U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

50–023 PDF 2008

CLIMATE CHANGE: COMPETITIVENESS 

CONCERNS AND PROSPECTS FOR 

ENGAGING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 5, 2008 

Serial No. 110–97 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Chief Counsel 

JOHN W. JIMISON, Counsel 

RACHEL BLESHMAN, Legislative Clerk 

DAVID MCCARTHY, Minority Counsel 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Charlie Melancon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, opening statement ................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 9 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 12 

Hon. John B. Shadegg, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, opening statement ...................................................................................... 13 

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 14 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 15 

WITNESSES

Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, American 

Electric Power ...................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 245 

Jim Slattery, Nucor Steel Corporation .................................................................. 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 246 

Richard Morgenstern, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future .......................... 118 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 248 

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense 

Council .................................................................................................................. 140 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 142 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 250 

Gary Hufbauer, Peterson Institute for International Economics ........................ 163 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 164 

Christopher Wenk, Senior Director, International Policy, U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce ............................................................................................................. 194 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 196 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 260 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Susan C. Schwab, United States Trade Representative, letter of March 4, 

2008, submitted by Mr. Upton ............................................................................ 233 

Page

VI 

Committee letter, dated March 6, 2007, to His Excellency Vaclav Klaus, 

President of the Czech Republic, submitted by Mr. Upton .............................. 236 

President Klaus response, submitted by Mr. Upton ...................................... 238 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE: COMPETITIVENESS CONCERNS AND PROSPECTS FOR ENGAGING 

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Boucher, Butterfield, Melancon, Barrow, Markey, Wynn, Doyle, Harman, Inslee, Baldwin, 

Matheson, Dingell (ex officio), Upton, Hall, Whitfield, Shimkus, 

Shadegg, Bono Mack, Walden, Burgess, and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: Sue Sheridan, Bruce Harris, Laura Vaught, Chris 

Treanor, Rachel Bleshman, Alex Haurek, Erin Bzymek, David 

McCarthy, Kurt Bilas, Tom Hassenboehler, Garrett Golding, and 

Michael Beckerman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to order. 

In preparation for the drafting in the coming months of a mandatory control program for greenhouse gases, Chairman Dingell and 

I have been posting on the Committee’s Web site a series of position papers. These papers address in detail the essential elements 

of a cap-and-trade control program. 

Our purpose in exploring these issues in depth is to stimulate 

discussion and responses from interested parties as a key step in 

a consensus building for the legislation to come. Our goal is to develop a measure that will enjoy bi-partisan support, that industry 

will support, and that will enjoy support from environmental advocates. 

In my view, the only legislation which can pass the Congress and 

be signed into law will be a measure that enjoys such a broad consensus. 

And in determining to construct a consensus-supported measure, 

let me note that this Committee is following its time-honored and 

successful tradition of drafting and passing clean air legislation. 

The three major clean air enactments passed in 1970, in 1977, and 

in 1990, originated in this committee, were bipartisan, were supVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
2 

ported both by industry and by environmental advocates, and 

passed both Houses of Congress with large, bi-partisan majorities. 

Two of those bills were signed into law by Republican presidents. 

One of those bills was signed into law by a Democratic president. 

In view of the reality that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas control will be far more complex than any 

of the three preceding major clean air enactments and potentially 

have significant implications for the economy beyond any of those 

three previous enactments, there is an even greater need to take 

our time, to build consensus, and to ensure that our measure will 

not cause economic disruption. And that is what we intend to do. 

That said, it is our goal to move a cap-and-trade measure 

through the Subcommittee, through the Full Committee, to have it 

be considered by and pass the House in time to be conferenced with 

the Senate and presented to the President prior to the close of congressional session, and we are working to meet that timetable. 

The discussions which our position papers are stimulating will 

help to build the essential consensus that is necessary in order to 

achieve that result. 

Before we turn our attention to bill drafting, we will release additional position papers, and the Subcommittee will conduct additional hearings on some of them, focusing on the alternatives before us that address key elements of a cap-and-trade control measure. 

This morning’s hearing focuses on the competitiveness of American industry following the adoption of a U.S. greenhouse gas control program. It explores ways that our legislation imposing controls can ensure maximum participation from developing countries 

in a global effort to address greenhouse gas emissions. 

In my view, the inclusion of a provision in our legislation which 

ensures developing country participation is essential to achieving 

that goal. We are all mindful of the 98 to 0 advisory vote in the 

U.S. Senate by which the Senate expressed disapproval of the 

Kyoto Treaty in the 1990s, and the primary reason that was announced by Senators for casting that rare, unanimous vote on a 

key, controversial measure was the absence of any imposition of responsibility in Kyoto Treaty on developing countries to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. We will not have such an omission in 

the legislation we move through this Subcommittee. 

Three leading proposals have been advanced in order to achieve 

our goals, each of which has been examined in our position paper 

on the subject; and this morning I want to say thank you to American Electric Power and the IBEW, the steel industry, Environmental Defense, and others for advancing these proposals for public 

discussion. They are thoughtful suggestions, and we will focus on 

those during our hearing today. 

As we examine these alternative approaches in today’s hearing, 

we hope to focus on these core questions, and I hope that our witnesses in their prepared testimony and their oral statements perhaps in answer to questions will perhaps enlighten us on these 

measures. First of all, which proposal is more likely to lead to developing country emission reduction for greenhouse gases? Secondly, which is more likely to level the playing field and neutralize 

any competitive advantage the legislation might unintentionally 

3 

create for industry in developing countries? And third, which is 

more likely to withstand scrutiny under trade treaties to which the 

U.S. is a party? These are the core concerns that we hope to address during today’s hearing. 

I want to say thank you to each of our witnesses for taking some 

time to join us here. We will turn to their testimony shortly, but 

before doing that, we will welcome statements from other members 

of the Subcommittee. 

Mr. BOUCHER. I would first like to recognize the ranking Republican member of our Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, I would like to thank you and Chairman Dingell, my friends, certainly for holding this hearing on your second 

climate change white paper, Competitiveness Concerns and Prospects for Engaging Developing Countries. This white paper does indeed hit a critical aspect of the climate change debate, and it will 

have a substantial impact on how we proceed with legislation. I 

welcome all of the witnesses, and look forward to their testimony 

this morning. 

Before we begin, I would like to submit for the record a letter 

from Ranking Member Barton and then Ranking Member Hastert 

to Vatslav Kalus along with his reply regarding global warming, 

and I would like to quote President Kalus’ response to the question 

of the moral obligation of the developing countries to the developing countries, and this is what he said. ‘‘The moral obligation of 

the developing countries to the developing countries is to create 

such an environment which guarantees free exchange of goods, 

services, and capital flows, enables utilization of comparative advantages of individual countries and thus stimulates economic development of the less-developed countries. Artificial administration 

barriers limits and regulations imposed by developed countries, discriminating against the developing world, affects its economic 

growth and prolonged poverty in underdevelopment.’’ Climate 

change is indeed a serious issue and one that this Congress must 

address. But climate policy must also mirror sound, responsible energy policy because it is technology rather than government mandates that foster environment benefit. 

I said that I am not a fan of cap-and-trade schemes currently 

being circulated because they could indeed harm the economy and 

send jobs overseas, and I would like to take this opportunity to associate myself with the Chamber of Commerce’s Six Core Climate 

Change Principles outlined in their testimony today. One, preservation of American jobs in a competitiveness of U.S. industry. Second, 

promotion of accelerated development and deployment of greenhouse gas reduction technology. Third, the reduction of barriers to 

the development of climate-friendly energy sources. Four, maximum flexibility. Five, international economy-wide solutions with 

minimal impact on industry and regional economies which developing nations, and last, promotion of energy conservation and efficiency. 

4 

Unlike other environmental issues that we have tackled over the 

years, climate change is global and requires a totally new playbook. 

Even if the U.S. devised the strictest regime to reduce greenhouse 

gases, these reductions could be dwarfed and negated by emission 

increases coming from the developing world. We cannot place 

enough emphasis on the fact that this is a global issue requiring 

a global solution. Energy demand is going to increase rapidly in the 

next couple of decades. In fact, 74 percent of the increase in global 

energy use will come from developing countries. According to a 

2007 report by the International Energy Agency, developing countries will account for more than three-quarters of the increase in 

global CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2030. 

I am pleased that this white paper recognizes that we cannot act 

without China and India’s full support and their participation. 

China and India have hundreds of millions of citizens living in abject poverty, getting by day-to-day without electricity. We have 

heard testimony before this Committee that China and India’s first 

priority will be to raise the standard of living for their people. 

When you are talking about populations living on less than $1 a 

day, burning cow dung for heat, reducing CO2 emissions perhaps 

is not their top priority. How can we force action on a developing 

country that is still generations away perhaps from reaching the 

standards of living that we have enjoyed for many years? The proposal outlined in this white paper will have real consequences on 

American jobs and industry. Trade sanctions are not always the 

best tool to compel greenhouse gas reductions, and even if these 

proposals prove to be WTO compliant, they could prove detrimental 

to our already battered manufacturing sector. WTO compliance is 

important certainly, but retaliation will occur before even the WTO 

has a chance to rule on climate-related trade sanctions. No matter 

how well we write the regulations or how clever we are within the 

WTO framework, unwilling partners will often find some ways 

around those requirements. According to the World Bank, by removing tariffs and other barriers to green technologies, trade could 

increase by an additional 7 to 14 percent annually. Increasing our 

green technology expertise will also significantly reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions in the developing world. 

Complicating matters, many of my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle view climate change and energy policies as two separate 

issues. Well, I do not believe they are. I believe we must address 

climate change through a global framework that focuses on innovation and technology and efficiency, rather than a government mandate. We should pay more attention to exporting American ingenuity and green technologies to developing the world rather than 

perhaps setting up a regulatory framework that will only increase 

trade barriers. 

I look forward to this ongoing discussion and working in a constructive manner with members on both sides of the aisle, and I 

yield back my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton. I am pleased 

at this time to recognize for 5 minutes the Chairman of the Full 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 

5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the recognition. I 

want to commend you for the superb leadership you have been 

showing in leading us forward to a resolution of the problems we 

confront on climate change and global warming. I particularly want 

to commend you for this hearing, and I look forward to working 

with you and the other outstanding members of this Subcommittee 

on both sides of the aisle on drafting legislation limiting the U.S. 

emissions of greenhouse gases through an economy-wide cap-andtrade system. 

I am pleased to welcome Mr. Morris and our old friend, Jim Slattery, as a part of the distinguished panel before us. Mr. Slattery, 

as you will recall, was a distinguished member of this Committee 

and a friend of many of us here in this room, and I would like to 

welcome him back. I also am pleased to note that this Subcommittee and Committee have now issued three white papers that 

focus on design of a cap-and-trade program on, among other things, 

international competitiveness, which is most important here. I 

would note why these white papers are issued, which some of the 

folks around here seem to have a misunderstanding of our purposes—to see to it that we elicit comments and responsible discussion of the issues associated with cap-and-trade and the other questions that this Committee must address with regard to global 

warming and climate change, I would note that these papers have 

most recently focused on the roles of different levels of government 

in carrying out such programs. Today’s hearing is the first on these 

white papers which are intended to lay out our initial conclusions 

on various topics and, as importantly, to solicit comments from 

other members and from stakeholders and ordinary citizens who 

might be concerned. 

The subject of today’s hearing is two-pronged. First, how does the 

adoption of cap-and-trade legislation to limit U.S. emissions of 

greenhouse gases affect the competitiveness of U.S. goods sold at 

international trade? Second, what are the best legislative alternatives or combination of tools for mitigating negative effects? We 

look forward to the views of the witnesses on these important matters. In the white paper on international competitiveness released 

in late January, three main concerns were raised. First, absent corresponding action by developing countries, the adoption of limits on 

greenhouse gas emissions by the U.S. and other developed countries will not achieve the goal of protecting the global environment. 

Second, if the U.S. were to cap its own emissions without corresponding actions by developing actions with whom we compete 

internationally, the relative cost to American products would increase and would cause U.S. jobs and industry to migrate to other 

nations that do not limit their emissions. Third, past debate on climate change suggests that the Congress would be unlikely to adopt 

legislation committing the United States to limiting its own greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of assurances that developing 

countries will take similar action. And I would note that the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty in the Senate and in popular acceptance 

tends to support that statement very strongly. Of course, crafting 

6 

legislation to address these concerns presents Congress with a 

unique challenge since its actions cannot unilaterally bind other 

countries. Like the underlying U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the recent Bali roadmap for negotiating a post-Kyoto 

international agreement reflects differing roles and intentions between developed and developing nations in fulfilling the 1992 Rio 

Treaty’s goals. With this in mind, the white paper outlines several 

options suggested in prior testimony before this Subcommittee, 

some of which have been incorporated into legislation under consideration in the Senate. The white paper also solicits comments on 

different approaches. I am interested to learn whether our witnesses believe a hybrid approach that combines both carrots and 

sticks with respect to developing countries could best achieve the 

goal of limiting carbon emissions without harming the U.S. economy. I would note that this is one of the most difficult issues the 

Congress faces in crafting climate change legislation and that we 

welcome not only the ideas that will be presented by today’s witnesses but also the views of others who might wish to comment on 

the questions raised in the white paper. 

Finally, I would offer three observations about this aspect of the 

legislation which we intend to draft. First, the bill should include 

provisions to induce developing countries to limit their emissions 

growth on a timetable that meets both environmental and trade 

competitiveness concerns. Second, the bill must be crafted in a 

manner that is reasonably certain to withstand a challenge before 

the World Trade Organization, the WTO, which realistically we 

must expect to be filed. And three, we must be clear-eyed in understanding that success in any such WTO proceeding is not assured 

and to craft legislation so that in that event the risks to the United 

States’ economy are minimized and are held to acceptable levels. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing, 

and I look forward to the testimony and the comments of my colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

Chairman Boucher, thank you for holding this hearing. I want to commend you 

for your leadership on the critical issue of addressing climate change, and I look forward to working with you and other members of the Subcommittee in drafting legislation limiting U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases through an economy wide capand-trade system. 

I am pleased to note that we have now issued three White Papers that focus on 

the design of a cap-and-trade program, on international competitiveness, and most 

recently on the roles of different levels of government in carrying out such a program. 

Today’s hearing is the first of the White Papers, which are intended to lay out 

our initial conclusions on various topics and, as importantly, to solicit comment from 

other Members and stakeholders. 

The subject of today’s hearing is two pronged. First, how does the adoption of capand-trade legislation to limit U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases affect the competitiveness of U.S. goods sold in international trade? Second, what are the best legislative alternatives—or combination of tools—for mitigating any negative effects? We 

look forward to the views of our witnesses on both of these matters. 

In the White Paper on international competitiveness released in late January, 

three main concerns were raised: 

First, absent corresponding action by developing countries, the adoption of limits 

on greenhouse gas emissions by the U.S. and other developed countries will not 

achieve the goal of protecting the global environment; 

7 

Second, if the U.S. were to cap its own emissions without corresponding action 

by developing countries with whom we compete internationally, the relative cost of 

American products could increase and cause U.S. industry and jobs to migrate to 

nations that do not limit their emissions; 

Third, past debate on climate change suggests that Congress would be unlikely 

to adopt legislation committing the U.S. to limiting its greenhouse gas emissions in 

the absence of assurances that developing countries will take similar action. 

Of course, crafting legislation to address these concerns presents Congress with 

a unique challenge, since its actions cannot unilaterally bind other countries. Like 

the underlying U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the recent ‘‘Bali 

road map’’ for negotiating a post-Kyoto international agreement reflects differing 

roles and inherent tensions between developed and developing nations in fulfilling 

the 1992 Rio Treaty’s goals. 

With this in mind, the White Paper outlines several options suggested in prior 

testimony before this Subcommittee, some of which have been incorporated in legislation under consideration in the Senate. The White Paper also solicits comments 

on different approaches. I am interested if our witnesses believe a hybrid approach 

that combines both ‘‘carrots’’ and ‘‘sticks’’ with respect to developing countries could 

best achieve the goal of limiting carbon emissions without harming the U.S. economy. 

I would note that this is one of the most difficult issues Congress faces in crafting 

climate change legislation, and that we welcome not only the ideas that will be presented by today’s witnesses, but also those views of others who wish to comment 

on the questions posed in the White Paper. 

Finally, I would offer three additional observations about this aspect of the legislation we intend to draft: 

(1) The bill should include provisions to induce developing countries to limit their 

emissions growth on a timetable that meets both environmental and trade competitiveness concerns; 

(2) The bill must be crafted in a manner that is reasonably certain to withstand 

a challenge before the World Trade Organization (WTO), which realistically we 

must expect to be filed; and 

(3) We must be clear-eyed in understanding that success in any such WTO proceeding is not assured; and to craft the legislation so that, in that event, the risks 

to the U.S. economy are acceptable. 

