointly and sustained by law and 

management, it is uniquely positioned to respond quickly to industry changes and technological advancements. 

We have almost doubled the number of apprenticeships in Washington State over the course of the last 4 years. We have created 

a pre-apprenticeship program to address dropouts from high school 

called Running Start for the Trades that is linking our high school 

students to high quality apprenticeship programs. We have made 

a commitment to our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, Helmets to Hardhats, training them in a direct way in apprenticeship work in this new technology and new 21st century 

jobs. 

I would like to mention the relationship between energy and climate. In effect, the actions needed to secure our energy future are 

the same as those needed to respond to the imperatives of climate 

change science. We have taken actions that address both, including 

clean energy tax incentives, renewable energy standards, and 

strong energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances. 

Governors are actively charting a course for green jobs, making 

critical investments in the research and development, in training 

and in infrastructure. With the permission of the Chairs, I would 

like to submit a document to be made a part of the record. It is 

a statement of principles signed by a bi-partisan coalition of 31 

Governors from across the country. 

Our coalition calls on Congress to pass comprehensive energy 

legislation that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by making investments in using energy more efficiently and producing more 

clean energy here in the U.S. That is what will create and generate 

the green jobs that you are considering here today. 

Forbes magazine has ranked Washington State in the top five 

States to do business, the top five States as green. The two are inextricably linked. 

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

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gregoire follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Governor. 

Governor Hoeven. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, also Chairman 

Sanders and Ranking Member Inhofe, for inviting me to be with 

you today. 

Our Nation is facing one of the worst economic downturns in decades. In North Dakota, we have a budget surplus, but we are not 

immune from the national recession. Certainly our continued 

health, as well as the Nation’s continued economic health for the 

future, depends on the right kind of energy policy. The WaxmanMarkey legislation is not the right kind of energy policy. 

As a Nation, we must continue to develop all our energy resources, and we must do so with good environmental stewardship. 

We can do that with a comprehensive energy plan that promotes 

all of our energy resources. 

There are a number of problems with Waxman-Markey. I am 

going to enumerate some of them, although not all of them. 

First, the technology to reduce emissions from coal plants is still 

in the developmental stage. While there are projects underway to 

capture carbon and store carbon, we are still in that development 

process. Instead of penalizing companies, we need to foster the research needed to find more efficient ways to create, transport and 

store energy. 

The reality is that this legislation does penalize, rather than reward, the technological advances that are being made by companies 

like Basin Electric Power Cooperative in North Dakota. These companies and others have taken preemptive action to reduce their 

emissions, but these efforts will not be considered in the allowance 

allocations formula. This penalty also applies to other utility companies in North Dakota and other places that have taken the initiatives to invest in renewable resources. 

Also, this legislation will potentially increase greenhouse gases 

when industries overseas increase production because companies 

here cannot compete due to higher costs. 

This bill will force companies that want to capture and sequester 

CO2 to pay twice—once when they pay the carbon tax and again 

when they pay for the technology to capture and sequester CO2. 

And that, ultimately, means a tax on consumers at a time when 

our economy is struggling. 

Instead of Waxman-Markey or similar legislation, Congress 

needs to implement a comprehensive energy policy that will 

incentivize industry to develop all of our energy resources, both traditional and renewable energy resources. 

The current uncertainty is freezing investment of new technologies on the sidelines—technologies that could help our country 

produce more domestic energy in environmentally sound, cost-effective ways. 

I would like to give you some examples from our State. We have 

implemented an energy policy called Empower North Dakota to develop all of our energy resources with new technologies, with synergistic partnerships, and with sound environmental stewardship. 
68 

Based on the time limit, I am going to submit my comments for the 

record but just briefly identify three approaches that we are undertaking. 

One is in the area of oil production. North Dakota is now the 

fifth largest oil producing State in the country. Senator, we just 

passed up Oklahoma, which has historically been a large oil—— 

Senator INHOFE. [Talking off microphone.] We want it back. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HOEVEN. I understand. Virtually all our wells are directionally drilled. That means one vertical bore, and then we go a 

mile underground in three different directions. We now produce as 

much oil from one well as formerly it would have taken 10 or 12 

wells to tap. More energy, smaller environmental footprint. 

We also take coal, we convert it to synthetic natural gas, we capture the CO2, carbon dioxide, and we put it down a hole in the oil 

fields to bring up more oil. Again, less carbon dioxide emissions, 

more electricity, more oil. 

The third example is the biofuels. We now have ethanol plants 

that are run from the waste steam of power plants, and we are 

using the gray water, the waste water, from some of our communities like Fargo, North Dakota. 

These are just three examples. Understand that we are about 

better environmental stewardship. But we have got to have a policy 

that will incentivize the deployment of the technologies to do this. 

That is the approach we need to take. That is the kind of energy 

policy we need from the Federal Government in order to move forward. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoeven follows:] 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Governor. 

Governor Corzine. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chairwoman. It is great to be back with all of you, the Ranking Member 

and others. 

This whole topic of climate change, energy and green jobs is at 

the heart of economic policy of many of the States, and certainly 

in the State of New Jersey. 

In partnership with President Obama and the leadership of this 

committee and others in Congress, and through the efforts of State 

and local governments across the country, we are in the midst of 

a real revolution right in front of our very eyes. It is happening. 

It is positive. It is creating jobs. It is addressing many of our challenges. We want to make it better, and I think that is what this 

debate is about. 

It is a revolution that addresses the clear and present challenges 

of climate change and its impact on our stability in a lot of different areas, national security, economic security and, obviously, 

environment. This revolution requires, in my view, transformational actions. I think you are hearing some of those kinds of 

things from my other colleagues, when we think about both production and consumption and certainly about transmission as well. 

Transformation is and will produce tens of thousands of jobs. It 

already has in New Jersey. You heard Senator Lautenberg talk 

about the 25,000 jobs and 2,000 companies that have been framed 

up in this decade in New Jersey. I actually think we have larger 

numbers than that in our calculations. But there is a substantial 

amount taking place. New skills are being established every day, 

training programs in our community colleges, as we have heard 

from others. There is a lot going on, and it is important at this 

time of recession. 

Rising energy demand, peak level peak loads, price volatility, rising prices, greenhouse gas emissions, all require a comprehensive 

approach. That is what we are doing in New Jersey, and I am 

proud of our efforts there. Let me outline, briefly, some of our approaches. Again, there is more complete information on those approaches included in the record. 

First, I think the fundamental necessity which is part of this 

whole discussion is that you need mandated, measurable and 

achievable objectives for change. Many of us talked about the setting of these objectives: 20 percent reductions in greenhouse gases 

by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. We have set those in stone, as 

have many other places, reduction of energy consumption by 20 

percent for the State of New Jersey by 2020. We have set that as 

a mandated requirement, reducing peak demand by 20 percent by 

2020. Playing off of some of the things that I heard the Senator 

from Tennessee talk about, that 30 percent renewable portfolio 

standard, you have to have measurable, mandated objectives. 

We have taken aggressive steps to meet those. We are part of the 

10 States that have implemented a cap-and-trade program that has 
80 

effectively been implemented over the last year. It will continue to 

put pressure to reduce carbons. 

We have laid out a comprehensive energy master plan that is 

really complete in both conservation efficiency and making sure 

that our renewable standards are in place. And it is pushing forward with mandated efforts to get these things done. 

We have established a clean energy program which uses marketbased techniques to establish support and grant making the possibilities, both for consumers and business, and making sure that we 

are implementing efficiency standards. We are seeing the product 

of that. A lot of those 2,000 companies that I mentioned are getting 

support in establishing their business plans and moving forward. 

And I would say in a fourth area, we are making substantial investments in mass transit and lowering our carbon standards by 

joining with California to make sure that we are not putting more 

carbon into the air through the use of cars, particularly in the most 

densely populated States in the Nation. 

So, we have substantial results in New Jersey. We have the most 

solar panels installed in the country other than in the State of 

California. We have had a 100 percent increase in the last 3 years 

in that. We have added energy efficiencies, and we are moving in 

all areas of weatherization, solar installation, cogeneration, smart 

grid. All of these areas come together with those other policies. 

I congratulate Congress on taking action to move this forward in 

a national format as opposed to regional formats. So, I hope you 

will move forward and the Governors have a lot to add. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corzine follows:] 
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 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Let us begin the questioning. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, panel, all of you, for your positive 

contribution. 

Week after week, we come here. We have had so many dozens 

of hearings on this. Essentially, what is happening is, we can predict that the Democrats are anxious to move forward on a climate 

change bill, and the Republicans are predicting doom and gloom. 

It is just the way it is. Just listen to both sides, and decide who 

you believe. 

I thought today that the surest way to kill the American dream 

is to foster fear and doom and gloom. I think back. What if, when 

our grandmas and grandpas were sleeping on the streets before Social Security, everybody said well, we just cannot do anything 

about it, just walk away? And I thought about it when our rivers 

were on fire, and people said we have got to do something about 

the pollution. And when our, you know, endangered species were 

just going to become extinct. I think this is one of those moments. 

Now, I also have to say, my colleagues have brought up the 

Spanish report. It has been debunked, the one that says there will 

be disaster if they move forward. I would like to place in the record 

the response from the Governor of Spain pointing out the flaws in 

the study, as well as the fact that the study’s author was a Senior 

Fellow at an Exxon-funded institute. I think those things are important, because we want impartial information. 

Senator Barrasso is very eloquent on bashing our President, time 

after time. If it is not our President, it is Carol Browner, or it is 

somebody else. He has the right to do it. I support his right. We 

are very good friends. 

But I have to say, it took us 8 years to get into the economic 

ditch, to get into this fiscal mess. Eight years of taking a surplus 

and turning it into a deficit. This recession started in 2007. And 

now Senator Barrasso has declared the stimulus a failure when 

less than 10 percent of it has been given out. 

I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record some examples. Here is one from Idaho of where the stimulus has gone. 

Nordic Windpower received $16 million through the DOE, and the 

company will hire 100 workers. Minnesota, Minnesota’s Low Income Weatherization Program is getting $131 million, 13 times 

what it usually gets. It is going to put people to work. There are 

many examples in California, Nebraska, in Arizona solar companies are getting funded, Montana, and it goes on, West Virginia, 

Massachusetts, and on and on. So, we will put those in the record. 

Things are happening, and you cannot erase 8 years of problems 

in 4 months. 

What I would also like to do is place in the record the soda ash 

issue which my good friend brought up. The fact is it was addressed in the Waxman-Markey bill, and they say the House recognizes that soda ash mining is very energy intensive and they give 

them allowances. And that is taken care of. 

I also want to place in the record a very important report on 

kids’ lower IQ scores linked to prenatal pollution. Now, this shows 

that the kind of pollution that our kids are facing in some of our 
107 

cities today and areas where there are heavy industry is having the 

same impact as lead had on our kids. So, we need to move forward 

to protect our kids from pollution. And that is what we are trying 

to do. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 
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 

Senator BOXER. Governor Gregoire, I have a question for you. 

