U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 110TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

REPORT

2008

110–915 

Union Calendar No. 590 

FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 110TH 

CONGRESS 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

SUBMITTED BY MR. MARKEY, CHAIRMAN, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

NOVEMBER 19, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
(III)

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND

GLOBAL WARMING, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, November 19, 2008. 

Pursuant to House Resolution 202, I submit the Final Staff Report for the 110th Congress from the Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming to the Congressional Record, 

and printing by GPO. 

Sincerely, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

Chairman. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 

The Climate and Energy Challenge ....................................................................... 12 

The Climate Crisis ........................................................................................... 12 

The Energy Crisis ............................................................................................. 37 

Energy and Climate ‘‘Win-Win’’ Solutions ............................................................. 49 

Enact Economy-Wide ‘‘Cap-and-Invest’’ Legislation ...................................... 50 

Boost Efficiency of the Electricity Sector and Buildings ............................... 64 

Dramatically Expand Renewable Electricity Generation .............................. 72 

Drive the Development of Carbon Capture and Sequestration .................... 78 

Transform the U.S. Transportation System ................................................... 81 

Support Green Jobs and Clean Tech Growth ................................................. 96 

Protect American Consumers From High Energy Prices .............................. 100 

Responsibly Manage Domestic Oil and Gas Production ................................ 104 

Oversight of the Bush Administration ................................................................... 106 

EPA’s Response to Massachusetts v. EPA ...................................................... 106 

NHTSA’s Implementation of Fuel Economy Standards ................................ 108 

Department of Energy ...................................................................................... 109 

Department of Interior ..................................................................................... 110 

EPA and Federal Trade Commission—Voluntary Carbon Offsets ............... 113 

Department of State ......................................................................................... 114 

Centers for Disease Control ............................................................................. 115 

International Efforts ................................................................................................ 115 

International Climate Negotiations ................................................................ 115 

Select Committee Congressional Delegations ................................................ 120 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 128 

Appendix A—Hearings and Briefings of the Select Committee ........................... 135 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
Union Calendar No. 590 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–915 

FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 110TH CONGRESS 

NOVEMBER 19, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MARKEY, from the Select Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming submits the following Final Staff Report for the 110th 

Congress. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Global climate change presents one of the gravest threats not 

only to our planet’s health, but also to the United States economy, 

national security, and public health. Scientists warn that we may 

be approaching a tipping point, after which it will become increasingly difficult, or perhaps impossible, to halt global warming and 

its catastrophic effects. The United States confronts this issue at 

the same time it faces a deepening energy crisis—characterized by 

skyrocketing prices, an increasing dependence on foreign oil, and 

continued reliance on high-carbon fuels that worsen the climate crisis. 

We are at a watershed moment in the history of energy production—and the choices we make at this juncture will determine the 

fate of our planet and the national security and economic future of 

the United States. Between now and 2030, over $20 trillion will be 

invested in energy infrastructure worldwide, and an estimated $1.5 

trillion will be invested in the U.S. power sector alone. This new 

infrastructure is long-lived and costly, and the decisions made in 

the next decade will set the course of the global and U.S. energy 

system—and of the global climate—for the next century and beVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
2 

1 H. Res. 202, § 4(c), 110th Cong. (2007). 

yond. This transition also presents an unprecedented opportunity 

for economic growth and job creation in the clean energy technology sector. But the United States must act now if it is to be a 

leader in this rapidly developing global market. 

Recognizing the urgency of these challenges, Speaker Pelosi announced at the outset of the 110th Congress her intention to create 

a select committee to tackle them. On March 8, 2007, the House 

passed Resolution 202, establishing the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and directing it to ‘‘investigate, study, make findings, and develop recommendations on policies, strategies, technologies and other innovations, intended to reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of energy and achieve substantial and permanent reductions in emissions and other activities that contribute to climate change and 

global warming.’’ 1 In keeping with this mandate, the Select Committee has worked to identify balanced and workable solutions to 

the urgent challenge of securing America’s energy independence 

while combating global warming. 

Over the past 18 months, the Select Committee has held over 50 

hearings on a broad array of subjects ranging from the security, 

economic, and environmental threats posed by climate change, to 

advanced vehicle and renewable energy technologies, to policy options for lowering prices at the gasoline pump. These hearings are 

listed in Appendix A of this report. Many were groundbreaking 

‘‘firsts’’—including the first congressional hearing on the national 

security implications of climate change, the first ‘‘green jobs’’ hearing, the first hearing at which the head of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change testified, the first hearing on U.S. cities’ 

efforts to combat climate change, the first hearing with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the 

first hearing on the Department of the Interior’s handling of the 

decision whether to list the polar bear as an endangered species, 

and the first hearing on the voluntary carbon offset market—to 

name a few. In addition, the Select Committee has held field hearings atop Cannon Mountain in New Hampshire, at the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ meeting in Seattle, Washington, and in Hartford, Connecticut. Meanwhile, it has hosted numerous briefings to 

educate House staff on a broad array of key energy and climate 

issues. 

The Select Committee has aggressively pursued oversight of the 

Bush administration’s energy and climate policies, including 

through oversight hearings, letters, and information requests focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 

Energy, the Department of the Interior, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, the Department of State, and the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The Select Committee organized or participated in several major 

Congressional delegations focused on energy security and climate 

change issues. These include delegations led by Speaker Pelosi to 

Greenland and the European Union in May 2007 and to India in 

March 2008, as well as a Select Committee delegation to Brazil in 

February 2008. In addition, Select Committee staff delegations 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
3 

have traveled to the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007 and to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratories in Colorado. 

Finally, the Select Committee has worked to communicate directly with the American public about energy security and climate 

change issues—principally through its website, which has won the 

prestigious ‘‘Golden Dot’’ Award for the best website in all federal, 

state, and local government (presented by the School of Political 

Management at George Washington University), an Honorable 

Mention from the Webby Awards, a Pollie Award from the American Association of Political Consultants, and a Silver Mouse 

Award, presented by the Congressional Management Foundation. 

Chairman Markey—by ‘‘avatar’’—delivered the first international 

address on climate using virtual world (‘‘Second Life’’) technology 

to the UN climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007. 

This Final Staff Report details the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee staff. Part I of the report addresses 

the challenges posed by the climate crisis and America’s growing 

energy needs. Part II provides recommendations on a series of 

‘‘win-win’’ solutions that will bolster America’s energy security 

while achieving the reductions in global warming pollution needed 

to save the planet. Part III presents the findings and recommendations resulting from the Select Committee’s oversight activities. 

Part IV discusses international issues, and reviews the findings of 

the Select Committee Congressional delegations to Greenland and 

the EU, Brazil, and India. 

The Report’s key findings and recommendations are as follows: 

KEY FINDINGS

The scientific debate on the cause of climate change is over. A 

clear scientific consensus now holds that global warming is happening, that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible, and that failure to dramatically reduce those emissions 

in the coming decades will result in catastrophic impacts. Human 

activities have changed the atmosphere as much in 200 years as 

natural variations changed it over 20,000 years. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide—key heat-trapping gas—have increased from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million since 

1750, and are higher than any level seen in the last 650,000 years. 

These concentrations could exceed 700 parts per million by 2100— 

leading to an increase in global average surface temperature of 

over 11 °F—if current trends in emission growth continue. 

Among the more alarming predictions regarding the likely nearto medium-term impacts of unchecked global warming are the following: 

• Increasingly severe water scarcity in the United States and 

globally, resulting in massive economic damages in the United 

States and subjecting up to 1.2 billion additional people in Asia, up 

to 220 million people in Africa, and up to 80 million people in Latin 

America to water stress by 2030. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
4 

• Increasing warming and acidification of the oceans, contributing to the collapse of coral reefs around the world and severely 

impacting global fisheries. • Sea level rise of at least 1–2 feet—and possibly much more— 

by 2100, subjecting the roughly 1 billion people living in coastal 

areas around the world to increased risk of inundation, storm 

surges, coastal erosion, and saltwater intrusion into drinking water 

supplies. • Increased heavy precipitation events and flooding in the 

United States and globally, as well as the potential for more frequent and more intense hurricanes and extreme weather events. • A broad range of adverse effects on public health including 

more frequent and more intense heat waves, thousands of additional deaths and millions of additional cases of respiratory illness 

due to ground-level ozone air pollution, as well as increased risk of 

infectious disease in the United States and many other regions of 

the world. • More frequent and more intense wildfires, and a longer fire 

season, throughout the Western United States, together with a decline in forest health due to increased infestation from pests. • Forty percent of the world’s species could face extinction by the 

latter half of this century as a result of global climate change. 

Tragically, these impacts will fall disproportionately on vulnerable communities, particularly in the developing world, that are 

least responsible for climate change and least able to adapt to it. 

However, the United States and other wealthy countries will also 

suffer devastating economic, environmental, and human costs if 

global warming continues unabated. 

The potential costs of global warming—both globally and here in 

the United States—are staggering. Economic studies suggest that 

global warming could cost the global economy from 5 to 20 percent 

of gross domestic product (GDP). Here in the United States, preliminary studies suggest that even a narrow range of global warming impacts could slash GDP by 1.8 to 3.6 percent by 2100. These 

costs far outweigh the potential costs of economy-wide legislation 

to reduce global warming pollution. 

There is a growing consensus that climate change presents a serious and growing risk to the United States national security interests around the world, acting as a ‘‘threat multiplier.’’ Climate 

change impacts will increase the risk of water and food scarcity, 

mass migration, and resource conflict in the developing world, with 

the potential for destabilization in many regions. Climate change 

impacts will also affect military and strategic infrastructure and 

energy supplies, both here in the United States and abroad. 

To avert catastrophic global warming, it will be necessary to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50–85 percent by 

2050—including a reduction by the United States and other developed countries of at least 80 percent by 2050. Strong interim targets, including a reduction of U.S. emissions by at least 20 percent 

by 2020, will be needed to achieve these goals. This will require an 

unprecedented transformation of the U.S. and global economy and 

energy systems—an energy technology revolution, which the 

United States must lead. 

In the face of this crisis, the Bush administration’s approach to 

climate change has been marked by pervasive delay, obfuscation, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
5 

and political interference in scientific research and agency decision 

making. In addition to its well-documented attempts to censor government climate scientists, the Bush administration has worked 

aggressively to prevent the EPA from fulfilling its legal obligation 

under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and 

has blocked California and over a dozen other states from implementing greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles. 

Further, the administration has delayed progress in international 

climate talks, undermining the United Nations negotiations and refusing to agree to binding emission reduction targets. 

At the same time, the United States is confronting a deepening 

energy security crisis—characterized by skyrocketing energy prices, 

growing dependence on foreign oil, and a widening gap between rising energy demand and stagnant supply. 

The United States continuing ‘‘addiction’’ to oil presents a serious 

and growing threat to our national security and economy. The 

United States is the largest consumer of oil in the world, accounting for 25 percent of global demand—principally to power our 

transportation system, which is 95 percent dependent on oil. In the 

past 40 years, the United States has gone from importing 21 percent of the oil it consumes to importing nearly 70 percent. The vast 

majority of the world’s oil—and virtually all of its spare production 

capacity—is located in countries that are members of OPEC. As a 

result, the United States national security and economy is increasingly threatened by the potential for a supply disruption or market 

manipulation by sometimes unfriendly foreign governments. 

Oil and gasoline prices have skyrocketed in the past year, and 

are predicted to remain at historically high levels for the foreseeable future, primarily as a result of rising global demand. Crude 

oil prices have increased by over 300 percent since 2001, and gasoline prices increased by 150 percent in this period. Even with the 

recent drop in prices, oil remains very expensive and volatile. 

While oil market speculation and the weak U.S. dollar have undoubtedly played an important role in the recent price run-up, experts agree that growing global demand—mostly in rapidly growing 

developing countries—is likely to result in sustained high prices for 

the foreseeable future. Soaring prices have had a crippling effect on 

American consumers—with mid-2008 gasoline expenses eating up 

nearly 10 percent of an average American worker’s pre-tax income. 

The oil and gas industry, meanwhile, is raking in record-breaking 

profits—$123 billion in 2007 and on track for $150 billion in 2008— 

while reducing investment in new exploration and putting little or 

no investment into alternative energy sources or research and development. 

We cannot drill our way out of this problem. While the United 

States consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil, it accounts for only 

10 percent of global production and has less than 3 percent of global reserves. While the past year was marked by strident calls to 

open new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling—and by the expiration of 

the 27-year moratorium on OCS drilling off the East and West 

Coasts of the United States—the facts make clear that increased 

drilling will have a negligible impact on crude oil supply or prices. 

U.S. electricity demand is rising faster than new supply is coming online, our electricity transmission and distribution infrastrucVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
6 

ture is outdated and overtaxed, and uncertainty about climate regulation is stalling new investment. U.S. electricity demand is predicted to increase by 29 percent by 2030, requiring the construction 

of over 290,000 megawatts of new generating capacity—or equivalent increases in efficiency. This rising demand is outstripping predicted increases in supply and in transmission capacity. Many regions of the country are predicted to see declining levels of reserve 

capacity—putting the reliability of the grid at greater risk. While 

coal remains the single largest source of electricity in the country 

(over 49 percent), the massive contribution of coal-fired power 

plants to global warming pollution and uncertainty regarding climate policy are making it increasingly inadvisable and difficult to 

build new conventional coal-fired plants. Natural gas and wind 

power, meanwhile, are experiencing strong growth. While many advocate nuclear power, massive expansion would be necessary even 

for it to maintain its current share of U.S. generation, and there 

are very substantial financial, market, and other obstacles to such 

an expansion. 

Natural gas demand and prices have risen dramatically in recent 

years, but the United States is not highly dependent on natural gas 

imports and new ‘‘unconventional’’ onshore resources are expanding 

domestic supply. Natural gas has become the fuel of choice for new 

power plants in the United States because of its low emissions and 

the comparatively low capital cost and short lead times for plant 

construction. Increased use of natural gas for residential and commercial heating is also contributing to rising demand. Natural gas 

prices have shot up over the past several years, with adverse impacts on residential and industrial consumers. Although the United 

States has less than 4 percent of global reserves, over 80 percent 

of the natural gas we consume is domestically produced, with most 

of the remainder coming from Canada. Rising prices are contributing to a boom in ‘‘unconventional’’ domestic production from 

shales and coalbed methane, boosting domestic supply and putting 

downward pressure on prices. Completion of the Alaska Natural 

Gas Pipeline would further expand access to domestic resources. In 

contrast, opening previously closed areas of the OCS to gas production area will not significantly increase supply or reduce prices. 

The energy security and climate challenges now facing us 

present a critical opportunity for economic growth and job creation. 

The policies recommended by this report will unleash an energy 

technology revolution that will far outstrip the information technology revolution of the past two decades in generating economic 

growth and American jobs. By contrast, if the United States does 

not seize this opportunity, it will become a laggard, instead of a 

leader, in what promises to be the largest global market of this 

century. 

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE 110TH CONGRESS

The 110th Congress has taken a number of major steps towards 

addressing the climate and energy security challenges. 

Most importantly, the enactment of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA): 

• Fuel Economy Standards: Raised corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for the first time since 1975, to at least 35 

miles per gallon by 2020—a minimum 40 percent increase over curVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
7 

rent standards—in keeping with the proposal advocated by Chairman Markey for the prior seven years. 

• Renewable Fuel Standard: Established a renewable fuel standard that requires inclusion in the U.S. fuel supply of at least 36 

billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, over half of which must 

come from next-generation biofuels including cellulosic ethanol and 

biodiesel. 

• Lighting, Appliance, and Federal Building Efficiency Standards: Established lighting and appliance efficiency standards, as 

well as new efficiency standards for federal buildings. 

• Green Jobs Training: Established a comprehensive ‘‘green jobs’’ 

training program for workers in the renewable energy and energy 

efficiency industries and authorized $125 million per year for this 

program. 

Taken together, these policies are predicted to reduce U.S. oil 

consumption by 4 million barrels per day by 2030, equivalent to 

more than twice the oil we import from the Persian Gulf. They are 

predicted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.3 billion metric 

tons carbon dioxide equivalent annually by 2030—equivalent to 24 

percent of the reductions needed by 2030 to keep us on track to reduce total U.S. emissions by 80 percent by 2050. They are expected 

to produce $475 billion in net consumer savings by 2030—including 

$230 billion from fuel economy standards alone—and will create 

hundreds of thousands of new jobs. 

In addition, as part of the economic rescue plan enacted on October 3, 2008 (H.R. 1424), Congress enacted the ‘‘Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008’’—which provides an $18 billion 

package of tax credits for clean energy and energy efficiency. Included in this package were the following: 

• Production Tax Credits for Renewable Electricity: A two-year 

extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for electricity generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and 

solid waste, and a one-year extension of the PTC for electricity generated from wind. For the first time, projects generating electricity 

from river and ocean currents, waves, tides, and thermal energy 

conversion are also eligible for the PTC. 

• Investment Tax Credits for Renewable Electricity: An eight-year 

extension of investment tax credits (ITC) for up to 30 percent of the 

cost of residential and commercial-scale solar energy projects, together with removal of the $2,000 cap on residential photovoltaic 

solar investments, previously a significant barrier to growth in the 

residential market. 

• Plug-In Hybrid Tax Credits: Tax credits on the purchase of 

fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The tax credit starts 

at $2,500 and increases based on battery capacity and vehicle size 

to up a maximum of $7,500 for cars and $15,000 for heavy-duty 

trucks. 

• Carbon Capture and Storage Credits: Tax credits for carbon 

capture and sequestration demonstration projects. Facilities would 

be eligible to receive a $20 tax credit for each metric ton of carbon 

dioxide captured and disposed of in secure geological storage and 

a $10 tax credit for each metric ton captured and used for qualified 

enhanced oil or natural gas recovery projects. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
8 

• Biofuel Credits: Incentives for the production of homegrown renewable fuels like biodiesel, and for the installation of E–85 pumps 

for consumers to fill up flexible-fuel vehicles. 

• Efficiency and Smart Grid Incentives: Incentives for energy 

conservation in commercial buildings, residential structures, energy 

efficient clothes washers, dishwashers and refrigerators, and accelerated depreciation for smart electric meters and grid equipment. 

• Clean Renewable Energy Bonds: $800 million worth of new 

clean renewable energy bonds for electric cooperatives and public 

power providers to finance facilities that generate electricity from 

renewable resources. 

• Energy Conservation Bonds: $800 million worth of new Energy 

Conservation Bonds for State and local governments to make energy conservation investments in public infrastructure and invest 

in research. 

The 110th Congress also enacted a number of measures aimed at 

protecting American consumers from high energy prices, including 

the following: 

• LIHEAP Funding: Funding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) at its full authorization level of $5.1 

billion. 

• Weatherization Assistance Program Funding: Increasing funding to the Weatherization Assistance Program, which supports 

weatherization of low-income homes to reduce energy costs, to $478 

million—nearly double historic levels. 

• Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension: Enacting H.R. 

6022, the ‘‘Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008,’’ which avoids wasteful spending and 

reduces pressures on oil prices by blocking the Department of Energy from buying oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during a 

period of historically high oil prices. 

Finally, the House passed several important energy security and 

climate measures that were not enacted into law, including the following: 

• A national renewable electricity standard that would have required 15 percent of the national electricity supply to be generated 

using renewable resources by 2020 (up to 4 percent of which could 

be satisfied through efficiency measures). 

• Federal model building standards that would have required a 

30 percent improvement in the energy efficiency of new residential 

and commercial buildings by 2010 and a 50 percent improvement 

by 2020. 

• ‘‘Use-it-or-lose-it’’ provisions that would require oil and gas 

companies to diligently pursue production on the 68 million acres 

of federal lands already leased to them. 

• Recovery of $5.8 billion in Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 

lease royalties lost due to erroneous omission of price caps for royalty relief in certain leases issued in 1998 and 1999. 

• H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008, which would have addressed excessive 

speculation in energy markets by closing the so-called ‘‘London 

Loophole,’’ which allowed traders to avoid regulation by offshoring 

their trades, requiring greater information be made public on trading activities in energy markets, and requiring the Commodity FuVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
9 

tures Trading Commission to set position limits for energy futures 

markets. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The 111th Congress and the next Administration should 

prioritize the implementation of the following recommendations, organized based on eight core objectives: 

1. Enact Economy-Wide ‘‘Cap-and-Invest’’ Legislation Based on 

the Following 10 Principles: 

• Science-Based Emission Targets: Climate legislation must 

achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20 percent by 2020 and at least 80 percent by 2050. 

• Market-Based, Economy-Wide Cap-and-Trade System: To maximize cost savings, climate legislation should implement a marketbased cap-and-trade system that covers as great a proportion of 

U.S. emissions as is practicable. 

• Ensure Fairness and Effectiveness by Auctioning Pollution Allowances: Climate legislation should auction 100 percent of pollution allowances, to ensure fairness and effectiveness of the cap-andinvest system and to minimize social costs. 

• Consumer Focused: Climate legislation should return at least 

half of allowance auction proceeds directly to low- and middle-income households to offset any increase in energy costs. 

• Invest in Efficiency, Clean Energy Technology, and American 

Workers: Climate legislation should spur the transition to a lowcarbon economy by investing auction proceeds in energy efficiency 

programs, in the development, demonstration, and deployment of 

clean energy technologies, and in helping American workers to 

transition to good jobs in the new low-carbon economy. 

• Ensure Global Participation: Climate legislation should include 

an integrated system of ‘‘carrots’’ and ‘‘sticks’’ to ensure that other 

countries join with us in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

• Smart Offsets and Incentives for Supplemental Emission Reductions: Climate legislation should establish rigorous standards 

governing the award of offset credits, and should provide robust financial incentives for supplemental reductions in ‘‘uncapped’’ emissions not eligible to generate offset credits. 

• Rigorous Carbon Market Oversight: Climate legislation should 

establish a rigorous framework for oversight and regulation of the 

market for emission allowances, offset credits, and derivatives—ensuring transparency, fairness, and stability. 

• Build Resilience to Climate Change Impacts: Climate legislation should build resilience to unavoidable impacts of climate 

change, both in the United States and in the most vulnerable developing countries. This must include investment in the necessary 

capacity to provide a robust Earth observation and prediction system. 

• Integrate Complementary Policies and State and Local Roles: 

Climate legislation should integrate complementary policies (especially in the area of power sector, building, and transportation sector efficiency) to reduce the overall cost of reducing emissions, and 

should preserve appropriate roles for State and local action. 

2. Boost the Efficiency of the Power Sector and Residential and 

Commercial Buildings: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
10 

• National Building Efficiency Standards: Enact federal building 

efficiency standards requiring at least a 30 percent improvement in 

new building efficiency by 2010 and a 50 percent improvement by 

2020. 

• Incentives for Building Efficiency Retrofits: Provide funding for 

the zero net-energy commercial buildings initiative created under 

EISA, and promote building efficiency labeling standards for existing buildings. 

• National Appliance Standards: Authorize new national appliance standards for high energy-consuming appliances such as flatscreen televisions, servers, and computers, and encourage the Department of Energy to promptly issue and/or update appliance efficiency standards under existing authority. 

• National Energy Efficiency Resource Standard: Adopt a national energy efficiency resource standard that requires utilities to 

achieve gradually increasing level of annual efficiency gains. 

• Performance-Based Incentives for State and Local Governments: Provide performance-based federal incentives—potentially 

funded through cap-and-invest auction proceeds or a national wires 

charge—to encourage utilities, States, and local governments to 

adopt energy efficiency measures. 

• Fund Combined Heat and Power, Fuel Cell, and Smart Grid 

RD&D Programs: Fully fund initiatives authorized under EISA to 

promote research, development, demonstration, and deployment of 

combined heat and power, fuel cells, and smart grid technologies. 

3. Expand Renewable Electricity Generation: 

• National Renewable Electricity Standard: Establish national 

Renewable Electricity Standard requiring that 20 percent of U.S. 

electricity be supplied by renewable sources by 2020. 

• 5–8 Year Extension of Renewable Energy Tax Credits: Enact a 

five- to eight-year extension of the production tax credit for renewable electricity generation. 

• Double Federal RD&D: Double current levels of federal investment in RD&D on renewable electricity generation. 

• Develop a National Green Transmission and Distribution Policy: Encourage or require the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to formulate a national policy 

to encourage construction of transmission lines connecting renewable resources with population centers. 

4. Drive the Development of Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

(CCS) Technology: 

• Fund CCS Demonstration Projects and R&D: Fully fund the 

CCS demonstration program authorized under Sections 702 and 

703 of EISA and increase funding for CCS-related R&D efforts. 

• Performance Standards for New Plants: Enact legislation, either in tandem with cap-and-invest legislation or as a precursor to 

it, to require all new coal-fired power plants to implement CCS by 

2020. 

• Administration Task Force: Encourage or require the new administration to establish an interagency task force to address and 

make recommendations to Congress on regulatory and legal barriers to the commercial deployment of CCS, including a proposed 

framework for long-term liability issues. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
11 

5. Transform the U.S. Transportation System Through Fuel Efficiency, Electric-Drive Vehicles, Low-Carbon Fuels, and Transportation Choices: • Ensure Rigorous Implementation of CAFE Authority: Require 

NHTSA to use realistic estimates of fuel prices and technologies in 

determining the ‘‘maximum feasible’’ fuel economy standards for 

the U.S. fleet. • Low-Carbon Fuel Standard: Enact a federal low-carbon fuel 

standard that requires gradual and continuous reductions in the 

carbon intensity of the U.S. fuel supply, is harmonized with the existing renewable fuel standard from the present through 2022, and 

replaces the renewable fuel standard after 2022. • Expand Tax Credits for Plug-In Hybrids and Other Advanced 

Vehicles: Provide tax credits for conversion of hybrid vehicles to 

plug-in hybrids. • Fund Loan Guarantees for Advanced Battery Development: 

Fully fund loan guarantees for advanced battery development 

under Section 135 of EISA. • Fund Electrification of State Vehicle Fleets: Establish a grant 

program to assist States with conversion of their vehicle fleets to 

plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. • Double Federal RD&D: Double current levels of federal investment in RD&D on biofuels and advanced vehicle technologies. • Promote Mass Transit and Smart Growth: Make promotion of 

mass transit and smart growth policies to reduce vehicle miles 

traveled a priority for transportation reauthorization and other relevant federal policies. 

6. Support Green Jobs and Clean Tech Growth: 

• Fund Green Jobs Training: Fully fund the green jobs training 

program established under Section 1002 of EISA. • Clean Tech Investment Support: Consider the establishment of 

institutions and mechanisms, such as a clean energy investment 

bank, to encourage private investment in clean energy technology. 

7. Provide Short-Term Energy Relief to American Consumers: 

• Fully Fund LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program: Fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and 

the Weatherization Assistance Program at full authorization levels. 

• Manage Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Protect Taxpayers and 

Consumers: Require the Department of Energy to swap 10 percent 

of the light crude in the SPR for heavy crude to better balance the 

Reserve. Provide guidance to the Department of Energy on management of the SPR during periods of high oil prices to avoid 

wasteful spending and to utilize the Reserve to provide short-term 

relief to consumers. 

• Provide New Authority to Crack Down on Speculation: Amend 

the Commodities Exchange Act to close loopholes in the existing 

regulatory regime. Provide funding for 100 additional staff for the 

Commodities Futures Trading Commission to oversee energy commodities futures markets. 

8. Responsibly Manage Expanded Domestic Oil and Gas Production: 

• Encourage Diligent Development of Existing Leases: Enact legislation to require oil and gas leaseholders that fail to develop such 

leases diligently to surrender them to the Department of the Interior so that they can be offered to other producers. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
12 

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 5 (2007). 3 Id. at 3. 

4 Id. at 5. 

5Water vapor is different from the other greenhouse gases primarily because of the much 

shorter time it stays in the atmosphere—days rather than years, decades or centuries. As noted 

below, the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere depends primarily on temperature, rather 

than human activities. 

• Responsibly Address Outer Continental Shelf Drilling: Revisit 

the issue of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration and 

drilling to ensure that environmentally and economically sensitive 

areas are protected and that States’ rights are respected in future 

OCS drilling activities. 

• Encourage Development of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: 

Encourage presidential leadership in completion of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, which could expand domestic supply of natural 

gas to the lower 48 States by 7 percent of current levels. 

I. THE CLIMATE AND ENERGY CHALLENGE

A. THE CLIMATE CRISIS

The scientific debate on the cause of global warming is over. A 

clear scientific consensus now holds that global warming is happening, that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible, and that the consequences of failing to reduce such emissions will be catastrophic. 

1. The scientific consensus on climate change 

Global warming refers to the global temperature rise and subsequent impacts from the increase of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere from human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil 

fuels. This additional pollution enhances the so-called ‘‘greenhouse 

effect’’ and warms the Earth. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in its Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 that the evidence for warming is ‘‘unequivocal’’ 2 and 

that most of the observed warming is very likely—greater than 90 

percent certainty—due to the increase of global warming pollution 

from human activities.3 Over the last century, the global average 

temperature has increased 1.4 °F, with almost 90 percent of the 

warming occurring over the last 50 years.4

Just like the glass of a greenhouse traps warm air inside, certain 

gases in the atmosphere trap heat that would otherwise escape into 

space. There are a number of such ‘‘greenhouse gases’’: water 

vapor,5 carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 

high-altitude ozone, and certain man-made industrial gases, including chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen 

trifluoride (NF3). 

The impact of each gas on global warming is a combination of its 

ability to trap heat, its concentration in the atmosphere, and how 

long it stays in the atmosphere. For example, while one molecule 

of methane traps more heat than one molecule of CO2, the higher 

concentration and longer atmospheric lifetime of CO2 means it has 

contributed more to global warming than methane has. Most efforts to control global warming pollution have focused on the CO2


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
13 

6The total CO2-equivalent concentration of all greenhouse gases is 455 ppm. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, at 27 (2007). 7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 112 (2007). 8 Urs Siegenthaler, et al., Stable Carbon Cycle—Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene, 310 Science 1313 (2005). 9 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 4 (2007). 10Lockwood and Froehlich, Recent Oppositely Directed Trends in Solar Climate Forcings and 

the Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, 463, Proceedings of the Royal Society, 24427 (2007). 11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, at 13, 69–70 (2007). 12See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Analysis of Bingaman-Specter Request on 

Global CO2 Concentrations at 7 (Oct. 1, 2007), available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ 

downloads/s1766analysispart1.pdf. 13See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 39 (Table TS.2) (2007). 

emissions from the burning of fossil fuels because they have the 

greatest effect and we have the greatest control over them. 

Since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the 

atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 

380 ppm.6 This 100 ppm change is the same increase as the world 

experienced from the last ice age about 20,000 years ago until just 

before the 1800’s.7 Human activities have changed the atmosphere 

as much in 200 years as natural variations changed it over 20,000 

years. The current level is higher than any level seen in the last 

650 thousand years.8

Scientists can model the temperature effects of natural and 

human-induced, or anthropogenic, changes in the global temperature. The results show that natural variations alone cannot explain 

the observed temperature rise of the last decades. The changes 

from human activities are necessary to fully explain the observed 

warming. Indeed, the IPCC has estimated that of the processes 

that can change global temperature, what they call ‘‘radiative 

forcings,’’ the components from human activities are cumulatively 

10 times larger than the best estimates of the changes from solar 

activity.9 A 2007 study found that all the trends in the Sun’s activity that could influence the temperature of the Earth have been in 

the opposite direction needed to explain the rise in temperature 

over the last 20 years.10

Scientists predict that if GHG emissions continue to grow unchecked, global warming—and resulting climate change—will accelerate. The IPCC’s estimate of the likely increase in global average 

surface temperature by 2100 ranges from 2 °F to 11.5 °F above 

2000 levels, depending on the scenario for greenhouse gas emissions growth.11 It should be emphasized, however, that current 

trends in emissions growth are consistent with or higher than the 

scenarios on the high end of this range. Business-as-usual emissions growth could result in atmospheric CO2 concentrations of well 

above 700 ppm by 2100,12 yielding a likely temperature increase of 

8.8 to 11 °F.13 These levels of warming will result in disastrous impacts for the planet, as the following sections explain. 

Further, many scientists are increasingly concerned that, because of ‘‘positive feedback’’ mechanisms associated with climate 

change, we are approaching a ‘‘tipping point’’ beyond which climate 

change will accelerate and will become increasingly difficult to reverse. As Dr. James Hansen explained at a briefing before the SeVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
14 

14 James Hansen, ‘‘Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near,’’ Briefing of the 

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, June 23, 2008, available at 

http://www.columbia.edu/∼jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLaterl20080623.pdf. 15Sergey A. Zimov, et al., Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget, 312 Science 1612 (2006). 16Transcript of Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing on 

‘‘Investing in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet America’s Energy and Climate Challenges, Sept. 

10, 2008, at 57. 17 Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990–2006, at ES–4 to ES–6 (April 15, 2008) [hereinafter ‘‘EPA Inventory’’], available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08lCR.pdf. 18Kevin A. Baumert et al., World Resources Institute, Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse 

Gas Data and International Policy at 18 (2005) [hereinafter ‘‘WRI Navigating the Numbers’’], 

available at http://pdf.wri.org/navigatinglnumbers.pdf. 

lect Committee held 20 years after his historic first testimony before Congress that human activities were altering the climate: 

Elements of a ‘‘perfect storm,’’ a global cataclysm, are assembled. Climate can reach points such that amplifying 

feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting 

more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse 

gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.’’14

Another worrisome climate feedback involves the methane stored 

in frozen arctic soils. Although it is hard to quantify, there is likely 

five times, if not more, carbon trapped in these soils than humans 

have released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels 

since the Industrial Revolution.15 As these soils warm and release 

methane, temperatures will increase, causing more soil to melt and 

more methane to be released. How quickly this warming and release happens is a critical question. As Dr. Jack Fellows said about 

this question in testimony before the Select Committee, ‘‘If it is released quickly, it could be the end of civilization.’’16

2. Greenhouse gas emissions sources and trends 

The United States accounts for roughly 20 percent of global CO2

emissions, and U.S. emissions have grown steadily over the past 

two decades at a rate of roughly 1 percent per year. In 2006 (the 

most recent year for which data is available), the United States 

emitted 7,054 million metric tons CO2 equivalent in greenhouse 

gases—a 14.7 percent increase since 1990 (the earliest year for 

which EPA data are available). Net emissions, including sources 

and sinks, similarly increased from 1990 to 2006, from 5,411 to 

6,171 million metric tons CO2 equivalent.17 Absent policy interventions, U.S. emissions are expected to increase between 20 and 52 

percent by 2025 from 2000 levels.18

In 2006 U.S. emissions were dominated by emissions from the 

electric power sector (comprising 34 percent of total U.S. emissions), transportation sector (28 percent), and industrial sector (19 

percent). The remaining emissions were due to the agricultural (8 

percent), commercial (6 percent), and residential (5 percent) sectors. Emissions from the electric power, transportation, and agricultural sectors have increased since 1990, while emissions from 

the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors have held steady 

or declined over the same period. If emissions from the generation 

of electric power are instead attributed to the end-use sectors, 

these proportions shift somewhat: The industrial (29 percent), commercial (17 percent), and residential (17 percent) sectors play an 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
15 

19 EPA Inventory, supra note 17, at ES–15 to ES–16. 20 EPA Inventory, supra note 17, at ES–4 to ES–6. 21 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 

Change, Summary for Policymakers at 27 (2007). 22Global Carbon Project, Carbon budget and trends 2007 (2008), at http:// 

www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 23 Id. 24 International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2008 at 45, 50, 56 (2008), available at: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2008/keylstatsl2008.pdf. 25Oak Ridge National Laboratory Press Release, ‘‘CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report’’ (Sept. 24, 2008), available at http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/ 

Press%20ReleaselOakRidge%20NationalLablUSAlfinal.pdf. 26 Id. 27WRI Navigating the Numbers, supra note 18, at 57. 

increasing role, while contributions from the transportation (28 

percent) and agriculture (8 percent) sectors remain relatively constant.19

In 2006, 80 percent of U.S. emissions were CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. Additional CO2 emissions (representing 5 percent total U.S. emissions) were generated from other activities, 

such as the manufacture of iron and steel and cement. Remaining 

emissions were comprised of CH4 (8 percent) and N2O (5 percent), 

largely from agricultural activities, landfills, natural gas systems, 

and coal mines, and HFCs (2 percent) used as a substitute for 

ozone-depleting substances. PFCs and SF6 each comprised less 

than 1 percent U.S. emissions. Net carbon sequestration (primarily 

in U.S. forests and agricultural soils) was 884 million metric tons 

CO2 equivalent—offsetting 13 percent of total U.S. emissions.20

Global greenhouse gas emissions grew by 24 percent between 

1990 and 2004,21 have accelerated since then, and are now running 

above the IPCC’s worst case scenario. While a slowing global economy in 2007 was expected to slow energy consumption and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions, global CO2 output instead rose 3 

percent from 2006 to 2007. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are growing four times faster since 2000 than during the previous decade, 

and are now running above the worst case emission scenario of the 

IPCC.22 In 2006, China surpassed the United States in total annual CO2 emissions,23 with each country accounting for more than 

20 percent of the global total.24 The EU–25 countries accounted for 

an additional 15 percent. India is on track to become the world’s 

third largest emitter in 2008, surpassing Russia.25 When the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was 

drafted in 1992, the 38 countries initially agreeing to limit their 

greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for 62 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Today this number has fallen to around 47 

percent, demonstrating the transformation of the global economy 

and the rapid growth occurring in many parts of the developing 

world.26

Electricity and heat account for 25 percent of global emissions, 

followed by industry (21 percent), land use change and forestry (18 

percent), buildings (15 percent), agriculture (15 percent), transport 

(14 percent), and waste (4 percent).27 The International Energy 

Agency’s (IEA’s) Reference Scenario projects global greenhouse gas 

emissions to increase 44 percent between 2006 and 2030. Emissions from China and India are expected to grow by 86 and 104 

percent, respectively, while emissions from the United States are 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
16 

28 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook (2006); and International Energy 

Agency, Key World Energy Statistics (2008). 29 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2005, at Table H.1cco2 

World Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 

1980–2005 (2007) available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls. 30Global Carbon Project, supra note 22. 31WRI Navigating the Numbers, supra note 18, at 32. 32 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 

Change, Summary for Policymakers at 38–39 (Table TS.2); Amy L. Luers et al., Union of Concerned Scientists, How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target for U.S. Emission Reductions (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/globallwarming/solutions/ 

biglpicturelsolutions/a-target-for-us-emissions.html. 

expected to grow by 25 percent over the same time period.28 Emissions from the EU have stayed relatively flat since 1990, and the 

EU has unilaterally committed to reduce emissions by 20 percent 

by 2020—and up to 30 percent with cooperation from the international community. 

While China has now overtaken the United States as the largest 

greenhouse gas emitter on an annual basis, the United States continues to have one of the highest per capita emission rates—far 

greater than India, China, or the EU. In 2005, the United States 

emitted 20 tons of CO2 per capita annually, compared to 12 tons 

per capita in Russia, 10 tons in Japan and the United Kingdom, 

and 8 tons per capita for the EU. The worldwide average per capita 

CO2 emissions level is 4.3 tons, and the average person in China 

and India is responsible for 4 tons and 1 ton of CO2 emissions per 

year, respectively.29

Moreover, the United States is responsible for nearly a third of 

the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere—nearly four times as much as China and over 14 times as much as 

India. Developing countries with 80 percent of the world’s population still account for 20 percent of the cumulative emissions since 

1751. The poorest countries in the world—where 800 million people 

live—have contributed less than 1 percent of these cumulative 

emissions.30 For most industrialized countries, their historic (i.e., 

cumulative) share of global emissions is much higher than their 

current (i.e., annual) share. For the period between 1850 and 2002, 

the United States contributed 29 percent world’s CO2 emissions, 

leading all other countries. EU–25 follows closely behind, with a 

contribution of 27 percent world’s CO2 emissions, but no other 

country contributes more than 10 percent. For example, China’s cumulative contribution is 8 percent, and India’s is only 2 percent.31

The IPCC has concluded that, to have even a 50–50 chance of 

avoiding the dangerous climate change associated with a 3.6 °F increase in global average surface temperature, global emissions 

must be reduced by 50–85 percent by 2050. This requires the 

United States and other developed countries to reduce emissions by 

at least 80 percent by 2050.32 Given the current trajectory of rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions, both here in the United 

States and globally, a substantial change of course is required in 

the very near term to avoid the catastrophic impacts outlined 

below. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
17 

33German Advisory Council on Global Change, Climate Change as a Security Risk Summary 

for Policy-makers at 2 (2007). 34 United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, The Food Crisis and Sustainable 

Development (May 2008), available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/documents/ 

bgrounderlfoodcrisis.pdf. 35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers at 13 (2007). 36Testimony of Rajendra Pachauri before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, ‘‘Learning from a Laureate: Science, Security and Sustainability,’’ Jan. 30, 

2008; see also Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change and Water at 36 

(2008) [hereinafter ‘‘IPCC Climate Change and Water’’]. 37 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, 

and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers at 11 (2007). 38 IPCC Climate Change and Water, supra note 36, at 28. 39 Id. at 19–26. 40 Id. at 3. 41 Id. at 88. 42 Id. at 86. 

3. The catastrophic impacts of climate change 

a. Going dry—increasing water scarcity and declining water 

quality 

One of the most dramatic impacts of global warming in the 21st 

century will be the exacerbation of already severe water scarcity— 

both here in the United States and abroad. Freshwater scarcity 

and threats to water quality are increasing dramatically both in 

the United States and across the world. Over a billion people currently lack access to safe drinking water.33 By 2025, 1.8 billion people are expected to be living in regions experiencing water scarcity 

and ‘‘two-thirds of the world’s population could be living under 

water stressed conditions.’’ 34 Climate change will greatly exacerbate current and future water stress. For example, the IPCC 

projects that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people in Africa 

alone will experience an increase of water stress due to climate 

change.35 For Asia, the number is between 120 million and 1.2 billion people, and for Latin American it is 12 to 81 million.36

Global warming is leading to rapid melting of land ice, glaciers, 

ice caps, and snow fields which over time will exacerbate water 

scarcity in many regions of the globe. One-sixth of the world population currently relies on meltwater from glaciers and snow cover 

for drinking water and irrigation for agriculture.37 The IPCC’s 

2008 Climate Change and Water report projects widespread reductions in snow cover throughout the 21st Century, and a 60 percent 

volume loss in glaciers in various regions.38 The melting of these 

ice reservoirs, which store 75 percent of the world’s freshwater, will 

exacerbate water scarcity conditions.39 While melting will temporarily increase freshwater supply, more winter precipitation falling 

as rain rather than snow, and an earlier snowmelt season will deplete frozen freshwater reserves. 

Increased water stress due to climate change will disproportionately affect the dry tropics and dry regions at lower mid-latitudes— 

notably Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, Brazil, and the American 

Southwest.40 According to the 2008 IPCC Climate Change and 

Water Report, semi-arid and arid areas in Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, Brazil, and the western United States are ‘‘projected to 

suffer a decrease of water resources due to climate change.’’ 41 In 

Asia, decreasing precipitation and rising temperatures result in increasing frequency and intensity of droughts.42 In northwestern 

China and Mongolia, snow and glacier melt will cause floods in the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
18 

43 Id. at 87. 44Timothy M. Lenton et al., Tipping Elements in the Earth’s climate system, 105 Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences 1790 (2008). 45WWF Climate Change Programme, Climate Change Impacts in the Amazon: Review of Scientific Literature at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/amazonlcclimpactsllitlreviewlfinall2.pdf (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 46 Jon Gertner, ‘‘The Future is Drying Up’’, New York Times, Oct. 21, 2008, available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21watert.html?lr=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 Id. 50Matthias Ruth et al., University of Maryland Center for Integrative Environmental Research, The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction at 24, 27 (2007), 

available at http://dl.klima2008.net/ccsl/usleconomic.pdf. 51 IPCC Climate Change and Water, supra note 36, at 67. 52 Id. at 68. 53 Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate 

Change at ii (Mar. 2008), available at http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/docs/ 

TO5lDRAFTlCCRlRevisedl10-16.pdf. 54 Allison Winter, Fisheries: Freshwater species in steep decline—USGS, Greenwire, Sept. 10, 

2008. 

spring in the near term but result in freshwater shortages by the 

end of the century.43 Global warming of 5.4 to 7.2 °F would result 

in more persistent El Nin ̃ o conditions that would shift the Amazon 

rainforest from ‘‘tropical forest to dry savannah’’ 44—imperiling an 

ecosystem that sustains thousands of people and is one of the 

greatest concentrations of biodiversity on Earth.45

The United States is already experiencing water stress, which 

will worsen severely in the coming decades due to climate change. 

In the American West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is at its lowest 

level in 20 years and threatens most of the water supply to Northern California.46 Experts warn that ‘‘even the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 

70 percent of this snowpack will disappear.’’ 47 The Southwest is already experiencing a severely reduced flow in the Colorado River— 

upon which 30 million people depend for water—as a consequence 

to decreasing snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains.48 The Midwest 

is expected to experience ‘‘drought-like conditions resulting from 

elevated temperatures, which increases levels of evaporation, contributing to decreases in soil moisture and reductions in lake and 

river beds’’ as a result of climate change.49 In addition to a range 

of other costs, agriculture in the Great Plains and the Southwest 

is likely to suffer massive economic losses due to increasing water 

scarcity.50

Climate change will also negatively impact the quality of freshwater resources. For example, reduced flows will reduce rivers’ 

ability to dilute effluent, leading to increased pathogen or chemical 

loading.51 In addition, increased heavy precipitation events due to 

climate change—discussed below—‘‘may increase the total microbial load in watercourses and drinking-water reservoirs.’’ 52 And 

warmer water temperature combined with higher phosphorus concentrations will increase the occurrence of freshwater algal blooms, 

with adverse impacts on freshwater ecosystems and fisheries. Fish 

habitat may also be compromised because altered water chemistry 

will promote the intrusion of invasive species.53 These impacts will 

exacerbate the precarious state of freshwater fish species in North 

America, nearly 40 percent of which are already at risk.54


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
19 

55 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Arctic Highlights at 4 (2004), 

available at http://www.amap.no/acia/Highlights.pdf. 56 Id. 57 European Space Agency, ‘‘Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in history,’’ Sept. 14, 

2007, at http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYTC13J6Flindexl0.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 58 National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely 

Record-Low Volume, Oct. 2, 2008, at http://nsidc.org/news/press/ 

20081002lseaicelpressrelease.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 59 Julienne Stroeve et al. Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, 34 Geophysical Research 

Letters L09501 (2007). 60 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, supra note 55, at 6. 61Sebastian H. Mernild et al., Surface Melt Area and Water Balance Modeling on the Greenland Ice Sheet 1995–2005, Journal of Hydrometeorology: In Press (2008). 62 USGS Fact Sheet 002–00, Sea Level and Climate (2000), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ 

fs/fs2-00/. 

b. The great melt—impacts on the Arctic and Antarctic 

The Arctic is literally one of the hotspots of global warming. Over 

the past 50 years average temperatures in the Arctic have increased as much as 7 °F, five times the global average.55 In the 

next 100 years, some areas in the Arctic may see an increase in 

average temperatures as high as 13 °F.56

As temperatures rise in the Arctic, sea ice and glaciers are melting at an unprecedented and alarming rate. In 2007, a record 

386,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice melted away, an area larger 

than Texas and Arizona combined and as big a decline in one year 

as has occurred over the last decade.57 In 2008, the sea ice extent 

was only slightly greater than in 2007, but the sea ice volume is 

likely the lowest on record due to the decline in multiyear old ice 

and the thinness of the remaining ice.58 Recent observations suggest that Arctic sea ice could completely disappear during the summer as early as 2020.59

The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an alarming rate. Between 

1979 and 2002, the extent of melting in Greenland has increased 

on average by 16 percent—an area roughly the size of Sweden.60

In the record-breaking year of 2005, parts of Greenland melted that 

have never melted during the 27-year long satellite record.61 In 

May 2007, members of the Select Committee observed firsthand 

the disintegration of the Jakobshavn Glacier at Ilulissat in western 

Greenland. According to the scientists that met with the delegation 

and who have been monitoring the glacier for almost two decades, 

the receding of this glacier has doubled in the past eight years, 

from 5 to nearly 9 miles per year, draining a large portion of the 

ice sheet. 

