S. HRG. 111–1214 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1733, CLEAN 

ENERGY JOBS AND AMERICAN POWER ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1733, CLEAN ENERGY JOBS AND AMERICAN POWER ACT 
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

99–887 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1214 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1733, CLEAN 

ENERGY JOBS AND AMERICAN POWER ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

Kerry, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ...................... 5 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 14 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 15 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 17 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 20 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania .................... 21 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 22 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 24 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 25 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 87 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 89 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 90 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 91 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 94 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 96 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 97 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 267 

WITNESSES 

Chu, Hon. Steven, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy .................................. 144 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 146 

Response to an additional question from Senator Lautenberg ..................... 149 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 150 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 155 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 159 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 161 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Alexander ......................... 162 

LaHood, Hon. Ray, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation .................... 165 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 174 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 180 

Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior .......................... 181 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 184 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 189 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 194 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa P., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . 196 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 198 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 200 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 201 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 220 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 222 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 224 

Senator Alexander ..................................................................................... 225 
Page

IV 

Wellinghoff, Hon. Jon, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ..... 228 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 230 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 239 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 244 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of Shaun Donovan, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development .... 269 

Statement of Gary F. Locke, Secretary of Commerce ........................................... 274 

Testimony of Americans for Tax Reform ............................................................... 279 

Testimony of the Gas Technology Institute ........................................................... 283 

Report from the Center for American Progress: The Economic Benefits of 

Investing in Clean Energy ................................................................................... 295 
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1733, CLEAN 

ENERGY JOBS AND AMERICAN POWER ACT 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chair of the 

committee) presiding. 

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

Sanders, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Gillibrand, Specter, Voinovich, Vitter, Barrasso, Crapo, Alexander, and Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. 

Before I start my 5-minute statement, everyone is going to have 

5 minutes, and we are doing the early bird rule. Senator Inhofe 

and I have agreed that if we are in the middle of a panel and a 

Senator arrives, we are going to just have them have to delay their 

opening statement so we can keep the flow of this going. We do expect a very good attendance on both sides of the aisle. 

Senators, this is the first legislative hearing on S. 1733, the 

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Over the next 3 days, 

we will hear from 54 witnesses on 9 separate panels. Today I want 

to welcome my partner in writing this bill, Senator John Kerry, 

and our distinguished Obama administration witnesses. I greatly 

appreciate the President’s strong leadership on this issue. 

As promised, the Chairman’s mark was made public on Friday, 

and we released and posted EPA’s economic analysis of the bill. 

Committee rules provide that this document be circulated 3 days 

before the markup. We have done this at least 10 days before the 

markup. 

The Kerry-Boxer bill was based on the successful legislation in 

the House, the Waxman-Markey bill. Our bill is straightforward, as 

you can see on the chart. After outlining the findings, goals and 

targets, Division A lays out a series of authorizations, and Division 

B sets up the pollution reduction and investment program. 

EPA’s economic modeling found that the Kerry-Boxer bill will 

carry modest costs for America’s families, the overall impact being 

22 cents to 30 cents a day. Let’s talk about that for a minute. What 

will America’s families get for 30 cents a day? 

For 30 cents a day, we will put America in control of our own 

energy future and take a stand for home grown American energy, 
2 

rather than foreign oil from countries who don’t like us. For 30 

cents a day, we will protect our kids from dangerous pollution. For 

30 cents a day, we will send a signal that sparks billions of dollars 

of private investment in job creation. For 30 cents a day, we will 

be the world’s leader in clean energy technology. 

No climate bill has ever had this level of review, and the Obama 

administration stands behind this analysis. EPA spent 5 weeks 

analyzing the Waxman-Markey bill and another 2 weeks analyzing 

our version. Scientists in the Obama and Bush administrations and 

the National Academy of Sciences and the U.N. IPCC tell us that 

we have a narrow window of time in which to avert the ravages 

of global warming. They tell us about frequent and intense storms, 

wildfires in the west, heat waves across the Nation, increased 

droughts and flooding, threats to agriculture, global conflict, refugees and food shortages. 

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina took an estimated 1,700 lives, displaced a million people and cost well over $100 billion. Four years 

later, there is still suffering, and it will take billions to protect the 

coast in that region. Katrina provides a window into the kind of 

world we can expect if we fail to act. 

S. 1733 is our best insurance against a dangerous future. It is 

a responsible approach that sets attainable goals for gradual reductions in carbon emissions. And it protects consumers, businesses 

and workers as we move toward clean energy. 

Let me give the warmest of thank yous to John Kerry and his 

staff, as well as to all majority members of this committee and 

their dedicated staffs. Their hard work is reflected in the Chairman’s mark. 

I also want to thank Senator Carper for agreeing to take the 

helm of the Coal Working Group and for working with Senators on 

and off the committee to produce a positive outcome. Of course, I 

am disappointed that since John Warner retired, I don’t have a Republican partner on the committee. But I am appreciative for the 

productive conversations I have had with Senator Alexander about 

nuclear energy and for the wide ranging conversations and meetings I had with Senator Voinovich and his staff. 

We have been helped by environmental organizations, business 

and workers, religious experts, and I thank all of them. 

Ladies and gentlemen, here is where we are. Since the Supreme 

Court ruled that greenhouse gas pollution is covered under the 

Clean Air Act, the EPA must move forward to meet its responsibilities under the law. Our bill is the best way to proceed. It provides 

flexibility to businesses and powerful incentives to drive innovation. It helps consumers, workers, agriculture, transportation, energy efficiency, wildlife. It helps cities and counties. It will launch 

an economic transformation, and it is deficit neutral, and may even 

have a surplus at the end of the day. 

Over the past four decades, this committee has been at the center of our Nation’s landmark environmental laws. They were written right here in this room. And those who sat in these chairs before us never ran from a challenge. Global warming is our challenge now, and I am very pleased that today is an important milestone on our road to action. 
3 

Members of the committee, I am going to call on Senator Inhofe. 

We are then going to hear from Senator Kerry, who must go to a 

committee hearing. And then we are going to go with the early bird 

rule and we will let all of you know your place on that. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We are here 

today to discuss a 923-page bill to fundamentally redesign our $14 

trillion economy. The bill is no doubt ambitious, but it is also extremely costly. I won’t argue on the 30 cents a day; it is going to 

be very similar to the other efforts on cap-and-trade. It is going to 

be very, very expensive. 

I do want to congratulate you, Madam Chairman, because I 

watched your YouTube this morning. It is the first one I have seen. 

And the fact that you are using the term global warming again is— 

I appreciate that. People have been running from that term ever 

since we went out of that natural warming cycle about 9 years ago. 

Now, I won’t go into a lot of details on the request that we have 

had for a narrative on this thing from the Environmental Protection Agency. I will have some questions for the Director. But I will 

let Senator Voinovich talk about that, since we have made these 

requests together over a period of time. 

Now, getting the analysis will help cut through a lot of the catch 

words. It will bring into focus the words of Representative John 

Dingell from Michigan, who said cap-and-trade is ‘‘a tax, and a 

great big one.’’ The Kerry-Boxer is a tax, and it will mean more 

economic pain and suffering and fewer jobs. 

When President Obama signed the $780 billion stimulus bill into 

law, he promised to save or create 3.5 million jobs. Since then, we 

have lost 3 million jobs. And the number keeps growing. Today the 

Administration will argue that cap-and-trade creates jobs. But it 

won’t. 

The Senate Energy Committee recently had a hearing about the 

cost of cap-and-trade. Here are some of the headlines that follow. 

The Washington Post: ‘‘Cap-and-Trade Will Slow the Economy, 

CBO Chief Says.’’ The Wall Street Journal: ‘‘Congressional Budget 

Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs.’’ In the Guardian: ‘‘The 

Obama Climate Change Bill Would Hurt the U.S. Economy.’’ 

Let us recount a telling moment of that hearing. That is when 

Senator Sessions asked the Government witnesses—now, we have 

some overlap here, Ms. Jackson, you are one of them; they had the 

CBO, EPA, EIA and the CRS. He asked them whether anyone disagreed with the finding that the net effect of cap-and-trade would 

be a reduction in jobs. None did. Cap-and-trade supporters acknowledge job loss. They acknowledge the transition to a green 

economy. I am not sure what that means. The CBO director provided some help. They said, transition will be painful. The victims 

of cap-and-trade can’t just move on and get new green jobs. The 

transition will mean leaving high paying jobs, moving away from 

hometowns and significant reductions in lifetime earnings. Now, 

that’s the CBO that stated that. 
4 

Now the majority will say that Kerry-Boxer has provisions to 

soften the transition. This raises two points. First, it is an implicit 

acknowledgment that the bill will destroy jobs. We have a provision 

in the bill that says we are going to try to have worker training, 

because people will be losing jobs. 

Second, I am sure the worker in the cement plant, when he loses 

his job, won’t find it very much consolation in the green welfare 

programs. Even the job killing impacts of cap-and-trade become 

clear. We now hear of a grand climate compromise. It entails greater support for nuclear plants and more offshore and gas drilling. 

These are sensible policy goals. But why attach them to an energy 

tax that destroys jobs? And can you really try to drive fossil fuels 

into extinction on one hand and increase them on the other? It 

doesn’t work. 

This apparent compromise will also entail a massive expansion 

of Government bureaucracy. Senator Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, compared it to ‘‘the old Soviet Union.’’ Consider that in 2003, 

the Climate Stewardship Act—this is interesting, because we have 

addressed this five different times in the Senate. That had 58 

pages. The next version in 2005 had 63 pages. The Lieberman-Warner bill had 344 pages. And the Kerry-Boxer has 923 pages. Waxman-Markey was 1,428 pages. 

So if we are talking about a deal, let’s focus on nuclear and oil 

and gas drilling; keep taxes and bureaucracy out of it. 

In his speech last week, President Obama dismissed opponents 

of cap-and-trade as cynical and pessimistic. I wonder if that applies 

to the 44 Democrats who voted against the Waxman-Markey bill. 

I think differently. They object to a policy that would destroy jobs 

and radically increase the size and scope of Government. 

I think if you just look at this in light of the Kyoto Treaty, then 

the 2003 bill, the 2005 bill, the 2008 bill, the one thing they have 

in common is cap-and-trade is very expensive. We are talking about 

somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That is 

something the American people can’t tolerate, and I don’t believe 

they will. 

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

We are here today to discuss a 923-page bill to fundamentally redesign our 

$14 trillion economy. The bill is no doubt ambitious, but it’s also extremely costly 

and ineffective. It is a massive new tax on consumers that will have virtually no 

effect on climate. 

This bill necessarily will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, food, and just 

about everything else. So we need a comprehensive economic analysis to understand 

the bill’s impacts. But we don’t have it. We have instead a 38-page narrative from 

the Environmental Protection Agency, the gist of which is, ‘‘This bill is a lot like 

Waxman-Markey, so go see our analysis of Waxman-Markey.’’ I did read the analysis of Waxman-Markey. It’s flawed and incomplete. So what do we have here? Not 

much. 

While I have serious problems with EPA’s analysis of Waxman-Markey and its 

38-page ‘‘meta-analysis’’ of Kerry-Boxer, the latter was not entirely EPA’s fault. In 

its drive to ram S. 1733 through the legislative process, the majority didn’t provide 

EPA enough time to do a serious analysis. Why would the majority ram through 

a 923-page bill to overturn the existing economic order? The question answers itself. 

The public deserves more than just a 38-page description of how much S. 1733 resembles another energy tax passed by the House. 
5 

We were told EPA’s work contains ‘‘everything that you ever wanted to know.’’ 

Yet EPA glosses over and minimizes key issues. Moreover, EPA’s analysis of Waxman-Markey lacks the real world assumptions that Senator Voinovich and I asked 

for in July. EPA rejected our request—we were told to go and find rigorous analysis 

somewhere else. At this point, I hope we can work with EPA to sort this out, or 

else our ability to have a markup will be in jeopardy. 

Getting the analysis will help us cut through the catchwords. It will bring into 

focus the words of Representative John Dingell (D–Mich.), who said cap-and-trade 

is ‘‘a tax, and a great big one.’’ Kerry-Boxer is a tax, and it will mean more economic 

pain and suffering and fewer jobs. 

When President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill into law, he promised to ‘‘save or create’’ 3.5 million jobs. Since then, we have lost 3 million jobs, and 

the number keeps growing. Today the Administration will argue that cap-and-trade 

creates jobs. With all due respect, there is a credibility problem here. 

The Senate Energy Committee recently had a hearing about the costs of cap-andtrade. Here are some of the headlines that followed—the Washington Post: ‘‘Capand-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says’’; the Wall Street Journal: ‘‘Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs’’; and the Guardian: 

‘‘Obama climate change bill could hurt U.S. economy, panel told.’’ 

Let me recount a telling moment in that hearing. Senator Sessions asked the Government witnesses—and they were CBO, EPA, EIA, and CRS—whether anyone disagreed with the finding that the net effect of cap-and-trade would be a reduction 

in jobs. None did. 

Cap-and-trade supporters acknowledge some job loss. They acknowledge a ‘‘transition’’ to the green economy. I’m not sure what that means. The CBO director provided some help. He said the ‘‘transition’’ will be painful—the victims of cap-andtrade can’t just move on and get a new green job. The ‘‘transition’’ will mean leaving 

high paying jobs, moving away from hometowns, and ‘‘significant reductions in lifetime earnings.’’ 

Now the majority will say Kerry-Boxer has provisions to soften the ‘‘transition.’’ 

This raises two points: first, it’s an implicit acknowledgement that the bill will destroy jobs; and second, I’m sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his 

job, won’t find much consolation in green welfare programs. 

Even as the job killing impacts of cap-and-trade become clear, we now hear of a 

grand climate compromise. It entails greater support for new nuclear power plants 

and more offshore oil and gas drilling. These are sensible policy goals, but why attach them to an energy tax that destroys jobs? And can you really try to drive fossil 

fuels to extinction on the one hand and increase them on the other? 

This apparent compromise will also entail a massive expansion of Government bureaucracy. Senator Webb (D–Va.) compared it to ‘‘the old Soviet Union.’’ Consider 

that in 2003, the Climate Stewardship Act was 58 pages; the updated version in 

2005 was 63 pages; the Lieberman-Warner bill in 2008 was 344 pages; in 2009, 

Kerry-Boxer is 923 pages and Waxman-Markey is 1,428 pages. So if we’re talking 

about a deal, let’s focus on nuclear and oil and gas drilling; keep taxes and bureaucracy out of it. 

In his speech last week, President Obama dismissed opponents of cap-and-trade 

as ‘‘cynical’’ and ‘‘pessimistic.’’ I wonder if that applies to the 44 Democrats who 

voted against Waxman-Markey. I think differently: they object to a policy that will 

destroy jobs and radically increase the size and scope of Government. 

This is about prudence and common sense. And it’s about a fundamental difference in vision for the country. We have the approach to tax and destroy versus 

the approach to expand and create. The American people prefer the latter. And so 

do I. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Our first witness is the author of the Kerry-Boxer bill, and we 

are very happy you could be here, Senator. We know you have 

many other obligations, but we will be very interested in hearing 

what you have to say in as long as you need to take to say it. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you very, very 

much. Thanks for the privilege of appearing before this committee, 

Senator Inhofe, and all the members of the committee, many of 
6 

whom I have met with individuals talking about this, and all of 

whom I really want to sit down with and talk about this. Because 

we need to find the path forward. 

I listened carefully, Senator Inhofe, to your comments, and I will 

address some of them as I go along, and I would like to. 

But I want to thank Chairman Boxer, first of all, for her passionate, determined, inspirational leadership on this issue. She has 

been a gracious and invaluable collaborator in this effort. I am personally grateful to her, as are many people, for her effort to push 

this along. And you may disagree with her, but she is determined 

to try to put America in the right place on this issue. And I hope 

in the course of these hearings we will all understand how we are 

doing that. 

Today we begin the formal legislative process to lead the world 

in rolling back the urgent threat of climate change. I believe, and 

the vast majority, overwhelming numbers of scientists and peer reviewed studies across the globe, leaders of countries across the 

globe, presidents, prime ministers, finance ministers, environment 

ministers, all across the planet, have all determined that we need 

to move forward to deal with climate change, and that in doing so, 

Senator Inhofe, we will actually improve every sector of our energy 

economy, from coal to nuclear, to wind and solar. We will take crucial strides toward energy independence, which strengthens America’s national security. And critically, we will create millions of 

jobs, new jobs and entire new industries will stay in the United 

States of America. 

We will create jobs that cannot be exported, because we will create our energy here at home, which makes America stronger and 

which in fact strengthens our competitive posture. It is no surprise 

that somebody like Jim Rogers, who runs a multi-billion dollar 

company, a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, Duke Energy, is one 

of the leaders, he is the chairman of America’s Competitiveness 

Council. He is responsible in that capacity for creating jobs and for 

making America more competitive. And he is one of the leaders in 

saying that we need to set a fixed target of pollution reduction in 

order to challenge our economy and in order to grow our economy 

for the future and remain competitive. 

Now, we are not going to do these things if we don’t pass an aggressive, forward looking climate and energy combined piece of legislation. Let me share with you very quickly—I am not going to 

spend much time on this, but I do want to share with you why 

there is an urgency to this. Senator Inhofe, you just talked about 

the costs of doing some of this. Are there some costs? Yes, sir. 

There are some costs. But almost every study that looks at the 

costs does not factor in the impact of energy efficiency or the impact of new technology or what the impact is of becoming more energy independent. 

And most importantly, they none of them factor in the cost of 

doing nothing. That is far more expensive for your folks in Oklahoma or for your folks in any of the other States represented on 

this panel. 

So we need to be honest and realistic as we assess how we in 

fact best protect the interests of our country. There is a reason that 

the leaders of the G20 in Italy recently affirmed that we cannot let 
7 

the temperature of the planet rise more than 2 degree Centigrade. 

And the reason is that all of our best scientists in peer-reviewed 

studies tell us that if it goes over 2 degrees Centigrade, we risk catastrophic changes to the climate, to our crops, to our water supply, 

to the ocean currents, to the ecosystems that we depend on. 

And I will say to you, the science, Senators, is more definitive 

than ever. The science is screaming at us to take action. A few 

years ago, the scientists told us that the Arctic ice would be melted 

perhaps by 2030. It is now going to be summer, ice-free, by 2013. 

And already Russia has gone ahead and planted a flag underneath 

the ocean to say, we have the right to take these minerals out of 

here, because they have an ability, because it is ice-free, to be able 

to go up there and do that. 

There are huge conflicts that will come out of what we are allowing to happen without addressing it adequately. 

In the 21 years that we have had hearings on this in the Senate, 

Al Gore and I shared the privilege of having the first hearings on 

this in 1988, when Jim Hanson first told us that it was happening. 

And the evidence is now clearer than ever before that a voluntary 

approach just doesn’t work. 

We went down to Rio with President George Herbert Walker 

Bush, a Republican Administration, with the efforts of John 

Sununu and Bill Reilly, put in place a voluntary framework for a 

global effort to reduce emissions. Because in 1992, we determined 

that we needed to do this. 

What happened? In every country in the world, emissions have 

gone up faster than is allowable to meet the 2 degrees Centigrade 

standard. And it is because voluntary doesn’t work. Everybody is 

waiting for the next person to move. Nobody wants to sort of curb 

in their economy, as you have said, Senator Inhofe, because they 

are afraid they will be non-competitive. 

But the consequences of that are really traumatic. The best experts tell us that the last 10 years have been the hottest decade 

on record, since we have kept records of temperature. Our oceans 

have become 30 percent more acidic. And that has a profound impact on the spawning grounds and on the krill that feed the whales 

and on the cycle of the oceans. 

Pine beetles have destroyed 6.5 million acres of forest land in the 

western States. I recently listened to Governor Ritter from Colorado come in and tell us how in Colorado alone they have lost a 

million acres because beetles that used to die off because it got cold 

now don’t die off. So the cycle has changed. 

A hundred and eighty Alaskan villages are losing permafrost, literally melting the ground beneath their homes and feet. The citizens of Newtok, Alaska—ask Lisa Murkowski, ask Mark Begich, 

they will tell you what is happening in Alaska. The citizens of 

Newtok, Alaska, recently voted to move their village inland because of the rise of sea level and the lack of sea ice in the winter. 

That is at a cost of some $400 million. 

The fact is that there is enormous melt-off of our glaciers in the 

western part of our country. Water supply is already at issue. The 

principal supply to American agriculture is at issue. And the rivers 

around the world are at issue. 
8 

The Chinese have taken enormous note of this. I was in China 

2 months ago. They are fearful that the great rivers of China, the 

Yangtze, the Yellow River, are going to dry up, the Mekong. And 

that affects a billion people and the agriculture of their nation. 

Southwestern States in our country are projected now to experience permanent drought conditions by mid-century. And the area 

that is burned by western wildfires is projected to nearly triple. 

The fact is that the Siberian ice shelf study, which just came out 

this last year, shows that because the permafrost lid is melting, because the oceans are getting warmer, we have columns of methane 

rising now in the ocean. And if you were to stand at the place 

where those bubbles of methane actually burst out into the open 

air and light a match, it would ignite. 

Methane is 20 times more dangerous and damaging than carbon 

dioxide, than CO2. So we have an enormous challenge facing us in 

order to be able to do this. And all of the scientists who, in these 

peer-reviewed studies are telling us that these changes may well 

be irreversible for a thousand years. 

An organization as innocent as the Audubon Society has reported 

that there is now a 100-mile swath wide belt in the United States 

where there is a transformation in what plants and flowers and 

bushes and shrubs and so forth will grow in America. There is already a migration that has been predicted by many scientists. So 

that is why, Madam Chairman, the countries of the world, and 

there are many other impacts, I am not going to go into all of them 

here now, but that is why the countries of the world, including 

India, China and the United States, have agreed to limit this global rise to 2 degrees Celsius. 

Now, why is that so critical? Because the current warming level 

of Earth, scientists tell us, is already at about .8 degrees since the 

Industrial Revolution. And what is already up there in the atmosphere, which we can’t get out, has a half-life, that is, it will continue to do the damage it is doing today for another thousand years 

perhaps. 

That means that what we have put up there that has done the 

damage that has raised the temperature the .8 degrees is guaranteed to raise it at least another .8 degrees. That means we are 

going to be at almost certainly 1.6 degrees Centigrade before we 

even do anything, Madam Chairman. And that gives us a cushion 

of about .4 degrees before you reach the 2 degrees, which they say 

could result in catastrophe. 

Now, I can’t tell you that it absolutely is. I can’t sit here and tell 

you with certainty that I know the answer to that. But I can tell 

you as a public person that if the best scientific minds we have in 

the world in peer-reviewed studies are all in unity telling us this 

is the potential consequence, I think as public people we have a responsibility to try to respond. And if we are wrong, we will have 

created more jobs, become more energy independent, moved to the 

point of having better health in America and increased the security 

of the United States. If we are right and someone else is wrong and 

we haven’t done anything, the results are obviously absolutely catastrophic. That is the balance here. 