The Western Governors’ Association passed a resolution that said 

‘‘Appropriate actions are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these actions could create significant economic benefit for the West as the United States moves toward new energy 

sources.’’ They urge the Federal Government to act decisively to 

create a national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to 

recognize and encourage State action in any national market-based 

emission reduction policy. 

How important are these Federal policies for promoting job 

growth? 

Ms. GREGOIRE. Madam Chair, the Western Governors’ Association was united this summer in the policy that you just described, 

and we are very diverse section of the country. We are agriculture, 

we are aerospace, we are your State, and very clearly one of the 

main impetuses behind it was the fact that, if we can have a national standard, national policy on energy, we know that we can 

get the capital investment. 

My State stands as an example. With a minor tax incentive, we 

are now the fifth largest producer of wind power in the country. 

But they will not continue to invest unless and until they see the 

Congress setting a standard for America that allows them to have 

predictability and sustainability for them to invest their capital 

and invest in these new companies and new technologies that will 

create green collar jobs. 

It is that, in part, which led all of us to say we need that policy. 

But it is also the impact that we have had from forest fires and 

droughts and floods in the Western part of the country that has led 

us to say that policy ought to be the policy of the United States. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Governor Hoeven, are you seeing private sector interest in using 

North Dakota’s significant wind resources as an engine to create 

renewable energy? 

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam Chairman, no question about it. In North 

Dakota, our approach is developing all of our energy resources, 

both traditional and renewable. I would say right now we have in 

some stage of development close to 5,000 megawatts of wind energy, which is huge, and a huge investment. So, that is tremendously positive, as is the case with biofuels, both biodiesel and ethanol, solar, geothermal, biomass, all of those things, and we are 

promoting them very vigorously. 

But the other point that I want to make is that we are promoting 

them in partnership with the traditional sources like oil and gas, 

like the coal and new clean coal technologies, and finding ways not 

only to create more energy that is cost-competitive, but do it with 

better environmental stewardship. 

So, understand that each and every source of energy has some 

drawbacks, traditional and renewable. They all have their drawbacks. But we have got to be careful in energy policy about picking 

winners and losers, and instead incentivize the States, this country, to develop all of our energy resources and do so in environmentally sound ways. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Governor. 
151 

Senator Barrasso. 

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

Senator INHOFE. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I thought I would 

not be able to be here, and we have to trade. Thank you for your 

understanding, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. You are welcome, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me start off with Governor Hoeven. I understand that your State is No. 5 now, fifth in the Nation’s oil production. Now, we will probably take that position back over with the 

recent developments in the Balkan trade. I am afraid you will get 

that back anyway. 

So, your State has the potential to contribute a lot more in energy security with oil and shale production. I do not know what 

kind of policies you think that we ought to adopt here. I know it 

is not this bill. Anything that you would like to suggest that we 

could do that would help you in your future productions? 

Mr. HOEVEN. One of the keys is creating certainty. If you want 

businesses, both the utility industry as well as the venture capitalists and others, to make these investments in the new technologies 

that will create more energy, which is vitally important from a security standpoint, is vitally important from the standpoint of our 

economy, but to do it so that we have continued better environmental stewardship, which I understand we all share that concern. 

You have got to create certainty so that you can get that investment into these new technologies and get them deployed. 

It is one thing to talk about them over at the Department of Energy or in the research lab at the university. It is another to get 

these companies to invest billions, billions that it takes to do these 

things, whether it is carbon capture and sequestration or any of the 

renewable energy deployment, oil drilling, you name it. To make 

those investments, you have got to create a legal and regulatory 

framework at the Federal level like we have worked to do at the 

State level to encourage that investment to move this Nation forward. 

Senator INHOFE. And it is the predictability. In a minute, I am 

going to ask you about your offset statement. But I wanted to first 

of all talk to Governor Ritter for just a moment here. 

You know, you talk about expanding the use of natural gas into 

transportation. I agree with that. In fact, I have the legislation that 

would overcome some of the barriers that are out there right now. 

So, I agree with you on that. 

However, I am just really kind of wondering why you are here. 

According to the EIA, the Energy Information Agency, Colorado’s 

oil shale deposits hold an estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil, nearly 

as much oil as the entire world’s proven reserves, and over the long 

term that could equate to hundreds of billions in economic benefit 

to Colorado. 

Few would disagree that the passage of Waxman-Markey would 

effectively kill any future oil shale production in Colorado. That is 

a huge thing for the State of Colorado. I mean, that is the biggest 

single economic blow that you could have, in my opinion. 

Then you have the second one, this came out from the Food and 

Agricultural Policy Research Institute, and now we are talking 
152 

mostly about Eastern Colorado. It released a study stating that a 

typical 1,900-acre feed grain farm would face $11,649 in higher energy costs by 2020, and $30,000 by 2050. Now, if you look at Colorado, you have average sized farms, about 858 acres. If you do your 

math, that means that the passage of this bill would cost your 

farmers somewhere about $5,000 a year by 2020, $14,000 a year 

by 2050. 

I guess I would have to ask you, with those two major economic 

factors in Colorado, do you support, are you here supporting Waxman-Markey today? 

Mr. RITTER. I am here by invitation, so that is—— 

Senator INHOFE. Wait a minute. That might clear it up then. So 

you do not necessarily support it? 

Mr. RITTER. Here is what I support. I support a national energy 

policy that is married to a national climate policy, which gets at 

these goals that we have for greenhouse gas reductions. I believe 

that if you do that, there will be some vehicle that may not look 

exactly like Waxman-Markey, particularly after the Senate finishes 

its work, but I very much support climate legislation that is joined 

with a national energy policy to get us to the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are set for 2050. 

Senator INHOFE. So you support the goals. All right. That is fine. 

Governor Hoeven, the thing I was going to bring up is, there is 

a lot of discussion when you talk about your offset capability there 

and what you are doing, that is great. We are doing somewhat the 

same thing, although most of ours is marginal production. But I 

would suggest to you that the use of hydraulic fracturing is necessary in your State to be able to explore, to retrieve, all of these 

oil capabilities. 

Mr. HOEVEN. It is absolutely vital. You know, you mention some 

of these new formations. The oil is not connected. You have to go 

underground, and you are talking 2 miles underground and make 

a fracture in order to get the oil to flow. That is vitally important—— 

Senator INHOFE. OK, I wanted to get that into the record because 

there is some effort to do away from hydraulic fracturing, and it 

would be devastating. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator. 

Let me start off with, well, I have brief questions for all of the 

Governors. 

Governor Corzine, I think many of our colleagues here would be 

surprised to now that New Jersey is one of the leaders in the country in terms of producing solar energy. 

Mr. CORZINE. [Microphone off.] No. 2. 

Senator SANDERS. No. 2. How does it happen that your State, 

which is not in the solar belt, is not part of the Saudi Arabia of 

solar, how are you doing that? 

Mr. CORZINE. [Microphone off.] Well, we have created markets—— 

Senator SANDERS. Microphone, please. 

Mr. CORZINE. We have created stability in our regulatory environment, which Governor Hoeven talked about. We have created 

market allotment factors that allow for support of solar implemen-
153 

tation by our utility companies. We have created programs that 

work in the public sector, power purchase agreement that allows 

private companies to put up the capital to install the equipment 

that then gets paid with savings over a period of time. We are implementing those similar kinds of programs in residential and business communities, and it has had a very powerful capacity to move 

in solar. We are implementing the same programs with offshore 

wind. We have major programs in place there. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, and congratulations. 

Governor Gregoire, in your testimony you mentioned that your 

State set a goal in 2007 for 25,000 green jobs by 2020, only to discover this year that your State now has 47,000 green jobs. What 

is your vision for creating the next 100,000 green jobs in the State 

of Washington? 

Ms. GREGOIRE. Well, Senator, it is very clear to us that the incentives that we put in place for alternative energy sources are just 

beginning. As I mentioned to you, now the fifth largest producer of 

wind when we were not producing any in 2001. The largest silicon 

solar manufacturing plant in the United States located is in Washington State, and we are not known for our sunshine. And we have 

one of the largest generating plants now going in for solar in our 

State. 

That is just the beginning. We are now looking at biomass, we 

are looking at algae, and we are looking at all of the new technologies. And our community and 4-year universities are involved 

in the research and development to make that happen. So, we are 

very pleased at what we have done thus far. We think it is just the 

beginning, sir. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Governor Hoeven, let me ask you a very simple question. The 

reason we are here today is not only talking about the creation of 

jobs, but also dealing with the crisis in global warming. We have 

had some of the leading scientists in the world sitting, actually, exactly where you are sitting. What they have told us is that if this 

planet and the countries of the world do not get their act together, 

the future for our kids, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, 

is going to be very, very dire as the planet warms up. 

Do you believe that assessment? 

Mr. HOEVEN. Well, the science shows that there is warming. 

There different opinions to what exactly is the cause of it. But the 

point I am making is, if you want to get the technology out there 

to capture and store CO2, to reduce CO2 emissions, you need the 

right kind of Federal policy to do it. Waxman-Markey is not 

the—— 

Senator SANDERS. That was not my question. My question was 

a pretty simple one. Some of the leading scientists in the world tell 

us that global warming is a huge crisis for this world now and that 

it will only get worse. Do you agree with that assessment? 

Mr. HOEVEN. I agree we need to address it. I think there are different opinions as to the direct cause—— 

Senator SANDERS. Well, they are all different opinions—— 

Mr. HOEVEN. But I do believe that we need to address it, and we 

are doing that, and I described how in my testimony. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 
154 

Governor Ritter, you mentioned in your testimony that your 

State was the first to have a voter-approved renewable energy 

standard, and that was in 2004. More recently, and interestingly, 

you doubled that standard to 20 percent by 2020. How has this policy effected Colorado’s energy future, and do you believe it will 

produce positive results for Colorado’s electric customers? 

Mr. RITTER. I think in part the doubling of that helped us lure 

fairly significant companies to the State. Vestas has been talked 

about. I take some issue with former [unintelligible] about Vestas, 

but Vestas, I believe, made their decision ultimately to locate in 

Colorado 2,500 new jobs over $700 million in investment because 

we had doubled our renewable energy standard. 

What I should point out is that Xcel Energy, which Senator 

Klobuchar referred to, they initially had opposed a renewable energy standard when it was on the ballot. When we went to double 

it for investor-owned utilities to 20 percent by 2020, they supported 

it because they found out how easy it was to get to the 10 percent 

goal that was initially set by the voters. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you all for being here and testifying. 

I wanted to start by just responding a little bit about what Senator Boxer had said at the beginning of this because I had talked 

about the stimulus package. She said I had labeled it a failure and 

quoted a Washington Post article, editorial, that said it was squandered. 