With that, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward to the 

testimony. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Chairman Dingell. At this 

time, I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Republican Member 

of the Full Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 

5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a little before 

11:00. This is my third Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing of the day, so what a joy it is to be on a committee that is engaged in trying to find solutions to our Nation’s problems. The O&I 

Subcommittee issued a subpoena on unanimous vote to compel testimony of the president of the company that just had the largest 

meat recall in our Nation’s history. Mr. Markey’s TelCo Subcommittee is wrestling with the vexatious problem of whether we 

should mandate more sports programming on the basic tier, and up 

here, we are holding a hearing on a white paper about climate 

change and whether we should force the rest of the world to do as 

we say they should, whether we do it ourselves or not. And of 

course, we haven’t even firmly established that there is a problem 

we can do something about. So we are at solution stages when I 

still think we ought to be in the fact finding. I will say this, and 

it is only my opinion, but it is based on a fair number of hearings 

8 

and quite a bit of reading of the literature, the probability that 

mankind through its emissions is significantly affecting the temperature of the earth is much closer to zero than it is to 100 percent. And I mean, I would almost say it is less than 1 percent, but 

that is just my opinion. 

Having said that, I want to commend you and the staff for the 

white papers. They are thoughtful. A lot of effort has gone into developing them, and I do agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that if we 

are going to attempt to do something legislatively, we need to be 

very, very careful how we do it because this is not a video game, 

and we can literally wreck the world’s dominant economy with all 

the best intentions for protecting our environment and our climate; 

and then we will look back 20 or 30 or 40 years from now when 

we are, you know, last year’s great power and say, what happened? 

I agree with the Chamber representative whose testimony I have 

reviewed that if we do anything at all, it ought to be within a 

framework on working on an international voluntary basis to do 

things that have technological relevance and also help in terms of 

reducing the so-called greenhouse gas emissions. I am not at all opposed to doing things that make economic sense and also have an 

environmental positive impact. I can say with all honesty that the 

U.S. economy is doing that. Our energy intensity, our carbon intensity, all the metrics that actually have a component that has an 

output variable show that we are leading the world and have been 

for the last 10 to 15 years. I do not think that we can force the 

developing nations to limit their emissions on a purely emotional 

appeal. You know, if the choice is running water and heated homes 

or air-conditioned homes and mobility versus none of the above, 

they are going to choose the former, and all the environmental 

emotionalism in the world is not going to change that basic decision. I have had numerous conversations on-camera and off-camera 

with my friends on the majority, and I am sincere in saying that 

I know that you folks are sincere in trying to do things that are 

better for our country. I just hope that before we act, we do begin 

the process of making sure that it does not wreck our economy and 

have no measurable environmental benefit as a consequence of 

that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton. Any member 

who decides to waive an opening statement under the rules of the 

Committee will have 3 minutes of questioning time added to the 

questioning of witnesses, and the Chair would like to encourage 

members to keep that rule in mind as we go through the process 

this morning. 

That said, I am pleased at this time to recognize the gentleman 

from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not think I will 

use my whole 3 minutes, but let me start off with Budrow Joe. 

Budrow was standing on his front porch when the levees broke and 

a boat came by and said, get in the boat, we will save you, Budrow. 

9 

And he says, no, do not worry about me. The Lord will take care 

of me. Second boat came by when he was up on the second floor, 

and they said, come on, Budrow, get in the boat. He said, nope. Do 

not worry about me. The Lord will save me. The next time the boat 

came by, he was on the roof and he told the people in the boat the 

same thing, do not worry about me, the Lord will save me. When 

the helicopter came by to pick him off the chimney, he said the 

same thing, do not worry about me, I will be just fine. The Lord 

will save me. Well, Budrow met the Lord face to face at the Pearly 

Gates, and he was mad as hell. And he says, Lord, what the hell 

are you doing? He says, you left me down there. The Lord looked 

at him and said, for heaven’s sakes, Budrow. I sent three boats and 

a helicopter. What are you thinking? 

I guess my point is that the indicators are out there. The Great 

Barrier Reef is dying, the ice shelf is melting, we have got these 

extreme weather conditions, and I am sure there are a lot of other 

things that scientists can tell us about. If the scientists are 90 percent wrong, we still need to act. I would like to think that when 

I leave this earth, that it will be a place that my grandchildren and 

future generations will have a place to live and breathe and enjoy. 

So I think it is inherent upon us to illustrate to the world that we 

are willing to participate in trying to make the changes, and I 

agree with Mr. Barton on the fact that I do not want to wreck the 

economy of this world or this country particularly, but we need to 

’fess up to regardless of who we work for, that we all have an obligation to the next generations. And with that, I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. The gentleman from 

Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, and we look forward to this hearing. We all know that Washington is a town that 

reacts to whatever the current issue is, and certainly global warming is that issue today. But I think we recognize that there are significant questions, for example, about the effectiveness of the capand-trade system operating in Europe today. I for one am quite 

concerned that we might adopt a cap-and-trade system when we do 

not have the technology available to achieve the targets that we 

hear about, and if we proceed, then we definitely will place a great 

disadvantage the industries in our country that would jeopardize 

our jobs, jeopardize our economy, and I think create more unemployment. 

So I think it is imperative that we move cautiously and as one 

of our witnesses, Mr. Slatterly, in his testimony says today, we 

must have a program with a truly global approach involving major 

greenhouse gas emitting countries and must be verifiable and enforceable; and to ensure a global approach and to protect the competitiveness of domestic products, we must include legislation that 

would require maybe products sold in the United States, whether 

domestic or imported, that they meet a carbon-intensity performance standard. 

10 

So we have to move cautiously. I think we have to be very careful on what we do here because the impact will be quite dramatic 

on our economy. I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield. The 

gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really pleased to 

be here today to kick off our Subcommittee’s series of hearings on 

legislation to address climate change. The information garnered 

from our sessions over the coming weeks and months will help us 

formulate what I hope will be a sound cap-and-trade program that 

will allow us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and preserve 

our planet for future generations. Our nation is the lone superpower in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, 

and with this stature comes unique responsibilities to set an example and to model behaviors as we would like other nations to emulate. Unfortunately, when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions, we have not set much of an example until quite recently. With only 5 percent of the world’s population, the United 

States is responsible for almost 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and our emissions are projected to rise at at least 8 percent 

above 2004 levels by the year 2010 and by 28 percent in 2025. Now 

it is true that emissions are rising fastest in developing countries 

and developing economies. China’s emissions are projected to continue rising rapidly, another 65 percent to 80 percent by the year 

2020. India is in a similar situation. But these are not the countries that put a man on the moon like we did or ushered in the 

Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe like we did. These are not the 

countries that the world looks to for leadership. We cannot use the 

behavior of developing economies as an excuse to defer action. 

Rather, we must demonstrate that it is possible to rise to this challenge, to enact meaningful legislation creating efficient, effective, 

and environmentally friendly climate change programs. 

That said, we also have a responsibility to our Nation, our businesses, our workers, and our consumers to ensure that American 

industries remain competitive, that good jobs remain right here in 

this country, and that prices and costs are reasonable and affordable. To ensure this, I agree that we must include a provision in 

our cap-and-trade bill designed to encourage developing countries 

to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Such a provision can and 

should coincide with bold efforts to reduce our own emissions. And 

while, yes, the policy options that have been presented and are 

going to be presented are highly complex, I think we all look forward to that challenge, and I am hopeful that between the white 

papers and the hearings we will really shine a light on the appropriate way to address these issues. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this hearing 

and hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Ms. Baldwin. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Burgess, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

11 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. I want to commend the Committee for taking the time to support the white papers, to allow members, industry, and environmental consumer advocates the opportunity to 

evaluate any broad climate change policy. Now, according to the 

second white paper, our Committee has reached a consensus that 

efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be fruitless if we do 

not engage developing countries in the process. It is reported that 

China and India are expected to account for 56 percent of the projected increase in emissions between 2005 and 2030. So if these 

emissions are a cause of global climate change, then logically, 

should not China and India take some responsibility for a similar 

percentage of any efforts to limit the effects of climate change in 

the future? China and India are not likely to sacrifice manufacturing jobs nor needed economic development in their society in exchange for new regulations. Why would China or India want to 

comply with the U.S. Congress in its attempts to handcuff their 

progress? Instead of investing in global climate change initiatives 

this week, China reportedly increased their yearly defense budget 

by 20 percent. Clearly China’s concerns as far as global climate 

change is concerned, is not on their to-do list. 

Newton’s Third Law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, we need to make certain that any action we 

take here does not spark unforeseen and unfortunate consequences. 

For example, the 36 billion gallon alternative fuel mandate has had 

unintended consequences on the developing world. Saturday morning’s Washington Post: Soaring food prices putting U.S. emergency 

aid in peril. The USAID officials said that a 41 percent surge in 

prices for wheat, corn, rice, and other cereals over the past 6 

months has generated a $120 billion budget shortfall that will force 

the agency to reduce international efforts to end hunger. According 

to the article, prices have increased as more grains go to biofuel 

production or are consumed by fast-emerging markets as China 

and India. Deeper into the body of the article, look at what has 

happened to wheat prices alone, up 25 percent in one day last 

week, said Josette Sheeran, Executive Director of the World Food 

Program. ‘‘This is really the first emergency that we faced without 

a drought, war, or natural disaster. We will have to cut the amount 

of people being served or the amount of food being served if we do 

not get more funds.’’ I will submit that disaster has been brought 

to them courtesy of the U.S. Congress and its energy policy over 

the past year. 

Capital is a wonderful thing. It is powerful, but it is not necessarily courageous. Capital, if you mistreat it, will go someplace 

where it thinks it will be treated better; and I am concerned, Mr. 

Chairman, if we continue on this path of cap-and-trade, we are 

going to drive the equation of unintended consequences much further than we already have. I think that will be deleterious for our 

country and the world at large. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Burgess. The gentleman from 

Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

12 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I thought your opening statement 

was more than adequate, and I will associate myself with that and 

waive my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you so much, Mr. Matheson. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. 

Shimkus is not here at the moment. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as we continue our debate on global warming legislation, we need to keep remembering this important fact, that it is global warming that we 

are talking about, not just United States warming. This is not a 

problem that this Congress or this government can unilaterally address. We are going to need the cooperation of the world community, and it is imperative that any bill we pass recognizes this fundamental point. 

While it is true that the rest of the world and certainly developing nations will not do anything if we do not act first, we must 

be sure that by acting first we do not put our economy at an undue 

risk. We need to find a balance, where we can lead the world’s efforts to combat global warming but also simultaneously strengthen 

American industry to deal with the challenges of a carbon constrained world. I think it is important to recognize the magnitude 

of the challenge if we are ever going to be able to adequately address it. China is now arguably the world’s number one emitter of 

greenhouse gases. It is adding to its economy every 2 years the 

equivalent of the entire U.S. steel production while opening a new 

coal-fired plant, most with little environmental controls, every 2 

weeks. It is critical that our policies at home address those environmental challenges abroad. 

I believe the question of how to best structure incentives, mandates, standards, or fees designed to bring about international acceptance of U.S. environmental benchmarks is one of the most fundamental questions before us as we craft this bill. With an eye to 

the limits on our options due to the World Trade Organization compliance standards, I think it is critical that we explore every option 

available because much like the greater bill, there is no silver bullet to address this question. 

Now, let me be clear. I am in no way referring to the WTO, but 

I am stating that compliance with the WTO will be critical in giving industry the tools they need to compete. I think the performance standard idea that we will see proposed by our witnesses 

today is an innovative idea that should be examined further, as are 

the options presented from using our tax code or trade policies to 

put a real cost on carbon. These new innovative ways of thinking 

outside the box are going to be crucial to moving this debate forward, and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of our witnesses 

on this matter. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, today we are really getting into the 

real meat of this global warming debate. I hope all my colleagues 

will use this opportunity to learn more about the very real conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
13 

sequences of the policies we will be writing so that together we can 

put the best possible bill forward. As always, Mr. Chairman, I 

stand ready to work with you and any member of this Committee 

who is serious about addressing this challenge before us, and with 

that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to waive my 

opening statement and have to step out for a few minutes but will 

be back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Walden. The gentleman from 

Maryland, Mr. Wynn, is recognized for 3 minutes. Not here? The 

gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Mr. Matheson, I 

cannot improve on the comprehensiveness of the Chairman’s statement or on the eloquence of Budrow, so I, too, will yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Barrow. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. SHADEGG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to echo the 

concerns of my colleagues on this Committee who have already spoken of the need to proceed cautiously. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 

I have repeatedly complimented you for your conduct of this Subcommittee and for the thoughtful hearings we have had on the 

issue of climate change. One option before us clearly is the issue 

of a cap-and-trade program. However, the evidence on the viability 

of a cap-and-trade program and its usefulness and success is extremely mixed. The experiment performed in Europe has not led to 

single-sided evidence of success. Having watched them implement 

a cap-and-trade program, it is fairly clear that two things have occurred. One, the cost of energy has unquestionably gone up in certain countries, and two, it is fairly clear that there has not been 

a reduction in greenhouse gases. I think we are all aware of the 

testimony regarding industries that cannot operate in portions of 

the European Union because they cannot get reliable energy to operate, even though those companies are extremely environmentally 

sensitive. And we are aware of the testimony with regard to, for 

example, companies that have left, some companies that manufacture or previously manufactured cement, for example, in Europe 

now moving manufacturing operations to, for example, Morocco. I 

would simply suggest that it is important that we proceed with 

caution. If the U.S. Congress pursues the same remedy with the 

same result, I believe the American electorate will not be happy 

and will not reward us. 

In regard to that, I want to note that in this very Committee at 

prior hearings we heard testimony from a representative of the 

government in India who made it very clear that the struggling or 

developing economy of India and of other countries in a similar economic position simply cannot adopt a greenhouse gas emissions 

program until they improve the standard of living in those countries and that to expect them to do so is unrealistic. I believe it is 

14 

not in our interests to punish the people in those countries or the 

people in emerging economies and that we need to proceed with 

great caution; and while the discussion here is that we are going 

to help them, I believe they will perceive it not so much as help. 

I think it is important that we proceed with caution. I would 

echo the remarks of the Ranking Member of the Full Committee 

that we look at those places where we can improve efficiency and 

also limit greenhouse gases at least at this stage of the operation. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Shadegg. The gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Harman, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my late 

arrival, but I had a competing hearing. I apologize in advance for 

my early departure but I have a competing hearing. 

I would like to echo or endorse some of the things Mr. Shadegg 

just said and make an additional point or a related point. Climate 

change, as everyone has said, is a world-wide problem, but the 

United States is still today the world’s number one emitter of 

greenhouse gases, and we must lead. We must not use the problems of the developing world as an excuse to avoid leading. Let me 

just quote from the Papua New Guinea representative who said, 

‘‘We seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.’’ 

Imagine this statement coming from a small Pacific island nation 

which cares about this issue. 

So my bottom line is that leadership includes helping others to 

cooperate with us, and that is what we should be doing. If we can 

help others to cooperate with us, we can slow down and hopefully 

turn back the emission of greenhouse gases and save our planet, 

and if we do not, we will not. I think the United States is tested. 

I think this Committee is tested. We have to be courageous. We 

have to figure out how to get this right in the first place, and I applaud the fact that we are having this careful series of hearings to 

explore that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Harman. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Bono Mack, is recognized for 3 minutes. Well, she was here and is no longer. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is here and is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to help you out 

with the time but we did not even get a chance to talk and debate 

and get on record on this issue. Really, it is a national media debate now, and so this is one of a few times that we can actually 

go on record on some of the issues. 

Facts, as we say here, are very stubborn things. The electricity 

generation in this country, we are close to capacity now, and the 

Energy Information Services says we will need 35 percent more 

electricity by 2030. Thirty-five percent more. Think about that, 

15 

folks. We have all supported bills on efficiency, on renewable, solar, 

wind, but this is 35 percent increase over what is being generated 

today and that is all talking about base load generation. And look 

at our own houses. Look at the electricity consumption in our own 

houses. 

I just also went to the competing hearing. Talked about buying 

my wife a laptop for Christmas. You know, a very emotional 

Christmas present. It was not a toaster, it was not a coffee maker. 

We also made it so that it is portable around the house so she can 

carry it around and get on the Internet. It is more energy. Because 

of our ability to have all these great advances, we as individuals 

are consuming more electricity use. 

So you take where we are at today, and we meet our demands. 

I love the energy debate, and everybody knows who has served 

with me on this Committee, the folks get it confused. We got electricity and then we got fuels, a liquid fuel debate. And this is electricity. And we are for the most part independent. We are not importing a lot of electricity generation for use. My fear is some day 

we may be based upon this. Today our portfolio is 50 percent coal. 

We know what the climate change debate will do to coal. It stops 

it. In fact, last year 30 coal-fired plants went off the drawing board. 

And we have got states and governors saying no more, not even 

when we talk about capture and sequestering. So how do you meet 

this 35 percent increase in demand without the lowest, cheapest, 

most cost-effective use? And what does that do for the individual 

consumer? You talk about prices going up today. Across the board, 

electricity, liquid fuels, in this economy, manufacturing, I just hope 

the manufacturing sector and organized labor, they had better link 

arms on this because this is a job killer if done improperly. I have 

got great respect for the Chairman of this Committee. Our districts 

are very similar, and he has promised me that we are going to do 

no harm. I am a trust but verify guy in this debate because I fear 

there will be great harm done. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. I am happy about the trust part. That is a good 

place to begin. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman 

from Maryland, Mr. Wynn, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will waive my opening. 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentleman waives his opening statement. The 

gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is recognized for 

3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

yielding this time. Thank you for your leadership on this Committee. You have tireless energy, and I thank you for all that you 

do. 

