ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

(110–44)

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 11 AND 16, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

INDEPENDENCE

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE

CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

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

35–926 PDF 2007

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

(110–44)

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 11 and 16, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

CONTENTS Page 

Proceedings of:

May 11, 2007 ........................................................................................................ 1

May 16, 2007 ........................................................................................................ 182

MAY 11, 2007

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... viii 

TESTIMONY 

Ayers, Stephen T., AIA, Acting Architect of the Capitol and Deputy Architect/

Chief Operating Officer, United States Congress .............................................. 41

Beard, Daniel P., Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 41

Doan, Hon. Lurita Alexis, Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration ........................................................................................................................ 6

Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 6

Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation ................................................................................................................ 6

Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul, Assistant Secretary of the Army of Civil Works, 

Department of the Army ..................................................................................... 6

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 54

Arcuri, Hon. Michael A., of New York ................................................................... 55

Brown Jr., Hon. Henry E., of South Carolina ....................................................... 57

Carney, Hon. Christopher P., of Pennsylvania ..................................................... 70

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 74

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...................................................................... 76

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 78

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 80

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Ayers, Stephen T. .................................................................................................... 89

Beard, Daniel P. ....................................................................................................... 100

Doan, Hon. Lurita A. ............................................................................................... 105

Johnson, Hon. Stephen L. ....................................................................................... 134

Peters, Hon. Mary E. ............................................................................................... 155

Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul ................................................................................. 162

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Brown Jr., Hon. Henry E., of South Carolina:

‘‘The Big Freeze,’’ Time, January 31, 1977 ........................................................ 59

‘‘The Cooling World,’’ Newsweek, April 28, 1975 .............................................. 67

‘‘Green Groups Dismayed as Flights Soar to Record High,’’ The Independent 

(UK), May 9, 2007 ............................................................................................ 68

Ayers, Stephen T., AIA, Acting Architect of the Capitol and Deputy Architect/

Chief Operating Officer, United States Congress, response to question by 

Rep. Oberstar ....................................................................................................... 98

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Tom D. Kilgore, President and CEO, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 174

Alliance to Save Energy, list of board and associates .......................................... 178

Page

VI

MAY 16, 2007

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... xxii 

TESTIMONY 

Altman, Richard L., Executive Director, Commercial Aircraft Alternate Fuels 

Initiative ............................................................................................................... 245

Brandt, Alf W., Principal Consultant, Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife, State of California Assembly ....................................................................... 252

Clarke, Andy D. Executive Director, League of American Bicyclists .................. 186

Cohen, Greg, President & CEO, American Highway Users Alliance .................. 186

Fitzgerald, Steve, Chief Engineer, Harris County Flood Control District, 

Houston, Texas, on Behalf of the National Association of Flood and 

Stormwater Management Agencies .................................................................... 252

Hall, Edward, General Manager of Engine Technology, General Electric .......... 186

Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads .................. 186

Harris, Jeff, Vice President for Programs, Alliance to Save Energy ................... 222

Lash, Jonathan, President, World Resources Institute ........................................ 186

May, Jim, President and CEO, Air Transport Association .................................. 245

McQuade, Michael, Senior Vice President for Science and Technology, United 

Technologies Corporation .................................................................................... 245

Millar, William W., President, American Public Transportation Association .... 186

O’Brien, Chris, Chairman, Solar Energy Industries Association ........................ 222

Principato, Greg, President, Airport Council International—North America .... 245

Prindle, William, Executive Director, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ...................................................................................................... 22

Rader, Tom, President, Colorado Railcar .............................................................. 186

Richter, Brian, Director, Global Freshwater Initiative, The Nature Conservancy ..................................................................................................................... 252

Stewart, R.K., FAIA, President, The American Institute of Architects .............. 222

Strout, Linda, Deputy CEO, Port of Seattle, on Behalf of The American 

Association of Port Authorities ........................................................................... 252

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 277

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 278

Carney, Hon. Christopher P., of Pennsylvania ..................................................... 280

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...................................................................... 283

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 288

Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin ..................................................................... 291

Walz, Hon. Timothy J., of Minnesota ..................................................................... 297

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Altman, Richard L. .................................................................................................. 298

Brandt, Alf W. .......................................................................................................... 313

Clarke, Andy ............................................................................................................ 326

Cohen, Gregory M. ................................................................................................... 329

Fitzgerald, Steve ...................................................................................................... 335

Galloway, Gerald E. ................................................................................................. 344

Hall, Edward ............................................................................................................ 350

Hamberger, Edward R. ........................................................................................... 359

Harris, Jeffrey .......................................................................................................... 366

Lash, Jonathan ........................................................................................................ 375

May, James C. .......................................................................................................... 386

McQuade, J. Michael ............................................................................................... 395

Millar, William W. ................................................................................................... 402

O’Brien, Christopher ............................................................................................... 408

Principato, Greg ....................................................................................................... 427

Prindle, William ....................................................................................................... 433

Rader, Thomas G. .................................................................................................... 454

Richter, Brian .......................................................................................................... 458

Stewart, R.K. ............................................................................................................ 470

Strout, Linda ............................................................................................................ 482

Page

VII

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads:

Response to question from Rep. Oberstar .......................................................... 215

Response to question from Rep. Oberstar .......................................................... 217

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Airbus North America, Allan McArtor, Chairman, written statement ............... 489

viii


35926.001
ix


35926.002
x


35926.003
xi


35926.004
xii


35926.005
xiii


35926.006
xiv


35926.007
xv


35926.008
xvi


35926.009
xvii


35926.010
xviii


35926.011
xix


35926.012
xx


35926.013
xxi


35926.014
xxii


35926.015
xxiii


35926.016
xxiv


35926.017
xxv


35926.018
xxvi


35926.019
xxvii


35926.020
xxviii


35926.021
xxix


35926.022
xxx


35926.023
xxxi


35926.024
xxxii


35926.025
xxxiii


35926.026
xxxiv


35926.027
xxxv


35926.028
(1)

HEARING ON ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS 

ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

Friday, May 11, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James Oberstar [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is a gentle gavel this morning; I don’t want to 

fray the sensitivities of my colleagues who were in session. All of 

us were in session until 1:30 this morning. There isn’t anyone here 

who has gotten more than five hours of sleep, unless they were 

cheating on the Floor last night. 

I thank our witnesses, but I especially thank our colleagues who 

have braved the lack of sleep and the late night session to be here 

this morning. 

The issue before us today is the first of two hearings, but there 

likely will be others over the period of this Congress, on global climate change and on the energy independence issue, which reminds 

me that I still have on my bookshelves the energy independence 

program of the Nixon Administration, a volume that I pored 

through last night that has some very valid and thoughtful recommendations of 35 years ago that are valid today. 

Our economy is so dependent on hydrocarbons that we have a 

special responsibility in this Committee to examine the reach, the 

breadth, the effect, of all that we do in transportation, since it does 

account for 60 percent of our energy consumption in America. Over 

60 percent of all energy is consumed in heating water: water to 

make steam for power plants; heating water in your radiators of 

your cars or trucks; heating water for use at home. 

We don’t think about this very often, but it is a function that can 

be displaced. Hydrocarbons can be displaced by solar power. This 

is an effort which we launched in this Committee at the outset of 

the session by passing legislation to retrofit or, I called it at the 

time, futurefit the Department of Energy with photovoltaic cells. 

This is also an initiative that, actually, I launched 30 years earlier, 

in 1977, with a bill to retrofit all Federal office buildings with photovoltaic cells. Unfortunately, that program was sidetracked by an 

election, the election of 1980, in which President Reagan came in 

and abolished the whole alternative energy program. 

2

‘‘But for as long as Europeans can remember, the frozen bastions 

of the north have hovered on the margins of their world a fearsome 

unknown realm nurturing fantastic tales of terrible beasts and grotesque landscapes. The boreal oceans were a source of piercing 

winds, vicious storms, and unimaginably cold winters with the ability to kill. At first, only a few Irish monks and the hearty Norse 

dared sail to the fringes of the ice. King Harald Hardradi of Norway and England is said to explore the expanse of the northern 

ocean with a fleet of ships in about 1040 A.D., beyond the limits 

of the land to a point so far north he reached pack ice three meters 

thick. He wrote, ‘‘There lay before our eyes at length the darksome 

bounds of a failing world.’’

It is a remarkable book. The Little Ice Age describes the vast oscillations of weather and of, more importantly, climate. The author 

writes, ‘‘Complex interactions between the atmosphere and the 

ocean govern Europe’s climate. A constantly changing pressure gradient reigns over the North Atlantic and much of Europe’s climate. 

Its influence as pervasive in the north as the celebrated southern 

oscillation of the Southwestern Pacific that governs El Nin ̃ os and 

tropical weather. The North Atlantic oscillation is a seesaw of atmospheric pressure between a persistent high over the Azores and 

an equally prevalent low over Iceland.’’

It seems like an arcane piece of scientific information until you 

understand that the North Atlantic oscillation governs the position 

and strength of the North Atlantic storm track and the rain that 

fails on Europe, especially during winter. The extreme swings of 

the North Atlantic oscillation are part of the complex atmosphericocean dynamics of the North Atlantic that include sea surface temperature anomalies, the strength of the gulf stream, atmospheric 

wave structure, and the distribution of sea ice and icebergs. These 

interactions are poorly understood, but there seems little doubt 

that many of the swings in the North Atlantic oscillation result 

from changes in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. 

That continued over a period of 1,000 years, until, in the early 

1300s there was dramatic swing from a warm period in which agriculture thrived, in which the icebergs disappeared, in which the 

Norse were able to explore the North Atlantic all the way to shores 

of the North American continent. Then the climate swung. That 

cycle of warm weather ended with a reversal of the North Atlantic 

oscillation, which brought a bone-chilling winter that immobilized 

shipping over a wide area, where thousands more perished from 

hunger and disease. 

The subtle climate of earlier years gave way to unpredictable 

wild weather, marked by warm and very dry summers in the 1320s 

and 1330s, and a notable increase in storminess and wind strength 

in the English Channel and the North Sea. The moist mild 

westerlies that nourished Europe turned off rapidly as the North 

Atlantic oscillation moved from one extreme to the other. 

The little ice age had begun. That little ice age devastated Europe: famine, plague, and destruction of agriculture, people, and 

cattle. 

We are in a different age today, and it is our task to better understand what the forces are and what the consequences are. The 

international geophysical year, the exploration of the Greenland ice 

3

cap, the exploration of Antarctica, the measurements that have 

been taken of over two miles of ice on the Greenland ice cap by differing teams of scientists show that today there is more carbon in 

the atmosphere than any time in the last 420,000 years. If we had 

no carbon in the atmosphere, the land would be uninhabitable; we 

would have the little ice age, only much greater, much more powerful. But too much carbon in the atmosphere causes the dramatic 

swings and shifts of power and shift that we are experiencing 

today. 

There is much written about the atmosphere, but little about the 

ocean, the great ocean circulating current or the great ocean conveyor belt. It is the most powerful of all ocean currents. This massive force studied by Dr. Wallace Broker of Columbia University 

has been present for the last 100,000 years, but only definitively 

understood in the last 15 or 20. The magnitude of the great ocean 

circulating current can be best described by a Swedish scientist, 

Sverdrup, who measured it. He can best compare the flow of all the 

rivers of the world in one day, or all the rainfall that touches the 

earth, which is measured in trillions of gallons, in one day. That 

is a Sverdrup unit. 

The great ocean circulating current has the force of 20 Sverdrup 

units, meaning 20 million cubic meters a second. It is over five 

miles wide, it is over two to three miles deep in the ocean; starts 

in the North Atlantic, in the Arctic, and moves with vast amounts 

of salt down through the North Atlantic, the South Atlantic, into 

the Pacific, through the Philippines, moves through South Africa, 

and then back up and gives off its warmer temperature to shield 

Northern Europe. The great ocean circulating current is beginning 

to weaken because of the melting of the polar ice cap and the dilution of the saltiness of the North Atlantic and the Arctic ocean 

water that has the moderating effect on the Pacific and the moderating effect on Northern Europe. 

We don’t know for sure what will happen because of melting of 

the polar cap, the weakening of the conveyor belt. But we do know 

that when that has happened in the past, that the climate system 

has shut down and an ice age began. We may be in the midst of 

a warming climate, but we may also be on the edge of the next ice 

age. 

The consequences for health are extraordinary. The female 

orphalese mosquito dies at 63 degrees temperature or below. There 

is a belt five degrees north and five degrees south of the equator 

in which that mosquito thrives. A million people a year die of malaria; 200 million are afflicted by malaria. I was one of them when 

I lived in Haiti. I contracted malignant tertian malaria. You either 

die or, if you live, you don’t get it again. That belt is now expanding to 10 degrees north and 10 degrees south of the equator. That 

means that in the next five years we will see 400 million to 500 

million people afflicted by malaria and 2 million or more deaths. 

Similarly, in the tropics, a bonebreak fever is carried by a vector 

which dies out at 1500 feet of altitude, where the temperature is 

roughly in the mid-60s. Two hundred thousand people a year die 

of bonebreak fever. I never contracted it, but I saw people who did. 

It’s a horrible disease. That disease is now at 3,000 feet of altitude 

4

in the tropics. Nearly a half million people may die of bonebreak 

fever. 

If we don’t understand the consequences of global climate change 

on the earth, the water, the rain, including the lack of rain, and 

on increasing moisture, then we can surely pay attention to the 

health consequences of global climate change and begin to do something about it. The Administration has proposed a number of steps 

which our witnesses today are going to spell out in very thoughtful 

and well presented testimony. I read this extensively last night, 

since we had plenty of time, and I look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, and good morning, as we try to recoup from last night’s marathon. 

Nice to see the smiling faces of Secretary Peters; Mr. Johnson, 

our EPA Administrator, and Ms. Stone. Thank you for your great 

job at GSA. And what is it, Colonel Woodley? Assistant Secretary 

Woodley, great. Welcome, from the Department of Army. Look forward to all of your testimony. 

Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on global warming. In fact, 

in February I was beginning to wonder whether we were really actually having global warming. February was just as cold as could 

be. I had a $900 heating bill, Ms. Norton, which is the highest I 

have ever had in the District, and I go back to Florida and I tell 

people it was so cold in Washington, I tell my constituents you 

could actually see Members of Congress with their hands in their 

own pockets, which was quite a spectacle. But, again, I don’t claim 

to be an expert. 

It is simple to look at where some of the greenhouse gases and 

some of our problems with adding to the heating of the planet come 

from. I got that little chart up there. You can’t see it very well; 

they didn’t do a good job, but it just shows power generation. Thirty-three percent greenhouse gases come from power generation. 

And just to state the problem in the realm in which we have some 

say, transportation, which is automobile, trucks, airplanes, accounts for another 27 percent. If you add that up, it is about 60 

percent of the emissions problems. 

It is strange the way we do some of these things. We are in a 

comfortable room here. Actually, the power generated for the air 

conditioning is coming from a plant which should have been 

changed out, but it is run by coal which comes from West Virginia, 

which Senator Byrd has insisted we keep no matter whether it produces the highest source of emissions or not. I know we have put 

some scrubbers and some other thing on our particular plant. 

I wanted to change out a light bulb the other day and I just 

asked staff to pull one out back here. These are the kinds of light 

bulbs we use in the Capitol. But I wanted to change out a light 

bulb and we are back to where we were, I think, about 12 years 

ago. I had to fill out a form, one person had to come up and actually look at the light bulb, then two people came up, one to present 

the light bulb, another one with a form, and one to install it. These 

are the more energy fluorescent light bulbs. So we are doing them 

one at a time. 

So whether it is power generation or electric, changing out to 

more efficient fuels, the Capitol isn’t a very good example. We will 

5

hear from I guess the second panel—we have got the acting architect—on what we are doing here. 

We know what, I guess, some of the problems are, and then we 

have to look at the solutions and what our policy is. Again, it is 

not a very good policy, whether it is the U.S. Capitol. As far as 

power generation, I have identified the problem of solving the problem, it is Congress. In France, 75 percent of their power is generated by nuclear; and old nuclear, we are not talking about the 

technology we have today. Again, our Federal policy keeps us from 

doing things. 

I have learned a little bit about light water pebble reactors, 

which have almost no meltdown possibility, that can be used, even 

in residential areas. South Africa is one of the countries. Even Iran 

and North Korea are looking for—of course, part of the use they 

claim is for power generation, peaceful power generation. But, 

again, our policy is not what it should be. And nuclear is emissionsfree. 

We also have natural gas. I am the only Florida Member to vote 

to drill in the Everglades back in my days in the legislature, and 

we take oil out of the Everglades even today safely, but we can do 

it in the Gulf. You can’t do it with a Federal policy that when one 

year says we are going to be 100 miles off, the next year we say 

120 miles off, the next year we say 200 miles off. We jerk around 

those who produce this. Natural gas, low emissions can be produced safely, and we have an abundance of it. That is not the only 

answer; solar and wind are also viable solutions, hydro. But it is 

our Federal policy. Cafe standards. We are going to have to increase our cafe standards. 

Now, I am a conservative Republican and supporter of industry, 

but we have got to set the policy and increase the mileage that our 

cars are getting. So we are standing in the way with outdated Federal policy. 

Power permitting is another problem. 

Then, finally, mass transit and transit. First of all, we are just 

not going to solve this with shifting the biofuels. I know that the 

agriculture folks are having a heyday, they had one last night, although that is not all said and done. But biofuels, if we use the entire U.S. corn crop, would only provide 3.7 percent of our transportation fuel needs. So it is not an answer. It also uses a lot of energy 

in its production. So we do need to look at other ways of powering 

vehicles, whether it is automobiles, trucks, or aircraft. We need to 

be doing more with Secretary Peters in looking at alternative fuels 

for aircraft. Very soon, the Europeans will probably impose a tax 

on us because airplanes do produce a lot of emissions, significant 

emissions. 

Finally, again, in the area of moving people efficiently and 

freight efficiently, railroads can move a ton of freight more than 

400 miles on one gallon of fuel, and rail emits 6 to 12 times fewer 

pollutants than other modes of transportation. But, again, we don’t 

have in place a system. We move freight at an average of 21 miles 

an hour in the United States. 

Then, moving people, we move people long distance by a Soviet 

system that is called Amtrak. It is out of date and it is an impediment to us actually moving lots of people by long distance. As far 

6

as high-speed rail, it has closed the door to high-speed rail development in the United States, made it impossible. We look at what is 

going on around the world. I visited, last August, China. Maglev, 

next generation technology, China. Even Romania is privatizing its 

rail. But not the United States, because of our policy and some special interests who want to make certain that we do not have an alternative means of transportation that can be fuel-efficient, that 

can protect the environment, less emissions. But there is only one 

thing standing in our way, our Federal policy. 

I am pleased to yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his statement and his 

observations. I guess I broke union rules. I just went and changed 

the light bulb on my own; I put it in and didn’t ask them permission to do it. 

Mr. MICA. I hope they file a complaint against you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. File a complaint, then. Get the IBEW after me. 

I am quite sure that all other Members have erudite statements 

about global climate change, and those will all be entered into the 

record so that we may proceed forthwith to our panel. 

Secretary Peters, thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate your presentation, which I read at length last night. You 

are the first. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE STEPHEN JOHNSON, 

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; THE HONORABLE JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY OF CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; AND THE HONORABLE LURITA 

ALEXIS DOAN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the 

Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to come before you 

today to testify on climate change and energy independence. In my 

testimony today, I would like to explore with you how this Committee and the Department of Transportation can work together on 

shaping transportation infrastructure to enhance energy security 

and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Most importantly, we need to find ways to improve the efficiency 

of our existing transportation system and to direct limited investment capital to where it is most needed and can make the largest 

difference. This is the fundamental rationale for the Congestion 

Initiative and Next Generation Finance Reform Initiative for aviation. Both endeavors can be powerful tools for reducing petroleum 

consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as saving time 

and money for travelers. 

While the Congestion Initiative involves a number of different 

elements, today I would like to focus on three of those elements 

most relevant to saving fuel and curbing emissions. In December, 

with the help of this Committee, the Department issued a request 

for proposals for metropolitan areas to enter into what we call 

Urban Partnership Agreements, or UPAs, with the agency. As an 

7

urban partner, a metropolitan area will commit to implementing a 

comprehensive strategy to respond to urban congestion, including 

congestion pricing demonstrations, enhanced transit services, increased use of telecommuting, and advanced technology deployment. In exchange, the Department will support its partners with 

available resources using current budget authority, as well as regulatory flexibility and expertise. 

The heart of the Urban Partnership Agreement is a congestion 

pricing format that, done right, can reduce congestion and save 

drivers substantial amounts of time and fuel. Pricing can also 

incentivize mass transit use and foster high speed, reliable bus 

rapid transit service. It can improve in-service fuel economy while 

reducing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions by cutting out the stop-and-go movement and allowing vehicles to operate 

at closer to optimal speeds. 

Congestion pricing has also been in the news lately, most recently with the proposal by New York City Michael Bloomberg, to 

implement a cordon pricing program in which drivers would pay a 

fee to enter downtown Manhattan during the workday. Mayor 

Bloomberg’s proposal is the kind of bold thinking that leaders 

across the Country need to embrace if we hope to win the battle 

against traffic congestion and climate change. 

We are also working to improve aviation congestion. The Federal 

Aviation Administration has saved millions of gallons of jet fuel 

and over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the past 

two years by implementing reduced vertical separation minimums, 

permitting aircraft to fly in U.S. airspace and operate at more efficient altitudes. The FAA has achieved further improvements in 

system performance through the related reforms of the Area Navigation System and Required Navigation Procedures, both of which 

increase the efficiency with which we use our airspace and with 

which airplanes operate. 

If we want to reduce jet fuel consumption and aircraft emissions 

without discouraging air travel, we must transform our aviation 

system. We need a reauthorization bill passed by Congress that 

provides for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. I 

commend the Committee for holding today’s hearing. We all share 

an enormous responsibility of ensuring that future generations can 

experience the freedom of efficient and vital American transportation systems. I look forward to answering your question, and 

thank you for entering my full statement in the record. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. We will have some questions later on. 

Now we have Mr. Johnson, Stephen Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Appreciate your being here. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Oberstar, 

Mr. Mica, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about climate change and energy security. 

As we continue to work to evaluate our obligations under the recent Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Administration will continue moving forward, both domestically and 

internationally, to address the serious challenge of global climate 

change. 

8

In keeping with the agency’s commitment to address the Supreme Court’s ruling expeditiously and responsibly, we recently 

signed the formal notice that starts the public process for considering the California waiver petition process. We will hold public 

hearings on May the 22nd and May the 30th. 

In 2002, President Bush committed to cut U.S. greenhouse intensity, that is, the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, by 18 percent through the year 2012, a goal that we are on 

target to meet. According to EPA data reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, U.S. greenhouse 

gas intensity declined by 1.9 percent in 2003, by 2.4 percent in 

2004, and another 2.4 percent in 2005. Put another way, from 2004 

to 2005, the U.S. economy increased by 3.2 percent while greenhouse gas emissions increased by only 0.8 percent. 

Under the President’s leadership, our Nation is making significant progress in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. According to 

the International Energy Agency, from 2000 to 2004, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel consumption grew by 1.7 percent 

while our economy expanded by nearly 10 percent. This percentage 

increase was lower than that was achieved by Japan, Canada, the 

original 15 countries of the European Union, India, and China. IEA 

data also show that during this time the United States reduced its 

carbon dioxide intensity by 7.2 percent. This is better, for example, 

than Canada, Japan, or even the EU 15. 

I would also note that the U.S. is on track to meet, and possibly 

exceed, the President’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 

18 percent by 2012. By contrast, only two of the original EU 15 

countries in the Kyoto Protocol are on target to meet their Kyoto 

targets. 

Over the last six years, this Administration has invested more than any other nation in the world, $37 billion, in a comprehensive 

climate change agenda. EPA climate change programs include a 

wide array of domestic and international partnerships which rely 

on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas intensity, spur 

new investments, and remove barriers to the introduction of cleaner technologies. I would be happy to speak in greater detail about 

EPA’s many climate partnership programs that include the Asia 

Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, Energy 

Star, the SmartWay Transport Partnership, the Methane to Markets Partnership. 

The President’s efforts are also focusing on strengthening energy 

security. In his 2007 State of the Union address, the President 

challenged the Nation to address our growing reliance on oil. He 

called for reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in the next 

10 years, while doing so in a way that keeps America’s economy 

growing and protects our environment. This 20-in-10 plan includes 

a proposed requirement for 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel in 

2017, building upon EPA’s current renewable fuel standard. 

Another focus of EPA is the development of risk management 

strategies to ensure carbon dioxide injection and long-term geologic 

storage are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. 

We have determined that underground injection of carbon dioxide 

is subject to the Underground Injection Control Program of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates injection activities to 

9

protect current and future sources of drinking water. EPA has developed UIC permitting guidance that recommends treatment of injection wells associated with research and development projects as 

experimental technology wells. Our goal is to provide guidance that 

facilitates permits, while encouraging environmentally responsible 

injection activities. 

Mr. Chairman, I am also proud to say on September 1st, 2006, 

we, EPA, became the first Federal agency to achieve 100 percent 

green power. EPA is also a Federal Government leader in the use 

of green buildings, having eight major new facilities that are or will 

be silver or gold certified under the U.S. Green Building Council 

rating system. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Before I take 

questions, I would ask that my full written statement be submitted 

for the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, the full statement will be in 

the record. The complete statement of all witnesses, as statements 

of all Members, will be included in the record. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable John Woodley, Jr. Thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

be here today to discuss how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Civil Works Program is addressing global climate change. I have 

a detailed statement I have submitted and, with your permission, 

will summarize it here. 

Over the last century, the Corps of Engineers, along with other 

Federal agencies, has helped develop this Nation’s water resources. 

We are constantly improving our ability to manage those resources, 

including measures to address water-related issues that are arising 

due to changing weather patterns and climate change. The Corps’ 

flood and storm damage reduction mission directly involves understanding and responding to extremes of weather variability and 

long-term trends in climate. Significant changes in either weather 

patterns, or in climate, can affect our ability to supply water from 

our Nation’s multipurpose reservoirs to 55 million municipal and 

industrial consumers, to facilitate safe and reliable waterborne 

transport on our Nation’s inland waterways, and to produce nearly 

25 percent of the Nation’s hydroelectric power. It could also affect 

our ability to restore and sustain aquatic ecosystems and endangered and threatened species. 

While the Corps of Engineers does not have the mission to perform climate data collection, the Corps has been involved in climate 

change impact studies since 1979. The Corps has participated in a 

number of workshops with its Federal and State agency partners 

in efforts to evaluate the development of technical and scientific 

methods for incorporating climate change information into forecasts, flood and drought frequency analyses, and planning evaluation approaches for new projects, as well as for existing ones. 

Two of the Corps’ significant activities, hydroelectric power and 

inland navigation, relate directly to energy independence and climate change, and all of our mission areas could be affected by climate change. Hydroelectric power helps make us less dependent on 

foreign energy sources. The Corps is the single largest producer of 

hydroelectric power energy in the United States. It operates and 

10

maintains 75 multiple purpose hydropower projects, generating 

about 78 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year. The Corps 

accounts for about 24 percent of the Nation’s hydroelectric power 

capacity and about 3 percent of the total electric power capacity of 

the United States. This output makes the Corps the fourth largest 

electric utility in the United States, one which uses no imported 

fuel and emits no greenhouse gases. 

The Corps maintains the Nation’s inland waterway navigation 

system, which is an important part of the national transportation 

system. Waterborne transportation is often capable of moving commodities and products more efficiently than they could be moved 

over land, potentially reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

Because all of our missions can be affected by significant shifts 

in weather or climate, it is important to the Corps to account for 

these possibilities in our project planning and operation. To that 

end, the Corps is pursuing an expanded use of risk-based planning. 

The risk-based planning process considers uncertainties such as 

the effects of climate change evaluated through multiple possible 

scenarios of future environmental conditions. The ongoing work in 

the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Study is an example of the application of this process. 

There are many avenues through which the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Civil Works Program can help address the difficult scientific, technical, and operational issues raised by the uncertainty 

associated with climate change and its potential impacts on water 

resource management. We have the necessary authorities to conduct a broad program of necessary first steps that are part of a 

longer-term proactive adaptive management strategy. 

The Corps of Engineers is a leader in innovative, yet practical 

cost-effective approaches and is working to incorporate potential 

climate change impacts in the planning and management of our 

key water-based infrastructure. We are well positioned to respond 

to the Nation’s needs now and in the future. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Excellent. Thank you very much for your presentation. The Corps has within its reach the ability to make big impacts on our energy picture. 

Our next witness may have an even bigger impact on energy, 

Lurita Doan, Administrator, GSA. 

Ms. DOAN. Good morning, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member 

Mica, and Members of the Committee. I am Lurita Doan, Administrator of GSA. GSA has an extraordinary commitment to energysaving initiatives and I am very pleased to have this opportunity 

to discuss GSA’s endeavors here today. 

A critical part of GSA’s mission is to provide responsible choices 

that help our client agencies meet their environmental obligations. 

Our offerings include the construction and leasing of energy-efficient buildings, the procurement of renewable utility services, environmentally friendly telework and other alternative workplace arrangements, and a selection of the latest alternative fuel vehicles 

and a wide range of environmentally preferable office products. 

From the space and services provided by our Public Building 

Service to the products and services provided by our Federal Acquisition Service, I am proud of the leadership GSA demonstrates and 

11

the assistance we provide to the Federal community to meet or exceed the targets set by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

and the targets set by President Bush’s new Environmental Executive Order. 

I am also proud that GSA’s efforts to achieve energy efficiency 

through good practices, new technologies, innovations, and plain 

old common sense have helped reduce our energy usage as well as 

our operating costs. Today I would like to discuss GSA’s leadership 

in energy-efficient green buildings, GSA’s offerings of environmentally responsible products and services, and GSA’s governmentwide telework initiative, including our centers that relieve Federal 

employees from daily traffic snarls and also reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

GSA’s achievements and initiatives in these areas are detailed in 

my formal statement already submitted to the Committee. For 

now, I will focus on a few highlights. 

Through PBS, our Public Building Service, for instance, GSA has 

an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the Federal Government by example and demonstrate how we can reduce energy consumption by integrating energy efficiency into building designs, 

while still creating superior workplaces, and GSA is doing just 

that. For example, GSA operates its buildings at costs that are 5 

percent below comparable buildings in the private sector, and GSA 

pays 12 percent less for its utilities because we can drive costs 

down through the leverage buying power of the entire Federal Government. 

Similarly, our Federal Acquisition Service offers agencies a wide 

array of energy saving services and products, including alternative 

fuel vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles. Perhaps most Americans 

don’t know this, but GSA is one of the Nation’s largest purchasers 

of alternative fuel vehicles. With over 100 contractors on GSA 

schedules, agencies can find a host of services that help them audit 

their current usage, that properly meter their buildings, and evaluate alternative energy options. 

On a third front, GSA is a co-lead agency for Federal telework 

and established a no-cost trial of the GSA telework centers. Based 

on data from our 14 centers, we estimate that telework at these 

centers annually save nearly 2.8 million travel miles, which in turn 

saves 115,000 gallons of fuel and avoids 2.3 million pounds of emissions. 

Sustainable design, meanwhile, is a holistic approach to constructing, modernizing, and operating buildings that seek to balance costs, environmental, social, and human benefits with functional needs of our customer agencies. GSA uses the U.S. Green 

Building Council LEED certification in the design of new construction and GSA is a leader in sustainable design and has earned a 

LEED rating for 19 buildings to date, with 60 more planned. 

Mr. Chairman, whether it is sophisticated lighting systems, wind 

power, or telework, GSA is fully committed to achieving and exceeding the goals of the Energy Policy Act and the President’s Executive Order. As Administrator, I feel blessed that GSA has a talented, creative, and innovative workforce. GSA has some of the resources to help our client agencies and our Nation become more 

12

conscientious stewards of our air, land, and water but, truthfully, 

more are needed. 

I also want to help folks in the business infrastructure sector understand that if you build it, GSA will come. We need more energy 

infrastructure, whether it is wind power, hydroelectric, photovoltaic, more E85 stations, more bio products, we need it. If you 

build it, we will come. 

I would be happy now to respond to any questions from you or 

Members of the Committee. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Ms. Doan. Mr. Mica tells 

me that you are from New Orleans originally. 

Ms. DOAN. I am indeed. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is my wife’s home. 

Well, Secretary Peters, it occurred to me, as I read your statement last night and listened to you again this morning, you quoted, 

with much approval, Mayor Bloomberg and his cordon pricing program, and also quoted him asking what options do we have. Should 

we continue to have wasted time, lost business, higher prices, or 

should we charge a modest fee to encourage people to take mass 

transit? 

We encountered that issue in the safety round in the TEA-21 and 

in SAFETEA-LU on two scores, one on seat belt usage—which the 

Governor of New Jersey should have paid attention to—and, second, on alcohol and driving. And in the complex negotiations within 

the Committee, and then between our Committee and the Senate, 

we settled on incentives rather than penalties. 

You seem to be endorsing the mayor’s support for a penalty, 

rather than provide incentives for people to use transit. Wouldn’t 

an incentive payment of some sort, a subsidy of transit, be a better 

approach, comparable to what we did in TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU 

on seat belt and on .08 alcohol? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do believe in incentives and, as you discussed, during the negotiations for SAFETEALU we did arrive at incentives and they have worked very well, especially in the seat belt law area, extremely good progress. 

The truth is that in New York City, as well as here in Washington, D.C. and in many other areas, transit benefits are given or 

incentives are provided to employees to use transit. In fact, at our 

building, I believe as well as many other buildings here in the U.S. 

Government headquarters, we charge employees who choose to 

drive and park, but we give them benefits, transit benefits authorized by Congress if they use transit. That is the case in New York 

City as well with many of the employers, and yet Midtown Manhattan is still very, very congested. 

Mayor Bloomberg has said that you pay a price. Either you pay 

a price for coming into the city, as he has suggested, or you pay 

a price in lost time and lost productivity. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me contrast that with Denver, under Mayor 

Wellington Webb, where he said we don’t want your pollution in 

the center city; leave your car outside. We will give you a ride free 

on our Circulator System in the center of the city. Keep the pollution out and your experience in our city will be a much happier 

one. 

13

In Portland, in the center of the city they have a circulator system, a trolley that you ride free, get on and off as many times as 

you wish. When you get beyond a certain zone, then you pay. 

In the transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, municipalities 

under 200,000 population can use their transit grants for capital 

account as well as for operating comp, but those above 200,000 are 

not allowed to do that by current law. 

Would you support changing the law to allow large municipalities to use funds for operating assistance in order to encourage 

greater transit use? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, during the 

first three years of operation, in most cases, CMAQ funds, for example, can be used for operation. That has been——

Mr. OBERSTAR. But not for those above 200,000. 

Secretary PETERS. Not for those above 200,000, sir. I would support maximum flexibility for State and local governments. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. That is excellent. I appreciate that. 

It is nice to have a straightforward answer. Not that you don’t, but 

it is all too often we have an Administration witness, they don’t 

know what OMB is going to say. That is a good candid, straightforward answer. I appreciate it. Excellent. 

Mr. Johnson, let me find my notes. Here we are. The Supreme 

Court, on April 2nd, said that EPA has to take into account CO2 

as an air pollutant and that you do have the ability to set emission 

standards for motor vehicles. It also said there is no conflict between setting CO2 standards to protect public health and welfare 

under the Clean Air Act, and that there is no conflict between that 

and the Department of Transportation setting fuel economy standards. What does EPA intend to do now in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as you point out, the decision that the Supreme Court made on April the 2nd does present a series of complex issues, the one you mentioned being one of them. We are currently evaluating what the Supreme Court said, considering those 

kind of issues, the intersection between the Clean Air Act and Department of Transportation’s activities. We are considering all options. We are moving expeditiously. This is an important issue. But 

we are also moving responsibly. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, there is an opportunity now, with that decision, and I encourage EPA to move ahead vigorously with it. 

Secretary Woodley, some years ago—goodness, 20 plus years 

ago—this Committee directed the Corps to evaluate the potential 

for low-head hydro application on streams other than those where 

we have the major projects, and then come back and report to Congress on those 5 kW and above. Are you familiar with that report? 

Mr. WOODLEY. It must have been before my time, Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you update—yes, go ahead. 

Mr. WOODLEY. It must have been before my time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It was, yes. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I can tell you——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Probably when you were still in college. 

[Laughter.] 

14

Mr. WOODLEY. Although 25 years is a long time to spend evaluating anything, even for the Corps of Engineers, it would not be 

unprecedented. 

Let me respond seriously, though, that I have seen low-head applications in place, particularly in New England, where they are 

being vigorously pursued. I think that there is a great potential 

there for development that would require very little infrastructure 

and would present substantial opportunities for more additional 

hydroelectric power from our facilities, using water that——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we are going to get together with you too 

and with the Chief of Engineers and revisit the issue and harness 

the Corps’ ability to deliver real engineering results, as it does. I 

have such great admiration for the Corps and all of its work, but 

in your statement you talk about adaptive management—that the 

Nation’s water resource infrastructure can be adapted to address 

subtle changes and trends. Now, I don’t want to be picky, but we 

have not seen much subtle change in a long time. 

I have a compilation over the last 20 years of the costs of disaster relief expenditures by FEMA and by the private insurance 

sector, and it adds up to $35 billion from 1980 to 2000, and $115 

billion by the private sector insurance companies, and if you look 

at the progression, if you go back to 1980, FEMA disaster relief 

was in the range of $850 million. It fluctuates, it goes down, it goes 

up, but then from 1990 on it is $2 billion, $2.5 billion, $4.3 billion, 

$3.6 billion, $4.3 billion, $4.4 billion. The private sector keeps going 

up. There is a progression. And that doesn’t include the $27 billionplus of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

We are seeing a steady progression, if you just measure it in cost, 

of an increase of storms of powerful effect on people, on communities, and on our total public works infrastructure. And then you 

go on to say, generally, however, we have formulated our projects 

to address storms that are more likely to occur. I think that the 

gentleman from Louisiana to my left, Dr. Boustany, would say we 

are way passed evaluating things that are likely to occur. We need 

to protect against storms of a magnitude that we haven’t yet imagined. 

Now, Ms. Doan, I followed with great interest your many discussions of pilot projects, building modernizations, and projects that 

are nearby in Suitland, Maryland, or as far away as San Francisco. 

There is a highly commendable record of accomplishment in GSA, 

but GSA is the landlord of 367 million square feet of civilian office 

space, and the electricity bill is $5,800,000,000 a year. We have to 

do a whole lot more than we are doing now, and we intend to give 

GSA the authority and the encouragement and the incentive to accelerate this initiative. 

If we can get a bill through the Senate that we passed in the 

House to convert the Department of Energy, which should be the 

symbol for America of conversion to photovoltaics, then we can 

carry that pilot all the way through the rest of the Federal Government and save an enormous amount of cost to the taxpayer, and 

of CO2 emissions to the environment. 

Are you ready to get on board with that? 

Ms. DOAN. GSA strongly supports photovoltaic efforts as a way 

of providing alternative energy. In fact, we have a very strong 

15

track record in that area. We have worked very hard and we just 

started another effort just last month in the Denver Federal Center. In addition to that, we think that it makes an enormous 

amount of economic sense. We also want to expand our efforts a little bit further into our land border ports of entry program on the 

roofs where it makes sense, where we have enormous amounts of 

solar power available to us. In fact, in Waltham, Massachusetts, we 

have an integrated solar roof where 45 to 50 percent of the total 

building supplies—the solar roof on top of it provides for their electricity needs. So we are very much in support of these initiatives. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

Secretary Peters, we have all followed the increased ethanol 

usage with a great deal of interest. Granted, we know there are 

limitations agriculturally with some of the technology and even 

pipelines for distribution, so there are going to be problems that we 

will face with these limitations. I am curious to know—what is the 

Department doing with regard to aviation fuel alternatives and 

biofuels and the like? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, that is a very good question. In 

fact, aviation has increased their fuel efficiency by 33 percent in 

about the last 10 years, so they certainly have stepped up to do a 

lot of things. Currently, both Boeing and GE are making forays 

into alternative fuels for aviation, and they are also beginning, at 

airports, to look at the opportunities for ground-based equipment 

to be alternatively fueled, perhaps electrified vehicles, so that they 

aren’t burning fuel. 

We are also looking at ways when jets are taxiing, after they 

have landed and gotten off the active taxiway, and whether there 

are ways to move that jet with a lower cost technology, such as a 

nose wheel motor, that would prevent them from running those jet 

engines while they are on the ground. So there are a number of 

things underway for doing that, as well as fuel options. As I mentioned, both Boeing and GE are looking very heavily into fuel options for aviation as well. 

Aviation is one of those forms of transportation where they absolutely are looking very hard to conserve fuel whenever they can because it is such a large part of their expenses. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. What will be the U.S. policy if the 

EU imposes an aviation fuel emissions tax? Could you elaborate a 

little bit on that? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, we are very opposed to that. We 

are very opposed to a unilateral measure such as EU is considering 

for aviation, and feel very strongly that the whole issue of emissions and global warming, climate change are global issues, not 

issues that are specific to the European Union. I have also talked 

with my counterparts in China. They are opposed, as well as many 

other countries also. So we do intend to push back very hard 

against the EU on this unilateral measure. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield for just a moment. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Certainly. Yes. 

16

Mr. OBERSTAR. I assure the gentleman further time. 

Our Committee did conduct an extensive session in Belgium with 

the European Commission, with the minister of transport, European Parliamentary Members of their transport Committee, that 

included an extensive discussion of the emissions trading regime 

for aviation that the European community is moving forward on, 

and their goal is to implement an emissions trading scheme for 

aviation by 2011, 2012. Their goal was also to impose it on the 

United States in our airspace. 

We made it very clear on a bipartisan basis that this is our sovereignty and that we will deal with it. We also told Europe that 

we were 10 years ahead of them on noise. We put in place a noise 

reduction rule in 1990, legislation that I initiated as Chair then of 

the Aviation Subcommittee, and Europe didn’t come along until 10 

years afterward. We want credit for what the United States did. 

We will deal with our issue in our sovereign airspace and Europe 

can deal with yours in European sovereign airspace. We ought to 

harmonize it for the benefit of the world, but we have to bring the 

rest of the world along with us. 

I thank the gentleman for his time. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, in March of 2007, you convened a climate change 

working group within the EPA’s Office of Water, and specifically in 

your written testimony you mentioned mitigation, adaptation, and 

research. Can you go into greater detail as to what this working 

group will assess, and how do you think water programs and water 

quality infrastructure can mitigate the release of greenhouse 

gases? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much, sir. The reason why 

we convened this work group is that there are a number of issues 

that we must address, as we look at global climate change and its 

potential impacts, and one of those is on sea level rise and the concern for our oceans and our coastal waterways, what that means 

for not only the environment, but also where we get our water for 

drinking water, as well as wastewater treatment. 

So we convened a group inside the agency to take a very close 

look at the tools under the Clean Water Act and how we could use 

those tools and how we can use those tools to help to mitigate or 

to better understand, but mainly to make sure that we are able to 

address any changes that may occur from greenhouse gas emissions. So we have started that effort not only inside the agency, but 

with our Federal partners and, in some cases, as we have looked 

at some of our precious natural resources like the Chesapeake Bay 

with our State partners there as well. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. 

Secretary Woodley, I think you mentioned in your verbal testimony that you did not need additional authorities, and I guess I 

would like to pursue that a little further. Do you see that you need 

any additional authority as you look at your project studies, and 

specifically do you need authorities in addition to Section 707, Section 729, Section 731 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986? 

Mr. WOODLEY. No, sir. Thank you for the question. We believe 

that the authorities that we are currently operating under are sufVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
17

ficiently broad to allow us to take into account climate change 

issues as they apply both within our planning processes and within 

our operational measures within the program. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So you are looking at climate change when you 

look at the impact on flood, storm, and drought risk in the U.S., 

also the impact on hurricane activity intensity, storm surge, sea 

rise level, associated flooding? These are all things with your current authorities that you are able to address? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay. And will incorporating these types of climate change analyses increase the cost of conducting studies? In 

other words, are non-Federal project sponsors who currently pay 50 

percent of all study costs willing to bear this increased cost, and 

has there been some dialogue with the non-Federal cost share 

sponsors? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would say that our cost share sponsors are interested in the best planning process that we can achieve. They are 

interested in a planning process that is comprehensive and that 

takes into account all the risks that their populations will face. So 

we have not had—I am certainly not aware of any difficulties or 

issues that have been raised with our partners in that regard. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Woodley. 