Now, I believe there is a workable mechanism to get this done, 

Madam Chairman. If you look at our legislation, we ask America 
9 

to do our part, and we have to work, obviously, to convince others 

to do theirs. Let me make it clear that by putting this target in 

place, I believe we will attract private investment and spur a new 

industrial revolution in America. We had the great movement of 

wealth, if you will, in the 1990s, when we moved to the tech economy. That is an economy that was about a trillion dollars large, 

and it had about a billion users. What we are looking at now is an 

economy where most estimates say it is a $6 trillion economy with 

6 billion users. Energy economy is the mother of all economies. And 

right now, the United States of America is watching China, watching Germany, watching India and other countries race to this marketplace at the expense of the jobs of our Nation. 

I believe that the pollution reduction measures that are in this 

bill are very tightly focused for maximum impact. And I want to 

emphasize that some people argue the effect on the economy. Senator Inhofe, you have raised this, U.S. unemployment, et cetera, 

why kill more jobs. I have a report here, it is a compilation of reports, different reports by the Center for American Progress, by the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors, by the American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy, by the College of Natural Resources at the University of California Berkeley. Every single one of these analyses, 

we have done them for each of your States, for every one of you 

on this committee, and we will do them for everybody on the Senate. They show net creation of jobs in every one of your States. 

They show net increase of investment and money moving into your 

States. 

In Idaho, for instance, 7,000 to 14,000 jobs net, according to the 

University of California Berkeley. According to the American Council for Energy, by 2020, 200,200 jobs created from energy efficient 

measures, a savings of $226, by 2030, 2,900 jobs created, $700 million, according to the Center for American Progress, $700 million 

will come into Idaho alone, creating 8,000 jobs. There is a variation 

here. 

But there isn’t one of these that doesn’t suggest an increase of 

jobs, an increase of investment. We are going to create the equivalent of 5 or 10 Google equivalents that are going to drive the economy of our country. That is why people like DuPont, Dow Chemical, American Power, the Florida Power and Light, Duke Energy, 

Cisco Systems, some of the largest companies in America are all 

saying, do this. Give us a market certainty on the price of carbon. 

Give us a system where you will help us to transition. 

Now, I want to just say a word about that if I can. Senator 

Inhofe, this is not economy-wide. Only 7,500 entities in the United 

States of America are covered by this legislation. Ninety-eight percent of America’s small business is exempt. Agriculture is exempt. 

Transportation is exempt. Small business is exempt. So you may 

say to yourself, well, what do you do with that other 2 percent? 

Well, the fact is that that 2 percent represents three-quarters of 

America’s greenhouse gas emissions. We are only talking about creating a marketplace between entities that pollute more than 25,000 

tons of carbon dioxide a year. That is the equivalent of the output 

of 2,300 homes, or 4,600 automobiles, or 130 railway cars full of 

coal. 
10 

It exempts office buildings, apartment, homes, malls, stadiums, 

small firms. We have to be able to find it in our capacity to reduce 

pollution from 2 percent of America’s businesses that represent 75 

percent of America’s pollution. 

Now, let me say another reason we need to do this. Climate 

change and our dependence on foreign oil are a significant threat 

to our national security. There is nothing conservative about remaining indebted to hostile regimes for our energy. Doubters often 

talk about the cost of taking action. But I have to tell you, every 

analysis shows that the cost of not taking action is more expensive. 

If we think that it is good for America to send $400 billion a year 

to other countries so we can put stuff up into the atmosphere that 

costs us even more to fix, we are crazy. We would be far better off 

moving more rapidly toward the creation of that energy here at 

home. 

Eleven former admirals and high ranking generals issued a seminal report warning that climate change is a ‘‘threat multiplier’’ 

with the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian 

disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today. And John Warner, who will testify, our former colleague, there is no greater security advocate for the United States, speaks eloquently about this, 

as have others. General Zinni, former CentCom commander, said 

this is going to cost us lives. It is going to cost us the deployment 

of the American military because of the crises that will ensue as 

a consequence of allowing this to go unaddressed. 

It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, 

more natural disasters, more resource scarcity and human displacement on a staggering scale. And the result is, we risk fanning 

the flames of failed stateism. Madam Chairman, you can see this 

today in Africa. Right now, there is fighting between tribes in the 

Sudan because they have been forced to move because of the lack 

of water and the desertification that has taken place. So they move 

into another area, fight for water, fight for location, and the result 

is conflict and the destabilization of a whole region. 

In an interconnected world, that threatens all of us. I think you 

will hear this from Senator Warner. Let me quote Anthony Zinni 

directly. He said ‘‘We will pay the price later in military terms. 

And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.’’ 

Fourth issue, Madam Chairman. America’s leadership is significantly on the line here. Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, the European 

community, Japan, Australia, have all committed to significant 

emissions reductions. Last month, Chinese President Hu Jintao 

pledged to reduce China’s emissions below projected levels. 

India is working on its own domestic legislation to reduce pollution. It is a myth that China and India have been sitting on the 

sidelines. I was just in China. Let me tell you, they have tripled 

their wind goals and targets. They have determined to be the 

world’s leader in electric automobiles. They are now the world’s 

leader in solar production and in battery storage, et cetera. They 

have moved to put transportation restrictions on their automobiles, 

more strict than the ones that we have in this country. And they 

have put them in place faster. And the fact is that they are coming 

to the negotiating table with an agreement that they will be a constructive and positive force at Copenhagen. 
11 

Fifth, the economic opportunities that stare us in the face are 

enormous. There are millions of jobs, major improvements to every 

sector of our economy. But I am telling you, Madam Chairman, if 

we hang back, you can tell what is happening. Today, of the five 

top 30 companies of the world in solar, wind and advanced batteries, only five are based in the United States of America. We invented solar. We invented wind. And we pulled back and we allowed those technologies to be developed and taken from laboratory 

to shelf by other countries. 

Germany now has created 280,000 new renewable energy jobs 

and actually employs more people in its renewable energy sector 

than in the legendary German auto industry. That is the future. 

Wind energy alone can bring tremendous benefits. 

I will give you an example, the State of North Dakota. I have 

talked to Byron Dorgan about this. The State of North Dakota is 

ranked by the Wind Power Energy Association as No. 1 wind potential in the United States of America. It is currently number 24 

in terms of its production. Though its regular economy has grown 

by about 2 percent over the course of the last few years, its renewable energy sector has grown by about 19 percent. That represents 

the kind of growth in each of your States, if you will take a look 

at the analysis of these studies. 

In Montana, there is a plan to build a $25 million wind turbine 

manufacturing plant in Butte with scientists who are trained at 

Montana Tech. In Pennsylvania, the wind turbine manufacturer, 

Gamesa, has invested over $175 million and put over 1,100 Pennsylvanians to work. In Norman, Oklahoma, there is a 30-year-old 

family owned company that has become the third largest manufacturer of small wind turbines in the world, with installations in all 

50 States and over 100 countries. That business can grow and compete with the Chinese. 

And that is just a few examples from what comes from a clean 

energy sector. 

Now, I understand there is some concern in the Senate that the 

process is moving too quickly. I will put aside my own feelings that 

a process that began over 20 years ago is actually moving too 

quickly. That could happen only by Senate standards, frankly. 

But within the constraints of the Senate, what is happening here 

in this committee is just one step. There are five other committees. 

They are all working. The Energy Committee has done part. The 

Foreign Relations Committee, the Agriculture Committee, et 

cetera. By the time this gets to the floor, a comprehensive energy 

and climate bill will include the inputs from six Senate committees. 

And the foundation of all that work has to come through this committee first. 

I will just close. You have been very generous in allowing me the 

time here. Let me just close and say, OK, why put a target that 

is mandatory on the reduction of emissions? Some people argue it 

would be cleaner to have a carbon tax. Well, it might be cleaner. 

But I don’t believe that you will change behavior with a tax at the 

level that you might under some miracle be able to pass in the Senate. I doubt that there are enough people here who would vote for 

a tax of any kind. 
12 

And therefore, to say you are going to change behavior, you are 

going to have to have a tax that is high enough to force companies 

to be able to reduce emissions, because they are going to say, 

whoops, this is too costly, we have to go find a different way to behave, and we are going to invest in the different technologies. 

So I don’t think this is going to work, which is why companies 

that are big companies have decided to support the idea of a targeted pollution reduction, mandatory reduction. Because it allows 

them, if they have been good performers and they have reduced 

their emissions, they can take the difference between where they 

are at and the emissions target and sell it to another company that 

can’t yet meet the target or wants to be able to continue its current 

practices. 

That is the marketplace, folks. That is classic American capitalism. It is classic marketplace capacity. There isn’t a dime of 

public dollar in that. There is not one tax dollar in that. It is not 

a Government-run program. It is a private company deciding that 

it wants to behave this way or that way. And depending which way 

it decides to behave, it gets an asset that is worth something, or 

it sells the asset; it can buy it and continue to pollute for a period 

of time while it transitions to a place where they are willing to invest to meet the target. 

So I would just say to all of my colleagues, I respect the passion 

on this committee. I am happy to answer any questions. 

I think we have to believe in America’s technology ability. I do. 

We saw this in 1990 with the Clean Air Act. 

I will just end on this note. I sat in that room and negotiated 

with John Sununu and President Bush and Bill Reilly. And we 

heard the same arguments. Everybody said it is going to cost $8 

billion, and you are going to bankrupt us, and you will make us 

noncompetitive, and we can’t do it. The environment community 

came in and said, no, no, no, that is just those studies that sort 

of exaggerate things. It is going to cost $4 billion, and it will take 

4 years, and we can do it. 

To the credit of George Herbert Walker Bush, he decided to do 

it. And guess what? We achieved our goals within about a year and 

a half to 2 years at a cost of about a billion and a half to $2 billion. 

Why? Because nobody has the ability to predict what happens 

when you set a target and American ingenuity and genius begins 

to move to create the technologies and find the solutions to meet 

that target. 

I believe that is exactly what is going to happen here if we will 

have the courage to set the goal and lead the world. And if we do 

that, I believe we are going to, in 10, 15 years, not only see that 

we have met the challenge of climate change, but we have improved the health in America, we have created more jobs, we have 

strengthened American security, we have met our environment responsibility, and we are more energy independent. Tell me a public 

policy choice where you get five benefits for one choice. There are 

very, very few of them. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:] 
13 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KERRY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe, for the opportunity to discuss 

a set of issues as important as any we face. Chairman Boxer has been a passionate, 

determined, and inspirational leader on environmental issues for as long as I’ve 

known her—and an invaluable and gracious collaborator on this bill. 

Today, we have an opportunity to lead the world in rolling back the urgent threat 

of climate change. We can protect the air our children breathe and the water they 

drink. We can improve every sector of our energy economy, from coal and nuclear 

to wind and solar; take crucial strides toward energy independence; and create millions of new jobs and entire new industries that will stay in America. 

But we can’t and we won’t do those things if we don’t pass aggressive, forward 

looking climate and energy legislation. And let me tell you why. 

First, the science is more definitive than ever and more troubling than ever, 

and—21 years since first Senate hearings on climate change back in 1988—the evidence is now clearer than ever before that a voluntary approach won’t get the job 

done. 

NASA scientists—the best experts we have—tell us that the last 10 years have 

been the hottest decade on record. Our oceans have become 30 percent more acidic. 

Pine beetles have destroyed 6.5 million acres of forest land in the western States. 

180 Alaskan villages are losing permafrost—literally melting the ground beneath 

their homes and their feet. Southwestern States are projected to experience permanent drought conditions by mid-century, and the area burned by western wildfires 

is projected to nearly triple. And worst of all, scientists say these changes may well 

be irreversible for 1,000 years. 

That’s why the countries of the world—including India, China and the United 

States—have agreed to limit the global rise in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius. 

Second, there is a workable mechanism to get this done. For America to do our 

part and convince others to do theirs, we need to set a mandatory target to reduce 

the carbon pollution that causes climate change—and then we need to drive private 

investment to meet those goals as affordably and efficiently as possible. 

The pollution reduction measures in this bill are tightly focused for maximum impact: Only companies emitting 25,000 tons of carbon each year are covered. These 

are big polluters—with an output equivalent to 2,300 homes, 4,600 automobiles, or 

130 railway cars full of coal. Even as it exempts office buildings, apartments, homes, 

malls and stadiums, farmers, small firms, and over 98 percent of America’s businesses, the bill still covers three-quarters of America’s carbon pollution. So this is 

a smart way to start the ball rolling and transition America to clean energy. 

Third, climate change and our dependence on foreign oil are a threat to our national security. There’s nothing conservative about remaining indebted to hostile regimes for our energy. Doubters often talk about the costs of taking action. Let me 

tell you, the costs of inaction are larger, and frankly they become more staggering 

by the day. 

Eleven former admirals and high ranking generals issued a seminal report warning that climate change is a ‘‘threat multiplier’’ with ‘‘the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see 

today.’’ Why? Because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, 

and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more 

famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. We risk fanning the flames of 

failed stateism and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us. Senator Warner, a friend to many here, will speak eloquently to the national security case for 

preventing catastrophic climate change. General Anthony Zinni, former commander 

of our forces in the Middle East, warned that without action—and I quote—‘‘we will 

pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will 

be a human toll.’’ 

Fourth, America’s leadership is also on the line. While the Senate stands still, the 

world is racing ahead: Japan, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, the EU, and Australia 

have committed to significant emissions cuts. Last month, Chinese President Hu 

Jintao pledged to reduce China’s emissions below projected levels. India, for its part, 

is working on its own domestic legislation to reduce carbon pollution. So it is a myth 

that China and India have been sitting on the sidelines. The truth is, they’ve been 

coming to the negotiating table with concrete actions and commitments, and they’re 

waiting for us to do the same! 

Fifth, and as important as anything, if we act, the economic opportunities will be 

enormous: millions of new jobs and major improvements in every sector of the en-
14 

ergy economy. But if we hang back, we know what will happen, because it is happening already. Today, only 5 of the top 30 companies in the world in solar, wind 

and advanced batteries are based in the United States. We invented solar and wind 

technology, but we let others master it first, and now Germany has created 280,000 

renewable energy jobs and actually employs more people in its renewable energy 

sector than in the legendary German auto industry. 

State by State, a smart energy bill can deliver growth and jobs. Wind energy 

alone can bring tremendous economic benefits. In Montana, there’s a plan to build 

a $25 million wind turbine manufacturing plant in Butte, with scientists trained at 

Montana Tech. In Pennsylvania, the wind turbine manufacturer Gamesa has invested over $175 million and put over 1,100 Pennsylvanians to work. In Norman, 

Oklahoma, there’s a 30-year-old family owned company that has become the third 

largest manufacturer of small wind turbines in the world, with installations in all 

50 States and over 100 countries. And that’s just a few examples from one clean 

energy sector! I understand that there is some concern inside the Senate that this 

process is moving too quickly. I’ll put aside my own feeling that a process that 

began over 20 years ago is quick only by Senate standards. But within the constraints of the Senate, we know this is only one step—albeit a crucial one—in a 

broad, comprehensive, Senate-wide effort. By the time it gets to the floor, a comprehensive energy and climate bill will include inputs from six Senate committees. 

But the foundation for all of that work—a cap on carbon pollution—must come 

through this committee first. 

I respect that there is a lot of passion on all sides of these issues. People are worried about jobs, about keeping energy affordable, and about economic competitiveness. These are real and legitimate subjects of concern. And we must address them 

as thoroughly and honestly as we can together. I am confident that the more people 

understand about what we are trying to accomplish here—not the politics, but the 

substance—the more they will be willing to join us. So to sum up, the science is 

more urgent than ever. We have a workable mechanism to address the challenge 

in a way that is affordable and efficient. Our security, our leadership, and our economic future are at stake. 

And frankly, this body’s leadership is at stake, too. America and the world are 

waiting to hear from the U.S. Senate. World leaders are waiting for a signal that 

we are serious before they make commitments at the Copenhagen climate talks 6 

weeks from now. CEOs and business leaders are waiting for a signal from Washington that will give them market certainty. 

Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the Administration will use the Environmental Protection 

Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher, and 

they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are 

proposing. Killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency 

regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a 

halt might well later be demanding that Congress secure the kinds of incentives and 

investments we can and should simply pass today. 

For all these reasons it’s time for the Senate to lead—and with an eye toward 

our best traditions find common ground to move the country forward, keep our country safe and strong, and lay the groundwork for decades of economic growth to come. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Kerry. We so appreciate 

your expanding on why it is so important that we act. We thank 

you very much. 

I want to say to the committee, we are going to now go to opening statements. And we are going to be tough on the clock. I do 

have a request from Senator Baucus, who is late for a health care 

meeting, he would like to go first, if it is OK with my side. He said 

he only needs 3 minutes. So if there is no objection, I think everyone knows what is on your shoulders. So go ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. I am keeping Director Orszag and 

Director Summers waiting in my office for 12 minutes. I deeply 

apologize, I will be very, very brief, and I will thank the indulgence 

of my colleagues. 
15 

First, I want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Senator 

Kerry has worked so hard on climate change, and clearly, his statement today shows how hard he has worked. He has done a great 

job. 

Madam Chairman, I want to thank you and thank Ranking 

Member Inhofe and our witnesses for being here today to discuss 

climate change. The legislation before us today is about protecting 

our outdoor heritage. We, I think all of us in the country, certainly 

those of us in Congress, when we leave this place, have a moral 

obligation to leave it in as good a shape or better shape than we 

found it. If uncontrolled, the impacts of climate change put this future at risk. 

The legislation before us today is about our economy. Montana, 

with our resource-based agriculture and tourism economies, cannot 

afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change. But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation. 

That is why I support passing common sense climate legislation 

that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while protecting our economy. And the key word in that sentence is passing. 

I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill before 

us today and whether it will lead us closer to or further away from 

passing climate change legislation. For example, I have serious reservations about the depth of the mid-term reduction target in the 

bill and the lack of preemption of the Clean Air Act’s authority to 

regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 

We cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from an 

achievable consensus on common sense climate change. We could 

build that consensus here in this committee. If we don’t, we risk 

wasting another month, another year, another Congress without 

taking a step forward into our future. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle in this committee prior to the markup to address these issues 

and other key issues. I think it is very important that we do. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Madam Chairman, thank you. 

I have no problem with the problem. My problem is with the solution. Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real, humans have caused most of the recent warming. If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was 

about to burn down, I would buy some fire insurance. 

But I would buy insurance that worked, and I wouldn’t buy insurance so expensive that I couldn’t pay my mortgage or my hospital bill. That is my problem with this solution. It is going to make 

it harder for Americans to support their families. When it is all 

wrapped up and put together, it is going to be an economy-wide 

cap-and-trade, narrowly defined energy mandates, taxes, mandates 

and surprises. 

My colleagues, I am sure, are going to point out the surprises 

and the things we know. At a time of 10 percent unemployment, 
16 

utility bills going up, manufacturing jobs going overseas, a new 

slush fund in Washington with corporations with their hands out. 

It will be ineffective against fuel, which produces 30 percent of carbon, because raising the price of gasoline doesn’t change human behavior enough to change to reduce much carbon. 

If it is like Waxman-Markey, which EPA says it mostly is, then 

according to President Obama’s budget director, it is the largest 

corporate welfare program in history. According to CBO, it could 

reduce our gross domestic product by 3 and a half percent. Brookings says $300 billion a year, et cetera. 

So the strategy is, taxes, expensive energy and mandates, and 

make 20 percent of our electricity from subsidized windmills. But 

our dream should be cheap energy, to create jobs and eliminate 

hardship. So before we embark deliberately on a program to send 

jobs overseas and make it hard to pay our bills, why don’t we try 

a cheap energy strategy for clean energy? 

One, build 100 new nuclear plants in 20 years. They are 70 percent of our carbon-free energy; wind is 4 percent of our carbon-free 

energy. Two, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years. We can 

do that without building one new power plant if we plug them in 

at night. Three, explore offshore for natural gas. It is low carbon. 

Four, launch four mini-Manhattan projects like the one we had in 

World War II. Secretary Chu calls them innovation hubs, to find 

ways to recapture carbon from coal plants, make solar costs competitive, make electric batteries better, recycle used nuclear fuel. 

Instead, we have this plan for a national energy tax plus a national windmill policy. This windmill policy would require building 

186,000 50-story wind turbines that would cover West Virginia, 

19,000 new transmission lines, $170 billion in taxpayer subsidies, 

ridge tops and coastlines and treasured landscapes turned into 

junkyards in the sky, kill a million birds a year. And it still would 

work only a third of the time, and you would have to build natural 

gas or nuclear or coal plants to back them up. 

What happened to nuclear? If we are going to war, and we had 

invented a nuclear navy 60 years ago, and it was doing exactly 

what we wanted, and thousands of sailors had lived safely on top 

of the reactors for 60 years, would we stop building nuclear ships 

and start building sailboats? 

Building nuclear power plants, 100 of them in 20 years, is the 

fastest, cheapest, reliable way to reduce carbon from utilities, just 

as electrifying half our cars is the fastest way to reduce foreign oil. 

China is building 132 nuclear plants, France is 80 percent nuclear, 

it has the lowest electric rates, among the lowest carbon emission 

rates in Europe. Japan, Taiwan, India, the United Arab Republic, 

Russia, all building nuclear plants. We invented it, and we haven’t 

started a new one in 30 years. 

If we went full speed ahead, by 2030, nuclear would produce 40 

percent of our electricity, natural gas 25 percent, hydroelectric 10, 

wind and solar 5. We would come close to meeting the Kyoto carbon emissions by 2030 just with nuclear plants and electric cars. 

And presidential leadership could do it, remove barriers, provide 

incentives, fund the Manhattan Projects. With presidential leadership, we could build 100 nuclear plants, electrify half our cars and 

trucks, find new low carbon natural gas, launch the Manhattan 
17 

Projects, meet our clean energy goals, all without a national energy 

tax and without running jobs overseas. 

All 40 Republican Senators agree with this four-part agenda. So 

do many Democrats. Then why are we pursuing a high cost national energy tax and subsidizing 186,000 windmills, when we 

could agree on a low cost clean energy plan that would create good 

jobs and low electric fuel bills? 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Specter. Oh, I’m so sorry, Senator Klobuchar and then 

Senator Specter. Under the early bird rule. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator Boxer, I first want to thank you for moving proactively 

on this issue that is so important to our Nation’s economy, security 

and environment. Your leadership on this issue is well recognized. 

And I appreciate your working with me and our staff on this bill 

to include provisions to better protect the middle class, to expand 

agriculture allocations and to work to provide a stable business environment for companies that make energy efficient technology. 

I also appreciate how both you and Senator Kerry have worked 

across the aisle and people like Lindsey Graham and others. I hope 

that ultimately we will have a bi-partisan bill here. 

I look forward to working with you, Senator Boxer, on key issues 

including ensuring that the bill further protects middle class families as well as businesses and manufacturers from fluctuating energy costs. We have done a lot in this area, but there is more to 

do. I look forward to working with my agriculture colleagues on 

further agriculture provisions in this bill. 

