U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

61–955 2010

THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBAL WARMING: SHAPING 

HOW U.S. COMPANIES ARE DOING BUSINESS 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 28, 2008 

Serial No. 110–45 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. John Larson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, opening statement ................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Christopher H. Shays, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Connecticut, opening statement ..................................................................... 14 

Hon. Christopher Scott Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Connecticut, opening statement ..................................................................... 16 

Hon. Joseph Courtney, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, opening statement ................................................................................ 17 

WITNESSES

George A. David, Chairman, United Technologies Corporation .......................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

John G. Rice, Vice Chairman of General Electric and President of GE Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Daniel C. Esty, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy ......................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBAL WARMING: 

SHAPING HOW U.S. COMPANIES ARE DOING 

BUSINESS 

MONDAY, JULY 28, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in the Mark 

Twain Museum, Hartford, Connecticut, Hon. Edward Markey 

[chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey and Larson. 

Also Present: Representatives Shays, Murphy, and Courtney. 

Staff Present: Stephanie Herring. 

Chairman MARKEY. This hearing is called to order. 

This is the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, and I am pleased to hold this hearing in the historic 

Mark Twain House and Museum, and we thank the museum for 

hosting this event. 

I want to thank Congressman John Larson from Connecticut, 

who is a member of the Select Committee, named by Speaker 

Pelosi at the creation of the Select Commission, so that we would 

have one of the leading advocates for all of these issues to deal 

with oil and gasoline prices aggressively, to deal with the issue of 

global warming aggressively, and Mr. Larson and I traveled around 

the world with the Speaker, and no matter where we go he talks 

about the companies that are going to be testifying today as the solutions to the problem. If you come to Connecticut, he said, we 

have the solution. So, this is a conversation of the Speaker and I, 

and he had all around the world. 

His District is home to some of America’s truly great companies, 

companies that will lead the way on solving the global warming 

problem. So, we are glad to be here to see first hand how Connecticut can lead us to a new energy future. 

As Congressman Larson knows, I am fond of quoting Mark 

Twain, and not just when I am in this museum. One quote that 

I am particularly familiar with and use quite often is that, as Mark 

Twain says, ‘‘History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does tend to 

rhyme,’’ meaning that the story of our energy policy in our country 

over the past 35 years, unfortunately, is a story that has all too familiar rhyme to it. 

I have been in Congress for 32 years, and during that time I 

have heard Doomsday prophets wax lyrical as they repeatedly exVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:32 Nov 17, 2010 Jkt 061955 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\B955.XXX B955

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

aggerate the cost of new technologies. While I have heard the predictions, I have also seen technologies continually exceed our expectations, and seeing is believing. 

When the Mark Twain House was built 130 years ago, it was 

considered modern because of revolutionary features like gas lighting. Mark Twain could never have imagined that today we would 

be kept cool by the latest in geothermal technology. His home, now 

the first museum in the Nation to achieve LEED certification, 

stands as a reminder that technology will continue to unlock doors 

our imaginations have yet to dream. 

America has a proud history of dreaming big and aiming high. 

A President from my home state, John Kennedy, set a bold goal for 

America, send a man to the moon and back in just nine years. He 

was setting the goal high, not because it is easy, he said, but because it is hard. He recognized that ambitious goals require the invention of technologies and metals not yet imagined. 

The challenge facing our Nation on climate change is equal to 

the challenge our Nation faced to explore the moon, and I am confident that American ingenuity and technology will answer with 

the same speed and spirit as it did a generation ago. 

In the process of developing and deploying these technologies, a 

new green job market is being created that stands ready to hire in 

increasingly large numbers. The technologies we deploy to save our 

planet will have to be produced, installed and maintained. This will 

require a transformation in our workforce, from coal mines to wind 

farms, from oil rigs to solar plants. Future low emission cars will 

not only drive us to work, they will drive our economy. Renewable 

energy from wind and solar will not only power our homes, they 

will power job growth. 

Today we will hear and learn from two great American companies that have been leaders, not only in developing the technologies 

that will help transform us into a low carbon world, but have 

changed their own day-to-day operations in order to decrease their 

carbon footprints. They have done all this while continuing to see 

profits grow. 

These companies serve as examples of the economic prosperity 

that can be unleashed by pursuing the principle of environmental 

stewardship. While protecting the environment is a valued moral 

principle on its own, it is rapidly revealing market opportunities 

far greater than business as usual. 

For too long, naysayers have insisted that protecting our planet 

will be the death nail for our economy, but the climate is changing, 

and as we face the greatest moral obligation of our time, to protect 

our planet, we are also discovering business opportunities embedded in being good stewards of the environment. 

As Mark Twain also said, ‘‘Prosperity is the best protector of 

principle.’’ 

I now recognize the Gentleman from the State of Connecticut, 

and our host here in Hartford, Congressman John Larson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
3 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here 61955A.001
4 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here 61955A.002
5 

Mr. LARSON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and what an honor it 

is for me to have the distinguished Chair from Massachusetts, the 

Dean of the New England Delegation, as you heard him say he’s 

been in Congress 32 years, and served with distinction and, certainly, Speaker Pelosi knew when she selected him to Chair this 

very able Select Committee the role and the responsibility and acumen that he possesses. I’m honored that you are here today in 

Hartford to conduct this very important hearing. 

I also apologize, Ed, I did tell you that I was going to have Jim 

Calhoun and, perhaps, Ray Allen show up. Mr. Markey, as you 

may or may not know, is an avid Boston Red Sox fan, nice win last 

night, put them in a better frame of mind, and also a Patriot man, 

but a Celtic fan as well. And, this was not a basketball injury, contrary to the popular belief, and we are glad to see that the Chairman is on the mend. I’m completely honored to be here at the Mark 

Twain House as well, and want to again applaud Jeffrey Nichols, 

the Director here, what a great setting to hold a public hearing. 

I can’t help but think what Mark Twain would think about all 

of this, but as the Chairman pointed out, of course, this is the first 

museum in the Nation, and the first building in Connecticut, to become a certified leadership in energy and environmental design, or 

a LEED building. This means that it meets the highest standard 

for sustainability, energy efficiency, water savings, and indoor environmental quality. I think they deserve a round of applause, don’t 

you? 

And, the Chairman indicated, and it is true, he does like to quote 

Mark Twain often in our Committee hearings and meetings, and 

he does. It is with a little bit of trepidation, however, that I recall 

some of Twain’s comments about Congress. He actually said that, 

‘‘Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can.’’ He 

further said, ‘‘It is the will of God that we must have a Congressman, and we must bear the burden, therefore.’’ 

So, with that I’m happy also to be joined by my distinguished colleagues in the State of Connecticut, the Dean of our Delegation in 

Connecticut, Chris Shays, is from the 4th Congressional District, 

Joe Courtney from the 2nd Congressional District, and Chris Murphy from the 5th Congressional District, that will participate today 

in this very important hearing. 

Criticism of climate change legislation often centers on the fact 

that any legislation would be devastating to business. It is often believed that doing the right thing for the environment, and for one’s 

shareholders, must be mutually exclusive. 

This hearing today, I believe, will leave no doubt that the ideas 

and innovation that are good for the environment can also be good 

for business’ bottom line. 

I am proud to represent the State of Connecticut and the kind 

of business leaders that we have in this great State, and especially 

today with the opportunity to have United Technologies Corporation, under the leadership of its Chairman, George David, and 

G.E., under the leadership of Mr. John Rice, who leads the company’s Infrastructure Division, G.E.’s largest. 

George David, flat out, for me is an inspiration, and I wish all 

of you could have had the opportunity I did last year to see the 

Speaker of the House engaged in a one-on-one discussion about enVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:32 Nov 17, 2010 Jkt 061955 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B955.XXX B955

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

ergy and energy policy, and back and forth between the two of 

them talking about the laws of physics and science. Most of the 

conversation, I will confess, was over my head, but, nonetheless, it 

was very pointed and sincere. 

As many of you know, it was George David who got the nod from 

Mayor Bloomberg to come to New York City and address the Conference of Mayors in those cities about the importance of the greening of America, the kind of technology that we need to be moving 

forward with. 

He has been the epitome of what corporate leadership should be 

all about. Not only in making sure that the corporation which he 

leads became more efficient and more productive, but also providing educational opportunity for his employees, a fact that is not 

very well advertised, but I know that you can see employees are 

grateful for as well. 

He has created more employee shareholders and invested more than $700 million in providing college degrees to UTC employees. 

He has simultaneously invested in developing more environmental 

friendly and efficient UTC products by the use of science and physics. Pretty incredible, don’t you agree? 

Mr. Rice will tell us about G.E.’s ground breaking project, now 

how do I say this correctly, John, ecomagination. 

Mr. RICE. Perfect. 

Mr. LARSON. He would have said perfect even if I had pronounced it wrong, which is a good sign, but under his leadership, 

and since the launch of this program in 2005, G.E. has consistently 

had to set new goals for itself because it keeps meeting and exceeding those that it sets. 

His testimony today builds on G.E.’s strong belief in public education on these important environmental issues. 

I had the opportunity to have dinner with him in Washington 

and talk about this almost a year ago, and am so pleased with the 

progress. And, of course, we heard from—our Caucus heard earlier 

this week from T. Boone Pickens, and he was very upbeat about 

his relationship with G.E. and all that you are doing with wind 

technology as well. 

And, Dan Esty, as the Chairman pointed out, is down at Yale, 

but once—and he’s there because of the Chairman himself, who 

says he wrote your recommendation, Dan, and we are so pleased 

that because of that recommendation you were able to succeed and 

come, he’s written a book, ‘‘Green to Gold,’’ which is a book that 

deals with the positive interaction and potential for greater interplay between business and the environment. 

Connecticut has been, as the Chairman says, a leader in moving 

technology forward, and largely because of the corporations that reside here, but also because of Yankee ingenuity and the genius of 

Connecticut. We have great opportunity here in this State, including something we refer to as the Connecticut Center for Advanced 

Technology, and I’m glad Elliott Ginsberg is here today representing them, but to embrace the technology, especially, that that 

will, ultimately, capture hydrogen, the most abundant element, 

having eight companies, four major companies, and, certainly, UT 

power that leads the world in terms of focusing on fuel cell, fuel 

cell technology, to have powered the space stations and have been 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

certified for more than 100,000 hours of success in these areas, certainly, is a tribute to Yankee ingenuity, and, certainly, a tribute to 

United Technologies Corporation. 

So, I’m encouraged and inspired by the leadership, and excited, 

as I am sure all of the Members are here, to listen to the testimony, and also thank the people who have attended today. I think 

you are in for a special treat, and I am especially grateful for 

Chairman Markey for bringing Washington, D.C. to Hartford, Connecticut. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
8 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here 61955A.003
9 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here 61955A.004
10 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here 61955A.005
11 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here 61955A.006
12 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 21 here 61955A.007
13 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 22 here 61955A.008
14 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you. Thank you, John. 

Now, let me just, at this juncture, we have a lot of seats down 

here in the first row, really great seats. These are, you know, box 

seats. We have other seats that are throughout the audience, and 

we really do recommend that rather than, you know, standing for 

an hour and a half or so that you move down and get comfortable, 

so that you can enjoy this hearing. So, please, feel comfortable. 

Mr. LARSON. Let the record show, however, that there was standing room only at this event. 

Chairman MARKEY. So, let me turn now and recognize my good 

friend, the Gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming here, and 

I want to say that Ed can tell you that the longer you are in Congress the more you appreciate seniority. 

And, I want to say to my colleague, John Larson, that I will always suck up to you, because I am pretty convinced you will be 

some day the Speaker of the House. You have to understand that 

we have many ways to walk into the Chamber, but one day I saw 

him get there early and greet every member who walked in one 

way, and when they left he was there shaking hands with every 

member, Republican and Democrat, who went out the other way. 