I am looking forward, Mr. Chairman, to this discussion about 

how we can achieve what I call the concurrent objectives of lowering America’s greenhouse gas output while at the same time protecting America’s industry and jobs. And I would like to welcome 

and to thank former Congressman Jim Slattery for coming today 

16 

and for testifying on behalf of the U.S. steel industry and Nucor. 

Nucor is very special to me. It is located in my district in North 

Carolina, and I thank them for all that they do on a day-to-day 

basis. 

I want to commend all of you for your constructive suggestions. 

I am sure that they will come. I am ready to hear from each one 

of you about how we can approach the three legislative approaches 

that have been offered in the second white paper that I just got a 

copy of a few days ago and what suggestions the industry may 

have in this relation. And so thank you for coming, thank you for 

convening this hearing. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Butterfield. 

Seeing no additional members who have not been recognized for 

opening statements, we at this time will receive statements from 

our panel of witnesses. And without objection, your prepared written statement will be made part of the record. We would welcome 

your oral summary of approximately 3 minutes. I will just say a 

brief word of introduction about each of our witnesses. 

Mr. Mike Morris is the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of American Electric Power, and it is noteworthy on the 

topic of today’s hearing, that in coordination with the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AEP has made a proposal with 

regard to engaging developing countries, and that is one of the 

three alternative proposals that have been made to this subcommittee with regard to addressing that critical element of capand-trade legislation. 

The Honorable Jim Slattery is a former colleague of ours and 

former member of this Committee who served with distinction. Jim 

and I were elected the same year and began our service on this 

Committee at approximately the same time. I think Jim may have 

preceded me on this Committee by 2 years. He was a better lobbyist for that assignment at the time than I was. He served with 

distinction here, and we welcome him back today. He is speaking 

today on behalf of a proposal made by the Nucor Steel Corporation. 

Mr. Richard Morgenstern is a Senior Fellow at Resources for the 

Future. Mr. David Doniger is the Policy Director for Climate 

Change for the National Resources Defense Council. Mr. Gary 

Hufbauer is with the Peterson Institute for International Economics. And Mr. Christopher Wenk is the Senior Director for International Policy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

We welcome each of you, and Mr. Morris, we will begin with your 

oral statement and would ask that each of our panel members try 

to keep their statements to approximately 5 minutes. Mr. Morris? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL G. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you very much Chairman Boucher and 

Ranking Member Upton. Thanks much for being here. I really appreciate the opportunity to address this sub-issue of a very large 

challenge, and I must admit, I was quite impressed by all of the 

comments that were offered by your colleagues on this Subcommittee because it is clear that there is a great appreciation of 

17 

the magnitude of the potential trade impact of a misinformed and 

misapplied global warming plan. 

To your opening comments you mentioned that the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and American Electric Power 

have brought forth what we obviously believe is an appropriate 

way to address that issue. President Ed Hill of the IBEW was instrumental in putting together the concepts that we have developed 

and surely have submitted to your Committee, and we know and 

we are pleased that, along with other ideas, it will be given great 

consideration. The whole notion of putting an impact on the U.S. 

economy in the manufacturing sense, without giving those other 

competing manufacturing countries an opportunity to join us, and 

if they choose not to join us, then an opportunity to pay an international credit allowance before they can import products into this 

country we think is well-balanced. We have spent a great deal of 

time trying to think through the concept of how one would put 

something like that together and answer the question that was 

asked by the Chair of the overall Committee, as well as the questions that you asked of us. We think in fact that it is WTO-compliant. When we went to the professionals who do that work, then I 

can assure you that is way above my pay grade, they said to us, 

no one has ever come and asked for how would you do something 

WTO-compliant. Most clients come and say, I have a problem or I 

think somebody is violating WTO, would you help me figure that 

out? We went in and said, here is the issue. This is a global environmental issue that needs to be addressed globally or the environmental calamity, whatever it is and whenever it is, will continue 

to come our way. And we need to be fair and balanced in trying 

to find a way to go about doing that. 

In its simplest of terms, the IBEW-AEP approach addresses the 

issue on an economy-wide basis of carbon intensive products that 

would be manufactured in our country or in other countries, the 

programs would be the same, the International Reserve Allowance 

would be very similar to one of our carbon credits, and if your 

country did not have a comparable program and it is easy to poke 

holes in that and say, well, how would you ever determine that, we 

will leave that to the work of the Committee. But nonetheless, if 

they have no program, then before that product could be imported 

into our country, it would have to purchase one of those International Reserve Allowances. And that would be set at the same 

price as the carbon credit is set to the U.S. manufacturer. We think 

that goes a long way to try and make certain that there is balance 

to the question that you asked. We believe as I said before that it 

is in fact WTO-compliant. We know as the Chairman said that 

would be challenge. We think the timeline when one could go about 

doing that could sink in with the actual implementation of a capand-trade program developed not only by the House but the Senate, then coming out of conference, hopefully signed into law by the 

President. So we feel very strongly about the notion of addressing 

this issue because I join my colleague from Louisiana. There is 

something going on here. There is technology that we can employ 

to help the performance of the power plants. I surely agree with 

your colleague from Illinois. We need to build additional base load 

power plants. They need to be fired by coal. We need to do that in 

18 

the most environmentally responsible way that we can. A cap-andtrade bill that has a timeline that allows that technology to be developed, that has some type of price coordination in it so that we 

don’t have a negative effect right off the bat on the U.S. economy 

and that addresses the global nature that almost every one of your 

colleagues mentioned in their comments is the answer, and we can 

develop that and we would be in strong support of that. 

I thank you very much for the chance to be here. I look forward 

to the questions and answers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 1 here 50023.001
20 


Insert offset folio 2 here 50023.002
21 


Insert offset folio 3 here 50023.003
22 


Insert offset folio 4 here 50023.004
23 


Insert offset folio 5 here 50023.005
24 


Insert offset folio 6 here 50023.006
25 


Insert offset folio 7 here 50023.007
26 


Insert offset folio 8 here 50023.008
27 


Insert offset folio 9 here 50023.009
28 


Insert offset folio 10 here 50023.010
29 


Insert offset folio 11 here 50023.011
30 


Insert offset folio 12 here 50023.012
31 


Insert offset folio 13 here 50023.013
32 


Insert offset folio 14 here 50023.014
33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 50023.015
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 50023.016
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 50023.017
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 50023.018
37 


Insert offset folio 19 here 50023.019
38 


Insert offset folio 20 here 50023.020
39 


Insert offset folio 21 here 50023.021
40 


Insert offset folio 22 here 50023.022
41 


Insert offset folio 23 here 50023.023
42 


Insert offset folio 24 here 50023.024
43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 50023.025
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 50023.026
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 50023.027
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 50023.028
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 50023.029
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 50023.030
49 


Insert offset folio 31 here 50023.031
50 


Insert offset folio 32 here 50023.032
51 


Insert offset folio 33 here 50023.033
52 


Insert offset folio 34 here 50023.034
53 


Insert offset folio 35 here 50023.035
54 


Insert offset folio 36 here 50023.036
55 


Insert offset folio 37 here 50023.037
56 


Insert offset folio 38 here 50023.038
57 


Insert offset folio 39 here 50023.039
58 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Morris. Mr. Slattery, 

we will be pleased to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF JIM SLATTERY, NUCOR STEEL CORPORATION 

Mr. SLATTERY. Well, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is as you might imagine a pleasure for me to come back 

and see so many friends. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today. 

My name is Jim Slattery, and I am a partner at Wiley Rein LLP, 

and as counsel to Nucor Corporation, I am appearing on behalf of 

the American Iron and Steel Institute and the Steel Manufacturers 

Association. American steel companies make the girders and beams 

in our bridges, the steel in our pipelines, the rebar in our roads, 

the plate in our ships, the steel in our windmills, and the corrosionresistant metal in our cars. The steel industry directly employs 

150,000 people and hundreds of thousands more indirectly. Our national defense depends on a reliable source of steel. The loss of 

manufacturing industries like steel due to the climate change legislation without global reach would cost millions of Americans their 

jobs, damage our economy, and threaten our national security. 

Even worse, from a climate perspective, the loss of American 

steelmakers would result in increased global emissions of greenhouse gases, exactly the opposite the intended result. 

My testimony focuses on how to prevent climate change legislation from putting our industry at a competitive disadvantage and 

how to encourage foreign firms serving U.S. markets to lower their 

carbon footprint. Mr. Chairman, if we cannot encourage developing 

nations like China, India, Russia, and Brazil to act, what we do in 

the United States will matter little. Carbon intensity standards 

would limit how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 

could be emitted from a given steel product sold in the United 

States. These standards would apply to both domestic and imported products. While we cannot force other countries to control 

their emissions, carbon intensity standards would encourage both 

domestic and foreign producers to do so by conditioning access to 

the U.S. market on compliance with the standards. 

The American steel industry is part of the solution in the climate 

change debate, not the problem. Why do I say this? We beat Kyoto 

targets 11 years early and are among the most efficient in the 

world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. For every ton of domestic steel that is replaced by imports, greenhouse gas emissions 

increase by a half-a-ton or more. For imports from China, the 

world’s largest producer, the difference is double or triple U.S. 

emissions. According to the EPA, U.S. steel producers cut their 

process emissions from around 85 million metric tons to 45 million 

metric tons while actually increasing production from 1990 to 2005. 

Iron and steel accounts for only 1 percent of direct U.S. greenhouse 

gas emissions. It is vitally important for Congress to appreciate a 

few fundamentals of steel production. Steel is a manmade alloy of 

iron and carbon. Carbon dioxide is an unavoidable process emission 

of iron production at integrated steel mills. Once steel is produced, 

it can be recycled virtually without end by using electric arc furnaces that they rely heavily on electricity and natural gas but 

produce fewer process emissions. The domestic steel industry recyVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
59 

cles its product at a higher rate than aluminum, paper, glass, and 

plastic combined, including 100 percent of the steel in automobiles. 

Steel is a highly competitive, globally traded commodity, and energy is one of the largest input costs. Due to major achievements 

in efficiency and recycling, U.S. steel producers have survived massive onslaughts of imports and are finally recovering from years of 

losses. However, the competitiveness of U.S. steel is always under 

pressure, particularly from developing country producers who face 

far less environmental or labor regulations and often benefit from 

large government subsidies. Our customers make buying decisions 

based on a few dollars per ton, as hard as that is to believe. If cost 

makes either portion of the U.S. steel industry less competitive, 

then the balance that created our phenomenal environmental 

achievements will be lost. Under a poorly conceived U.S. greenhouse gas regime, global market pressures will work, and I regret 

to say that the inevitable result will be to off-shore production and 

increase global emissions at great cost to U.S. jobs and the world 

environment. 

Carbon intensity standards would limit greenhouse gas emissions per ton of steel for steel consumed in the United States, 

whether domestic or imported. These standards would be analogous to car and truck fuel economy standards and appliance energy 

efficiency standards. Whether Congress creates a cap-and-trade 

system, carbon taxes, or carbon intensity standards, the only metric to achieve global reach is carbon intensity. Congress has no 

ability to impose carbon caps on the total emissions from economies 

like China, Russia, India, and Brazil. To determine carbon intensity, a steel producer would one, identify the quantity of each 

input; two, multiply the quantity by the greenhouse gas factor 

identified by the EPA; and three, add up the total emissions; and 

four, divide the total emissions by the total tons of steel produced. 

Congress would direct the EPA to set the standard so that a predetermined percentage of U.S. production would meet the standard. 

Any producer, foreign or domestic, that failed to comply within a 

fixed amount of time could not sell their products in the United 

States. The key is that these standards would apply to domestically 

produced and imported products equally. 

Our firm has conducted an intensive analysis and concluded that 

such standards would be consistent with U.S. obligations under 

GATT. 

I would be remiss if I did not tell you that the U.S. steel industry 

still has grave doubts about a cap-and-trade regime. We think the 

American Electric Power approach is inadequate as currently drafted in S. 2191. Our competitors producing steel in countries like 

China, India, and Brazil do not need handouts from the U.S. Government to reduce emissions when they have equal access to capital and technology in this global marketplace. 

The American steel industry has led the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but legislation that fails to achieve global 

reach will push production off-shore and produce greater greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon intensity standards for products such 

as steel offer a straightforward, GATT-consistent method of reducing domestic emissions while helping to preserve American comVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
60 

petitiveness. Other steps will also be needed as detailed in my written testimony. 

And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to recognize 

a colleague of mine, Jim Bruce, a former staffer in the Senate Energy Committee that did a remarkable amount of work on this and 

is one of the fathers of this idea. So thank you very much, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slattery follows:] 

61 


Insert offset folio 40 here 50023.040
62 


Insert offset folio 41 here 50023.041
63 


Insert offset folio 42 here 50023.042
64 


Insert offset folio 43 here 50023.043
65 


Insert offset folio 44 here 50023.044
66 


Insert offset folio 45 here 50023.045
67 


Insert offset folio 46 here 50023.046
68 


Insert offset folio 47 here 50023.047
69 


Insert offset folio 48 here 50023.048
70 


Insert offset folio 49 here 50023.049
71 


Insert offset folio 50 here 50023.050
72 


Insert offset folio 51 here 50023.051
73 


Insert offset folio 52 here 50023.052
74 


Insert offset folio 53 here 50023.053
75 


Insert offset folio 54 here 50023.054
76 


Insert offset folio 55 here 50023.055
77 


Insert offset folio 56 here 50023.056
78 


Insert offset folio 57 here 50023.057
79 


Insert offset folio 58 here 50023.058
80 


Insert offset folio 59 here 50023.059
81 


Insert offset folio 60 here 50023.060
82 


Insert offset folio 61 here 50023.061
83 


Insert offset folio 62 here 50023.062
84 


Insert offset folio 63 here 50023.063
85 


Insert offset folio 64 here 50023.064
86 


Insert offset folio 65 here 50023.065
87 


Insert offset folio 66 here 50023.066
88 


Insert offset folio 67 here 50023.067
89 


Insert offset folio 68 here 50023.068
90 


Insert offset folio 69 here 50023.069
91 


Insert offset folio 70 here 50023.070
92 


Insert offset folio 71 here 50023.071
93 


Insert offset folio 72 here 50023.072
94 


Insert offset folio 73 here 50023.073
95 


Insert offset folio 74 here 50023.074
96 


Insert offset folio 75 here 50023.075
97 


Insert offset folio 76 here 50023.076
98 


Insert offset folio 77 here 50023.077
99 


Insert offset folio 78 here 50023.078
100 


Insert offset folio 79 here 50023.079
101 


Insert offset folio 80 here 50023.080
102 


Insert offset folio 81 here 50023.081
103 


Insert offset folio 82 here 50023.082
104 


Insert offset folio 83 here 50023.083
105 


Insert offset folio 84 here 50023.084
106 


Insert offset folio 85 here 50023.085
107 


Insert offset folio 86 here 50023.086
108 


Insert offset folio 87 here 50023.087
109 


Insert offset folio 88 here 50023.088
110 


Insert offset folio 89 here 50023.089
111 


Insert offset folio 90 here 50023.090
112 


Insert offset folio 91 here 50023.091
113 


Insert offset folio 92 here 50023.092
114 


Insert offset folio 93 here 50023.093
115 


Insert offset folio 94 here 50023.094
116 


Insert offset folio 95 here 50023.095
117 


Insert offset folio 96 here 50023.096
118 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Slattery. Mr. Morgenstern. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD MORGENSTERN, SENIOR FELLOW, 

RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear here to consider how to achieve domestic 

emission reductions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases without 

placing undue burdens on any one sector and without shifting production and the corresponding emissions to other countries. 

Today I will briefly report on some recent research by myself and 

some colleagues, and I will discuss several options to alleviate the 

impacts. 

As is widely understood, the impact of a carbon price is fundamentally tied to the carbon intensity of individual industries and 

to the ability of firms to pass on the higher costs to their customers. We estimate that energy costs in most manufacturing industries as broadly defined at what the Commerce Department 

calls the two-digit level, are less than 2 percent of total costs. However, they are more than 3 percent in energy-intensive industries 

such as refining, non-metal mineral products, primary metals, and 

paper and printing. Larger impacts, in fact, considerably larger impacts are seen when more narrowly defined industrial categories 

are considered. For example, for the aluminum and chlorine industries, costs are about 10 times higher. 

We generally find adverse effects on domestic production of less than 1 percent for every $10 per ton of CO2 charge. There are exceptions. Motor vehicle manufacturing and chemicals and plastics 

are about 1 percent and primary metals are about 11⁄2 percent. Of 

course, if we looked at narrower industrial categories, we would inevitably see larger impacts. 

Turning to the options for lessening these impacts, I would note 

at the outset the difficulty of achieving this without some cost either to the environment in the form of higher emissions or to the 

overall economy, largely because we would be substituting more expensive abatement options that would have to be undertaken by 

other industries or other individuals throughout the country. 

Trade-related actions are not costless, either. They might raise legality concerns as we have heard, and they risk provoking countervailing actions. Further, they can also drive up domestic product 

prices for key materials which will itself threaten other industries 

in our country. 

I focus here on three options today, performance standards instead of a market-based or cap-and-trade approach, free allowance 

allocation under a cap-and-trade system, and the trade-related policies which have been alluded to. 