And finally, I believe that ultimately this bill must include a 

strong renewable electricity standard. 

Let me focus on why this legislation is important. This legislation is about putting America back in control of our energy supply. 

It is about our national security, and it is about investing in the 

farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels 

of the Middle East. 

This is about getting jobs right here in this country. Unlike the 

IT revolution, which was a great thing, but tended to bring jobs to 

certain places in the country, the ET revolution, the energy technology revolution, if done right, will mean jobs across the country 

and across demographic lines. In other words, the wind turbine 

manufacturing companies won’t have signs outside that say, Ph.Ds. 

only apply. 

Second, there are a wide variety of solutions to our energy dependence problem, as Senator Alexander has acknowledged. Some 

critical paths of this bill, which I support, will take years, like developing complex technology and building more nuclear plants, 

something that I believe we need to do. But some of the solutions, 

which this bill acknowledges, will be more achievable in the short 

term: energy efficiency, weatherization, using some of the existing 

technologies we have, like solar, wind, geothermal, biomass as 

quickly as possible. 
18 

Third, we need an energy bill, as Senator Kerry had so eloquently discussed, that can send clear market signals that both 

short-term and long-term investment in energy technologies will be 

rewarded, allowing businesses to plan to invest in new technologies 

and realize long-term development of new facilities and operations. 

Finally, we want an energy bill that builds on the work being 

done at the State level. All over the country, we are witnessing improvements to our communities on the State level. Minnesota has 

one of the most aggressive renewable electricity standards in the 

country, 25 percent by 2025. Our biggest utility is Xcel. Its goal is 

30 percent. I have talked to the CEO, Dick Kelly. He said they are 

going to make it, and they are going to make it without increasing 

rates. 

When this legislation passed in Minnesota, it had Democratic 

and Republican support, farmers, environmentalists, traditional energy companies. It passed 123 to 10 in the House, 63 to 3 in our 

State Senate and was signed into law by a Republican Governor. 

So while Minnesota and so many other States are already heading down the path toward a new energy economy, the Federal Government has not even made it to the trailhead. In a famous opinion, Justice Brandeis once wrote that States are truly the laboratories of democracy. He said that if one of the happy incidences of 

the Federal system could be that a single courageous State may, 

if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try more social and 

economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. 

Well, he didn’t mean by that statement that we should have inaction by the Federal Government. And that is what has been happening. This bill is an opportunity to put the courage and the entrepreneurship of the American people up front and center. It is 

about the thousands of people employed in biofuels plants throughout our State, dotting the countryside. It is about nine people in 

Starbuck, Minnesota, that had the courage to leave their jobs to go 

work for a solar panel factory. It is about a little phone company 

in Sebeka, Minnesota, that decided they wanted backup power for 

their customers and put together a wind and solar backup system. 

And one guy who is 80 years old decided that he wanted to outfit 

his whole house that way. And they said, well, you know, you are 

not going to get your investment back, sir, for 10 years, and you 

are 80 years old. He said, that is OK, I want to go green. 

You know, this, if the people of American have this kind of courage, this Congress should have this courage. That is why I believe 

we need to move forward on this legislation. I hope that eventually 

we will be doing it on a bi-partisan basis. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Senator Boxer, I want to thank you for moving proactively on an issue so important to our Nation’s economy, security, and environment. Your leadership on this 

issue is well recognized, and I appreciate your working with me and my staff on 

this bill to include provisions to protect the middle class, expand agriculture allocations, and provide a stable business environment for companies that make energy 

efficient technology. I also appreciate how both you and Senator Kerry have reached 

out across the aisle on this issue to Lindsey Graham and others. I believe this will 
19 

be key to getting the bill passed—at least that’s how we got energy legislation 

passed in my State. 

I look forward to working with you further on key issues including ensuring that 

the bill further protects middle class families as well as businesses and manufacturers from fluctuating energy costs. We’ve done a lot in this area, but there’s still 

more work to be done. 

As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I’m also looking forward to working 

with my Ag colleagues on additional agricultural provisions. 

Finally, the ultimate bill must have a strong renewable electricity standard. 

Let me first focus on why this legislation is so important. This legislation is about 

putting America back in control of our energy supply. It’s about investing in the 

farmers and workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast. Renewable energy—coming from our wind, sun, ground and bio products is by its nature going to involve jobs right here in our country. Unlike the IT revolution which 

tended to focus the jobs in certain places in our country, the ET revolution, if done 

right, will mean jobs across this country and across demographic lines. In other 

words, the wind turbine manufacturing companies won’t have signs outside that say 

Ph.D.s only apply. 

Second, as acknowledged in the bill, there are a wide variety of solutions to our 

energy dependence problem. Some things will take years—like developing complex 

technology and building more nuclear plants. But some of the solutions are more 

achievable in the short term—conservation, weatherization and using some of the 

existing technologies—solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, as quickly as possible. 

Third, we need an energy bill so that we send clear market signals that both 

short-term and long-term investment energy technologies will be rewarded, allowing 

businesses to plan to invest in new technologies and realize long-term development 

of new facilities and operations. 

Finally, we want an energy bill that builds on the work being done at the State 

level. All over the country, we are witnessing improvements to our communities 

through renewable energy projects, facilities, and products, as well as a focus on increased energy efficiency. 

For renewable electricity, for instance, I note that Minnesota is further down the 

path than any other State. 

By the year 2025, the State’s energy companies are required to generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, water, solar, and biomass. The standard is even higher for the State’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, which 

must reach 30 percent by 2020. CEO Dick Kelly has been in my office and said it 

is going to be tough, but they are going to make it, and they’ll meet this goal without raising rates. 

When this legislation passed in Minnesota, it wasn’t a partisan issue. It was supported by both Democrats and Republicans—as well as the farmers and environmentalists, traditional energy companies and new renewable energy companies. It 

passed overwhelmingly in the Minnesota legislature: 123–10 in the House and 63– 

3 in the Senate, and was signed into law by a Republican Governor. 

But while Minnesota and so many are States are already heading down the path 

toward the new energy economy, Federal legislation has not even made it to the 

trail head. 

In a famous opinion Justice Brandeis once wrote that States are truly the ‘‘laboratories of democracy.’’ He went on to describe the special role of States when it comes 

to experimenting with new policies in our Federal system. 

States are where new ideas emerge, where policymakers can experiment, where 

innovative proposals can be tested. 

Brandeis wrote over 70 years ago, ‘‘It is one of the happy incidents of the Federal 

system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the 

country.’’ 

Yet he did not in any way mean for State action—which has been precipitated 

so often in the energy area this decade as a result of Federal inaction—he did not 

mean for State action to serve as an excuse for inaction by the Federal Government. 

Good ideas and successful innovations are supposed to emerge from the laboratory 

and serve as a model for national policy and action. That is now our responsibility 

in Congress. 

When we do this, we need to put the courage and entrepreneurship of the American people front and center. People in my State believe in this new energy future. 

Or the solar panel factory in Starbuck, Minnesota, where nine people left their 

jobs to go work for this little company. 

Or the story of the little phone company in Sebeka, Minnesota, with back-up 

power. Will take you 10 years. He was 80. I want to go green. 
20 

By being part of something bigger than themselves, by actually seeing this new 

homegrown energy in their own communities, it makes it a lot easier for people to 

support energy legislation, to see it as part of the greater good. 

If you ever visit our office in Washington, you will see a picture on the wall, and 

it’s the picture of an angel placing the world in some outstretched hands, and the 

words read, ‘‘The angel shrugged. She placed the world in the palms of our hands, 

and she said, ‘If we fail this time, it will be a failure of imagination.’ ’’ 

Well, I don’t believe we are going to fail; we can’t. If nine people in a solar panel 

factory in Starbuck, Minnesota, have the courage and imagination to see a new energy future and the world of opportunity before us, Congress can, too. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Now, we do have a lot of speakers. We know that Secretary 

Salazar must leave by noon. So it is my intention to get where we 

are going, and at that point, if we are really slow, we will get to 

at least Secretary Salazar and go back to our plan. 

So here is the list. It is Bond, then Specter, Crapo then Sanders. 

Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding the hearing. 

Unfortunately, this latest cap-and-trade bill was just released 

late Friday night. That is why the EPA discussion paper is nothing 

more than a political document requested by advocates and acquiesced by politicians. Career EPA experts would usually take about 

6 weeks to conduct a thorough economic analysis. EPA’s analysis 

of Bingaman-Specter ran 252 pages, Lieberman-Warner 193, Waxman-Markey 160. But for Kerry-Boxer, EPA slapped together a 

mere 38 pages of excuses and analogies. 

Left unsaid by EPA is how Kerry-Boxer provides less consumer 

protection against higher prices. The businesses that will be hit 

with this high carbon tax will pass along these higher prices, which 

are disguised taxes, to every family, every small business, every 

farm, in the United States. If you think about it, a smaller pie produces smaller slices. In the case of Kerry-Boxer, their bill has a 

more stringent 20 percent target in 2020, instead of 17 percent in 

Waxman-Markey. It means it will distribute 1.46 billion fewer allowances between 2012 and 2030. And while most of Kerry-Boxer 

and Waxman-Markey’s allocation percentages are the same, the 

Kerry-Boxer allocates smaller. Smaller pie, smaller slices, which 

mean less relief from the burdensome taxes. This means, by my 

calculations, electric consumers will receive nearly $16 billion less 

from Kerry-Boxer in protection against higher energy prices. 

Since consumers and workers in coal dependent States like the 

Midwest will bear the brunt of this multi-million dollar shortfall, 

we deserve to know how much less it will protect gas consumers 

and trade exposed workers. Another gaping hole is the plight of 

farmers, a major concern in the Midwest and South. Cap-and-trade 

threatens farmers and livestock producers with higher production 

costs, from fuel to run their machinery to fertilizer to drying costs 

to the cost of shipping their goods to market. It is as if the KerryBoxer bill is telling farmers and the ag communities, you are not 

important. It took away the USDA’s offset role, negotiated in the 

House, removed the 5-year pause in EPA’s indirect land use rule. 
21 

It proposes uncertain potential for ag offsets. It proposes higher 

production costs for farmers. And their bill will result in ag lands 

taken out of production. That means higher food prices for all of 

us. 

The last dynamic is a result of farmers reacting to a carbon offset 

program by taking land out of production. Higher food prices, more 

pain at the grocery checkout for families. I don’t know if EPA even 

understands, or else they chose not to discuss in their discussion 

paper these land production dynamics and the regional disparities 

in crop and production cost estimates. America deserves better. 

America’s families, farmers, and workers deserve to know how 

Kerry-Boxer will impose trillions of dollars in higher energy taxes, 

kill millions of jobs and treat unfairly entire regions of the country 

such as the Midwest, South and Great Plains. 

The analysis discussed about new green jobs did not mention the 

tremendous costs to existing jobs of this carbon tax to be passed 

throughout our economy. Independent organizations not swayed by 

the Administration’s influence, such as the Congressional Budget 

Office, say the same thing, cap-and-trade will hurt the economy 

and cost jobs. 

Now, we can make this country, including the North American 

continent, energy independent in 15 years, if we have some leadership to start developing in an environmentally friendly, efficient 

way to tap the energy resources that we have. Producing more of 

the energy we need here, using significantly more nuclear power, 

using energy conservation, using electric cars. These will generate 

more good jobs, produce more revenue, instead of costing the tremendous amount of taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar. And we 

can do that without costing jobs that are higher pay, existing jobs 

throughout the economy. 

We want to see changes. But we want to make them smart, energy efficient, not kill jobs, not put burdens on families, small businesses and farmers. 

I thank the Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Specter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I think it is not too much to say that what we are doing today 

may really turn out to be historic, as we grapple with very critical 

objectives. The objective of providing energy for our country, to 

take care of us and our economy in the future, to deal with climate 

change and to protect the planet from global warming, and to free 

ourselves from dependence on OPEC and Venezuelan oil. 

I compliment you, Madam Chairwoman, for your prodigious work 

here, and both you and Senator Kerry for producing the legislation 

we are looking toward today. I note, as everyone must, the very 

heavy political overtone at the start of these hearings. It is my 

hope that we will listen to the witnesses. We all are concerned 

about job loss. 

My State, Pennsylvania, is a microcosm. It has been built upon 

coal and steel. And it is critical that any legislation take into ac-
22 

count those factors. My State has a great deal of natural gas with 

the new Marcellus Shale, opening clean fuel for the future. My 

State is a leader on green jobs. A week ago today, I held a hearing 

in Pittsburgh on the potential of green jobs. But at the same time, 

concerned as to what would happen in southwestern Pennsylvania 

in the coal mines. 

Now, we are building on Lieberman-Warner, and in the 109th 

Congress I worked with Senator Bingaman to try to craft a moderate bill which got support from many of the environmental 

groups, got support from the power plants and got support from the 

United Mine Workers. Now, for a Pennsylvania Senator, support 

from those facets, especially the mine workers, is very, very important. 

We are open for business for people who have problems and 

ideas. Yesterday, I met with the Building Trades Council in Pennsylvania. And they brought to my attention, as it had been before, 

the refinery problem. Well, our refineries are not up to date. And 

there are problems with them. But there are thousands of jobs in 

Philadelphia on the Sunoco refinery and on the Conoco Phillips refinery. So when I hear comments about loss of jobs and higher 

costs for consumers, I am very, very much concerned with that. We have dedicated some $80 billion in the stimulus package to 

wind and hydro power. So we are moving ahead. So it is complicated. I have been in the Senate a while, and I haven’t seen two 

mammoth legislative problems like health care and climate control, 

which we are facing now. But it would be my hope that we will finally get to the witnesses, and then we will have other witnesses. 

And the people who have raised objections, I respect them, have 

worked with them for a long time. We will bring their witnesses 

in, and let’s be fact oriented, and let’s look for public policy. We all 

have the same objectives and the same goals. It would be very refreshing in America today if we could find a bi-partisan answer. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Let’s see, next is Senator Sanders, who isn’t here, so we will go— 

I am sorry. 

Senator Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I want to comment on a few things like process and a few aspects 

of the bill that I want to highlight, and then conclude discussing 

the policy issues that a number of my colleagues have already addressed. 

With regard to process, Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate you for having some bill language for us to evaluate, although 

we just barely got it. I just went through the process in the Finance Committee of having to actually go through an entire 2-week 

markup and vote on a bill that didn’t exist. In fact, I am not sure 

it ever did get fully drafted, because then it was redrafted as it was 

merged with the Health Committee bill. That process was flawed. 

I appreciate the fact that we have bill language. I would hope 

that as we move through the hearing process here that we will also 
23 

take the time to get a thorough EPA analysis and to get a thorough 

CBO score before we would go to any kind of a markup. And let 

the American public, as well as this committee, to truly vet this 

legislation and understand what the exact wording in the bill 

means and does for us. 

Second, I appreciate our witnesses begin here today. I work with 

all of them and appreciate the relationship I have with them and 

look forward to hearing what they have to say. I do wish that the 

Secretary of Agriculture was here. In fact, Madam Chairman, I 

wish that the legislation gave the Secretary of Agriculture a greater role. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, if you would yield without losing any 

time, we do have a statement. He is traveling in China. But he has 

a wonderful statement which I will quote from later. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, good. I appreciate that. And actually, 

the legislation as it is now structured puts the EPA in charge of 

the offset programs for farmers and foresters, as I understand it; 

is that not correct? 

Senator BOXER. That is not correct. Again, without losing his 

time, we leave it up, we say the White House will, it is a place 

holder for the Ag Committee, which Chairman Lincoln understands. And she is planning to fill it in. So as we have a place holder for Finance, we have a place holder for Ag. And in the bill, it 

just says right now that the White House will determine who 

would be in charge of it. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, very good. This just shows the importance of us being able to have the time to know what is in the bill 

and to vet it adequately. But I really do hope that when we get to 

that point and we get it finalized that we have the Department of 

Agriculture in charge of managing the offsets in any bill that we 

might pass dealing with farmers and foresters. 

I want to move now to the policy issues that we are all discussing. I really don’t believe there is a huge disagreement between 

us on the need for us to move forward and develop a very robust 

and meaningful national energy policy that will help us to dramatically remove or reduce our dependence on carbon-based forms of 

energy. I personally think that our country is far too dependent on 

petroleum as a form of energy. Not that we shouldn’t recognize the 

need for petroleum and develop our own resources, because frankly, 

we are also far too dependent on foreign sources of that energy. 

And as Senator Kerry indicated, that creates a threat not only to 

our national security in a defense context, it creates a threat to our 

economy, as we have most of our eggs in just one or two baskets, 

so to speak. 

So I strongly support developing a national energy policy that 

will help us to become more diversified. I often analogize it to an 

investment portfolio, and very few people would invest all of their 

assets or resources in one place or just a couple places. A diversified investment portfolio is clearly a better way to approach our energy policy, just like it would be in managing one’s own financial 

circumstances. 

Because of that, I am a very strong advocate for wind and solar 

and geothermal and nuclear, which I am going to talk a little bit 

more about, and a number of other kinds of energy. My point, 
24 

though, is very similar to that made by Senator Alexander. And 

that is that as we move to new, strong, robust energy policy in our 

country, we should do so in a way that does not devastate the economy. I am concerned that the provisions of this legislation would 

have the impact that many of my colleagues have already identified. We can do things like focus on conservation aggressively and 

find tremendous reductions of consumption just in the conservation 

arena. In fact, every bit of energy that we conserve is the equivalent, in my opinion, to energy generated. 

Second, nuclear power. And I wish the bill did more for nuclear 

power. Reading from the text of the bill itself, which does have a 

nuclear section, it talks about how nuclear energy is the largest 

provider of clean, low carbon electricity, almost eight times larger 

than all renewable power production combined, excluding hydroelectric power. This is from the bill itself. 

Senator BOXER. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that. My problem is that we continue, in different contexts, to hear positive support with regard to 

nuclear, but the specific serious details that the committee needs 

to be getting into with regard to nuclear, in terms of the loan guaranty programs, the financial commitments to construction of new 

sites, the effort to address the incredible regulatory burdens and 

delays that are stopping us from being able to move forward aggressively. Those kinds of very robust energy policies in the nuclear 

context need to be put in the bill, rather than just the findings 

about how important nuclear is. 

So I appreciate the fact that the Chairman has put this in the 

legislation and I hope to work with her. We are already working 

with many members of the committee to address this issue and get 

a robust energy title. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sanders isn’t here, so we will skip over him until he gets 

back and go to Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer. Thank 

you for your leadership. I have said a number of times here that 

you have weighed in in such a way that has been very persuasive, 

and I think Senator Kerry joining us in these Tuesday group sessions has been very, very helpful. 

Today we are facing a narrow window of opportunity on three 

fronts: our economy, our environment and our national security. 

Every recent economic downturn in our country has been preceded 

by a major spike in energy prices, and 2008 was no exception. With 

world oil production flat, we are likely going to see worse than $4 

gasoline when the world economy turns around and demand returns. Nobody wants to see that, but I am afraid that is where we 

are headed. 

Our legislation here today offers a way out of that economic trap. 

We can loosen our dependence on foreign oil supplies, which are 

limited and restricted, and create jobs and home grown energy. 

This legislation takes a do it all, do it right approach to energy 

policy. The bill today provides powerful incentives for plentiful, af-
25 

fordable, renewable energy like wind and solar. The bill will create 

tens of thousands of jobs that save hundreds of billions of dollars 

in energy efficiency. The bill provides critical resources to increase 

the safety and security of our nuclear energy power plants. The bill 

provides incentives to tap our abundant low carbon supplies of 

American natural gas, which have increase by 40 percent in just 

the last 2 years. 

The bill improves upon the already substantial investments in 

carbon capture and sequestration for coal power that were made in 

the House legislation. And the bill provides strong incentives to 

capture CO2 for enhanced domestic oil recovery, which can increase 

our domestic oil supplies by four times, enough supply for a decade 

or more. 

The bill improves the renewable fuel standard by creating a technology neutral standard, which is important for new, innovative 

sources of biofuel like algae. The incentives in this legislation are 

based on a fundamental principle: the polluter pays. There should 

be a fee for permits to pollute, since pollution is a cost imposed by 

a profit making entity on society. 

If polluters do not have to consider the costs of their actions, 

then society will face the costs of global warming: increased 

droughts, wildfires, crop loss and flooding. Society at large will pay 

the cost instead. 

Finally, we must find new sources of energy to preserve our national security and independence. Two-thirds of the world’s oil supplies lie in six Middle Eastern nations and Russia, which do not, 

do not operate based on market principles. Future Presidents will 

face national security decisions if we enact this legislation and 

move rapidly toward energy independence. 

And I am going to yield back my time now, because I anxiously 

await the testimony of our excellent panel and look forward to 

hearing Secretary Salazar and the others here. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Climate change, I think we know, is a serious and complex issue 

that deserves our full attention. I think that Senator Alexander did 

a very good of eloquently stating that there are alternatives to this 

legislation, and I think that Senator Bond did a very good job of 

outlining the impact that this legislation would have on the economy of our country. 

This may be the most single significant piece of legislation that 

has come before this committee, touching every section of the economy and having an immense energy, economic, environmental and 

national security consequences. Yet despite our requests of earlier 

this year, the committee plans no legislative hearings on specific 

bill texts. Rather, we will proceed with conceptual hearings only. 

And now I am told we will proceed to a markup and final vote on 

November 3. 

I note that on legislation of significant importance the Senate 

has a history of expending the time and consideration necessary to 
26 

achieve broad bi-partisan support before reporting legislation out of 

committee. For example, when considering the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, the Senate Energy Committee held 19 formal 

hearings and 11 open business meetings over a span of 5 and a half 

months before favorably reporting out a bill, a bi-partisan bill. 

Following a similar process during consideration of this legislation is important, because we cannot afford to get it wrong. At this 

point, we do not fully understand how this legislation will impact 

GDP or the price, supply and reliability of electricity, gasoline and 

other commodities that millions of Americans are going to have to 

pay. What is more, we don’t know if the bill will have any appreciable impact on climate change. EPA’s recent economic analysis of 

the bill fails to provide answers to these questions. Instead, it compares and contrasts various provisions of 1733 with the WaxmanMarkey bill. 

First, a credible legislative process on Kerry-Boxer cannot be 

supported by a piecemeal analysis based on estimates from the 

House bill. Second, EPA did not model all the Waxman-Markey 

provisions and include in their assessment assumptions concerning 

the timing and availability of clean energy technologies, CCS, nuclear and offsets that defy technological, practical and political realities. 

We do have a comprehensive analysis from various outside 

groups on the possible impacts. For example, the American Council 

for Capital Formation has concluded by 2020, the House bill could 

reduce household income in my State of over $261 per year, increase energy costs up to 20 percent, and result in the net loss of 

more than 100,000 jobs. 

I have been working with the EPA for a number of months to 

correct these deficiencies. While we made progress on that front, 

we now face a hurried political agenda. At this stage of the game, 

I think the most important thing is that we get a comprehensive 

analysis on this bill before we proceed to markup. 