I think, Senator Boxer, you made my point. You said that less 

than 10 percent of the money has been given out, which is my criticism of it. This is a failure. This was supposed to be timely, and 

temporary and targeted. And it has not done those things at all. 

I also heard you say, Madam Chairman, that the Democrats 

wanted to move ahead with climate change legislation and the Republicans just spoke gloom and doom. Yet, I have an editorial that 

I would like to introduce into the record by Senator Byron Dorgan, 

Reduce CO2 Yes, Cap-and-Trade No. He said, I do not support the 

cap-and-trade plan now being debated in Congress. I think it is the 

wrong solution. I do not support it. 

Then, last Friday, on a television show, we had Governor 

Schweitzer of Montana. He was asked about cap-and-trade, and the 

Governor of Montana said cap-and-trade was the wrong approach. 

Schweitzer heads the Democratic Governors Association. Bill 

Maher asked him. He said, Governor, but isn’t that the Democratic 

approach? He said, well, it might be some of the Democrats’ approach. 

Governor Freudenthal from Wyoming has taken the same position. He has sided with me and my colleague, Mike Enzi, to say 

he does not support what is going on. 

[The referenced editorial was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BARRASSO. So, Governor Hoeven, if we could visit with 

you. This is what your Senator has said. Can you talk a little bit 

about that and that there is bi-partisan opposition to the things 

that are going on here, especially in the Rocky Mountain West? 
155 

Mr. HOEVEN. Well, I think there is a real desire to move forward 

to produce more energy domestically, to deploy the technology that 

will help us do it in environmentally sound ways. The key is the 

right kind of Federal policy to do that. 

Again, I go back to the need to create certainty so that businesses can invest the billions of dollars it takes to do it. You need 

to create benchmarks that are reasonable and attainable. Then you 

need to create the incentives to get there. And you need to be careful not to pick winners and losers, but to develop all of our sources 

of energy. 

Senator BARRASSO. There is something call the Western Climate 

Initiative. Is your State a member of that group? 

Mr. HOEVEN. We are a member of the Western Governors. We 

are not a member of the Western Climate Initiative, as is the case 

for about half of the States that are members of the Western Governors’ Association. A number of them are observers, a number of 

them just are not participating. Only about 7 out of 14 or so, I 

would say roughly half, are actually participants in WCI. 

Senator BARRASSO. They are predicting economic stimulus from 

green investment and green collar jobs. Do you have some observations or comments about their positions and why—— 

Mr. HOEVEN. If you look at the statistics for the creation of green 

jobs, North Dakota is doing very well. I think we are growing at 

a rate of 9 percent or more in green jobs. The point is that we are 

also growing in traditional energy jobs, and we need them both, 

and we need them working together. And we need the technology 

to develop all of them with the environmental stewardship we seek. 

We should not be penalizing companies that are trying to do that 

very thing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Governor Corzine, if I could. I am also on the 

Energy Committee, and you spent time on this side. They have approved legislation that expands first eminent domain authority in 

terms of overriding State objections on proposed transmission lines, 

which is what, in Wyoming, we need transmission lines to move 

the wind power to market. 

What are your thoughts on States giving this authority to the— 

of taking this authority from the States? 

Mr. CORZINE. I think most States want to have a partnership in 

that effort, and I do not think the overriding of the ability to look 

at the local implications of this actually should be overridden. That 

does not mean that we do not have to work proactively to improve 

our grid, which is a tremendous problem. 

One of the reasons we are so supportive of offshore wind is that 

we have fewer of those problems, particularly in the highly, densely 

populated areas that are near our coastline. But it is not something 

that I think many local governments or State governments want to 

give up control of. 

Senator BARRASSO. When I look at wind, Secretary Salazar recently testified to the Energy Committee that you need about 

138,000 acres of land to build a wind farm to replace one coal-fired 

power plant. That equates to 215 square miles. And if you look at 

the Jersey coastline on-shore, you have what, 127 miles up and 

down, you would need to have the entire coast of New Jersey from 
156 

the coastline in for over 1.33 miles of wind turbines just to be able 

to get the energy of one coal-fired power plant. 

Mr. CORZINE. To be honest—— 

Senator BARRASSO. So the math kind of does not work sometimes. 

Mr. CORZINE. Senator, the fact is that there is tremendous capacity on offshore wind, and it does not have to be scattered in the 

way that you are talking about. We have on the blueprints 3,000 

megawatts in the next 5 years. That is almost four nuclear power 

plants. And it is only on four different wind farms. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Boxer, your name was taken in vain 

by Senator Barrasso. Would you want to respond? 

Senator BARRASSO. With great respect. She is good friend. 

Senator BOXER. With great friendship. It was. 

Senator SANDERS. And you will respond in friendship, I am sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. My friend misquoted me. I said on this committee, the Democrats, week after week, are saying let us step up 

the plate and pass legislation, and the Republicans on this committee are in opposition. And you said that Senator Dorgan does 

not support cap-and-trade. I can tell you that several Senators on 

your side do and my Governor is a Republican. 

I just wanted to make sure that people understood it, so I will 

reiterate it. Week after week we hear the same thing in this committee. Democrats on this committee pushing forward with, what 

I hope is going to some excellent legislation, addressing the issue, 

which will level the playing field for everybody and be great for the 

creation of jobs and help our kids avoid pollution. And I thank you 

for the opportunity to respond to my good friend. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Carper, you did not make an opening 

statement. Why do you not ask the next question? 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

I just want to say to our Governors, as a recovering Governor, 

welcome. It is great to see each of you. Thank you for joining us 

here on the anniversary of the birth of Senator Barrasso. It is his 

birthday today. 

The last time I did that, the room erupted into song for George 

Voinovich. I think we will try to restrain ourselves here today because we only have 5 minutes. 

I had the pleasure of talking with Governor Corzine early this 

year about the potential for maybe New Jersey, Delaware and 

Maryland working together on a windmill venture. We are planning to deploy, in 2 or 3 years, a windmill farm about 12 miles off 

the coast of Rehoboth Beach, and New Jersey has far more ambitious goals. But I think we are the first windmill project to actually 

have a buyer. One of the utilities has already purchased the electricity that will be created. 

My hope is that we can find, maybe as you go forward with your 

other projects, we can find some synergies and economies of scale 

by doing a venture which would, I think, be almost as close to Cape 

May as it would be to Delaware. 
157 

I understand that with our new Governor, Jack Markell, there 

have been some discussions with New Jersey and with Maryland, 

and I would just ask if you could give us any update on where we 

might be headed in that regard. 

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Senator, and it is good to see you. 

We are very much working in partnership on the arrangement 

that you are talking about off of the Delaware coast. It is one of 

the four authorized, permitted projects to move forward, and it includes New Jersey companies as a part of the consortium that is 

building it, and we intend to compete for actually purchasing some 

of that power. 

I think this is something that we should be utilizing in all of the 

developments of offshore wind. It is quite a directive, and we have 

those discussions ongoing with the new administration. 

Senator CARPER. Well, that is great. I am glad to hear that. 

I think it was Governor Gregoire, but maybe a couple of you used 

the term smart grid. Would you just talk with us about—I think 

in some places around the country, I think California among them, 

the utilities have figured out, working with the public service commissions, the Governors, the legislators, they have figured out how 

the utilities can make money not by selling more gas and electricity, but actually by selling less and trying to help their customers conserve and consume less. 

Could either of you, I will start with you, Governor Gregoire, but 

could you speak to us a little bit about what you might be doing 

in your State in that vein, and any lessons maybe for us and the 

rest of the country? And anything that you are doing with smart 

grid, that would be appreciated as well. 

Ms. GREGOIRE. Well, thank you, Senator. Let me speak to that. 

The Pacific National Laboratory in Washington State has been a 

leader in this. We put in place, along the peninsula of Washington 

State, the consumer ability to decide when and how much they will 

use by way of electricity. 

They can make their decision on their computer, whether they 

are in Europe or at home, whatever they want to do. They have 

reduced their own costs as consumers. They have saved money. In 

their report back to us, they like being in control and using energy 

when they want to use it at a rate that they want to use it. 

So, it has been very successful in Washington State. We are now 

looking to expand it across the State. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Governor Ritter. 

Mr. RITTER. We have two parts to this. One is in Boulder, Colorado. Xcel, our major utility, investor-owned utility, is building the 

first fully integrated smart grid in the world in Boulder and chose 

that as sort of its pilot place. But it is going to be, over time, 

100,000 people who will be subject to their smart grid approach 

and again, deciding to let consumers decide how to use energy. 

As importantly, we just had a company that opened up, and over 

$30 million from a venture capital company, and they are building 

the hardware and the software for smart grid that allows you to 

be connected into your meter in a wireless fashion. So, we are creating jobs utilizing sort of smart grid technology as a manufacturing opportunity for us in Colorado. 
158 

Senator CARPER. Good. I want to ask one more quick question, 

if I could. 

In 1975, we passed the first CAFE legislation. We raised from 15 

to 25 miles per gallon the fuel efficiency requirements for cars, 

trucks and vans. Instead of using less gasoline, we used about 150 

percent more in the years to come. 

We raised CAFE standards in 2007. The President raised them 

again this year. If we are not careful, we may end up using more 

oil and more gas, not less, because we end up driving more cars, 

driving more miles. 

Have you all thought about this? And how what, if anything, we 

might want to do with respect to reining that in? 

Ms. GREGOIRE. Well, one of the things that we passed this past 

legislative session is incentives for electric cars. I have joined with 

my colleagues in Oregon and California with the concept that we 

ought to have an electric highway that goes from the Canadian border all the way to the southern border of California. We are trying 

to look not just at hybrids, but that potentially is a transitional opportunity for us to go to electric cars, and the consuming public has 

been very positive toward it. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. RITTER. We have a company actually manufacturing electric 

trucks in Colorado. So that is a part of it as well. It does not have 

to be confined just to automobiles alone. The other part of that is 

we are looking at how we, as a State, can be a leader in compressed natural gas for our own fleet and how we can convert parts 

of our fleet to compressed natural gas, and likewise, how we can 

build out an infrastructure that provides compressed natural gas so 

that heavy vehicles can utilize those as well. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. Again, thanks so much 

for being here and for your leadership. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Governor Gregoire, in your testimony, you cited the bi-partisan coalition of 31 Governors, including 

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, which calls on Congress 

to pass comprehensive energy and climate change policy. 

In that statement, I think all of you said, ‘‘We support legislation 

that invests in using energy more efficiently and producing more 

clean energy at home and sets a cap on greenhouse gases to reduce 

emissions level guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming.’’ 

I will note that Governor Schweitzer, I think, also signed that bipartisan statement because that should be part of the record from 

what was said earlier. 