The first option, performance standards, comes in many varieties, for example, tradable emission standards. The particular 

version discussed in the white paper and discussed by Mr. Slattery 

moments ago includes embodied emissions. This is a considerably 

more complex approach than is used for example in CAFE standards or other product standards that we have commonly used in 

this country. However, well-crafted performance standards of any 

type definitely have the potential to encourage efficiency improvements without putting as much upward pressure on production 

119 

costs. In doing so, they may reduce the shift of production to other 

countries. At the same time, because performance standards do not 

encourage end users to reduce their consumption of carbon-intensive goods, they will leave behind some low-cost abatement opportunities, thereby raising the overall cost to all the rest of us of 

achieving a particular emissions target. 

The second option concerns the free allocation of allowances 

under a cap-and-trade system, and there are two important points 

to make here. The first concerns how many allowances will be 

given away free, and the second concerns the methodology, how the 

allowances will be given away. In most existing programs such as 

the acid rain program for example, virtually all the allowances 

have been given away for free based upon historical emissions, 

known as grandfathering. More recent proposals in the climate 

field, in addition to providing for a larger auction, have proposed 

to allocate free allowances in a way that recognizes firm level 

changes in output over time. Certain Senate proposals tie this directly to employment. This latter approach is known as updating. 

Compared with an allocation based on grandfathering, an updating 

allocation can have important differences by creating incentives to 

maintain or even expand domestic production and it can thereby 

reduce the potential for emission leakage. The principal advantage 

of using free allocation is that it can compensate firms for losses 

resulting from the new policy without excluding those firms’ emissions from the cap. Traditional grandfathering can compensate 

owners for losses in value, but it does not necessarily discourage 

firms from shutting down production and moving abroad. In contrast, updating allows firms to gain larger allocation allowances if 

they expand their production or if they expand their employment, 

for example. Although incentives of this type are—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Morgenstern, if I could ask you to wrap up. 

Your time has expired—— 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Sure. 

Mr. BOUCHER [continuing]. And we are now getting recorded 

votes on the floor. I would like to get at least one more statement 

in before we have to recess. 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. OK. Let me cut to the chase here, Mr. Chairman. I will skip over my discussion of trade-related policies. I think 

the Committee is well-versed on that. Let me close by noting that 

one can mix and match these options. For example, one might consider starting out with a generous allocation for the most severely 

affected industries, perhaps one based on updating free allocations 

tied to current output or employment. This free allocation could 

then be phased out or phased down, either at a date certain or once 

trade-related measures were in place or major trading partners had 

adopted comparable measures. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morgenstern follows:] 

120 


Insert offset folio 97 here 50023.097
121 


Insert offset folio 98 here 50023.098
122 


Insert offset folio 99 here 50023.099
123 


Insert offset folio 100 here 50023.100
124 


Insert offset folio 101 here 50023.101
125 


Insert offset folio 102 here 50023.102
126 


Insert offset folio 103 here 50023.103
127 


Insert offset folio 104 here 50023.104
128 


Insert offset folio 105 here 50023.105
129 


Insert offset folio 106 here 50023.106
130 


Insert offset folio 107 here 50023.107
131 


Insert offset folio 108 here 50023.108
132 


Insert offset folio 109 here 50023.109
133 


Insert offset folio 110 here 50023.110
134 


Insert offset folio 111 here 50023.111
135 


Insert offset folio 112 here 50023.112
136 


Insert offset folio 113 here 50023.113
137 


Insert offset folio 114 here 50023.114
138 


Insert offset folio 115 here 50023.115
139 


Insert offset folio 116 here 50023.116
140 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Morgenstern. We have three recorded votes pending on the floor, and it is our intention to recess 

the Subcommittee in about another 8 minutes, and what I am hoping is that potentially within 8 minutes, we can have two statements of approximately 4 minutes each. 

So, Mr. Doniger, that is your challenge, 4 minutes if you can do 

it. 

Mr. DONIGER. We could go at the same time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Let us try it one at a time and see how we do. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID DONIGER, POLICY DIRECTOR, 

CLIMATE CENTER, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. DONIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here 

on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council’s 1.2 million members and activists. 

What this Committee does has to be framed above all by the 

science. Global warming has started. The time for effective action 

is very short. We are looking at catastrophe if we let global average 

temperatures rise by more than another 2 degrees Fahrenheit. To 

avoid this we have to cut emissions in half by 2050 and that means 

that the leadership has to come from the industrial countries, to 

cut their emissions by as much as 80 percent over that time period. 

Delay makes everything harder. Wait 10 years, and the necessary 

rate of emission reductions doubles. In short, a slow start means 

a crash finish. 

The task is very challenging. It cannot be done without cooperation of both north and south, but it can be done. The United States, 

if it has a claim to leadership in the 21st Century, has to be instrumental in forging that coalition between north and south. Above 

all, early enactment of a U.S. cap-and-trade program is the singlemost important step that we can take to unlock the global negotiating gridlock. We will also need a totally different foreign policy 

from the next president that places global warming in the top tier. 

At Bali, the big emerging economies showed unprecedented willingness to negotiate real actions. This is a big change from their 

prior stance against any new commitments. Some big developing 

countries are already taking significant domestic measures to reduce their own domestic energy use and pollution. For example, the 

Chinese are improving industrial and vehicle efficiency and more 

rapidly deploying renewables. China has even established special 

tariffs to discourage exports of cement, iron, and steel. The export 

tariff on steel equates to about $50 a ton. 

To be sure, solving the climate problem means that they have to 

do more. We cannot get their agreement to do more unless we in 

the U.S. show our willingness to join other industrial countries in 

reducing emissions. 

Some manufacturing industries and their unions are understandably concerned about potential competitiveness impacts in the first 

few years of a U.S. program. In our view, Congress can address 

those potential impacts with two tools. One of them, the IBEWAEP trade proposal, is before you in the white paper. The other, 

a limited use of free allocations for the years before the trade proposal takes effect has not yet been considered by the white paper. 

141 

To me, the importance of the IBEW-AEP proposal is that it 

would give the executive branch additional diplomatic leverage in 

negotiations with other countries for agreement on comparable actions, and it would also provide an equalizer later on if for one or 

more of those countries the negotiations do not succeed. 

Some want an earlier start date for the trade proposal. I would 

caution against that because there are dangers in putting the import proposal into effect too quickly. Brandishing the trade stick before 2020 would, in my judgment, inflame the climate treaty talks 

and pose more WTO risks. 

Fortunately, there is another tool that I mentioned that you 

could use: to allocate for a limited time a small number of allowances—it would not take more than 10 percent of the allowance 

pool—to specific industries that demonstrate their competitive disadvantage from domestic carbon control requirements. Any such 

free allocations should be conditioned on the recipient firms’ maintaining domestic employment, and they should be phased out by 

the time the trade provision starts in. Free allocations will not be 

needed beyond that point because competitiveness issues will be resolved either by success in the negotiations or by the triggering of 

the trade provision. 

In short, we can solve the competitiveness concerns and go ahead 

with cap-and-trade with these two tools. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doniger follows:] 

142 


Insert offset folio 117 here 50023.117
143 


Insert offset folio 118 here 50023.118
144 


Insert offset folio 119 here 50023.119
145 


Insert offset folio 120 here 50023.120
146 


Insert offset folio 121 here 50023.121
147 


Insert offset folio 122 here 50023.122
148 


Insert offset folio 123 here 50023.123
149 


Insert offset folio 124 here 50023.124
150 


Insert offset folio 125 here 50023.125
151 


Insert offset folio 126 here 50023.126
152 


Insert offset folio 127 here 50023.127
153 


Insert offset folio 128 here 50023.128
154 


Insert offset folio 129 here 50023.129
155 


Insert offset folio 130 here 50023.130
156 


Insert offset folio 131 here 50023.131
157 


Insert offset folio 132 here 50023.132
158 


Insert offset folio 133 here 50023.133
159 


Insert offset folio 134 here 50023.134
160 


Insert offset folio 135 here 50023.135
161 


Insert offset folio 136 here 50023.136
162 


Insert offset folio 137 here 50023.137
163 

Mr. BOUCHER. Very good, Mr. Doniger. You were just a little over 

4 minutes. Mr. Hufbauer, we will be glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF GARY HUFBAUER, PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR 

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Thanks very much, Chairman Boucher, and 

members of the Committee. I want to commend the well-drafted 

white paper. I need to mention that a representative of the National Foreign Trade Council was originally going to speak where 

I am speaking. I have appended his statement written independently of my own, but the conclusions are quite similar. 

The Peterson Institute is working with the World Resources Institute on these issues, and a book titled Leveling the Carbon Playing Field will soon be published. I commend it to you. 

Now quickly turning to the questions, the first point I would 

make is that any meaningful cap-and-trade or other carbon limitation system will impose very large costs on this economy and other 

economies. To dodge that fact, I think, is to dodge reality. 

Second, the control systems adopted by different countries will 

differ. There is not going to be a uniform system, and the fact of 

differences and the possibility of various hybrid systems means 

that there will be enormous pressure in this country and elsewhere 

both for lobbying for free allowances and other preferences, and 

also for straight import protection. Sauce for the goose is sauce for 

the gander. Any import limitations we impose—citing carbon problems—can be imposed on us. This is going to be a two-way street. 

So if we go ahead and start imposing restrictions willy-nilly, we 

can expect return payment. 

Next, I think that the legislation would be vastly improved if the 

Committee would call for WTO discussion on an appropriate code 

that would identify permissible emission measures. That is in addition to Kyoto II or the Bali roadmap. The Bali roadmap at most 

will set targets and time paths but it will not address the details 

of permissible emission measures. 

I would caution this Committee against taking at face value assurances from brave lawyers that such-and-such a proposal is immune from WTO attack. I go into this subject in some detail in the 

testimony. There is hardly any trade restrictive measure that 

would not invite WTO attack, but we do not need to trash the 

world trading system, as Mr. Upton has noted, to get meaningful 

carbon emissions. What we need to do is have a WTO negotiation 

ahead of time—a good-faith negotiation led by the United States. 

So let me just stop there and say that global cooperation started 

early by the United States will achieve a lot more than a heavystick, unilateral approach. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hufbauer follows:] 

164 


Insert offset folio 138 here 50023.138
165 


Insert offset folio 139 here 50023.139
166 


Insert offset folio 140 here 50023.140
167 


Insert offset folio 141 here 50023.141
168 


Insert offset folio 142 here 50023.142
169 


Insert offset folio 143 here 50023.143
170 


Insert offset folio 144 here 50023.144
171 


Insert offset folio 145 here 50023.145
172 


Insert offset folio 146 here 50023.146
173 


Insert offset folio 147 here 50023.147
174 


Insert offset folio 148 here 50023.148
175 


Insert offset folio 149 here 50023.149
176 


Insert offset folio 150 here 50023.150
177 


Insert offset folio 151 here 50023.151
178 


Insert offset folio 152 here 50023.152
179 


Insert offset folio 153 here 50023.153
180 


Insert offset folio 154 here 50023.154
181 


Insert offset folio 155 here 50023.155
182 


Insert offset folio 156 here 50023.156
183 


Insert offset folio 157 here 50023.157
184 


Insert offset folio 158 here 50023.158
185 


Insert offset folio 159 here 50023.159
186 


Insert offset folio 160 here 50023.160
187 


Insert offset folio 161 here 50023.161
188 


Insert offset folio 162 here 50023.162
189 


Insert offset folio 163 here 50023.163
190 


Insert offset folio 164 here 50023.164
191 


Insert offset folio 165 here 50023.165
192 


Insert offset folio 166 here 50023.166
193 


Insert offset folio 167 here 50023.167
194 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hufbauer. We are 

going to recess the Subcommittee at this point and return following 

the last of the three recorded votes. I appreciate the patience of our 

witnesses, and we will be back with you in approximately 25 minutes. 

With that, the Subcommittee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BOUCHER. We would ask our witnesses if they could resume 

their seats at the table. 

When we recessed, we had completed the statements of witnesses 

through Mr. Hufbauer, and Mr. Wenk, we have yet to receive your 

statement. So at this time, we will be happy to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER WENK, SENIOR DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL POLICY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. WENK. Thank you very much, Chairman Boucher, Ranking 

Member Upton, and members of the Subcommittee for inviting the 

Chamber of Commerce to testify today on this very important 

issue. 

My name is Christopher Wenk, and I serve as the Senior Director of International Policy at the Chamber, the world’s largest business federation. My background is in trade policy. Rather than the 

science of climate change and the state of research and development, I will confine my testimony to the international aspects of 

this issue. 

Without question, there are serious trade implications to the current debate over the various climate change proposals on the table 

that should give everybody pause. Let us consider the following 

facts. America’s international trade in goods and services accounts 

for roughly 27 percent of our country’s GDP. Nationwide our exports directly support 12 million good-paying jobs and indirectly 

support millions of other jobs. More than 57 million Americans are 

employed by businesses that engage in international trade, and the 

benefits reach every state in our Nation. The combined effects of 

trade agreements over the past half-century have raised the annual 

income of an American household by $10,000. In 2007, the United 

States exported a record $1.6 trillion in goods and services and continues to be the world’s largest exporter. These facts cannot be 

overlooked. Further, one should not also overlook the fact that the 

climate change discussion involves trading relationships that the 

United States has with countries around the world. 

A key focus of today’s hearing is engaging developing countries 

on climate change. The Chamber believes that neither least-developed nor developing countries can be forced to comply with the domestic greenhouse gas emission regulatory regime without possible 

significant risk to not only U.S. exporters and workers but also to 

the economies of developing countries. 

For example, S. 2191, legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions 

sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Warner, exempts countries 

that are de minimus emitters from having to buy import allowances. However, several developing countries besides China and 

India could possibly be considered significant emitters. These countries include Nigeria, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Africa to name a few. These countries also export to the United 

195 

States raw and intermediate products like oil and minerals that require them to purchase import allowances. One could argue that 

the imposition of the import allowance requirement on these countries would have a negative impact on their economic development. 

There is also the question of whether climate change legislation 

would make the United States vulnerable to a challenge under the 

WTO or NAFTA, for that matter. As noted on page 13 of the white 

paper, there is a general expectation that a WTO challenge is likely 

regardless of what approach Congress takes. However, I think it is 

safe to assume that we could screw up trading relationships around 

the world before we even got to a possible WTO dispute settlement 

proceeding. In this time of economic uncertainty, the Chamber 

urges Congress to not risk provoking a trade war with countries 

like China or India where the United States exported almost $83 

billion worth of goods combined in 2007. Most recently, Brazil 

scored a big victory at the WTO over America’s cotton subsidies. 

Brazil has reserved the right to impose annual sanctions of up to 

$4 billion on the United States. If the United States fails to comply 

with this ruling, Brazil has said that it would target American 

goods as well as trademarks, patents, and commercial services for 

retaliation. 

The bottom line is that there is no guarantee that our trading 

partners will not retaliate against us in the WTO or otherwise 

based on actions by Congress. Further, according to the U.S. Commerce Department, in 2007, the United States imported almost 

$113 billion in energy products like oil, gasoline, and natural gas 

from Canada and Mexico. Wouldn’t border measures require our 

two largest trading partners to buy massive amounts of import allowances? Just imagine the impact that would have on the economies of these two important allies and possibly on our NAFTA obligations. 

Finally, the Chamber believes that trade policy can contribute in 

a meaningful way in efforts to reduce climate change through trade 

liberalization and not trade restrictions. Last fall the United States 

and the European Union submitted a proposal as part of the ongoing Doha round of WTO negotiations to increase global trade in 

and the use of environmental goods and services. It would place 

priority action on technologies directly linked to addressing climate 

change and energy security. Significantly, WTO members currently 

charge duties as high as 70 percent on certain environmental 

goods, impeding access to and use of these important technologies. 

Once again, the Chamber is grateful for the opportunity to provide testimony today. However, I believe that this hearing today 

will raise many more questions than it will answer. I would also 

urge the leadership of this Subcommittee and the full Energy and 

Commerce Committee to work with your colleagues on the Ways 

and Means Committee which has jurisdiction over international 

trade issues to explore the issues not only that were raised in the 

white paper but also addressed at this hearing. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenk follows:] 

196 


Insert offset folio 168 here 50023.168
197 


Insert offset folio 169 here 50023.169
198 


Insert offset folio 170 here 50023.170
199 


Insert offset folio 171 here 50023.171
200 


Insert offset folio 172 here 50023.172
201 


Insert offset folio 173 here 50023.173
202 


Insert offset folio 174 here 50023.174
203 


Insert offset folio 175 here 50023.175
204 


Insert offset folio 176 here 50023.176
205 


Insert offset folio 177 here 50023.177
206 


Insert offset folio 178 here 50023.178
207 


Insert offset folio 179 here 50023.179
208 


Insert offset folio 180 here 50023.180
209 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Wenk. Let me recognize myself for a round of questions, and I will address my first 

question jointly to Mr. Morris and Mr. Slattery. 

You are the authors or the co-authors of the two competing leading proposals that we have before us for protecting American industry and assuring the participation of developing countries when 

greenhouse gas controls are adopted in this country, and what I 

would like to ask you to do is to put on the table before you both 

of your proposals and critique those, one against the other, against 

these three questions and tell me which of your proposals in your 

opinion is superior on each of these three points. So I guess what 

I am asking you to do is advocate for your respective position on 

these three points, but to some extent, critique the other party’s 

proposal as well. This is not an invitation for a negative campaign, 

but you can choose to be a little bit negative if you desire. 