And only the Chairman of this committee and the Administration 

can make this possible. I recall when I had the Clear Skies legislation before this committee that the members on the other side of 

the aisle insisted that they have analysis of their prospective bills 

before we marked up the Clear Skies legislation. They delayed the 

markup on three occasions, it was over a 2- or 3-month period, in 

spite of the fact that we provided 10,000 pages of analysis. 

Madam Chairman, I made the point the last time around, and 

that was that we needed the EPA to do the analysis, complete 

analysis before this bill went to the floor. I think you realize what 

a disaster it was when it hit the floor because of the few number 

of the members of the U.S. Senate that actually supported it. 

In closing, I reference an October 21, 2009, New York Times article by John Broder, which states in regard to Copenhagen, ‘‘The 

United States and many other countries have concluded that it is 

more useful to take incremental steps toward a global agreement 

rather than try to jam it down through a treaty.’’ The article goes 

on to say, ‘‘U.S. officials and congressional leaders have said that 

final legislative action on a climate bill would not occur before the 

first half of next year.’’ 
27 

So Madam Chairman, the question I have for you and Senator 

Kerry and the other members of this committee, why are we trying 

to jam down this legislation now? Wouldn’t it be smarter—wouldn’t 

it be smarter to take our time and do it right, like we didn’t do it 

the last time around that we had this legislation before us? 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Madam Chairwoman, climate change is a serious and complex issue that deserves 

our full attention. I acknowledge your commitment to timely legislation, but the abbreviated process by which this legislation is moving is not conducive to thoughtful, 

bipartisan climate change legislation. 

This may be the single most significant piece of legislation that has ever come 

before this committee, touching every sector of the economy and having immense 

energy, economic, environmental and national security consequences. Yet despite 

our requests of earlier this year, the committee plans no legislative hearings on specific bill text; rather, we will proceed with conceptual hearings only. Now, I am told 

that we will proceed to a markup, and a final vote, on November 3. 

I note that, on legislation of significant importance, the Senate has a history of 

expending the time and consideration necessary to achieve broad, bipartisan support 

before reporting legislation out of committee. For example, when considering the 

American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), the Senate Energy Committee 

held 19 formal hearings and 11 open business meetings over a span of 5 and a half 

months before favorably reporting a bill with bipartisan support. 

Following a similar process during consideration of this legislation is important 

because we cannot afford to get this wrong. 

At this point we do not fully understand how this legislation will impact GDP or 

the price, supply and reliability of electricity, gasoline and other commodities that 

millions of Americans depend upon every day. What’s more, we don’t know if the 

bill will have any appreciable impact on climate change. 

EPA’s recent economic analysis of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill fails to provide answers to these questions. Instead, it compares and contrasts various provisions of 

S. 1733 with Waxman-Markey bill. 

First, a credible legislative process on Kerry-Boxer cannot be supported by a 

piecemeal analysis based upon estimates from the House bill. Second, EPA did not 

model all of Waxman-Markey’s major provisions and included in their assessment 

assumptions concerning the timing and availability of clean energy technologies (e.g. 

CCS and nuclear) and offsets that defy technological, practical and political realities. 

We do have comprehensive analyses from various outside groups on the possible 

impacts of Waxman-Markey. For example, the American Council for Capital Formation has concluded that by 2020 the House bill could reduce household income in 

my home State of Ohio by up to $261 per year on average, increase energy costs 

by up to 20 percent, and result in a net loss of more than 100,000 jobs. But this 

is no substitute for EPA’s providing a comprehensive, unbiased assessment of the 

bill. 

I have been working with EPA for a number of months to correct these deficiencies. And while we have made progress on that front, we now face a hurried 

political agenda. At this stage of the game, I would be willing to release my hold 

on Robert Perciasepe if EPA is given the time necessary to provide a comprehensive 

analysis on the bill before we proceed to mark up. 

Last year’s bill—the Lieberman-Warner proposal—saw a miserable showing on 

the Senate floor. It gathered only 32 votes on the Senate floor—and subsequent to 

the vote, 9 of the Senators voting to limit debate sent Senator Reid a letter saying 

they wouldn’t have votes for the bill on final passage. I predict that if we rush this 

bill through committee without a considered, thoughtful amendment process, we 

will have a similar result. 

Madam Chairwoman, when this committee was considering the Clear Skies Act— 

legislation that was far less complicated or far reaching—several analyses were 

completed as we considered legislative text. I recall that Senators Baucus, Carper, 

Chaffee and Obama were adamant that we have an EPA analysis on their alternative proposals before moving forward. In fact, even after the Administration gave 

them 10,000 pages of analyses, they delayed the mark up three times. I insist that 

similar consideration be afforded to us in this process. 

In closing, I reference an October 21, 2009, New York Times article, which states 

in regard to Copenhagen, ‘‘the United States and many other . . . countries have con-
28 

cluded that it is more useful to take incremental . . . steps toward a global agreement rather than to try to jam through a treaty.’’ The article goes on to say: ‘‘[U.S.] 

officials and congressional leaders have said that final legislative action on a climate 

bill would not occur before the first half of next year.’’ 

So Madam Chairwoman, the question I have for you and Senator Kerry is, why 

are you trying to jam this legislation through committee when it is unlikely we will 

move legislation or that a treaty will be ratified this year? 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. I am going to answer a couple of things you said, I think it is important. 

No. 1, in terms of process, the committee rules say you have to 

have a bill out for 3 days before markup. Ours will be out for 10 

days. And I appreciate Senator Crapo’s comments about that. 

No. 2, this need for bi-partisanship—believe me, I would give 

anything if I had a John Warner still sitting here. We don’t have 

it. Climate change, global warming, isn’t waiting for who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. Either we are going to deal with 

this problem or we are not. That is No. 2. 

And as was stated before, we are going to be in negotiations with 

both sides, with members on and off this committee. 

The last point I am going to put in the record, a study that 

shows that Senator Alexander’s plan to build 100 nuclear plants by 

2030 would cost $800 billion, all paid for by ratepayers. And most 

of us on this side of the aisle believe a better way to go is our legislation, because putting a price on carbon will make the nuclear 

field way more competitive and will result in 200 plants being 

built. 

So I think that is part of the debate we are going to have. Very 

last point I am going to put in the record, John Kerry’s good staff 

work here, analysis of jobs in every State showing that, these are 

net jobs created in Ohio, 35,000 to 61,000 jobs. These are studies 

that were done over a great period of time. So put all that in record 

and call on Senator Lautenberg. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 

Senator ALEXANDER. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. May I ask permission, since you mentioned 

my comment, to put in the record a comparison of nuclear and 

wind power that has a Department of Energy estimate that shows 

the cost of building 186,000 wind turbines is approximately the 

same as building 100 nuclear plants, that it would cover 25,000 

square miles instead of 100, and that it would cost 10 times as 

much in Federal subsidies and 19,000 more miles of new transmission lines, which are not part of that calculation? 

Senator BOXER. We will put that in the record and make a point, 

I am not supporting having ratepayers pay for those windmills outside of this bill either. So I think what you do is, if you do this capand-trade, all of these have a level playing field and you don’t pick 

a winner, because they are all going to be winners if they don’t 

emit carbon. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
86 
87 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. We are going to move on. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, Madam Chairman, let me ask procedurally, if you are going to come through and refute things that 

each member on this side says afterwards, I think that is not a 

good policy unless we get a chance to participate in that. 

Senator BOXER. Right, I only do it—— 

Senator INHOFE. I sat here for 25 minutes listening to Senator 

Kerry talk about me, and I didn’t have a chance to respond. I will, 

however. 

Senator BOXER. I so appreciate it. And I just have to say, when 

somebody says the Chairman isn’t being fair and that we don’t 

have the bill out there, I need to respond to that. But we will all 

have time later. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. We 

are all indebted to John Kerry for his presentation. 

Even though one could disagree, I don’t know whether it is in a 

substantial fact disagreement or political, but the fact is, he offered 

us a view of where we are at that cannot be ignored. We are all 

grateful to him. Along the way, I think we ought to have a vote 

on whether his speech made any sense or not. 

But I feel like we are developing an unreality show here. The 

whole thing to me is unreal, I must tell you, friends. We are now 

looking at the number of pages of paper that determine whether 

or not this bill has veracity. I didn’t know there was such an interest in protecting the trees here. But we hear protests about 900 

pages. 

The fact of the matter is that we have a very good friend on the 

other side, distinguished Senator, Senator Voinovich; he was very 

proud of his work on Clean Skies and talked about producing 

10,000 pages worth of information that could be viewed and judged. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It was the analysis, Senator, just the analysis of it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So what we are now hearing is that, heaven forbid that there are too many pages in this thing. We ought 

to have in our audience a bunch of children, 6 to 10, 6 to 11 years 

old, and explain to them why it is that we want to fight about this. 

Do we see any risk to them? Do we see any danger? When we look 

at the evidence in front of us, whether it is our physical security 

or whether it is security for good health and long lives. 

There is a film produced on ocean acidification. Thirty percent of 

the carbon dioxide has been typically absorbed in oceans. That has 

increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution. The increase is 

a hundred times faster than any change in acidity experienced by 

marine organism for at least 20 million years. Ocean acidification 

affects shellfish, primarily by impairing their ability to develop protective shells. Carbon dioxide continues to be released into our atmosphere. Ocean acidification could harm commercially important 

shellfish, lobster, crabs and mussel. 
88 

And yes, it would be important to hear from the farmers. It 

would be equally important to hear from the fishermen. It would 

be equally important to hear from those who are concerned about 

what is happening with asthma in our society. The same things 

that increase global warming increase temperatures also increase 

susceptibility to asthma. One in 10 Americans today is asthmatic. 

And I wish that we could look into the faces of the children and 

explain in their simple terms, I have 10 grandchildren, my oldest 

16 years old, just turned, has asthma. One of my younger granddaughters has diabetes. 

What would I pay in taxes, what would any American spend in 

taxes if we could reverse the damage of an illness that they might 

carry through their lives? What does that cost? Is that cost realistic 

in terms of what we are talking about? No, listen. Job loss is a terrible calamity. My father lost his job many times during the Depression years, and it was catastrophic in our family. But what is 

the final cost? That is the thing that we have to look at. 

And Madam Chairman, please accept the full presentation of my 

speech into the record. But I do want to commend you for getting 

this hearing going, for moving the process along, for saying, we 

have had enough, we are sounding the alarm, America, wake up, 

wake up, your kids are in danger, your families are in danger. And 

let’s get to work putting out that fire. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Madam Chairman, global warming is threatening the future of our planet. It is 

harming our health. It is destroying our ecosystems. And it is threatening our security. 

In 2007, 11 former admirals and high ranking generals warned that climate 

change could ‘‘create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far 

beyond those we see today.’’ 

Testifying before this committee, Retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn said, 

‘‘Without bold action now to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, our 

national security will be at greater risk.’’ 

According to the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, as many as 800 million more 

people will face water or cropland scarcity in the next 15 years. 

Too many people fighting for too few resources breeds conflict, terrorism and war. 

The military itself could be affected by global warming. Major U.S. bases in Norfolk, Virginia, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean could be overrun with water 

if sea levels rise just a fraction of what scientists are predicting. 

Our dependence on oil causes global warming, but it also distorts our foreign policy, leaving us at the mercy of the few countries that control most of the world’s 

oil—and putting the national security of our country at risk. 

It is up to us to leave the planet and our economy in better shape for generations 

to come. 

The world’s eyes are now on this committee to see if we will fulfill our duty— 

to pass a bill that addresses the greatest environmental challenge of our time. 

We must begin by setting a science-based target for reducing global warming pollution—and this bill gets that done. 

This legislation would reduce emissions in the U.S. by 20 percent by 2020. That’s 

a modest goal, but one rooted in science—and one that promotes clean energy today, 

not years down the road. 

We must invest in our transportation system—because cars, trucks, buses and 

other forms of transportation represent about one-third of the greenhouse gases generated in the United States. 

This bill is a good start—but we’ve got to do a lot more to support cleaner and 

more efficient transportation like transit and rail. And we must invest in research 
89 

and development to create jobs in the short-term and give our country the tools to 

compete in the long-term. 

Investing in new technologies turns factories that are now dark into vibrant centers of industry, building components like wind turbines and solar panels. In fact, 

from 1998 to 2007, the number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy 

grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs, and these jobs have remained strong during otherwise difficult economic times. 

In New Jersey alone, more than 2,000 clean energy companies employ more than 

25,000 people. 

I am proud to say that this bill increases funding for clean energy research and 

development by billions of dollars over the life of the bill. 

Madam, Chairman, every generation has a duty. Fighting climate change is ours. 

Nothing less than the security of our country, the future of our economy, the health 

of our families, and the survival of our planet are at stake. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Chairman, I have very serious concerns about American 

job losses under this Administration. We must view the promises 

of green job creation made by the President and the authors of this 

bill with legitimate skepticism. The Administration and experts 

told the American public and members in Congress that their economic stimulus bill would create millions of jobs across America. 

The economic stimulus package has failed to deliver on that promise. In fact, the opposite has occurred. 

Jobs in western States have spiraled downward. In my home 

State of Wyoming, 8,000 jobs were projected to be created; instead, 

10,500 have been lost since the stimulus passed. Throughout the 

West, thousands of jobs have been lost in every western State. In 

fact, over 2.7 million jobs have disappeared nationwide since the 

stimulus package was passed. The situation is only getting worse. 

The $800 billion stimulus bill is not going to save the day. 

The Chair of the President’s Council on Economic Advisors, 

Christina Romer, testified last Thursday before the Congressional 

Joint Economic Committee. She stated the stimulus package’s impact on the economy will weaken from here on. She stated, most 

analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009. By mid2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth. 

This is a stark admission by the Administration that we have already seen the best we are going to see in terms of job growth from 

the President’s stimulus. This energy tax bill will be an American 

job killer as well. It is the next attempt by the Administration to 

promise jobs for all, create some for a few and let the rest of us 

fend for ourselves. 

The west and the fossil fuel reliant States in the South and the 

Midwest face a different future than the coastal States under this 

bill. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Douglas 

Elmendorf, gave America a glimpse of that future in a recent testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

Dr. Elmendorf stated that the fossil fuel sector would mirror the 

massive job losses experienced by the manufacturing industry since 

the 1970s. He also stated that the fact that jobs turn up some-
90 

where else for some people does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, by communities and by firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw this in manufacturing, and we will see this in response to the changes that this 

legislation will produce. 

The 1970s were not a happy time in the Rust Belt manufacturing 

States. No region of this country should have to suffer that again. 

So why are we setting up whole regions of the country to have a 

replay of that era? 

There is a lot of talk about green job creation in this energy tax 

bill to replace lost jobs. The few jobs created will not benefit the 

most affected. Once the jobs have been driven away from the towns 

and cities that rely on the fossil fuel industry, chain reactions will 

occur for the folks who live there. The people of Wyoming will not 

accept this outcome. So I urge my colleagues to consider what has 

already been stated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. This massive energy tax is a job killer for States that produce 

the red, white and blue energy that our Nation relies upon, and all 

of those people who depend upon fossil fuels. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate your leadership and Senator Kerry’s leadership and deliberations that have led us to this point to have a bill ready to debate 

and consider in detail in public. Certainly, these many months of 

intensive efforts, both last year and this year, have prepared to this 

point. 

But there is a moment when you need to lay out a bill before the 

public and have the full conversation. I appreciate that you all 

have taken us forward to that point today. 

Many say that this bill is very complicated, and indeed, energy 

touches virtually every aspect of our economy. But this bill can be 

reduced to a series of fairly clear choices. It is a choice between 

clean air or dirty air. It is a choice between investing a billion dollars a day in red, white and blue American-made energy or sending 

that billion dollars a day overseas to countries like Venezuela and 

Saudi Arabia and other countries that don’t always share our national interests. 

This bill is a choice of creating jobs for Americans or sending 

those jobs overseas. It is a choice between a strong, secure energy 

independent America or a weaker, oil addicted America. It is a 

choice between planetary stewardship that serves our ecosystems 

and human civilization well or a rise in the Earth’s temperature 

that is devastating for ecosystems and for human civilization. 

This bill represents a choice between a forward looking American 

leadership that repositions our energy economy to make America 

an economic powerhouse in the future or backward looking American policies that protect and sustain an inefficient energy status 

quo that will undermine our success in the coming generation. 
91 

Here in this building, we often wrestle with short-term choices 

versus long-term vision. But our children get this. Every university 

I have been to, when I ask the students what their top concern is, 

they always weigh in that we need to act on climate change. They 

get it because they have seen the science. We simply have to look 

at the Arctic ice, the Antarctic ice, the amount of carbon dioxide 

and the acidification of the ocean. Our glaciers, our permafrost, the 

rate of carbon dioxide buildup in the environment. Each one of 

these clear, significant factors can only be missed if you shut your 

eyes or put your head in a hole in the ground. 

Now, some say that this bill moves too fast. The aim is 20 percent reduction below 2005 carbon dioxide levels by 2020. We are already closing on in 9 percent below 2005 levels. That means this 

bill is saying, let’s move 11 percent more over the next 11 years. 

That is just 1 percent per year. That is not an overly aggressive 

goal for us to undertake as a Nation. 

In fact, you could argue that this bill is not moving fast enough. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that to limit 

the probability of reaching a temperature increase over 2 percent, 

developing countries should reduce their CO2 by 2020 by 25 percent below the 1990 level. Well, to compare apples to apples, this 

bill will put us at 7 percent below 1990 by 2020, not 25 to 40 percent. 

We are taking and setting up a framework that moves us forward on a vision of reducing carbon dioxide, but few could argue 

that this bill is overly aggressive. We need to understand today 

what our children already understand, that this is a debate about 

the security of our Nation, about how clean our air is, about whether we create American jobs, about whether we have a strong economy in the future, and about whether we are good stewards of our 

planet for the benefit of our ecosystems and human civilization. I 

hope we in this committee can make the right decision. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Next we will hear from Senator Vitter, and then Whitehouse, 

Gillibrand if she returns, and Cardin. And then we will get to the 

panel. 

Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Like all the members on this side of the dais, I also support an 

aggressive national energy policy that looks to dramatically decrease our dependence on foreign sources and aggressively get us 

beyond high carbon fuels. And like other members here, I think 

that needs to focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new 

technologies like electric cars and many other advancing new technologies. I think that sort of approach, that sort of national energy 

strategy, would have broad based support of the American people 

and bipartisan support from Congress. 

Unfortunately, that is not what we are talking about today. I 

think what we are talking about today, this sort of cap-and-trade 

proposal is very different and doesn’t have that broad based sup-
92 

port. I believe this cap-and-trade concept is a bad idea in any climate, and is a particularly horrible idea in this deep recession, as 

unemployment continues to grow and hover around 10 percent. 

I want to mention four concerns in particular with this and similar legislation. First of all, something about the science. I believe 

there is certainly one thing that the science is absolutely clear on, 

and it is beyond debate. And that is, if countries like China and 

India and Russia are not part of a carbon reduction global program, that it does not matter what we do. And that the only effective actions like this will be to dramatically harm our economy. 

If there is any suggestion in the science to the contrary, I would 

love to hear it, and I would love to hear forecasts from our Administration witnesses regarding scenarios where China, India, Russia 

and similar powers do not reduce carbon emissions. It has been 

made perfectly clear by them, directly from their mouths, that they 

have no plans to join such a global regime. And all three are aggressively pursuing natural resource assets around the world and 

dramatically increasing energy production from fossil fuels. 

Secretary Chu mentions in his testimony that China is spending 

$9 billion a month on clean energy. The other side of that coin, the 

bigger side of that coin is that they are building two coal-fired 

power plants a month and securing oil resources around the globe. 

Point No. 2 is the cost of all this. I think it is very significant 

that the Obama administration Treasury Department developed a 

cost estimate. And their cost estimate, not a Republican one, not 

a Heritage Foundation one, but their cost estimate is that the cost 

of cap-and-trade would be over $1,700 a year per household. This 

would roughly be the equivalent of hiking income taxes by 15 percent. Certainly a little more than a postage stamp a day. And 

Treasury stated specifically that ‘‘Economic costs will likely be on 

the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all 

existing environmental regulation.’’ 

Others have agreed with this, including the President on the 

campaign trail: ‘‘Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Whatever the plants 

were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their 

operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to 

consumers.’’ ‘‘Cap-and-trade would increase the cost of energy.’’ 

From Secretary Tim Geithner. ‘‘Under a cap-and-trade program, 

firms will not ultimately bear most of the cost of the allowances, 

but instead would pass them along to their customer in the form 

of higher prices.’’ That is Peter Orszag, as Director of CBO. Of 

course, he is now the Obama administration head of OMB. 

‘‘Cap-and-trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.’’ John Dingell. 

And Charlie Rangel, ‘‘Whether you call it a tax, everyone agrees 

that it’s going to increase the cost to the consumer.’’ 

Point No. 3 is putting points No. 1 and two together. Foreign 

competition does nothing like this. We dramatically increase taxes 

and costs. And obviously, that significantly hurts jobs and pushes 

jobs overseas. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 
93 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer; and I would like to thank the Administration witnesses for their testimony here today and their candor in this most important debate. 

As a recently obtained Treasury Department analysis of cap-and-trade stated, 

‘‘Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal 

in scale to all existing environmental regulation.’’ As unemployment is headed upward of 10 percent the impact of further job losses by a massive new regulatory program could not be overstated. 

‘‘Cap-and-trade’’ is potentially a new stealth tax in the order of magnitude of more 

than $1,700 per American household annually. American families can look forward 

to an increase in their electricity bills, their gas bills, their food bills and their utility bills. It is clear that most Americans’ standard of living will be reduced. 

It doesn’t matter if the study is done by the Energy Information Administration, 

the Congressional Budget Office, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Brookings Institute or the Heritage Foundation—every legitimate economic analysis says that this is a bad idea. The human 

impact of these new regulations, job losses, and the increased price of energy should 

never be marginalized or ignored. 

Senator Gillibrand wrote an insightful op-ed last week in the Wall Street Journal 

titled ‘‘Cap and Trade Could Be a Boon to New York.’’ This article provided important insight into who will make money and how much. The Senator from New York 

stated that ‘‘carbon permits could quickly become the world’s largest commodities 

market, growing to as much as $3 trillion by 2020.’’ That is $3 trillion that has to 

be generated by the work of America’s farmers, refiners, miners, small businesses 

and manufacturers and then redistributed to Wall Street. It will perhaps be the 

greatest transfer of wealth in U.S. history. And it may very well be the greatest 

scam ever thrust on the people of the United States. This program would be the 

equivalent of TARP in perpetuity for a handful of financial institutions that have 

already been bailed out once. And you don’t need a Republican to tell you that. 

Senator Dorgan recently stated that ‘‘I know the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to 

sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and 

investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. In no 

time they’ll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In fact, most 

of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are 

ready to go. I’m not.’’ Senator Dorgan further stated that ‘‘For those who like the 

wild price swings in the oil futures market, the unseemly speculation in mortgagebacked securities, or the exotic and risky financial products like credit default swaps 

that pushed our economy into the ditch, this cap-and-trade plan will be the answer 

to their prayers.’’ 