A complete melting of Greenland would result in a rise in global 

sea level of over 20 feet,62 with catastrophic consequences for coastal regions around the world. Furthermore, melting Arctic glaciers 

would contribute large amounts of fresh water into the ocean, potentially changing oceanic currents, damaging eco-systems and altering current weather conditions. 

Parts of Antarctica, too, are melting fast. At the opposite end of 

world, massive amounts of water are trapped in the two ice sheets 

of Antarctica. The larger East Antarctic ice sheet covers the majority of the continent, while the West Antarctic ice sheet has significant ice shelves partially floating in the ocean. Taken together, 

they contain 90 percent of Earth’s ice and 70 percent of its freshwater and would raise sea level over 200 feet if they completely 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
20 

63 USGS Fact Sheet 2005–3055, Coastal Change and Glaciological Maps of Antarctica (2007), 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3055/index.html. 64 N. F. Glasser & T.A. Scambos, A structural glaciological analysis of the 2002 Larsen B ice 

shelf collapse, 54 Journal of Glaciology 3–16 (2008). 65Testimony of James Hansen before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, ‘‘Danger Human-Made Interference with Climate’’, April 26, 2007, at 13. 66S. V. Nghiem et al., Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt Monitoring in Greenland and Antarctica, in Dynamic Planet (2007). 67 Judith Perlwitz et al., Impact of stratospheric ozone hole recovery on Antarctic climate, 35 

Geophysical Research Letters L08714 (2008). 68 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis at 387 (2007). 69 Id. at 389. 

melted.63 In the spring of 2002, scientists were shocked to discover 

that an ice shelf the size of Rhode Island had disintegrated from 

the West Antarctica ice sheet in just over a month.64 The collapse 

of the Larsen B ice shelf was a wake-up call to scientists who had 

thought that these large areas of ice would take a millennium to 

disappear, not a month. 

Dr. James Hansen testified before the Select Committee that, because the floating ice of the West Antarctic is subject to both 

warming air and ocean temperatures, it is especially vulnerable to 

global warming.65 Until recently, it was believed that only coastal 

areas of the West Antarctic were vulnerable to melting. Satellite 

analysis has now revealed that large inland regions are also showing signs of the impacts of warming. NASA and university researchers have found clear evidence that an area the size of California melted in January 2005 in response to warm temperatures.66 One reason that Antarctica has not experienced the same 

increase in temperatures as the Arctic is the cooling effect of the 

ozone hole. Scientists predict that as the atmosphere recovers from 

ozone depletion, the interior of Antarctica will warm with the rest 

of the world.67

c. Warming and acidification of the world’s oceans 

The world’s oceans will suffer devastating impacts as a result of 

global climate change—as the Select Committee learned at its April 

2, 2008 hearing entitled ‘‘Rising Tides, Rising Temperatures: Global Warming’s Impacts on the Oceans.’’ 

Oceans are already warming due to climate change. The oceans 

cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface and are critical components 

of the climate system for redistributing heat around the world and 

absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, global 

ocean temperature has risen by 0.18 °F from 1961 to 2003.68 Since 

the ocean has a heat capacity 1,000 times greater than that of the 

atmosphere, it has taken up 20 times more heat than the atmosphere during this same period.69 As a result of the ocean’s relatively large heat capacity, it has a great effect on the Earth’s heat 

balance and how energy from solar radiation is distributed 

throughout the global environment. 

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing acidification of the oceans. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead 

to higher absorption of CO2 into the upper ocean, which makes the 

surface waters more acidic and reduces the concentration of carbonate ions. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), ocean chemistry currently is changing at 

least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed during the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
21 

70 Richard Feeley et al., Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy (April 2006), available at 

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf. 71Kathy Tedesco et al., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology, at http:www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spotlBppZotgf 

(last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 72Krent E. Carpenter et al., One-Third of Reef-Building Corals Face Elevated Extinction Risk 

from Climate Change and Local Impacts, Science Express, July 10, 2008. 73 R.A. Cropp and A.J. Gabric, Evidence for global coupling of phytoplankton and atmospheric 

aerosols, 4 Oceans 2003. Proceedings 2341 (2003). 74 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Ocean Service Education, Importance of Coral Reefs, at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/ 

coral07limportance.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 75 Elizabeth Weise, Scientists: Global Warming could kill coral reefs by 2050, USA Today, Dec. 

13, 2007, available at http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-12-13- 

coral-reefslN.htm. 76Thomas Damassa, World Resources Institute, The Value of Ecosystems (Dec. 5, 2006), available at http://www.wri.org/stories/2006/12/value-coastal-ecosystems. 

650,000 years preceding our industrial era.70 If current emission 

trends continue, the ocean will experience acidification to an extent 

and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years. 

Ocean acidification has serious implications for the calcification 

rates of organisms living at all levels within the global ocean, from 

corals to zooplankton that serve as the foundation of many ocean 

food chains. According to NOAA, when dissolved carbon dioxide 

was increased to two times pre-industrial levels, a decrease in the 

calcification rate by 5 to 50 percent was observed.71

Warming and acidification of ocean waters due to climate change 

are contributing to the collapse of coral reefs around the globe. 

Coral reefs are habitat for about a quarter of marine species, are 

the most diverse among marine ecosystems, and are already in a 

state of decline. Recent studies indicate that over a third of all 

coral species are already endangered.72 When key temperature 

thresholds are exceeded, mass bleaching and complete coral mortality often result. By mid-century, these temperature thresholds 

are expected to be exceeded on an annual or bi-annual basis for the 

majority of reefs worldwide. After bleaching, algae quickly colonize 

dead corals and may make future coral growth and restoration 

more difficult. Other factors that influence the health of reefs are 

impacted by climate change, including sea level rise, storm severity 

and dust and mineral aerosols.73 These, together with non-climate 

factors such as over-fishing, invasion of non-native species, pollution, and increased nutrient and sediment loads, add multiple 

stresses, increasing coral reefs’ vulnerability to climate change. 

Corals could become rare on tropical and subtropical reefs by 2050 

due to the combined effects of acidification and increasing frequency of extreme temperature events that cause bleaching. 

NOAA estimates the commercial value of United States fisheries 

from coral reefs is over $100 million,74 and the total economic value 

of coral is estimated to be $30 billion.75 Coastal states, like Florida, 

would be especially harmed where reef-based tourism in the Florida Keys generates $1.2 billion in annual revenue.76 Healthy coral 

reefs provide other benefits, as well, including shoreline protection, 

beach sand supply, potential pharmaceuticals, biodiversity, and 

fish habitat. 

Climate change threatens global fisheries. Warmer water and 

acidification not only harm coral reefs that function as fish hatcheries, but could also change the circulation of the world’s ocean currents. Most fish species have a fairly narrow range of optimum 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
22 

77 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Fisheries and Environmental 

Laboratory, Climate Variability and Marine Fisheries: How Does Climate Affect Fish Populations?, at http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/research/climatemarine/cmffish/cmffishery.html (last 

visited Oct. 20, 2008). 78 James R. McGoodwin, ‘‘Effects of climate variability on three fisheries economies in highaltitude regions: Implications for fisheries policies,’’ 31 Marine Policy 40–55 (2007). 79 United Nations Environmental Programme, Press Release, Warmer World May Mean Less 

Fish, Feb. 22, 2008, at http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/ 

Default.asp?DocumentID=528&ArticleID=5751 (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 80Testimony of James L. Connaughton on the Reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, Senate 

Commerce Committee, Nov. 16, 2005. 81Tedesco et al., supra note 71. 82Testimony of Vikki Spruill, before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, ‘‘Global Warming’s Impacts on the Oceans,’’ April 29, 2008, at 9; Corinne Le Que ́re ́

et al., Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change, 316 Science 

1735–38 (2007). 83 Inez Y. Fung et al., ‘‘Evolution of carbon sinks in a changing climate,’’ 102 Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences 11203 (2005). 84 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 70 (2007). 

temperatures due to temperature effects on their basic metabolism 

and the availability of food sources that have their own optimum 

temperature ranges.77 A given species’ geographic range may expand, shrink, or be relocated with changes in ocean conditions 

caused by climate change.78 The United Nations Environment Programme found that ‘‘climate change may slow down ocean 

thermohaline circulation crucial to coastal water quality and nutrient cycling in more than 75 percent of the world’s fishing 

grounds.’’ 79 Less hospitable waters would have a significant effect 

on the global fishing industry. In the United States alone, commercial and recreational fisheries contribute $60 billion to the economy 

each year and employ more than 500,000 people.80

Finally, there is growing concern that the oceans’ capability to 

absorb atmospheric CO2 may be declining—reducing a critical buffer against further climate change. The oceans are the largest natural reservoir for carbon, absorbing approximately one-third of the 

CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activities each year.81 Recent research suggests that the vast Southern Ocean’s capability to 

absorb atmospheric CO2 may be declining, due in part to saturation 

of surface waters.82 In addition, as water warming increases so 

does ocean stratification which ‘‘reduces vertical mixing * * * leading to slower removal of excess carbon from the surface ocean.’’ 83

This is yet another positive feedback mechanism that could speed 

climate change. 

d. Sea level rise and coastal impacts 

Sea levels are already rising, and are predicted to rise by at least 

1–2 feet by 2100—with the potential for a nearly 40-foot rise in sea 

level if the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets were to melt 

completely. The IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise by 8 to 24 

inches above current levels by 2100, primarily due to thermal expansion from rising ocean temperatures 84—with current emissions 

trends more consistent with the higher end of this range. However, 

how much and how quickly the polar ice sheets will melt in response to global warming is a critical question. Many scientists are 

increasingly concerned that the Greenland and West Antarctic ice 

sheets are melting at a greater rate than previously predicted. Because scientists do not fully understand the dynamics of ice sheet 

melting, the IPCC found that larger values of sea level rise could 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
23 

85 Id. at 14. 86 Testimony of James Hansen, before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming on ‘‘Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate,’’ April 26, 2007, at 11. 87 Id. at 12. 88 Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise, at http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 89 Id. 90 Id. 91 Id. 92 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis at 8 (2007); see generally U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis Assessment 

Product 3.3, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North 

America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands at 8 (June 2008). 

not be excluded.85 A complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet 

alone would cause a 20-foot rise in sea level, and complete melting 

of the West Antarctic ice sheet would cause a 16-foot sea level rise. 

We know from geological history that as the massive ice sheets of 

the last Ice Age melted, sea level rose as fast as 15 feet per century.86

Sea level rise will have severe impacts on the world’s coastal populations, including here in the United States. Rising sea levels are 

already causing inundation of low-lying lands, erosion of wetlands 

and beaches, exacerbation of storm surges and flooding, and increases in the salinity of coastal estuaries and aquifers. The most 

dramatic near-term effects of sea level rise are being felt by inhabitants of small island states, the very existence of which is now endangered. Further, about one billion people live within 75 feet elevation of today’s sea level, including many U.S. cities on the East 

Coast and Gulf of Mexico, almost all of Bangladesh, and areas occupied by more than 250 million people in China.87 In total, more 

than 70 percent of the world’s population lives on coastal plains, 

and 11 of the world’s 15 largest cities are on the coast. 

In addition, rising sea level due to climate change will threaten 

drinking water supplies in coastal areas—causing intrusion of saltwater into both surface water and ground water.88 New York City, 

Philadelphia, and much of California’s Central Valley obtain some 

of their water from portions of rivers that are just upstream from 

the point where water currently turns salty during droughts.89 If 

sea level rise pushes salty water further upstream, existing water 

intakes might draw on salty water during dry periods. The freshwater Everglades currently recharge Florida’s Biscayne aquifer, the 

primary water supply to the most populous counties in South Florida, including the cities of Miami and Fort Lauderdale. As rising 

water levels submerge low-lying portions of the Everglades, portions of the aquifer would become saline.90 Aquifers in New Jersey 

east of Philadelphia are recharged by the Delaware River which 

also may become saline in parts in the future, leading to a degradation of drinking water quality.91

e. Extreme weather events 

Global warming has already changed the intensity, duration, frequency, and geographic range of a variety of weather patterns and 

will continue to do so—with potentially severe impacts on the 

United States and the world.92 There is a broad scientific consensus that the United States is vulnerable to weather hazards 

that will be exacerbated by climate change. The cost of damages 

from weather disasters has increased markedly from the 1980’s, 

rising to over 100 billion dollars in 2007. In addition to a rise in 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
24 

93 See National Climatic Data Center, Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters, at http:// 

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 94 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 8 (2007). 95 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 92, at 4. 96 National Climatic Data Center, Climate of 2008: Midwestern U.S. Flood Overview (updated 

July 9, 2008), at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/flood08.html#impacts 97 Id. 98 Phillip Fiorini, Purdue researchers to assess damage from Midwestern floods, Lafayette Online, Sept. 29, 2008, at http://www.lafayette-online.com/purdue-news/2008/09/purdue-researchers-assess-flood-impact/. 99 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 9 (2007). 100 Testimony of Dr. Judith Curry before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming hearing on ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change,’’ April 26, 2007. 

total cost, the frequency of weather disasters costing over one billion dollars has increased.93 In the United States, several hundred 

people already die from flooding and extreme heat events every 

year. 

Global warming will lead to more extreme precipitation events 

and flooding. As the atmosphere warms, it is able to hold more 

water vapor. When a storm occurs, this higher concentration of 

water vapor leads to rainfall occurring in larger quantities, which 

can result in flooding. The IPCC has found that ‘‘[t]he frequency of 

heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water 

vapor.’’ 94 The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has concluded 

that heavy precipitation events averaged over North America have 

increased over the past 50 years.95 In the future, it is very likely 

that North America will experience more frequent and intense 

heavy downpours and higher levels of total rainfall in extreme precipitation events. 

Flooding and extreme precipitation events cost lives and can 

cause massive damages to infrastructure, property, and agricultural lands, as was highlighted by the flooding in the Midwestern 

United States in the summer of 2008. Those floods washed away 

nearly 2 percent of the nation’s corn crop. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that crop losses would exceed $8 billion 

across the Midwest, with half of the total occurring in Iowa.96 An 

additional $1.5 billion in property damage occurred in Iowa 97 and 

$1 billion in Indiana.98

Increased sea surface temperatures are a critical determining 

factor in the strength of hurricanes, and some scientists predict 

that global warming will result in an increase in hurricane and 

tropical cyclone frequency and intensity. The IPCC has found observational evidence for the increase in intense hurricanes in the 

North Atlantic since the 1970s, correlated with increasing sea surface temperatures.99 Some researchers have argued that there is 

evidence for increased hurricane intensity around the world and 

emerging evidence for an increase in frequency of hurricanes in the 

Atlantic.100 Stronger hurricanes lead to more destructive winds 

and higher storm surges, increasing the risk to coastal communities in their paths. As sea level rises and storm surges increase, 

the vulnerability of cities to flooding, and the related impacts, increases significantly. 

Severe thunderstorms, hail, tornados, and winter storms may 

also increase. The current observational record for these smaller 

scale storms is insufficient to determine whether there are trends 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
25 

101 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 9 (2007); U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 

92, at 7. 102 Nicholas Riccardi, ‘‘Twisters on a record pace’ ’’, L.A. Times, May 13, 2008, at A12, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/13/nation/na-tornado13. 103 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 92, at 7. 104 Id. at 4. 105 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 

Summary for Policymakers at 48 (2007). 106 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability at 617–652 (2007). 107 Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change—Health and Environmental Effects, at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 108 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Policy on Climate Change and Public 

Health, at http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/pubs/ClimatelChangelPolicy.pdf (last visited 

Oct. 20, 2008). 109World Health Organization, Fact Sheet No. 266, Climate and health (Aug. 2007), at http:// 

www.who.int/globalchange/en/. 110 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability at 391–431 (2007). 

correlated to warming temperatures.101 However, these phenomena 

are often associated with heavy precipitation events and hurricanes; as the latter storms become more frequent and possibly increase in intensity, then the probability of thunderstorms, hail, and 

tornadoes should also increase. Warming temperatures may also 

expand the range over which tornados occur. Over the last few 

years, tornados have occurred earlier in the year and further north 

than what is typically thought of as ‘‘tornado alley.’’ 102 Finally, 

strong cold season storms are also likely to become more frequent, 

with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.103

Climate change will lead to more frequent and more intense heat 

waves in the United States and globally.104 The impacts of heat 

waves are discussed further in the public health section that follows. 

f. Public health 

There is a broad consensus among experts within the worldwide 

public health community that climate change poses a serious risk 

to public health. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report concluded 

that climate change’s likely impacts on public health include: 

• More frequent and more intense heat waves, leading to marked 

short-term increases in mortality. 

• Increased numbers of people suffering from death, disease, and 

injury from floods, storms, fires and droughts. 

• Increased cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground-level ozone pollution. 

• Changes in the range of some infectious disease vectors. 

• Increased malnutrition and consequent disorders, including 

those relating to child growth and development.105

This assessment included a specific analysis of regional impacts 

to health, including in the United States.106 In addition, EPA,107

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 108 and 

NOAA have all concluded climate change poses a serious public 

health risk. The World Health Organization (WHO) released a 

quantitative assessment concluding that the effects of climate 

change may have caused over 150,000 deaths in 2000 and that 

these impacts are likely to increase in the future.109 According to 

the IPCC, climate change contributes to the global burden of disease, premature death and other adverse health impacts.110


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
26 

111 National Weather Service, Natural Hazard Statistics: Weather Fatalities, at http:// 

www.weather.gov/os/hazstats.shtml (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 112 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Extreme Heat: A Prevention Guide to Promote 

Your Personal Health and Safety, at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/ 

heatlguide.asp (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 113 European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection, The 2003 

European heat wave, at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph—information/dissemination/unexpected/unexpectedl1len.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 114 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 

Summary for Policymakers at 2, 8 (2007). 115 Gerald A. Meehl & Claudia Tebaldi, More Intense, More Frequent, and Longer Lasting 

Heat Waves in the 21st Century, 305 Science 994 (2004). 116 Id. 117 Id. 118 Frank Ackerman & Elizabeth Stanton, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Cost of 

Climate Change: What We’ll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked at vi (May 2008), 

available at http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf. 

Heat waves will increase in intensity and frequency in the 

United States and globally. According to the National Weather 

Service, heat waves kill on average 170 people per year in the 

United States, and 253 people died in 2006 alone.111 According to 

the CDC, from 1979 to 2003 more people died from heat waves in 

the United States than from all other natural disasters.112 The European heat wave of August 2003 is estimated to have killed up to 

45,000 people.113 In France alone, nearly 15,000 people died due to 

soaring temperatures, which reached as high as 104 °F and remained extreme for two weeks. 

There is consensus that heat waves ‘‘have become more frequent 

over most land areas’’ and there is confidence that climate change 

will result in the ‘‘very likely increase in frequency of hot extremes.’’ 114 There is evidence that present day heat waves over Europe and North America ‘‘coincide with a specific atmospheric circulation pattern that is intensified by ongoing increases in greenhouse gasses.’’ 115 The intensity, duration and frequency of heat 

waves will increase in western and southern regions of the United 

States and in the Mediterranean region.116 Other areas not currently as susceptible, such as northwest North America, France, 

Germany, and the Balkans will also experience ‘‘increased heat 

wave severity in the 21st century.’’ 117 With continued warming by 

2100, Washington, D.C. will experience the temperatures that 

Houston does today, Denver will be as warm as Memphis is today, 

and Anchorage will be as warm as New York City is today.118 The 

populations most at risk of dying in a heat wave are the elderly 

and people in underserved communities, and as growth in the U.S. 

population over the age of 65 coincides with warmer temperatures, 

more deaths can be anticipated. 

Global warming will exacerbate ground-level ozone pollution, 

leading to substantial increases in deaths and respiratory illness. 

Ground-level ozone (O3), unlike other primary pollutants, is not 

emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a secondary pollutant 

produced by reaction between nitrogen dioxide (NO3), hydrocarbons, and sunlight. The ozone forming reaction occurs at a higher rate with more intense sunlight and higher temperatures. Thus, 

as temperatures rise from global warming, ground level ozone is 

expected to increase. Ozone is a known public health threat that 

can damage lung tissue causing respiratory illness, and exacerbate 

pre-existing respiratory conditions. The IPCC predicts increased 

levels of ozone across the eastern United States, ‘‘with the cities 

most polluted today experiencing the greatest increase in ozone polVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
27 

119 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability at 632 (2007). 120 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6, Analyses 

of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems at ES– 

96 (2008). 121 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability at 632 (2007). 122 R.K. McConnell et al., Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: A cohort study, 359 

The Lancet 386 (2002); J.F. Gent et al., Association of low-level ozone and fine particles with 

respiratory symptoms in children with asthma, 29 J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1859 (2003). 123Mark Jacobson, On the Causal Link Between Carbon Dioxide and Air Pollution Mortality, 

35 Geophysical Research Letters L03809 (2008). 124World Health Organization, World Health Report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy 

life (2002). 125W. Checkley et al., Effect of El Nino and ambient temperature on hospital admissions for 

diarrhoeal diseases in Peruvian children, 355 The Lancet 442 (2000). 126 Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change—Health and Environment Effects: 

Health, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html#climate (last visited Oct. 20, 

2008). 127 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability at 409 (Table 8.2) (2007). 128 Id. at 619. 

lution.’’ 119 The increase in temperature in urban areas specifically 

and increases in ozone can increase rates of cardiovascular and 

pulmonary illnesses as well as temperature-related morbidity and 

mortality for children and the elderly.120 Similar impacts will be 

felt in urban areas around the globe. By mid-century, ozone related 

deaths from climate change are predicted to increase by approximately 4.5 percent from the 1990s levels.121 Even modest exposure 

to ozone may encourage the development of asthma in children.122

Recently, an analysis linking CO2 emissions to mortality revealed 

that for each increase of 1.8 °F caused by CO2, the resulting air 

pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional 

deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in 

the United States.123

Climate change will lead to changes in geographic distribution of 

infectious diseases, with potentially serious impacts on public 

health in the United States and globally. The WHO estimates that 

climate change was responsible in 2000 for approximately 2.4 percent of worldwide diarrhea, and 6 percent of malaria in some middle-income countries.124 While in the United States, diarrheal illnesses rarely result in death, the WHO estimates that worldwide 

there are approximately four billion cases of diarrhea each year, 

and 2.2 million deaths resulting from diarrheal illnesses. It is one 

of the leading causes of death among children in the developing 

world. Given the relationship between elevated temperatures and 

the incidence of diarrheal diseases if average global temperature 

increases by a further 1.8 °F (1 °C), this could result in an additional 320 million cases and 176,000 deaths from diarrheal illnesses annually.125

According to EPA, ‘‘Climate change may increase the risk of 

some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in 

warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects.’’ 126

For example, the IPCC has concluded that the global population at 

risk from vector-borne malaria will increase by between 220 million 

and 400 million in the next century.127 Similarly, the IPCC predicts that climate change is likely to increase risk and geographic 

spread of the West Nile virus—another mosquito-borne disease.128

West Nile virus was first identified in the United States during the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
28 

129 Center for Disease Control, West Nile Virus Human Case Counts for 1999–2008, available 

at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/surv&control.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2008). 130 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 120, at 2–18. 131 Richard A. Houghton, ‘‘Tropical Deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions,’’ in 

Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change at 13 (P. Moutinho & S. Schwartzman eds., 2005), 

available at http://www.edf.org/documents/ 

4930lTropicalDeforestationlandlClimateChange.pdf. 132 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Forest Resource Assessment 2005: Key 

Findings, at http://www.fao.org/forestry/32250/en/. 133 Richard A. Houghton, ‘‘Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes: 1850– 

2005,’’ in TRENDS: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (2008), available at http:// 

cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm. 134 Houghton, supra note 131. 135 Id. 

summer of 1999, and has since killed 1112 people.129 Shifting patterns of temperature may also redistribute ticks that transmit 

pathogens causing Lyme disease.130

g. Forests and Wildfires 

The clearing and degradation of tropical forests is a major driver 

of global climate change. Forests cover about 30 percent of the 

Earth’s land surface and hold almost half of the world’s terrestrial 

carbon.131 They can act both as a source of carbon emissions to the 

atmosphere when cut, burned, or otherwise degraded and as a sink 

when they grow, removing carbon dioxide from the air through 

photosynthesis. Between 1990 and 2005, carbon in forest biomass 

decreased in Africa, Asia, and South America primarily from deforestation, but increased in all other regions as previously cleared 

land in Europe and North America reverted from agriculture uses 

to forests.132

Since the 1950s, greenhouse gas emissions from land use change, 

including deforestation and degradation, have been significant, on 

the order of 20 to 50 percent of fossil fuel emissions.133 Deforestation and degradation currently account for 20 to 25 percent of 

global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, roughly equivalent 

to the total fossil fuel emissions from the United States.134 These 

emissions come predominantly from deforestation of tropical 

rainforests. 

Tropical forests play an especially crucial role. Tropical forests 

encompass a variety of forest types around the equatorial region of 

the world. Nearly all the nutrient and carbon content of a tropical 

forest is in the living plants and the decomposing vegetation on the 

forest floor. Trees in tropical forests hold, on average, about 50 percent more carbon per acre than trees outside of the tropics.135

When forests are destroyed by fire, much of the carbon they store 

returns to the atmosphere, enhancing global warming. When a forest is cleared for crop or grazing land, the soils can become a large 

source of global warming emissions, depending on how farmers and 

ranchers manage the land. In places such as Indonesia, the soils 

of swampy lowland forests are rich in partially decayed organic 

matter, known as peat. During extended droughts, such as during 

El Nin ̃ o events, the forests and the peat become flammable, especially if they have been degraded by logging or accidental fire. 

When they burn, they release huge volumes of CO2 and other 

greenhouse gases. 

Rainforests also play another important part in the climate system—generating rainfall. Up to 30 percent of the rain that falls in 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
29 

136 NASA, Earth Observatory, Tropical Deforestation: Climate Impacts, at http:// 

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/deforestationlupdate2.html (last visited Oct. 

20, 2008). 137 Id. 138David Werth & Ron Avissar, The local and global effects of Southeast Asian deforestation, 

32 Geophysical Research Letters L20702 (2005). 139 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2, The First 

State of the Carbon Cycle Report: North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the 

Global Carbon Cycle at vii (2007). 140 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3, The Effects 

of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the 

United States at 7 (2008). 141 Ane Alencar et al., ‘‘Carbon emissions associated with forest fires in Brazil,’’ in Tropical 

Deforestation and Climate Change at 23 (P. Moutinho & S. Schwartzman eds. 2005), available 

at http://www.edf.org/documents/4930lTropicalDeforestationlandlClimateChange.pdf. 

tropical forests is generated by the forest itself.136 Water evaporates from the soil and vegetation, condenses into clouds, and falls 

again as rain in a perpetual self-watering cycle. Recent studies 

have also indicated that rainforests play an important role in rainfall well beyond the borders of the forest. The evaporation and 

rainfall in tropical forests helps cool the Earth’s surface. In many 

computer models of future climate, replacing tropical forests with 

pasture and croplands creates a drier, hotter climate in the tropics.137 Some models also predict that tropical deforestation will disrupt rainfall patterns far outside the tropics, including in China, 

northern Mexico, and the south-central United States.138

In contrast to the emissions from deforestation in the tropical regions, forests in North America have been growing and acting as 

sinks for carbon in the last few decades. Growing vegetation in 

North America removed the equivalent of approximately 30 percent 

of the fossil fuel emissions produced from North America, and 50 

percent of this sink was due to forest growth in the United States 

and Canada.139

Forests are vulnerable to climate change. The climate strongly 

influences forest productivity, compositions, and disturbances such 

as forest fire, insect outbreaks and droughts. The impacts of climate change on many aspects of forest ecology are not well understood. In areas with adequate water availability, warmer temperatures have likely increased forest growth and will continue to do 

so. Increasing CO2 concentrations will likely increase photosynthesis but will only increase wood production in young forests 

where adequate nutrients and water are available. The impact on 

carbon storage in forest soils from rising temperatures and CO2 remains unclear.140 Increasing global temperatures are already affecting tropical forests, with droughts provoking forest fires in 

Amazonia and Indonesia. The combination of degraded forests from 

logging and agriculture with more extreme climate events suggests 

that forest fires are likely to play an even more important role in 

the future of tropical forests and their contribution of global warming pollution.141

There is growing scientific consensus that climate change is already increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the 

United States, and this trend is likely to worsen in the coming decades. Scientists have concluded that from 1986 to 2006 longer, 

warmer summers have resulted in a four-fold increase in major 

wildfires and a six-fold increase in the area of forest burned, comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
30 

142 Anthony L. Westerling et al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest 

Wildfire Activity 313 Science 940 (2006). 143 N.P. Gillett et al., Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires, 31 Geophysical Research Letters L18211 (2004). 144M.D. Flannigan et al., Future Area Burned in Canada, 72 Climatic Change 1 (2005). 145Guido R. Van der Werf et al., Continental-Scale Partitioning of Fire Emissions During the 

1997 to 2001 El Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a Period, 303 Science 73 (2004). 146Westerling et al., supra note 142. 147 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 140, at 81–82. 148 International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Press Release, IUCN Red list Reveals 

world’s mammals in crisis, Oct. 6, 2008, at http://www.iucn.org/newslevents/events/congress/ 

index.cfm?uNewsID=1695. 

pared to the period from 1970–1986.142 Similar results were published on wildfire activity in Canada from 1920–1999.143 In addition to more intense and more frequent fires, the length of the fire 

season and the burn duration of large fires have also increased. 

Models of future climate have consistently concluded that the areas 

burned will increase in the coming years and decades. For example, 

wildfire burn areas in Canada are expected to increase by 74 to 118 

percent in the next century,144 and similar increases are predicted 

for the western United States. With more wildfires come more 

greenhouse gas emissions. Although estimates vary widely, 

wildfires may represent up to 10 percent of total U.S. greenhouse 

gas emissions.145

Scientists have identified several mechanisms through which climate change is lengthening the fire season and increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires. One extremely important factor 

is the impact of global warming on snowmelt. Warmer temperatures cause an earlier snowmelt which can lead to an earlier and 

longer dry season.146 This provides more opportunities for large 

fires by creating a longer period in which ignitions can occur and 

by increasing the drying of soils and vegetation making them more 

prone to fire. This has also expanded the range in which serious 

wildfires occur to higher elevations in mountainous regions. 

Global warming is also exacerbating insect infestations (most notably bark beetles), which in turn make forests more susceptible to 

wildfire. Drought stress makes trees and vegetation more susceptible to attack by insects, and warmer winter temperatures allow 

a higher number of insects to survive and increase their populations. Warmer temperatures can also increase reproductive rates 

of insects, resulting in two generations in a single year. Finally, 

warmer temperatures allow insects to invade areas previously outside their natural range, as has happened with the mountain pine 

beetle in the western United States. Research has clearly demonstrated the link between warmer temperatures and drought on 

extensive insect outbreaks in southwestern forests and Alaska.147

h. Wildlife and Endangered Species 

If climate change goes unchecked, it could lead to the extinction 

of up to 40 percent of the world’s species by the latter half of this 

century. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s 

2008 annual report lists 38 percent of catalogued species as already 

threatened with extinction—including nearly 25 percent of all 

mammals.148 According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, 

‘‘the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
31 

149 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers at 11 (2007). 150 Id. 151 Id.; see also Testimony of Dr. Camille Parmesan before the Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change,’’ April 26, 2007. 152 C.D. Thomas et al., Extinction risk from climate change, 427 Nature 145 (2004). 153 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 

II Report ‘‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’’, Chapter 4, ‘‘Ecosystems, their Properties, 

Goods and Services,’’ P. 214. 154See, e.g., Blaine Harden, ‘‘Experts Predict Polar Bear Decline,’’ Washington Post, Thursday, July 7, 2005; Page A03, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html. 

ated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean 

acidification), and other global change drivers.’’ 149

According to the IPCC: ‘‘Approximately 20–30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at an increased risk of 

extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5–2.5 

°C [2.7–4.5 °F].’’ 150 Additional warming could lead to ‘‘significant 

extinctions around the globe,’’ including the loss of more than 40 

percent of all plant and animal species.151 A 2004 study suggests 

that 15 to 37 percent of terrestrial species may be ‘‘committed to 

extinction’’ by 2050 due to climate change.152

The species most vulnerable to climate change have a specialized 

habitat, a narrow environmental tolerance that is likely to be exceeded due to climate change, and dependence on specific environmental triggers or interactions that are likely to be disrupted by 

climate change. The IPCC identifies ‘‘coral reefs, the sea-ice biome, 

and other high-latitude ecosystems (e.g. boreal forests), mountain 

ecosystems and mediterranean-climate ecosystems’’ as the systems 

most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.153 One tragic 

and iconic example is the polar bear. Polar bear populations are expected to decline by 30 percent in the next 35 to 50 years—and to 

disappear from Alaska altogether—due to disappearing habitat resulting from global warming.154

4. National security impacts 

The current and projected impacts of global warming have serious national security consequences for the United States and our 

allies, in many cases acting as ‘‘threat multipliers.’’ The security 

issues raised by global warming have received increasing scrutiny 

in the last few years both in Congress and in international venues, 

including a debate at the UN Security Council in April 2007. The 

first-ever U.S. government analysis of the security threats posed by 

global climate change was issued in June 2008 as the National Intelligence Assessment (NIA), National Security Implications of 

Global Climate Change to 2030. The 2008 NIA was the result of 

a process initiated, in part, by Chairman Markey’s April 2007 introduction of H.R. 1961, the ‘‘Climate Change Security Oversight 

Act,’’ which required the U.S. Intelligence Community to analyze 

the national security implications of global climate change. In addition, U.S. and European military and security policy analysts have 

issued a number of public reports exploring the security consequences of global warming and potential responses. All of these 

reports emphasize concerns over a few key security impacts, including migration, water scarcity, infrastructure at risk from extreme 

weather, and new economic routes and access to new energy reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
32 

155Testimony of Gen. Gordon Sullivan (retired), before the Select Committee, hearing on ‘‘Geopolitical Implications of Rising Oil Dependence and Global Warming,’’ April 18, 2008, at 2. 156Testimony of Thomas Fingar before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming and the House Intelligence Community Management Committee, Joint Hearing 

on ‘‘The National Security Implications of Climate Change,’’ June 25, 2008, at 14. 157George Black, ‘‘The Gathering Storm’’, OnEarth, Summer 2008, available at http:// 

www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm?page=all. 

sources. In most cases, global warming is not creating ‘‘new’’ security threats, but rather is acting as a ‘‘threat multiplier.’’ 155

Numerous impacts of global warming could ultimately increase 

both the temporary and permanent migration of people inside and 

across existing national borders—increasing risks of geopolitical instability. Nations dealing with an influx may have neither the resources nor the desire to support climate migrants.156 As in the 

past, movement of people into new territory can increase the likelihood of conflict and the potential need for intervention from U.S. 

and allied military forces. 

Rising sea levels threaten low-lying island nations and populous 

coastal areas. Even if not totally inundated, rising sea levels can 

render these areas uninhabitable due to sea water incursion into 

fresh water resources and increased exposure to storms. For example, the risk of coastal flooding in Bangladesh is growing and could 

force 30 million people to search for higher ground in a country already known for political violence. India is already building a wall 

along its border with Bangladesh.157 The densely populated and 

oil-rich Niger Delta is already the scene of conflict over the sharing 

of oil revenues. Land loss and increased risk of storms will exacerbate these tensions as well as the challenge of maintaining the existing oil infrastructure. Other important economic and agricultural 

coastal areas, like Egypt’s Nile Delta and China’s southeast coast, 

are also threatened from rising sea-levels and severe storms. Similar impacts in Central America and the Caribbean could add pressure to pre-existing migration patterns from those areas to the 

United States. 

Increased water scarcity due to climate change exacerbates the 

risk of conflict over water resources. As discussed above, changing 

precipitation patterns and increasing temperatures are likely to increase the risk of water scarcity and degraded water quality in 

many areas. Security experts have long been concerned about the 

prospects for conflict over water resources in many regions of the 

developing world, which will be exacerbated by climate change. 

Water scarcity will also increase the pressure on groups to migrate 

to areas perceived to have more resources. 

Rapidly melting glaciers in the Andes and the Tibetan Plateau 

threaten the water supply for some of the most populous countries 

in the world. The major rivers of India and China originate in the 

Tibetan Plateau glaciers and are an important component of their 

summer flows. Dwindling water resources or changes in the flow 

regime could heighten existing tensions within the countries and 

between the two and their neighbors. For transnational watersheds, even projects designed to adapt to climate change, like new 

reservoirs, will have to be managed in a way to allow equitable 

water distribution and governance systems that minimize the possibility of their use for strategic leverage. 

Climate change is already contributing to current conflicts. For 

example, scientists have traced declines in rainfall in the Darfur 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
33 

158 Alessandra Giannini et al., A Global Perspective on African Climate, 90 Climatic Change 

359 (2008). 159Transcript of Select Committee hearing on ‘‘Geopolitical Implications of Rising Oil Dependence and Global Warming,’’ April 18, 2007, at 61. 160Testimony of Thomas Fingar before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming and the House Intelligence Community Management Committee, Joint Hearing 

on ‘‘The National Security Implications of Global Warming,’’ June 25, 2008, at 15. 161The CNA Corporation, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change at 37 (2007), 

available at http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/ 

National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf. 162Testimony of Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, before Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Oct. 27, 2005. 163Scott Borgerson, ‘‘Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global 

Warming,’’ Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008. 

region to disruption in the African monsoon due to warming sea 

surface temperatures.158 As their lands failed, tension between African farmers and Arab herders increased and became a contributing factor to the genocide that has occurred there. In the Select 

Committee’s first hearing, General Gordon Sullivan, the Army 

Chief of Staff during U.S. operations in Somalia in 1993, testified 

that drought and food scarcity allowed the Somali warlords to use 

incoming food aid as leverage over the population, necessitating the 

intervention of U.S. military forces.159 He cautioned that the U.S. 

military will have to prepare to deal with more situations of this 

kind due to the impacts of global warming. 

Global warming will directly impact U.S. military infrastructure 

at risk of damage from extreme weather and melting permafrost. 

Infrastructure upgrades, repair and replacement to increase resilience to global warming impacts, and rebuilding after extreme 

weather events will be costly. For example, the East and Gulf 

Coasts will be at increased risk from storm surge, and U.S. naval 

shipbuilding facilities have already been damaged by Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Many active U.S. coastal military installations 

around the world are at a significant and increasing risk of damage 

from storm surges and associated flooding and damages.160 For example, the U.S. airbase at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which 

is critical to operations in Iraq and the surrounding region, is an 

average of four feet above sea level and is threatened by sea level 

rise and storm surges.161

Global warming impacts also threaten energy supplies, as demonstrated in the devastating hurricane season in 2005. The paths 

of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita passed through threequarters of the oil platforms and two-thirds of the natural gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and a major concentration of refining 

capacity on land. Together they destroyed over a hundred offshore 

platforms and damaged 183 pipelines. Over 1.5 million barrels of 

oil and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas production per day was 

taken off-line for both hurricanes. Katrina also significantly affected electricity supply with 2.7 million customers and other critical infrastructure losing power.162 In Alaska, melting permafrost 

and fewer days with an adequate amount of snow for exploration 

purposes could hinder oil production and transport of oil from fields 

on the North Slope. 

Finally, accelerating melting of Arctic sea ice is impacting the 

United States’ strategic interests in the region. Russia has moved 

to stake claim to over 460,000 square miles of territory, including 

areas with potential oil and natural gas resources.163 With the 

opening of the Northwest Passage for the first time in recorded hisVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
34 

164 Id. 165Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (2006). 166 CIA World Fact Book. available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/xx.html#Econ. 167 Ruth et al., supra note 50, at 10–15. 168 Ackerman & Stanton, supra note 118. 

tory, the Prime Minister of Canada announced his intention to increase his country’s military presence in the Arctic.164 Other circumpolar nations, including the United States, have begun to examine their potential claims on Arctic territory and identify necessary preparations for increased maritime traffic in the area. 

Given that the 2008 melt was almost as great as 2007, this issue 

will remain one of immediate concern. As new economic routes and 

energy resources become available, the United States will have to 

adapt and perhaps redeploy resources to deal with the changing 

physical and economic landscape. 

5. The Economic Costs of Climate Change 

Climate change impacts of the types described above will have 

staggering economic impacts in the United States and the rest of 

the world in the coming decades. Measuring these impacts in dollars is a unique challenge, requiring analysis of local and global impacts, long time horizons, quantification of risk and uncertainty, 

and capturing the possibility of tipping points that induce major, 

catastrophic change. While the variables are many and complex, 

estimates of potential economic impacts are massive. The Stern Review—one of the most in-depth and respected economic impact 

analyses on climate change conducted thus far—used formal economic models to estimate that unabated climate change will cost 

at least 5 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, 

now and forever.165 This amounts to around $3.3 trillion per year 

at the current value of the global economy.166 If a wider range of 

risks and impacts is taken into account, the damages could rise to 

20 percent of GDP or more annually over the next two centuries. 

In the United States, the economic impacts of climate change will 

be felt throughout the country and within all sectors of the economy. The greatest economic impacts will stem from stress to fresh 

water supply networks, changes to the agricultural sector, threats 

to coastal infrastructure from storms and sea level rise, effects on 

energy supply and demand, increased risk to human health, and 

more frequent and extensive forest fires.167 Tourism and other 

weather-dependent industries will continue to be hit especially 

hard as well. Modeling results from a recent Tufts University and 

Natural Resources Defense Council study show that if present 

trends continue, the total cost of four global warming impacts 

alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and 

water costs—will cost the United States nearly $1.9 trillion annually by 2100 (in constant 2008 dollars), or 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP. 

Factoring in a wider range of harms such as health impacts and 

wildlife damages, these costs could reach 3.6 percent of GDP annually in the United States by 2100.168

6. Impacts on vulnerable communities 

While the ramifications of climate change will be felt in every 

community, the greatest impacts will be borne by those already 

most economically vulnerable and who have contributed least to cliVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
35 

169 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers at 7, 22 (2007). 170Stern Review, supra note 165, at 55. 171 Id. at 59. 

mate change. This makes climate change not only an issue of the 

environment, but also one of justice and human rights. Left 

unabated, climate change will exacerbate deep inequalities within 

countries and between them. The human face of the climate story 

is one in which communities least responsible for the climate crisis 

are the first pushed to the edge of survival, and then ultimately 

over the edge if they are unable to adapt to climate changes. This 

was underscored at the Select Committee’s October 18, 2007 hearing entitled ‘‘Energy and Global Warming Solutions for Vulnerable 

Communities,’’ at which it heard from representatives of communities, both here in the United States and overseas, particularly 

vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 

Climate change will have devastating impacts on the developing 

world, reversing gains in poverty reduction, food security and nutrition, health, and basic services and putting millions of lives at 

risk. Poor communities are especially vulnerable because they have 

less capacity to adapt to changes in climate and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies.169 Increased exposure to drought and water scarcity, more intense storms, floods, and other environmental pressures will hold 

back the efforts of the world’s poor to build a better life for themselves and their children. Climate change is likely to reverse many 

of the recent gains in poverty alleviation around the world, adding 

to the total of 2.6 billion people now living on $2 a day or less. By 

the end of the century, an additional 145–220 million people in 

South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa could fall below the $2 per day 

poverty level as a result of climate change impacts.170 According to 

the Stern Review, unchecked climate change could turn 200 million 

people into refugees this century, precipitating the largest migration in history as entire countries and regions succumb to drought 

or flood. In addition, increased frequency and severity of droughts 

and floods will affect crop productivity and food production, disproportionately affecting the 850 million people already experiencing food scarcity.171

This prospective devastation is more easily grasped through actual experiences. In testimony before the Select Committee, Amjad 

Abdulla, representing the Republic of the Maldives, explained how 

his island country is dealing with both the long and short term 

challenges of global warming. Rising ocean temperatures, coupled 

with increasing acidification from CO2 dissolved in sea water, 

threaten what are considered to be some of the most beautiful and 

productive coral reefs in the world. These reefs are the foundation 

of the Maldives’ economy, driving a productive fishing industry and 

attracting large numbers of tourists. In the long term, rising sea 

levels represent a truly existential threat. With the highest point 

on the islands little more than six feet above sea level, all 1,190 

islands making up the Maldives could eventually be rendered uninhabitable. 

Poor communities and communities of color within the United 

States are vulnerable to climate change impacts as well, and suffer 

disproportionately from illnesses due to the social determinants of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
36 

172 Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events: 

An Unequal Burden on African Americans (Sept. 2005), available at http://www.cbcfinc.org/ 

pdf/climatechangelissuebrf.pdf. 173 Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, Climate of Change: African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate Policy for the U.S. at 12 (2008), available at 

http://www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf. 174 Id. at 2. 175 Richard Perez-Pena, Study Finds Asthma in 25% of Children in Central Harlem, New York 

Times, April 19, 2003. 176 Adrianna Quintero-Somaini et al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Hidden Danger: Environmental Health Threats in the Latino Community at vii, 14 (2004), available at http:// 

www.nrdc.org/health/effects/latino/english/latinolen.pdf. 