So the three questions are these. Looking at your two proposals 

together, which of them is the most likely to achieve the following: 

One, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries; 

two, protecting the American industry that is exposed to trade at 

a time when we have carbon dioxide constraints domestically in the 

United States; and number three, passing muster under WTO and 

potentially other trade agreements to which the United States is a 

party. And so that is the challenge, and we will look forward to 

your answers. Mr. Morris, would you like to go first? 

Mr. MORRIS. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me try to 

frame as best I can what I think are some differences, and I must 

admit that I do not know that we are that widely apart on this 

issue. I think we are both trying as constructively as we can to 

come up with a program that would satisfy the issue at hand. It 

would seem to me, however, if you are looking at the overall reduction of greenhouse gases in a developing country that the IBEWAEP proposal surely would be more attuned to that because it is 

predicated on your opening comments about a cap-and-trade program. If you use carbon intensity or form of production as your 

measure, you would be lowering carbon output by that ton of product, whatever it is; but at the same time, if it is not a hard cap 

that steps down over time, you would be at best lowering then 

maybe flattening out. I do not know that you would ever get on the 

other side of the curve. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And you are suggesting that Mr. Slattery’s proposal does not contain the hard cap but instead—— 

Mr. MORRIS. I believe that to be the case. 

Mr. BOUCHER [continuing]. Is a carbon intensity measurement? 

Mr. MORRIS. Exactly. At least that is as I heard the comments 

and have had an opportunity to look at the program. 

As to your second undertaking, as I tried to say in my opening 

comment, the IBEW-AEP proposal is really directed at a very limited group of carbon-intensive manufacturing processes in a definable group of countries with which one would deal and have bilateral discussions and negotiations with the intent of having them 

join us in a constructive, opportunistic way or if not, then actually 

have them join in a protective way in that before their manufactured product could actually be imported into this country, they 

210 

would have to pay for the International Reserve Allowance, which 

would put us on what I think is an absolutely equal footing. 

So wrapped in the second question in our answer, I think it probably more appropriately addresses itself to the multitude where 

clearly Congressman Slattery’s approach is very limited as to the 

steel industry that he is here to represent. Rest assured, the last 

thing that IBEW or American Electric Power want to do is have 

a negative impact on the steel industries. They are big companies 

of ours, customers of ours, big employers in this country, a very important business for this country to have. 

As to your last question, as again I mentioned in my opening 

comments, we took a great deal of time, energy, and effort to try 

to create what we thought would be a WTO-compliant approach to 

this issue. I surely agree with the professor when he said it would 

be folly to believe that it will not be challenged. We believe that 

it will be. To the extent that the WTO in Geneva in fact offers 

opinions to questions asked before you bring in front of them a 

challenge, that is a great idea. There is no unending pride of authorship of what we have done. If someone can come forward and 

say, we think IBEW-AEP is missing WTO-compliance at this particular point, I would hope the Committee would change it as they 

implement it. We are impressed and pleased that both Lieberman, 

Warner, and—had included that concept, and it will be developed 

over time; and clearly, we believe ours is a superior proposal and 

we would hope that you include it in the House materials as well. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Morris. I think you would make 

an excellent candidate, by the way. You couched your negative remarks in a positive context just the way a good candidate should. 

Mr. Slattery? 

Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, your question contemplates that there is a conflict between the AEP concept and the 

performance-standard concept. And that is not necessarily the 

truth. I mean, that is not the fact. You could do the AEP concept, 

you could also do performance-standards we envision. So there is 

not necessarily an inherent conflict. With respect to which—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Let me just interject. If you are suggesting that 

we can meld these two proposals and take the best aspects of both, 

you might elaborate on that potential and tell us the mechanics of 

how that would work and which particular pieces of the two proposals should be selected—— 

Mr. SLATTERY. Sure. 

Mr. BOUCHER [continuing]. For that unified approach as you answer the question. 

Mr. SLATTERY. OK. First of all, the only specific AEP proposal 

that I am aware of that has been out there is the language contained in Senate 2191, and there are specific provisions in that particular proposal that in our judgment are terribly inadequate and 

very specifically the whole notion of having a base year established 

in the 2012, 2014 time period in effect tells the Chinese, do everything you can to ramp up your emissions between now and 2014. 

Be as dirty as possible because after all, in 2014, that will be the 

base year from which future emission reductions will be computed. 

And then to suggest the Chinese have nothing to do, or others, not 

just the Chinese, but other global competitors do not have to do 

211 

anything until 2020 as the Senate language contemplates in our 

judgment is really unworkable and is inefficient and is terribly inadequate. So we have some very serious base year issues. 

Now, beyond that, the other thing that troubles us, and I trust 

that you can understand our reticence on this point, and that is 

given the Administration’s current reluctance to currently address 

the currency issues with countries like China, for example, we are 

in this situation where when we look at the AEP proposal, for it 

to be effective will require in the future an administration to aggressively assert to the Chinese or others that your climate change 

and climate legislation is inadequate. It is not comparable to ours. 

That is going to be a tough call for some future administration to 

make. And then after making that determination, we are into this 

question of what kind of allowances then are going to be required 

of the Chinese, for example, when they enter our market? Now, I 

would ask you, who is going to buy those allowances for a Chinese 

competitor of a U.S. steelmaker, for example? I can show you that, 

for example, a company like Shanghai Bow Steel, state-owned. It 

is a company as large as the largest U.S.-based companies. It is 

larger than Nucor. It is larger than U.S. Steel. And they are stateowned. There are several other Chinese companies that are stateowned. So they come to our marketplace with allowances, presumably provided by their government. Today’s news as was just handed to me when I walked in here today, China has ruled out increases in state set gas, power, and oil prices. They have ruled out 

any market adjustment for their cost of energy. These are our competitors. 

As you can see, you have state-owned energy sources, stateowned steel makers, competing directly with U.S. industry. 

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. 

Mr. SLATTERY. And how is that going to unfold? So let me also 

respond to the question about—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Very briefly because our time has expired. 

Mr. SLATTERY. OK. As far as the WTO issue is concerned, bottom 

line is, we are both I think in the same position on this that you 

will find trade lawyers on both sides saying that the proposals are 

permissible under GATT, and we strongly believe that. We have 

done a lot of legal analysis on it, and we believe that the proposal 

that we are talking about is permissible. 

So the last point I want to make is that with the performance 

standard, this should not be viewed as some sort of border measure 

necessarily, and it should not be viewed as a protectionist type 

measure. We are not seeking protection. We are seeking equal 

treatment. We are saying to domestic producers, we are saying to 

foreign competitors, if you want to sell into this market, produce 

a product that meets a certain standard, a certain performance 

standard with respect to your carbon intensity. That is similar to 

what we say with appliance energy standards, it is similar to what 

we say with respect to toy manufacturers in China that want to 

ship products into the United States. We do not permit them to 

ship products here with lead paint. They do it, but it is against our 

regulations. So my point—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank you, Mr. Slattery, and thank you, Mr. 

Morris. I will have some follow-up questions as I know other memVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
212 

bers will on precisely this set of issues. And let me announce that 

we are going to have a second round of questions so that we can 

get to some of those matters, and yes, we are going to be here a 

little while. 

Mr. Upton is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say 

that I appreciate everyone’s testimony. This morning I received a 

letter, and I am going to ask unanimous consent to put it into the 

record. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Without objection. 

Mr. UPTON. I have actually not studied it yet. I just skimmed it 

briefly, but it is from Susan Schwab, our U.S. Trade Rep, Executive 

Office of the President, so it was cleared obviously by the Administration, and she says this just to lift a sentence or two from this 

3-page letter, ‘‘We have serious concerns with some ideas that are 

currently circulating, particularly the enthusiasm for using import 

provisions. It might be perceived as unilateral trade restrictions directed against other countries to push them to move rapidly to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. We believe this approach 

could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear, rather than one 

of persuasion that will take us down a dangerous path and adversely affect U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. It is no 

accident that trade ministers in Bali unanimously agreed that 

trade restrictions run the risk of tit-for-tat retaliation and even an 

all-out trade war where no one wins and everyone loses. My trade 

counterpart in Europe, Commissioner Peter Mendelssohn, strongly 

cautioned against including trade restrictions in the European 

Commission’s recent package of proposals setting out the second 

phase of emissions cap-and-trade system, resulting in the omission 

of these measures.’’ To me, that seems a pretty blunt warning that 

in fact trying to use the WTO or trying to influence the WTO. I 

think all of us agree that we should not proceed unless China and 

India are on board, and there are just enormous questions as to 

how that happens. But the idea that maybe the WTO is our escape 

valve or our safety valve to make sure that they are on board, at 

least does not seem like it fits with what the Administration is saying based on this letter, again, dated yesterday but I just received 

it this morning or what happened with the—or Bali, and Noel will 

have the report from the meeting in Hawaii at some point that 

happened just a couple weeks ago. 

What is your reaction to this? I have not seen it and you have 

not seen it, either. What are your thoughts as it relates to this passage? 

Mr. SLATTERY. Well, if I could just respond briefly, the bottom 

line is—— 

Mr. UPTON. It is like it undercuts any argument here. 

Mr. SLATTERY. Yes, well, it is extremely difficult for our industry 

to understand how in the world you can characterize a measure 

that we are proposing as being a trade barrier if we are saying to 

the domestic producers and international competitors that you 

must meet a certain standard. We do not see that as a trade barrier. We are not desiring it to be a trade barrier. We believe that 

to put that in place, it is going to hopefully encourage a race to the 

top, so to speak, a race to better performance for steel makers and 

213 

other energy-intensive manufacturers all over the world. So as long 

as we are committed to equal treatment, which we are, it is hard 

for us to see that as being a trade barrier. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, you made the point in your testimony of the 

real positives that the U.S. industry has made. 

Mr. SLATTERY. Yes. 

Mr. UPTON. 1.2 tons of carbon emitted for every ton of steel produced. 

Mr. SLATTERY. That is correct. On average. 

Mr. UPTON. On average. And in China, it is about, you thought, 

about 21⁄2 but it could be as much as 41⁄2 tons of carbon produced 

for every ton of steel produced. So there is quite a difference in 

terms of efficiency. 

So you could look at something like, well, both countries are 

going to reduce by 80 percent. Fifty percent, let us say. Just pull 

a number out of the air. That would mean that they would go to 

21⁄2 tons and we would go to .6 tons of carbon, still quite a wide 

discrepancy. But then what if the Chinese say, or the Indians, they 

decide that they would go at a per-capita basis based on the populations of the two countries. That is how they want to comply. So 

they have a whole different standard, and under that, I think we 

are about 22 times worse at 1 ton per carbon emitted for 1.2 tons 

versus even 21⁄2 or 3 tons that they have now. So I mean, we are 

not in the same playbook. 

Mr. SLATTERY. Well, if I could, let us look at what is going on 

out in the real marketplace right now, the Chinese and others, but 

let us look at China. They are bringing on line every 2 years a steel 

production capacity that exceeds the current U.S. capacity. 

Mr. UPTON. Right. 

Mr. SLATTERY. This whole notion of saying to those new entities 

out there coming into the marketplace, in a global economy, competing with us for global capital, competing with us for global technology. This is not a mom-and-pop, backwoods operation. We are 

talking state-of-the art steel production capabilities. And the question is, what can we do here to encourage them as they bring all 

this capacity on line to bring it on line with clean, good, new stateof-the art technology; and we contend the best way to do that is 

to say to them, if you want access to our market, we are going to 

require a carbon-intensity standard here, and the technology is 

available with your new operations to employ that in the marketplace right now. And if they do that, which we expect them to do 

by the way, then no problem. 

Mr. UPTON. I know I have exceeded my time, so I am going to 

follow up on the second round, but I want to ask the same type 

question as it relates to coal. Two plants, again, they are expanding 

tremendously, the Chinese. My sense is they have nowhere near 

the type of emissions that we have in this country, so again, they 

are running away at breakneck speed compared to what we have 

already. 

I yield back, and I look forward to the second round. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton. The gentleman 

from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MELANCON. I would like to pass at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

214 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. The gentlelady from 

Wisconsin. Ms. Baldwin is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposals presented today generally focus on ways to ensure American companies do not go overseas or go out of business, both of which are extremely important. But there is the other prong to this discussion 

as we develop this legislation over the weeks and months to come 

and that is encouraging developing nations’ emerging economies to 

decrease their greenhouse gas emissions. 

So I am sort of wanting to tease out a little bit more of whether 

the proposals presented here today are going to have a real difference in China or India or other nations’ emission levels, and I 

guess I want to start with Mr. Doniger for your response to that. 

Mr. DONIGER. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. The agreement 

in Bali is really a breakthrough because as I said the developing 

countries moved off their position that they are not willing to take 

on any new actions or commitments. What they are saying is we 

need to see the industrial countries—which have had the longest 

run on putting carbon in the atmosphere and which have the highest per capita emissions and have a lot of technological and economic capabilities—take responsibility for our emissions. That is 

why I think the cap-and-trade legislation that you are working on, 

to show that we are ready to take our place in this, is so important. 

That is one of the key elements of getting an international agreement. We have to have a foreign policy which puts global warming 

at the top of the list, not at the bottom of the list, so that it becomes important in the overall picture of things the United States 

wants to get from China and India, Mexico, Africa, South Africa, 

Brazil. It has to be important. It has not been important. And we 

have to, in my opinion, be willing to meet their needs for technological assistance in certain areas. By all means, they have lots of 

resources. But they can’t be expected to entirely self-finance the big 

jump to clean technologies that we want to be taking here and we 

want them to be taking. In the Bali agreement the Administration 

agreed to three topics to discuss in the way of financing. One is 

clean technology deployment. The second is help with countries 

whose emissions are primarily in deforestation, to cut that deforestation. And the third area is in countries such as in Africa and 

some of the small island states, which are being overwhelmed by 

impacts, to help them cope with the impacts. It will not take a lot 

of money. We can build into the cap-and-trade allocation system 

funding that would help on a sustainable, stable way to create 

those incentives for cooperation with other countries. 

If you do those things, then the trade measure will become a last 

resort for the recalcitrant. But I think we do not have recalcitrants 

across the board. We have countries which recognize global warming as a severe problem for them as well as us, and they are indicating that if we act, they will act, too. 

Ms. BALDWIN. In follow up, in your testimony both on page 7 in 

your written testimony and also as you were here speaking earlier, 

described some of the actions that China is taking. And you know, 

it is something clearly not enough in my mind; but I was particularly interested in your mention of the special export tariffs to discourage export of I think it was cement, iron, and steel. And I am 

215 

wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about your knowledge of these tariffs and the effect that they will have in your opinion on the global market and prices. 

Mr. DONIGER. Well, China is concerned that they have become 

the dirty manufacturing place for products that go to other countries. Of course, they are building their steel industry and cement 

and so on for their own domestic consumption. But with respect to 

the exports, they are putting on these tariffs to discourage excessive exports. The motivation is that the overly high levels of production for export are stressing their energy supplies and are creating a lot of pollution. So this is an indication that China takes 

their energy and pollution problems with increasing seriousness. 

Now, they have got a lot to do, and we have a lot to do here. We 

need to put this higher on the to-do list with them than we have 

before. 

Ms. BALDWIN. And I want Mr. Slattery—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. BOUCHER. We are going to do—— 

Ms. BALDWIN. I was looking at the one up there. 

Mr. BOUCHER. We are going to do a second round and so—— 

Ms. BALDWIN. OK. 

Mr. BOUCHER [continuing]. We will come back. The gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panelists and their answers to the questions because it just gives us 

more comments based on the experience dealing with this, Mr. 

Doniger, and I am going to just respond to your last comment. I 

just disagree. We had a senior trade rep from China that Chairman 

Boucher sat with. Twice he was asked, and never really answered 

the question, would the Chinese go into a mandatory international 

cap-and-trade program. Chairman Boucher asked it, another member from the other side of the aisle asked it. He basically said no. 

So the country that sends us tainted toys, we have problems with 

intellectual property, disagreement, I think we are kidding ourselves if we think they are going to all of a sudden say yes because 

their basic response is, hey, listen, you had 200 years to develop— 

this was his response. You had 200 years of using a carbon-based 

system to become the major power in the world today, and now it 

is our turn. I am going to have some questions for some other folks. 

There are some points I want to make. 

The second to Mr. Slattery, and I appreciate that part of this was 

notes based upon your testimony. I mean, I just want to respond 

to the—but the question was, having heard that from the Chinese 

official, what is your response based upon your proposal that says, 

hey, you know, we can have these performance standards. 

Mr. SLATTERY. Several things. First of all, you know, I am one 

of these trust-but-verify people, and you know, when I look at this 

whole situation, there has been talk here, for example, about clean 

technology. How can we incentivize the Chinese, the largest steel 

producers in the world, the second-largest importer of steel into the 

United States, to responsibly address this problem? I would suggest to you that with performance standards and telling them if 

you want access to this market, then you are going to produce a 

216 

product with a certain carbon footprint that is going to be applied 

uniformly to domestic and all foreign competitors. If we say that 

to the Chinese and tell them right now that this is coming in a few 

years, whatever you all ultimately decide to do, then what will the 

Chinese response be? I would suggest to you that we have 

incentivized them to install the best technology available and not 

the cheapest and the dirtiest that can, you know, maybe meet their 

urgent demand for supply, but rather to put in place the cleanest 

and the best so that the products produced there will have access 

to the U.S. market. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If I can, I think that is a good summation. I want 

to move to Mr. Wenk for a second because of his testimony because 

you also talked about other provisions especially with our obligations under NAFTA, of current political debate these days. And I 

would say that that even makes a more interesting question with 

the trade issues based upon this proposal and the other issues of 

whatever the carbon regime we put in. Can you talk about trade 

aspects? 