I look forward to hearing from the Administration on what programs they plan 

on cutting to pay for a transfer in our economy from energy jobs that generate massive amounts of wealth to energy jobs that require massive amounts of subsidies. 

I also look forward to the Administration discussing China’s purchase of mineral resources around the world, including rare earth minerals. As well, I am not aware 

of any solar project or wind mill that doesn’t require mined or refined materials or 

inputs that are derivatives from oil and natural gas. 

The CBO has stated that mining and refining jobs will be among the most impacted by the proposed cap-and-trade program. However, nearly every product 

made, farmed, built, and manufactured requires some derivative from oil and natural gas or other minerals. How in the world can it be strategically beneficial for 

the United States to become more dependent on mined and refined products from 

foreign countries? 

Secretary Chu mentions in his testimony the International Energy Agency in his 

support for renewable energy technologies. I wonder why he fails to mention that 

the same agency has recommended that Germany end its solar subsidies that will 

total $115.5 billion by 2013. If the U.S. were to take the same approach as Germany, U.S. consumers could expect their electricity bills to increase by 100 percent. 

The Administration’s contention is that a cap-and-trade system along with significant subsidies will create a new industry and a lot of high tech jobs. Yet Germany’s 

solar producers are now scaling back as they are crowded out by Chinese manufacturers. 

A critical point in this whole debate is that China, India and Russia have made 

unequivocally clear that they have no intention of agreeing to a cap on carbon emissions. As well, all three are aggressively pursuing natural resource assets around 

the world and increasing energy production from fossil fuels. It is silly to think that 
94 

U.S. businesses will be able to compete on the international level when they are 

subject to carbon caps and regulation, increased energy costs and an easily manipulated market scheme. Secretary Chu mentions in his testimony that China is spending $9 billion a month on clean energy. They are also building two coal-fired power 

plants a month, are increasing nuclear power generation and are securing oil resources across the globe. 

Secretary Chu also mentions Denmark as an example, a country where electricity 

prices are more than 200 percent higher than they are in the United States. One 

recent study shows that each wind related job in Denmark is taxpayer subsidized 

at the rate of $90,000 to $140,000 per job. In fact, the Danes pay more for their 

power than anyone in the European Union. 

Despite my concerns with the idea of a cap-and-trade program, I do support investment and research in renewable technologies. I do believe a robust plan for investment should be in place, but to do so we must not be borrowing money from 

China or stealing money from American families under the guise of ‘‘global warming.’’ The greatest opportunity for investment in new technologies is revenue generated from increased domestic energy production. Recent analysis suggests that increased domestic resource production could represent $8 trillion in GDP, $2.2 trillion in incremental tax receipts, and perhaps 2 million jobs or more. All without borrowing a dime or increasing taxes even a penny. 

Finally, there are significant issues that need to be raised and questions that need 

to be answered in regard to this program. Some of those questions include: 

(1) Who are the winners and losers under cap-and-trade? 

(2) What States benefit, and what States are adversely impacted? 

(3) How does it affect the U.S. strategically to be importing more refined mineral 

products and refining less domestically? 

(4) How are Federal and State treasuries affected by moving from industries that 

generate massive amounts of wealth to industries that require massive amounts of 

subsidies? 

(5) Given that reliable low cost energy is one of the greatest equalizers in the history of mankind, how are families impacted by dramatically increasing costs? 

(6) Who are the benefactors of any ‘‘third party’’ certifying provisions, and how 

much money are they anticipating receiving? 

(7) Why are Administration officials claiming that ‘‘we must reduce our carbon 

emissions by 80 percent by mid-century to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations’’ when there are no models or studies to support such statements, especially without similar reductions from China, India or Russia? 

(8) Who are the major investors in the Chicago Climate Exchange, and in what 

countries are the assets held? 

(9) Why not a single one of the computer models predicted the stabilizing, if not 

cooling, atmospheric temperatures the world has experienced over the last 10 years? 

(10) If the United States is to sign a binding international agreement, what freedoms and pillars of the democratic process are we asking American citizens to cede 

to an international body? 

Thank you, and I look forward to asking questions of these witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

President Obama said last week at MIT, everyone in America 

should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy 

system into one that is far more efficient, far cleaner and provides 

energy independence for America. The letters and phone calls I received from constituents in Rhode Island overwhelmingly support 

clean energy legislation and demonstrate the momentum growing 

behind this effort. 

Rhode Islanders and Americans across our Nation acutely understand the benefits of becoming the world’s leader in clean energy 

technology and the risks of failing in that endeavor. Some States, 

like Rhode Island, transitioned at their own expense to cleaner energy years ago. Other regions of the country are new to this en-
95 

deavor. But there is emerging a shared sense of purpose across the 

country. Even my colleagues from our coal States, on and off this 

committee, are seriously engaged in this discussion for the first 

time. 

Americans are brought together by our common understanding 

that our current fossil fuel energy habit is not sustainable and by 

our common recognition that America can and should lead the 

world to move to a clean energy economy. 

The United States has always been at the forefront of technological and economic advancement, from Slater Mill at Pawtucket 

to the world’s first automobile and airplane, to air conditioning and 

the light bulb. We put the hand of man on the Moon, on Mars and 

on Venus and opened the computer era with the invention of the 

microprocessor and the Internet. It is in America’s DNA to innovate. 

The next great economic revolution is the race to clean energy. 

Yet America continues to rely today on the same fuels and energy 

sources that fed the manufacturing centers and steam engines of 

the Industrial Revolution over a century ago. Oil still accounts for 

approximately 40 percent of our total energy needs, and 70 percent 

of this oil is imported from foreign countries, many of whom, to put 

it mildly, are not committed to our best interests. 

But we fed the flow to the oil cartel of hundreds of billions of dollars rather than step forward into the clean energy economy that 

beckons, promising clean, abundant, renewable American energy 

sources. Millions of hard working Americans could be back on the 

job, building and servicing an American clean energy infrastructure. 

In the last 10 years, jobs in the clean energy sector have grown 

at a rate nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs. And 

these jobs can be created anywhere in the country, including States 

like my own State of Rhode Island, where jobs are now most 

scarce. We have only begun to scratch the surface. There is strong 

and growing domestic demand for wind turbines, solar panels and 

advanced batteries. Yet almost half our turbines are imported. 

Only 1 of the top 10 solar component manufacturers calls the 

United States home. And China, Japan and Korea are taking the 

lead in battery research. 

As John Doerr testified before this committee, if you list today’s 

top 30 companies in solar, wind and advanced batteries, American 

companies hold only 6 spots. The Clean Energy Jobs and American 

Power Act is key to unshackling America from implicit subsidies to 

dirty foreign fuels and putting us on the path toward prosperity 

and world economic leadership. 

History has stood us at this point of choice. Winston Churchill 

described those small agate points on which the balance of the 

world turns. We are at one now. We can reach to the clean energy 

future that beckons, pave the way for jobs and energy independence at home and show leadership in the world economy abroad. 

Or we can sit idle, beguiled by the money and spin of polluting industries, and let destiny’s moment pass. The right choice is clear, 

and I am confident that we will make it, perhaps ultimately in bipartisan fashion. 
96 

I hope we can act soon, and I for one have not lost hope that 

buoyed by a success on health care reform, we can turn swiftly and 

with optimism to meeting our responsibilities on this front. I concur with Senator Kerry that we are not moving too quickly. By all 

reasonable measures we are all moving, and for a long time have 

been moving too slowly. 

Thank you, in particular, Madam Chairman, for your inspirational, collegial, passionate and determined leadership. I yield the 

remainder of my time. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

Senator Sanders has come back to join us. We welcome you back, 

and then you will speak now and then Senator Cardin, and then 

we will get to our panel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just echo 

what Senator Whitehouse has just said. This has been an extraordinary process, and I thank you and Senator Kerry for the openness of that process. 

The issue that we are dealing with today is very different than 

many of the other issues that we deal with. Do you know why? Because what we are dealing with is not a political compromise, it is 

not just trying to get votes. You are dealing with science. And at 

the end of the day, we can have a bill passed and have a great celebration in the White House, and it may not be good enough. Because as you know, Madam Chair, what we are hearing from virtually all of the scientists that come before this committee, what 

are they telling us? What they are telling us is that, we told you 

in the past that the problem was serious, but we underestimated 

the problem. That if we do not act aggressively, the planet that we 

are leaving to our children and grandchildren will be a planet severely damaged in terms of drought, in terms of disease, in terms 

of flood, in terms of extreme weather disturbances. According to the 

CIA, in terms of national security issues. 

And the question is, do we have the brains and the courage to 

address that crisis? And at the same time understand that in terms 

of our economy, what we are doing is preventing hundreds and 

hundreds of billions of dollars of damage a year while, as we go forward, we create millions of good paying jobs. That seems to me a 

no-brainer. 

So the opportunity that we have right now in terms of energy efficiency, in my State of Vermont right now, under normal economic 

circumstances, we consume less electricity now than we did in the 

past, because we have been smart on energy efficiency. And you 

know what? We are creating jobs. The Department of Energy gave 

a small company in Vermont a grant for capacitors as part of hybrid cars. We are creating new jobs doing that, and we thank you 

for that grant. 

There is a windmill company in the State of Vermont making 

wind turbines on the cusp of massive growth providing wind turbines to Alaska and other remote areas. We are creating jobs. Our 

rail system today is behind Europe, behind Japan. How many new 
97 

jobs do we create as we rebuild our rail system and build the trains 

that we need right here in the United States of America? 

Secretary Salazar has told us that we can produce almost 29 percent of the electricity in this country from solar thermal plants in 

the southwestern part of this country. How many thousands of new 

construction jobs do we create? We are importing hundreds of billions of dollars of oil every single year from foreign countries, hundreds of billions of dollars. How many new jobs do we create where 

we invest those hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States, 

creating a new energy system? 

This, my friends, is a no-brainer. The science is there, the economics is there, the job creation is there. And if we do not seize 

this moment to do the right thing, history will look back at us, and 

our children and our grandchildren will say, where were you as 

this planet undergoes catastrophic damage? We can do it, and I do 

not accept the argument of those on the other side who say this is 

a negative for the economy. This is a positive for the economy. 

So Madam Chair, I want to thank you, I want to thank Senator 

Kerry for your very hard work. And we are going to make this happen. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so very much. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, let me also add my congratulations, and thanks for your leadership and Senator Kerry’s leadership. All of us want to make sure we get it right. 

But I just hope my colleagues understand the urgency of this 

issue. We have to act. We can’t just talk about this. We have to 

act. My friend from Ohio and I were together at a meeting with our 

European friends. They talked about the urgency in a term that 

you don’t hear often hear about climate migrants, people who are 

being forced to leave their homes because of drought and flooding, 

causing stability issues in Africa and Asia and Europe. 

Now, I can take you right here to Maryland, to Smith Island, 

Maryland, and you are going to see potential climate migrants 

there, as their island is disappearing because of sea level increases 

due to global climate change. And of course, we can all give examples of why it is urgent for us to act in our own individual States. 

I talk to our watermen who tell me that with the rising temperatures in the Bay, it is become more and more difficult for juvenile 

crabs to survive. 

So it is urgent that we act. I think my colleagues understand the 

urgency from a national security point of view. We are dependent 

upon imported oil, which jeopardizes the security of America. I 

think we all understand the economic threats that we go through. 

We are held hostage to oil, which affects our economy. 

So it is urgent that we get this right. My friend from Vermont 

makes a very compelling point about the economic impact of this 

legislation. It is going to be positive on jobs. I look at White Marsh, 

Maryland, where they are doing the new battery technology with 

a grant that the Department of Energy just recently awarded. I 
98 

thank the Secretary for that innovation, where we are going to lead 

in the creation of alternative ways to fuel our automobiles. 

Madam Chair, I just really want to take issue from my friend 

from Wyoming, as he used his numbers. I am going to ask unanimous consent that the congressional research on job loss and infrastructure job creation on the stimulus be made part of our record. 

I just want to quote from one report on that. It says, ‘‘Based on two 

different estimating procedures, it found that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act may have added some 1 million jobs to 

employers’ payroll in August, 2009, compared to what employment 

would have been in the absence of the legislation.’’ 

And my point is this: if we didn’t act, we don’t know how many 

jobs we would have lost in our economy. We do know that job 

losses have been reduced dramatically. Economists tell us the stimulus package worked. 

So on this bill, when we are dealing with energy policies, we 

know that American ingenuity will create jobs if given the right incentive. And that is what this bill does: it gives the right incentive. 

It unleashes what America does best, and that is the economic ingenuity of its people in solving the problems of energy security, of 

dealing with the economic impact of energy and dealing with our 

environment. 

I just want to applaud the Chairman and Senator Kerry for the 

framework of this legislation. Because it provides a way in which 

we can deal with alternative and renewable energy sources. It recognizes nuclear power. By having a friendly carbon footprint it is 

given priority in this legislation. And it allows us to invest in lifestyles that are going to be important for America. 

All we need to do is visit any European capital and know we 

could do much better on transit here in America. Transportation 

represents 30 percent of the emissions of greenhouse gases, 70 percent of our oil use. We can do much better. And thank you, Madam 

Chair, because your bill gives us the opportunity to invest in that 

type of America that will make us more competitive in the future. 

You provide the resources to help consumers and energy intense industries so we make the transition to polluter pays. Polluter should 

pay. But we want to make sure the consumers are protected. 

And I just want to mention one more aspect of this bill. It is deficit neutral. You have provided to make sure that we are not going 

to burden our children and grandchildren by additional debt. Look, 

I hope we all can work together, Democrats and Republicans. This 

is an issue that America is asking us to solve. I think we have the 

blueprint to do it. Let’s get down to work. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, thank you for your hard work and commitment to working 

with your committee members to draft the legislation we are considering today. And 

to our partners in the Obama administration, thank you for your guidance and commitment to stemming climate change. I look forward to your testimony. 

Madam Chairman, we’ve all heard the saying, ‘‘necessity is the mother of invention.’’ Well it applies to the United States of America right now. At this critical juncture in our Nation’s history, we face an economic crisis, an energy security crisis, 

and a global climate crisis. 
99 

The good news is that the solutions to these problems are intertwined with one 

another. And those solutions will come from new American ideas, new American industries, and a careful approach to maintaining the health of our planet. 

I am confident that the work my colleagues and I have put into the legislation 

we are considering today will provide the legal framework, business incentives and 

consumer protections necessary to move America toward a more prosperous, secure, 

clean energy future. 

The bill sets ambitious yet essential targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Through the expanded use of existing technologies, particularly in the area 

of energy efficiency, we can reach these near-term goals. 

The investments this bill makes in renewable and alternative energy sources over 

the life of the bill will help us achieve energy security, leave our grandkids a 

healthy planet and generate millions of new, well paying jobs in the clean energy 

and transportation sector. 

How? Well, for one, it will provide the regulatory certainty and incentives that 

the energy sector desperately needs to plan and develop the power generation and 

delivery systems for the future. This bill will create an environment that will spur 

innovation to develop greater domestic energy sources that are clean and affordable. 

I am very pleased that this bill makes a significant investment in transportation 

infrastructure efficiency and access to transit. The transportation sector is responsible for 30 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent 

of our oil use. 

This bill recognizes the role transit will play in reducing vehicle emissions. According to the American Public Transportation Association, public transit currently 

saves 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. If we are going 

to reach our targets for cleaner air and a cooler planet, we must invest in public 

transportation in this country. I fought hard to make sure this bill would boost 

funding for transit so that we can put more people on clean, efficient and convenient 

buses, trolleys, subways and rail systems. 

The bill helps also helps keep consumer costs low by mitigating cost increases to 

ratepayers and providing incentives for energy efficiency. The bill recognizes the 

need to provide for a smooth transition period as we move toward a clean energy 

economy. This means providing ratepayer cost protections against energy price increases while the energy sector works to shift toward cleaner energy production and 

more efficient energy technologies. 

The bill pays close attention to the needs of America’s agriculture sector. Farmers 

will play an essential role in meeting our emissions targets by developing offsets 

that they can sell to help capped carbon emitters meet their compliance requirements. Additionally, the manager’s mark increases funding for supplemental agriculture programs for farmers to participate in and receive financial benefits from 

when they engage in activities that help mitigate greenhouse gases, even if these 

activities or projects are not eligible as official offset projects. 

The threats climate change brings to our way of life are not theoretical to many 

Marylanders. Ask the people of Smith Island who are watching their island vanish 

under rising sea levels. Ask Maryland’s watermen whose way of life is disappearing 

as rising temperatures destroy the habitat the Chesapeake Bay’s fish, crabs, and 

oysters depend on. 

Their struggles are mirrored in communities around the globe where droughts, 

floods and other natural disasters are already destroying local economies and forcing people to change their way of life and even leave their homes. Dislocation, struggles over scarce resources: our Nation’s top national security minds tell us that climate change is a real threat to our national security. 

This bill allocates critical funds to make sure our wild places and our wildlife do 

not disappear. It sets aside money to help States protect their residents against the 

impacts of climate change including protecting water supply, defending against sea 

level rise, and repairing infrastructure from the damage these changed conditions 

will create. It will allow us to invest in third world countries to protect their way 

of life and prevent the dislocation that could impact our own safety here, thousands 

of miles away. 

Congress has taken far too long to address our economic, energy security and climate crises. This bill will address all three. I am proud of the effort that has gone 

into this bill to build consensus. I look forward to working with the Chairman to 

advance this bill through committee and eventually to the floor. Let’s get back to 

work! 

[The referenced information follows:] 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

We are going to ask our witnesses to please take their seats right 

now. Our witnesses, in this order of speaking, unless Secretary 

Salazar is going to work with his colleagues, this is what I have. 

Hon. Steven Chu, Hon. Ray LaHood, Hon. Ken Salazar, Hon. Lisa 

Jackson, Hon. Jon Wellinghoff. That is the array that we have. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I just would like to have the article that I 

referred to in the New York Times put in the record after my statement, along with the analysis of the job loss by the American 

Council for Capital Formation. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, and we will also place in the record 

a number of studies cited by Senator Kerry that shows the opposite, so everybody sees it. 

While you are all getting ready, we were asked about Secretary 

Vilsack. I explained that he is traveling. But for that he would 

have been here. And I am going to place, ask unanimous consent 

now to place his statement in the record. I am going to quote from 

two sentences. He says ‘‘The cost of inaction will have a significant 

effect on our farmers, ranchers and rural communities. While farmers and ranchers and forest land owners have a lot at stake if we 

fail to act, they have much to gain if we address climate change 

quickly and wisely. And there are significant opportunities for 

landowners in a cap-and-trade program that can help revitalize 

rural America.’’ And it talks about wealth creation. 

[The referenced statement follows:] 
141 
142 
143 
144 

Senator BOXER. So we are going to place this, and we are proud 

to have Secretary Vilsack’s support for a good climate change bill. 

We are honored to have this array of experts with us from the 

Administration, and we thank you for your patience. Sometimes I 

know it seems interminable, but I think it is also important for you 

to hear from each of us, so you know exactly the issues that we are 

all dealing with. 

So is there any change in the order? Or we can stick with it? OK. 

The Honorable Steven Chu, Secretary, United States Department 

of Energy. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. CHU. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, 

members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

When I appeared before you in July, I focused on the energy 

challenge and the grave threat from climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found in 2007 that the best 

estimate for the rise in the average global temperature by the end 

of this century would be more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit if we continued on a high growth fossil fuel intensive course. 

A 2009 MIT study found a 50 percent chance of a 9 degree rise 

in the century and a 17 percent chance of a nearly 11 degree increase. Eleven degrees might not sound like much, but during the 

last Ice Age, when Canada and much of the United States were 

covered all year in a glacier, the world was only about 11 degrees 

colder. A world 11 degrees warmer would be very different as well. 

Today I want to focus on the other half of the energy equation, 

the energy opportunity. The world now realizes that its current 

level of greenhouse gas emissions is unsustainable. In the coming 

years, there will be a vigorous effort to limit carbon pollution that 

will require a massive deployment of clean energy technologies. 

The only question is, which countries will invent, manufacture and 

export these clean technologies, and which countries will become 

dependent on foreign products? 

The Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, recently estimated 

the market for a few clean energy technologies. It based its analysis on a scenario derived by the International Energy Agency that 

could prevent the worst changes to our climate. The EIA found 

globally the cumulative investment in wind turbines and solar photovoltaic panels from now to 2030 could be $2.1 trillion and $1.5 

trillion respectively. The policy decisions we make today will determine the U.S. share of this market. And many additional dollars, 

jobs and opportunities are at stake in other clean energy economies. 

China has already made its choice. China is spending about $9 

billion a month on clean energy. It is also investing $44 billion by 

2012 and $88 billion by 2020 in ultra-high voltage transmission 

lines. These lines will allow China to transmit power from huge 

wind and solar farms far in the western part of China to its cities 

on the eastern coast. 
145 

While every country’s transmission needs are different, this is a 

clear sign of China’s commitment to developing renewable energy. 

The United States, meanwhile, has fallen behind. The world’s 

largest turbine manufacturing company is headquartered in Denmark. Ninety-nine percent of the batteries that power America’s 

hybrid cars are made in Japan. We manufactured more than 40 

percent of the world’s solar cells as recently as the mid-1990s. 

Today we produce only 7 percent. 

When the gun sounded on the clean energy race, the United 

States stumbled. But I remain confident that we can make up 

ground. When we gear up our research and production of clean energy technologies, we can still surpass any other country. 

This work began in earnest with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work, developing new battery technologies 

for hybrid vehicles, making our homes and businesses more energy 

efficient, doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity, 

and modernizing the grid. 

In fact, today, President Obama will announce an investment of 

more than $3.4 billion in smart grid projects across the country. 

This is a major down payment on a more robust, more flexible electricity transmission and distribution system. 

However, to truly seize the opportunity, we must enact comprehensive energy and climate legislation. I commend Chairman 

Boxer and Senator Kerry for bringing forward this legislation. The 

most important element of this bill is that it puts a cap on carbon 

emissions that ratchets down over time. That critical step will 

drive investment decisions for clean energy. 

Imagine, for example, you own a power company and are considering building more generating capacity. You can build a new coalfired plant or a new nuclear plant. These are serious, multi-billion 

dollar investments, and they will last 60 years. If you knew that 

carbon emissions had to decrease, would you build a coal plant 

without carbon capture and storage technology? Would a nuclear 

power plant look more attractive? Would you consider investing in 

wind and solar? 

On-again and off-again incentives will not drive the level of clean 

energy investment we need. A cap on carbon will give the energy 

industry the long-term direction and certainty that it needs to 

make appropriate technology and capital investment decisions. 

To achieve our long-term goals in a cost effective way, we will 

also need a sustained commitment to research and development. 

Only R&D will deliver a new generation of clean technologies. 

Much of this work is underway at the Department of Energy using 

resources provided in the Recovery Act. However, continued investment will be needed. 