This statement was also signed by six Republican Governors, 

Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Jodi Rell of Connecticut, John Hunstman of Utah, Jim 

Douglas of Vermont and Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island, and also 

the Republican Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno. Another one 

of the signers, Governor Mark Parkinson of Kansas, was the head 

of the Kansas Republican Party as recently as 2006. 

So, you have really worked to build this bi-partisan coalition in 

Governors. My question to you is, one, congratulating and applaud-
159 

ing you, but what advice would you give us to develop bi-partisanship here in the Senate on this very important issue? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GREGOIRE. Well, Senator Udall, I am very proud of the Governors across the country. Not only do we have bi-partisan support 

on the policy that you just articulated, but the Western Governors’ 

Association, much like the National Association of Western Attorneys General, have also issued a policy just this last month at their 

gathering in which they said, we urge Congress and the President 

to act decisively to create a national policy to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

The third thing, the Western Common Initiative, is signed on by 

Senator Schweitzer. It is 72 percent of the economy of Canada and 

about 20 percent of the economy of the United States. 

This is not a partisan issue for Governors. This is a bi-partisan 

issue. This is about a 21st century economy. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, and I think you set a very good example for us. 

Governor Ritter, New Mexico and Colorado both have very diverse energy resources. We produce oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, 

and we also are blessed with renewable resources like solar and 

wind. 

Now, your State is also a large producer of coal. Yet Colorado is 

taking action to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 percent by 

2020 and achieve a 20 percent renewable electricity standard by 

the same time. 

Could you describe how Western States can achieve job creation 

and economic development by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 

including the role of natural gas, which I think you mentioned in 

your testimony? You saw a role for natural gas, and I could not 

agree with you more. I am wondering what your ideas are there. 

Mr. RITTER. Well, thank you, Senator. And again, I think Governor Hoeven and I are not very far apart in thinking about how 

everything has to be involved in a national energy policy that you 

should not necessarily pick winners and losers. 

There are a lot of incentives that are already in play for traditional extractive industries, but also for the renewable industries. 

The way we have done job creation around this is by creating an 

ecosystem that starts with the research and development corridor 

in Colorado. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is the 

backbone of that. 

But we have had a lot of other private research come in. We have 

formed a collaboration with our research institutes, and then out 

of there, out of those research institutions, are coming ideas that 

actually, if they get a bit of cap x, if they are capitalized, they are 

doing job creation. 

This abounds in solar. That idea was hatched in the CSU laboratory; about $15 million of Department of Energy money went to approve the concept, and now $150 million in venture capital money, 

and it is now 200 jobs in a downturn. And that is just one example. 

But it is because this ecosystem starts with research and development, a commitment to innovation, and then grows into venture 

capital money following it because they know they can produce 

solar more cheaply. 
160 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Thank you very much. There was a 

chart that was put up about Colorado and your jobs. I would just 

ask that the Chairman, if you want to submit anything in addition 

to whatever you submitted today in light of that chart, I would ask 

that the Chairman allow you to do so. 

Senator SANDERS. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator. 

Governor Hoeven, to ask you one quick question here. You stated 

that the House bill hits carbon sequestration at coal plants twice; 

they must buy allowance and pay for sequestration technology. My 

understanding of the House bill, and tell me what the difference is 

here, cap-and-trade is an incentive for doing sequestration. So, if 

you do it you do not need an allowance because the carbon is not 

emitted. You are taking care of it. 

The second part of the House bill devotes $60 billion, this is the 

largest amount aside from what is dedicated to consumers, for coal 

capture and sequestration. Those allowances are given to utilities, 

and also into research. 

So, I do not see how you make this argument that they are hit 

twice. In fact, there are significant provisions in there to encourage 

the industry to move to CCS. 

Mr. HOEVEN. First, the funding that is in the bill for carbon capture and sequestration is a good thing. There are also some provisions in there that would help in terms of developing transmission. 

That is a good thing as well. 

But overall your problem is that you set these allowances at a 

level where you are going to force the costs of energy from carbon 

emitting sources higher, and consumers are going to have to pay 

that. CBO scored it at $175 a family. The Heritage Foundation 

scored it at about $3,000 per family. 

So, in essence, you are going to have that cost to consumers that 

these companies are going to pay in cap-and-trade, and they are 

still going to have to invest the billions in order to put in the technology to actually capture and store the CO2. 

Senator UDALL. Well, the bill also has a major amount of the allowances going back to consumers. I think we are doing everything 

we can to protect them, starting with the lowest income consumers, 

and then working up. That is a significant, significant part of the 

bill that I think has not been mentioned. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

A couple of you mentioned electric cars. My colleagues across the 

aisle have been talking about the electrification of passenger transportation. It has been estimated that if we have regenerative braking and cars can go the first 30 miles, if you will, on electricity, 

that we would reduce 80 percent of our carbon dioxide production 

from passenger transportation. 

What are other aspects that you are considering in the States to 

promote the transformation to an electric passenger car world? And 

what other ideas should we be considering here in our Nation’s 

capital? 
161 

Mr. RITTER. Sir, one of the things about electric cars is their tie 

into a smart grid. Actually, an electric car that is fully charged can 

load back onto the grid and get compensated for that, and pull off 

at an off-peak time and wind up being a net savings. So, this idea 

to have a smart grid and electric cars at the same time has really 

interwoven in a way that makes economic sense to the family. 

Ms. GREGOIRE. The one that I would suggest, Senator, and the 

thing that we are grappling with with the electricity highway, 

north to south between our three States, is how does the consumer 

to travel a long distance without regeneration? So, we are looking 

at using our public facilities where they can either stay and regenerate, or they can transfer their battery and get a new battery in 

and move along so that it is very convenient for the consumer. 

We really need help and incentives in research and technology on 

how to make this happen efficiently and effectively. We would ask 

for your help in that regard. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Governor, you wanted to jump in 

as well. 

Mr. HOEVEN. In North Dakota, we have a company called Global 

Electric Motors owned by Chrysler. They make electric vehicles for 

Chrysler. We also are doing development work in terms of hydrogen and hydrogen-powered vehicles. In both cases, I go back to 

both creating a certainty and then also the right kind of incentives. 

For example, something as simple as making sure those vehicles 

are street legal. In some places, you cannot drive them. So, certainty so that consumers can buy these vehicles and know that 

they are going to be able to use them, combined with incentives, 

both for research and development, but then also for consumers 

that buy the vehicles in the new technology. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Those are all great points, and I 

appreciate the work the States are doing. 

Governor Ritter, you noted that you support major climate legislation but not necessarily in the exact format from Waxman-Markey. Are there specific suggestions that you would have for how we 

might improve upon Waxman-Markey? 

Mr. RITTER. Well, again, as a State with natural gas, I think natural gas and a different focus on that than was in the WaxmanMarkey bill, is important to consider. It is a much cleaner burning 

hydrocarbon, whether you talk about it in terms of turbines used 

to generate electricity or compressed natural gas used to motorize 

vehicles. So, that is certainly one thing. I will admit a self-interest 

as the Governor of a State with abundant natural gas and such a 

volatile market presently. 

Other than that, I think that the most important thing is that 

it be driven around climate goals and that the good work of the 

Senate be focused on that, and listen to the people who are the critics of Waxman-Markey and ask the question, what is the way to 

improve upon it, so that there are not such significant winners and 

losers, perhaps, except around climate reduction. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. And our other Governors, Governor Gregoire and Governor Hoeven, is there anything you would 

like to add on that score? 

Ms. GREGOIRE. I would only ask that you consider whether the 

ability for efficiency in the standards is beyond what it should be, 
162 

and we should solidly have a national set of standards for renewables and stick to it. I agree with the predictability and sustainability concept. But if we say efficiency can eat into that dramatically, I do not need that we are going to incent the kind of capital 

investment that we need in renewable energy. 

Senator MERKLEY. So, perhaps separating the two standards 

rather than having them exchange for each other. OK. 

Governor Ritter, in your written testimony, I am not sure if you 

mentioned this is your oral testimony, but Boulder County has a 

program of low interest loans to help people pay for energy investments, energy improvements to their homes up front, then pay 

those loans off on their property tax bill. We just passed a similar 

bill in Oregon. Do you want to comment on how that is working 

and the theory behind it? 

Mr. RITTER. It was passed by the voters, and again, I think, Senator, in all fairness I think it is just too early to say how it is working because it has just been passed. It is modeled after something 

that a local community in California had done as well. We are considering it, whether that is something to do at the State level. But 

I cannot really say much about it because our tax assessments are 

done every other year, so we just have to wait to see how many 

people wind up participating in it. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. Well, we will look forward to those results, and hopefully we will have the Oregon program up and running as an example as well. 

I think my time has actually expired. Thank you all very much. 

It is tremendous to see what you are doing at the State level. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Governor Ritter, you were talking about your renewable portfolio 

standard. I think it is interesting because, as you said, you are a 

State that has oil, natural gas, but you had some popular bi-partisan support for putting a renewable electricity standard in place. 

Why do you think that is as we look at how we can gain bi-partisan 

support for an energy policy? 

Mr. RITTER. Thanks, Senator. I really do think it is because the 

voters led the way initially. There was no leadership in our State 

that really, I think, supported a renewable energy standard, and 

we put it on the ballot and the people in the State, I think people 

in the West have a real interesting, I think, tie to the land, and 

I believe view our time here really as stewards. 

I am not trying to be glib about that. I really believe we have 

this relationship to the land that may be different than other 

places. And it is why you have seen the Western Climate Initiative 

and the Western Governors be able to get together on this. 

We have some evidence of things that we believe are a product 

of global warming. The pine beetle kill in Colorado is very significant. I think that helps people think about climate and the need 

to address it. The renewable energy standard was just one way of 

doing that in 2004. 

Once the utility, the investor-owned utility, saw that they could 

make it, and make it far ahead of the goal, then they were on 

board for us to double the renewable energy standard. That has 

been our secret, seeing that there are these benefits that are about 
163 

the economy, about energy policy and the environment, and they 

are all intermeshed. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I also think, it seems, our State has a similar story. People saw that they could have some skin in the game, 

that they could make some money off this, that they could get some 

jobs off this. And I think part of why there is more support in our 

State was the biofuels. 

And while that may not be related to the electricity standard, 

they could just see that part of this home grown energy, this new 

energy economy, that they could be a piece of this, that unlike the 

information technology revolution, which gave the Silicon Valley a 

bunch of jobs, there actually could be jobs, Governor Hoeven, in the 

Red River Valley. 

So, I guess that is my next question. One of the things we are 

going to be looking at is biofuels. I think we will make a transition 

to cellulosic. I do not think we should be pulling the rug out from 

under our biofuels, but one of the things that we have been looking 

at is increasing the blend standard for biofuels. 

Governor Hoeven, as a State that has both biofuels and oil, do 

you want to talk about what you think of that idea? 