And, he is just, as is Ed, just a great Member, as are my two new 

colleagues, Joe and Chris. 

It’s a little confusing to have three Chrises in the delegation, but, 

in fact, one time I was at a meeting where I was a new member, 

and a senior member was talking about all the great things that 

I had done, he said, Chris has done this, and Chris has done that, 

I said this is absurd, I haven’t done that. He looked at me and he 

said, ‘‘Chris, would you like to say anything?’’ I was about to stand 

up, and Chris Dodd was right behind me. So, I have learned to 

make sure my last name is called. 

I want to be very candid about this meeting, because I think we 

need to go where the truth takes us, and one of the big failures, 

I think, in Congress has been that we have not been having meaningful debate for any number of years, and we all lose. 

We got into this mess, this mess, in a bipartisan way, and we 

need to get out of it in a bipartisan way. One reason why we have 

this Select Committee is getting good legislation out of the Commerce Committee is difficult. You had the Senior Member of the 

entire Delegation, excuse me, in Congress, John Dingell, who literally didn’t believe that minivans, SUVs, cars and trucks should 

get better mileage, and you understood he was from Detroit, and 

you have this nexus between labor and management in the car industry, no layoffs, if we have layoffs we are going to cover you, but 

don’t allow there to be intervention on the part of the Government. 

So, we have really been punting this issue for years to the credit, 

obviously, of Democrats, more Democrats have wanted to deal with 

this issue than Republicans, but the fact is this, that we have not 

been dealing with it because we have not wanted to face up to 

some tough choices. 

There are lots of inconvenient truths that confront our country. 

Global warming is one of them. Energy independence is another. 

We will have to compromise, ultimately, to have energy independVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:32 Nov 17, 2010 Jkt 061955 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B955.XXX B955

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
15 

ence, and I think Ed knows this, and he is trying to steer us in 

a direction where that compromise will happen. 

We have, in this country, energy independence when it comes to 

electricity, and we sometimes forget that. Admittedly, it is coal, it 

is nuclear, and it is hydro, but industry throughout the United 

States—you would not know it in New England because our energy 

costs are so high here—but energy cost for our manufacturers 

around the country is below the world average in cost or right at 

the world average, and there is a view that we will, ultimately, be 

able to compete with the rest of the world, not because of labor 

costs, but energy costs will prompt labor costs, and that you will 

start to see more manufacturing come back to this country. 

But, it is going to be a mixture of getting conservation to make 

sure that we have better mileage in our SUVs, cars, minivans and 

trucks, and not the pathetic 35 miles a gallon by the year 2020, we 

have Europe going to 48 miles by the year 2012. So, it is a good 

step forward, it didn’t have that movement under Republicans. 

Candidly, we have it now under a new Democratic Congress, but 

I think we are going to have to be moving in a much quicker way. 

It is going to involve alternative fuels in a big way, but alternative fuels will not replace conventional fuels in the short run. It 

is going to involve nuclear power, which some environmentalists do 

not want to see happen, but some environmentalists say it better 

happen if we are going to deal with global warming. It is going to 

involve our producing more oil and gas in this country. 

One of the great ironies is to look at Canada. They are mining 

their coast for gas, they are getting that gas from their coast. They 

are transferring it by pipeline in Canada, then coming down to 

heat in Massachusetts 400,000 homes with natural gas. That is 

what is happening. And, the absurdity that you would want to continue to pay people overseas to bring in oil and gas, when we can 

produce it here, is something that has to be part of this debate. 

We have a huge balance of payments problem, we have a national security problem, oil and gas from Russia, from the Middle 

East, from Nigeria, from Venezuela, no, we want it from countries 

like Canada and the United States. 

So, I would just say in conclusion that we have a great country. 

We need to be more plain speaking about what is going on. We 

need to have Republicans and Democrats work together. We need 

to see a vote in Congress to understand what people feel about 

drilling, not in ANWR, that is protected, but off our coast, and I 

will conclude by this comment about drilling, if Great Britain had 

not mined their northern slope they would not be the power they 

are today. Norway is the richest country in the world, because they 

have managed their resources and they have mined the North Sea. 

We go all the way from Canada and then there is nothing happening in our coast line. 

I may disagree with some of my colleagues about this, but I am 

absolutely convinced that it has to be part of this mix. 

And, I will just end by saying that John Larson can boast about 

UTC, but given that G.E. is right in the center of my District I can 

boast about G.E. So, let us just collectively, as Connecticut legislators, just recognize we have a great state, with lots of innovation, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
16 

and we are very proud of all our companies, and we love our Yalie 

as well. 

Chairman MARKEY. The Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Now we have—Jim Calhoun never had as good a recruiting class 

as the United States Congress had with these two freshmen who 

are now in the United States Congress. They are outstanding. They 

both made an incredible mark in just their first term, and let me 

begin by introducing, for an opening statement, Chris Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much. That is the first time that 

I have ever been compared to Ben Gordon in my life. 

Mr. Chairman, we really appreciate you coming down and giving 

us the opportunity to have access to your Committee, which has 

done such great work, and to allow us to be involved. 

And, I’d like to say to Chris that, even though I’m just a freshman, I also appreciate seniority, but only because I have no choice 

in the matter. 

I think, though, there may be some irony in some of Twain’s 

comments regarding Congress, I think there is a decent degree of 

synthesis, in terms of being here today. 

Mark Twain came to Connecticut because at that moment in 

time Connecticut and Hartford were the epicenter of the Nation’s 

cultural and arts movement, and our desire here today, and I think 

it will be witnessed by the testimony we will hear, is that we think 

in a world defined by a quest to develop renewable or alternative 

energy, Connecticut can be the epicenter of that world as well. 

And, that’s what we will hear today, and that’s the message that 

Chris, and John, and Rosa, and Joe, and I bring to Washington 

every day that we are down there, because we have such great stories to tell, those on the panel, those other companies like Fuel Cell 

Energy in the 5th District of Connecticut, and others around our 

great state. 

I want to hear from the panel, so I don’t have very much to say 

except for this, this is really—what we are talking about, the Holy 

Grail of Federal policy, because our ability to harness domestically 

produced renewable energy sources solves so many different problems. Often, you know, Government compartmentalizes everything—too often. Here we have an ability with one solution to solve 

so many different problems. We can no longer emit 25 percent of 

the world’s pollution with only 5 percent of the world’s population. 

We will do great justice to the world’s environment and ecosystems 

if we are able to solve this problem. 

By commercializing these products, and making investments, and 

creating markets for the development of renewable energy, we will 

do something about energy prices, because we know that we are on 

the verge of having these renewable sources be truly price competitive with older sources of energy. 

But lastly, we talk about the jobs and the economy pieces, this 

is about national security as well, and Chris touched on this, our 

ability to grow, domestically produce renewable sources of energy, 

is also our ability to make sure that our conversations around the 

globe are done with our national security interest first in mind, 

rather than our national energy interest, and that, maybe, is one 

of the most important, most fundamental things that we can do to 

protect the next generation of Americans. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
17 

So, it is an absolute honor to be part of this Delegation. Chris 

is right, this is a bipartisan problem, and our ability to hold forums 

like this I think extends our ability in Washington to make this a 

bipartisan solution as well. 

Chairman MARKEY. Great. The Gentleman’s time is expired. 

My mother is Christine Courtney, and she said the Courtneys 

are a very intelligent people, and I think the last year and a half 

has borne witness to that reality in Washington, and so I introduce 

Joe Courtney for an opening statement. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was just about to begin by saying what an intelligent, good 

looking, and articulate Chairman we have today. It is a coincidence 

that—— 

Chairman MARKEY. You will go far in our system, yes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. I represent the eastern half of Connecticut. In 

the last three weeks, I was at a factory in Westbrook, the Lee Company, 800 employees, they make aircraft parts, very energy-intensive factory. They turned on an acre of solar panels, again, just a 

couple of weeks ago, with a cheering crowd there to witness it. 

A couple weeks ago I was at Windham Hospital, where we cut 

the ribbon for a UTC fuel cell power plant, which will take up 40 

percent of the energy costs to run the hospital. Lee Company will 

be 20 percent for the solar panels. 

STR Technology up in Enfield, which makes the protective coating for solar panels, they are now working three shifts, 24/7, they 

can hardly keep up with the demand that’s coming in from all over 

the world, as well as the U.S., in terms of the product that they 

were out there pretty lonely selling 10 or 15 years ago. 

Every single one of these stories is united by one aspect, which 

is that the renewable energy production tax credits make these enterprises feasible, and we have two people here today, three people, 

really, Chairman Markey, John Larson, Chris Shays, who have 

been strong advocates, they were prophets, in terms of the value 

of this type of public policy, but in every instance when I went to 

visit over the last few weeks it was—the message was loud and 

clear that without those production tax credits these efforts would 

not have been possible, and they show that there really is an intersection between public policy and the challenges that the other 

members have talked about here this morning. 

We have obviously got to extend the tax credits, which are due 

to expire in December, but we have a much bigger step to take 

after that battle is finished, and I look forward to the witnesses 

helping guide us as policymakers to make sure that we take this 

challenge as an opportunity and work out great solutions, not only 

for our country, but for the State of Connecticut. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MARKEY. Great, the Gentleman’s time has expired. 

And, one last invitation to everyone whose legs are starting to 

get wobbly up there, who might want to reconsider whether or not 

they would like to move down and to sit in the front, please, we 

welcome you to—— 

Mr. COURTNEY. You are allowed to leave any time you want, so 

it is not a two hour commitment. 

Chairman MARKEY. So, come on down. You are welcome. Great. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
18 

Our first witness, Mr. George David, is the Chairman of the 

Board at United Technologies Corporation. He joined UTC in 1975. 

He served as President and CEO, and presided over UTC’s transformation to a $63.5 billion conglomerate with a focus on research 

and development. He’s chaired the boards of the graduate business 

school at the University of Virginia. He’s Vice Chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 

It’s a great honor to have you with us today, Mr. David, whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAVID, CHAIRMAN OF BOARD, 

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 

Mr. DAVID. Mr. Chairman and Congressmen, thank you very 

much for being here. Thank you for those introductory comments. 

John Larson, I especially thank you for yours, you are your usual 

enthusiastic self about UTC. 

Since we are here in our own home state and city of Hartford, 

Connecticut, I should make just the quickest comments about UTC. 

We are New England’s largest private employer. We have had $60 

billion in revenues this year. The products include, as this group 

here knows so well, Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines, Sikorsky helicopter, Otis elevators, Carrier air conditioning systems. We also 

make fuel cells, as has been referred to by our congressional visitors today, and also on-site co-gen products which we have particular interest in our conversations. 

Now, I have a single message, it is one of great, great optimism. 

I think it is also based on a very solid foundation of science and 

physics. We are a big research spender, some $3.5 billion a year, 

as has been noted earlier, and I think we speak with both knowledge and also with great optimism. And, the reason why is because 

the common denominator of every single thing that UTC does is, 

we convert energy to useful work, whether it is overcoming gravity 

with elevators or aerospace, or climate with carrier heating and air 

conditioning systems, all these things are bound together by the 

consumption of energy to make useful work for our planet. 

And, out of that background, I have a single point to emphasize 

today, which is we can do more with less. We can do far, far more 

with far, far less in energy consumption. And, to do so with nothing, relying on nothing more than the laws of physics, which I believe are about as solid and reliable a foundation as we will find 

for anything on the face of this earth. 

We are also starting in conservation from a remarkably low base. 