S. 1733 would continue portions of this work, and the legislation 

reported by Chairman Bingaman’s committee would also bolster 

these efforts. I applaud you for holding this hearing and look forward to working with this committee and the full Senate to swiftly 

pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chu follows:] 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. LAHOOD. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the 

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. I appreciate the challenge you and your colleagues have undertaken in this important 

bill. 

President Obama’s Administration and the Department of Transportation believe that making the transition to a clean energy environment and combating climate change are major priorities, and 

the time to act is now. We also understand that transportation contributes to and is affected by climate change, and therefore our 

transportation policy must be a part of the solution. 

To that end, transportation will play a vital role in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease our reliance on oil, create 

more livable, sustainable communities and generate green jobs. Let 

me review some of the actions already underway. 

In recent months, DOT has teamed up with the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency to better direct Federal investments in transportation, 

housing, improved air quality and water infrastructure across the 

country. Our agencies support coordinated infrastructure investments and economic development as a means of creating more livable neighborhoods while residents in urban, suburban or rural 

communities can get to work, school, the doctor or the grocery store 

without having to get into an automobile. 

We know that in the U.S., shifting just 10 percent of its new 

housing starts to livable communities over the next decade, Americans would save nearly 5 billion gallons of gasoline. And people 

who live in walkable communities served by transit have a much 

smaller carbon footprint than those in car dependent communities 

and spend less on transportation as well. 

To move this agenda forward, our agencies would like to partner 

with Congress to align our programs to ensure Federal spending is 

effectively leveraged with other public and private investments. We 

are consulting on performance measures that could be used to determine outcomes, and we are developing an affordable index and 

other tools to help achieve our goals. We are also providing joint 

technical assistance through EPA to communities interested in coordinating these types of investments right now. And we are collaborating on implementing sustainable community grants through 

HUD, if they are funded in the 2010 appropriations bill. 

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DOT is 

making significant investments in transportation-related projects 

that reflect our livable and sustainable priorities. Liveability for instance, is given significant weight as part of the $1.5 billion TIGER 

grants, and applications are currently under review. As you know, 

we are also investing $8 billion for high speed rail corridors and 

other inter-city rail passenger service. The Federal Railroad Administration’s long-term plans seek to build upon this initial in-
166 

vestment with a national network of passenger rail corridors that 

improve mobility, service, convenience, safety and efficiency, all of 

which contribute to developing livable, sustainable communities. 

In pursuit of our climate change goals, we are planning to work 

with EPA to develop and implement fuel economy and greenhouse 

gas emissions standards for medium and heavy trucks. This follows 

our successful collaboration to propose harmonized national fuel 

economy and emissions standards for light duty vehicles and 

trucks. We are greatly encouraged by our ability to work together 

to achieve the best possible regulations without imposing undue 

hardships on industry. We believe this intergovernmental approach 

can serve as a model for future Government action in this area. 

We look forward to working with Congress to support robust 

transportation planning techniques and target investments toward 

projects that reduce emissions and fuel consumption. We understand that State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations 

will need new tools, technical assistance, capacity building and resources to determine which investments generate the best outcomes. 

There are many, many other promising initiatives underway 

throughout DOT, too numerous to discuss. I will mention just a 

few. The Federal Highway Administration is developing cost effective strategies and performance measures to determine progress in 

reducing emissions. The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting research to improve our scientific understanding of the impact of aviation emissions on climate and working with domestic 

and international stakeholders to develop appropriate strategies to 

develop a global impact of climate change. 

And finally, the Federal Transit Administration is working to expand access to public transportation, support transit-oriented development and conduct research to help public transportation agencies operate more efficiently. 

We are delighted to be here, and we look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. LaHood follows:] 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. 

And now, Secretary Salazar, of the United States Department of 

the Interior. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe and the distinguished members and friends who are on 

this committee. 

This issue is an imperative issue of our time. President Obama 

has made it clear from day one that we will succeed on this effort. 

It is driven by the imperatives, many of which have come out here 

today. 

First, we need to get our country to a point of greater energy 

independence. Second, we need to create millions of new energy 

jobs here at home. And third, we need to make sure that we are 

protecting our children and our planet from the dangers of pollution. That, frankly, is what this is all about. And I hear the conversation and the presentations by the Senators, trying to address 

those issues. Our hope is that in fact, at the end of the day, as this 

U.S. Senate works its way, that there will be a way in which 

Democrats and Republicans can join in terms of getting a climate 

change and energy bill that will finally be one that this country can 

be very proud of. 

Let me say I am proud of my colleagues as well. We work together as a team, as a team under the Obama administration helping us to forge a new energy future for our country. We have not 

let the absence of this legislation keep us from moving forward 

with a number of different initiatives. I want to speak briefly about 

some of the work that we are doing at Interior, because it ties into 

some of the work that this committee will be doing in the days and 

weeks ahead. 

First, at the Department of Interior, we see ourselves and our 

mission to be the stewards of America’s natural and cultural resources. We have an energy and climate change role as an energy 

supplier for this Nation in many ways. We are the carbon catchers 

of this country in terms of carbon sequestration, both biologically 

as well as geologically. We are also a primary agent of adaptation 

programs for this country based on the resources that we have. 

And we are a science provider, through the scientists we have at 

the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Let me very quickly just say a word about the assets that we 

have to fulfill these roles. The United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service oversees 550 wildlife refuges and 150 million acres of fish 

and wildlife refuges around the country. The Bureau of Land Management, 253 million acres. The National Park Service, 84 million 

acres. Tribal lands, which we hold in trust for American native peoples, 56 million acres. And in the Outer Continental Shelf, and I 

know many of you are interested in that, we oversee 1.75 billion 

acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. 

We have educational assets that we bring to the table on the energy and climate change agenda, because we have about 500 million people that will come to visit our icons, from the Statue of Lib-
182 

erty to Yellowstone to the Everglades every year. And we have personnel, some 70,000 people, which includes the scientists that are 

some of the premier scientists in America in the USGS and Fish 

and Wildlife. 

On the energy supplier side, Madam Chairman, the conventional 

fuels that we produce through the Department of Interior include 

approximately 30 percent of the oil for this country from our public 

lands and the submerged lands, about 30 percent of our natural 

gas and 40 percent of the coal that is used in this country. That 

is what we have been doing, and we continue to work on that agenda. 

But exciting for all of us in the Department of Interior also is the 

new energy frontier. And from the beginning of this year, we have 

stood up the renewable energy world in the Department of the Interior. We moved fast forward with solar energy where we have set 

aside 1,000 square miles for the development of solar energy. As 

Senator Sanders said earlier, our estimates are that the solar energy potential just on those lands alone is about 100,000 

megawatts, which would power 29 million homes or provide about 

29 percent of the energy equivalent needed for the households of 

America today. 

We also are moving fast forward, because this is not pie in the 

sky; we don’t want to have people thinking about whether or not 

we can do it in 4 or 5 years. So we are fast tracking applications 

in Arizona and California and Nevada and New Mexico, where we 

hope to be able to permit by the end of next year 4,500 megawatts 

of solar power. The 4,500 megawatts is the equivalent of close to 

14 or 15 coal-fired power plants. 

But we are not stopping with the Sun. We are also doing everything we can to capture the power of the wind, both onshore as 

well as offshore. On the onshore, we hope on the same time line 

by the end of next year to have 800 megawatts of power stood up 

with respect to wind energy. And our belief and our estimates are 

that there is huge potential, especially in the Atlantic seaboard, because the Governors in those States are very excited about what 

we can do with respect to offshore wind. 

We have great potential with hydro power, using existing facilities and not creating new dams, but using our facilities that we 

currently have and moving forward with the hydro renewable energy agenda. Geothermal is big. Transmission, we are working together as a Cabinet group to move forward with transmission. We 

are fast tracking transmission facilities in the West as well. 

Two quick points before my time runs out here. As a carbon 

catcher, I want this committee, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, to recognize the great importance of what we can do in 

terms of our climate change and energy agenda. Through our refuges and through the facilities that we oversee along the Nation’s 

coastlines, national wildlife refuges alone and the National Park 

Service alone, we have 160 wildlife refuges and 74 national parks 

along the coastlines of America. And what we can do in terms of 

biological sequestration there is no different than what we are proposing in this bill to do in places like Brazil, Indonesia and other 

places. So the deforestation aspects of this legislation are something also that we need to deal with here at home. 
183 

We are excited, and would be delighted at some point, Madam 

Chairman, to talk about the landscape conservation cooperatives, 

which we are moving forward with in the Department, that can 

help us essentially create carbon sinks within the United States of 

America. 

And finally, the USGS has moved fast forward with the creation 

of protocols for carbon sequestration for coal. We are excited about 

that agenda. 

And in conclusion, what I will say, we can do a lot on adaptation 

with water, with wildlife, with migration corridors, because we are 

really at the front line in terms of seeing the consequences of climate change. And our science providers at USGS and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife will be key to moving forward with this agenda. 

We at Interior and in the Obama administration, under President Obama’s leadership, very much look forward to working with 

this committee on both sides of the aisle, as well as the rest of the 

U.S. Senate, to finally, once and for all, address the signature issue 

of our times, energy and climate change. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:] 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

And EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, thank you to Ranking Minority Member Inhofe and members of the committee for inviting me to testify about the Clean Energy Jobs and American 

Power Act. It is always a good day when I join my colleagues from 

the Administration here and EPA’s authorizing committee. 

I last appeared before this committee on July 7th. Since then, 

this Administration has, under President Obama’s leadership, 

taken unprecedented steps to decrease America’s dependence on 

oil, put our Nation in the lead of the 21st century energy economy 

and reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens our children and grandchildren. 

On September 15th, for example, as you have already heard, Secretary LaHood and I jointly announced coordinated DOT and EPA 

rulemakings to increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions of cars and light trucks through the year 2016. The joint 

DOT/EPA rules will reduce the lifetime oil consumption of those vehicles by 1.8 billion barrels. That will mean eliminating more than 

a billion barrels of imported oil, assuming the current ratio of domestic production to imports does not improve. At today’s oil prices, we are talking about saving $78 billion of 

the dollars that America would otherwise give to other countries 

for their oil. In the process, the rules will avoid nearly a billion 

metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. And we have heard each 

of my colleagues here describe other steps that the Administration 

has already taken to make America’s economy stronger by getting 

it running on clean energy. 

Even as the President and members of his Cabinet move forward 

under existing authority, we continue urging Congress to pass a 

new clean energy law. Only new legislation can bring about the 

comprehensive and integrated changes that are needed to restore 

America’s economic health and keep the Nation secure over the 

long term. This committee held its July 7th hearing shortly after 

the House of Representatives had passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. So I took the opportunity to echo President 

Obama’s request that the Senate demonstrate the same commitment that we had seen in the House to building a clean energy 

foundation for a strong American economy. 

While the introduction of the Clean Energy Jobs and American 

Power Act on September 30th shows that the Senate is responding 

to the President’s call to action, and I commend you, Madam Chair, 

and Senators Kerry and Kirk, for introducing that bill. I applaud 

the many Senators, including members of this committee, who have 

contributed meaningfully to the Chairman’s mark, and I thank 

Senator Graham for joining with Senator Kerry in a recent statement that reminds all of us that giving America control over its energy future can and should be a bipartisan mission. 

Earlier this year, EPA ran the major provisions of the House 

Clean Energy legislation through several economic computer models. When it comes to the specifications that the models are de-
197 

signed to detect, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act 

is very similar to the House legislation. Nevertheless, EPA has examined the ways in which the Senate bill is different and has determined which of the conclusions reached about the House passed 

bill can confidently be said to apply to the Senate bill as well. 

EPA delivered the results of that inquiry to the committee last 

Friday, and the members can review the report in detail. But let 

me just state some of the key projections about the House bill that 

EPA feels confident also apply to the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. 

First, the legislation would transform the American economy 

from one that is relatively energy inefficient and dependent on high 

polluting energy to one that is highly energy efficient and powered 

by advanced, cleaner and more domestically sourced energy. Second, the legislation would bring about that transformation at a cost 

well below 50 cents per day per American household in 2020. 

Third, the region by region cost differences would be small. Finally, if the U.S. adopted the legislation, then the world could avoid 

a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature over pre-industrial levels 

without assuming international action any more ambitious than 

the goals agreed to at the July 9th major economies forum. That 

is good news, because as the U.S. global climate change research 

program reported in June, a 2 degree Celsius rise would subject the 

American people to unacceptable risk from catastrophic harm, from 

intensified droughts, wildfires, spring floods, heat stress to livestock and much more. 

Madam Chairman, the American people have waited decades 

while our Nation has become increasingly dependent on foreign energy sources, while our global competitors create the clean energy 

jobs of tomorrow, and while we fail to safeguard the well-being of 

our children and our grandchildren. I think Americans are tired of 

listening to the same corporate interest groups that vastly exaggerated the cost of reducing acid rain pollution and of reformulating 

gasoline. I think Americans want reform that harnesses the country’s can-do spirit. I think they want to fuel long-term economic recovery with a wise investment that sparks a clean energy transformation and protects our children and grandchildren. 

The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is a significant 

milestone on that road. There of course remains the road ahead. 

There are many Senators on and off this committee who have tremendous value to add. Thank you for your continuing work, and 

thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 
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 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Administrator Jackson. 

And our last witness is Hon. Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON WELLINGHOFF, CHAIRMAN, 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Boxer, 

Ranking Member Inhofe and members of this committee. Thank 

you all for inviting me here today to speak about a very important 

subject. 

First, I want to commend Chairwoman Boxer and Senator Kerry 

for this undertaking and offer the support and assistance of my 

agency to further your effort here today. 

I would like to submit my prepared testimony for the record and 

I will highlight a few points of my testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Thank you. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeks to assist energy consumers in obtaining reliable, efficient, sustainable energy 

services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and 

market means. Toward that end, the Commission is removing barriers to the use of low carbon renewable resources and encouraging 

greater efficiency in the electric energy system. These efforts and 

the efforts by many States are helping to reduce the emissions produced by the generation of electricity. 

Our Nation, however, has the capability to reduce these emissions much, much more. A major reason why low carbon renewable 

resources and energy efficiency are not used more extensively is 

that the cost of greenhouse gas emissions is, in economic terms, an 

externality. In other words, the effects of these emissions is not reflected in the price of energy in the marketplace. S. 1733 would 

change the situation by recognizing in the energy marketplace the 

effect of greenhouse gases. And I would note that this concept of 

internalizing these external costs has bipartisan support at my 

Commission. 

Renewable resources cannot only help reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions but also diversify the fuels used to generate electricity. 

Fuel diversity helps stabilize our electric supply against shortages 

or price spikes in particular fuel markets. Using domestic energy 

instead of foreign energy also strengthens our national security. 

This month, I provided the Congress with the Commission’s strategic plan for the next 5 years. In that document, we committed to 

take additional steps to address possible barriers to more extensive 

use of renewable energy resources and distributor resources in energy markets, thus allowing for markets to operate more efficiently, 

reduce carbon and reduce costs to consumers. 

But a significant expansion of renewable resources in our electricity supply portfolio will require additional high voltage transmission facilities, network upgrades and feeder lines. I also note 

that the inter-regional transmission facilities necessary to deliver 

the output of certain renewable resources are unlikely to be constructed without additional Federal authority in areas of planning, 

citing and cost allocation. 
229 

Consumer energy use management, also called demand response, 

refers to consumers reducing their usage at certain times to improve grid efficiency. In June, at the direction of Congress, the 

Commission issued an assessment of the potential for consumer energy use management both nationally and for each State through 

2019. The assessment found that the potential of peak electricity 

demand reductions across our country is 188 gigawatts, or up to 20 

percent of the national peak demand. These savings, if realized, 

can significantly reduce the number of power plants needed to meet 

peak demand, and thereby reduce carbon emissions by as much as 

1.2 billion tons annually. 

As I indicated above, in the Commission’s new strategic plan, we 

commit to continue our efforts to identify and eliminate barriers to 

participation by demand resources in the Nation’s organized wholesale electric markets. 

FERC is using its statutory authorities to aggressively eliminate 

barriers to renewable resources and distributor resources in wholesale electric markets and to encourage greater efficiency in the 

electric system and thereby reduce carbon emissions. For such efforts to increase reductions in carbon and improve efficiency, sound 

energy policies must get the price in the markets right to achieve 

both our environmental and our economic energy policy goals. 

S. 1733 is the key to getting it right. I encourage you to pass this 

legislation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I will 

be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wellinghoff follows:] 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

We will each have 5 minutes to question. 

Secretary Salazar, how will this bill help to mitigate the impacts 

of unchecked global warming pollution on the Nation’s most precious natural resources? And I know how strongly you feel about 

being the guardian of those for this time. So how will this bill help 

to mitigate if, if we are successful, and what would happen if we 

fail? 

Mr. SALAZAR. It would have a dramatic and positive impact in 

terms of protecting the national icons of America. And you can see 

it in the way that I think many Americans would see it if they 

have the opportunity to sit in my chair, where you can go to a place 

like the Apostle Islands in Lake Superior in Wisconsin, and you 

can see the warming of the surface of Lake Superior by 5 degrees 

or flying across to the wildlife refuges of Minnesota and recognizing 

what is happening with wildlife and wildlife migration and their 

habitat because of the warming of those places. 

Or perhaps even most graphically, in places like Glacier National 

Park, which we have now projected will have no more glaciers by 

the year 2020. And finally, in the Grand Canyon, where there was 

a compact with respect to water put together back in the 1920s, 

which we now are projecting that there will be perhaps as much 

as 20 percent less water available in the Colorado River basin, 

which will affect all of those States, including Southern California. 

So the urgency of this bill is there. And I believe that one of our 

responsibilities is to be able to tell that story of urgency to America. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, and you do it so very well. 

Administrator Jackson, a lot of people think that the trading program that we have in this bill is somehow brand new. Some of my 

colleagues call it a tax. All of them do, on the other side. They 

never called it a tax when it was in the Clean Air Act’s acid rain 

program. So, they never called it a tax then. 

So now, what I want to ask you is how successful has the Clean 

Air Act’s Acid Rain Sulfur Dioxide trading program worked? And 

do you have optimism that a trading program around carbon will 

have a similar impact? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The acid rain control program—the predictions at the time were 

that it would cost a lot of money and be ineffective. And EPA was 

very proud of the fact that it worked in a bi-partisan fashion back 

then with the first Bush administration to pass amendments that 

would actually prove that to be wrong and have indeed proven it 

to be wrong. 

The acid rain costs, which were regarded at the time to be optimistic, even on behalf of the Bush administration, turned out to be 

lower than thought. In fact, the Administration estimated that the 

annualized compliance costs would be $4 billion a year. In fact, the 

costs are now estimated to be just $2 billion annually. So it is a 

lot cheaper, and emissions have been reduced. 

It has also proven to harness the marketplace and the private 

sector, once they got the clear signal, once the market incentive 

was there, once they knew that SO2 pollution had a cost, they were 

able to make business decisions. We saw the most cost effective re-
248 

ductions come forward. And that is what I believe can happen here 

as well. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Secretary Chu, I see that Senator Specter is back. His focus was 

jobs. I have here a study by the Center for American Progress. It 

says, ‘‘Investments in a clean energy economy will generate major 

employment benefits for Pennsylvania and the rest of the U.S. 

economy.’’ They go on to say, ‘‘Our research finds that Pennsylvania could see a net increase of about $6.1 billion in investment 

revenue and 72,000 jobs.’’ 

It points out that adding 72,000 jobs to the Pennsylvania labor 

market in 2008 would have brought the unemployment rate down 

to 4.3 percent from its actual level of 5.4. 

The reason I am using Pennsylvania, I just happen to have this 

particular paper in front of me. We talked before, I think it was 

at a Democratic Caucus lunch, about the importance of letting the 

private sector put a price on carbon through this system. So my 

question is, the certainty of that kind of policy, how important is 

it to attracting the kind of venture capital that we need to get this 

economy rolling forward? 

Mr. CHU. Well, as I said in my testimony, that long-term signal 

is incredibly important, because when companies make investments, for example, when power companies make investments, 

they are thinking this investment will last for 60 years. It could 

take anywhere from 5 to 10 years from the decision to go forward 

to the time it is really built. So you are really talking a 70-year 

time scale. In that time scale investment, you really need these 

long-term signals to say what is going to be happening in the next 

50, 60, 70 years. 

To the question about jobs, I should also say that not only are 

we talking about jobs today in the near-term future, we actually 

need to talk about jobs that will be sustaining 10 years, 20 years, 

50 years from today. So these are going to be jobs that will continue to be jobs in the future. The rebuilding of the American infrastructure, the retrofitting of our buildings, the building of a clean 

new industry, the restarting of a nuclear industry in the United 

States and the building of those power plants, these are all jobs 

where, if we don’t choose to lead in the development of this new 

technology, China and other countries will. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have been observing over the last 2 and a half hours or whatever it has been how quickly we forget here in these hallowed 

halls, the insulation of the U.S. Senate. It was only 60 days ago 

we came back from our August recess. And we have forgotten all 

about the outrage that is out there. Those people, many of them 

have been denigrated for not really expressing a sincere concern, 

but let me assure you, I say to my friends in the Senate, it is there. 

And there are two issues, health care and then this thing we 

keep saying is not a tax, but what I consider to be the largest tax 

increase in history. And the people understood that. 

Now, I also, I don’t want any of the media to think just because 

I had to sit here and listen to our good friend, Senator Kerry, for 
249 

28 minutes, that I don’t have responses to everything he said. I can 

assure you that over a period of time, I will be responding to such 

things as naming Duke Energy and other companies. We have already talked about this. There are clear winners and losers in this 

program. We had a hearing, and I outlined how much money each 

of those individuals from corporations would make if this thing becomes a reality. And they are out there. It will be huge amounts 

of money. So follow the money; it is there. 

The carbon tax, he mentioned James Hanson. James Hanson, we 

all know, is the recipient of $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation. 

However, for the first time, I agreed with him, his statement, just 

the other day was, this James Hanson, cap-and-trade is a temple 

of doom, it would lock in disasters for our children and our grandchildren. He goes on and on talking about that. 

And the reason he is doing that, I say to my friends in the panel, 

is that if you want to go about this honestly, go ahead, do a carbon 

tax, so everybody knows. But there is a good reason why we are 

not doing that. And that is, it can be so easily masqueraded by this 

very complicated tax in trade thing, or cap-and-trade thing that we 

are talking about. 

Then I have to correct my fellow Senator, he is not here right 

now, but I understand he is returning, Vitter, when he said that 

China is cranking out two new coal-fired generating plants each 

month. It is really, according to the Chinese government, they are 

doing it each week, not each month. It goes on and on. 

And on the science. The science is more definitive than ever. You 

keep saying that, because you want to believe it so much. And yet 

the same people, those scientists, I have a list, I say to my good 

friend, Secretary Salazar, of scientists who are on the other side of 

this issue, back during Kyoto and even back 6 or 7 years ago, and 

during the consideration of the 2005 bill, who are solidly on the 

other side right now. It is coming. It has already shifted. It is not 

shifting, it already has shifted. 