Mr. HOEVEN. You should do it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, with that North Dakota directness. Governor Ritter, any comment on that? I know Senator 

Salazar was working on that before he left, and your two Senators 

have been working on that. 

Mr. RITTER. I, likewise, would support that. We also have a plant 

that is just opening up on the Southern Ute Reservation that turns 

algae to biofuel. We have a variety of different corn ethanol plants 

in the State. There is great research happening about how to transition to different kinds of things that are not food supply based, 

like corn. 

But I think the most recent thing happening, and the biggest 

thing that may be happening in Colorado, is, in fact, that algae research from Colorado State University is being transferred to commercial technology. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Governor Gregoire, along these lines of getting people behind a new energy policy and feeling that they can 

be a piece of this, too, would be forestry and biomass from logging. 

I know, like Minnesota, you have a major forestry industry in 

Washington State. 

Do you want to talk about the role that the forestry industry can 

have in this? 

Ms. GREGOIRE. Well, they are at the table. They are supportive 

of the initiatives of that we have put in place for cap-and-trade because they know they are part of the solution. Agriculture is also 

at the table. They see themselves as part of the solution with new 

kinds of biofuels. Boeing has had its first international flight testing biofuels. It can transform the entire aerospace industry. 

So, our public is very supportive, and now our business community has stepped up to the challenge of the public. And it has been 

welcome, and it is a job creator for us. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. And then last, I talked in my 

opening statement about China. I recently visited there with Senator McCain and Senator Graham and the work that is going there 
164 

and some of these other countries. In Vietnam, the No. 1 issue the 

Prime Minister there raised was their concerns on climate change 

and the effect on the world. 

Do you want to talk, being in Washington State and having 

many trade deals with Asia and things like that, your concerns 

about, I raise this issue, that we should be selling to them instead 

of them selling to us, on the technology issue? 

Ms. GREGOIRE. My best is the story in which President Hu Jianto 

and the Vice President of China came to visit Washington State in 

2007. In a conversation that I had with them, I asked the question 

what is the greatest challenge to China? The answer back was energy and the environment. 

And the next conversation was about global climate change and 

how we could work together, and that we had new initiatives in 

biofuels, and they indicated to me that whatever we could produce, 

they would import it all. 

Therein lies what I began to understand is a future 21st century 

economy where we can be exporting technology, exporting biofuels. 

It is a new economy for Washington State. That is what is driving 

us as one of the most trade-dependent States in the country. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me conclude the Governors’ section of the 

hearing by thanking Governor Ritter, Governor Gregoire, Governor 

Hoeven and Governor Corzine, not only for what you are doing 

back home, but for being here today. 

You may or may not know that this hearing was attended by almost every Senator, which is a bit unusual for hearings, and it indicates, I think to all of us, the important work that you are doing, 

what we can learn from you, and how we have got to go forward 

together on this important issue. 

So, I thank you very much. Now, it is time for the Mayors. 

OK. We are delighted to have four wonderful Mayors with us. As 

a former Mayor, I very much appreciate the hard work that you do 

and how you have to deal with day-to-day problems. I think the 

last 8 or so years we have seen great innovation coming from city 

halls all over this country. 

I will say to the Mayors is that we think there may be a vote 

in 5 or 10 minutes. Senator Merkley and I will rotate the gavel, 

and I will be back as soon as I can. 

But why do we not begin with Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington, 

Vermont, which is the city of which I live and in which I had the 

honor of being Mayor some years ago. 

Mayor Kiss. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT KISS, MAYOR, 

BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Mr. KISS. Thank you, Senators, Chair of the subcommittee and 

other members of the committee, for having us here today. I have 

some written testimony that already has been submitted, and I will 

refer to it in a minute. 

One thing that I wanted to comment on is that in Vermont right 

now, Bill McKibben is in residence at Middlebury College. He is an 

environmental activist very concerned about climate change and 

greenhouse gases. I think the message he has been giving to the 
165 

people of Vermont really says that if we do not do something in the 

next 8 years, there is going to be irrevocable changes in our climate 

30 years out that will be unacceptable. 

I think some of the people who left here, who were escorted out 

earlier, younger people, really are taking that to heart. They see 

it not only affecting their own future seriously, but their children’s 

futures. They are not convinced, I do not think, that we will have 

the ability or the determination to challenge the issue that confronts us today. And I think that really is the backdrop to our discussion. 

In Burlington, what I assumed, when I became Mayor, I think, 

was a commitment to build a sustainable city, and sustainability 

has not been a lot of the conversation that has been here today, 

either. What we have to do here is something that lets us live into 

the future successfully. I think we have to have courage in order 

to be able to do that. 

Clearly, greenhouse gas emissions and climate changes, in my 

mind, are real, not a figment of someone’s imagination, and we 

need to address it. 

From Burlington’s perspective, I think we have been successful 

in a lot of ways because we had begun to attack this issue, really, 

about 30 years ago. I am going to just read two paragraphs from 

my information that was submitted earlier to talk about what we 

have done over the past 30 years. In 1990, Burlington voters approved an $11 million bond to fund 

energy efficiency programs for 2002. Since 2003, Burlington Electric Department customers pay a small monthly charge that supports energy efficiency programs. The result of this investment is 

compelling. 

Annual electricity consumption in 2008 was about 1 percent 

greater than in 1989. Even with substantial local economic growth 

over the last 19 years, Burlington has met demand with about the 

same amount of electricity used in 1989. 

And energy efficiency investments save Burlington consumers 

over $8.9 million in retail electric costs annually, savings that go 

back into the local economy. Every year, these savings also include 

preventing the release of carbon dioxide measured at 64,700 tons 

in 2008. 

These energy efficiency efforts go hand-in-hand with a commitment to renewable electricity generation. Currently, 67 percent of 

Burlington’s electricity is generated through renewable energy 

sources. A substantial portion of Burlington’s renewable energy is 

supplied by the McNeil Generating Station, a wood burning plant 

that began operation in 1984. 

At full load, McNeil can generate 50 megawatts of electricity. 

Much of the wood that fires McNeil comes from Vermont and regional sources, keeping the economic activity created by wood demand local. 

Last year, BED installed a nitrous oxide reduction unit at 

McNeil which allows it to sell renewable energy credits. The sale 

of these credits is expected to pay the costs of installation of the 

nitrous oxide reduction unit within about 3 years. 

Building a green economy is an integral part of Burlington’s development plan. That is what we are about. But I think the goal 
166 

here is to build a public infrastructure that is green, so that all 

jobs become greener. At the same time, jobs in the new economy 

are green collar jobs that are responding to our capacity to create 

a public infrastructure that is green. 

I think that has got to be our goal. Ultimately, it cannot be just 

about developing green jobs. It has got to be about creating a green 

infrastructure in society that does this routinely and is an answer 

to the question of what our lives will look like in 30 years. 

So, Senator Sanders, there are two other elements that come 

from this, and maybe I will talk about them later. But, we want 

to create, and we have authorizing legislation in Vermont now, 

clean energy assessment districts. This is the same idea that was 

talked about in terms of Boulder. Burlington is looking at that 

process now, and as I said, we have State legislation that would 

allow us to do it. 

Second, we have heat that is wasted at McNeil that we know can 

be used to support district energy, in other words, using that waste 

heat to heat as many as 8,000 homes in the city of Burlington. 

That is the second project we are looking at. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiss follows:] 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 

Senator SANDERS. I am going to introduce Mayor Bill Euille of 

Alexandria, Virginia. We thank you very much for being here. 

I am going to run down and vote. Senator Merkley will take the 

gavel and then I will be up in a few minutes. 

Mayor Euille. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. EUILLE, MAYOR, 

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. EUILLE. Thank you, sir. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

My name is William Euille, and I am the Mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about 

three critical environmental challenges, climate change, clean energy and the new green economy which, indeed, requires a joint 

collaborative partnership between cities, States and the Federal 

Government. 

As Mayor and lifelong resident of Alexandria, I am concerned 

about the potential impacts climate change may have on a coastal 

city like Alexandria, our 141,000-plus residents and the surrounding region. 

In February 2005, I, as a Mayor, endorsed and signed the 2005 

YES Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement along 

with 278 other Mayors from 43 States, representing a total population of over 48 million. The sole purpose there was for the conference to meet or exceed the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas reduction targets through the use of local land use planning, urban forest restoration, public outreach campaigns and other greenhouse 

gas reduction strategies. 

In 2007, Alexandria began a strategic planning process known as 

the Eco-City Alexandria initiative, to guide the city over the next 

30 years toward becoming a true eco-city, in other words, sustainability, a place where people can live healthier and economically 

productive lives while reducing their environmental impact. City 

officials, city residents and staff spent countless hours exploring 

best practices from communities across the country to develop an 

environmental plan for the city. 

In 2008, the City Council adopted the Eco-City Charter, which 

outlines the vision and guiding principles for Alexandria to become 

an eco-city. One year later, Council adopted Environmental Action 

Plan 2030 as a road map for city leaders, staff and residents to implement the sustainability, visions and principles set forth in the 

Eco-City Charter. Only a handful of communities have developed 

such a comprehensive action plan that includes climate change protection as a critical component. 

I would like to tell you about some of the things that we are 

doing to become an eco-city. In Alexandria, we recognize how the 

quantity and sources of energy used by local government, businesses and residents affect our environment and quality of life. 

And we have committed to managing our energy supply and usage 

in a sustainability manner. 

A prime example of this commitment is the city’s partnership 

with an energy-from-waste facility for more than 25 years. This facility generates enough clean, renewable energy to supply power to 

approximately 20,000 homes via the combustion of municipal solid 
180 

waste. Diversion of our municipal solid waste from a landfill to the 

energy waste facility reduces the city’s carbon emissions by approximately 160,000 metric tons annually. 

The city also supports energy efficiency and conservation technologies and is working to create a green jobs training program to 

train residents to perform energy audits, weatherize houses and 

other buildings, install solar, wind, geothermal devices and other 

clean and renewable energy technology. 

To support the implementation of the Eco-City Environmental 

Action Plan, Alexandria plans to use some of its energy efficiency 

in Conservation Block Grant Funding for conversion of the city’s 

street lights and traffic signals to energy efficient LED lamps, expansion of the city’s green fleet program, support of green jobs 

training for weatherization technicians and energy auditors, and 

establishment of a green revolving loan program for property owners. 

Implementation of these programs and related projects will result in the creation of approximately 15,000 jobs and reduce carbon 

emissions by an estimated 19,000 metric tons. 

Among Alexandria’s other green projects and achievements are 

the new T.C. Williams High School building, which received the 

LEED Gold Certification, the award winning design of a green 

building in a former brown field that will house a fire station, retail and 64 units of public housing, adoption of a new city policy 

that will seek to have all new buildings achieve LEED Silver Certification or better, completion of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and installation of solar panels to provide lighting 

in bus shelters and vegetative filter boxes on neighborhood streets 

to treat and clean roadway runoff. 