Ms. Doan, is GSA doing anything to reduce Government facilities’ dependence on the existing energy grid? 

Ms. DOAN. Yes. GSA is working very hard to generate independence from the grid. As I mentioned earlier, we are making enormous efforts in different types of energy. We have made efforts to 

use wind power, hydroelectric power, of course, photovoltaic or 

solar power, but in addition to that, we will be removing some of 

our energy from the grid. 

In fact, many areas where we are generating power, we then return energy to the grid. Our new effort that we have begun at the 

Denver Federal Center will do exactly that. In addition, at the FDA 

here in Maryland we have a heating plant that does exactly that, 

and it is cogeneration of power. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman and the witnesses. 

Now, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of 

Columbia, Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much 

for this important and timely hearing. 

If I could just do a little demonstration for a moment. Behind 

this curtain is sunlight. That is sunlight, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NORTON. I do that demonstration because I sat in a hearing 

recently, and everybody who came into the room said, oh, it is 

freezing in here, it is freezing in here. And, of course, I looked 

around and we were all closeted in these curtains, and I recognized 

that there is an AV. You know, at home, when you look at television, you don’t close down the sunlight. 

It does seem to me that a lot of what the Federal Government 

has to be doing has to begin at home, and I do want to know—I 

want somebody to find out when the idea began that we had to 

18

close up all of the curtains and depend on these things here as we 

preach to the Country what they are supposed to be doing. Maybe 

it is the best thing to do, but I am not sure it is. 

I think anybody who either shuts out sunlight or uses a great 

deal of electricity has the burden of demonstrating why they are 

doing so. That is why I applaud the speaker, who has taken a lead 

for the Capitol complex in light bulbs, where we are supposed to 

immediately convert 2,000 desk lamps and, within six months, 

10,000. 

I applaud it because, frankly, I don’t think the problem with the 

Federal Government is leading by example; I think it is much more 

serious than that, because it is typical, Mr. Chairman, to underestimate the effect the Federal Government could have on changing 

energy policy just by what it does itself within its own operations. 

We are the big kahuna, and if you want to drive down the cost of 

all of this, the Federal Government leads in doing it and then others follow. 

Our ability to affect the marketplace is incalculable, almost, 

here. Ms. Peters and I have had a running dispute that I want to 

just cite when it comes to leading by example, and perhaps to contrast that with Administrator Doan, because I think GSA has had 

decades, before climate change became much of an issue, of leadership, rather muted leadership, not preaching it, but certainly trying to practice more of it than I think is known. 

On the other hand, just to give a perfect example, because I read 

your testimony, Ms. Peters, about some of the things you want to 

do. Some of those things sound to me to be very progressively moving in the direction of encouraging local jurisdictions. It seems 

small, but there is limited money. One of them, I noted in your testimony you want to fix bottlenecks in our transportation systems, 

include the efficiency of our existing road system, and direct limited investment capital where it is most needed. 

You are about to be in the center of the storm at the Department 

of Transportation. This Committee, for 20 years, worked to get the 

Department of Transportation a new building. Now you have a new 

building close to South Capital Street, in one of the great entry 

portals to the city. It is great all right. It is so great that you can’t 

get in it or out of it. Well, there is a lot of vacant land around it 

and the District is about to build a new Nationals baseball stadium, and the District is hustling with all kinds of changes in 

roads. 

The Federal Government gave, to its credit, because this is 

where the Navy Yard is, the Department of Transportation, the 

U.S. Capitol, $20 million to expand the Navy Yard subway. We are 

trying to use every church lot to have people park, rather than 

have them bring their cars anywhere close. The people who own 

the stadium are going to shuttle people in. 

The Department of Transportation has a brand new, brand new 

building and a brand new garage that is empty, or almost empty. 

If they want to use part of it, that is all right, but most of the people have gone home by the time the night games, which are when 

most night games. 

A creative proposal came forward from the people who own the 

stadium, who said that there are certain people that they know will 

19

drive, and those are the people who have those season tickets. They 

paid a lot for them. And they offered to vet those people in a way 

that no Federal employee is vetted; in a way that none of us or our 

staff is vetted. I was able to get the Navy Yard, which is along the 

same stretch of land, to agree that anybody who has a DOD pass 

around his neck—and that can be a contractor—can park there if 

they are going to a night game at the ballpark. 

Talk to the GSA and to the credit of the GSA, to the credit of 

the owner who runs the Department, who built this structure, the 

owner now of the structure, all of them said, given all the vetting 

you are talking about, it seems to be the highest and best use of 

the garage at night. Some revenue will come to the Federal Government; the cars, instead of being stretched along South Capital 

and M Street, which is the worst bottleneck in the city, those cars 

will go into the garage. I don’t want to say, Mr. Chairman, because 

it is very elaborate what they will do. These are people who are 

willing to anything because it is a very small group of people that 

we are talking about, the people who can afford those tickets, and 

they are willing to go through that. 

When we sat down with the security people, we recognized that 

they wouldn’t want to take that responsibility. So we had talked 

to Ms. Peters’ predecessor; she seemed to be open to this, to see the 

common sense value of this. But when it came to the Secretary, despite all she has had to say here this morning, she would rather 

see the bottleneck around her own Department of Transportation 

than see the garage used at night by people who have been vetted 

at the highest use. They used the Federal Government’s highest 

use vetting in order to come forward with a plan. 

So the whole notion of the Administration, Madam Secretary, proposing in this year’s budget $175 million to expand capacity and 

improve operations along heavily congested interstate travel and 

trade corridors does not seem consistent. All I am saying is the Department of Transportation has a burden not only of leading by example, but of explaining, if we are not able to do something about 

that congestion when that ballpark opens on April, what the Department has done. The Department of Transportation must explain what it has done to ameliorate the very congestion that you 

claim it is your mission to ameliorate throughout the Country. You 

need to start right where you live, in the Department of Transportation. 

I want to say that we will be holding a series of hearings, Mr. 

Chairman, on energy conservation in Federal real estate, because 

we own real estate throughout the Country and, by ourselves, could 

have a significant effect on energy matters. But we are not going 

to start with those forms of conservation that cost money. We are 

going to start with ordinary, old fashioned conservation like dimming lights after certain hours, making officials in Federal buildings responsible for that policy, keeping temperatures down, and 

allowing air conditioning and heating not to reflect the kind of temperature you find in movie theaters, when you come in and you are 

cold, or a hearing room and you are cold, but keeping those temperatures down. 

I believe that we have underestimated what the Federal Government itself can do, not by pilot projects. And the testimony here 

20

has been full of pilot projects and small things. I do want to say 

GSA has, for decades, been building in such—with some cost, building into construction and into requirements some important energy-efficient saving matters, but I take my time, Mr. Chairman, 

to say that the Department of Transportation—and I am here to 

hear any response she has to make—has left me to my own devices. And I tell you, as a Member of Congress, I am not going to 

sit here and watch the Department of Transportation become the 

center, the vortex of the congestion of which I speak. If I have been 

left to my remedies as a Member of Congress, I have my remedies, 

and I intend to take them. 

Secretary PETERS. Madam, would you like me to respond? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentlewoman’s time has expired, but the 

Chair will entertain the Secretary’s response. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Congresswoman, indeed, the new DOT building is a green building. We worked very closely with GSA to ensure that that building 

is not only energy efficient, but takes maximum opportunity to use 

natural light, as opposed to having to put artificial lighting in the 

building. 

The issue with which you and I had a discussion has to do with 

using a single-entrance underground parking garage, as you mentioned, for season ticketholders. Madam Congresswoman, I evaluated that request very, very carefully. The exterior of the building 

has been hardened against terrorist attacks, as should be done in 

buildings built for the Government in a post-9/11 environment. The 

parking lot has not been hardened. I consulted security experts in 

this field and, to a person, they told me that it constituted too great 

a risk for the building and the employees of the building to allow 

parking of non-government employees in there. 

I very carefully evaluated that request——

Ms. NORTON. Did you talk about how these people will have been 

vetted at a level beyond what Government employees have been 

vetted? 

Secretary PETERS. Madam Congresswoman, I did. My responsibility at the end of the day is to ensure the safety and security of 

our employees and the building for which I have responsibility. I 

consulted safety experts. I have made a decision, and the decision 

is not one that does not look carefully at the option that you put 

forward. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The matter is one of great importance. It carries 

over from that of energy efficiency to one of security, and it is a 

matter that can be explored in further inquiries. 

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick comment, 

then a few questions. 

Recently, I read this book called Human Options. It is about a 

30 year old book by Norman Cousins, a journalist and author well 

respected from the 1940s through the early 1980s. There is a quote 

in that book that says, ‘‘history is a vast early warning system.’’ So 

taking that quote into this framework, we can use both an understanding, being knowledgeable about political history with these 

issues and how they have been dealt with and how successful they 

have been, and both certainly from the early discussions here about 

21

climate change, an understand of the geologic history of the planet 

is not unimportant for each of you to have a clear understanding 

of, as far as where do we go with climate change, where do we go 

with greenhouse gases with emissions from automobiles or power 

plants, or even where we park when we go to a baseball game. 

So I would hope that all of you collaborate and integrate your 

ideas and your ingenuity, whether it is NOAA or USGS or the Department of Transportation, the Corps of Engineers, GSA, EPA, 

etc., because this is much bigger than one agency can handle. It is 

much bigger than one entity in the Government can handle. We 

have heard about silos and stovepipes and all of those things, and 

we have run out of time to deal with it in any way effectively. So 

I appreciate your time here and your efforts that you are all making in the individual agencies and departments that you represent, 

but it is so important, even with the remaining time in this Administration, for each of you to collaborate as much as is possible. 

The first question I have is to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, how 

do you see the California new vehicle emission law affecting the 

rest of the Country and affecting the rest of the Country on how 

people purchase vehicles? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, California has a petition before the agency 

now, which we are evaluating. We have two public comment periods, actually hearings, one here in Washington, D.C. on May the 

22nd and on May the 30th one in Sacramento, California; and 

those are the very questions that we are asking as part of the petition process, is asking for public comment on the California petition requesting a waiver——

Mr. GILCHREST. Just on another level, though, do you see what 

California is doing as a very positive opportunity that the Nation 

can take advantage of, along with, I don’t know, the several other 

States involved in that as well? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are looking at the petition and we will 

await the public comments that we get before we comment on the 

merits or not of the petition. Again, the issue of global climate 

change is serious, and, as you pointed out, sir, it is one that requires really every one, from each of us as an individual, to departments, the Federal Government, to business and global. 

Mr. GILCHREST. On that same line of thinking, as you respond 

to Massachusetts v. EPA with regard to the vehicles and other 

source of greenhouse gas emissions, how are you responding to that 

Supreme Court decision, in a collaborative fashion; an idea, well, 

greenhouse gases are not the same as coal particulates, they are 

not the same as mercury, but when we see the potential of sea 

level rise and the potential for various mosquitoes moving from one 

latitude to another latitude, there is an effect of that accelerated 

introduction of greenhouse gases that we haven’t seen in geologic 

history. So if you could just give me some idea of how you are dealing with that issue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are in active discussions with all the departments, particularly the Department of Transportation, given 

the nature of Massachusetts v. EPA, and there are many complex 

issues, not only that present themselves focusing on the transportation sector, but also, then, what are the ramifications for other 

sectors given the Supreme Court decision. So it is a complex issue. 

22

We are very actively working at all levels within the Administration to address this. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is this something that you think the Administration or EPA can handle under the existing structure of, let’s say, 

the Clean Air Act, or is there some accommodation that needs to 

be made, some adjustment, or anything that Congress needs to do? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly, the President wants Congress to 

act on his 20-in-10 proposal of 20 percent reduction on our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years, the two components being the alternative fuel standard of 35 billion gallons and, of course, then, revising the cafe standard. So there is something, yes, that can be done 

legislatively. With regard to the Clean Air Act, it is a broad, sweeping authority and we are currently evaluating it in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You think a cap-and-trade program similar to, 

but certainly more broad than, the one that helped significantly reduce acid rain, sulfur dioxide—or the matter in which we got lead 

out of gasoline or what we have done with CFCs—do you think 

that can play a role in this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly, there are a lot of tools, ranging 

from voluntary programs, partnership programs, to cap-and-trade 

programs, to taxes, to a variety of other incentive kinds of programs that can all work to address the issue. At the moment, our 

focus, certainly at EPA, is looking at the Supreme Court decision 

and what does that mean for motor vehicles. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Just a last question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Do you think we have the time to deal with greenhouse gas emissions based on the IPCC recommendation of trying to stay below 

450 or 500 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere with a voluntary program by 2050? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, I think that there are a variety of tools that 

we have, both domestically as well as globally. As you point out, 

it is not only just the United States, it is not just the European 

Union, but also developing countries. Certainly——

Mr. GILCHREST. I think, though, the U.S. has enormous influence 

around the world. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In fact——

Mr. GILCHREST. And when the U.S. moves, people respond. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in fact, as a Nation, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, we, as a Nation, have spent, since 2001, $37 billion on 

research, on technology, and even some tax incentives, which is 

more than any other country in the world. So we are taking this 

issue very, very seriously. We have made progress. We clearly have 

more to do. 

If I could, Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that came up about 

what individuals can do. Energy Star products, you know, that little blue star that is on light bulbs or on computers, last year, by 

Americans buying Energy Star products, they saved $14 billion—

that is with a ‘‘B,’’ billion dollars—in energy costs. And if you want 

to put that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, that saved greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 25 million automobiles, just by 

people buying products that have that Energy Star label, refrigerators, computers, light bulbs. 

23

So clearly an opportunity, whether you are an individual, whether you are a Federal facility or commercial facility, here in the 

United States and around the world, we see people making a difference. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman, who has now departed, 

for his questions and for your responses; it is right on. 

In that spirit, there is a company in my district that manufactures an electric car that you can run for a whole year on what it 

costs you to run your refrigerator for a whole year. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for also 

holding this hearing. It is important that we look in all areas, especially those we see in transportation, to see how much energy is 

used. So we are looking at climate change, but also, just in general, 

trying to save energy and become more energy independent in our 

Country. It is very important to look at this. 

I wanted to say to Chairwoman Norton that I don’t know how 

long it took me before I actually realized that there were windows 

behind the curtains in these hearing rooms. I just saw it hanging 

there, I just thought they were decoration covering the wall, but I 

finally found out there were actually windows back there. I chose 

my office based on facing south. I won’t have an office unless it 

faces towards the sun, so that tells you a little bit about where I 

am looking. 

I want to ask Administrator Doan a question to first start. You 

had said that the GSA has an opportunity and responsibility to 

lead the Federal Government by example, and Chairwoman Norton 

also talked about the responsibility that the Federal Government 

has. It is not just the example that helps, but it has an actual impact on the market. 

I introduced a bill recently, a bipartisan bill, the Bright Energy 

Savings Act, which directs the GSA to replace light bulbs. Whenever a light bulb is replaced—not to take all of them out right away 

and change them, but whenever a light bulb needs to be replaced, 

doing so with a high efficiency light bulb. Right now, most likely, 

this would be a compact fluorescent bulb, although later this year 

there is a new generation of halogen lights that will be coming to 

the market. 

But the CFLs, right now use 75 percent less energy than the incandescent light bulbs. This results in a greenhouse gas emission 

reduction, reduction in energy used, and also it saves money. The 

estimates are about $43 over the lifetime of a bulb, for one bulb, 

and I have been told that there are about 3 million light bulbs in 

GSA buildings. 

So I wanted to ask you mentioned a few things about what had 

been done by GSA in terms of lighting, although I wasn’t exactly 

sure. You talked about light fixtures. I was wondering if there has 

been any effort to put in high efficiency bulbs in GSA buildings and 

what exactly has been done in this regard to lighting. 

Ms. DOAN. GSA has actually employed several different strategies. One of the most basic, of course, is actually applying daylight 

harvesting strategies, such as interior and exterior lighting shelves 

that capture and redistribute the daylight throughout the buildVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
24

ings; working at limiting or eliminating incandescent lamps; reducing light wattages below the current standards. 

For example, the old practice was 4 to 7 watts per square foot, 

and the new standard is 0.9 watts per square foot. Providing skylights in our buildings, wherever possible, so that we can bring in 

the natural light; limiting the window areas; providing exterior 

shading; installing blinds; locating closed office and conference 

space away from windows and placing open office areas by perimeter windows; using light-reflective colors. 

In addition to that, we have daylight sensing automatic controls 

for lighting and daylight zones; technologies that split ambient 

lighting, task lighting for maximum efficiency; occupancy sensors 

in non-regulatory spaces; high-efficiency glazing. 

This is actually a good news story for us. But most light bulbs, 

just to go back to that, are already high-efficiency light bulbs within our buildings. We work very closely with agencies to look at 

their desk lamps, for example, and starting back in 1990, GSA did 

a massive retrofit of all of our Federal buildings to address exactly 

the challenges that you just brought up, to try to increase that energy efficiency. 

In addition, I would like to say we have some incredibly innovative new buildings. For example, the San Francisco Federal Building has a daylight harvesting technique that actually captures the 

daylight and it channels it back into the middle of the building. It 

is in a tower that is only 60 feet wide, and because of that it now 

is available to provide daylight to all the occupants. So by combining the efficiencies with having switched out and retrofitted 

light bulbs, as well as some inherent efficiencies in the new kinds 

of design and construction, I think we are doing quite a bit in this 

area; I actually have like 10 pages of lists that I could go through. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, it is great to hear that all this is being done. 

I would like you to get to me more specifics on, first of all—because 

I am hoping that—we have 65 cosponsors on this bill right now. I 

am hoping that we can do something on this, but I would like to 

have more specifics on how many bulbs out there have been replaced, how many have not been replaced, just so we have an idea 

about that, because I haven’t been able to get information along 

those lines. 

So if you could get that for us and also a little bit more specifics. 

It is great to hear all these things are doing done, but there are 

so many GSA buildings. It would be good to know more specifically 

how widespread this has been done. So if you can get those to me 

so that we on the Committee could see that, I would appreciate 

that. 

Ms. DOAN. I would be happy to provide that information, and I 

will tell you I think you will be delighted when you read it because 

it truly is a good news story that GSA is putting forward. Thank 

you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson. 

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 

start by asking for unanimous consent to insert in the record words 

from our colleague, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, who 

could not attend this hearing. 

25

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, the Subcommittee Chair’s 

statement will be included in the record. 

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. She states in here that under current 

law there are two highway programs which were started in the 

1991 ISTEA law that she believes do support local efforts to combat 

greenhouse gases: Transportation Enhancements and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Programs. 

Those programs, dollar for dollar, as your own data show, do 

more to help the Nation curb harmful emissions by providing alternatives to solo driving, whether it is expanding transit or carpooling, improving traffic signalization, promoting innovative demand management strategies, or making non-motorized travel 

easier and safer; or the issue that I want to raise today, which is 

very contentious in Texas at the moment, and that is whether 

Texas elected officials can proceed to make policy decisions on the 

construction of highways without interference from the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

I have a fairly lengthy statement to make and I have some questions within it, Madam Secretary, and I am going to ask that you 

respond to the questions that I have in the middle of my statement 

formally by writing, if you don’t mind, but I have two questions at 

the end that I would like you to comment on. 

I would like to refer and also ask, Mr. Chairman, that we put 

into the record a letter of April 25th, 2007, from the General Counsel of Federal Highway Administration in response to enquiries 

from the Texas Department of Transportation. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. 

Within this letter, Mr. Rey, who sent the letter, says, ‘‘We urge 

you to support the spirit of a fair and open competitive process in 

whatever procurement procedures are adopted.’’

Mr. Rey was referring to legislation in the State of Texas. It is 

State House Bill 1892 that passed the Texas House and the Senate 

is now waiting for the governor’s signature. The focus of Mr. Rey’s 

concern is a highway project, State Highway 121, in the Dallas 

area. 

Secretary Peters, I assume that you are in favor of a fair and 

open and competitive process in procurement. I certainly am. In 

fact, I would assume that the Federal Highway Administration, the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Government 

all are supportive of fair and open competitive procurement processes. I certainly am. 

Mr. Rey may not be familiar with some of the relative events 

leading up to this decision in the North Texas Tollway Authority, 

NTTA, not to bid on State Highway 121 project, so indulge me and 

let me go through a few paragraphs and tell you all of this. 

In January 2006, NTTA announced it was preparing to submit 

a proposal for the State Highway 121 project. Soon after the Texas 

Transportation Commission unexpectedly began a TxDOT comprehensive development agreement process for two significant 

projects that NTTA had spent years designing and shepherding 

through the environmental process. 

These projects are the extension of the Bush Turnpike and the 

Southwest Parkway in Ft. Worth. By starting that process, NTTA 

26

would be precluded by Texas law from carrying out the projects, 

and this sent an unmistakable message to NTTA concerning the 

consequences of its attempt to compete on that particular project. 

It occurred after private companies had complained that they could 

not and would not compete against NTTA. So Texas set about trying to fix that problem. 

NTTA did not bid on State Highway 121 because almost an extortion by the Texas Department of Transportation, not out of its 

own free will. In February, TxDOT awarded a preliminary 50 year 

concession on this project to Sintra of Spain. Sintra’s price was $2.8 

billion. Sensing that Sintra’s bid may not have been in the public 

interest, there began an effort by State Senator John Carona, 

Chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security 

Committee, to try to change that process. NTTA responded informally, saying that it could generate $6.3 billion for another region, 

and it is able to generate so much more because it has such a significantly lower cost than Sintra. 

I don’t think that you, Madam Secretary, would argue that the 

original procurement process was a fair and competitive and open 

process. Clearly, that was not the case. This House Bill 1892 in 

Texas is their attempt to correct significant mistakes and improper 

action by TxDOT. It provides an opportunity to NTTA to submit a 

formal bid on that project. We hope it will become the law and they 

will have that opportunity. We don’t know what their bid will be, 

that will be forthcoming in the next week or so, but this process 

provides an excellent opportunity to test the hypothesis that has 

been stated so often that it takes on an aura of unquestioned truth, 

and that is that the private sector can deliver transportation 

projects faster, better, and cheaper, and can deliver at greater 

value to the public. 

Now we can road-test that proposition to see if it is indeed true. 

If NTTA’s initial estimate turns out to be anywhere close to the formal bid, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars higher than 

the highest bid from the private firm, then we know that the public 

sector agencies can compete well against its private sector counterparts. The original hypothesis is more of an article of faith than a 

proven fact. 

TxDOT received a letter from Ms. Janice Brown, the Texas Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. In her 

letter, dated April 24th, she stated that, ‘‘In our view, any arrangement with NTTA would be a government-to-government agreement 

and we would treat the arrangement as a publicly owned and operated toll facility. Should TxDOT wish to re-compete the CDA after 

terminating the current CDA procurement process and seek a Federal highway grant loan, we would be forced to closely examine the 

circumstances of the new competition to ensure it met Federal requirements for fair and open competition.’’

Mr. Chairman, I also ask that this letter be put into the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LAMPSON. Secretary Peters, is a government-to-government—and I don’t want you to answer this right——

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to encourage the gentleman to come to his 

question here. 

27

Mr. LAMPSON. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will do so and put the rest 

of this into not only a letter to Secretary Peters, but also into our 

record. This is a critically important problem for our State. 

There were other letters that were written; there questions asked 

by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. There has been conflicting information presented back and forth through a course of several letters, and I wanted to put this into the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the gentleman asking for the Secretary to respond at this point? 

Mr. LAMPSON. I will go straight to that right now, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you for your indulgence. 

I am confused by some of this. Statements in the letters that 

have been submitted by Mr. Rey in his May 10th letter seem to run 

counter, if not directly undercut the position that you have expressed and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s letter that you sent to 

her, so here are my two questions. 

Where does this bill, H.B. 1892, supersede Federal highway laws, 

and can you give me your firm assurance that TxDOT can implement H.B. 1892 in such a way that would not affect Texas’ ability 

to receive Federal aid highway funds? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I can answer your question, but 

I cannot give you an absolute. H.B. 1892 can be implemented without violating Federal law if the interpretation and the implementation that the State of Texas takes concerning the general assent 

clauses are consistent with Federal law. That is the very issue that 

I addressed in the letter to Senator Hutchison on the 10th of May. 

The letter on the 10th of May from Mr. Rey to Texas DOT was 

in response to a different request from them, asking what they 

would have to do in order to ensure that H.B. 1892 did not violate 

provisions of law. 

At the end of the day, same conclusion is there, but the letter 

that Mr. Rey wrote on May 10th, of course, is a much more lengthy 

legal interpretation based on specific questions that TxDOT asked. 

But the bottom line of this issue is this is up to Texas to do this. 

We feel the discretion to pass this law, to implement this law is 

the State of Texas and the State of Texas alone. What we want to 

do through guidance that we have been asked to provide is to ensure that there is not a jeopardy in the use of Federal funds in that 

process. 

And if I may speak specifically to the State Highway 121 procurement, as you indicated, once TxDOT started a procurement for 

a concession agreement on that particular project and then ultimately concluded that procurement process with an award, it is not 

possible to reopen that process at this time. The State of Texas 

may decide to cancel and to re-propose that project, but if they 

want NTTA to propose on that, it would have to be a governmentto-government procurement, as opposed to getting private and public sectors bidding against one another in the process. 

But, again, our only goal here is to ensure that Texas receives 

the full amount of Federal highway funds that is available to them. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the Secretary for that response. 

The gentleman has pursued an extensive line of inquiry that 

goes beyond the scope of the hearing on climate change, and the 

28

gentleman will certainly want to pursue the matter further in another context. 

Mr. LAMPSON. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all very much for being here. I wish I had more time 

to chat with you and to draw on your expertise. You are all obviously very knowledgeable. Unfortunately, I just have a short time. 

I have a couple of questions that are more philosophical in nature. 

Mr. Johnson, I would like to start with you. I want to qualify this 

first by saying you will be happy to know that it doesn’t involve 

EPA. In our district we have a very large brownfield site that had 

a gasification plant on it. Our local DEC agency is proposing to 

deal with the PCBs by burning them, which by my understanding 

is one of the ways it was once dealt with. Our concern is that we 

are now going to be burning these and adding carbon to the atmosphere. Can you share some insight with us or your thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the first is we are major fans of brownfield 

sites being restored; I think it is one of the great success stories 

of the United States and the President’s leadership and congressional support, and we are seeing that literally turning brownfields 

into greenfields across the United States. So that is excellent. 

Mr. ARCURI. Well, that is one of our hopes, but our concern is, 

if you are burning it, are you actually turning it into a greenfield. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the second is that we do have a challenge 

with certain hazardous wastes, including PCBs, and incineration is 

one of the effective ways. Of course, we also ensure that that burning complies with all applicable air standards so that the air quality is not impacted. But as you note, the issue of climate change 

and whether it is waste or fuel are among the issues that we are 

trying to sort through as we speak, post-Supreme Court, focusing 

on motor vehicles. 

Mr. ARCURI. Well, my concern is that they are dealing with the 

PCBs, but they are totally ignoring the fact that they are putting 

more carbon into the atmosphere, and the response tends to be, 

well, that is not really what our concern is, our concern is with the 

brownfield. And, again, this is not about EPA specifically, but it 

sort of goes to what we are talking about, the fact that we as a society and a government are not looking at this more in a global 

way, but in a very limited way. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, the focus or the issues of global climate change, there are many sources, as was noted by one of the 

early slides, that approximately 30 percent of our greenhouse gas 

comes from transportation; about 40 percent from power generation; and then the remaining 30 percent from a variety of sources, 

from residential, from agriculture, from commercial buildings and 

others; and that as we look across the array of those sources, indeed, there are a number of tools that we have in our toolbox to 

address that, and we are working very expeditiously to sort 

through that. 

29

But back on the brownfields, again, we are very delighted to see 

these brownfields across the Country turn into greenfields. It is 

good for the economy; it is good for the environment. 

Mr. ARCURI. We are going to need your help on this one. So I 

think you will be hearing from me again. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. We would be happy to help. Thanks. 

Mr. ARCURI. Ms. Doan, just a quick question for you, and it sort 

of piggy-backs on what Representative Holmes was saying. Just a 

question. We talk a lot about the market economy and what drives 

demand. Obviously, many things drive demand, but one of them 

obviously is, when you are dealing with an agency as large as 

yours, you can affect demand. 

I would like to see every new home that is built fitted with solar 

panels, but we know that is not going to happen for a while because of the expense. Do you think your agency, if it were to require all Federal buildings to be fitted with solar panels, could help 

to enhance the demand and thereby help to perfect the technology 

for solar panels, making it more affordable? 

Ms. DOAN. I think you are right, Congressman. GSA has an enormous ability to drive the industry. Because of the sheer volume 

that we purchase, we have an ability to influence. On the hand, I 

think you have to take into effect that legislation sometimes has 

an almost global effect on an activity, and we have to look at the 

solar panels as being useful in some areas of our Country, but perhaps not necessarily effective in others. 

I think you will find that, at least within GSA, we are working 

enormously hard wherever possible to try to make use of solar 

power wherever it is possible in our design. For example, on the 

southern border on our Land Border Ports of Entry Program, we 

have enormous efforts afoot there because we have so much natural light, sunlight available for so many very hours of the day. As 

we mentioned, here in Maryland we have several projects, one of 

which is a huge, huge roof that benefits from the solar power. We 

have an effort up in Massachusetts where we are doing the same. 

But I think what we try to do is we try to assess what is the 

best way to get the most energy efficiency for that particular location within the United States, and we have an enormous team of 

folks who are committed to the lead standard and who are trying 

very hard to make sure that we do that. We ourselves have committed, since 2002, to ensuring that each of our new building 

projects will configure to at least the silver standard with the 

LEED rating, and we have actually been pretty successful in that. 

But I think we do need the flexibility of choosing what is the very 

best possible solution, rather than having it legislated. 

Mr. ARCURI. I thank the panel very much and I thank the Chair 

for this hearing. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Carney. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panel. I was very encouraged by what I 

heard today. 

Madam Secretary, I represent Northeast Pennsylvania, and a lot 

of my folks in the eastern part of the district actually commute into 

New York everyday, clogging the New Jersey roadways very badly. 

30

In fact, it basically backs up from the Hudson River all the way 

to the Pennsylvania border on weekday mornings and in the evenings, of course. A couple hundred thousand, I think, spill out onto 

the roads every morning. 

Is the Administration prepared to handle problems like this 

through expediting construction of new transit policies, rail in particular? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I think you make an excellent 

point, and that is the very basis of this congestion initiative that 

I spoke about earlier, is to look at a very broad range of solutions 

that can be brought to bear. Certainly, when that traffic is idling—

and that happens around our Nation—we waste some 2.3 billion 

gallons of fuel every year just as a result of that congestion. 

So we do want to work with communities, as I indicated earlier, 

to bring a menu of options and have the communities choose those 

that work best to address their specific needs. Certainly, public 

transportation is going to be a big part of that. In fact, part of what 

Mayor Bloomberg has proposed in this congestion pricing proposal 

that he has put out is he believes that it would generate some $400 

million a year that he would like to put in to public transportation 

to expand public transportation and give people more of those options. 

Mr. CARNEY. Things like intercity rail, etc.? 

Secretary PETERS. Correct. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Johnson, a pretty easy question, I think, but maybe not. 

When will EPA begin promulgating regulations based on the Massachusetts v. EPA decision? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the million dollar question, sir. As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court decision leaves us with a very 

complex set of issues, and we are expeditiously reviewing those, 

but we will make an informed and a deliberative decision when we 

are ready. We understand and certainly have a sense of urgency, 

given the nature of global climate change, but we are actively talking about all options as the Administration and certainly under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act and what the Supreme Court said, 

so stay tuned, sir. 

Mr. CARNEY. Do you anticipate this before January of 2009? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Stay tuned, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CARNEY. We will, certainly. 

Ms. Doan, first of all, I want to thank you for what you have told 

us; it is very encouraging. The same information that you are going 

to provide my colleague, Mr. Lipinski, I would sure like it myself. 

Thanks very much. 

In your opinion, do you think GSA has all the authorities it 

needs to pursue the highest, most efficient energy conservation initiatives? 

Ms. DOAN. I thin GSA has a lot of resources, but there are some 

additional resources which, truthfully, we could use the help of 

Congress on. One of those would actually be to extend the renewable contracting authority. Right now it is only a 10 year window 

that we are allowed to contract for for energy. If we were allowed 

to extend that to about 20 years, that would allow the development 

31

of additional energy sources to occur and we would be able to reap 

the benefit for our Federal Government clients of that reduced cost 

of energy. That would be an enormous help. 

Another thing that would really help us is to have a little bit 

more flexibility in the prospectus process. As you know, that is a 

multi-year process to get buildings built, and it would be wonderful 

if we could be able to revisit the prospectus process and insert into 

it any sorts of energy efficiencies, newer developments and technologies that would help increase the energy efficiency. 

And the very last thing would be able to extend the life cycle cost 

analysis. Right now it is about 25 years. If we could extend it to 

about 40 years or whatever would be appropriate for the kind of 

equipment involved. Obviously, if something’s life cycle was 30 

years, you wouldn’t need 40 years, but use something appropriate; 

but up to 40 years, that would help enormously in both cost savings for the Federal Government, but also allow us to offer those 

energy efficiencies to our Government customers. So any help that 

you could give us in this area would be greatly appreciated. 

Mr. CARNEY. I look forward to having conversations with you 

about that. 

Ms. DOAN. Well, thank you. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Oh, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. May I just add one other note? That is, we at EPA 

have an Energy Star program that we are working with our other 

Federal colleagues on for buildings. That is, we are looking to have 

buildings be able to achieve an energy start rating, which is the top 

25 percent of energy efficiency. There are a number of States, in 

fact, 30 States plus the District of Columbia, who have signed on 

and are interested. We have benchmarked 12,000 schools. That is 

20 percent of the schools across the United States. Many communities. We have 165 existing Federal buildings that have actually 

earned the Energy Star label. 

A number of things that are important about is that the first 

step is benchmarking what the building is actually doing so that 

you know what the energy consumption is and what those sources 

are so that you can then make informed decisions, whether it is 

changing a light bulb, buying a different computer, buying green 

power, those kinds of things. So there are a number of activities 

really across the Federal Government—this happens to be one that 

we administer at EPA—to help encourage not only from an environmental standpoint, not only from an energy security standpoint, 

but it also saves us money. 

Ms. DOAN. Could I just jump in real quickly? I do want to let you 

know that we do have 120 Energy Star certified rated buildings, 

but one of the things you could also help us with is highlighting 

the Energy Star products that we have on our Federal Acquisition 

Services web site. So whenever you have an opportunity to direct 

folks attention to that area, that would help also. 

Mr. CARNEY. Absolutely. 

Ms. DOAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNEY. I thank the panel. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

32

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his line of inquiry and 

Ms. Doan for your response on life cycle cost issue. I was not aware 

that you were limited to a certain number of years in life cycle cost. 

Is that by regulation or is that by act of Congress? What is the limitation under which you are operating? 

Ms. DOAN. It is by regulation. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. By regulation. You don’t need legislative authority to go beyond 25 years. 

Ms. DOAN. It is a little bit of both. Apparently, it is by regulation, 

but it is set by the national energy policy. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But that is not—I have tried for nearly all my 

service in the Congress to require GSA to move to a life cycle cost 

basis for construction of buildings not just for energy, but for all 

purposes, and we have encountered resistance, regardless of the 

administration. It has nothing to do with is in the White House, 

but more with who is at OMB. I swear when it comes to those guys 

at OMB with the green eye shades, if Castro came into power, they 

would all grow beards and still continue doing the same things 

they have been doing. They never change. 

What we have to do is change that culture at OMB. First of all, 

we need a capital budgeting account for the Federal Government, 

which our former colleague on this Committee, Bill Klinger, Republican from Pennsylvania, and I worked on for years to establish. 

Now it is only an annex. The second was life cycle cost analysis on 

buildings, both for the Government-owned and for the Governmentleased. That way you can build in energy efficiencies over 40 years 

and 50 years, instead of the short-term period that extends only to 

the lease or its extensions. That doesn’t make any sense at all. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hill. 

Mr. HALL. Is that Mr. Hall, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am sorry, Mr. Hall. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HALL. I don’t know everybody here yet; there might actually 

be a Hill I haven’t met. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all, our illustrious 

panel members. Just a couple of observations first, before the questions. 

For the record, I would like to correct the Ranking Member’s 

statement that nuclear power is emissions-free. It is not. It happens not to emit carbon dioxide. 

I have a nuclear plant in my district, the Indian Point Nuclear 

Plant, which is currently emitting strontium-90 and tritium into 

the groundwater into the Hudson River, and I just read today that 

it has been found in the municipal sewer system of the Town of Buchanan. We also had a steam release of tritium a couple weeks ago, 

as well as many other problems, and it happens to be in the most 

densely populated part of the Country. Eight percent of the population of the entire United States lives within a 50 mile radius of 

that plant, and anybody who lives there knows that the evacuation 

plan is unworkable. 

Moving on, however, I am very encouraged by all of your reports 

of the progress that you are making in the plans that you have. Administrator Johnson, I am glad you are for benchmarks. Seriously, 

I wanted to ask what progress is being made in terms of the effiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
33

ciency of the Federal vehicle fleet. How many vehicles that are supposed to be flex vehicles actually get, approximately, in your estimation, get to use flex-fuel, given the fact that, in our part of the 

Country, certainly, there aren’t many pumps that are serving it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is probably a response by both the Administrator and myself. It is true that flex-fuel, the availability, there 

are approximately 1,100 E85 flex-fuel stations in the United States. 

That is compared with about 170,000 fueling stations across the 

United States. So clearly there is still a greater need for having additional fueling stations that carry the E85 fuel. 

With regard to the number of flex-fuel vehicles in the Federal 

fleet, I will turn it over to my colleague. 

Ms. DOAN. I am not actually sure that there is any other agency 

in the Federal Government that has a greater commitment to alternative fuel vehicle than the General Services Administration. This 

year alone, GSA will buy 24,000 alternative fuel vehicles, and by 

the end of 2007 GSA will have almost 70,000 alternative fuel vehicles in its inventory, which will comprise a little under 51 percent 

of the inventory that we make available to our Federal customers. 

But in addition to that, we take it one step further because then 

we recycle it into the private sector. When these vehicles have exceeded their useful life for the Federal Government, we then resell 

these to the private sector, and this year along we will probably 

sell about 11,600 of these vehicles, which will then put them into 

further use. 

In addition to that, I actually, right after the President made his 

announcement in January, sent out a request to our fleet and 

asked them, as an entrepreneur, I love to get ideas, and I said I 

want every innovative idea you have, I don’t care how wild it is, 

I don’t care if no one else wanted to look at it; I wanted to see it, 

for what we can do to try to meet or exceed these requirements, 

and they came back to me a week or two ago with a proposal. But, 

truthfully, I am sending it back because it wasn’t aggressive 

enough; it was not innovative enough. But we have an incredible 

record here. 

I will give you the actual statistics for the breakup of the alternative fuel——

Mr. HALL. Maybe you could give them to me in writing, because 

I only have a minute left of my time. 

Ms. DOAN. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. HALL. No, it is okay. But I have a couple of questions that 

I would love to get the information. 

Ms. DOAN. Okay. I would be happy to follow up in writing on 

that. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Secretary Peters, I wanted to ask you, given the concerns with 

energy dependence and the growing effects of climate change, why 

does the Administration propose to cut guarantee transit funding 

by more than $300 million fiscal year 2008 and eliminate the use 

of CMAQ funding for new start operations? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, let me address the last question 

first. In terms of CMAQ funding for New Starts, there has been 

some discussion within the agency about the eligibility during the 

first three years for New Starts. That is an issue that we are adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
34

dressing right now, so hopefully we will have that remedied in the 

near-term future. 

In terms of transit funding, we funded every project that was 

ready to go with transit, both in the New Starts and in the Small 

Starts Program, that was ready to be funded at the time the President’s budget was prepared and, in addition, reserved another $72 

million for some projects that are still in the pipeline. We do understand that there is a desire to have more funding there, and we 

simply, as we all did in order to achieve reductions in the overall 

budget that was necessary to reduce the deficit, had to make some 

tough decisions, and this was one of those. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Just one last question for everybody. The Vice President, a couple years ago, made a famous statement, that conservation may be 

a personal virtue, but it is no way to build an energy policy, and 

you have all spoken very eloquently today about ways that we can 

use efficiency or conservation, which is the lowest impact way of 

our obtaining a usable barrel equivalent, or BTU or kilowatt hour, 

and if we save it, then it has less environmental impact than any 

way of generating it. 

So combining that with the fact that the same steps that we 

would use to reduce global warming are the steps that we would 

need to reduce asthma and emphysema in our inner cities, especially, to reduce the increased storm frequency—in my district, all 

five counties I represent are currently under a disaster declaration 

by the State and the Federal Government because of the nor’easter 

that just went up the coast. There is now a named storm, Andrea, 

off the coast for the first time, I think, three weeks before the beginning of hurricane season. We just saw the mile and a half wide 

tornado that leveled Greensburg, Kansas. 

These things, no one of them can constitute proof by itself about 

change in climate, but they are consistent with what these projections show happening if the worst case scenario were to develop in 

climate change; not to mention the fact that if we take these same 

steps to prevent global warming, we will also be cutting back on 

our balance of trade deficit, no longer shipping petro dollars to the 

Middle East, as Tom Friedman eloquently writes about, and paying 

for both sides on the war on terror because we are funding the 

madrasas through the oil dollars, and then having to pay for and 

give lives and time of our servicemen and women to go and fight 

against those people that we have been educating, and we will also 

cut back on the debt because we won’t have to borrow the money 

to pay for that oil. 

So, with those things together, would you—and this I guess is a 

simple question for all of you—consider that it is patriotic, it is not 

just good energy policy, but that, I mean, I would consider it and 

I would be curious if you would also consider it to be patriotic to 

save energy and to use the most energy-efficient vehicles, appliances, and practices that we as individuals all can? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I will start because I am at this 

end of the table. I think it certainly is in the best interest of Americans to do everything we can to conserve energy. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Just to add to that, it is the near-term solution 

that we can make progress in improving energy efficiency. For the 

35

intermediate and long-term, technology is the key, whether it be 

clean coal technology, more cost-effective solar, use of wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, other forms of power. Technology and investment 

in that technology will deliver us in the future. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would just briefly concur in that. We definitely 

need to place every emphasis we can on conservation. 

Ms. DOAN. I agree. We lead by example at GSA and I, as the Administrator, also lead by example, using alternative fuel vehicles 

for my transportation. But I also think this conservation is good for 

America, and that can never be a bad thing. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful questions and for the panel for their responses. 

I just want to pick up, Ms. Doan, on your response to Mr. Hall. 

You said that at a date in the future, which I didn’t write down 

at the moment, you expect to have 70,000 alternative fuel vehicles. 

Does that mean that the total GSA—and you said that would be 

51 percent—the total fleet is in excess of 140,000 vehicles? 

Ms. DOAN. Yes, it is, it is about 170,000 vehicles. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A hundred seventy thousand. Okay, thank you. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Boustany, has been very patient, waiting for all of our Members on our side to go through 

their questions, and I appreciate his forbearance. The gentleman 

has a number of questions and may proceed. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two final 

questions for Secretary Peters. 

First of all, how much fuel is wasted each year as a result of 

highway congestion? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, at a very conservative estimate, 

2.3 billion gallons. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me put it another way, if I may intrude on 

the response. We consume three tanks of gasoline more a year per 

driver in America in the 68 major metropolitan areas that are the 

most congested in the Country, three tanks of gasoline more than 

we would if we could drive at posted highway speeds. That adds 

up to more than a week a year spent in your car than you would 

if you could drive at posted highway speeds. That is an enormous 

waste. That is a $68 billion congestion tax on America. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Exactly. I am glad you pointed those things out. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary PETERS. Chairman Oberstar, if I may add, it not only 

wastes all that fuel, but vehicles burn fuel much less efficiently at 

that stop and go traffic and lower speeds, so it contributes disproportionately to emissions. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

My final question is may State DOTs do not fully utilize their 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds because the requirements of the program supposedly are stringent. Do you think the 

States would find the program more attractive if they were able to 

use some of those funds for highway capacity expansion, particularly if the capacity expansion could be shown to improve air quality? 