On physics, if we take the energy coming out of the ground expressed in some measure like BTUs or other physical equivalent, 

91 percent of that energy is wasted before it becomes final or useful 

work. And, final or useful work would be the hot air in your hair 

dryer, or it could be the rotation of the wheels of your car, 91 percent in physical terms just disappears and goes away. And, that is 

because we have the legacy of well more than a century of cheap 

energy, nearly free energy, and because it is free we have learned 

to waste it. And, in physics you don’t have to have anything remotely approaching 91 percent waste. I think this is the biggest 

single opportunity for us to solve the energy problem, and I put 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
19 

that ahead of renewables, ahead of alternatives, ahead of convention fossil fuels. Do more with less. 

And, by the way, that does not mean—well, the conventional 

viewpoint about conservation is sleep in the cold, work in the dark. 

I don’t mean that whatsoever. This is simply having the same 

standard of living we have today, but simply having more efficiency 

in the underlying conversion processes. 

I have four examples to touch briefly in the few minutes allotted 

to me this morning. One is, half the energy in central station power 

plants goes up the stack as waste heat. Now, why is that, because 

you cannot move heat economically. An alternative is to move the 

power generation from the central station to on site locally in 

buildings, and then recapture and reuse the waste heat. 

On measurement, a central station power plant operates with a 

physical energy conversion of efficiency in the low 30 percent. If 

you do the power generation on site, recapture and reuse the waste 

heat for other building uses like air conditioning, yes, heat can 

make cold in air conditioning. You can run the physical conversion 

efficiency from the low 30s to the high 70s percent capture, and 

that goes a long way toward removing or toward working away at 

that 91 percent of energy which is otherwise wasted. 

I think another one that is to me startling and transparent in its 

simplicity and its power. We waste energy by not recapturing it 

from vehicles and other accelerated objects when they are braked. 

You have to think about that for a second. Isaac Newton taught us 

that in the 17th century. The energy of deceleration is equal to an 

opposite to the energy of acceleration. Yet, for more than a century 

of vehicles we have never captured the energy of acceleration via 

the process of braking or deceleration. 

But, there are some examples that work today. Otis elevators 

with regenerative drives, this is a very simple example, recapture 

the energy on descent that went into the elevator on ascent. And, 

the result of that is that we can run elevators today that use 75 

percent less electric power than were used in comparable elevators 

measured in speed and load only a decade ago, four times improvement in efficiency, and it is that basic principle of recapturing the 

energy of acceleration via the process of deceleration, and that is 

the laws of physics just as naked as we can possibly get them, and 

it can be done. 

Of course, elevators are relatively small energy users in the entire world, vehicles are much bigger ones, and let us note the fact 

that we have never, until hybrids very recently, recaptured the energy of acceleration in cars, and the principal benefit of hybrids is 

not so much the gas electric combination, it is the recapture of energy in the braking cycle. 

A third example is heat transfer instead of heat dissipation. Heat 

is everywhere in the world, and it goes everywhere in the world. 

We are doing a multi-year study with the World Business Council 

for Sustainable Development. A couple of statistics are revealing. 

First of all, buildings that count for 40 percent of the world’s total 

energy load, they are actually a larger component of energy load 

than are vehicles in the entire world. 

Within buildings, and here is one example, hot water heating 

uses a surprising 15 percent of the 40 percent energy consumption 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
20 

for buildings, and yet, again, this goes back to physics, we still do 

it the old way. Think about hot water heating in your house. We 

do it just the same way we did it thousands of years ago with a 

pot over a camp fire. That is, we heat hot water conductibly with 

the direct insertion of energy into the water. 

I want to borrow from air conditioning for a second. That means 

the physical conversion of that process is definitionally less than 

one, that is, BTUs can become calories, and there is a physical conversion process and definitionally it is less than one when you have 

the pot over the camp fire, because you will have some energy that 

dissipates and goes somewhere else. 

Now, you can also transfer heat. Heat is everywhere in our 

world. You can also transfer heat and you can concentrate it, the 

same way you do with a heat pump, which some people have in 

residences, and are growing applications, but you can do the same 

thing with hot water heating. Just take heat that is in the atmosphere, concentrate it, move it, and put it into the hot water, with 

an energy conversion efficiency of three to four times higher than 

you have with the direct insertion, as we would have with the pot 

over the camp fire. 

And, that means that you can drop the energy consumption for 

hot water heaters by 70 percent, that again, is 15 percent of buildings, and buildings are 40 percent of the world. These are big numbers. In fact, hot water heating savings are, potentially, several 

percentage points of the total world energy demand. 

The fourth opportunity is electric power generation from geothermal. We build some products today that do that right now with 

geothermal energy as low as 165 degrees Fahrenheit, the U.S. Geological Survey says there is 10 percent of energy load in America 

can be met by geothermal applications with water at this temperature or higher. 

The point of all these examples is that energy conservation, in 

significant amounts, reflects the laws of physics. It is feasible 

today, good financial returns, products exist, products are coming, 

and there is great impact to drop this 91 percent of energy that is 

wasted. 

I think to close this may be with an internal comment, conservation in a company like ours can be achieved both in our products, 

that is, I have spoken here about air conditioning, things like that, 

geothermal, elevators, but also inside our operations internally. 

And, for the latter, that is operations, since 1997 this company has 

reduced its gross energy load by 20 percent in absolute terms, 

while the company has grown to more than twice the size. That is 

an energy efficiency improvement of more than 50 percent, that is, 

normalizing energy for volume, 20 percent absolute, companies 

twice as big. 

At the same time, our water consumption has gone down by 40 

percent expressed in gallons, again, in absolute reduction. Looking 

ahead, we have taken 3 percent per annum goals for energy, reduction absolute, that is 12 percent over the four-year period from 

2007 to 2010, and by the way, we beat that 3 percent in the first 

year of this four-year goal period last year. So, it can be done, both 

in terms of products we build, relying on things like physics which 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
21 

are so reliable, you can see examples in internal operations of a 

great company like UTC. 

And, I guess just to summarize this and restate, there is too 

much talk about alternative energy sources, I believe, and we have 

heard comments today, and I do not mean that to be in any sense 

a negative or a critical comment, I just think we always focus 

about the idea about renewables, and we can have some wonderful 

new things, and new sources, and, therefore, not oil. I think the 

biggest single source we have available to us is conservation, more 

with less. 

And again, I do not mean the variety of conservation of sleep in 

the dark, or sleep in the cold, work in the dark, rather it is the 

simple notion, get rid of the waste and do more with less. It is a 

flat fact that most energy conversion processes are far, far from optimized. We can double, triple these easily, look at our own operations, energy is down 20 percent in a company twice the size, 

where general development is hot water heating by heat transfer, 

recapture of otherwise waste heat. The potential is clear and compelling. 

And again, what has held us back is this century of cheap energy, and the prospect is changing and changing, I believe, forever. 

So, let us go back and use some physics and the basic principle of 

more with less, and we will lick this problem. This is a problem 

that can be solved. 

Sometimes we have problems that cannot, this one can. 

[The statement of Mr. David follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
22 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 42 here 61955A.009
23 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 43 here 61955A.010
24 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 44 here 61955A.011
25 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. David, very much. 

The next witness, John Rice, is currently the Vice Chairman of 

General Electric, as well as President and CEO of G.E. Infrastructure, a business segment which includes energy, aviation, rail, oil, 

gas, water, energy, financial services, and aviation financial services. 

Mr. Rice joined G.E. in 1978, was also President and CEO of 

G.E. Energy, a leading supplier of power generation technology energy services and energy management systems. 

We welcome you, sir, and whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN RICE, VICE CHAIRMAN, GENERAL 

ELECTRIC, PRESIDENT AND CEO, G.E. INFRASTRUCTURE 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. We really appreciate this opportunity to testify this morning. 

At our heart, I think most of you know this, G.E. is a technology 

company that has withstood the test of time for 125 years because 

of a commitment to invest in the technologies that solve big problems, meet market needs and improve standards of living. 

As you all know, a focus of this hearing is around sustainability, 

and in that context we are proud of our commitment to 

ecomagination, which is the program under which most of our sustainability efforts lie. When we launched ecomagination in 2005, it 

included four major commitments, that we would first double our 

investment in environmentally responsible technologies, second, 

that we would significantly reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions, third, and importantly, that we would sell more products and 

services and demonstrate that these new technologies would be valuable to our customers and deliver a return to our shareholders, 

and fourth, that we would be very public about our commitments 

and our progress toward them. Earlier this year, we added a fifth 

commitment, to reduce our own water consumption by 20 percent 

by 2012. 

Three years into the mission, we are meeting or exceeding each 

of our goals, and in light of the focus of this hearing, and what we 

are learning as a company as we take this journey, I would like to 

reinforce three points. 

First, we believe that it is critical for companies like ours, and 

governments like the United States, to invest in advanced technology that reduces fuel consumption and emissions. But, these efforts also, as my colleague just pointed out, must apply to the enormous installed base, as well as the next generation jet engines, locomotives and gas turbines. 

The products that we bring to market will help secure our energy 

future by allowing consumers the benefit of cleaner energy from a 

broader range of sources. Some ask if we can afford to invest, when 

the real question is whether we can afford not to. 

The second point is that we are dealing with big problems that 

have taken decades, even centuries, to create. Solving them demands big investments and a coordinated approach, which attracts 

large companies like G.E., UTC and many others. Sustainability, 

therefore, requires a cycle of investment and reinvestment that introduces new technologies and improves them over time, just as it 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
26 

has for combined cycle gas turbines, or wind turbines, or just about 

any other energy conversion technology you can think of. 

Capital must be allocated and investments sustained over long 

periods of time, and this can only happen if reasonable returns and 

risk reward trade offs are available. Progressive environmental 

groups understand this and are allies now, where they used to be 

adversaries. 

Anything else, anything other than this, will not deliver truly 

sustainable improvements in technology, and progress on climate 

change. All of us know that addressing climate change will require 

a basic shift in the way we produce and use energy, which is the 

underlying architecture of our economy and a fundamental building 

block in everyone’s standard of living in every country in the world. 

Solutions must be both technically viable and commercially acceptable. That is, available at a price that the market accepts. Too 

often today, we see the debate focus on one or the other, but not 

both. We believe that a cap and trade program can provide a reliable market pricing mechanism for carbon that will stimulate and 

accelerate research, development and deployment of sustainable 

technologies over the long term. 

It can also ensure that appropriate incentives or returns flow 

quickly and predictably to investors and risk takers, who are bringing new technology to markets. However, we also think that the 

program is likely to be constructed to phase this pricing in over 

time. 

During this transition period, sensible government policies are 

going to be necessary to stimulate the deployment of low carbon 

technologies, such as renewables and cleaner coal with carbon capture and sequestration. In effect, government must play a more 

substantial and stabilizing role as a bridge between technical and 

commercial viability. 

The need for clarity and consistency in this area is especially 

critical at this time. Capacity additions are being made in the U.S. 

and around the world with long-term implications. In some cases, 

decisions to invest in carbon free or low-carbon technologies are 

being deferred largely because economic or risk reward models assign no value to carbon reductions. 

The third point that I would like to make is that there is no one 

special technology that is going to solve the climate change problem. Since our portfolio includes an extremely broad range of energy solutions from wind turbines to nuclear reactors, and just 

about everything in between, we can have a pretty objective view 

about the trade offs among the various choices. Simply stated, if 

the goal is energy security, we will need as many choices as possible. 

We believe that our country’s energy and climate policies must 

promote a balance of reliable, clean and low-cost energy from a diverse fuel mix. These policies must recognize the continuing importance of all current and potential fuel sources. Because coal will remain an important fuel for the U.S. and many other countries, it 

is imperative that climate change policies promote development 

and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology as 

rapidly as possible, and ideas like replacing nuclear with wind 

might make for nice headlines, but will never work unless we are 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
27 

prepared to find space for another 150,000 wind turbines, which 

would require about 7 million acres, to replace the hundred reactors we have today that will be decommissioned at some point. 