And I would suggest to you that when we get on the floor and 

talk about this, I will say to my good friend, the Chairman of the 

committee, that I am going to do the same thing we did during the 

debate, if it comes to debate on the floor, during the WarnerLieberman bill. And that is say, science is not settled, everyone 

knows it is not settled. But for the sake of this debate, let’s assume 

it is. It is not, but let’s assume it is so we can talk about the economic issues. And that is what we would be doing. 

So quickly here, Administrator Jackson, first of all, I would just 

make one comment. I think you would have to agree with this. If 

not, let us know in writing for the record if you disagree, that we 

use this example of acid rain. In acid rain, there was a big difference. That is, technology was proven, and that is a huge difference from where we are today. 

But I do want to ask you one question. Senator Barrasso and I 

sent you letters on the endangerment finding throughout August 

and September, and we didn’t get any response until last night 

about 5 o’clock. I don’t want to use up the remaining time, but if 

you just for the record would let me know, if you would try to stay 

with those things that you stated during your confirmation hear-
250 

ing, that you would be responsive to our requests, I would appreciate that very much. 

The second thing I would ask, a response for the record from 

each of the members, that is the worker adjusted assistance provision of this Act, if that doesn’t presume that we are going to lose 

jobs in the Act. 

But last, since Secretary Salazar, I know that you have a schedule, you might get up and leave, I want to give you the opportunity 

to respond to something that I feel is very significant. That is a report that just came out last week from the Congressional Research 

Service that says America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil 

and coal reserves is the largest in the world. We didn’t used to be. 

It is now. And I agree with the three goals that you outlined at the 

beginning of your 5-minute statement. I would like to know if, 

should we develop these resources, and what can your department 

do to help do that. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, you have gone over your time, but you 

want these in writing. So what I was going to suggest—— 

Senator INHOFE. That would be fine, for the record. 

Senator BOXER [continuing]. As a way we have done it before. If 

you could get your questions in writing from your staff to ours by 

tonight—— 

Senator INHOFE. No, Madam Chairman, I have already stated 

them. I don’t have to change them. 

Senator BOXER. So you don’t want to put them in. OK, then what 

we will do, with your permission, because I just want to make sure 

it is answered to your satisfaction, we will take your question from 

the record and we will put them in writing to Lisa Jackson. And 

we would ask all the panelists, please, to get your answer in by 

close of business tomorrow. Is that all right with everybody? 

Senator INHOFE. Fair enough. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman, if I may, I need to excuse myself for another meeting. 

Senator INHOFE. You have to leave, yes. 

Mr. SALAZAR. But I wanted to say two quick things. One is that 

I had a formal statement that I will submit for the record, and I 

am sure my colleagues as well, and hope that that can be accepted 

for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And second, on behalf of my colleague, Tom 

Vilsack, who is not here, but he has been part of these meetings 

getting ready for this hearing, he would be here to tell the people 

of American that rural America is going to benefit significantly 

from this legislation. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, and I have placed his statement in the 

record. 

Thank you so much. We are so sorry that we ran a long time, 

but you know what, I think it is key for colleagues to have their 

chance. 

With that, we will go to Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

thank you to all of you for your leadership. Thank you, Senator 

Salazar. 
251 

I wanted to clarify, in my opening statement I talked about how 

the Federal Government hadn’t gotten to the trailhead. And I probably should have more likely said Federal legislation hasn’t gotten 

to the trailhead, because I want to commend all of the Secretaries 

for the work that you have done with the legislation that you have. 

But I truly believe that we can bring more jobs and put America 

back in the driver’s seat here by passing some forward thinking energy legislation. 

The question I had, and I think, Secretary Chu, I have always 

enjoyed talking to you about these new technologies, and a more 

optimistic approach to this. To turn a phrase on Senator Inhofe, to 

sort of crawl out of this temple of gloom that gets created when we 

talk about this legislation. I really see some optimistic possibilities 

here. 

When you look back, when President Kennedy talked about putting a man on the Moon, all the technologies that came out of that 

that weren’t about the Moon, from GPS monitors to CT scans to 

satellite weather technology to the little chocolate space sticks that 

my family took on camping trips in the 1970s. Could you talk about 

the signal that this can provide to the private sector for investments, and explain that in a little detail? Because we have with 

this game of red light, green light that we have done in Congress 

with some of these tax incentives, we just haven’t gotten to the 

place that other countries have gotten with investment. 

Mr. CHU. Sure. I think going back to what we need are long-term 

signals, both on anything we do, whether it is a tax credit, subsidy 

of some kind, programs for it. On-again, off-again is disastrous if 

you do it every other year. It just doesn’t work. Denmark and Europe and Germany developed their wind turbine industry. They 

took it away from us, because they gave a very long-term view to 

this. 

Going back, those long-term signals, particularly a cap on carbon, 

and then you know what is going to happen in 2020, 2030, 2040, 

2050, can actually stimulate a lot of stuff. Now, yesterday we just 

announced the first 37 selections for our ARPA-E program. We had 

nearly 3,700 applicants. So we had to winnow it down to the top 

1 percent. 

Some of those top 1 percent are truly spectacular. New batteries 

that could potentially scale up where you can store megawatt hours 

of energy, at a cost that perhaps is a factor of 10 or 20 cheaper 

than existing technology. And this is an old metal liquid battery 

that the positive and the negative side of the batteries are metal, 

and the electrolyte in between is a metal salt. And when you 

charge the battery up, it goes to pure metal and a little electrolyte 

is left over and you discharge it. It goes, all the metals go back into 

the salt. 

So you can make a swimming pool sized battery, or you can 

make it this big. And so to see ideas like that, brilliant ideas that 

I am beginning to see on carbon capture, that could dramatically 

lower the cost, and when you see these things popping up, and 

most of what I see popping up has only appeared in the last 5 

years. 
252 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And your view is that if we don’t put these 

kinds of clear market signals in place in legislation we may not get 

this investment. 

Could we just switch to nuclear? Because I am in the group that 

believes this has to be part of our solution as well, and I know you 

have been positive about this. Just the timeframe for nuclear, as 

we know that this should be, for those of us that believe it should 

be part of the solution. If we only relied on nuclear, what would 

be the timeframe of that? I guess I am getting to the point of, we 

have to have a combination of things, some things that move 

quicker. 

Mr. CHU. We are pressing very, very hard on getting the first of 

the nuclear loan guarantees. We have authorized $18.5 billion for 

nuclear loans. That is able to start three, maybe four, depending 

on foreign partners. Four nuclear reactors at most. So we are working very, very hard. Hopefully very soon we can announce the first 

of these, and hopefully by the end of the year the rest of them. 

This is a beginning of the re-starting of the nuclear industry. 

Getting three or four going, I would say, doesn’t really get it going. 

So I view that as the beginning. But we are also looking. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So what is the timeframe on that, for when 

we will get that energy? 

Mr. CHU. Those loans? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. CHU. As I said, we are trying to move forward by the end 

of this year. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, but getting a nuclear power plant up 

and running. 

Mr. CHU. Well, that depends. It depends on a lot of things. It depends on what the NRC does. The NRC is trying to streamline its 

review process of the power plants. And so one wants to decrease 

the time of approval. They are trying to make generic approvals of 

each type of power plant, instead of just doing one off each time. 

And then a much quicker approval at a particular site. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But how about when we really get the energy from it? Nothing to do with delays and the Government process. 

Mr. CHU. Ideally, it could be between 5 and 10 years from the 

time you say ‘‘go ahead’’ to the time you turn on the electricity. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Administrator Jackson, you and I and our 

staffs have had an ongoing disagreement about the thoroughness 

of your doing your analysis. In your report on the impacts of 1733, 

you state, ‘‘Because of these many similarities and the relatively 

small differences between the two bills, it is likely that a full analysis of 1733 would show economic impacts very similar to H.R. 

2454.’’ The fact is that you have not done a complete analysis, is 

that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have not run the full economic modeling, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How long would it take you to do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe we estimated 4 to 5 weeks. I think that 

was the estimate to run the full suite of modeling. 
253 

Senator VOINOVICH. So that we would actually have the numbers 

of a full analysis. And that is exactly what I have asked the Chairwoman that we have before we mark up this bill from this committee. 

The other thing that we have talked about, I remember when we 

talked and you came in, you said that you would prefer that we 

deal with climate change through legislation rather than the Clean 

Air Act. I note in this legislation that it does not preempt the Clean 

Air Act. In other words, we would continue to have, we would have 

this legislation and we would also have the Clean Air Act to contend with. 

Have you changed your position on that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have not changed my position. I have—my belief 

is that there is only one way to get economy-wide market incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that is through 

new legislation. But I also firmly believe that the Clean Air Act has 

value and that there are common sense measures that can be 

taken under the Clean Air Act, either in the absence of or with new 

legislation. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, my feeling is this. If we are going to 

have a comprehensive climate change piece of legislation pass that 

the people out there, that Dr. Chu referred to, that are going to be 

making decisions, ought to know that this is it. In other words, 

these are the rules that we are going to abide by and we can count 

on it, and they are not going to change the rules on us 5 or 10 

years from now. 

Dr. Chu, and by the way, the number in the Boxer-Kerry bill is 

20 percent, Waxman-Markey is 17 percent. I can’t believe that by 

increasing that percentage, that you are not going to have a larger 

impact on the economy, on the number of jobs and also on the rates 

that folks in Ohio are going to have to pay for electricity, for natural gas and pay for gasoline. 

But Dr. Chu—— 

Senator BOXER. Do you want an answer to that? 

Senator VOINOVICH. No, I just—— 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I would appreciate—can you freeze the 

time? I would appreciate your answering that in writing, because 

I know there is a very good answer to that. So if we could have 

that done as well. OK, go ahead. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Chu, one of my problems with this legislation is that the caps are unrealistic in terms of the availability 

of technology. The real issue that we have here is by 2020, are we 

going to have the technology, for example, to, there is an assumption about how many clean coal plants we are going to have. Are 

we going to have enough money to do that technology so that we 

can capture and sequester carbon? For example, my concern is this. 

The Chinese are putting on two coal-fired per week. If they continue to do these emissions from coal, it is urgent that we get at 

this carbon capture and sequester issue, because it is not only 

going to affect the United States, but also China. 

And I think that the President talked about 15 percent of this 

money, the bill money going to technology. And I think the KerryBoxer bill is a little better than Waxman, but not a whole lot better 
254 

in terms of available money to do technology. Could you comment 

on that? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, I think that in the 2020 time scale, I see a couple 

things beginning to turn around. It is our goal, for example, to test, 

pilot a number of carbon sequestration things. I think in a reasonably optimistic analysis, these things could be done in 8, perhaps 

10 years. So it is 2009 now, and then you begin to deploy on a more 

or less routine basis some things, so it begins to happen. 

Nuclear power, I said ideally, 5 to 10 years. Let’s put it a little 

bit further and say 10 years from today power plants start turning 

on. 

So a lot of the things that will give us the much reduced carbon 

or completely clean things like that will take a scale of 10 years. 

We can grow the wind renewable aggressively, as we are doing 

now. Energy conservation, if we really think hard about how to implement that is, I believe, the lowest cost option to getting a lot of 

the carbon out of what we are doing. It is things like that. But it 

has to be done in a programmatic, very aggressive manner. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator, there is, the question you raised is answered in the EPA 

modeling, because we have some offsets to that increase that deal 

with allowing landfill, coal mine and natural gas system methane 

sources as offsets. That is why it doesn’t impact the cost. 

Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, the issue that Senator Voinovich has 

raised is a big one. One of the factors which has brought support 

to this legislation has been the provision in the House bill which 

does make the determination as to emissions on carbon dioxide. 

And the approach is to have to buy allowances, so you can’t emit 

carbon dioxide unless you pay for it. Establishing that standard, 

that the Congress would, would have a tradeoff of not having EPA 

come in with additional regulation. And that is a big selling point 

for people who don’t like the legislation. 

Now, there are those who are very much in favor of keeping EPA 

with its regulatory authority. But we face a very practical situation, like your thinking, if it comes down to getting the votes so 

that we really deal with carbon dioxide, and deal with it in a pretty 

rugged fashion, 2020, 2017 or whatever we do, and these allowances are very expensive, and we make that kind of gigantic 

progress, would you concede a little on that issue? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I certainly understand the point. I would 

only make three points for consideration, because I believe the EPA 

authority question is one that will certainly be discussed in this 

committee and in broader venues. 

The first is that there are—the cap in this bill is actually not entirely economy-wide. There are important carbon emission sources 

that could be addressed through Clean Air Act regulation. The 

transportation sector and the rules that Secretary LaHood and I 

cited are a good example of that. So obviously, not all Clean Air 

Act regulation is created equally. 

Second, and quite important, is that the move to market incentives, we have heard from communities who say it is very impor-
255 

tant that we also make sure that we don’t inadvertently concentrate pollution in any one area. So part of the Clean Air Act 

New Source Review idea is that it allows for when significant investments are being made, or new sources are coming on, for us to 

reset the playing field, if you will, to say, no, listen, no matter what 

pollution allowances are calling for at that point, we need to think 

about the fact of whether we should be investing any more in a 

community. It does allow for equity concerns, if you will, across 

communities. And that is important. 

And last, I will simply say that I think that your point about the 

fact that this is designed to address some places that there are 

overlapping authorities is a good one. It is certainly one I respect 

tremendously. I have already come out to say that I believe very 

strongly that the most cost effective way to put a price on carbon 

and move our market and transition our economy and build a clean 

energy economy is through cap-and-trade and though legislation of 

this type with this kind of model. 

So I think the market incentive tradeoff with regulation is one 

that we are happy to continue to discuss with this committee. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I am glad to hear you like cap-and-trade 

and like the legislation. But in order to get the legislation, there 

may have to be a little give. But if there are new plants, they are 

subject to totally different standards. And you are dealing with carbon dioxide; you are not exactly dealing with a local problem. You 

are dealing with a general problem. 

But if you have other ideas that you think there needs to be 

more flexibility, I would suggest you let us know what they are, 

and let us deal with them in legislation. Because if we come up 

with legislation which is finite and people know what to expect, 

you will get a lot more support out of western Pennsylvania and 

maybe from Arlen Specter or Bob Casey, although I don’t want to 

speak for my colleague. 

But if there are other things that you want, let us know what 

they are. And we will try to accommodate them. But there is a 

great deal to be gained by certainty, so people can make plans. 

That is what we want to legislate on. If the Administrator of EPA 

continues to have flexibility, people are going to say, we don’t know 

where we are, we don’t want to buy a pig in a poke. But as tough 

as it may be, through legislation, they may say OK. 

I am almost out of time, so I just want to make two comments, 

one to Secretary LaHood, about CLEAN-TEA, the legislation which 

Senator Carper has championed and I have co-sponsored, the Carper-Specter bill, which the Chairwoman has graciously included in 

this legislation. That would provide for a reduction of vehicular oil 

burning or cars, for mass transit, for bicycles, for rail. And I would 

like to see us pursue that at the administrative level. 

And a question for Chairman Wellinghoff to be answered for the 

record, I have introduced in the last two Congresses legislation, 

now in Senate Bill 32, which calls for hearings by FERC. And in 

my travels through Pennsylvania, 67 counties, I have a lot of complaints about transmission line and power lines and pipelines. My 

legislation would require a hearing. And a hearing is a very useful 

thing. Some hearings are not very useful, like my town meetings 

in August. 
256 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. But a hearing has great utility in allowing people to express themselves and to have some consideration, even if 

you don’t find it. So I would appreciate it if you would take a look 

at Senate Bill 32, which Senator Casey and I are pursuing. I think 

it would take a lot of the steam off, if you come out and listen to 

people. I find it very helpful. And even if you can’t agree with people, they like to have an opportunity to hear it. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Specter, and you are absolutely right about certainty. That is what this legislation is all 

about. Without the certainty, you are not going to have the investments. Without the certainty, nobody is going to know what happens. 

So we will work together to make sure that you have that certainty that you feel is necessary. As long as we protect clean air, 

that is what we are about. 

Senator SPECTER. My constituents and I very much appreciate 

that assurance. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of 

questions for Secretary Chu and a question for Secretary LaHood. 

The State of Vermont has, I believe, led the country in terms of 

energy efficiency. We are actually consuming less electricity now 

than we were a couple of years ago. And it is not like, the recession 

has hit us, but not any worse than it has hit other States. 

Mr. Secretary, I understand you are announcing today a very significant funding for the ‘‘smart grid,’’ and Vermont is going to do 

well by that. My understanding is that in previous studies, a home 

can reduce its electricity consumption by 15 or 20 percent with one 

of these smart grids. Can you take a moment to explain to the people what you hope to accomplish with this smart grid program? 

Mr. CHU. Well, the first thing that will happen with a smart 

grid, especially with homeowners, is what you want to do is you 

want first to let the homeowners know sort of in real time how 

they are using electricity. And at times, as we transition to real 

costs, real time pricing of electricity, for example, it is not true in 

Vermont, but let’s say in a place where there is a lot of air conditioning, and you are using energy, it costs a lot of money to provide 

power during those peak times. 

We have about 5 percent, if you look at the power that we have, 

a lot of peakers, they are essentially idle except for maybe the last 

5 percent of the time. 

Senator SANDERS. The bottom line here, it will enable consumers 

of electricity to use that electricity much more cost effectively. Do 

you have any estimates as to what kind of savings we can see in 

that in terms of percentage of reduction of electricity in the average 

home? 

Mr. CHU. Not off the top of my head. But I know globally, across 

the United States, if we just peak load shift that last 5 percent, 

which we can do without really any disruption or change in lifestyle, globally and in the United States, we are talking about over 

$100 billion per year. 
257 

Senator SANDERS. The other thing is, Mr. Secretary, I have a 

chart here, which deals with the cost to build new power plants in 

2009. What it suggests is that the least expensive way forward is 

through wind, followed by biomass, followed by solar thin film, followed by geothermal, followed by solar thermal. Then we have coal 

gasification. And that number does not include coal sequestration, 

which makes that a lot more expensive. Then we have nuclear. 

In other words, what this chart tells you, if you are serious about 

building more capacity in the United States, the most cost effective 

way to go forward is through the new sustainable energies. What 

does that chart tell you in terms of how this country has to invest 

into the future? 

Mr. CHU. Unfortunately, my eyes are getting old. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CHU. I can read the axis, I can’t say about the numbers. But 

certainly one of the things is that we are trying to, first, the first 

thing you do is you work very hard on energy conservation, so you 

don’t build anything new. And you just save. If done correctly, that 

is a money maker. The investments in energy efficiency, the consumer actually keeps that money. 

So that is the best thing you can do. 

Senator SANDERS. My only point here is that the most expensive 

new electricity generation is nuclear and coal. Yet, I sit around this 

committee and all I hear is nuclear and coal. It seems to me that 

if we are smart, and we want to save taxpayers money, and we 

want to protect the environment, and we want to create jobs, 

maybe we should start looking at wind, biomass, solar and geothermal. 

Let me ask Secretary LaHood a question. This is just a very general question. People come back from visits to Europe, they come 

back from visits to Japan, they come back from visits to China, and 

they say, wow, they have these fast, these high speed rails, zillions 

of people going to work on mass transportation. And we come back 

to the United States, we have trains that are going 25 miles an 

hour over rickety rail. Why is it that the United States today is so 

far behind other countries in terms not only of rail, but of public 

transportation in general? What are we going to do about it? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Lack of investment. We have never made the investment. If President Eisenhower had signed the Passenger Rail 

Bill instead of the Interstate Bill, we would have state-of-the-art 

like they do in Spain, like they do in Europe, like they do in Asia. 

But we have a state-of-the-art interstate system. Second to none in 

the world. 

But because of President Obama’s vision, because of Vice President Biden’s vision, high speed passenger rail, better passenger rail 

is coming to America. The down payment is $8 billion. That is not 

near enough. But there are companies from Europe and Asia in the 

United States right now ready to make investments in passenger 

rail. And we have some great proposals that have come into the 

Department. We are evaluating them for the use of our $8 billion. 

We need help from Congress to—— 

Senator SANDERS. But you will agree that $8 billion is a fairly 

paltry sum? 
258 

Mr. LAHOOD. It is a down payment. It is a very small amount. But it is $8 billion times more than we have ever had at the Department. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. Let me ask you this, also. It is not 

just rail. I come from a rural State where people, in a vast majority 

of instances, can’t get to work on public transportation. They have 

to use their car, period. What are we going to do about that? 

Mr. LAHOOD. We are going to continue to work with you, Senator, and others that represent rural States on making sure there 

are good transit services for people that want to live in rural America. We owe it to them to do that. There are people that want to 

stay in small towns, but yet get to a larger area to go to a doctor 

or go to the grocery store or go to the drugstore. And we are going 

to work with you and other Senators from rural America to make 

sure these transit services are available. 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chair, I would just simply say that 

when we look at transportation, we have to have a special focus on 

rural transportation, which needs just an enormous amount of improvement. Thank you all very much, to all of the panelists. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I don’t want to neglect Chairman Wellinghoff, so I want to ask 

you a question. Your testimony here today discussed the need for 

a renewable electricity standard, and RES and the climate bill are 

intended to be complementary. We expect that with what the leadership has talked about them to be joined on the Senate floor. Several Senators have joined me in introducing legislation that would 

set a 25 percent renewable electricity standard by 2025. Based on 

the rapidly declining costs and the huge potential resource, especially in the West, do you believe that this standard is achievable, 

and what would its impact be on our climate goals? 

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Thank you, Senator Udall. I assure you, I 

don’t feel neglected. 

I do think it is achievable . In fact, I was one of the primary authors of the renewable portfolio standard in the State of Nevada 

and am very familiar with California’s and Colorado’s and your 

State’s efforts in that area. We now have 31 States, in fact, in this 

country that have renewable, portfolio standards for renewable energy standards. But I think it is essential that we have a national 

standard. It is time that we have a national standard, and I think 

the goals that you set are very achievable. 

Senator UDALL. Secretary Chu, recently the Potential Gas Committee found that the U.S. natural gas supply has increased 40 percent in just 2 years, and that some industry estimates are pointing 

to a 100-year supply of U.S. natural gas. I believe that natural gas 

is an overlooked resource and has great potential to replace oil in 

heavy truck transportation, create jobs in States like New Mexico. 

Does the Department of Energy believe that we are entering a time 

of abundance with natural gas that could make our climate goals 

much easier to reach, since it is a relatively low carbon fuel? 

Mr. CHU. The short answer is yes. I have heard estimates considerably more optimistic than the one you just cited. And if you include Canada, it is considerably more. So we are beginning to look 
259 

at things, for example, in central locations where there is not an 

infrastructure problem. We are funding, piloting vehicles that are 

propelled by natural gas, delivery trucks, buses, go to the central 

station and then will always return to that station, to see if this 

is a viable thing. 

Certainly in this century, because of the new technologies that 

can recover natural gas from shale, it is a lower carbon option. 

Senator UDALL. And from everything your scientists tell you, 

these are pretty reliable estimates in terms of the increase and the 

potential out there? 

Mr. CHU. They appear to be. 