36

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, yes. I do believe in the greatest 

flexibility. You may know that before I had the opportunity and the 

pleasure to work with all of you, I was the director of the Arizona 

Department of Transportation. Flexibility is the key, giving State 

and local governments the ability to use the funds where they can 

make the biggest difference. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my questions. I just want to thank 

the distinguished panel for spending this Friday morning with us. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Doan, on page 11 of your testimony you describe the GSA Federal building in San Francisco using natural 

ventilation to cool the building, an example of avoiding energy use. 

Do you know how far back that goes? 

Ms. DOAN. Excuse me? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you know how far back that goes in history? 

Ms. DOAN. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. To the Romans. They diverted streams to run 

them through buildings and cool them. Napoleon located his sister 

on the Isle of La Tortue, off the north coast of Haiti, Colleen, and 

built a structure for her in the 1790s, 1800, roughly, and diverted 

a stream to run through the building to cool it for his precious sister, so she wouldn’t have to sweat in the heat of the tropics. That 

is an old practice. I am glad you are rediscovering it. 

In 1982, I, with several of our colleagues, traveled to Toronto, 

Ontario to observe Canada’s energy conservation practices. A major 

public-private sector building occupied by eight agencies of the provincial government and private sector companies was entirely heated by solar power and entirely cooled by water running through 

and recirculating through the structure. So it is good that you are 

rediscovering these practices. 

You, GSA, are the landlord of 367 million square feet of civilian 

office space and your testimony was excellent, it describes progress 

made. If we could fit—futurefit, not retrofit—all those Federal civilian office buildings with photovoltaics or other solar applications, 

do you have any idea how much of that $5,800,000,000 in annual 

energy cost we could save the taxpayers of this Country? 

Ms. DOAN. We could save 30 percent. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is more than that. It is a much greater number 

than that. And we intend to help you do that in this Committee. 

We have already moved to retrofit the Department of Energy with 

the south wall that was constructed with no windows, no doors for 

the purpose of a solar application, but it has never been done. Now 

we are going to do that. We passed a bill from this Committee 

through the House, pending over in the Senate. As soon as they 

can get through galactic discussions over there, broad public policy 

issues, come down to sole practical things, they will pass it, and we 

will take it out of the GSA Building Fund and make that a template for America. We can do that. 

The cost of photovoltaics is now 25 cents a kilowatt hour. It was 

1.75 in 1977, when I authored legislation, and got it enacted, President Carter signed into law to invest $175 million a year over three 

years to retrofit all Federal office buildings with photovoltaics and 

drive the cost down; use the private sector as the producer, the 

37

Government as the consumer, the public as the beneficiary. The 

problem was Carter went out and lost the election in 1980, Ronald 

Reagan came in and abolished the whole alternative energy program. He just dissolved it with his 1981 budget. Well, we are going 

to turn that around. The cost of photovoltaics on its own has come 

down to 25 cents a kilowatt hour, and if we implement this program of converting Federal office space to photovoltaics, we can 

drive it down to below the 7 cents a kilowatt hour average from 

the investor-owned utilities. Isn’t that a great benefit for the public? 

Ms. DOAN. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on all 

the different ways that you and your Committee can help us save 

and conserve energy for the American people and for our Government clients. There is enormous opportunity out there and I think 

this could be a very exciting time for all of us. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I look forward to your cooperation. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. No outbursts from the audience. This is not a 

public demonstration. 

Secretary Peters, we have a great opportunity in transit to make 

a substantial benefit. We started on this point earlier in my recitation of Mayor Bloomberg’s statement about transit. If we had a 10 

percent mode shift to transit, we could save the equivalent of all 

the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is 550 million barrels 

a year. 

Now, what puzzles me is why the Administration’s budget is $300 million short on the transit account for the coming fiscal year. 

Why is that? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we did 

fully fund every transit project that was ready to be funded, as well 

as reserved $72 million for additional projects. We simply had to 

make some tough decisions in our budget in order to keep the overall spending level down. But we did not sacrifice any projects that 

were either ready to go or in the pipeline ready to go. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay, I appreciate that you didn’t sacrifice any 

projects that are ready to go, but you didn’t advance the cause by 

that cutback, and I am badgering our colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to increase the funding. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I understand that, Mr. Chair- man. Also, there is over $1 billion each year that is flexed from 

highway spending to transit spending to help build transit projects 

throughout the United States. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we have a great deal more that we can do, 

and if we made that mode shift, which Europe is doing and largely 

has accomplished, we can save enormous amounts of energy and 

impact on the environment. Furthermore, if we make an additional 

mode shift—and I want to compliment the Federal Highway Administration, it started under your direction there, with bicycling. 

I want to see us make a start on converting from the hydrocarbon 

economy to the carbohydrate economy and put people on the seat 

of a bicycle. Instead of burning 8 barrels of oil a year in your car, 

burn 86,000 calories a year on the seat of a bicycle. We can do that. 

Munster, Germany, a little town on the western edge of Germany, on the Dutch border, was bombed to smithereens in World 

38

War II. It has been rebuilt; 250,000 people. Mode share for bicycling, 48 percent. The mayor of Munster rides to work on his bicycle. They have parking for 4,000 bicycles in the center of the city, 

and they are adding more. They have a 20 foot head start for bicycles at intersections and a 20 second head start on traffic lights for 

bicycles. We can do that in America. Forty percent of all trips in 

Denmark are by bicycle; 35 percent of all trips in the Netherlands 

are by bicycle. 

Tim Arnade, in the Federal Highway Administration, has led the 

way wonderfully with the Safe Routes to School Initiative, and I 

applaud you for your support of that initiative. We have got to 

change the habits of an entire generation of Americans. We have 

an opportunity to make a difference in childhood obesity and childhood type 2 diabetes. We can do that through the transportation 

account and have a beneficial effect on our environment. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, in fact, many Americans agree 

with you. Since 1992——

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to see a little enthusiasm. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, only $23 million was 

spent in bicycle and pedestrian activities. Today, because of flexibilities that you and your colleagues have included in laws, that 

amount has increased to $396 million in fiscal year 2006; and with 

the Safe Routes to School Program getting underway, it is expected 

to go even higher in the future. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me supplement that by saying since I crafted the language for bicycling in ISTEA in 1991, we have invested $3.5 

billion in bicycle facilities, built nearly 40,000 lane miles of bicycling facilities across America. Last year, more bicycles were sold 

in America than automobiles, and that is a good thing for the 

Country. 

One last observation. Secretary Woodley, one of the issues that 

we have dealt with extensively for the Corps of Engineers is watershed management of water resources on a watershed basis. The 

Corps has sporadically addressed the issue in this way. I want to 

see the Corps addressing our water resource issues in a systematic 

way in this climate change era, where we are seeing extraordinary 

variations; excess water in one area of the Country, deficit in another. The Upper Midwest, the Great Lakes watershed, for example, is going through, now, its fifth year of drought, and, yet, just 

to the west of us, in the Red River Valley that drains north to the 

Canadian watershed, they have an excess of water. 

What direction have you given the Corps to address the issue of 

watershed management of our resources? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the most significant initiatives that we have taken in this Administration, is to craft and put 

in place a strategic plan for the Corps of Engineers that stresses 

the need for watershed based planning. We have embraced initiatives of the Congress to further that aim. It is one of our intents 

to continue our planning and to enhance our ability to look at watersheds as systems and to, rather than approach not only our 

planning and construction, but also our operation and maintenance 

over time, using the watershed as the fundamental basis. That is 

a different way of thinking. There is a little bit of resistance to it 

39

in some quarters, but we believe we are making progress on managing our assets and also on having our planning basis using the 

watershed approach. 

The real significance of this and the power of it, Mr. Chairman, 

is that we have a tendency in this Country and the political wisdom of our forefathers has been to use the waterway and the 

stream bed as a political boundary. If you go to Mr. Boustany’s part 

of the world, you will see that the Sabine River is on one side and 

his district is right there. If he looks across that great river, he will 

see not only a different district, but a different State of the union, 

and that is quite common along the Mississippi as well. So our 

work——

Mr. OBERSTAR. But climate doesn’t respect political boundaries. 

Mr. WOODLEY. None of the things that we are talking about 

today respects those political boundaries. So what we need is a 

comprehensive and collaborative effort to cross those boundaries, to 

reach across them, and that is what I have charged the Corps of 

Engineers and what the President has charged the Corps of Engineers, in the area of water resource development, flood damage reduction, and storm damage reduction, and water resource development in general to be the catalyst for that collaborative effort. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. We made a start on that in the 

WRDA bill that the House passed. We are going to expand on it 

in the future, and there is probably no place in America more reflective of the need for comprehensive watershed management than 

the wetlands and the shoreline, the coastline along East Texas, all 

through Louisiana, Mississippi, and on to Alabama. 

If the gentleman has any comment on that. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I would just appreciate Secretary Woodley’s comments, because clearly, as we know down in Louisiana, that is the 

approach that needs to be taken; otherwise, we are going to continue to have problems as we separate parts of how we manage 

water, dealing with maybe just transportation issues versus some 

other aspect of it. Clearly, a comprehensive approach is necessary. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall, has another question. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all my absent colleagues so that I could get one 

more question in. 

I was wondering, given the sort of medium and worst case scenario projections of the IPCC, among others, for sea level rise and 

the fact that we are sitting almost on the banks of the Potomac, 

which is part of the Chesapeake estuary, which is affected both by 

sea level and, of course, by tides, and then, in the case of storms, 

by wave action on top of the tides, Secretary Woodley, has the 

Corps done, or are you thinking of doing any projections—and I 

guess this would be for Administrator Doan as well—projections as 

to the effect on Government buildings and on the D.C. area in general of 15 to 20 to, worst case, 25 foot rise in sea level? 

I am on the Select Committee on Climate Change, Energy and 

Dependence, and we heard testimony from insurance and reinsurance executives, and former CIA Director Woolsey and others that 

they consider, depending on how quickly we act and how effectively 

40

we and other countries that we have no control over, act around 

the world, we may be looking at, at least the middle case scenario 

of sea level rise, we might get the best case if we act really fast. 

Thoughts on that? 

Mr. WOODLEY. The answer to your question is somewhat complex, but the basic answer is yes, we have. The rest of the answer 

is a little more complex. The basic answer is that we are examining 

and seeking to understand the potential scenarios for climate 

change so that we can apply them in individual cases. The complexity arises because the Administration does have a plan for a 

project to improve the storm damage reduction capacity for the National Capital area, and I regret to say that we proposed that in 

our President’s budget for two years running, and in each of those 

two years it was removed during the congressional process, and we 

have not proposed it again based on what we understood the guidance that it was not something that the Congress wanted to proceed with. So I would be willing, if anyone is interested, to continue 

that discussion. 

So the answer to your question, like the answer to most questions in the civil works program, the answer to your question is yes 

and no. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Just to add, there is a forthcoming report from the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program this fall, late winter that is 

actually looking at the impacts and the vulnerability of our coastal 

wetlands and impacts of global climate change. So that is something. NOAA is leading the charge. Actually, there are going to be 

some public hearings I think beginning in the next couple months. 

So on the coastal wetland issue, that vulnerability assessment is 

well underway. 

Ms. DOAN. And at GSA we have some firsthand experience with 

this because, after the flooding that we experienced last year in the 

Metro D.C. area, we realized that what we need to do is look more 

closely at our portfolio of properties that are in D.C. to see what 

do we need to do to ensure that what happened at the IRS building 

would not happen to those particular buildings where we had extensive flooding because of the extraordinary volume of rain that 

happened during that time frame. So we have begun taking a very 

close look at our portfolio on this very issue. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the panel for their perseverance, for their 

thoughtful responses, and frank, candid responses to our questions. 

You have added substantially to our fund of knowledge on the subject, and this will be a continuing dialogue as we go forward. 

Thank you. The panel is excused. 

Our second panel includes Acting Architect of the Capitol, Mr. 

Stephen Ayers, and the Chief Administrative Officer for the House 

of Representatives, Mr. Daniel Beard. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us. Your statements will be 

included in the record, and you may proceed with your opening 

statement. 

Mr. Beard? 

41

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL P. BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STEPHEN T. 

AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL AND DEPUTY ARCHITECT/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, UNITED 

STATES CONGRESS 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss Speaker Pelosi’s 

green capital initiative. 

On March 1st, the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the former 

Chair of the Committee on House Administration directed me to 

develop a series of preliminary recommendations to reduce environmental impacts associated with the operation of the House office 

building complexes. 

As they noted in the letter, the House sought to demonstrate 

leadership to the Nation by providing environmentally responsible 

and healthy working environments for our employees. 

I undertook the review of House operating procedures and made 

recommendations on April 19th in six general areas. The Speaker 

has endorsed these recommendations and has written to the architect and myself, directing that we implement them. 

Before discussing the changes, I would like to just talk briefly 

about the carbon footprint of the House of Representatives. 

Using figures that were developed by the Government Accountability Office and reviewed by Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, 

we estimate the operation of the House complex is responsible for 

91,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in fiscal year 2006. 

Electricity use accounts for 63 percent of that. The Capitol Power 

Plant accounts for another 33 percent; and all other business-related uses for the remainder of the carbon dioxide emissions from 

the House. 

The Speaker has directed the following changes in the operation 

of the House. First, she has made a decision to operate the House 

in a carbon-neutral manner until the earliest possible date, certainly no later than the end of the 110th Congress. By implementing this recommendation, we will be eliminating the 91,000 

tons of greenhouse gases identified, which is equivalent of taking 

17,200 cars off the road. 

Second, the purchase of electricity is the largest source of our 

carbon dioxide emissions for the operation of the House, and to assist in achieving our carbon-neutral goal, we will purchase 100 percent of our electrical needs, our electricity needs, which is approximately 103,000 megawatt hours a year, from renewable sources at 

the earliest possible date. By implementing this recommendation, 

we will be reducing our carbon footprint by 57,000 tons, or the 

equivalent of 11,000 cars. 

Third, the Speaker has directed a series of immediate actions to 

reduce energy use. These include converting all 12,000 desk lamps 

in the House office buildings to compact fluorescent bulbs, converting the overhead ceiling lights to high-efficiency lighting and 

controls at the earliest possible date, and making compact 

fluorescents available at the House office supply store at cost to 

House employees. 

The House is a major purchaser of goods and services and products, and the Speaker has directed us to demonstrate leadership in 

42

that area as well. We are directed to purchase only office equipment and appliances that are certified through Energy Star, Federal Energy Management, or the electronic product environmental 

assessment tool. 

We are directed to give priority to the purchase of adhesives, 

sealants, paints, and carpets manufactured by companies that offset life cycle contributions of greenhouse gas emissions and we will 

be finishing the installation, the Architect’s Office will, of an ethanol tank, pump, and related infrastructure for House vehicles. 

To provide leadership on climate change and sustainability 

issues, we will hold a Green Expo for House offices, show employees how they can make a contribution to impacting climate change 

at home or at work, and establish a green building, a revolving to 

fund energy and water conservation initiatives here on the campus. 

But even by implementing all of these measures, the House may 

not operate in a carbon neutral manner. As a result, the Speaker 

has directed me to recommend a strategy for offsetting our remaining greenhouse gas emissions by either purchasing offset credits or 

investing directly in mitigation or energy conservation projects. 

Since the domestic offset market is in its infancy and lacks uniform 

national standards, I think it is important for the House to approach this issue very carefully. 

The recommendations in the Speaker’s initiatives are only the 

first step in the process of creating a green Capitol and more sustainable House operations. 

My final report is scheduled for release on June 30th, and it will 

contain additional recommendations and provide a framework for 

guiding our future activities. In the June 30th report, we will have 

benchmarks for energy use, goals for reducing energy and carbon 

and timetables for implementing various changes in our operating 

conditions as well as measures for reporting progress on a regular 

basis. 

Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear and 

testify this morning. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Beard, an excellent 

statement. 

Mr. Ayers. 

Mr. AYERS. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me here today to discuss the initiatives and 

projects the Architect of the Capitol has undertaken over the past 

several years to conserve energy across the Capitol complex. 

We appreciate the Congressional leadership’s commitment to reduce energy consumption. As Mr. Beard noted, we recently received 

direction from the Speaker to complete a number of energy saving 

initiatives during the 110th Congress. She has our commitment to 

help achieve the goal of operating the House in a carbon neutral 

manner. 

We will also continue to work with Mr. Beard’s office as he finalizes the green Capitol report, and I believe that our individual actions can add up to a tremendous collective effort and can produce 

significant results in taxpayers’ dollars and conserving our natural 

resources. 

On behalf of the Congress, AOC is complying with the requirements and goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under the act, 

43

the AOC was required to reduce energy consumption in 2006 by 2 

percent. I am pleased to report today that we and the Congress 

have exceeded that goal of 2 percent by reducing our energy consumption by 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2006. 

We exceeded this goal through a variety of projects and programs. Just to mention a few, we have initiated a pilot program 

in the House office buildings to install dimmable ballasts in stairwells, we are replacing conventional incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and are installing occupancy sensor switches 

in offices, conference rooms and Committee spaces upon request. 

In addition, we are installing restroom fixture motion sensors 

and low flow devices to conserve water. We have upgraded elevators and escalators with energy efficient equipment, and we are 

installing modern heating and cooling systems, and replacing old 

inefficient windows with airtight insulated units. 

We have implemented a policy requiring the purchase or leasing 

of alternative fuel vehicles and are using energy savings performance contracting to increase building energy efficiencies and upgrade infrastructure, and we have contracted for 3 percent renewable energy in 2007. 

Active participation by Congressional and other offices in our recycling program has been significant to its success in recent years. 

Last year, we recycled nearly 2,300 tons of paper, and over the last 

five years the total tonnage of non-contaminated recyclable wastes 

has tripled, while revenue from the recycling program is now up 

over 60 percent. 

The AOC has initiated two energy savings performance contracts, and we plan to utilize more to achieve a portion of the required energy reductions under the Act. Our goal is to utilize the 

performance contracting process in all of the major buildings across 

the Capitol campus. These contracts allow the AOC to initiate energy savings projects with little up-front appropriated funding. 

To ensure that our efforts save energy and save taxpayer dollars, 

we are planning to conduct additional energy audits. To date, five 

have been conducted, and our goal is to conduct audits on all buildings on a five-year rotating schedule. Funds have been requested 

in our FY 2007 and 2008 budgets to continue this important process. 

In addition to the energy audits, we have completed studies to 

identify projects, techniques, and policies which can be implemented to save energy. For example, we are currently evaluating 

the viability of adding cogeneration capability to the Capitol Power 

Plant which could provide steam, supplementary electricity, and 

backup power to the Capitol complex and reduce emissions by more 

efficiently capturing energy output. 

As I mentioned earlier, the AOC and Congress were able to 

achieve a 6.5 percent decrease in energy consumption for FY 2006 

despite the added energy load of additional facilities across the 

Capitol complex. It is important to note that the largest single contributor to our energy reduction efforts was the Capitol Power 

Plant. Between 2003 and 2006, the Plant cut its electrical consumption by 6 percent and fuel energy consumption by over 12 percent as a result of new and improved energy efficiency measures 

implemented there. 

44

Looking ahead, there are a number of initiatives we plan to implement to ensure we meet or exceed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

of reducing our energy consumption by another 2 percent in fiscal 

year 2007. We will continue purchasing renewable energy and use 

energy savings performance contracts. 

By practicing energy efficiency management, we save taxpayer 

dollars, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment. Our actions and the actions of Congress are making a difference and have saved energy across the Capitol complex. We 

agree with the Congress that we need not only to comply with the 

Energy Act but we need to be leaders in the national effort to save 

energy. As stewards of the Capitol complex, we will continue to do 

our part to make this goal a reality. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, both of you, for testimony 

and for the well documented information submitted to the Committee about the works in progress and the achievements to date 

of greening the Capitol. We need to pursue this matter with great 

vigor. 

I recall, in 1977, debate in the Senate on portions of then President Carter’s energy program. In the course of the debate, then 

Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia held up a thermometer in the Senate chamber—this was February—and said, we can 

do better. Look at this room. It is overheated. It is over 72 degrees 

in here. We can put on sweaters, and we can have a lower temperature and save all this energy. 

The next day, the Senate began and Senator Randolph held his 

thermometer up and said, look at that. It is now 68 degrees. Think 

of all the energy we are saving. 

A reporter asked the Architect of the Capitol, what did you do? 

He said, well, we can’t modulate the temperature here under the 

circumstances in which we operate, so we just opened up the outdoor air vents and let more outdoor air into the chamber and cooled 

it right down. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Senator Randolph was not amused by that answer. 

I hope you have more ability to modulate. According to the testimony you have submitted, apparently you do. 

What we have here is a district heating and cooling system, is 

it not, in the Capitol compound. It is cogeneration. 

Mr. Ayers, I liked your comment about retrofitting. You can start 

with windows in this room right here. There is a window right back 

here. When the wind blows, it whistles in this room, howls, and 

you can see the curtains move. That is not very efficient. 

Mr. AYERS. No, sir, it is not. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have asked many times to fix that. People 

come with caulking guns, and nothing seems to work. So you could 

make a start on it right here. 

On a more serious question, is the generation facility for the 

Capitol able to move? Are the boilers able to accept material other 

than coal? Can you fuel switch? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Use wood chips, for example. 

45

Mr. AYERS. We cannot currently use wood chips. We have seven 

boilers at the Capitol Power Plant which create steam to heat and 

humidify the 23 buildings and nearly 15 million square feet of 

space across the Capitol complex, and of those seven boilers, two 

of them burn coal. The remaining five burn oil or natural gas. So 

we are able to modulate between those. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There is some fuel switching between oil. You can 

use natural gas. You have a sufficient supply line to the boilers. 

Mr. AYERS. We have a sufficient supply line for our current operation, yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Could the entire system be switched to natural 

gas? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, certainly, we believe it can. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am just asking technically whether that can be 

done. 

The second question is there certainly is an environmental benefit. Is there a cost benefit or is it more costly to operate on natural 

gas? 

That may depend on time of year and pricing and the marketplace. 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, the way we create steam now is based on 

a formula of a most economical scenario between coal, natural gas, 

and fuel oil. Over the course of the last six years, we average about 

48 percent coal and another 40 percent or 45 percent natural gas 

and the reminder, fuel oil. 

To the question of can we convert completely to natural gas, yes, 

certainly. Five of those boilers now are capable of fully running on 

natural gas, and the remaining two that primarily burn coal would 

take some significant retrofit on the order of a 7 to 10 million dollar retrofit of those two boilers to convert them to 100 percent natural gas, but it certainly could be done. 

In terms of future costs, in today’s market, natural gas is certainly much more expensive than coal and fuel oil, and we would 

estimate that an 8 to 10 million dollar-a-year increase in our annual utility bills would result by burning 100 percent natural gas. 

Mr. BEARD. If I could add, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Go ahead, Mr. Beard. 

Mr. BEARD. I think it is important to add to this debate, though, 

that if we switch to 100 percent natural gas, we would certainly 

have a significantly reduced environmental footprint and carbon 

footprint. Right now, the Congress is the proud owner and operator 

of a facility that is the second largest point source pollution in the 

District of Columbia. 

And so, I think there is a significant environmental benefit associated with moving to 100 percent gas. The Architect of the Capitol 

tried to do that in 1980 and was convinced to do otherwise in some 

very persuasive ways. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I don’t think it was a matter of convincing. It was 

a matter of shutting down the Architect and saying it will be done 

this way. I remember that. 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I remember that episode. 

Mr. BEARD. But I also think that is an important debate to have, 

especially for this Committee and the leadership of the House of 

46

Representatives, certainly, and this isn’t a partisan issue at all. It 

is a very bipartisan issue. There has been very strong support in 

the House anyway for converting to 100 percent natural gas. 

We also get some pushback from some of the coal State members 

as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I understand that. 

Now supposing that the Capitol Power Plant operators had to go 

out and purchase credits in the marketplace. We were just working 

over the other agencies of the government and the Executive 

Branch and pushing them on initiatives they can and should be 

taking for life cycle energy costing and more energy efficient buildings and a more energy efficient fleet in GSA, a vehicle fleet in 

GSA. We need to be doing that ourselves here in the Capitol complex. 

So if you had to go out and purchase credits for let us say a rain 

forest in Ecuador or Bolivia as has been done, reserve an area of 

forest from harvesting that would absorb the equivalent of the CO2 

emissions of the Capitol Power Plant, what do you think that 

would cost? 

Mr. AYERS. My understanding in our conversations with Pepco 

Energy Services is that is about $5 a metric ton. 

Mr. BEARD. So I think in that case it is not as expensive as one 

would anticipate. I think the more important thing, and this is why 

the Speaker has directed that I develop a strategy on how to approach the offset problem between now and the end of June. 

We are using taxpayer funds, and we have to be extremely careful that we are not investing in some fly by night scheme to offset 

credits. And so, we have to make sure that whatever offset choice 

we pick, at least for the House from the standpoint of the House 

of Representatives, we want to be absolutely certain that what we 

do withstands a public scrutiny test on behalf of all the Members. 

And so, I think that is probably the biggest challenge we have 

because the offset market is a fledgling market. It is much more 

mature in Europe. In the E.U. and in Europe, it is a much more 

mature market. It is a safer market, but here we have got to be 

very careful. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am going to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana. 

I am not a great fan of emissions trading and of credit purchasing. I think it is a fine interim step. It is not a long term solution. 

The case I just cited a moment ago is not theoretical. It was an 

actual case of a power plant in the State of Ohio that purchased 

credits in a rain forest in Ecuador that was slated for logging, and 

they purchased it or provided money to it for the government of Ecuador to take it off limits for logging and preserve substantially 

more carbon absorbing capacity in that rain forest than the power 

plant was emitting itself. 

That is good for the interim. We need to have longer term solutions. 

The gentleman from Louisiana. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, thank you for your testimony. It was very informative, and it highlights the magnitude of the challenge that you 

47

face to meet these goals environmentally and yet dealing with the 

cost that is going to be incurred, especially with an aging infrastructure and so forth. 

Mr. Ayers, I think in your testimony you mentioned that you are 

studying replacing the Rayburn roof with a photovoltaic roofing 

system. Is the existing roof system or roof near the end of its useful 

life or are we going to remove the existing roof while it is still functional? Can you give me an indication of where we are with that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. We are actually undertaking two feasibility 

studies now, one of the Hart Senate Office Building and one on the 

Rayburn House Office Building, and both of those buildings were 

selected because those roofs are coming up on the end of their useful lives. 

We recently completed comprehensive condition assessment surveys of all of our buildings, using an independent vendor, and have 

mapped out the life cycle of all of our facilities. So that is why we 

picked those two because they are nearing the end of their useful 

lives. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. You have accounted for the timing and all that. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Good. 

You mentioned that the Architect of the Capitol was able to 

achieve a 6.5 percent decrease in energy consumption in fiscal year 

2006 despite adding new space and new construction with the Capitol Visitors Center, the National Audio-Visual Conservation Centers. 

What steps were taken in the construction of these new facilities 

to make them more environmentally friendly? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, primarily in the Capitol Visitors Center, 

for example, we have selected premium efficiency motors and 

equipment, installed compact fluorescent lighting throughout, motion sensors in all of the appropriate rooms, low flow plumbing 

equipment. In addition, of note on the Capitol Visitors Center, we 

are recycling 50 percent of our construction waste. 

On the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, 

Virginia, which is a partnership between us and the Packard Humanities Institute, that is our first green roof under our auspices, 

the first green roof we have designed and implemented. So that is 

our sort of foray into that technology. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. 

Mr. Beard, how does our carbon footprint in the House of Representatives complex compare to the carbon footprint of all Federal 

agencies and private companies as well that employ a similar number of employees? 

Mr. BEARD. I would have to double check for the record, but my 

guess would be it would be higher. We have aging infrastructure. 

I mean our portion of the Capitol is the year 1800, 1790. The Cannon Building is 1901, Longworth, 1930, and this building, 1964, I 

think, and the Ford Building, I don’t know when the Ford Building 

was built. 

But I think that in the private sector, what we are trying to do 

is something that every major corporation in America is doing and 

every major institution, university campus and system is doing as 

well. They are trying to reduce their energy and water costs and 

48

promote energy and water conservation, reduce costs and reduce 

their carbon footprint at the same time. 

We are not that big. I mean we are six million square feet on 

the House side and approximately 10,000 employees. There are 

universities in your district, I am sure, that are larger than that. 

So our problems are not that unique. 

What makes us really unique and the challenge that the Architect’s Office has is the historical nature of our buildings, the tremendous public use that we get of our buildings and then the fact 

that we have a board of directors that consist of 440 members 

which, on occasion, can make things challenging and interesting. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

In your testimony, you outlined a significant number of proposed 

changes in the operation of the House. Could you give us an indication of the increased costs associated with these changes? Can you 

give us a little more information on that? 

Mr. BEARD. I would be happy to do that for the record. 

It is going to cost more, particularly purchasing. I think we have tentatively identified approximately $4 million of increased costs 

that will be included. We are negotiating with the Appropriations 

Subcommittee, probably somewhere around $4 million in additional 

costs. 

But that has to be offset by the reduction in operating costs that 

we will receive. I mean it is easy to downplay compact fluorescent 

light bulbs. The payback time on something like that is three, four 

months. And so, we anticipate replacing just all the lamps with 

compact fluorescents will save up to $250,000 a year on our electricity costs, just from lamps, and that doesn’t include all the overhead lighting and all the other things that we have suggested. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Is there a plan to shut down the Capitol Power 

Plant? 

Mr. BEARD. Not that I am aware of. I would say, though, that 

the Capitol Power Plant is a major issue, given the problems with 

asbestos and coal and other kinds of things, and it is something 

that Ms. Norton and Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Moran and Mr. Davis and 

a lot of other people have mentioned quite frequently. But I think 

it is a major issue of how we approach that problem in the future. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

I just want to follow up on that last point about light bulbs. The 

gentleman from Florida, our Ranking Member on the Full Committee, described the painful process he went through to change a 

light bulb or get a light bulb changed. You are going to do 10,000 

of them, 12,000, I think you have in your statement, Mr. Beard. It 

is not going to be that painful, is it? 

Mr. BEARD. My suggestion to him is the next time that happens, 

take the form, rip it up, pick up the phone and call me or call Stephen. We will have somebody there, and we will change it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would just go and change it myself. 

Mr. BEARD. Yes or that. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. They better be careful about what they ask. 

49

Mr. BEARD. The Speaker has directed that we change out 12,000 

bulbs over the next six months. We have the money to do it. We 

have the people. It is just the process of getting around to doing 

it. 

We have already done. We did 2,000 in one day or a few days. 

It was done by the Architect’s Office. So we have the ability, and 

we are going to do it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have converted my modest, little home in Chisholm, Minnesota, with those CFLs, and they work wonderfully. I 

don’t have to worry about light bulbs burning out. At whatever, $6, 

$7 a light bulb, at first, I was taken aback by the cost. I said, well, 

you know, we have got to start somewhere. Let us start right here. 

Mr. BEARD. I would encourage you to come down to the House 

Office Supply Store and you can get them at cost. We are selling 

them at cost. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, my goodness, well, that is great. 

Have you conducted a survey or an estimate of what the costs 

and benefits would be of converting the Capitol complex to 

photovoltaics or other solar applications? 

Mr. AYERS. No, sir, we haven’t done that, but we are doing a feasibility study for converting two buildings now, the Hart Building 

and the Rayburn Building, but we have not done a comprehensive 

analysis of all our inventory and what those costs and paybacks 

would be. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you remember? Well, you were still in college 

at the time, I am sure, a few years ago. 

Mr. BEARD. I wasn’t. I am almost as old as you are. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I didn’t say that to you, Mr. Beard. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I was part of a group that caused a major experiment on the Ford Building to fit it with photovoltaics, and they 

were installed and operating and we thought very successful. Then 

after a few years, they just disappeared. Does the Architect of the 

Capitol have records on that period of time and what the results 

were? 

Mr. AYERS. I believe we do, Mr. Chairman, and I will research 

that for the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Could you that dig that out for us, supply it to 

the Committee for the record, so we have it available? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir, certainly. 

Mr. BEARD. If I could add, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. BEARD. I think what is important is that I would certainly 

be hesitant that the Congress get in the power generation business 

itself, at least the House getting in the power generation business. 

But I think we have worked, we have met with Pepco, and we 

have told Pepco that we want 100 percent renewable power. They 

have been very accommodating and said simply, we can meet your 

needs, and we can meet that with either solar, wind or other 

sources of renewable gases, municipal landfill gas and others. They 

have that available to them through their grid, the PMJ grid. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A concept that is both old and new is that of district heating and cooling where you have a central generating facility that also uses the steam cooled down to hot water or to disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
50

tribute as steam throughout a defined geographic district. That was 

a fact that was very popular in the iron ore mining country of my 

district but also elsewhere around the Country, where each city 

had its own municipal power plant. That municipal power plant 

then fed the steam through a piping system to the community. 

We had entire cities that had no chimneys. People would come 

from the metropolitan area of Minnesota up to the iron range to 

the City of Buhl and Virginia and Hibbing and stand in admiration 

of these homes that had no chimneys. 

But then it became costly to maintain the piping system and to 

keep them insulated, keep the underground pipes insulated, especially in those cold winters that we experience in northern Minnesota. Eventually, the system deteriorated as communities didn’t 

have enough money to use on the maintenance, but it was very 

successful. 

At one power generation facility, there existed one emission that 

over time could be contained, controlled and cleaned up. Now you 

have all these individual homes that are sending emissions into the 

air. 

The White House is a district heating and cooling system. It is 

a very efficient system, and it saves enormously on emissions into 

the environment. 

So what we have here, what we need to do is not be, as you said, 

Mr. Beard, in the power generation business, but we have what we 

have and we have to make it more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly, and you are moving on track to accomplish 

that as the Speaker also has directed. 

But I think it would be beneficial for us to have an assessment 

on the use of photovoltaics. We have acres of flat roofs that can accommodate photovoltaic cells if we are asking GSA to do that for 

the civilian office space of the Federal Government. As I said earlier, GSA spends $5,800,000,000 a year on the electric bill for nonmilitary, non-veterans, non-postal electricity cost, and we can cut 

that by 70 percent with photovoltaics. 

That is in the public interest in addition to the environmental 

benefits that will result from such an initiative. Do you think that 

is too much to ask, Mr. Beard? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think one of the things that we have done, 

we have always viewed these buildings as different and unique, 

and we aren’t included, for example, in any of the requirements 

that you impose on GSA in the legislation that goes through. So 

while we don’t have to meet those requirements, we also don’t get 

to participate in the benefits of some of the financing and other approaches that are used for other government buildings. 

We participate with GSA in the power purchase contracts, for example, and some other things, but we have always sort of viewed 

the Capitol complex as unique and different. It is part of the Legislative Branch, and it should be separate, but in many ways, we 

would benefit. At least my view is we would benefit by being able 

to participate in many of the activities that other government 

buildings or the private sector undertakes. 

I am sure that if you went to build these buildings today, build 

new buildings, we probably put the heating and cooling on top of 

51

the building. We wouldn’t have the central system we have now, 

but, as you say, we have what we have. 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, those economies of scale of a district system are important to consider. We have seven boilers now that provide steam to 23 buildings and 15 million square feet. We would 

wind up with another. If we decommission that, we would have to 

install and retrofit 30 new boilers throughout the complex as well 

as maintenance staff to maintain those pieces of equipment as well 

as similarly we have 10 chillers on the chilled water side. We 

would have to install chilling equipment in every building as well. 

So there are some economies of scale and efficiencies with the 

district system. 

Mr. Chairman, staff has given me a quick update on the 

photovoltaics on the Ford Building that were installed in 1978, and 

that system had about a 20-year life cycle, and we did remove it 

in 2005. It was a glycol-based system. It was leaking, and we had 

some concerns with the environmental concerns with the glycol system, so we did remove it. 

But we will try to get you the energy efficiency data for that over 

its 20-year life cycle. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I appreciate having that 

information. 

The Department of Energy has produced a number of documents 

on solar energy. Just for the record, I want to cite one intriguing 

fact that they have developed: 

In a 100 mile square area of the Arizona desert, if photovoltaics 

were installed with the ability to concentrate that solar power on 

a grid and fire it to a satellite to be redirected elsewhere in the 

United States, it could produce all the electricity needs of the entire Country and by using microwave energy to fire through a satellite and redistribute it around the Country, you are not losing 

power as you would over copper wire or aluminum wire. 

That is something we ought to be working on. 

Do you think you will be able to achieve the objective set by the 

Speaker, that by the end of the 110th Congress, you will be able 

to operate the House in a carbon neutral manner? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, sir. Those are my instructions, and that is what 

we will do. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you set forth a strategy on getting that 

done? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, well, we have got a portion of the strategy is 

already place and, as I said in my testimony, we need to fill that 

out on June 30th. 

Many of the actions we will undertake, we can’t undertake immediately. It is going to take us several months to do that. Negotiating with Pepco, for example, for purchasing all renewable power, 

we have had one meeting with them. We will have additional meetings, and we will be able to get to that as soon as we can. 

My directions from the Speaker have been very clear. This is 

what she wants to do, and my job is to get it done by working with 

the Architect’s Office. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Boustany, do you have any further questions? 

52

Mr. BOUSTANY. Just to follow up on that, as you move to comply 

with the Speaker’s directive and you are going to have to purchase 

additional power, have you calculated into this any security risk 

implications? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, we purchase all of our power now from Pepco. 

So it would have the same risk. 

I guess you are referring to security risk of renewables versus 

non-renewables? 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes. 

Mr. BEARD. To be perfectly honest, no, we have not. It is something that we should look at, I guess, to make sure. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes, perhaps you probably ought to look at that 

as well. 

Mr. BEARD. Being a participant in a grid and the PJM interconnect that we are, assuming that we couldn’t receive renewable 

power, there is a capability to supplement it with power from other 

resources, and they have more than ample supplies of that. It is 

one of the advantages of being in a grid. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I would just submit as you go forward with the 

planning process, that is something you might want to consider. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I just want to point out that next Wednesday, 

May 16, our hearing continues on climate change and energy independence with an extensive witness list that includes surface 

transportation witnesses, public buildings witnesses including the 

American Institute of Architects, the Alliance to Save Energy, the 

Solar Energy Industries Association, the American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy and an aviation panel and a water resources panel. 

I won’t go through all those witnesses, but I expect to have a 

very lively and informative hearing next Wednesday. 

Mr. Beard. 

Mr. BEARD. Mr. Chairman, if I could just a second, I was remiss 

in not mentioning an item of importance to Mr. DeFazio. I have 

had conversations with him about his desire and interest in discussing some kind of alternative energy people moving system for 

an improved people moving system for staff on the Hill, and it is 

certainly is something that the Roads Committee staff and myself 

have discussed and I have discussed with Mr. DeFazio as well. 

I think in the area of demonstrating leadership for the rest of the 

Nation, it makes sense to me that the Congress might want to consider, or at least the House if the Senate isn’t interested, certainly 

the House could demonstrate leadership on alternative fuels by 

putting some kind of either fuel cell powered buses or some other 

kind of people moving systems. 

So it is one of the things that we are discussing with the staff, 

and I wanted to put in a plug for it on Mr. DeFazio’s behalf. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I am very encouraged by 

your initiative and willingness to partner with us in moving that 

agenda forward. We certainly need to have something of that nature for the staff, those who are over at the Ford Building and 

53

other scattered elsewhere, to move them more efficiently, including 

our subway to the Capitol from the Rayburn. 

That system is now 42 years old, 43 years old. I remember when 

it was offloaded from a flatbed truck. I was on the staff at the time. 

I happened to be taking a little lunch break, walking around, and 

this flatbed truck pulls up and a huge crane over on the west front 

of the Capitol. 

That subway tunnel was a cut and cover operation. They had one 

segment still open. The crane hovered over and lifted the first of 

those two passenger vehicles, put it down in the hole, picked the 

second one up, dropped it in the hole, and they poured the concrete 

over and sealed. It was entombed forever. The only way you are 

ever going to get it out of there is piecemeal. 

Since then, the Senate has this very efficient system that moves 

automatically. Now, we waste an awful lot of time with those operators, waiting for one straggling Member to jump aboard as though 

this were the last car out of Dodge, to get on that train. There is 

another coming, and it is just sitting there empty, and it goes back 

with two people. 

We have to do better with that. Do you have any plans for a renewable replacement? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, those systems are clearly at the end of 

their useful lives, so we will be looking at replacement of those 

with new technology similar to the technology that we use in the 

Senate side which was done many years ago. I think nearly 20 

years that system was put in. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is a great thrill for visitors to the Capitol, kids 

who come here on close-up and Presidential Classroom and all the 

rest, love to ride. It is the biggest thing they talk about when they 

go home. Oh, we got to ride on the Capitol subway. But it is an 

antiquated system. 

Mr. AYERS. It is. Yes, it is. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have to do better. 

Mr. BEARD. My granddaughter’s biggest thrill in coming to visit 

her grandfather was to go on the little train. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your testimony, for all 

the work that you are doing. 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We look forward to continuing our cooperation 

and participation with you. 

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his participation and 

his perseverance throughout a long morning. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

54


35926.029
55


35926.030
56


35926.031
57


35926.032
58


35926.033
59


35926.034
60


35926.035
61


35926.036
62


35926.037
63


35926.038
64


35926.039
65


35926.040
66


35926.041
67


35926.042
68


35926.043
69


35926.044
70


35926.045
71


35926.046
72


35926.047
73


35926.048
74


35926.049
75


35926.050
76


35926.051
77


35926.052
78


35926.053
79


35926.054
80


35926.055
81


35926.056
82


35926.057
83


35926.058
84


35926.059
85


35926.060
86


35926.061
87


35926.062
88


35926.063
89


35926.064
90


35926.065
91


35926.066
92


35926.067
93


35926.068
94


35926.069
95


35926.070
96


35926.071
97


35926.072
98


35926.073
99


35926.074
100


35926.075
101


35926.076
102


35926.077
103


35926.078
104


35926.079
105


35926.080
106


35926.081
107


35926.082
108


35926.083
109


35926.084
110


35926.085
111


35926.086
112


35926.087
113


35926.088
114


35926.089
115


35926.090
116


35926.091
117


35926.092
118


35926.093
119


35926.094
120


35926.095
121


35926.096
122


35926.097
123


35926.098
124


35926.099
125


35926.100
126


35926.101
127


35926.102
128


35926.103
129


35926.104
130


35926.105
131


35926.106
132


35926.107
133


35926.108
134


35926.109
135


35926.110
136


35926.111
137


35926.112
138


35926.113
139


35926.114
140


35926.115
141


35926.116
142


35926.117
143


35926.118
144


35926.119
145


35926.120
146


35926.121
147


35926.122
148


35926.123
149


35926.124
150


35926.125
151


35926.126
152


35926.127
153


35926.128
154


35926.129
155


35926.130
156


35926.131
157


35926.132
158


35926.133
159


35926.134
160


35926.135
161


35926.136
162


35926.137
163


35926.138
164


35926.139
165


35926.140
166


35926.141
167


35926.142
168


35926.143
169


35926.144
170


35926.145
171


35926.146
172


35926.147
173


35926.148
174


35926.149
175


35926.150
176


35926.151
177


35926.152
178


35926.153
179


35926.154
180


35926.155
181


35926.156
182

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES 

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Oberstar [Chairman of the Committee] Presiding. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order. This is the second in our series of hearings 

on climate change and energy independence and the role of transportation and infrastructure initiatives in the global climate issue. 

We had a hearing a week ago with a rather lengthy list of witnesses and an abundance of testimony. And it was fascinating. We 

have another robust day of hearings and very knowledgeable, 

learned panel—panels—witnesses with great storehouses of information. And I anticipate that the Committee’s hearings will be a 

compendium for the future of the factual information-based presentations on the subject of our time. 

A fascinating book that I have read and reread over time entitled, ′′The Whale and the Supercomputer: On The Northern Front 

of Climate Change,′′ by Charles Wohlforth and others. 

The book starts out: ‘‘I love the winter. It’s when I fly through 

the birch forest like a hawk. If the snow is good in Anchorage and 

at Kincaid Park, the cross country ski trails swoop among trees 

and over steep round hills, unwrapping silent white glades and 

black thickets edged with hoary frost in quick smoothly evolving 

succession.’’

Lovely start to a book. 