I have spoken to you today about some of the steps Alexandria 

has taken to become an eco-city, and about some green amenities 

that make Alexandria a great place to live. However, to fully implement the Eco-City Alexandria initiative goals, we need your support. 

America’s cities and towns need your support. Such support 

should include the annual funding of the Energy Efficiency Block 

Grant Program, increased funding for transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects, and revisions to Federal programs to ensure that they 

will support a green economy. 

Local governments play a critical role in improving energy efficiency, shifting the country to cleaner sources of energy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While partnerships with States and 

the private sector are essential to successful local actions, the development of effective climate change and clean energy strategies 

will certainly fall short without direct appropriation of funding to 

local governments to supplement local funds that we will spend. 

Local governments should have the flexibility to spend direct 

funds in areas such as capacity building, development of green initiatives, outreach education, and planning efforts like the Eco-City 

Alexandria initiative. Federal support for these and similar program would enable communities across the country to build their 

own eco-cities. 

America’s cities have always been the economic engine for 

growth and prosperity, and continued Federal support will go a 
181 

long way in ensuring their continued success in energy efficiency, 

job growth expansion and eco-stability. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Euille follows:] 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 

Senator MERKLEY [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mayor. 

Our next witness is Hon. John Lowery, State Representative 

from Arkansas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LOWERY, REPRESENTATIVE, 

DISTRICT 6, ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. LOWERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and 

distinguished panel here. It is a great opportunity to be here today. 

Let me tell you a little bit about my district. What we are assuming here is that the Waxman-Markey bill will generate economic 

growth and help local communities. That is the assumption, and 

that is the prognosis. But let me talk to you a little bit today about 

the reality of the impact this bill, as written, would do to certain 

segments of the economy and to my district. 

My district has a diverse assortment of companies that employ 

our citizens. These are oil refiners, oil and gas related entities, timber industries, chemical companies, service industries, financial institutions, retailers and agriculturally related businesses that are, 

primarily, small family farms, poultry growers, tomato farmers, 

cattle farmers and such. 

With the presumption, and certainly we are not opposed to the 

addition of jobs and an increase in economic development in other 

parts of the country, but let me tell you what this will do dramatically to us. 

One of our larger employers in South Arkansas is Lion Oil Company. Twenty years ago, independent businessmen purchased this 

refinery from a California-based company that was willing to give 

it up or shut it down. They salvaged it. They retained it. They have 

spent millions of dollars environmentally on this plant, making it 

efficient, and have grown the plant and grown its market. 

The impact Waxman-Markey and the cap-and-trade credits 

would impose on them is a $180 million price tag. That would be 

the tax for them to continue to operate. That is an undue burden 

on them. That would be the loss of 1,200 direct jobs and up to 

3,000 indirect jobs related. 

Also, Murphy Oil is a company that is headquartered in El Dorado, Arkansas. And they choose to be. They have refineries in 

Louisiana and Wisconsin, have offices in other parts of the United 

States, but they choose to locate in El Dorado, Arkansas. And they 

bring some very valuable jobs. This would cost them approximately 

$400 million annually. 

So, what I am here today to talk about is the impact of not betting on the come, but what is reality if this is enacted, of what it 

would do, and it would devastate us. 

Recently, we had the loss of over 1,800 jobs because Pilgrim’s 

Pride, a poultry producer, went bankrupt. Shut down the plant, 

laid them off and sent them home. We cannot stand any more unemployment and the taxes, of undo taxes, to our particular region. 

So I am here today to plead the other side, if you will, of what 

is known, and not the unknown. Certainly we all are for new ideas, 

new technology. The State of Arkansas is looking at these, natural 

gas, transportation, biomass, cellulosic fuel and alternatives there. 

We are all for that. But I can tell you, if this legislation and these 

policies are enacted as they are, it is going to have a dramatic im-
280 

pact. Our unemployment now, because of the poultry-related layoffs, is up to 10 percent on my county. They would skyrocket to 

over 20 percent if we have additional layoffs in the impact of this. 

So, I am here to talk for the little man, if you will, not the policies and not the State. But I am a realist. And the reality of this 

is a severe impact. 

I am a Democrat. This is not a partisan issue. It is a divisive 

issue that separates, I am afraid, different parts of our country and 

would be very divisive. We do not need that in this economic downturn. We need to all be pulling together. 

I think also the impact this would put on the energy industry 

would severely jeopardize our national security. That has not been 

discussed here today, but that is a very real probability. As you 

take products off the market, as you shut refineries down, where 

are they going to come from? India? China? The Middle East? So, 

we have to think about National security as well. 

That completes my remarks. I have other things to submit to the 

record, Mr. Chairman, if appropriate, to substantiate my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowery follows:] 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Representative Lowery. 

I ask for unanimous consent that your additional articles be submitted for the record. Not seeing any objection, we will do that. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 

Senator MERKLEY. While I am mentioning that, Senator Webb 

has submitted a statement for the record as well, and I ask for 

unanimous consent that that be added to the record as well. Without objection, we will do that. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Webb was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator MERKLEY. And now we are to another Mayor, Mayor 

Palmer. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS H. PALMER, MAYOR, 

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALMER. It is a pleasure to be there. The camera guys left 

me just as I was about to speak, but I am going to move forward 

anyway. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PALMER. It is a pleasure to be here. I want to thank Chairman Boxer and Senator Sanders. He has been an outstanding advocate on this issue, along with my Senators in New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez, and my own Governor, 

Governor Corzine, who has shown true leadership. 

I have remarks that are entered into the record. I just want to 

speak as a Mayor and give some of my thoughts, especially after 

hearing the interchange between both sides of the aisle. 

You know, as Mayors, we do not have the luxury of really being 

partisan. We are where the rubber meets the road. We have to deal 

with our constituents each and every day. 

And I was listening to the debate, I thought about the saying 

that says, you know, we may have all come over here in different 

ships but we are in the same boat now. Quite frankly, no matter 

what party you are in or where you are from, we actually are in 

the same boat. 

In 2007, as president of the United States Conference of Mayors, 

we held the largest meeting of Mayors as it relates to climate 

change in this history of our country. When we came back, we 

heard about the polar ice caps and the polar bears looking for 

places to go. And I said to myself, if I come back to Trenton, New 

Jersey, and go into the neighborhood and tell the people we need 

climate change because of the polar bears, they would say, you 

know what Mayor, you have lost your mind. 

We need real climate change. If you are talking about climate, 

we want the climate to change in our neighborhoods. We want to 

create jobs. We want to feel safe. 

I recognize that this is an issue that some areas are father ahead 

of than others. So, I instituted a Trenton Green initiative, and 

brought everyone together. I do not want to say everyone, but you 

could imagine who was brought together as we looked at this issue 

because it is really a grassroots issue, and change is really going 

to come from the grassroots. 

We set up this committee, and fortunately we pushed for an Energy Environment Block Grant with which you, Senator, and others 

were very helpful, which was giving money to cities so that we can 

do the retrofits. We cannot tell our citizens that they need to retrofit, we cannot tell our businesses that they need to retrofit, if we 

do not do our due diligence and retrofit public buildings. 
305 

The Energy Environment Block Grant which the Conference of 

Mayors championed, and which you were a champion of, is helping 

us, especially when we have it now with ARRA. We are able, in 

Trenton, to convert our 3,000 traffic signals to LED, which will 

save us $130,000 a year, every year. We were also able, with this 

money, to retrofit a new courthouse, a rehabilitated courthouse 

which is going to also create jobs. 

But when you talk to the citizens every day and they say to you, 

why should I care about climate change, I just say back to them, 

you are a senior citizen, you are on a fixed income, you own a 

home, do you care about your energy costs? Do you know that you 

can reduce your energy costs? I care about that. Your grandson, 

you are talking about how he needs a job, he is not working. We 

can have jobs in terms of retrofitting and weatherization, which is 

what we are doing. They care about those things. 

And if you talk to a young mother or father about their child 

having asthma and why does it continue to happen and what we 

need to do to clean up the environment, then you see that this is 

an issue that really touches each and every one of us. 

I have confidence in this committee, and in the Congress and 

Senate, that you will have dialogue. You will go and battle your 

points, but at the end of the day, really have a red, white and blue, 

and not just a green policy, and one that will have as a centerpiece 

as well not only reducing carbon emissions, but also putting money 

into the grassroots levels, into cities through an Energy Environment Block Grant as was mentioned. Not just 1 year, but for 40 

years, so that we can use that money and plan appropriately and 

so that we can also use some of that money to do the kinds of 

things for small businesses as it relates to revolving loan funds so 

that they can help their businesses go green. too. 

I think we all want to do it. I think it is just a matter of how 

do we do it. 

So, I am confident that working with all of you, and the Mayors 

across this country who have shown the leadership from the very 

beginning, such as Mayor Greg Nickels, who started 140 members 

to sign the climate agreement and now we are almost 1,000 Mayors 

that are saying that we are going to reduce greenhouse gases and 

also create jobs. 

This can be done. We have a report, Global Insight, which talks 

about how we can create the 4.2 million jobs doing a multitude of 

things. It is all about getting on with the business at hand. I know 

our citizens would like to see that. 

We have shown tremendous success with young people who are 

now being trained and doing work in making their communities 

better, and not just having a green collar job, but also developing 

green collar careers as a result of it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement Mr. Palmer follows:] 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 

Senator SANDERS [presiding]. My apologies for having to go 

down. I am going to get my bearings here, and I am going to let 

Senator Inhofe begin the questioning. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I enjoyed your remarks, Mayor Palmer. I used to have a hard job. 

I was the Mayor of a city. 

Mr. PALMER. You have the hardest job as Mayor. 

Senator INHOFE. There is no hiding place. If they do not like the 

trash system, they put it in your front yard. And I know, because 

they did. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I would only say this. I would hope that since, 

and you are right on in terms of what is important to real people, 

they are out there, they want their jobs, and I hope that you will 

read the testimony of our witness that we had last week, Harry 

Alford, who is the president of the National Black Chamber of 

Commerce. It is not a matter of just losing jobs if we are to pass 

this bill, but it is regressive. 

In other words, the percentage of income that a person has who 

is very poor that goes toward heating his home is much higher 

than it is for a wealthy person. And that is what I would like to 

have you look at for sure. 

Representative Lowery, I appreciate that you are here, and I 

want your beautiful wife to hold her hand up so that we know that 

support is there. 

I was following along with you, and I did not see that in the written testimony, but I understand that you said $180 million a year 

on the refinery in El Dorado? 

Mr. LOWERY. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. What is the name of that refinery? 

Mr. LOWERY. It is Lion Oil Refinery. It is owned by a group of 

independent businessmen. It is not Exxon or ARCO level whatsoever. It is a small independent. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, because we have the same thing in my 

State of Oklahoma. Now, you said right now in El Dorado the unemployment rate is at 10 percent? 