177 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Village Erosion Technical Assistance Program (April 

2006), available at: http://housemajority.org/coms/cli/AVETAlReport.pdf 178Government Accountability Office. Alaska Native Villages, Report No. GAO–04–895T (June 

29, 2004), available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04895t.pdf. 

health. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 39 million 

citizens in the United States are impoverished, over 50 percent living in urban settings. As the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 

2005 demonstrated, poorer communities are especially vulnerable 

to extreme weather events. Poorer communities and communities 

of color are also more vulnerable to public health impacts of climate change. As explained above, the frequency of respiratory diseases like asthma is directly related to high concentrations of 

ground level ozone, which are known to increase as a result of global warming and often accumulate in unsafe levels in urban environments. Today, over 70 percent of African Americans live in 

counties in violation of federal air pollution standards,172 and 78 

percent of African Americans and Latinos live within 30 miles of 

a coal-fired power plant, compared to 56 percent of non-Hispanic 

whites.173 In all of the largest 44 major metropolitan areas in the 

United States, African Americans are more likely than whites to be 

exposed to higher air toxic concentrations. As a result, African 

Americans are nearly three times as likely to be hospitalized or 

killed by asthma.174 In Harlem, New York, 25 percent of children 

now have asthma.175 Latinos—66 percent of whom live in areas 

that violate federal air quality standards—face disproportionate 

health impacts as well.176 These impacts are exacerbated by their 

disproportionate lack of health insurance and lower utilization of 

health services compared with both non-Hispanic whites and African Americans. 

The WHO has found that negative public health impacts of climate change, discussed above, will likely disproportionately impact 

communities that are already vulnerable. In 2007, more than 46 

million Americans lacked health insurance. Minorities are more 

likely to be uninsured regardless of income level and often experience greater challenges in accessing health care services. Consequently, they are more likely to suffer as a result of public health 

impacts related to climate change. 

Vulnerable Alaskans are already dealing with the harsh reality 

of global warming. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

at least three Alaskan villages—Shishmaref, Kivalina, and 

Newtok—will be lost to coastal erosion due to rising sea levels in 

the next 8 to 13 years.177 With flooding and erosion currently affecting 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska Native villages to 

some extent,178 the number of villages needing major assistance is 

sure to swell over the next century. The cost of saving these villages through either man-made erosion protection or total commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
37 

179 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 177. 180Testimony of Mike Williams before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Energy and Global Warming Solutions for Vulnerable Communities,’’ October 18, 2007. 181For U.S. petroleum-related emissions, see Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2005, Table H.2co2, ‘‘Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption 

of Petroleum, 1980–2005,’’ available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/ 

tableh2co2.xls. For total greenhouse gas emissions by country, see UNFCCC, Subsidiary Body 

Continued 

nity relocation could be up to $200 million or more per village.179

As devastating as it may be to watch a town fall into the sea, the 

more destructive and irreplaceable transformation occurring within 

these native communities is to cultures and traditional ways of life. 

As Mike Williams, Vice-Chairman of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, eloquently testified before the Select Committee: 

Global warming is undermining the social identity and 

cultural survival of Alaska Natives and American Indians. 

As we watch our ice melt, our forests burn, our villages 

sink, our sea level rise, our temperatures increase, our 

oceans acidify, and our animals become diseased and dislocated, we recognize that our health and our traditional 

ways of life are at risk. Our elders, in particular, are deeply concerned about what they are witnessing. In Alaska, 

unpredictable weather and ice conditions make travel and 

time-honored subsistence practices hazardous, endangering 

our lives.180

B. THE ENERGY CRISIS

Even as the impending climate crisis looms before us, the United 

States is already facing a deepening energy crisis. The most critical 

aspect of that crisis is our growing dependence on foreign oil, coupled with the skyrocketing prices of oil and gasoline. But in a 

range of other key areas, including natural gas and electricity generation and transmission, the United States is facing challenges 

arising from growing demand, limits on supply, and rising global 

prices. At the same time, we find ourselves on the cusp of an unprecedented wave of investment in infrastructure and technology, 

which will benefit those workers and companies positioned to answer the challenge. Between now and 2030, over $20 trillion will 

be invested in energy infrastructure worldwide, and an estimated 

$1.5 trillion will be invested in the U.S. power sector alone. This 

places us at a critical decision point in the development of the U.S. 

and global energy economies. 

1. The oil challenge 

The single greatest energy security challenge facing the United 

States in the 21st century is our growing dependence on foreign oil. 

The United States imported 4.9 billion barrels oil in 2007, or 58.2 

percent of its total oil consumption. This import figure is up from 

52.9 percent of total consumption in 2000 and 42.2 percent in 1990. 

The dramatic rise in oil prices over the past several years—driven 

primarily by rising global demand—has highlighted the growing 

urgency of this challenge. At the same time, combustion of oil in 

the United States accounts for nearly a third of our greenhouse gas 

emissions—more than the total emissions of the Russian Federation (which ranks third in the world in emissions).181


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
38 

for Implementation, National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990–2005, at 17 

(Table 4) (Oct. 27, 2007), available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/sbi/eng/30.pdf. 182 Energy Information Administration, Daily Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB (spot prices 

for Cushing, OK West Texas Intermediate crude oil, the benchmark price for the United States), 

available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm. 183 Id. 184 Energy Information Administration, Weekly U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline 

Prices, available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mglrtlusw.htm. 185This is based on EPA estimates of fuel economy and miles driven of an average U.S. passenger vehicle. See Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle, Fact Sheet EPA420–F–05–004 (Feb. 2005), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm. 186 According to the Department of Transportation, U.S. cars, vans, pickups, and SUVs in 

2005 traveled an average of 11,856 miles and used 594 gallons of gasoline over the course of 

the year. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Annual Vehicle 

Distance Traveled in Kilometers and Related Data – 2005, By Highway Category and Vehicle 

Type (Table VM–1M) (Nov. 2006), available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/ 

pdf/vm1m.pdf. Based on those figures, with gasoline prices at $3.75 per gallon, the average con- sumer would spend $2,227.50. 

Oil and gasoline prices have skyrocketed over the past several years. The price of oil has risen from $18 per barrel in January 

2002, to $147 per barrel in July of 2008, an increase of over 700 

percent.182 Prices doubled in just 12 months between July 2007 and July 2008, before declining to under $80 per barrel by October 

2008 in the face of an expanding global financial crisis.183 Similarly, gasoline prices soared from under $1.50 per gallon in January 2001 to over $4.11 in July 2008, before declining to under $3.00 

in October 2008.184

These price hikes have had a crippling impact on American con- sumers. Each $1 per gallon increase in the average cost of gasoline 

adds nearly $600 to an average American’s annual transportation 

fuel bill.185 For the average American worker, who makes $30,000 a year, $3.75 per gallon gasoline consumes about 8 percent of that 

person’s total pre-tax income.186 Witnesses at the Select Committee’s May 9, 2007 hearing on the ‘‘Economics of Dependence on Foreign Oil—Rising Gasoline Prices’’ testified that, even as of May of 

2007 (with gasoline prices at just above $3.00 per gallon), American 

consumers, businesses, and local governments were experiencing 

severe impacts—including school districts eliminating school bus 

service or charging parents for such service, and farmers and small 

businesses facing substantial losses due to rising fuel prices. At the 

Select Committee’s September 25, 2008 hearing on ‘‘The Future of 

LIHEAP Funding: Will Families Get the Cold Shoulder this Winter?,’’ discussed at greater length below, the Select Committee 

learned that the 8 million American households that rely on heating oil to warm their homes should expect to pay an average $2,524 

in heating costs during the 2009–2010 winter, an increase of 30 

percent over the previous winter. 

As consumers suffer, oil company profits soar. This was underscored by the Select Committee’s April 2008 hearing entitled ‘‘Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices, and the 

Pursuit of Alternatives,’’ at which top executives from the five largest independent oil companies testified. In 2002, these five companies—ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP, and Chevron—had a 

combined net income of over $28 billion. By 2007, these same companies recorded yearly profits of over $123 billion. In 2008, they 

are projected to make over $150 billion in profits. Average CEO 

compensation at the five oil majors is over $23 million per year. 

Meanwhile, the major oil companies fail to invest in either new 

supplies or oil alternatives on the scale needed. Instead of favoring 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
39 

187See Select Committee Staff Report, ‘‘Big Oil: Where Have All the Profits Gone?’’ (May 21, 

2008), available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0045.pdf. 188See, e.g., Testimony of Adam Sieminski and Testimony of Amy Myers Jaffee, before the 

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘The Future of Oil’’ 

(June 11, 2008). 189 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006 at 86 (2006). 190 Id. at 87. 191 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 at 81 (2008) [hereinafter 

‘‘EIA AEO 2008’’]. 192 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Tables 5.11 and 5.13c 

(June 2008). The industrial sector accounts for approximately 24.4 percent, the residential and 

commercial sectors approximately 1.6 percent, and the electric power sector approximately 1.4 

percent. Id. at Tables 5.11, 5.13a, 5.13b, 5.13c, and 5.13d. 

greater exploration or alternative energy investments, the oil majors have increased stock buybacks from $10 billion in 2003 to $60 

billion in 2006.187 As the Select Committee learned on June 11, 

2008 in a hearing entitled ‘‘The Future of Oil,’’ the exploration 

spending of the five largest oil companies was flat or decreased between 1998 and 2006. Despite professing a strong commitment to 

development of renewable energy sources, the largest U.S. oil company—ExxonMobil, with 2007 profits of over $40 billion—revealed 

at a Select Committee hearing that it invests only $10 million annually in renewable energy research and projects, or less than 

three hundredths of one percent of ExxonMobil’s annual profits. 

The other four companies estimated their investments in renewable 

energy at $100–200 million per year over the past five years. As 

the Select Committee heard at a September 10, 2008 hearing entitled, ‘‘Investing in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet America’s Energy and Climate Challenge,’’ research and development (R&D) investments by the major oil companies is miniscule compared to 

other sectors. While companies in sectors like biotech, information 

technology, and semiconductors routinely invest 13 to 18 percent of 

revenues in R&D, the major oil companies invest only 0.002 percent. 

Although excessive speculation and a weak U.S. dollar undoubtedly played a role in the recent run-up in oil prices, experts forecast sustained high prices for the foreseeable future—largely due 

to limited supply and dramatically increasing global demand, especially in China, India, and the Middle East. Many experts believe 

that market fundamentals indicate that the oil market has entered 

a period of sustained high prices.188 The world’s oil spigots are 

close to fully open, and spare production capacity has nearly disappeared around the world. By 2030, global demand for oil is expected to expand by 30–38 percent above current levels of 84 million barrels per day (mbd).189 Most of the increase in demand is anticipated to come from China, India, and the Middle East. Demand 

from China alone grew 5.1 percent per year between 1980 and 2004 

and is expected to continue to grow rapidly.190 In the United 

States, absent significant changes in driving habits or in vehicle 

fuel efficiency beyond what is already required by EISA, demand 

for oil is expected to grow from 20.7 mbd today to 22.8 mbd in 

2030—an 11 percent increase.191

The oil crisis is basically a transportation challenge. The transportation sector accounts for approximately 69 percent of U.S. oil 

consumption, and motor vehicles alone account for roughly 59 percent of consumption.192 The U.S. transportation system is over 95 

percent dependent on oil as a fuel source. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
40 

193 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Petroleum Net Imports 

by Country of Origin, Table 5.7 (June 2008). 194For U.S. trade deficit numbers, see Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘‘U.S. International 

Trade in Goods and Services—Exports, Imports, and Balances,’’ available at http:// 

www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradltimelseries.xls. For U.S. oil import expenditures, see U.S. Census Bureau, FT 900: U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, 

Exhibit 17 (Imports of Energy-Related Petroleum Products, Including Crude Oil) (July 2008), 

available at http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/currentlpresslrelease/ 

exh17.pdf, and FT 900: U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, Exhibit 17 (Imports of 

Energy-Related Petroleum Products, Including Crude Oil) (July 2003), available at http:// 

www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2003pr/07/exh17.pdf. 195David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ‘‘Costs of Oil Dependence Update 2008: 

Summary’’ (Aug. 8, 2008). 196 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2005, Table G.1 (World 

Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Plant Liquids, and Other Liquids, 1980–2005) (2007), 

available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableg1.xls; BP Statistical Review 

of World Energy June 2008, Table A1 (Oil—Proved Reserves), available at http://www.bp.com/ 

liveassets/bplinternet/globalbp/globalbpluklenglish/reportslandlpublications/statisticallenergylreviewl2008/STAGING/locallassets/downloads/spreadsheets/statisticallreviewlfulllreportlworkbookl2008.xls#’Oil—Proved reserves’!A1. 197David Baker, ‘‘Big Oil has trouble finding new fields,’’ San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 1, 

2008, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/ 

BUMDUOD7S.DTL. 198 Amy Myers Jaffe & Ronald Soligo, The International Oil Companies at 3 (Nov. 2007) (The 

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy), available at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/NOClIOCslJaffe-Soligo.pdf. 

The United States is increasingly dependent on foreign sources 

of oil—imposing a massive drain on the U.S. economy. The United 

States accounts for 25 percent of global oil consumption but accounts for less than 10 percent of global production and has around 

2 percent of proven oil reserves. Meanwhile, over the past three 

decades, we have seen a dramatic increase in the United States’ reliance on imported oil to satisfy its growing demand. Net imports 

have grown from 21 percent in 1970, to 52.9 percent in 2000, and 

to over 58 percent today.193 Oil imports cost the United States a staggering $319 billion in 2007, over 45 percent of our total trade 

deficit—up from less than 24 percent of the trade deficit in 2002.194

Dr. David L. Greene of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that the full cost of dependence on foreign oil to the U.S. 

economy is much higher—$750 billion in 2008, including a loss of 

potential GDP of $352 billion (about 2 percent of total GDP).195

This growing dependence on foreign oil has dire implications for 

U.S. national security and economic stability. Dependence on imported oil makes the United States increasingly vulnerable to foreign governments’ manipulation of supply and prices, as well as to 

potential disruptions in global supply. OPEC countries control 76 

percent of estimated global oil reserves and account for 38 percent 

of global production.196 Moreover, investor-owned companies control only about 6 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. By contrast, government-owned and operated companies in oil-producing 

countries, such as Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia or the National 

Iranian Oil Company in Iran, control most of the rest.197 Of the top 

20 oil producing companies in the world, 14 are national oil companies (NOCs) or newly privatized NOCs.198 Although Canada and 

Mexico supply a substantial proportion of U.S. imports, OPEC 

countries control virtually all of the world’s marginal production capacity and therefore have the ability to set the global price for this 

commodity. 

This makes the United States uniquely vulnerable to a supply 

crisis, which could be created by a range of scenarios. These include a cutoff of oil supplies by a major exporter such as Venezuela, 

a confrontation with Iran, an Iranian or terrorist threat to the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
41 

199See, e.g., Testimony of Amy Myers Jaffe, before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘The Future of Oil’’ (June 11, 2008), at 1–2. 200See, e.g., Testimony of Athan Manuel, before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on the ‘‘Future of Oil’’ (June 11, 2008), at 11. 201 U.S. Mineral Management Service, Report to Congress: Comprehensive Inventory of U.S. 

OCS Oil and Natural Gas Resources (Feb. 2006). Available at http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/ 

PDFs/FinalInvRptToCongress050106.pdf. Figures are adjusted to account for the estimated 1.26 

billion barrels of oil and 79.96 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Gulf of Mexico that were made 

accessible following this inventory by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. 202 Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas 

Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (2007), available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html. 203 Id. 204 Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (May 2008), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/ 

index.html. See also Testimony of Athan Manuel before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, ‘‘The Future of Oil’’ at 3–4 (June 11, 2008). 

Strait of Hormuz, through which 16–17 million barrels of oil passes 

each day, terrorist attacks on major oil production facilities or export infrastructure in Nigeria or elsewhere, a broadening of conflict 

in Iraq, or destruction of oil production or fuel refining infrastructure as a result of a severe storm or natural disaster.199 This vulnerability was underscored at the Select Committee’s November 7, 

2007 hearing entitled ‘‘Oil Shock: Potential for Crisis,’’ at which 

former Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Dennis 

Blair, and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner testified on 

‘‘Oil Shockwave’’—a ‘‘war game’’ exercise focusing on a crippling oil 

crisis. 

Despite increasingly strident calls to open the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, the 

facts make clear that we cannot drill our way out of this problem. 

More drilling may be good for U.S. oil company profits but will 

have little or no impact on prices consumers pay for oil or gasoline 

and will not substantially reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. As 

a preliminary matter, it bears emphasis that there is no shortage 

of opportunities for drilling on federal lands in the United States. 

Oil and gas companies currently hold leases to nearly 68 million 

acres of federal lands and offshore areas on which they are not currently producing.200

With regard to the OCS, nearly 83 percent of technically recoverable offshore oil reserves offshore in the United States are located 

in areas already available for leasing and drilling.201 Of a total of 

101 billion barrels of reserves, only 18 billion barrels are in areas 

that, up until October 1, 2008, were off limits—including 10 billion 

barrels off the coast of California, where there is a consistent 

record of bipartisan opposition to drilling.202 The Department of 

Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that, 

even if the entire lower 48 OCS were opened to drilling, this would 

increase cumulative U.S. oil production by only 1.6 percent by 2030 

and would have an ‘‘insignificant’’ impact on prices.203

As to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, EIA estimates that if 

the Refuge were opened for drilling, production would likely peak 

in 2027 at just 0.78 million barrels per day—reducing world oil 

prices by 78 cents per barrel in EIA’s average price and resource 

case—corresponding to an estimated 4 cent per gallon decrease in 

the price of gasoline.204

Finally, regardless of U.S. oil production trends, there are serious 

questions about how increasing global demand will be met—and 

whether it can be met at all. This concern was underscored at the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
42 

205 Conventional oil is crude oil and natural gas liquids produced from underground reservoirs 

by means of conventional wells. Non-conventional oil includes oil shales, oil sands, and extraheavy crude. 206 Energy Information Administration, Long-term Global Oil Scenarios: Looking Beyond 2030 

(Slide presentation by Glen Sweetnam from EIA 2008 Energy Conference, April 7, 2008) (EIA 

uses 20.6 trillion barrels as its base case.). 207 International Energy Agency, supra note 189, at 88. 208Matthew R. Simmons, Simmons & Company International, The 21st Century Energy Crisis 

Has Arrived (Presentation to the CFA Society of Atlanta: April 16, 2008). 209 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006 at 90 (2006). 210 EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 67. 211See U.S. Census Bureau, Interim Projections of the Total Population of the United States 

and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2030, available at http://www.census.gov/population/projections/SummaryTabA1.pdf. 

Select Committee’s June 2008 hearing on the ‘‘The Future of Oil.’’ 

Estimates of the total petroleum resource currently in the ground— 

both conventional and unconventional 205—vary from 14 to 24 trillion barrels.206 However, actual ‘‘proven reserves’’ that have already been discovered and are expected to be economically producible are much lower—estimated at between 1.1 and 1.4 trillion barrels worldwide. Chevron Corporation has estimated that humanity 

has consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil during the past 125 years, but 

that it will take just 30 years to burn through another trillion barrels. The IEA estimates current proven reserves, including non-conventional sources, could last 42 years if they were produced at current rates.207

At the same time, generating new oil supply is proving increasingly difficult. The fields that oil companies find are generally in 

hard-to-reach places like deep water areas in the Gulf of Mexico, 

where drilling and pumping costs far more than it does on land. 

Much of these companies’ current oil supplies come from old giant 

fields which are now in decline and deepwater fields which may 

have shorter lifespans than traditional fields.208 Further, a growing 

share of reserve additions are coming from revised appraisals of existing fields, not the discovery of new fields. Even with advances 

in technology, the average size of discoveries per exploratory well 

is around 10 million barrels, which is half the output of wells dug 

between 1965 and 1979.209

OPEC’s oil production capacity has not kept up with demand 

growth and has actually fallen over the past 25 years, from 38 mbd 

in 1979 to roughly 31 mbd today. Yet, for the world to reach the 

2030 oil supply targets offered by IEA and EIA, roughly 60 percent 

of new supplies would need to come from OPEC. More than half 

of that volume is projected to come from just three countries whose 

relations with the United States are, at a minimum, strained and 

whose own domestic stability is questioned by many: Iraq, Iran, 

and Saudi Arabia. 

In short, the shrinking margin between stagnant supply and 

soaring demand provides yet another reason that the United States 

and the world need to begin to look beyond oil to meet our growing 

energy needs. 

2. The electricity challenge 

The U.S. power sector is facing rapid and sustained growth in demand over the coming decades. EIA projects that electricity demand will grow by 29 percent from 2006 to 2030,210 as compared 

with a projected 23 percent growth in the U.S. population.211 Most 

of the predicted demand growth is in the commercial and residenVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
43 

212 EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 68. 213 EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 69. 214See generally North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2007 Long-term Reliability 

Assessment (Oct. 2007). 215 Energy Information Administration, Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector (Aug. 25, 2008), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

cneaf.electricity/epm/table5l3.html. 

tial sectors, with 49 and 27 percent projected growth, respectively. 

This increase in demand is fueled by a combination of population 

growth, population shifts towards warmer regions with higher cooling needs, and increasing reliance on electrically powered appliances and equipment. EIA estimates that this increase in demand, 

together with the expected retirement of 45 gigawatts of generating 

capacity, will require the construction of 263 gigawatts of new capacity (or equivalent increases in efficiency above and beyond predicted increases).212 The largest portion of new capacity will be 

needed in the southeast (characterized by rapid population growth 

and high cooling needs).213

Rapidly growing demand together with underinvestment in 

transmission infrastructure is creating concerns about the reliability of the electrical grid. A number of steps have been taken to 

increase grid reliability in the wake of the 2003 blackouts in the 

northeast. However, transmission congestion remains a problem 

and the margin between capacity and demand is growing thinner 

in many regions of the country—notably the Midwest, Southwest, 

and California—creating concerns about the potential for brownouts or blackouts in the next several years.214

Retail electricity prices have seen a steady upward march over 

the last decade—due to rising fuel and infrastructure costs. Prices 

have increased from an average of 6.81 cents per kilowatt hour in 

1999 to 9.14 cents in 2007—a 34 percent rise.215 Larger and faster 

upticks in prices are expected in many areas of the country due to 

rising costs of coal and natural gas, among other factors. 

Electricity generation is heavily dependent on water, and growing water scarcity due to climate change will constrain power generation in many areas here in the United States and abroad. Power 

plants that convert thermal energy into electricity—primarily coal, 

natural gas, oil, and nuclear power plants—currently produce 90 

percent of U.S. electricity and consume massive amounts of the 

country’s fresh water supply for steam generation and cooling. Hydroelectric power, which accounts for another 7 percent of U.S. 

power generation, is of course highly dependent on water flow. As 

the Select Committee heard from Dan Keppen of the Family Farm 

Alliance in a July 10, 2008 hearing entitled ‘‘Global Warming Effects on Extreme Weather,’’ water used by electric utilities accounts 

for 20 percent of all the non-farm water consumed in the United 

States. This figure could rise to 60 percent by 2030, with fast-growing regions like the Southwest and Southeast hit the hardest. Over 

the last two years, decreased river flow and increased water temperatures already have led to shut-downs of nuclear power plants 

in the southeastern United States. These problems will be exacerbated as global warming increases temperatures and water scarcity. 

The overall fuel mix for power generation in the United States 

has remained relatively stable over the past decade. Coal remains 

the leading fuel source, accounting for 49 percent of generation, folVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
44 

216 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, at 224–26 (2008). 217 Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual with data for 2006, at Table 

2.4 (Planned Nameplate Capacity Additions from New Generators, by Energy Source, 2007 

through 2011) (2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p4.html. 218 American Wind Energy Association, AWEA 2007 Market Report (2008), available at 

http://www.awea.org/projects/pdf/MarketlReportlJan08.pdf. 219See National Research Council, Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy at 3 (2007). 

lowed by natural gas with 21 percent, and nuclear with 19 percent. 

Hydroelectric power accounts for 6 percent, and non-hydro renewables (wind, solar, and geothermal) provide 2.4 percent.216

The construction of new generating capacity, however, suggests 

a shift towards heavier reliance on natural gas and an explosion 

in wind power. In 2007, natural gas accounted for 56 percent of all 

new generating capacity, wind accounted for over 30 percent, and 

coal accounted for just 9.5 percent—with oil and hydro making up 

the balance.217 Shattering all its previous records, the wind energy 

industry installed 5,244 megawatts in 2007, expanding the nation’s 

total wind power generating capacity by 45 percent in a single calendar year and injecting an investment of over $9 billion into the 

economy.218

Meanwhile, there are substantial obstacles to expansion of coal 

and nuclear generation—two of the mainstays of the current U.S. 

generation portfolio. 

Coal 

Coal remains a key fuel for the electric power sector, both for the 

United States and the rest of the world. Often referred to as the 

Saudi Arabia of coal, the United States has the largest coal reserves in the world (27 percent of global reserves) and produces 

over a billion short tons of coal annually. Over 90 percent of U.S. 

coal consumption is used for electricity generation. It is frequently 

asserted that U.S. reserves are sufficient to last 250 years at current rates of consumption, though a recent National Research 

Council report emphasized that this estimate could not be confirmed and some question whether full recovery is feasible.219

China and India, two of the largest, fastest growing economies in 

the world, have large reserves and rely on coal for most of their 

electricity generation (79 percent for China and 68 percent for 

India). 

Coal presents a serious challenge from the perspective of global 

warming. Because of coal’s high carbon content, coal-fired power 

plants emit roughly twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity as natural gas-fired plants. Existing coal-fired plants account for about a third of U.S. CO2 emissions. Projected businessas-usual expansion in conventional coal-fired power plants would 

make achievement of our climate goals impossible. Absent limits on 

CO2 emissions, EIA estimates that over half of new capacity added 

by 2030 will be provided by coal-fired generation. If constructed 

without carbon controls, these new coal-fired plants alone would increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by over 10 percent. Globally, 

an estimated 1.4 million megawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity is expected to be built by 2030—the lion’s share in China 

and India. If built without carbon controls, these plants alone 

would increase global greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 30 percent above present levels. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
45 

220See Coal Moratorium Now, Progress Towards a Coal Moratorium 59 Coal Plants Cancelled 

or Shelved in 2007, available at http://cmnow.org/59plants.pdf. 221 National Energy Technology Laboratories, Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants, June 

30, 2008, at 5, available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf. 222See, e.g., Jeffrey Ball, ‘‘Wall Street Shows Skepticism Over Coal: Banks Push Utilities To 

Plan for Impact Of Emissions Caps,’’ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4, 2008, at A6. 223 EERE Network News, NRC Expects Applications for 34 Nuclear Power Plants by 2010 

(July 16, 2008), available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/newsldetail.cfm/ 

newslid=11876. 224 Nuclear Energy Institute response to follow-up questions submitted by Rep. Markey after 

the June 19, 2008, hearing on climate change in the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of 

Continued 

Here in the United States, there has been a major slowdown in 

construction of new coal-fired power plants. According to one tally, 

59 coal-fired power plant projects were cancelled in 2007 alone,220

and the pace of cancellations has continued in 2008. Of the 36,000 

megawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity predicted to be 

constructed between 2002 and 2007, only around 4,500 megawatts 

were actually built.221 This slowdown was due in large part to public and regulatory opposition related coal plants’ emissions of CO2

as well as conventional pollutants, such as mercury. This opposition, together with uncertainty about future climate regulation, is 

making it increasingly difficult for new coal-fired power plants to 

secure financing. For example, in February 2008, three of what 

were then Wall Street’s biggest investment banks issued standards 

requiring utilities seeking financing for coal-fired power plants to 

demonstrate that the plants will be economically viable even with 

stringent federal controls on CO2 emissions.222

Nuclear Power 

While some are forecasting a nuclear ‘‘renaissance’’, a massive 

wave of construction in the next two decades would be necessary 

just to maintain nuclear power’s current share of U.S. electricity 

generation. For nuclear power to maintain its current 19 percent 

share of U.S. electricity supply, around 50 new nuclear plants will 

need to be constructed by 2030. For nuclear power to grow to supply 30 percent of U.S. electricity, more than 100 reactors would 

need to be built by 2030. 

A large and sustained expansion in nuclear generation is unlikely in light of the major hurdles facing the industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive applications for 34 

new nuclear power plants by the end of 2009.223 Until this year, 

it had been three decades since a new application had been submitted. The last reactor completed in the United States came online in 1996 after a construction period of 23 years. A pattern of 

cost overruns and construction delays drove private investors away 

from nuclear energy in the 1970s. 

Cost projections for new nuclear power plants have increased 

dramatically—in many cases surpassing the total value of the electric utility—making it extremely unlikely new plants can be financed without taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Just a few years 

ago, the nuclear industry was projecting a new 1,000 megawatt reactor would cost around $2 billion. A 2007 Keystone Center study 

found costs for the same plant could reach $4 billion. New plants 

are now expected to cost $6–8 billion each, a figure which approaches or exceeds the total market capitalization of many electric 

power companies.224 For the 67 nuclear plants that have come onVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
46 

the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Frank Bowman, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified during that hearing. Received Oct. 21, 2008. 225 Id. 226 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, S.14, Energy Policy Act of 2003, at 11 (May 

7, 2003), available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf. 227Katherine Ling, ‘‘Nuclear Power: 17 apply for DOE loan guarantees, far exceeding available cash,’’ Greenwire, Oct. 2, 2008. 228 Nuclear Energy Institute, supra note 224. 229 Id. 230The Keystone Center, Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding at 75 (June 2007), available at 

http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReportlNJFF6l12l2007(1).pdf. 

line in the United States since 1976, on average more than 13 

years passed between when a new plant application was officially 

accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee and when the plant 

began commercial operation.225

In light of these costs and risks, it remains in doubt whether private financing will be available for any new nuclear facilities without the assurance of federal government guarantees on the loans. 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the risk of default on 

these loans to be ‘‘very high—well above 50 percent.’’ 226 The Department of Energy has received applications for federal loan guarantees from 21 proposed nuclear power plants. But the $122 billion 

in requested assistance far surpasses the $18.5 billion Congress 

made available in loan support. The director of the Department of 

Energy’s loan program office has stated that $18.5 billion could 

probably accommodate only two power plants.227

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has stated that additional financing from French and Japanese government export credit agencies, in exchange for agreements on the sourcing of reactor components, could—in conjunction with the federal loan guarantees—increase the number of nuclear plants receiving loan guarantees to 

three or four.228 At no time ‘‘in the immediate future’’ does NEI anticipate private companies will be able to finance new nuclear 

plants without the aid of federal loan guarantees.229

Meanwhile, the United States has not found a solution to the 

problem of long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Approximately 

56,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste is stored at 65 operating and 9 decommissioned reactor sites around the country. 

Without any expansion in the current fleet, spent fuel waste will 

grow to more than 80,000 metric tons by the end of existing reactor 

licenses, and would expand to over 120,000 metric tons if all current licenses are renewed.230 The Yucca Mountain facility has been 

plagued by delays, cost overruns, serious questions about safety, 

and political opposition. The Department of Energy projects that it 

will open no earlier than 2017, and there are substantial doubts as 

to whether it will ever do so. Even if it is opened, Yucca Mountain 

will have a 70,000 metric ton capacity, making it is insufficient to 

accommodate all the waste from existing facilities. An expansion of 

45 to 100 additional reactors would require the construction of another Yucca Mountain-sized facility every 17–24 years for as long 

as the fleet was in operation. Without resolution of the waste disposal issue, it is difficult to see how a significant expansion of nuclear power can proceed. 

3. The natural gas challenge 

The United States accounts for over 22 percent of global consumption of natural gas, but has only 3.4 percent of global reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
47 

231 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2008, at 44 (Table 6) 

(2008), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/natlgas.pdf. 232 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Imports by Country, available at 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/nglmovelimpcls1la.htm. 233 Energy Information Administration. Natural Gas Consumption by End Use, at http:// 

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/nglconslsumldculnusla.htm. 234 Natural Gas Supply Association, Natural Gas Overview Residential Uses, available at 

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/useslresidential.asp (last accessed on October 26, 2008). 235 Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Year-In-Review 2007 (Mar. 2008). 

serves. However, domestic production satisfies 80 percent of U.S. 

demand—and over 80 percent of U.S. imports come from Canada. 

Although there is slightly greater geographic distribution of natural gas reserves around the world than oil, the majority of natural 

gas reserves are still concentrated in relatively few countries—notably Russia (27.2 percent of global reserves), Iran (15.3 percent), 

and Qatar (14.6 percent).231 According to EIA, U.S. annual consumption of natural gas in 2007 was 23 trillion cubic feet or 63 billion cubic feet per day. Of that, the United States imports about 

4.6 trillion cubic feet—approximately 20 percent. In 2007, 83 percent of U.S. natural gas imports came from Canada by pipeline. 

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in 2007 totaled about 770 billion cubic feet—just over 3 percent of U.S. consumption.232

Natural gas has become the fuel of choice for new power plants 

in the United States, because of its low emissions of CO2 and conventional air pollutants in comparison with coal. In addition, natural gas plays a critical role as a feedstock and fuel for U.S. manufacturing. The four main consumers of natural gas in the United 

States are electricity generation (30 percent), and the residential 

(20 percent), commercial (13 percent), and industrial (29 percent) 

sectors.233 Natural gas accounted for 55 percent of new generating 

capacity built in the United States in 2007. In addition, over half 

of U.S. homes are heated or cooled with natural gas, and over 70 

percent of new homes are designed to use natural gas for space 

heating.234 In the commercial sector, the primary uses of natural 

gas are also space heating and cooling and water heating. Industrial consumption of natural gas is focused primarily in the pulp 

and paper, metals, chemicals, petroleum refining, stone, clay and 

glass, plastic, and food processing industries—including as a feedstock for the manufacturing of a wide range of products, such as 

fertilizer. 

There has been a substantial increase in natural gas prices over 

the past several years, which has had an adverse effect on U.S. 

manufacturers that depend on this resource. The average annual 

Henry Hub spot price in 2007 was $6.97 per million Btu—more 

than double the average annual price of $3.36 in 2002.235 Rising 

natural gas prices have had a serious adverse impact on the U.S. 

manufacturing sector, particularly in specific sectors like fertilizer 

production. At the Select Committee’s July 30, 2008 hearing entitled ‘‘What’s Cooking With Gas?: The Role of Natural Gas in Energy Independence and Global Warming Solutions,’’ Rich Wells of 

The Dow Chemical Company testified that natural gas price increases over the past eight years have ‘‘contributed significantly to 

the U.S. manufacturing sector losing over 3.7 million jobs, the 

chemical industry losing nearly 120,000 jobs, and the permanent 

loss of nearly half our fertilizer production capacity.’’ 

Fortunately, U.S. natural gas production from ‘‘unconventional’’ 

onshore sources—principally shale resources—is increasing rapidly 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
48 

236 Energy Information Administration, ‘‘Is U.S. natural gas production increasing?’’ (June 

2008), available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energylinlbrief/naturallgaslproduction.cfm. 237 Id. 238 Ben Casselman, ‘‘Chesapeake, Plains Set to Tap Gas Field,’’ Wall Street Journal, July 3, 

2008. 239 Calculation based on mean vales for the regional assessments from the USGS National Oil 

and Gas Assessment, available at http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/. 240Steve Hargreaves, Natural gas vs. contaminated water, CNNMoney.com, July 29, 2008, at 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/economy/lshaleldrilling/index.htm. 241 U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS–156–00, Water Produced With Coal Bed Methane 

(Nov. 2000), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0156-00/fs-0156-00.pdf. 242 Hal Clifford, Wyoming’s powder key, High Country News, Nov. 5, 2001, available at 

http://www.hcn.org/issues/214/10823. 243 Vickie Welborn, ‘‘Competition for Water Raises Concerns’’ Shreveport Times, August 8, 

2008. 

and has the potential to provide substantial new resources and to 

relieve pressure on prices. In the past few years, U.S. natural gas 

production has increased after a decade of essentially flat production. EIA predicts that production will continue to increase for the 

next few years if demand and prices stay high.236 This increase has 

come in large part from the development of unconventional resources, which now are the source of 47 percent of U.S. natural gas 

production. New drilling technologies, especially horizontal drilling 

and hydraulic fracturing, have allowed the extraction of natural 

gas from geologic formations that could not be tapped with traditional techniques. In the western United States, there has been a 

dramatic increase in production of natural gas associated with coal 

deposits, so-called coalbed methane. 

Shale formations are growing in importance for natural gas production. They are widely distributed, large, and contain huge resources of natural gas, but are just starting their full development. 

According to the EIA, the production from one Barnett Shale field 

in Texas alone contributes more than 6 percent of production from 

the lower 48 States, which is more than from Louisiana, one of the 

largest producing states.237 Since 2005, more shale resources have 

been discovered including the recent announcement by Chesapeake 

Energy of the Haynesville field located in East Texas and Louisiana. The company says wells drilled on its leases could produce 

as much as 44 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—nearly twice what 

the United States consumed last year.238 Based on their National 

Oil and Gas Assessment, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 

in ‘‘continuous resources,’’ which are typically unconventional formations like shales, there is 328 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 239

or approximately 14 years of resources at current consumption levels. 

Development of these unconventional resources has raised concerns over water quality and availability that may reduce production in some parts of the country. Hydraulic fracturing requires the 

injection of large amounts of water, which can include dangerous 

contaminates and threaten underground drinking water supplies.240 Coalbed methane production releases saline water from 

the coal seams that can also contain arsenic, lead and other heavy 

metals 241 and must be dealt with properly to avoid contamination 

of water supplies or destruction of pasture as has occurred in some 

areas of Wyoming.242 In some areas of the country, water supply 

systems are struggling to meet the demands of increased natural 

gas production on top of existing drinking and agriculture usage.243


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
49 

244William F. Hederman, Congressional Research Service, ‘‘The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: 

Status and Current Policy Issues,’’ No. RL34671, at 9 (Sept. 12, 2008). 245See, e.g., Serge Kovaleski and Mike McIntire, ‘‘Palin’s Pipeline Is Years From Being A Reality,’’ New York Times, Sept. 10, 2008. 246William F. Hederman, Congressional Research Service, ‘‘The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: 

Status and Current Policy Issues,’’ No. RL34671, at 5 (Sept. 12, 2008). 247 Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas 

Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (2007), available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html. 248 Id. 

Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline could bring online a substantial new source of domestic supply. Alaska’s North 

Slope has massive natural gas resources, with potential recoverable 

reserves estimated at 100 trillion cubic feet.244 Proposals for a natural gas pipeline to transport this ‘‘stranded’’ resource to markets 

in the lower 48 States—over 3000 miles via Alberta, Canada to 

Chicago—have been discussed for over two decades. In 2004, Congress enacted the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, which, among 

other things, authorized $18 billion in loan guarantees to support 

construction of the pipeline. As natural gas prices have risen over 

the past decade, interest in development of a pipeline has likewise 

increased. The State of Alaska has established its own framework 

for promoting the pipeline—awarding a license to build the pipeline 

to TransCanada Corporation in August 2008 with $500 million in 

state support. Nevertheless, the ultimate fate of the pipeline—estimated to cost up to $40 billion—remains unclear.245 If built, the 

pipeline at full initial capacity could deliver 4.5 billion cubic feet 

per day of natural gas to the lower 48—equivalent to 7 percent of 

current domestic consumption.246

By contrast, recent proposals to open new areas of the Outer 

Continental Shelf for gas production are unlikely to lead to substantial new production or to significant downward pressure on 

prices. According to EIA, total U.S. proven natural gas reserves— 

resources that have been identified and tested and either have 

been or will be developed—were 211 trillion cubic feet at the end 

of 2006. Of the total U.S. proven natural gas reserves, 15 trillion 

cubic feet or about 7 percent were Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

offshore reserves. EIA estimates that 73 percent of these technically recoverable natural gas resources in the OCS (or all but 2 

percent of total proven natural gas reserves) are available for leasing and development.247 Furthermore, EIA’s analysis found that 

‘‘lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS.’’ 248

II. ENERGY AND CLIMATE ‘‘WIN-WIN’’ SOLUTIONS

Global climate change and energy security are inextricably intertwined and together present one of the greatest challenges in the 

history of the United States and the world. To preserve our planetary home for ourselves and future generations, we must move 

swiftly to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple decades. Ultimately, we must achieve global reductions of at least 50– 

85 percent by mid-century, requiring U.S. emissions to be cut by 

at least 80 percent in that time frame. At the same time, to preserve the United States’ economic stability and national security, 

it is imperative that we move quickly to achieve energy independence. That can only be done by revolutionizing our transportation 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
50 

system to wean ourselves of oil, and by ramping up efficiency and 

clean electricity generation to power our growing economy. 

The challenge facing America—and the core mission of the Select 

Committee—is to identify ‘‘win-win’’ solutions that simultaneously 

enhance energy security and combat global warming. Climate solutions are by necessity energy solutions: Energy production and consumption generate the vast majority of U.S. and global greenhouse 

gas emissions, and it is only by transforming our energy system 

that we will achieve the cuts needed to halt global warming. Fortunately, most of the leading technological solutions to global warming will substantially enhance energy security—including, most notably, boosting energy efficiency in the electric power, transportation, and buildings sectors, expanding renewable electricity generation, developing and deploying carbon capture and sequestration, expanding advanced biofuels production, and moving towards 

electric-drive vehicles. These are true ‘‘win-win’’ solutions. 

The same cannot be said of some of the purported energy security solutions currently on the table. Notably, increasing our reliance on high-carbon fuels, such as coal-to-liquids, tar sands, or tar 

shale, may increase the domestic energy supply, but could greatly 

hinder our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increased 

domestic production of oil and natural gas can provide a ‘‘bridge’’ 

measure to help alleviate dependence on foreign oil in the mediumterm, but its impact will be limited at best and it moves us no closer to solving the climate crisis. To the extent that a narrow focus 

on drilling distracts us from the larger challenges that are facing 

us, it will undermine our long-term energy and economic security. 

This part lays out a series of recommendations—identifying ‘‘winwin’’ solutions that should be the priorities for enactment by the 

111th Congress. The first and most overarching of these is the enactment of economy-wide ‘‘cap-and-invest’’ legislation that will simultaneously cut global warming pollution, protect American consumers, and channel private and public investment towards lowcarbon energy technologies. In addition, we identify a series of sector-specific complementary measures—for the electric power sector, 

the built environment, and the transportation sector—that will 

support and enhance low-carbon energy technology development 

and deployment in these sectors. 

In addition, in the section entitled ‘‘Support Green Jobs and 

Clean Tech Investment,’’ the report highlights the prospects for 

economic growth and green job creation these policies will bring. As 

the United States is facing one of the most serious economic crises 

in history, this blueprint for change provides the key to jumpstart 

a powerful engine of economic recovery and development. 

Finally, in the last two sections, the report identifies a series of 

measures needed to provide American consumers with short-term 

relief from high energy prices and to help guide the responsible development of domestic oil and gas resources while the United 

States brings alternative energy sources online. 

A. ENACT ECONOMY-WIDE ‘‘CAP-AND-INVEST’’ LEGISLATION

The number one priority for energy security and climate change 

in the 111th Congress should be the adoption of economy-wide 

‘‘cap-and-invest’’ legislation that will combat climate change while 

spurring an energy technology revolution. A number of proposals 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
51 

were introduced in the 110th Congress that provide useful precedents and ideas from which the next Congress can draw. These include: 

• H.R. 6186, the Investing in Climate Action and Protection 

Act (iCAP), introduced by Mr. Markey 

• The October 2008 climate legislation discussion draft circulated by Mr. Dingell and Mr. Boucher 

• S. 3036, Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, introduced by Sen. Boxer 

• H.R. 6316, the Climate MATTERS Act, introduced by Mr. 

Doggett 

• H.R. 1519, the Safe Climate Act, introduced by Mr. Waxman 

• S. 1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act, introduced by Sen. 

Bingaman and Sen. Specter 

Based upon the Select Committee’s work during the 110th Congress, balanced and workable climate legislation should adhere to 

the following design principles: 

1. Science-Based Emission Targets: Reduce U.S. global warming 

pollution by at least 20 percent by 2020 and at least 80 percent by 

2050, the necessary U.S. contribution to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases and avoid dangerous global 

warming. 

2. Economy-Wide, Market-Based, Cap-and-Trade Approach: Utilize an economy-wide cap-and-trade system as the principal mechanism for achieving our emissions reduction targets. 

3. Ensure Effectiveness and Fairness Through Auctions: Auction 

pollution allowances, instead of giving them free-of-charge to polluters, to avoid windfall profits to polluters, ensure fairness, and 

reduce social costs. 

4. Consumer Focused: Return a substantial portion of the auction 

proceeds to low- and middle-income households to help compensate 

for any increase in energy costs as a result of climate legislation. 

5. Invest in Efficiency, Technology, and American Workers: Make 

substantial investments to spur increases in energy efficiency and 

the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies, and to 

help American workers transition to the new low-carbon economy. 

6. Ensure Global Participation: Include an integrated package of 

‘‘carrots’’ and ‘‘sticks’’ to ensure that major-emitting developing 

countries, like China and India, take comparable action on global 

warming—and to avoid negative effects on the competitiveness of 

U.S. industry. 

7. Smart Offsets and Incentives for Supplemental Emission Reductions: Establish rigorous standards governing the award of offset credits and provide robust financial incentives for supplemental 

reductions in ‘‘uncapped’’ emissions not eligible to generate offset 

credits. 

8. Rigorous Market Oversight: Establish a rigorous framework for 

market oversight and regulation to ensure transparency, fairness, 

and stability in the market for emission allowances, offset credits, 

and the derivatives thereof. 

9. Build Resilience to Climate Change Impacts: Build resilience 

to unavoidable impacts of climate change, both in the United 

States and in vulnerable developing countries. This must include 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
52 

249 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 

Change, Summary for Policymakers at 15 (Table SPM.5) (2007). 250 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 

Change, Summary for Policymakers at 38–39 (Table TS.2) (2007); Amy L. Luers et al. (Union 

of Concerned Scientists), How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target for U.S. Emission 

Reductions (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/globallwarming/solutions/ 

biglpicturelsolutions/a-target-or-us-emissions.html. 

investment in the necessary capacity to provide a robust Earth observation and prediction system. 