He continues, ‘‘but some recent winters were still born in this 

part of Alaska. Fall came late and Halloween, when it should be 

deep snow, we took children trick-or-treating without coats. The 

winter’s first snowfall was later than ever. And then we had rain 

and thaw. Ski trails were ruined. Running instead, plodding and 

earth bound was no substitute. In late winter, normally the best 

season, the sled dog races were cancelled for lack of snow. That almost never happened when I was a child. But now it happens 

every couple of years.’’ Science tells us, he continues, that no single 

winter can be blamed on global climate change. ‘‘Weather naturally 

varies from year to year while climate represents a broad span of 

time and space beyond our immediate perception. But science, too, 

has taken notice. 

‘‘Average winter temperatures in interior Alaska have risen 7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1950s. Annual precipitation increased 

by 30 percent. Alaska glaciers are shrinking, permanently frozen 

ground was melting. Spring is earlier. Arctic sea ice was thinner 

and less extensive.’’ Winter, he writes, ‘‘was going to hell.’’

183

‘‘The Inupiat elders of the Arctic noticed first. Sustained for a 

thousand years by hunting whales from the floating ice, they developed fine perceptions of the natural systems around them. The 

Inupiat adapted to the new world, knowing that the rest of the 

world would eventually follow. What is happening here is beyond 

debate: Burning fossil fuel elevated the carbon dioxide content in 

the atmosphere. We have a crime scene, victim, suspect, motive, 

opportunity and smoking gun; plenty of evidence to convict.’’

It goes on to say that, for 420,000 years, the carbon cycle was 

in a rough range of balance. Carbon in the atmosphere ranged from 

180 parts per million to 280 parts per million. Within the last 100 

years, that has dramatically changed. There is more carbon in the 

atmosphere now than at any time in 420,000 years. 

On that sobering note, we will begin the second of our hearings 

on this issue of climate change. Energy consumption is expected to 

grow some 23 percent. The Energy Information Administration predicts that, by 2025, worldwide energy use will grow 57 percent. 

Eleven of the past 12 years have been the hottest since 1850; 

2006, the warmest on record. Sea level is rising, as ′′The Whale and 

the Supercomputer′′ report. We are hit by the dual crunch of rising 

energy prices and rising carbon in the atmosphere. Legislation that 

produces increased energy efficiency and results in a degree of 

independence, hopefully total independence, is important for us to 

consider in the transportation sector. That alone accounts for over 

27 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, 

second only to electric power generation. 

And there are things we can do in this Committee with our legislation and with what is already in place, a good deal of which we 

have already enacted. A mode shift of only 10 percent to transit 

will save the equivalent of 550 million barrels of oil, the amount 

we import from Saudi Arabia every year. The President has joined 

the effort with his statement just a day or so ago establishing higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and concluded by saying the 

steps he announced today were ‘‘not a substitute for effective legislation.’’

Well, we are going to take the President at his word and, in effect, at his invitation and move toward legislation—not far-out 

stuff—but what is available, in a sense, off-the-shelf. One provision 

of which we have already enacted—or not—I am sorry, that we 

have passed through Committee and through the House. It is pending in the Senate. That legislation would convert the Department 

of Energy building to photovoltaic cells. Not far-out technology, but 

that which is already available and has been developing for over 

30 years. 

If we don’t do these things, we are on a crash course with history. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute announced results of 

continuing studies predicting that summers that now average in 

the low to mid 80s by 70 years from now will average between 100 

and 110 degrees in Chicago, Atlanta and elsewhere. 

Dr. Sam Epstein, of the Center For Health and Global Environment, who has spoken with our Committee Members several years 

ago, points to the rise in malaria, dengue fever, West Nile Virus 

and other vectors that transmit disease in a wider range and a 

184

wider latitude in the earth because temperatures are warmer and 

more favorable to the lifecycle of those vectors. 

There are many other considerations that I will enter into the 

record at this point with the complete statement, but I think that 

frames the subject matter. We are looking forward to the testimony 

of this first panel and the subsequent panels, and then we will 

jointly fashion a legislative response at the invitation, in effect, of 

the President, and do things that are realistic that are within the 

ambit of this Committee. These will hopefully contribute in the 

short term, as well as also in the long range, to reducing carbon 

emissions in the atmosphere. 

I thank the gentleman from Florida for his participation on this 

hearing. And I recognize and I yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you and thank you for convening the second 

session on the important topic of climate change and energy independence and our transportation infrastructure issues relating to 

how we can do a better job. 

I started off my comments last week again citing some simple 

facts, and I think you reminded us today that about 32 percent of 

the greenhouse gas emissions come from power generation and 

cited the problem of even the U.S. Capitol building not being efficient, actually the second biggest polluter I guess, in Washington, 

D.C., I read afterwards. I didn’t know it fell into the second category. I am sure automobiles and transportation, which account for 

28 percent of those emissions, also pollute our Nation’s capital’s 

air. 

I didn’t count sheep last night, but I did have a chance to read 

some of the testimony, and since I won’t be able to stay through 

this, I am going to turn over to Mr. Duncan in a few minutes here. 

But particularly, I want to thank Mr. Millar. And I read some of 

his recommendations at the conclusion and concur with them that 

we have to have incentives. 

The other thing, too, that, with public transportation, and I consider myself a strong advocate of mass and public transportation, 

which we have done some in the United States, but not enough to 

promote but to, just looking at my own district, the lack of intermodal connectivity and convenience for passengers. And I represent 

six counties from Jacksonville all the way down to Orlando and 

found either lack of public transit systems or existing public transit 

systems that didn’t move people through—throughout say even my 

district from Orlando to Jacksonville. No one thinks about it, but 

our long distance carrier is—today our long distance transit carrier 

is Greyhound, a company that actually makes a profit and moves 

people. But we don’t accommodate Greyhound, which is our national carrier intermodal service in most of those bus systems. In 

fact, one of the—I went to Deland, Florida, the county seat of 

Volusia County, about a week ago, and the bus station is on the 

north side of town at a little stop. And we are building a new intermodal on the south side of town where our bus service will eventually feed through the county and into a regional system. But we 

have made no accommodation for that carrier. 

So we need to have considerations of convenience for people in 

truly intermodal functions in our policy. So I thank him. 

185

And then Ed Hamberger is here. Last week I cited, and I repeat 

again, in 2006, 1 gallon of diesel fuel moved 1 ton of Freight an 

average of 414 miles. And I saw on his testimony the potential that 

we have for moving—well, trucks do a very good job at moving 

much more freight in a very efficient manner and dealing with capacity issues for the future in an energy efficient manner, and I appreciated his testimony which I also read last night. 

Finally, we have got, Mr. Rader is here. Mr. Rader represents 

Colorado Railcar, and I am one of their strongest champions. They 

produce the most efficient transit rail vehicle probably in the world, 

right in the United States, developed it without Federal funds, at 

their own initiative. Colorado Railcar, which is now, we will hear 

in his testimony, where that is going to be used, but fuel efficient 

and emissions-efficient and very proud of what he has done, American workers with an American product. 

And finally, on another panel, we have Jim May. I won’t get to 

ask him the question, but I did check on the issue, and he does 

speak to it some, the issue of the European Union moving forward 

with plans to tax commercial passenger aircraft that do pollute the 

European skies. And I know that they are waiting on a ICAO, the 

International Civil Aviation Organization, to come up with some 

standards, but eventually, if measures aren’t taken in the United 

States to deal with the aviation aircraft emissions, we will be held 

to task either by international organizations or by organizations of 

states like the European Union. And that is something that we also 

have to deal with. 

So with a couple of those comments, again, I am pleased to be 

here and thank you for carrying on this important responsibility. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and 

I greatly appreciate your comments. And we will proceed in that 

spirit. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is rare for a witness to make a point of parliamentary inquiry. Does the witness wish to be recognized? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. If the Chair would be so kind. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I wonder if it would be appropriate to let Mr. 

Mica know, since he is leaving, that the number that he was using, 

414 miles per gallon was accurate in 2005, but the number for 2006 

is 423. 

And so I did not want to let that——

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is so noted in the testimony that you will be 

delivering which I also read. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for correcting the record. And 

we will put on suspension the sole minority staffer that we have 

until he gets those figures correct. 

186

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN LASH, PRESIDENT, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE; WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; EDWARD HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; ANDY D. CLARKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS; EDWARD HALL, GENERAL MANAGER OF ENGINE TECHNOLOGY, GENERAL ELECTRIC; TOM RADER, PRESIDENT, COLORADO RAILCAR; AND 

GREG COHEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, AMERICAN HIGHWAY 

USERS ALLIANCE. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. With those trenchant observations and the quivering in the background, we will begin with our first panel: Jonathan Lash, President of World Resources Institute. I have been a 

fan of Mr. Lash’s writings over many years, and he has piqued our 

conscience and stimulated the public debate and forced the issue to 

the forefront with factually based and substantiated writings for 

which we are most appreciative. 

Mr. Lash. 

Mr. LASH. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to 

be here with you this morning. We congratulate you on pursuing 

this issue in the Committee. The World Resources Institute is an 

environmental think tank. We work on global issues and have 

worked on issues of climate change for two decades now. It is great 

that we finally have the chance to begin to discuss the solutions 

with the Congress. I am going to very quickly run through a few 

slides, Mr. Chairman, confirming some of the things you said in 

your opening statement. If I could go to the next slide? 

The earth is warming. There is no doubt of this fact. It is warming rapidly. It has warmed a little less than 1 degree centigrade, 

most of that in the lifetime of those of us in the room. The pace 

of warming is outside anything in human history. 

Next slide. 

The warming is caused, as the Chairman pointed out, almost entirely by the build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, most 

importantly carbon dioxide. As the Chair said, carbon dioxide levels 

are the highest in human history. In fact, they are now the highest 

in 650,000 years, we are quite certain. The Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, the official process that the United 

States is a party to, said it is more than 90 percent likely that the 

warming is largely caused by human activities. 

Next slide. 

The warming has gone far enough that we all have begun to see 

the effects of the warming. As oceans have warmed, both the Atlantic and the Pacific, the number of hurricanes that turn into Category 4 or 5 hurricanes, the most serious, has almost doubled. So, 

in the period from 1975 to 1989, there were half as many that became Category 4 and 5 hurricanes as there were in the period from 

1990 until 1994. We saw the first South Atlantic hurricane in history 2 years ago. We saw a 3-year Amazon drought. That impacts 

the rain forest. A recent scientific study confirmed that we are apt 

to see such droughts in the Amazon about every decade now because of the changed ocean conditions. 

If we could go on to the next slide. The Chairman mentioned the 

changed conditions in the far north. The rapid melting of the 

187

Greenland ice sheet has shocked even scientists who predicted it 

because it is going so much faster than predicted. Glaciers around 

the world are retreating. That becomes a significant issue because 

many, many cities around the world depend on snow pack to supply them with water in arid areas. A group of 11 admirals and generals who looked at the security implications of warming issued a 

report a few weeks ago in which they said climate change can act 

as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile 

regions of the world and present significant national security challenges for the United States. 

They went on to call for action. Now, to mitigate those threats. 

Next slide please. 

That is also the call of the 22 major companies and six environmental organizations that joined together in the United States Climate Action Partnership and issued a call to action last January, 

urging the Congress to adopt mandatory legislation that slows, 

stops and reverses the build-up of emissions of greenhouse gasses 

from the United States that called for the United States to take 

unilateral action. 

They made that call because they saw that they needed certainty 

for investment that created an opportunity for technological change 

in the future. Also, because they believed that action sooner is 

cheaper than action later, and because of energy security issues, all 

of the steps we take for climate change would help. 

If we could go, skip the next slide. Skip this one. For the United 

States, the problem is essentially one of cars, coal and buildings. 

The buildings drive 70 percent of the emissions from the electric 

power sector. Cars are responsible for most of the 27 percent from 

the transport sector. And coal is the major cause of emissions from 

the electric power sector. 

In each case, there is an opportunity to change technologies, 

technologies that are 50 to 100 years old, that will give us an opportunity to compete in tomorrow’s markets, which will demand 

low carbon alternatives and which our industries can produce better than anyone else’s if they are given a platform to do it from, 

one that gives them the opportunity to be assured of profit from 

low carbon technologies. 

Last slide. 

There are a number of measures that we can pursue that 

produce both benefits for energy security and benefits for climate. 

Efficient transportation, public transit, building efficiency are all 

very positive. But there are some we could do that might improve 

energy security but would be highly damaging to climate. For instance, the adoption of coal liquefaction technology. It is important 

to distinguish those that are in the upper right hand quadrant here 

that would benefit both national goals. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Your complete statement will be included in the 

record and has a compendium of information, very thorough well 

researched presentation on the issues before us. Thank you. Excellent presentation. 

Bill Millar, President of American Public Transit—I am sorry—

Public Transportation Association. 

188

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure to 

be with you, Mr. Duncan, the other Members of the Committee. 

And I appreciate your opening remarks and those of Mr. Mica. You 

have done a good job of outlining the urgency of the issue here. As 

has been said, the transportation sector accounts for about twothirds of the petroleum used in this country, 28 percent of the 

greenhouse gas emissions. If we are going to beat America’s addiction to oil, we simply have to reduce transportation related petroleum consumption. 

I am pleased to report that the American public transportation 

industry is already leading the way in reducing petroleum use and 

greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study by ICF International concluded that the direct savings from public transit that is used already today in America is about 1.4 billion gallons per year. APTA 

currently has a study under way that is going to look at the next 

order of savings because we know, if people use public transit, they 

live differently. They save additional oil beyond the obvious of, ‘‘I 

took the bus; I didn’t take my car today.’’ The amount of savings 

that that amounts to, that savings amounts to, in that first order, 

is equal to all of the fuel consumed by cars in smaller States such 

as New Mexico or Utah. It is also five times the amount that would 

be saved by converting the Federal light duty vehicle fleet to alternative fuels. That may be a good idea, but I am just trying to give 

you a sense of the order of magnitude. 

Now these savings result from several important characteristics 

of public transit, certainly that transit carries multiple passengers 

in each vehicle, that traffic congestion is reduced because transit 

takes cars off the highways, and transit systems do not rely exclusively on petroleum to power their fleets. They can be flexibly, and 

many are, flexibly powered today. 

Now, the energy and emission reductions could be multiplied if 

we could have a greater use of public transit. Cities around the 

world that have more public transit use less energy. A study done 

a couple of years ago showed that European cities are on average 

two and a half times more energy efficient than American, and 

comparable Asian cities are five times more energy efficient. These 

are all cities that use an extensive amount of public transportation. 

Unfortunately, public transportation isn’t available to all Americans who wish to use it. Only about one in four Americans actually 

has what they consider to be adequate—whatever that term 

means—public transportation. Nonetheless, Americans are using 

public transit in record numbers, Mr. Chairman, as you have noted 

over the years, more than 10 billion rides a year now being taken 

on public transportation. Public transportation use, over the last 11 

years, is growing faster than the use of the automobile and much, 

much faster than the growth of our population. 

Now, as the Congress considers these important issues, and as 

it puts together its policy ideas on energy savings and greenhouse 

gas emissions, APTA wishes to offer five principles that we think 

are important to be included. 

First, transit use significantly reduces energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas, therefore encouraging public transportation must 

be a part of the overall strategy. 

189

Second, energy savings from emission reductions from increased 

transit use are long-term savings. These are investments we are 

making that will still benefit us 100 years from now. For example, 

Boston opened the first subway in 1901; New York City in 1904. 

More than 100 years later, those cities and indeed our nation is 

still benefitting by those investments made at that time. 

Principle three, public entities like public transit agencies that 

directly produce energy savings and reduce emissions should be eligible to receive revenues generated from any carbon tax or capand-trade style program. 

Four, energy conservation and greenhouse gas emission reduction should be factors in transportation and land-use planning. The 

Federal Government should encourage State and local governments 

to coordinate land-use planning, and Federal facilities should be 

cited to be accessible to public transit so employees and Federal 

employees as well as visitors to Federal facilities can easily use 

public transit to get there. 

Fifth, new investments in energy efficient public transit vehicles 

and facilities that will increase substantially the energy efficiency 

should receive encouragement from the Federal Government. And 

if there is to be a program of incentives, we certainly want to include that. 

My written testimony includes a series of more specific recommendations in the area of tax policy and promotion of green 

technology and related items. We certainly look forward to working 

with you and the Committee as you develop your ideas further. We 

would be happy to make any additional information available you 

might prefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Millar, APTA’s members have done a spectacular job of providing increased mobility 

with lower emissions and reaching more areas of our metropolitan 

areas than ever before. And the remarkable fact for me is that, just 

15 years ago, New York City accounted for 60 percent of all transit 

trips in the Nation. That is down below 40 percent now. Not because New York isn’t using transit—their numbers have 

grown—but because the rest of the Nation has grown faster and 

has much further to go, but we are there. 

We have a recorded vote on the floor right now. I will recess for 

this vote, come back, and we will continue with testimony. There 

will be another series of votes later, but there is debate intervening. 

And so, Mr. Hamberger, we are anxious to hear about new high 

horsepower locomotives, information technology systems, reduced 

idling, and new locomotive crew training programs that are all a 

feature of the freight rail landscape. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Look forward to it. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And the rest of our panel as well. Thank you. 

Committee will stand in recess for roughly 10 or 15 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. [presiding.] Chairman Oberstar told me to go ahead 

and proceed with the next witness. I am not attempting an Alexander Hague moment here. 

The next witness is our friend, Edward Hamberger, who is president of the Association of American Railroads. 

190

Mr. Hamberger.

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. The AAR appreciates 

the opportunity to address the issue of climate change and transportation. Freight railroads are committed to being part of the solution to the challenge of climate change. Greater use of freight rail 

offers a simple, inexpensive and immediate way to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions without hurting the economy. 

Freight railroads are clearly the mode of choice for fuel efficiency. 

Greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to fuel consumption 

because railroads are on average three or four times more fuel efficient than trucks. Every ton mile of freight that moves by rail instead of truck reduces these emissions by two-thirds or more. 

I want to emphasize up front that the testimony we have submitted and my testimony today is not meant to be an anti truck 

diatribe. Our largest customer segment is intermodal. And that is 

achieved because of cooperation and partnership with the trucking 

industry. But having said that, the facts paint a very compelling 

picture that moving freight by rail is the most environmentally 

friendly way to move freight. For example, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

transferring just 1 percent of the long haul freight currently being 

moved by trucking to rail would reduce fuel consumption by 110 

million gallons per year and decrease emissions by 1.62 million 

tons. The demand for freight transportation is projected to increase 

substantially in the coming years. And if the 10 percent of that 

traffic that is predicted to move over the highways could move by 

rail instead, the cumulative reductions in greenhouse gas emissions 

could reach as high as 212 million tons by 2020. 

Working with our suppliers, whom you will hear from a little 

later, railroads work constantly to improve fuel efficiency, with 

stunning results. In 1980, one gallon of diesel fuel moved 1 ton of 

freight an average of 235 miles. In 2006, as I already mentioned, 

the same amount of fuel would move 1 ton of freight by rail an average of 423 miles, roughly equivalent to the distance from Boston 

to Baltimore and an 80 percent increase over 1980. 

All seven U.S. Class I railroads have joined EPA’s SmartWay 

Transport, a voluntary partnership between freight transporters 

and the EPA that establishes incentives for fuel efficiency improvements. To accomplish these goals, railroads make extensive use of 

technology, training and changes in operating practices to curb fuel 

consumption. New long haul locomotives are more powerful, more 

fuel efficient and emit fewer greenhouse gasses. New genset and 

hybrid-switching locomotives and idling-reduction technologies also 

reduce fuel consumption and emissions. On-board locomotive monitoring systems help engineers determine the optimum speed for 

moving the freight in the most fuel-efficient way. 

Information technology is used along with in-trip planning systems to smooth traffic flow, better utilize assets and reduce fuel 

consumption. 

It is important to note that freight railroads account for a very 

small share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, just .6 percent in 

2005, according to EPA. And we are quite proud of the fact that 

even though freight rail moved 42 percent of intercity freight on a 

ton-mile basis in 2005—we moved 42 percent—our greenhouse gas 

191

emissions amounted to only 2.2 percent of the total transportation 

sector greenhouse gas footprint. In addition to reducing fuel consumption and emissions, moving more freight by rail would also 

help reduce highway congestion and save fuel that otherwise would 

be consumed by motor vehicles caught in traffic. As you are aware, 

a single intermodal train can take up to 280 trucks off the road directly, and other trains could move the equivalent of 500 trucks of 

pay load. 

Policy makers can and should take steps to attract more freight 

to railroads and expand the greenhouse gas emission benefits of 

rail transportation. Two ways of doing this are through tax incentives to expand rail capacity and through public-private partnerships for freight rail infrastructure projects. Both of these concepts 

are endorsed and supported by AASHTO and its freight rail bottom 

line report. And of course, this Committee gave great support to 

many freight public-private partnerships in the SAFETEA-LU bill 

in 2005, including, in Chicago, the CREATE program. 

I would draw the Members’ attention to H.R. 2116, a bill introduced recently with the lead cosponsorship of Congressmen 

Kendrick Meek and Eric Cantor, which is entitled, The Freight 

Rail Infrastructure Capacity Act, which provides a tax incentive for 

expansion capital—expansion capital only—also for an increase in 

horsepower for new locomotives. And I draw the Members’ attention to that to consider whether that would be an appropriate way 

to encourage even more investment to expand capacity to move 

more freight by rail. 

We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

Committee and others to address the challenges of climate change. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. [Presiding.] Thank you for your very compact testimony and for the extensive documentation you have submitted to 

the Committee which will be included in the record. 

Our next witness, Andy Clarke for the League of American 

Bicyclists, is going to show us how we can convert from the hydrocarbon economy to the carbohydrate economy. 

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you. On behalf of our members and the tens of millions of 

adults who will get on a bike and ride this year, thank you for giving us the chance to share what we think are some of the considerable roles that cycling and walking can play in combating climate 

change and promoting energy independence. This Friday, tens of 

thousands of people in communities across the country will bicycle 

to work in celebration of National Bike to Work day. In the D.C. 

Area alone, more than 7,000 riders will participate. Now, if those 

7,000 riders chose to drive to work instead of bicycling, they would 

generate 32 tons of carbon dioxide, one and a half tons of carbon 

monoxide, and they would burn half a tanker truck of gasoline, and 

they would do exactly the same thing on the way home. That is 

just 1 day in one community. 

The potential to increase the numbers of people bicycling and 

walking to work in the United States in the short term is even 

more impressive. San Francisco and other cities have more than 

doubled bicycle commuting between 1990 and 2000 through investVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
192

ment in bike lanes, trails, bike parking, maps, education programs, 

encouragement activities and a focused bicycle plan. 

Bicycling to work is just part of the picture however. More than 

three-quarters of trips a day are not for commuting at all. They are 

social, recreational, for shopping trips. And amazingly, more than 

40 percent of all those trips are 2 miles or less, a very manageable 

bike ride. And more than 1 quarter are just 1 mile or less. 

These short trips are the most polluting and the most feasible to 

switch to bicycling and walking. The City of Chicago, for example, 

recently adopted a 2015 goal of getting 5 percent of all trips 5 miles 

or less made by bicycle. And we would encourage Congress and the 

Federal Government to encourage more urbanized areas to establish such goals. 

When barriers to bicycling are removed, people start riding. A 

great example is Portland, Oregon, where bicycle use has more 

than quadrupled since 1994 as their bike network has grown from 

60 miles to 260 miles. They, too, have invested in cyclist and in motorist education, encouragement programs and very simple measures, such as providing bicycle parking. They have fully integrated 

transit and walking and bicycling. 

Many of the short car trips in our metro areas are school related, 

parents driving their children to and from school over really very 

short distances. The Federal Safe Routes to School program created 

by SAFETEA-LU is a welcome opportunity to change the habits of 

a generation of school children by enabling them to walk and bicycle to school. And we know from the initial Federal pilot program 

in Marin County that real mode shift is possible. 

So what can Congress do today to encourage more people to walk 

and bicycle instead of automatically reaching for the car keys for 

all of their trips? 

First, we would encourage you to consider establishing automobile vehicle miles traveled reduction targets that States and localities can meet by shifting from short polluting trips by automobiles to walking, bicycling and to transit. 

Second, Congress can appropriate funding for the Conserve By 

Bicycle program, which was authorized in the Energy Act in 2005. 

This program directs the U.S. DOT to develop and disseminate best 

practices on how to replace car trips with bicycle trips for those 

short distances. 

Third, Congress could pass the Commuter Tax Benefit Act, H.R. 

1498, which would extend the transportation fringe benefit currently offered to transit, van pool and qualified parking plans to 

bicyclists. 

Fourth, Congress can ensure that any future rescissions of Federal transportation funds do not disproportionately hit bicycle and 

pedestrian funding programs. In 2006, for example, $600 million 

were taken back from the transportation enhancement program, a 

key funding source for bicycling and walking. 

Fifth, Congress could direct the General Services Administration 

to make the Federal Government a model employer for promoting 

bicycling and walking to work. 

And finally, in the next transportation bill, perhaps sooner, Congress could codify the U.S. Department of Transportation’s design 

guidance on accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians so that 

193

every new and every improved highway project is a complete street 

that truly serves all users. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, many new technologies and solutions will be presented as strategies for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. We support a full 

range of those strategies from congestion fighting to carbon taxes, 

from increased inner city and freight travel by train to road pricing. All of these have the potential to help shift travel to bicycling 

and walking, provided our two modes are considered from the outset. 

I urge you not to overlook the simple tried and tested existing 

technologies of bicycling and walking. Unlike any of the other options presented to you as we move forward, these two options will 

not only tackle climate change and energy independence but will 

simultaneously address critical issues of obesity, physical inactivity, congestion and air quality. Thank you again for allowing me 

to be part of the hearing, and I hope you will consider some of our 

considerations. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. We certainly are going to 

consider and include those, especially the design guidance issue in 

the next iteration of the Surface Transportation Act. And we are 

also going to have a provision in the aviation bill to make parking 

for bicycles at airports an eligible item—not require it—but make 

it an eligible item so airport by airport can decide to build bicycling 

facilities. We have many instances of persons who want to commute to the airport, take their plane, but they have no place to 

leave their bike. And I think that everything we can do to encourage commuting by bicycle is a positive way forward for the country. 

I will not unfortunately be able to participate in the bike-to-work 

program on Friday. I did it last Saturday. I biked from Potomac 

down to the tidal basin, but the last 2 miles are way too dangerous 

to do it alone. 

You need guidance to bike that last 2 miles up to Capitol Hill 

from down there. But unfortunately, I have to be on a trip to Canada. 

Our next witness, Mr. Hall, general manager of engine technology from G E. And I greatly appreciate the work that GE has 

done. One of the first trips that our Ranking Member, Mr. Mica, 

took with me when I chaired the aviation Subcommittee was to 

Cincinnati to see the GE 90, which was then nearing its completion 

of development. It was the most advanced aircraft engine in the 

world at the time. Others have caught up since then. 

But it was interesting to note that, 50 years earlier, GE had developed the first jet engine with a thousand pounds of thrust, and 

that day, we saw 90,000 pounds of thrust. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to address 

the Committee. As executive leader of engine engineering for GE 

Transportation, I am responsible for, among other things, all 

phases of diesel engine development. GE Transportation is the 

world’s leading manufacturer of diesel electric locomotives with 

more than 15,000 locomotives operating around the globe. 

My testimony this morning will focus on two technologies that 

are being introduced right now for locomotives, hybrid technology 

and what we call trip optimizer, both of which will be beneficial for 

194

reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing our energy independence. The first technology I would like to discuss, the hybrid 

locomotive, will be demonstrated for the first time later this month 

at a planned GE eco-imagination event in California. 

We are all familiar with hybrids in the automotive context, but 

let me explain how it works for locomotives. All hybrid vehicles use 

some form of energy storage to recover energy that would otherwise 

be wasted. The difference between a car and a train however is 

that while a hybrid car can recover and store energy from a single 

vehicle, a hybrid locomotive has the potential to capture and store 

the energy from the hundreds of rail cars and thousands of tons of 

freight being pulled. Locomotives, like non-hybrid cars, use brakes 

to dissipate the energy of the moving vehicle by converting this 

emergency to heat and venting that heat to the atmosphere. GE’s 

evolution hybrid is a modified version of our evolution locomotive 

that has the ability to store some of the energy generated during 

braking in a series of specially designed lead-free batteries. The 

evolution hybrid utilizes existing drive motors to convert this braking energy into electrical energy that is stored in the battery system. When needed, the batteries supply the locomotive with extra 

power that can then be used to reduce fuel consumption and reduce 

emissions. 

So now, when the locomotive is traveling downhill, making sharp 

turns or slowing down for speed limits, the energy generated by 

braking will be stored in the battery and that power won’t go to 

waste. This reduces the total power that needs to be generated by 

the diesel electric engine, saving on total fuel burn and emissions. 

The evolution hybrid can even use the batteries as the primary 

source of power to reduce emissions in restrictive zones. 

In terms of carbon reduction, the evolution hybrid has the ability 

to reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent when compared to today’s 

evolution locomotive. Using 10 percent less fuel directly reduces the 

emissions of carbon dioxide, NOX and particulate by 10 percent. If 

hybrid technology replaced 100 Tier 1 locomotives now in service 

over the next 10 years, it would save over 510,000 tons of carbon 

dioxide from being produced, equivalent to removing 8,900 cars annually or 89,000 cars over 10 years from our roads. 

In terms of potential energy savings, if the evolution hybrid replaced 100 Tier 1 locomotives in service, it would save more than 

45 millions gallons of fuel over next 10 years. 

The second technology I would like to discuss is called trip 

optimizer. Trip optimizer is a locomotive control system enhancement that manages the speed and throttle settings to minimize fuel 

consumption taking into account the composition of the train, the 

terrain, track conditions, train dynamics and weather without negatively impacting the train’s arrival time. Put simply, trip 

optimizer uses global positioning systems, or GPS, and forwardlooking terrain mapping to plan a locomotive’s trip, and it develops 

a recipe to minimize fuel usage and meet speed limits along the 

way. The recipe is constantly updated and gives the on-board crew 

a tool to manage the journey in a completely novel way, by allowing explicit trades between journey completion time and the fuel 

used as opposed to operating at or near the speed limit all the 

time. 

195

In principle, trip optimizer could be applied to any engine and 

achieve a 10 percent fuel savings and a 10 percent reduction in carbon dioxide, NOX and particulate emissions. To give you a sense 

of the large potential benefits of this technology, applying trip 

optimizer to a single GE evolution locomotive would save 360 tons 

per year of carbon dioxide emissions and 32 gallons of fuel annually. 

If this technology is installed on a thousand Tier 2 GE evolution 

locomotives in a given year, we have the possibility of 360,000 

fewer tons of carbon dioxide emitted. These two technologies show 

that there are innovative solutions for our transportation systems 

that can achieve both the reduction in all emissions and the net 

savings in fuel. As this Committee considers climate change and 

energy independence, GE believes it is critical that government 

policies encourage innovations that save fuel and reduce emissions 

overall, taking into account traditional pollutants and carbon dioxide and, at a minimum, provide incentives to railroads that adopt 

such technologies and ensure that existing and future policies do 

not present obstacles to their introductions; on the contrary, policies should promote their development. 

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you and the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, very much, Mr. Hall. We will come 

back to you in a little bit. 

Mr. Rader, thank you also for being with us. We—I had the 

privilege of riding your rail car a few years ago in Colorado, and 

I was very impressed with the domestically developed technology 

and the smooth ride. It wasn’t a very long ride, but it was a nice 

smooth ride. Thank you for being with us today. 

Mr. RADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this invitation to discuss with your Committee the effects of global warning and the rail transit industry. I, like you, am old enough to remember magazine covers and numerous headlines proclaiming 

eternal winter and the coming ice age. Yet I think it is important 

to note that we don’t necessarily have to accept all of the theories 

of global warming to realize that the time has come to redouble our 

efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption and its consequent emissions. Furthermore, it is time to utilize all of the tools at hand to 

accomplish this goal. 

The Congress of the United States and specifically your Committee can take several key steps towards significantly reducing 

the consumption of fossil fuel in our country by understanding and 

encouraging the utilization of technology that has been developed 

and tested during the last 4 years. 

The ever-increasing cost of fossil fuels means that the cost of 

travel, and specifically commuting, is pushing more Americans to 

utilize more efficient forms of travel, including rail transit. This 

growth means that rail system capacities must rise and that rail 

systems, new rail systems, will be created. 

You can ensure that these expanding and new systems contribute to the reduction in fossil fuel consumption and emissions by 

encouraging the use of newly demonstrated and efficient technologies like the modern clean diesel multiple unit train. When we 

study the benefits of that train, it becomes obvious why they are 

196

so popular in Europe and elsewhere. When we compare the operation of DMUs to traditional locomotive haul trains using data 

from U.S. transit agencies, we get some astounding results that are 

quite relevant to the subject of today’s hearings. 

Mr. RADER. A clean diesel multiple unit train will produce a 50 

percent reduction in fuel consumption, a 68 percent reduction in 

emissions, a 75 percent reduction in noise. It will reduce the operating costs of the train set by an amount equal to twice the capital 

cost of the train over its 30-year life. 

These will all come at no increase in total capital cost to achieve 

the benefits. Therefore, the development of this technology and the 

manufacturer of DMUs in the U.S. to U.S. standards addresses 

many issues of importance to this Committee and to the U.S. citizenry as a whole. 

First, it will contribute to energy security by reducing fuel consumption per passenger mile in rail transit by 50 percent or more. 

This is a conservation measure whose capital cost is self-liquidating over the life of the rail car. 

Second, it will contribute to improved air quality by reducing engine exhaust emissions by 68 percent or more per passenger mile. 

The DMU could save thousands of pounds of emissions from entering our atmosphere. 

Third, it will develop the U.S. technological know-how to produce 

more efficient products in the future. 

Two years ago I testified that the principal reason that we had 

not enjoyed the benefits of DMUs in the United States was that 

there was no U.S.-owned manufacturer with the incentive to develop advanced cars for the nascent U.S. market; that in fact foreign manufacturers had brought their structurally noncompliant 

cars to the United States, demonstrated them, and then explained 

to us that we just needed to change our standards of strength and 

safety so that they could use their noncompliant cars. This campaign continues to this day. 

Today I am pleased to report that due to the joint funding of the 

Federal Railroad Administration at the direction of Congress and 

the Florida Department of Transportation, clean diesel multiple 

unit technology trains are in use in south Florida and they are producing a savings of more than 50 percent in fuel per seat-mile and 

at least a 70 percent reduction in emissions per seat-mile compared 

to the locomotive haul technology that is also in service there. 

How can this Committee ensure that expanding in new rail transit systems will use the best available technology to reduce fossil 

fuel consumption and emissions? 

First, I think you can encourage the FTA to reward systems that 

reduce fossil fuel consumption and emissions by increasing the percentage match for those who meet such goals. 

Second, you can work with other Committees of Congress to ensure that research and development tax credits continue to 

incentivize U.S. companies to develop advanced technologies that 

achieve your goals. 

Third, continue to encourage and fund demonstration programs 

at the FRA and other agencies which get these new technologies 

into the field where they can be proven and subsequently adopted 

by agencies. 

197

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, thank you for your innovative work. 

Now, Mr. Cohen, the Highway Users Alliance. I welcome your 

presentation. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan. I am honored to have the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of 

highway users on the subject of climate change and energy independence. 

The Highway Users Alliance is an umbrella association that 

brings together the interests of various users of the highway modes 

that contribute to the highway trust fund, including AAA clubs, 

truckers, bus companies, RVers, motorcyclists, and a wide variety 

of businesses. 

For 75 years we have worked closely with this Committee to advocate for highway bills and to promote a strong and trustworthy 

highway trust fund. 

My written testimony contains more information on what individual highway users can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and fuel usage. It also discusses legislation under consideration in other Committees and how this Committee might weigh in, 

particularly on how to protect the trust fund under legislation to 

increase alternate fuels or to tax or cap carbon. 

The good news is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is capable of taking the lead to reduce mobile greenhouse 

gases, minimize wasted fuel, and grow the economy and increase 

America’s global competitiveness. The key to this success is what 

I call a ′′war on congestion.′′ congestion is not inevitable; it can be 

reversed. As our current honorary chairman and former Secretary 

of Transportation Norm Mineta says, it is not a scientific mystery, 

it is not a fact of life, nor is it an uncontrollable force. 

Congestion results from poor public policy choices and a failure 

to separate solutions that work and that are effective from those 

that are not. Fighting congestion also happens to be the most realistic and effective way to decrease pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and wasted fuel. That is because Americans overwhelmingly 

choose to travel by highway, shippers overwhelmingly choose to 

move freight by truck, and both will continue to do so, barring 

some economic collapse or massive contraction. 

To this end, this Committee should authorize a comprehensive 

data-driven national congestion relief program. Frankly, it is surprising that a data-driven program of this type doesn’t currently 

exist. We believe a core congestion relief plan would greatly reduce 

lagging support for the Federal Aid Highway Program and may 

even increase support for raising user fees to keep the program solvent and growing. 

Like the new data-driven Highway Safety Improvement Program 

authorized under SAFETEA-LU, a core performance-based congestion relief program would be a revolutionary advancement in the 

Federal program. 

Removing the Nation’s worse bottlenecks. Bottlenecks are locations where highway demand exceeds capacity, and they represent 

about half of total congestion in this country. Improving the worst 

203 bottlenecks, those with more than 700,000 hours of delay, 

would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an astounding 390 milVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
198

lion tons over 20 years, even after accounting for the increased 

emissions during construction. 

On average, carbon dioxide emissions and fuel usage at the worst 

bottlenecks would drop by a remarkable 77.2 percent, and over 20 

years the amount of fuel saved would be more than 40 billion gallons; 48 billion vehicle hours of wasted time would be saved as 

well, along with over 220,000 injuries that would be avoided, and 

$470 billion in economic benefits that could be realized. 

The other 50 percent of congestion is really due to nonrecurring 

delays. These are delays caused by incidents on the road, or weather, and they can be addressed through increased support for operations planning, particularly intelligent transportation systems investments, the next generation of vehicle infrastructure integration, which will allow cars and roads to communicate to divert traffic around congested sites. And I hope the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will continue to significantly support these 

programs. 

I would like to briefly talk about the pitfalls I hope the Committee will avoid. Unfortunately, it is a popular notion that reducing highway use is realistic and an advisable approach to reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions and saving fuel. Some advocates of this 

approach even promote punitive measures that create financial and 

time burdens, punishing highway users so that driving becomes 

more costly or congestion more severe. The goal is to force drivers 

to give up their cars and reduce their driving, but these approaches 

include diversion of dwindling supplies of highway user fees to offhighway purposes, congestion pricing, tolling, and opposition to 

new highway projects that add capacity. 

We contend that these so-called solutions are not only unlikely 

to succeed, but actually will damage the environment as well as the 

economy, despite the goal of protecting the environment, and that 

these programs are particularly damaging to working-class and disadvantaged populations because, as the DLC study on welfare to 

work has shown, in most cases the shortest distance between a 

poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car. 

America’s highway users are ready to help. We want to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, prevent wasted fuel, we want to be part 

of the solution and we stand particularly ready to support congressional action to comprehensively fight traffic congestion. We believe 

this is the most realistic way to solve the problem. This approach 

is also one of the few direct actions Congress can take to reduce 

energy use and provide enormous benefits to drivers, consumers 

and the economy. Other approaches need to be considered carefully, 

but we ask that you really reject the punitive measures that highway users should be punished for driving or that highway user fees 

should be diverted from desperately needed projects. 

As every Member of this Committee knows, those road needs are 

overwhelming. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I will take your concerns 

into very serious consideration, as we are doing, and of course the 

hearings that Mr. DeFazio chaired in the hearings he is conducting 

as we prepare for the next authorization. 

I have a number of questions for each of the witnesses. We have 

a vote and there are minutes remaining. That is not so important 

199

as there are 165 Members who haven’t voted yet. My rule of thumb 

is when it gets down to 100, then I leave my office for the House 

floor and I can make it in time for that vote. 

Mr. Lash, I want you to mull some of the thoughts that I began 

my statement with. The obvious things that are happening in the 

environment around us, the Arctic snow reflects sun, that it has a 

huge effect on heating of the sea. If you have snow-covered ice, it 

reflects 80 percent of the sun’s energy. Bare ice reflects 65 percent 

of the sun’s energy. Melt ponds, only 35 percent. Open water reflects less than 7 percent of the sun. And then you begin to absorb, 

and the water begins to absorb the sun’s energy; 93 percent absorption, that means the water is warming, the Arctic is warming, ice 

is melting, sea levels are rising. Dramatic, maybe irreversible, 

changes happening in that environment that affect the entire 

world. 

I want you to think about that. I am going to come back right 

after this. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Subcommittee will resume its sitting, and 

when we left for the votes I propounded some thoughts for Jonathan Lash. Would you like to respond? 

Mr. LASH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The short answer to what you were saying is ′′yes.′′ the Chair 

was describing what the scientists call the albedo affect. If you lose 

the reflective power of snow and ice, the warming goes more quickly; particularly when you are talking about sea ice, it is a profound 

change, and that is going very rapidly. 

It is one of a number of mechanisms where the effect of warming 

creates a feedback that accelerates the warming. It is like the melting of the tundra releasing methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas, 

so that in turn accelerates the warming. There is a whole set of 

physical mechanisms like that which scientists are concerned become much more serious at about 2 centigrade warming, so there 

is a consensus building that we ought to stop at 2 degrees centigrade. If we want to do that, that means we have to start thinking 

about reducing U.S. emissions by 60 to 80 percent in the next 30 

to 40 years. It is a big task. We need to start. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now, the scientific environment in which we discussed this question of global climate change has with several 

international groups created a body of knowledge or developed a 

body of knowledge based on evidence from Greenland ice cores, not 

just a little scoop, but cores 2 miles deep. These go back hundreds 

of thousands of years. 

Last week at the opening of our hearing, I cited the work of Dr. 

Wallace Broker at Columbia University on the great ocean circulating current commonly known as the conveyor belt, which starts 

with a cold—I don’t need to lecture Mr. Lash about this but I will 

just regroup the issue—and that starts in the Arctic with dense 

cold water with high salinity content, and as it travels down past 

the coast of North and South America, travels into the Southern 

Pacific and through the Philippines and moves back, it loses its salinity, loses some of the cold water, tempers the Pacific Ocean, a 

vast river of water equal to the flow of all the rivers of the world 

200

or all the rainfall of the entire globe on any given day measured 

in drip units. 

Then it brings that warmer water back, and, with a much more 

powerful effect on climate than the gulf stream, warms the British 

Isles and the European continent. Every 100,000 years or so, something has happened to the great ocean circulating current. 

Milutin Milankovich, the Serbian mathematician of the late 19th 

century, postulated that there is a tilt of the Earth’s inclination of 

less than one-half of 1 degree that occurs in that period of time, 

and possibly linked Scottish scientists to the bulging of the ocean 

at the Equator due to warming. The ocean expands, tilts, globe 

tilts, and then something happens, conveyor belt shuts down, and 

we have an Ice Age. Just the opposite of what people think about 

climate change, but over long periods of time. 

What are your thoughts about the direction in which climate 

change is taking us? 

Mr. LASH. Just to build on what the Chair said, the concern is 

that the natural process that has led to the great ocean conveyor 

shutting down could be replicated by the human-driven process of 

warming. And if you create melting of the Greenland ice sheet, you 

have fresh water coming down and diluting the very saline water. 

You have most warm air crossing the Greenland ice sheet and 

changing conditions above that northern ocean, and you stop this 

huge flow of water dropping down from the surface to 10,000 feet 

deep and that the conveyor might stop, and in historic terms it 

hasn’t stopped over a period of 500 years, it stopped over a couple 

of years. So it is quite sudden. 

There was just a major study released earlier this week in which 

scientists concluded that the pace of warming is warming northern 

Europe so fast that that is likely to largely offset the loss of 

warmth if the great ocean conveyor stops. So that rather than Europe going into an ironic deep freeze when the rest of the world is 

getting hot, you will have somewhat of a more balanced process. 

But that doesn’t mean it is not important. What we are talking 

about is one of the three or four major drivers of weather systems 

on Earth, and of biologic systems, and we have no idea what the 

consequences are of stopping that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The question, then, I pose is these great long-lasting forces in Earth processes, climate rather than weather, are difficult to slow down and to turn around. Unless there is some way 

of extracting carbon from the atmosphere, it is going to be there 

for a very long period of time, and the urgency of action is for us 

to deal with it now to moderate over a long period of time the presence of carbon. Is that right? 