Mr. LOWERY. It is 10.2 percent. 

Senator INHOFE. Is that due to the poultry plant? Tell us what 

happened in that poultry incident. 

Mr. LOWERY. Well, all areas of our economy, unfortunately, as diversified as we are, are suffering as are most parts of the country. 

But with the plant closing, the poultry plant, not only did that 

eliminate 1,800 jobs, it also affected the family farms, the poultry 

people who are mortgaged to the hilt for their poultry houses, and 

their farms and they are not even included in there. 

Senator INHOFE. So, prior to that exodus, what was the unemployment rate before it became 10 percent? 

Mr. LOWERY. We started out, before the economic downturn, at 

5 percent. 

Senator INHOFE. At 5 percent. And then you say that, in the 

event that this would happen if they passed the Waxman-Markey 

bill which would effectively shut down your refinery, is there an 

analysis saying what it would be up to then? 
364 

Mr. LOWERY. No, sir. I have a resolution here included for the 

record from the Mayor and the City Council of the impact, but I 

got my information from Mayor Dumas last week and asked him 

to calculate and have his staff calculate it. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, well let me ask you this. Two weeks ago, 

we had Lisa Jackson. She is Obama’s appointee as Director of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. I asked her the question. I said, 

if we were to pass Waxman-Markey what would it do in terms of 

reducing the overall CO2 going into the air? She thought for a 

while, and I applaud her, and I have applauded her since then for 

her honesty, she said, nothing. It will not affect it. 

What she is saying is this: the problem we have is not here. The 

problem is in China, in India. In China right now they are cranking out two new coal-fired power plants ever week. They are looking at us right now hoping and praying that we will pass this bill 

so they can get our manufacturing jobs over there. And that would 

be a place where there are no emission requirements, no restrictions, and the end result would be an increase in the amount of 

carbon into the air. Does that make sense to you? 

Mr. LOWERY. Yes, sir. Unfortunately, India, presently, is building 

a large refinery, I think a 400- to 600-barrel capacity, with no restrictions on it. They are designing that thing to make gasoline for 

America and to meet American standards. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, and I have got the quotes that you probably 

were going to read there. They are, under no circumstances, going 

to put any kind of restrictions on themselves. When they go to Copenhagen, there is a, not us you guys. 

Mr. LOWERY. So, unfortunately, this represents, as we see if, if 

we shut local refineries down, independents, large or small, these 

job transfer are going to go to India. It is another large transfer 

of wealth that is already going to the Middle East that we are all 

opposed to and concerned about. This is going to add insult to injury, if you will, if we lose these domestic jobs. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I would only ask you, or anyone there, in 

this bill there is an unemployment provision. There is a section 

that guarantees 70 percent of the wages for 3 years and up to 

$1,500 relocation assistance. It would seem to me that it is logical 

that the drafters of this bill know it is going to cost jobs because 

they have unemployment benefits in there. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. LOWERY. I agree. Absolutely. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me start off with Mayor Kiss. In our city 

of Burlington, we have a large wood chip burning plant, and I 

know you have been talking about the potential benefits of the concept of district energy. Can you say a few words about what you 

would like to see in Burlington in terms of district energy? 

Mr. KISS. Sure. With the McNeil, what a wood chip plant does 

is have extra heat which is not used in the process of creating electricity. That heat would be coming in the form of hot water which 

could be piped to as many as 8,000 homes in the city and businesses, and, essentially provide the heating and cooling opportunities for all of those homes and businesses if we could put the infrastructure in place to make that work. 

District heating is something that is used, for example, in Copenhagen. Ninety-seven percent of the heating method in Copenhagen, 
365 

Denmark, is a district heating method. Jamestown, New York, a 

much smaller example, already uses it. So, the examples exist in 

both the United States and Europe. But—— 

Senator SANDERS. And not only would you be creating an inexpensive source of heating for the local residents, but you would be 

creating jobs in the area as well. 

Mr. KISS. Absolutely. I think the one thing that is true, the Copenhagen experience, we had people come from Denmark to talk to 

us about their experience. They tend to run their programs on a 

50-year investment, paid off in 25 years, that allows them then 

have 25 years of heat that is essentially with the infrastructure 

paid. The benefit of that, if we could put it into place, is significant 

in terms of Burlington’s future. 

Senator SANDERS. Mayor Palmer, thank you very much for all of 

the work you have done as the Mayor of Trenton and as the past 

president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in understanding the 

importance of addressing global warming and the potential for job 

creation in the process. We appreciate having worked with you on 

the Block Grant Program that Senator Menendez and I introduced. 

In terms of the Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program, how is 

it working in your city in terms of job creation right now and addressing some of the energy problems of the city? 

Mr. PALMER. Well, what we are doing right now, we put together 

our plan. Like I said, we certainly are looking to do the retrofits 

in homes and also in buildings. And our police station. We are taking care of retrofitting those kinds of things as well. But we are 

also looking at that money to help us leverage other moneys with 

our housing authority, with our school system, in order to use more 

of that to do more retrofits and those kinds of things. 

Senator SANDERS. And in the process you are creating jobs, I presume? 

Mr. PALMER. Yes. But the big thing I would say, Senator, is what 

the Mayors of the Nation are talking about. We definitely want this 

included in the bill and at least for 40 years. We need to know 

every year that money is there so that we can do the proper planning, so that we can use the money even more efficiently to leverage that, not just say it is a one shot deal. 

Senator SANDERS. In other words, we did well in the stimulus 

package, but you want to see a regular source of funding—— 

Mr. PALMER. We want to see—— 

Senator SANDERS. And the Conference of Mayors feels that 

strongly? 

Mr. PALMER. Very strongly about that. And like I said, Senator, 

this is sort of our baby together, what we have done, and I can tell 

you that it is creating, it is beginning to create, tremendous results 

in terms of jobs. Getting money directly to Mayors, getting money 

directly to cities, we will get that money out and create the jobs. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mayor Euille, I apologize for not hearing your testimony. But in 

your written testimony, you talked about the T.C. Williams High 

School, which is now a LEED gold facility. What impact is that 

having on the kids in the school and on their response to education 

in general? Can you say a few words on that? 
366 

Mr. EUILLE. Yes, thank you, and I must say that the new high 

school is my former high school, the T.C. Williams High School. I 

graduated in 1968, and of course, while I hopefully will remember 

the successful 1976 movie about the T.C. Williams championship 

team, Remember the Titans, but the new building itself is a crown 

jewel. That is how I refer to it. It is a $100 million LEED gold certified building. Water is collected and retained on the roof and it circulates into a 500,000 gallon tank which is then recycled back in the building to flush the 

toilets, recycled for heating the building, and drinking water and 

everything else. There is a garden, an environmental garden, on 

the rooftop that the students use for biology and science classes. 

The bottom line here is that it has been not just a building to 

educate students, but in terms of the core courses, it has actually 

enhanced and inspired them to fully appreciate and understand the 

importance of climate change and energy efficiency. 

Senator SANDERS. Do the kids feel proud of the building? 

Mr. EUILLE. Very much so. As a matter of fact, not only are they 

proud of the building, but when I did the grand opening ribbon cutting, I encouraged them to protect this building because this a 

unique opportunity, one of its kind, and so I am up there usually 

at least a couple of times a week, and the building looks like it did 

the day it opened, almost spanking brand new, a few years later. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Lowery, if I could. I was reading in your testimony that the Waxman-Markey bill will really change our way of 

life, you said in terms of at home in Arkansas, in regards to your 

community in lost jobs and higher energy prices. We have the same 

concerns in Wyoming. Our Governor, who is a Democrat, is opposed 

to the proposal. 

I am just curious. I think you touched on it a little bit in your 

testimony that it seems to be what is happening in mid-America, 

bi-partisan opposition, as opposed to maybe on the coasts, which is 

bi-partisan support. Any thoughts on that? 

Mr. LOWERY. Well, Congressman Mike Ross voted against it in 

the House, Marion Berry, Democrats, so it is non-partisan, if you 

will. What its effect is, and how, before I vote on any legislation 

at the State level, obviously not of this magnitude, I like to step 

back and say, what is going to be said to me back in the coffee shop 

in El Dorado before I cast my vote on this issue? Because I am 

going to go there, and I am going to hear those responses. 

And what I am hearing here from the people who have lost jobs 

is that the potential of this legislation already has stopped maintenance and a major expansion of Lion Oil. That is just the potential 

of this. Also, at Murphy Oil in our community, they are in a nonhiring mode. 

So it is non-partisan. It is not politics. It is about the people that 

we represent, real people in real jobs, not theoretical jobs. And we 

are not opposed to the increases and what other parts of the country want to do. But no, this is not a partisan issue at all. 

It is about the American people, the way they choose to live in 

the South in rural areas. They choose that. Let us help protect 
367 

that. And let us also give jobs and opportunities and retain jobs in 

those areas as well as other parts of the country, but not at the 

expense of the other one. 

One principle, well, many principles, but one principle instilled 

in me by my parents, you never benefit yourself at the expense of 

others. Always watch that principle. 

And I know the Mayors here, I already just met Mr. Palmer, and 

I know he is a likeable personable guy, and he is already my 

friend, I think. And so I am not opposed to what these Mayors are 

saying here at all. I would not want my region of the country to 

do anything at the expense of them. 

Basically what we are talking here, we are talking about taxing 

some regions of the country, and I know that he is not proposing 

that, to fund other areas and other potential jobs. That is really 

what we are talking about and how we see it in South Arkansas. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. And to follow up on that, because that is 

what I hear in Wyoming when I am at home on the weekend, and 

I was just home this past weekend, on the same issues. I think in 

your testimony you said not only would this bill destroy our economy, our communities, our way of life, but it is also going to make 

us pay more, pay more, due to it. Can you talk a little bit about 

that? 

Mr. LOWERY. I do not know what the price tag will be. I do not think anybody knows. But I think it is unrealistic to say $175 a 

year, whatever, per person. It is going to escalate costs tremendously. 

So, I do not have the scientific data, if you will, with me, not the 

benefit of a staff that maybe others have. But, I mean just reason 

tells you that this is going to be very expensive. For instance here 

$180 million for one refinery, if they can stay in business. And I 

do not think they can. This is company that their net profit for the 

last 23 years only averaged $12 million a year. You do the math. 

So, I would say that is a very expensive proposition. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, in terms of employment and the employment picture in your community say 5 years from now, if this goes 

through, is devastating? 

Mr. LOWERY. Yes, sir. The Mayor before I came up here, I asked 

him to run some figures based on the most recent unemployment, 

10.2 percent currently, what this would do to direct jobs and indirect jobs that support Lionel and Murphy Oil in our community. 