10. Integrate Complementary Policies and State and Local Roles: 

Integrate cap-and-invest with complementary policies to overcome 

market barriers and reduce the overall cost of climate legislation, 

and preserve appropriate roles for State and local action on climate 

change. 

1. Reduce U.S. global warming pollution by at least 20 percent 

by 2020 and at least 80 percent by 2050, the necessary U.S. contribution to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping 

gases and avoid dangerous global warming. 

It is imperative that any proposal ensure that the United States 

meets science-based emissions reduction targets to avoid impacts of 

dangerous global warming. According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous interference with 

the climate system will require a global effort to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by at least 50 to 85 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.249 The IPCC and others estimate 

that, to play its part, the United States must reduce its total emissions by at least 80 percent from current levels over that timeframe.250 Establishing stringent near-term reduction targets will 

be essential to achieving adequate cumulative emission reductions, 

and to ensuring that long-term reduction targets are achieved in a 

cost-effective manner. At minimum, U.S. emissions should be reduced by 20 percent by 2020. A comprehensive climate proposal 

should also provide a mechanism for periodic review, whereby the 

United States’ emissions reduction goals may be strengthened if 

the latest scientific information dictates that it is necessary. 

2. Utilize an economy-wide, market-based cap-and-trade system 

as the principal mechanism for achieving emissions reduction targets. 

A market-based cap-and-trade system is the most cost-effective 

mechanism to achieve deep and certain emissions reductions in the 

United States. Unlike traditional command-and-control regulations 

like emissions performance standards, a cap-and-trade system allows reductions to be made where the cost is lowest, saving compliance and administrative costs and increasing flexibility. One alternative to a cap-and-trade system is a carbon tax, which can provide 

an effective mechanism to incentivize economy-wide emission reductions. For example, Rep. Larson has introduced H.R. 3416, the 

‘‘America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act,’’ an economy-wide carbon tax bill which is discussed in Rep. Larson’s additional views, 

appended to this report. A cap-and-trade system has the advantage 

of guaranteeing a specified level of emissions reductions over a 

given timeframe—which is essential given the gravity of the impending climate crisis. 

To lower the overall cost of climate legislation, ensure fairness, 

and avoid perverse incentives, as many sources of emissions as is 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
53 

251 Robert N. Stavins, ‘‘Addressing climate change with a comprehensive U.S. cap-and-trade 

system,’’ ENRP Discussion Paper 2008–01, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA (Jan. 2008); Robert Repetto, ‘‘National 

Climate Policy: Choosing the Right Architecture’’, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental 

Studies (June 2007). 252 CERA Advisory Service/North American Environmental Startegies (for Edison Electric Institute and National Commission on Energy Policy), ‘‘Design Issues for Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies’’ (Feb. 2006). 

practicable should be included in the cap-and-trade program. Of 

course, it is not practicable or cost-effective to include all sources 

in such a program. Examples of categories that, because of administrative costs and difficulty, should not be under the cap include: 

(1) sources for which measurement of emissions is exceedingly difficult, and (2) categories that comprise very numerous sources, 

have very low emissions at each source, and are not susceptible to 

regulation at an ‘‘upstream’’ choke point (see discussion below). For 

these reasons, emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, coal mines, and small farms and agricultural soil management, for example, should be excluded from the cap—though some 

of these sources are readily susceptible to regulation through performance standards. Select Committee staff research indicates that 

87 percent of U.S. emissions can be included in a cap-and-trade 

system, including virtually all emissions from the industrial, energy, and transportation sectors. 

Two additional important choices must be made—the point at 

which to regulate the ‘‘capped’’ emissions and the emissions threshold that determines whether a source is included or not included 

in the cap. Each emissions stream may be capped upstream, downstream, or midstream. An ‘‘upstream’’ cap places the point of regulation with the point-of-entry of fossil fuels or fluorinated industrial 

greenhouse gases (like HFCs, PFCs, SF6, or NF3) into commerce in 

the United States. A ‘‘downstream’’ cap is one in which the point 

of regulation coincides with the point of emissions of greenhouse 

gases. A ‘‘midstream’’ cap places the cap somewhere in between. 

For example, emissions from coal combustion could be regulated 

upstream at the coal mines or downstream at the electric power or 

industrial facilities burning the coal. Similarly, emissions from 

transportation could be regulated upstream at the refineries or 

(theoretically) downstream at the level of individual car, plane, 

train, and ship owners. Natural gas offers even more options: upstream at the wellheads, downstream at the electric power, industrial, commercial, or residential users of the gas, or midstream at 

the natural gas processing plants or natural gas distribution companies. Most current proposals employ some combination of upstream, downstream, and midstream caps. 

Many economists favor upstream caps because they reduce the 

number of points of regulation, and therefore—it is argued—reduce 

administrative costs.251 Nevertheless, downstream caps for power 

plants and large industrial point sources generally are preferable, 

because these entities directly control the decisions that affect the 

emissions-intensity of their operations. If emissions thresholds are 

set correctly, the number of covered sources is manageable. And in 

the case of electric power plants, these entities also typically already monitor their CO2 emissions and have experience with other 

market-based approaches to environmental protection.252 Downstream caps are not feasible for the transportation sector or for inVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
54 

253Select Committee Majority staff communication with Department of Energy staff. 

dustrial gases, which are characterized by a vast number of dispersed emission sources. Combustion of natural gas in the residential and commercial sectors poses a unique problem. It is not advisable to place an upstream cap on natural gas processing plants, as 

at least one legislative proposal this Congress has done. Doing so 

would eliminate coverage of emissions from the use of ‘‘pipelinequality’’ gas, which is not processed and currently represents at 

least 25 percent natural gas produced in the United States.253 Creating this loophole could encourage increased production of pipeline 

quality gas, further decreasing the cap’s coverage. 

To maximize emissions coverage while reducing administrative 

complexities, a mixed approach including upstream and downstream caps is recommended. This approach would include the following: • Power Plants and Industrial Facilities: A downstream cap 

on power plants and industrial facilities; • Transportation and Other Liquid- and Gaseous Coal or Petroleum-Based Fuels: An upstream cap on producers or importers of petroleum- or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels—capturing most of the emissions attributable to the transportation 

sector, as well as those attributable to home heating oil and 

oil-fired electric generating units; • Fluorinated Gases: An upstream cap is placed on producers or importers of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, or NF3; • Residential and Commercial Natural Gas Use: A midstream cap on natural gas local distribution companies—capturing emissions from residential and commercial use of natural gas; and • Geological Carbon Sequestration Sites: A downstream cap 

carbon capture and sequestration sites to capture any leakage 

of carbon dioxide. 

To avoid double-counting of emissions, (1) industrial facilities 

and electric utilities should not be required to submit allowances 

for any emissions resulting from the use of petroleum- or coalbased liquid or gaseous fuels; (2) natural gas local distribution companies should not be required to submit allowances for emissions 

resulting from combustion of any natural gas delivered to industrial facilities and electric utilities subject to the program; and (3) 

industrial facilities and power plants should not be required to submit allowances for emissions of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, or NF3 that are 

purchased for use at the facility. 

The second choice to be made is what level of emissions from a 

given source should trigger compliance responsibilities. This choice 

of emissions threshold affects both the number of facilities with 

compliance obligations and the aggregate emissions covered under 

the cap. To maximize emissions coverage while limiting administrative costs, a fair test is that entities that do not emit 10,000 

metric tons CO2-equivalent of greenhouse gases annually should 

not be required to submit allowances. A 10,000 metric ton CO2- equivalent threshold would account for 80 percent of emissions 

from the manufacturing sector (while burdening only 2 percent of 

facilities with compliance requirements) and virtually 100 percent 

of emissions from the electric power sector (while burdening 35 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
55 

254Tristram West and Naomi Pena, Determining Thresholds for Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 37 Environmental Science and Technology 1059 (2003). 255 California EPA/Air Resources Board, State Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions at 52 (Oct. 

19, 2007). 256Testimony of Dallas Burtraw, Robert Greenstein, and Peter Zapfel before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Cap, Auction, and Trade: 

Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade’’ (Jan. 23, 2008). 

cent of facilities) in the United States.254 This threshold would 

yield approximately 10,000 regulated entities for an economy-wide 

program. Other proposals recommend a higher threshold of 25,000 

metric tons CO2-equivalent like the one used in the EU’s reporting 

program. Research by the California Environmental Protection 

Agency indicates that in California, raising the reporting threshold 

from 10,000 metric ton CO2-equivalent to 25,000 metric ton CO2- equivalent for currently permitted facilities would decrease emissions coverage by only 2 percent, but decrease the number of affected facilities by half.255 Similar analysis should be performed on 

a national level, taking into consideration the scope of the national 

program, before making a final determination. 

3. Auction pollution allowances, instead of giving them free-ofcharge to polluters, to avoid windfall profits to polluters, ensure 

fairness, and reduce social costs. 

One of the key questions in designing a cap-and-trade system to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions is how to allocate tradable allowances. This was the subject of the Select Committee’s January 23, 

2008 hearing entitled ‘‘Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade.’’ As a general matter, allowance allocation does not affect the achievement of the program’s environmental goal; the emissions cap must be met regardless of how allowances are distributed. However, allowance allocation does significantly affect how costs and benefits are distributed, 

and it can also affect the system’s overall cost. In addition, allocation is relevant to environmental performance insofar as auctioning 

and revenue recycling (or allocation of allowances for public benefit 

purposes) can be used to achieve reductions in emissions by sources 

not covered by the overall emissions cap—for example, by providing 

financial incentives for agricultural or forestry practices or projects 

that sequester carbon. 

The government has long experience in auctioning public resources, whether radio spectrum or mineral rights. The ability to 

pollute is another public resource, and Congress, as the steward of 

that resource, should obtain fair value for it through auctions. 

Furthermore, economic theory and real-world experience indicate 

that—except in certain contexts such as utilities subject to cost-ofservice regulation—free allocation of allowances may lead to windfall profits for polluters.256 This is so because, even where polluters 

receive allowances for free, these allowances have substantial 

value. As a result, a firm’s decision to produce a marginal unit of 

electricity or other product carries with it an opportunity cost—the 

cost of having to submit allowances to the government equivalent 

to the emissions generated in producing that marginal unit, rather 

than selling those allowances on the open market. Many economists conclude that, except in limited circumstances, polluters can 

be expected to incorporate this cost into the product’s price, even 

though they received the allowances for free. This results in a net 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
56 

257Testimony of Peter Zapfel before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, hearing on ‘‘Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon 

Cap and Trade’’ (Jan. 23, 2008). 258Testimony of Dallas Burtraw, Robert Greenstein, and John Podesta before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Cap, Auction, and Trade: 

Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade’’ (Jan. 23, 2008). 259Testimony of Peter Zapfel before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, hearing on ‘‘Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon 

Cap and Trade’’ (Jan. 23, 2008); Commission of the European Communities, Proposal to Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/ 

87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of 

the Community (Jan. 23, 2008), available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/ 

pdf/coml2008l16len.pdf. 260See Charles Holt et al., Auction Design for Selling CO2 Emission Allowances under the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (Oct. 2007), available at http://www.rggi.org/docs/ 

rggilauctionlfinal.pdf; Peter Crampton, ‘‘Comments on the RGGI Market Design’’ (Nov. 15, 

2007), available at http://www.cramton.umd.edu/papers2005-2009/cramton-rggi-market-designcomments.pdf. 

transfer of wealth from consumers to polluters. There is growing 

evidence that, consistent with these predictions, free allocation 

under Phase I of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) led to 

windfall profits in some sectors.257

Auctions avoid this problem and have a number of other potential advantages as well. Auctioning eliminates the need to come up 

with rules for allocating allowances among incumbent polluters and 

accommodating new entrants into the market—and avoids ‘‘rent 

seeking’’ behavior among polluters seeking to secure free allocations. Auctioning can also provide an earlier, stronger, and clearer 

price signal to reduce emissions. Finally, auctions generate revenues that can be used for a variety of beneficial public purposes. 

Such purposes could include rebates or tax credits to reduce the 

program’s economic impacts on consumers, reduction of 

distortionary taxes on labor or capital, transitional support for 

workers in adversely affected industries, investment in research, 

development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies such 

as renewables and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), efficiency policies, policies that reduce emissions from sectors not subject to the cap, and investment in adaptation to the impacts of climate change.258

Existing market-based systems are moving towards full auctioning. The European Commission has proposed that, for Phase II 

of the EU ETS (2013–2016), the ETS should shift to 100 percent 

auctions for utilities and greatly increased reliance on auctions for 

industrial sources.259 In the United States, most of the states participating in the northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

(RGGI) have adopted full or near-full auctioning of allowances. 

Auction design is critically important to ensuring market liquidity and stability. To optimize liquidity and stability, auctions 

should be held on a quarterly basis using forward auctioning of allowances—up to four years prior to the date of compliance obligations. Providing a regular and frequent supply of allowances to the 

market, some well in advance of compliance obligation deadlines, 

will help to reduce volatility, contain costs, increase liquidity, and 

increase certainty for regulated entities. A broad range of auction 

formats are possible, but two—the single-round, sealed-bid, uniform price format and what is known as an ‘‘ascending clock’’ multiple round format—have garnered support from economists working in this area.260 RGGI’s initial auction utilized the former, but 

future RGGI auctions may employ the latter if necessary to address 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
57 

261 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Design Elements for Regional Allowance Auctions 

under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (Mar. 17, 2008), available at http:// 

www.rggi.org/docs/20080317auctionldesign.pdf. 262 Holt et al., supra note 260. 263Testimony of Robert Greenstein before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under 

Carbon Cap and Trade’’ (Jan. 23, 2008). 264See Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, Fact Sheet: How a ‘‘Climate Rebate’’ Would 

Work (June 3, 2008), available at http://www.cbpp.org/60930908climate-fact.htm; Testimony of 

Robert Greenstein; Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, hearing on ‘‘Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon 

Cap and Trade’’ (Jan. 23, 2008). 

evolving market conditions.261 Auction design should incorporate 

mechanisms—such as bidding limits and publication of bid information, among others—to enhance transparency and reduce the potential for collusion or manipulation.262

4. Return a substantial portion of the auction proceeds to lowand middle-income households to help compensate for any increase 

in energy costs as a result of climate legislation. 

Auctioning allowances allows the government to transfer the 

value of the allowances (i.e., auction proceeds) to low- and middleincome households to compensate for any increase in energy costs 

due to climate legislation. Federal climate legislation can and 

should avoid burdening low-income households, which spend a 

greater share of their income on energy costs in comparison with 

higher-income households. Research by the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities (CBPP) demonstrates that setting aside 14 percent of allowance value would be sufficient to compensate for increased energy costs for the 20 percent of American households 

with the lowest incomes.263 The ‘‘Climate Change Rebate Act of 

2008’’ (H.R. 7194), introduced by Select Committee member Rep. 

Hilda Solis, compensates households in the bottom two income 

quintiles for reductions in purchasing power associated with increased energy costs under climate legislation. However, middleclass households can and should be protected as well. For example, 

Chairman Markey’s iCAP bill (H.R. 6186), which sets aside 55 percent of allowance value for this purpose, compensates virtually all 

increased energy costs for 66 percent of U.S. households (including 

all households of four earning under $70,000 per year) and provide 

benefits to over 80 percent of U.S. households (including all households of four earning up to $110,000 per year). 

Refundable tax credits and rebates should each play a role in 

transferring funds to low- and middle-income households. For those 

households that file tax returns, refundable tax credits are a simple, efficient way to deliver funds. It is possible to design a tax 

credit that, like the earned income tax credit (EITC), phases in 

with earnings and is adjusted for family size, but would be available to households with higher incomes. There is a good case for 

designing a separate tax credit for seniors, whose needs are likely 

to be smaller since they receive Social Security benefits with automatic cost-of-living adjustments that account for any increases in 

consumer prices. Credits for seniors could phase in with the sum 

of their Social Security benefits, pension income, and veterans’ benefits. For lower-income households that do not always file taxes 

and may need benefits on a more frequent basis, monthly cash rebates can be provided using the Electronic Benefit Transfer system 

already used for food stamps.264 H.R. 6186 and H.R. 7194 include 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
58 

each of these elements: a refundable tax credit, a senior tax credit, 

and a rebate program for low-income households. 

Direct compensation has some important advantages over providing consumer-relief funds to utilities or other entities. First, 

compensating households directly ensures that consumers will still 

receive the signal of higher energy prices, thus incentivizing greater efficiency and a transition to lower-carbon energy sources, yet 

will ultimately not suffer financially as a result of climate legislation. In addition, direct consumer relief provides a mechanism to 

address energy costs other than those related to electricity (such as 

gasoline). 

5. Make substantial investments to spur energy efficiency, develop low-carbon technologies, and help American workers to transition to the new, low-carbon economy. 

A significant portion of auction proceeds should be used to spur 

the development of zero- and low-carbon energy technologies in the 

United States. These investments will speed the commercialization 

of new technologies, reduce the overall cost of climate legislation, 

and grow the U.S. economy by positioning us to be able to sell 

these technologies around the world. 

First, a cap-and-invest program can provide a crucial funding 

source for programs to increase energy efficiency—particularly in 

the electric power and transportation sectors. As discussed at 

greater length below, such programs can deliver major reductions 

in GHG emissions, greatly enhance our energy security, and substantially reduce the cost of achieving our climate goals. H.R. 6186 

proposes an innovative approach to the promotion of efficiency 

measures, by establishing a pay-for-performance program under 

which States receive funding from auction proceeds based on their 

performance in increasing efficiency in the electric power sector 

and buildings. Competitive grants supporting State and local programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled—thus increasing the efficiency of the transportation sector—are also authorized. These provisions have been incorporated into the Dingell-Boucher discussion 

draft circulated in October 2008. 

Second, cap-and-invest legislation should focus on strategic investments in research, development, demonstration, and deployment of renewable energy technologies and CCS. Congress has authorized a range of important RD&D programs under EISA and 

other recent legislation, but these programs have not yet received 

adequate funding. To speed the widespread early deployment of renewable electricity generation—which will help renewable technologies to mature quickly to cost parity with fossil fuel technologies—cap-and-invest legislation should provide a long-term 

funding stream for incentive programs. Incentives can be designed 

as tax credits (such as the current Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit) or as a package of production payments (perhaps awarded through a reverse auction) for commercial-scale operations and rebates for the purchase and installation of distributed 

generation technologies such as solar panels. Climate legislation 

should provide cost-sharing grants to cover incremental costs of implementing CCS technology at coal-fired power plants in order to 

bring this technology to market before a carbon price signal alone 

will. Other priorities for technology funding under a climate proposal, many of which are discussed in the sections that follow, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
59 

clude electric transmission and distribution efficiency (including 

smart-grid technologies), low-carbon renewable fuels, low-emission 

vehicles, and building efficiency. 

Finally, the proposal should include robust programs to assist 

American workers with the transition to a low-carbon economy. 

Green jobs training programs, such as those enacted under EISA, 

should be supported. In addition, a program should be established 

to provide training, income support, and tax credits for health care 

insurance for up to two years to any workers affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Both S. 3036 and H.R. 6186 provide 

models for such a program. 

6. Include ‘‘carrots’’ and ‘‘sticks’’ to ensure that major-emitting 

developing countries, like China and India, take comparable action 

on global warming—and to avoid negative effects on the competitiveness of U.S. industry. 

It is imperative that any proposal include provisions to encourage international action to combat climate change. Without international action, dangerous global warming cannot be avoided. 

First, a climate proposal should encourage the President to work 

proactively under the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change, and in other appropriate forums, to establish 

binding agreements committing all major greenhouse gas-emitting 

nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

Second, a climate proposal should create ‘‘carrots’’ to encourage 

our trading partners to take action that is comparable to that of 

the United States to combat climate change. Carrots could include 

access to funding for deployment of clean energy technologies in developing countries and assistance for countries that take actions to 

reduce emissions from deforestation. The ability to sell offset credits into the U.S. carbon market should also be conditioned upon a 

country taking comparable action. (This restriction could be lifted, 

however, for countries that are among the least developed of developing nations or countries with very low greenhouse gas emissions.) 

Third, a climate proposal must include ‘‘sticks’’ to prevent adverse impacts on U.S. competitiveness. A border adjustment mechanism should be put in place to assign an additional cost to imports 

from countries that have not taken comparable action to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. Countries that have not taken comparable action should be required to purchase special ‘‘international reserve allowances’’ to accompany their imports and account for the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of 

those goods. The pool of international reserve allowances should be 

separate from the domestic allowance pool, so that the program 

will not affect domestic emission levels or the price of domestic 

emission allowances. Proceeds from the sale of international reserve allowances can be used to supplement clean technology transfer and international adaptation programs. Least-developed countries and countries with very low greenhouse gas emissions may be 

exempted from this requirement. A number of proposals, including 

S. 1766, S. 3036, H.R. 6186, and the Dingell-Boucher discussion 

draft have included border measures of this type. 

In designing the international reserve allowance program, Congress must be cognizant of World Trade Organization restrictions 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
60 

and design the program carefully to maximize chances of withstanding legal challenges. In addition, a time lag between the beginning of the U.S. cap and trade program and the implementation 

of an international reserve allowance program will be necessary, as 

international negotiations may take a number of years. To prevent 

production shifting abroad and thus resulting in loss of U.S. jobs 

and an undermining of the environmental objective of the legislation, a proposal should provide assistance to trade-exposed U.S. 

manufacturing industries during this interim period. This interim 

program should be designed carefully to encourage early reductions 

in greenhouse gas emissions and avoid windfall profits to polluters. 

To do this, allocation of assistance within a sector should be based 

upon production levels rather than emissions levels. 

7. Establish rigorous standards governing the award of offset 

credits and provide robust financial incentives for supplemental reductions in ‘‘uncapped’’ emissions not eligible to generate offset 

credits. 

Comprehensive climate legislation should contain thoughtful use 

of both ‘‘offsets,’’ which can reduce the overall cost of a cap-and-invest system, and targeted financial incentives that can deliver supplemental reductions in emissions or increases in sequestration. 

Offset credits should be awarded for reductions in ‘‘uncapped’’ 

emissions or increases in biological sequestration that can be clearly demonstrated to be real, verifiable, additional, permanent, and 

enforceable. EPA should develop standard measurement methodologies for project types eligible for offset credits and put in place 

rigorous standards for project development and approval. The risk 

of allowing offsets into the market is that if they are not real, 

verifiable, additional, permanent, and enforceable, they will compromise the United States’ overall emissions cap. For this reason, 

caution dictates that only a short list of ‘‘uncapped’’ emissions or 

biological sequestration opportunities be allowed to earn offset 

credits. These include reductions in emissions from sources difficult 

to cap, such as oil and gas systems, livestock operations, and abandoned coal mines, and increases in biological carbon sequestration 

through afforestation and reforestation. As for international offset 

credits, there has been substantial concern in recent years about 

the integrity of some categories of credits issued under the Kyoto 

Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. It is essential that a rigorous regulatory screening mechanism be established to determine 

which, if any, international offset credits should be allowed to be 

used in a U.S. cap-and-invest system. Finally, appropriate quantitative limits should be placed on the use of both domestic and 

international offset credits, to avoid flooding the market and to ensure that adequate investment is directed towards the transformation of our energy economy. 

Because financial incentives are less risky in that they cannot 

compromise the emissions cap, Congress should consider a proposal 

providing direct financial support, but not offset credits, for projects 

where the climate benefits are less certain. These include projects 

that increase biological sequestration of carbon or reduce greenhouse gas emissions through improved agricultural soil management and forest management practices. Providing financial incentives for U.S. farmers and foresters to achieve greenhouse gas reductions through such projects can deliver substantial climate and 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
61 

265 Renee Johnson et al., The 2008 Farm Bill: Major Provisions and Legislative Action, Congressional Research Service Report No. RL34696, at 38 (Oct. 3, 2008). 

other environmental benefits, while channeling income and jobs to 

rural areas. 

On the international level, massive supplemental reductions are 

possible through the provision of incentives to encourage developing countries to implement national policies to slow deforestation 

and forest degradation—which account for 20 percent of global 

greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives can also be used to encourage 

deployment of clean energy technologies—including American-made 

technologies—in developing countries, helping to bridge the financial gap between clean and ‘‘dirty’’ technologies in these countries. 

As explained above, access to such incentives can be made contingent upon these countries taking comparable action to combat climate change, providing important ‘‘carrots’’ to encourage such action. 

8. Establish a rigorous market oversight regime to ensure transparency, fairness, and stability in the market for emission allowances, offset credits, and the derivatives thereof. 

Economy-wide climate legislation will establish a market in 

tradable emission allowances and offset credits—and related derivatives, such as futures and options—that is likely to be valued 

in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The recent subprime 

mortgage meltdown on Wall Street, excessive speculation in the oil 

and natural gas markets, and manipulation of the electricity markets—among other historical examples—all underscore the critical 

need for vigorous government oversight of this new carbon market. 

Avoiding manipulation of the carbon market takes on a special importance for at least two reasons: First, consumers will bear the 

burden of price volatility in the carbon markets resulting from excessive speculation or market manipulation, in the form of higher 

energy prices, just as they have in the case of the oil markets. Second, the carbon market is one of the few examples in which the 

government is effectively requiring private parties to participate in 

a new market. 

The carbon market created under a cap-and-invest system can be 

divided into three components: (1) auctions of emission allowances, 

(2) a secondary market involving trading of emission allowances 

and offset credits, and (3) a market in derivatives, such as futures 

and options, based on emission allowances and offset credits. Oversight of the auction market should be assigned to the agency 

charged with conducting auctions (EPA in most legislative proposals), which should be given adequate authority for that purpose. 

It is possible that, under recent legislation amending the Commodities Exchange Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

will have some authority over futures and options contracts based 

on emission allowances or offset credits—to the extent that such 

contracts serve a ‘‘significant price discovery function.’’ 265 However, 

there is no existing regulatory authority over the secondary market 

in allowances and offsets themselves, except to the extent that such 

trading is conducted on already-regulated exchanges. 

While further work needs to be done on the design of an appropriate regulatory oversight system for the carbon market, it is apparent that several core principles should govern that system: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
62 

• Immediate New Authority: First, a robust oversight system 

needs to be authorized by Congress concurrently with the establishment of the carbon market through climate legislation. • Unitary Regulator: Second, regulation over the secondary market in emission allowances and offset credits, on the one hand, and 

derivatives based on these instruments, on the other, should not be 

divided among multiple agencies. These markets operate in an integrated fashion, and it is imperative that a unitary regulator have 

authority to oversee both the spot market and the futures market. • Relationship with Energy Markets: Third, because of the close 

interrelationship between the carbon market and markets in energy commodities like electricity, coal, and natural gas, there is 

some value to assigning oversight of the carbon markets to an entity, like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, that already 

has oversight responsibilities in the energy markets. • Maximize Transparency and Oversight: Fourth, one means of 

maximizing transparency and oversight and enforcement authority 

over carbon market trading would be to require, to the greatest extent possible, that trading occur on federally regulated exchanges. 

There may be important benefits to over-the-counter (OTC)—meaning off-exchange—trading in derivatives for legitimate hedging purposes. But if OTC trading is to be permitted, alternative oversight 

mechanisms such as large-trader reporting requirements, may be 

appropriate. • Robust Anti-Manipulation and Enforcement Authority: Fifth, 

whatever the mechanism for regulatory oversight, the federal regulator should be given robust authority to monitor the market, ensure public reporting of price and other transaction data, and to 

prevent fraud, manipulation, and excessive speculation—including 

strong enforcement authorities. 

These principles are reflected in Title II of Chairman Markey’s 

iCAP bill (H.R. 6186), the most detailed proposal to date for carbon 

market oversight, which charges the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission with regulating the carbon market. The iCAP carbon 

market oversight provisions are incorporated into the Dingell-Boucher discussion draft circulated in October 2008. 

9. Build resilience to unavoidable impacts of climate change. 

Unfortunately some impacts from climate change are now unavoidable, regardless of the path we choose to take. As discussed 

above, these impacts will be borne most heavily by vulnerable communities, both here in the United States and abroad. 

Climate legislation should include funding to aid communities in 

the United States and in vulnerable developing countries in adapting to these impacts of climate change. Domestically, climate legislation should include the following elements: 

• Regional and National Assessments: Establish a federally-led 

process to periodically assess the United States’s vulnerability to 

climate change impacts in the near-, medium-, and long term, at 

regional and national levels. This process should capitalize on the 

economies of scale for scientific observation and research at the federal level, while involving researchers, institutions, public officials, 

and other stakeholders at the State and local level in developing 

‘‘down-scale’’ assessments of climate impacts. 

• National Climate Service: Establish a National Climate Service 

to provide research products and decision tools to federal, State, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
63 

local, and tribal decision-makers, to enable them to assess and appropriately respond to predicted climate change impacts. • National Adaptation Strategy: Establish an interagency group 

at the federal level to develop and periodically update, in coordination with federal, State, local, and tribal stakeholders, a national 

strategy to protect our infrastructure, public health systems, and 

our natural resources, wildlife, and fisheries from climate change 

impacts. • Federal Agency Adaptation Plans: Require federal agencies to 

develop and implement plans to address climate change impacts 

within their respective jurisdictions. • Fund State, Local, and Tribal Adaptation Projects: Provide a 

mechanism to fund State, local, and tribal government programs 

and projects to build resilience to climate change impacts. 

These policies will require a substantial federal investment in 

policy-relevant climate monitoring, observational, modeling, and research capacity to provide a robust Earth observation and prediction system. Chairman Markey’s iCAP bill (H.R. 6186) provides 

the most detailed legislative proposal thus far on domestic adaptation programs, and the domestic adaptation provisions of iCAP are 

incorporated into the Dingell-Boucher discussion as one potential 

option for use of allowance value. 

Internationally, climate legislation should provide aid to the most 

vulnerable developing nations to increase their resilience to the impacts of climate change. As explained above, lower-income countries in the developing world that are least responsible for climate 

change are likely to suffer some of the worst impacts and have the 

least capacity to respond to those impacts. The United States, as 

one of the wealthiest countries and one of the largest contributors 

historically and currently to climate change, has a moral obligation 

to help these countries build their resilience. Moreover, it is in our 

national security interests to do so—to lessen the impacts discussed 

above, which can destabilize developing countries and act as threat 

multipliers that undermine U.S. interests abroad. International adaptation programs should receive robust funding and may be implemented through the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID), through multilateral mechanisms set up through the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 

through other international entities, or some combination of the 

foregoing. 

10. Integrate the cap-and-invest program with complementary 

policies to overcome market barriers and reduce the overall cost of 

climate legislation, and permit appropriate continuing state and 

local action. 

An economy-wide cap-and-invest program must be the keystone 

of the United States’s climate and energy security policy. To a 

greater extent than any other policy option, such a program will 

provide an overarching, strategic policy requiring cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and investment in the transition to a prosperous, low-carbon economy. 

However, further policies external to a cap-and-trade program 

may be required to achieve emissions reduction targets in a costeffective manner. Complementary policies will be especially important in the transportation sector, where reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions requires changes in vehicles, fuels, and consumer behavVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
64 

266For reference, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2006 were approximately 7.1 billion 

tons carbon dioxide equivalent. 267McKinsey & Company, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What 

Cost? (Dec. 2007), available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/ 

USlghglfinallreport.pdf 268Steven Nadel et al., ‘‘The Technical, Economic and Achievable Potential for Energy-Efficiency in the U.S.—A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies,’’ Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (2004). 

ior, and in the built environment, where reducing direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions requires changes in buildings, appliances, lighting, heating, cooling, and consumer behavior. A range 

of such policies is discussed in the following sections. 

In addition, while it is imperative that the federal government 

take the lead on national climate and energy policy, State and local 

governments should continue to play a critical role in these areas. 

That is particularly so in areas of traditional state or local preeminence, such as land-use and smart-growth planning to increase 

the efficiency of our transportation system, efficiency policies in the 

electricity and natural gas sectors, building efficiency standards, 

policies to promote deployment of renewable electricity generation 

such as state renewable electricity standards, and programs to increase resilience to climate change impacts. State and local governments have helped to catalyze federal action on energy and climate 

issues, and it is important that they be given space to continue to 

do so. 

B. BOOST EFFICIENCY OF THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR AND BUILDINGS

The largest and least expensive way to expand electricity supply 

and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by improving energy efficiency. Numerous studies have confirmed the basic notion that the 

best and cheapest power plant is the one we never have to build— 

because greater efficiency leads to reduced demand. For example, 

a December 2007 McKinsey & Company analysis found that the 

United States could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 by 3 

to 4.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent using currently 

available approaches and high-potential emerging technologies at a 

marginal cost of $50 per ton or less.266 However, nearly 40 percent 

of this abatement potential could be achieved at a net savings. Investments in these areas would yield positive economic returns 

over their life cycle, by reducing total energy costs, and thus substantially offset the overall social cost of a climate program. The 

vast majority of these profitable abatement options exist in the 

area of energy efficiency.267

Studies show that, in the electricity sector, efficiency measures 

can deliver nearly a 25 percent reduction in demand over the next 

20 years—providing a highly cost-effective means of meeting rising 

demand. A 2004 survey by the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) of 11 different studies showed that the 

median achievable potential for electricity efficiency gains was 24 

percent over the next 20 years (an average of 1.2 percent per 

year).268 Remarkably, that is nearly equivalent to EIA’s prediction 

for electricity demand growth between now and 2030—though that 

prediction already incorporates some expected efficiency gains. The 

same study found that a 9 percent reduction of natural gas conVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
65 

269 Id. 270William Prindle et al., Energy Efficiency’s Role in a Cap-and-Trade System: Modeling Results from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, ACEEE Report Number E064 (May 2006). 271 Id. 

sumption is achievable through efficiency measures in the next 15 

to 20 years.269

In addition to being the cleanest way of meeting that demand, 

efficiency is also the cheapest. Even without including carbon 

prices, efficiency measures can increase available resources at a 

cost of roughly $0.03/kWh, as compared with nearly $0.07/kWh for 

coal- or gas-fired generation. A May 2006 study found that, for the 

ten northeastern states participating in RGGI, 20–30 percent of the 

reference forecast for electricity demand could be achieved through 

cost-effective improvements in energy efficiency.270

Several studies have shown that investment in complementary 

efficiency programs can substantially reduce the overall cost of climate legislation. A 2006 ACEEE analysis of RGGI showed that, by 

doubling current efficiency investments in the region, wholesale 

power market prices could be kept flat through 2020 and then 

would rise by less than 0.5 percent through 2024.271 A doubling of 

energy efficiency investment would also reduce carbon allowance 

prices by about one-third below baseline allowance prices in 2024, 

and would increase regional economic growth by 0.6 percent in 

2021 relative to the base case. Recent modeling by Resources for 

the Future predicts that use of 100 percent of RGGI auction proceeds in efficiency measures reduces allowance prices by 25–30 percent as compared with use of only 25 percent for efficiency. Based 

on similar analyses, most RGGI states have opted to auction virtually all allowances and to invest most of the auction proceeds in 

State-led efficiency programs. 

Because of a host of market barriers, the carbon price provided 

by a cap-and-trade program—standing alone—will not lead to optimal adoption of efficiency measures. For example, the buildings 

and appliances sectors are characterized by split incentives—where 

buyers or users would achieve lifecycle cost savings from more efficient homes or appliances, but builders and manufacturers have a 

disincentive to improve efficiency because it would increase sticker 

prices. Consumers generally do not have adequate information to 

distinguish between different homes or products on the basis of efficiency. In addition, consumers may apply irrationally high discount rates in making purchasing decisions—requiring that a more 

efficient home or product ‘‘pay back’’ the increased cost within a 

very short time frame, even though the consumer would be financially better off in the medium- to long-term with the more efficient 

home or product. In the power sector, electric utilities often are the 

actor best positioned to increase demand-side efficiency, but have 

a disincentive to do so because revenues are based on the volume 

of electricity sold. Because a cap-and-trade program does not address these and other market barriers, on its own such a program 

is not likely to achieve the full cost-saving benefits of efficiency 

measures. The result is that, absent coherent policies, achievement 

of the environmental objectives of the cap-and-trade system will be 

more expensive than is necessary. 

To ensure optimal deployment of efficiency measures, and 

achieve the cost savings that they provide, complementary policies 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
66 

272Marilyn A. Brown, Toward a Climate Friendly Built Environment at 3–4 (Pew Center on 

Global Climate Change, June 2005). 273 American Institute of Architects, Architects and Climate Change, available at http:// 

www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/architectsandclimatechange.pdf. 274 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 2.1a (Energy Consumption by Sector, Selected Years, 1949–2007). Approximately 40 percent of energy consumed 

in 2007 was used in residential and commercial buildings alone. 275 Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Consumption by End Use 2007, available 

at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/nglconslsumldculnusla.htm. 276 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 

2007: Mitigation of Climate Change at 389 (2007). 

are necessary. These policies can include both regulatory drivers 

and financial incentives. 

Buildings and appliances 

Improving energy efficiency in buildings and appliances is the 

area of greatest emission abatement and energy- and cost-saving 

potential. Efficiency improvements in this category include lighting 

retrofits, higher performance for appliances, improvements in heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, as well as better 

building envelopes and building control systems. Over the next 30 

years, the built environment in the United States is expected to increase by an amount roughly equal to 70 percent of today’s existing 

building stock—providing a crucial opportunity for energy savings 

and emission reductions.272

Buildings, not transportation, are the largest single source of 

greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings contribute up to 48 percent of 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.273 In 2007 over three-quarters of 

the electricity generated by U.S. power plants was used in commercial, residential, and industrial buildings,274 and roughly one-third 

of the natural gas consumed was used for residential and commercial use.275 Most of this energy consumption, and resulting emissions, stem from the energy used to operate lighting, heating, and 

cooling in buildings, and could be considerably decreased. The 

IPCC found that by 2030, 29 percent of global projected baseline 

emissions could be cost-effectively reduced in the residential and 

commercial building sectors.276

Federal, State, and local governments can lead by example. For 

several years, State and local governments have incorporated green 

building guidelines in municipal, residential, and commercial buildings. At the Select Committee’s May 14, 2008 hearing entitled 

‘‘Building Green, Saving Green: Constructing Sustainable and Energy-Efficient Buildings,’’ San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom testified about the success San Francisco enjoyed as one of the first 

cities to require the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design’s (LEED) standard 

certification for all new municipal construction and major renovation projects. The city offers expedited building permits for energyefficient building projects, saving contractors time and money as 

they build more efficiently. Other cities have adopted some form of 

LEED or Green Globes certification for large or new municipal 

buildings. At the federal level, EISA included rigorous energy efficiency performance standards for new federal buildings and major 

retrofits costing over $2.5 million, including a 55 percent reduction 

in fossil fuel-generated energy consumption by 2010 (relative to a 

2003 baseline) and a 100 percent reduction by 2030. Among other 

measures, EISA also established an Office of Federal High-PerVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
67 

277 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 

2007: Mitigation of Climate Change at 389 (2007). 278 U.S. Department of Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program Fact Sheet (June 2006), 

available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/officeleere/pdfs/waplfs.pdf. 279 U.S. Department of Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program website, http:// 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/weatherization/improving.cfm (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 280Lisa Fay Matthiessen & Peter Morris, Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and 

Budgeting Methodology at 25 (July 2004), available at http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/ 

CostloflGreenlFull.pdf. 281McGraw-Hill, Green Building Smart Market Report 2006 at 4 (2006). 

formance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration, charged with promoting green building standards in federal 

building construction and management. 

Building codes are critically important in driving energy efficiency. Building and energy codes prescribe the minimum standards for a building to be declared structurally sound and habitable. 

Though these codes were originally implemented to protect the 

safety of inhabitants, they can also improve energy and water efficiency. Once these codes are adopted by law, they become building 

standards. The International Code Council (ICC) and the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE) have developed commonly adopted building and energy 

codes formed with the consensus of various building sector professionals. As States and localities adopt more recent building codes 

they improve the baseline energy efficiency of buildings. The House 

on September 16, 2008 passed H.R. 6899, The Comprehensive 

American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, which included provisions to encourage adoption of updated codes. Specifically, these provisions require DOE and States to update energy 

codes for new buildings by 30 percent by 2010 and 50 percent by 

2020 and for States to adopt the federal model codes or efficiencyequivalent codes. Incentive funding is offered for adopting the code 

and training officials to implement the codes. These building codes 

could avoid 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2 per year by 2030 and reduce the need to build more than 30 new large coal-fired power 

plants over the coming decades. The Senate did not act on this legislation. 

Improving building energy efficiency is profitable and creates 

jobs. The IPCC has stated that appliance standards and building 

energy codes could reduce energy use profitably by 2030 through 

existing technology and government support.277 The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is one example of such government 

support. The program leverages government and other community 

resources to improve the energy efficiency of low-income family 

homes. For every $1 invested in WAP, the program returns $1.53 

in energy savings. Each WAP family saves an average of $358 per 

year,278 and the program supports 8,000 local jobs nationally.279

Energy efficient buildings are profitable to owners and builders. 

The cost of a green building can fall within an initial ‘‘non-green’’ 

budget, or with minimal cost difference, and this cost is offset by 

avoided utility expenses.280 As consumers become aware of the cost 

benefits of efficient buildings, developers are seeing an increased 

demand and premiums for energy efficient buildings.281

Electric power sector efficiency 

Within the electric power sector, one key policy option for 

incentivizing efficiency is restructuring the way utilities are motiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
68 

282Maggie Eldridge et al., Energy Efficiency: the First Fuel for a Clean Energy Future: Resources for Meeting Maryland’s Electricity Needs, ACEEE (Feb. 2008). 283 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Energy Resource Standards Around 

the World (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.aceee.org/energy/state/6pgEERS.pdf. 

vated to make profits. As noted above, the only incentive in most 

markets currently is for utilities to drive demand and produce the 

greatest quantity of electricity as cheaply as possible to meet that 

demand. In some States, however, the direct link between electricity generation and profits has been broken. In these ‘‘decoupled’’ 

markets, utilities submit their revenue requirements and estimated 

sales to regulators. The State’s public utility commission sets the 

rates by regularly applying adjustments to ensure that utilities collect no more and no less than is necessary to run the business and 

provide a fair return to investors. Decoupling ensures that utilities 

maintain their expected earnings even as energy efficiency programs reduce sales. It bears mention that many State public utility 

commissions adopted a somewhat similar ‘‘incentive regulation’’ 

scheme in the telecommunications sector a decade or more ago, 

with great benefit to telephone utilities and consumers alike. Five 

States have adopted decoupling for some or all of their electricity 

markets, and at least nine others are considering doing so. Approximately 13 States have adopted decoupling for natural gas. 

Demand-side management (DSM)—referring to an array of programs and mechanisms to reduce or manage electricity demand— 

can greatly increase efficiency. In many states, utilities or state 

government entities manage DSM programs that provide technical 

assistance and incentives to energy consumers to deploy more efficient lighting, appliances, building shells, and other technologies. 

DSM programs are also used to shift demand in response to supply 

conditions, for example, having electricity customers reduce their 

consumption at critical times or in response to market prices. Reducing summer peak demand—those times when utilities face the 

greatest strain on their electricity generation, transmission, and 

distribution systems—is important in reducing overall electricity 

consumption but also for reducing the need to run costly peak generating units, which typically run on natural gas. Energy efficiency 

initiatives, along with expanded demand response programs, have 

the potential to reduce summer peak demand significantly. A February 2008 study by ACEEE found that the state of Maryland 

could use DSM to reduce summer peak demand by 32 percent 

below baseline levels in 2015 and 47 percent in 2025.282

Another policy option for increasing energy efficiency is an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS)—a market-based mechanism that encourages more efficient generation, transmission, and 

use of electricity. An EERS establishes electric and/or gas energy 

savings targets for utilities, often with flexibility to achieve the target through a market-based trading system. Currently, 15 States 

have some type of EERS in place or in development.283 State public 

utility commissions typically oversee these programs and are responsible for verifying energy saving improvements. As part of the 

original energy bill (H.R. 3221) that passed the House last July, 

the 15 percent renewable electricity standard (RES) allowed 4 percent to be achieved through energy efficiency. This 4 percent requirement was effectively an EERS. Stand-alone EERS policies 

have long been proposed at the federal level. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
69 

284 Environmental Protection Agency, Combined Heat and Power Partnership: Basic Information, at http://www.epa.gov/chp/index.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 285 Resource Dynamics Corporation, Cooling, Heating, and Power for Industry: A Market Assessment at 2, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(Aug. 2003), available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/pdfs/ 

chplindustrylmarketlassessmentl0803.pdf. 286 Environmental Protection Agency, Combined Heat and Power Partnership: Funding Resources, at http://www.epa.gov/chp/funding/index.html (lasted visited Oct. 20, 2008). 287See, e.g., Connecticut Hydrogen Fuel Cell Coalition, Hydrogen Fuel Cell Benefits, 

at http://www.chfcc.org/Resources/benefits.asp. 

Combined heat and power (CHP) could greatly improve efficiency 

by capturing the vast resource of ‘‘waste heat’’ produced by industrial, commercial, and residential facilities. CHP, also known as cogeneration, is the simultaneous production of electricity and heat 

from a single fuel source, such as natural gas, biomass, biogas, 

coal, waste heat, or oil. CHP technology can be used by industrial 

facilities and commercial and large residential buildings to increase 

energy efficiency and reliability, as well as reduce air pollution and 

greenhouse gas emissions.284 A study commissioned by the Department of Energy assessing the market potential for CHP applications estimates that, in the industrial sector alone, smaller CHP 

technologies (known as distributed generation) could provide 

33,000 megawatts of power generating capacity using currently 

available technologies—over 3 percent of current U.S. capacity.285

EISA included a number of programs to spur installation of CHP 

systems, such as the Waste Energy Recovery Incentive Grant Program and the Energy-Intensive Industries Program, established 

under Section 451 of the Act. But these programs have not yet received funding and additional assistance may be necessary to meet 

the potential for these technologies. Further assistance for these 

projects could be provided in the form of direct financial grants, tax 

incentives, low-interest loans, or utility and environmental policies 

that increase the financial prospects for a project.286

Fuel cells are another important tool for advanced energy storage, increased energy efficiency, reduced emissions, and an opportunity for increasing domestic energy supply and energy security. 

Fuel cells are highly reliable and flexible in installation and operation, and energy, when stored as hydrogen in the form of a gas 

or a liquid, will never dissipate until it is used, making it a good 

application for emergency generators and other critical energy applications. When using hydrogen from a renewable source, fuel cells 

offer a multi-purpose renewable energy source. They have the potential to replace the internal combustion engine in vehicles and 

provide power for stationary and portable power applications. 