As you know well, there is important work to be done, and the 

U.S. Government must play a proactive role with regulations and 

incentives that encourage the biggest and best deployment of private capital. 

Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Mr. Rice follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
28 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 51 here 61955A.012
29 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 52 here 61955A.013
30 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 53 here 61955A.014
31 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 54 here 61955A.015
32 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 55 here 61955A.016
33 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 56 here 61955A.017
34 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 57 here 61955A.018
35 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Rice, very much. 

Our next witness, Dan Esty, is currently Hillhouse Professor of 

Environmental Law and Policy at both Yale Law School and the 

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He is also the 

Director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and 

the Center for Business and Environment. 

Mr. Esty’s research focuses on next generation regulation, environment, trade and governance. He also was an intern in my office 

in 1979, and I wrote the recommendation for him to win a Rhodes 

Scholarship, so along with Jim Calhoun he is one of Boston’s great 

contributions to Connecticut. Okay? 

So, we welcome you, Dan, whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAN ESTY, HILLHOUSE PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY, YALE LAW SCHOOL AND 

YALE SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES; DIRECTOR OF YALE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW AND POLICY, AND CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENT 

Mr. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is really a great pleasure, and I am still grateful for that opportunity to different leaflets in those early Markey campaigns. 

And then, you did get me to Washington where it took me nearly 

a decade to escape, and I have now been at Yale 14 years. 

But, in my time in Washington, I did have the fortune to work 

for an EPA that actually tried to do something, had the privilege 

to be the Chief Negotiator of the Framework Convention on Climate Change for the EPA, and I think the issues that you have put 

forward for us to think about today are ones that have sadly not 

made progress for a very long time. 

So, I want to reflect on where we are and where we need to go. 

I think America stands at a watershed moment. I think we face 

a triple policy challenge that is almost unprecedented in its complexity and its urgency. 

As you have already made clear, all of you, in fact, have spoken, 

the climate pressure on us is mounting, the greenhouse gases are 

building up, we cannot lay back. We have, in fact, spent too much 

time not addressing this issue for a good period, and we have to 

step up. 

And, at the same moment we face an energy crisis, real pressures on real people, with $4 a gallon gasoline and the threat of 

heating oil at prices that are going to be hard to bear this winter. 

And, I think that is a challenge that we have to take seriously. 

So, we are going to need clever policy that responds, both to the 

need to bring greenhouse gases down, and to respond to the climate 

issues in the energy relationship, and, frankly, there is a third 

piece to this, and that is our independence, our energy independence, and the economic consequences of shipping something above 

$650 billion a year overseas to pay our energy bill, not to mention 

the geostrategic challenge of being reliant on the Middle East. I 

think all of us become frustrated with the situation in Iraq. I think 

even more generally that Middle East is an area that we understand is complicated, and we do not do well there. And, if we stay 

on a fossil fuel track, even if we were to get out of the Middle East 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
36 

it means reliance on other places, like Russia, and Kazikstan, and 

Venezuela, and Nigeria, it is almost a laundry list of places we do 

not want the life blood of our economy dependent. 

So, I think we are at a moment where the commitment to a clean 

energy future is critical. And, this will present challenges, it will 

require sacrifice, but I also want to focus on the opportunities. 

This, as Congressman Larson made mention, is what I have spent 

a good bit of time researching for more than 15 years, have been 

arguing that the critical point of leverage for policy progress on the 

environment is the business world. So, I think engaging the private 

sector in the search for solutions, and we have heard two great examples already today, is the critical challenge in front of us. 

And, let me just identify three quick points in that regard. I 

think we have a revolution going on in business attitudes towards 

the environment, and I want to talk about that. I think we have 

an opportunity for a policy rethink and a revolution in policy 

progress. And finally, I think the link to our economic future is 

really important to stress. 

In terms of the sea change in business attitudes, you could not 

have had a more beautiful demonstration of that than what we 

have heard already today. When I first got to Washington, almost 

every corporate leader talked about the environment as a burden, 

as a cost, as regulations to follow. What you have heard today is 

a whole new attitude and, frankly, while these are leading examples there are hundreds, thousands of businesses and business 

leaders across the country that understand today there is an up 

side opportunity in responding to society’s needs, and engaging in 

the search for technology solutions. So, I think we really do have 

a big opportunity in that regard. 

You know, for all of you who have seen this, you know, this is 

UTC, and it is all of what George David talked about and more, 

just dozens of different interventions across the efficiency conservation platform, but also in terms of new technology in fuels, and the 

same thing is going on at G.E., where John Rice and Jeff Immelt 

are investing in high-efficiency locomotives, jet engines, wind 

power, solar power, clean water, it is a full-bore spectrum of technology opportunities that they are pushing. 

I think the challenge then is to produce a police revolution that 

supports the sea change in business attitudes, and that really requires us, I believe, to put innovation front and center in how we 

envision our policy structure, and we really focus on creating incentives that engage the private sector. 

So, what does that mean? Number one, make polluters pay for 

the harms they cause. Fundamental principle, we talk about it, we 

do not do it. We often just simply set a standard and say, if you 

bring emissions down to there you are okay. I say no good, make 

people pay for every bit of their emissions, and I think the first 

step is the climate change package that has a cap and trade program. But, I say, let us get serious about it, auction all the permits, 

and let us move over time to a broader commitment to making polluters pay and having a price on every bit of harm that is caused. 

Second, if we really are serious about innovation, we have got to 

promote broad-scale innovation. We want to have a lot of money 

devoted to this sector, and we want to have a lot of players betting 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
37 

in diverse directions about what the future is going to require. And 

that, I think, requires more than just a cap and trade program in 

a climate change context. I believe we need a policy portfolio of incentives. 

And some of this again is already under debate. We need green 

building standards, we need commitments to energy efficiency. We, 

frankly, need funding mechanisms to ensure that every-day people 

can bring some of these important conservation activities into their 

own homes. There is big challenges of both cost and inertia in getting us to retrofit all of America’s houses to be the energy efficient 

places we need them to be. 

So, I do think we have to have a portfolio approach with lots of 

different incentives. And, I promise you, and these guys I think 

have already hinted at it, that at $125 a barrel for oil every single 

company in America can do a lot to improve its efficiency, and 

every single one of us is under invested in efficiency in our own 

homes. This is a huge challenge. We need to address it together. 

And finally, competitiveness. If we, as a nation, do not step up 

and push forward this clean energy future, others will do it. We 

saw just last week a huge effort being launched in Abudabi to create a cluster around clean energy. G.E. is, in fact, involved. That 

cluster should be in Connecticut. We need to have the same level 

of commitment here to really pushing out technology innovation 

and our own commitment to a clean energy future. 

And, I think it is absolutely the case that what Saudi Arabia is 

to oil we in this country are to innovation and technology development, and it is a policy structure to support that that I think we 

need to push for. 

And so, let me close by saying that this is not just an environmental challenge, but, of course, it is. It is not just an energy challenge, and, of course, it is. I think it is a fundamental challenge 

to the future of our country and to our prosperity. 

And, speaking as a former negotiator, it is not just important 

that the U.S. get on the game plan, which we have not been for 

eight years, but we have to lead the program. There are no examples of a successful response to a global environmental challenge, 

and, frankly, we have never had one as big as climate change, but 

even smaller challenges, we have never succeeded where the U.S. 

is anything less but driving the bus. So, we need to get ourselves 

in that front seat, and really push out on this innovation model. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Esty follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
38 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 66 here 61955A.019
39 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 67 here 61955A.020
40 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 68 here 61955A.021
41 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 69 here 61955A.022
42 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 70 here 61955A.023
43 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 71 here 61955A.024
44 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 72 here 61955A.025
45 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 73 here 61955A.026
46 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 74 here 61955A.027
47 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 75 here 61955A.028
48 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 76 here 61955A.029
49 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 77 here 61955A.030
50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 78 here 61955A.031
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 79 here 61955A.032
52 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Esty, very much, and that 

completes time for opening statements. 

Now we will turn and recognize the Members for questions for 

our panel. 

Mr. David, you are saying we have to learn how to use more, 

how to get along with less, and get more out of it. My mother actually used to say to me beginning at age ten, ‘‘Eddie, you have got 

to learn how to work smarter, not harder.’’ And, she would always 

say that immediately after she had said that she was going to donate my brain to Harvard Medical School as a completely unused 

human organ. And, this is from age ten on. 

And, what you are talking about, actually, goes right to the heart 

of these issues. So, unbelievably, Newt Gingrich, actually, beginning in 1995, as soon as he took over, actually, put a rider on the 

Department of Transportation bill forbidding the Department of 

Transportation from improving the fuel economy standards, forbidding, every single year, unbelievable. Cannot make it smarter, cannot make it less hard. 

Beginning 2001, President Bush missed all 35 deadlines for improving the appliances, that is, air conditioning, toasters, stoves, 

refrigerators, lighting, everything that leads to the consumption of 

electricity, missed all 35 deadlines for every single appliance, which 

is working smarter, getting less electricity to power the same appliances. 

So, now we are in a new era, thank goodness, and in December 

of 2007 we were able to include my increase in fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon, which backs out, by the way, 

the equivalence of all the oil that we import from the Persian Gulf, 

improvements in all the appliances that we have, starting to reduce, in other words, our energy consumption, but still only at the 

beginning of this journey. 

So, talk to us a little bit, Mr. David, if you could, and then you, 

Mr. Rice, about the jobs that are there. You know, this opportunity 

that we have, to actually increase employment. Tell us what is 

going on at each of your companies, in terms of new job opportunities for you and export opportunities, as you develop these new 

technologies. 

Mr. DAVID. Well, I think you heard from Mr. Esty a moment or 

so ago the compelling statement that maybe Saudi has got the oil, 

but we have the technology. And, I suppose we could, with a little 

effort, make a variation on your mother’s statement to you, that we 

do have the technology. 

America has also built its presence in the world, after all, companies like ourselves, and I think G.E. as well, we are well more than 

half of our revenues arise outside the United States. Almost all of 

our research and development is done here domestically. Something like 95 percent of our R&D spend is in North America, even 

though 60 percent of the revenues of the company come from outside the United States. 

This is a very typical pattern, where we take presence in world 

markets to generate revenues and profitability, which we use to 

sustain investment in our own domestic market. That is a basic 

equation for this company and for many, many people like us. I believe we need extraordinary commitment to technology. If you will 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
53 

permit, oh, I do not know, maybe the greatest abstraction of all, in 

the last 50–60 years in the postwar period, America has invented 

almost everything in the world. That is a simple fact, and whether 

it is the Internet, or material sciences, or jet engines, or space, control theory, digital control, digital communications, it goes on, and 

on, and on. And, very large amounts of that has been done with 

pioneering investment by the U.S. Government. 

We have seen some reductions in U.S. Government R&D spending in the last 10 or 15 years; it is a long-term trend down. I think 

that is unfortunate and could well be reversed. We have to simply 

reaffirm every single day that. 

Let me take another one of the grand statements, 80 percent or 

so of the GDP of America is new since the second World War, as 

we have five times more physical product, whether it is software 

in that kind of a sense, or something physical like a computer or 

a car, we have five times more than we had in our country 50 or 

60 years ago. Almost all of that has been facilitated by technological advances, large amounts of which have been funded with 

government leadership, also funded by the private sector. We need 

an extraordinary commitment in our country to the role of technology. 

Technology and science give us the things that we have today. 