Senator UDALL. And talking about renewable energy here, from 

your perspective on renewable energy, are the costs per kilowatt 

coming down for solar and wind, and should we expect it to continue under this legislation? And are the innovation benefits in this 

area reflected in traditional economic analyses of climate legislation? Or is this an extra benefit that we should expect to see? 

Mr. CHU. Well, the costs of wind and solar are coming down. 

They are steadily coming down. It is looking very good. Right now, 

the cost of the solar module, the retail cost, has just gone down 

below a dollar per watt. A decade ago, it was $5, $8 a watt. So it 

is remarkable. The things that we have to do in terms of photovoltaic solar, in particular, is to balance the system costs. It has 

to be coming down at that same rate, much cheaper inverters, 

much easier to install type of modules, things of that nature. 

But I am optimistic that solar and wind, they are continuing to 

come down. 

Senator UDALL. Secretary LaHood, you talked a little bit about 

railroads and bringing back the railroads. Is that an area where we 

could see significant savings in terms of energy efficiency and lower 

costs? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Take a lot of cars off the road, take a lot of CO2

out of the air. It is much cleaner burning transportation, whether 

it is light rail or whether it is passenger rail. We know that it is 

cleaner burning, and we know that when somebody gets on a train, 

they are out of their automobile. The benefit of it will be enormous 

in terms of taking CO2 out of the air. 

Senator UDALL. And it is a big priority for your Department? 

Mr. LAHOOD. It is an $8 billion priority right now, and we hope 

with the help of all of you in the Senate and the House, we will 

continue to make it a priority. But it is President Obama’s vision 

and Vice President Biden’s vision. I want to give them the credit 

on this. Senator Sanders’ question is very important. We haven’t 

made the investments in America in passenger rail. But we are 

about to do it. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I just want to give us a little update on how we are proceeding. 

We are going to go down the list of everybody, and we are going 

to, therefore next call on Senators Lautenberg, then Merkley, 

Whitehouse and Cardin, of those who are here. We are not going 

to have any more rounds. So you should know that, because it is 

getting very late. 
260 

I also wanted to say, while colleagues are here, tomorrow we 

have panel one on jobs and economic opportunities, panel two on 

national security, and I guess is it two panels? Where is the third 

panel? Panel three on utility policies and panel four on adaptation. 

We have a very big agenda tomorrow. We start at 9:30. We are 

going to work throughout the day just taking a small lunch break. 

So I wanted to let colleagues know. 

Next on the list, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

I am struck by the fact that as we look at the placards here we 

see, why not? Those are the questions that are asked. Why not do 

something positive? Why doesn’t it say, the reason that we want 

to do these things is a benefit to ourselves, to our families, to future generations, to the health and well-being of America? We don’t 

see any placards up there that say that. We say, why not. Well, it 

is the wrong attitude, I think, and that is what has got us in the 

trouble that we have. 

To Administrator Jackson and Secretary Chu, by the way, thank 

each one of you, you are a terrific panel, and a good start that we 

had, Madam Chairman, with John Kerry here. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, based on the 

research of leading scientists around the world, says U.S. has got 

to cap emissions to at least 20 percent below 2005 levels by the 

year 2020. A recent study says that we can reduce our emissions 

by 17 percent by 2020 without adding to that cost using just energy 

efficiency. 

Now, do either one of you, you first, Mr. Secretary, agree that we 

or doubt that we can’t achieve a 20 percent emissions reduction by 

the year 2020? 

Mr. CHU. Oh, it is achievable, but you have to look at every corner. And also, I forgot to mention, that would also include, in addition to efficiency, there are offsets: reforestation, agricultural, ways 

of changing agricultural practices. That is also part of the mixture. 

Some of the other technologies that I talked about, like nuclear and 

coal; it is going to take a while to get them on. But you can promote the renewables that we do have. The cost is going down. 

Wind is approaching parity with new power in terms of coal or gas. 

So if you look at all the sectors and say, you can say, yes, we 

can do this. But you have to look across the board. 

Ms. JACKSON. And Senator, the only thing I would add to my colleague here is that the clock is ticking. So every time we don’t have 

legislation, every time we don’t move forward, every time we don’t 

have a price on carbon, we are losing precious time that might help 

us get to that 2020 goal. So we are actually racing against the 

clock. It doesn’t help to start in 2015. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But you each agree that we can do this? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, we have to. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And the Intergovernmental Panel and the 

Union of Concerned Scientists says that we need to be on that kind 

of a glide slope in order to get our long range objective, which is 

a longer time than I may be here. No? Thank you very much for 

that assurance. 

[Laughter.] 
261 

1 High-Speed Ground Transportation for America (September 1997), the Department’s most recent corridor-by-corridor analysis of the operating and economic potential of high speed rail. 2The source is the U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 26, 

May 2007. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Secretary LaHood, good to see you here. 

We have had a chance to get to know one another over the period 

of time that you are serving. You are getting really good at this job, 

I want to tell you. 

So when we look at Amtrak, other forms of passenger rail, they 

have a need to be eligible to receive that funding. What is the role 

that passenger rail can play in lowering congestion? You described 

preventing pollution, reducing our dependence on oil. Do you have 

any kind of an estimate that tells us what we can achieve there? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I will get you an answer for the record, because I 

would like to be specific on that. But we know every time you get 

someone out of their car, you reduce CO2. The work that we have 

done with the EPA and the Administrator, Lisa Jackson, on getting 

to a much better gasoline standard for automobiles by 2012 and 

2016 is enormous. Every time somebody uses mass transit, whether 

it is a bus or light rail or Amtrak, we know that they are out of 

their car, we know that car is not on the road. 

But I will be happy to get you the statistics. And we know that 

we have some really good proposals coming in to us that are in the 

Department for passenger rail. And we are evaluating those and 

hopefully we will make some decisions on the $8 billion later this 

year. 

[Mr. LaHood’s response to the above question follows:] 

Properly designed intercity passenger rail service can play an important and simultaneous role in all three—easing congestion, relieving pollution, and enhancing 

energy independence. Passenger rail can accomplish all this by offering competitive 

door-to-door travel times at affordable fares, thus diverting substantial traffic from 

the energy intensive air and automobile modes. 

For example, the Department’s commercial feasibility study (CFS) of high speed 

rail 1 showed that in California, a new high speed rail system (analogous to that currently proposed by the State) would generate 4.7 billion passenger-miles in 2020, 

of which 2.4 billion would be attracted from air and 0.9 billion from auto. These diversions would help to ease congestion at airports and on highways. 

Furthermore, as discussed in the Department’s Vision for High-Speed Rail in 

America, intercity rail consumes about 25 percent fewer BTUs per passenger-mile 

than travel by automobile, and about 18 percent fewer BTUs than air travel. 2 These 

differentials, when multiplied by the volume of traffic diverted, result in substantial 

emissions and energy savings. For instance, the CFS projected a present value of 

air and highway congestion delay savings and emissions reductions of some $13 billion (2009 dollars) from the California New HSR project alone. 

As regards energy independence, while even diesel powered trains can economize 

on fuel consumption over other modes, electrified railways have the added potential 

of being completely oil independent. Already today, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor 

segment between New York and Washington obtains about 38 percent of its power 

from totally green and totally domestic hydroelectric power. 

For all these reasons, intercity passenger rail offers great promise of achieving 

congestion relief, pollution abatement, and energy independence, all at the same 

time—even as it increases the options and mobility available to travelers. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ms. Jackson, a lot about the cost of passing a global warming bill. But the report by a former chief economist at the World Bank found that the inaction on global warming 

could cost 10 times as much as transitioning to a clean energy 

economy, because of the increased risk of drought, flooding, water 

scarcity, rising sea levels, social disruption. How might our envi-
262 

ronment be affected and our economy as well if we—the question 

is too much, this is too easy for you, and I don’t want to give you 

easy questions. You are better at the hard ones. 

So with that, I say, thank you very much, each one of you for 

your service and your being here today. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I think this cost 

of doing nothing is a very important point to keep on making. It 

is huge. And it is not in any of the economic models. We have to 

keep remembering that. 

Senators Merkley, Whitehouse and Cardin. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

The first question I wanted to address to Secretary Chu. The 

McKinsey study has laid out an analysis that we could achieve 17 

percent reduction in our carbon dioxide through energy efficiency 

alone. It is very interesting to look at some of the numbers. For example, the Lazar energy consulting firm has laid out the cost per 

kilowatt in energy efficiency as between zero and $50, whereas the 

complete range is below any form of new production. 

And in essence, because energy efficiency also reduces the power 

bills that folks pay, there is a real feedback that expands the purchasing power of citizens in our Nation. 

So given this set of facts, the low cost of energy efficiency, the 

significant impact that energy efficiency alone could have on carbon 

dioxide, are we under-investing in energy efficiency, even in this 

bill? Do we need to go further? Should we have a separate energy 

efficiency standard and really push all the concepts that are cost 

effective in that realm? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. The McKinsey study I know came out just this 

summer, said by 2020 you can actually decrease the energy consumption, the end use consumption by 23 percent of the aggregate 

consumption, which includes the generation of all those losses by 

26 percent. If you only count those investments based on net 

present value, that would make money. So the report actually said 

$680 billion savings, and you get 26 percent reduction in energy. 

However, there are many economists who differ on that statement. So we have actually been spending a lot of time digging into 

it, trying to understand. There are some barriers at work here. For 

example, if you want to retrofit your home, there are barriers, what 

economists would call market failures. Many people don’t know 

what to do. It is inconvenient. There is inertia, and there is also 

a finance barrier. 

So the short answer to your question is, if we overcome all those 

barriers, then we can start to recoup this. That was part of my earlier answer. Energy efficiency, you can’t just say make it happen. 

You have to be very proactive because of these market failures. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, certainly I and many members of this 

committee would love to work with you as you dig deeper into 

those numbers and identify those barriers, how we might overcome 

them and go further in that effort. Because when you look at what 

you can do with energy efficiency alone, and give the fact that we 

are closing in on 9 percent below the 2005 levels already on carbon 

dioxide production, it starts to make it look like 20 percent by 

2020. That is an additional 11 percent. Isn’t that demanding? And 
263 

we could actually bridge that entire factor with energy efficiency 

alone if we really applied ourselves to it, a strategy that actually 

pays us back. 

Mr. CHU. I agree. We are rolling out a couple of things. For example, on retrofitting, it costs a lot of money. If you did it in a 

mass produced sort of way, like you get one-half of the entire block 

to sign on, so the energy auditor goes from house to house to house 

to house, as a trusted, certified auditor, and then the truck that 

blows in the insulation goes to house to house to house, all in the 

same block, you can easily see where the price can come down by 

a factor of two or three. 

And there is a trust, it is a social event, a block party. So we are 

going to be trying to pilot these things in the coming year to see 

if we can really bring down those costs. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Another aspect of energy efficiency is turning to electric vehicles. 

And my colleague, Lamar Alexander, noted that we could work to 

have 50 percent of our cars be electric over the next 20 years. I 

would reframe that a little bit differently in that I have read statistics that if we were to take and have the cars on our road all be 

able to go the first 30 miles on electricity, so they could potentially 

be hybrid cars rather than full electric, preserving additional 

range, but if all the cars could go 30 miles on electricity, we would 

reduce the carbon dioxide production, which is, assuming the electricity comes from renewable sources, by 80 percent from passenger 

vehicles. Should we be working more to really push the frontier on 

the conversion of the American auto fleet. I would open this up certainly to Secretary Jackson and Secretary LaHood and to yourself. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Let me just say this. I was in Detroit recently and 

visited all three of the American automobile manufacturers. I drove 

the Volt. It is the wave of the future. It is the way that, talk about 

a company that is forward thinking, GM is forward thinking on 

this. And so it is coming. And they get it. Because they know this 

is what the American people want, because the American people 

get it. It is an amazing vehicle, and it will be here soon. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. We are going to move on, because we are over 

our time. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I 

want to thank this very distinguished panel for being here. I know 

you are all very busy and have significant responsibilities. But I do 

think it is helpful for you to be up here, and I hope the fact that 

every single one right now of our Republican colleagues has departed, despite the fact that we have such a distinguished panel, 

including four Cabinet members here, helps give you a signal as to 

how difficult our lift is going to be on this issue with our colleagues. 

A few quick points, the first, Secretary Chu, as you have heard 

from Senator Alexander and others, there is considerable interest 

in expanding our nuclear energy supply. The Navy does operate 

nuclear plants very safely. However, they do generate waste. And 

the waste is a considerable concern. I would urge that as you look 

at the nuclear component of our energy portfolio, you invest aggres-
264 

sively in potential technologies that could take our existing nuclear 

waste and reconfigure it into fuel and turn it into value. I have 

heard estimates that the power contained in our nuclear waste, if 

properly reconfigured, could provide $2 trillion worth of energy, not 

only essentially free energy, but energy that actually comes at the 

savings of not having the disposal and national security risk costs 

of all of that. 

So I urge you to look very much in that area, and I will certainly 

be far more comfortable with whatever the nuclear strategy is if it 

has that investment in the future. One day we should be burning 

this nuclear waste as fuel and not having it a continuing hazard 

for thousands of generations into the future. 

Mr. CHU. I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact we have started 

a detailed look at this. If you look at the uranium you dig out of 

the ground, and you ask how much of the energy content of that 

uranium is actually used in our current light water once pass 

through cycle, after you have enriched, there is energy content in 

uranium 238. It is about 1 percent. Only 1 percent of the energy 

content is used. The rest is either depleted uranium or—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let’s work together on making sure we do 

that. 

The next question is for Chairman Wellinghoff. FERC, I believe, 

has some oversight responsibility over the dispatch rules by which 

units are turned on and off. They are agreed by the local ISO, but 

they have to be filed and approved by FERC, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Yes, to the extent that there are organized 

wholesale markets with independent system operators, those independent system operators, the regional transmission organizations, 

in fact do file their tariff rules with FERC as to how they do dispatch units within their footprint. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is my understanding that those dispatch 

rule do not take the environmental costs of the units into consideration whatsoever, and that all other things being equal, they would 

run a coal plant instead of a hydro plant because there is no adjustment for the pollution costs. And I would like to work with you 

to see what might be necessary to have FERC take a look at that. 

Because as we all know, those environmental costs truly are economic costs. And to ignore them is to give an unwarranted subsidy 

to certain industries at the expense of others and the public health. 

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. We would very much like to work with you 

on that. In fact, I was in China 2 years ago, and they were talking 

about economic dispatch versus environmental dispatch, actually 

looking at environmental dispatch in China. So we were very interested in looking at the feasibility of that in this country and how 

it affects the economics of the overall system. We would like to do 

that very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. Finally, Administrator Jackson, the 

last point that I would like to make with you regard to some of the 

comments that have been made about Clean Air Act enforcement. 

The perspective that I have on this is that for many years, corporate polluters in the Midwest have been ducking and dodging 

around the Clean Air Act. They have not met their responsibilities. 

What they have done is built smokestacks, higher and higher 

smokestacks, now reaching as high as 1,000 feet. 
265 

Now, a smokestack doesn’t make the air any cleaner. What it 

does is it takes the poison, the pollution, and it exports it to other 

States. Right now, in Rhode Island, on a bright summer day, the 

radio in the morning could easily announce that today is a bad air 

day. And infants and the elderly and people with breathing disabilities should stay inside in the air conditioning. And it is not because of local emissions. It is because of what is being rained in 

on us by these power plants. It is not just my State, Senator Lautenberg’s State is downwind, Senator Cardin’s State is downwind, 

Senator Sanders’ State is downwind, Senator Gillibrand’s State is 

downwind. 

So as we look at this Clean Air Act, there are a great number 

of us who believe, I should say, there are a great number of us who 

are in that geographic position. I very, very strongly believe it is 

time that these power plants were held to account. They have 

dodged around the law for too long. And their corporate lobbyists 

have won against our children’s lungs. I for one am fed up with it. 

So I hope you will stand firm on the Clean Air Act. I, at least, 

and I hope many of my colleagues, will support you on that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

I think each member of the committee has expressed our appreciation for you all being here. I am going to go a little bit further. 

I thank you for your public service, taking on the incredibly important jobs that you are taking on in the Obama administration and 

doing such an effective job on your individual portfolio, but also understanding it is part of a national strategy as we deal with the 

energy issues. 

I thank you for that commitment to get the job done, going well 

beyond what is your immediate responsibility. 

I want to just underscore two points that were made. Secretary 

Chu, your point about conservation in our energy policy, critically 

important; and Secretary LaHood, about investment and how we 

make our investments. Let me start first by saying, I agree completely on the comments about passenger rail, but I take that a lot 

further. I want to talk about transportation for a moment. Transportation represents 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions 

and 60 or 70 percent of our oil use. So it is a huge issue. And we 

could do a lot better. 

I want to get to public transportation, going well beyond just passenger rail. I first start off by saying, this legislation makes a huge 

investment in this area. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for 

what you have done for public transportation in this, in your mark. 

It will make a huge difference on the infrastructure we need to conserve energy, as well as to have a more efficient way to have transportation needs met. 

But I want to get to the second point, which is how you use your 

existing authorities. I would underscore the point that Senator 

Whitehouse made about Administrator Jackson. You have put the 

Environment back into the Protection Agency. We thank you for 

that. You have used the tools you have. You have tools today that 

you can use, and you are using those tools. 
266 

And Secretary LaHood, I know you have a huge budget. Not big 

enough, you would like to have more, we would all like you to have 

more, we would like you to have more predictable funding. But we 

do subsidize the passenger car more than we do public transportation in this country. And we need to change that. It is not going 

to be easy. 

But we need to look at how we use the existing resources we 

have at our disposal. So I guess my point is, we need to get this 

bill done. This bill provides opportunities for us to make the type 

of investments in transportation that will make our country more 

secure, much more competitive and certainly friendlier toward the 

environment. 

And by the way, for those who live in the Washington area, 

maybe I could have gotten here in time if we had a better transportation system in place for commuting. It affects all of our lives. It 

is the second worst congested area in the country, next to New 

York. We could double the number of people using public transit 

here. We just don’t have the capacity, and it is old, and it needs 

investments. 

So it is a matter of investment. This bill will make a difference. 

But I just urge you all, in each one of your areas, be aggressive 

with the tools that are currently available. This bill is meant to 

supplement, not to be the sole effort we have in the type of commitments we make to an energy policy in this country. 

That is my message. Let’s figure out a way we can get this budget more focused on what we need to do as we work to give you the 

additional tools that are necessary. Thank you for your commitment. I have a lot of confidence that what you are doing is going 

to make a huge difference. We need to work together to get the job 

done. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Let me just thank everybody. I am very proud to say that President Obama today, in a speech, noted the markup in this Environment and Public Works Committee today. He said he believes that 

a comprehensive piece of legislation is what needs to happen. I am 

paraphrasing here. He said that is finally going to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. Legislation that will 

make the best use of resources we have in abundance through 

clean coal technology, safe nuclear power, sustainably grown 

biofuels and energy we harness from the wind, waves and the Sun. 

So he noted then that we are having these hearings. 

I just want to say to all of you, thank you so much, not only for 

your eloquence today, but just for working with us these many, 

many, many weeks and months to get to this stage. And there are 

always naysayers when you are about to embark on change. But 

positive change only comes with courage. And all of you have 

shown that courage here today. 

Thank you very much. We stand adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow. 

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. the following day.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 
267 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for your leadership and hard work on this very critical legislation. 

I’d like to recognize my Chairman from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 

Senator Kerry, who has joined us today, for his dedication to these issues. 

I’d also like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here today to provide 

their perspective and expert analysis of this legislation. 

S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, is the platform to move 

America forward on a path to achieve energy independence, revitalize our economy 

by creating green jobs here at home, and protect our environment from the threats 

of global climate change. 

I have heard from thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers of all age groups, 

from Brookhaven to Brooklyn, to Buffalo, who have called, written, visited my offices, and attended events to push for strong legislation that will transition our Nation to a clean energy economy. 

I am confident that the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is the framework that will do just that. 

The passion and advocacy of my constituents have been invaluable leading up to 

these important hearings, and I thank them for their continued support to see 

strong climate change legislation across the finish line. 

Over the course of these hearings I look forward to receiving testimony from witnesses representing business interests and local governments from around the country, describing how this legislation will lead to American prosperity and a demonstration of the kind of innovation and ingenuity that our country is built on. 

In particular, I am interested in exploring a number of aspects of this legislation 

that are critical to my constituents in the State of New York. 

First, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act includes a framework for 

significant investments in carbon reducing transportation planning. 

The development and expansion of mass transit systems are critical to New Yorkers who take one-third of the Nation’s mass transit rides and are vital to mitigating 

America’s greenhouse emissions, 30 percent of which comes from the transportation 

sector. 

I’m also interested in the many ways that this legislation prioritizes and 

incentivizes energy efficiency, which as we all know is one of the most reliable and 

cost effective ways to reduce energy bills for consumers and cut harmful emissions. 

S. 1733 includes a provision I authored, entitled the Green Taxis Act. This legislation will allow municipalities to set standards for emissions and fuel economy for 

taxicabs using Federal minimums and predicated on the commercial availability of 

vehicle technologies. 

These provisions will be beneficial to many cities across the United States. 

Replacing the current fleet of taxicabs on New York City streets with fuel efficient 

vehicles would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 296,000 tons, or the 

equivalent of taking 35,000 cars off the road. 

In addition, switching to fuel efficient vehicles would save each driver an average 

of $4,500 annually in gas costs and reduce the upward pressure on passenger fares. 

As I have stated in previous hearings, one area that is of vital concern to me is 

providing effective oversight for the carbon market created by this legislation. 

Ensuring that we have an active carbon market that allows for the type of 

customization that end users need in order to finance a new clean power facility, 

large scale solar or wind project, or international reforestation project is central to 

this legislation’s success. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senators Baucus and Klobuchar 

and Chairman Lincoln in the Agriculture Committee, as we engage in comprehensive market reform that will set a framework for how carbon markets are regulated 

to protect consumers from market manipulation while facilitating investment in 

emissions reductions. 

I am particularly interested in the provisions in this legislation that will allow 

our farms and forests to engage in activities that have real, measurable benefits in 

emission reductions. 

Ensuring that New York’s dairy farms and private forest lands can participate in 

activities that help us reach our climate goals is important to me. 

Just as important as what is in this legislation, is what is not. 

S. 1733 does not include provisions that were part of the House passed version 

that I believe are detrimental to reaching the goals of comprehensive climate change 

legislation. 
268 

The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act preserves Clean Air Act authority to regulate the Nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal plants. 

These protections are critical to New Yorkers, as we are on the receiving end of 

air pollution from many of these plants—contributing to acid rain, harming natural 

resources such as the Adirondacks, increasing contamination in our waterways, limiting the number of fish we can eat, and increasingly growing asthma rates that 

raise our health care costs. 

The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will lead to long-term economic 

prosperity, energy security, and the protection of our environment for future generations. 

Chairman Boxer, I want to thank you, my colleagues on the committee, and the 

staff for all of their hard work on this legislation. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
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 

Æ