Many portable devices can be powered by fuel cells, such as laptop 

computers and cell phones. They can also be used for stationary applications, such as providing electricity to power homes and businesses. Fuel cells can be used in transportation applications, such 

as powering automobiles, buses, and other vehicles. Moreover, they 

offer a cleaner and more efficient alternative to traditional combustion-based engines and power plants. Currently, most internal combustion engines operate with around 25 percent efficiency and 

power plants achieve about 35 percent efficiency; however, a stationary fuel cell when used in a combined heat and power system 

can have an efficiency level of greater than 85 percent.287

Modernization of the electricity transmission and distribution 

system—particularly through ‘‘smart grid’’ investments—promises 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
70 

288See, e.g., testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, hearing on 

‘‘Facilitating the Transition to a Smart Electric Grid,’’ May 3, 2007. 289See Testimony of Greg Yurek before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Renewing America’s Future: Energy Visions of Tomorrow, Today,’’ 

July 31, 2008. 

substantial benefits in increased system efficiency, reliability, and 

flexibility, and reduced peak loads and electricity prices. Smart 

grid technologies essentially involve the use of digital communications and information technology for a variety of grid functions, including monitoring, measuring, and responding to electricity demand and congestion; sensing and locating system disruptions or 

security threats and deploying automated protective responses; implementing ‘‘smart’’ meters in homes and businesses that allow 

consumers to receive time-of-use pricing information and to communicate consumer preferences to the grid; and implementing 

‘‘smart’’ appliances that can be programmed to respond to communications from the grid regarding pricing or load. Collectively, these 

technologies can substantially increase the efficiency of the grid 

and can reduce peak load demand, both of which reduce the need 

for construction of new generation.288 In addition, an array of other 

grid modernization technologies—such as the deployment of highefficiency superconductor power distribution cables—can further 

enhance grid efficiency and reliability.289

The 110th Congress has taken some significant steps forward on 

smart grid development. Title XIII of EISA established a Smart 

Grid Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary of Energy on grid 

modernization issues and requires the Secretary to report to Congress biennially on the state of grid modernization efforts, including recommendations for Congressional action. In addition, EISA 

requires DOE to establish a program of regional demonstration 

projects for smart grid technologies, as well as a Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program to reimburse 20 percent of 

qualifying smart grid investments. Finally, Section 306 of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (enacted as part of 

H.R. 1424, the economic rescue legislation enacted in October 

2008), provides for accelerated depreciation (for purposes of the tax 

code) of investments in smart meters and other smart grid technologies. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Cap and Invest: Congress should make funding for performance-based incentives for State and local efficiency programs, including adoption and implementation of building efficiency programs, a centerpiece of cap-and-invest legislation. As noted above, 

Chairman Markey’s iCAP bill (H.R. 6186) provides a model for the 

incorporation of such incentives into climate legislation, and these 

provisions have been incorporated into the discussion draft introduced by Chairmen Dingell and Boucher in October 2008. 

• National Model Building Efficiency Standards for New Buildings: Congress should enact the national building efficiency standards that were included in H.R. 6449, the ‘‘Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act’’—which would 

require States to adopt and enforce building codes requiring a 30 

percent improvement in new building energy efficiency by 2010 and 

a 50 percent improvement by 2020. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
71 

• Efficiency Labeling Programs for Existing and New Buildings: 

Congress should support measures to provide consumers with 

transparent information on the energy efficiency of existing and 

new buildings. For example, Chairmen Dingell and Boucher’s climate legislation discussion draft outlines an Energy Performance 

Labeling Requirement for buildings, grouped according to use and 

labeled based on their energy efficiency and performance. This requirement builds on the existing Energy Star qualified new homes 

label by additionally considering the efficiency of existing buildings. 

• Energy Efficiency Tax Credits: Congress should make the Energy Policy Act of 2005 tax credits for qualified energy efficiency 

improvements permanent. These credits allow homeowners to recoup some of the costs of making approved energy efficient improvements to their primary home or business. 

• New Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings: The federal 

government should adopt the recently adopted International Energy Conservation Code of 2008 for new federal buildings, even 

those that fall under exceptions outlined in EISA. The new IECC 

code will achieve an approximate 15 percent increase in energy efficiency compared to the 2005 IECC energy code. 

• Appliance Efficiency Standards: Congress should enact legislation requiring the Department of Energy to establish new efficiency 

standards for appliances and equipment not yet covered by current 

legislation, such as flat-screen televisions, computers, and data 

servers. The Department of Energy should move forward aggressively with promulgation of new appliance efficiency standards pursuant to its existing authority under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and Congress should provide close oversight of this 

process. 

• National Energy Efficiency Resource Standard: Congress 

should enact a market-based federal energy efficiency resource 

standard requiring electric utilities to achieve gradually increasing 

annual improvements in efficiency—either in tandem with a national Renewable Electricity Standard, or independently thereof. 

• Combined Heat and Power: Congress should fully fund the Energy-Intensive Industries Program established under Section 451 of 

EISA. 

• Fuel Cells: Congress should study the potential role of the federal government in promoting hydrogen fuel cell development and 

deployment in service of increased energy efficiency, for example 

through large-scale federal procurement programs. 

• Smart Grid Development and Deployment: Congress should 

fully fund the smart grid research, development, and demonstration program under Section 1304 of EISA and the Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program established under Section 1306 

of EISA. Congress should prioritize consideration and potential 

adoption of the grid modernization recommendations of the Secretary of Energy and the Smart Grid Task Force submitted pursuant to Section 1303 of EISA. Finally, Congress should consider establishing a dedicated funding source to promote smart grid and 

transmission investments, either through a set-aside under capand-invest legislation or through a national ‘‘wires charge.’’ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
72 

290 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 8.2b Electricity 

Net Generation: Electric Power Sector, Selected Years, 1949–2007 (2007). 291 Ryan Wiser & Galen Barbose, Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (April 2008), available at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-154e-revised.pdf. 

C. DRAMATICALLY EXPAND RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Renewable sources can become a major contributor to the U.S. 

electricity supply within the foreseeable future. Renewables currently generate 8.4 percent of the country’s electricity, with nonhydro renewables responsible for just 2.5 percent.290 Reaching 20 

percent of total generation by 2020 is an ambitious—but achievable—target for renewables based on the current state of the technologies and the available renewable resources. Reaching this target would require around 200,000 megawatts of new renewable 

generation, depending significantly on how large a role electricity 

plays in fuelling the transportation sector and the extent to which 

energy efficiency can reduce demand growth. 

Adoption of a national renewable electricity standard (RES) requiring that 20 percent of electricity generated in the United States 

come from renewable sources by 2020 should be a centerpiece of 

our national energy strategy. A key driver of renewable energy 

growth in the United States has been state-level RES’s. Twenty-six 

States along with Washington, DC, now have RES’s, and more 

than 46 percent of nationwide electrical load is covered under these 

mandatory policies. The types and quantities of renewable electricity required under these programs vary widely among the 

states, but it has become clear that States with RES’s are deploying more renewable electricity generation than States with them. 

While only 11 States have had these programs in place for at least 

four years, more than half of the non-hydro renewable electricity 

generating capacity added in the United States over the last decade 

has occurred in States with RES programs. Current mandatory 

State RES policies will require the addition of more than 60,000 

megawatts of new renewable electricity capacity by 2025. At the 

same time, RES policies are having little or no impact on consumer 

electricity rates and in many markets the renewable electricity is 

priced competitively with fossil fuel-based generation.291 During 

the 110th Congress, the House twice passed a national RES of 15 

percent by 2020—with the option to meet up to 4 percent with efficiency—but the Bush Administration threatened to veto the measure and the Senate was unable to pass it. 

Tax incentives—including the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and 

the Investment Tax Credit (ITC)—will also play a key role in deploying renewable electricity generation. These two policies have 

been a major driver of renewable energy development over the past 

several years by giving individuals, businesses, and utilities incentives to invest in renewable energy generation. These tax credit 

programs help renewables to be deployed at sufficient scale to 

begin to move down the cost curve and become more competitive 

with traditional fossil fuel-based generation. Moreover, they provide a policy ‘‘bridge’’ that is helping the renewable energy industry 

survive in an environment where the benefits of low- and zero-carbon emissions are not properly valued by the market. Unfortunately, between 1999 and 2004, the PTC has expired on three sepaVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
73 

rate occasions which has led to a boom-bust cycle of development, 

especially in the wind industry. 

In conjunction with the economic rescue package enacted into 

law in October 2008 (H.R. 1424), the 110th Congress extended the 

ITC for eight years and the PTC for two years for electricity derived from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid 

waste, and one year for electricity derived from wind. For the first 

time, renewable energy projects harnessing river and ocean currents, waves, tides, and thermal energy conversion are also eligible 

for the PTC. However, because of the current financial crisis, there 

are concerns as to whether project developers will be able to take 

full advantage of the tax credits in 2009. Moreover, a longer-term 

extension of the production tax credit is crucial to provide investors 

with the certainty needed to move forward with sustained investments in renewable electricity generation and in the underlying 

technologies. 

Feed-in tariffs provide another potential option for encouraging 

expansion of renewable electricity generation. Over 40 countries, 

States, and provinces around the world use so-called feed-in tariff 

policies to promote deployment of renewable electricity generation. 

Feed-in tariffs—often called renewable energy payments (REP) 

policies in the United States—require utilities to purchase electricity from renewable electricity generators on a priority basis 

through long-term (5–25 year), fixed-rate power-purchase agreements. The rates are generally set by the government on a cost 

basis to provide for a reasonable rate of return on investment, with 

cost recovery guaranteed through system benefits charges to electricity customers. As opposed to RES policies that set deployment 

levels (e.g., 20 percent by 2020) and allow the market to determine 

the price for renewable energy, feed-in tariff policies provide broad 

support for a diverse range of renewable energy technologies by 

setting different rates for different technologies. Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act of 2000 has been successful in using feedin tariff policies to spur record rates of investment and job growth 

in the renewable energy sector. There is now a growing interest in 

adopting feed-in tariff policies in the United States with several 

States now considering such policies, including Michigan, Illinois, 

Minnesota, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Washington, and California. 

Transmission has quickly become recognized as one of the most 

prominent barriers to the wide-scale deployment of renewable electricity. Building the generation where renewable resources are 

strongest and most abundant will require the construction of transmission lines to move the power out of rural areas where it is generated to population centers where it can be used. In addition to 

expanded transmission access, smart-grid technologies—discussed 

above—can help to reliably integrate renewable electric power generation while enabling electric vehicles to store electricity and provide enhanced demand response capabilities. Where possible, 

States are taking important steps to address this barrier. For example, the Western Governors’ Association is working with the Department of Energy to identify ‘‘renewable energy zones’’ and conceptual transmission plans for delivering renewable energy from 

these zones to load centers. However, federal leadership will be 

critical in helping to ensure that adequate new transmission is 

built, establishing streamlined procedures and standards for interVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
74 

292 U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy By 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008), available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf. 293Testimony of Greg Yurek before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, on ‘‘Renewing America’s Future: Energy Visions of Tomorrow, Today’’ (July 31, 2008). 

connection, and encouraging deployment of smart-grid technologies 

to enable full utilization of renewable resources. 

The federal government has an important role to play in eliminating regulatory barriers to the expansion of renewable electricity 

generation. Despite the success of State-level initiatives to promote 

renewables, the balkanized structure for electricity regulation and 

the inconsistency of federal and State incentive programs have created a relatively unstable investment climate for the domestic renewable electricity market, limiting financing opportunities for individual projects and domestic manufacturing capacity. The federal 

government has a key role to play in helping to rationalize these 

programs and regulatory regimes to encourage expanded renewable 

electricity generation. 

While in no way a comprehensive list, the renewable resources 

outlined below are most likely to contribute significantly to the 

U.S. and global electricity supply over the next two to three decades. 

Wind 

More than 20,000 megawatts of new wind capacity was installed 

worldwide in 2007, more than a quarter of which was installed in 

the United States. Germany is the global leader in installed wind 

capacity, with the United States now second. Wind generating capacity has been growing at more than a 30 percent annual rate in 

the United States since 2000. In 2007 wind power accounted for 35 

percent of all new generating capacity in the United States. 

Department of Energy research suggests generating 20 percent of 

electricity from wind in the United States is an ambitious yet feasible scenario if certain challenges are overcome.292 With policy 

support, the United States is protected to have more than 60,000 

megawatts of wind installed by 2012 and by 2016 it could reach 

112,000 megawatts, surpassing nuclear capacity in the United 

States. To meet this goal, wind turbine production capacity would 

have to ramp up to 16,000 new megawatts per year by around 

2018—up from current production capacity of approximately 7,000 

megawatts per year. 

As wind technology continues to improve, prices are falling and 

capacity factors are increasing. The cost of wind energy over the 

past 20 years has dropped from 40 cents per kWh to 4 to 6 cents 

per kWh at good sites. While most new wind turbines in the United 

States produce 1.5 to 2 megawatts of power, superconducting materials may enable the construction of 10 megawatt turbines in the 

near future.293 Increases in the capacity factor of the turbines—or 

the percentage of time in which they are producing at their full capacity—have grown 11 percent over the past two years and will 

continue to increase as the technology improves. 

Solar 

With more energy in the form of solar radiation striking the 

Earth’s surface in an hour than humanity uses in an entire year, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
75 

294Solarbuzz, Marketbuzz 2008: Annual World Solar Photovoltaic industry Report (2008), 

available at http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2008-intro.htm. 295 European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Generation V—2008 

Solar electricity for over one billion people and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at 

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-generation-v2008.pdf. 296 Jonathan Dorn, Earth Policy Institute, Solar Cell Production Jumps 50 Percent in 2007 

(Dec. 27, 2007), at http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007.htm. 297Solarbuzz. Fast Solar Energy Facts: Global Performance, at http://www.solarbuzz.com/ 

FastFactsIndustry.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 298 Robert Margolis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Quantifying the Benefits of Extending the Solar ITC (Feb. 2008) 299 European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar-Generation V—2008: 

Solar electricity for over one billion people and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at 

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-generation-v2008.pdf. 

the available solar resource is enormous. Capturing this energy 

and converting it into electricity is primarily done through photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight into direct electrical current and 

concentrating solar power, which concentrates the sun’s energy 

using huge mirrors or lenses and then uses this heat to run a conventional turbine. 

Solar photovoltaics (PV) have experienced explosive growth over 

the last several years—but, unfortunately, the United States is falling behind in this lucrative emerging market. World capacity grew 

62 percent in 2007 alone 294 and installed capacity has grown from 

1,200 megawatts in 2000 to 9,200 megawatts in 2007.295 Solar PV 

installations in the United States grew by over 80 percent in 

2007.296 Nevertheless, the United States fell to the fourth largest 

PV market in the world, behind Germany, Japan, and Spain. Technology advances and increases in the scale of production in the 

solar industry have exceeded those of any other renewable energy 

sector as prices for PV modules have fallen to around $4 per watt 

from almost $100 per watt in 1975. Solar PV prices have declined 

an average of 4 percent per year over the past 15 years.297 The Department of Energy’s Solar America Initiative seeks to make solar 

PV cost-competitive with conventional forms of electricity by 2015. 

With huge investments in new production of polysilicon (the critical 

input for most PV cells) ready to come online in 2009, the materials 

shortage that plagued the industry for the last few years will likely 

be alleviated. Production costs—and PV module prices—are expected to continue falling. 

Over the next two decades, solar PV will become a major source 

of power—both here in the United States and globally. Solar PV is 

projected to grow from a $20 billion industry in 2007 to a $74 billion industry within a decade. A study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that installed capacity in the United 

States could climb to 10,000 megawatts by 2015, 26,000 megawatts 

by 2020, and ultimately more than 100,000 megawatts by 2030 

with the passage of the critical 8-year extension of the investment 

tax credits included in the financial rescue package enacted in October, 2008.298 Globally, research from the European Photovoltaic 

Industry Association and Greenpeace suggests that by 2030, global 

PV capacity could reach 1,864,000 megawatts and satisfy the electricity needs of 14 percent of the world’s population.299

Concentrating solar power (CSP) systems will deliver large-scale, 

centralized electricity generation from solar energy. CSP systems 

are generally utility-scale projects with many acres of mirrors and 

lenses that can produce dozens to hundreds of megawatts of elecVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
76 

300Solar Energy Industries Association, U.S. Solar Industry: 2007 Year in Review (2007), 

available at http://seia.org/galleries/pdf/YearlinlReviewl2007lsm.pdf. 301 Bernadette del Chiaro et al., Environment America Research and Policy Center, On the 

Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming (Spring 2008), available at 

http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/uploads/EX/qu/EXqur2dJBZQbJESwUtulZA/On-TheRise.pdf. 302 California Energy Commission, Comparative Cost of California Central Station Electricity 

Generation Technologies, Final Staff Report (June 2003), available at http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003–06–06l100–03–001F.pdf. 303 U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet: Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States (2008), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/ 

3082/pdf/fs2008-3082.pdf. 304Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the United States in the 21st Century at 1–3 (2006), available 

at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/futurelgeolenergy.pdf. 305Martin Vorum & Jefferson Tester, ‘‘Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Geothermal Energy by 2030,’’ in Tackling Climate Change in the U.S. at 153 (2007). 

trical power. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has identified the potential for nearly 7,000,000 megawatts of solar thermal 

power generation in the southwestern United States, roughly seven 

times current U.S. electric generating capacity. More than 4,000 

megawatts of solar thermal projects are currently in development 

nationwide, and Environment America has projected 80,000 

megawatts could be built by 2030 with investment tax credit support.300 The cost of energy from solar thermal power plants is estimated to be approximately 14 to 16 cents/kWh.301

Geothermal 

The United States has about 35 percent of the world’s installed 

capacity of geothermal energy, with about 2,500 megawatts connected to the grid across six States. While several new facilities are 

in construction around the country, the amount of electricity produced from geothermal energy has essentially been flat for the past 

two decades. New facilities are estimated to be able to produce base 

load electricity for 5 to 7 cents/kWh.302

The United States has massive, untapped geothermal energy resources. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently 

found that the electric generation potential from currently identified geothermal systems distributed over 13 U.S. states is more 

than 9,000 megawatts. Their estimated power production potential 

from yet to be discovered geothermal resources is more than 30,000 

megawatts. An additional 500,000 megawatts may be available by 

harnessing geothermal reservoirs characterized by high temperature, but low permeability, rock formations.303

An MIT study estimated that recovering a small fraction of the 

available resource using conventional geothermal as well as enhanced (or engineered) geothermal systems, could feasibly yield 

100,000 megawatts of electrical power in the United States by 

2050.304 And a study sponsored by the Western Governors Association found 5,600 megawatts of new geothermal capacity could be 

added through 2015 and 13,000 megawatts within the next 20 

years in their 13-State region.305

Biomass 

Biomass currently supplies more electricity in the United States 

than wind, solar, and geothermal power combined, and the potential for additional generation from this energy source is vast. Biomass available for electricity generation includes residues from forests, primary mills, and agriculture, as well as dedicated energy 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
77 

306Zia Haq, Energy Information Administration, Biomass for Electricity Generation, available 

at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass/. 

307Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Biomass Cofiring in Coal-fired Boilers, 

DOE/EE–0288. (2004), available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/ 

ftalbiomasslcofiring.pdf. 308 Energy Information Administration, Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard 

at 9 (Table 2: Summary Results) (June 2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ 

servicerpt/prps/pdf/sroiaf(2007)03.pdf. 309Marie Walsh et al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass Feedstock Availability in the 

United States: 1999 State Level Analysis (Jan. 2000), available at http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/ 

resourcedata/index.html. 310 Energy Information Administration, Regional Generation Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (Supplement to Report #: SR–OIAF/2007–03) (June 2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/pdf/regionallgeneration.pdf. 

crops and urban wood wastes. Biomass can be used as the sole fuel 

source for power plants, or it can be used in conventional power 

plants to substitute for a portion of the traditional fuel, typically 

coal, in a process called co-firing. While most co-firing plants use 

biomass for between 1 and 8 percent of heat input,306 biomass can 

effectively substitute for up to 20 percent of the coal used in the 

boiler.307 In addition to reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, co-firing biomass also lowers fuel costs, avoids landfilling, 

and reduces emissions of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide. 

An EIA analysis of the impacts of a 15 percent national renewable electricity requirement found that electricity production from 

biomass could grow by a factor of eight between 2005 and 2030.308

Most of this generation would come in the southeastern United 

States, where nearly a third of the country’s biomass feedstock potential exists.309 The EIA found that the Southeast region could 

meet nearly its entire 15 percent renewable requirement through 

2020 with indigenous biomass resources.310 In a September 20, 

2007 Select Committee hearing on renewable electricity standards, 

venture capitalist Nancy Floyd, founder and managing director of 

Nth Power, agreed that a biopower industry could be jumpstarted 

in the South that would drive private investment and spur the regional economy. Using biomass for electricity would help the region 

create thousands of blue collar jobs, increase global export opportunities, and keep billions of dollars in the Southeast that would have 

otherwise left to import coal and other fuels from other States and 

countries. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Cap-and-Invest: Enact a mandatory, economy-wide cap-and-invest system to provide a stable, long-term price signal for carbon 

and to correct the massive market failure currently putting renewable electricity generation at a competitive disadvantage with highcarbon electricity sources. Use allowance auction proceeds to fund 

early deployment of renewable electricity generation, either 

through extension of the production tax credit and investment tax 

credit or through an analogous rebate or grant program. • National Renewable Electricity Standard: Enact a Renewable 

Electricity Standard (RES) to require utilities to meet a gradually 

increasing percentage of their generation with renewable sources. 

This technology-neutral approach allows utilities to meet the standard using the most cost effective renewable option in the area in 

which they operate. • Double Federal RD&D Spending: Double federal investment in 

research, development, and demonstration to accelerate the pace of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
78 

311For discussion of capture technologies, see, e.g., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The 

Future of Coal at 17–40 (2007) [hereinafter ‘‘MIT Future of Coal’’]; Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers at 5–12 (2005) [hereinafter ‘‘IPCC CCS Report’’]. 

innovation and technology development and reassure private investors that this area is important to the public and worth their investment. • 5–8 Year Extension of the Production Tax Credit: Provide a 

five- to eight-year extension of the production tax credit for renewable electricity generation, to provide the investment certainty 

needed for manufacturers and developers of renewable energy systems—especially in the wind industry—to expand. • Develop a National Green Transmission Policy: The Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in 

collaboration with States, federal land management agencies, and 

industry and non-governmental stakeholders, should conduct a national assessment of transmission infrastructure needs to support 

an expansion of renewable electricity generation and should develop a comprehensive national policy to enable the construction of 

green transmission. 

D. DRIVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CARBON CAPTURE AND

SEQUESTRATION

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies will be crucial to reconciling our continued reliance on coal with the urgent 

need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was the clear message of the Select Committee’s September 6, 2007 hearing on ‘‘The 

Future of Coal,’’ at which Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming 

testified together with several leading industry and non-governmental experts. As foreshadowed above, this is both a domestic and 

a global issue because the United States has vast coal reserves and 

currently relies on coal for nearly 50 percent of its electricity generation, while China and India also have large reserves and are 

even more dependent on coal for power generation. 

CCS involves physical capture of CO2 at power plants and other 

major point sources and compression and injection of CO2 into deep 

geological reservoirs (or some other means of permanent sequestration, such as integration into concrete). There are three principal 

technology options for capturing CO2 emissions at coal-fired power 

plants: (1) pre-combustion capture using integrated combined cycle 

(IGCC) technology; (2) pre-combustion capture using oxy-fuel combustion; and (3) post-combustion capture using solvents or membranes. Research indicates that it is possible to capture greater 

than 85 percent of the emissions stream generated by a power 

plant or other major industrial source, though implementation of 

currently available capture technology does impose a significant energy penalty.311

If captured CO2 is to be injected, it is compressed into a dense 

fluid (supercritical) state for transport via pipeline to an injection 

site. Three types of geologic formations are well-suited to long-term 

storage of injected CO2: depleted oil and gas fields, saline formations, and deep coal seams. Surveys indicate that both global and 

U.S. storage capacity is potentially vast. Even the IPCC’s low-end 

estimate of 1680 gigatons of global capacity is equivalent to over 

70 years of emissions from all global fossil fuel combustion at curVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
79 

312 IPCC CCS Report, supra note 311, at 197. 313 U.S. Department of Energy, Carbon Sequestration: Technology Roadmap and Program 

Plan 2005, at 4 (2005) available at http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/programplans/2005/sequestrationlroadmapl2005.pdf. 314 IPCC CCS Report, supra note 311, at 8; MIT Future of Coal, supra note 311, at 50. 315Testimony of Robert Sussman before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘The Future of Coal,’’ Sept. 6, 2007 (using studies conducted by 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Department of Natural Resources and the Public 

Service Commission of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 316 Id. 317 Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; Proposed 

Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 43,492 (July 25, 2008). 

rent levels, while the high-end capacity estimate would be over six 

times greater.312 The Department of Energy projects that U.S. domestic geologic formations ‘‘have at least enough capacity to store 

several centuries’ worth of point source emissions’’ from the United 

States.313 There appears to be a good correlation between emissions sources and geological basins suitable for long-term storage, 

and preliminary assessments suggest that risks to human health 

and the environment from large-scale injection of CO2 are limited.314

Although most of the technologies on which CCS is based are already proven, they have not yet been integrated or implemented at 

commercial scale. Underground injection of naturally produced CO2

has been used since the early 1970s as part of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, and there are several major commercial 

projects worldwide that inject captured CO2 for underground storage, as well as a growing number of pilot-scale projects. However, 

successful commercial development of CCS requires that we move 

quickly to implement commercial-scale demonstration projects integrating capture and storage technologies. 

Because of the costs of implementing CCS technologies, they will 

not be deployed on a commercial scale without the establishment 

of appropriate regulatory drivers. For example, projected construction costs for IGCC plants using CCS are 32–47 percent greater 

than for conventional IGCC plants while supercritical pulverized 

coal plants using CCS have capital costs 60–73 percent greater 

than conventional supercritical pulverized coal plants.315 Absent 

regulatory limits on CO2 emissions, implementation of CCS is expected to increase the overall cost of electricity by 25 to 85 percent 

in comparison with an uncontrolled plant—at least for first-generation projects.316 State utility regulation in most cases would prevent utilities from recovering this cost differential, making utilities 

highly unlikely to invest in CCS in the absence of regulatory requirements to do so. 

In addition, substantial legal and regulatory obstacles must be 

resolved before widespread commercial deployment of CCS will be 

possible. EPA has recently promulgated a proposed rule governing 

regulation, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, of geological injection of CO2 for sequestration.317 However, as a recent Government 

Accountability Office report requested by the Select Committee emphasized, the proposed rule leaves unclear a host of regulatory 

issues—including how releases of CO2 to the atmosphere will be 

addressed, and how geological injection of CO2 will be treated 

under other environmental statutes such as CERCLA and 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
80 

318Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the 

Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option, No. GAO–08–1080 (Sept. 

2008). 319 Id. 320Testimony Robert Sussman before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming hearing on ‘‘The Future of Coal,’’ Sept. 6, 2007 (Using studies conducted by 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Department of Natural Resources and the Public 

Service Commission of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

RCRA.318 In addition, there are substantial unanswered questions 

regarding who has ownership over injected CO2 and who will be 

liable for any damage resulting from leakage of injected CO2.319

Some of these issues—particularly with regard to property rules— 

will likely be answered at the State level. The liability issue in particular may require the enactment of a federal legal framework 

governing these issues in future. 

Even enactment of economy-wide climate legislation, standing 

alone, likely would not result in widespread commercial deployment of CCS within the next two decades, because the price of carbon will not be high enough to justify CCS before that time. Multiple analyses have concluded that the price per ton of CO2 necessary to make implementation of CCS economically rational is on 

the order of $25–50 or more.320 Under the climate proposals currently under consideration, these carbon price thresholds may not 

be reached until far into the future, making commercial deployment of CCS unlikely in the next two decades without additional 

policy drivers. 

Complementary policies—including performance standards for 

new coal-fired power plants and financial incentives for early 

adopters of CCS technology for coal-fired power plants—will be necessary to ensure rapid development and deployment of CCS. Adoption of national performance standards requiring implementation of 

CCS technologies, by a date certain, on all new coal-fired power 

plants would provide the private sector with a strong signal and 

powerful incentives to move forward rapidly with development and 

deployment of such technologies. H.R. 6186 includes such performance standards, as does the Dingell-Boucher climate legislation discussion draft circulated in October 2008—the latter with later implementation deadlines than the former. Simultaneously, the federal government can provide support in the form of funding for 

early movers, under a cap-and-invest program, for the incremental 

costs of implementing CCS. Most proposed climate legislation has 

included such incentives in one form or another. 

Congress has taken some important preliminary steps to promote 

development of CCS-related technologies. Most importantly, Sections 702 and 703 of EISA require the Department of Energy to undertake 3–5 large-scale capture projects and 7 large-scale geological 

storage projects and authorizes nearly $2 billion over four years for 

that purpose. EISA Sections 711 and 714 require the Department 

of Interior to conclude a comprehensive assessment of geological 

storage opportunities in the United States and to make recommendations to Congress regarding a framework for geological sequestration on federal lands. In addition, as part of the ‘‘Energy 

Improvement and Extension Act of 2008’’ (enacted as part of H.R. 

1424, the October 2008 economic rescue legislation), Congress provided tax credits for CCS projects: $20 per metric ton of CO2 captured and disposed of in secure geological storage and $10 per ton 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
81 

captured and used for qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery projects. 

Despite these steps forward, the CCS demonstration program remains underfunded, and concerted action is necessary to speed the 

development and commercial deployment of CCS. The Department 

of Energy’s current technology roadmap does not predict widespread commercial availability of CCS until 2020—by which time 

substantial new convention coal-fired generation capacity may already have been constructed in the U.S. and globally without CCS 

capability built in. The next Administration and Congress must 

make CCS demonstration and an urgent priority, so that the 

United States can both implement this technology domestically and 

export it to the remainder of the world. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: • Fund CCS Demonstration Projects and R&D Activities: Congress should fully fund the CCS demonstration program authorized 

by EISA and the Administration should move expeditiously to implement that program. In addition, Congress should dramatically 

increase federal spending on CCS research and development activities authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

• Performance Standards for New Coal-Fired Power Plants: Congress should enact legislation, either in tandem with economy-wide 

cap-and-invest legislation or (if necessary) independently of it, 

mandating that all new coal-fired power plants implement CCS 

within a reasonable period after commencing operation. 

• Fund CCS Deployment Through Cap-and-Invest: Congress 

should include funding for CCS demonstration projects and deployment incentives in comprehensive cap-and-invest climate legislation. 

• Establish an Interagency CCS Task Force: The next Administration should promptly establish an interagency task force to address—in a proactive and coordinated fashion—the legal and regulatory obstacles to commercial deployment of CCS. This effort 

should include: • Completing a detailed national assessment of geological 

storage opportunities. 

• Completing EPA’s underground injection regulations under 

existing legal authority, and providing recommendations to 

Congress regarding any additional regulatory authority needed 

to address CO2 injection activities. • Making comprehensive recommendations to Congress regarding the appropriate legal framework needed to address financial responsibility and other issues associated with CCS. 

E. TRANSFORM THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THROUGH FUEL EFFICIENCY, ELECTRIC-DRIVE VEHICLES, LOW-CARBON FUELS, AND

TRANSPORTATION CHOICES

The U.S. transportation sector produces roughly a third of total 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounts for nearly 70 percent of 

total U.S. oil consumption, and is 95 percent dependent upon petroleum. To reduce both oil consumption and emissions in the transportation sector will require the United States to address three 

interrelated issues—the efficiency of our vehicles, the fuels that 

power them, and how much we drive them. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
82 

1. Vehicles—increase fuel economy and transition to electric drive 

Implementing higher fuel economy standards is one of the single 

most important means to increase the United States’ energy independence. After Congress first increased fuel economy standards 

for automobiles from 13 miles per gallon (mpg) to 27.5 mpg starting in 1975, imported oil as a percentage of total U.S. consumption 

fell from 47 percent in 1977 to 27 percent in 1985. However, after 

Congress in the mid-1990s blocked both the Clinton Administration’s authority to increase fuel economy standards and Chairman 

Markey’s repeated legislative efforts to do so, U.S. dependence on 

imported oil skyrocketed to 60 percent by 2005. 

The 110th Congress scored a major achievement on this front by 

mandating that fuel economy standards increase by at least 40 percent by 2020. With the passage of EISA, Congress for the first time 

since 1975 mandated an increase in fuel economy standards for the 

nation’s fleet of cars and light trucks to achieve the maximum feasible standard for each model year beginning in 2011 such that the 

average of the fleet achieves at least 35 mpg by 2020. This will 

save at least 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2030—more than 

all the oil currently imported from the Persian Gulf. In addition, 

it will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by more than 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2030 and 

will save consumers almost $22 billion annually by 2020 in gasoline that they will not have to buy, even after paying for the new 

fuel efficient technologies. 

In addition, Congress has provided substantial support for research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies to improve vehicle efficiency. In addition to setting new 

CAFE standards, EISA authorized a number of research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs for plug-in hybrid, 

advanced vehicle battery, and other advanced vehicle technologies. 

EISA also authorized $25 billion in loans to support retooling of 

U.S. auto manufacturing facilities to produce more fuel efficient vehicles—a program that was fully funded under H.R. 2638, the Continuing Resolution enacted September 30, 2008. 

The future of transportation lies in the transition from internal 

combustion engines to electric vehicles. As the Select Committee 

learned during its July 2007 and June 2008 hearings focusing on 

efficient vehicles, the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and all-electric vehicles hold great potential to enhance America’s energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. Electric motors are three to four times more efficient at 

turning their fuel into useful work than either gasoline or diesel 

engines. They also consume no energy while idling and utilize regenerative braking to recharge the vehicle’s battery. The oil refining and delivery process is also extremely inefficient and energyintensive compared to back-end processes required to get electricity 

to its point of use. 

General Motors, Chrysler, Toyota, and Nissan have all announced plans to produce all-electric vehicles or PHEVs for the 

U.S. market, with the Chevrolet Volt expected to be the first vehicle from the major manufacturers to hit the market in 2010. Plugin models like the Volt are expected to have an all-electric range 

of around 40 miles. Since 75 percent of Americans drive less than 

40 miles per day, these vehicles would allow most drivers to elimiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
83 

nate gasoline from their daily commutes altogether. An alternative, 

more transformative approach is currently being developed by California-based Project Better Place and Nissan in Denmark and 

Israel. Under this approach, a company maintains ownership of 

batteries—thereby substantially lowering the upfront cost of the 

vehicles—and car owners would substitute out or recharge batteries at stations around the country when the vehicle needs a 

fresh charge. If fully implemented, this approach would extend vehicle range indefinitely and thus makes electric vehicles more readily available to greater segments of the driving population. However, it requires government support to help build the infrastructure needed for drivers to switch batteries. 

The electric grid is an important and readily available piece of 

infrastructure that could power the transport sector in the United 

States. The electric infrastructure is currently designed to meet the 

highest expected demand for power, which only occurs for a few 

hundred hours a year. During the night more than 50 percent of 

generating capacity lies idle. By utilizing this idle generating capacity, the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory found that up to 84 percent of U.S. cars, pickup trucks, 

and sport utility vehicles can be transitioned to electricity without 

building a single new power plant. Since only 1.6 percent of U.S. 

electricity comes from burning oil, an 84 percent level of electric vehicle penetration is estimated to eliminate the consumption of 6.5 

million barrels of oil equivalent per day, more than all the oil currently imported from OPEC countries. With the cost of gasoline at 

$3.50 per gallon and the national average cost of electricity of 9.5 

cents per kilowatt hour, an electric vehicle runs on an equivalent 

of around 84 cents per gallon. 

PHEVs slash greenhouse gas emissions, even with our current 

electricity fuel mix. As highlighted by Austin Texas Mayor Will 

Wynn in testimony before the Select Committee on July 12, 2007, 

a battery-powered electric vehicle generates only 40 percent of the 

greenhouse gases produced by an equivalent gasoline vehicle, despite nearly half of U.S. electricity coming from carbon-intensive 

coal combustion. Greenhouse gas benefits will improve in the future as renewable electricity generation ramps up. 

The 110th Congress has taken important steps towards the promotion of electric vehicles and domestic production of efficient vehicles. The tax credits passed in the economic rescue package (H.R. 

1424) would range from $2,500 to $15,000, depending on the vehicle’s size and battery capacity, and would be used against the purchase of a new plug-in vehicle until the total number of qualified 

vehicles sold in the United States reached 250,000. In addition, 

Congress appropriated $25 billion in loans to assist the auto industry retool existing manufacturing plants to build more fuel efficient 

vehicles, pursuant to Section 136 of EISA. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Ensure Rigorous Implementation of CAFE Standards: Congress 

should encourage or require NHTSA to adopt realistic estimates of 

future gasoline prices in analyzing the economic feasibility of 

EISA’s fuel economy standards, and should closely oversee 

NHTSA’s development and implementation of those standards (for 

more on this, see the NHTSA oversight section below). 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
84 

• Grant the California Waiver Request: EPA should grant the 

Clean Air Act waiver sought by California to impose more stringent 

tailpipe standards on its automotive fleet (standards which more 

than a dozen additional States also wish to adopt). This waiver was 

denied in December 2007 by the Bush Administration. 

• Expand Tax Credits for Efficient Vehicles and for PHEV Conversions: Congress should continue to aggressively promote the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles. In addition to the just-enacted tax incentives for the purchase 

or plug-in hybrid vehicles, Congress should support additional tax 

incentives for conversion of existing cars and trucks to electric vehicles and should consider tax credits for trading in less fuel efficient vehicles in order to purchase fuel efficient ones. 

• Expand Federal RD&D: Congress should support a robust program of research, development, and demonstration of advanced 

automotive technologies—particularly advanced battery technologies that will support the transition to electric vehicles. 

• Fund Loan Guarantees for Advanced Battery Development: 

Congress should fully fund Section 135 of EISA which authorizes 

loan guarantees for the development of advanced batteries for plugin-hybrid and all-electric vehicles. 

• Oversee Loan Guarantee for Auto Plant Retooling: Congress 

should aggressively oversee the implementation of the EISA Sec. 

136 loan guarantee program for advanced technology vehicles. 

• Establish State Electric Vehicle Grant Program: Congress 

should create a ‘‘State Electric Vehicle Grant Program,’’ similar to 

other federal energy efficiency programs, to enable State and local 

governments to apply for grants to procure plug-in-hybrid or allelectric vehicle fleets as well as install any needed charging and/ 

or battery swapping infrastructure. 

2. Fuels—promote advanced biofuels and restrict high-carbon fuels 

Biofuels 

Biofuels—and particularly advanced biofuels—can dramatically 

reduce our reliance on imported oil while at the same time cutting 

greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol biofuels convert the starches 

and sugar in plant-based materials into ethanol, typically using either an enzymatic or a gasification process. Current ethanol production uses corn, beets, cereals, or sugar cane for feedstock. Almost all U.S. ethanol is produced from corn starch. Cellulosic ethanol, by contrast, is produced from the non-edible parts of plants; 

it can be produced from algae waste biomass, switchgrass and 

other plants that require lower energy or water inputs compared 

to conventional feedstock. Cellulosic ethanol faces some remaining 

technical and economic hurdles, but offers great promise because it 

does not compete with food production for feedstock (as corn-based 

ethanol does) and has lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. 

Biodiesel, made of fats from animal or vegetable oils, is virtually 

indistinguishable from traditional petroleum-based diesel. 

Because they can be domestically produced, biofuels have become 

an integral element of efforts to reduce oil imports. Biofuels accounted for only four percent of total U.S. fuel consumption as of 

2006, but EIA projects that they will account for nearly 16 percent 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
85 

321 EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 81. 322See generally Robert D. Perlack et al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technical Report, 

Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of 

a Billion-Ton Annual Supply (2005), available at http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billionltonlvision.pdf. 323 Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuel Use, Doc. No. EPA420–F–07–035 (April 2007), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/420f07035.pdf. 324Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Energy and Agriculture. German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection at 196–201 (2007). 

of consumption by 2030.321 A 2005 report prepared for the Department of Energy found that the United States could produce sufficient biomass to produce biofuels to displace 30 percent of current 

fuel consumption by 2030.322

Depending on the biofuel source, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels can be 12 to 71 percent lower than the greenhouse gas emissions from conventional petroleum-based fuel.323

Some researchers and stakeholders have expressed concerns about 

so-called ‘‘dirty’’ biofuels, which have hidden lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions or other adverse environmental impacts attributable, 

for example, to clearing of tropical forests to produce palm oil for 

biofuels.324 These concerns can be addressed through lifecycle emissions standards and sustainability standards, which are incorporated into the current U.S. renewable fuel standard (discussed 

below) and can be included in a future low-carbon fuel standard 

(also discussed below). 

U.S. biofuels development and production are surging, thanks to 

federal incentives and mandates. After the 1979 oil embargo, a tax 

credit for blending ethanol with gasoline was introduced, and 

biofuels tax credits continue today. The May 2008 Farm Bill adjusted the tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline down to 

$0.45 per gallon for corn ethanol and up to $1.01 per gallon for cellulosic ethanol. The tax credit for blending biodiesel is $1.00 per 

gallon. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) under Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, establishing 

a national mandate to blend in an increasing volume of biofuels on 

an annual schedule, culminating in 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 

2012. In 2007, EISA expanded and restructured the RFS—requiring the U.S. fuel supply to include 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 

2022, with subsidiary mandates for production of non-corn-based 

‘‘advanced biofuels,’’ biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuels. 

Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel must be 50 percent below the average emissions 

of the U.S. fuel supply in 2005, and a 60 percent reduction is required for cellulosic biofuels. In addition, 35 states have some form 

of RFS or financial incentives for biofuel production. Ethanol is currently blended into about 46 percent of U.S. gasoline, the majority 

as a 10 percent blend in gasoline (E10). Every automobile in the 

United States can run on E10. Flex-fuel vehicles, which are more 

widely available in Brazil and other parts of the world than in the 

United States, can operate on fuel blends of up to 85 percent ethanol (E85). New engine designs and technology are being developed 

to capitalize on ethanol’s higher octane and reduce its fuel economy 

penalty. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
86 

325 Renewable Fuels Association, Changing the Climate: Ethanol Industry Outlook 2008 at 2 

(2008). 326Miguel Carriquiry, U.S. Biodiesel Production: Recent Developments and Prospects, 13(2) 

Iowa Ag Review 8 (Spring 2007), available at http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowalaglreview/ 

springl07/IAR.pdf. 327 National Biodiesel Board, U.S. Biodiesel Production Capacity (Jan. 25, 2008), available at 

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdflfiles/fuelfactsheets/ProductionlCapacity.pdf. 328Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Energy and Agriculture at 241 (2007). 329See National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, E85 Refueling Locations by State, at http:// 

www.e85refueling.com/states.php?PHPSESSID=9924807cbc680ae06ce6c66004859b75. 330 National Biodiesel Board, National Trucking Company’s Biodiesel Study Shows Positive 

Results (Mar. 21, 2007), available at http://www.biodiesel.org/news/07clicktrhrus/ 

20070321ldecker.shtm. 331 Joel Makower et al., Clean Edge Research, Clean-Energy Trends 2007 at 3 (2007), available at http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/Trends2007.pdf. 332Worldwatch Institute, supra note 324, at 6. 

U.S. production of fuel ethanol jumped from 175 million gallons 

in 1980 to an estimated 6.5 billion gallons in 2007.325 Biodiesel has 

also enjoyed phenomenal growth in the last few years, growing 

from U.S. sales of 2 million gallons in 2000 to 250 million gallons 

in 2006.326 The National Biodiesel Board reported in January 2008 

that the existing production capacity for biodiesel stands at 2.24 

billion gallons per year, with another 1.23 billion gallons of annual 

capacity planned for development by the end of 2008.327

Biofuels lack a strong infrastructure for fuel transportation. 

Biofuels are largely transported via railway, tanker truck, and 

barge. The increasing supply and demand of ethanol may require 

new infrastructure to supply biofuels. Biodiesel can travel through 

the existing diesel fuel pipeline and storage systems, but ethanol 

faces challenges. Ethanol picks up excess water and petroleum 

sludge in existing gasoline pipelines, which can compromise ethanol fuel integrity. Furthermore, existing pipelines require additional maintenance to prevent corrosion of pipe joints. Ethanol storage tanks differ from conventional fuel tanks, though a conventional fuel tank can be converted for ethanol for approximately 

$1,000.328 These differences may partially explain the low number 

of ethanol fuel stations. Currently, over 1,800 locations in the 

United States have E85 pumps, but these are primarily located in 

the Midwest.329 Nationwide, there are 700 major commercial fleets 

using biodiesel and 1100 retail filling stations.330 To help improve 

the availability of biofuels, EISA included provisions that prohibited corporate bans on installing E85 pumps and mandated an ethanol pipeline feasibility study and grants to assist with the conversion of infrastructure and storage for renewable fuels. 

Although the United States is the largest producer of biofuels, 

other countries are developing and promoting them vigorously. The 

global biofuels market will expand from $20.5 billion in 2006 to 

$80.9 billion in 2016, driven by increasing government mandates 

and continuing high oil prices.331 The United States is a large contributor to this effort, leading the world in fuel ethanol production. 

Brazil is the second-largest producer by a slim margin (41.1 percent of the market compared to the 47.9 percent U.S. share) and 

relies on ethanol from domestic sugarcane (a non-food crop) for 40 

percent of their auto fuel supply.332 Brazil’s biofuels industry is 

discussed at greater length in the section below on the Select Committee’s Congressional delegation to Brazil in February 2008. Germany, Sweden, France and Spain are the largest European Union 

ethanol producers, primarily using beets and cereals as feedVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
87 

333 Id. at 7, 26. 334 Ephraim Leibtag, Corn Prices Near Record High, But What About Food Costs?, 6 Amber 

Waves 11 (Feb. 2008), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/PDF/ 

CornPrices.pdf. 

stock.333 Biodiesel production is led by Germany, followed by the 

United States, France and Italy. 

Concerns about the impact of biofuels production on U.S. food 

prices are likely overstated, but provide another reason to move towards greater reliance on cellulosic biofuels. Currently, most 

biofuels in the United States and Europe are made from food crops. 

Natural disasters, high commodity prices, and other factors have 

caused concern that biofuel feedstocks are becoming too valuable to 

sell as food supplies to poor communities. However, less than a 

third of U.S. retail food contains corn as a major ingredient and rising prices for corn-related products raises overall U.S. retail food 

prices less than 1 percentage point per year above the normal rate 

of inflation.334 Although the United States is not severely impacted 

by higher ethanol feedstock costs, low-income developing nations 

may face a greater challenge. 