You see leading examples for the two companies represented before 

you here today, you see many examples with things like NIH and 

our Government, health research, science is incredibly important to 

America, and it is important to jobs at home, because it creates— 

that is our resource in all of this, is we know how to do things better as a nation, and that is how we maintain competitiveness 

worldwide, how we maintain jobs at home, how we continue the 

transition of our society away from building a lower value addition, 

older style components, and to building higher, and higher, and 

higher technology for exports that are in need all across the world. 

There couldn’t be a stronger way of saying that, we need to reaffirm the technology agenda for this nation, and I think these environmental changes, these opportunities to chip away at this 90 percent of energy that is wasted out of simply bad process, bad equipment, that is a huge business opportunity for us, and science and 

technology will—— 

Chairman MARKEY. More jobs for Connecticut. 

Mr. DAVID. Yes, that is true. 

Chairman MARKEY. Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Well, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, Saudi Arabia 

has the oil, but they get their gas turbines from us, produced in 

Greenville, South Carolina, where 75 percent of the production 

from that facility now gets exported to Saudi Arabia. 

So, we need them, at least for now, and they need us. The fact 

of the matter is that there are jobs associated with this everywhere 

you look, whether it is the jobs that develop the next generation 

technologies, and we know those are important, but also the jobs 

to improve the efficiency of the installed base. 

You know, we have 75,000 pieces of equipment installed around 

the world. That is a jet engine, it is a locomotive, it is a gas turbine, that consume fuel. And, if we can make these 5, or 10, or 20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
54 

percent more efficient, while we are working on the next generation 

technology, there are enormous savings that go with that. 

So, one suggestion is to take many states, we were talking about 

this earlier, in 2000 there were seven states with renewable portfolio standards. Today there are 29 or so, but they don’t all address 

efficiencies in the installed base. And, if you would give credit for 

improvements to the installed base along with the addition of wind 

power technology, or solar or anything else, I think you would see 

even more money flow to the development of capabilities which will 

help that installed base run more efficiently and more effectively. 

And, I think that’s a relatively straightforward thing that can be 

done. 

Chairman MARKEY. Well, you know what, you put your finger 

right on it. We actually, that is, in December we had a bill that 

almost, it passed the House overwhelmingly, and then in the Senate it was going to be 15 percent of all electricity had to come from 

renewables by 2020. 

Mr. RICE. Right. 

Chairman MARKEY. With 4 percent that could actually be efficiency, that is, if you built more efficiency into the electrical generating system you could get credit for that. 

But, the Southern Company blocked us, along with Senator 

Domenici, from putting it on the books. Okay? And, I think that 

would have unleashed a revolution across all 50 states that would 

have empowered United Technologies, General Electric, and other 

companies as well. 

And, I will just make this other kind of thought right here, that 

I drive a Camry, a Toyota Camry hybrid, and it gets 14 miles per 

gallon more than the regular Camry, which is the most popular 

sedan in the United States. And, at $4.20 a gallon I am going to 

get the pay back for the differential, but they are only making 

60,000 this year. They made 60,000 last year at Toyota, because 

they built a new Tundra SUV plant in Texas last year, so they 

were moving, they wanted to sell more Tundras, and they were actually naming the vehicle after the thing which would get destroyed. 

So, unfortunately, you do have to put these laws on the books, 

okay, because even Toyota was against 35 miles per gallon by 2020, 

unbelievable, okay? So, we have to set some standards. 

But, I think industry would then respond as each of you have 

said. 

Let me turn now and recognize again—— 

Mr. ESTY. Can I just add one thing, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. ESTY. That there is another segment of the job opportunity, 

you just brought up the high tech opportunities, but there is also 

the green collar jobs, and I think there is a huge potential for installation of new insulation in houses, of new windows, of solar 

cells, and I think we should not overlook that this is not just the 

high tech opportunity, although it is important, but that there are 

opportunities across the spectrum, and I think, you know, we get 

nervous as a society that it will somehow be just a few companies, 

or just a certain part of the population, but it really can be something we all benefit from. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
55 

Chairman MARKEY. I agree with you, and another way of saying 

green collar are really just blue collar people now, instead of doing 

the old stuff they did, just doing this new stuff, putting in the new 

solar panels, doing this new work, it’s really blue collar powered. 

It opens up a new job opportunity for that whole sector that feels 

it is getting left behind. But, if we do this revolution correctly it 

will not. 

Let me turn and recognize the Gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank the 

panelists again. You know, your testimony was outstanding. 

I would just like to follow through on a couple of points. We were 

fortunate, as I said in my remarks, opening remarks, to be visited 

by T. Boone Pickens, who is getting great notoriety of late with his 

commercials on TV, previously had notoriety that wasn’t so great, 

funding swift voting of John Kerry, but, nonetheless, he came with 

an entrepreneurial spirit and somewhat of a message to the Democratic Caucus that one couldn’t help but take heed, and it centered 

around a lot of what the discussion was here today. 

Willingness on the part of business to invest money, Government 

acts best, I feel, when it operates as a collective enterprise, when 

it embraces, not only the business sector, but the academic and 

labor sectors, in the manner in which that we can provide those incentives. 

Now, Mr. David, you started with the notion of being able to do 

more with less, and the whole ethic of conservation. How would we, 

from a policy standpoint, get at that issue, and it is a question I 

would like to see all of the panelists asked, but because I think 

that from a standards standpoint to try to shoot towards uniformity, it is great that companies like United Technologies and 

G.E. have this kind of ethic and see it, but what is it that Government could do in this collective manner, this collective enterprise, 

so to speak, to augment what your business has done, your businesses have done? 

Mr. DAVID. Okay, John, thank you for that question. I think we 

have the answers in front of us, and we had them for a long time. 

There are a couple of mechanisms in our Government. One is very 

long-term research funding, with places like ARPA, the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency, all the national laboratories, National 

Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, things like this, 

and we have this long history, as was mentioned earlier, of Government leadership in research and development. 

There is a certain amount of grant funding that is allocated to 

private industry, that buys down the cost of these very, very longrange kinds of research programs, and so I would certainly applaud 

it and call for continuation of that kind of government leadership 

in R&D. It has made our Nation, it has made the world in the last 

50 years. That is a sweeping statement, but it is true. Government 

leadership in research and development, science, innovation and 

technology has remade the world. That’s a fact. 

The second thing is, I think very much on the minds of the Committee and its Chairman, you have mentioned it a couple times 

today, which are these investment tax credits for renewables and 

for conservation. And, I’ll state the reason why. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
56 

I think, actually, in many of these energy conservation devices, 

I think the need for the investment tax credits is greater than the 

need for R&D funding, because many of these products are at the 

stage of maturity today, where they are technically proven, they 

work, prototypes are done, prototype fleets have been built, and 

now the problem is to create market demand, and here is the simple problem, and I will round it off for ease in communication. A lot of these new technologies cost around $3,000 a kilowatt to 

install the equipment. We have had renewables and conservation 

investment tax credits in place for the last several years, and in 

the Reingold bill continuing now, it has passed the House and is 

in front of the Senate, we’ve had these tax credits in the range of 

$1,000 per kilowatt. It buys down the initial capital cost by about 

a third. 

And, the reason why we need that is because we have to build 

the fleet and build the volume. Realize, it takes something like fuel 

cells, which people talk about as an ultimate answer to replacing 

gasoline for power in vehicle propulsion, the fact of the matter is 

that vehicle fuel cells today cost even more than $3,000 a kilowatt 

and they need to get down to the range of $100 a kilowatt to be, 

ultimately, effective. That is a very, very long way to go. We will 

get there, because the fact of the matter is, you set the target price 

of $100 a kilowatt relative to an internal combustion engine, which 

has been in development for 150 years, and where we build 50 million or 60 million internal combustion engines a year. 

Fuel cells are in their infancy, and we have got to seed the fleet 

to get the volume, to get the cost down, at which point the investment tax credits go away, and industry competes entirely on its 

own. 

So, my appeal would be more for these renewables and conservation tax credits. That is the most important thing, is we need to 

build the volumes to get the cost down, to let this go away. 

Mr. LARSON. Aside from the tax credits, which we hope Congress 

will pass, I would like you to comment, all three of you, on the 

length of the tax credit, because this is important to research and 

development, and given the maturity of, or the stages of particular 

development, and then also the idea, and this is what Mr. Pickens 

said at our caucus, the idea that if you are, you know, mandating 

use, for example, he used the example of wind and solar, which is 

for some parts of the country very important, but maybe in other 

parts of the country not as applicable. But, whether it is mail 

trucks, or school buses, or whether it is the buildings themselves, 

and whether it is geothermal, or fuel cell, or whatever the particular technology might be, is it important for government, much 

like it did in the TVA, much like it did in the Highway System, 

much like it did as was noted in DARPA, to lead the way and say, 

listen, here is what we need in order to be energy independent in 

ten years. 

We know, and I think the term you used, Mr. David, was seed, 

this is what we are going to have to do to seed this, to go along 

with the investment tax credits and to accompany the research and 

development that is currently going on. It is that kind of triumvirate something that we should—direction we should be moving 

in. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
57 

Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Well, I think that is exactly where we should be headed, and this whole discussion, I think, elaborates the comment I 

made about the bridge between technical viability and commercial 

viability. People want to talk, a lot of times we get questioned, 

well, is this possible? Can it be done? 

Carbon sequestration, carbon capture and sequestration can be 

done today. It is technically viable. Is it commercially viable? Not 

yet. There are complicated things that have to be sorted out, but 

it is viable, and so we have to be thinking in terms of both technical viability and commercial viability, and the production tax 

credit will bridge the gap. Take technical—I mean, wind turbines 

have been technically viable for decades, but it was .30 cents a kilowatt ten years ago, and now it is .08 cents a kilowatt. Okay, how 

did we get down that cost curve? Well, incentives in Europe helped, 

the Europeans spent a lot of money to do this, as has now the U.S. 

Government. 

But, having a two to three year, on again, off again, production 

tax credit is probably the most expensive, inefficient way to run a 

supply chain. I mean, you have wind suppliers now, component 

manufacturers, that will not invest, will not take a long-term view 

on capacity because they only get a two or three year window. So, 

we cannot, and I understand everybody supports it, and we are 

thinking about a one year extension, and that would be better than 

nothing, but we really need to pass the ball a little bit further 

down the field, because starting and stopping does not help us 

bring the cost down. 

Mr. LARSON. On the Ways and Means Committee, we passed an 

eight-year extension. 

Mr. RICE. And, that is exactly, exactly what we ought to be 

thinking about, and if you sunset it after that, or you say, look, industry, you get it right over this eight-year period, and then you 

are on your own, I think companies like ours can live with that. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Again, 

that lost by one vote in the Senate, we needed 60 votes, and Senator Domenici was opposing it, so we lost it. But, we are going to 

still try before we adjourn, five more weeks. 

Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to actually move backwards for a second from the question that Mr. Larson posed, regarding what the right government 

incentives are, and just ask you, and maybe I will direct it first to 

Mr. Esty, why doesn’t the market work here? I mean, certainly, 

you would understand from a business perspective how important 

it is for G.E. and UTC to make those investments in conservation, 

but why doesn’t the market create the right incentives for the level 

of conservation investment and renewable energy investment that 

we want. And, are there pieces of market mechanics that actually 

work against conservation? 

For instance, I remember being stunned, I should have known 

this, but stunned at a conversation with an electricity distribution 

company when they told me that they still give volume discounts 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
58 

in distribution of electricity, which would seem to actually be a 

market force that works against investments in conservation. 

You talk a little bit, and I am happy to ask this question to Mr. 

Rice, Mr. David as well, where are the market failings here? 

Mr. ESTY. So, in simple terms, we have an element of harm that 

is not being priced. So, when we burn fossil fuels, and it is not only 

the greenhouse gases we send up the stack, it is the localized pollutants as well, if you do not pay for that you end up doing more 

of it than you otherwise would. 