And he projects from 18 to 20 percent unemployment immediately. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, if you were able to get Congress down to 

your coffee shop or everybody from the coffee shop up here sitting 

at the table, what message would they send to Washington about 

this Waxman-Markey bill? 

Mr. LOWERY. Well, they would say that this is, in our opinion, 

bad legislation. The theoretical part of climate change and addressing that, we are not opposed to that. New innovation, new technology, we are not opposed to that. But we are looking at real jobs, 

real people that are going to lose their jobs and have nowhere else 

to go in this economy. 

I think they would say take a second look and be very sure, very, 

very sure before you move forward this dramatically in taxing em-
368 

ployers such as ours in our area there. Move very, very cautiously 

and be very, very sure before you do this. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks, Mr. Lowery. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me start off with Representative Lowery. 

I apologize for not having heard your testimony. 

Let me ask you the same question that I asked Governor Hoeven, 

and that is, seated exactly where you are seated now, over the past 

several years, we have been hearing testimony from some of the 

leading climatologists in the world. What they have told us is that 

if our country and the rest of the world do not get our act together, 

global warming is going to cause horrendous problems for the 

United States and the entire planet in terms of flooding, in terms 

of drought, in terms of extreme weather disturbances, in terms of 

disease, in terms of national security issues. 

Do you agree with them, that if we do not get our act together 

our planet is going to suffer irreparable harm? 

Mr. LOWERY. Well, I believe there is, we need to address and look 

at climate change. I do. I know the scientific community argues 

about how much is manmade and how much is natural. But certainly either way we need to address it. And the human element, 

yes, we need to address it. But not as dramatic as is in this piece 

of legislation. 

Senator SANDERS. So, you do not agree with what the leading scientists of the world are saying, that if we do not move aggressively, 

this planet will suffer irreparable harm which we may never recover from in the years to come? 

Mr. LOWERY. I do not disagree. I just think we have a difference 

of opinion as to how aggressive and what the term—— 

Senator SANDERS. Oh, no, they are saying, and if you do disagree, that is OK, they are saying that if we do not act aggressively 

irreparable harm will occur. 

Mr. LOWERY. I cannot disagree with that. 

Senator SANDERS. You cannot disagree with that? 

Mr. LOWERY. No, sir, I cannot disagree with that. I think, again, 

it is the means. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Mayor Kiss, you said something that I thought was very significant. I think we are proud of living in Burlington, Vermont, and 

the State is proud of it, and that is, since 1989, with normal economic growth, Burlington is, we have our problems with the recession but we are doing reasonably well, everything considered, Burlington today is consuming 1 percent more electricity than was the 

case 20 years ago. 

What would be the implications for the United States, do you 

think, if the rest of the country was as aggressive as Burlington 

has been in terms of energy efficiency and, in fact, the State of 

Vermont has in recent years as well? 

Mr. KISS. Vermont has an energy efficiency utility, VEIC. What 

they have been saying for quite a while now is that they could reduce Burlington’s and Vermont’s energy use by one-third through 

energy conservation and energy efficiency measures. So, one of the 

real opportunities that is still out there for us is not to build new 

capacity, but actually to reduce the use of energy by weatherizing 
369 

homes and taking that kind of action. If we invest in that, it is a 

much cheaper fix than building new capacity. 

Senator SANDERS. You know, I have been hearing, over the last 

several years, how dire the economy would be if were aggressive in 

terms of dealing with global warming. And yet Burlington has been 

one of the leaders in the country. Has that had dire economic impacts? 

Mr. KISS. I do not think so. I think positive affects have been the 

result. On the contrary, I think Burlington has been actually creating more jobs with higher wages than the rest of the State. I 

think people look to Burlington and the greater metropolitan area 

as the economic engine of Vermont. And the investment in green 

infrastructure, as I said earlier, I think greens all of the jobs in 

Burlington and at the same time it creates new green collar jobs 

that are clearly responding to change. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Mayor Palmer, I was excited to read your report stating that we 

could create, this is from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 4.2 million 

green jobs by 2038 by increasing efficiency and alternative energy 

production. That would be a significant expansion over where we 

are today. Do you want to elaborate on that? 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, this is our 2008 Metro Green Jobs Report that 

we put out. I figured that you were going to ask me that, Senator, 

and that is why I wanted to be sure. Forty percent of it would come 

from electricity from alternative sources, another 35 percent reduction in energy use, and that is both residential and commercial 

buildings, and 30 percent of gas-diesel demand replaced by ethanol 

and biodiesel. And my good friend here, I can give you this, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PALMER. So that is what we are looking at. Let us face it, 

Senator, this is a tremendous debate, especially to have 40 years 

when we are looking at the first man landing on the Moon. We 

have got to do this. 

The cost of inaction is going to hurt future generations. If we do 

not do something now, you know, I love Florida, and parts of Florida may be underwater. Parts of Trenton, New Jersey, may be underwater. And then economic tsunami that would create would 

overshadow any kind of discussion that we are having as it relates 

to a gloom and doom forecast. We cannot afford not to do something. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, I think Mayor Palmer, on that note, on 

that profound note, we are going to end the hearing. Just let me 

just say this, because I think you raise an issue that has not been 

focused on enough. 

Some of our friends say that the legislation that is coming forward is not perfect. Well you know what? It is not perfect. I think 

we have got to improve it, and so forth. 

But what you are saying is that the cost of doing nothing would, 

in fact, be catastrophic, not just for New Jersey or Florida or 

Vermont, but in fact for billions of people on this planet. And we 

do not hear that enough. 

It would be catastrophic in terms of human suffering and disease, and areas in this world that are often inhabited by some of 

the poorest people literally being underwater, and it would be a 
370 

disaster in terms of what we would leave our kids and our grandchildren. 

And it would be a disaster economically. People are saying, oh, 

you want to spend a whole lot of money dealing with global warming. Yes, that is true. What would be the economic costs in terms 

of trillions of dollars of loss if we do not go forward aggressively? 

So, I think on that very profound note, which I happen to agree 

with very much, we will end the hearing. 

I just want to conclude again, as a former Mayor, by thanking 

all of you and you, Mr. Lowery, as well, I know you are in the legislature there, for the important work, the grassroots work that you 

are doing. Keep up the excellent work. 

Thank you all very much. The hearing is ended. 

[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Madam Chairman, as a former mayor and Governor, I have a unique appreciation 

for the perspectives of State and local officials as we contemplate national policy. 

Those perspectives are particularly important as we debate national climate and energy policy. Over the past few years we have seen various iterations of cap and 

trade programs and renewable electricity standards make their way through the 

legislative process. While many of the underlying details vary in these proposals, 

what’s clear is that these policies will have vastly different impacts from one region 

of the country to the next. And while various ‘‘winners’’ and ‘‘losers’’ are created 

under these bills depending on how carbon credits are divided or how ‘‘renewable’’ 

is defined, the bills are consistently shown to be losers for consumers in States that 

rely on coal for electricity generation, have a large manufacturing base, and that 

have limited access to renewable forms of electricity generation. 

Indeed, cap and trade is a policy mechanism that results in wealth redistribution 

among the various regions of the country, where consumers in regions with higher 

emissions pay consumers in regions with lower emissions for the right to emit. Thus 

it is no surprise that you see Senators from the Northeast and Pacific Northwest 

advocating for aggressive carbon caps. The same is true of proposals to implement 

a national renewable electricity standard: generators that cannot meet the standard 

will have to buy ‘‘green’’ energy credits from those that can. Not surprisingly, Senators representing States with large resources of renewable energy are the most 

vocal advocates for aggressive RES requirements. 

The Waxman bill compounds this problem in a number of ways: First, the bill 

combines an RES with a cap and trade program. The result is a system of overlapping and redundant requirements that will impede cost effective emissions reductions and increase the overall costs of the policy and the flow of resources from one 

region of the country to another. Indeed, if national emissions are being controlled 

by the cap, there is no need for an RES. 

Second, the bill’s allocation scheme under the cap is punitive to coal dependent 

regions. This is most clearly seen when looking at the allocation formula for the 

electric generating sector. Under this formula, 50 percent of the credits are given 

to utilities based on historic emissions, and 50 percent are given based on electricity 

sales. However, awarding allowances based on electricity sales gives credits to companies that do not need them for compliance purposes. That is, generators utilizing 

nuclear power or renewables to make electricity have no compliance obligations for 

those sources. Quite simply, giving allowances to entities that do not emit greenhouse gases increases compliance costs for those that have emissions reductions obligations. The result will be a ‘‘windfall’’ for States in the Northeast and Pacific 

Northwest, while States in the Midwest and Southeast run carbon deficits. 

For example, under the electricity allocation structure, Ohio will have only 70 percent of its utility emissions covered by free allocations. California, on the other 

hand, will receive 140 percent of its utility emissions in free allocations. Assuming 

a modest CO2 price of $15 per ton, the result is a net loss to Ohio’s electricity customers of $643 million in 2012 and a net gain to California’s customers of $385 million in 2012. Such an allocation scheme is unfair and unnecessary. 
371 

Separately, the bill provides for Federal preemption in areas where it should not 

and fails to preempt States where it should. For example, the bill gives the Federal 

Government power over local building codes. The new established national building 

codes would be federally enforceable, giving the Federal Government the ability to 

dock Federal funding or carbon allowances from States that don’t meet the national 

efficiency targets. This represents an unprecedented level of Government intrusion 

into State and local affairs that has little to do with the bill’s goals. As with the 

RES, if emissions are being controlled by the cap, these provisions are unnecessary. 

Alternatively, the bill does not preempt State cap and trade programs. Unlike localized reductions in other air pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide, particulate matter), 

when an emissions source reduces its carbon dioxide emissions, it does not generate 

a corresponding local climate change benefit. From a practical standpoint, the actions of one or a group of States cannot by themselves reduce the global accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. At the same time, a patchwork of standards and regulations across the Nation may hinder a company’s efficiency and create additional economic burdens for firms that operate in multiple States. 

Of significant concern, the bill appears to cede expansive authority to States to 

adopt measures that would directly impact the nature and scope of the Federal capand-trade program, including the availability of allowances and their cost in the 

new carbon marketplace. Section 334 expressly permits a State to require the surrender of Federal emissions allowances as a means of demonstrating compliance 

with a State program. Thus, a State, or group of States, would have the ability to 

adjust the level of available emission allowances within the Federal program. And 

because allowance value will be determined by scarcity, the national economy could 

be seriously impacted by individual State policy choices on emissions targets. 

Madam Chairman, I am certainly glad that the committee has decided to delay 

marking up this legislation. The more we dig into it, the more problems we find. 

The national interest is best accomplished through a transparent, coherent policy 

that clearly defines the rules of the game, allows for a cost effective system for emissions reductions, provides for regulatory certainty and that takes each State’s capabilities and energy needs into account. This is no easy task, and much work will 

have to be done to craft a bill that meets those requirements. 

Thank you. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 

Æ