Greater development of cellulosic biofuels allays concerns that 

biofuels may raise food prices. Developing cellulosic fuels from nonfood sources such as switchgrass, corn stover, and bamboo weakens 

the link between food and fuel. Furthermore, advances in biofuel 

technology could help developing nations meet their own energy 

needs while bolstering agricultural communities abroad. This 

would require investment in agricultural communities and developing cellulosic biofuel infrastructure, something that is already occurring in the United States and abroad. Dr. Susan Lechine, 

Founder and Chief Scientist of SunEthanol, spoke of cellulosic ethanol development before the Select Committee hearing entitled 

‘‘The Gas is Greener: The Future of Biofuels’’ on October 24, 2007. 

She noted that cost-effective cellulosic ethanol production is achievable in the near term, that it requires significant resources for research and development, and that it will have enormous positive 

impacts on the environment and the economy, especially for rural 

economies. At the Select Committee’s July 31, 2008 hearing entitled ‘‘Renewing America’s Future: Energy Visions of Tomorrow, 

Today,’’ Dr. Aristides Patrinos, President of Synthetic Genomics 

Inc., discussed his work with Dr. Craig Venter to design and synthesize microbial cells with far superior capabilities in converting 

biomass feedstocks into fuels. Utilizing cutting-edge genomic technology, this company is pursuing a wide range of next generation 

fuels that, if feasible, will be superior to traditional biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel), more adapted to the existing infrastructure and 

able to compete successfully with gasoline and other fossil fuels. 

Natural gas 

Natural gas provides some benefits as a transportation fuel, but 

there are concerns that substantially expanding transportation demand for natural gas will raise prices—to the detriment of industrial and other consumers. Transportation currently accounts for 

less than 1 percent of U.S. natural gas consumption, and is used 

primarily to replace diesel in urban bus, truck, and auto fleets. According to EIA, the United States has only about 119,000 natural 

gas vehicles on the road, which displace the equivalent of about 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
88 

335 Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2006 

(Part II—User and Fuel Data), Tables VI (Estimated Number of Alternative Fueled Vehicles in 

Use in the United States, by Fuel Type, 2003–2006) and C1 (Estimated Consumption of Vehicle 

Fuels in the United States, by Fuel Type, 2003–2006) (May 2008), available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/atftables/afvtransfuellII.html. 336Testimony of John German (American Honda Motor Company), before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘What’s Cooking with Gas: 

The Role of Natural Gas in Energy Independence and Global Warming Solutions,’’ July 30, 2008. 337 Id. at Appendix A. 338Testimony of Rich Wells (Dow Chemical Company), before the Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘What’s Cooking with Gas: The Role of Natural 

Gas in Energy Independence and Global Warming Solutions,’’ July 30, 2008. 339 Bureau of Land Management, Oil Shale & Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement Information Center website, at http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm (last 

visited Oct. 21, 2008) [hereinafter ‘‘BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands EIS’’]. 340 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 

Change at 268 (2007). 341 BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands EIS, supra note 339. 

200 million gallons of gasoline annually.335 Currently, Honda 

makes the only natural gas passenger vehicle available for purchase in the United States—with sales of 500 to 1000 vehicles annually. They have also designed a home-fueling station so car owners can fill up their vehicles in their own garages. At current natural gas prices, home refueling with natural gas costs the equivalent of $1.00 to $1.50 per gallon of conventional gasoline.336 Some 

analyses have concluded that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 

from natural gas vehicles are lower than for plug-in hybrids, depending on the fuel source for the electricity used to power 

them.337 The United States imports only about 20 percent of the 

natural gas it consumes (almost exclusively from Canada), as compared with nearly 60 percent for oil. 

Based on these factors, some stakeholders, such as oil billionaire 

T. Boone Pickens, have urged Congress to promote expanded reliance on natural gas as a transportation fuel. At the same time, 

however, industrial consumers of natural gas have emphasized the 

adverse impacts of already high natural gas prices on U.S. industry 

and competitiveness—and have cautioned against creating another 

source of demand that could drive prices yet higher.338

High-carbon fuels 

‘‘High-carbon’’ transportation fuels—such as those derived from 

tar sands, oil shale, or coal—present unacceptably high costs in the 

form of greenhouse gas emissions and production-related environmental impacts. While some look to these fuels as potential substitutes for imported oil, increased reliance on them will undermine 

our security in the long-term by greatly exacerbating the climate 

challenge. 

Tar sands are a mixture of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a 

heavy black viscous oil that can be mined and processed to extract 

the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in 

tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state. 

Instead, the tar sand deposits are mined using strip mining or open 

pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by taking huge amounts of 

water, using energy to convert it to steam, injecting the steam underground to ‘‘cook’’ the sands, and then pumping the melted bitumen to the surface.339 Around 80 percent of the world’s known tar 

sand resources are in Alberta, Canada,340 and tar sands currently 

are used to produce 40 percent of Canada’s oil supply.341


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
89 

342 Alberta Department of Energy, Fact Sheet: Oil Sands Consultation: Multistakeholder Committee Interim Report at Page 12 (Nov. 30, 2006), available at http:// 

www.oilsandsconsultations.gov.ab.ca/docs/InterimReportlAppendixlFactSheet.pdf. 343 Rob Gillies, Environmentalists weigh costs of Alberta oil sands, International Herald Tribune, Aug. 25, 2008, available at http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=15617946. 344 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 

Change at 268 (2007). 345 Ann Bordetsky et al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Driving it Home: Choosing the 

Right Path for Fueling North America’s Transportation Future at 7 (June 2007). 346 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada’s oil sands: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, at http://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/issues/greenhouselgaslemissions.aspx. 347 BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands EIS, supra note 339. 348Michael Toman et al., Unconventional Fossil-Based Fuels: Economic and Environmental 

Trade-Offs at xiii (Oct. 2008) (RAND study sponsored by the National Commission on Energy 

Policy), available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technicallreports/2008/RANDlTR580.pdf. 349 James Bartis et al., Oil Shale Development in the United States at 23 (2005), available 

at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RANDlMG414.pdf. 350 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 

Change at 268 (2007). 351The Wilderness Society, Oil Shale Fact Sheet, at http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/OillShalelTarlSandslFSlgloballwarming.pdf. 

The process of retrieving and processing tar sands is extremely 

energy-, land-, and water-intensive. Between two and four tons of 

tar sand-laden earth, along with three barrels of water, are required to produce just one barrel of oil. In Alberta’s Beaver Basin, 

9 percent of total surface water is consumed by the region’s tar 

sand operation.342 Most of this waste water ends up in toxic 

tailings ponds that now cover over 50 square miles of what was 

once boreal forest in Alberta.343 The great amounts of energy needed for extraction and processing mean that oil sands produce three 

to four times the pre-combustion emissions compared to conventional petroleum oil extraction and refining.344 Total lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions are nearly three times those of conventional petroleum.345 The mining and processing of tar sands are 

Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, currently accounting for 4 percent of the country’s total emissions 

(without including the actual combustion of the fuel).346

Oil shale production technology remains unproven and presents 

very serious environmental risks. By far the largest deposits of oil 

shale in the world are found in the United States in the Green 

River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. There is an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil 

from oil shale in the area, more than 70 percent of which is on federally owned and managed lands.347 At present, fundamental uncertainty remains about the technology that could ultimately be 

used for large-scale extraction, as well as the larger cost and environmental implications.348 Even optimistic estimates predict it will 

take 20 years for tar shales to produce 1 million barrels of oil per 

day and 30 years to produce 3 million barrels of oil per day.349

Moreover, oil shale’s low energy content combined with its complex, 

expensive, and energy intensive extraction and refining requirements makes it a problematic energy option. Large-scale tar shale 

processing is estimated to produce five times the pre-combustion 

emissions of conventional petroleum, making it even more energy 

intensive than tar sands.350 If coal plants were used to power tar 

shale development in the Green River Formation, there would be 

an 80 percent annual increase in CO2 emissions in Colorado, Utah 

and Wyoming.351

Coal-to-liquid fuels are similarly problematic from a climate and 

environment perspective. Coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels are produced 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
90 

352Toman et al. supra note 348, at 44. 353 Id. 354 National Energy Technology Laboratory, Emerging Issues for Fossil Energy and Water: Investigation of Water Issues Related to Coal Mining, Coal to Liquids, Oil Shale and Carbon Capture and Sequestration. At 20 (June 2006), available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ 

oil-gas/publications/AP/IssuesforFEandWater.pdf. 355Toman et al., supra note 348, at 39. 356For analysis of the California LCFS, see, e.g., Alex Farrell et al., A Low-Carbon Fuel 

Standard for California, Part 2: Policy Analysis (Aug. 1, 2007), available at http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/lowlcarbonlfuellstandard/UClLCFSlstudylPartl2-FINAL.pdf. 

using the Fischer-Tropsch process to gasify coal and then convert 

it to liquid fuel. The production process for CTL generates twice as 

much CO2 emissions per gallon than as conventional petroleum-derived fuel.352 CCS technologies have not yet been fully developed 

and sequestration of emissions from coal-fired power plants should 

be given priority in use of limited geological and other resources. 

But even with CCS, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from CTL 

are likely to be higher than those from comparable petroleumbased fuels.353 Like tar sands and tar shale, CTL production requires massive quantities of water—5 to 7.3 gallons for each gallon 

of CTL.354 Moreover, to produce enough CTL to substitute even 10 

percent of the current U.S. fuel supply would require a 36 percent 

increase in current coal production355—which, because of 

unsustainable mining practices like mountaintop removal, would 

result in severe negative environmental impacts. 

Low-carbon fuel standard 

A low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), which requires that the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of fuels be gradually reduced from some baseline over time, provides an important mechanism for reducing fuel-related emissions. A LCFS provides an important policy mechanism for pushing low-carbon technology development and emission reductions in the transportation sector. A 

LCFS has certain advantages over a renewable fuel standard, because it focuses on the goal of emission reductions without regard 

to specific fuel type. As such, it advantages comparatively ‘‘clean’’ 

biofuels and also promotes electricity as a vehicle fuel. A LCFS can 

be adopted in complement with vehicle fuel economy or emission 

standards, as the State of California has done. California’s LCFS 

requires a 10 percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions by 

2020.356 But even if a cap-and-invest system is adopted that covers 

transportation fuels, a LCFS serves at least two important purposes. First, it captures ‘‘upstream’’ emissions associated with fuel 

production, including overseas production, which might not otherwise be accounted for in a cap-and-invest system. Second, it helps 

to push the development of new fuel technologies more rapidly 

than the price signal of a cap-and-invest system alone would do— 

helping to bring advanced biofuels and electric vehicles to market 

more quickly. Third and relatedly, to the extent that a LCFS promotes development of domestic clean fuel sources, it can contribute 

to reducing oil imports at the same time that it helps reduce transportation sector emissions. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Establish a National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard: Congress 

should enact a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that would set a 

mandatory schedule for reducing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emisVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
91 

357Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation’s Highways—2000, Office of Highway Policy 

Information. Publication No. FHWA–PL–01–1012 (2000), at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/ 

onh00/bar4.htm. 358Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation’s Highways—2000, at 24 (2000), available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/ourlntnslhwys.pdf. 359 U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Vision 2030 at 5 (Jan. 2008), available 

at http://www.rita.dot.gov/publications/transportationlvisionl2030/pdf/entire.pdf. 360For the 2050 estimate see Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center, Immigration to Play Lead Role in Future U.S. Growth: U.S. Population Projections 2005–2050 (Feb. 11, 

2008), available at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections. For 

the July 2008 estimated U.S. population, see Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook: 

United States (last visited Oct. 20, 2008), available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html. 

sions attributable to the U.S. fuel supply. This LCFS should be 

harmonized with the existing RFS through 2022 and should effectively replace the RFS from 2023 and thereafter. 

• Expand Federal RD&D: Congress should increase funding for 

biofuel research, development, and demonstration programs established under Title II, Subtitle B of EISA, and should support research and development of genomics-driven technologies that 

produce fuels from renewable feedstocks and from CO2. 

• Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Grants: Congress should support expanded storage and dispensing infrastructure for biofuels 

through the Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Grant program under 

Section 244 of EISA. 

• Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credits: Congress should 

consider extending the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property 

Credit, under which fueling stations can claim a 30 percent credit 

for the cost of installing clean-fuel vehicle refueling equipment. 

H.R. 1424 extended the credit until December 31, 2010, but Congress should consider expanding the credit to 2015 or increasing 

the percentage of the credit to 50 percent. 

3. Reduce vehicle miles traveled while improving quality of life 

The United States cannot meet its oil- and greenhouse gas reduction goals through vehicle efficiency improvements and low-carbon 

fuels alone. We must also reduce how much we drive in a way that 

preserves mobility and improves quality of life. The amount we 

drive is typically measured in ‘‘vehicle miles traveled’’ or VMT. Per 

capita VMT in the United States is dramatically higher than in 

other advanced industrial countries—5,700 miles a year compared 

with 2,368 in Japan and 3,961 in Germany as of 1997.357 VMT in 

the United States is not only high in comparison with other countries; it is also growing at a dramatic rate. In 2000, VMT reached 

2.8 trillion vehicle-miles, almost four times VMT in 1960.358 It is 

projected that VMT will increase another 60 percent by 2030, in 

step with the growing U.S. population.359 If left unchecked, this 

projected VMT growth will substantially reduce the oil consumption and greenhouse gas reduction benefits of EISA—while at the 

same time contributing to increases in conventional air pollution, 

auto fatalities, and increased traffic congestion. 

VMT is expected to continue to rise both because the U.S. population is expected to increase by a third of its present size by 2050 

and because housing size is steadily increasing, creating greater 

space between destinations as a result.360 Since 1977, the size of 

the average U.S. home has increased over 46 percent (from 1,720 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
92 

361 U.S. Census Bureau, Highlights of Annual 2007 Characteristics of New Housing, at http:// 

www.census.gov/const/www/highanncharac2007.html. 362 U.S. Census Bureau, Table HH–6, Average Population Per Household and Family: 1940 

to Present, Internet release date September 15, 2004, at 

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabHH-6.pdf. 363 Alex Wilson and Jessica Boehland, Small is Beautiful: U.S. House Size, Resource Size, and 

the Environment, 9 Journal of Industrial Ecology 277 (2005). 364Predicting Urban Sprawl in Top 20 U.S. Coastal Cities, The Helm (Fall 2000), available 

at http://www.iisgcp.org/news/helm/fall2000.pdf. 

365 American Public Transit Association, 2008 Public Transportation Fact Book at 10 (June 

2008), available at http://www.apta.com/research/stats/factbook/documents08/ 

2008lfactlbooklfinallpartl1.pdf. 366 Id. at 7. 367 Id. at 13; see also KFH Group, Inc. for the American Public Transportation Association, 

How Transit Agencies are Addressing the Impact of Fuel Price and Ridership Increases at 3 

(Sept. 22, 2008), available at http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/impactloflfuellprice.pdf 

to 2,521 square feet)361 while the average household size in the 

United States dropped from 3.67 members in 1940 to 2.62 in 

2002.362 Houses built in 1950 had 290 square feet per family member; houses built in 2003 provided three times more space—893 

square feet—per person.363 As these larger houses and housing developments are built, sprawl increases and open spaces begin to 

shrink. It is estimated that up to 5.8 million acres of farmland and 

open space will be converted to commercial or residential uses by 

2025.364

A broad array of policies can help communities to ‘‘grow smarter,’’ while reducing VMT. Increasing mass transit and creating 

more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly infrastructure can encourage 

people to travel without using a car. Planning roads and pathways 

to create shorter, direct links to destinations can limit car distances. Such planning is often referred to as ‘‘smart growth’’ or 

‘‘green communities.’’ Communities that use smart growth principles offer environmental and financial benefits. By reducing time 

spent in cars, global warming pollutants are lessened. Smart 

growth planning also lowers the costs of road maintenance, highway expansion, and infrastructure needed to deliver utilities. These 

lower infrastructure costs allow States and localities to redirect 

budget funds to other fiscal priorities or lower taxes. 

Although most of these policies are implemented at the local, 

State, or regional level, federal policy can play a substantial role 

in supporting them. Federal funding for transportation and housing and urban development have important impacts on transportation infrastructure and driving patterns and can support smart 

growth. Brownfield revitalization funding can transform unused, 

contaminated industrial urban land into viable communities without undue strain on existing infrastructure. 

Reducing VMT saves consumers and taxpayers money. The high 

cost of infrastructure associated with spreading development can 

strain government budgets. Personal budgets are also impacted by 

sprawl. Access to transit can reduce the need of a car in a twoworker household, resulting in roughly $6,000 yearly savings and 

a 30 percent reduction in transportation-related carbon emissions.365 In 2007, Americans took 10.3 billion trips using public 

transportation, a 32 percent increase since 1995.366 Many believe 

that this increase is due to rising gas prices.367

Americans support expanding smart growth planning and mass 

transit. A 2007 Smart Growth America poll conducted in conjunction with the National Association of Realtors revealed broad public 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
93 

support for pedestrian friendly communities that employed a mix 

of residential and commercial uses. At the Select Committee’s June 

18, 2008 hearing entitled ‘‘Planning Communities for a Changing 

Climate,’’ Smart Growth America director David Goldberg cited a 

2007 Growth and Transportation Survey that revealed three quarters of Americans believe that being smarter about development 

and improving public transportation are better long-term solutions 

for reducing traffic congestion than building new roads. Half of 

those surveyed think improving public transit would be the best 

way to reduce congestion. 

Both urban and rural areas can benefit from smart growth. Two 

witnesses at the Select Committee’s ‘‘Planning Communities for a 

Changing Climate’’ hearing provided very different examples of 

how to implement smart growth strategies through economic development. Dr. Sultan Al-Jaber discussed the development of Masdar 

City, a carbon neutral, zero-waste city being built in Abu Dhabi for 

50,000 people. Masdar will utilize public transportation and 100 

percent renewable energy to develop and market commercially viable products to reduce energy, waste, and water consumption. 

Steve Hewitt, City Administrator of Greensburg, Kansas, testified 

about his small rural town’s decision to reduce their carbon footprint. After a tornado destroyed 95 percent of Greensburg, the community decided to rebuild their main-street based town using the 

principles of smart growth community planning and building efficiency standards. By focusing on ‘‘greener’’ development, they expect to create a sustainable local industry and a stronger economic 

base. 

The 110th Congress has taken some initial steps to promote 

mass transit and smart growth. It passed H.R. 6052, ‘‘The Saving 

Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008,’’ which offers 

grants to assist with the costs of transit fare, facilities, and operations for public transit, including intercity bus services. It also 

supports commuter alternative programs. In addition, the House 

passed H.R. 6899, ‘‘The Comprehensive American Energy and Security Consumer Protection Act,’’ which provides incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans to consumers who live in mixed use, dense areas by accounting for money 

saved by living in less car-dependent areas. The Senate did not 

take up this bill. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Cap and Invest: Congress should provide funding, on a competitive basis, through cap-and-invest legislation for State and local 

efforts to reduce VMT—for example through mass transit and 

smart growth planning and policies. For example, H.R. 6186 and 

the Dingell-Boucher climate legislation discussion draft provide for 

such funding. 

• Prioritize Smart Growth in Transportation Reauthorization: 

Encouraging smart growth and expanding mass transit should be 

a central focus on the transportation reauthorization process in the 

111th Congress. The next transportation reauthorization bill 

should encourage transit-oriented development and discourage actions to convert open spaces without regional or statewide land use 

plans. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
94 

368 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Use in 

the Transportation Sector, 1990–1998. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg99rpt/ 

tbl8.html; Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990–2005, Table A–108 at p. A–128 and Table ES–2 at p. ES–6 (April 15, 2007). 369Federal Air Administration, Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan 

at 8 (Dec. 2004), available at http://www.jpdo.gov/library/ngatslv1l1204r.pdf. 370 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Summary for Policymakers, How are Aviation Emissions Projected to Grow in the Future? (1999), 

available at http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcclsr/. 371 United National Framework on Climate Change, Executive Summary of the Compilation 

and Synthesis Report on Third National Communications from Annex I Parties at 6 (May 16, 

2003), available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2003/sbi/07.pdf. 372 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: A Special Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III in Collaboration with the Scientific Assessment 

Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Section 3.3, 3.4, 

6.1.2 (1999). 373 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, The Environmental Effects of Civil Aircraft 

in Flight at 11–15 (Mar. 22, 2007), available at http://www.rcep.org.uk/aviation/av04-09s2.pdf. 

• Provide Smart Growth Support to State and Local Governments: Congress should enact H.R. 6495, the ‘‘Transportation and 

Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act of 2008,’’ sponsored by Select Committee member Rep. Earl Blumenauer. This legislation 

provides grants to state and local governments and rural and metropolitan planning organizations for the purpose of reducing VMT, 

technology upgrades to make public transportation systems more 

efficient, and establishes a location efficient mortgage goal for 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of 15 percent by 2019. 

• Support ‘‘Complete Streets’’: Congress should enact the ‘‘complete streets’’ principles in H.R. 5951, the ‘‘Safe and Complete 

Streets Act of 2008.’’ This bill requires all federally-funded transportation projects to accommodate complete streets principles to ensure that pedestrians, the disabled and cyclists, among others, are 

accommodated. 

4. Move towards a lower-carbon aviation sector 

Aviation is an increasingly significant factor in transportation 

greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Aviation emissions generate 

12 percent of U.S. transportation CO2 emissions and 3 percent of 

total U.S. CO2 emissions.368 Experts predict an increase in aviation 

and its impact on the environment. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that U.S. aviation demand will double or 

triple by 2025 369 and worldwide aviation emissions are expected to 

increase 3 to 5 percent per year.370 Emissions from international 

aviation rose 48 percent from 1990–2000.371

Aviation emissions have a unique impact on the environment. 

Airplanes emit CO2, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and water 

vapor. The release of aviation emissions in high levels of the atmosphere change the properties of clouds and contrails and can change 

ozone levels. Inflight emissions particles freeze, forming new clouds 

which could impact weather patterns.372 While the effects of CO2

on the atmosphere are well known, the combined effect of CO2 and 

other gases at high altitudes are not as well understood and could 

double or quadruple the warming effect of CO2 alone.373

Aviation emissions are under greater scrutiny than ever before. 

Foreign countries, States, and members of Congress are taking 

note of aviation’s role in global warming. The European Union has 

recently included aviation in its Emissions Trading Scheme. Six 

States and the District of Columbia, in conjunction with five enviVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
95 

ronmental groups, have petitioned the EPA to regulate aircraft 

greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

Decreasing aviation emissions requires a three-fold emphasis on 

improving aircraft technology, increasing operational efficiency, 

and developing low-carbon fuels. The aviation industry and governments around the world will need to support more efficient technology and operations as well as lower-carbon fuel for airplanes. 

Technology has been developed to improve fuel use and associated 

emissions. On existing planes, lighter equipment and winglets can 

be attached to improve air drag. At the April 2, 2008 Select Committee hearing entitled ‘‘From the Wright Brothers to the Right Solutions: Curbing Soaring Aviation Emissions,’’ witness Jim May, 

President and CEO of the Air Transport Association, testified that 

new engines and planes would greatly improve fuel efficiency. He 

additionally noted the high cost of fuel has strained the ability of 

airlines to purchase new equipment. 

Changes in aviation operations proposed in the FAA NextGen 

program can streamline flights to reduce emissions. Incorporating 

continuous descent approaches, improved plane location technology, 

and decreasing the vertical distance between planes can streamline 

flights and prevent fuel-burning holding patterns, take-offs, and 

landings. Dan Elwell, Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy, 

Planning, and Environment for the FAA testified at the Select 

Committee hearing about the importance of employing these operations as well as others. 

There are several jet fuels being developed that may reduce the 

need for oil-based jet fuel and emit fewer global warming pollutants when burned. Virgin Airlines had a successful commercial test 

flight using a mix of conventional jet fuel and biofuel in February 

2008, and other airlines have announced similar intentions. The 

Virgin flight used jet fuel developed from sustainable coconut and 

babassu oil, but companies are also developing a jet fuel from 

algae, which would use less water and natural resources than other 

plant-based biofuels. EISA Section 202 (amending Section 211(o) of 

the Clean Air Act) provided an incentive for jet biofuel production 

by giving jet biofuel producers ‘‘additional renewable fuel’’ credits, 

which can be used to help satisfy refiners’ obligations under the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). However, jet fuels are not directly 

subject to the RFS mandate. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• FAA Reauthorization: As part of the FAA reauthorization bill, 

Congress should enact the policies included in Title V of H.R. 2881 

and S. 1300, which include the CLEEN—Continuous, Low Energy, 

Emissions, and Noise program—to develop lower energy, decreased 

emissions and noise technology for aircraft, and the NextGen program that outlines operations systems to eliminate unnecessary 

emissions. 

• Support Low-Carbon Aviation Fuels: Congress should include 

aviations fuels in the low-carbon fuel standard described above and 

should expand support for the development of first and second generation jet biofuel, by enacting a gradually increasing mandate for 

the production of jet biofuel and by offering tax incentives for such 

production. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
96 

374 American Wind Energy Association, supra note 218. 

• Reform NextGen: The FAA should reform the NextGen program to place a stronger emphasis on reduction of aviation-related 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

• Clean Air Act Petition for Rulemaking: In response to the State 

and local governments’ petition for rulemaking, EPA should 

promptly issue a determination as to whether aircraft greenhouse 

gas emissions should be regulated pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 

F. SUPPORT GREEN JOBS AND CLEAN TECH GROWTH

The win-win energy and climate solutions set forth above present 

an unprecedented opportunity for an innovation-driven economic 

revival in which clean energy solutions—built by American workers—are marketed around the world. In an April 2008 Select Committee hearing entitled ‘‘Green Capital: Seeding Innovation and the 

Future Economy,’’ representatives from some of the country’s leading venture capital firms testified that unabated climate change is 

one of the greatest risks facing humanity and that mitigating it 

constitutes one of the greatest investment and job creation opportunities in history. The business opportunity presented by clean energy technologies was echoed time and again at Select Committee 

hearings throughout the past 18 months. Recent investment and 

growth in the clean energy sector echoes this outlook. Solar, wind, 

biofuels, geothermal, hybrid- and all-electric vehicles, advanced 

batteries, green buildings, and other clean-energy technologies provided bright spots in an otherwise sluggish economy in 2007. As 

the U.S. economy struggled with plummeting housing prices, rising 

foreclosure rates, record oil prices, and creeping unemployment, the 

clean energy sector continued to demonstrate robust growth, attract large private sector investment, and create many new jobs. 

Declining costs, coupled with State renewable electricity standards and federal tax incentives, have led to a dramatic expansion 

in renewable electricity generation. Renewable technologies experienced a record-breaking year in the United States in 2007. A 

world-leading 5,244 megawatts of new wind capacity was installed 

in the United States, enough to power 1.5 million homes. This 

amounts to 35 percent of the new electricity generating capacity installed nationwide.374 Public policies that put these technologies on 

an even playing field with their fossil fuel counterparts will further 

drive down their costs and accelerate deployment. 

As mature industries increasingly move overseas to access cheaper labor, technology and innovation-driven sectors will become the 

key to sustaining economic growth and creating good jobs. The $26 

billion invested by venture capitalists across all sectors in 2006 

represented 0.2 percent of U.S. GDP, but the $2.3 trillion in revenues these firms generated made up 18 percent of U.S. GDP. The 

U.S. semiconductor industry—the focus of U.S. venture capital 

through the 1980s and early 1990s—now employs 240,000 people 

in high-wage manufacturing jobs and had sales totaling $102 billion in the global market in 2000, around half of total worldwide 

sales. In 1999, this sector was the largest value-added industry in 

manufacturing in the United States, larger than the iron, steel, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
97 

375Testimony of Bill Unger (Environmental Entrepreneurs), Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing on ‘‘Blowing in the Wind: Renewable Energy as the Answer to an Economy Adrift,’’ March 6, 2008. 376 Joel Makower, et al., Clean Energy Trends 2008 (Mar. 2008), available at http:// 

www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/Trends2008.pdf. 377 Id. 378 Chris Greenwood, New Energy Finance, slide presentation on Global Trends in Clean Energy Development at 6 (2008), available at http://www.eia.org.au/files/78V73UGICR/Greenwood.pdf. 379 Roger H. Bezdek, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st 

Century (2007), available at http://www.ases.org/ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf. 380See Maggie Eldridge et al., Energy Efficiency: the First Fuel for a Clean Energy Future: 

Resources for Meeting Maryland’s Electricity Needs, ACEEE (Feb. 2008); California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency—California’s Highest 

Priority Resource (Aug. 2006), available at ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/EgylEfficiency/CalCleanEngEnglish-Aug2006.pdf. 381Felicity Barringer, Green Policies in California Generated Jobs, Study Finds, New York 

Times, Oct. 20, 2008, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/business/20green.html. 382See, e.g., California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency—California’s Highest Priority Resource (Aug. 2006), available at ftp:// 

ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/EgylEfficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf. 

and motor vehicle industries combined.375 The recent infusion of 

significant venture capital into clean energy indicates the sector’s 

potential for similar growth and job creation over the coming decade. 

The clean tech sector is booming. U.S.-based venture capital in- vestments in the clean energy sector rose to nearly $3 billion in 

2007, a 70 percent increase over 2006. The clean energy sector now 

receives around 10 percent of all U.S. venture capital investments.376 Worldwide revenue of solar photovoltaics (PV), wind, biofuels, and fuel cells grew 40 percent in 2007, up from $55 billion 

in 2006 to $77.3 billion in 2007.377 New global investments in energy technologies—including venture capital, project finance, public 

markets, and research and development—have expanded by 60 percent from $92.6 billion in 2006 to $148.4 billion in 2007.378 Most 

investment in clean energy innovation is occurring outside the established energy industries. The five major independent oil companies, for example, invested less than one hundredth of one percent 

of 2007 revenues in research and development. Companies in innovation-oriented sectors like the biotech, information technology, 

and semiconductors routinely invest 15 to 18 percent of revenues 

in R&D. 

The renewable energy and efficiency technology sector has already become a major engine of job creation and numerous studies 

confirm that adoption of supportive public policies will yield substantial job growth. Research commissioned by the American Solar 

Energy Society found that in 2006 the energy efficiency industry 

had revenues of $933 billion and created 8 million jobs, 50 percent 

of these in manufacturing. Aggressive investment in energy efficiency would result in the creation of 32 million new jobs and nearly $4 trillion in revenues by 2030.379 Analyses of state-level efficiency programs similarly have found that such programs have 

substantial benefits in terms of job creation and economic 

growth.380 For example, a recent study showed that California’s energy efficiency programs resulted in a net increase of nearly 1.5 

million jobs from 1977 to 2007.381 Moreover, State efficiency programs have been shown to produce savings at a rate of two dollars 

or more for every dollar invested.382

Investments in renewable energy create, on average, three to five 

times as many jobs as similar investments in fossil-fuel energy sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
98 

383Testimony of Daniel Kammen before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Investing in the Future: R&D needs to meet America’s Energy 

and Climate Challenges,’’ Sept. 10, 2008; see also Daniel Kammen et al., Putting Renewables 

to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate? (2004), available at 

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/vrael/papers.html#econdev. 384 Union of Concerned Scientists, Cashing in on Clean Energy, July 2007 Update, available 

at http://ucsusa.org/assets/documents/cleanlenergy/cashing-in-national.pdf. 385 Navigant Consulting, Economic Impacts of the Tax Credit Expiration, Final Report prepared for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Solar Energy Research and 

Education Foundation (SEREF) (Feb. 13, 2008), available at http://www.awea.org/newsroom/ 

pdf/TaxlCreditlImpact.pdf. 386Worldwatch Institute, supra note 224, at 124. 387 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Genomics: GTL, Cellulosic Ethanol: Benefits 

and Challenges at http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/benefits.shtml (last visited Oct. 20, 

2008). 388Worldwatch Institute, supra note 224, at 11. 389 Robert Pollin et al., Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building 

a Low-Carbon economy, Center for American Progress and Political Economy Research Institute 

(Sept. 2008), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/ 

greenlrecovery.pdf. 390U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment Situation: September 2008, at http:// 

www.bls.gov//news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. 

tems.383 Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds that 

if utilities were to generate an average of 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, 185,000 new jobs would be created 

by 2020.384 A report by Navigant Consulting concluded that expiration of the tax credits for renewable electricity generation would 

have resulted in the loss of 116,000 job opportunities and $19 billion in private investment in the U.S. in 2009.385

Biofuels production has substantial benefits for domestic economic growth and job creation, particularly in rural areas. In the 

United States, the ethanol industry is estimated to employ between 

147,000 and 200,000 people from farming to biofuels plant construction and operation.386 The Department of Energy has noted 

conservative projections of 10,000 to 20,000 additional jobs for 

every billion gallons of ethanol production.387 In Brazil, it is estimated that support for biofuels production has saved almost $50 

billion in imported oil and created as many as one million rural 

jobs.388

Investment in efficiency and clean energy technology can be an 

engine of economic stimulus and job creation for the flagging U.S. 

economy. This was the focus of the Select Committee’s September 

18, 2008 hearing entitled ‘‘The Green Road to Economic Recovery.’’ 

For example, the Center for American Progress and the University 

of Massachusetts—Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute 

found that $100 billion targeted investment in five energy efficiency and renewable energy production strategies could generate 

2 million new jobs, roughly 800,000 of which would be in the construction sector.389 Such an approach would outperform an economic stimulus approach focused on increasing household spending, such as through rebate checks, by creating 300,000 more jobs. 

Over the 12 months ending August 31, 2008, the number of unemployed persons increased by 2.2 million and the unemployment 

rate increased to 6.1 percent, the highest level in more than five 

years. Manufacturing and construction were the hardest hit sectors.390 Putting American workers back to work on retrofitting 

buildings to improve energy efficiency, expanding mass transit and 

freight rail, constructing a ‘‘smart’’ electrical grid, building and installing wind and solar energy systems, as well as developing nextgeneration biofuels will ensure the clean energy technology revolution brings working Americans along with it. The extension of the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
99 

391Testimony of Susan Hockfield before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Investing in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet America’s Energy 

and Climate Challenges,’’ Sept. 10, 2008. 

Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit for renewable 

electricity sources, the FY 2009 expansion of funding for the 

Weatherization Assistance Program (which funds building efficiency retrofits for low-income households), and the recently funded 

$25 billion loan program for the domestic auto industry to retool 

facilities to produce more high-tech, fuel efficient vehicles represent 

some strong first steps in this direction. 

The shift to the green economy can be a broad-based economic 

program that benefits not only the holders of capital but also the 

low- and moderate-income Americans who are suffering disproportionately in today’s economy. Green jobs expert Van Jones testified 

at the Select Committee’s May 22, 2007 hearing entitled ‘‘Economic 

Impacts of Global Warming: Green Jobs,’’ that jobs in the renewables and efficiency industries can provide pathways out of poverty 

for at risk youth and underserved communities, as well as for rural 

communities. At that same hearing, witnesses called for investments in training of workers for these jobs, including targeted 

training in underserved communities. Congress recognized this opportunity by including H.R. 2847, introduced by Rep. Hilda Solis, 

in EISA (Section 1002). This provision authorizes $125 million annually for a new jobs training program for the renewable energy 

and energy efficiency industries. 

If we are to make America a global leader in clean technology, 

we will need to dramatically increase federal RD&D funding. Federal funding for energy research and development has fallen to $3– 

4 billion a year, one-third the levels of the late 1970s, in constant 

dollars. As President Susan Hockfield from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology described in testimony before the Select Committee on September 10, 2008, ‘‘In 1980, 10 percent of federal research dollars went to energy. Today, when we really need energy 

answers, it is an embarrassing two percent.’’ 391 This trend must be 

reversed if America is to remain competitive in the global marketplace. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Green Jobs Training: In addition to enacting the policies outlined above, fully fund the green jobs training program established 

under Section 1002 of EISA. 

• Federal RD&D Funding: Congress should double federal research, development, and demonstration funding for clean energy 

technologies in order to help ensure the United States’ role as a 

leader in the clean tech sector. 

• Encourage Private Financing of Clean Tech and Efficiency: 

Congress should study the potential for alternative financing mechanisms, such as a federal clean energy bank, that will further encourage the entry of private capital into the clean tech and efficiency sectors. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
100 

392For figures on the average income of households in the lowest income quintile, see U.S. 

Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006, 

at 38 (Table A–3: Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2006) (2007), 

available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf. 393 National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, Issue Brief: The Low Income Energy Assistance Program. Providing Heating and Cooling Assistance to Low Income Families at 2 (Nov. 

26, 2007). 394 Energy Information Administration, Residential Heating Oil Prices, What Consumers 

Should Know (2008), available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/heatingoil/ 

index.html. 395Libby Perl, The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and 

Funding, Congressional Research Service Report No. RL31865, at 14 (Table 3) (Sept. 18, 2008). 

G. PROTECT AMERICAN CONSUMERS FROM HIGH ENERGY PRICES

Increasing funding for LIHEAP 

This winter, Americans throughout the nation are likely to face 

major challenges heating their homes. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) was established to help reduce 

the impact of home energy expenses on the nation’s most vulnerable populations by providing assistance to help with their heating 

and cooling bills and weatherizing their homes. American families 

facing escalating home heating costs this winter are already coping 

with rising gasoline and food prices. At current prices, the average 

consumer at the top end of the lowest quintile income bracket is 

spending nearly 11 percent of their pretax income on gasoline.392

Incredibly, many families will spend even more money heating 

their homes than they have spent this year paying record prices at 

the pump. Families receiving LIHEAP assistance will spend, on average, roughly 15 percent of their income on home energy bills.393

Around 8 million American households in the United States use 

heating oil to warm their homes. Of the 8.1 million households in 

the United States that use heating oil to heat their homes, 6.2 million households, or roughly 78 percent, are located in the Northeast 

region of the country.394 The New England region, in particular, relies heavily upon heating oil, with more than half of homes—roughly 53 percent—dependent upon this fuel source for heating. According to EIA, an average household using heating oil should expect 

to pay $2,524 in heating costs this winter, an increase of 30 percent 

over last year. 

More than 51 percent of households nationwide heat their homes 

with natural gas. These 58 million U.S. households should expect 

to pay around $1,017 to heat their home this winter, an increase 

of 19 percent over last year. Roughly 30 percent of homes, or nearly 

39 million American households, use electricity for heat. These 

households will likely face heating costs of $944 this winter, a 10 

percent increase over last year. Finally, the 6.5 million American 

households using propane to heat their homes should expect to pay 

$1,890 this winter, an increase of 13 percent over last year. 

While the number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance 

has been increasing in recent years, the 5.3 million households 

served in Fiscal Year 2007 still represents only a small fraction— 

15 percent—of all households eligible for assistance.395 Despite skyrocketing home heating prices and the importance of LIHEAP to 

millions of families, the Bush Administration’s budget request proposed to cut total LIHEAP funding by 22 percent this year, to $570 

million. 

The Select Committee held a hearing on rising home energy costs 

and the future of LIHEAP funding on September 25, 2008, at 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
101 

396 Roger H. Bezdek, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st 

Century (2007), available at http://www.ases.org/ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf. 397 Northeast Midwest Coalition, ‘‘2008 LIHEAP Fact Sheet.’’ 398 U.S. Department of Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program website, at http:// 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/weatherization/improving.cfm (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 399Department of Energy, Press Release, ‘‘SPR to Continue Royalty-in-Kind Fill Program’’ 

(April 4, 2008), available at http://www.doe.gov/news/6142.htm. 

which Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and other witnesses 

described the desperate need for an increase in LIHEAP funding. 

On September 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2638, 

a continuing resolution which included $5.1 billion in funding for 

LIHEAP and also expanded the eligibility requirements to allow 

states to provide assistance to people making up to 75 percent of 

state median income. 

Increasing funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program 

The Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income families to permanently reduce their energy bills by making their 

homes more energy efficient. According to the Department of Energy, weatherization reduces heating bills by 32 percent by making 

homes more efficient, and according to the National Association for 

State Community Services Programs, homes weatherized in 2008 

will save an average of more than $413. Analyses of State-level 

home efficiency programs have been found to produce savings at a 

rate of two dollars or more for every dollar invested.396

Weatherization not only permanently reduces families’ energy 

bills by making their homes more efficient, it also spurs economic 

growth and job creation. Every one million dollars invested in 

weatherization creates between 40 and 45 jobs.397 The Department 

of Energy’s own estimates of the impact on job growth are even 

higher, projecting that 52 jobs are created for every $1 million invested. Nationwide, weatherization supports 8,000 jobs in low-income communities.398

On February 4, 2008, the day the President’s budget for Fiscal 

Year 2009 was released, the Department of Energy website called 

the Weatherization Assistance program ‘‘this country’s longest running, and perhaps most successful energy efficiency program.’’ Nevertheless, the President’s budget proposal released that day would 

have completely eliminated this program. In the September 2008 

Continuing Resolution, Congress responded by increasing the funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program by $250 million to 

a total of $478 million—about twice the historical funding level. 

Managing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

Even as oil and gas prices have skyrocketed over the past year, 

the Bush Administration was contributing to high prices and wasting taxpayer dollars by continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve (SPR) during a time of record oil prices. On April 4, 2008, 

the Department of Energy announced that it would solicit bids for 

an additional 13 million barrels of oil for the SPR through the Royalty-in-Kind program. The Department also announced that it 

would increase the rate at which the SPR was being filled from 

70,000 barrels per day to 76,000 barrels per day beginning in August 2008 and continuing through December 2008.399 With oil 

prices above $100 at the time, filling the SPR at the rate of 76,000 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
102 

400 Hearing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, ‘‘Pumping 

up Prices: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Record Gas Prices,’’ April 24, 2008, Transcript 

at 32. 401 Id. 402Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Petroleum Reserves, at http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/index.html#Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve (last visited 

Oct. 20, 2008). 403See Energy Information Administration, Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB, at http:// 

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm. 

barrels per day could have cost the federal government more than 

$2.5 billion per year. 

To call attention to the adverse impacts that continuing to fill 

the SPR during a time of record oil prices was having on consumers and the treasury, the Select Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Pumping up Prices: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 

Record Gas Prices’’ on April 24, 2008. Dr. Frank Rusco, Acting Director, Natural Resources and the Environment at the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) testified before the Committee that 

‘‘[t]aking barrels of oil off the market to put in the Reserve puts 

upward pressure on prices.’’ 400 Dr. Rusco also noted GAO’s recommendations that the Administration should ‘‘put fewer barrels 

into the Reserve when prices are higher and more when prices are 

lower. One way to do this is to buy a constant dollar amount of oil 

each month rather than buying a constant number of barrels.’’ 401

Members of Congress in both the House and Senate had called 

on the Bush Administration to temporarily halt the fill of the SPR 

in order to ease upward pressure on oil prices and save taxpayer 

dollars. Ninety-four Democratic House Members, led by Chairman 

Markey and the entire Democratic Leadership, called on the President to suspend the fill of the SPR in a letter on May 7, 2008. However, the Bush Administration signaled its intention to continue 

filling the reserve and go forward with the solicitation of 13 million 

barrels of additional oil to increase the fill rate for the remainder 

of the year. 

As a result, Congress passed H.R. 6022, the ‘‘Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008’’— 

which President Bush signed into law on May 19, 2008. Chairman 

Markey was an original cosponsor of this legislation to temporarily 

suspend the acquisition of oil to fill the SPR during the remainder 

of calendar year 2008 unless the price of oil dropped below $75 per 

barrel for the most recent 90-day period. 

Deploying oil from the SPR has a proven record of driving down 

oil prices when it has been used in the past and could have helped 

prick the speculative bubble in the summer of 2008. Oil has been 

released or swapped from the reserve in significant quantities on 

a number of occasions.402 In 1991, when President George H.W. 

Bush deployed oil from the reserve, oil prices fell 33.4 percent in 

a single day. In 2000, President Clinton loaned SPR oil to the market and prices again immediately dropped by 18.7 percent. And in 

2005, when President Bush himself released oil following Hurricane Katrina, prices fell 9.1 percent.403

However, the Bush Administration refused to take this action 

when oil prices were spiking during the summer of 2008. At a hearing of the Select Committee on May 22, 2008, Chairman Markey 

pressed for Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman to commit to releasing oil from the SPR to help consumers. As a result of the Administration’s refusal to take action that could have immediately 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
103 

404 Hearing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, ‘‘Pumping 

up Prices: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Record Gas Prices,’’ April 24, 2004, Transcript 

at 32–33. 405Testimony of C. Kyle Simpson before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Immediate Relief from High Oil Prices: Deploying the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve,’’ July 23, 2008, at 2, 6. 406Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ‘‘Drilling for 

Answer: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices, and the Pursuit of Alternatives,’’ April 1, 2008, 

Transcript at 81. 

lowered prices, Chairman Markey drafted legislation with Rep. 

Nick Lampson to require a swap of 10 percent of the light oil currently in the reserve for heavier crudes. H.R. 6578, the ‘‘Consumer 

Energy Supply Act of 2008,’’ would deploy 70 million barrels of 

light crude onto the market within six months of the bill’s enactment. The legislation would then direct the Secretary of Energy to 

subsequently purchase an equivalent volume of heavy oil within 

five years in such a way as to maximize the financial return to the 

Federal government. 

Dr. Rusco of GAO described the effects of exchanging light for 

heavy oil in the reserve at the April 24, 2008 Select Committee 

hearing: ‘‘DOE has not, but should, put heavier grades of oil in the 

Reserve, because, a) many U.S. refineries run most efficiently using 

heavier oil than what is currently in the Reserve, and b) heavier 

oils are cheaper than light oils. [S]wapping some of the light oil in 

the SPR for heavier oils * * * would have a dampening effect on 

the price of these light oils by putting them on the market now 

rather than taking them off.’’ 404

Mr. Kyle Simpson, a former Department of Energy official, 

agreed at a later Select Committee hearing, noting: ‘‘History shows 

that strategically releasing oil from the SPR is good public policy 

and can have an immediately beneficial impact on crude oil and petroleum product prices.’’ Mr. Simpson continued that the release of 

SPR oil ‘‘has had and should continue to have the effect of quelling 

speculation and calming markets, resulting in immediate crude oil 

and product price reductions.’’ 405

On July 8, 2008, Speaker Pelosi called on President Bush to 

swap out 10 percent of the SPR in order to help consumers facing 

record prices. The text of H.R. 6578 was included in the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection 

Act, H.R. 6899, which passed the House with strong bipartisan 

support on September 16, 2008 by a vote of 236–189. The Senate 

did not take action on the bill. 

Cracking down on speculation 

Over the summer, there was mounting evidence that skyrocketing oil prices were at least in part attributable to excessive 

market speculation. Indeed, during an April 1, 2008 Select Committee hearing, J. Stephen Simon, ExxonMobil’s number two executive worldwide, testified that based on market fundamentals of 

supply and demand, ‘‘the price [of oil] should be somewhere around 

$50–55 a barrel’’ and it was a weakening dollar, geopolitical instability, and speculation that was driving prices to their level above 

$100 per barrel at the time.406 The House considered multiple 

pieces of legislation in the 110th Congress to curb speculation in 

the oil markets. In May, Congress passed the farm bill over President Bush’s veto that included language to help close the so-called 

‘‘Enron Loophole’’ by bringing energy commodity trades under 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
104 

greater federal oversight. On September 18, 2008, the House 

passed H.R. 6604, the ‘‘Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008.’’ This legislation would have closed the socalled ‘‘London Loophole,’’ which allowed traders to avoid regulation by offshoring their trades. It also would have increased transparency by requiring greater information be made public on trading activities in energy markets and subjecting index and swap 

dealers to strict reporting and record keeping requirements. In addition, it required the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to 

set position limits for energy futures markets. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: • Fully Fund LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program: Congress should continue to fully fund LIHEAP and the 

Weatherization Assistance Program. • Manage the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Protect Taxpayers 

and Consumers: The Department of Energy should cut back on or 

stop filling the SPR when oil prices are high, and swap heavier, 

less expensive oil for light oil currently in the SPR, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office. In addition, 

the Department should manage the SPR to protect consumers 

against extreme gasoline price spikes. 

• Crack Down on Excessive Speculation: Congress should pass 

legislation to permanently close remaining loopholes in energy 

market oversight that allow excessive speculation to occur, and 

should expand the Commodity Futures Trading Commission staff 

to enable more rigorous enforcement of existing regulation. 

H. RESPONSIBLY MANAGE DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

As explained above, expanding domestic oil and gas production 

is unlikely to have a significant impact on oil, natural gas, or gasoline prices or to substantially reduce U.S. dependence on foreign 

oil. It is therefore imperative that the United States move aggressively to develop alternative energy sources, as recommended 

above. However, as these alternative sources are expanded, oil and 

gas will of course continue to play an important role, and the 

United States should pursue responsible development of domestic 

resources. 

Until this year, offshore oil and gas production off the East and 

West Coasts of the United States was largely prohibited by overlapping Executive and Congressional moratoria. Since FY 1982, 

Congress has included a moratorium on such drilling in annual appropriations bills. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an 

executive order preventing OCS drilling in these areas, and President Clinton subsequently extended the executive moratorium 

through 2012. On July 14, 2008, President Bush issued a Presidential Directive rescinding the executive ban. On September 30, 

2008, the 27-year-old Congressional moratorium on drilling in federal waters off the East and West Coast expired. 

As a result, if the next Administration and the 111th Congress 

allow the status quo to continue, oil and gas drilling can occur as 

close as three miles to the shoreline—the limit of federal authority. 

Drilling that close to our nation’s beaches would disrupt the tourism and commercial fishing industries and leave fragile environmental areas such as the Georges Bank off the coast of New EngVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
105 

407Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Royalties, Royalty Relief Will Likely Cost 

the Federal Government Billions but Final Costs Have Yet to Be Determined, Report No. GAO– 

07–369T, at 3 (Jan. 18, 2007), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07369t.pdf. 408William F. Hederman, The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: Status and Current Policy Issues, 

Congressional Research Service Report No. RL34671, at 5 (Sept. 12, 2008). 

land exposed to drilling. Northeast fishery landings are valued at 

approximately $800 million annually and Georges Bank is the key 

to the region’s fishery. New Bedford, Massachusetts is by far the 

most productive fishing port in the United States, in terms of value 

of catch, and commercial fishing brought $350 million into Massachusetts in 2007. Allowing oil and gas drilling in Georges Bank 

could have severe adverse effects on this ecosystem and our nation’s most important fishery. 

Under Speaker Pelosi’s leadership, the House has already gone 

on record in favor of a compromise offshore drilling plan—the 

‘‘Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act’’ (H.R. 6899)—which passed the House in a strong, bipartisan vote on September 16, 2008. This plan would allow for increased OCS production while at the same time protecting the 

areas within 100 miles of the coast. It would also have expanded 

support for renewable energy and increased efficiency. At Chairman Markey’s urging, the bill protected sensitive marine areas 

such as Georges Bank and National Marine Sanctuaries from drilling. 

In addition to OCS drilling, there are a number of other issues 

relating to domestic oil and gas production that demand attention. 

A strong majority of the 110th Congress supported the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008, of which Chairman Markey 

was a lead sponsor, to require oil companies to diligently develop 

the 68 million acres of nonproducing leases they already hold. In 

addition, a series of Gulf of Mexico leases issued in 1998 and 1999 

erroneously omitted price caps for royalty relief. Legislation drafted 

by Chairman Markey to fix the faulty leases has passed the House 

in the last two Congresses. Taxpayers stand to lose between $10 

and $60 billion if legislation is not passed to correct this problem.407 Finally, as explained above, construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline could could deliver 4.5 billion cubic feet per day 

of natural gas to the lower 48 States—equivalent to 7 percent of 

current domestic consumption.408

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• OCS Drilling Legislation: Congress must work with the next 

President to pass comprehensive legislation dealing with offshore 

drilling to ensure that the nation’s beaches and marine resources, 

as well as affected States’ rights, are protected. 

• ‘‘Use It or Lose It’’: Congress should enact legislation requiring 

oil and gas companies to diligently develop the leases they currently hold. 

• Fix 1998–1999 Gulf of Mexico Leases: Congress should enact 

legislation correcting the faulty 1998–1999 Gulf of Mexico leases to 

protect American taxpayers from a $10 to $60 billion loss. 

• Encourage Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: 

Congress should work with the new Administration to encourage 

development of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
106 

409See President Bush Discusses CAFE and Alternative Fuel Standards (May 14, 2007), at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070514-4.html. 

III. OVERSIGHT OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

The Select Committee has pursued aggressive oversight of the 

Bush Administration’s actions relating to climate change and energy security—including review of EPA, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and other agencies. In the course of many 

of these activities, the Committee has uncovered a deeply troubling 

pattern of delay, obfuscation, and political interference. The next 

Administration will have a great deal of work to do to correct these 

problems. 

A. EPA’S RESPONSE TO MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA

The April 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 

549 U.S. 497 (2007), held—contrary to EPA’s position under the 

Bush Administration—that greenhouse gases are ‘‘air pollutants’’ 

subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The decision required EPA to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from 

motor vehicles and fuels cause or contribute to air pollution that 

may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare 

(a so-called ‘‘endangerment finding’’), and if so, to issue regulations 

addressing such emissions. 

On May 14, 2007, President Bush directed EPA, along with other 

agencies, to prepare proposed rules in response to Massachusetts v. 

EPA by the end of 2007 and to finalize such rules by the end of 

2008,409 a timeline reiterated by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson at a June 8, 2007 hearing of the Select Committee. This resulted in an extensive interagency process led by EPA to assess 

whether greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles endangered 

public health or welfare and to develop, in close collaboration with 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, proposed regulations to reduce such emissions. 

In January 2008, Chairman Markey sent a letter to Administrator Johnson requesting that he appear before the Select Committee, and also that he provide a copy of the draft regulations to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions that had reportedly been prepared but never formally proposed. Later that month, he reiterated 

his request in a telephone conversation with the Administrator and 

also asked that a copy of the draft endangerment finding be provided. Although Administrator Johnson personally agreed to these 

requests, EPA ultimately refused to provide these documents, stating that to do so would be confusing to the public, would result in 

the release of ‘‘pre-decisional’’ materials, and would have a 

‘‘chilling’’ effect on future EPA deliberations. 

Because EPA provided no legally valid reason for withholding 

documents from Congress, the Select Committee, on April 3, 2008, 

issued a subpoena, on a bipartisan basis, for the documents. After 

negotiations with the White House and EPA, Select Committee 

staff viewed the requested documents on June 20, 2008. In the first 

half of 2008, Select Committee staff also began an extensive series 

of on- and off-the-record conversations with current and former 

EPA officials related to the Agency’s response to the Massachusetts 

v. EPA decision—including its April 2008 decision to abandon a 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
107 

410See, for example, Juliet Eilperin and R. Jeffrey Smith, ‘‘EPA Won’t Act on Emissions This 

Year,’’ Washington Post, July 11, 2008, at A1. 

regulatory response in favor of a non-regulatory Advanced Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that defers action to the next 

President.410

The culmination of these oversight activities was the July 18, 

2008 publication of a Select Committee staff report entitled ‘‘Investigation of the Bush Administration’s Response to Massachusetts v. 

EPA: How Big Oil Persuaded the Bush Administration to Abandon 

Proposed Regulations for Global Warming Pollution.’’ The main 

conclusions of the report are as follows: 

• There was widespread agreement within the Bush Administration that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles endanger 

public welfare and should be regulated. EPA additionally concluded 

that greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources such as 

power plants and refineries should also be regulated using Clean 

Air Act authority. 

• Numerous heads of Cabinet agencies and White House offices 

endorsed (i) EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger 

public welfare, and (ii) EPA’s proposals that both vehicle and stationary source greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated under 

the Clean Air Act. 

• In keeping with a prior approval from the White House, EPA 

in December 2007 transmitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a draft ‘‘endangerment finding’’ for 

motor vehicles and fuels. However, OMB subsequently refused to 

acknowledge receipt of the finding and unsuccessfully pressured 

EPA to withdraw it. 

• Oil industry lobbyists argued against regulatory action with 

the support of the Office of Vice President Cheney. Doing the oil 

industry’s bidding, the Bush administration then reversed course— 

deciding to issue a non-regulatory ANPR in lieu of regulations. 

By mid-April 2008, President Bush announced in a speech that 

‘‘the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change,’’ and went on to assert that Congress, not the Executive Branch, was responsible for deciding how to address greenhouse gas emissions. Appended to the EPA’s text of the ANPR released on July 11, 2008 were letters from a number of Cabinet secretaries and heads of White House offices—all of whom had previously supported regulation of both vehicles and stationary 

sources under the Clean Air Act—embracing the President’s and 

the oil industry’s views that the Clean Air Act was a flawed instrument unsuited for regulation of greenhouse gases. The issuance of 

the ANPR assured that the Bush Administration would take no 

meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Endangerment Finding: EPA should promptly issue a formal 

‘‘endangerment finding’’ recognizing that greenhouse gas emissions 

from motor vehicles and combustion of fuels for onroad and 

nonroad vehicles and engines—and other appropriate source categories—may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
108 

and welfare and should be regulated by EPA under the Clean Air 

Act. • Clean Air Act Regulations: EPA should promptly develop and 

issue regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from both 

mobile and stationary sources using Clean Air Act authority, and 

submit to Congress any recommendations for legislation needed to 

clarify such authority. Congress should provide aggressive oversight of EPA’s implementation of its legal obligations under the 

Clean Air Act. 

B. NHTSA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

EISA directed the Department of Transportation, through the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to raise 

fuel economy standards for both cars and light trucks to a fleetwide average of at least thirty-five miles per gallon (mpg) in 2020 

starting with model year 2011 vehicles. In each model year, 

NHTSA is additionally directed to require the maximum feasible 

fuel economy increase. 

In setting the maximum feasible increase, NHTSA uses a computer model that compares the costs of incorporating fuel efficient 

technologies into the projected automotive fleet (using model information provided by automakers) with the benefits of incorporating 

them (including direct benefits such as the gasoline costs that consumers would not have to spend, and indirect benefits such as the 

monetized cost of CO2 emissions that would not occur, or energy security costs that would not have to be borne). Analysis by NHTSA 

and others has shown that assuming a higher price of gasoline for 

a given model year has by far the largest impact on how high the 

maximum feasible standard can be set while remaining economically practicable. 

On April 22, 2008, NHTSA issued a proposed rule including proposed standards for model years 2011–2015 which should result in 

a projected fleetwide average of 31.6 mpg. However, in its proposal 

NHTSA used the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2008 

mid-range forecast for gasoline prices that range from $2.42/gallon 

in 2016 to $2.51/gallon in 2030—well below current prices. 

NHTSA’s reliance on these highly unrealistic projections have the 

effect of artificially lowering the calculated ‘‘maximum feasible’’ 

fuel economy standards that NHTSA is directed by law to promulgate. 

For modeling purposes only, NHTSA used EIA’s higher gasoline 

price scenario: $3.14/gallon in 2016 to $3.74/gallon in 2030. This 

analysis demonstrated that fleet-wide fuel economy of nearly 35 

mpg in 2015 is cost-effectively achievable. Moreover, the Select 

Committee’s investigation into the Bush Administration’s response 

to the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision (discussed 

above) also found that when EPA used the EIA 2007 high gasoline 

price projections of $2.75 in 2017 to $3.20 in 2030 to calculate its 

proposed automobile tailpipe emissions standards, it found that the 

car fleet could cost-effectively achieve an effective fuel economy 

standard of 43.3 mpg by 2018 and light trucks could achieve a 

standard of 30.6 mpg by 2017. 

On June 11, 2008, Guy Caruso, then-Administrator of EIA, testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming. During questioning, Administrator Caruso 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
109 

agreed that NHTSA should use EIA’s high gas price scenario in 

setting fuel economy standards. However, in a June 27, 2008 Select 

Committee hearing, the Department of Transportation refused to 

commit to doing so. On July 29, 2008, Chairman Markey and Congressman Todd Russell Platts introduced H.R. 6643, the ‘‘Accuracy 

in Fuel Economy Standards Act,’’ which would compel NHTSA to 

take this common sense approach. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Accurate Price Benchmarks for Fuel Economy Standards: Congress should enact H.R. 6643, the ‘‘Accuracy in Fuel Economy 

Standards Act,’’ to ensure that NHTSA uses the more accurate 

high gas price scenario developed by EIA when setting fuel economy standards. 

• Oversight of CAFE Implementation: Congress should continue 

to aggressively oversee NHTSA’s implementation of the fuel economy provisions in EISA, to ensure that NHTSA is using realistic 

and current assessments not only of projected gasoline prices, but 

also of the costs of fuel efficient technologies, the types of technologies that are available, the monetized indirect benefits of incorporating fuel efficient technologies, and the types of vehicles that 

are likely to be part of the automotive fleet. 

C. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

1. Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

As explained above, the Select Committee pursued aggressive 

oversight of the Department of Energy’s management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, holding two hearings on the management 

of the SPR on April 24, 2008 and on deploying oil from the SPR 

on July 23, 2008. Recommendations on management of the SPR are 

reflected above. 

2. Saudi nuclear agreement 

On May 16, 2008, the United States signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with Saudi Arabia that would provide for 

the nuclear energy cooperation between the two countries. The 

MOU states, in part, that ‘‘participants intend to cooperate, subject 

to their respective national laws, in the areas of: development of 

mutually acceptable requirements for appropriately-sized light 

water reactors and fuel service arrangements for the Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia; promoting the establishment of arrangements that 

would allow future civilian light water nuclear reactors deployed in 

the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia access to reliable nuclear fuel supplies and services; development of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s 

civilian nuclear energy use in a manner that contributes to global 

efforts to prevent nuclear energy proliferation.’’ 

During a May 22, 2008 Select Committee oversight hearing, 

Chairman Markey questioned Secretary Bodman about the need to 

provide nuclear power to Saudi Arabia, given that it has the 

world’s largest oil reserves and huge potential for solar electricity 

generation. Chairman Markey noted that facilitating the development of nuclear technology in Saudi Arabia makes little sense 

given the volatility of the region and the country’s massive solar 

energy potential and natural gas resources. Astonishingly, SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
110 

411 Briefing hosted by the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming entitled ‘‘Briefing on the Melting Arctic: Global Warming’s Impacts on the Polar Region,’’ Sept. 25, 

2007. 412 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, Polar Bear: Conservation 

Issues, at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 

2008). 413 U.S. Geological Survey, New Polar Bear Finding, at http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polarlbears/ (last visited Oct. 20, 2008). 

retary Bodman testified that he was not involved in the formulation or negotiation of the agreement. Following the hearing, Chairman Markey introduced H.R. 6298, which would prevent the 

United States from entering into any further nuclear agreements 

with Saudi Arabia and to ban any U.S. exports of any nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Saudi Arabia. 

D. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR—ENDANGERED POLAR BEARS AND

CHUKCHI SEA OIL AND GAS LEASING

The Bush Administration delayed a decision whether to list the 

polar bear under the Endangered Species Act until after it had 

completed an oil and gas lease sale in essential polar bear habitat 

off the coast of Alaska. 

Polar bears depend on sea ice for nearly every aspect of life, including hunting Arctic ringed seals, which serve as their primary 

food. Arctic sea ice is already being affected by global warming. According to a study earlier this year by scientists from the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the Arctic Ocean could 

be devoid of ice as early as 2040. Furthermore, in re-analyzing arctic sea ice data, NASA scientist Jay Zwally projected that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free as early as the summer of 2012. At a 

briefing held by the Select Committee on the warming Arctic on 

September 25, 2007, Members heard from former Interior Department official Deborah Williams who spoke of how Alaska has 

warmed at four times the rate of the rest of the globe over the last 

50 years.411

The United States has two polar bear populations, both in Alaska—the southern Beaufort Sea population and the Chukchi and 

Bering Seas population. There is significant overlap between these 

two populations in the western Beaufort and eastern Chukchi Sea. 

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, both of these population 

stocks are currently in decline. The southern Beaufort Sea population has been estimated at roughly 1,500 bears and is believed 

to be declining. An accurate assessment of polar bear populations 

for the Chukchi and Bering Seas population does not exist, but it 

is thought that this population consists of approximately 2,000 

bears and is also declining.412

The Bush Administration’s own scientists project that the prospects for the polar bear’s survival are bleak. Last year, Dr. Steven 

Amstrup, the government’s leading polar bear scientist, headed up 

a team of scientists charged with examining the impacts of sea ice 

loss on polar bear populations. In a series of reports released last 

fall, Dr. Amstrup’s team concluded that by mid-century, two-thirds 

of all the world’s polar bears could disappear and that polar bears 

could be gone entirely from Alaska. Dr. Amstrup’s team also noted 

that based on recent observations, this dire assessment could actually be conservative.413


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
111 

414 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month 

Petition Finding and Proposed Rule To List the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened 

Throughout Its Range; Proposed Rule72 Fed. Reg. 1096, 1097 (Jan. 9, 2007). 415 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(6)(C)(ii). 416Minerals Management Service, Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement at II–38 (May 2007). 417 Id. at ES–4. 

Despite the mounting scientific evidence that global warming endangers polar bears, the Bush Administration manipulated the 

process for listing under the Endangered Species Act to facilitate 

oil and gas leasing in the Chukchi Sea, an essential habitat area 

for polar bears. In September 2005, the Department of Interior’s 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) had announced its intent to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a lease sale 

in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf planning area. Lease 

sale 193 would cover nearly 30 million acres in the Chukchi Sea. 

On January 9, 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a 

proposed rule to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. However, the Service found that the designation 

of critical habitat was ‘‘not determinable.’’ 414 The Secretary is required to make a designation of critical habitat ‘‘concurrently’’ with 

the determination to list a species under the Act unless the critical 

habitat for a species is ‘‘not then determinable.’’ 415 The Interior 

Department chose at that time not to designate critical habitat for 

the polar bear, which likely would have included areas in the 

Chukchi Sea. 

The MMS published its final EIS for the Chukchi Sea lease sale 

in June 2007, which concluded that polar bears would be extremely 

vulnerable to a potential oil spill in the Arctic Ocean, especially at 

certain times of year. ‘‘Oil spills have the greatest potential for affecting polar bears in part due to the difficulties involved in cleaning up spills in remote areas, given the wide variety of possible 

(sea) ice conditions in the Chukchi Sea.’’ 416 In addition, despite referring to a large oil spill as an ‘‘unlikely event,’’ the MMS estimates in the EIS that there is a 33–51 percent chance that an oil 

spill greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels will occur in offshore 

waters as a result of oil and gas activities.417 In response to the 

draft EIS, EPA had submitted comments questioning MMS’ assessment of the risk of an oil spill, stating that ‘‘the actual likelihood 

that a large oil spill would occur and significantly impact highvalue resources should be considered much greater.’’ EPA also suggested that the MMS assessment of the cumulative impact of oil 

and gas activities in northern Alaska was inadequate. However, it 

appears that MMS failed to address EPA’s comments in the final 

EIS. 

On January 2, 2008, MMS published its final notice of sale for 

the Chukchi Sea lease sale. The Endangered Species Act requires 

that the Secretary make a final determination as to whether a species warrants listing under the act within one year of the date of 

publication of the proposed rule. However, on January 7, 2008, 

Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall announced that the Service 

would miss its statutorily required deadline of January 9, 2008 for 

issuing a final listing decision for the polar bear. 

Because the Bush Administration appeared to be delaying the 

Endangered Species Act listing decision for the polar bear until 

after it had held the Chukchi oil lease sale in polar bear habitat, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
112 

418 Id at 96–97. 

the Select Committee held a hearing on January 17, 2008, entitled 

‘‘On Thin Ice: the Future of the Polar Bear.’’ This was the first 

Congressional hearing looking at the implications of the timing of 

these two critical decisions within the Interior Department. The Select Committee received testimony from the directors of MMS (the 

Interior Department agency responsible for conducting the Chukchi 

Sea oil lease sale) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (the agency 

responsible for listing the polar bear). During the hearing, Chairman Markey questioned the two directors whether the Secretary of 

the Interior could and should step in to delay the oil lease sale 

until after a decision on whether and how to protect the polar bear 

was made. Former Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie 

Rappaport Clark testified in support of the Secretary making the 

polar bear listing decision before going ahead with the lease sale, 

stating, ‘‘On the one hand [the Secretary] has an obvious statutory 

responsibility to make a decision based on the best science available, whether or not the polar bear deserves the protection of the 

Endangered Species Act. On the other hand, he has a somewhat 

discretionary decision on timing of oil and gas leasing in the 

Chukchi, very different decisions.’’ 418

Following the hearing, Chairman Markey introduced H.R. 5058, 

a bill which would delay the Chukchi Lease sale and related drilling activities until after the Fish and Wildlife Service had made a 

decision on whether or not to list the polar bear. 

The Interior Department conducted the Chukchi Lease sale as 

scheduled on February 6, 2008. Subsequently, on May 15, 2008, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule listing the polar bear 

as ‘‘threatened’’ under the Endangered Species Act. However, in 

listing the polar bear as threatened, the Service left a loophole to 

allow oil and gas activities to continue in Alaska, which are contributing to the loss of the polar bear’s Arctic habitat. Specifically, 

when issuing the ‘‘threatened’’ listing, the Administration simultaneously issued an interim final rule for the polar bear under section 4(d) of the ESA. This so-called ‘‘4(d) rule’’ was used to allow 

oil and gas activities to continue in Alaska as long as companies 

comply with existing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

On October 6, 2008, in a settlement of litigation brought by environmental groups, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed its earlier 

decision not to designate critical for polar bears. The settlement 

sets a deadline of June 30, 2010, for issuance of a final rule designating critical habitat. 

Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next Administration should prioritize the following actions: 

• Close Endangered Species Act Loophole: The Department of Interior must close the regulatory loophole in the polar bear listing 

that allows for oil and gas activities to proceed unchecked in essential polar bear habitat off the coast of Alaska. 

• Oversee Critical Habitat Designation: Congress should provide 

oversight to ensure that the Department of the Interior moves expeditiously to designate critical habitat for the polar bear. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
113 

E. EPA AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION—OVERSIGHT OF THE

VOLUNTARY CARBON OFFSET MARKET

In July 2007, the Select Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Getting What You Pay For,’’ at which it examined the voluntary carbon offset market. Carbon offsets are 

based on the notion that individuals or companies can neutralize 

the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to some or all of their 

activities by supporting projects that either reduce emissions elsewhere or enhance biological sequestration of carbon. Common examples of offset projects include capturing and flaring of methane 

emissions from landfills or farm animal waste, substituting renewable electricity generation for conventional fossil fuel-based generation, undertaking energy efficiency improvements, and reforestation or no-till agricultural practices intended to increase sequestration of carbon in trees or soils. 

Recently, a growing number of companies have begun to sell carbon offsets—intangible commodities representing the greenhouse 

gas reductions purportedly achieved by offset projects—both at retail to consumers and at wholesale to companies and other largescale buyers. The voluntary offset market is growing dramatically. 

In the United States, there are now over 30 companies selling offsets at retail prices ranging from $5 to over $50 per ton of CO2

equivalent. The value of the global voluntary offset market is estimated to be well over $100 million annually, and experts project 

that it easily could grow to several hundred million dollars annually in the foreseeable future. 

Although few would contend that this voluntary market is likely 

to yield greenhouse gas reductions on a large enough scale to put 

a real dent in rising global emissions, it has the potential to make 

a nontrivial contribution. Perhaps more important, many believe 

this market provides a potentially important avenue for educating 

the public about global warming and giving citizens a sense of participation in addressing climate change. Notwithstanding its promise, the voluntary offset market has become a source of growing 

controversy. Some of this controversy centers on the debate over 

whether offsets are being used as a convenient excuse to avoid 

changes in behavior that could directly (and perhaps more significantly) reduce emissions. More important, however, have been a 

number of reports raising doubts as to whether consumers are really getting what they pay for when they buy offsets—that is, whether offsets actually represent real and permanent reductions. This 

problem is exacerbated by the fact that the voluntary offset market 

is unregulated and many offset providers do not give consumers 

adequate information about their projects or accounting methods. 

Consumers may be unaware of the complex accounting issues relating to offsets, and may have little idea of whether and how the provider has addressed these issues. Voluntary standards have proliferated, but there has been little or no government oversight. 

Following the July 2007 hearing, Chairman Markey wrote to 

Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras of the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC), urging the FTC to undertake a public process designed to 

update its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims 

(the so-called ‘‘green guides’’) to address voluntary carbon offsets— 

with the objective of preventing unfair or deceptive conduct in this 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
114 

market and assuring consumer confidence. Subsequently, Chairman Markey wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, requesting that EPA take a leadership role in helping to develop 

standards governing the voluntary offset market and that it assist 

the FTC in implementing its mandate to protect consumers against 

unfair or deceptive trade practices. The FTC responded by agreeing 

to hold a series of public workshops on the voluntary carbon offset 

market, in preparation for the revision of its green guides. EPA, for 

its part, agreed to assist the FTC as well as to continue its own 

efforts to develop offset standards through its Climate Leaders program. 

F. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

1. Hunt Oil 

In September 2007, it was revealed that Hunt Oil Company and 

Kurdistan’s regional government had signed a production-sharing 

contract for petroleum exploration in the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq. Both the U.S. State Department and the Iraqi Oil minister expressed alarm that the contract damaged the ongoing negotiations to create a national Iraqi oil revenue law. 

Chairman Markey on October 2 and October 12, 2007, sent letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requesting a timeline 

of events surrounding the Hunt Oil contract and questioning the 

role of the Department of State in this episode. Chairman Markey 

expressed concern that Ray Hunt, CEO of Hunt Oil and a major 

fundraiser for President Bush, may have used his membership on 

the influential President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to 

work with the Kurdistan government, or that Hunt’s close ties with 

the Bush Administration had lent legitimacy to a practice that U.S. 

and Iraqi officials criticized. 

On October 18, 2007, the State Department replied that Hunt 

Oil provided prior notice to the U.S. government of its intentions 

to sign an oil contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government, 

and that State Department officials told Hunt Oil that its company 

would ‘‘incur significant political and legal risk by signing contracts 

with any party before the Hydrocarbon Framework Law is passed 

by the Iraqi Parliament and that signature of such contracts would 

needlessly elevate tensions between the KRG [Kurdistan Regional 

Government] and the Government of Iraq.’’ The State Department 

noted that the Hunt Oil contract negotiation ‘‘is not helpful’’ given 

that it ‘‘complicates negotiations’’ for the Hydrocarbon Framework 

Law. 

The State Department refused to answer questions regarding Mr. 

Hunt’s dual role as both President of Hunt Oil and also a senior 

foreign intelligence advisor to the President of the United States. 

Mr. Markey wrote to the White House on October 19, 2007 to ask 

when the White House knew of Hunt Oil’s activities in Iraq, what 

mechanisms are in place to ensure that PFIAB members do not use 

classified information for personal gain or bias their advice on intelligence matters in light of their business interests, and how the 

White House will respond to other private companies who might 

pursue oil drilling rights in Iraq prior to the Iraqi government establishing an oil sharing agreement. The White House did not respond to this inquiry. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
115 

419See United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 7/23, Human Rights and Climate 

Change (Mar. 28, 2008), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/ 

AlHRClRESl7l23.pdf. 420See, e.g., Juliet Eilperin, ‘‘Cheney’s Staff Cut Testimony on Warming,’’ Washington Post, 

July 9, 2008, at A1. 

2. Human rights 

In recognition of the growing humanitarian impacts of climate 

change, the United Nations Human Rights Council—of which the 

United States is not a member—was presented with a resolution 

directing the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct 

a study of the impacts of climate change on human rights and encouraging UN members to contribute to the study. In response, 

Chairman Markey wrote a letter to State Department Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky, challenging the State Department to determine whether climate change would impact human rights, and 

whether this would create threats to our national security. Undersecretary Dobriansky responded that the State Department does 

not consider there to be any ‘‘direct formal relationship between’’ 

climate change and human rights, but acknowledges that protection of the environment ‘‘may further the realization of certain 

human rights.’’ She noted further that the United States had ‘‘participated constructively’’ in informal negotiations on the resolution 

discussed above. The UN Human Rights Council ultimately adopted the resolution by consensus on March 28, 2008.419

G. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

There has long been broad agreement throughout the public 

health community that climate change poses a serious threat to 

public health both in the United States and around the world. 

However, when Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Dr. 

Julie Gerberding was asked to testify before the Senate Committee 

on Environment and Public Works in October 2007, the White 

House censored her testimony.420 She was prevented from stating 

what CDC’s own scientists, other public health researchers, and 

the IPCC had concluded about climate change’s impacts on health. 

In response, Chairman Markey wrote to Dr. Gerberding in December 2007 requesting her views on the threat to public health posed 

by global warming. In April 2008, the Select Committee held a 

hearing on public health and climate change, at which Dr. Howard 

Frumkin, Director of CDC’s National Center on Environmental 

Health, testified. The Select Committee engaged in active oversight 

of the CDC testimony clearance process. At the hearing, Dr. 

Frumkin was able to clearly state what had been removed from Dr. 

Gerberding’s testimony: ‘‘The CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.’’ This was the first time during Congressional testimony that a federal agency official acknowledged climate change could have major consequences for human health. 

IV. INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

A. INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS

A global effort will be required to protect the planet from the 

looming climate crisis—putting international climate negotiations 

at the heart of the fight against global warming. As highlighted 

above, global greenhouse gas emissions will need to be cut by at 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
116 

least 50–85 percent by 2050 to prevent dangerous global warming. 

While the United States and other developed countries are responsible for most of the cumulative greenhouse gas concentrations in 

the atmosphere, and are among the highest per capita emitters in 

the world, the largest proportion of the projected growth in global 

greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades will come from 

the developing world. The past two years have seen substantial 

new developments with regard to international climate negotiations. With the conclusion of an agreement in Bali, Indonesia in 

December 2007 establishing a ‘‘roadmap’’ for future negotiations, 

many are now looking towards the negotiation of a post-Kyoto global framework to govern international efforts in this sphere after 

2012. The Bali roadmap calls for the completion of such an agreement at the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen in December 

2009. 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

In 1992, the United Nations convened 172 nations at the Earth 

Summit in Rio de Janeiro for the first attempt of governments to 

fundamentally address global warming. From the summit, the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) emerged. It came into effect in 1994 and was ultimately 

ratified by 192 nations, including the United States. The Convention set the ultimate objective of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at safe levels and incorporated a voluntary initial goal that industrialized countries should take the 

lead in tackling the problem by cutting their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. 

The Kyoto Protocol 

In 1995, the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 

to the UNFCCC adopted the Berlin Mandate, which called for the 

negotiation of a new agreement that would augment the UNFCCC 

with stricter demands for reducing emissions. This led to the development of the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed in 1997 by 84 

countries. The Protocol set mandatory targets for the reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions from the world’s developed countries by 

an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 

2012. Ultimately 175 countries—including virtually all developed 

countries other than the United States and Australia—ratified the 

Protocol, which officially entered into force in February 2005. Australia ratified the Protocol in December 2007, leaving the United 

States as the only industrialized country that has not done so. 

Kyoto establishes a cap-and-trade system that allows developed 

countries to meet their commitments through trading of marketable credits under the International Emissions Trading System 

(IET). Kyoto’s other ‘‘flexibility mechanisms’’—Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)—allow developed countries to meet their emissions targets in part through 

the purchase of tradable offset credits generated by emission reduction projects in other countries. Through this array of market-based 

mechanisms, the Kyoto Protocol laid the groundwork for what has 

become known as the global ‘‘carbon market.’’ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
117 

Developments leading to Bali 

The annual UNFCCC meeting in Montreal in 2005 was the first 

held after the Kyoto Protocol came into force. It launched the efforts to negotiate the next climate agreement that would come into 

effect at the end of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period in 2012. 

At the conclusion of the meeting both the Conference of the Parties—those countries including the United States who have ratified 

the UNFCCC—and the Members of the Kyoto Protocol had agreed 

to further dialogues toward a post-2012 framework. 

The 2006 UNFCCC meeting in Nairobi did not make much 

progress on the negotiations for a post-2012 agreement, increasing 

the pressure to make significant progress at the 2007 UNFCCC 

meeting in Bali, Indonesia. In order to be ready to implement a 

new climate agreement in 2012, negotiations need to be concluded 

by the end of 2009. Therefore, countries were under pressure at 

Bali to agree to a negotiating mandate, such as the Berlin Mandate 

which guided the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, in order to bring negotiations to a successful conclusion in 2009. 

Given the importance of moving the UNFCCC negotiations forward, Secretary-General Ban appointed three Special Envoys on 

Climate Change and convened a High-Level Event on Climate 

Change in New York on September 24, 2007. Approximately 160 

countries, including 80 heads of State or Government, participated 

in the daylong discussion of the climate challenge. In preparation 

for Bali, attention was focused on global actions relating to mitigation, adaptation and investment in technology development and deployment, along with discussion of financial flows to facilitate such 

action. On September 26, 2007, the Select Committee hosted a 

briefing at which the three UN Special Envoys, together with 

Sigmar Gabriel, the German Federal Minister for the Environment, 

Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, discussed the state of 

play and prospects for international action on climate change. 

United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia 

From December 3–15, 2007, representatives from more than 180 

countries met in Bali, Indonesia for the United Nations Climate 

Change Conference—also known as COP 13 (the thirteenth conference of the parties to the UNFCCC). The principal item on the 

agenda was the development of a ‘‘roadmap’’ for the negotiation of 

a new global climate change agreement governing the period after 

2012, when the Kyoto Protocol’s commitment period ends. The Select Committee sent a staff delegation to the negotiations, and 

Chairman Markey delivered the first international address on climate to the meeting using virtual world (‘‘Second Life’’) technology. 

On December 19, 2007, the Select Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘After Bali—the UN Conference and its Impact on International Climate Change Policy’’ at which Christiana Figueres, the 

Costa Rican representatives at the Bali conference, and several 

other leading experts on the international negotiations testified. 

The Bali Action Plan—the ‘‘roadmap’’ agreement reached at the 

conference—calls upon the parties to negotiate a new agreement to 

be adopted at the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties, to be held 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
118 

421Decision 1/CP.13, ‘‘Bali Action Plan,’’ available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/ 

cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3. 

in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009.421 The roadmap recognizes the findings of the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report 

that global warming is unequivocal and that delay in reducing 

emissions increases the risk of severe climate change impacts and 

decreases the opportunity to achieve lower stabilization levels of 

greenhouse gases. The agreement further recognizes that ‘‘deep 

cuts in global emissions will be required’’ to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change and emphasizes the IPCC’s findings regarding the ‘‘urgency to address climate change’’—referring in a 

footnote to the IPCC’s conclusions regarding the range of emission 

reductions required to meet certain atmospheric greenhouse gas 

stabilization targets. The draft roadmap agreement had originally 

included language, advocated by the EU and others, recognizing 

the need for emissions to peak within the next 10–15 years, for 

global emissions to be reduced by over 50 percent by 2050, and for 

developed countries to reduce emissions by 25–40 percent below 

1990 levels by 2020. This language was dropped in the face of 

strong opposition from the United States, Russia, and Japan. 

The roadmap identifies four major pillars of climate policy as the 

basis for future negotiations: mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and financial resources and investment. 

With regard to mitigation, the agreement calls for consideration of 

actions by both developed and developing countries. For developed 

countries, the roadmap calls for consideration of ‘‘measurable, reportable, and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives.’’ This ambiguous language encompasses, but 

does not appear to require, absolute emissions caps for all developed country parties. 

Perhaps most importantly, as several of the witnesses at the December 19, 2007 Select Committee hearing emphasized, the roadmap also included developing countries in the mitigation agreement for the first time. Developing nations agreed to consider ‘‘nationally appropriate mitigation actions’’ that are ‘‘measurable, reportable and verifiable’’ so long as they are supported by ‘‘measurable, reportable and verifiable’’ support in the form of technology 

transfer, financing, and capacity-building. In addition, the roadmap 

calls, among other things, for consideration of enhanced action on 

adaptation to climate change, technology transfer to developing 

countries, and financial support for mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries. 

In keeping with the Bali Conference’s heightened focus on adaptation, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol established an Adaptation 

Fund Board to oversee the implementation of the Adaptation Fund 

established under the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is financed 

through a 2 percent levy on CDM transactions and will be used to 

assist the developing country parties to Kyoto that are particularly 

vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. 

Delegates to the Bali Conference also considered policies to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (referred to as ‘‘REDD’’). Although deforestation 

and forest degradation account for roughly 20 percent of global carVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
119 

422G8 Summit 2007, Heiligendamm, Chair’s Summary (June 8, 2007), available at http:// 

www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/lg8-summit/anlagen/chairs-summary,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/chairs-summary. 423 Id.; see also G8 Summit 2007, Heiligendamm, Summit Declaration: Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy at 16 (June 7, 2007), available at http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/ 

Artikel/lg8-summit/anlagen/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschafteng,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng. 424 Id. 425G8 Summit 2007, Heiligendamm, Joint Statement by the German G8 Presidency and the 

Heads of State and/or Government of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa on the occasion of the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, at 2 (June 8 2007), available at http:// 

www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/lg8-summit/anlagen/o5-erklaerungen,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/o5-erklaerung-en. 

bon dioxide emissions, this area of climate change policy had never 

before been brought into the agreement. As a first step in this 

sphere, the Conference delegates agreed to ‘‘explore a range of actions, identify options and undertake efforts, including demonstration activities’’ to achieve ‘‘demonstrable, transparent, and 

verifiable’’ emissions reductions from deforestation and forest degradation. 

Other international negotiations 

In addition to the UN process outlined above, there have been a 

number of parallel international negotiation processes addressing 

climate change in recent years. Climate change was a major focus 

of the annual G8 summit held from June 6–8, 2007, in 

Heiligendamm, Germany. At the summit, the European Union, 

Canada and Japan agreed to ‘‘at least halve carbon dioxide emissions by 2050,’’ 422 but the United States declined to join in this 

agreement. All eight nations instead agreed that, in working to set 

a long-term global goal for emissions reductions, they would ‘‘consider seriously’’ the 50 percent reduction by 2050 commitment.423

Participating parties agreed that ‘‘the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate 

change’’ and reiterated ‘‘the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change.’’424

The Joint Statement by the German G8 Presidency and the Heads 

of States of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, stated 

that these developing countries ‘‘remain committed to contribute 

our fair share to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous 

anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’’425

The week prior to the Heiligendamm summit, President Bush 

announced his support for a negotiation process involving the 

‘‘major emitter’’ countries—both developed and developing—to establish a post-2012 framework for action on international climate 

change. In September 2007, President Bush hosted a meeting of 17 

major economies on energy security and climate change in Washington, DC. The White House billed this ‘‘Major Economies’’ meeting as complementary to the United Nations climate change negotiation process. At the meeting, the White House advocated advancing clean energy technologies, setting long-term ‘‘aspirational’’ goals 

for global greenhouse gas emission reductions, and allowing each 

nation to set its own strategy for emissions reductions rather than 

agreeing to internationally binding obligations. Two more Major 

Economies meetings were held—one on January 30–31, 2008, in 

Honolulu, Hawaii, and one on April 17–18, 2008, in Paris France. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
120 

426G8 Summit 2008, Hokkaido, Chair’s Summary (July 9, 2008), available at http:// 

www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080709l09len.html. 427G8 Summit 2008, Hokkaido, Declaration of Leaders Meeting of Major Economies on Energy 

Security and Climate Change, available at http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/ 

doc080709l10len.html. 

In July 2008, the G8 met in Hokkaido, Japan. A leaders’ meeting 

of the Major Economies process was held in conjunction with the 

G8 summit. Despite hopes that the leaders might announce a longterm global goal for emissions reductions, no such agreement was 

reached. Instead, the G8 opted only to ‘‘seek to share with all Parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving 

at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that 

this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent 

with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and 

respective capabilities.’’426 The Major Economies leaders, for their 

part, ‘‘recognize[d] that deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the [UN Framework] Convention’s ultimate objective,’’ called for the setting of a long-term global goal through the 

UN negotiation process, and called upon developed countries to 

‘‘implement, consistent with international obligations, economywide mid-term goals and take corresponding actions in order to 

achieve absolute emission reductions and, where applicable, first 

stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible,’’ and, finally, 

called upon developing countries to ‘‘pursue, in the context of sustainable development, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, 

supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as usual 

emissions.’’ 427 In short, no firm emission reduction commitments 

were made by any party. 

The Road to Copenhagen 

With the negotiation of the Bali Action Plan and with President 

Bush’s tenure nearing its completion, international attention has 

now turned to the process of negotiating a new post-2012 international climate agreement—slated to be completed by the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009. Successful negotiation of a 

new agreement in that time frame will require the incoming U.S. 

administration to move with alacrity, as less than a year will remain between the inauguration of the 44th President of the United 

States and the Copenhagen meeting and it will take time for the 

new administration to put its team in place. It will be imperative 

that the 111th Congress work in concert with the new Administration in support of the negotiating process, as legislative actions will 

undoubtedly be necessary to support and help shape the Administration’s negotiating positions on greenhouse gas emission reductions, clean technology financing, and international adaptation to 

climate change impacts. 

B. SELECT COMMITTEE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS

Even as climate negotiations have progressed, the Select Committee has actively pursued international dialogue and cooperation 

on climate and energy solutions—most notably through three ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
121 

gressional delegations to Greenland, the European Union, Brazil, 

and India, respectively. Two of these—the Greenland/EU and India 

delegations—were led by Speaker Pelosi. 

Greenland and the European Union—May 2008 

In late May 2008, Chairman Markey and other members of the 

Select Committee joined Speaker Pelosi on a fact-finding Congressional delegation to Greenland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and 

Belgium. The trip explored both the severe impacts of global warming and the solutions many EU nations are taking to cut heat-trapping global warming emissions. 

In Greenland, the delegation witnessed first-hand the effects of 

rising temperatures. Global warming is already having negative 

impacts on the livelihoods of Greenland’s indigenous Inuit population of roughly 45,000. The loss of stable, year-round sea ice is 

disrupting traditional seal-hunting and fishing practices on which 

Inuit livelihoods depend. The melting of permafrost is causing extensive damage to homes and other infrastructure in Inuit villages. 

The Greenland Premier Hans Enoksen, national and local leaders, 

and residents all emphasized that changes to their environment 

are rapid and have far reaching economic and cultural impacts. 

During a visit to Dr. Konrad Steffen’s research station on the 

Greenland ice sheet, Select Committee members learned about the 

mounting scientific evidence that global warming is causing an 

alarming acceleration in the rate of melting of the Greenland ice 

sheet. Average temperatures in southern Greenland have increased 

by over 4 °F in the past two decades, and the area of Greenland’s 

ice sheet that melts each summer has increased by 16 percent from 

1979 to 2002. Several of Greenland’s largest glaciers are now flowing towards the sea at nearly 8 miles per year, twice as fast as 

they did just 5 years ago. The ice sheet now dumps nearly three 

times as much ice into the sea as it did 10 years ago—enough every 

2 to 3 days during the melting season to supply New York City 

with fresh water for an entire year. Scientists have also observed 

an alarming increase in ‘‘ice quakes’’ due to glacial movement— 

measuring up to 5.0 on the Richter scale—raising questions about 

the ice sheet’s stability. These trends indicate that the accelerating 

melting of Greenland’s ice sheet increases the risk that dangerous 

sea-level rise will occur sooner than previously predicted. 

After witnessing the tangible impacts of global warming on 

Greenland, the delegation then traveled to Europe to discuss policy 

and technology solutions to effectively reduce carbon emissions. In 

Germany the delegation met with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and Environmental Minister Sigmar Gabriel. They outlined Germany’s three-pronged approach to reducing global warming pollution by increasing energy 

efficiency, expanding renewable energy use, and developing climate-friendly fossil fuel technology. Germany has committed to increasing energy efficiency by 20 percent and using 30 percent renewable energy by 2020. To achieve these objectives, it has instituted innovative policies. For example, national building standards 

are raised periodically to ensure continual efficiency improvements 

in buildings, and Germany has created a national fund that provides low-interest loans for efficiency improvements. Their feed-in 

tariff law, which pays set amounts for electricity generated from reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
122 

newable sources, has helped increase renewable electricity use from 

1 percent in 2000 to 11 percent in 2006. 

The development of climate-friendly energy technology is key to 

Germany’s economic development strategy. Currently, Germany 

holds an impressive 20 percent share of the global energy technology market. The existing $100 billion market for environmentally friendly energy technology will double in the next 10 to 

15 years, and a central economic question is who will supply this 

new technology developed in response to domestic policies. 

Despite their successful domestic policies, the German leaders 

underscored the importance of an international climate agreement 

that commits all countries to equitable actions to reduce global 

warming pollution. The delegation was visiting Germany two 

weeks before the G8 summit hosted by Germany in Heiligendamm, 

discussed above, at which Chancellor Merkel made climate change 

a priority issue. 

While in the United Kingdom, the delegation met with a number 

of Members of Parliament from the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democratic parties, and with the Secretary for the Environment, David Miliband. At that time, the Labour government had 

recently introduced its draft climate bill and Parliament was preparing to move the legislation. The draft legislation set a minimum 

target of reducing UK emissions by 60 percent by 2050. (That target has since been increased to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 

2050.) Central to the bill is the creation of a five-year carbon dioxide budget with three consecutive budgets in law at all times to 

provide balance between predictability and flexibility. According to 

Secretary Miliband, the carbon budgeting process will become fundamental to the British economy, and the ‘‘Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to count carbon as well as pounds.’’ The legislation would also create a Committee on Climate Change as an independent, expert body to advise the government on setting and 

achieving emission reduction targets and creating the carbon budgets. 

Across political parties, there was agreement that reducing global warming pollution was a top priority and that this global problem will not be solved without leadership from the United States. 

However, there was some disagreement on the domestic policies 

needed to achieve reductions. Cap-and-trade was seen as a priority, 

but some also viewed complementary green tax shifts as important. 

For example, the 2001 climate levy created a fiscally neutral tax 

on global warming pollution that supported pension reform and 

was supported by labor and businesses alike. Some also saw complementary policies as necessary in other sectors. In the building 

sector, zero-carbon houses currently receive a tax break and by 

2016 new residential buildings are required to be carbon-neutral. 

While in the United Kingdom, the delegation also met with Sir 

Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank economist and author of 

The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. In his opinion, climate change reflects the greatest market failure in history 

and policymakers must approach it as a risk management issue, 

taking action now to prevent costly consequences later. He recommended auctioning allowances as much as possible in climate 

legislation and felt that strong targets and carbon trading in developed countries would bring China and India along in the interVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
123 

national agreements. Sir Stern encouraged the delegation to act regardless of other countries’ actions with the admonition that ‘‘saying we are not going to do anything until others do is a recipe for 

doing nothing.’’ 

The trip concluded in Brussels where the delegation met with 

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, European 

Commission Energy Minister Andris Piebalgs, and the Belgium 

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. They discussed the recently 

agreed EU Climate and Energy Strategy which commits the EU to 

reduce global warming pollution by 20 percent below 1990 levels, 

increase energy efficiency by 20 percent, and use 20 percent renewable energy by 2020. To help facilitate the next international climate agreement, they also stated their willingness to reduce their 

emissions as much as 30 percent if other developed countries and 

the more economically advanced developed countries take on equitable commitments. The delegation also discussed lessons learned 

by the Europeans in the transportation sector. The EU has relied 

on voluntary fuel economy standards for vehicles and the use of extraordinarily high gasoline taxes in member countries. Carbon 

emissions from vehicles were increasing in spite of these policies, 

leading to a decision that mandatory fuel economy standards are 

now necessary. During the delegation’s visit, the European Commission was beginning a process to require the new car fleet sold 

in the EU to meet the equivalent of a 47 miles per gallon standard 

by 2012. While the EU is pursuing a sustainable biofuels target, 

it has ruled out supporting development of coal-to-liquid fuels because they increase carbon emissions compared to gasoline. 

Brazil—February 2008 

In February 2008, Chairman Markey led a Congressional delegation to Brazil including Representatives Tom Davis, Lois Capps, 

Barbara Cubin, Mike Ferguson, and Jeff Flake. The delegation met 

with federal and state officials and business and scientific leaders 

to investigate Brazil’s efforts to combat deforestation and climate 

change and to promote energy independence. 

The delegation began with a visit to the city of Manaus, the capital of the State of Amazonas. There, participants attended briefings with scientists from the National Institute for Amazon Research (IPNA), Amazonas Minister for Planning and Economic Development Denis Minev, Amazonas Minister for Environment 

Virgilio Viana, and the Ariau Towers naturalist, Michael Cartwright. The hosts spoke of the importance of the Amazon rainforest 

to Brazil and the rest of the world. As Minister Viana noted, ‘‘the 

Amazon is a Brazilian resource that provides a global service.’’ Deforestation and forest degradation are now threatening this important global carbon sink, oxygen generator, and hydrological cycle 

regulator. In the Amazon, half of the dry weight of trees is carbon, 

and in 2004—the peak year for deforestation—466 million tons of 

carbon dioxide was released from deforestation. This is over five 

times the emissions Brazil generates annually from burning fossil 

fuels. Deforestation has also devastated species biodiversity. Twenty-five percent of the world’s species depend on the 2.7 million 

square miles of the Amazon rainforest. The loss of biodiversity affects the sustainability of local and global production of goods like 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
124 

latex, cork, fruit, nuts, timber, fibers, spices, natural oils, and medicine. 

The Amazonas state ministers discussed the policies they were 

developing to increase the value of standing forests and reduce deforestation. Goods produced in a sustainable manner from the forests are exempt from state taxes, and the ministers suggested that 

removing the international tariffs on these goods would further encourage sustainable development in their state. They were also developing a forest fund with the support of a large Brazilian bank 

and other international partners to provide subsistence payments 

to forest inhabitants that preserve their lands. They suggested that 

developed world countries should consider dedicating some pollution allowances in cap-and-trade legislation for avoided deforestation and hope that their forest fund will provide a model for partnerships with the developed world to protect forests. 

The next stop for the delegation was Rio de Janiero, where Members focused on the potential of biofuels to increase energy independence and reduce global warming pollution. Marcos Jank, the 

CEO of Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union (UNICA), briefed 

the delegation on the successes and potential of sugarcane ethanol. 

Brazil is currently the world’s leading producer of sugarcane ethanol fuel, which provides 50 percent of the country’s transportation 

fuel. Eighty percent of the vehicles in Brazil have ‘‘flex fuel’’ capacity and can run on ethanol. Using the waste biomass from ethanol 

production, Brazil is currently able to supply 3 percent of its energy through sugarcane electricity. This is expected to rise to 15 

percent by 2020. Mauricio Tolmasquim, the President of Energy 

Planning Office (EPE), attributed the success of Brazilian ethanol 

to the increase of flex fuel vehicle availability, low production costs, 

and an increase in global exports. Eduardo Feijo, the Brazilian National Association of Automakers (ANFAVEA) liaison, also noted 

the infrastructure support for ethanol; 94 percent of the Brazilian 

fuel stations offer a high percentage ethanol fuel whereas in the 

United States, only 7 percent offer E85 blends. 

To learn more about the sustainability of ethanol, the delegation 

visited the Petrobras CENPES research facility operated by Brazil’s nationalized Petrobras energy company. In a tour of the facility, Executive Director Carlos Taden Fraga, and Ricardo Castello 

Branco, Director of Petrobras’ Renewable Energy Program, showed 

the delegation their work developing cellulosic ethanol from a sugarcane waste product (bagasse) and working to reduce traditional 

pollution emissions from vehicles. 

The delegation’s final stop was the capital city of Brasilia, where 

Members served as the U.S. delegation to the Global Legislators 

Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) Forum. At the 

Forum, they joined with fellow legislators from the G8 countries 

and five developing countries (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and 

South Africa) in high level talks regarding the post-2012 international framework to address climate change. Working in the 

High Level Session and the Energy working group, the Congressional delegation discussed issues of global warming and ultimately 

produced a Climate Change Framework recommendation paper for 

the July 2008 G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan. 

The delegation ended the Brazil tour with official meetings with 

Tasso Azevedo, head of the recently created Brazilian Forest ServVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
125 

ice, Brazil State Secretary Everton Vargas, Environment Minister 

Marina da Silva, State Secretary Thelma King, and the President 

of Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies (counterpart of the U.S. Speaker 

of the House) Arlindo Chinaglia. The Members and officials discussed how the United States and Brazil can work together towards the shared goals of preserving the Amazon and expanding 

the development of biofuels. Increased cooperation on sharing of 

satellite images and other monitoring technology to identify and 

prevent illegal logging was suggested as a specific partnership that 

could have immediate impact. 

The delegation ended the trip with a briefing on the latest sustainable agriculture research and practice in Brazil by John Carter, 

rancher and founder of Alian ̧ ada Terra, Dr. Paulo Moutinho of the 

Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia, Dr. Daniel Zarin, 

professor with the University of Florida, and Dr. Daniel Nepstad 

of the Woods Hole Research Center. The group is attempting to 

bring ranchers and environmentalists together in support of certifications and sustainability standards for agricultural products produced in Brazil. 

India—March 2008 

In March 2008, Chairman Edward Markey and Ranking Member 

James Sensenbrenner accompanied Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 

other Members of Congress on a fact-finding congressional visit to 

India. The delegation explored the opportunities for the United 

States and India to strengthen efforts to reduce global warming 

pollution and invest in clean energy research, development, and deployment. 

They began their visit in New Delhi hosted by Dr. Rajendra 

Pachauri, Chairman of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, at the eco-friendly conference center of 

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Dr. Pachauri and 

other members of the institute made presentations and answered 

the delegation’s questions about climate change, its impact on 

India, and potential solutions. Stopping deforestation and providing 

incentives for reforestation were seen as important ways of reducing global warming pollution in the near term, providing a cushion 

for the deployment of other technologies. Addressing energy consumption in buildings was also singled out as important. 

Dr. Pachauri and his colleagues were also optimistic about the 

potential of renewable energy in India and around the world. Just 

one percent of India’s solar resources could meet the current power 

needs of the country, and China is already the largest solar market 

in the world. One of TERI’s newest programs is the ‘‘Lighting a Billion Lives’’ initiative which is distributing solar-powered flashlights 

and lanterns in villages around the world where there is no electricity. The group was encouraged by Indian businesses’ interest in 

renewables and efficiency technology. They pointed to the 300 Indian companies are already involved in the clean energy market 

generating at least $1 billion in revenues. The need to foster research and development and collaboration with developed world 

companies is clear, but intellectual property issues are currently 

hindering development. Finding a workable solution for all should 

be a high priority. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
126 

While in New Delhi, the delegation met with Prime Minister 

Manmohan Singh, Minister of External Affairs Shri Pranab 

Mukherjee, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Climate Change 

Shyam Saran, and a group of parliamentarians from various Indian political parties. They outlined India’s domestic and international efforts to combat global warming and discussed areas of 

potential cooperation between India and the United States. 

The Indian government views climate change as a threat to security. Global warming impacts have major economic and social consequences for India, including an increase in weather-related disasters and diseases and a decline in food production and freshwater 

availability. The government is preparing a national climate action 

plan and will release it in the summer. The Prime Minister has already committed to keeping India’s per-capita emissions below the 

average of the developed world. Continued cooperation with the 

United States on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean 

coal technology will be important to helping India meet this goal 

as it works to move hundred of millions of its citizens out of poverty. 

The Indian government’s view is that all multilateral climate 

agreements should be under the auspices of the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change. India was part of the 

global agreements reached in Rio and Kyoto and is supportive of 

the roadmap for the next international climate agreement developed in Bali. The Indian government’s position is that climate 

change is a global challenge that requires a global response, but 

the agreement must be equitable. Developed countries that are 

most responsible for the current problem must commit to reducing 

their emissions, and developing countries must commit to developing in a sustainable manner provided they receive technology 

and financial assistance. 

The delegation next traveled to Dharamsala to meet with the 

Dalai Lama and to discuss with him a wide range of issues, including the environmental challenges in Tibet and his views on climate 

change. He expressed concern that the growing population was 

threatening the delicate Tibetan plateau ecosystems at the same 

time that global warming was causing rapid change. The rapid 

melting of the glaciers is a serious threat to water resources in 

Tibet, India, and China. He is encouraged by the recent progress 

being made by countries to cooperate on solutions to this and other 

global environmental challenges. Protecting the planet should be a 

priority because, as he noted, ‘‘its life is our life, its future our future.’’ 

The final stop was in Mumbai, where the delegation began with 

a briefing on India’s nuclear power industry by Dr. S. K. Jain, 

Chairman of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL). Nuclear power currently provides 4,000 megawatts of power and is 

projected to increase 63,000 megawatts by 2030. In comparison, 

coal and natural gas provide 90,000 megawatts now, increasing to 

390,000 megawatts in 2030 and renewables provide almost 11,000 

megawatts now, increasing to 97,000 megawatts in 2030. The size 

of nuclear plants is limited by India’s transmission grid which cannot accommodate plants over 500 megawatts. Five light water reactors and one fast breeder reactor are currently under construction, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
127 

and the government has cleared two coastal sites for new plant 

construction. 

The delegation also met with key Indian business leaders, including Mukesh Ambani and Jamshyd Godrej, to discuss India’s rapidly 

growing energy needs and areas of potential cooperation to expand 

the deployment of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. Mr. Ambani was enthusiastic about the ability of solar 

power to do for electricity what mobile telephones did for telecommunications. His solar company electrified 84 villages in just 3 

months. Many of India’s villages rely on diesel generators for electricity, and have been adversely affected by the high price of oil. 

Many villages can afford the 15 cents per kilowatt hour costs of the 

solar set up, but the goal is to drop the price to 10 cents, making 

electricity affordable to almost all villages. Green buildings are also 

taking off in India. In 2008, one million square feet of LEED-certified space will be built, adding to the already existing 9 million 

square feet. Green buildings are being built even without government subsidies because they make economic sense given the cost 

of energy in India. 

Indian companies are already participating in the global carbon 

market through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). For example, the Essar group has developed a variety of CDM projects including decreasing industrial emissions by switching to natural 

gas, heat recovery from steel plants, and wind projects in Tamil 

Nandu and Gujarat states. They are also exploring the development of solar power sites in Rajasthan state. The delegation discussed the inclusion of sectoral agreements in future international 

climate agreements. The Indian business leaders felt this could be 

a promising way to achieve emission reductions in energy intensive 

sectors in developing countries and to support sustainable development. 

Technology development was also a key issue for the businessmen. India is going through a transformation. In the past, there 

was comparatively little investment in domestic technology development, which was seen as too risky. Indian businesses would instead gain access to technology through licensing agreements. Now 

as the country is becoming richer, there is more focus on technology and human resource development. Almost all the companies 

represented were partnering with companies in the United States 

and Europe to develop and patent new energy technologies. Continued technology cooperation between the two countries, coupled with 

reform to financial institutions to incorporate environmental costs 

and benefits in financing decisions, was seen by the group as critical to helping India’s development, enhancing both countries’ national security and reducing global warming pollution. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
(128) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LARSON 

Representative John Larson has enjoyed hearing the views of his 

fellow committee members on issues of carbon pricing legislation. 

However, he feels that carbon tax legislation is the most transparent and effective tool to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and increase U.S. energy security. Rep. Larson 

has introduced H.R. 3416: America’s Energy Security Trust Fund 

Act, which is detailed below. 

H.R. 3416: AMERICA’S ENERGY SECURITY TRUST FUND ACT

In 2005, the United States emitted over 6 billion metric tons of 

carbon dioxide (CO2), an increase of 25 million tons over the previous year. The scientific community agrees that CO2 and other 

greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are influencing 

changes in the earth’s climate. Global warming is already having 

an impact, and future changes in the climate will have significant 

economic and environmental implications for coastal communities, 

public health, agricultural productivity, ecosystems and life as we 

know it. 

One way to ensure that dangerous greenhouse gas emissions are 

reduced—a necessary priority for the next Congress—is through a 

carbon tax system. Such a system has been promoted by everyone 

from former Vice President Al Gore to N. Gregory Mankiw, former 

Chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. H.R. 

3416, America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act, is a carbon tax 

bill sponsored by Representative John B. Larson, a member of the 

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

The bill is also cosponsored by twelve members of the House of 

Representatives, including one other member of the Select Committee. 

Currently, polluters have no incentive to change their behavior 

and stop contributing to global warming—the America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act gives them one. Those who reduce polluting 

behaviors by cutting back on activities that lead to greenhouse gas 

emissions could actually come out ahead by receiving a bigger payroll tax rebate than they contribute to the fund: they would be rewarded for changing their behavior. 

The America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act would reduce 

taxes on workers, set a price for CO2 emissions, and create an incentive to use alternative energy. Specifically, the bill would: 

• Provide Tax Credits for Research and Development of Alternative Energy Technologies like wind, hydrogen, fuel cells, solar 

and other zero emissions technologies. The first $10 billion or 1/6 

of revenue in the trust fund, whichever is less, would be spent each 

year to finance tax credits for research and development in alternative energy. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
129 

• Provide Transition Assistance for Affected Industries: 1/12 of 

the fund’s revenues would be dedicated to assistance for employees 

of industries negatively affected by the resulting shift to clean energy technologies. This would be phased out over 10 years. 

• Reduce the burden of payroll taxes on working households. The 

remaining funds would be divided equally among all individuals 

subject to the payroll tax to provide a payroll tax rebate. Seniors 

and individuals with disabilities, defined based on eligibility for Social Security, would receive the same amount. Because $727 billion 

of payroll taxes were collected in 2005, a tax at a rate of $15 per 

ton of CO2 could lower payroll tax burdens by over 10 percent on 

average. 

For nearly three quarters of all households, payroll taxes are the 

single largest tax to the federal government. Because the payroll 

tax is a flat-rate tax up to a payroll limit of $97,500, it is generally 

acknowledged to be a regressive tax. Currently, those in the top 1 

percent of the income scale pay only 2 percent of their income in 

payroll taxes, while those in the bottom 20 percent contribute 7.3 

percent of income in payroll taxes. Revenues from a carbon tax 

could be used to reduce the tax burden on working households, and 

could have a profound effect on those households with earnings 

below the median income level. This rebate would benefit workers 

in the lower-end of the income scale the most. 

HOW WOULD THE AMERICA’S ENERGY SECURITY TRUST FUND ACT

WORK?

This bill would impose a per-unit tax on the carbon dioxide content of fossil fuels beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2

and increasing by 10 percent each year, also accounting for inflation. The rate is consistent with the broadly accepted goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 

2050. The tax would be phased in over a ten year period to allow 

industries to adapt. It should be emphasized, however, that the 

technology for clean energy already exists and therefore the rate of 

tax is aggressive. 

The tax would be assessed on the CO2 content of these fuels 

when they enter the economy: at oil refineries, coal processing 

plants and points of import. Therefore it would be easy to implement and administer—only about 2,000 entities would be taxed. 

Demand for fossil fuels would fall in response to a carbon tax. 

As a result, carbon emissions would fall as well, by an estimated 

700 million metric tons of CO2 (12.1 percent). At the same time, demand for alternative sources of energy would increase, spurring innovation and competition, and would allow producers of alternative 

energy technologies to achieve economies of scale, which will eventually lower prices of that technology. 

According to ‘‘A Green Employment Tax Swap: Using a Carbon 

Tax to Finance Payroll Tax Relief,’’ a report by Gilbert E. Metcalf 

for the Brookings Institution and World Resources Institute, a tax 

of $15 per metric ton of CO2 would nearly double the price of coal, 

assuming the industry fully passes the tax onto the consumer. Petroleum products would increase in price by nearly 13 percent and 

natural gas by almost 7 percent. This translates to approximately 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
130 

13 cents per gallon of gasoline—a price increase of less than 7 percent. 

WHAT ABOUT GOOD ACTORS?

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigating 

climate change by capturing CO2 from large point sources such as 

power plants and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. We know how to capture and store 

CO2. The AESTF Act will contribute to the development of CCS at 

the national level and encourage other technologies to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Because we want to encourage zero-emissions technologies, the 

bill would provide a refundable credit on all taxes paid for an entity that uses carbon capture and storage technology. 

WHAT ABOUT OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES?

The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation 

with the Secretary of Energy to design and implement a tax on 

other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide and other gases 

known to cause global warming. The goal is to ensure that for any 

entity taxed, a viable alternative to emitting these gases must exist 

in order to ensure that the tax will change polluting behaviors 

without simply being punitive. One benefit of including other 

greenhouse gases in the AESTF Act is that it can reduce the cost 

of reducing greenhouse gases. A recent study by researchers at 

MIT shows that early reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can 

be more inexpensively achieved if these other gases are included in 

the tax base. 

HOW MUCH MONEY COULD IT RAISE?

Emissions of carbon dioxide in 2005 were estimated to be just 

over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 according to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Had a carbon tax of $15 per ton of CO2

been in place in 2005, the tax would have raised $89.2 billion. 

WHAT ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES?

The United States is certainly not the only nation contributing 

to global warming. However, with only 5 percent of the world’s population, in 2005 the U.S. was responsible for 22 percent of the CO2

emitted worldwide from burning fossil fuels. This bill recognizes 

that the United States must lead the way but that the other major 

emitting countries must follow. 

JOHN B. LARSON. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
(131) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE STEPHANIE 

HERSETH SANDLIN 

Over the course of the 110th Congress, the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming has made significant 

and valuable contributions to the public debate and to Congress’ efforts to develop responsible, forward-looking public policy regarding 

critical energy and climate change issues facing our nation. I have 

been very pleased and proud to serve with the distinguished members of this Select Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Edward Markey. The Committee closely and diligently examined a wide range of difficult issues from numerous angles, with 

input from hundreds of experts, including more than 50 hearings. 

I am confident that the Committee’s efforts will guide future 

Congresses’ work in ensuring that we meet the real and serious 

twin challenges of achieving energy independence and halting global warming. What’s at stake is nothing less than our national security, our economic security, and our way of life in every corner of 

the country. 

As the only member of the Committee who also serves on the Agriculture Committee, and the only one who represents a predominantly rural state, I have taken seriously my responsibility to ensure that issues affecting rural America and agriculture are addressed throughout this process. The good news is that as we seek 

to address these changes, rural America stands uniquely ready to 

play a vital role in the new energy economy. 

If you look at my state of South Dakota from end-to-end, whether 

it is our vast fields of corn and soybeans in the eastern part of the 

state, the abundant wind resources across the state, or the great 

forests of the Black Hills in the West, South Dakota embodies the 

idea that we need a diversified approach to our national energy 

policy—and in particular we need to take advantage of new opportunities for renewable energy. 

As we strive to meet our national energy needs, we must continue to recognize that rural America has much to offer. Rural 

states should be at the center of the solution as our national energy 

policy shifts and adjusts in ways that enhance our national and 

economic security; that promote both innovation and conservation; 

and that ultimately will ease the strain on families’ and business 

owners’ budgets. 

With the passage of the original Renewable Fuel Standard in 

2005 and the aggressive increase included in the 2007 energy bill, 

we have already taken initial key steps in the right direction, as 

we seek to take advantage of the contribution agricultural producers in rural states can make to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and overall carbon emissions through an increase in the 

production of biofuels, wind, and other types of renewable energy. 

But to be sure, there is more work to be done. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
132 

I agree with the scientific consensus that human activity has 

substantially increased the accumulation of greenhouse gasses and 

is contributing to a rise in average global temperature. This rise 

threatens to create a number of dramatic and negative impacts— 

raising sea levels, altering coastlines, increased risk of drought and 

forest fire, and changing weather patterns. With much of the country’s economy dependent on agriculture, which in turn depends on 

our climate, I recognize that global warming could have a profound 

effect on rural agricultural economies and our way of life. 

Though there is no single solution to reducing the accumulation 

of greenhouse gases, I do see a number of positive steps we can 

take in the short-term to reduce global warming. I believe the federal government must be aggressive in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, more than just creating penalties that 

reduce emissions, it is important to invest in new technologies, create incentives to increase efficiencies, and encourage greater reliance on a range of domestic energy sources with lower emission impacts—sources including increased domestic production of oil and 

gas, clean coal, oil shale, wind, solar, biofuels and more. 

Many of the legislative proposals that have been introduced in 

the House fail to take the kind of comprehensive approach I support, and instead rely on mandatory reductions. My preference is 

to support a bill that also includes incentives to increase the use 

of renewable energies and rewards individual conservation practices. 

Ultimately, we need a balanced legislative approach to these 

issues. I believe we can address the harmful consequences of climate change, while preventing the negative economic impacts some 

proposals could cause based on our nation’s current reliance on 

electricity produced by coal, a significant source of carbon dioxide. 

A large part of the world’s coal reserves are found in the U.S. and 

I believe we should devote the needed research and development 

resources to clean coal technologies, including promising carbon 

capture and sequestration projects. 

Moreover, I believe the people and resources of rural America 

can play an important role in addressing climate change. Agricultural lands and forests naturally sequester carbon, and therefore 

can be managed to help reduce harmful amounts of carbon in the 

atmosphere. For example, current estimates of U.S. greenhouse gas 

markets indicate that U.S. farms have the potential to mitigate as 

much as 40 percent of our nation’s total climate impact with practices such as soil carbon sequestration or methane capture. We also 

must do more to facilitate and encourage the use of the woody biomass that is already taken from public lands as part of responsible 

forest management plan as a source of cellulosic ethanol with significant potential. 

Unfortunately, many recent proposals addressing climate change 

have been developed without fully engaging with agricultural experts. To address this oversight, I have been proactive in bringing 

representatives of the agricultural sector together to examine how 

best to craft a carbon sequestration offset program to maximize agriculture’s participation, to look at the potential impact of a mandatory program on agricultural inputs, and to evaluate the potential 

benefits of a cap-and-trade system to agriculture. I have also enVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR915.XXX HR915

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
133 

gaged with my House colleagues to make sure they understand the 

role that our agricultural producers and forests can play as part of 

the solution to climate change. 

In conclusion, I believe strongly that climate change and energy 

independence present both serious challenges and significant opportunities for rural America. I am grateful for this opportunity to 

provide additional views about the path forward. While these views 

do not address or encompass every component of the full report, 

they do identify the key principles I continue to embrace as we look 

to craft effective public policy that recognizes the extremely diverse 

set of interests involved. I agree with much of what is expressed 

in the report, but have concerns with some of its provisions, and 

I look forward to continuing to work on these difficult, but essential, challenges in the future. 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING

cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
(135) 

APPENDIX A 

HEARINGS AND BRIEFINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING

APRIL 18, 2007

Geopolitical Implications of Rising Oil Dependence and Global 

Warming 

Witness List: 

• Ambassador Richard Haass, President, Council on Foreign 

Relations 

• Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.), USN (Ret.), 

Vice President for Strategic Planning and Business Development 

• Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club 

• General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), USA (Ret.), President and Chief Operating Officer, Association of the United 

States Army 

• James Woolsey, Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton 

APRIL 26, 2007

Dangerous Global Warming 

Witness List: 

• Dr. James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for 

Space Studies 

• Dr. Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric 

Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology 

• Dr. Kristie Ebi, ESS, LLC and Lead author Human Health 

chapter, IPCC 4th Assessment, Working Group II 

• Dr. Camille Parmesan, Assistant Professor, University of 

Texas 

• Dr. John Helms, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley and Past President, Society of American Foresters 

MAY 3, 2007

Economic Impacts of Global Warming: Part 1—Insurance 

Witness List: 

• John B. Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and 

Environment, GAO, 

• Mike Kreidler, Washington State Insurance Commissioner 

• Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance Association of 

America 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
136 

MAY 9, 2007

Economics of Dependence on Foreign Oil—Rising Gasoline Prices 

Witness List: 

• Sylvia Estes, Pipeline and Industrial Group, Virginia 

Beach, VA 

• Michael Mitternight, Factory Service Agency, Metairie, LA 

• Terry Thomas, President and CEO, Community Bus Services Inc., Youngstown, OH 

• Donn Teske, Farmer and President, Kansas Farmers 

Union, McPherson, KS 

• John Felmy, Chief Economist, American Petroleum Institute 

MAY 15, 2007

Perspectives on Energy and Climate Change: Prime Minister 

Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden 

Witness List: 

• Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt of Sweden 

MAY 22, 2007

Economic Impacts of Global Warming: Green-Collar Jobs 

Witness List: 

• Jerome Ringo, President, Apollo Alliance 

• Van Jones, President and Co-Founder, Ella Baker Center 

• Elsa Barboza, Campaign Coordinator for Green Industries 

at the Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education 

(SCOPE) 

• Bob Thelen, Chief Training Officer, Capital Area Michigan 

Works! 

JUNE 4, 2007

Global Warming Mountaintop ‘‘Summit’’: Economic Impacts on 

New England 

Field Hearing on Cannon Mountain near 

Franconia, New Hampshire 

Witness List: 

• Timothy Perkins, Ph.D., Director, Proctor Maple Research 

Center, University of Vermont 

• Cameron Wake, Ph.D., Climate Change Research Center, 

University of New Hampshire 

• Alice Chamberlin, Special Assistant for Energy, Environment and Transportation, Governor John Lynch 

• Betsy Blaisdell, Manager, Environmental Stewardship 

Program, Timberland 

• Bill Koury, Former President, NH Wildlife Federation and 

avid New England sportsman 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
137 

JUNE 8, 2007

Massachusetts V. U.S. EPA: IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

VERDICT

Witness List: 

Panel I 

• The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 

• The Honorable Nicole Nason, Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Panel II 

• The Honorable Jerry Brown, Attorney General of California 

• The Honorable Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts 

JUNE 19, 2007

Green Cities: Mayoral Initiatives To Reduce Global Warming 

Pollution 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago 

• The Honorable Tom Potter, Mayor of Portland, OR 

• The Honorable Pegeen Hanrahan, Mayor of Gainesville, 

FL 

JULY 12, 2007

Plugging Into Energy Independence With 150 MPG Vehicles 

Witness List: 

• Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy 

• Rob Lowe, Actor and Advocate 

• David Vieau, President and CEO, A123 Systems 

• Fred Hoover, Washington representative for Austin Energy 

JULY 18, 2007

Voluntary Carbon Offsets—Getting What You Pay For 

Witness List: 

• Derik Broekhoff, Senior Associate, World Resources Institute 

• Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American 

Progress 

• Thomas Boucher, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

NativeEnergy LLC 

• Russ George, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Planktos, Inc. 

• Erik Blachford, CEO, TerraPass Inc. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
138 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade 

Witness List: • David Freudenthal, Governor, Wyoming • Michael Morris, CEO, American Electric Power • Carl Bauer, Director, National Energy Tech. Laboratory • Stuart Dalton, Director, Generation, Electric Power Research Institute • Robert Sussman, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP • David Hawkins, Director, Climate Center, National Resources Defense Council 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

Renewable Electricity Standards: Lighting the Way 

Witness List: 

Panel I 

• The Honorable Bill Ritter, Governor of Colorado 

Panel II 

• Nancy Floyd, Nth Power, Founder and Managing Director • Chris Hobson, Southern Company, Senior Vice President, 

Research and Environmental Affairs • Bob Reedy, Florida Solar Research Center • Mike Sloan, Wind Coalition, Director • Dave Foster, Blue Green Coalition, United Steelworkers, 

Executive Director 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

Briefing: The Melting Arctic: Global Warming’s Impacts on the 

Polar Region 

Witness List: 

• Stanley Tocktoo, Mayor, Shishmaref, Alaska 

• Dr. Robert W. Corell, Program Director, The Heinz Center 

• Dr. Sue Haseltine, Associate Director for Biology, USGS 

• Dr. Glenn Juday, Professor of Forest Ecology, University of 

Alaska Fairbanks 

• Deborah Williams, Alaska Conservation Solutions 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

Forging a Global Solution for Global Warming: International 

Perspectives 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Gro Harlem Brundtland, UN Special Envoy 

on Climate Change, former Prime Minister of Norway and 

former chair of the World Commission of Environment and Development • The Honorable Ricardo Lagos, UN Special Envoy on Climate Change, former Chilean President 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
139 

• The Honorable Han Seung-soo, UN Special Envoy on Climate Change, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and former President of the UN General Assembly • The Honorable Sigmar Gabriel, Federal Minister for the 

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany 

OCTOBER 10, 2007

The Business Opportunity in a Low-Carbon Energy Economy 

Witness List: • Alan Grisay, CEO, F&C Investments, member of the UK 

and EU Corporate Leaders’ Groups on Climate Change • Neil Carson, CEO, Johnson Matthey plc, member of the 

UK Corporate Leaders’ Group • Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President and CEO, Public Service 

Enterprise Groupe Incorporated (PSEG), member of the Clean 

Energy Group and its Clean Air Policy Initiative • Johnathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute, 

member U.S. Climate Action Partnership 

OCTOBER 18, 2007

Energy and Global Warming Solutions for Vulnerable Communities 

Witness List: • Mr. Martin Luther King III, CEO, Realizing the Dream, 

Inc. • Mr. Mike Williams, Board Member, National Tribal Environmental Council • Mr. Amjad Abdulla, Assistant Director General, Ministry 

of Environment, Energy and Water, Government of the Republic of Maldives • Dr. Eileen Gauna, Professor, University of New Mexico 

OCTOBER 24, 2007

The Gas is Greener: The Future of Biofuels 

Witness List: 

• Adam Gardner, Guster and Reverb 

• Don Endres, CEO, Vera Sun 

• Steve Gatto, CEO, Bioenergy LLC 

• Nathanael Greene, Natural Resources Defense Council 

• Dr. Susan Leschine, University of Massachusetts—Amherst, and founder of SunEthanol 

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

A Spark Neglected: Wildfires and Global Warming 

Witness List: 

• Abigail Kimbell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service 

• Dr. Steven Running, Professor of Ecology, University of 

Montana 

• Michael Francis, Director of Forest Program and Deputy 

Vice President, Wilderness Society 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
140 

• Dr. Michael Medler, Member of Firefigthers United for 

Safety Ethics and Ecology, Assistant Professor at Huxley College 

NOVEMBER 2, 2007

Bright Lights in the Cities: Pathways to an Energy-Efficient 

Future 

Field Hearing in Seattle, Washington 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle 

• The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York 

City 

• The Honorable Manny Diaz, Mayor of Miami 

• The Honorable Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor of Trenton 

• The Honorable Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles 

NOVEMBER 5, 2007

Youth Leadership for Clean Energy and Healthy Climate 

Witness List: 

• Billy Parish, Energy Action Coalition 

• Brittany R. Cochran, Environmental Justice and Climate 

Change Initiative 

• Cheryl Lockwood, Alaska Youth for Environmental Action 

• Katelyn McCormick, Students Promoting Environmental 

Students 

• Mike Reagan, California PIRG 

NOVEMBER 7, 2007

Oil Shock: Potential for Crisis 

Witness List: 

• Carol P. Browner, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and current Principal of the Albright 

Group 

• Admiral Dennis Blair, USN (Ret.), Former Commander in 

Chief, U.S. Pacific Command 

NOVEMBER 14, 2007

State Leadership Toward A Low-Carbon Energy Future 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Governor, The State of New 

York 

• The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor, The State of 

Arizona 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
141 

DECEMBER 19, 2007

Bali—The UN Conference and Its Impact on International Climate 

Change Policy 

Witness List: 

• Ms. Christiana Figueres, Official Negotiator, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, 

Costa Rica 

• Mr. Philip Clapp, Deputy Managing Director, Pew Environment Group 

• Mr. Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy and Policy, Union 

of Concerned Scientists 

• Mr. Ned Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy 

• Mr. Myron Ebell, Director, Energy and Global Warming 

Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute 

JANUARY 17, 2008

On Thin Ice: The Future of the Polar Bear 

Witness List: 

Panel I 

• Mr. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Mr. Randall Luthi, Director, Minerals Management Service 

• Dr. Steven Amstrup, Polar Bear Team Leader, U.S. Geological Survey 

Panel II 

• Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife 

• Ms. Deborah Williams, President, Alaska Conservation Solutions 

• Ms. Kassie Siegel, Director, Climate, Air and Energy Program, Center for Biological Diversity 

JANUARY 23, 2008

Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under 

Carbon Cap and Trade 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Ian Bowles, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

• Peter Zapfel, Coordinator for Carbon Markets and Energy 

Policy, European Commission—Environment Directorate General 

• Dallas Burtraw, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future 

• John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for American Progress 

• Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget 

Policies and Priorities 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
142 

JANUARY 30, 2008

Learning from a Laureate: Science, Security and Sustainability 

Witness List: • Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008

Fire and Rain: How Destruction of Tropical Forests Is Fueling 

Climate Change 

Witness List: • Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President, The Heinz Center • Mr. Stuart Eizenstat, Partner, Covington & Burling, on behalf of Sustainable Forestry Management • Ms. Stephanie Meeks, Acting President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy 

MARCH 12, 2008

Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion? 

Witness List: • Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist 

of the Rocky Mountain Institute • Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate in the Nonproliferation Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International 

Peace • David Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project 

for the Union of Concerned Scientists • Alex Flint, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute 

FEBRUARY 26, 2008

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: SUSTAINABILITY FROM COUNTER TO COMPOST

Witness List: • Dan Beard, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), House of 

Representatives • Carina Wong, Executive Director, Chez Panisse Foundation • Patricia D. Millner, Ph.D., Research Microbiologist in the 

Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory and Environmental Microbial Systems Laboratory, USDA • Tom Kelly, Ph.D., Chief Sustainability Officer, University 

of New Hampshire Office of Sustainability 

MARCH 6, 2008

Blowing in the Wind: Renewable Energy as the Answer to an 

Economy Adrift 

Witness List: 

• Bianca Jagger, Chair, World Future Council 

• Vic Abate, Vice President, Renewable Energy, General 

Electric 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
143 

• Tom Buis, President, National Farmers Union 

• Barbara Lockwood, Manager, Renewable Energy, Arizona 

Public Service Co. 

• Blair Sweezey, Senior Director, Solar Markets and Public 

Policy, Applied Materials 

• Bill Unger, Partner Emeritus, Mayfield Fund, representing 

Environmental Entrepreneurs 

MARCH 13, 2008

Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA Part II: Implications of the Supreme 

Court Decision 

Witness List: 

Panel I 

• The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 

Panel II 

• The Honorable Roderick Bremby, Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

• The Honorable Josh Svaty, Member of the Kansas House 

of Representatives 

• Lisa Heinzerling, Professor of Law, Georgetown University 

Law Center 

• David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel, Sierra Club 

• Peter S. Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders 

APRIL 1, 2008

Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices and the 

Pursuit of Alternatives 

Witness List: 

• Mr. J. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil 

Corp. 

• Mr. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company 

• Mr. Robert A. Malone, Chairman and President, BP America, Inc. 

• Mr. Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman, Chevron 

• Mr. John Lowe, Executive Vice President, ConocoPhillips 

APRIL 2, 2008

From the Wright Brothers to the Right Solutions: Curbing Soaring 

Aviation Emissions 

Witness List: 

• Dan Elwell, FAA Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy, Planning, and Environment • Bob Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency • Tom Windmuller, Senior Vice President, International Air 

Transport Association 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
144 

• James May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association 

• Deron Lovaas, Natural Resources Defense Council 

APRIL 9, 2008

Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Global Warming and Public 

Health 

Witness List: 

• Howard Frumkin, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., Center for Disease 

Control, Director of National Center for Environmental Health, 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

• Jonathan Patz, M.D., M.P.H., Professor and Director of 

Global Environmental Health, University of Wisconsin at 

Madison 

• Georges Benjamin, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.A.C.E.P. (Emeritus), 

Executive Director, American Public Health Association 

• Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., Director, Atmosphere and Energy 

Program and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University 

• Dana Best, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.A.P., American Academy of 

Pediatrics 

APRIL 16, 2008

Green Capital: Seeding Innovation and the Future Economy 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Dan Braun, Director, Global Environmental Finance 

• Mr. David Prend, Co-founder and Managing General Partner, RockPort CapitalPartners 

• Mr. Daniel R. Abbasi, Director, MissionPoint Capital Partners 

APRIL 24, 2008

Pumping up Prices: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Record 

Gas Prices 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America 

• Mr. Dave Berry, Vice President, Swift Transportation 

Company, Inc., Chairman, Energy and Environment Policy 

Committee, American Trucking Association 

• Mr. Frank Rusco, Acting Director, Natural Resources and 

Environment, GAO 

• Ms. Melanie Kenderdine, Associate Director, Strategic 

Planning, MIT Energy Initiative 

• Mr. Kevin Book, Senior Vice President, Senior Analyst, 

Energy Policy, Oil & Alternative Energy, Friedman, Billings, 

Ramsey & Company, Inc 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
145 

APRIL 29, 2008

Rising Tides, Rising Temperatures: Global Warming Effects on 

Oceans 

Witness List: 

• Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence, National Geographic 

Society 

• Dr. Vikki Spruill, President and CEO of The Ocean Conservancy 

• Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Department of Zoology, Oregon State 

University 

• Dr. Joan Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 

MAY 8, 2008

Negawatts: The Role of Efficiency Policies in Climate Legislation 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Paul DeCotis, Deputy Secretary of Energy, 

State of New York 

• The Honorable Dian Grueneich, Commissioner, California 

Public Utilities Commission 

• Steven Kline, Vice President for Environment and Federal 

Affairs, Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation 

• Richard Cowart, Director, Regulatory Assistance Project 

• George Sakellaris, President and CEO, Ameresco, Inc. 

MAY 14, 2008

Building Green, Saving Green: Constructing Sustainable and 

Energy-Efficient Buildings 

Witness List: 

• Ed Norton, Actor and Trustee of Enterprise Community 

Partners 

• The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco 

• Kent Peterson, President, American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

• Michelle Moore, Senior Vice President of Policy and Market Development, U.S. Green Building Council 

• Tony Stall, Vice President Marketing for Dryvit Systems 

Inc. 

MAY 22, 2008

Oversight of the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy with DOE 

Sec. Bodman 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Samuel Bodman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
146 

JUNE 11, 2008

The Future of Oil: Peak Prices, Peak Production, Piqued 

Consumers 

Witness List: • Guy Caruso, Administrator, Energy Information Administration • Adam Sieminski, Chief Energy Economist, Deutsche Bank • Amy Myers Jaffe, Energy Studies Fellow at the James 

Baker Institute for Public Policy • Athan Manuel, Director of Land Protection Programs, Sierra Club • Karen Harbert, Managing Director and Executive Vice 

President, Institute for 21st Century Energy U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce 

JUNE 18, 2008

Planning Communities for a Changing Climate—Smart Growth, 

Public Demand and Private Opportunity 

Witness List: • Dr. Sultan Al-Jaber, CEO, Masdar Initiative, Abu Dhabi, 

United Arab Emirates • Steve Hewitt, City Administrator, Greensburg, Kansas 

• Gregory Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway 

Users Alliance 

• David Goldberg, Director of Communications, Smart 

Growth America 

• Steve Winkleman, Transportation Director, Center for 

Clean Air Policy 

JUNE 23, 2008

Briefing: Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points 

Near 

Witness List: 

• Dr. James Hansen 

JUNE 25, 2008

National Security Implications of Global Climate Change 

Witness List: 

Panel I 

• Dr. Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and Chairman of the National Intelligence 

Council 

• Mr. Rolf Mowatt-Larsen, Director, Intelligence and Counterintelligence, U.S. Department of Energy 

Panel II 

• The Right Honorable Margaret Beckett, Member of Parliament, Former Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
147 

• VADM Paul Gaffney, President, Monmouth University and 

Former President, National Defense University 

• Dr. Kent Hughes Butts, Professor of Political-Military 

Strategy, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College 

• Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute 

• Lee Lane, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute 

JUNE 26, 2008

$4 Gasoline and Fuel Economy: Auto Industry at a Crossroads 

Witness List: 

• The Honorable Tyler Duvall, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation 

• Mr. Dominique Thormann, Senior Vice President, Nissan 

North America, Inc. 

• Mr. Shai Agassi, Founder and CEO, Project Better Place 

• Mr. Torben Holm, Consultant, DONG Energy A/S 

• Mr. Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani 

LLP 

JULY 10, 2008

Global Warming Effects on Extreme Weather 

Witness List: 

• Jimmy O. Adegoke, Ph.D, Associate Professor, University 

of Missouri—Kansas City 

• Heather Cooley, Senior Research Associate, Pacific Institute 

• Jay S. Golden, Ph.D, Director, National Center of Excellence, SMART Innovations for Urban Climate & Energy, Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University 

• Angela Licata, Deputy Commissioner, New York City Bureau of Environmental Planning and Analysis 

• Dan Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance 

JULY 23, 2008

Deploying Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

Witness List: 

• Mr. C. Kyle Simpson, Policy Director, Brownstein, Hyatt, 

Farber, Schreck 

• Dr. Joe Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American 

Progress 

• James May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association 

of America 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
148 

JULY 28, 2008

The Economics of Global Warming: Shaping How U.S. Companies 

are Doing Business 

Field Hearing in Hartford, Connecticut 

Witness List: • George David, Chairman, United Technologies Corporation • Dan Esty, Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law and 

Policy at Yale University, Director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for Business & Environment • John Rice, Vice Chairman, General Electric and CEO, 

General Electric Infrastructure 

JULY 30, 2008

What’s Cooking with Natural Gas?: Hearing to Examine Fuel’s 

Role in Global Warming Solutions 

Witness List: 

• Aubrey McClendon, CEO, Chesapeake Energy 

• Clay Harris, CEO, Suez LNG North America 

• David Manning, Executive VP, National Grid 

• Rich Wells, Vice President Energy, The Dow Chemical 

Company 

• John German, Manager Environmental and Energy Analysis, American Honda 

• Mark Smith, Executive Director, Independent Petroleum 

Association of Mountain States 

JULY 31, 2008

Renewing America’s Future: Energy Visions of Tomorrow, Today 

Witness List: 

• Ms. Cathy Zoi, Chief Executive Officer, Alliance for Climate Protection 

• Dr. Andrew Frank, Professor, Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of California at Davis 

• Gregory Yurek, Ph.D, Founder, Chairman, and CEO, 

American Superconductor Corporation 

• Aristides A. N. Patrinos, Ph.D, President, Synthetic 

Genomics 

• Steven Lockard, CEO, TPI Composites 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

Investing in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet America’s Energy and 

Climate Challenges 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Susan Hockfield, President, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

• Dr. Stephen Forrest, Vice President of Research, University of Michigan 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING
149 

• Dr. Jack Fellows, Vice President, University Corporation 

on Atmospheric Research • Dr. Daniel Kammen, Professor, UC-Berkley 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

The Green Road to Economic Recovery 

Witness List: • Mr. Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress • Dr. Robert Pollin, Co-Director, Political Economy Research 

Institute, University of Massachusetts—Amherst • Mr. Fred Redmond, Vice President, United Steelworkers • Mr. Byron Kennard, Executive Director, Center for Small 

Business and the Environment • Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief 

Economist, American Council for Capital Formation 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

The Future of LIHEAP Funding: Will Families Get the Cold 

Shoulder This Winter? 

Witness List: • The Honorable Deval Patrick, Governor, Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts • Mr. Howard Gruenspecht, Acting Administrator, Energy 

Information Administration • Mr. Mark Wolfe, Executive Director, National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association • Mr. John Drew, Executive Vice President, Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with HEARING