So, I think getting the price signals right is very fundamental, 

and that does mean putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, 

through a cap in trade mechanism. There are other ways to do 

that. 

And, I think it is also getting at the sort of risk that the investor 

faces in going in to becoming a solutions provider. These are big 

companies, and they have done very well jumping into this space, 

but I think we have to have an even broader set of players out 

there. We need to engage, not only big companies, but small. We 

need every entrepreneur, and one of the great successes in America 

is kind of the solo garage-based inventor, and we need to have a 

signal to every one of those guys that there is a big pay day coming 

if you can contribute to improved energy efficiency in one way or 

another, an alternative fuel, any part of this solution. 

And again, I think we are facing a world where the solutions are 

going to be coming from a lot of directions. We need scale and diversity of effort. And, I do think that means, as the other panelists 

have mentioned, some government investment, particularly, when 

the risks are big, or the pay off is far away, or there is a gap to 

commercialization. So, I think targeted government money is critical. 

But, I think, you know, fundamentally, we should go back to Ed 

Markey’s mother, who may be the hero of this hearing, but I think 

we have got to, not only have business work smarter, I think we 

have to make policy work smarter, and that goes to, Congressman 

Murphy, your point, every public utility commission in this country 

should be rewarding those that generate electricity, not just for the 

amount they generate, but for delivering services, providing heat, 

providing light, providing air conditioning, and if they can invest 

in the conservation they should be rewarded for that, and not simply for how many electrons they pump out the door. 

Mr. MURPHY. A second question maybe for Mr. David and Mr. 

Rice. Can you talk a little bit about the global market for these 

technologies, both from a renewable standpoint and from devices 

that are going to provide more levels of conservation? Are there the 

right policy incentives in other parts of the world, global warming 

agreements, a predicate to making some of these technologies marketable in countries like China or India? What is the landscape 

globally for the export of the technologies that we are producing, 

or could potentially produce? 

Mr. DAVID. I wonder if I could just combine an earlier question 

and the last question, Congressman. 

I think I need to reaffirm the principle of predictability, and the 

comment has been made about an eight-year life on the renewables 

credits, certainly, I think private sector would applaud that and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
59 

say you need that kind of a duration to give some confidence to 

cause people to invest privately. 

I think another one we need to pay attention to and this runs 

to the market behavior, is that some predictability in the cost of 

energy. The fact of the matter is, we have what we have today because we have had 100 and some odd years of, literally, free energy. And, we have seen energy costs, oil costs, double in the last 

year alone, and so people are not quite sure that is going to last. 

And, maybe it will go back to the way it was before. We had oil 

price spikes, you will recall, after the first Arab war in the early 

1970s, big oil price spike up to, I guess, over $100 a barrel, expressed in 2007 currency, and then it went back down to $10 a barrel ten years ago. 

So, there is a question of predictability, and I think we need to 

say to our world that we are going to have a cost of carbon, whether it is cap and trade or carbon tax or something, there has got to 

be a conviction that high costs of energy are with us for a very, 

very long time. 

To turn to your more recent question, Congressman Murphy, I 

will take our experience in China to respond to you specifically, is 

that I rate the Chinese, and this is based on very large UTC presence there, something like 15,000 employees and several billion 

dollars of revenue, and a long time presence, and 40 operating companies, I rate the Chinese, actually, quite high on their commitment to conservation. They have—they are in the middle now of 

their so-called 11th five-year plan that started in 2006, that ends 

in 2011, and there is, one of the two primary goals as stated is an 

energy intensity goal, which is to reduce the energy intensity of the 

Chinese economy by 20 percentage points between 2006 and 2011. 

And, they are tracking it precisely, they publish the results, they 

have fallen short in the first couple of years by a percentage point 

or so, because, realize, 20 percent over five years is 4 percent per 

annum and they are coming in more like 3 or 3.5 percent. 

There is a great deal of pressure and tension in Chinese industry 

to do things to comply and to drive down the cost, or drive down 

the consumption of energy to get this national energy intensity goal 

right, so I would rate their appetite very high, in fact, for export 

equipment, and technology, and U.S. ideas, there are lots of things. 

China, in some respects, is—well, we have heard our President 

say that they are the biggest part of the problem, and the way you 

get to that is by virtue of you look in at the increases coming in 

emissions in the next five, or six, or ten years, and it clearly, more 

comes from China than everywhere else. So, we say, you know, the 

future problem is theirs, while we conveniently forget the past 

problem is ours. 

We still produce far more hydrocarbon emissions in the United 

States than China does today. We still do. So, the fact that they 

are building new, and they are growing and expanding, means 

their cost to save, their cost to conserve, is lower than ours is. We 

are faced with a retrofit problem, they are faced with a new build 

problem, and, therefore, their appetite is high. They do see good returns. The nation is driving this hard, and I think it is a tremendous opportunity for America to go and, to me, if you said big opportunities in the world for exporters, I’d say conservation equipVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:32 Nov 17, 2010 Jkt 061955 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B955.XXX B955

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
60 

ment to the nation of China. It’s sort of right up there at the very, 

very top. 

Chairman MARKEY. The Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the Gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this 

hearing, and thank you for inviting me to participate. 

My daughter just graduated from Vermont Law School on Environmental Policy, and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental 

Policy, and she thinks I am a work in process, as good as I think 

I am doing here. 

But, maybe it is because I am the only Republican in New England, I feel like when I—John McCain says I’m the last of the Mohicans, but I am an endangered species, and I know that Democrats want to protect endangered species. 

So, I just want to state for the record—— 

Chairman MARKEY. It is good that we are in a museum. 

Mr. SHAYS. You know—— 

Chairman MARKEY. New England Republican. 

Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. I can never outclass this guy, but I do 

it at my peril, and Barney Frank as well. 

I do want to say that there was a vote in the Senate when we 

voted on Kyoto, when it was negotiated, and Bill Clinton was in the 

bus. He was driving the bus. And, the Senate voted 95 to 0 to say 

do not give us Kyoto without China and India as part of the mix. 

So, I just, I kind of get a little uneasy when I hear, well, Domenici did this, and so on, because we will get not to first base if that 

is the way our mentality is. The bottom line is, Bill Clinton never 

submitted Kyoto to this Senate, because it did not include that. 

I said to President Bush, I wish he had just submitted Kyoto to 

the Senate without prejudice, it would have had about ten votes. 

Now you think every Senator would have voted for it. 

The question I would like to ask you, Mr. Esty, is I support cap 

and trade, I want polluters to pay, but it was pointed out to me 

by those who tend to have investment in coal, that really what we 

then do is we bring up significantly the price of coal, which is what 

has generated most electricity in the United States, and has enabled those companies that still can compete with the rest of the 

world in manufacturing to have modest energy costs. Again, not in 

New England. We don’t want to produce, and we do not want 

transmission lines here. 

But, so my question is, will cap and trade have to be phased in, 

so that industry can deal with the increased costs, or will cap and 

trade not impact the cost of energy and electricity? 

Mr. ESTY. Let me say that I think you have identified something 

very important, and I hope this Committee will do more with it 

over time, and that is the progress on the domestic front in responding to these issues, has to be done with an eye on the international negotiations. 

And, frankly again, as competitiveness has become an important 

issue, we cannot simply sit back and ask, well, will China and 

India step up. I believe we absolutely must have a beyond Kyoto 

protocol that engages every country in the world, and again, as 

someone who studies these issues, I will tell you we have never had 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
61 

success in galvanizing the world in response to a challenge on anything but the principle of common, but differentiated, responsibility, common meaning every country steps up, every country has 

to do something. 

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, but let me just say, differentiating meaning we 

scale the level of obligation, but my question is, what will be the 

impact to our industry and to our jobs when we put a cap and 

trade in? How do we phase it in? 

Mr. ESTY. So, two things. First, as long as everybody is stepping 

up the price of coal around the world, the competitive disadvantage 

is much reduced. So, having that global commitment is very important. 

And second, I think there will have to be some transition work 

done. We will have to have mechanisms that try to minimize the 

impact on industries that are in sensitive positions. 

Mr. SHAYS. I happen to know a lot of members on both sides of 

the aisle who want dearly to move forward, but they are trying to 

deal with the reality that we have to compete with the rest of the 

world, and we do not want to put people out of work in that process. 

I want to make sure from G.E. and UTC’s issue, when T. Boone 

Pickens came in, it was reported at first that he wanted to—it was 

this billion dollar investment, and non-profit almost attitude on 

wind power, he came back to the Senate and said, you are not 

hearing me if you think this replaces the need to increase our production of fossil fuels. He said you need to do all of the above. In 

fact, I disagreed with him because he said we also had to do 

ANWAR. 

But, is it the position of your two companies that in the process 

of your working the way you are working that we do not need to 

increase the production, and, hopefully, in our own country, of fossil fuels? 

Mr. RICE. We think that—we were one of the founding members 

of U.S. cap, so we have come out in support of cap and trade. We 

understand—— 

Mr. SHAYS. No, that is not my question. 

Mr. RICE. No, I know. 

Mr. SHAYS. I just want to make sure you answer my question before you tell me what you want me to know. 

Mr. RICE. Well, no, but we do believe that you need—T. Boone 

Pickens is a great customer, he buys a lot of wind turbines. We believe you need everything, including fossil fuels to solve this point. 

And, that was the thread of my comments, that you need a portfolio, it is not really about energy—— 

Mr. SHAYS. We need all of the above. 

Mr. RICE [continuing]. Independence. Right, because you need, 

you need everything. We have 150 years, 200 years worth of coal 

in this country, we have to find a way to use it. We cannot just 

cut that off, we have to find a way to use it efficiently, and effectively, and keep people working, while we—— 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. David. 

Mr. DAVID. If I understand the question correctly, Chris, we are 

not afraid of increases in the cost of energy at all. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
62 

Mr. SHAYS. That is not what I asked. The question I asked is, 

is your position that we do not need to increase the production of 

domestic fossil fuels, because we can rely on renewables and so on. 

That is the question. And, it is not a difficult question. 

Mr. DAVID. I think we should increase the cost of carbon, and let 

the market decide. 

Mr. SHAYS. Does your company believe that we should continue to buy fossil fuels overseas, transferring $600 billion overseas, or 

do you think it would be wise for us to end up buying from ourselves with American jobs and American production, or is that not 

something you think about? 

Mr. DAVID. Pardon me for repeating myself, I think again, we 

should increase the cost of carbon and let the market decide. 

Mr. SHAYS. Do you support drilling off our coast? 

Mr. DAVID. Pardon me for repeating myself again, I think we 

should increase the cost of carbon and let the market decide. 

Mr. SHAYS. But, see, what I think is, we need straight talk, and 

I feel like you want to—and I want to be candid, I feel like you do 

not want to say what is the obvious. Do you think it makes sense 

for us to tell Canada to drill for oil off the coast and sell to us, because we do not have enough natural gas, so we buy from them, 

or do you think it would be a wise public policy decision. I have 

to vote on this issue. I want to know should I be supporting drilling 

off the coast or not. You are a major manufacturer, you are into 

technology, are you saying technology solves the problem and we 

do not need to deal with conventional fuels? It is not a difficult 

question. 

Mr. RICE. Fossil fuels today represent 70–75 percent of the power 

generation of the United States, and to my way of thinking finding 

responsible ways to access as much of our fossil fuel sources as we 

can is the only way to go forward. You have got to do it responsibly. You have to do it cost effectively, and you have to develop 

the rest of the 25 and 30 percent wind, and solar, and all of the 

alternate forms of power generation. 

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just ask you this then, Mr. David. I thank 

you for your answer. 

Mr. David, do you disagree with that answer, or agree with it? 

Mr. DAVID. Again, I want to look at the big picture. I think we 

need to drive down consumption and drive up renewables, and the 

way you will cause that to happen is by increasing the cost of carbon. 