Mr. LASH. That is absolutely right. The weather conditions that 

we are experiencing today are the result of decisions that were 

made a generation or two ago. The decisions we are making today 

won’t affect us, they will affect our children and their children. The 

weather system has so much momentum that if we stabilized the 

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere tomorrow 

morning, the temperature would go on rising for 30, 40, 50 years, 

and ocean temperatures and the expansion of the ocean would go 

on for longer than that. 

201

This is a very big system and it is going to turn around very 

slowly, but we are accelerating in the wrong direction. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Sobering thoughts for all of us why 

actions we take now will either benefit the next two generations or 

adversely affect them. 

Mr. Millar, that comes to you. I had, how shall I say, a positive 

experience, pleasure of riding a hydrogen bus in Santa Barbara a 

few years ago as a result of legislation that I included in ISTEA 

in 1991 to stimulate the production of fuel cell buses. It took a decade to develop, put on the road, but it actually was operating. They 

pulled it out of service now. 

What is the future of hydrogen buses, electric buses, which I also 

rode in Santa Barbara? I saw that they could climb hills just as 

smooth with a development of power as conventional bus service. 

You have testified to, and I have cited those numbers many times, 

that transit use is growing faster than population, much faster 

than population, two or three times faster than the population 

growth. So what is the future for alternative fuel bus services? 

Mr. MILLAR. Certainly bright. Let me give you a baseline as I understand it now. Almost 20 percent of the urban transit buses that 

are in service at the moment are alternately fueled or hybrid buses. 

35 to 40 percent of the buses that are on order are also in those 

categories as well. So we are clearly heading to a situation that, 

in very short order, more than 50 percent of the transit buses will 

be alternately fueled or powered. 

When you look at a specific technology, for example, the fuel cell, 

for the last 15 years or so it has always been that we have been 

7 years away from that becoming common. I sit here today to tell 

you we are at least 7 years away, still. It hasn’t gelled yet. But 

there are a number of cities—at the moment, the Coachella Valley, 

Palm Springs area of California is probably the lead in that area. 

But AC transit on the east bay of the San Francisco Bay area is 

experimenting with that. Others in the California area are as well. 

So I think it is still going to take a while. It does appear that 

the hybrid technology is a good interim step. We are getting significant savings in pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions. We are getting remarkable increases in energy efficiency out of it, doubling 

and tripling. 

So I would say we are making steady progress and improvement 

in those areas. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I will have other questions. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First let me compliment you for putting together a series of very 

important hearings about this very important problem. I told you 

earlier that I was pleased at how balanced the panels have been, 

first having in the hearing last Friday the top government officials, 

and now having witnesses from business, from industry associations, from environmental groups. 

I want to compliment the witnesses not only for very informative 

and helpful testimony, but also because the common theme here of 

this panel—and I assume the panels to follow—is that all of these 

people seem to be doing everything they reasonably can to help out 

in this situation or help combat this problem. 

202

I do think that our best hope in combating global warming is to 

rely primarily on the free enterprise, free market system, because 

the worst polluters in the world have been the socialist and communist countries. And only in a free-enterprise, free-market system 

do you generate the excess funds to do the good things for the environment that everybody wants done. And one danger that we need 

to recognize is we don’t want to overregulate our economy in an 

overreaction to global warming so that we end up causing more 

harm to the environment than good that we do. I have noticed that 

some people who believe so strongly that global warming is the top 

problem, they become very angry, in fact hateful at times, about 

people who even dare to question them. 

So I want to express, I want to try to explain, the Chairman very 

wisely did not have opening statements except by him and the 

Ranking Member because he wanted to get to the witnesses, so I 

am going to use my time to express a few thoughts and concerns, 

as I have already done. 

I am going to read some quotes here that I think might help explain why some of us on our side are a little bit skeptical at times 

on some of this global warming/climate change issue. 

Richard Lindzen, who is a professor of atmospheric science at 

MIT, a few months ago wrote in the Wall Street Journal about 

what he called the alarmism and feeding frenzy surrounding the 

climate change/global warming debate. And he said this, quote: But 

there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who 

dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, 

their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change 

gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that 

supposedly is their basis. 

Professor David Deming, a geophysist, said, quote: The media 

hysteria on global warming has been generated by journalists who 

don’t understand the provisional and uncertain nature of scientific 

knowledge. Science changes. 

Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research 

wrote in the Washington Times, quote: The emotional politicized 

debate over global warming has produced a ′′fire, ready, aim′′ mentality, despite great and still growing scientific uncertainty about 

the problem. 

And he went on to say, quote: Still, climate alarmists demand a 

multitude of do-somethings to address the problem they are sure 

exists and is solvable. They pronounce the debate over in their 

favor and call their critics names such as deniers, as in Holocaust 

deniers. This has created a bad climate for scientific research and 

for policymaking. In fact, the debate is more than unsettled. 

So I use those quotes just to show why there is still some uncertainty and some concern about this,, and I do appreciate—I will say 

once again—I think the balance that the Chairman is attempting 

to approach this issue. I think we probably need to do as much as 

we can on this. On the other hand, we don’t need extremism on 

this issue, we need balance and common sense. 

Some places global warming is apparently a really bad, maybe 

even terrible thing. Some places it may even be a good thing. 

Georgianne Geyer, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote a few 

203

days ago—she said at one point in this column: In short, what they 

are talking about, still privately for the most part, is the idea that 

as the world continues to warm and the melting ice here bares secrets long held, underneath Greenland’s huge mass could house 

gold, diamonds, even oil. The long dreamed-of Arctic route from Europe and Russia to the American continent and beyond could become a reality. 

She gave many other examples that I won’t go into at this time. 

I think that we have had a very reasonable and fair hearing so 

far, and I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses. And I guess 

I will come to questions, get to questions on my second opportunity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your always judicious 

and thoughtful remarks. 

I emphasize once again what we are seeking as we move to craft 

our part of what will be an energy package, we are looking at practical things that are within reach, that are doable now, using technology that has been demonstrated that in each piece can make a 

reasonable contribution to slowing down the emission of carbon 

into the atmosphere. 

I appreciate the gentleman’s observations on that, that we have 

balance and common sense. I am seeking that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I certainly do. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I think that this Committee has done more than 

almost any other Committee in the Congress in helping to improve 

the environment by attempting to relieve congestion and also to encourage energy efficiency in this very big and growing and important segment of our economy. So I appreciate the work that you 

have done and this Committee has done on this issue in the past, 

far more than of most other Committees in the Congress. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I agree with that. In the last 12 years, in a very 

bipartisan way, we have moved very good legislation. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for coming in 

late. 

The President’s budget request for fiscal 2008, if I remember correctly, cut funding for transit programs by $200 million from what 

would have been authorized and what hopefully will still be authorized under SAFETEA- LU. 

I guess, Mr. Millar, this question is for you: What does that tell 

you about the administration’s commitment to seeing transit as a 

means of dealing with the issue of dependence on foreign oil and 

on global climate change? 

Mr. MILLAR. The President’s budget would underfund SAFETEALU guarantees by $309 million; 300 million of that would come out 

of the so-called new starts and small starts programs. Those are 

the parts of the Federal program that lead to the expansion and 

extension of public transit systems. 

We have argued consistently that now is not the time to cut back 

on Federal investment. I mentioned in my testimony that private 

investment that was made in Boston and in New York more than 

100 years ago in the subway system is still giving benefit. 

204

So to perhaps achieve some short-term budgetary goals, we are 

sacrificing the long-term needs of the country if we take that approach. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for that. I am pleased to observe that the 

budget resolution that the House passed, and hopefully will prevail 

in the conference report, carries forward SAFETEA-LU funding at 

the authorized level for fiscal 2008. Hopefully we will be moving in 

the right direction there. 

Mr. Hamberger, if I may, the percentage improvement in fuel efficiency that the railroad industry has realized is very impressive, 

80 percent over the last 20 some years. What lessons are there for 

other industries—I mean for the airline industry, for the automobile industry? Are there any lessons, any best practices that can 

be derived from your success that could be applied to other industries? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I appreciate that question. I wish I had a better 

answer. I think it not so much of a silver bullet as really working 

across all aspects of the industry and in conjunction and cooperation with the manufacturers who produce the locomotives and also 

with the freight car manufacturers who are helping to design better cars so that they are more aerodynamic, have less drag as they 

go along the rail. We have top-of-rail lubrication to cut down on 

friction, operating practices for the engineers to get the optimum 

use. 

So it is really a combination of factors and it is clearly something 

that we focus on. It is the second to the largest variable cost next 

to labor for the industry. So it is, I guess, a commitment to try and 

improve the fuel efficiency that would be, I guess, the overarching 

lesson. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. One more question for Mr. 

Hall. The evolution hybrid locomotive which seems to hold great 

promise for the future, your projection is that approximately 10 

percent—it will become approximately 10 percent of the annual locomotive market. Why not more? Just seems like such great technology. Is that just a very conservative estimate? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, Congressman. We really input that as a conservative estimate at this point. Feedback from customers, there is a 

lot of interest, but we don’t know exactly what the total sales projection would be. 

Mr. BISHOP. But you are prepared to meet whatever the market 

might demand? 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. 

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Resident biologist. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Resident wannabe biologist. Don’t have a degree. 

Had a couple classes in college but just enjoy nature’s design. 

Mr. Lash, can you describe the difference between the ability of 

a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade to address our need to reduce 

greenhouse gases and what the costs and benefits of each are, in 

your view? 

205

Mr. LASH. Thank you, Congressman. I will take a crack at it. I 

will also supply you with a study that we did with Brookings, looking at some of those questions. 

The economists love the idea of a carbon tax because of its simplicity. It applies throughout the economy. It sends the economic 

signal of the importance of being more efficient in our use of energy 

throughout the economy with complete even-handedness. Very simple to administer and it generates a source of revenues which you 

can either use to lower other taxes or to invest in technologies. The 

difficulty with a carbon tax is you set a particular level of tax and 

then you get only as much reduction in CO2 emissions as the economy gives you back. 

A cap-and-trade system, you set a particular level of emissions 

and you know you will get that level of reduction. 

That is what you did with sulfur dioxide. You said we are going 

to make a 50 percent reduction; you knew you would get a 50 percent reduction. You allowed trading between sources of sulfur dioxide in order to reduce the costs. 

The difficulty with a cap-and-trade system is it is very difficult 

to apply it throughout the economy. You can’t apply it to every 

source. You have to choose larger sources for simplicity of administration, and you don’t have a guarantee about what the costs will 

be before you start. 

The group of companies that we worked with, the United States 

Climate Action Partnership, ended up recommending a cap-andtrade system because they feel that it is important to send the 

economy a big signal about changing technologies immediately. 

They want to know that they have to achieve certain levels of reduction because they are making billion-dollar investments in new 

technology. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So a CAP agrees that if the government sets the 

target, sets the goal, which is to set the cap, then the market—if 

the program was structured appropriately, then the market would 

set the price for the greenhouse gases. 

Mr. LASH. That is correct. You have the model of the sulfur dioxide program that you enacted in 1990. Very successful. The cost of 

a ton of sulfur dioxide, the cost of a ton of reduction for that program was predicted to be $1,600. Very expensive. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Given the fact—I guess we will come back, but 

we are running out of time for probably this silly vote, Mr. Chairman—but given this is going to be economy-wide, going to deal 

with every single sector to one extent or another about the reduction of emissions, and given sulfur dioxide I think dealt with about 

1,000 power plants, is there any way to predict in advance what 

the cost of a ton of CO2 is going to be? 

Mr. LASH. There are many models that are making predictions 

of the cost but I wouldn’t want to rely on any of them. I think there 

are programs you could enact that would enable you to test the 

price. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you think it is an essential part of the process we go through here to develop a cap-and-trade program to have 

some idea of the cost of a ton of CO2? 

Mr. LASH. Yes, I think you need to talk to a range of economists, 

they will give you a range of prices. You need to recognize that 

206

none of us can be certain about it. I personally would not support 

some of the measures that are proposed; to have a safety valve, to 

say if the cost of a ton of CO2 goes above $10, that you add extra 

credits in, because I think that undermines the environmental effect of the cap. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Mr. Chairman, I guess when we come back 

we can pursue other questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have a quorum call in progress now, with 6 

minutes remaining. It is a most unusual occurrence. We haven’t 

had a quorum call in years on the House floor. It is like taking attendance in grade school. 

We will stand in recess and Ms. Napolitano will be next. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. With apologies to the present and future witnesses, Subcommittee will resume its hearing. It will be rather unpredictable this afternoon. Challenges on the floor. But we will do 

our best to persevere. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you very much for your leadership in holding these 

hearings. 

This is a very important topic today, and as a representative 

from the State of Texas, I know a lot about energy, and I know a 

lot about extreme weather. And I know that the way we use energy 

and the types of energy that we use is going to have to change or 

else the weather is going to get worse for a whole lot of people. 

In 2005, a series of powerful hurricanes hit the United States. 

One of the most powerful of these was hurricane Rita. It crossed 

into southeastern Texas on September the 24th and wiped out a 

number of coastal communities, took the lives of many and caused 

over $11 billion in damages. Over 1 million people were forced to 

evacuate in the path of the storm. Costly and dangerous storms 

like Rita are what we might expect more frequently in the warming world. 

In other parts of Texas, we will face increased water shortages 

and droughts. Flash floods will be more frequent and tropical disease, such as malaria, may become more frequent as a warmer climate moves north. 

Contrary to what many might think, the State of Texas has actually been a leader when it comes to addressing climate change. The 

State government realizes the close connection between energy use 

and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, Texas has among the 

more forward-thinking energy policies in the country. 

In 1999, the Texas Public Utilities Regulatory Act was passed, 

and this law required Texas to increase its use of renewable energy 

sources that do not generate greenhouse gases. As a result, Texas 

has been on a rush to generate wind power; 3 to 4 percent of 

Texas’s energy needs are expected to come from wind in 2010, up 

from less than 1 percent in 1999. 

The irony of this Texas policy is that it was signed into law by 

then Governor Bush. Unfortunately, the President has not been 

quite as forward thinking over the past 6.5 years in Washington. 

As a result, it is now time for us, the Congress, to step in and take 

action on the very important issues of climate and energy. I look 

207

forward to working with the Chairman, to moving forward on this 

point and with this Committee. 

Today’s hearing will be valuable as the witnesses will provide us 

with numerous suggestions of proposals to increase our energy 

independence while at the same time decreasing the Nation’s 

greenhouse gas emissions. I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

Thank you. 

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman I guess I was supposed to ask a question following my statement. 

This is to Mr. Lash. Given the abundance of coal in the United 

States, what are the negative ramifications of liquid coal as a fuel 

source? 

Mr. LASH. The use of coal to make liquid fuels is not new. Germany did it in World War II. Switzerland did it in World War II. 

South Africa did it when they were isolated. It takes significant energy to turn coal into liquid fuel. The use of that energy creates additional CO2 emissions. So if you dig coal, make it into liquid fuel, 

you create CO2 emissions when you are converting it and then 

again when it is burned in an engine to drive a car or a truck. 

It is possible to capture the CO2 from the conversion of coal to 

liquids and store it underground, a technology which has been 

demonstrated but not in commercial scale, but at considerable cost. 

Then what you would end up with is the equivalent of very, very 

expensive gasoline. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. More expensive than we have now? 

Mr. LASH. Oh, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The witnesses have 

been here for a long time. I thank you for your testimony. I will 

make this relatively short. I know that there certainly are benefits 

that rail does show in terms of reducing energy usage, but I think 

public transportation is probably the most useful place that we can 

make real changes to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse 

gases. 

I want to focus, especially during the bike-to-work week, Mr. 

Clarke, I am also a, I am a member of the LAB, and you know, 

I want to thank the Chairman for all the work that he has done 

on trying to move us forward in allowing people to use their bikes 

to get around, to get to work. You know it can make a big difference. So many of the trips that we make are such short distances, and they certainly can be done on a bike. 

Unfortunately, go over to Europe and also in Asia and you see 

the tremendous usage of bikes for transportation is very, very common. 

I have real questions about how much—how far we can actually 

get in doing this. Certainly, we can do a lot more than we have, 

and what Chairman Oberstar has been able to get into transportation bills, including SAFETEA-LU, if we can get more money appropriated, certainly that will be very helpful. 

But one thing I just want to pick out from your testimony here, 

you are saying that Congress should direct GSA to make Federal 

Government a model employer in promoting bicycling and walking 

208

to work. How exactly do you see that being done? Because I think 

that, in a lot of ways, the government needs to be a leader when 

we are talking about changes that we can make to impact energy 

usage. But I want to—I wanted to hear what you specifically think 

can be done by the GSA. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you for the question. There are numerous examples of corporations across the country that have tried a variety 

of different techniques to encourage people to ride their bikes to 

and from work. They range from simply providing decent bicycle 

parking, showers, locking, changing facilities, to going much further and providing mentoring programs, credit for someone to buy 

a bike, route mapping and assistance in finding routes to help people take routes to and from work, to improving the physical infrastructure around the workplace, to improve acces by putting in 

bike lanes and trails and working with the local community to do 

that, to providing fleets of bicycles on larger campuses and work 

sites so people can better travel in and between buildings in a campus setting. 

So there is a range of different incentives, different infrastructure, different promotional programs and even tax incentives that 

are available to encourage people to at least occasionally ride to 

work. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you have any studies that you have commissioned or that you know what the cost would be, that you think 

would be associated with GSA doing some of these things? 

Mr. CLARKE. It would very much depend on the scale, and I 

think you would have to begin by finding that out, as has been 

done through a program called the Travel Smart Program, which 

is an individualized marketing program that first asks people realistically what percentage of the workforce lives and works within 

a reasonable cycling distance, what needs they have for carrying 

things to and from work that might preclude them from riding. But 

once you have found a population that can feasibly switch to a 

bike, you have a better sense of what kind of investment will be 

necessary. 

The cost of a bike parking rack is $75. Simply putting in a few 

of those in most work places would be an enormous step forward. 

If every post office in the country had good bike parking and a good 

bike access to and from, it would go a long way towards enabling 

people to make those kinds of errands and trips by bike. So it does 

not have to be a very expensive endeavor. There are communities 

that require new buildings as they are developed to accommodate 

cyclists and also runners and other people taking exercise with 

showers and lockers and changing facilities. That is something 

which can be done up front in the cost of a new building in the development code that would be very forward thinking. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I know there was an issue in Minneapolis airport about someone who rode their bike there and 

didn’t have a place to put it and winded up getting it taken away. 

Simple things can make a difference. Thank you. 

Mr. CLARKE. I think the Chairman knows that story very well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not only that, the traveler came back to find his 

bike cut in pieces. So I mobilized the bicycling community in Minneapolis to repair the bike, restore it to its original condition. He 

209

got a new bicycle seat and other new parts for the bike and that 

is where the idea for bicycle parking facilities authorized in the 

next FAA authorization has come from. Here is this guy trying to 

do the right thing. He rides to the airport at 3 o’clock in the morning when there is no transit. Come on. Let’s do the right thing. 

Ms. Napolitano, we do have a vote on the floor, but we have plenty of time—not a vote. It is a quorum call. A nuisance action. Ms. 

Napolitano. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to 

see the diversity in the panels. And I have about 100 questions, 

and I am only going to be able to ask 1 or 2. As I have said before 

and during comments in this Committee, I have one of the most 

used quarters in my area. Pollution to me is an every day life. I 

have the City of Pico Rivera who not too long ago was the number 

one polluted city in the whole State of California, so I understand 

the pollution. And I have been trying to figure out how do we 

incentivize more trucks to change into diesel or the mechanism to 

allow for less production of pollutants. 

One of the things, the statement that I want to make is that during the Olympics in Los Angeles, the Ford Motor Company I was 

employed by went to nighttime delivery. Works well. They are still 

using it. Why are we not incentivizing some of the companies to 

look at other alternative methods besides, as we well know, daytime, the sunlight causes for pollutants? Why not incentivize telecommuting? People have computers. Why aren’t we looking at all 

of the other solutions besides the normal ones we can think of? 

I would love to see all the three big manufacturers of automobiles in California go to hybrid. They haven’t. We should be able 

to incentivize those companies to produce hybrids so that we can 

cut that pollution. And then California had a program not too long 

ago, about 10 years ago, where we paid for old cars so that they 

wouldn’t pollute. I forget what the amount was, $1,000, I can’t remember, old vehicles. 

All of the other things that we know can help, what is it that 

collectively you can suggest besides what we have been discussing, 

all the different things, railroad, going to newer diesel burning engines, more effective? All those things that we talk about, what else 

can we do to be able to ask the Federal Government to participate, 

whether it is GSA or anybody else, Federal agencies that have a 

part in this, what can we do collectively? Anybody. 

Mr. MILLAR. Certainly, in my testimony, I talked about many 

things. We can certainly use the Tax Code to incentivize. We can 

take the unfairness out where free parking gets a larger tax break 

than if someone uses transit, and if they use bicycles, they don’t 

get any break at all. So there is certainly a matter of leveling the 

field. We need to expand options for people. People can’t use what 

they don’t have, so we need to make sure that we fully fund the 

transit program, go beyond fully funding if we can and make sure 

that communities are able to expand their systems. 

We need to do things like the President has proposed to encourage buying of hybrid buses, the waiving of certain local match requirements. Well, that is fine as far as it goes, but with a limited 

amount of money, it actually decreases the amount of total money 

State, Federal, local that gets invested. So setting up a new proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
210

gram that encourages people to buy new hybrids, companies to buy 

new hybrid buses for example and pay for it, doesn’t require a local 

match. Those kind of things. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? Mr. Rader. 

Mr. RADER. Yes, I think the local match problem is a very serious 

problem and one that needs to be addressed. I think, most importantly, FTA issues funding today without any consideration about 

whether or not the vehicle being purchased is fuel efficient, whether or not—they measure in great detail the return on the investment, the numbers of riders, and nowhere in the formula is how 

much fuel is this going to burn over the next 30 years? What is the 

payback? I think that is something we need to get in, and we will 

have an immediate effect. 

In the City of Los Angeles, something like 50 percent of the commuter trains are 3 bilevel cars and a 275,000 pound locomotive. 

Appropriate technology would cut the fuel burned by 60 percent 

and would cut the emissions by nearly 70 percent, by just going to 

appropriate technology that is available today, for those half of the 

trains that are just three cars and locomotive. So there are a lot 

of things we can do in I think the very short term, and it doesn’t 

take 20 years to fix that. Those locomotives are going to come up 

for a rebuild. Put appropriate technology in. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. And incentivze to be able to purchase them. 

Mr. RADER. Absolutely, absolutely and another thing, when we 

are looking at new starts, we are forever being inquired of by people who want to do new starts. Could we lease equipment? Well, 

in today’s environment, there is no incentive to lease. There is no 

incentive for a private company to come out and lease, and when 

they are competing with FTA funding for expansion, the answer is, 

no, you can’t afford to lease. If we could come up with a proper tax 

program that puts some incentive for private people to supply 

equipment into this market and help supplement the new starts 

market, I think we could go a long way with lease equipment and 

Tax Code and FTA problem. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Are you suggesting that maybe we have a specific bill to address incentives to be able to achieve what we are all 

looking for? 

Mr. RADER. I think that would certainly be one way to do it, yes, 

ma’am. I think the other might be to simply incorporate it into 

some of the new authorizing legislation as we are moving forward. 

Either one. My concern about the latter is that it gets so big, we 

don’t get anywhere; whereas if we can do it a little piece at a time, 

we can get there quicker because we can get general agreement 

across the board on it. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

submit some questions for the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, questions will be submitted for 

the record and let me ask the witness to respond. We have 4-plus 

minutes remaining. 

Mr. Gilchrest, do you have some questions you would like to ask 

at this point? There are 324 Members who have not, quote, voted. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I like your calculations, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, 

I have a couple of questions if I could get them through. 

211

Mr. Millar, I was talking to Mr. Lash about a cap-and-trade 

versus a carbon tax on reducing greenhouse gas overall in a pretty 

wide-ranging economy-wide program. And I think I am beginning 

to hear that a cap-and-trade program, as opposed to the carbon tax, 

is something that, if the Federal Government sets the goal, the 

market could adjust to a mechanism that was appropriate. 

Can you give me some idea of how you think a cap-and-trade 

program would affect the transportation industry and how could we 

best—or you best—or all of us best position a cap-and-trade program to benefit the transportation system? 

Mr. MILLAR. First, let me state, I am not expert on cap-andtrade, but I am rapidly learning about it. And we do believe that 

cap-and-trade has a very significant place in reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. We think public transit services, which already are 

energy and greenhouse gas efficient compared to private automobiles, should participate in that. We think that the cap-andtrade could be a source of money, private sector money, that would 

be put into investing in public transportation, into encouraging 

people to use public transportation, thus by saving even additional 

energy and greenhouse gas emissions. We are working right now 

a report I hope I can make available to the Committee by midsummer that is going to examine some of those issues that relate 

specifically to public transit. But we think there is a lot of good 

there, and we are strong supporters of it. 

Mr. GILCHREST. That same investment in public transportation—could that be an investment to the automobile industry to 

create better gas mileage, hybrid cars, those kinds of things? 

Mr. MILLAR. Again, I am certainly not an expert on all the extent 

of it, but it would certainly seem reasonable, what you said. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee—are there any witnesses at the 

table who need to leave for some urgent purpose, like eating or—

I know Mr. Duncan has some questions that he wants to pose. And 

I have just a few sort of bullet points to establish for the record. 

And I do want to say, these are important because we are going 

to fashion, in the end of this month and month of June, our portion 

of the energy package that the House leadership is bringing together across Committee lines, and so all of your comments and 

those of last week are very important for us as we move forward. 

The Committee will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Subcommittee will resume sitting, and Mr. Duncan is next. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know you 

want to get on with the other panel, so I will just be very brief, 

but the staff has asked that I ask unanimous consent that they be 

permitted to submit their questions to all the witnesses following 

this hearing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, Hamberger, I have heard at times in the 

past that most of your, or some of, your members use a billion dollars or more fuel or oil in a year. And I just wondered, how much 

oil or how much fuel are they using now typically on average, and 

how does that compare say to 10 years ago? 

212

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, the best information 

I have is that, in 2005, we burned 4.2 billion gallons of fuel. I believe that is more than the United States Navy. It is the second, 

as I said, the second largest variable cost for the industry. And as 

my testimony pointed out, if we had not made the progress that we 

have since 1980, we would have been burning an additional 3.3 billion gallons of fuel in 2005—I am sorry, that is 2006—I correct myself, not 2005; that is 2006 we would have burned an additional 3.3 

billion gallons of fuel. 

Mr. DUNCAN. An additional 3.3 billion, and I assume that you 

are carrying much more tonnage now than you were in 1980 or——

Mr. HAMBERGER. Absolutely correct, 2006 was the record year for 

freight. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So you are carrying much more tonnage or much 

more in goods for really quite a reduction in energy costs. 

Mr. Cohen, what difference do you think it would make if the 

Congress was able to change some of the CMAQ eligibility rules so 

they could apply to highway capacity projects? Many of the traditional highway projects are not eligible for CMAQ funding. 

Mr. COHEN. That is right. Currently, the CMAQ program does 

not allow highway capacity outside of HOV lanes to be eligible. I 

believe HOV lanes are eligible under CMAQ. The congestion relief 

program that I would envision would allow full eligibility for anything, whether it be a highway investment, a transit investment, 

road building or an ITS, but that would be a performance-based 

program in which in order to use these funds or—it really has to 

be worked out because I don’t want to create a whole bunch of new 

layers of planning process for this. So I would like to work it out 

with you. But what I envision is that an improved CMAQ program 

or a completely new congestion relief program be created that allows full application of any solution available provided that it give 

you the most bang for the buck. And in my view, bottle-neck relief, 

which is not currently eligible under CMAQ, would be a very big 

bang for the buck type set of projects to look at and should be eligible. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Lash, in one of our morning publications that 

we receive here, I don’t remember whether it was Congress Daily 

or the CQ Today, but one of those just a few days ago, I think last 

week, maybe a week before last, said that farmland had its biggest 

increase ever over the past year, had gone up 22.5 percent, not 

every place of course, but they said part of it was due to inflation. 

Part of it was due to farmland close into the cities becoming more 

valuable, but that most of it was due to the ethanol craze or whatever you might want to call it. Yet I saw an energy expert on television Friday night that said that ethanol costs about as much in 

energy use as it does in energy that it saves. And I notice that you 

have mentioned something about that in your testimony, yet, of 

course, ethanol—we can produce a lot of ethanol domestically 

where we can’t supply all of our oil needs. 

Is ethanol the answer and the solution that a lot of people seem 

to think it is? 

Mr. LASH. Congressman, I don’t think it is, at least not cornbased ethanol as it is produced now. The problem that you raise 

is exactly right. For the most part, corn-based ethanol is made now 

213

using natural gas and because of that, the benefits in terms of reduced CO2 emissions are quite small, depending on the technology. 

There are huge benefits to farmers. I have a house on Chesapeake 

Bay, and there are fields being planted with corn that I have never 

seen planted before. And it is a great thing for farmers. 

There certainly are opportunities to make ethanol that would be 

of much more a benefit from a climate point of view, using cellulosic ethanol technologies that are still a few years off before it 

is commercial. And we are getting some energy independence benefit from the current production of corn-based ethanol. There is an 

energy benefit since it is a domestic source. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. Hall, you have heard, you may have heard my statement 

earlier in which I said that I think that if we allow the free enterprise, free market system to work, that we will solve many of these 

problems, that we can really do more that way than through the 

government. And I was very impressed by the energy that you are 

producing from dynamic braking, and I did not know about that. 

I was told that is also being done in cars and buses and so forth. 

And you know, I said, well, somebody a lot smarter than me came 

up with that, but, boy, I think that is an amazing sign of progress. 

And I think that if we allow the free enterprise system to work, 

that the genius of that system will do more than almost anything 

to help us with the problems we are talking about here today. 

But we need to get on to the next panel, and you all have been 

here far too long, but I just want to say I appreciate your patience. 

I appreciate your testimony. You have been very, very helpful to 

us. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I concur with the gentleman’s remarks about the 

helpfulness and patience of this panel. We are likely to have a 

batch of additional votes. 

I would just pick up on Mr. Duncan’s comments about ethanol. 

The first ethanol plant in the State of Minnesota was built in my 

district. Yet it now has moved to complete recycling of material 

using recyclables to fuel the plant so it is no longer dependent on 

fossil fuel to operate an ethanol facility. And the by-product of producing ethanol is a filter cake that is high protein feed for cattle 

and now has achieved a 1.6-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio. And other 

plants are moving. 

But, as Mr. Lash pointed out, there is a finite limit to corn production, even using marginal lands which will require more nutrients and more limestone to apply to acid soils to make them productive. Switch grass, my colleague from Minnesota, Chairman of 

the Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, points out is a native 

grass, has three cycles, it has a three-crop production capacity, is 

perennial, does not need to be reseeded and produces 900 gallons 

of ethanol per acre compared to 600 gallons per acre for corn-based 

ethanol. And as this farm bill moves through, there will be an incentive to moving to switch grass. And all of these, these are all 

pieces, each piece that we add reduces our dependence on foreignsourced oil. 

Mr. Hamberger, your testimony cited great efficiencies, huge 

progress. You do mention switching locomotives. How many of the 

214

member railroads of your association are using Green Goats, as 

they are affectionately called in the switch yards, using biofuels? 

And what has been the effect of moving to the Green Goat technology? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I don’t really have that data on the top of my 

head. I would like to respond for the record, but it is the Green 

Goats, but it is also the Genset, where they have as many as three 

different engines in the locomotive so that when you are moving, 

doing switching and moving a car or two, you are not using all 

4,000 or 2,500 horsepower; you are using just that amount of motive power that is necessary. 

In addition, we have the alternative power units which we sit on 

the side of the locomotive, and in cold Minnesota, for example, in 

February, if you turn the engine off, the viscosity would get such 

that you could freeze up so you have to keep it running while these 

alternative power units do that in a much more fuel efficient way, 

and so that kind of technology is moving throughout all of the 

members. I don’t have the specifics on the Green Goat. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have seen from one or two of your members, 

their promotion pieces on Green Goat technology and using technology soybean-based fuel that has relatively small or negligible 

particulate discharge, NO, SO2 or NOX, and is more friendly to 

neighbors of switch yards. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We have been doing a lot of research on that 

down on the Texas transportation center, and I think part of that 

is with the suppliers as well. And a couple of issues have popped 

up, one of which is, how does that work again in cold climates? It 

is not always as effective, and there are also some issues with the 

warranties with the manufacturers. 

[Information follows:]

215


35926.157
216

Mr. OBERSTAR. You have spoken in the past of, and your various 

principals have spoken, about needs for tax credits to make further 

investments. Would you submit for the Committee record to be 

shared on both sides their recommendations for legislative initiatives as we—whether they are within the jurisdiction of this Committee or not—we can recommend those to be done by others, for 

a legislative initiative that we are going to put together? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Very pleased to do so, and as I did mention in 

my opening statement; that is, H.R. 2116, introduced by Congressman Meek and Congressman Cantor, that is pending. The bill has 

been referred to the Ways and Means Committee. 

[Information follows:]

217


35926.158
218

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like sort of an order of priority suggestion 

to the Committee. 

Mr. Clarke, I have known Andy Clarke since he first emigrated 

here from England. He has pretty much lost his British accent, 

which I don’t know what effect it has on his working relationship 

with Americans; they would always bow to a British accent. But he 

has certainly been a very effective advocate. 

My goal for bicycling is to establish it as a mode of transportation, not just a fun thing to do or, as I mostly do, for fitness. But 

also in my capacity, I ride to promote bicycling as a mode of transportation, and to encourage others to do it. And I do these promotional rides both in my district and elsewhere around the country. My 2,800 miles a year a couple of years ago is declining as I 

have more responsibilities and fewer morning hours and fewer 

weekends to devote to it. 

But about bicycling, what do you recommend that—I have sent 

a letter to Secretary Peters asking her to include that in the departmental initiative. What else do you suggest we do in that regard? 

Mr. CLARKE. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized funding 

for a study and a series of demonstration projects, as you know, to 

determine what the most effective ways are of achieving this 

switch from cycling—from car trips to bicycling trips. The funding 

needs to be appropriated. And if there were some way that, either 

through the appropriations process or by the encouragement being 

given to the Department of Transportation to find the relatively 

small amount of money, just $6.2 million, in their existing budget, 

it would go a long way towards providing some terrific examples 

and to disseminate the best practices that exist and can be created; 

to show how, through encouragement and education programs, people can be encouraged to switch modes and to find the appropriate 

technology for certain trips. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, switching modes is eminently doable. In 

Munster, Germany, a city of 250,000 people, which was leveled by 

the Allies in World War II in retaliation for Coventry—the city has 

been rebuilt. It is on the German-Dutch border, northwest of the 

Netherlands; has bicycle mode share 48 percent, nearly half of all 

trips for all purposes, parking for 4,000 bicycles in the city center. 

The mayor rides to work every day, rain, snow, shine, on bicycle. 

They have a 20-foot head start at intersections for bicycles over 

automobiles. They have a 20-second head start at signaled intersections in addition to the 20-foot headstart for bicycles. Makes a big 

difference. We can do that in cities in the United States. That is 

why we have the nonmotorized transportation pilot project in four 

cities that have been designated in SAFETEA-LU. 

We are moving in that right direction, but your numbers right 

on the Netherlands is roughly 30 percent; Denmark is 20 percent 

mode share for bicycling. And for those relatively short trips, we 

can make it safe, and we can make it efficient. And we just need 

to continue every—we have to use squeeze every practical realistic 

opportunity to cut the carbon out of the atmosphere so that projections that Mr. Lash and others and serious scientists have made 

aren’t proven true; that we cut them off, delay them off into the 

future. 

219

Mr. Cohen, what do you mean by data-driven congestion relief 

programs? 

Mr. COHEN. What I mean is basically for you to authorize programs with incentives for cost-per-ton of carbon dioxide or other 

greenhouse gas emissions as a factor in project selection. I think 

if you do that, and you look at the actual cost per ton of pollution 

removed, whether it be a pollutant that is a criteria pollutant or 

carbon dioxide, you will find that, on the basis of just biggest bang 

for the buck, you will have a very significant amount of that funding going to congestion relief projects. And I think, as the CMAQ 

program was intended to do, it would both solve congestion problems and air quality problems. But you can’t just say, well, all 

these things are eligible except for highways and not have a performance basis to it. If you add the performance requirement and 

make anything eligible and reward those who do the best job, then 

I think that is the kind of data-driven performance-based program 

that I would like to see. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. There are—that opens some opportunities for to us work on as we move to a legislative package. 

Mr. Rader, you say that electric vehicles are not zero pollution; 

they use electricity generated principally by fossil fuels, but the 

diesel multiple-unit train does produce electricity and does produce 

fewer or lower total emissions. 

Mr. RADER. It is a very interesting finding there was just a paper 

published, peer-reviewed paper published by the National Academy 

of Sciences Transportation Research Board, the double-deck clean 

diesel DMU in an environment like Denver where we generate our 

power in the same basin that we run the train, actually has fewer 

emissions than an electric vehicle because of course we have the 

emissions right there, right next door. And an electric vehicle frequently is a pollution transfer device. If I am in Southern California, I get to move my pollution to Arizona. But it is a very interesting study. The cost emissions per seat mile from the new clean 

diesel are actually lower than those of the electricity generated to 

drive a heavy electric rail system. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So what do we need to move that technology forward? 

Mr. RADER. We are doing it today. I think the key is now that 

through the direction of Congress, the FRA-funded demonstration 

project, people are now seeing it run. We are in an industry that 

does not adopt new things easily. Now, that it is out running, we 

see another year or two approving, I think you are going to see 

pretty universal adoption. We have 17 agencies that we are working with today who would like to see clean diesel DMU technology 

in the next 10 years. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Hall, once we achieve the—when science and engineering 

achieves breakthroughs, people sort of plateau and think, well, that 

is the limit, just as with the GE 90, now GE has produced much 

more powerful aircraft engines. 

What is the next step in technology and how widespread will be 

the use of the breakthroughs that you cited in your testimony, Mr. 

Hamberger cited in his testimony? 

220

Mr. HALL. I think what we have in our plans to run forward is 

a combination of technologies that we can apply to improve the engine by itself and then more of these overall sort of control system 

strategies that we can use to reduce emissions and fuel consumption for the total locomotive system. So hybrid is just one example 

of that. The trip optimizer is another example. 

There is an enormous amount of braking energy that can be recovered from these large trains. These two technologies only tap 

into a portion of it. There is still a lot more to be had, and we will 

continue to work on that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The weight of the vehicles is also—weight of locomotives and weight of the passenger cars are a detriment to efficiency because they are pulling so much weight. When the French 

achieved their world speed record, 358 miles per hour steel-on-steel 

passenger rail in April, just the day before our Committee Members traveled on the TGB from Brussels to Paris, 185 miles per 

hour, also in lighter rail cars, 3 minutes apart, all day long, 1,100 

passengers, 94 percent load factors, extraordinary accomplishment, 

all requirements for heavier rail cars are safety based. 

Is it possible for to us change those standards, still protect safety, reduce the weight of locomotives and passenger cars and 

achieve these efficiencies? Mr. Hall? Mr. Hamberger? Mr. Millar? 

Mr. RADER. I can certainly speak to that because we spend a lot 

of time in Maglev study, and the answer is, yes and no. The yes 

part of the answer is, if we provide a dedicated right-of-way for 

passenger service, such as is provided for the TGA and for the 

Shinkansen, then the answer is absolutely yes. But as long as we 

are going to use the existing rail systems that are interconnected 

and we are running heavier trains on them, then the answer is no. 

We can’t make a safe car substantially lighter. With one exception, 

we are currently studying crash energy management technologies 

that are used in Europe and in part of the trains in Japan. And 

that may lead us to some lightening, but not terribly significant. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Much depends on the system in which the rails 

are operating. 

Mr. RADER. Absolutely. If we were to spend per passenger mile 

in the United States for rail what is spent on the road bed in either 

Japan or France, given distances that we have, there is not enough 

money in the Federal budget. I think that is the big challenge we 

face. We have to face the realities that we have much longer distances, many more miles, many more grade crossings to protect, et 

cetera. It could be done, but the cost is enormous. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In that spirit, Mr. Hamberger, let me ask you the 

hard question. 

Commuter rail access to freight rail track, what I hear from local 

governments repeatedly, is the impediment to improved commuter 

rail service. Gaining access to freight rail tracks may entail double 

tracking where there is only single track or sidings. 

Now, without mentioning individual railroads, there have been 

some that have been very cooperative and very responsive to commuter rail interests. And others have dragged their feet. In most 

cases, it has been very difficult to work it out. What do you think 

we should do to ease the burden of access? 

221

Mr. HAMBERGER. You won’t be surprised to me hear me say that 

I find that all of my members are forthcoming in this regard and 

that, in fact, I believe the number Mr. Millar used at a hearing on 

this issue a couple of years ago was 400 million trips a year. And 

I like to characterize that as 400 million opportunities where we 

have cooperated around the country, and it really is on all the 

Class I railroads that have entered into bilateral arm’s length 

agreements with the local authorities. 

And I think the discussion you were just having with Mr. Rader 

about what was happening in Europe and what is happening in 

Japan, if you take a look at Europe, because you have been there, 

you know that they move less than 10 percent of their freight by 

rail. They have a pretty good passenger system, but they have not 

a very good freight rail system. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In fact, freight rail is operating on the passenger 

rails. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. You cannot have, in my opinion, a high-speed 

passenger rail system operating on a freight rail system. And so 

when it comes to commuter rail, I think the answer is, there has 

to be enough capacity for both. You do not achieve your clean air 

goals, congestion mitigation goals, fuel saving goals, by getting people out of their cars onto commuter rails while at the same time 

you are getting those UPS trucks back on the highway instead of 

riding double stack on the back of the rail car. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The answer has to be intermodal. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. The answer has to be intermodal, and the answer has to be enough capacity for both. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And in building more capacity. Finally——

Mr. HAMBERGER. Which I might add would be accomplished by 

H.R. 2116, which we encourage. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are going to work on that. 

Mr. Lash, the emissions trading, preserving a rain forest in Ecuador in order for a power plant in Ohio to continue its energy production, as cited as an example of success and advancing the cause 

of freezing carbon emissions, but it is not advancing the cause in 

my—as I see it. What are your thoughts about emissions trading 

regimes, such as that the European community wants to do in 

aviation, for example? 

Mr. LASH. There are many forms of very legitimate emissions 

trading. You created an SO2 trading system in 1990 that has 

worked very well. The Europeans are now trading carbon on the 

European carbon exchange, and that is reducing the cost for them 

of meeting their obligations. 

The idea that you can include in that system offsets from avoided 

deforestation seems to me not legitimate at this time. We don’t 

have agreed-upon rules even of what you would count for avoided 

deforestation. It is a great way to avoid deforestation. It is not a 

great way to avoid global warming. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, each of you for your very thoughtful 

and sobering comments and for your extraordinary patience in 

being with us throughout this day. If you have any further suggestions or recommendations for our Committee to consider in formulating legislative initiatives, we would welcome those. Thank you 

very much. 

222

Our next panel on public buildings includes the American Institute of Architects, Mr. R. K. Stewart; American Council For an Energy Efficient Economy, Mr. William Prindle; Alliance to Save Energy, Jeff Harris; Solar Energy Industries Association, Mr. Christopher O’Brien. And we will be in recess for about 15 minutes 

pending this vote and a subsequent vote on the House floor. 

[Recess 3:00 p.m.] 

Ms. NORTON. [presiding] As you can see, a madhouse has gone 

mad. So I am going to have to ask that we proceed as expeditiously 

as possible with brief opening statements so that we can move 

through this very important panel. 

If you have been here previously, you will understand that our 

Committee—each of its Subcommittees is, of course, involved in the 

effort of the Full Committee to design energy policy that affects our 

Committee, and our Committee is centrally affected in many ways. 

I am Chair of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and therefore have a special interest in Panel II. We will be submitting a 

number of proposals; I already have a number of proposals. I will 

be especially interested in your ideas to enhance and add to my 

own. 

I am pleased to welcome all of you. I apologize for the delay, of 

which I must assure you we had no notice. It doesn’t come from 

our side, I might add. I intend to proceed as quickly as possible. 

Please summarize your statements. And I am going to ask you to 

proceed, I suppose beginning with Mr. Stewart. 

TESTIMONY OF R.K. STEWART, FAIA, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS; WILLIAM PRINDLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENT ECONOMY; JEFF HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

PROGRAMS, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY; AND CHRIS 

O’BRIEN, CHAIRMAN, SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am R.K. Stewart, 

President of the American Institute of Architects, and on behalf of 

our 81,000 members and the 281,000 Americans who work for architecture firms nationwide, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I would like to share the thoughts of our 

Nation’s architects on energy consumption and how it relates to the 

most overlooked sector in the greenhouse gas debate, buildings: the 

buildings in which our people live, work, and play. 

I have submitted written testimony to the Committee but would 

like to stress those points the AIA feels are most important. The 

AIA believes strongly that now is the time to react to address climate change by tackling energy use in buildings. Our Nation needs 

to begin making significant reductions in the amount of fossil fuelgenerated energy our buildings consume. As your Committee has 

jurisdiction over the Public Building Service of the General Services Administration, this Committee is in a unique position to 

make policy decisions that could result in new and renovated Federal buildings using far less energy than current buildings. 

According to the Department of Energy, buildings and their construction are responsible for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. every year. The building sector alone accounts for 

223

39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, more than either the 

transportation or industry sectors. Building operations consume 71 

percent of U.S. electrical production and buildings in the United 

States account for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Put another way, U.S. buildings account for nearly the same 

amount of carbon emissions as the economies of Japan, France, and 

the United Kingdom combined. 

If we want to be serious about energy use reductions, buildings 

must become a significant part of the discussion. The AIA believes 

that architects must advocate for the sustainable use of our Earth’s 

resources. We have adopted an official position establishing energy 

reduction targets in buildings. Architects across the country have 

embraced this position and are expanding the use of design practices that enhance design quality as they increase the environmental performance of buildings. 

To truly revolutionize the way our Nation designs and uses 

buildings, a combination of regulations and incentives must be 

used to greatly reduce fossil fuel-generated energy use, and improved energy efficiency nationwide. The AIA strongly urges Congress to take the lead in fighting against climate change by establishing new energy consumption standards for Federal buildings. 

The AIA recommends that Federal agencies be required to immediately ensure that new buildings and buildings undergoing major 

renovations consume no more than half the fossil fuel energy that 

a similar Federal building constructed in 2003 would consume. Beginning in 2010, agencies should be required to meet a declining 

cap on energy consumption such that they meet minimum energy 

reductions compared to the 2003 baseline. 

We propose that by 2010, new and significantly renovated Federal buildings be required to reduce fossil fuel-generated energy by 

60 percent. By 2015 the cap should be lowered to 70 percent reduction, continuing until 2030 when we should achieve 100 percent reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy for all new Federal buildings. 

Setting declining caps on energy use is not a new idea. In the 

past Congress has passed similar legislation, and recently Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico established energy reduction 

targets in his State. 

Energy reduction requirements have shown a record of success, 

as referenced in my written testimony. That record demonstrates 

that the AIA-recommended energy reduction targets are readily 

achievable. 

There is increasing evidence confirming that the public is concerned about how we are able to reduce the use of fossil fuels in 

our buildings. They increasingly believe it is in the best interest of 

our Nation and the planet to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel-generated energy and move towards a sustainable future. Reducing energy use in Federal buildings would be a major step in redesigning 

the future and point the way for the private sector. 

We encourage Congress to consider our proposal and I welcome 

your questions and thank you very much for the opportunity to 

present to you today. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. Prindle. 

224

Mr. PRINDLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Good afternoon. My name is Bill Prindle. I am the Acting Executive Director of the American Counsel for an Energy Efficient Economy. We are a national nonprofit organization based here in the 

District that advances energy efficiency for energy security, economic prosperity, and environmental protection. I am pleased for 

the chance to share our thoughts with you. 

The theme of my testimony today is that energy efficiency should 

be used as the first fuel in America’s race for a clean and secure 

energy future. We face unprecedented energy challenges as we 

enter this new century. Conventional energy markets, especially for 

oil, have shifted such that the era of cheap fossil fuel energy is 

over. The global warming challenge is going to further force us to 

change our energy use patterns. 

Now, energy efficiency is one of the very few resources that addresses both energy security and global warming while also boosting economic prosperity. We can develop domestic energy supplies 

with low carbon content, but that is going to take time. So we can 

and we must start now to accelerate efficiency investment. Every 

clean energy strategy that you can imagine, whether it is based on 

renewable energy or advanced coal or safe nuclear, depends on energy efficiency to succeed. As we study the markets today we find 

that energy demand is growing too fast for any realistic supply 

plan to catch up. So our first job is to make policy that accelerates 

efficiency investment. 

Energy efficiency is actually an infrastructure issue. We happen 

to be blessed in this country with a massive energy service infrastructure. When I say that, I am not talking about the supply infrastructure; I am not talking about refineries and pipelines and 

power plants. That is the supply infrastructure. I am talking about 

the millions of energy using systems in our vehicles, our buildings, 

in our factories. 

People tend to think of energy efficiency as little things, light 

bulbs, thermostats, things we can see and touch. But our research 

estimates that we spend as a Nation about $200 billion annually 

on energy efficient technologies. And as close as we can account, we 

only spend about 100 billion on all the energy supply infrastructure 

in this country in a given year. 

So we spend more money on energy efficiency on all those lighting systems, motors, windows, all the components of our buildings 

and factories and vehicles that use energy, we spend more on that 

than we do on the whole supply side. So it is big business. It is 

a big part of our economy. It is surprising to a lot of people. 

But, in fact, energy efficiency is one of the prime engines of economic growth in the United States. We use half as much energy 

per unit of economic output than we did when I came into this field 

30 years ago. If we had not made those gains, our economy would 

not have been able to sustain the prosperity that we have seen in 

these recent decades. And even though we have made a lot of 

progress, we still have enormous potential to accelerate efficiency 

investment. We estimate in the range of another $200 billion every 

year. That is a big infrastructure investment that we can make and 

we need to make. 

225

There are numerous studies about this. We do some, there are 

others, and consistently what we find in the research is that we 

can meet most if not all of the growth in our energy needs over the 

next several decades through energy efficiency. That is what will 

allow us to win the energy security battle and to win the climate 

battle. 

But it takes public policy commitment to make this happen. 

Even though market forces are working, and we do believe in market solutions, there are significant market barriers and there are 

other economic forces at work that are limiting the rate of investment that we need to achieve in efficiency. 

We have recently completed a study for the International Energy 

Agency that shows that simple market barriers—that every serious 

economist will acknowledge affects half or more of the energy used 

in our residential and commercial buildings—with those kind of 

market barriers in place, we can’t expect the market to deliver the 

results. We have to have some serious policy help to move markets 

forward. 

I want to touch also on energy efficiency and the way it plays in 

climate policy. We have been studying this issue for several years. 

We were stakeholders in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

that stretches from Maryland to Maine now. I know the District is 

talking about joining RGGI, as it is called. The detailed studies 

that we have participated in show that any way you look at it, energy efficiency makes climate policy affordable. It reduces carbon 

prices, reduces energy bills, it improves economic growth while reducing carbon. And that is great, but here is the paradox. The climate policy designs that we are talking about today, whether they 

are cap-and-trade or carbon taxes will not be sufficient to obtain 

the energy efficiency investment that would make carbon policy affordable. 

Let me say a little bit more about that. Cap-and-trade systems 

set caps up at the power plant level, and when you reduce energy 

use down at the customer level, that doesn’t change the cap on 

emissions at the smokestack level. Emission traders tell us we will 

not accept credits for people who say they saved energy in a building. That is a fundamental structural problem in cap-and-trade design and we need to fix that. 

Secondly, a lot of the effects that are expected from climate policy 

come from price effects. Carbon taxes or carbon allowance prices 

raise the price of energy. What we find by looking at how markets 

are actually working today, those effects are very weak and we are 

not going to see energy prices that will motivate energy efficiency 

at the rate we need to see it. 

I want to compress some of my other remarks and get to a few 

of our policy recommendations. Certainly we have to have carbon 

policy designs that encourage energy efficiency. If there is a capand-trade program, there has to be an allowance allocation policy 

that sets aside a large chunk of allowances to get after energy efficiency and the other low-carbon technologies that won’t happen 

automatically under the cap-and-trade system. We need complementary policies that come in at the appropriate level of the 

market to get efficiency where it exists in vehicles and buildings. 

226

In the transportation sector in this Committee’s jurisdiction 

under SAFETEA-LU and those kinds of legislation, we would recommend that the Committee look at State allocation formulas for 

Federal transportation funding to encourage State and local governments to consider greenhouse gas emissions improvements as 

part of that process. 

We would like the Committee to order a study of the climate benefits of a Federal policy that was more active in supporting transportation and land use planning at the State and local level. My 

colleagues have already talked a lot about building codes and building standards. I won’t go into that. Appliance standards are also 

part of that picture. Research and development is part of that picture. We need to rebuild the research and development infrastructure in this country. And our research also shows that significant 

carbon savings can be realized at very low cost to energy efficiency. 

So we urge you to use efficiency as the first fuel in the race for 

clean and secure energy. 

Thank you for your time and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Prindle. 

Mr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be here 

to talk with you on this important topic and to join my colleagues 

from our fellow organizations. My name is Jeffrey Harris. I am the 

Vice President for Programs at the Alliance to Save Energy. The 

Alliance is a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 120 business, governmental, environmental. And consumer leaders. Our 

mission is to promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a 

healthier economy, a clean environment, and greater energy security. 

The Alliance was founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and 

Hubert Humphrey. This year we are enjoying our 30th anniversary. We currently enjoy the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor as 

our chair, with congressional vice chairs Congressman Ed Markey, 

Zack Wamp, Ralph Hall, and Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, and Byron Dorgan. 

In addressing the topic of today, I would like to focus on the importance of improving energy efficiency and reducing energy waste 

within the Federal Government in both fixed facilities and mobile 

operations. This is a topic we have already heard several of the 

earlier witnesses in Panel I address. I would like to go into a little 

more detail and point out that although I am emphasizing Federal 

Government opportunities, virtually all of these opportunities also 

apply at the State and municipal level, and as we have seen from 

the important examples of policy leadership recently on energy efficiency, in the District government here. 

The U.S. Federal Government is the world’s single largest user 

of energy and also its largest waster of energy. In 2005 Federal 

agencies accounted for about 2 percent of total energy use in the 

country and cost U.S. taxpayers $14-1/2 billion. Of this total, about 

$5 million goes to heat, cool, and power about a half million Federal buildings around the country, but the majority of this Federal 

energy use goes for mobility purposes. This includes the light and 

heavy duty fleet vehicles, military aircraft and ships, and a huge 

227

variety of mobile systems that must be deployed and fueled wherever they are needed, both for defense purposes but also for disaster relief and recovery, for scientific research and for a host of 

other Federal purposes, and it is this mobility energy that now 

needs most of the new attention, in our view. 

Thanks to concerted efforts by Congress and leaders in Federal 

agencies, government as a whole has reduced primary energy use 

by 13 percent in the past 20 years and this has also led to a 25 

percent decrease in real dollars in the government’s energy bill. 

These savings have been dramatic, but there is a strong potential 

for additional energy savings, especially in the case, as I mentioned, of this Federal mobility energy use, which was actually 

higher in 2005 than it was 10 years previously. 

We already have on the books a number of ambitious targets, 

standards, requirements and programs aimed at reducing Federal 

agency energy use. Most of these focus on conventional Federal 

buildings. These requirements, some of them at least, were put in 

place within the last 2 years and as a result are not yet fully implemented. So we still have a challenge in accomplishing them 

fully, and this requires the active involvement of Congress in three 

ways: periodic oversight, assurance of adequate funding, and in 

several cases supplementing or strengthening the existing statutes 

in on the books. 

The most important step to reduce Federal energy use is to fully 

implement the policies already in place, and these include a wide 

range of efforts for energy efficiency standards in new Federal construction, energy metering and energy savings targets for existing 

buildings, performance contracts for third-party financing of energy 

saving improvements, energy efficient government purchasing, and 

use of life-cycle costing for government investment decisions. 

We believe that Congress’ first role here is to conduct thorough 

and sustained oversight to help focus the attention of government 

officials on meeting their agency’s energy savings and cost-effectiveness targets. 

Second, though, Congress has to assure adequate funding for 

Federal energy efficiency improvements that generate and sustain 

long-term savings. This will require billions of dollars of investments but it will save even more. In recent years, though, the annual appropriations that we have seen for energy efficiency in Federal buildings have been only on the order of $100- to $300 million 

a year. This funding needs to be increased, but Congress also needs 

to emphasize the importance of Federal agencies using the innovative financing mechanisms available to them, the energy savings 

performance contracts and utility energy service contracts that 

allow agencies to upgrade energy efficiency at no initial cost to the 

government. 

These ESPCs and UESCs, as they are called now, provide—at 

one time provided more than $500 million a year for energy savings investments, but after the authorization by Congress lapsed 

temporarily in 2003, we still haven’t arrived at the same level of 

investment from these innovative funding sources. 

We have several recommendations in our detailed testimony—let 

me just summarize them here—for additional policies that, first, 

228

would require comprehensive energy and water saving evaluations 

for each Federal agency to be updated periodically. 

Second, require that Federal agencies actually implement all of 

the water-saving and energy-saving measures identified in these 

evaluations, all the measures that have a payback of 15 years or 

less; and, in doing so, allow agencies to combine, in any way that 

is suitable, appropriated funds and this third-party financing that 

I mentioned. 

Third, make sure that agencies provide for start-up commissioning of energy-using systems and for periodic review of performance and diagnostics to make sure that these systems work as they 

are planned, and keep on working. 

Fourth, extend the energy efficiency requirements for new Federal buildings that were put in place by the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 so that they also apply to leased Federal buildings, and that 

we add to these requirements provisions for smart growth, principles applied to the location and siting of Federal facilities to make 

sure that they are accessible for employees and for the public by 

means other than single occupancy automobiles. 

Finally, we need to look beyond the Federal building sector alone 

and establish new savings goals and policies for the mobility sector, 

which accounts for the largest component of Federal energy use. 

Let me conclude my comments and I would be happy to answer 

your questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, Mr. O’Brien. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very much appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Christopher O’Brien, I am Vice President for Strategy and Government Relations for Sharp Electronics Corporation 

Solar Energy Solutions Group. Sharp is a producer, leading producer of solar photovoltaic panels. These are panels that produce 

electricity without pollution directly from sunlight. I have a miniature example of the types of panels we produce at our factory in 

Memphis and on the sign board an example of one of the more common applications where these solar panels are installed directly on 

Federal buildings or on buildings to reduce the energy use in those 

buildings. 

I would like to focus today on the main point which is that solar 

technologies can play a significant role in reducing energy use in 

Federal buildings. There is ample roof space available, and wide 

deployment of this solar technology will have associated benefits, 

including the reduction in peak energy demand and significant economic development or jobs growth. 

Let me first emphasize that the single most important action 

that the Federal Government can take to encourage the increased 

use of solar energy across the country would be to enact the provisions of H.R. 550, the ′′Securing America’s Energy Independence 

Act.′′ this includes an 8-year extension of the solar investment tax 

credit for homeowners and businesses who install solar energy systems. Note that this investment tax credit would be applicable to 

both public sector and private sector entities because, in most 

cases, projects on Federal facilities would be developed by third 

parties who could use the tax credit, and it would be a significant 

catalyst to increased solar usage. 

229

Let me now outline—I am here before the Committee today in 

my role as chairman of the board of the Solar Energy Industries 

Association. There are over 400 companies that are members of 

SEIA, including Sharp, and it is in that role that I appear before 

you today. 

I would like to, first, outline SEIA’s recommendations for specific 

policies to encourage the increased deployment of solar energy on 

Federal facilities. SEIA recommends the creation of a new strategic 

initiative, the solar technology utilization and deployment program. 

This program would create a framework for Federal, State and 

local governments that would facilitate the installation of solar energy systems, including solar thermal, and would expedite the purchase of solar-generated electricity by third-party financing. The 

target would be to achieve 3 gigawatts of mandated solar capacity 

at Federal facilities by 2012 and would be complemented by a voluntary commitment from State and local governments. 

Federal commitments would be established in 2007 and 2008. 

Agency requirements to deploy solar would be calibrated to their 

energy consumption so the more the agency spends annually on energy, the higher their target for solar deployment would be. There 

are several reasons why the Federal Government should take the 

lead in launching this solar program. The Federal Government is 

the largest single user of energy. The program would have a significant stimulus to jobs growth. I can speak directly to this from 

our experience at Sharp where we have over 200 jobs created in 

the last 3 years and many hundred more jobs among the businesses that we serve as customers. 

Third, the Federal Government is uniquely stable financially in 

its ability to back long-term commitments to help support the financing for these projects. Finally, this program would displace 

roughly 3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions as a result of full 

implementation. 

In order to launch and implement the program the following legislative changes would be required. First, the program would require legislation to provide GSA with an exemption from the current 10-year restriction. This would be applicable for any utility 

service contract that supplied energy from new renewable resources. This is necessary because most private sector solar installations will pay out over a period of 10 to 30 years, so the utility 

service contract must cover that duration. 

Second, the legislation should authorize Federal agencies to offer 

leases of underutilized real property, both rooftops and underutilized land areas, to solar developers. 

Third would be to enact legislative language setting required targets for increased use of solar power in Federal facilities. This kind 

of top-down guidance would provide much—by agency heads to the 

facility staff would greatly increase the pace of solar deployment. 

Finally, Congress should demonstrate its leadership and commitment by launching an initiative to require the Architect of the Capitol to issue an RFP for deployment to 5 megawatts on congressionally controlled properties and structures. This would be an immediate and a highly visible deployment and would demonstrate the 

congressional leadership is sincere in its commitment to a carbonsmart future. 

230

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. I look forward 

to addressing any questions that you may have. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. I must say that this testimony is just chock full of 

ideas, I think many of them are very practical. I don’t know where 

to begin, especially since we intend to—my own concern in a list 

of priorities would be to look at what is least costly and most immediate. Got to begin. 

The Chairman, as virtually the first piece of legislation out of 

here, has already got a photovoltaic proposal approved for the Department of Energy. That will, I think, send a message and also 

prove something about the use of energy. We all know the Federal 

Government. It would bring down the cost, since we are the biggest 

user of energy in the country. 

Let me begin by asking just a few questions, given my interest 

in submitting proposals to the Chairman for legislation that could 

be immediately produced, recognizing that we have a huge deficit 

that everybody is going to be controlled by. 

Mr. Stewart, you say that the goal of the AIA is that all new 

buildings, I guess that means public and private, should meet an 

immediate reduction of 50 percent in fossil fuels—fossil fuel-generated energy compared to the 2003 baseline. Immediate, by when? 

And all new buildings, how? That is design or some kind of performance or building system standards. When you say immediately, compared to 2003, that would seem to be now. Can they 

do it? Can they do that kind of huge reduction? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, ma’am. We believe it is possible to make 

those kinds of cuts immediately. If you begin to look at an integrated——

Ms. NORTON. You mean buildings already up, or new? 

Mr. STEWART. New and major renovations. So that we are talking about projects that we will be looking at in the entire assemblage. So you start to talk about window assemblies and their insulating value, the insulation placed in the walls and roofs, the equipment that goes in to heat, cool, ventilate the building; lighting systems, utilizing day lighting more extensively in control systems so 

that you don’t need to light spaces that have good daylight. And 

then you start to deal with just those kinds of systems before you 

get into more advanced technologies. 

We believe it is possible to achieve these kinds of 50 percent cuts 

today. But a lot of this has to do with looking at the separation 

that exists today between capital costs and operations and maintenance budgets. Oftentimes what we see is decision makers chasing 

first cost, to lower the first cost, and ignoring the implications of 

a building’s 75-year life. 

Ms. NORTON. That is the great problem in this country, from 

Wall Street to building design. Everybody looks at what the returns are. Wall Street looks at returns every virtual month, sometimes we think every minute, and we end up making hugely erroneous and costly decisions that way. The first thing we are going 

to hear is it costs too much money, which is related to something 

else you say on page 11 of your testimony, that you yourself, the 

AIA, is apparently going to analyze a study of the benefits. I take 

it you mean economic benefits of energy efficient billing. 

231

I would like to know, first, when that study will be concluded. 

And one of the things we have had the hardest time finding an authoritative study of, but what we think would be most convincing 

is not the 75-year life of a building. Too many people will say I 

won’t be here for 75 years, and I have got to show that I am building efficiently and with low cost now. 

Is your study designed to show what the benefits, the cost benefits are by years, let’s say 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? 

Mr. STEWART. The study is designed to both address energy savings as well as cost savings. It is underway right now. We expect 

to have it done in the next couple of months and we will be more 

than happy to share it with you. One of the things that has been 

interesting in the data that has emerged over the last year is that 

a lot of the first cost assumptions are proving to be erroneous as 

the market tends to mature. 

Turner Construction issued a report at the end of 2006 that indicated their experience has been that the additional costs for more 

sustainable design is roughly .8 percent of the initial construction 

budget. Davis Langdon, which is an international cost estimating 

firm, has told us that it is statistically insignificant, trying to find 

those additional costs. So I think the market is changing rapidly 

over time and what people perceive as first cost impediments are 

really starting to go away. 

Ms. NORTON. Somebody has to do an economic model that shows 

us how these shifting costs should play into how they figure out 

whether savings will be, again, because of the short-term vision of 

not only people that build buildings but, frankly, people who do everything in this country. 

Mr. Harris, much of what you suggest, what I am really intrigued by is the page where you indicate the first thing to do is 

essentially to meet the standards that already are in existence. You 

suggest there is not a lot of enforcement going on, and that if there 

were, that very substantial reductions—I don’t use enforcement in 

the policing sense—but nobody is watching, nobody is monitoring, 

or at least not enough, and some of them are just very intriguing 

because you cite already existing executive orders. 

For example, one that intrigues me I have to ask you about, I 

guess it is page 3, you say each agency is to reduce energy use intensity by 3 percent per annum, or 30 percent by 2015. That really 

sounds good. You want them to meet earlier target, culminating in 

30 percent between agencies—mostly met—I’m sorry—earlier targets between 1985 and 2005. But you say that total energy use reductions have been smaller as energy intensive facilities are excluded from these targets and as the targets are interpreted as applying to site energy. Are you talking about Federal policy now? 

Who was excluded? 

Mr. HARRIS. There are some detailed guidelines that the Federal 

energy management program at the Department of Energy has 

issued, and there are now some requirements to look at cost-effective measures in an energy intensive facility, industrial-type facilities, defense maintenance facilities, a whole range of laboratories 

and other things that are not what we think of as a classic office 

building or a residence, for example, for a military family. 

232

So the difference is that there are no quantitative targets of the 

same sort that we have seen for the so-called standard Federal 

buildings. There has been substantial progress made, but the trail 

is getting steeper. The rules that we are facing ahead are 3 percent 

per year, and that will pose a bigger challenge to Federal agencies. 

That is why we argue that it is important for Congress to maintain 

its oversight function and to make sure that there is adequate 

funding of these programs and adequate training and support and 

technical assistance that comes from the Federal energy management program. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, are you going to have to go vote 

again? I don’t have to vote in Committee. I guess I should watch 

out about seeking a larger vote from the Committee of the Whole. 

I should ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you have any questions before 

you run again. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. You are doing very well 

with the questions. Many of those are ones I wanted to propound 

myself but I will have to leave in a few minutes to make this. 

These are protest votes that we are having to do on the House 

floor, and I understand that, having been in the minority, we did 

some of the same things. 

Mr. Stewart, the Institute of Architects, for whom I have great 

admiration, has, throughout the testimony you have presented, set 

goals for reduction of fossil fuel consumption through building design and through life-cycle design and construction facilities. Which 

raises the issue that the continued objection that we hear to conservation, to reduction of greenhouse gases through changes in 

technology is that these are not obtainable, except at great economic cost and loss to the economy. And wherever there is resistance, these are the objections that are raised. We can’t meet these 

goals. 

You say IAI approved an official position stating all new buildings and major renovation of existing buildings be designed to meet 

an immediate 50 percent reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy. 

If you had to retire that, amortize that cost to the first year, that 

would be a huge—a steep hill to climb. But if you amortize it over 

20 years or 30 years or longer, the life-cycle of that building, then 

it becomes imminently achievable, does it not. Or am I mistaken? 

Did I miss the beat somewhere? 

Mr. STEWART. No, sir, you are spot on. We have been working 

with the Congress. In the 2005 energy bill, as you recall, there was 

a tax credit provision up to $1.80 a square foot for energy reductions, and Congresswoman Schwartz has authored a bill to extend 

that credit to 2012 and enhance it to $2.25 a square foot. We are 

also in a number of conversations with the financial markets to 

recognize the value of increased energy efficiency and more 

sustainably designed projects in an effort to get discounted financial rates. The insurance markets are recognizing the increased 

value of sustainably designed buildings and are offering discounts 

in their insurance rates for buildings that have been designed in 

this manner. 

So I think the economy, in one sense, is starting to catch up with 

recognition of the value that these kinds of projects bring to the 

table. 

233

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a very significant point; that insurance 

rates are lower for—at least adjusted for energy efficiency. That is 

the market response, is it not? 

Mr. STEWART. That is correct. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. O’Brien, you may have heard me say on one 

or more occasion that in my second term in Congress I had the 

good fortune to preside over a hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, as it was simply called then. Now we 

have added other responsibilities to it. Which Ms. Norton chairs. 

The Sheet Metal Workers Union presented testimony during the 

course of our hearings on public building energy efficiency, presented results of a 2-volume study that they commissioned on conversion of Federal civilian office space to photovoltaic cells, the result of which was it would create 135,000 jobs in the Sheet Metal 

Workers Union-- which is equivalent to, I think, their total membership at the time—and it would save the government enormous 

amounts of money and also contribute less to atmospheric carbon 

emissions. 

While I thought this was a splendid idea, they suggested $175 

million a year for the government to buy and install, the private 

sector to build facilities. At the time, the cost of energy from photovoltaic cells was $1.75 a kilowatt hour. The same kilowatt hour for 

the private sector was $0.07 a kilowatt hour. 

So I introduced the bill. Senator Humphrey called me up, saw 

the news release, said, ′′You send me that bill, we will introduce 

it over here.′′ and he moved it to the Senate, we moved it through 

the House, President Carter signed it into law. He provided the $75 

million for the first of a 3-year program designed to drop the cost 

down of energy from photovoltaics from $1.75 to the range of 15 to 

20 cents over a period of 20 years. 

President Carter put the money in his last budget. Then he lost 

the next election, and President Reagan just dissolved the entire 

alternative energy budget of $960 million. 

So time passes. I have become the Chairman of the Committee. 

I say this is still a great idea to do. We have jurisdiction over 367 

million square feet of Federal civilian office space in this Committee. The energy cost for those buildings is 5 billion 800 million 

dollars. Why wouldn’t you do something just to save money, if for 

no other reason, to save money to taxpayers that would use alternative forms of energy? 

So we moved the bill through Ms. Norton’s Subcommittee to—I 

call it—′′future fitting′′ the Department of Energy building, which 

was built with the south wall blank, no window or doors to accommodate a solar application. We moved this through the Subcommittee, Full Committee, through the House. Virtually unanimous vote. It is pending in, as we affectionately call them, the 

other body, and we hope that they will do something soon. I know 

there is a willingness to do it on the part of the chair, Ms. Boxer. 

Well, use that as a template, show that it can be done, but at 

the same time move ahead with legislation to equip all Federal 

buildings under jurisdiction of this Committee with solar power. 

Just makes imminent good sense. That is a statement you can respond to. 

234

Mr. O’BRIEN. I fully agree with you. I think that the types of signature projects such as the one that you outline in your legislation 

are to be commended and I think do set a great example and a 

highly visible example of what can be done. I think the resource 

that you talked about is absolutely spot on; there is an enormous 

resource of rooftop space, of Federal lands that could be used and, 

in many cases, at a considerable cost advantage for the deployment 

of solar. 

So some of the changes that we have outlined in our recommendations are really just unlocking those resources. And that 

is really focused on two areas. One is making some of that space 

available for developers to come and develop projects. We are finding an increasing model in the private sector of what we call a PPA 

model, where a developer will come and build and develop a solar 

project on someone else’s rooftop, will give them a long-term energy 

contract and say we will provide you with energy at a 10 percent 

discount, 5 percent discount, and over a period of 15 or 20 years, 

and so to make—and that could work in the Federal buildings as 

well. 

It requires a couple of things. One, it requires access to the rooftops and, second, it requires the ability of the building host, in this 

case the Federal facility owner, to enter into a long-term contract 

like that to buy the energy into that long-term contract. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. How long a period of time is, in your judgment, 

the current payback for investment in solar energy? By the way, 

the cost has gone down from $1.75 to roughly 25 cents a kilowatt 

hour just without significant stimulus. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. A lot of that is because of developments, and you 

mentioned the curtailment of support here in the U.S. That did not 

stop some other countries from moving ahead. So where the solar 

industry grew very quickly and solar PB industry grew very quickly was in Japan and Germany most recently. The irony is Germany 

has the amount of sunshine the equivalent of Alaska, but they are 

now the largest market of solar PD in the world, largely because 

of a strong political commitment that has been taken to ensure 

that renewables in general and solar in particular are a significant 

part of the energy mix by 2020. 

I think in terms of the payback, it ranges. It may be up to in 

the area of 10 years or more for residential application. Many commercial applications would demand a paypack considerably shorter 

that. That is usually possible with some of the State-level incentives that are in place. It will be greatly facilitated by a Federal 

tax credit such as is included in H.R. 550. But at the same time, 

what is happening is there is a development of this PPA model 

where in many cases commercial customers are able to sign up 

today and pay less than their peak cost of energy right from the 

get-go. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have to stop you there, but Ms. Norton will 

have other questions. I will vote and return. I want you all to be 

thinking about specific initiatives that we can craft into legislative 

language as we fashion our part of the energy and conservation 

package that House leadership is planning to bring to the floor in 

July. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

235

Just completing the Chairman’s round of questions on solar, I am 

informed a Federal Archives building with solar panels inlaid into 

the building was just opened within the last few weeks in Waltham, Massachusetts. This is a Federal building. In fact, the GSA 

has been pressing ahead where the funds are available. 

Would you explain to me the difference in the panels—and you 

can see the way the temperature is recorded, that it was working; 

of course, some of us uneducated on solar energy would wonder 

what the difference was in sun intensity and the efficiency of solar 

energy. Waltham, Massachusetts would not come to mind if that is 

what one was thinking about. This was an archives building. I 

don’t know if it is a building with lots of people in it or what, but 

I am wondering about the universality or not of solar energy in 

public buildings. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. It is a good question. I think the quick answer is 

that there is—obviously among the broad portfolio of Federal facilities, there are going to be some places where the economics work 

well in the short term and others that are going to work better as 

the cost of solar technology comes down. 

I think that what is important to recognize is that the economics 

depend not just on the amount of sunshine available but also on 

the value of the energy that you are displacing. So in many cases 

Waltham would be a good example where the electric rates are 

comparatively higher than they might be in New Mexico, for example. So even though it has comparatively less sunshine, it has comparatively more valuable electricity being displaced. And the solar 

industry has grown very sophisticated in terms of modeling what 

the economics would be for any particular site so it requires—a site 

survey would be pretty straightforward to determine what the payback would be and what the economics would be for the different 

Federal facilities. 

The overall message, though, is that the technology is quite universal in application. As I mentioned, Germany is the largest market today, which is probably an outlyer in terms of insulation. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Prindle, in your testimony you don’t give a lot 

of currency to one of the new kind of progressive ideas, not necessarily widely embraced yet, but the notion of a carbon tax. And 

you indicated it would not stimulate efficiency. I would like to have 

you elaborate on that. In other words, you don’t think that causing 

the price to go up matters much. 

Mr. PRINDLE. As we have observed the actual behavior of energy 

markets in recent decades, what we find is that price elasticity effects, as economists refer to them, are much weaker than they were 

once thought. 

Ms. NORTON. Where, Mr. Prindle? 

Mr. PRINDLE. They are weaker in motor fuel markets. 

Ms. NORTON. Are we talking about the United States? If you are 

talking about the United States, I don’t think anybody has ever 

done anything in the United States, or done very much, to make 

energy more expensive. In fact, all of the policy, all of the rhetoric 

is designed to make the American people believe they deserve 

cheap energy and, yes, so it is at $3 a gallon now, and even more 

if you happen to live in my district. You ask a comparable European resident what she or he would think of a comparable $3 a galVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
236

lon gas. I wonder if we have experimented with it. I am not advocating it, but I can’t believe that we would take our own policy, 

what comparable countries have felt they must do while we scream 

and shout about the Middle East and about the cost of energy, and 

even in the 1970s when we had the long gas lines, went right back, 

because in fact the experience is quite the opposite, not that we 

have seen high prices, but on the contrary, that the prices tend to 

go down and therefore reassuring the American public, see, you deserve this. Everybody else in the world doesn’t. Let them raise the 

cost of energy but we deserve, and we can prove that it doesn’t 

work because, see, you pay high prices. When—over what sustained period have the American people paid high prices for energy? 

Mr. PRINDLE. Well, we have seen increases, particularly in gasoline prices, in the last 3 to 4 years. And what we have also seen, 

this has been measured by researchers at the University of California Davis. I recite it in my testimony. What they found is that 

the price elasticity effect, the response of customer behavior to 

changes in prices is about six times weaker than it was measured 

in the 1970s. And so we have a fundamental problem if we expect 

high prices alone to motivate enough change in investment, enough 

change in behavior. I am not saying prices don’t work, I am not 

saying we should ignore energy prices. But if we want to meet the 

energy security challenge we have in this country, and especially 

the climate challenge, prices alone will not be sufficient. 

Ms. NORTON. If you are saying prices alone, I am sure you are 

right. I am sure you are right. I don’t even know if prices will do 

it. I just don’t believe that this is a fair—that we have had a fair 

test of that. And what worries me most is that Americans think it 

is unfair, it is unfair for them to be tested in this way. We have 

reinforced the notion that they deserve high energy and thus that 

we are having to turn around a whole culture and mentality on 

greening. 

Fortunately, as we begin and the facts get out there, people are 

beginning therefore to wonder. I mean, one of the reasons I think 

why Detroit hasn’t had any real reason to change is the Congress 

hasn’t wanted to push beyond where the American people are. Nobody has had the guts to do that. And Detroit says well, shucks, 

why should we change? We are here where energy doesn’t matter, 

the cost of energy doesn’t matter. And now they are saying that 

we’re behind the 8 ball, with not even a decent number of hybrids 

to put on the market. It just goes to show you what the Europeans 

did initially, frankly only with price. And then, when price was up, 

that encouraged the industry to go to different, more efficient automobiles and things began to show results there that we have not 

had. 

I am not disputing the initial notion and I think it is a very important notion to put forward because I do think we are a magic 

bullet society. And that has come forward as the latest magic bullet. I must say I am very intrigued, Mr. Harris, on your notion of 

incentives. Boy, am I intrigued about that. I believe in win-wins. 

I am intrigued by the whole set of things that people can do because I believe the way to break Americans into the energy conservation business is with old-fashioned conservation, old-fashioned 

237

things, for example, yeah, turning the lights off and finding a way 

so that it happens. I think it happens without giving much responsibility to somebody. When nobody has the responsibility, the building superintendent, for example, and doesn’t get rewarded for it, 

why should he do it? 

Now we give bonuses here in the Federal Government to people 

for doing good work. I have never heard of a bonus given to a working stiff who is a building superintendent for making sure that all 

the things you say the executive orders already say to do. The notion of incentives, I would like you to consider the Federal workforce, 2 million people, to elaborate on—and if not bonuses, and I 

am not suggesting money and bonuses are the only way—but to 

elaborate on incentives. 

Mr. HARRIS. I certainly agree with a lot of what you are saying. 

And from my experience over quite a few years working with Federal employees and a number of agencies, it is true that not everybody focuses on energy efficiency as much as I might like them to 

do. But there are a lot of dedicated people out there for whom energy efficiency is something they care about and is something they 

try to do. They are not always at a level of the agency where they 

can make the decisions that matter and so——

Ms. NORTON. Where are they? 

Mr. HARRIS. Down at the working level, managing a facility. 

They may be the staff person responsible. 

Ms. NORTON. Managing the facility. Isn’t that just the kind of 

person who is at the level where he can have an effect? 

Mr. HARRIS. There is a chain of command above that person, 

above him or her, and often you have capital investments that 

must be made at the top levels of an agency, you have budget constraints. We need Federal personnel from top to bottom recognizing 

the importance of these goals and encouraged to make decisions 

that are based on, as we were talking earlier, life-cycle costing, 

looking at the long term, and looking at what the savings will be, 

not just what the initial cost will be. 

I think, as you said, there is no single silver bullet to resolve 

this, but I think a variety of mechanisms can help. One, as I mentioned before, is congressional oversight, not just once but continually to pay attention to what you the agencies are doing. 

Let me tell you a small anecdote, if I might, because you mentioned European experience. There is a European requirement now 

that is just rolling out, being implemented, that calls for a certification of the performance of large buildings every year. This also 

requires that when a building is sold, when it changes hands 

through a lease when it is first built, that there has to be a disclosure of how much energy that building uses. 

There is a special requirement for public buildings and that is 

that all public buildings must post their energy performance for the 

public to see. In Denmark they have gone even further. In Denmark every building, I believe, over 100,000 kilowatt hours, has a 

special recording meter that takes the energy, electricity use from 

that building and puts it on the Web so that anybody can see it 

in real time. I don’t speak very good Danish but I have gone to that 

Web site. An I heard a wonderful story about a minister who one 

Friday evening went to the Web site for his building and saw that 

238

the building systems had not been shut down for the weekend as 

they should have been. He got on the phone, talked to the energy 

manager, and he read him the riot act. He said, Do you know that 

this information is out there for anybody in the public to see; and 

by the time I get up tomorrow morning I better see something different on our agency’s Web site. 

Now, I don’t know whether that story is true or not, but the 

point is it is being circulated as it if is something that could happen. So transparency, openness, and feedback on what buildings 

are actually doing can be a very powerful force at motivating people for being recognized for the good work they are doing; and if 

they slack off, to recognize they have got to fix it. So there is a different incentive that is important. 

Ms. NORTON. I recognize that we are further along in capital investment in some of these devices than in others. You say some 

will require capital investment. For the immediate term, I am not 

looking at those that require capital investment. GSA does a lot of 

automatic turn-off of lights, those things that turn off and turn on 

when you come into the ladies room and so forth, or the kitchen 

part. 

I believe that if you begin people where they are, you can take 

people where they want to go. And when people hear us talking 

about energy now, they say, for God’s sake, they just know they are 

so far from either being able to do what they think is affordable 

or afford the tax that would be necessary to do it. That basically 

the only way we have gotten their attention is through what Al 

Gore and others have done with warming and the fear that has 

now emerged. 

Mr. Prindle and Mr. Harris suggest an interesting issue. I certainly would love to get ahold of that and wonder how they do it: 

where essentially both of you in one way or another want the Federal Government to get tougher on codes, or stricter codes. But, of 

course, in our system, that is usually considered a local issue. How 

do you see the Federal Government able to make the demand and 

make it stick? 

Mr. PRINDLE. Madam Chair, it is ultimately a local issue and, as 

you know, the District government has recently instituted some 

very strong new building codes for private buildings. 

Ms. NORTON. So you would expect a local jurisdiction. Are you 

saying the local jurisdiction, or are you saying the Federal Government can have an effect? 

Mr. PRINDLE. The Federal Government can have a very strong effect by working at the national level, with the national organizations that develop what we call model codes. Because the standards 

that the District implemented weren’t invented overnight, they 

were developed by national organizations. 

Ms. NORTON. Or by the District. 

Mr. PRINDLE. The District deserves credit for taking the leadership to implement it, but these are very technical documents and 

so there are national processes and national organizations that develop the models, and the Federal Government could be a lot more 

aggressive in pushing for those 50 percent better performance levels in the national model codes and then at least the State and 

local governments have a model that they can draw on. They can 

239

feel more confident in adopting one of those models if it has been 

developed and endorsed by a national organization. 

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, if I could add to that, I certainly 

agree with everything that Mr. Prindle has said. The Alliance to 

Save Energy, working with a number of other organizations, many 

of which you see here at the table, has actually proposed some legislation to do exactly that, to establish clear benchmarks for these 

national model codes to progress over time towards the kinds of 

goals that Mr. Stewart was talking about earlier. 

There is a second role that I think is very important and we have 

been talking about it in the last few minutes, and that is that the 

Federal Government and, for that matter, State government agencies, local agencies, school districts can be the leaders, can say that 

their buildings are going to not only meet these new codes but go 

beyond them. 

We have right now in Federal law a requirement that Federal 

buildings should be 50 percent more energy efficient than the current code. And as Mr. Stewart said earlier, AIA is proposing that 

these standards should be even higher for Federal buildings in the 

future, and our organization strongly endorses that. 

I also point out—and Mr. Stewart may want to comment on 

this—that the vision 2030 goals that the AIA has outlined had 

been endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, by hundreds of 

mayors around the country. It is those same mayors whose building officials and building departments have responsibility for code 

adoption and for code endorsement in many cases, and they are 

also the building officials who go to the organizations that Mr. 

Prindle referred to and establish the model codes. 

I am sorry to say that many times we see a very conservative 

approach from these building officials, and we would like to see the 

opposite; we would like to see them stepping out and providing 

leadership. And I think the mayors can be encouraged to talk to 

their building officials and say, when you go to this next code conference we want you to speak up for making building energy codes 

stronger than they have been. I think there is a lot to do at all levels of government. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like to ask all four of you for some friendly 

advice. You saw me ask in the beginning about—or bemoan the absence of some universally accepted model for payback, life-cycle 

costing, or costing even in the nearer term. And I am wondering 

who might the Federal Government commission to do something 

like that. When we have had comparable things, although I must 

say this may be different, we have gone to somebody like the National Academy of Sciences or somebody like that. 

To go to any of you is to go to people who will be seen with a 

vested interest, and I hope you do have a vested interest. The point 

is to give everybody else a vested interest as well. The fact that we 

can’t put our hands on something definitive has not helped us. Obviously, if you sit down with experts, you can kind of figure out 

these models and what they mean; I mean, yes, from a technical 

and expert point of view that says this is what it means, America. 

Who in the world do you think could definitively do that and have 

it accepted as an objective source by the professions, by science, by 

the government and by the public? 

240

Mr. PRINDLE. I will take a quick stab at that and my colleagues, 

I am sure, can add to that. There are some established available 

for life-cycle costing. The Department of Energy, for example, has 

life-cycle costing methods that it uses for setting appliance standards, in setting Federal building standards. The broader challenge, 

I think, is to translate those—you know, those are sort of economic 

analysis methods. Those have to be translated into the marketplace. For example, in the residential mortgage market, a mortgage 

should be underwritten based on the total of principal, interest, 

taxes, insurance and energy costs. If mortgage underwriters took 

energy costs into account when they underwrote a 30-year mortgage, that would change behavior in the mortgage market. 

And so that the economic analysis tools are there. It is creating 

policies that gets them used in the market in real ways. Because 

even though the tools are there, what we see is market barriers 

and other forces continue to make those short-term driven decisions; you know, lowest first cost, and I am sure my colleagues 

would have additional thoughts on that. 

Mr. STEWART. As you noted earlier in some of your comments, 

that kind of short quarterly, annual time frame where people are 

looking for payback is really very, very shortsighted when we know 

building lives are so extended. Some of the comments Mr. Harris 

made about exposing the real costs to tenants and the people who 

occupy buildings is important. 

My firm, Gensler, did a survey of building owners and managers 

and tenants from our London office, and what we found there was 

that tenants were becoming increasingly disturbed at the fact that 

they were paying for inefficiently designed buildings. And so as the 

marketplace begins to recognize that they are assuming real-time 

costs now for decisions that were made long ago, I think we will 

begin to see that change. 

Places where the studies can be done are like, NIBS, National 

Institute of Building Sciences, in places like that. We are working 

with Mr. Harris in the large Berkeley lab on some proposals to look 

at ways where we can enhance sustainability as well as examine 

the payback. So I know you have been working a lot with that, Jeffrey; you may want to comment on that. 

Mr. HARRIS. Sure, thank you. I will. I think there is a whole lot 

to do in this field and I think that is probably a topic for a separate 

hearing which we would be delighted to attend. Suffice to say, I 

think going back to what Mr. Prindle said, there are lots of methods out there for doing the economic calculations. I think it is a 

question of how to deliver the message as both of you have, I think 

quite rightly, said. 