Mr. WENK. Thank you, Congressman. You know, there obviously 

has been a lot of focus on the white paper and in this hearing today 

about the WTO aspects of any possible climate change legislation, 

but you know, there are trade implications across the board here, 

Congressman. I think very close to home here are two of our biggest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, our NAFTA trading 

partners. And you know, in 2007, they exported $113 billion of raw 

materials to the United States. And I think a real fundamental 

question of any cap-and-trade program is how this would impact 

possibly our NAFTA obligations, and I think that these are things 

that need to be looked into a little bit more. But I think we cannot 

overlook the fact that, sure, there are WTO obligations that we 

need to be certain cognizant of, but there are also NAFTA obligations. And if there were some sort of cap-and-trade program, there 

may be give a special pass to Canada because they signed onto 

Kyoto and they maybe met some of their commitments. But then 

the question becomes about Mexico perhaps. So I think there are 

some real questions even closer to home here with Mexico and Canada and our NAFTA obligations. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And let me just finish and go across to the whole 

board, and if you want to add, depending on the Chairman’s discretion, we have got two proposals. We have got a cap-and-trade, we 

have got this performance standard. Chairman Dingell had mentioned earlier in this Congress last year about not fooling the public that there would be no cost to be paid, based upon whatever regime we go. Why not be just clear and above-board that we are 

going to enact a carbon tax? 

Mr. MORRIS. Gosh, I have got so many great answers for all 

these other questions. To the last question that you asked before 

that and I will try to get to that issue, the IBEW-AEP proposal 

would work perfectly for the Chinese, even if they do not want to 

participate. We would find out that they do not have a comparable 

program, and a ton of steel would have a carbon allocation cost to 

it; and if that were $10 a ton, the importer would pay it. So if Ford 

Motors is buying steel from them, Ford would pay $10 and put 

them on exactly the same footing as Nucor selling steel to Ford. 

217 

But to your question, if we have a tax, China surely is not going 

to put a tax on their people; and that would just simply add cost 

to the U.S. market price. Chairman Dingell is exactly right, and 

you addressed the same question. There is a societal cost associated with CO2 capture, storage, control, whether you go to natural 

gas as your fuel source, whether you go to solar or wind, however 

we address this issue, there is a cost. And we as an industry, we 

as a company, have been trying to be extremely honest about that. 

And the more we understand that, society will make a decision 

whether they believe that cost is acceptable versus the cost of the 

potential long-term impact on the environment. But we should 

never be blind to the notion that these are all free goods. They are 

not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. It is 

a big panel. I will just yield back and we will follow up with the 

next round. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. Let me 

apologize to the gentlelady from Wisconsin for shortening her time. 

There was in fact time remaining on the clock, although from the 

vantage point of the Chair, it appeared that the light was red. And 

there was considerable discussion behind this dais about whether 

the problem was a clock malfunction or a Chairman malfunction. 

However it was, there was a malfunction. And we will add to the 

gentlelady’s time for the next round, the time by which her questioning was foreshortened. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for a 

total of 8 minutes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

witnesses’ testimony. I think this is a very complicated issue of 

which I think we are all still trying to get our arms around. I have 

a series of questions that I want to ask the panel. 

Mr. Slattery, in your testimony, you state the products of energyintensive industries like steel, whether domestically produced or 

imported, must be subject to the same requirements starting at the 

same time with no exceptions and no discretion. If Congress adopts 

a mandatory cap-and-trade program, do you support having that 

mandatory cap applied to all sectors of the economy? Does your 

proposal exempt steel from what would be an economy-wide cap or 

is the steel industry willing to live with the domestic cap-and-trade 

system in addition to the performance standard for goods manufactured overseas? 

Mr. SLATTERY. Congressman, first of all, as I indicated in my oral 

testimony, the industry as you might imagine has some serious 

concerns about how a cap-and-trade system would be implemented; 

and the devil is in the details, to make a long story real short. 

Now, very specifically, as I tried to indicate earlier, the steel industry is sort of two-pronged, it is the EAF, electric arc furnace operation, and the BOF integrated operation. They are interdependent. 

The EAFs cannot exist without the BOFs, and they each have 

unique problems. So for example, on the BOF side, you have process gas problems that have to be addressed. It is an unavoidable 

emission. On the electric arc furnace operation, we have a horrible 

upstream indirect emission problem related to the cost of electricity. And you know, if you put this operation under a cap, you 

218 

have to make sure that there is adequate allowances for, and I will 

just speak specifically about the electric arc furnace side of it because if you do not have adequate allowances, then what happens 

is in some cases you may have electricity rates going up by maybe 

50 percent if you are to believe what has been said by the president 

of Duke Energy. Then how does our industry respond to that when 

10 to 20 percent of our inputs are electricity. 

Mr. MATHESON. So you are saying—— 

Mr. SLATTERY. So give us adequate allowances—— 

Mr. MATHESON. So you are not categorically saying no to the cap, 

you want to know how it is structured? 

Mr. SLATTERY. We want to know how it is structured and we 

want to be a participant in solving this problem is what I am here 

to say. 

Mr. MATHESON. Under your proposal, would we need to have domestic performance standard as well to make it work? Because we 

have heard some interested parties believe that you would need to 

have a domestic standard and that such a process would be duplicative. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. SLATTERY. The way we see this, the performance standard 

is the part of it that is designed to achieve what we call global 

reach. In other words, how do we incentivize our global competitors 

to get in the game and help us solve a global problem. How do we 

do that? And we contend that with performance standards that are 

enforceable by American industry that you will have in place the 

tools that you need to most strongly incentivize the kind of activity 

that you want. 

Mr. MATHESON. It would be the same whether it was foreign or 

domestic? 

Mr. SLATTERY. That is correct. That is correct. 

Mr. MATHESON. Let me ask you—— 

Mr. SLATTERY. All of the players have to be treated the same. 

Mr. MATHESON. Does your proposal apply to unfinished commodities such as cement and aluminum and steel? Is that a correct 

statement? 

Mr. SLATTERY. I am not here representing those industries, but 

the concept of performance standards in our opinion—— 

Mr. MATHESON. Is for unfinished commodities? 

Mr. SLATTERY [continuing]. Would be applicable to other energyintensive business products. 

Mr. MATHESON. So how do we do with having imports of finished 

products that could come in? Would that avoid carbon restrictions 

if I am bringing in a finished product as opposed to just raw steel 

or how would we deal with that? 

Mr. SLATTERY. In the first instance we would be dealing with the 

raw material, but ultimately it would be applied to the finished 

products, too. 

Mr. MATHESON. Let me shift to the boarder adjustment proposal, 

Mr. Morris. Your proposal would require countries that are large 

emitters of greenhouse gases to purchase enough international allowances to cover the emissions producer and manufacturing. In 

order to meet fairness concerns that may be raised by the WTO, 

should this proposal apply to all greenhouse gas emitters that fail 

to take comparable action to reduce greenhouse gases as the 

219 

United States has done as opposed to just being applied to large 

emitters? 

Mr. MORRIS. There is a de minimus exclusion that is required 

under the WTO, so you would be going after the large manufacturing competing countries that have industries that have large 

carbon footprints associated with them. So that would be the target 

of what you would do. 

Mr. MATHESON. I am sure you know that in some countries that 

are developing where we import products that are energy-intensive, 

their manufacturing sectors are receiving subsidies from the government. How does your proposal prevent or stop other nations 

from subsidizing the cost of these international carbon allowances? 

Mr. MORRIS. The importing agent would pay the carbon allowance. So again, if the buyer of the product manufactured were 

Mike’s Concrete Company, I would have paid the cement manufacturer to import that cement into the country before I turn the cement into concrete. So whether or not they then would lower the 

price, there is no way for us to control that. 

Mr. MATHESON. And you are talking about these allowances, 

there is an unlimited capacity for allowances for employment—— 

Mr. MORRIS. They would be created by the office of the president 

or the independent agency which you would write into the law that 

would be responsible for determining the comparability of another 

country’s program and the actual process that one would go 

through to do that. 

Mr. MATHESON. Since the ultimate goal is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, what I am hearing is your proposal helps create a leveling of the economics of this if we place restrictions on 

this country, making higher cost to produce something to meet carbon restrictions. We are going to say, OK, if you are importing 

something, you have got to buy allowances. The importer does so 

on an equal playing field. I am trying to get my arms around how 

that is going to result in other countries actually lowering actual 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. MORRIS. The hope would be that they would implement a 

comparable cap-and-trade program in the housed country so that 

they would not have to pay the import allowance as they came into 

this country. That is the notion of our carrot side of our program 

because to the point that was made by Mr. Doniger, if in fact from 

Bali we get the impression, and I am not certain I buy that yet, 

but we at least heard some very different statements by a number 

of countries, it would encourage them to do that. They have an opportunity to join in this addressing of a global issue. Should they 

choose not to do that, then they are going to have to pay an allowance, and it will have an impact on their cost production. 

Mr. MATHESON. If I can restate that to make sure I understand, 

your proposal is assuming that there is going to be an effort to get 

a cap-and-trade type program in these other countries? 

Mr. MORRIS. That would surely be our hope. I mean, if we are 

going to handle this in a global sense, we have to have global partners. We constantly hear those kinds of conversations, but yet we 

have not seen that kind of action. 

Mr. MATHESON. I got less than a minute. Let me ask a broader 

question for this round. It seems like a lot of this is predicated on 

220 

the notion that the United States is the great consumer in the 

world and that we consume so much, we can help drive policies 

elsewhere because we are the market where everyone wants to sell 

their goods, and yet we are basing a global economic circumstance 

where greater consumption is taking place elsewhere. We were told 

the new steel production and cement production in China is really 

for internal consumption. So at the end of the day, is the access 

to U.S. markets the great carrot if you will that we hope it is that 

we hope to influence all these other countries to do this? I question 

if these other countries are going to feel motivated by that or if 

they are just going to go sell their products elsewhere. 

Mr. MORRIS. They might well do that, but what we are trying to 

say is we are creating a law in the United States that will affect 

the United States manufacturing cost in the United States companies and jobs. We are only trying to create something that tries to 

put some equality and balance in it. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Doniger, do you have a—— 

Mr. DONIGER. Thanks, Congressman, good question. We cannot 

get there if the Chinese, the Indians, the South Africans, and so 

on do not want to get there. They are coming to want to get there 

because they are seeing impacts in their own countries, they are 

seeing how it all knits together, the same as we are. And I do not 

think we are going to get the economy-wide cap-and-trade programs in those countries in one fell swoop. But we could get to 

agreements for their electricity sectors, agreements for their steel 

sectors, agreements for cement. We have a 150-year head start on 

developing the information systems to know the emissions of Mr. 

Morris’ company and Mr. Slattery’s clients every day. The Chinese 

do not have that yet. They are building that. They can move forward in these key sectors, and that is where most of the emissions 

problems are and that is where most of the competitive problems 

are. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morris, in your testimony you stated that there should be an appropriate allocation of 

allowances at no cost to the electric power sector in order to blunt 

the otherwise inevitable electricity price spikes. In your estimate, 

what do you believe the range will be in your territory and how 

long do you estimate you will need these no-cost allowances in 

order to prevent these spikes? 

Mr. MORRIS. The contemplation on an allocation of allowances to 

the electric industry is really a mirrored image of what this Committee did in 1970, 1977, and 1990 and the socks and knocks undertaking. The contemplation is that those allowances would be 

monetized and that that capital would be used to add the equipment or build the new power production facility that our colleague 

from Illinois clearly pointed out needed to be done in the future. 

So just as we have done in the Clean Air Acts before, you would 

step those allowances down over time. 

If you simply do not do that and you have an auction, and who 

really are the proponents of an auction, Goldman-Sachs, all the 

New York banks, if you buy them for $20, I submit they do not inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
221 

tend to sell them for $5. So you know, that to me is just a profit 

motive, where ours is an implementation of technology to make certain that we in fact do respond to the cap-and-trade program that 

we feel strongly ought to be implemented. 

To your specific question, American Electric and Power is the 

lowest cost energy provider in the 11 states where we do business 

with our 5.1 million customers. I would expect this could have an 

impact of 20 to 30 percent on that rate structure; but again, as I 

said to the Congressman from Illinois, this is a societal decision 

that needs to be made by the voters of this country, and you are 

in the process of doing that now. And if this country decides that 

these are acceptable costs, then that is exactly the way it will unfold. So I do not think we should run from this because we think 

it is costly, but I surely do not think we should live in a make-believe world that this is a free move. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, and I want to compliment you and your 

company for taking a stand in support of a cap-and-trade system. 

You know, one of the concerns we have heard about your proposal 

is that other nations can get around it due to the fact that these 

countries simply do not follow fair trade practices. An example, in 

China where the steel companies there produce steel at an artificial price because the government, you know, supports it. How can 

we add to your proposal in order to address some of the concerns 

that people have in that regard? 

Mr. MORRIS. At the point of importation to the United States, the 

importer is going to pay that fee. And that will equalize to a producer of steel or a producer of cement or a producer of aluminum 

at least this one subset of what is going on. There is no way in the 

world a cap-and-trade law passed by this Congress and signed by 

this President will be able to affect the safety programs in China, 

the wages that are paid in India, the overall cleanliness of how 

they go about doing those issues; but as to this subissue, we think 

what we have put together here is a very appropriate way to do 

it. And again, as I said before, if someone has a great idea to add 

to that value, we would be the first to support it. We are only trying to address the issue. It is mobile and we want to be sure that 

in the implementation of a cap-and-trade program in this country, 

we do not inadvertently put a huge burden on our manufacturing 

customers when the companies that they compete with worldwide 

do not have that same point. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. MORRIS. So as to that subissue, I think we have addressed 

it as to the larger issue. We cannot make them pay $80 an hour 

for labor. We just cannot. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Doniger, one of the thoughts I have 

been sharing with the environmental community that most of us, 

and I believe the majority in Congress, agree with this goal of reducing emissions 60 to 80 percent by the year 2050. The argument 

now is how do we get there? And I do not think there is any silver 

bullet. I think we need to put everything on the table. 

In your viewpoint, are the performance standards that you heard 

outlined today by Mr. Slattery, is this something we should consider as long as they are under the tent of an economy-wide capand-trade system or is this something that you are just dismissing 

222 

outright and what other aspects of the proposal could you and others in the environmental community support? 

Mr. DONIGER. Mr. Doyle, we do support performance standards, 

as you said, under the tent of the cap. It is very important to have 

performance standards, especially where through them you can 

achieve cost-effective reductions even faster, or with a lower carbon 

price signal than you would have to have without the performance 

standard. So they complement each other, and they are very important. 

I do think you have to allow for the fact in any of these proposals 

that developing countries are going to come along, but they are not 

going to do the same thing at the same time we do. And so it is 

a relationship that we need to develop. 

I will give you the example of the phase-out of ozone-depleting 

chemicals, the most effective international agreement we ever had, 

the Montreal Protocol. The developed countries went first, the developed countries offered some assistance to developing countries, 

and the developing countries are phasing out on a 10 year delayed 

timeline. The whole thing is working. We have eliminated more 

than 85 percent, 90 percent of the ozone-depleting chemicals all 

around the world in developed and developing countries. And 

China and India are full parties to that, and they have binding limits on their fluorocarbon industries, just like we do here, it is just 

staged a bit in time. And that I think is a model that can work, 

and it is a model that they have played as full partners in for 20 

years. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, if my color vision is correct, I think 

I am in the red, so I will yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. Let me pursue 

some additional inquiries with our panel this afternoon. Mr. Morris, your proposal has received probably the most commentary since 

it was announced earlier, at an early point last year in fact; and 

one of the comments that has been made about it is that in order 

to obtain the maximum potential for WTO-compliance, there would 

be a lag time required of maybe as much as 8 years during which 

time there would be an effort made to enter into agreements 

among a number of nations, multilateral agreements, that could 

lead to a finding of WTO-compliance. And a critique of your proposal is that that is a pretty long time, and I think in fact some 

of the members on this panel raised that issue when they were 

making comments about that approach. 

So my question to you is, is there some way that that long period 

of as much as 8 years could be lessened and still not weaken the 

potential that your proposal would pass WTO muster? 

Mr. MORRIS. Clearly as this contemplation went through the 

process of trying to pick a timeline that you would have to be out 

in the world negotiating to be WTO-compliant, it was the contemplation that a law, if passed in 2009, would not be through the 

regulatory process until maybe 2013, and then you would have 3 

or 4 years to work this out which would take you out to 2017 or 

2018. Inadvertently, someone said, well, let us then pick 2020. So 

the timeline could easily be collapsed. And to my friend, I think 

Mr. Slattery said that is the one thing that is unacceptable about 

the AEP program is the timeline, and China would do whatever 

223 

they would do during the period. That simply is fixable, and you 

could begin the bilateral negotiations while the EPA or DOE or 

whomever would have the responsibility of crafting the program. 

Remember, there is no way to pass legislation tomorrow and have 

implementation 2 days later. It will take some time to get that 

done. It would be during that period that you would do it. And 

again, I think there was a proposal down the table that you might 

see WTO clearance, and I do not know whether or not the WTO 

court in Geneva offers opinions of a design as to being compliant 

or not. It may well be, but they only react to complaints and that 

is something obviously we can submit to you in a written answer. 

But you could easily collapse the timeline. And if that is the only 

deficiency in our concept, we could fix that without much difficulty. 

Mr. BOUCHER. You are saying the WTO might not render declaratory judgments. 

Mr. MORRIS. That is true. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Hufbauer, your hand is raised. Do you have 

a comment? 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Mr. Chairman, yes, the WTO does not render declaratory judgments but what I had in mind was that the United 

States should start now, not in 3 years, not in 5 years, but now, 

under this Administration, to begin to negotiate a WTO code which 

clarifies the green space for GHG measures—including cap-andtrade, performance standards, and so forth—that can be imposed. 

I do not think those clarifications will come out of Kyoto II, which 

will not take effect until 2012. So we should start in the WTO right 

now. Maybe no one is willing to negotiate with us, but we should 

go forward and make the effort. 

If you have a chance, or your staff has a chance, to read the testimony I submitted—which just scratches the surface—you will 

find a lot of ambiguity in the current WTO articles and decisions. 

If we decide as a nation, and if other nations do the same, that 

what we are going to do is just litigate differences over the next 

years, that means 10 years at least of litigation. Great for the lawyers, but not so great for the carbon control system. So we should 

go forward sooner with a new WTO code that designs some space 

for the kinds of systems which are being advocated and discussed 

today and including other systems because other countries will 

have different approaches. 

Now, if I could just borrow on your forgiveness for about 30 seconds more, one problem that I have—which has not been discussed 

today—with both the performance and the cap-and-trade systems 

is that the promoters of these have not specifically said that a firm 

based in India or based in China which meets our standards should 

not be penalized. In other words, we should not attribute that firm 

with country averages which are very poorly calculated and might 

be inappropriate for individual firms in those countries. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, that is an excellent point. My sense was that 

that concept was inherent essentially in both proposals. Mr. Slattery, would you care to comment—— 

Mr. SLATTERY. Very specifically. We clearly contemplate facility 

type performance standards, and that is possible. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Slattery, let me ask you. I was pleased to 

hear you say that your proposal could be modified to convert what 

224 

is a carbon intensity standard into a firm cap, and you said you 

would like to obviously be a part of the discussion in which that 

modification is made, but you held open the possibility that could 

happen. I think that is an important statement and an important 

step. In the initial question that I asked you some time ago, I suggested that you might want to consider some way to meld the AEP 

IBEW proposal to your manufacturing standard proposal and had 

asked if you had some suggestions on how that might be done. 

Would you like to elaborate on that at this point or is that something you would like to give extended consideration to and supply 

a written document to us? 

Mr. SLATTERY. I would be happy to accommodate the Chairman 

and the Committee in any way possible, and let me just say that 

I can comment briefly right now on that point. Mr. Morris and I 

have already discussed the idea of us getting together and visiting 

extensively about this and understanding precisely how we might 

be able to come to the Committee with a proposal that would 

achieve what you have just asked. 

As I said earlier, I do not see anything inconsistent with performance standards and the vision that Mr. Morris has outlined 

with respect to what we call the AEP IBEW proposal. It is not inconsistent. And we believe that the performance standards are sort 

of in addition to, if you will. And again, I have already elaborated 

on why we believe these performance standards are important. In 

our judgment, you can clearly do both. Again, our major concern 

about the IBEW-AEP proposal is that it does not go far enough. We 

are very concerned about a future administration vigorously enforcing it, making the judgments that have to be made to trigger it, 

and we are also, as a very practical matter, very troubled by the 

fact that our competitors, for example in China, are state-owned, 

they have access to state-owned energy that is subsidized; and 

when you talk about them being required to pony up allowances to 

access our market, the immediate question is, who is going to buy 

those allowances—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, with all due respect, you are going to have 

that problem with your standard approach also. I mean, that is a 

condition that we face, and it is going to have to be a part of every 

consideration we make concerning participation by China and other 

developing countries. 

Well, my time has expired. Let me simply encourage the two of 

you perhaps to have the conversation that you mentioned and to 

the extent that you can make a proposal to us, that marries the 

better aspects of both your proposals. That would be very welcome. 

Mr. Upton for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up with 

Mr. Morris as I did with Jim on the last round. We know that China’s use of coal, and the world has grown from 20 percent to about 

30 percent now and it is expected to get to use 40 percent of the 

world’s coal in the next 15 years or so, we know that China’s emissions have grown by 80 percent since 1990 and they are expected 

to grow another 65 percent by the year 2020. You were quoted in 

last week’s National Journal as saying China is going to keep 

building coal plants, India is going to keep building coal plants, the 

United States is going to keep building coal plants, this is an elecVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
225 

trified world and I do not see it de-electrify. I have been to U.S. 

coal plants. I have not been to any of China’s. My sense is that our 

emissions work and certainly the money that the utilities have 

spent on it is far greater than what we see in China. You will know 

that answer better than me, but I hope to some time see that answer myself, along with Chairman Boucher. But my question to 

you is as we look to last year, 2007, utility companies have abandoned plans to build at least 30 new coal plants. I read this weekend that I guess the Sierra Club has announced that they are going 

to fight every single coal plant anywhere in the United States to 

stop it from happening. So would you say that the cutback in coal 

generation which is happening now as it relates to this last year 

will result in higher costs for consumers here, possible electric 

shortages in the near future. I think I saw in that same article in 

National Journal you thought we would have real severe energy 

shortages as early as 2012, 2015, and does that put us at a real 

competitive disadvantage for the U.S. industry, and then how does 

that all relate to what may happen under a cap-and-trade, knowing 

full well that again, like we have seen with the steel industry 

where they emit so much more carbon per ton of steel produced, 

my sense is that they are way ahead in terms of carbon emissions 

as it relates to their coal production, too. 

Mr. MORRIS. That is a far- and wide-ranging question—— 

Mr. UPTON. I know. 

Mr. MORRIS [continuing]. And I will do my best to answer it in 

the time allotted to you and me. The fact of the matter is it is very 

difficult to gather information on what China is or is not doing. I 

am led to believe by some of the suppliers that last year they added 

70,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation to their fleet of production, and they are using what we call super-critical technology 

which is one notch below what American Electric and Power is proposing in our newest stations which would be ultra-super-critical, 

something that the Germans and the Japanese are also working 

on. And again, the concept there, Congressman, there is higher 

pressure, higher steam, less coal consumed for more megawatts 

out-reduces the carbon footprint. So they are moving in the right 

direction and in fact retiring some of their oldest and dirtiest 

plants in that process. So I think some of that is good news. But 

the fact of the matter is what I said before, particularly as to your 

question about the Sierra Club, is that we as a nation, to the comments made by Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, need to build some new 

power plants that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And 

those really do need to be fueled by either clean coal technology, 

and I do not agree with Mr. Reid of the Senate that there is no 

such phraseology. There is improved coal technology, and we will 

bring that forward as a company and as an industry, or new nuclear which I think is another perfect answer to that question. And 

so the point of coal plants falling off-line today may well lead us 

to a South African challenge, and I think we are all aware that 

South Africa has run out of base load capacity. They shut down 

various industries 2 or 3 days a week. Their 2008 financial forecast 

has gone from a 6 percent GDP to about a 11⁄2 GDP. That is the 

future I am afraid we are looking at. 

226 

Now, you have asked a very important question on top of that. 

If we were to do a cap-and-trade program and we implement it over 

a series of years, I have said this now about seven times, it will 

only be if society realizes that those costs are equal to the challenge of leaving behind a planet for our children and grandchildren 

that we as a nation and we as generations can be proud of. I think 

that this country is moving in that direction. And in this industry, 

my company in particular, there is not among the investor in utilities anyone who is saying just say no. What we are all saying is 

let us be honest about the timeline, let us be honest about the 

costs, let us be honest about the technology that will need to be developed. It is there in the lab and it is being upgraded to field conditions, but let us be realistic about what we are facing here. 

Mr. UPTON. My time has expired so I will yield back to the 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. BALDWIN [presiding]. Thank you. I think in our second round 

it comes to me now, so I will recognize myself for some follow up. 

As I was last questioning Mr. Doniger, I did want to give Mr. 

Slattery a brief chance to respond. You did already address some 

of the issues with the discussion of performance standards, but in 

your testimony, you indicate that China, India, Brazil have huge 

incentives not to limit their greenhouse gas emissions because it 

gives their products a powerful competitive edge in international 

commerce. And it is kind of interesting that China has indeed imposed the export tariff. I wonder if you want to comment on that 

in light of your testimony on page 13 but also what is the expected 

effect in the international steel industry of this tariff and hopefully 

briefly because I do have some questions for Mr. Morgenstern who 

I think has been eager to talk. Mr. Slattery first. 

Mr. SLATTERY. The long and short of it is that the Chinese are 

currently the largest exporter in the world. The tariff that they 

have put in place really does not have any effect on this question 

that we are talking about here today. And my comments were really more focused on the domestic reality. In other words, if we impose additional cost on the domestic industry, either direct cost or 

indirect cost, with the increase in the cost of electricity that Mr. 

Morris has referred to, that profoundly affects the competitive position of the U.S. industry globally. And I just want the Committee 

to be aware of that. We cannot ignore that. If the Chinese and others, but particularly the Chinese, are in a position where as I have 

already indicated to you they have state-owned energy sources 

available to them at below market prices, subsidized energy available to them, they have state ownership, and you can imagine if 

you are in the United States trying to compete with this when you 

realize that they also have access to global capital, the same global 

capital that we struggle for and they have access to state-of-the-art 

new technology that we are all struggling for, and I would say in 

that context, if we say to the Chinese, put in place state-of-the-art 

technology that is going to get the carbon intensity, the carbon content of the products that you wish to ship to the United States at 

the lowest possible level, then we will encourage them to employ 

that state-of-the-art technology. 

Ms. BALDWIN. According to your testimony, Mr. Morgenstern, obviously cap-and-trade systems are broad, market based strategies 

227 

that offer significant cost and efficiency advantages, but you seem 

to say that those advantages are eroded with every carve out exemption or special treatment Congress might offer to a particular 

industry or constituency. And your testimony describes that protecting these vulnerable firms could result in weaker program targets or partial or full exemptions from carbon policy among others. 

I know that you have mentioned some of the industries that we 

might expect to hear from in terms of asserting that they are vulnerable and asking for particular consideration as we put this legislation together. So I would just ask you what other industries are 

going to be coming to Congress claiming that we must ease the 

burden because they are vulnerable, and if we do, what is the total 

result going to be of industry after industry coming to us in terms 

of an effective program for greenhouse gas emissions? Your testimony sort of talks about all the things that might be done starting 

on page 5, but I would like to hear a little bit more about what 

the consequence will be. 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the question. I had the opportunity to serve in the Clinton Administration 

as a lead official at the EPA at the time on the BTU tax, and 

frankly, it was a horrible experience because every industry that 

you can imagine came knocking on our door and every industry 

made claims. Many of them were clearly valid claims but for others 

it was not so clear, and frankly, at that time, the government had 

very little capacity to distinguish the valid from the not-so-valid 

claims. This is potentially a huge problem. Once you start walking 

down this road, the potential for a lot of special provisions and a 

lot of special hardships to come to you or to an agency that you 

would delegate to make these decisions is enormous. So I think you 

have to be very careful about it. Part of the answer to your question is that you would need to establish a fairly rigorous process 

which, I presume, would be delegated to an executive branch agency. EPA or DOE have been mentioned as obvious candidates. You 

would also need to establish some criteria for the agency to follow, 

ideally criteria that could be tied to transparent, readily measurable factors. With such a process, there is a high potential for the 

system to fail. 

Another point I was going to make is that the process of setting 

the standards that are being discussed by Mr. Morris and Mr. Slattery is probably going to be pretty difficult for the government to 

do because they have to obtain credible information not just from 

the domestic industries, but also from foreign companies operating 

abroad. And I think that would be quite difficult. To expect that 

to happen very quickly is unrealistic. That is why I brought up the 

idea of a transition period wherein you allow some accommodation 

for the affected industries which would phase out once other countries acted to reduce their emissions or trade sanctions were in fact 

imposed. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Next I would recognize Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I think an issue 

that is going to have to be addressed regardless of any of these options that is pursued is going to be how we can ensure that, whether it is in either Mr. Slattery’s or Mr. Morris’ proposal, how do we 

ensure that performance standards are being met or how do we acVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
228 

count for this and have an accountable system where one is really 

playing by the rules? 

Mr. SLATTERY. That is a very, very important question, and we 

contend that the best way to do that is to permit individual companies in this country to have an actionable cause of action and do 

it several ways. I mean, you could do it from RICO, you could do 

it through trade law provisions, but the important thing is to empower U.S. industry, U.S. injured parties to enforce the standards 

and do what you do now with a countervailing duty case or antidumping case. I mean, that is a model, that is a way, maybe not 

the only way but it is certainly a way. 

Mr. MORRIS. And again, I think that is why the IBEW-AEP proposal is a little more robust because the contemplation would be 

the creation of either the president having the responsibility and 

obviously with some delegation or the EPA or someone else would 

make an evaluation government-to-government of whether or not 

they have a comparable program; and if in fact they did, then they 

would not—and this is not to be confused with the border techs. I 

know we keep calling that but it really is an international reserve 

allowance that is paid by the importer of the product that did not 

have a comparable program. And that really I think is the better 

way to go about doing it because then you get it above an industry. 

I would be the first one to complain that country X is making a 

megawatt hour of electricity in a different form than I am, and that 

is wrong. But that would take me forever. And I need to be back 

home making the most cost-effective electricity I can for my customers. However, if the government were deciding whether or not 

Brazil’s program was up to the standards that were required, I 

think that would be a very important way to do it. 

Mr. SLATTERY. This is a very, very important issue that you are 

targeting on here because, you know, It is a little bit like in the 

trade world, if you bring what we call a safeguard action, a Section 

201 case, and if you pursue that through the International Trade 

Commission, the International Trade Commission might conclude, 

yes, you have sustained serious injury as a result of these imports. 

And then you go to the White House, and the White House ultimately makes the determination as to what remedy is going to be 

employed to correct the serious injury. The President only has 

broad authority, can do zero, nothing. And I can tell you that for 

those individuals that have pursued a remedy and got to the White 

House and incurred the horrible cost involved in litigating something like this and then to have no remedy available, it is enormously frustrating. And that is why there needs to be real, tough 

measures available to injured individuals in this country who are 

complying with the standards you put in place and doing it at great 

cost and then to permit others to not comply with the standard is 

totally unacceptable. You have to have real enforcement mechanisms. 

Mr. MATHESON. And I would suggest that applies to any effort 

we are going to do, any international agreement or whatnot. I 

mean, the ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Again, there is this accountability component we all have to—— 

Mr. SLATTERY. Absolutely. Huge. 

Mr. MATHESON [continuing]. Get our arms around. OK. 

229 

Mr. SLATTERY. Thank you for raising it. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thanks, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Doyle is recognized for the second round. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. I wasn’t going to stay for a 

second round but my friend, Ed Markey, came in the room and 

made a statement that he was here to add balance to the hearing 

which I wonder what that comment was about the rest of us sitting 

up here. And now he is sitting next to Mr. Inslee, so I think I better stay anyway before I yield to those two. 

I just have a quick question. It is more of a curiosity for Mr. 

Wenk from the Chamber. Does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

have an official stated position on global warming? Do you guys believe it exists or what is your position on that? 

Mr. WENK. Thank you very much, Congressman. You know, as 

I said in my testimony, I am providing a trade perspective on this 

issue so I am not the energy and environment guy that we have 

at the Chamber, but you know, the Chamber has provided all sorts 

of correspondence to the hill last year, March 19th, to Mr. Dingell 

and Mr. Boucher, last April to Mr. Barton and Mr. Hastert, outlining our concerns and priorities with the legislation that was 

about to—— 

Mr. DOYLE. I know that. I am just curious. Does the Chamber 

have a position on whether or not global warming is a problem? I 

mean, do you think it is a problem you think we should be doing 

something about? Yes or no. 

Mr. WENK. We absolutely do, Congressman—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Oh, good. 

Mr. WENK [continuing]. And as Mr. Upton actually said in his 

opening statement, we have set some guidelines that we think 

should be looked at in terms of putting together any legislation on 

this issue, preserving American jobs and the economy; be international in scope; incentivize and accelerate technology research, 

development, and employment; reduce barriers to the introduction 

of that technology to all nations; and promote energy efficiency. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. My curiosity has been satisfied. With that I will 

yield to my good friends, Mr. Markey and Mr. Inslee, for their 

thought-provoking questions. 

Ms. BALDWIN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Markey for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania. There is a natural, psychological adjustment all of 

us are going to have to make after last night as Pennsylvania now 

becomes the center of the political universe for the next several 

weeks. And I appreciate the slight adjustment that we all have to 

make now to Secretary Doyle. So I do not know which agency it 

will be, so we are all going to have to be much more deferential 

at least for 7 weeks. I thank you for yielding. 

Mr. Morgenstern, there is much talk about cost containment. 

Will regulating some sectors through performance standards rather 

than including them in a cap-and-trade system as Nucor is proposing increase or decrease the total cost to society of reaching a 

concrete emissions target? 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Increase. 

Mr. MARKEY. Increase. Thank you. Does anyone disagree with 

that? Thank you. Mr. Morgenstern, I agree with many of the—— 

230 

Mr. SLATTERY. Would you mind reasking that question? 

Mr. MARKEY. It is great to have you back. It is like hall of fame 

weekend having you. Second, I agree with many of the witnesses 

today that the United States must create incentives for global 

warming and encourage other countries to follow our footsteps. In 

the meantime, we can and should also develop provisions to prevent the leakage of jobs or emissions before international action is 

assured. 

Many industries, Mr. Morgenstern, are going to come to us and 

say that they are going to be severely impacted through this climate legislation. Can you help us sort out who will be industries 

most and least impacted? 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Mr. Chairman, I have been working on that 

problem, and in my submission I listed a number of them. I also 

have some papers that I would be happy to—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Can you give us like a top five in each category? 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Sure, top five. Let me read from my testimony, Mr. Chairman, so I do not misstate it. The top five that are 

likely to be impacted in terms of the cost impact are going to be 

refining, non-metal mineral products, primary metals, and paper 

and printing. Of course some of these industries are going to be 

able to pass forward the added costs onto their customers, and so 

you really have to think about two components, the added energy 

costs along with their ability to pass it along. 

Mr. MARKEY. And which industries will not be impacted, although they are protesting they will be impacted? 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Well, there is a long list that will not be. 

Something like 80 percent will not be impacted in any significant 

way. But these tend to be very small industries and not really the 

ones that are in discussion on this hearing. But energy-intensive 

industries are at risk, particularly the ones that face tough import 

markets. 

Mr. MARKEY. And I have to save a question for you, Jim, so we 

have a balanced questioning period here. You mentioned that you 

believe an intensity standard should be implemented company by 

company, rather than based upon a country’s average emissions 

rate. Would we not risk then that a country would sell its units, 

for instance to us, and sell its dirtiest steel to other countries without performance standards, thus resulting in no real change in 

their performance? 

Mr. SLATTERY. Very good question and clearly we anticipate that 

if you put in place tough performance standards establishing very 

tough carbon intensity standards that it will do several things. 

First, it will incentivize the Chinese and others to employ as quickly as possible state-of-the-art technology producing the cleanest 

steel as possible that will hopefully meet the standard in the 

United States. Now, you are correct they will, in all probability, internally use the product that is needed there that may not meet 

the standard that we set for export to our country. But what are 

we doing? We are encouraging and incentivizing the utilization of 

the best technology and we are saying to world, and hopefully the 

world, and there are some indications that Europeans for example 

are very interested in this idea also. So maybe we can be a global 

231 

leader in establishing this kind of a concept in saying to the world 

this is the standard. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Morgenstern, can you comment on that what 

the likely effect is? 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. I am sorry, can you repeat the question 

again? 

Mr. MARKEY. I have to in balance not repeat the question because I did not do so earlier. So I thank the Chair, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. BALDWIN. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Jim, I think you wanted to ask the question. Mr. Markey asked the question about if anybody disagreed 

with the proposition that a performance standard would effectively 

cost the rest of society, and Mr. Morgenstern said it would. Do you 

have a different perspective on that? 

Mr. SLATTERY. Well, to the extent that you increase the cost of 

the product because you are requiring it to meet a certain standard, there may be some short-term increase in the cost of the product. But over the long term, it would be probably de minimus. But 

you know, in terms of any sort of great societal cost, you know, 

hopefully it won’t be that great. It certainly is not going to be near 

the kind of cost that one would incur in our industry, at least in 

a portion of our industry that relies so heavily on electricity. Jack 

the electricity cost up 50 percent and you have dealt a competitive 

devastating blow to that sector of the industry. 

Mr. DONIGER. Congressman, the question in my view is a little 

broad because there are performance standards that are able to 

capture cost-effective, cost-saving measures that are not being done 

through normal market signals because of barriers. And those are 

the kinds of performance standards we want. We might not want 

performance standards that just plain raise costs. So you have got 

to sort them out. I would like to submit for the record a McKinsey 

& Company report that was done for a number of companies and 

for environmental groups that shows that between now and 2030, 

if we capture all the cost-saving measures that are out there with 

effective policies, the cost savings will cover the cost of the things 

that cost money. In other words, the net cost of making reductions 

that we need to make between now and 2030 could be near zero. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yeah, I think they concluded that of all the things 

we need to do, 40 percent of all those things would actually be net 

gains economically. Pretty impressive. Mr. Morgenstern? 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. Mr. Inslee, the issue is that if we let some 

companies or industries reduce fewer emissions, we ignore certain 

opportunities for cost-effective mitigation, then someone else is 

going to have to mitigate more, at higher overall cost. The reason 

I answered Mr. Markey’s question the way I did was that by adopting a two-step approach, we are foregoing some of these low-cost 

emission reduction options and they are going to be made up by 

someone else at higher cost. Hence, the overall cost will be higher. 

Mr. INSLEE. I may misunderstand this. I thought I understood it 

but maybe I do not, but if you go to a performance standard, that 

would not necessarily excuse an industry, it may increase a burden 

of compliance with that industry but it would simply say competiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-97 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
232 

tors off-shore would have to meet that same level of performance. 

So that would not be excusing them, would it? Am I missing something? 

Mr. MORGENSTERN. I am sorry if I used the term excused, but 

I think a more precise way to say it would be that if we allowed 

a standard that was not as stringent as would have been imposed 

by the cap-and-trade which would presumably be the direction that 

the standard would take, then the outcome that I indicated I think 

would be the one. 

Mr. INSLEE. OK. 

Mr. SLATTERY. If I could just insert that the U.S. steel industry, 

between 1990 and 2005, has already mitigated dramatically emissions. So in 1990, the U.S. steel industry was responsible for 85 

million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. That number was 

dropped to 45 million metric tons in 2005. Dramatic progress, dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on the part of this industry that today accounts for approximately 1 percent of direct 

CO2 emissions in the United States. So we contend that the steel 

industry today is part of the solution and a big driver in this, even 

as production was going up, I would point out, a big driver has 

been the need to reduce energy consumption. 

Mr. INSLEE. I just got to see Mr. Morgenstern’s proposal about, 

I would consider, mitigation costs where if you have an auction and 

then a rebate to an industry that might face mobility issues for 

higher costs, and I just had the scantiest review of it, but Jim, is 

there any qualitative reason why that would not work relative as 

opposed to a performance standard, or anyone who has a response 

to that? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. INSLEE. Pardon? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yucca Mountain, a federal fund that would then be 

reallocated out to the industry to implement technology. It was a 

grand idea. We tried it once. It hasn’t worked and I do not think 

it would work here, either. 

Mr. INSLEE. Because you just don’t think it would get allocated? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, I think it would get into the general fund. It 

would be looked at against the large balance of trade or the large 

deficit in the government, and it just simply would not come back 

in an appropriate way. If it did, if you could assure that was going 

to happen, that might be a good way to do it. But that is why companies like ours and many others stand for the concept of allocating to those of us who are going to make capital improvements, 

rather than waiting for the government to get the money and then 

reallocate it. And I would offer FutureGen as another perfect example of that. 

Ms. BALDWIN. The gentleman’s time for questions has expired. 

All time for questions have expired. I want to once again thank our 

panel of witnesses for their opinions, their expertise, and their generous allocation of valuable time. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

233 


Insert offset folio 13 here 50023.181
234 


Insert offset folio 14 here 50023.182
235 


Insert offset folio 15 here 50023.183
236 


Insert offset folio 16 here 50023.184
237 


Insert offset folio 17 here 50023.185
238 


Insert offset folio 18 here 50023.186
239 


Insert offset folio 19 here 50023.187
240 


Insert offset folio 20 here 50023.188
241 


Insert offset folio 21 here 50023.189
242 


Insert offset folio 22 here 50023.190
243 


Insert offset folio 23 here 50023.191
244 


Insert offset folio 24 here 50023.192
245 

MICHAEL G. MORRIS, ANSWERS TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

Question 1. Your testimony of March 5, 2008, points out that several elements of the IBEW-AEP proposal, such as which developing nations are 

covered by an international allowance requirement and how to define 

′′comparability′′ of other nations’ climate regimes, could be assigned either 

to an independent agency or to the President. 

There are significant differences between those two options. With an agency determination, Congress can specify that decisions fulfilling statutory intent be made on 

the record by rule. The rules for judicial review in that context are clear. If the 

President, however, were given responsibility for making such findings, the nature 

of any public participation is less obvious. 

Which option do you favor, why, and how do you assess the tradeoffs? 

Response: AEP assesses the tradeoffs between the two approaches precisely as 

you have laid them out in your question. However, on balance, AEP has come to 

believe the preferable option of the two is to place the decision-making authority in 

an independent agency or commission that is specifically charged with the responsibility of making the ′′comparable action′′ determinations under the international 

program. 

The establishment of an independent agency represents a change of view. Since 

APE’s appearance during the March 5 hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Air Quality, AEP has continued to consult with various stakeholders, many of whom 

expressed a strong preference to have the decision-making authority for the international allowance program vested in an independent entity whose decisions would 

be subject to transparency and public participation, as well as judicial review. 

Accordingly, AEP has been persuaded that it would be preferable to vest the decision-making authority in an independent U.S. agency, to capture all the benefits of 

transparency, public participation and judicial review, without sacrificing efficiency 

and a comprehensive perspective on global climate change. To achieve these ends, 

the Congress would need to create a new independent agency that would have the 

requisite expertise to handle the tasks identified in the international allowance program. 

In sum, AEP has been convinced that an independent U.S. agency would best 

serve the interests of U.S. climate change legislation in the operation of the international allowance program. We would be pleased to work with the Committee to 

develop these ideas further. 

246 


Insert offset folio 25 here 50023.193
247 


Insert offset folio 26 here 50023.194
248 

1Morgenstern, Richard D., Joseph E. Aldy, Evan M. Herrnstadt, Mun Ho, and William A. 

Pizer. 2007. ′′Competitiveness Impacts of Carbon Dioxide Pricing Policies on Manufacturing, in 

Assessing U.S. Climate Policy Options, (Raymond J. Kopp and William A. Pizer, editors), Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. 

RICHARD D. MORGENSTERN, ANSWERS TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JAY INSLEE

1. If the U.S. enacts a climate policy that adds GHG pollution to the costs 

of energy-intensive industries, international competition would drive some 

to relocate to a different country with a weaker climate policy. To prevent 

those jobs and emissions from ′′leaking′′ out of our economy, what criteria 

would you use to specifically identify the set of firms that should receive 

compensation as part of the policy? 

Response: The likelihood that significant segments of energy intensive manufacturing industries would relocate abroad in response to a price based domestic climate policy depends on a number of factors including the carbon price itself, the 

carbon intensity of the industry, the cost/feasibility of changing production processes, and the ability to pass along the added costs in the form of higher product 

prices. Of course, the time dimension is also relevant: in the short term there may 

be more limited opportunities to modify production processes, while more options 

may be available over the longer term. 

Unfortunately, it is not practical for the government to estimate precisely the vulnerability of individual industries to these different factors, especially for narrowly 

defined industrial categories. At best, we can use rough proxies such as the industries’ energy intensity and the extent of competition it faces in international markets. In research I have done with several of my colleagues at Resources for the Future, we have used U.S. Commerce Department data (at the two digit NAICS level) 

to identify the most energy-intensive, trade-sensitive sectors. 1 It is also possible to 

develop some more detailed information at the more precise 6-digit level. A careful 

evaluation of such information, presumably by a federal agency with relevant technical expertise, could be used to develop a more refined analysis of the most vulnerable sectors. 

In carrying out such an analysis, two factors are most critical: 1) energy costs as 

a percent of the industry’s total costs, and 2) the extent of international competition 

faced by the industry. Since the measurement of international competition is not always straightforward, a suitable, transparent indicator would need to be developed. 

One candidate indicator would be the value of imports from unregulated countries 

(i.e., those without comparable climate policies) as a percent of domestic production. 

A more comprehensive measure would also include exports, which compete with 

products from unregulated countries. 

2. Can you estimate the total emissions from these sub-sectors? 

Response: Once the most vulnerable industry segments are identified, direct CO2 

emissions can be readily calculated based on their combustion of fossil fuels. Indirect CO2 emissions from electricity use can be approximated by various methods, 

depending on the fuel use by regional utilities. (These need not be calculated for 

compliance, of course, as long as the electricity sector is covered, but they can provide a useful metric of the energy cost burden to the sector of the climate policy, 

to the extent that the electricity sector is able to fully pass its own costs.) If desired, 

CO2 emissions associated with the use of non fossil fuel inputs, or the emissions 

of nonCO2 gases, can also be estimated at the facility or industry level. 

3. How would you decide how much to compensate each firm? 

Response: Ideally, compensation to adversely affected firms would be sufficient to 

discourage the firms from moving to nations that do not have comparable climate 

policies. In practice, it is more difficult to determine the ′′optimal′′ amount of compensation at a sector level, much less a firm level. One approach, focusing only on 

firms in the most energy-intensive, import-sensitive industries, would be to cover 

most or all of the added costs associated with the new policy, at least at the outset. 

These added costs should be evaluated based on sector-specific averages or reasonable technology benchmarks, as opposed to a firm-specific basis, to ensure a level 

playing field among competitors at home. Over time, the compensation amount 

could decline to reflect the opportunities the firms would have to make new investments to lower their net costs and/or to reflect the increased burdens on their foreign competitors as other nations embrace comparable climate policies. 

4. Would that compensation be based on their updated current output or 

their past emissions? 

249 

Response: In order to minimize windfalls and provide incentives for firms to maintain or expand their output, a system based on updated current output would be 

vastly preferred. While such a scheme would create incentives to expand production 

of carbon intensive outputs, in this case that may be an acceptable trade-off, since 

foreign production may well be more carbon intensive than the domestic production 

it replaces. Basing compensation on past emissions does not provide an incentive to 

maintain or expand domestic output and it may generate windfalls to firms that reduce production but still receive free allowances. 

5. How would that compensation be delivered? 

Response: In the context of a cap and trade system, the compensation could be 

delivered in the form of free allocation of allowances during a transition period. As 

provided in S. 2191, for example, allocations of allowances for individual firms are 

updated annually on the basis of a three year moving average of a firm’s proportion 

of production employees within a given industrial sector. Other metrics would also 

be possible, for example, the dollar value of output or value added in the sector. Alternatively, using similar metrics but in a system without free allocation, one could 

offer rebates for maintaining or expanding employment or output in lieu of additional free allowances. The economic effect is basically the same. 

6. Would your proposal require a border tax adjustment in addition to direct compensation? 

Response: With the updating allocation mechanism in place in S. 2191 energy intensive firms are receiving valuable allowances to offset the higher costs associated 

with the climate policy. Starting in 2017 there is a gradual reduction in the allowances received, declining to zero in 2030. One could envision a comparable phasing 

out of rebates in a system without free allocation. Since in all likelihood a WTOlegal border-tax adjustment would have to recognize the extent of the free allocation 

or rebates, the size of any border tax adjustment would likely be zero or minimal 

in the early years. More generally, the larger the amount of free allocation or rebates, the lower the allowable border-tax adjustment. 

At the same time, the updated allocation or rebate performs the function of mitigating the competitiveness impacts of a climate policy. Thus, border adjustment is 

less necessary from a carbon leakage standpoint to the extent that the updating or 

rebate mechanism is in place. The trade-off between updated allocation or rebates 

on the one hand and border adjustment on the other involves several factors. One 

is compatibility with WTO obligations. To what extent can WTO-compatible borderadjustment taxes on imports fully account for the embodied emissions? Can relief 

for exports be incorporated in a WTO-compatible way, without undoing incentives 

to reduce the carbon intensity of production processes? If border adjustment policies 

must assume a weaker metric to be WTO-compatible, implying weaker protection 

against carbon leakage, updated allocation or rebates may be a more effective alternative. The second has to do with revenue implications: more government revenues 

are foregone with updated allocations or rebates than with border adjustment. All 

these policies, when associated with triggers that provide for their reduction or removal as major trading partners take on comparable climate policies, can help 

incentivize international action. Arguably, border-tax adjustment may be seen as a 

red flag to free trade advocates, but it can also more directly target those trade partners lagging in terms of climate policy action. 

250 


Insert offset folio 39 here 50023.195
251 


Insert offset folio 40 here 50023.196
252 


Insert offset folio 41 here 50023.197
253 


Insert offset folio 42 here 50023.198
254 


Insert offset folio 43 here 50023.199
255 


Insert offset folio 44 here 50023.200
256 


Insert offset folio 45 here 50023.201
257 


Insert offset folio 46 here 50023.202
258 


Insert offset folio 47 here 50023.203
259 


Insert offset folio 48 here 50023.204
260 


Insert offset folio 49 here 50023.205
261 


Insert offset folio 50 here 50023.206
262 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 51 here 50023.207