Mr. SHAYS. Do you agree with his answer or not? It is not a difficult question. Your own employees, if you would ask them a question you would want a straight answer. Do you agree or disagree 

with his answer? 

Mr. DAVID. The market will cause increased production of fossil 

fuels. It will cause them less if we have higher cost of carbon. 

Mr. SHAYS. I do not disagree with what you said, but I want to 

know the answer to this question. I do not know why you are reluctant to give it to me, and I guess I am not going to get an answer. 

And, I do not want to have a dispute with someone so important, 

but I just feel like we do not have straight talk, give me straight 

talk. 

Chairman MARKEY. The Gentleman’s time—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
63 

Mr. DAVID. State the question precisely. 

Mr. SHAYS. No, I will not do it again. 

Chairman MARKEY. Let me turn—— 

Mr. DAVID. I misunderstand why there is tension. Can you help 

me with that? 

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, because I feel like because you are involved in 

technology you do not want to offend Democrats, you do not want, 

you want to be careful, you want to be like Alan Greenspan and 

have everyone think you agree with them. It is such a simple gosh 

darn question. Do you think that we need to increase production 

of fossil fuels in this country? Do you think it makes sense? If you 

do not, just tell me, it does not make sense to drill off our coast, 

we should get it from Canada, we should get it from Saudi Arabia. 

We should not do it. It is a straightforward question. It could be 

yes or no. 

Mr. DAVID. The fact is that energy consumption in the world is 

not going up very rapidly. Oil production and consumption last 

year went down by about a 1/2 percent globally. We are talking 

about things at the margin, and we do not need to go out and to 

have vast new efforts to tap vast new sources of fossil fuel. We 

need to look for renewables. We need to look for conservation. We 

can solve this problem without having these enormous increases in 

fossil fuels. Some are required, not that much. 

The way to deal with that is to increase the cost of carbon. I am 

sorry to be so repetitive about that. 

Chairman MARKEY. Let me turn now and recognize the Gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One, actually, I think Mr. David’s comments started to sort of go 

in a direction I was wanting to ask about, which is the fact that, 

you know, there is sort of this all of the above sort of discussion. 

Dan, you sort of mentioned about having the portfolio as diverse 

as possible. 

But, at some point, I mean, particularly, in the transportation 

sector, I mean, you really do not have an infinite ability to just 

choose all technologies. I mean, T. Boone Pickens talked about, you 

know, running cars and transportation on natural gas. I mean, that 

was sort of his message the other day when he was at the caucus. 

The government of Israel right now is talking about going, you 

know, straight electric, in terms of, you know, no liquid fuel. 

But, you know, in both cases, and I know, you know, fuel cells 

were being talked about by Arnold out in California, but, you know, 

when you set up a transportation system, I mean, you have got to 

set up a distribution system for keeps, or for an awful long time, 

in terms of, you know, whether you are switching batteries, or filling up the liquid natural gas. 

And, I mean, it does seem at some point, if we are really going 

to transform on the transportation side, you know, we really don’t 

have the ability to just sort of, you know, say, you know, anything 

goes, and everybody can jump in. I mean, you know, we sort of 

have to have some consistent thread about how you, you know, 

what energy you are going to choose as a country to—and, I mean, 

so is sort of the Israeli vision feasible here in the U.S., or is it the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
64 

T. Boone Pickens, and do we, you know, as a country, have to make 

a choice? And, is that choice in Washington? 

Mr. ESTY. So, I think we have to be careful not to have government make that choice, so I am going to echo George David’s comments, I think we want to let the marketplace test out these ideas. 

I think we want to at least for the next number of years see lots 

of thinking going in different directions, because we cannot tell 

what is going to emerge as low cost. 

And, the real answer to Representative Shays’ concern is, a day 

when the price of the alternative energy is coming under the price 

of burning fossil fuels, because then we get out from under the burden we feel, which I think we all feel, which is we do not want to 

have a cost of energy so high that it harms our competitiveness, 

threatens our prosperity. 

So, I actually think the long-term goal is low energy prices, but 

to get there we have to make sure that these market signals are 

right. We are going to have to make people pay for the harms they 

cause. 

And, I do think that if you made me guess as one person who 

studies this, but I could be wrong, I think we are going to head for 

an all electric future. I think we are going to come in some day 

with a way to generate electricity cheap enough that we can have 

an electric car. 

I used to think hydrogen was more likely, I now think why not 

go directly to electricity, and as someone who also drives a hybrid 

I have been actually pretty pleased with the electric push that my 

car gets as we get going. 

But, I think it is really tough to decide that, and I think the history here is that when the government picks winners we do not do 

well. I mean, not to criticize our Congress, but, you know, cornbased ethanol will not be the solution to our energy future. I just 

promise you that. 

And, all the effort that has gone into corn-based ethanol is really 

distraction from getting on to all of the things we really do need 

to go for. 

So, let us be careful about that, and I guess the one other thing 

I would say, in terms of transportation, in the short run we have 

got to make it easy for people who are helping to do their part by 

switching to public transit, to the bus, to the subway, and, you 

know, I have a kid who is taking an internship in New Haven, and 

is riding the Waterbury New Haven bus, it is totally overcrowded 

by the time it hits Chester. You know, we need to provide extra 

buses, extra support, for people who are changing their lives to be 

part of a more carbon efficient future, and I think we have under 

invested in that element of society that supports, particularly, 

those at the lowest income levels. 

Chairman MARKEY. Great. We—— 

No, please, go ahead. 

Mr. COURTNEY. No, I didn’t know if the other two had a comment 

about sort of liquid fuel for cars and transportation’s future. 

Mr. RICE. Well, I think you hit on a very good point. I mean, 

whether it is jet engines or locomotives, you know, we are working 

on hybrid technology, we are working on power saving technologies, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
65 

at both UTC and G.E. But, there are short-term answers, which do 

not carry some cost that goes with that. 

And so, I think that—I totally agree with Dan’s comments. 

Mr. DAVID. Of course, we have—we have built fuel cells in UTC 

for longer than anybody else in the world, and, obviously, we are 

invested in that. I think we are going to migrate, ultimately, to fuel 

cell power compulsion, maybe in buses first, cars second. 

Cars are a good long way in the future, because of the cost per 

kilowatt. It is very high. Also, there are power density issues, because fuel cells are relatively faulty, and to put them into a smaller 

vehicle like a car makes it harder. I do not want to say it is not 

going to happen, but it is going to be a decade or two in the future, 

where other applications like buses are right here and now. In fact, 

there is a fuel cell powered bus outside today, and we will probably 

provide some rides, or folks can take a look at it. It is in service 

today here in Hartford. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. 

Chairman MARKEY. Okay. So, we will do a quick round here of 

two minutes apiece for any members that have any other questions, and the Chair is going to recognize himself. 

The wind revolution is taking off, Boone Pickens came in, he talked about it, he is going to invest $4 billion of his own money, 

7,000 megawatts of electricity are going to be constructed this year. 

Just to give everybody an idea, when you think of the Seabrook 

Nuclear Power Plant, or you think of the Albulcany, that’s a 1,000 

megawatts. Okay, so there is not going to be a new nuclear power 

plant that actually gets commissioned in the United States for ten 

more years. This year, 7,000 megawatts of wind. So, by the time 

the first nuclear power plant gets commissioned, finally turns its 

switch, there will be 125,000 megawatts of wind before the first 

1,000 of nuclear actually gets commissioned. That’s because the 

market is moving toward wind. The price has come down, there is 

no price on carbon, and states and countries want to move in that 

direction. 

So, the market is beginning to reflect that, and we actually had 

a hearing on the Select Committee two weeks ago, where we had 

in Shai Agassi, who is the guy running the project in Israel, we 

had the guy who is running the program in Denmark, they have 

2 million cars in Denmark, they say with 2,500 megawatts of wind 

they can power the entire fleet of vehicles on electricity in Denmark. So, they are moving in that direction as well, the all electric 

future using all wind electrical generating capacity. 

So, there is something that is happening out in this marketplace, 

and what Pickens said to us is, he said, I want you to remember 

three numbers. He said the numbers are, we consume 25 percent 

of the oil in the world on a daily basis. We are 4 percent of the 

population, and we have 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. So, 

it is 25, 4 and 2. 

And, he said to us that since we consume 21 million barrels a 

day, and we only produce 5.9 million barrels, we cannot drill our 

way out of it. We are going to have to innovate our way out of it. 

We are going to have to find the new technologies, move to electric 

vehicles, move to natural gas, because we have a lot of domestic 

natural gas. Believe it or not, we produce twice as much natural 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
66 

gas each day as we do oil, and there is a potential to produce upwards of 20 million barrels of oil if we go to natural gas on a daily 

basis, which is what he was talking to us about, and that would 

all be on the lower 48 where we already are, and everyone wants 

that drilling to take place. 

And, that is half the emittance of coal, that is, natural gas has 

half the carbon content of coal, so that gives us a route. He was 

giving us a path looking at wind and looking at natural gas, away 

from coal, away from the greater pollutants, even away from oil, 

which he felt in the long run was non-sustainable. 

So, I think that was a good vision for us, for our country, and 

it is something that has to be combined with a cap and trade system, a mandatory cap and trade system, so that every industry 

does understand that there is a price, there is a price on carbon. 

And, once you do that, wind, and solar, and all these other technologies, become much more attractive. Energy efficiency becomes 

much more attractive. Geothermal becomes much more attractive. 

They all look like they are where you should be, and where we 

should have been the whole way, because they are abundant, they 

are plentiful, they are cheaper than fossil fuel once you say that 

it is a pollutant as well, and it has to pay an extra price because 

of that. 

So, that is just a comment that I would add at this point, and 

once we do that I think we are tapping into domestic resources, 

that is, what is already here, this indigenous source of energy that 

we have in our country already. 

So, I’m going to stop there and ask if any other Members here, 

at this point, have anything they want to add. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Markey, and again, thank the 

panelists. 

I would just add that the Ways and Means Committee is going 

to be having a hearing as well on the whole subject matter area 

of proposed tax on carbon, and while I expect that little will happen in the Congress, it goes back to the discussion that Mr. Markey 

raised in our Committee over the issue of cap and trade versus a 

carbon tax. And, when he inquired of our esteemed colleague, Mr. 

Sensebrenner, he said that he was opposed to a cap and trade system, because he thought that the credits would be fairly difficult, 

et cetera, and Mr. Markey responded by saying, well, would you be 

in favor of a carbon tax then, like Mr. Larson is proposing? He 

says, no, we are going to be opposed to both, because they raise 

taxes, period. 

And, I think therein lies some of the political dilemma that Congress faces, but it is an inconvenient truth to address the fact that, 

as Mr. Pickens did, that we are dealing with consuming 25 percent, 

have 4 percent of the world’s population, and 2 percent of those reserves. And, to look at pollution and ignore it is to stare into the 

face of harm’s way into the future, and we have to face that future. 

I believe that we have to come up with a system that is ultimately revenue neutral. I believe that some form of trust fund that 

passes the savings along by way of a payroll deduction to the end 

user, so that the ultimate consumer, the person who is ultimately 

impacted by all of the policies that we generate, both from the negative aspects of pollution, but everyone knows that any company 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
67 

ultimately will pass on those costs to the consumer. So, to make 

any proposal, cap and trade, or a carbon trust fund, or carbon tax, 

that focuses in this area, has to be revenue neutral, has to provide 

the individuals, the end users, with relief by deducting money from 

their payroll taxes, thereby, giving them a tax cut themselves to 

deal with the impending costs, direct and specific aid into the technologies like carbon sequestration, like direct relief for the potential replacement of mine workers and individuals who will be impacted by this, and transitioning them into a greener technology 

and greener opportunities, as well as providing an opportunity for 

investment into new technologies. 