Let me give you one example. If you buy a refrigerator now, go 

into a Circuit City or wherever you want to shop for appliances, 

you will see a yellow label that is the FTC energy guide label. And 

if you squint carefully and take out your glasses you can find a dollar amount. The problem is most people can’t see it. And research 

has shown—research from Mr. Prindle’s organization—that a significant number of people who see that number, $75, think that it 

is the savings number and not the annual energy cost, which in 

fact it is. 

241

Ms. NORTON. So government, of course, can require that it be 

seeable and knowable from reading it. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is exactly right. And right now the FTC is in 

the middle of a proceeding to try to redo that label to make it much 

clearer and easier to understand, so that is a great example of how 

delivering information is really key. 

Let me suggest another way in which delivering information is 

going to matter. When Congress approves the budget for constructing a new Federal building, I believe, if you look at one thing 

and that is the price tag for that building, you are not looking at 

the price tag for the building, you are looking at part of the price 

tag for the building, as Mr. Prindle, Mr. Stewart and Mr. O’Brien 

of said. 

What we should find is ways to get Congress to look at the total 

price, the true cost of building and owning and operating that 

building, including its energy costs, because that building is going 

to be there for half a century, maybe longer. 

Ms. NORTON. You think we can do that even for leased buildings? 

Because we are the ones—they lease them, but they need us in 

order to have a building in the first place. 

Mr. HARRIS. And I think leases, because they have already 

spread out the costs in the lease payments, are one of the better 

ways to get at the question of not only the cost of occupying the 

building but of paying for the energy bill for the building. 

Ms. NORTON. One of the reasons that strikes me is because we 

lease many buildings for long periods of time, that we do not then 

own at the end. When you lease—energy savings for having leased 

a building all that period. 

Mr. HARRIS. I agree with you, Madam Chair. One of the recommendations we make in our written testimony is that the requirements for energy efficiency in a building that the Federal Government builds and pays for up front should also apply to any 

building that is built by a private developer for the purpose of leasing to the Federal Government. 

Ms. NORTON. What about buildings we already lease and we for 

the most part—let’s say in the District and the region—we will be 

leasing buildings that are already up, sometimes we have been 

leasing for some time. Do you think that we could have same or 

similar effect on those buildings? 

Mr. HARRIS. I honestly do. And I think the way to do that is over 

time as these leases are up for renewal, every 5 years or whatever 

it is, there should be a requirement that the lease renewal include 

a renovation cycle, a retrofitting of the building for all measures 

that are cost-effective over some period of time, perhaps the term 

of the next lease. 

Now once you have a building in place, as Mr. Stewart said, you 

are limited in what you can do with it. But there are still major 

renovation cycles that occur in buildings, and that is the opportunity certainly to renew the lighting system, sometimes to replace 

windows, and oftentimes to renew or redo the heating and cooling 

system and controls. So there are opportunities even in leased 

space. And we need to use the market power, especially in the Federal Government, especially here in the District to make energy efficiency happen. 

242

Ms. NORTON. So much power so unused makes me cry. In your 

own testimony you say we could drive the cost of energy down 

throughout the United States. 

I want to thank you very much for testimony that has been enormously enlightening, and for suggesting ways that we can immediately approach these very important issues. And I am going to 

turn the meeting over to the next round. The next round is aviation 

and——

Oh, please be seated, Mr. Costello. And here the Chairman is 

coming back. We will have some questions on remaining questions 

for you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. [presiding.] Gentlemen, we have a number of 

questions left, and we will submit them in writing to you and ask 

you to reply. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the Chair yield for just a moment? I will announce that an agreement has been reached on the House floor 

that resolves the matter that has been the subject of repeated 

quorum calls, motions to rise, and attempts to disrupt the proceedings on the floor. The issue has been resolved. We will be able 

to proceed in an orderly fashion and hear testimony from this panel 

and the succeeding witnesses without disruption. 

Mr. Costello will be in the chair, and I will return, but not necessarily for this panel, because I have another meeting I have to 

attend to. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the distinguished Chairman of 

the Full Committee. And I have two questions that I would like to 

pose to the panel, and then the rest of the questions will be submitted and we will ask you to submit your answers in writing. 

All of us recognize that the Federal Government has come a long 

way in the past two decades regarding energy consumption, and 

the question is, where would you put your efforts in the next decade; research and development, alternative sources of of energy, 

consumption restrictions, adhering to stricter standards or efficiency investments? 

Mr. Stewart, if you would like to go first. 

Mr. STEWART. I think I would look at splitting my efforts between research and development. There is a lot of technology out 

there on the edge that could and should be brought to market that 

I think we will see great benefit from. 

I would think the other opportunity would be to advance the regulations and incentives because the opportunities to use the carrots 

and the sticks of the marketplace and the regulations to get people 

to actually implement and adhere to the standards, I think is one 

of the bigger challenges we face. 

As we have talked about this afternoon, there is a lot that can 

be done, but yet the market fails to respond. So if we can find ways 

to bring them around in their understanding of the benefits, not 

just in terms of the environmental benefits but the cost benefits, 

I think we would see a huge shift in the marketplace. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. Prindle. 

Mr. PRINDLE. Thank you. 

I would say that we need a balanced portfolio of energy efficiency 

policies. The beginning of the pipeline, if you will, for energy effiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
243

ciency infrastructure is research and development. Energy efficiency research and development has been reduced by more than 

25 percent during the current administration’s tenure. After inflation, it is even worse. And that is not just cutting a few dollars; 

that is actually beginning to shut down whole sections of research 

institutions. That is infrastructure. That is infrastructure that we 

need to build the clean energy future. Congress needs to start by 

rebuilding the R&D and deployment programs at the Department 

of Energy and the other agencies, just to get us back on track. 

We also need to expand the labeling and voluntary programs we 

have through Energy Star. Those are working very well. They are 

underfunded. But we are also going to need regulations. Our markets will be where the problem gets solved, but markets work best 

when they have targets to hit. And so we need to set standards for 

individual appliances. We have been doing a lot of that in the last 

few years, 15 products in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We need 

standards for buildings, as we have been discussing, building codes. 

And we are also seeing at the State level, the States are setting 

energy efficiency targets on the macrolevel for entire utilities, for 

example. And for renewable energy. 

And when you set targets for energy efficiency and you set targets for renewable energy, we are seeing some States that can actually see their carbon emissions beginning to go down in the next 

15 years because they are beginning to do that. And so that is 

going to take some judicious regulation as well. It is really a spectrum. It starts with R&D and goes through regulation. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The agreement 

that Chairman Oberstar just announced lasted about 2 minutes 

and we now have another vote on the floor. 

I have 12 minutes to get over, but let me—I am going to ask a 

final question, Mr. Harris and Mr. O’Brien, and then we are going 

to dismiss this panel and ask the third panel to come forward. We 

will go over and vote—there are two votes—and then come immediately right back. And if the third panel can be at the witness 

table, we will proceed immediately. 

Mr. Harris, what are the biggest obstacles you view to a national 

energy policy? 

Mr. HARRIS. I don’t know that I can do that justice in a minute 

or so, but let me take a stab at it. 

I certainly think that we have a lot of education to do to help 

people understand better how energy is used and where the opportunities are in their daily lives and the way they run their businesses and, in the case of policymakers and elected officials, in the 

areas under their jurisdiction for saving energy. 

So I think education has got to be a centerpiece of what we do, 

and overcoming what I don’t think is really reluctance—I think 

people are all busy, we have day jobs. I am fortunate that my day 

job is energy efficiency. But I think that we can nonetheless start 

with our elementary schools, and the Alliance to Save Energy is 

working with a number of school districts to do that and carrying 

it on throughout the school system and beyond. If there were a single thing that I would like to see happening that is not getting 

enough attention—and I agree with the list that my distinguished 

colleagues have just given you—it has to do with educating the 

244

general public to be literate in energy and understand where energy-saving opportunities lie. 

I think there is a flip side of that, and that is helping the people 

whose job is not only building buildings and operating them, but 

designing and installing industrial systems, running our utility 

companies to understand the opportunities for energy efficiency. 

We have, Mr. Chairman, in this business, in the energy efficiency 

business, a serious and growing workforce issue to deal with. We 

have people who—I will take the responsibility and let my colleagues jump in on this—are, frankly, getting a little long in the 

tooth. We have been in this business maybe 20, 30 years or longer, 

and finding the people who will replace us and come behind us, let 

alone let this field grow, is not going to be easy. So I think there 

is a huge education and workforce development challenge, and I 

hope that we can address it together. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. O’Brien. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. You know, we have talked just a few minutes ago 

about the challenges of overcoming the mentality that focuses on 

the first cost, and I think that has a lot—I think we can take a 

look at the national—the lack of ability to move forward with a 

clear national energy strategy—in the same way that there is a 

limited political accountability for some of the consequences of 

maintaining the status quo, which, in the short run may be lowest 

first cost. 

If you took a national energy strategy that was more akin to a 

life-cycle cost, the long-term consequences, you would end up with 

a portfolio that would include a much heavier dosage of energy efficiency and onsite renewable energy. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Stewart or Mr. Prindle, would you like to respond quickly? Mr. Prindle, apparently, had the answer to the 

question so——

Mr. PRINDLE. The biggest obstacles to a national energy policy—

I was going to say ignorance and apathy, but Mr. Harris spoke 

about education. I think he is really right, there. I think what we 

really have to grapple with in this new era of expensive energy and 

serious climate threat is we need to get past the argument about 

regulation versus markets. You know, there is this kind of split; 

you either have a free market energy policy or you have a regulated. 

And we don’t see it that way. We think that smart regulation actually helps markets work better. And let’s get past this idea of the 

free market is going to do it or you need to regulate every facet of 

a marketplace. We have seen States in particular come up with 

very smart regulatory policies that have helped their economies 

and helped their energy industries. And we can find that sweet 

spot where regulation actually drives markets forward. I think that 

is a message we need to get across. 

Mr. STEWART. I would simply add to the education discussion, is 

that a better understanding that the decisions we make today have 

a ripple effect on out through the decades for 50, 60, 70 years, and 

shortsightedness with which we tend to make these decisions really 

will be the problem that future generations will come back to us 

and ask, What were we thinking? 

245

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks all of our witnesses here in this 

panel today, and this concludes the testimony and the questions 

from the second panel. 

We would ask those who are on the third panel testifying—I 

would expect that we would be back here in the Chair in about 15 

minutes and would ask you to be prepared to give your testimony. 

I will give an opening statement—a brief, very brief opening statement, and go directly to the third panel. 

But, again, gentlemen we thank you for being here and presenting your thoughtful testimony and answering the questions of 

the Members. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. [Presiding.] The Committee will resume. And Mr. 

Costello, Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation will return to continue chairing the proceedings. 

I regret that the announcement I made at the last vote was that 

this was the last vote that we were going to have of this kind. But 

there is still a disruption proceeding on the House floor that may 

go on for some time yet, a matter that we thought had been resolved at the leadership level, but there is still a Member proceeding on his own agenda, and we have no idea what is going to 

happen. So I would propose that we bring the Water Resources 

panel to the table. It will make for a long table. But make sure 

that we can get everybody together. And we will hear all testimony 

and then proceed with any questions that Members may have. 

So are all—is Mr. Brandt, Mr. Fitzgerald—I think there were 

some who had time constraints. We did not anticipate this to be a 

marathon 7- or 8-hour hearing today. But those are matters beyond 

our control. 

So we will begin in the order in which the witnesses are listed. 

And perhaps—no, we will just go through the Aviation panel and 

then the Water Resources panel. I think that is the best way to 

proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; GREG PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORT COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL—NORTH AMERICA; MICHAEL McQUADE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; 

AND RICHARD L. ALTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT ALTERNATE FUELS INITIATIVE 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So, Mr. May, welcome to the Committee. Thank 

you for your patience throughout this long day. And welcome to the 

legislative process. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This evening I would like 

to emphasize three key points. First, commercial airlines are extremely carbon efficient. Second, we are committed to driving our 

carbon efficiency even further. Third, as commercial aviation is a 

global industry, the United States should continue to support efforts by the International Civil Aviation Organization to further 

address aviation’s contributions to climate change. Recent media 

reports from Europe have raised alarm bells about commercial 

aviation’s contributions. Some rhetoric is extreme. Air transportation has been categorized as sinful. 

246

Let me try and set the record straight. Commercial aviation contributes about 2 percent of domestic U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

At the same time, commercial aviation is critically important to our 

economy, driving about 1.2 trillion in economic activity, 6 percent 

of the country’s economic output, over 11 million jobs, nearly 9 percent of employment. We have been able to deliver more value to 

the economy and reduce our carbon footprint because we are constantly improving fuel efficiency. 

Since 2001, commercial aviation has achieved a 35 percent improvement. That is both in fuel efficiency and in our carbon footprint. U.S. airlines are highly motivated to continue the trend. Fuel 

is our largest cost, over $38 billion in 2006. But even in these highly constrained financial times, we have invested heavily in fuel-efficient capital and technology. 

In the next 3 years we are going to receive over 500 new highly 

fuel-efficient aircraft from companies, the likes of which are Boeing 

and Airbus, who have been doing a terrific job in improving their 

own technology. We have relentlessly pursued operational opportunities to reduce fuel burn, including cutting-edge software to permit more direct routes, aircraft weight reduction programs, and improve ground operations. 

There is a need for congressional leadership in three areas. First, 

you should ensure that this country’s inefficient air traffic control 

system is modernized to permit more direct routing, saving fuel 

and emissions. Modernization can improve fuel efficiency——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Excuse me, Mr. May, could you bring your microphone just a little closer to you? 

Mr. MAY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. MAY. Modernization will improve fuel efficiency and reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions an average of 10 to 15 percent on every 

single flight. 

Second, we urge Congress to reinvigorate NASA and FAA environmental aeronautics research and development. 

Third, we urge congressional action to spur further commercial 

development of alternative fuels. We urge Congress to move forward with legislation on all of these points. 

A significant part of ATA carriers’ operations are international, 

and U.S. airlines compete vigorously in that format. In light of our 

global nature, ICAO has endorsed the use of voluntary measures, 

and adopted formal guidance on voluntary agreements and operational measures to reduce fuel burn and emissions, which ATA 

and its member carriers helped develop. 

Given these efforts, countries such as Japan, Canada, both of 

whom are parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and whose economies are 

closely aligned to the United States, have also chosen to address 

aviation greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary agreements. 

So I close by asking you to note the achievements of the industry 

in reducing fuel burn and emissions. And while we are asking for 

congressional leadership, we are not asking you to work for us; we 

are asking you to work with us in addressing the environmental 

concerns. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. May. 

Mr. Principato. 

247

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing Airports 

Council International-North America to present the views of the 

Nation’s airports on these important environmental issues. As has 

already been stated, the aviation sector contributes a very small 

amount to greenhouse gas emissions, yet ACI-North America members are doing their part to minimize impacts on climate change, 

just as they do in other areas such as water quality, noise, and 

local air quality. 

Greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies employed by airports have included investing in and promoting the use of alternative fuel and low-emission vehicles and energy saving equipment, recycling building and construction materials, waste and 

water, improving the operational efficiency of the airfield and 

landside systems, acquiring green power, and providing emissionsreducing services for aircraft at the gate. 

For example, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport has converted nearly all of its fleet of vehicles to low-emission or alternative fuel. Portland and Denver have conducted inventories to determine their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Los Angeles has an onsite hydrogen fuel generating system. Numerous airports have installed 400-hertz power and preconditioned air units 

at gates to minimize emissions from aircraft auxiliary and ground 

power units. Sacramento installed a jet fuel pipeline to eliminate 

emissions from fuel truck traffic. 

Airports have also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by implementing initiatives to reduce waste disposal and energy use. Last 

year, Terminal A at Boston became the first airport terminal in the 

world to be certified by the U.S. Green Building Council as meeting 

the requirements for LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Several other airports are currently working toward LEED certification for new or renovated terminal projects, including Indianapolis and Oakland. 

Sustainability programs and environmental management systems, EMS’s, are also becoming increasingly widespread at airports 

across the U.S. as mechanisms to minimize their environmental 

footprint. Chicago O’Hare has developed this Sustainable Design 

Manual to guide its entire modernization program. Miami-Dade, 

Westchester County, and Denver have also implemented EMS’s. 

On the industry level, the Airport Cooperative Research Program 

has provided a valuable resource for airports in helping to better 

understand and address many of the environmental issues facing 

the industry. Now, to further support these efforts, ACI has advocated a number of very specific ideas. We are working very closely 

with the staff on a number of them. 

Rather than take the time to go through each of them, because 

we have spent a good deal of time working with the staff on AIP 

pilot programs and so forth to promote energy efficiency, low-emission vehicles and that sort of thing at airports, I just want to assure you that we are working very closely with the staff on these 

matters. 

I want to close by making two specific specific points: Number 

one, asking you to consider making ACRP permanent at the administration’s requested level of $15 million, and also supporting the 

designation of $5 million for much-needed environmental research; 

248

and also, airports do support Next-Gen initiatives that will make 

the air traffic control system more efficient, both en route and on 

the ground, and reduce emissions and noise. 

So with that let me close, and offer to answer any questions you 

might have. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you. 

And the Chair now recognizes Mr. McQuade. 

Mr. MCQUADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify. I am Michael McQuade. I am the senior vice president for 

science and technology at United Technologies Corporation. I am 

very pleased to testify today. 

The approach Congress and businesses together adopt to tackle 

the climate change issues present both challenges and opportunities for the Nation. 

Let me tell you a little bit about UTC. We are a $50 billion global 

company, a diversified company, headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. Our chairman and CEO likes to say that our entire business is about combating gravity and the weather. We make things 

go up and down, we make things go hotter and colder. The common 

denominator in everything we do is the conversion of energy into 

useful work, whether it is in elevators or air conditioners or in the 

aerospace industry. So we are highly alert to the energy and conservation agenda for transportation and stationary applications. 

Through a series of technology process and policy initiatives in 

the company during the period from 1997 to 2006, UTC reduced 

our absolute energy use by 19 percent, even as we doubled the size 

of our company. So we believe we bring a credible voice to the policy debate, as we have been a leader in addressing climate change 

by reducing energy use in our global operations and incorporating 

energy efficient innovations in our products. 

Aviation is a global industry. On any given day, an airplane can 

literally be in multiple countries and on multiple continents. You 

have heard already from other witnesses about the importance of 

ICAO. We want to echo those remarks. ICAO, with its 190 contracting member states, is the place to establish guidance and policy to address global environment issues. We are an active participant with ICAO, and we support global solutions to global problems. We remain firmly committed in our support to alternate fuel 

initiatives, and participate fully in the work my colleague, Rich Altman from CAAFI, will describe next. At the same time, UTC believes the more immediate path to lower CO2 emissions for aviation is through energy efficient engine gains. 

Our Pratt & Whitney business makes military and commercial 

aircraft engines, and we are taking a leadership role in developing 

new technologies, such as our unique geared turbofan, that will 

offer significant improvements in fuel efficiency and thereby directly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Pratt & Whitney will have 

in place production- ready engine technology for the next generation of single-aisle aircraft. Key elements of our technology include 

the geared turbofan, low-emission combustor technology known as 

TALON, an advanced high-pressure compressor, and a suite of new 

high-pressure turbine technologies. 

This unique engine configuration offered by the geared turbofan 

will deliver 12 percent reduction in fuel burn over best current sinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
249

gle-aisle engines, a 55 percent reduction in NOX emissions over the 

ICAO 2008 standard, a 20 percent reduction in noise over ICAO 

chapter 4 standards, and a 40 percent reduction in engine maintenance costs. And just to note, a 12 percent reduction in the aviation 

industry fuel usage would save over $14 billion a year, a figure 

which would exceed the current profitability of the industry and 

lead to increased energy security by reducing our dependence on 

foreign oil. 

We are working in other areas to improve engine efficiency and 

reduce aircraft emissions. During the course of normal operations, 

airborne material is ingested into an aircraft engine and deposited 

on the internal parts. As you can imagine, over time this material 

builds up and leads to a drop in fuel efficiency. This performance 

deterioration can be restored by regular engine washing, which historically has been a very long process, using toxic chemicals. Pratt 

& Whitney has made this once labor- and time-intensive process 

operationally efficient with our environmentally friendly EcoPower 

Engine Wash System. Washing every engine airline system twice 

a year with EcoPower could save over half a billion gallons of fuel, 

the equivalent of 10 million pounds, or 5 million tons of carbon dioxide. 

Major sources of air pollution at our airports are not limited to 

aircraft operations. Ground vehicles, automobile shuttles and public transportation for people and goods, baggage handling, maintenance repair, all contribute to the energy and emission footprint. 

We see fuel cells as a solution for this component of airport emissions. With more than 40 years of experience, UTC Power is the 

world leader and only company that develops and produces fuel 

cells for stationary transportation and space applications. Fuel cells 

combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity with only two 

byproducts, heat that can be used for downstream heating, cooling 

and clean water. Fuel cells and other clean power technologies can 

be used to reduce air emissions for buses and ground support 

equipment, terminals, and adjacent hotel operations, backup 

power. 

Let me summarize. Energy conservation presents the greatest 

near-term opportunity to reduce both consumption and emissions 

and should be a high priority for our Nation. UTC is investing 

heavily, and working in partnership with various government agencies to bring climate-friendly technologies to the aviation industry. 

The Federal Government should increase its focus and investment 

in existing and emerging alternate energy efficiency technologies, 

should support the VALE portion of the FAA reauthorization proposal, and invest in those technologies that have a high potential 

to be affordable and cost-effective to lead to market acceptance. 

This is why we focus on fleet applications for fuel cells rather than 

the distributive automotive industry. 

We look forward to working with Members of this Committee 

and other stakeholders to ensure the commercialization of these advanced energy efficient technologies. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify. 

The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes Mr. Altman. 

250

Mr. ALTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative with the opportunity to 

testify on the compelling issues of climate change and energy independence as relates to aviation. It is particularly satisfying to me 

to be represented on the panel with three of our sponsors, the Airport Council International, ATA and United Technologies, as part 

of the Aerospace Industries Association. CAAFI is a data-gathering 

and communications process that seeks to increase both the quantity and the quality of dialogue among its airline, airport, manufacturer and FAA sponsors. It also seeks to engage multiple government, industry and university stakeholders. 

The fundamental belief of the sponsors in forming the CAAFI 

process is that aviation is data-driven and relatively small in size, 

allowing it to benefit from such a process. CAAFI sponsors and 

stakeholders recognize the data they develop and collect, in the 

hands of key analysts and decision-makers in such matters as safety, security, and the environment, will be a catalyst for informed 

and expedited solutions which serve all components of the supply 

chain well. Such clarity of solutions and messages, we believe, will 

spur suppliers to invest in solutions suitable for commercial aviation. The goal is to make our relatively small sector of the transportation market a customer of choice for alternative fuels. 

My role as executive director is simply to be the facilitator of 

that process. While I am an independent contractor to our FAA 

sponsor in this role, my task is to balance the interests of all four 

supply chain sectors. So getting to the aviation fuel option specifically, we are evaluating three fundamental categories. One, largely 

non-renewable from coal and gas, could be available in the zero to 

5-year time frame, in some quantity; I want to make clear, not for 

all the total supply. 

As can be expected, there is far more data available on these 

sources, and consequently more information that will be discussed 

regarding both the technical and business perspectives. 

In near- to mid-term, 5 to 15 years, biodiesel renewables and 

some more difficult to extract non-renewable sources, such as shale 

oil, are possible, according to the United States Air Force Science 

Advisory Board. Blends of renewable and non-renewable sources 

can be brought into play in this time period. Some analysis of how 

deployment can be effective in this area have been brought to 

CAAFI’s attention, and I will address those very briefly. 

Long term, 15 years and beyond, biofuel renewable candidates 

from a variety of alternative processes could be targets for aviation. 

Let me give you a very brief summary of those three categories, 

both from the R & D certification and qualification status, the environmental status, and also what the business scenario looks like 

for each. 

In the case of the certification qualification of Fischer-Tropsch 

coal-to-liquid or gas-to-liquid fuels, two specific types; one, 

Syntroleum, that flew last year on a B-52, and Sasol, a coal-to-liquid derivative, have been tested. The testing is complete to industry standards now, and could be qualified by midyear. There will 

be created a generic specification for coal-to-liquid or gas-to-liquid. 

Any Fischer-Tropsch process will be completed by the end of the 

251

year. And then lastly, within the next year, about 100 percent will 

follow. 

In fact, the CO2 output of this particular item without coal capture or without carbon capture and sequestration is, in fact, worse. 

However, most of the plants that are being contemplated do have 

provision for sequestration. And in addition to that, they have the 

ability to use the carbon in some cases. Local air quality is extremely important in these cases, and the Fischer-Tropsch fuels we 

are talking about have significantly better attributes in terms of 

particle matter, and also in terms of sulfur, which is particularly 

significant in that it allows the same fuel to be used in ground 

equipment, could conceivably be used in jet aircraft. 

There have been significant studies done by the Department of 

Energy, and it shows affordable cost in this particular area. There 

is a limit in current production, and therefore incentives would be 

required to move forward. There are also, in the case of FischerTropsch fuel, there is an opportunity to add biomass to that fuel. 

And those particular provisions, if they are at the 20 percent level, 

will create a significant opportunity. 

It is very significant, I think, to Mr. Costello that one of the studies that was done has been done by Princeton University in southern Illinois, Fayette County, showing the economics of combined 

Fischer-Tropsch and agricultural capability and how that could 

work. 

Lastly, the last option that we are looking at here are oils, vegetable oils, fuel from algae. That particular type of technology is further out in time, and the economic case for those types of renewables has yet to be made. I think it is important that it be looked 

at in similar depth to what’s been looked at in the case of the 

Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid fuels. 

So with that, I will leave with one final statement. And that is 

that the FAA authorization requests—and this was mentioned by 

Greg—in terms of the ACRP program, is extremely important in 

terms of the Clean Research Program that they have indicated they 

will spend on alternative fuels. Those two things the people who I 

work with consider to be right-sized and totally appropriate and 

should go forward in the reauthorization. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. If the Chair would yield? 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. [Presiding.] Yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me thank all four of you for your testimony. 

We will have questions for you concerning your testimony. 

At this time the gentlelady from Texas, who chairs the Water Resources Committee, will recognize the panel here to testify for 

water resources, 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. And let me thank 

both panels for being so patient today to stay here all day. And I 

am going to call out of order, because Mr. Fitzgerald has to leave 

to get a plane. And he goes to Houston, Texas. And being from 

Texas, I am taking that liberty. 

I gave my opening statement about 1:30 today because that is 

the time that I was supposed to be up. And I came in here from 

another Committee and didn’t learn until after that that was just 

a question period for the first panel. So thank you for being here. 

And Mr. Fitzgerald, you can make what statement you would like. 

252

And then we will get them to submit any questions they might 

have so you can get out on time. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE FITZGERALD, CHIEF ENGINEER, HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, HOUSTON, TEXAS, 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD 

AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; BRIAN RICHTER, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL FRESHWATER INITIATIVE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY; ALF W. BRANDT, PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT, COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY; AND LINDA STROUT, 

DEPUTY CEO, PORT OF SEATTLE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you very much. And on behalf of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, 

or NAFSMA, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to 

present this testimony today. NAFSMA represents more than 100 

local and State flood and stormwater management agencies. Our 

members are on the front line, protecting their communities from 

loss of life, and reducing flood damages to homes and businesses. 

Scientific analysis and interpretation of climate, weather and 

stormwater runoff data is of fundamental importance for the planning, design and operation of stormwater and flood protection facilities. 

Historical data and events are used by scientists and engineers 

to estimate risks and levels of protection for existing and future 

flood protection systems. Other factors clearly influence the decision of how to provide protection, such as lives at risk, damages 

avoided, environmental impacts, costs and ability to pay. 

So how does climate change affect local stormwater management 

agencies? It comes down to deciding whether to include climate 

change as a factor in estimating risk and levels of protection to size 

future flood protection facilities or modify existing ones. How much 

of the calculation should be based on historical data and how much 

on future climate projections? Presently, very few of our members 

are considering future climate change because of the many unknowns. 

NAFSMA has five recommendations for the Committee. 

Number one. At the Federal level, continue the targeted climate 

change research to establish public policy based on sound scientific 

research. NAFSMA supports the ongoing Research and Application 

Initiatives Assistant Secretary Woodley presented to this Committee last Friday. We also support inclusion of State and local officials in federally led research and policy development. All of the 

impact and much of the cost of any decision to incorporate or not 

to incorporate climate change as a design factor will be borne by 

State and local entities. 

Number two. Provide adequate funding for research and existing 

programs that address responses to our climate. Specific examples 

are the USGS stream-gauging programs. These gauges serve as the 

backbone of our stormwater and flood protection systems, the 

NOAA, NAFSMA and National Weather Service research efforts, 

FEMA’s map modernization programs, that better defines risk for 

our local communities, and FEMA mitigation grant programs. And 

253

finally, the Corps of Engineers research efforts, water resources 

studies and projects, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities. 

Third recommendation. Allow projects to proceed under existing 

policies and design parameters. We need to provide definitive protection today instead of waiting for future climate conditions yet to 

be determined. This is in the public health and safety interest of 

local communities. 

Four. Once climate change-related policy is adopted, incorporate 

changes within current policies for planning, approval, funding, implementation, and operation so that the projects will be in place 

and work as intended when they are needed. Specific suggestions 

that update the current project evaluation process to give public 

safety equal standing with the national economic development 

standard, reduce the time to identify projects by eliminating 

redundancies and unnecessary steps, such as the Lean Six Sigma 

Process recently initiated by the Corps of Engineers, and streamline permitting for operations and maintenance of activities of flood 

protection facilities. 

And the final recommendation. Encourage strong and deliberate 

interagency coordination among Federal agencies. A good example 

of this has been the recent efforts by the Corps of Engineers and 

FEMA to address levee safety and flood risk reduction. Together 

they have initiated the national levee inventory program and a national flood risk management strategy, with active local, regional 

and State involvement. 

As climate change issues and impacts are addressed, cooperation 

and collaboration will be imperative to making sound and informed 

decisions. And thank you for letting me make this presentation 

today. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. And my staff person here will help you get out of this building if you don’t know 

it real well. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. We will go back to our regular order, unless someone else is in a real big hurry. Mr. Brian Richter is next. 

Oh, I am sorry, Dr. Gerald Galloway. 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Can you hear 

me? Can you put on the slides there, if you would? 

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to be here 

today. I am Jerry Galloway, President of the American Water Resources Association, which is a multidisciplinary group of professionals chartered to deal with water resources, education, research 

and management. And we are waiting for a slide. Let me continue. 

My message today is very straightforward. The United States 

faces significant water resource challenges, and we are not properly 

addressing these challenges. Climate change is only going to exacerbate the very challenges we have faced in the past and make it 

more difficult in the future. 

Next slide. Next slide. 

Water resources are a critical component of both our national security and our national economy. And we recognize that. I know 

the Members of the Committee are very familiar with the challenges illustrated on this slide, ranging from water shortages, 

254

water quality backsliding that is going on, the problems we have 

with ports and harbors in need of rehabilitation, losses in wetlands 

and habitat, problems with getting adequate funding for restoration in many areas where ecosystems are in great danger. Water 

conflicts still abound. 

Next slide. 

We also face significant challenges in the flood damage reduction 

area. The annual flood losses in this country are continuing to 

grow. Climate change will just make that worse. 

Next slide. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers biennial report on the 

status of our infrastructure clearly indicates that we are giving a 

very poor job, a grade of D, to the work that is going on. The backlog in annual shortfall of funds necessary for this infrastructure 

are in the tens of billions of dollars. And, again, climate change will 

just make this more difficult. 

Next slide. 

At the international level, something of importance for our national security, and mentioned earlier today, the U.N. Reports that 

5 million people, mostly children, each year will end up having significant problems as a result of the lack of access to water. 

Next slide. 

What is interesting and illustrated in this slide is the fact that 

credible organizations report significant challenges with what 

water resources will look like in the future. We can see from this 

slide that we are dealing with increases in water at high altitudes, 

high latitudes, and in the mid-latitude areas an increase in the 

shortage of water, further exacerbating the drought that I mentioned earlier. We see that there are problems with the resilience 

of ecosystems and the challenges that we will face in dealing with 

sea level rise and the surges that will come as a result of hurricanes and other acts of nature in these coastal and riverine areas 

near the coasts. 

Next slide. Next slide. 

I think the major challenges in this area can be seen in coastal 

Louisiana, where the impacts of climate change increased the surge 

heights and increased elevations as a result of climate change 

make the challenges they already face even more difficult. 

Next slide. 

The work that is going on on examining the protection of Louisiana will become increasingly more important as we get more information and understand better what climate change is actually 

going to mean. 

Next slide. 

The AWRA conducted three water policy dialogues over the past 

4 years at the request of 10 Federal agencies and 49 governmental 

organizations. These dialogues brought together experts from 

around the country to discuss our Nation’s water challenges. And 

it is important to note that as they developed the consensus, they 

represented all parts of the country as we moved forward to discuss 

the issues. The general conclusions are——

Next slide. 

-- the Nation is operating without a sound understanding of the 

water challenges we face. We have not had a national water assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
255

ment since 1976. And given the impacts of climate change, it is 

critical that such a national assessment be undertaken. 

Second, the efforts to deal with water lack focus and immediate 

attention. Our Nation’s approach to dealing with water has been ad 

hoc on a project basis versus a systems and a watershed basis and 

needs to be reformed. 

Next slide. 

The participants in the National Water Policy Dialogues concluded that the administration and Congress should work with 

Governors and leaders of the country to develop broad principles 

for water management. We don’t have a vision. We don’t have a national vision. We don’t need a Federal vision. And there was a 

strong sense that the center of gravity for water issues should rest 

at the State level, as the Federal Government should provide support, with the States leading the way. 

They also determined that there should be better coordination of 

water resource activities among Federal agencies and within the 

Congress, and that the administration must encourage policies that 

promote watershed planning, and that ensure that our Nation’s scientific talent is put to good use. 

Next slide. 

With specific respect to climate change, the Dialogue believes 

that Congress and the administration should provide adequate 

funding to Federal agencies to carry out climate change impact 

analyses for the planning of new projects, and most importantly, 

for the operations of those that are currently in existence. They 

have the authorization, but not the funding. 

And lastly, that Congress should closely examine the allocation 

of funds for water resources infrastructure. Our current situation 

points to the failure of current funding levels to adequately deal 

with the problems we now have. And climate change is just going 

to make that situation worse. 

Next slide. 

In sum, let me say that the stewardship of the Nation’s water 

resources is being neglected. And the manner in which we deal 

with water issues and climate change in specific terms is dysfunctional. We urge you to initiate substantive efforts to develop a coordinated, collaborative national, not Federal, approach to preserving and protecting our water resources, our infrastructure, and 

the ecosystems they support. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. We appreciate 

you being here. 

Mr. Brian Richter? 

Mr. RICHTER. Yes. Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the 

impacts of climate change on our water resources. My name is 

Brian Richter, and I am the director of the Global Freshwater Initiative for The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is a 

leading conservation organization that protects ecologically important places for nature and for people. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and in more than 30 other 

countries. While The Nature Conservancy’s mission is focused on 

sustaining the Earth’s diversity of plants and animals, we know 

256

the protection of ecosystems is also critical to human well-being. 

Therefore, we are gravely concerned about the potential for climate 

change to substantially disrupt the things that everyone in this 

room cares about: our economy, our culture, and the ecosystems 

that support our way of life. 

Failing to protect freshwater and coastal ecosystems from these 

climate changes will have tangible societal, cultural, and economic 

consequences. That is why The Nature Conservancy is calling for 

legislation and policies to address greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a strong, cost-effective cap and market-based program to 

reduce emissions. In addition, we believe that it is critical that 

such a program help to reduce emissions from deforestation and 

support land conservation by crediting activities that deliver sustainable, high-quality emissions reductions and carbon sequestration. 

Now, we also urge your support for adaptation programs that can 

help ecosystems, and the human communities reliant upon them, 

to cope with the impacts of climate change. As we all know, even 

immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not avert 

the expected climate impacts of gases we have already put into the 

atmosphere. Therefore, we need to ready ourselves for the associated changes that will come. To meet human and ecosystem needs 

in the face of climate change, we must do a much better job of comprehensively managing our water resources. Dr. Galloway made 

these points very eloquently a moment ago. 

First, we need to assimilate much better data on the availability 

of water and how it is being used. Today, most States possess only 

a rudimentary understanding of who is using water, how much 

they are using, when they use it, and how much is left for other 

purposes. Fortunately, there are promising efforts underway in a 

number of States, including Texas, which has developed state-ofthe-art computer tools to help support water management. To ensure that all States have a similar ability to account for and manage water resources comprehensively, we must substantially increase State and Federal investment in basic water accounting, 

particularly for the U.S. Geological Survey and the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Comprehensive water management also involves improved management of our existing water infrastructure, such as the more 

than 2,000 large Federal dams in this country. By reevaluating 

current operations of these facilities, we can better serve human 

needs and adapt to changing conditions, while also protecting our 

natural ecosystems. 

For example, through a national partnership with the Army 

Corps of Engineers, called the Sustainable Rivers Project, The Nature Conservancy and the Corps are working together to improve 

the management of 27 dams in nine different river basins across 

the country. Together we are finding abundant opportunities to 

better protect the river ecosystems affected by these dams, while 

continuing to provide flood control, water supply, hydropower generation, and recreational benefits. 

The second issue I would like to address is substantially greater 

flooding of our Nation’s coasts and inland waterways that is expected to occur with climate change. To adequately respond to more 

257

frequent and intense flooding, our flood management efforts must 

account for the services that are provided by healthy natural ecosystems. By allowing rivers to once again safely spill onto their 

original floodplains in places where they have been leveed or channelized in a carefully managed manner, we can restore critically 

important natural flood storage, while simultaneously increasing 

the production of fish and waterfowl, recharging our groundwater 

aquifers, and naturally purifying water as it flows through flooded 

wetland areas. 

By increasing the flood storage capacity of natural floodplains, 

some of the reservoir capacity presently being used to store floodwaters could be made available for storing water supplies that will 

be needed during more extreme droughts in the future. 

The Conservancy has already begun innovative projects that use 

nonstructural approaches to flood protection needs. In Hamilton 

City, California, along the Sacramento River, we are working to improve flood protection for a town whose only flood defense is a degraded levee that may not even hold during a 10-year flood. This 

project will replace the existing levee with a setback levee that will 

provide vastly improved flood protection, while reconnecting the 

floodplain to the river. This win-win project increases the flood 

storage capacity of the river basin and provides critical habitat for 

wildlife. 

We must replicate projects like this around the country. To enable more of this work, we must increase investment in aquatic 

ecosystem restoration and create incentives that discourage development of critical floodplains and coastal wetlands. 

Finally, there is perhaps no smarter action that can be taken 

today than to simply do everything we can to preserve our future 

options and flexibility. When we allow people to use all of the 

water available from a river, we put those water users and the ecosystems they depend upon at great risk as the climate and associated water availability begins to change. The Nature Conservancy 

is working with leading scientists around the world to develop new 

decision tools to inform water managers about the volume of water 

that must be left in a river to support its health and our future 

needs. Many States are ready and willing to use these new tools, 

but they will need help and support from the Federal Government. 

In closing, it is important that all of our policy and on-the-ground 

adaptation measures recognize the need to maintain healthy and 

resilient ecosystems that preserve the ability to adapt in the face 

of climate change and continue to meet the needs of both humans 

and wildlife. If we do, we can ensure that our rivers will continue 

to sustain us and inspire us. 

I want to thank you for your attention and this opportunity to 

share our thoughts with you today. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Brandt. 

Mr. BRANDT. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Alf Brandt. 

I am the water law and policy expert for the California State Assembly, and I am here to talk a little bit about the policy. I am 

not a scientist, but we are—we have started a conversation about 

climate change in California and its water resources. And it is the 

fact that we have started the conversation. No, we don’t have final 

258

answers, and no, we don’t have final plans; but we have started the 

conversation and are starting to do things to respond to it and prepare for it. So that is what I would like to explain. 

And the first question would be why. 

Next slide. 

And part of that is the nature of our system. It is perhaps the 

most sophisticated water supply and flood system in the world, because it stores and conveys water for hundreds of miles. And this 

is the same system. Both the flood and the water system are combined. They rely on the same reservoirs and the same rivers to deal 

with both flood and supply. 

Next slide. 

And, of course, going down to the bottom of each of the major rivers in the Central Valley, Sacramento and San Joaquin, is the 

delta, which is critical to California. 

Next slide. 

Yes, it is perhaps some of the most valuable ecosystem, estuary 

ecosystem on the west coast of North or South America. It is also 

an agricultural area. But most importantly for this Committee, it 

is the heart, the true heart of the California water system. From 

the delta, the urban areas—yes, agriculture gets a lot of its water 

from here, but most importantly both the Bay Area and San Francisco, as well as Southern California, get about a third of their supply from the delta. It is critical. 

Next slide. 

And, of course, the delta is more than just a water conveyance 

as far as infrastructure goes. It is also—keep going—it is also infrastructure, urban infrastructure, highways, railroads, gas lines, 

electric lines, major power lines, although things are in the middle 

of the delta. So infrastructure is a critical part of why the delta is 

so important. And, of course, it is in the center, it is at the bottom 

of both streams, it is in the center of—go ahead—it is in the center 

of the Central Valley and in the middle of what used to be called 

and known by the Indians as the ′′inland sea.′′ it is a bowl. And 

it is—it creates huge challenges, because this used to be, for many 

months of the year, a huge, perhaps 40 miles wide, 200 miles long, 

inland sea for much of the year during the wetter months. Go on. 

Next slide. 

And what we did is we created these narrow channels, putting 

it into a narrow channel to wash down gold mining-era sediment 

and scour out those channels and get rid of that sediment to protect us, protect farmland at that point. Of course, next we put 

houses right next to it, as well at this point, thousands of houses 

across the Central Valley. 

Next slide. 

And of course this sophisticated system, the important part for 

climate change is the use of energy, use of power for our water system. About 19 percent of California’s electrical energy is used by 

the water system, both to convey it, to treat it, to clean it up after 

it is used, before it is put back in. So it is a substantial amount 

of our energy is used by the water use—by the water system. So 

it is a critical tie to climate change. 

Next slide. 

259

Of course, add to that climate change, and you can see here some 

of the—just one the many graphs that we have seen of showing 

how much climate has changed in California. This goes up through 

1995. And you can see some significant differences. Since then it 

continues. That trend continues. Warmer temperatures leads to 

less snow, more rain, earlier spring runoff, and for the purpose of 

this Committee, the interests of this Committee, that can lead to 

more floods. 

Next slide. 

Loss of our snowpack is critical to us, both to the water supply 

as well as the risk to floods. You can see this is a slide I chose—

this is the worst case I have seen—that at the end of the century, 

we may be looking as bad as 11 percent of our snowpack. And we 

rely on the snowpack, both for water storage, seasonal water storage, so it comes down slowly so it can feed irrigation during the 

summer, as well as for flood protection. Because the more that 

comes down as rain, the higher the flood levels. 

Next slide. 

And that is consistent with what we have seen in the 100 hundred years, a continuing trend going up as far as seriousness of the 

floods over the last 100 years. And that trend has advanced in the 

last 10 to 15 years. 

Next slide. 

Of course, that has led to greater awareness of the real risk to 

people from floods. This slide shows the depths. In some of these 

places it can be very deep. The dark blue shows more than 9 feet. 

Some of those areas are as deep as 20 feet deep. That is about the 

height of a 2-story house. That is how deep some of our floodplains 

are. So it is a serious risk for us. And climate change added to that 

makes it a major threat for us. 

Next slide. 

Of course, at the bottom of the system, suffering one of the greatest threats, is a delta which is created by a bunch of levees surrounding islands that were created in the last 150 years. It is an 

area that has subsided. So many of these islands are below sea 

level. The orange areas that you see on this map are below sea 

level or below the water level right next to the island. As sea level, 

rise goes up and other kinds of influences, the floods coming down, 

all those make these levees more at risk. These are all private levees. These are not State or Federal levees. 

Next slide. 

And, of course, the risk for us, for our water supply, and for 

flooding if these levees collapse—say if there were an earthquake 

and many of these levees collapsed—this would turn into an inland 

sea, a very deep inland sea, no longer that wetland that was 

shown, but very much of an inland sea. 

Next slide. 

So that brings us to what we are doing. Keep going. This shows 

all the things that we have been talking about, we have been looking at, starting in the last year or so. Now, we haven’t passed all 

these bills, but we have started the conversation about how to do 

it. Our State agencies have already started assessing how climate 

change can be incorporated into it and how we can manage for the 

uncertainty. We have started planning for climate change and dealVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
260

ing with floods, for instance, allowing for some of the flexibility to 

allow us to take water off the floodplain, off this river to predict 

that, and also dealing with floodplain land use so people in these 

deep floodplains are protected and not putting houses there. And 

we have had some great success with recycling and conservation, 

which contributes to reducing the greenhouse gases. And, of course, 

we are making choices, and we are looking at making choices—we 

haven’t made them yet—based on climate change information. All 

that can be helpful. 

Next slide. 

So let’s go next slide, to the information about the Federal Government. And I will just run through this quickly. I think this has 

already been talked about. Actually, this is consistent with both 

Mr. Richter and Dr. Galloway. But it is things that—I think the 

key point here is the relationship between the State and the Federal agencies on flood needs to change at this point, and particularly for California, whose voters have approved $5 billion in bonds 

for floods. The nature of the relationship, with the Corps not having the money that it used to have, we cannot afford to have them 

be in total control and get in the way of us trying to make some 

fundamental changes and choices about climate change. That may 

be different than what they have traditionally done. And I think 

that is the one I want to emphasize most. But just like we have 

started to incorporate climate change into planning, it is necessary 

that they start doing it as well. It is key for us to work together 

on doing this. And I wish you luck. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Linda Strout, you are the last witness. And that doesn’t 

mean that your testimony is not very important. You may proceed. 

Ms. STROUT. Thank you. My name is Linda Strout. I am the deputy CEO of the Port of Seattle, and today I am testifying, however, 

on behalf of the American Public Ports Association. AAPA represents all major public seaport agencies on the Pacific, Atlantic, 

Gulf and Great Lakes coasts. We thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

Air emissions are an area of growing concern for U.S. public port 

authorities and the communities in which they operate. And reducing air emissions is a priority for our industry. The Port of Seattle 

and many AAPA members have been engaged in air quality improvement efforts related to seaports for several years. Recently, 

those efforts have grown to specifically include greenhouse gases. 

Greenhouse gas emissions related to ports are primarily carbon dioxide, formed whenever fuel is burned. And efforts to reduce these 

emissions have therefore focused on increasing fuel-use efficiency 

or the use of alternative fuels. Diesel engines power the yard equipment that handles containerized cargo, such as rubber-tired gantry 

cranes and yard hostlers, and they also power the trucks, the rail 

engines and the marine vessels used to bring cargo into and out of 

our ports. While remarkably efficient and durable, these engines 

are a significant source of air pollution. 

There are a number of ways to reduce diesel engine emissions, 

and ports across the country and across the world are engaged in 

a wide variety of programs and initiatives to reduce those emissions for their own facilities, their fleets, their vehicles, and their 

261

dock equipment within their control. Such efforts are detailed in 

the written testimony, but cluster in four main areas. And those 

are the use of alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, ultra-low sulfur 

diesel and blends, and some natural gas forms. Also, the use of 

electricity. The use of repowering, which is replacing older engines. 

And finally, retrofitting existing engines. 

At the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, nearly all of the yard equipment and the port’s own diesel-powered vehicles are fueled by 

ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel or a blend. At the Port of Seattle, 

in addition, now, our Shilsole Bay Marina, a 500-slip recreational 

marina, makes biodiesel available to all recreational boats and tenants. The port of Long Beach is testing three liquefied natural gas 

yard hostlers, which the port estimates will produce a 60 percent 

reduction in NOX and an 80 percent reduction in particulate matter over conventional Tier II diesel engines. Electricity is being implemented as a diesel alternative at several ports, including L.A. 

For several cargo terminals, and in Seattle for its cruise terminals. 

At most major seaports now, the large cranes used to transfer 

containers between ships and terminals are all electric, and ports 

usually provide plugs on terminals for powering refrigerated containers instead of using diesel engines. We are aware that shoreside power for ships is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It is expensive. It requires substantial infrastructure. And if the electricity is 

produced by a source that is also creating greenhouse gases, then 

it is not a perfect solution. 

Repowering equipment that uses older legacy engines is a third 

strategy that has proven effective, generally by use of on-road engines to replace off-road equipment such as yard tractors. Both 

New York-New Jersey and L.A. have enjoyed real success in their 

programs in this regard. 

The fourth diesel emissions reduction strategy is that of retrofitting older diesel engines with a piece of after-treatment technology such as diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction systems, or diesel oxydation catalysts. An interesting example 

is the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey retrofitting one of 

the Staten Island ferries with two types of retrofit technology to 

achieve a more than 70 percent reduction in NOX. 

All of these efforts focus on equipment within—that I have just 

described—focus on equipment within a port’s control by lease or 

agreement or because it owns equipment. But I would want to 

spend a couple of moments focusing on the efforts within the port 

industry. Those are important, but outside of the port control, 

which is really where we can use help from Congress. Oceangoing 

vessels are, generally speaking, the most efficient way to move 

goods. And their demand, therefore, for their services is predicted 

to rise. Oceangoing vessel owners and operators are taking steps at 

lower emissions too. Some, like Westwood Shipping Lines, have 

chosen engines that are certified to reduce emissions. However, because the majority of vessels calling on the U.S. port facilities are 

foreign flagged, they are not regulated by EPA. The International 

Maritime Organization, IMO, sets standards for these vessels. 

In 1997, the IMO, as you all know, adopted Annex VI of the 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships, or MARPOL. AAPA supports the legislation to implement 

262

the MARPOL Annex VI treaty as quickly as possible. We applaud 

this Committee’s leadership in the swift passage of H.R. 802 in this 

Congress, and we urge you to help ensure that the Senate addresses this issue as expeditiously as well. It is critical that the United 

States become a party to this treaty, which is the necessary regulatory mechanism to mandate lower ship emissions. Implementation of MARPOL Annex VI is supported by the shipping industry, 

as well as the port industry. 

Trucks and rail emissions outside of our fences also are not 

under port control. While new trucks must comply with EPA’s onroad standards, older legacy engines can contribute disproportionate amount of air emissions. Port authorities do not own the 

trucks that—in general do not own the trucks that service their 

terminals, and therefore cannot mandate when older engines are 

retired or whether they are retrofitted. 

Another barrier to addressing truck emissions is the prevalence 

of independent owner-operators, who often simply do not have the 

capital to invest in expensive new equipment or to upgrade their 

vehicles before their engines become useless. Therefore, in order to 

more effectively reduce emissions on the land side of port operations, AAPA encourages Congress to fully fund the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act or the D-E-R-A, DERA. 

This legislation, which was enacted as part of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, would allow for up to 200 million annually for the EPA 

to fund voluntary emissions reduction projects at ports, some of 

which I described in construction equipment, in school bus fleets 

and in the movement of the freight. To date, EPA has funded 11 

port-related projects with $1.9 million in Federal funds and 2.5 million in matching funds. 

Some of the projects have included installing diesel oxydation 

catalysts on cargo handling equipment at the ports of Philadelphia, 

Seattle, Houston, Tacoma, the Massachusetts Port Authority, as 

well as buying low-sulfur fuel for cruise ships in San Francisco. 

US EPA grant funding also supported the landmark Regional 

Maritime Emissions Inventory for the Puget Sound region that recently was completed by a collaborative group of air agencies, industry ports, and advocacy groups, and was led by the Port of Seattle. It is the first of its kind in the Nation, and it is under an 

agreement, a separate agreement reached with the Vancouver port 

in B.C. They will do a similar air emissions inventory that will utilize the same modeling so that the entire air shed will be reviewed 

in concert. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Can you begin to wrap up? 

Ms. STROUT. Yes. I am right at the end. 

Finally, the Federal Government can help reduce port-related air 

emissions through legislation that would encourage short sea shipping by eliminating the double collection of harbor maintenance tax 

on domestic-only movements. Getting rid of this financial barrier to 

the coastwide movement of cargo will encourage shippers to move 

goods by America’s waterways, thereby taking trucks off the Interstates and reducing air pollution. 

AAPA wishes to commend Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee 

Chair Cummings for their leadership in introducing H.R. 1499. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. 

263

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

And I now will recognize Mr. Costello to begin the first round of 

questioning. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Chairlady. 

Mr. Altman, let me ask you, the Committee heard testimony earlier today from Jonathan Lash with the World Resources Institute. 

And in his testimony he indicated that coal-to-liquid processing 

would be much more expensive than gasoline. I wonder if you agree 

and if you would state your opinion for the record. 

Mr. ALTMAN. Well, again dealing with aviation, we are not talking about aviation gas. We are talking about a diesel form of fuel. 

In that particular case, there has been an excellent study done by 

Scully Capital, under contract to the Department of Energy, the 

Air Force and the EPA. And the conclusion that was reached was 

that on crude equivalent with carbon capture that the oil could 

be—that you could receive this kind fuel at $55 to $58 a barrel and 

allow the producer to have a 19 percent return on investment. That 

does not include the sequestration. If you were able to use an enhanced oil recovery, such as might be the case in Southern Illinois, 

that market would stand on its own. There have been other studies 

that I have seen. Nothing in terms of the data—and we are only 

a data collection agency— all the data collection agency says we 

are now in the ballpark where you can start to have a discussion. 

That said, to get financing for the major projects there needs to 

be some level of support beyond the number that is being produced 

now, while Wall Street Standard and Poor said in order to finance 

the projects you need to be down in the $40 area on a per-barrel 

basis in order to support a bond rating at a reasonable level. So 

I haven’t seen any data. I have heard these words before. And, 

again, I am only a data collection agent for our sponsors, and the 

data that we have collected says that it is viable. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I wonder, for the record, if you might explain the 

Fischer Tropsch process and how it converts renewables and nonrenewables into liquid jet fuel. 

Mr. ALTMAN. Let me do this very briefly for you and try to put 

it in simple terms because I am not a chemist; I am a mechanical 

engineer, so it kind of hurts my cause to be able to do this. But 

basically what the Fischer Tropsch process does is it results and 

takes, in conjunction with gassification of solids, it allows with the 

use of catalysts the use of hydrocarbon chains through a process 

that simulates when it comes out the actual same output as you 

get in an oil refinery. So that process has been in use for—since 

the 1920s. The difference now is that the catalysts that are used 

and the processes of gassification if we are dealing with solids are 

much more sophisticated. There is a lot of activities going on in a 

number of the manufacturing customers here that will allow it to 

be much more economic. So while it has been around for nearly 80 

years, we are in a position now where it can be far more economically than it has been previously. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I think you indicated in your testimony that it 

could be approved for use in aviation by the middle of this year. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. ALTMAN. That is correct. There are two fuels that have been 

tested; one is a 50-50 blend of Syntroleum. All of the necessary 

264

R&D has been done in that particular process, including missions 

measurements, which have shown some very favorable local air 

quality aspects. The Air Force indicates now that they should be 

ready about mid-year with that. The testing on 100 percent liquid 

from the Sasol Corporation was completed in January at United 

Technologies Research Center where Mr. McQuade is. And that 

now in conjunction with the other companies that were involved, 

which included Rolls Royce and also General Electric were all involved, the whole industry was involved, has produced the necessary data to pursue the approvals. And the estimates that have 

been provided to me by those people indicate that could happen in 

mid-year as well. 

That said, you have two point sources. The effort right now of the 

capping certification qualification committee in conjunction with 

the Air Force is to put together a generic specification for all fuels 

of this nature. When the Air Force put out a request for information last year on the acquisition of these fuels, there were 27 qualified suppliers that came into play. So to limit the capability of just 

Sasol or Syntroleum would not be economically the best situation 

for us. So a very concentrated effort and great cooperation between 

the FAA and the Air Force on this right now. And I think it is 

going to be a very good exercise. 

The issue is going to be, how do you get sufficient supply. Right 

now the problem is that if you took all of the plants that are under 

the DOE planning process and dedicated a third of that to aviation, 

we still wouldn’t have enough fuel to support O’Hare’s 80,000-barrel-a-day hunger for fuel. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. McQuade, can you tell us a little bit about 

the Pratt and Whitney testing of the geared turbo fan and how 

that turbo fan engine differs from the engines of today? 

Mr. MCQUADE. I would be happy to. Thank you very much. In 

a conventional jet engine, the fan, which is the big bladed object 

on the front, the fan has two responsibilities. It pulls air in through 

the compressor and turbine for combustion later in the engine. But 

in a modern bypass engine, a significant portion of that air is taken 

through, around the outside to generate thrust out of the back of 

the engine. Turns out a fan really wants to run at a lower speed 

than a compressor and turbine. You want the fan to run at lower 

speed, be bigger, to move a lot of air, and move at low speed so it 

is quieter, to meet the noise requirements for our in city airports. 

In a normal jet engine, the fan, the compressor and turbine all 

rotate on the same shaft. It has taken 20 years of technology development to devise a geared means todecouple the rotation of that 

fan so that gives you the ability to take the compressor and turbine, let them run at a high speed, high-speed turbine could be 

done, high-speed compressor could be done with a smaller number 

of parts; therefore they run more efficiently. They reduce the 

weight, the maintenance requirements. At the same time, the fan 

now geared to run at a slower speed operates much more efficiently 

than a normal configuration, runs slower, runs quieter. That is 

what generates the kind of numbers I talked about before, roughly 

12 percent engine burn efficiency reduction, roughly 20 DB noise 

reduction versus current standards. 

265

So it is a long development program underway. Good testing that 

is underway right now. It is our expectation it will be available for 

the next generation aircraft with the air framers they are working 

on. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. The Chair recognizes Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few quick questions and observations. 

Mr. May, you were very pointed in your remarks about the EU 

and emissions trading and emissions tax. In the beginning of April 

bipartisan Committee Members met with Jacques Barrot, the minister of transport for the European Union, and two members of the 

European Parliament Committee on Transportation as well as 

other, the EUROCONTROL, the European aviation safety agency 

recently established, and many others. We later met with Air 

France, with the minister of aviation and transportation for 

France. We made it very clear that whatever Europe does in its 

sovereign air space is their business, but it is not their business to 

tell us what to do in our sovereign air space. 

I acknowledged in the conversation that, in 1990, as Chair of the 

Aviation Subcommittee, we ran 10 years ahead of Europe on emissions—I am sorry, on noise—on noise and that it took Europe 10 

years to catch up with us. That was unilateral. But that was our 

air space. We didn’t attempt to tell Europe what to do in their air 

space. And we are not going to accept Europe telling us what to 

do in our air space. That should give you some comfort. 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I applaud your position, obviously. We 

know and respect Mr. Barrot. He is a fine fellow, and we have done 

a lot of business with him. But the aviation marketplace and the 

environmental marketplace in the United States is vastly different 

than it is in Europe. I think that is one of the principal reasons 

that we have always advocated working with ICAO. And broadly 

for voluntary standards that is underway. I think the other thing 

that we appreciate is the fact that you and the other Members of 

the Committee appreciate that the aviation industry is probably 

one of the greenest forms of transportation available, and we very 

much appreciate that support. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would state it was a bipartisan initiative, and 

Mr. Costello can verify, he was there for every bit of the discussion, 

and we—but we didn’t say that means hands off on emissions, and 

made it clear that we are going to have this hearing and Mr. 

Altman’s testimony is significant but also Mr. Principato. And I 

pointed this out to the Europeans, that it is not just airplanes; it 

is what is on the ground at airports. And, furthermore, if you take 

a look at the world fleet, there are10,000 aircraft worldwide; 5,000 

of the world’s commercial aviation fleet is in the United States. Of 

that 5,000, roughly 10 percent, 500-plus, are in the international 

trade. That is a small fraction of emissions and of contribution to 

carbon in the atmosphere. It is not insignificant and it is not to be 

ignored, but it is one in which there is a concerted effort in the 

United States, and we welcome Europe in a joint effort with the 

United States, not on regulation but on research, development, 

testing, engineering, to bring new fuels, to bring higher-quality enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
266

gines, higher productivity. Europe should join us rather than simply initiating a regulatory regime. 

I yield to my colleague, Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I couldn’t have said it any better. I mean, the 

Chairman of the Full Committee was very clear in making that 

point, and I think the other point that we made as well is that we 

are not a parliament; that the Congress has a large voice in the 

policy that will go forward and that we are a co-equal branch of 

government and not a parliament. I think the message was delivered very loud and clear. I thank the Chairman for yielding. If I 

can make another point on the issue of talking about the environment and green initiatives. I just want to state that we were at 

O’Hare International Airport to attend a briefing on the modernization program, and I have to tell you that Mayor Daley and the City 

of Chicago really should be complimented on what they are doing, 

not only in the modernization program, what they are doing as far 

as the green roof of the new air traffic control tower. I think it will 

be the first in the Nation. And in addition to that, in the construction of the additional runway and the modernization program, they 

have gone really out of their way to retrofit. It has been a model 

project, and I would hope that other airports throughout the country would take a look at what Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago 

has done with the modernization program. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I concur. I didn’t have the briefing at O’Hare; I 

had it here. I concur with your remarks that the initiative at 

O’Hare is really significant and representative of what airports 

working with airlines can accomplish. Mr. McQuade, you discussed 

the engine washing with atomized—what is atomized water? 

Mr. MCQUADE. Very highly particulate waters, special nozzles. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I see what you mean. Sure. I understand that. 

But the savings in fuel is enormous. 

Mr. MCQUADE. Yes, it is. It is an enormous savings. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do all airlines engage in this technique? 

Mr. MCQUADE. The eco power system is a relatively new entry 

to market. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not that they are all using this particular technology, but as you said, this technology raises the savings. Mr. Altman, do you have further ideas on alternative fuels and higher capacity, higher fuel-saving engines? 

Mr. ALTMAN. Well, not on the engines. I ended that part of my 

career December 31st and left it to Mike here, working a great deal 

of the time by the way on the geared fan, which I fully believe in, 

and it is encouraging to see the support that the corporation is providing it now. So I don’t have any ideas on engines themselves. I 

will leave that to Pratt and Whitney, GE, and Rolls Royce. In the 

fuels area, I do think it important that there be an equivalent, so 

we can talk about data and not broad statements, equivalent look 

at the renewables side of the equation here. I know Boeing is very 

committed to looking at oil production, as are the engine companies, as is NASA. I know that Jim made a statement about NASA 

research. And one of the discussions that I think is important is 

that NASA continued work in this area. It is extremely important. 

They are putting about $3 million this year into the process. We 

need to make sure that continues to happen, go forward, and it is 

267

not all left to the FAA and that NASA continues to do this work. 

I know that is not the jurisdiction of this Committee, but I think 

it is critical. I would very much like to see the next initiative of 

DOE in partnership perhaps with the Agriculture Department, 

which I know has some interest in this area, to look at renewable 

fuels and just how that could work economically in a similar way 

to what Scully Capital had done. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think the challenge is getting the energy output, 

the power output per pound of fuel comparable to that of today’s——

Mr. ALTMAN. That is. The other point I should make for aircraft 

fuel, aircraft fuel is very different, obviously, and it’s specification 

is much tighter for safety reasons. There are two primary reasons 

why biofuel needs to be looked at. One is the freezing point of the 

temperature. The reason there is no discussion of ethanol in our 

business and some of the other processes is simply because the 

freeze point of the fuel is too high. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We heard that earlier in the day with railroads. 

Mr. ALTMAN. When you fly up 30,000, 40,000 feet in very low 

speed conditions, it is even more important. The other thing that 

is not mentioned as often is the significance of what we refer to as 

thermal capacity. And the ability of the Fischer Tropsch fuels we 

are looking at right now to absorb a lot more heat in the fuel without creating a maintenance problem for fuel nozzles. This is very 

important on modern engines and modern airplanes because there 

is a lot more power offtakes. For example, in the military, the next 

version of a military aircraft will probably get ten times as much 

heat rejection to manage as a JSF airplane right now. The Fischer 

Tropsch fuels go in the right direction for that, including the use 

of bio mass. The fuels that NASA has tested so far in the bio area 

go in the wrong direction, so thermal capacity is actually reduced. 

It is extremely important that the technical side of the biofuels effort continue and we do the economics in parallel, but right now, 

there is a gap in that area, particularly looking at things like vegetable oil, algae, which is a form of fuel that is being looked at, and 

you are so very right about the quantities that may be available 

from the bio measures. There just really hasn’t been enough study 

done. There will be more data coming out from both the Air Force 

and DOE here I am told within the next month. They are doing 

some additional studies looking very hard, certainly at the bio 

mass side of the equation. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I would say to the aviation 

panel that suggestions that you may have for legislative initiatives, 

Mr. Costello is continuing with a series of hearings on the reauthorization. We are also at the same time—the Full Committee 

with all the Subcommittees—participating, preparing an agenda of 

legislation for the leadership’s overall energy initiative to reach the 

floor in July. We will have—our goal is to have a legislative package by the end of June so it can be submitted for this general initiative. 

Ideas you have, we would like you to get those into the Aviation 

Subcommittee and to the Full Committee as well to initiate that. 

As to the water panel, they had very specific suggestions, we would 

like to invite you to make those recommendations, and of course 

268

the statements that have you already submitted have been a 

wealth of knowledge about the subject matter. 

I have no further questions, Madam Chair. We might dismiss the 

aviation panel and proceed with questions for the water panel. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Richter, can you expand on the planning tools that were 

developed for the Texas water planning program? 

Mr. RICHTER. Yes, Madam Chairman. I am very happy to do so 

because I think this is a great area where the great State of Texas 

can take pride in how they are approaching water resource management. I think there are probably three things to highlight about 

the Texas approach. One is that they have invested considerably in 

collecting information about who is using water, where they are 

using it, how much they are using it and compiling that information into a computer model that can be used to inform decisionmaking. Very, very important investments made in that respect. 

The second factor is that they have facilitated stakeholder participation throughout the State, 20 different watershed planning 

groups that have been working on making decisions about what 

they want their water future to look like, what kind of protection 

of the natural environment, what type of water development facilities need to be built. And this is an opportunity for fishermen and 

farmers and government leaders to interact with each other in 

making those decisions about the future of the State. 

The third area is that Texas has shown true leadership in thinking about how to protect the river system’s natural environment 

through providing what we refer to as environmental flow protection. In other words, how much water and what timing of water 

flows is necessary to remain in the rivers in order to sustain the 

health of those rivers. I think this really springs from the fact that 

Texans have a deep and abiding love for their rivers, and they use 

them for fishing and recreation and scenic attraction, and it is a 

mainstay of the tourism industry, as you know. I think that they 

are appropriately putting, placing adequate value on the protection 

of the natural environment while they are trying to meet all of 

these other water needs. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Can this model be expanded nationally, 

do you think? 

Mr. RICHTER. Yes. I think the basic approach certainly can be. 

Not to suggest that there aren’t some other States that are doing 

an excellent job of management as well, but I think, again, the 

three points that I emphasized and in particular the investment in 

the data collection so that they really understand how much water 

is available, how much water is flowing through their streams. A 

couple of other presenters placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of investing in data collection and data collection technologies. The U.S. Geological Survey as well as the State water 

agencies are very, very important providers of that type of information, and without that type of information, we simply cannot make 

informed decisions about their future use of water supplies. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. What about how the levee setbacks can 

benefit eco systems and flood control? 

269

Mr. RICHTER. The basic idea here is that, in some instances, 

through our efforts to manage floods or control floods, that we have 

really enclosed or encased the rivers in many places so narrowly 

that it is beginning to cause some problems. It puts a tremendous 

amount of pressure on the levees to hold back the floods. But, more 

importantly, it takes away the natural abilities of a flood plain to 

store flood water. And so the idea is that, as you move those existing levees back away from the river, you are creating a lot of natural space out in the flood plain to store those flood waters. The 

win-win benefits though come from the fact that, by doing so, you 

allow the river to behave more like a natural river. And that is 

very good for the wildlife that is dependent upon the river, very 

good for water quality benefits, and the river begins to function as 

a more healthy river when you move those levees back. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Dr. Galloway, would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. GALLOWAY. I would certainly agree with my colleague; I 

think it is a real challenge. Many levees in this country are accidents of their birth. They grew into a levee, and they were on the 

bank in their precarious positions. The challenge, in many places, 

is homes are next to those levees. So how do you accommodate the 

levee setback without a major real estate action? That is what is 

taking place in several areas. Clearly where it is possible in rural 

areas where it has not been developed, levee setbacks make great 

sense, and you can see that happening in the State of California. 

They are looking at ideas like that. I think it has to be something 

to be considered. The challenge is in areas where it is highly developed, it is very difficult to do so. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Brandt, we don’t know exactly what climate change impacts 

are going to be so should the Federal Government wait until we 

are sure on exactly what climate change impacts will be before we 

start to——

Mr. BRANDT. I would say, no. In fact, to quote someone just a 

couple days ago from the Merced Irrigation District, which operates 

a reservoir and is trying to get a rule change from the Corps, we 

can’t afford to wait. 

Things are happening; change is already happening, first of all. 

The second piece is, we may never know, and that is part of the 

challenge and that is the direction we are going, is we are managing for uncertainty, we are anticipating that we are not going to 

know exactly what is going to happen. And that is the challenge 

of using things like setback levees or being able to take water off 

to prepare for those uncertain floods that come suddenly, and we 

may need to prepare but in a controlled way to take it off. So I 

don’t think we can afford to wait until we know because we may 

never know exactly. We need to start moving to start incorporating 

the information we do have. For California, we are fortunate to 

have a lot of information. We have top flight academics and an 

agency doing a lot of work with this. We have a model, those kinds 

of things. So we have a lot of information to get started on. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. What can other States take from California’s experience? 

270

Mr. BRANDT. I think the first step and that is the biggest thing 

that we have had just in the last couple of years, which is starting 

to acknowledge that things are changing and things have changed 

rapidly in the last 15 to 20 years and taking that first step to incorporate the information that we do have into their planning and 

into their project and their choices about what kind of infrastructure that they build. There is a lot of information out there that 

they can at least start to incorporate. They may not have perfect 

answers but they can start. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Dr. Galloway, I have been 

very impressed with your statements. Would you please comment 

on the state of the Nation’s water monitoring system, if it is adequate, if upgrades are needed? 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Depends on what you are monitoring for. Certainly, I would say, we are in trouble in many of those areas. A few 

years back, a couple of years back, the former assistant administrator of EPA, Tracy Mehan, was quoted in a magazine as saying, 

we can’t tell you what the quality of the water is in this country 

because we don’t have the assessment and monitoring mechanisms. 

We know that each year we are losing gauges on our rivers that 

tell us the history on which we base future projections and deal 

with the issues of climate change. It is always easy to push aside 

the maintenance and the upgrade of monitoring systems, and I am 

afraid we have done that. If we want to have the quality systems 

necessary to do the adaptive management that my colleague Brian 

Richter has discussed and do the things that the State of California 

is moving to understand better climate change, we need more monitoring, and we are not investing in the monitoring we need. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Ms. Strout, we hear a lot 

about more water into the bodies of water from melting and of 

course more pollution in the water. How do you think that is going 

to affect the ports? 

Ms. STROUT. I think sea level rise is one of the critical areas that 

ports are concerned about. Clearly ports are located in coastal 

areas and sea level rise would have a huge impact on dock levels, 

berthing, where the berths are located, how they should be restructured or reconfigured to handle the heavy equipment that rests on 

top of them like the huge container cranes and also another area 

of global warming that is of concern to ports is the impact on rainfall density and wind velocity in storms and the increase in storms 

that might be expected in the world’s oceans, the disruptions to 

commerce that might flow from that. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. I think we are 

at the end of this day, believe it or not. Well, Ms. Napolitano is 

coming in, from California. Do you have any questions for the 

water panel? I should have known you would. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. There have been 

questions in regard to the water issues in California, and since I 

am the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, part of it 

is dealing with the issue of global warming, the precipitation loss, 

less precipitation, less water delivery to the cities, to the users. 

And recently, the Governor issued a statement that in essence indicated that he was very much for increasing the funding for aboveground water storage; dams, in other words. Well, all great and 

271

good except, not only are they exceedingly expensive, they take a 

long time to put into use. In the meantime, we are losing out on 

the ability to be able to store, whether it is underground, in storage 

capacity that our State has. 

The question then as he addressed the Association of California 

Water Agencies in the spring conference and indicated, I am not 

quoting, that investing in conservation only is not enough to solve 

our water problem alone. Conservation alone does not provide flood 

protection; conservation alone will not allow us to take full advantage of our ground water storage potential; and conservation alone 

cannot get California through a prolonged drought either. We need 

additional above-ground storage. 

Do you agree with the statement? 

Mr. BRANDT. Representative Napolitano, well, storage, yes, but 

surface storage, not necessarily. Surface storage may not be the 

place we need it. It may not be on the river where we need it. We 

need to have a lot more flexibility to allow ground water storage. 

It may be conservation may not be enough. But there are a number 

of ways. And this is another example where flood and water supply 

come together because there may be opportunities to have what our 

Department of Water Resources started calling flood plain storage, 

in other words, we reduce the flood but at the same time allows 

it to infiltrate into the aquifer. We already have a sophisticated 

ground water banking system, although, like Texas, we don’t have 

a ground water management system in California. But we have 

that kind of thing and that is what the urban areas are relying on. 

So there are needs for storage. There is a need for additional 

storage. But whether that is a surface storage, a very big dam that 

produces very little yield, I mean, the dam that the Governor is 

proposing is a million acre-foot size and produces about 165,000 

acre-foot in production or in supply every year, or yield. So, no, we 

don’t need a big dam, but we need to look at a variety of things. 

And allowing for flexibility, allowing for that uncertainty to take off 

water wherever it comes down, it may not be on that particular 

stream where the dam is. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. That is very refreshing to hear because we have discussed the many other areas that we should be 

looking at and increasing the recycling capability of many of the 

city’s waste water and being able to find aquifers to store rain 

water when you have excess flooding water. 

It bothers me that somehow somebody is convincing the Governor that, in order to address global warming, we should do thus 

and such. Well, it is okay if we had lots of time. We don’t. We need 

to start looking at the imminent threat of another drought cycle 

and the fact that we must understand how our cities have to start 

gearing themselves to protect their supply and to be able to have 

enough for the patterns of growth that California still is experiencing. 

Mr. BRANDT. Yes, and that is the challenge that ties together climate change and floods that ties together water supply. All those 

things interact and are interdependent, by doing a diverse set of 

things, and there is no magic pill, no big project, not like a hundred 

years ago when Los Angeles built the Owens Valley Project and 

Mr. Mulholland said here’s the water, take it, and that was it. We 

272

have to do a number of things. A lot of things these other witnesses 

have talked about are all part of the answer. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. One of the other issues we were just discussing 

with my water staff is Arizona’s ability to take gray water, rinse, 

whatever, and be able to get credit to able to put that back into 

use through a recycling process. Have we looked at other States, 

what they are doing? To be able to then realize that we may have 

another source of water that we can clean and put back into use? 

Mr. BRANDT. Yes, we have been looking at other States as well 

to see what we can learn, just as I think other States may look at 

us. The gray water issue is a hugely controversial public health 

issue that has a long way to go. There are a lot of other ways we 

can deal with things more effectively, including recycling and conservation, upfront and more quickly. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. But we have taken waste water and utilized it. 

Why can’t we take gray water and clean it and utilize it? 

Mr. BRANDT. It is the nature of how you use it and the issues 

of piping. There are a whole range of issues that go into gray water 

that are not quite the same as recycling. So that is why we haven’t 

gone there yet at this point in California. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Then maybe something in the future we might 

consider as we face more drought and more global warming challenges. 

Mr. BRANDT. There are many things we can do. there are many 

things that we can do. Gray water may be the thing, but that may 

be the step a couple steps down the road. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate 

you being so patient. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Does the Chairman have any final words? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I particularly want to 

express my appreciation to this panel for your forbearance, your 

patience and understanding of the legislative process; well, maybe 

not understanding, but at least tolerance of it. It was one of these 

moments in history that we didn’t expect to be here at 7:00 tonight. 

Reminds me of just a little historical footnote. In 1964, I was on 

the staff of my predecessor. The House Judiciary Committee was 

considering the Johnson administration civil rights bill, and the Judiciary Committee was meeting as we have been, except they were 

in markup. And they started about the same time. They went late 

into the evening, and it was Representative Wagner of Louisiana 

who was opposed to everything that the Judiciary Committee was 

doing to establish civil rights for African Americans, to protect 

their rights to vote, to exercise their rights in every aspect of society. 

And Mr. Wagner called a quorum call as frequently as the legislative process on the floor allowed him to do that, which was roughly about the same we had here, about every half hour and sometimes more often. In those days, we had what were called notice 

quorum calls, where Members would appear on the House floor; 

and if 100 appeared, that was a quorum of the Committee of the 

Whole and would suffice. And Members were not recorded, and 

they would go back to their rooms. As soon as they did, he would 

273

call a quorum call again, saying that you don’t have 100 Members 

on the floor. 

So either you had to maintain 100 Members continuously on the 

House floor to allow the House to continue its House in the Committee of the Whole, to continue its business, or keep running back 

and forth. 

That disrupted the Judiciary Committee. But the Judiciary Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, maintained their presence, and they kept going to the floor, recording their presence, 

coming back to Committee and, by 11:00 at night, concluded the 

markup on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Lyndon Johnson 

signed into law. 

What was happening on the floor today was nowhere near the 

moment in significance of what happened in 1964, but it sure disrupted our proceedings. And in the end, there was an underlying 

issue that turned out to be a rumor, not a reality. And that has 

been resolved. And then a Member who was disappointed that his 

amendments were not made in order under the Defense Authorization Bill, which is now being considered on the floor, has conceded 

to his leadership that we ought to proceed with the regular order. 

That explains what was happening, but it also gives you a little 

historical perspective. 

Ms. Strout, your testimony was excellent. But you also, as did 

Mr. Principato for the airports, talk about, discuss initiatives that 

ports are taking to deal with air emissions in the port jurisdiction. 

Ultra low sulfur diesel, natural gas and using electricity and compressed natural gas stations, all of those contribute to reducing pollutants, particulates and carbon, particularly emissions in the port 

area. If you have some further suggestions about what the Committee might do to support those initiatives, I would welcome them 

if you have any further comment. 

Ms. STROUT. I guess not at this time. I am not sure; was there 

some particular area that you would like me to address? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If you think there are some legislative initiatives 

that we can include in the climate change package that we are submitting, such as emissions issued by trucks and locomotives that 

operate at the port, the non-port specific activities, those are things 

that we can deal with. An interesting initiative that I didn’t have 

time to raise with the rail panel was, I have been a great advocate 

for magnetic levitation rail. But it was the Port of Long Beach, Los 

Angeles, that came up with the great idea. While the technology 

now has been perfected, it is operating in Japan, operating in test 

tracks in Germany, and the General Automics, which had the contract with the U.S. Department of Transportation, came to me with 

the idea that we can now apply it at the Port of Long Beach, Los 

Angeles, which rather than send rail and truck into the interior to 

riverside, we could put a mag lev in operation. It is above ground, 

the footprint is much smaller than rail, and of course vastly less 

than trucks, put the containers on the mag lev and have a continuos loop bringing empties back to the port and sending full containers inland. And with the rail infrastructure loan program, it 

can borrow the funds to build a facility, and you have a paying customer, which you don’t have for other proposals that have surfaced 

274

with the RIF loan program. That makes an awful lot of sense and 

is another one of the great California initiatives. 

Ms. STROUT. This is not maybe as far thinking as that, but we 

certainly do see a need for some way, some mechanism to change 

out old engines in trucks. Truck diesel particulates is one of the 

major, major issues, and of course, having rail go someplace is 

great, but the rail can only go where the rails are set. So trucks 

will always play a part in the distribution system, but the more we 

can do because of the high impacts of diesel particulates, the more 

that we can do to create programs that encourage, that provide incentives and actually provide independent operators who don’t 

have a lot of capital of their own some way to move, upgrade their 

truck engines would do a lot of good. And we are actually at AAPA 

looking ourselves to try to figure out some way to come up with a 

program that is not overly capital-intensive but could help out in 

that area. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I welcome your suggestions. 

Mr. Richter and Dr. Galloway, you both emphasized an issue 

that I have long advocated, and that is watershed approach to 

planning and coordinating water resources activities. Mr. Richter, 

your comment, let rivers flow, rings a responsive cord with me. In 

the 1850s, when the treaties were being negotiated with the National Government and the Native American tribes—and I have 

read a great many of the treaties that apply in Minnesota; six 

tribes are in my district—they conclude with this remarkable 

phrase, that the words of this treaty will remain in effect as long 

as rivers flow. 

But I think your point, to let rivers flow in their natural meandering pattern that naturally creates power absorption channels in 

the riverbed rather than channeling and rushing and losing the 

sediment deposition effects that create wetlands and create mitigation forces against floods. 

Mr. RICHTER. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Brandt, your testimony is remarkable. I 

would say, as a former staff member, that it is typical of the attention to detail that a staff person must do, and your astonishing 

slide on the snow pack, I have not only professional and intellectual interest, but I also have personal interest, two beautiful 

granddaughters that live in that flood plain off the Sacramento 

River. 

Mr. BRANDT. Urge them to move. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So I am going to pay very careful attention to the 

level of flood protection in the levees along the Sacramento and 

American Rivers. I don’t want those grandchildren standing on the 

roof of their homes waving white handkerchiefs, saying, Coast 

Guard, come rescue us. 

Mr. BRANDT. I hope not, and that is one of the challenges we 

face. At this point, the legislature is in the middle of the challenge 

of, how do we deal with those deep flood plains, how do we make 

sure people are out of harm’s way. The Governor for the first time 

actually a few weeks ago finally said, I am ready for a bill on flood 

plain land use to come to my desk, and I will sign it. That was a 

major change, and I think we will see flood plain land use to make 

275

sure people in those deep flood plains—there are not more houses 

put in those deep flood plains and more people at risk. 

But that is a challenge. That is a huge challenge. You can understand the challenge of developers and builders taking on and saying, ‘‘we don’t want any of those restrictions.’’ But I think you will 

be seeing that in the next year. That is the kind of climate change 

issue we are confronting. The important part is we have taken that 

first step to actually say we have actually got to deal with this. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Climate change is creeping north in my district 

in Minnesota, such that the resort operators and maple sugar gatherers, including those of the Native American tribes, now don’t 

know when the flow will start from the maple trees because it is 

getting earlier and earlier in the season. And if your snow pack is 

melting in the Sierra Nevadas, I didn’t believe this, but my son 

said, well, you know, they get 20 to 30 feet and 40 feet of snow. 

I said, you mean inches. No, feet. 

So I went up to see that much snow. We used to have a lot of 

snow in Minnesota but nothing like that. But if it is down 27, 30 

percent and more, doesn’t mean you are not getting the moisture; 

it means that the moisture will not be in frozen form and dissipate 

more gradually. It will mean huge runoff, and it will mean that 

that moisture will be lost to the lower reaches of California that 

depend upon it. 

Mr. BRANDT. That is right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That may mean more basins for retention, may 

mean more resources spent in controlling that water and protecting 

it for the future. That is a climate change issue we have to address. 

I will yield to the gentlewoman. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was just going to address Natomis and some of those areas in 

the flood plain, because when I served in the State house, I would 

watch ships going by. And I was about 20 feet looking up. Well, the 

sad part is anything happens and any of those levees go, there is 

not going to be a developer that is going to sit there and say, I am 

responsible; I am putting money in it. And the people on councils 

who approved them may not be there when this happens, and then, 

of course, the insurance companies are going to turn around and 

say, sorry, you didn’t pay for this insurance. 

So who are the losers? The people. Who do they look to? The Federal Government for the bailout. So it is a real, very important 

issue for those people living in those areas, and the fact that the 

developers, bless their hearts, they are trying to make money, 

which is okay, but unfortunately, the people who are going in there 

paying for something, should an emergency ever occur—good heavens, I hope not—it is going to be the taxpayers. 

Mr. BRANDT. The key piece is communicating that, and one issue 

that is in front of you, has been in front of you is this concept 

under FEMA of the 100-year flood plain. Many of these people who 

live in Natomis were told when they moved in there, oh, we are out 

of the flood plain. We are not in a flood plain because they have 

100-year levees. That kind of certainty with climate change just 

isn’t go to work any more. They need to understand residual flood 

risk, and they are still at risk even if they have a 100-year flood 

levee. That changes as we learn more and with climate changes. 

276

But that is the challenge, trying to communicate that to everyone, 

that if you are going to live in that place, that is still a flood plain 

and you are still at risk. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your extraordinary contributions. Thanks to all of 

you for being here and being so patient. We had no control over 

what happened today. If we could have, we would have made it different. Thank you, again. Committee adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 7:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

277


35926.159
278


35926.160
279


35926.161
280


35926.162
281


35926.163
282


35926.164
283


35926.165
284


35926.166
285


35926.167
286


35926.168
287


35926.169
288


35926.170
289


35926.171
290


35926.172
291


35926.173
292


35926.174
293


35926.175
294


35926.176
295


35926.177
296


35926.178
297


35926.179
298


35926.180
299


35926.181
300


35926.182
301


35926.183
302


35926.184
303


35926.185
304


35926.186
305


35926.187
306


35926.188
307


35926.189
308


35926.190
309


35926.191
310


35926.192
311


35926.193
312


35926.194
313


35926.195
314


35926.196
315


35926.197
316


35926.198
317


35926.199
318


35926.200
319


35926.201
320


35926.202
321


35926.203
322


35926.204
323


35926.205
324


35926.206
325


35926.207
326


35926.208
327


35926.209
328


35926.210
329


35926.211
330


35926.212
331


35926.213
332


35926.214
333


35926.215
334


35926.216
335


35926.217
336


35926.218
337


35926.219
338


35926.220
339


35926.221
340


35926.222
341


35926.223
342


35926.224
343


35926.225
344


35926.226
345


35926.227
346


35926.228
347


35926.229
348


35926.230
349


35926.231
350


35926.232
351


35926.233
352


35926.234
353


35926.235
354


35926.236
355


35926.237
356


35926.238
357


35926.239
358


35926.240
359


35926.241
360


35926.242
361


35926.243
362


35926.244
363


35926.245
364


35926.246
365


35926.247
366


35926.248
367


35926.249
368


35926.250
369


35926.251
370


35926.252
371


35926.253
372


35926.254
373


35926.255
374


35926.256
375


35926.257
376


35926.258
377


35926.259
378


35926.260
379


35926.261
380


35926.262
381


35926.263
382


35926.264
383


35926.265
384


35926.266
385


35926.267
386


35926.268
387


35926.269
388


35926.270
389


35926.271
390


35926.272
391


35926.273
392


35926.274
393


35926.275
394


35926.276
395


35926.277
396


35926.278
397


35926.279
398


35926.280
399


35926.281
400


35926.282
401


35926.283
402


35926.284
403


35926.285
404


35926.286
405


35926.287
406


35926.288
407


35926.289
408


35926.290
409


35926.291
410


35926.292
411


35926.293
412


35926.294
413


35926.295
414


35926.296
415


35926.297
416


35926.298
417


35926.299
418


35926.300
419


35926.301
420


35926.302
421


35926.303
422


35926.304
423


35926.305
424


35926.306
425


35926.307
426


35926.308
427


35926.309
428


35926.310
429


35926.311
430


35926.312
431


35926.313
432


35926.314
433


35926.315
434


35926.316
435


35926.317
436


35926.318
437


35926.319
438


35926.320
439


35926.321
440


35926.322
441


35926.323
442


35926.324
443


35926.325
444


35926.326
445


35926.327
446


35926.328
447


35926.329
448


35926.330
449


35926.331
450


35926.332
451


35926.333
452


35926.334
453


35926.335
454


35926.336
455


35926.337
456


35926.338
457


35926.339
458


35926.340
459


35926.341
460


35926.342
461


35926.343
462


35926.344
463


35926.345
464


35926.346
465


35926.347
466


35926.348
467


35926.349
468


35926.350
469


35926.351
470


35926.352
471


35926.353
472


35926.354
473


35926.355
474


35926.356
475


35926.357
476


35926.358
477


35926.359
478


35926.360
479


35926.361
480


35926.362
481


35926.363
482


35926.364
483


35926.365
484


35926.366
485


35926.367
486


35926.368
487


35926.369
488


35926.370
489


35926.371
490


35926.372
491


35926.373
492


35926.374
493

Æ


35926.375