Chairman MARKEY. The Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Given my questions, you could have a sense that I am arguing 

for a particular position, but what I am trying to argue for is that 

we look at the whole mix and figure out what we do as a country. 

I tell people that being a member of Congress is like going to a 

large university and being told you have to take every course and 

get a passing grade. We tend to know a little about everything, and 

then we specialize in a few areas. 

Since I am not on the Energy Committee, I kept waiting for 

someone to introduce a bill to have increased efficiency in CAFE 

standards, and it did not happen. So, I went to the League of Conservation Voters and to the Sierra Club and we created a bill, and 

then—a Democrat, co-sponsors it. I always find a Democrat to cosponsor any bill. 

And, what it said was, you should get 40 miles to a gallon by the 

year 2016. We introduced this five years ago. It said that we would 

have renewable energy, and we would put dollars into it. We would 

take money out of the fossil fuel industry to fund it, that we would 

have appliances that were efficient, and that we would help provide 

incentives to homeowners to have fuel efficient heating and insulation. 

That was our bill. We got out of Congress, to the credit of this 

Congress, in the House, 35 miles by the year 2020, and Europe is 

at 2012/48. It is not a problem in the House, it is a problem in the 

Senate. I tell people that the Iraqi Parliament is more constructive 

and gets more things done than the U.S. Senate, and I believe it. 

The bottom line to this, though, is that we have to look at all 

issues and all parts of it. 

And, I just want to ask you, Mr. Esty, if you would tell me, if 

you had to rank geothermal, sun power, wind power, and bio-fuel, 

which do you think has the greatest opportunity for us, the earliest 

pay back, and which will have it more difficult. Does wind trump 

sun, are they equal, is geothermal out there? If you could give me 

a sense. 

Mr. ESTY. I think in the short to middle term it will depend 

where you are. So, if you are in a sunny spot sun looks pretty good, 

if you are in a windy spot wind looks pretty good. If you have got 

thin crust of the earth, geothermal looks pretty good. 

I think one of the challenges we have not talked about is the 

need for innovation goes beyond these technologies to transmission. 

We are really going to have to figure out how to move the power 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
68 

from where it is most effectively generated to where we consume 

it. There is, you know, huge potential for wind across the Great 

Plains, Texas, to North Dakota, and that is not where the consumption is. We have to figure out how to get the power to Chicago, and L.A., and elsewhere. 

So, I think we are going to have to do more to ensure in the short 

run all of those. 

If you made me bet 50 years out, I think solar power will dominate, but that is just a thought, and I have been wrong before, and 

would hesitate to have anyone take that too seriously. 

Mr. SHAYS. Does it have to be 50 years, could it be 20 years? 

Mr. ESTY. I think we are going to have a slower paced transition 

than a lot of people are hoping for, but I think we could drive it 

with the right policy structure that puts us in a place where these 

companies, and so many others, are really incentivized to put their 

shoulder to the wheel, and give us that clean energy future sooner 

rather than later. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Chairman MARKEY. The Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Murphy, just to say thank you again for joining us here in Connecticut. I think you can see by the robust attendance here how seriously we take this. We are proud of what 

we have done in the state legislature as well as here in Connecticut, led by State Senator Gary Labot who is joining us and 

others. We have here a renewable portfolio standard, we just 

passed a climate change bill, and as you can see we have a great 

deal of interest in helping you with your efforts. So, thank you 

again for convening here in Hartford. 

Chairman MARKEY. Great, and Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

bringing your Committee here. 

Every committee in Congress, though, right now is having this 

issue before them. On the Armed Services Committee, on which I 

sit, you know, we are looking at the fact that 90 percent of the Government’s use of energy is in the Pentagon. Obviously, more efficient engines is a way to address it. 

The company I mentioned earlier up in Enfield that is making 

the protective coating for solar panels just got a contract to build 

pop-up tents for the Army with the solar panels actually right in 

the fabric to power radio equipment, back packs as well. So, we are 

seeing the greening of the Pentagon as well. 

And, on the Education and Labor Committee, I am a founding 

member of the Green School Caucus, because as we know in Connecticut, Eastern Connecticut State University did an inventory of 

the school buildings in our state and found that they are, perhaps, 

some of the most inefficient structures of all. And, we have to come 

up with ways, because, particularly, local communities are 

strapped enough in terms of trying to find those investment class 

to make buildings more efficient and to incorporate possibly even, 

you know, energy sources like alternative fuels. 

So, it is everywhere in the Congress. I know Chris’ committees 

are probably experiencing the same thing, but we have here the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
69 

leadership of the solution with Mr. Markey and his Select Committee, and I want to thank you for joining us here in Connecticut. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Joe. 

What I would ask is each one of our witnesses give us the two 

minutes they want us to remember from their testimony here 

today. What is that you think that everyone should know about the 

future, and what has to happen? 

We will begin with you, Mr. Esty. We will go in reverse order of 

how we started. Please give us your two-minute summation of 

what you think we have to know. 

Mr. ESTY. Well, I think we are facing a real challenge as a country, and so I appreciate Congressman Shays’ passion here. I think 

we are going to have to step up in a very different way than we 

have in the past, and I believe the answer lies with innovation, and 

harnessing the engine of the private sector, from the largest companies to the smallest. 

But, having said that, it is critically important that we do not 

think this somehow gives the Government a pass. To the contrary, 

the Government has to get much smarter about the policy framework that it creates, and the incentives to engage the private sector, and I do want to ensure that those who come up with breakthroughs are rewarded for that effort, and I think we have to set 

up a process for doing that. 

And, I think we also want to set out a process that rewards our 

success and ensures that as a country we are achieving economic 

progress alongside energy and environmental progress. And, I believe in that regard we probably have an additional item that we 

did not get to today that is worth discussing, and that is a floor 

on oil prices in the short run, to ensure that we do not have prices 

dramatically drop causing a huge withdrawal of all this capital 

that is being invested in new technology. 

And, I think we could call it a tax on our energy security and 

future, because what we really want to do is to ensure that we are 

not at risk of an OPEC-induced price change that destroys all this 

innovation that is underway. 

So, I think innovation is the key, and, really, understanding the 

linkages of energy, environment and our economic prosperity is essential. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. We believe that it is less about energy independence, 

because the practical aspects of that are very complicated and very 

far out, more about energy interdependence and security. How do 

you build availability, both in what you do domestically and what 

you have access to from outside the U.S., that is going to give you 

the sources of supply that you need. 

And, over time, one of the—since we do not have enough fossilbased fuels in the United States, one of the ways to solve that is 

going to be through the development of alternative technologies, renewables, wind and solar, and I say on the solar thing that, you 

know, today it is where wind was ten or 15 years ago. Can it become more mainstream in that period of time? I don’t know, it is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
70 

going to take a lot more investment, but it certainly is going to be 

big in the future. 

In the meantime, we have got to be developing every source that 

we have. I do not think we can constrain ourselves, because the answers, you know, you cannot bet on one technology or two technologies, you have to bet on a portfolio and then make them as 

clean and environmentally responsible as you possibly can. 

And so, that is why this is such a tough problem, with so many 

moving parts, and you want to do it without crashing your economy, and putting people out of business, and losing jobs. Right? 

That is what we are all about. We believe you can. We also think 

it is a huge global issue. 

I visit 30 countries a year, and every country, I was in Southeast 

Asia two weeks ago, and Vietnam, and Malaysia, and Thailand, 

and Singapore, they are talking about renewables, they are talking 

about nuclear. These people would never have been thinking about 

it five or ten years ago. So, it is a real issue in front of real people, 

and we are all struggling to get to the same goal, I think. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Rice. 

Mr. David. 

Mr. DAVID. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that comment to summarize. I think I have one suggestion or appeal, and that is that 

we amend the list of renewables, whether they be solar, geothermal, wind or anything else, to include conservation. That is a 

very effective, I believe the most cost effective, and most readily 

available, least risk source of renewable or alternative energy, is 

actually conservation. 

Maybe I could go back again to physics for just a moment here, 

and just remind us all that heat is actually never—beg your pardon, energy is actually never consumed. Just going back to basic 

physical principles, energy is instead converted. We cannot destroy 

energy, it cannot be destroyed. It is simply converted, put into 

some alternate form. 

And, 91 percent of it is converted to an ineffective use, that is, 

something that is not used for work. We waste 91 percent of what 

we have every single day, and it is not destroyed, it is just wasted. 

And so, my appeal again, and I think the science, and the physics, and the technologies are there. You can conserve enormous 

amounts of this energy, and there is way more available from conservation than there is any other source in the short term. It is 

cost effective. It is low risk. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. David, very much. 

We have a challenge in the United States. The world is going to 

meet in Copenhagen in December of 2009. They want the United 

States to be the leader, and not the laggard. There has to be a follow-on protocol to Kyoto. We need the entire world to look at us 

as the leader. So, the Congress will pass legislation in 2009, a mandatory cap and trade system, and both President Obama and President McCain have both said that they will sign a mandatory capand-trade bill, which will put us into a new era, because it will put 

a price on carbon. That is the new era. 

And, once that happens, innovation will follow. The lowest cost 

product, service, idea, will win, because otherwise that company, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
71 

that family, that individual, will be paying a higher price than they 

want to. 

So, the pressure nationally will be great to work smarter and not 

harder. And, that is what happened, I was fortunate in being the 

Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, that was the 

goal when we were writing the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Everyone was analog, not digital. Everyone was narrow band, not 

broad band. Not one home in America in 1996 had broad band, not 

one home. 

Think about it today. You go out ten years, it is a world of 

Google, and Amazon, and eBay, and YouTube, words that didn’t 

even exist, but it was all bottled up because we were thinking old, 

we were thinking in a way that existed for 100 years. 

But, once we got the policy right, we unleashed a world where 

it was not just the big companies, but thousands and thousands of 

small ideas were able to thrive, and that is what we have to do in 

energy and environment now, we have to reset the policy so that 

we give the incentive to the entrepreneurs, to the individuals, to 

go out and to innovate. And, if we do that, and we come back in 

ten years, as Bill Gates always says, there is an over statement of 

what technologies can accomplish in the short run, but there is an 

under statement in the long run, an under estimation. And, I think 

ten years from now we will come back and we will see that that 

is the case. 

And, one of my favorite Mark Twain—— 

Mr. LARSON. I hope you come back to Connecticut in ten years, 

though, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MARKEY [continuing]. Well, again, and I am glad that 

we are here, because when he wrote a ‘‘Connecticut Yankee in King 

Arthur’s Court,’’ it was kind of bringing this Yankee Connecticut 

ingenuity back in time, and letting people see now who are thinking in old ways how that technology, you know, could affect their 

society. And, that is what we have to do again. We have to unleash 

this Connecticut Yankee ingenuity in a way that Mark Twain 

showed us it could work. 

And, if we do that, then I think that revolution will not only not 

decrease our quality of life, but increase it, make us all much more 

efficient and in better touch with this planet that God gave us and 

that we have a responsibility to preserve, and enhance, and pass 

on to next generations better off than it was when we received it. 

It was a great honor for the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to be here. Thank you all so much 

for being here. 

Mr. LARSON. And, if I could say, if I could just thank you. I think 

you can see from how gifted a Chairman that Ed Markey is, and 

how appropriate a selection by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, he was 

to chair this Committee, but I would also point out that there are 

many Connecticut Red Sox in here, too, as well, so it is not just 

Connecticut Yankees. 

Chairman MARKEY. You know, the same way that David Ortiz 

had to go to Pawtucket for a couple of weeks, I think coming out 

of Washington and coming to Hartford is going to serve our Select 

Committee well. Thank you. 

This Committee is adjourned. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
72 

[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS