THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT 

OF 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 21, 22, 23, & 24, 2009 

Serial No. 111–29 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2009 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
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

72–878 2012

THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT 

OF 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 21, 22, 23, & 24, 2009 

Serial No. 111–29 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(IV) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 21, 2009 

Page 

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

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Bart Gordon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, 

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

Hon. Ralph M. Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

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

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 22 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 23 

Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 26 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 29 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 30 

Hon. Roy Blunt, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 32 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, prepared statement ................................................................................... 35 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 37 

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 45 

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 46 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 47 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 49 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 56 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 57 

Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 58 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 60 

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

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 62 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Hon. Charles A. Gonzalez, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, opening statement ................................................................................ 74 

Hon. Charlie Melancon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, opening statement ................................................................................... 75 

Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 76 

Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Representative in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands, opening statement ................................................................................. 79 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 80 

Hon. Zachary T. Space, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio, opening statement ...................................................................................... 82 

Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 83 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 84 

Hon. Baron P. Hill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 85 

Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland, opening statement ............................................................................. 86 

Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 87 

APRIL 22, 2009 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 91 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 93 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 95 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 96 

WITNESSES

Lisa Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 98 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 380 

Steven Chu, Secretary, United States Department of Energy ............................. 104 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

Answers to submitted questions 1

Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation .............. 108 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 110 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 385 

Charles Holliday, Jr., Chairman, DuPont ............................................................. 159 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 161 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 387 

Red Cavaney, Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs, 

ConocoPhillips ...................................................................................................... 164 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166 

Answers to submitted questions 2

Jim Rogers, Chairman, President and CEO, Duke Energy Corp ........................ 172 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 174 

Answers to submitted questions 3

Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council ..................... 182 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 389 

Meg McDonald, Director, Global Issues, Alcoa Inc ............................................... 190 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 192 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 391 

David Crane, President and CEO, NRG Energy, Inc ........................................... 194 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 393 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

John Fetterman, Mayor, Braddock, Pennsylvania ................................................ 231 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 233 

Paul N. Cicio, President, Industrial Energy Consumers of America ................... 234 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 236 

Kevin Knobloch, President, Union of Concerned Scientists ................................. 239 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 241 

Dr. Steven Hayward, F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, American Enterprise Institute ........................................................................................................................ 259 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 261 

David Kreutzer, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate 

Change, The Heritage Foundation ..................................................................... 264 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 266 

Nathaniel Keohane, Director of Economic Policy And Analysis, Environmental 

Defense Fund ........................................................................................................ 274 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 276 

Myron Ebell, Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute .................................................................................................. 302 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 304 

Frank Ackerman, Senior Economist, Stockholm Environmental Institute— 

US Center, Tufts University ............................................................................... 321 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 323 

Answers to submitted questions 4

Kate Gordon, Co-Director, Apollo Alliance ............................................................ 341 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 343 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 396 

Denise Bode, CEO, American Wind Energy Association ...................................... 349 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 351 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 397 

David Manning, Vice President, External Affairs, National Grid ....................... 356 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 358 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 399 

Yvette Pena, Legislative Director of the Blue Green Alliance ............................. 365 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 367 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 401 

1 Mr. Chu did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 2 Mr. Cavaney did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 3 Mr. Rogers did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 4 Mr. Ackerman did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 

APRIL 23, 2009 

WITNESSES

Jeffry E. Sterba, Chairman and CEO, PNM Resources Inc., On Behalf of 

the Edison Electric Institute ............................................................................... 406 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 410 

Glenn English, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ............. 424 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 427 

Mark Crisson, President and CEO, American Public Power Association ........... 445 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 447 

John Somerhalder, II, Chairman, CEO, and President, AGL Resources, On 

Behalf of the American Gas Association ............................................................ 473 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 475 

Richard Morgan, Commissioner, District of Columbia Public Service Commission, On Behalf of The American Gas Association ............................................ 489 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 491 

Richard Cowart, Director, Regulatory Assistance Project .................................... 500 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 502 

Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center for Budget And Policy Priorities ........................................................................................................................ 521 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 524 

Robert Michaels, Professor of Economics, California State University ............... 536 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 538 

Darryl Bassett, Empower Consumers .................................................................... 542 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 545 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

Jack McMackin, Principal, Williams and Jensen, LLC, On Behalf of the 

Energy Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation ..................................................................................................................... 581

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 584 

Rich Wells, Vice President for Energy, The Dow Chemical Company ................ 603 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 605 

Tom Conway, International Vice President, United Steel Workers .................... 613 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 616 

Trevor Houser, Visiting Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics ........................................................................................................................... 625 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 628 

Elliot Diringer, Vice President, International Strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate Change ............................................................................................... 638 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 640 

Lee Lane, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute ................................. 647 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 649 

Reverend C. Douglas Smith, Executive Director, Virginia Interfaith Center 

for Public Policy ................................................................................................... 665 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 667 

Howard Gruenspecht, Acting Administrator, United States Energy Information Agency ........................................................................................................... 684 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 687 

Dan W. Reicher, Director, Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, Google ...... 700 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 702 

Dian M. Grueneich, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission ..... 712 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 715 

James L. Robo, President and Chief Operating Officer, FPL Group .................. 725 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 727 

Gregory P. Kunkel, Vice President of Environmental Affairs, Tenaska, Inc ...... 731 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 734 

David G. Hawkins, Director of Climate Programs, Natural Resources Defense 

Council .................................................................................................................. 745 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 747 

Eugene M. Trisko, On Behalf of the United Mine Workers of America ............. 760 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 762 

Jonathan Briggs, Regional Director of the Americas, Hydrogen Energy International, LLC ....................................................................................................... 789 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 791 

James Kerr, Partner, McGuire Woods LLP, Former Commissioner, North 

Carolina Public Utilities Commission ................................................................ 797 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 800 

Jay Apt, Executive Director, Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, 

Associate Professor, Carnegie Mellon University .............................................. 810 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 812 

APRIL 24, 2009 

WITNESSES

Albert Gore, Jr., Former Vice President of the United States ............................. 851 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 856 

John Warner, Former United States Senator ....................................................... 861 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 866 

Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House ...................................................... 915 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 923 

Ian Bowles, Secretary, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts ....................................................................... 965 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 968 

Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance For Automobile Manufacturers .. 978 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 980 

Alan Reuther, Legislative Director, International Union, United Automobile, 

Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) .................. 988 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 990 

Daniel Sperling, Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of 

California Davis ................................................................................................... 1004 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1006 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 1251 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

David Friedman, Research Director, Clean Vehicles Program, Union of Concerned Scientists .................................................................................................. 1009 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1011 

David Gardiner, President, David Gardiner and Associates, LLC (On Behalf 

of Energy Future Coalition) ................................................................................ 1023 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1025 

Jeff Genzer, Counsel, National Association of State Energy Officials ................ 1028 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1030 

Charles T. Drevna, President, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association ........................................................................................................................ 1036 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1038 

Andrew DeLaski, Executive Director, Appliance Standards Awareness Project 1054 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1057 

Charles Richardson, On Behalf of the National Association of Homebuilders ... 1079 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1081 

Tia Nelson, Executive Secretary, Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, 

State of Wisconsin ................................................................................................ 1105 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1107 

Bill Becker, Executive Director, National Association of Clean Air Agencies .... 1116 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1119 

Carl Royal, Counsel, Schiff Hardin LLP, Formerly Senior Vice President 

and General Counsel, Chicago Mercantile Exchange ....................................... 1131 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1133 

Jon Anda, Executive-in-Residence, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Visiting Fellow Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solution ... 1141 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1144 

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

Council .................................................................................................................. 1147 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1149 

Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District/Southern 

Nevada Water Authority ..................................................................................... 1167 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1169 

Anne E. Smith, Vice President, Practice Leader of Climate and Sustainability, 

CRA International ................................................................................................ 1191 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1193 

William L. Kovacs, Vice President, Environment, Technology and Regulatory 

Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce ................................................................... 1205 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1207 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the American Iron and Steel Institute, submitted by Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................................... 1235 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY SECURITY 

ACT OF 2009—DAY 1 

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:06 p.m., in Room 2123, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Waxman, Dingell, Markey, Gordon, 

Stupak, Green, Doyle, Harman, Gonzalez, Inslee, Baldwin, Ross, 

Matheson, Butterfield, Melancon, Barrow, Hill, Matsui, Christensen, Sarbanes, Space, Sutton, Braley, Welch, Barton, Hall, Stearns, 

Whitfield, Pitts, Walden, Murphy of Pennsylvania, Burgess, Blackburn and Scalise. 

Staff Present: Matt Weiner, Special Assistant; Alexandra Teitz, 

Senior Counsel; Greg Dotson, Chief Energy Counsel; Lorie 

Schmidt, Senior Counsel; Cara Anchman, Communications Associate; Lindsay Vidal, Press Assistant; Phil Barnett, Staff Director; 

Kristen Amerling, General Counsel; Melissa Bez, Professional 

Staff; Mitch Smiley, Special Assistant; Matt Eisenberg, Staff Assistant; William Carty, Minority Professional Staff; and Garrett 

Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. The committee will come to order. 

Today we will begin our legislative hearings on the American Clean 

Energy and Security Act discussion draft, which Chairman Waxman and I released 3 weeks ago. This bill provides a comprehensive approach to solving our economic energy and climate crisis. 

The time for delay and denial and inaction has come to an end. It 

is time to put Americans back to work in the jobs needed to bring 

about the age of the clean energy economy. 

We have an ambitious but achievable schedule before us. The 

markup process will begin next week, and we expect to report the 

bill from the full committee before the Memorial Day break. 

In my 33 years on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I cannot remember a week of hearings quite like this one. We are fortunate to have three Cabinet-level officials: former Vice President Al 

Gore; national security statesman, Republican Senator John Warner; dozens of executives from Fortune 500 companies; and many 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

environmental leaders. We have already heard from more than 60 

other witnesses at the subcommittee’s previous hearings this year 

in addition to nearly 160 witnesses who appeared at the 24 hearings held by the subcommittee in the last Congress. 

The Waxman-Markey discussion draft uses many of the ideas put 

forth in the hearings held last year and this year and represents 

a solid start towards a consensus product. This legislation presents 

us with an historic opportunity. Of all the committees in Congress, 

I believe this committee is best suited to handle the challenge of 

passing strong energy legislation that will help grow our economy, 

create millions of green jobs and address the global warming crisis. 

We will now begin to hear from Members who wish to give their 

opening statements. And I will turn and begin by recognizing the 

gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I especially appreciate your comments about the need for jobs. Oregon is 

now second only to Michigan in its unemployment rate, and I dare 

say the district I represent that is home to 10 or 11 of our Nation’s 

national forests unfortunately comes in with some of the highest 

unemployment rates in the country and in the State. 

Unfortunately, the draft bill which I have begun to work my way 

through doesn’t help us if you are in a forested timber community. 

And, in fact, there is no scientific basis for the definition that is 

used in here to describe biomass and prohibit the use of any biomass off Federal forestlands and most likely off private forestlands 

to account toward renewable energy, when, in fact, there is enormous opportunity for renewable energy to be produced off our Federal forestlands and our private forestlands. For some reason the 

definition on page 8 of this bill specifically prohibits any biomass 

off Federal land from being included as renewable. 

There is no scientific basis for that definition whatsoever, and I 

hope it can be changed. I plan to offer an amendment to change 

and delete it, frankly. 

My district is also home to enormous growth in wind energy, and 

I have been a big advocate of wind energy. One of the great 

synergisms that occurs in the Northwest is between using the hydroelectric system to be the battery by storing water to balance out 

the curve when it comes to wind power, because as anybody in the 

wind energy side knows, wind is not firm power. And, in fact, in 

the Northwest you will find times, this January specifically, where 

there was 10 days when there was no wind, which meant no energy 

release. Other times within an hour you could have a 1,000-megawatt difference between the output of the wind energy up or down. 

That means that energy has to be firmed up. Hydro systems are 

terrific for firming up energy. Yet in this legislation hydro that predates 2001 is not considered as renewable, and yet hydro after that 

is, unless hydro is on a facility that on page 11 of the definition 

shows that if the water surface elevation at any given location or 

time changes because of that hydro, then suddenly it is not considered renewable. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

Can somebody explain to me how that works? Unless you simply 

have in-stream hydro, which really isn’t a reality in most cases, although we have some in irrigation canals, which is fine, but to do 

big hydro or new hydro, you are most likely going to affect the elevation at some point and at some time if you are going to use hydro 

that stores the battery, the energy, that then is used to fill in when 

wind energy does not occur. 

So, Mr. Chairman, there are enormous challenges with the draft 

of this legislation when it comes to the definitions. Some of these 

definitions defy both logic and science. And yet there is enormous 

opportunity to develop renewable energy. 

I participated in a Science Committee field hearing yesterday 

morning in Vancouver, Washington, that was put on by our colleague Mr. Baird. And at that hearing one of the scientists from 

the University of Washington indicated that there is plenty of renewable wood fiber in the Northwest to, in fact, she said, provide 

replacement fuel for all gasoline consumption in the State of Oregon using something called methanol. Methanol, by the way, is 

what we use today in race cars. It is a proven technology, it is a 

proven fuel, and yet it is discriminated against when we talk about 

alternative fuels. Meanwhile our forests go up in smoke at unprecedented rates. 

With temperature change and global warming, we need to be better stewards of our Nation’s forests, and yet you have got enormous 

fires. According to the California Forestry Association, wildfires 

burning more than 8 million acres spew as much carbon dioxide 

into the air as all the cars and factories in the U.S. combined in 

the same months. From 2004 to 2008, an average of 8.9 million 

acres burned in wildfires each year. 

Our forests are going up in smoke, drought, bug infestation, mortality, 400 million boardfeet a year mortality alone in the Northwest. There is enormous opportunity to turn that woody biomass 

into a fuel source to use it for heat source with very little emission 

to improve the habitat and environment of the forest, and to thin 

them out to protect some of the old growth and all that people 

would like to do, and yet the very definitions in this bill fail that 

stewardship. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the markup. I look forward 

to future hearings on the substance of this measure so that we can 

fix it and make it workable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Markey. 

You have a lot of people to make statements today, so I will be 

very quick. 

Climate change is real. We need to do something about it. It is 

the right thing for our country, it is the right thing for the world. 

Business needs reasonable, I think, rules of the road so they can 

make a business plan and have certainty, and I think, as you have 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

pointed out, we need to legislate this rather than have it done by 

regulation. 

I want to thank the committee and its staff for working with the 

staff of the Science Committee on some areas of joint jurisdiction 

and also some unique jurisdiction. We look forward to seeing the 

mark so we will know how to better move in that direction. 

There is one area that I do want to point out that I think we 

need to do some more fine-tuning, and that is the renewable electricity standard. I think that we do need to have a broad use of the 

NES. I think that it is important for us as we start to move toward 

more energy independence. But it should not be punitive to different parts of the country. 

And I would ask the committee staff please to put a chart up if 

you have it. There we go. 

So if you can see that chart, and it is not mine, it is the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, and what you will see there is the 

green area is where current technology can be used for biomass. 

The blue is for wind, and the red is for solar. And as you see, there 

is some broad swaths of the country—you know, we are all sitting 

here for our own constituents, so you can see parochially if you look 

down on the east side of the Texas all the way up through the 

Southeast, up toward Bart Stupak’s up there, there really are very 

few types of alternative energies that we can use and that are appropriate for those communities. 

So hopefully, again, we do not want something that is going to 

be punitive, and I have some suggestions in that area. First of all, 

we should allow real credit for energy-efficiency improvements. Expanding the definition of what is renewable power, I think, is important, including giving the Secretary of Energy some authority 

for future technologies. If we are going to get from here to there, 

we can’t do it on today’s technology. And so there is going to be different types of, I think, renewable power in the future that we need 

to recognize in that regard. 

I think it is important that we don’t apply the mandates to small 

and midsize municipalities and cooperative utilities. I think it is 

also important that we consider the use of nuclear power and coal 

through CCS, and also reducing the alternative compliance payments. 

So while we have begun a conversation or continue that with 

you, I suggest any other Members here that would like to be a part 

of that, we would welcome you to join in that. And again, thank 

you for this hearing and all the hearings you have this week. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH M. HALL, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And today we are embarking on what I would call a mad dash to examine almost 650 pages 

of text, which includes various mandates and an incomplete cap 

and trade proposal containing no specifics on how CO2 emissions 

allowances would be allocated in the unprecedented expansion of 

environmental litigation placed and based on perceived risk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Despite the amount of paper it is printed on, the discussion draft 

lacks detailed information on the disposition of allowances. Will the 

allowances be distributed or auctioned? Would there be 100 percent 

auction? If auctioned, what are the cost-control mechanisms, and 

where would the proceeds be directed? 

This lack of clarity, Mr. Chairman, leaves the Congressional 

Budget Office absolutely unable to properly score the bill to start 

with, and American businesses and consumers in the dark to suggest how much this bill is going to cost. The entire promise and the 

premise on which the climate change debate hinges is on the idea 

that we can accurately measure, monitor and verify greenhouse gas 

emissions coming from all sectors of the country. 

Second, a cap implies that we know where we currently stand. 

We are betting the U.S. economy on the assumption that verifiable 

data collection and monitoring is as simple as you indicate it to be. 

Without U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases, what impact would 

we have if other major carbon-emitting countries do not follow suit? 

And would this reality put America in the position of shouldering 

the burden of cleaning up the world and having our citizens bear 

the high cost? What would regulations mean for electricity rates? 

Are these costs we are willing to accept given the uncertainty about 

whether regulations would even help at all? 

Recently Energy Secretary Chu mentioned that under the administration’s bill, the price of energy would increase. These costs will 

be passed on to the consumers, and the United States would be at 

a disadvantage to other nations. Just last month China’s top climate negotiator proffered that any fair international agreement to 

curb gases blamed for global warming would not require China to 

reduce emissions caused by or manufactured to meet demands elsewhere in the world. If China, the world’s largest emitter, is not 

willing to play, are we comfortable putting America’s economic security in further jeopardy by moving forward with this legislation? 

The key question facing all of us here in Congress is, quote, what 

is the appropriate policy for the United States to move our Nation 

toward affordable, reliable and clean energy sources? It is not an 

easy question to answer. We must discuss what the U.S. could accomplish with the right investments in energy research and development. For example, many, including myself, hope that carbon 

capture and sequestration technologies will make it possible for 

coal-fired power plants to limit their emissions while providing affordable electricity. Technologies researched and developed by the 

oil and gas industry in partnership with universities and national 

labs and utilized for enhanced oil recovery make for—the potential 

for carbon capture and sequestration make that possible. 

This innovation should be nurtured and not stymied. However, 

on top of a cap-and-trade system, this bill places a command-andcontrol regime on coal-fired power plants. Mandating that after 

2009 no new coal-fired plants without CCS technology in place may 

be built sets an unreasonable deadline. Even Energy Secretary Chu 

recently acknowledged that such CCS technologies will take many 

years to develop and even longer to be put into practice. What is 

to be gained by such a short time line? 

The elimination of the use of one of the most abundant domestic 

energy resources, while at the same time increasing the demand 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

for electricity, what energy source will be used to replace fossil 

fuels to meet the increased electricity demanded and triggered by 

the various mandates in this bill? If not clean coal, what about nuclear power? Unfortunately, nuclear is never featured among the 

almost 650 pages of your text. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. I am very concerned about 

this bill, the effect it is going to have on this country, the effect it 

is going to have on taxpayers in the future, the effect it is going 

to have on those of us who rely on energy and right now relying 

on countries that we don’t trust and don’t trust us for the energy 

we have. Surely there is a better way to go. 

I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time if I have 

any. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 72878A.001
8 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 72878A.002
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 72878A.003
10 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 72878A.004
11 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 72878A.005
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 72878A.006
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 72878A.007
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 72878A.008
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 72878A.009
16 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Green. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the following week 

will now be historic for the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

After years of debate on the root causes, impacts and potential solutions to address global climate change, our committee will soon 

consider comprehensive legislation that seeks to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions both home and abroad. 

Both the full committee Chair and you, Chairman Markey, have 

worked quickly on a discussion draft which sets the markup for action on climate in the House of Representatives. It is an understatement to say that all Americans in the entire world are closely 

watching how this debate unfolds. That is why I am pleased you 

have set an aggressive hearing schedule this week with distinguished panelists to learn more about the American Clean Energy 

and Security Act, or ACES, released shortly before the April recess. 

Since the draft’s release, the Environmental Protection Agency 

has issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat 

to public health and welfare. If Congress does not act, greenhouse 

gas emissions could be regulated administratively without input 

from Members that represent diverse constituencies nationwide. 

While I commend Chairman Waxman and your work, Chairman 

Markey, on the draft, and I hope to support the final product, I 

have serious concerns with the impact ACES may have on my constituents and job base in the overall economy. First, we must protect our U.S. Energy-intensive domestic industries, including refineries, so we do not simply export those jobs abroad to nations without carbon controls and lax environmental regulations. 

I represent the Houston Ship Channel, a petrochemical complex 

that stretches along the Texas Gulf Coast and is home to thousands of chemical industry and petroleum refining jobs. These energy-intensive industries we left vulnerable to foreign competitors 

not facing carbon regulations if we do not carefully craft transitional policies to prevent job leakage. We cannot allow the petrochemical and refining industries to migrate out of America. They 

are vital to our economy and to our national security. 

I want to thank Congressman Inslee and Congressman Doyle for 

putting forward a proposal to provide free allowances of certain energy-intensive industries regulated under a climate program. I urge 

the committee to provide ample allowances sufficient for all exposed industries, including domestic refineries, which will place our 

refineries on an equal footing with their competitors in the European Union, which are considered energy-intensive, trade-exposed 

industries. Border adjustment policies must level the playing field 

in the global market for all trade-exposed products, and our export 

and import polices under the cap-and-trade program must not place 

our domestic industries at a competitive disadvantage. 

None of these proposals, however, can substitute for the need for 

a strong international agreement with binding carbon reductions 

amongst the world’s largest emitters, including developing countries. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Second, our transportation fuel policy must be based on sound 

science, and avoid duplicative regulation, and enhance our broader 

national energy security. The draft discussion includes a low carbon fuel standard, which does not reflect the consensus-based principles issued by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, and raises 

more questions than answers. Under the cap-and-trade program, 

refiners must already purchase emission allowances for all fuels 

produced, with the total volume in the nationwide emission allowances declining over time. Layering an additional regulatory 

scheme on fuels may be the least efficient way to reduce carbon 

emissions and must be weighed against the impact the proposal 

would have on consumer gasoline prices. 

Third, complementary policies addressing renewable electricity 

and energy efficiency standards must reflect State and regional capabilities, avoid overlap, and not unduly burden low-income Americans with higher home energy bills. A mechanism must be in place 

to adjust targets if energy prices escalate, or if transmission capacity is inadequate. 

Fourth, a final proportion of allowances must be allocated for 

consumer assistance programs. Assisting with higher electricity 

prices is one piece of the puzzle. An effective rebate program must 

also address higher gasoline prices as well as the price of all goods 

that rely on energy inputs. If our climate policy leads to energy 

supply disruptions and price spikes without effective remediations, 

consumers and voters will begin to question that policy, and they 

will respond. 

Finally, the overall design of the cap-and-trade program must be 

improved. Any final bill should include realistic emission reduction 

targets, more effective cost-containment mechanisms, and enhance 

carbon market oversight provisions. I hope to work with Chairman 

Waxman, Chairman Markey and all the members of our committee 

on other concerns to craft a climate policy that protects both our 

environment and our economy. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 72878A.010
19 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 72878A.011
20 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 72878A.012
21 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 72878A.013
22 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the Chairman 

for the opportunity to have this day of opening statements as we 

begin a week of doing these hearings with several dozen witnesses. 

And I am assuming that we will hear over and over again witnesses tell this committee that the draft bill under consideration is 

the answer to all of our energy and security problems, as well as 

a vehicle that our economy needs to carry us through this economic 

downturn. 

I would argue that in its current form, this bill may do more 

harm to our economy than any bill that is likely to come before 

Congress the rest of this year, perhaps during my natural lifetime. 

That is because this cap-and-trade proposal will increase the daily 

overhead cost for businesses, increase the cost of running our families to work and school and in jobs of businesses unless they are 

explicitly protected in the language. 

Let me say that again: unless they are explicitly protected in the 

language. In other words, we will have a system of earmarks for 

what businesses we favor. Once again, Congress, in full transactional mode, will be able to pick winners and losers. 

Credit allocations are conspicuously absent from the language in 

this bill. 

I would also argue that some of the witnesses the committee has 

put together should be scrutinized for their support of this bill. I 

believe that some merely see a business opportunity to create strategic alliances in order to gain a greater share of future energy 

market. Certainly we have dealt with problems in the futures market and energy last summer when oil went up so high, and interestingly enough, Thomas Friedman, writing in an article a week, 

week and a half ago, said if we are going to be honest about it, let’s 

just tax carbon; let’s not play this elaborate game of hide the ball 

from the American public. The American public deserves to know 

what we are doing, and we are only going to create a system where 

the buying and selling of carbon futures are going to mimic that 

of energy futures last summer. 

Now, I would like to highlight the fact that some of the largest 

corporation industries affected by this draft bill are absent despite 

the seemingly unending list of witnesses that we have had before 

us this spring and are going to have this week. I have also noticed 

for the second time in two attempts the witnesses representing the 

U.S. Climate Action Partnership have avoiding hearing opening 

statements from members of the committee. Now, I know they are 

boring, and I know that people don’t like to pay attention to them, 

but this is an historic time, and they should be here. 

I am looking forward to hearing from Secretary Chu, Secretary 

LaHood, Administrator Jackson at tomorrow’s hearings. As members of this committee, we really haven’t had an opportunity to 

hear from them. In fact, we have created our whole budget without 

any input from the Secretary of Energy or the Secretary of Transportation. In the previous administration we would bring the EnVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

ergy Secretary in, we would bring the Secretary of Transportation 

in and get their views and estimates before we created the budget. 

We didn’t get to do that this year, so maybe tomorrow will be a 

good opportunity to ask about the views and estimates for their 

budget and how this bill will be incorporated into each agency’s responsibility and roles in government over the coming years. That 

opportunity for Members to question agencies about their budget is 

an important role of Congress, and I will appreciate the opportunity to exercise that tomorrow. 

I would also point out that it is up to the Congress to—we hold 

the pursestrings, and if indeed the Environmental Protection Agency is producing regulations that are damaging to the economy, we 

do have the ability to withhold funding for their activities during 

the appropriations process, and perhaps some clever person can 

draft an amendment that will do just that. 

Now, fortunately, this draft legislation today is only a draft. We 

still have time to make changes to this bill, and I hope some of our 

witnesses will offer suggestions, constructive suggestions, for how 

we can do this without further damaging the economy. For example, if the goal is to reduce emissions, 1 ton saved through energy 

efficiency should receive the same treatment as 1 ton saved 

through technology transfer, fuel switching or renewable production. I think energy efficiency is the real common ground in this 

energy discussion because it reduces consumption and saves 

money. 

And finally, the aggregate cost of this bill is a very serious concern. The current draft makes it nearly impossible to estimate the 

eventual cost because we are still not sure how the allowances will 

be distributed. But comparing this draft to similar bills that have 

already been scored brings this bill to well over $1 trillion. One trillion dollars is still what it used to be even in the recent time of 

$1 billion and $1 trillion bailouts. 

I have said it before in this committee: Strong and growing 

economies are more likely to develop the technology breakthroughs 

we needed to spur the next wave in energy innovation. That is 

something we can address without imposing a cap on carbon or establishing a trading platform where sophisticated investors can 

work up exotic carbon options to trade or mandate the use of nonreliant or unavailable technology. 

So I certainly look forward to questioning the witnesses, Mr. 

Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman emeritus of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing 

today. Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing the 

Nation. The effect the legislation discussed this week will have 

both on the environment and the economy cannot be overstated. 

The fact that the committee is dedicating such time in going 

through the regular order is of the utmost importance. And both 

you and Chairman Waxman are to be commended for your hanVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

dling of these matters within the regular order. You are also to be 

commended for the outreach you have done to the members of the 

committee to enable the committee and its members to understand 

the issues each of us faces in our unique and geographical and economically diverse districts. 

In reading through the legislation, and in talking to stakeholders 

over the recess, I am impressed with the draft bill before us. Of 

course, the question of auction versus allocation still lies before us, 

and that is a very serious question, some might say deal breaker, 

for many Members. 

I would note that this bill bears strong similarities to the recommendation of USCAP and also to language of legislation introduced by Mr. Boucher and I during the last session of the Congress. 

I do remain concerned about the aggressive nature of the renewable electrical standard as written in the draft. While a strong renewable standard is critically important as we move forward, and 

would certainly go a long way in preventing the dash to gas, I 

worry that 25 percent in 15 years might be more than States can 

handle. One possible solution to this would be to back nuclear out 

of the baseline that has been done for waste energy and existing 

hydro. It is my sincere hope that we could work together to find 

a standard that is both workable and achievable and fair. 

I would also like to work with you and Chairman Waxman on 

the provisions dealing with autos. Included in this legislation I 

would like to see a doubling of the authorization of the Department 

of Energy’s section 136 Advanced Technologies Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program. I would note that this country has been 

in and out of programs like this, like Murphy’s glass eye, and every 

new administration that comes along has changes which will give 

us better, they say, technology assistance to the auto-manufacturing industry. But this has left us with a very unstable and unreliable situation. The program that I refer to has proved wildly successful, and applications to date far outweigh current funding levels. And we are seeing how this kind of program will work and has 

worked in other countries like Japan, China and Korea, which are 

now exporting batteries to this country and other advanced technology in the automobile industry. 

I would also propose dedicating 1 percent of the allowance values 

a direct funding source for section 136, and generally for retooling 

to help the domestic auto industry meet the higher fuel economy 

standard. In addition, I would like to see the inclusion of the socalled ‘‘cash for clunkers’’ bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and other 

members of this committee as we work towards compromise language between the Sutton bill and the Inslee bill. Any compromise 

must favor automobiles built in the United States and not exacerbate the disadvantages our domestic auto industry already faces. It 

would indeed be curious if we were to spend money to stimulate 

the economy of the United States by supporting autos built in 

Japan, Korea or China. 

I also want to applaud Representative Doyle for his work on ensuring that the United States manufacturing is not placed at a 

competitive disadvantage as a result of this legislation. His leaderVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

ship has been valuable, and, again, I commend him for it. I support 

your efforts also, Mr. Chairman, in this area and look forward to 

doing so. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward, I am committed to 

securing a dedicated fund for natural resource adaptation. As we 

heard in the testimony before the subcommittee at a hearing on 

adaption, the forest assessment report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change noted, and I quote, observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases, closed quote. In that same report 

we are warned that in the lifetime of a child born today, 20 percent 

to 30 percent of the world’s plant and animal species will be on the 

brink of extinction if we don’t take action now. 

One of my great heroes, and a great conservationist, and the 

26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, taught us 

that conservation is a great moral issue, and that it is our duty as 

it ensures the safety and the continuance of the Nation and mankind. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the many witnesses over the next several days and working with you as we continue to work to address climate change in a manner which protects the environment and which must protect jobs and the economy. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman from Michigan very much. 

And we now turn and recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, 

Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman Markey, thank you very much. And 

before I give my opening statement, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent that the statement of Mr. Radanovich of California be submitted for the hearing record. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 72878A.014
27 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 72878A.015
28 

Mr. MARKEY. And any opening statements from any of the Members who cannot attend this session will be included by unanimous 

consent in the record. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Capps, and Messrs. 

Blunt, Sullivan, and Gingrey follow:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 72878A.016
30 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 72878A.017
31 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 72878A.018
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 72878A.019
33 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 72878A.020
34 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 72878A.021
35 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 72878A.022
36 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 72878A.023
37 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 72878A.024
38 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 72878A.025
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 72878A.026
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 72878A.027
41 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 72878A.028
42 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 72878A.029
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 72878A.030
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 72878A.031
45 

Mr. MARKEY. If the Chair is recognized, we will put it back at 

5 minutes. 

The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized for 

his opening statement. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey. 

And I would like to say that while climate change may be one 

of the most urgent problems facing our country, the way that this 

bill affects our production of electricity and the production of the 

fuel we use for our transportation needs in America may very well 

dwarf the climate change problem. Now, why do I say that? I say 

that because it is essential, as we move forward to produce cleaner 

energy, that we balance the need of cleaner energy versus the need 

of protecting jobs in the U.S. and keeping the U.S. competitive in 

the global marketplace. 

Now, President Obama and others have said that the jobs created as this country moves into clean energy will far offset the jobs 

that we lose with our traditional energy sources. I have read a lot 

of studies, and there are some studies that say that that is actually 

the case. But you can find just as many studies that say the jobs 

created as we move into a greener economy will not offset the jobs 

of the traditional economy, and so I think we have to look very 

carefully at that as we move forward. 

I would also point out that recently we met with a group of Chinese, and they were very emphatic when they met with us. And 

they indicated that every 2 weeks they are bringing on a new coalpowered plant in China. And also the same type of activities taking 

place in India. And I might say that those coal plants in China and 

India frequently do not have scrubbers, they certainly don’t have 

carbon capture and sequestration, and those countries are utilizing 

coal because it still is the most economical way to produce electricity. And they want to maintain low transportation costs, they 

want to maintain low electrical costs, they want to maintain low 

labor costs, because they want to be the most competitive country 

in the world. And if we move unilaterally to address some of these 

issues as is set out in this legislation, I think there is a real danger 

that we are going to be less competitive in the global marketplace. 

Renewables under this legislation, we want to produce 20 percent of our electricity by renewables by the year 2025. And I think 

Mr. Barton in his testimony showed very clearly that in States like 

Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, you simply cannot produce that much electricity by 

wind power and solar power. It simply cannot be done, and yet this 

legislation will provide a penalty for those utilities that are unable 

to do so. 

I would also point out that we know that we produce 51 percent 

of our electricity by coal, and in order to continue to do that, and 

also to help using coal around the world, that we have to perfect 

capture and storage technology. Recently I have had some conversations with Dr. Curt Halice, who is one of the few people that 

I know that actually wrote and received a doctoral degree on carVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

bon capture and sequestration. He has looked at this legislation, 

and he is also involved with a company that right now is featured 

in the New York Times on Saturday that they are contemplating 

building a $5 billion carbon capture and sequestration plant that 

will store carbon dioxide on the ocean floor. But when he made 

comments on this legislation, and I think this is very constructive 

comments that we should look at as we move forward—and I would 

also ask unanimous consent that I be able to submit for the record 

his comments on the carbon capture and sequestration part of this 

bill. So if there is no objection, I hope that that would be admitted. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be admitted. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But one of the suggestions that he made, and 

this is the only one that I will talk about, and I think it is something we should think about, was to reduce the bill’s floor for the 

amount of CO2 that a plant emits before it can qualify for funding 

from this act. He suggests lowering it from 250,000 tons of CO2 to 

100,000 tons of CO2. He also has some other, I think, very constructive recommendations on the carbon capture part of this bill which will play a vital 

role if we are going to continue to utilize coal and be competitive 

in the global marketplace. 

So I want to commend the Chairman and the others who have 

worked on this bill, and we look forward to working with you as 

we move forward. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much. 

And now we turn and recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Harman. 

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

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding what will be 24/7 hearings for the next few days. 

There are some young people in the audience that are wearing 

green shirts. Those shirts say ‘‘Power Shift 2009,’’ and their hard 

hats say, ‘‘Green Jobs.’’ Now, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, 

that what we do here with this legislation is about you folks. It is 

about the kind of world you will inherit and the kind of jobs you 

will perform. We can get it right, or we can blow it. I am for getting 

it right. 

I would suggest that your legislation, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 

Waxman’s legislation, is very thoughtful, has a few holes to fill in, 

but it is based on a sound foundation, and that foundation is the 

USCAP blueprint for legislative action. I know it was no accident 

that you had USCAP appear here as our first witness in this session of Congress to talk about climate change legislation. I would 

just like to read the list of its partnership members, or some of 

them: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, the Chrysler Group, Duke 

Energy, the Environmental Defense Fund, General Electric, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, Shell 

Oil, Siemens, Xerox. 

Now, this is not your average advocacy group, I would say. This 

is a, I assume, bipartisan, very bipartisan, and very unusual group 

of folks who probably had extremely different positions when they 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

formed the group, but have now been able to arrive at consensus 

principles. It is a sound foundation for the legislation, and it is a 

bipartisan foundation for the legislation. And I think the fact, as 

the Chairman emeritus said, that we are moving in the regular 

order speaks to the fact that this committee, with a great history, 

will build on a sound foundation and bipartisanship and produce 

a great bill. 

I would just like to point out two of its more brilliant provisions. 

One is section 211 that relates to outdoor lighting efficiency. Everyone should know that Congressman Upton and I introduced this as 

a stand-alone bill. It is based on the way we were able to achieve 

success with respect to indoor lighting, and it set tough standards 

over a series of years to increase lighting efficiency. 

That would be one of the brilliant provisions, and the other 

might be section 214, which is about cash for clunkers. It is a system of incentives to get Americans to replace their older, energywasting washing machines, refrigerators and other household appliances, to trade them in so that they no longer consume excess 

energy and get replacements that are efficient. 

This is the kind of material in this very thoughtful bill. It will 

need, as I said, us to come together on some of the tough details, 

but it is built on a sound foundation. And I predict to you kids out 

there that we are going to do the right thing, and that you can feel 

that you were part of a very impressive project which the 111th 

Congress is about to undertake. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the hearings you have scheduled this week; however, 

I am very concerned about how we plan to mark up this bill while 

the details of how the administration intends to issue exemptions 

versus auctioning permits off is not included in the draft of this 

bill. Similarly, we cannot know the true cost of this bill until the 

permit issue has been decided. 

While the debate on the causes of climate change are far from 

settled, as well as the cost of this bill, what has not been disputed 

is the fact that a cap-and-trade energy tax will cost this country 

millions of good jobs and will force the average American family to 

pay thousands of dollars in increased energy costs. This bill is expected to raise over $640 billion in new taxes on energy. Even the 

Congressional Budget Office notes regardless of how the allowances 

were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers who would face persistently 

higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. 

The President has acknowledged that his plan will lead to higher 

electricity prices when he stated, quote, under my plan of a capand-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, unquote. According to the President’s Budget Director Peter Orszag, 

the average annual household cost increase would be about $1,300 

a year for a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions, which is 80 percent 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

less than the cut sought in the President’s proposed budget. In fact, 

Peter Orszag testified last year before Congress that price increases borne by consumers are essential to the success of their 

cap-and-trade energy program. 

Rather than a national energy tax, we need a comprehensive national energy policy that takes an ‘‘all of the above’’ strategy. We 

need to encourage conservation, we need to pursue an increase in 

technologies and renewable sources of energy like wind and solar, 

but we also need to explore our own natural resources like oil, natural gas and even clean-coal technologies; but we also need to 

make nuclear power part of a renewable energy portfolio standard, 

because clearly nuclear power is a reliable and successful and efficient source of energy that most of Europe is using, and it emits 

no carbon. This bill doesn’t include nuclear in part of that strategy. 

This cap-and-trade energy tax will send millions of our energyintensive manufacturing jobs overseas to countries like China and 

India. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, an 

estimated 3 to 4 million net American jobs will be lost under capand-trade energy tax. Some estimates on job losses go even higher, 

well over 7 million jobs that would be lost in our American economy. Surely at a time when we need to be creating jobs, this bill 

goes in the opposite direction. 

Moving into a cap-and-trade tax system would place the United 

States’ economy at a distinct competitive disadvantage because it 

would place additional costs on American manufacturers and cede 

market share to overseas competitors that are not subject to the 

limits on greenhouse gas emissions. What this bill will do is redistribute wealth from American families and consumers to special interests. As we speak, deals are being cut right now with specialinterest groups to grant them free allowances in exchange for their 

support on this legislation. 

Is that really the change in the way of doing business that so 

many Americans were promised? That is why so many of the details of this cap-and-trade bill are not yet available to us on the 

committee, as well as to the public, and so there is a clear lack of 

transparency in this legislation in part because of the deals that 

are currently being cut, with those details that are conveniently 

left out. 

Furthermore, government-run cap-and-trade systems smother innovation since companies are artificially constrained in their economic activities, and this will dampen the incentive to create new 

products and services. 

For those who are concerned about reducing carbon emissions, 

this cap-and-trade energy tax will ironically increase the worldwide 

carbon emissions, because many of the millions of American jobs 

that will be shipped overseas due to a cap-and-trade energy tax 

will be, in fact, sent to countries who do not follow the environmental standards that are in place here in America. So while those 

jobs will be shipped overseas, and we will lose that economic opportunity here in our country, the countries that don’t participate in 

cap and trade, like China, India and others, actually emit more 

carbon in the way that they produce the same goods. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue in a 

broad context this week; however, without the details on some of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

the most significant portions of the bill, this committee is doing a 

disservice to the American people by purporting to have a hearing 

on a bill that is incomplete. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

It is Earth Day tomorrow, but I want to point out this is not just 

a green bill one way, it is a green bill two ways. It is not just about 

decreasing pollution, it is about increasing jobs. And with this bill 

we are on the launching pad for the single most ambitious, the single most promising job-creation program since the launch of the 

Apollo project under the leadership of John F. Kennedy. 

And I think we ought to approach this with three basic American 

attributes, the first being confidence. And I just want to share 

some reasons why I am confident that we will fulfill America’s destiny of being the clean energy arsenal to the world. 

Last week I was at home for a couple of weeks, and I just want 

to share some of the people that I talked to in one week. I talked 

to the people at the SAFIRE energy company which just announced 

yesterday that they intend to have an algae-based biodiesel 

biofuels, zero CO2 emission, up and running by 2011 at twice the 

levels that they originally predicted, using only sunlight and salt 

water and no feedstock. 

I talked to the A123 Battery Company that is ready to manufacture a lithium-ion domestically produced battery to drive American-produced electric cars. We ought to have confidence we are not 

going to allow China to dominate the world economy in electric cars 

and lithium-ion batteries. This bill is going to make sure that that 

industry stays here. 

I talked to the Infinia Company in the Tri-Cities, Washington, 

which has a sterling solar-powered engine, which is now selling 

well in Spain and we want to start selling well here, and this bill 

will make sure that that happens. 

I talked to the Ramgen Company. A lot of people have talked to 

coal—about the need to sequester coal CO2. We have a technology 

at the Ramgen Company that leads the world in the ability to compress CO2 so we can bury it permanently and create jobs in this 

country. 

I talked to the AltaRock Company, which is one of the world’s 

leading companies to do engineered geothermal, which we can do 

perhaps in 50 percent of the United States. 

The list goes on and on and on. But what these Americans need 

is a policy jump-start so that these jobs get created in America, and 

fundamentally this is what this bill does. So we ought to have confidence. 

Second, we ought to act as a union, recognizing the very disparate nature of our country, and that is I am very pleased to be 

working with Mike Doyle, to have—and I appreciate Chairman 

Waxman and Mr. Markey’s including our provision that will prevent job leakage and not give an advantage to our international 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

competitors by, in fact, giving some free permits to domestic highenergy-intensive industry. It is the right thing to do, and it is our 

answer to the international situation. 

But further, I want to mention one thing that I hope we will address as we go forward in the bill. To truly act as a union, we have 

to unify the electrical grid system of the United States. If you look 

at the map that Mr. Gordon put up about the disparate access to 

very renewable sources, we have to have a grid system that is fitting for this century. And I hope that we will find a solution to site 

these grid systems and finance these grid systems. It is both necessary and possible to do so. Can you imagine what the Interstate 

Freeway System would look like if we just did it county by county? 

We need to have a backstop so that Uncle Sam can help out local 

communities site these systems. 

The third thing we need to do in this bill is be smart, and I want 

to mention a couple of things in that regard. The smartest thing 

we can do is to learn from the lessons of Europe. Europe essentially 

used a cap-and-trade system that we invented here to deal with 

sulfur dioxide. It has been extremely successful in our American 

experience. We have tamed sulfur dioxide at probably half the cost 

that was originally anticipated. I believe there is a possibility to do 

the same with carbon dioxide. 

But there are some lessons from Europe. I just want to mention 

one of them. When they started the cap-and-trade system in Europe, they gave away all the permits. And the reason they did that 

is it created less controversy to simply give away the permits. And 

it was a spectacular disaster when they did that because it ended 

up consumers bore the cost, rather than utilities, of the cost of this 

program, and there were scandals galore in Europe about that. And 

they did not achieve in the first 3 years of their program what they 

wanted because they gave away the permits and did not create an 

incentive to go to low-carbon fuels. 

We ought to be like the guy who putts second. You always follow 

the putt of the guy who went first. And we ought to learn from the 

lessons of Europe and have a more reasonable disposition of these 

permits. And when we do that—I want to make one important 

point here—this is going to be the largest recycling program in 

American history because a huge amount of these dollars are going 

to be recycled right back to the American consumers to help with 

their utility bills. You can make sure we are going to grow jobs, 

help consumers and get this job done. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. 

Like all of us, I believe we should work to decrease the amount 

of greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere and be good stewards of this Earth and its resources. However, I don’t see how these 

3 days of marathon hearings will shed light on how the discussion 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

draft of the Cap and Trade Act proposes to actually decrease greenhouse gas emissions and not cause devastating harm to our economy. The discussion draft is incomplete. The most important provision regarding the allocation of allowances has yet to be decided or 

even written. Because of this, CBO said they cannot score the bill. 

And industries, and thus consumers, cannot truly define how the 

bill would impact them. How then can we have legislative hearings 

and engage in fruitful dialogue and debate about a bill that is incomplete? 

Even though the most critical portion of the bill is not included, 

we can talk about the numerous ways in which this bill will inevitably increase energy costs and negatively impact working families 

across America. The last major cap-and-trade provision considered 

in Congress was the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act. As 

far as decreasing greenhouse emissions, according to the Institute 

for Energy Research, Warner-Lieberman would have only reduced 

global temperatures by 18/100ths of 1 degree by 2050. As far as 

economic impact, according to the Heritage Foundation, in the first 

20 years alone, the ramifications of that bill would have resulted 

in aggregate real GDP losses of nearly $5 trillion. In the first 20 

years, it would have destroyed 900,000 jobs and caused nearly 3 

million job losses in the manufacturing sector by 2029, many jobs 

driven overseas. In my State of Pennsylvania, it was projected that 

over 94,000 jobs would have been lost in the manufacturing sector 

by 2030. 

Yet the Waxman-Markey draft is far more sweeping than Warner-Lieberman, and thus economic consequences will be even 

worse. The bill imposes a tax on every energy producer for their 

carbon emissions. This tax will most certainly be passed on to consumers. President Obama acknowledged this in a meeting with the 

editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle in January of 2008 

when he said, quote, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, 

electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. That will cost money. 

They will pass that money on to the consumers, end quote. 

In Pennsylvania, 56 percent of energy demand that relies on coal, 

with the advent of a harsh energy tax that discriminates against 

coal-powered electric utilities, hard-working families will have to 

devote a larger proportion of their income to increasing energy 

prices. 

Every American realizes that we are in a time of economic trouble, so we must ask the question, is it prudent to pass a cap-andtrade bill which will increase the cost of energy and conceivably 

cause 3.75 million job losses? Is it prudent to pass legislation that 

will make matters even worse by levying a new national energy tax 

that could cost families over $3,100 per year per family? 

Mr. Chairman, we need to carefully consider the negative impact 

that a cap-and-trade bill will have upon our economy. I do not believe it is in the best interest of American families to pass a bill 

that will make their way of life harder and more challenging by job 

losses and higher energy costs. 

In addition, despite the harmful economic consequences, the bill 

is even short-sighted in what it considers alternative and renewable energy. Nuclear energy, a prime source of clean energy, is entirely excluded from this bill, as is waste energy, which has been 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

successfully used in my district for decades to produce energy from 

municipal solid waste. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that these 

hearings will be substantive, clarify several aspects of the discussion draft that are puzzling at best and harmful to the consumers 

at worst. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses over the 

next 3 days, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 72878A.032
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 72878A.033
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 72878A.034
56 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. 

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all 

of your leadership in bringing us to this moment. We have an opportunity before us to address climate change in a real and meaningful way. 

Our greenhouse gas emissions have put our global environment, 

social structure and security at risk, and if we fail to act boldly, 

comprehensively and decisively, the impact will reverberate during 

the later decades of this new century with the loss of human lives, 

declines in health, species extinction, destruction of ecosystem and 

increase of social conflict. 

Among the challenges that we face is that we are asking current 

generations to conserve and live a lower carbon lifestyle in order 

to improve the lives and well-being of future generations, generations yet to come. I often remind folks, especially my colleagues, 

that the future doesn’t have a voice or a lobbyist. Our great, great, 

great grandchildren don’t have a voice or a lobbyist. The present 

has plenty of lobbyists. Those of us who are here on Earth today 

have a voice. We know that it is up to us. We know the science, 

we know the consequences of inaction and we must act on behalf 

of both those who are here today and those who will inherit this 

Earth in generations to come. 

Now, if we are truly to be successful in our effort, it is necessary 

for our energy legislation to address climate change while spurring 

innovation, creating jobs and containing costs. The bill we have before us begins to set us down such a path. It is not perfect, but 

with four key components of this legislation—increases in renewable energy requirements, higher energy efficiency standards, a 

cap-and-trade program to address emissions and assistance incentives for transitioning to a low-carbon economy—our opportunities 

for success are achievable. 

I cannot overstate, our Nation’s security, our planet’s sustainability and our children’s future hang in the balance, and the world 

is watching our every step. They are looking to us, with the largest 

economy, most talented innovators and the richest resources, to 

bring leadership and commitment to Copenhagen and beyond. We 

absolutely cannot show up empty handed. 

I look forward to hearing from the experts who will address us 

in the panels throughout this week and to working with my colleagues to ensure that we craft a bill that meets all of our diverse 

needs regionally, our challenges and our opportunities. 

Like my colleague, Mr. Inslee, I also had the chance to tour cutting-edge businesses in Wisconsin over the spring recess, who are 

doing incredible innovative things with regard to energy efficiency 

and renewable electrical and liquid fuel production. I had a chance 

to go to Orion, who is manufacturing a solar light pipe technology 

that can eliminate factory floors electricity free. I visited Johnson 

Controls that is focusing on building efficiency and lithium ion batteries for plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles of the future. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

I had a chance to visit We Energies and their carbon capture demonstration project and a chance to tour a wind farm in my State 

and to see a farm with a manure digester generating enough electricity for 600 homes in the area. 

As I toured these innovative businesses throughout the State of 

Wisconsin, what I took from that is that we can do this. Folks are 

doing it right now. Many are already leading the way. The goals 

that we have to confront the challenge of climate change are within 

our reach, and we must lead at this moment. 

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

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Murphy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY OF PENNSYLVANIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember as a young boy one day hearing my parents talk about this 

thing called Sputnik that was launched into space and they were 

worried, as were many Americans, that somehow the Russians 

were beating us at something that—what we thought was a backwards sort of country, the Soviet Union that really didn’t have 

much science at all. 

But it did spark an incredible change in America. In our schools, 

it emphasized science. And our universities, they really began to 

look more beyond just our streets and into our skies. 

And then came this incredible challenge by the President of the 

United States that said, Within 10 years we will put a man on the 

moon safely and bring him home. And indeed we did that because 

over a 10-year time span, our Nation came together to meet the 

challenge of its generation to do that. 

Well, now, we have a new challenge for our generation and that 

has to do with energy. Now, I am not a climatologist or a physicist, 

and I am not here to argue about any of the things that people do 

discuss with regard to climate change and its causes and what that 

might be. But I have a background in health, and I am concerned 

that where we should find common ground is that we do want a 

clean planet with clean air and clean water and clean soil. And we 

can get there if we pull together to do that; the question is how. 

And the question is, can we do this in a way that boosts our economy and not hurts it, that creates jobs in America and not sends 

them overseas and really and truly works in a way that American 

families find opportunity and not the loss of more jobs. 

To that end I think we have three things we should do: 

One, we need to explore. We need to find domestic energy 

sources and make sure we clean them up and not just continue 

business as usual. As it is, nothing should sicken us more than 

when we find that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars 

overseas and, in essence, funding both sides in the war on terror 

when we see other countries use that money from oil to buy bombs 

or create them and use them against our soldiers, and to fund terrorism. That is unacceptable to all of us. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

What we need to do is find ways of using our domestic resources, 

as abundant as they are, of coal, of natural gas, of oil, but clean 

it up so we are not polluting this planet and leaving it dirtier than 

when we came. 

The second thing we have to do is conservation. Many of my colleagues and I have companies in our districts that are coming into 

their own now as they find many ways to conserve energy. We will 

recognize that homes and farms and factories and offices perhaps 

use only about 40 to 50 percent of the energy effectively, but they 

pay for 100 percent. And—it is unacceptable for our economy that 

we waste so much, and we have to work on ways of conserving that 

with every conceivable thing from manufacturing to transportation 

to education. 

The third thing, however, we have to do is innovation. The Apollo 

Project of our generation is energy, and we need the idea, the 

science, the research and the funding to get there. We need to have 

a sense of awe, and wonder what we can do; and we need to be 

dealing with, Is this the truth? We cannot afford to have commercials sniping each other with people pretending there is no such 

thing as clean coal. I suppose the Wright brothers faced the same 

sort of challenge and other people said there is no such thing. 

If there is any country in this world that can clean it up, we can 

do it. My friends, that is Nobel prize stuff to find someone who will 

find a lump of coal and find a way of getting all of the energy out 

of it, not 40 percent, and do it without pollution. We ought to be 

funding that. 

We do so many other things with innovation, but where I must 

say I have agreement with many parts of this legislation before us, 

I hope the door is still open to do some other things that deal with 

innovation. I am deeply concerned that what this bill will do with 

cap and trade is not really stop pollution, because it merely sells 

pollution credits and does not reinvest in cleaning up our coal 

plants and, I believe, will actually send many, many jobs to China, 

to Brazil and to India. 

We have to gather together and find ways that we can use our 

abundant resources in effective ways. We can do that. But it also 

means we have to put that money back into these things and not 

siphon it off and send it off to the Federal Government to use for 

other sources. 

It is going to take a lot of work here; and I hope, as we proceed 

in this, we remember the awe and wonder in which we were— 

many of us were inspired back in the 1960s, and instead of sniping 

at each other with regard to political gain, we gather together. Because the end is something we have to agree on: energy independence and a clean planet, with a good future for our children and 

their children. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

Let me begin by stating that, like all of you, I am concerned 

about climate change, and I believe that we must develop a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in 

alternative and renewable fuels like wind and solar, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, biofuels, as well as nuclear power and clean coal. 

As the leader of the Free World, I also believe we must lead by 

example. However, we must embrace a commonsense approach to 

imposing regulations that will help to improve our environment 

while still maintaining jobs and strengthening our Nation’s economy here at home in America. 

In order to do this, we must ensure that we do not allow our 

laws to get ahead of our technology, but that when the appropriate 

technology becomes available, we demand that industry use it. 

In addition, I think we must be very careful in enacting climate 

legislation to ensure that we do not enact a policy that will simply 

result in shipping our jobs and our carbon dioxide emissions overseas, which would do nothing for Planet Earth. I recognize that few 

things get done without U.S. leadership and action, but our action 

must include compelling other countries to join us. The reality is 

that between now and 2040, 97 percent of all new carbon emissions 

will not be produced in North America or Europe, but in places like 

China, India and the Middle East. We must do all we can to ensure 

that the rest of the world works with us towards a goal of improving our environment and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We 

are not trying to fix a problem in the United States of America; we 

are trying to address a problem that affects the entire planet. 

I believe that the draft we will be discussing this week is a significant step in the right direction. Or maybe a better word would 

be to say ‘‘correct’’ direction. For example, I was pleased to see that 

the draft addressed and embraces carbon capture and sequestration. In my own State of Arkansas, there are massive deposits of 

lignite coal, over 9 billion tons to be exact. However, there must be 

a serious investment in carbon capture and other new carbon technologies in order for lignite to realize its full potential. 

The bottom line is that, you know, if you didn’t like $4 gasoline 

last summer, you are really not going to like your electric bill 

sometime between now and 2030. We are going to have an electricity crisis sometime in this country, and I say we could do it all. 

We need to do more nuclear. We need to continue to find ways to 

clean coal up. We need to do all those things in the science lab 

today. We need to find ways to move them to the marketplace. A 

few of them, to me, sound a little goofy, but if we can make them 

work, we should embrace them. The sooner we can do that, the 

fewer dollars we will be sending overseas and the more of those 

dollars we can keep at home, make our energy here at home and 

put people back to work. 

While I believe that the draft is a good first step, there are a 

number of concerns I have. I am deeply concerned that the more 

traditional renewable resources—wind, solar, geothermal—do not 

exist in places like Arkansas in sufficient amounts to satisfy a Federal renewable electricity mandate, especially an aggressive one. 

This draft needs to expand its definition to include biomass to a 

much larger degree than what it does today. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

I represent a very rural and poor district. As a result, any increase in electric rates due to a renewable electricity standard will 

fall disproportionately on consumers in my district. And I want to 

ensure that this does not happen. 

I hope to work with the chairman to ensure this legislation will 

not create a burden, much higher electricity bills for consumers 

and business, and to ensure that all of our available natural resources like biomass are included to the fullest extent possible in 

that definition. 

I also believe that our Nation’s farmers and agriculture community can play an important role in the fight against climate change 

by growing our fuels and restoring carbon in their fields. I am 

hopeful that we can work to make that possible in this legislation. 

I also believe that we must ensure that energy-intensive industries like the refining industry are still able to supply our Nation 

as we transition to more renewable forms of energy. This U.S. Industry must remain viable, and I hope to work with the committee 

to ensure that. 

Finally, I believe that the draft provides a strong framework to 

protect natural resources, but I want to ensure that there is significant funding to protect our Nation’s wildlife and natural resources 

as well as the low-income consumers who could be disproportionately affected by this legislation. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I realize I am out of time, and I thank 

you for the opportunity. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that what concerns us on this side, Mr. Chairman, is that 

this economy is obviously struggling in the worst economic crisis in 

over 70 years. The majority, I think, should move very carefully 

here and not hastily move the bill or craft an incomplete emissions 

mitigation plan that lacks any procedure for distributing the allocations in a very precise manner. 

Since 1997, Europe has engaged in a similar-style cap-and-trade 

system that certainly should serve as an example of how such a 

hastily crafted system can be manipulated. Their cap-and-tradesystem as been plagued with industry closures, price spikes and 

windfall profits. European governments and industries, in an attempt to head off a negative economic impact of cap and trade, 

freely handed out emission allowances that resulted in an emission 

permit market that constantly fluctuated. With the price of carbon 

up and down by an average of 17.5 percent per month, with daily 

price shifts as great as 70 percent, European companies have been 

left to simply guess at how much their environmental compliance 

costs might be every month. Meanwhile, European consumers have 

suffered as the rates for energy have increased, with homeowners 

in Germany paying 25 percent more for electricity now than they 

did before the implementation of the cap and trade. 

The intellectual architects of this U.S. cap-and-trade plan acknowledge higher energy prices would result from an emission cap 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

here as well. In fact, they rely on it. This will force manufacturers 

and small businesses to absorb the cost of higher energy prices, 

which they will do by raising prices, cutting costs by laying off employees or, of course, being forced to close. This is what we don’t 

want in this economic situation. 

Now, the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 

a cap-and-trade plan will cost up to 4 million jobs. The Heritage 

Foundation also estimates the loss of up to 5.5 million jobs. The 

Charles River Associates estimates job losses as high as 7 million. 

The consensus seems to be that a cap-and-trade plan will cost millions of U.S. jobs. 

Besides instituting a bureaucratic cap-and-trade plan, the majority draft here also mandates that 25 percent of U.S. electricity generation come from a limited list of renewable sources by 2025. Because my State of Florida and the Southeast have limited availability of solar, land-filled gas and virtually no wind power, electric 

consumers in our region would be forced to pay through their electric bills for renewable energy credits, if available; or for alternative compliance payments essentially amounting to a tax on electricity used by businesses and other consumers. This will drive up 

energy costs and hurt economic growth with no guarantee that the 

money collected would actually be invested in generation and efficiency projects in their State. 

If Congress were to enact a 25 percent renewable electricity 

standard, as proposed in this bill, it would cost my State over $10 

billion between now and 2030. 

Renewable energy programs should be based on consumer demand, regional differences and appropriate incentives, not on unrealistic Federal mandates that selectively penalize electricity consumers in certain regions of our country. Ultimately, it should be 

States, not the Federal Government, that should be responsible for 

the design and implementation of renewable energy directives affecting electricity consumers in their areas. 

The fact remains that despite political favoritism and billions in 

subsidies, wind power still only accounts for 1 percent of U.S. net 

electricity generation, and solar power accounts for just 100th of 1 

percent. Any meaningful effort to achieve long-term, sustainable reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the development and deployment of new energy technologies, including 

advanced clean coal technologies and carbon capture and sequestration. The rapid development and demonstration and widespread 

deployment of such technologies are of paramount importance in 

any reasoned and effective effort to address climate change concerns. 

The expansion of nuclear power production in the United States 

must also be part of this plan to address carbon dioxide reduction, 

yet nuclear power is only mentioned twice in the entire 648-page 

bill. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill requires amendments, and I 

look forward to the markup. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Butterfield. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

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

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening this important hearing this week. I know that you told us 

at the beginning of the session this would be a long, robust debate; 

and I thank you very much for getting it started. 

You know, I have been listening very carefully to my friends on 

the other side of the aisle this afternoon to see if there is any support for the notion that the science is unsettled in this area. I have 

not heard that today and that is very pleasing to hear that. The 

science is indeed clear, the planet is warming, sea level is rising, 

so I don’t see how we can deny that human beings are indeed contributing to this warming. To continue to debate the science, if that 

is going to happen this week and next week, does a disservice to 

this enormous issue. 

So we must lead the way on climate change. We simply cannot 

wait, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for at least getting it started. 

I know it would be nice to wait on developing countries; I have 

heard that argument made and that is not wise. We must lead the 

way. We cannot wait until the recession ends. I don’t know when 

that is going to be, but we must begin this debate this week; and 

so I am ready to engage in this process. 

But, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I have some deep and serious concern about some aspects of the bill, and I want to associate 

myself with some of the comments made by Bart Gordon earlier in 

this hearing this afternoon. I also want to thank Mike Ross from 

Arkansas for his comments, as well as those of Mr. Stearns, my 

friend from Florida. 

The RES, the renewable electricity standards, I am very concerned about that mandate on some of our States, particularly my 

home State of North Carolina. We cannot achieve, Mr. Chairman, 

a 25 percent mandate by 2025. Not only is it impractical, it is impossible. 

But there are ways that we can address my concerns and the 

concerns of others. We can reduce the RES mandate to 15 percent, 

for example, or some other number by the year 2025, or we can authorize a greater mix of renewable sources. We can certainly look 

at including nuclear power in the mix; I am not opposed to that. 

We can look at the possibility of maximizing the use of biomass; 

I am not opposed to that, as well. 

Also, I would not rule out, Mr. Chairman, a conversation about 

allowing special consideration for those States in the condition of 

my State. There are several States in the Southeast who are similarly situated, and I think there could be some language put in the 

bill that would allow some special consideration. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned that the economic impact will be devastating on low-income families in America. Low-income families simply cannot absorb the increase in consumer prices that are sure to come. We must make sure that we 

devise a way to offset the increased prices. We can do that. We can 

do it in a variety of ways that we should discuss and debate, and 

I have some proposals that will be offered at the appropriate time. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I encourage us to move deliberately on 

this important legislation, and as Ms. Harman said earlier, to get 

it right. If we fail to get it right, the result will be very painful to 

many American families. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Braley. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

I am sorry. The gentleman from Iowa is here. I think we should 

stay in regular order. My apologies to the gentleman from Georgia. 

We will recognize the gentleman from Iowa for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your extraordinary 

leadership on this important legislation. And I want to join Congresswoman Harman in welcoming all the young people that are 

here today because we are really here to talk about a blueprint for 

an energy revolution that is going to affect you the rest of your 

lives. And for somebody my age—I am not going to be around as 

long as you are to see the impact that this bill is going to have, 

not just on your lives, but on the future of this planet; and that 

is why the work we are doing here is so significant. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your efforts on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. We all know addressing climate change and energy independence are two of the greatest challenges facing this country. It has taken a lot of work and consensus 

to try to come up with language that balances the need of people 

with businesses, but this discussion draft is a great start, and I am 

pleased that you have brought so many people to the table from diverse industries and interest groups to put together this legislation. 

This year I was proud to form the Populist Caucus, the only caucus in Congress devoted solely to addressing middle-class economic 

issues. I can take this bill back to caucus members and tell them 

there are provisions here that will help working class Americans. 

I am extremely encouraged by several provisions included in this 

draft to appropriate green jobs, and I think that your presence here 

today confirms that. This bill should be seen as an opportunity to 

put in place a green industry in the United States and take advantage of a world-class education system to make sure we have adequately trained workers for careers in renewable energy, energy efficiency, climate change mitigation; and the grant program that is 

a part of this bill will be a good step toward accomplishing those 

goals. 

Tomorrow, President Obama will be in Newton, Iowa, where I 

got my first drivers license at the age of 16, to discuss the importance of this legislation to economic revitalization. For over 100 

years, Newton was the world headquarters of Maytag Corporation, 

a leader in home appliances, making washers and dryers. When 

Maytag shut down, the Newton facility, some of my high school 

classmates, lost their jobs. Now that facility is putting Iowans to 

work building wind turbine components to meet the growing demand for wind energy in Iowa, the United States and the world. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

These are the kinds of job opportunities that make a renewable 

energy investment pay off for America. This is no silver bullet, but 

I am proud that Iowa is now second in the Nation in wind generation; an Iowa success story is further evidence that investment in 

renewable energy is working. Iowa is currently home to six wind 

manufacturing companies, representing thousands of green collar 

jobs and an investment of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in 

our State’s economy. Recently, Iowa surpassed California and now 

has the installed capacity over 2,700 megawatts this amount of 

wind generation will provide about 18 percent of Iowa’s total electricity needs. 

We can all benefit from investments in wind energy and other renewables through newly created jobs, cheaper energy, cleaner skies 

and a reduced dependence on foreign oil. 

One of the things I would like to see as a part of this bill is an 

allowance allocation for renewable energy deployment. I have been 

working with many renewable energy groups to discuss a subsidy 

matrix that takes into account distributed generation versus centralized generation and matured technologies versus emerging 

technologies. I hope we will soon have some language that the committee can consider as a part of the base language, and I believe 

this type of approach will bring new technologies to the market 

faster and ensure that effective technologies have resources they 

need to expand. 

I also think it would be helpful to have an expansion of the temporary program for the rapid deployment of renewable energy and 

electric transmission projects. The program modeled after the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program is designed to speed 

commercial adoption and use of advanced renewable energy technologies by providing low-interest, government-backed loans to 

companies investing in the implementation of technologies, including advanced biofuels technologies. The stimulus program expires 

on September 30, 2011. 

I am also glad there is language in place that will help low- and 

middle-income Americans lower their energy costs, like money for 

weatherization of homes. And I am also hopeful there will be additional protections for working-class Americans as part of this legislation. I want to make sure that some kind of mechanism is in 

place to provide rebates to middle- and low-income Americans to 

help balance their energy costs. Including additional projects in 

LIHEAP money would also be welcomed. 

I am glad there is a requirement to report and set forth a unified 

and comprehensive strategy to address the key legal and regulatory 

barriers for the commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and 

sequestration. According to the legislation that we are considering, 

the EPA is to write regulations for certifying, maintaining and 

trading offsets. I am hopeful they would see the benefits that farmers can provide in reducing carbon emissions and include these 

things such as methane digesters and no-till farming. 

The Energy Revolution has begun. We need your help to make 

it a reality. And I yield the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Braley follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 72878A.035
66 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 72878A.036
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 72878A.037
68 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 72878A.038
69 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 72878A.039
70 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last week the EPA positioned itself to regulate carbon dioxide 

emissions under the Clean Air Act without congressional consent. 

We are then faced with a choice. We can acquiesce to bad regulation that will have certain and disastrous impacts on our economy, 

or we can legislate an even more harmful system. It is as though, 

when faced with a gun to our head, Congress is going to take it 

and shoot ourselves in the chest. 

For the record, I would remind the committee of my bill, H.R. 

391, which will prohibit the EPA from taking action under the 

Clean Air Act and allow Congress the time we need to craft intelligent legislation. My bill would also save farms who, under the 

EPA’s proposed regulations, would face steep levies on livestock. 

Laying aside my skepticism of the underlying science that led us 

to this bill, I would like to address some of my concerns on the legislation itself. There are at least two provisions that we know will 

be detrimental to the economy at a very bad time. 

First are the renewable electricity standards imposed by the bill. 

Currently 3 percent of our electricity is generated by renewable energy. The chairman’s bill calls for 25 percent by 2025 to meet these 

standards. Under current electricity usage levels it would require 

20,000 megawatts of renewable energy to come on line each year 

until 2025. That is 20,000 megawatts a year. 

I would remind my colleagues that only 10,000 megawatts’ worth 

of renewable electricity came on line last year. The Energy Information Administration estimates that only 8,000 additional 

megawatts will come on line over the next 4 years, and that is in 

total. This makes the renewable energy requirements in this bill 

unrealistic, and that is under current usage rates. 

This bill aims to increase electricity usage without accommodating the increased usage in the standard for renewable generation. They also happen to be exceedingly expensive. We are saddling our States and our energy consumers with unrealistic demands at prohibitively high prices. 

Secondly, while there are large blanks in the chairman’s bill 

when it comes to the mechanics of a cap-and-trade proposal, few 

in this room doubt that we are actually talking about a cap-andtax system. Electricity rates are going to rise and Washington is 

going to pocket the profits. 

I take no comfort from any assurance I hear from my colleagues 

across the aisle or down the street that energy consumers will be 

compensated in some way. We must be plain, and we must be honest when we discuss this system. It will pull thousands more out 

of the family budget each and every year. There is simply no way 

around it, and we are wrong to try and sugarcoat it. 

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee will give as yet unforeseen compounding effects of this bill due consideration. We know 

that the renewable energy standard will increase electricity costs; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

there are ample case studies to prove it. We also know that the 

cap-and-trade system will drive up electricity costs. The President 

himself has told us the prices will—and I am quoting him—‘‘necessarily skyrocket,’’ for consumers. What we don’t know, what we 

must know before this bill becomes law, is what the compounding 

effect of an expensive renewable energy standard and an expensive 

cap-and-trade system will be to the family budget. As my colleagues and I work on this legislation, that is what I am going to 

be paying the closest attention to. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackburn follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 72878A.045
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 72878A.046
74 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair recognizes once again the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chairman. And I want to thank you for 

holding this marathon series of hearings this week. 

Mr. Chairman, if I were to adopt the mood of my colleague, 

Brother Murphy over here, and go back to what I learned as a 

child, I would have to recall learning about the wonders, the miracle of the carbon cycle, the idea that what plants emit as poison 

to them is food to us, and what we emit as poison to us and is food 

to them just struck me as such a miracle of evolution. But I have 

to acknowledge that the Almighty had a carbon sequestration plan 

of his own in mind in order to be able to create the conditions in 

which this balance could exist, and we busted the Almighty’s carbon sequestration plan all to hell with our own activities. 

So climate change is real, our role in it is real, and I want to support the work of the committee in trying to do something about it. 

I have to say, though, this bill has potential for far-reaching impacts in our economy, both good and bad, and we are going to have 

to be very, very precise about how we craft the programs that are 

contained in this legislation. 

There are big gaps that remain in the language. It seems that 

we have an awful lot of work yet to do. 

I look forward to a productive week of hearings. And I look forward to working with my chairman and my colleagues to craft 

what I hope will be a reasonable bill. 

With that, I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will 

commend, of course, your fine work and that of the chairman of the 

full committee bringing us this far and this quickly. And we will 

be moving with great dispatch in the next couple of weeks. 

I will make some very general statements first and then be specific as to one issue of great consequence, I think. First, I would 

hope that all of us will recognize the different challenges that face 

the different regions of this country. While we all must represent 

our distinct districts we need to understand that we are all not 

similarly situated. I do not have to live in Salt Lake City or Boston 

or Los Angeles to understand that their situation there may be different than those of the citizens in San Antonio, Texas. 

I would like to be specific when it comes to automobiles. We have 

over 200 million vehicles in the United States, which are responsible for approximately 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. We 

will start with a system with greater efficiency of the internal combustion engines with emphasis on hybrid technology, with eventual 

conversion to battery-based powered vehicles. The question is, how 

long will this conversion take. 

What we do know is that traditional transportation fuels will be 

required during this transition period. To determine the amounts 

needed during this transitional phase, we must establish first the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

number of vehicles in use today using hydrocarbon-based fuels and 

the duration of their expected use, because we know just recently 

what we used to think in terms of what would be the replacement 

rate of vehicles in the United States has been reduced drastically. 

And, secondly, the characteristics of replacement vehicles: Will it 

be hybrids and what type of hybrids, battery operated, hydrogen 

cell, alternative fuel powered and so on? And the technological feasibility of placing a sufficient and affordable number of these vehicles in the marketplace, I believe that the inevitable conclusion is 

that the United States will require an increase in the domestic production in refining capacity of traditional carbon-based fuels. This 

does not mean that we will abandon our clean air objectives, but 

rather adopt a transitional approach that allows us to achieve our 

goals in a realistic fashion. Should we ignore what will be required 

during this conversion period, we will find that we have created a 

situation that exposes us to greater dependence on foreign sources 

of transportation fuels with the attendant costs to our Nation’s 

economy and security. 

In closing, while a cost-benefit analysis will not be ignored, we 

need to understand that increased costs and the required change 

in consumption behavior by our citizens in this country will not 

represent insurmountable obstacles to the passage of a meaningful 

energy reform legislation. 

Thank you very much. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon. 

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

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am finally getting 

used to being the second Louisiana guy. I appreciate the opportunity to do an opening statement. 

And thank you, Mr. Waxman, for your work on this legislation. 

We are now considering the most important energy legislation of 

our generation. This bill and the final version of this bill will shape 

our environment, our energy consumption, our independence and 

our economy. These issues deserve thoughtful consideration and 

diligent debate. 

Before we can discuss the specific provisions of this bill and their 

merit, we must acknowledge the science of climate. Some choose to 

debate whether the cause of climate change is man-made or a result of natural cycles. 

To be frank, the cause does not matter. We have all seen the impact of change in climate on our land and our oceans. Droughts 

damage our crops, while rising water levels threaten to erode our 

shores. My home, Louisiana, has the tragic distinction of bearing 

witness to increased hurricane strength, a result of the warming of 

waters in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Energy policy has been at the forefront of American politics for 

decades. The shortages of the 1970s, the manipulation in the 1990s 

and the technology shifts of today all reflect our Nation’s dependence and growing demand for energy. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

I believe that any responsible energy legislation should consider 

the broad spectrum of energy sources that are available today. Just 

as American innovation can create new sources of energy, it can 

take our existing resources and adapt them to a low-carbon environment. 

America has been blessed with rich deposits of energy that have 

driven our economy for decades and through many wars. As we 

strive for energy independence, we should focus on reducing foreign 

imports first, allowing domestic production to continue and be the 

bridge our economy needs to flourish. Technologies may eventually 

exist that replace fossil fuels, but even under the most optimistic 

of projections, those technologies are decades away for large-scale 

commercial viability. 

As this country makes the transition to renewable fuels and electricity generation, we must be open to all energy solutions. Climate 

change legislation offers the promise of millions of green jobs, but 

those jobs will not materialize overnight, and to avoid the loss of 

even more jobs, we must be deliberate and considerate in the policies we draft. American innovation has the capacity to make us 

world leaders in the export of new energy technologies, and those 

future firms and construction opportunities mean good, decent-paying jobs for Americans. 

However, let us not forget the contribution existing companies 

have made to that same goal. The oil and gas service companies 

in my district have provided gainful employment to millions of men 

and women for generations. These are jobs that require skill and 

good work ethic, and they pay livable wages in return. The loss of 

those jobs would cripple the economy of Louisiana and many other 

blue collar and oil jobs in energy-producing States across the country. 

I commend you, Chairman Markey, and Chairman Waxman, for 

your diligence on these issues. I would also like to express my appreciation for the dedication to regular order, allowing input from 

all the members of both full and subcommittee. The staff has also 

shown tremendous commitments to this legislation and have produced a solid working document, and I thank them also. 

I look forward to working with this committee now and into the 

future on energy policy that will be good for this country. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much. 

And we now turn and recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 

Matheson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a number of concerns I want to raise. I think I participated in close to 21⁄2 years of hearings on climate change before 

this subcommittee. We have a 648-page draft that we are looking 

at right now. This is a huge piece of legislation, this is an exceptionally complicated issue, and I am concerned of moving so quickly 

that when we go to markup next week, we may not get it right. 

And I just want to make sure that we are deliberate in how we go 

about this. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

The draft has, as many members have pointed out, significant 

holes right now in terms of how we will address the issue of allowances. So I just want to express that concern. 

Second, major or landmark legislation that has been passed 

through this Congress historically in terms of environmental issues 

has often had a bipartisan component. I believe good policy on this 

subject should be bipartisan. I implore all members on this committee, on both sides of the aisle, to step up to the plate on this 

issue. It is a serious issue and everybody ought to get engaged. 

Third, the idea, if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions and 

you talk about cap and trade, one of the things that people like 

about cap and trade is, it provides a certainty about how the emissions will be reduced year to year and allows the marketplace to 

decide the most efficient way to go about doing that. But then we 

have other sections in this bill where Congress starts to dictate 

how we are going to reach these emission reductions. 

Now, we ought to have a discussion in this committee about if 

and when that is appropriate. We have got a renewable electricity 

standard here. We have got renewable fuel standards. We have 

talked about an energy-efficient standard. Those are all good discussions to have. But in the context of the cap and trade where 

people want to let the marketplace decide how to achieve emission 

reductions, how far should Congress go in stovepiping down into 

specific issues, as well, and mandating what happens? 

Next issue: I want to talk about targets that were established in 

this bill. It is my understanding that this draft uses the high end 

of the targets, the most aggressive end of the targets—the USCAP 

developed for its year-by-year targets for emissions. 

When USCAP testified before this committee, I asked, how did 

they arrive at these targets, what was the justification, what was 

the economic modeling. I haven’t gotten an answer on that. That 

is one of the most significant aspects of any climate change bill, 

and this committee needs to have a discussion about that; and I 

hope we do that in these legislative hearings, because we haven’t 

done it yet. 

Number five: I have expressed many times in hearings about this 

concern of what I call a potential regional income transfer. There 

are many ways that this can happen. It can happen through the 

way our allowance system is structured. It can happen through a 

renewable electricity standard. It can happen even—through perhaps even the efficiency standard. But there are a lot of ways that 

that could happen. And I think from a substantive and, quite 

frankly, a political standpoint, that is a really important issue for 

this committee to understand better than it has so far. 

Allowances: It has been mentioned many times we have got to 

figure out what we are doing with that. It is silent right now. We 

don’t even have a bill that says how it is going to be addressed, 

and yet we are looking to mark up next week. 

RPS: Twenty-eight States in the district have an RPS already. I 

question whether there ought to be a Federal standard, and we 

shouldn’t set up a policy to encourage the rest of the States to do 

this. If there is a standard, if the goal here is really to have lower 

carbon emissions, then should we care how we produce the electricity if the kilowatt hour doesn’t produce carbon? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

So why are we picking just one set of technologies? Shouldn’t we 

include nuclear? Shouldn’t we include zero-emission coal as the 

Utah voluntary RPS does right now? 

Next issue: Energy efficiency. That is a good thing. And the energy efficiency resource standard which calls for 15 percent efficiency by 2020 and 10 percent for natural gas by 2020, that is a 

good thing to have; but I am concerned that we are piling on when 

we are already looking at the renewable electricity standard. 

I also think that decoupling for electricity has to be on the table. 

Next issue: Transmission. There is nothing real for transmission 

in this draft. People are talking about going to 25 percent renewable electricity generation in this country. If we don’t deal with our 

transmission issue, you can’t do it. So we have got to get serious 

about transmission. 

Offsets: I am pleased with the Offsets Integrity Board provision, 

but I think we are being unfair to businesses by trying to discount 

offsets. If the offsets are real, then a turning of five offsets for full 

reduction credits doesn’t make sense to me. This should be a oneto-one ratio and it should also include the western climate initiative offsets. 

Next issue: International offsets. This should not link up with 

the CDM. Witnesses have testified before this committee that the 

international program has had major problems. Language should 

be tightened to preclude international offsets are not of equivalent 

quality to U.S. offsets. 

Next issue: Fuels. This committee wasn’t involved in writing the 

RFS that went through Congress. It wasn’t run by this committee, 

and its feedstock mandates don’t make any sense. Our corn ethanol 

policy is a failure, and we ought to address that issue as well. 

Two more issues, Mr. Chairman; I will be real quick as my time 

is running out. 

CAFE: I think we have to have some harmony between where 

Federal and State policy is on this. I am concerned about getting 

the checkerboard pattern of how this policy is set in this country. 

Last issue: Where do revenues go? The President suggested revenues from auction of offsets should go to pay for the middle-class 

tax cuts. I think that is bad policy. I think that any revenues that 

come out of this policy need to be plowed back into the climate 

change set of issues; and this whole discussion about costs to rate 

payers, until you identify where the money goes from the auction 

of some allowances—and I am not for 100 percent auction, by the 

way—but until you figure out where those revenues go, any discussion about cost to consumers is a moot point because we are not 

talking about where the money is going to come from to help mitigate those cost components. So let us address that issue as well. 

That was 14 quick issues, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your patience and letting me go over time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me thank the gentleman. You have crammed 

more into a 5-minute statement than—it was like Olympic-level 

issue identification. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. 

Christensen. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And thank you, Chairmen Waxman and Markey, for your commitment and leadership on this important issue. It is an honor for me to be on this committee at such 

a historic time, because the work that we do in this committee in 

this Congress will determine the future of our country for generations. 

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the President for his 

commitment to also reducing our dependence on foreign oil and ensuring a better quality of life for everyone in this country and, indeed, the world because, as we will discuss in one of the hearings, 

this effort to provide clean air, reduce the process of climate change 

and mitigate the impact of global warming has to be one of international collaboration. 

We are on the cusp of creating a whole new green economy, a 

green revolution through increased adoption of renewable energy, 

a green revolution that is reminiscent of the Industrial Revolution 

of the 18th and 19th centuries. My colleagues and I on the Energy 

and Environmental Task Force of the Congressional Black Caucus 

have written to both of you, and I want to reiterate here, as move 

we forward, we ensure that the needs of minority and underserved 

communities, who are not a part and do not benefit in the Industrial, be fully included in this one. 

As we support science-based legislation to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 

2050, we want to see included a serious attempt to address the 

education, training and employment of workers who live in innercity urban, rural and island communities. We want to see a career 

pipeline created for low- and middle-income communities that will 

not only lead to the much touted green jobs, but the entrepreneurial opportunities in distressed communities, and for educational opportunities at the vocational schools, community colleges, universities that serve rural communities, that serve our territories and racial and ethnic minorities. 

We also look for an adequate transition for those who work in 

high-emitting industries to meaningful work in the emerging lowcarbon economy. 

As a representative of an island community and as a representative of the other territories of the United States, it is clear that despite our minimal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, we 

stand to be severely impacted by global warming, and so reducing 

it is vital to our interests and survival. From the loss of coral reefs, 

to the rise of sea levels, to the spread of tropical diseases, my colleagues and I are requesting that the special needs of our offshore 

areas be looked at carefully as we prepare this landmark legislation. 

The CBC task force has also asked that steps be taken to ensure 

that the cost of this new energy is not prohibitive but affordable 

to all. It is important to note that energy costs in the island territories that are part of the U.S. family are already among the highest in the Nation. At present, provisions that would address affordability are not yet completely written. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

So I look forward to being involved in that process and to working with you, Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey, and my 

other colleagues to examine and discuss the other issues, especially 

finalizing the details of cap and trade. I look forward to passing 

comprehensive energy legislation that creates a robust economy, 

that meets the energy needs of today and also the energy needs 

and environmental needs of people and our planet for generations 

to come. 

And I thank you for the opportunity to make an opening statement. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with a lot of hope that these hearings 

will serve as a big first step towards eventually passing a comprehensive climate bill through our committee, so that it can continue on to the House and Senate floors and eventually make it to 

the President’s desk for his signature. I applaud your decision to 

use regular order, and I hope that the members of this committee 

on both sides of the dais will use this opportunity to offer constructive ideas so that the eventual law is reflective of the combined efforts of the entire committee. 

After all, climate change is not a problem that will affect only 

Democrats or Republicans. It will affect each and every one of us, 

as well as our children and our grandchildren. 

As I have said in the past, the draft that you and Chairman Markey released on March 31st was a good starting point from which 

this committee can begin to craft our answer to the question of climate change. However, I would also like to say that this bill was 

just that, a starting point. As everyone in this room knows, many 

of the key questions that will define this bill’s workability have yet 

to be answered, and I, for one, look forward to working with you, 

Mr. Chairman to fill in these blanks. 

These are questions such as, where are credits allocated? What 

are the appropriate time frames and reduction goals? How will we 

minimize the cost imposed on our constituents? And how will we 

encourage and deploy next-generation clean energy technologies? 

These are not simple questions with simple answers. They are very 

complex and challenging issues, one that will require a careful look 

at to where we are today, where we want to be tomorrow and most 

importantly how are we going to get there. 

As I have said many times, the threat of climate change is really 

a question of two things, technology and transition. What technologies can we bring about through innovation, research and deployment that will ensure that America has the energy it needs to 

power our country for generations in the future, while at the same 

time reducing and eliminating the carbon footprint resulting from 

the way we power ourselves today? What are the appropriate transition steps that need to be made not only to encourage these techVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

nological advances, but to ensure that we preserve current jobs 

while creating new green jobs? And what transition steps need to 

be taken to ensure we don’t greatly increase our constituents’ 

power bills? 

This bill gives us a bit of a framework picture as to how we are 

going to answer those questions, but much work will need to be 

done to fill in these blanks if we are going to adequately address 

climate change. 

Like most Democrats on this committee, I hope that we can all 

work together to answer these questions so that we can bring about 

a bill that we can all eventually support. Unlike some of my friends 

on the other side of the aisle, I have long ago taken the position 

that it isn’t enough to just say ‘‘no’’; we must be able to find a way 

for all of us to say ‘‘yes,’’ and I am committed, as I have been all 

along, to working to help us get to that place. 

I must admit I have a lot of concerns with the renewable electric 

standard as it is currently written. I think a better standard would 

be like the one we already passed through the House in the last 

Congress. That is a standard that is workable and one that will not 

penalize many of our constituents simply because of where they 

live. 

Any new renewable standard must do more than this bill currently does to recognize that different regions have different resources available to them. And I look forward to discussions on this 

matter. 

Furthermore, we need to do more to encourage CCS deployment. 

Without widespread deployment of this technology, all other reductions in this bill won’t matter. This fact needs to be reflected more 

in the bill, and we need to ensure the framework and funding for 

these technologies is certain. 

Similarly, the transmission piece of this bill is quite inadequate, 

in my opinion, and I would like to see more work done there also. 

I would also like to see the provisions that Jay Inslee and I 

worked on regarding emissions and job leakage tightened. 

These are a few examples of places where I think the bill needs 

some improvement. It is a good starting point, and I, for one, am 

ready to work with our chairman to refine and improve the starting text. I personally appreciate our chairman’s efforts to this 

point, especially in areas such as including the Doyle-Inslee EMPLOY Act provisions, as well as the Boucher CCS bill. 

It will be critical for us to concentrate on transitional and technological issues as we move forward with our attempt to fundamentally alter how we produce and use power in this country for the 

first time since the Industrial Revolution. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe, if done right, this bill will serve as an 

engine to transform our economy to ensure that America is the 

world’s leading manufacturer and exporter of clean fuel technologies. The jobs that can be created by this transformation are 

needed in every region of this country, and it is critical that Members from all regions of our country work together to create them. 

I, for one, am ready to do my part; and with that, Mr. Chairman, 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Space. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. SPACE. I want to begin by thanking you, Chairman Markey, 

and also Chairman Waxman, for the initiative you have undertaken in approaching such a monumental and ambitious task. 

Today, we have before us one of the most significant pieces of 

legislation that Congress will consider in our lifetime. As we proceed with our deliberations, we must be mindful that we are operating in the shadow of history and at a moment pivotal in the lives 

of this generation. 

Without question, our Nation faces a significant challenge in addressing the issues of climate change and energy production. While 

current sources of energy, such as coal, are critical components of 

our Nation’s economy, creating a new energy policy that encourages 

investment and expansion in new green jobs offers important opportunities that cannot be overlooked. It is incumbent upon us in 

this committee to seize upon those opportunities. 

As the committee considers this critical legislation, I am mindful 

of the fact that I represent a district facing significant challenges 

of poverty. Even when times are good, the economy of Appalachian 

Ohio can claim unemployment rates approaching 10 percent and 

poverty rates exceeding 20 percent. Thus, as the committee proceeds, it is my intention to view this legislation through the lens 

not of any one group represented here in Washington, but through 

the perspective of the residents of Ohio’s 18th Congressional District. 

I believe this legislation offers significant opportunities for my 

district. The provisions of this bill pertaining to carbon capture and 

sequestration offer the promise of continued employment for the 

mine workers I represent as we strive to create a future for this 

critical domestic resource. 

This bill also includes legislation I introduced, the Renew 

Through Green Jobs Act that authorizes grants for new green job 

training programs. These training programs are a critical link in 

the creation of a new green economy, and I thank the chairman for 

the inclusion of this provision. 

Finally, this legislation also includes important investments in 

building efficiency that will provide badly needed stimulation to the 

insulation and glass industries. Many of these industries have 

faced layoffs and furloughs in the face of declining demand, and I 

am hopeful this legislation can provide new life to this sector. 

However, this legislation is larger than these provisions and represents an effort to comprehensively overhaul how we produce and 

consume energy in this country. As such, we must move with caution to ensure the same people we are striving to protect are not 

harmed by this legislation. We must be cautious to ensure that this 

legislation means a brighter future for those we represent, not 

darker days to come. 

I believe we have an opportunity in this legislation to create a 

stronger future for two critical industries in Ohio, coal and manufacturing. This legislation creates a pathway forward to real investments and technology, and I appreciate the time of the committee 

today and look forward to hearing more perspectives from the 

many witnesses over the coming days. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

And I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. We appreciate the gentleman’s work. 

And now we will, I think, complete—no. We have another member who is joining, and we will then recognize the gentleman from 

Vermont, Mr. Welch, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you 

and Chairman Waxman for the ambitious work you have set before 

our committee. 

I agree with much of what my colleagues have said. We now 

have a consensus that climate change is real, it is urgent, and we 

have to address it. And this bill is the first attempt of this Congress, really any Congress, to undertake a challenge that we too 

long ignored. 

In the process of moving from a fossil fuel-based economy to one 

that is based on efficiency, alternative energy and getting the most 

out of the energy that we do use is going to be very daunting, and 

it will impose some dislocations. So the points that have been made 

by our colleagues on this committee about the regional interests 

and about the real-world impact of climate change legislation is 

something that has to be taken very seriously by all of us. 

But the big question that will allow us to proceed forward is 

whether we have confidence that by undertaking the challenge that 

is ours to undertake—and that is to eliminate or dramatically reduce carbon greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; and this bill has as 

its goal an 80 percent reduction by 2050—the question is, do we 

have the confidence to undertake that challenge, knowing if we do 

it wisely, we do it energetically and we do it well, we can actually 

create jobs, create foreign independence and clean up the environment? 

The Union of Concerned Scientists has just done a study that has 

found that if we, in fact, enact policies—and we have to do it the 

right way, from renewables to efficiency—our climate bill will bring 

the cost to consumers and businesses down. 

In 2030, according to this study, the policies implemented under 

the blueprint would save business and consumers $465 billion 

while maintaining the same—the same—rate of economic growth. 

An average U.S. household, if we do it right, with enjoy net savings 

of $900 on their energy bills and that includes $580 on transportation costs and $320 on electricity, natural gas and heating oil. 

Business collectively would realize net energy bill savings of $130 

billion by 2030. 

And what we know is that if we are going to achieve this goal, 

we have to start with efficiency. It is the most cost effective at cost 

containment. And in fact, one of the byproducts of our fossil fuelbased approach to economy is this notion that we had an endless 

and cheap supply and it led to wasting energy that we should 

never waste. This legislation should focus on a number of things, 

but first and foremost, among them is efficiency. And I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, that you see fit to include in this title an 

energy efficiency legislation that I have sponsored and that we 

have used in the State of Vermont with real success. And that is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

for building retrofits. In the carbon emissions that come out of our 

buildings, residential and commercial, it is about 50 percent of the 

greenhouse gases. 

And if we give the tools to our businesses and our homeowners 

to save that energy through energy efficiency, we are going to create jobs and go a long way towards achieving our goals. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and 

our colleagues on this committee to achieve our goal of an 80 percent reduction by 2050. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much. And we recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you for convening this week’s hearing on the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act. I commend you and Chairman 

Waxman for both your leadership and your determination to advance this bill to where it is today. The legislation we are discussing will be an achievement for the American people. And it is 

an achievement for future generations of Americans. Because of 

this legislation our children and grandchildren will live in a country that is more sustainable, more economically viable and more efficient than the country we live in today. And for my hometown of 

Sacramento, the bill is more than an achievement, it is a necessity. 

My district sits at the base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and 

at the confluence of two great rivers, the American and the Sacramento. The threat of flooding in Sacramento is ever present and 

is made worse by a warming planet. California’s Department of 

Water Resources projects that the Sierra Nevada snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction by 2050. These are not empty 

numbers. They represent real impacts of climate change that translate into serious and unpredictable risk for my constituents. As 

California’s climate warms more of the Sierra Nevada snowpack 

will contribute to peak storm runoff. High frequency flood events 

are projected to increase as a result. In a city like Sacramento we 

simply cannot afford to ignore the reality that global warming and 

flooding are interconnected. We have no choice but to adapt to 

these realities. My constituents realized this long ago. 

As a result the majority of them have long supported taking action to cap the carbon emissions that are warming our planet. They 

recognize that taking bold action today means a more secure future 

for Sacramento tomorrow. I also recognize this truth which is why 

I support the American Clean Energy and Security Act so strongly. 

But fighting global warming is not just about preserving our current way of life, it is also about creating a cleaner stronger economy that will power the United States into the future. When I was 

home last week I saw numerous examples of how Sacramento is already generating new clean energy opportunities. I toured a renewable energy testing center that is about to open at the converted 

site of the former McClellan Air Force Base. This center is working 

to give small businesses the support they need to take clean energy 

companies to the commercial stage. I visited an innovative comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

pany called Synapsis that helps data centers improve their cooling 

capabilities. 

Synapsis is working HID Laboratories which is developing energy efficient lighting technologies. Both companies revolutionize 

the way commercial businesses save money on energy efficiency 

strategies. I also saw UC Davis biogas energy project, an innovative way of converting organic waste into biogas fuels and other 

valuable products. This technology has so much potential that 

Campbell Soup is interested in using biogas digesters to fuel their 

plant in Sacramento. These businesses and technologies are not 

dreams in someone’s mind, they are neither ideas nor concepts on 

a paper, instead they are the realities of the modern American 

economy. They are real businesses creating real jobs, real technologies, during a revolution in Sacramento’s regional economy. 

With the help of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, 

every city and community in America can emulate the clean energy 

blueprint that Sacramento has pioneered. What is needed today are 

strategic investments in clean energy infrastructure that will help 

similar projects expand and prosper. 

With the American Clean Energy and Security Act we are making these smart investments. We are giving entrepreneurs the tools 

they need to create clean energy jobs that demand American skills 

and that put our country in a strong position to compete internationally. These tools will continue to help the economy grow even 

as we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that threaten our very 

way of life. In this way, clean energy will be the building block of 

a new era of American economic strength. With the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act, we will show the rest of the world 

that America is back and they are ready to lead again. I will look 

forward to remarks of the many and varied witnesses who will testify before us in the coming days in regard to this groundbreaking 

legislation. And with that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. And the Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARON P. HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for your work and leadership on this issue. It is not easy to tackle 

such a big problem, but this draft represents an important first 

step in the process. These hearings will be instructive for us as we 

hear an array of viewpoints. Addressing climate change is an issue 

of utmost urgency. Though we may differ on the details of how to 

tackle this problem, we agree on the broader picture. This draft 

represents an important first step but much more work remains. 

We must ensure that States like my own are not unfairly punished 

for using abundant resources that are legal and viable. I want to 

urge you, Mr. Chairman, to ensure each region of the country is 

treated appropriately and that the committee recognizes that certain areas will be affected more by this legislation than others. 

I would also like to call to the committee’s attention to municipal 

solid waste. I believe this is a proven technology that has been improved over the years and will be an important tool for us to solve 

climate change. In order to gain the full benefit from this techVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

nology, I believe that it should be classified as a renewable energy 

source. I also hope that we will work with our Republican colleagues to produce a bill that produces the desired environmental 

results, spurs investments in new technologies and creates the new 

jobs that we desperately need. I believe entrepreneurs can find the 

technology to solve this problem better than any politician can. 

Clean coal technology, while helping us at home, has the potential to be an important export for years to come. I believe that 

farmers by growing our fuels and storing carbon in their fields are 

a valuable asset in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that we don’t need government micromanagement. Set smart 

pollution standards and show American business what needs to be 

done. They will figure out the fastest cheapest way to do it. I recognize that nothing important in the world gets solved without U.S. 

leadership and action. And the U.S. will lead. And that must include compelling China and other countries to do their part too. 

For those who believe China should get a pass I say no chance. 

These investments will make our country’s economy stronger and 

more secure. America has the opportunity to be a leader in these 

issues. And I look forward to working with Chairman Markey and 

Waxman to ensure that this bill puts us on the right path. And I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chairman 

recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey. Chairman Waxman, thank you for your tremendous leadership on this 

issue. When it comes to energy policy, this American Clean Energy 

and Security Act of 2009 is really turning the titanic around and 

setting targets that are going to help us get to a new place when 

it comes to energy independence, when it comes to clean jobs, when 

it comes to these exciting new technologies that we are going to 

see, and obviously with respect to progress on global warming. My 

view has always been that government’s role is to take the framework that operates and every so often move it forward in a significant way. 

And if we do that, what happens is the entrepreneurs of this 

country and ordinary citizens then come in and they take up the 

charge. For too long, that framework has been stuck when it comes 

to our energy policy and our environmental policy, and the pent up 

passion and creativity and ingenuity of the country has been held 

back. Now, what this proposal does is it opens the floodgates, I believe, to a whole new generation of ingenuity and creativity. 

I come from Maryland. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. And we consider ourselves stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. 

The other day I was at a high school in Anne Arundel County and 

I met with the environmental club there. And I know what is going 

to happen when we pass this bill. Led by the next generation, led 

by young people in this country who are going to take up this 

charge, we are going to go places we can’t even conceive of right 

now. We think about how much we can dent our energy portfolio 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

with respect to wind power and solar power and other sources of 

clean energy and we estimate 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent. I 

will bet you that in 2 years or 3 years, once we let loose this ingenuity on clean technologies, we will be making even more progress 

with respect to that portfolio. That is what is about to happen. 

And we have to seize this moment in time. And I thank you for 

your leadership, I thank Chairman Waxman for his leadership. 

And I look forward to the hearings that we are going to be holding. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman from Maryland very 

much. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was not long ago that 

gas was over $4 a gallon and people across this country struggled 

with those high energy costs. Energy and its related costs impact 

every segment of our lives. It impacts our economy, it impacts our 

manufacturers and our industries, it impacts jobs, and it impacts 

our national security, it impacts our health and clearly it impacts 

our environment. And that is why we are here today. It will be a 

challenge for our country to transform the way we operate and to 

transition to a green economy. But the cost of not addressing climate change far outweigh the challenges. We cannot afford to delay 

but we must be smart. Scientific evidence confirms that unrestrained growth in greenhouse gas emissions poses a danger to 

public health and the environment. The American Clean Energy 

and Security Act boldly seeks to address the global warming crisis, 

and I would like to commend Chairman Waxman and Chairman 

Markey on the enormous task of drafting this landmark legislation. 

We most bolster our national security by mapping out a more energy dependent future for our country. Today the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil that we consume. By expanding 

our energy supply we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 

increase our energy security. 

And most importantly we can bolster our economy by creating 

hundreds of thousands of new green jobs. With the economic recession Americans are hurting, and the resolve of the middle class is 

being tested. The economic downturn has taken a toll on U.S. manufacturing, including the steel plants in my congressional district. 

Ohio’s unemployment rate hit 9.7 percent in March and continues to be higher than the national rate. We can turn our country 

around and at the same time bring America to a cleaner safer more 

productive future. With the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act we made a down payment investing billions of dollars to spread 

the development of clean renewable energy production and transmission. Just last night, I spoke at an Avon Lake city council meeting to explore the potential forming a community-based wind energy co-op in Lorain County, Ohio. It is encouraging to see people 

working toward solutions that will create jobs, help local economies 

and improve our environment. And we must do all we can to continue to encourage this type of creative thinking and innovation to 

develop energy from renewable sources. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

I support a national renewable energy standard that shifts towards wind solar biomass and other forms of energy to meet our 

electricity needs. Investments in alternative sources of energy, 

clean technology and energy efficiency will create new industries 

and jobs, revitalize American manufacturing, jump start economic 

growth and revive the middle class. And as we move forward in our 

efforts to retool our economy and our workforce it is important that 

there are safeguards in place for worker transition and assistance. 

We cannot leave our workers and communities behind. We cannot 

leave a section of our Nation in the wake. We have an opportunity 

but we also have a responsibility. We must also remember that 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are global problems. 

The atmosphere recognizes no borders. For industries like steel, 

some emissions are an unavoidable part of the manufacturing process. 

Currently neither science nor technology exists to mitigate them. 

And many in the country make their living as steel workers. Yet 

while the U.S. steel industry has become 33 percent more energy 

efficient since 1990, the Chinese steel industry emits as much carbon as the rest of the global steel industry combined. The production of a ton of steel in China generates anywhere between 2 and 

4 times the carbon emissions of a ton of steel produced in the 

United States. Any increased cost imposed by climate change laws 

must not put domestic industries at a severe competitive disadvantage to industries that are not subject to similar environmental 

rules. 

If we allow that to happen, it will work against the very goals 

of environmental integrity that we seek to achieve. And as we put 

our Nation on a new course in energy policy, as I said, we must 

ensure that no region and no state is left behind. Throughout my 

district, long established companies want to be a part of the solution and are transitioning to green technologies. Companies that 

have produced brakes for helicopters are now producing brakes for 

wind turbines. Companies that have manufactured bearings for the 

auto industry are now finding another market with renewable energy system. And there are several companies that are trying to 

start up during some of the most difficult economic times our country has ever seen. These companies are developing advanced waste 

heat recovery systems, biowaste electricity generation systems and 

algae-based biofuels. Recently, President Obama announced that 

the General Services Administration will accelerate its purchase of 

17,600 new fuel efficient vehicles produced by American auto companies. The President’s announcement about modernizing the fleet 

of a government is welcome news, and I share his commitment to 

shoring up jobs for American auto workers while improving our environment. 

That is why I introduced the Consumer Assistance to Recycle 

and Save Act of 2009. The CARS Act will help consumers stimulate 

our economy, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on 

foreign oil and help our domestic auto and related industries. The 

President’s announcement demonstrates that finding ways to 

achieve these multiple goals can be done. My colleagues, Representative Steve Israel and Jay Inslee have introduced similar legislation. I look forward to continue a collaboration with them to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

enact a green vehicle purchase incentive program that will meet 

these multiple goals. And I look forward to working with Chairman 

Waxman and Markey and my colleagues to implement a balanced 

and effective measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global climate change. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady very much, and we look forward to working with her. And with the completion of your testimony, your opening statement, all time for opening statements 

from the members has now been completed. Tomorrow morning at 

9:30 at that witness table we will have the Secretary of Energy 

Steven Chu, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Lisa Jackson and the Secretary of Transportation, Ray 

LaHood. 9:30 tomorrow morning we begin to write history in the 

United States. With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(91) 

THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY SECURITY 

ACT OF 2009—DAY 2 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in Room 2123 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman 

(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Waxman, Dingell, Markey, Rush, 

Eshoo, Stupak, Green, DeGette, Capps, Doyle, Harman, Gonzalez, 

Inslee, Ross, Matheson, Melacon, Barrow, Matsui, Christensen, 

Castor, Sarbanes, Murphy of Connecticut, Space, McNerney, Sutton, Braley, Welch, Barton, Hall, Upton, Stearns, Whitfield, Shimkus, Blunt, Radanovich, Pitts, Bono Mack, Walden, Terry, Rogers, 

Myrick, Sullivan, Murphy of Pennsylvania, Burgess, Blackburn, 

Scalise, and Gingrey. 

Staff present: Phil Barnett, Staff Director; Kristin Amerling, 

Chief Counsel; Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior 

Policy Advisor; Bruce Wolpe, Senior Advisor; Earley Green, Chief 

Clerk; Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Alexandra Teitz, Senior Counsel, Energy and Environment; Michal Goo, 

Counsel; Alex Barron, Professional Staff Member; Melissa Bez, Professional Staff Member; Ben Hengst, EPA Detailee; Jen Berenholz, 

Deputy Clerk; Caren Auchman, Communications Associate; Matt 

Weiner, Special Assistant; Mitchell Smiley, Special Assistant, Matt 

Eisenberg, Staff Assistant; Peter Spencer, Minority Professional 

Staff; William Corty, Minority Professional Staff; and Garrett 

Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. The committee will please come to order. This 

week we begin our consideration of comprehensive energy legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Since 

the beginning of last Congress, this committee has been working 

hard on energy legislation. We held 41 days of hearings since January. We received testimony from 61 witnesses. This week alone, we 

will hear from 67 more witnesses. And I want to thank all the 

members of the committee on both sides of the aisle for their intensive involvement on energy reform. You have made a major commitment of your time, your staff’s time, and this is crucially imporVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

tant to our success. I also want to warn the members that as hard 

as we have been working, the pace is going to accelerate over the 

next 4 weeks. There are many issues that we need to discuss and 

resolve between now and Memorial Day. We will be working hard 

because the goals are so important. The energy legislation we are 

considering will create millions of jobs, revive our economy and secure our energy independence. It will also protect our environment. 

In February, President Obama spoke to Congress and the nation 

about the need for comprehensive energy reform. He called on Congress to pass legislation that would transform our economy, protect 

our security, and preserve our planet. Our job on this committee 

is to meet those goals. We are fortunate today to have 3 cabinet 

level officials testifying to our committee for the first time, Energy 

Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. They will explain the President’s objectives and how we can ensure our legislation meets 

them. 

As Chairman Markey and I worked on the draft legislation our 

blue print was a plan proposed by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of industry CEOs and environmental organizations. We will hear today from 6 leaders of U.S. CAP, DuPont, 

ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, Alcoa, NRG, and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel. They will tell us how well we did translating their blue print into legislative language. I want to thank 

them and all our witnesses for their participation in this hearing. 

Some have said that true energy reform will undermine our economy. They argue that there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and clean energy. This is a false choice. 

Our economic future and clean energy are inextricably intertwined. The economy that will grow the fastest in this century will 

be the one that makes the greatest investments in new energy 

technologies. Nearly 40 years ago this committee passed the original Clean Air Act. Since then, we have reduced dangerous air pollutants by 60 percent or more. During the same period, our population has grown by 50 percent, and our economy by over 200 percent. Twenty years ago under the leadership of John Dingell this 

committee passed the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Opponents of the legislation said that stopping acid rain would bankrupt the utility industry. In fact, we cut emissions in half at a fraction of the cost the naysayers predicted. 

We have a similar opportunity and responsibility this year. The 

legislation we will be considering today has 4 titles. The clean energy title will spur investment in the technologies of the future, 

clean renewable energy, electric utilities, electric vehicles, and the 

smart grid. The energy efficiency title will reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil and save consumers billions of dollars by making our 

homes, our appliances, and our transportation system more energy 

efficient. The global warming title will create a market-based system for reducing carbon emissions to safe levels, and the final title 

will provide our industries, our workers and American families 

with the support they need during the transition to a clean energy 

economy. 

It is no longer a question whether we will act to reduce CO2

emissions. The endangerment finding released by EPA last week 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

answers that issue. The real question is whether we will do so in 

a way that strengthens our economy, creates new jobs, and ends 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. These are achievable 

goals but to reach them Congress needs to act, and we on this committee need to lead the way. We can succeed, but we will need to 

work together to forge consensus and a workable solution. And I 

look forward to working with all the members of the committee as 

we embark on this process. I want to recognize Mr. Barton now for 

opening comments he wishes to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our 

distinguished panel of Administration officials, especially Mr. 

LaHood, a former colleague. Of course, Dr. Chu, who I had some 

dealings with in the laboratories, and the Honorable Ms. Jackson, 

we appreciate you being here. I think it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that we are trying to go ahead and move a bill that will reduce CO2 emissions in the United States to below 83 percent of 

their base line of 2005. If you want an idea of what that is like in 

terms of carbon foot print, you might try living in Nigeria today because that is the emission level that they have right now. If you 

have a time machine, you might dial your time machine to 1875, 

and feel what it is like to live in America back in 1875 with a carbon foot print of approximately 21⁄2 tons per person. 

I don’t think most of the today citizenry in the United States 

would enjoy that type of a lifestyle too much. I also think that it 

is interesting that a lot of people seem very determined to raise energy prices in this country. Our current President, President 

Obama, has said during the campaign that capping carbon and 

trading emissions would make electricity bills necessarily skyrocket, and that is his quote, necessarily skyrocket. The people that 

global warming is religion believe that carbon dioxide, CO2, which 

is naturally occurring in nature, is the devil’s brew and they apparently think that we can only achieve salvation by putting our faith 

in the United States Federal Government. Our government will 

offer indulgences in the form of emission permits and we all atone 

for our past sins and our economy’s past sins by paying through 

the nose with these expensive new energy carbon taxes. 

It is no secret that I am a skeptic. I don’t believe that mankind 

is the primary cause of climate change. I do accept that CO2 levels 

are rising. I think it is a debatable proposition, whether that is a 

good thing or a bad thing, but in any event to put some sort of 

blind faith in a cap and trade system that hasn’t worked anywhere 

in the world in terms of CO2, won’t work here in the United States, 

and if we take it to the level that the draft bill that Mr. Waxman 

and Mr. Markey have put out. It will de-industrialize the United 

States of America in the next 40 years. I am not going to be a part 

of that. I am just not going to do it. The dark side of economic opportunity will always be that somebody thinks they can benefit 

from it, and I believe that that is one reason so many U.S. companies, some of which are going to be before us later this afternoon, 

support the cap and trade because they think they can benefit economically, either having allowances to sell or by trading in the alVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

lowance market. And I understand the need to make a dollar, but 

I think it is a terrible thing if we are going to set up a system 

where the only people that benefit are the people that are in the 

trading system and the people that get these free allowances because of what they have done in the past. 

Now I understand that your draft is silent on that. My understanding is that you and Mr. Markey have decided at least so far 

to not have free allowances. You are going to have an auction system. I hope you stick with that. I was here in the Clean Air Act 

amendments when we did SO2 back in the early 1990s and I remember the fights we had on base line, and I remember the fights 

we had on allowances for particular plants and things like that. 

That will be a picnic compared to what we will have if we go down 

where we start trying to—we, not me, but you and Mr. Markey 

start trying to buy votes by giving allowances to this group or that 

group or whatever. I think it is interesting that we don’t have a 

score from CBO because you have not put anything out that CBO 

can score so apparently if and when we go to markup, we are going 

to have this miracle draft that comes forward in terms of a manager’s amendment, and lo and behold there will be something to 

score, but CBO won’t have time to score it. 

If it is anything close to what we had last year in the Senate 

with the Warner-Lieberman bill, it is going to be very, very expensive. If it close to what the Obama Administration put in their 

budget, according to the CBO director it is probably going to be 

score in the neighborhood of $2 trillion negatively over an 8-year 

period. That is a pretty expensive package, Mr. Chairman. If you 

look at where our economy is today, what the unemployment rate 

is today, where the stock market is today, I don’t think that is a 

cost that we can bear. As long as we are talking about cost, let us 

talk about just the straight increases in energy costs. Every estimate that I have seen, Mr. Chairman, says that energy costs are 

going to go up across the board. The electricity cost could go up 

somewhere between 44 to 125 percent, gasoline costs could go up. 

You name the cost. It is going to go up. 

How does that affect the unemployment rate? Michigan right 

now has an unemployment rate of 12 percent. Indiana has an unemployment rate of 10 percent. Ohio is at 9.7. California and Georgia are at 9.2 percent. Even my great State of Texas where the 

economy is relatively better off has got an employment rate over 

6 percent. I mean if energy prices go up lots and lots of Americans 

are going to lose their jobs and then that in turn is going to cause 

even more deficit spending on behalf of the federal government. 

How is that costed into this draft? However, you cost it, it is going 

to be a negative cost. I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but I 

have already gone over almost 2 minutes, and I appreciate your indulgence. Put me down as undecided on your bill and I look forward to hearing from our panel, and then trying to work with you 

and Mr. Markey and members of the committee to do something 

that is positive. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Barton. I now want to recognize 

the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, Mr. Markey. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. First, I 

want to thank Secretary LaHood, Secretary Chu, and Administrator Jackson for being with us here today. The presence of this 

all star lineup is a testament to the priority that the Obama Administration places on developing sound energy legislation and 

fighting global warming. Today, Earth Day, 2009, we begin the 

process of writing history as we work to pass new energy legislation that will revitalize our economy, enhance our energy security, 

create millions of new jobs, and end the global warming crisis. We 

arrive at this crucial moment with much at stake and not a moment to spare. 

Winston Churchill once said courage is what it takes to stand up 

and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. In 

the days ahead, we will need to have both the courage to speak out 

and the courage to sit down and listen. If we do that, we can pass 

legislation that will create millions of new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil all in a way that meets our environmental 

and economic needs. We have reached a crossroads where inaction 

is simply not an option. Our economy cannot continue to depend 

heavily on foreign oil. Our energy system cannot continue to be 

highly inefficient. 

We cannot continue energy policies that look to last century’s energy sources while other nations race ahead to take the lead in developing and marketing clean energy technologies and green jobs. 

Germany’s second largest export after cars is wind turbines. China 

is becoming the leader in renewable energy. Japan and Korea are 

leap frogging America in advanced vehicle technology. Nor can we 

pretend that business as usual has shielded us from harmful, negative changes in our economy or from increases in energy prices. It 

has not. Attempts to seek refuge in the status quo have left us further behind in the ongoing global economic and energy race. 

Those who predict our bill will result in soaring energy costs fall 

into a long line of doomsayers who have eventually been proven 

wrong. Environmental statutes have saved lives and smart energy 

policies have saved money, and done so at a fraction of the high 

cost projected by industry. Nor will global warming or oil-driven 

foreign regimes wait for us to act. Just last Friday, Administrator 

Jackson issued her proposed endangerment finding stating that climate change is an enormous problem and ‘‘the greenhouse gases 

that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare.’’ 

Among the impacts that flow from global warming are increased 

drought, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires and 

harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife, and ecosystems. 

And EPA also emphasized that global warming will have disproportionate impacts on the very poor, the very young, the elderly, 

those already in poor health, and those living alone are dependent 

on few resources. Left unabated, global warming and our dependence on oil will jeopardize America’s national security and increase 

our economic risk. Whether it is in the hundreds of billions we send 

every year to unfriendly regimes or the hundreds of millions globVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

ally who could be without drinking water from increased drought, 

we cannot wish away these problems. 

Chairman Waxman and I have developed our discussion draft 

with all of these factors in mind. In the discussion draft and going 

forward, Chairman Waxman and I will strive to get reductions in 

global warming pollution that meets science-based targets by using 

cost saving, energy efficiency, and clean energy solutions. We will 

continue to develop strategies to help keep costs low from the use 

of offsets, to banking and borrowing, and through the use of a strategic reserve of allowances that can limit any costs that are higher 

than expected. We will continue to fund clean energy solutions that 

will allow new American companies to prosper creating clean energy jobs that can’t be shipped overseas, and we will continue to 

provide opportunities and incentives for energy efficiency to save 

families money. 

We will continue to ensure that we assist and benefit consumers, 

especially low income consumers. We will ensure that our most 

internationally competitive industries are not left exposed to foreign inaction, and we will hold ourselves to high standards and we 

will hold the international community to high standards. Nor are 

we finished improving this legislation. As we proceed through these 

hearings, we will hear dozens of other witnesses, some with positive comments and some with suggestions for improvements. We 

welcome these comments, and we look forward to working with all 

the members of this committee to develop legislation that will create a new clean energy economy free of the threat of dangerous 

global warming and free of our dependence on foreign energy 

sources. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Now I wish to recognize 

for an opening statement the ranking member of the energy subcommittee, Mr. Upton. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I begin my 

opening statement, I would like to submit a number of articles for 

the record. First of all, from last week’s Washington Post, India Rejects Calls for Emission Cuts. With regards to the President’s push 

to combat climate change, Indian officials said it was unlikely to 

prompt them to agree to binding emission cuts. From the New York 

Times, Thirsty for Energy in India’s Boon Town and Beyond, I 

quote, ‘‘Almost half of India’s population has no access to the electricity grid. About 700 million Indians rely on animal waste and 

firewood as fuel for cooking.’’ From the Saginaw News, Terrible 

Time for Higher Bills, ‘‘As a result of the recent green mandates 

sticking people with an average of $125 utility bill increase seems 

kind of cruel in a state that is suffering 121⁄2 percent unemployment.’’ From the Detroit News, Cap and Trade Plan will Hit the 

Heartland, with a quote, ‘‘Cap and trade system is a giant economic dagger aimed at the nation’s heartland, particularly Michigan.’’ 

From the Hill, Not All Senators Warming to Obama Cap and 

Trade. Sherrod Brown, former member of this committee, Obama’s 

plan would lead to an increased energy cost and would drive AmerVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

ican firms abroad. From the Wall Street Journal, Who Pays for Cap 

and Trade, with a quote, ‘‘An economy wide tax under the cover of 

saving the environment is the best political money maker since the 

income tax.’’ And from the U.S. News and World Report, The Next 

Bernie Madoff, Emissions Cap and Trade Aids the Corrupt, Hurts 

the Little Guy, and on and on. 

I would like in advance to thank the 60 some witnesses who will 

be testifying before our committee this week, and due to the limited time, I would like to submit the following 4 questions to each 

of our witnesses and would ask them to address these during their 

opening remarks. Number 1, will the legislation increase energy 

costs? If so, is there anything in the underlying bill that prevents 

these costs from being passed on to consumers? 2, since the legislation applies only to the U.S. but not other nations like China, 

India, and Mexico, is there a chance it will result in American jobs 

being shipped overseas, and how many jobs will be lost? 3, what 

is the cumulative cost per household of this legislation, and, 4, absent other nations adopting the same reduction policy, how much 

will the legislation actually reduce global temperatures, if at all? 

I do believe that we need to reduce emissions, but we must do 

it in a common sense way that takes into account the economic and 

global realities of the issue. This week it was reported in the New 

York Times that China discovered 180 miles of the Great Wall that 

they didn’t know existed. How on earth are they going to be able 

to monitor and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and I wonder how many coal-fired plants that they might have discovered in 

the last couple of years as they were analyzing this new 180 miles. 

We are not engaged in a guessing game. We have the luxury of examining empirical evidence of past forays into different policies. All 

one has to do is to examine the results of the EU’s cap and tax 

scheme. It was a failure. 

CO2 emissions in the U.S. fell by 1.8 percent in 2006 compared 

to a .3 percent increase in emissions in the EU according to the 

EIA. Both economies grew at a near identical pace in 2006 of about 

3 percent. Cap and tax, cap and trade, will essentially kick working 

families when they are down. And we thought the American public 

was angry at $4.25 gas prices last summer. Just wait till they get 

their hands on their utility bills under a cap and tax. In 2008, approximately 21 percent of all utility accounts were overdue with 

folks carrying past due balances on average of $160 in electric bills 

and $360 for natural gas. And in Michigan the account debt totaled 

$367 million with 1 out of 3 behind on their bills in some of our 

areas. 

Times are tough, yet this proposal puts a bulls eye on the back 

of working families who are struggling to feed their families and 

to keep the lights on. In fact, in Michigan it came out just yesterday that we have lost 150,000 jobs in 4 months, and it is expected 

that according to the University of Michigan we are going to lose 

239,000 jobs in 2009. We are one of the hardest hit in this weak 

economy, and we would be disproportionately impacted with this 

legislation. NAM did a detailed analysis of the impact on Michigan, 

and, quite simply, jobs are going to be lost, electric prices are going 

to go up, and household incomes will be decimated and any growth 

will absolutely disappear. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

Let us put the scale of emissions reductions called for into perspective. Current proposals would mean that the U.S. cannot emit 

more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910. That is a pretty 

daunting task considering that in 1910 the U.S. had only 92 million people compared to about 420 million expected in 2050. And 

to reach the lofty goal of 80 percent reductions emissions from the 

entire transportation sector would have to drop to 0. Emissions 

from all electricity generation would have to drop to 0, and then 

we would need to reduce everything else by 50 percent. Climate 

change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions, but 

how can we address such a critical issue without nuclear even 

being addressed in this measure even though nuclear power accounts for 70 percent of our nation’s emission free electricity. 

We are in desperate need of a reality check. Without international participation jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas 

to countries that require few, if any, environmental protections 

harming the global environment as well as the U.S. economy. If our 

objective is to send manufacturing jobs overseas, destroy the Midwest, mortgage our future, and hand the keys over to our super 

power status, then I would say job well done. This bill does it. The 

stakes are high, the planet is warming, and this is no time to 

throw in the towel all in the name of cap and tax. So I guess, Mr. 

Chairman, you can put my name as undecided with Mr. Barton. I 

yield back. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton. We are pleased 

to welcome 3 representatives from the Obama Administration, Secretary LaHood, Secretary Chu, and Administrator Jackson. Your 

prepared statements will be in the record in full, and we would like 

to recognize each of you to make an opening statement. And we 

will have a clock that will indicate 5 minutes. When you see the 

red light on, we would like you to recognize your time is up and 

to summarize so we will have plenty of time for questions and answers by members of the committee. Administrator Jackson, we 

would like to start with you. 

STATEMENTS OF LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED 

STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; STEVEN 

CHU, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND RAY LaHOOD, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

STATEMENT OF LISA JACKSON 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Waxman. Chairman Waxman, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, Ranking Minority 

Member Barton, Congressman Markey, Congressman Upton, and 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

about the draft American Clean Energy and Security Act, and 

happy Earth Day to each and every one of you. Let me begin by 

commending this committee for embarking on the serious, difficult, 

and essential work of crafting comprehensive, detailed energy legislation and moving it through an open and careful process in which 

representatives hold hearings, make amendments, and cast votes. 

When President Obama was inaugurated 92 days ago, the United 

States found itself in the worst economic crisis since the Great DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

pression. So the President worked with Congress to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That law is now creating 

good jobs for Americans. Thanks to the Act, EPA is putting Americans to work, overhauling clean water systems, restoring and redeveloping polluted properties, installing clean air equipment on diesel engines, and cleaning up leaking underground fuel tanks. The 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also injected an essential 

shot of adrenalin into the American energy sector. That immediate 

relief is essential to economic recovery. But President Obama has 

also leveled with the American people. Lasting economic recovery 

will come only when the federal government looks beyond the quick 

fix and invests in building the advanced energy industries that will 

help restore America’s economic health over the long term. 

So President Obama has called on Congress to pass forward-looking energy legislation. That legislation should create here in America millions of the clean energy jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. It should catapult American innovators past the foreign competitors who, due to aggressive investments by their governments, 

now enjoy a head start in the advanced energy technologies that 

represent the new Internet revolution, the new biotech wave. The 

legislation should reduce our dependence on oil and strengthen 

America’s energy security. And it should start in a real and tangible way to tackle greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens to 

leave to our children and grandchildren a diminished, less prosperous, less secure world. 

Three weeks ago, Chairman Waxman and Markey released draft 

legislation that strives to accomplish the goals I just listed. The 

American Clean Energy and Security Act would introduce a clean 

energy requirement for American electric utilities and new energy 

efficiency programs for American buildings. Those initiatives aim to 

create good American jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. The 

legislation would launch programs to promote electric vehicles and 

deploy technologies for capturing, pipelining, and geologically storing carbon dioxide produced at coal-fueled power plants. Those incentives aim to help American companies make up for lost time in 

the advanced energy industries that will be to the 2010 what Internet software was to the 1990s. 

The legislation would institute new low-carbon requirements for 

vehicles and fuels, as well as programs to reduce vehicles miles 

traveled. Those proposals aim to increase America’s energy security 

and cut back on the hundreds of billions of dollars that America 

throws away every year on oil. And the legislation would put in 

place a declining cap on greenhouse gas pollution. That marketbased system aims to protect our children and grandchildren from 

severe environmental and economic harm and from great threats 

to our national security while further invigorating advanced American energy industries. 

The American Clean Energy and Security Act draws on the 

thoughtful legislation that Chairman Emeritus Dingell and Congressman Boucher drafted last October, and it tracks many of the 

recommendations put forward by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition that includes American manufacturers, such as 

Alcoa, John Deere, Caterpillar, Dow, Ford, General Motors, and 

General Electric. Now the no, we can’t crowd will spin out doomsVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

day scenarios about runaway costs. I do not claim that we can get 

something for nothing, but EPA’s preliminary economic modeling 

indicates that the investments Americans would make to implement the cap and trade program in the American Clean Energy 

and Security Act would be very modest compared to the benefits 

that science and plain common sense tell us a comprehensive energy and climate policy will deliver. 

I ask the members of this committee to recall the Acid Rain 

Trading Program, drafted by this committee as amendments to the 

Clean Air Act, and signed by a Republican president in 1990. Beltway corporate lobbyists insisted that the law would cause, and I 

quote, ‘‘death for businesses across the country.’’ But as the members of this committee who worked hard on that legislation know 

well, it ended up delivering annual health and welfare benefits of 

over $120 billion at an annual cost of only $3 billion. Our economy 

grew and acid rain was cut by more than 50 percent. The Clean 

Air Act amendments dealt with controversial issues, not just acid 

rain, but smog, hazardous air pollutants, and the threats to the 

ozone layer, but once Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman 

joined forces with other members of this committee to find consensus the committee reported the amendments favorably to the 

full House by a vote of 42–1. I believe this committee can make history again this year, and the draft American Clean Energy and Security Act is a great start. It reflects the President’s priorities of 

reducing our dependence on oil creating millions of new jobs by 

leveraging America’s tremendous capacity for innovation and significantly reducing greenhouse gas pollution. 

This Administration wants to see this effort move forward, and 

I pledge to work with this committee over the weeks ahead to help 

you find consensus. Thank you. I look forward to answering the 

members’ questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 72878A.047
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 72878A.048
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 72878A.049
104 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Administrator Jackson. Secretary Chu, we would like to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN CHU 

Mr. CHU. Chairman Waxman and Markey, Chairman Emeritus 

Dingell, Ranking Members Barton and Upton, and members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the American Clean Energy and Security Act. For 

decades our energy strategy has been little or no strategy at all. 

For our transportation needs, we have become increasingly addicted to oil at escalating costs to our economy, our environment, 

our security. For our electricity needs, we burn immense amounts 

of coal, which is cheap and abundant, but a major contributor to 

global warming. We will continue to use coal as a fuel, but we must 

learn to do it in a cleaner way. On this Earth Day, we must state 

in no uncertain terms we have a responsibility to our children and 

their children to curb the carbon emissions from fossil fuels that 

have begun to change our climate. 

President Obama recognizes that the energy challenge is a defining challenge of our time, and he is committed to a comprehensive 

energy plan that creates jobs, reduces our greenhouse gas emissions, and reduces our dependence on oil. The Energy Independence and Security Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have made a down payment on clean energy future. I am 

pleased to report that the Department of Energy is getting the Recovery Act money into your local communities as quickly as possible, while maintaining the highest standards of transparency and 

accountability. We are already putting Americans to work making 

homes and buildings more efficient, which will grow our economy 

and cut energy bills for families. The Recovery Act also provides financing options that could double the production of renewable energy and expands investments in the development of break-through 

energy technologies. 

But we need to do more. We need not only to jump start our 

economy today but to lay the foundation for America’s long-term 

prosperity. In the years ahead, the work will turn increasingly to 

unconventional sources of petroleum, which could lead to higher 

prices for consumers. With these rising energy costs and the 

mounting challenges of our climate, the development of clean, renewable sources of energy will be the growth industry of the 21st 

century. The key question is who will lead the world in making energy efficient vehicles when turbines, solar panels, and other products and technologies that will power tomorrow’s economy? There 

are 2 dangers, either of which could dramatically weaken America’s 

future. The first is that the world will fail to take action on climate 

change in time to prevent its worst potential effects. The second is 

that the United States will fail to seize the opportunity to lead and 

new clean energy jobs will be created overseas rather than in 

America. 

We can neither let our planet get too hot or let our economy grow 

too cold. We must get off the sidelines of the clean energy race and 

play to win. To that end, we in the Administration appreciate Congress’ effort in developing the American Clean Energy and Security 

Act. While we are still reviewing the details, it is clear that ChairVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

man Waxman’s legislation would advance the President’s goals of 

launching a new sector of clean energy jobs, making our economy 

more competitive and weaning the nation from its dependence on 

oil. The President looks forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers to pass a bill that would transition the nation to a clean energy economy. 

The Administration believes that a gradual marked-based cap on 

carbon pollution would also be a significant step for restoring 

America’s leadership in the deployment of clean energy technology. 

Building on the success of the bipartisan Acid Rain Program created in 1990 Clean Air Act, this approach will set clear long-term 

emission goals that empower the private sector to find the most innovative ways to reduce carbon pollution. The Administration also 

believes a renewable electricity standard could help create a stable 

investment environment for America’s innovators to do what they 

do best, create new jobs and entire new industries. We also believe 

it is important to foster continued development of critical technologies to give the American people advanced clean vehicles, to 

capture and store carbon to limit emissions and sustain our environment, to accelerate energy efficiency improvements, and to develop a smart grid to improve the efficiency, reliability, and security of our electricity transmission system. I applaud Chairman 

Waxman and Markey for bringing this bill forward. 

Now is the time to take comprehensive and sustained action to 

meet our nation’s energy challenge. With the leadership of the 

President, the actions of this Congress, and the support and participation of the American people, I am confident we will succeed. 

Thank you, and I will be glad to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chu follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 72878A.050
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 72878A.051
108 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Secretary Chu. Secretary 

LaHood. 

STATEMENT OF RAY LaHOOD 

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. 

Barton, and friends all, thank you for inviting me to discuss the 

Department of Transportation’s commitment to promote a cleaner, 

greener America through effective and innovative transportation 

policy. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important environment and energy policies laid out in the American Clean Energy 

and Security Act. I commend the committee for drafting this important legislation. Since today is Earth Day, this is an excellent time 

to hold a serious national conversation on the most effective ways 

to improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 

mitigate the impact of climate change. 

As you know, one of the highest priorities of President Obama’s 

Administration is to develop a comprehensive energy plan that will 

not only achieve these goals but also create millions of good paying, 

clean energy jobs and help our communities become more livable 

in the process. There is no question that the United States must 

be the leader in the global effort to address climate change, cut pollution, and find more sustainable ways to keep our society mobile. 

The President has already taken concrete steps in this direction. 

The Administration has proposed new fuel efficiency standards for 

cars and light trucks that would significantly reduce emissions and 

save millions of gallons of fuel beginning in model year 2011. And 

we are coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of Energy on new fuel economy standards to take 

us through 2016. Our department is also using new statutory authority to explore new fuel economy standards for medium and 

heavy duty trucks. Additionally, the department continues to invest 

in buses running alternative fuels thereby reducing emissions and 

improving air quality in cities and towns across America. Our commitment has helped to quadruple the number of clean fuel bus 

fleets across and around the nation since 1998. 

Through the Recovery Act, we are making hundred million dollar 

grants in grant funds available to help the transit industry to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions for bus, rail cars and 

other transit equipment. On the climate change front over the last 

several years we have invested in research and technology efforts 

that will help us to transition away from fossil fuels, improve vehicle efficiency, and optimize our transportation network to reduce 

congestion and idling while contributing to higher emission levels. 

Across the department, we are committed to programs and policies 

that address our environmental concerns. The FAA, for instance, is 

working with the private sector on sustainable alternative fuel for 

aircraft. The Maritime Administration exploring new technologies 

in cooperation with EPA and industries to reduce emissions from 

marine diesel engines. 

Looking ahead, the Department of Transportation stands ready 

to meet the President’s ambitious goals for making transportation 

an integral part of our approach to addressing environmental challenges. In the coming months, we will work with stakeholder 

groups around the country to determine how best to invest $8 bilVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

lion in new funding for high speed passenger rail service that will 

ultimately improve mobility and reduce congestion, and we will 

work closely with Congress to develop a new service transportation 

bill that focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by investing 

in green transportation choices such as bike paths, pedestrian 

walkways, and building more affordable housing near transit. 

In closing, the Department of Transportation will continue to be 

your full partner as we move forward with new legislation to help 

America address its formidable energy challenges. I look forward to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the entire committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. LaHood follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 72878A.052
111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 72878A.053
112 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 72878A.054
113 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Secretary LaHood. We will 

now recognize members for questions, 5-minute rounds, and I will 

start off. The 3 of you gave us testimony on behalf of the Administration, and I thank you for your presentations. Our nation is facing some very difficult energy challenges and we have ignored 

them for too long. We are overly dependent on foreign sources of 

oil. Our economy is in a recession. We are no longer leading in the 

development of clean energy technology and we are polluting our 

environment. President Obama is trying to confront these problems. He has said we need a comprehensive energy policy that creates new clean energy jobs, promotes energy independence, and 

tackles a tremendous threat of global warming. 

Chairman Markey and I tried to draft a discussion, a proposal 

that addresses these 3 issues. And what I want to ask you is 

whether you think our draft accomplishes the President’s goals. Let 

me begin by asking about jobs and our economy. Americans are 

hurting, and this is the first question on most of our minds. Administrator Jackson, do you believe the bill would create jobs here in 

the U.S. and stimulate economic growth? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do indeed, Mr. Chairman. I believe this is a jobs 

bill, and it is a jobs bill that focuses our country’s attention on the 

growth industry of the future, which is the clean energy industry. 

There are opportunities here for us to create literally millions of 

jobs in the green energy. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Secretary Chu, do you agree, would this bill put 

us on the path to a clean energy economy? 

Mr. CHU. I absolutely agree with that. I think as you yourself 

noted the world has rapidly changed its attitude towards carbon 

emissions and it is continuing to do so. So in a future world, it is 

very clear that we will be living in a carbon constrained world so 

the action will be how do you transition to a sustainable energy future. The United States must position itself in a way so that we 

can lead this transition, that we take advantage of the full intellectual opportunities and vigor of this country to develop those technologies that will add to our economic prosperity. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And, Secretary LaHood, what do you think about 

creation of jobs and helping our economy with the Obama proposal? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that nothing has 

taken as much time for this Administration than trying to get the 

economy going. This is the number 1 priority for this Administration, and I know it is for Congress also, and I know that is why 

Congress passed the Economic Recovery Act, which many of us in 

this Administration are implementing to try and get our fellow 

Americans back to work, and we are certainly doing that at the department. I believe that the work that you all are doing, the bill 

that you have laid out will go a long way to creating jobs, and particularly I want to note green jobs. 

And in the area that we work at the Department of Transportation, we believe there will be a number of green job opportunities 

created around the country as a result of the approach that is 

being taken by your legislation and this is the reason that we are 

here today. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask you this though. The other objective, 

one of the other objectives, is to reduce our dependence on foreign 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

oil. Americans are tired of sending billions and billions of dollars 

overseas for oil in many countries to countries with hostile governments. Do you believe this bill would reduce our dependence on foreign oil? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Absolutely. I think it sets the bar very high and 

obviously one of the concerns that all of us in public policy positions have faced is the ire of the public when a barrel of oil goes 

up and gasoline goes up, and people are not able to use their automobiles. And I think this approach will help. The approach that 

you are taking in your legislation will relieve our dependence on 

foreign oil by creating other opportunities for people, certainly in 

the area of transportation. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. I assume, Secretary Chu 

and Administrator Jackson, you agree this will reduce our dependence on foreign oil as well? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, I do. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The third goal of this discussion draft is to effectively address the danger of global warming. We want to craft legislation based on science, and that means a bill that makes the 

global warming pollution reductions scientists tell us are necessary 

to avoid catastrophic climate change. Secretary Chu, does this bill 

represent an effective response to the threat of global warming? 

Does it take the necessary steps at home to ensure that American 

can restore global leadership on this issue? 

Mr. CHU. It does. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And do the other two of you agree with that position? Administrator Jackson? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. This bill includes strong targets, and it moves us to addressing global warming pollution by establishment of a cap and trade program which 

I think many businesses agree is the way to harness private investment and capital into on our side in reducing pollution and creating the green energy economy. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Do 

you want to add anything, Secretary LaHood? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I agree. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Good. Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questions, I want to commend you and Mr. Markey on one thing that 

I didn’t in my opening statement. We have had intense debates 

about the number of Republican witnesses versus Democrat witnesses at these hearings. In this case, I want to commend you on 

your Administration panel. You went out of your way to make sure 

we had a Republican witness and we didn’t even have to ask. I 

should have commended you for that, so we appreciate you doing 

that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You can commend the American people for that. 

Mr. BARTON. Very good. Thank you. And the President for appointing him. Administrator Jackson, your agency yesterday came 

up with an economic impact analysis of the pending draft. How 

were you able to do that since the most important economic component of the draft has no allocation cost scheme in it? 

Ms. JACKSON. At the request of the drafters, we did indeed release economic modeling and in order to do it, we had to make asVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

sumptions about how allowance revenue would be distributed. At 

the request of the drafters those assumptions were put into the 

modeling. 

Mr. BARTON. I haven’t seen the analysis, but are those economic 

assumptions and allowances cost, are those public? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, they are, and the modeling is public. 

Mr. BARTON. They are public. Thank you. Your agency also recently came up with a finding that CO2 is hazardous to health and 

therefore should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Just what 

is the health hazard since CO2 itself is not a pollutant? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the proposed finding would classify CO2 as 

a criteria pollutant, and the health impact associated with CO2, especially for the very young and for the elderly, are exacerbation of 

other impacts from pollution. CO2 acts to make impacts from pollution worse because the CO2 and the warming that it causes the climate change is actually—— 

Mr. BARTON. Inhaling CO2, being exposed to CO2, in and of itself 

is not a health hazard? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, right. Well, CO2 in the absence of oxygen—— 

Mr. BARTON. You are creating CO2 as you talk to me. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think I understand your question, sir, which is 

if you inhale only CO2 certainly that would make you sick. You 

wouldn’t live without oxygen. But the CO2 and the endangerment 

finding is based on scientific analysis of CO2 and 5 other greenhouse gases and their impact on the welfare of our country and 

then human health because of—— 

Mr. BARTON. Do we have examples in your finding of CO2 pollution causing death or large illnesses? We know SO2 and we know 

mercury and we know lead. We know the criteria pollutants. Even 

ozone causes asthma or can exacerbate asthma. We don’t have that 

with CO2. Ms. JACKSON. The finding, the proposal answers the question put 

to us by the law and by the Supreme Court, which is do these 

greenhouse gases as a class endanger public health and welfare, 

and the finding is based on an analysis of what the greenhouse 

gases do first to our environment and our planet and what that 

means for human health. 

Mr. BARTON. I thank you for those answers. Mr. LaHood or Secretary LaHood, former Chairman Dingell in his opening statement 

yesterday talked about the need for specific funding for the automotive industry and some assistance in terms of meeting their admission requirements under legislation that was passed last year. 

Have you looked at former Chairman Dingell’s comments, and, if 

so, do you support some of the things that he said yesterday? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I am sorry, I have not seen his testimony. I will 

be happy to look at it, but I haven’t seen it. 

Mr. BARTON. He was specifically saying that there should be a 

specific funding source in this bill to help the automotive industry 

meet the requirements in terms of their emission improvements 

that they have to meet, and he also said that for retooling issues 

and things that there should be additional funding so you might 

just—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. You mean the bill that is under consideration here 

by the committee? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

Mr. BARTON. Yes. If I understood him correctly, that is what—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Barton, I haven’t 

thought about this, but I would say this. I don’t know of another 

Administration or another Congress that has done more for the 

American automobile manufacturer than the Obama Administration and this Congress in the Economic Stimulus Bill and also last 

year in what Congress did in terms of the money available to the 

American automobile manufacturers. This Administration is committed—— 

Mr. BARTON. You don’t have to convince me, Mr. Secretary. I am 

one of the Republicans who voted for the auto package so you don’t 

have to preach—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. No, if you are asking me if we are committed to 

helping the American automobile manufacturer, the answer is, yes, 

we have, and I believe the President will—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am specifically asking just to take a look at what 

Mr. Dingell said. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I didn’t see his testimony, but I will be happy to 

look at it. 

Mr. BARTON. Dr. Chu, I don’t want to leave you out. You are our 

scientist. I have one simple question for you in the last 6 seconds. 

How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic 

Ocean? 

Mr. CHU. This is a complicated story but oil and gas is a result 

of hundreds of millions of years of geology, and in that time also 

the plates have moved around, and so it is the combination of 

where the sources of the oil and gas—— 

Mr. BARTON. But I mean isn’t it obvious that at one time it was 

a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole. There wasn’t a big 

pipeline that we created in Texas and shipped it up there and then 

put it underground so we can now pump it out and ship it back. 

Mr. CHU. There are continental plates that have been drifting 

around throughout the geological ages. 

Mr. BARTON. That just drifted up there? 

Mr. CHU. That is certainly what happened, and so it is a result 

of things like that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Markey. 

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

Chu, I know you spent a lot of time thinking about new energy 

technologies. Are you concerned that we could lose our leadership 

in new energy technologies to other countries? 

Mr. CHU. I am very concerned of that. It actually tears my heart 

out to see what has happened. If you consider what happened 

photovoltaics were invented by Bell Labs in the 1930s. We are not 

a leading manufacturer of photovoltaics. Wind turbines, which 

were first deployed in the United States in the first energy crisis 

in the mid-1970s, that had gone overseas to Denmark—to Germany. Nuclear reactors which we pioneered. Now Westinghouse, 

there is a major shareholder in Westinghouse that is now owned 

by a company in Japan. I am very concerned. Major power electronics of the world has drifted overseas. It is in Europe and it is 

in Asia. And so I see step by step us losing the technology lead. 

We need to bring those high technology jobs back, manufacturing 

jobs, back to the United States. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. During the presidential 

campaign now President Obama pledged that the United States 

could actually deploy 25 percent of our electricity from renewable 

resources by the year 2025, which would be a revolution in the way 

in which we generate electricity in our country. Do you agree with 

that assessment that we can reach that goal by the year 2025, Mr. 

Secretary? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, I do. I think when the American public and especially the science and technology part of the United States gets 

going it can really move, and so although it might seem like an ambitious goal, I think with the proper incentives we can get there. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could I ask you, Secretary LaHood, what role do 

you think that new advanced automotive technologies can play in 

revitalizing the American economy? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, we know from visiting with the automobile 

manufacturers that the kind of technology that they are developing 

in terms of hybrids, in terms of battery powered automobiles, and 

then the standard that we have asked them to meet in terms of 

CAFE standards are going to allow the American people to have 

many, many choices in the future for opportunities to have automobiles that will emit far less CO2, and certainly the case is true 

with hybrids and the further development of that. There are a couple of American automobile manufacturers that are developing an 

all battery automobile, and obviously that is going to go a long way 

to enhance our opportunities. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are you an optimist, Mr. Secretary, that if we continue to invest in these new technologies as an American strategy 

that we can meet this goal? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I think the American automobile manufacturers 

have gotten the message. They need to get where the American 

people are, and the American people are ready to drive automobiles 

that get good gas mileage in the instance of those that use gasoline, but if development of hybrids and battery powered automobiles come on to the opportunities for people and are allowed to 

be developed, I think the American people are ready for that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Secretary. Administrator Jackson, 

you have had a chance to look at the Waxman-Markey draft. Could 

you tell us in your opinion how that legislation could help to reduce 

our use of oil, our dependence upon imported oil in the United 

States? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the bill as you drafted it is comprehensive 

in that it has several opportunities for advancing renewable energy, energy efficiency. We just heard about the opportunity to put 

forward electric cars, a low carbon fuel standard, and all of those 

things along with especially the energy efficiency, which is such 

low-hanging fruit right now for our country, and which could start 

tomorrow in reducing our dependence, and then the longer term 

options as we move towards a lower carbon future through a cap 

and trade program, all of those are drivers that will push us towards using foreign oil right now as it makes us vulnerable. 

Mr. MARKEY. We produce 8 million barrels of oil a day in the 

United States. We import 13 million barrels of oil a day. That is 

our weakness. We thank each of you for your leadership in helping 

us to address that question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to ask 

Secretary Chu, Secretary Chu, the loan guarantees for nuclear are 

certainly, as many of us know, an essential part for building new 

projects such as new nuclear reactors. We know that you have proposed a revision to the DOE loan guarantee program, but as I understand it, OMB is not satisfied and has rejected the proposed 

change. In spite of that, can you comment on what we need to improve the program? I don’t know, is that a final resolution? 

Mr. CHU. No. I believe that nuclear power has to be part of the 

energy mix in this century. I stated that many times. I continue 

to state that. 

Mr. UPTON. That would be my follow-up question, but go ahead. 

Mr. CHU. And so we are certainly moving as aggressively as we 

possibly can. We are going to work out the differences with OMB 

to try to get those initial loan guarantees going. We are also using 

our budget of 2008–2009 and going to 2010, we are helping the getting the NRC licenses, particularly the AP–1000, so its generic design can be licensed. That is being done with the aid of the Department of Energy. We fully intend to use the resources of the Department of Energy to further develop nuclear technology. This is one 

of the areas of technology that the United States should recapture 

leadership in. 

Mr. UPTON. During your confirmation, I was heartened when you 

said nuclear is going to be part of our energy future. It has to be, 

and yet you had a statement a couple weeks later as it related to 

Yucca Mountain, as you know, there is no nuclear title as part of 

this bill, and I just want to know as you indicate now that nuclear 

needs to be part of the equation. Would the Administration support 

a nuclear title to this bill knowing that there is no greenhouse gas 

emissions, and what are we going to do about Yucca? And, lastly, 

would you support reversing President Carter decision on recycling, 

something that our subcommittee actually visited last year as we 

saw the French begin to—or they have done it for now a number 

of decades, recycle the nuclear waste. It is my understanding that 

both Japan and the British are doing it as well. What are your 

comments in that regard? 

Mr. CHU. What we are planning to do is to appoint a panel to 

step back and take a fresh new look at how we are going to—a 

comprehensive plan of how we are going to deal with the nuclear 

waste. A lot has happened since the beginning of Yucca Mountain 

some 25, 30 years ago, and so without prejudging what these blue 

ribbon panels are going to find, I think it is an opportunity to actually develop a much more comprehensive forward looking plan. The 

fact that we are doing this, I see, in no way conflicts with my vision 

of trying to move the nuclear industry forward to restart the American nuclear industry. We can and will develop a comprehensive 

nuclear waste plant. 

Now with regard to the recycling issue, I think it has become increasingly apparent even to France and Japan that the current recycling technology used today, which isolates plutonium, has proliferation issues, serious proliferation issues. So what I intend to do 

is to start a vigorous research and development program to look for 

ways to close the fuel cycle, to actually recycle, but in a way that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

is proliferation resistant, so I think it is premature to start today 

because we simply don’t have those processes today but in the long 

term I think that is the goal. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, as we begin to embark on this legislation 

would the Administration support that a nuclear title that there is 

no greenhouse—a nuclear title to this bill which it does not currently have now to encourage the development and forward movement of additional new reactors? 

Mr. CHU. I think the Administration has supported this. We are 

trying to, as I said, restart the American nuclear industry again. 

It should be—— 

Mr. UPTON. So it ought to be yes. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. The answer is yes. 

Mr. UPTON. We look forward to working with you. OK, good. Administrator Jackson, last year, I believe it was last year, in testimony before our committee, your predecessors indicated that the 

Lieberman-Warner bill, had it passed the Senate, would really not 

changed the—as long as other countries were not participating, 

India and China, the largest emitters, they didn’t participate, that 

the global temperature would change by a miniscule amount of less 

than 1 degree. Do you concur with that same thought now what we 

have a change in the Administration? 

Ms. JACKSON. I certainly concur with the concept, which is that 

global warming—— 

Mr. UPTON. It doesn’t happen without India and China? 

Ms. JACKSON. The international leadership, international action 

is needed to solve the entirety of the problem, yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair wishes to recognize the Chairman Emeritus of this committee, Mr. Dingell, under whose leadership as chairman, we passed the last revisions to the Clean Air Act with a vote of 42–1. I am hopeful we 

can get to 42–1 or that kind of a margin this time around but I 

have my suspicions given some of the opening statements that we 

may not be able to succeed as you had in the last go round on the 

most important environmental legislation that we had passed. Mr. 

Dingell is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. Thank 

you for those kind comments. I intend to try to work with you to 

see to it we get a good bill out of here. And I want to commend 

you for the legislation that you have brought forward. Welcome to 

our panel, and particularly our old friend, Ray LaHood. Welcome 

back, Ray. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. These questions for Secretary Chu. How many applications for the Section 136 advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive programs has the department received? 

Mr. CHU. Actually the exact number I can’t really say. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit that for the record, please? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. The current authorization for Section 136 is 25 

million. What is the total amount that has been requested? 

Mr. CHU. Well in excess of that amount. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you give us the exact figure? And, Mr. 

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to write 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

a letter to the departments asking to expand upon the questions 

that I am making now and that both that letter and the response 

be included in the record of the committee. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Without objection, that will be the order. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, this goes to both you and my old 

friend, Secretary LaHood. This country has had a wonderful experience. The new Chevy Volt was driven out of the factory on electric 

power, and that wonderful vehicle was driven out on batteries that 

were made in Korea. Now we have had a policy in this country that 

has gone into effect and gone in and out like Murphy’s glass eye. 

Each new administration comes in with a new package to stimulate 

new technology in the auto industry. And so we have a constant 

replacement of these programs and they never work because they 

never get a chance to. What do you think we ought to do in this 

legislation to see to it that we finally get Chevy Volts driving out 

of the factory on American made batteries and to stimulate the 

technology of the American industry so that it will in fact produce 

cars of the kind that we want them to produce and to do so in competition, not just with foreign manufacturers but with foreign governments which are subsidizing their manufacture? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to express my thanks for 

the warm welcome that you have given me here today and to say 

to you that—— 

Mr. DINGELL. You will get a warmer welcome if you give me an 

answer. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I am going to let—Secretary Chu knows a lot more 

about this, but I want to say this. I do believe that there are some 

technology and research going on with respect to batteries that can 

be used by the American automobile manufacturers. 

Mr. DINGELL. Very little support from our federal government, 

very little. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I suspect given your interest in this there may be 

a little bit more from Congress in the future. 

Mr. DINGELL. And I want to get something like that in this legislation. I need your guidance and that of Secretary Chu to define 

what that will be. 

Mr. LAHOOD. You will have our guidance. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. I will submit a letter on this but I want 

you alerted to the fact something has got to be done on this. Now 

to Administrator Jackson. EPA is moving forward with an 

endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. When the Congress 

wrote the Clean Air Act, which our chairman so kindly referred to, 

our assessment at that time was that CO2 was not a pollutant. In 

any event, you are now in this wonderful situation where you are 

going to have to regulate under the Clean Air Act unless this committee does something. Our chairman very happily has recognized 

this need and in his bill and Mr. Markey’s bill there is a provision 

which will get us down to the point where the federal government 

is going to regulate those under the new legislation. I commend 

them for that. But just how many regulations and regulators will 

there be if we regulate under the Clean Air Act? My off the cuff 

figuring tells me it would be something on the order of 106. Am 

I incorrect in that judgment? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t know how you came up with the number 

of 106 there but—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you give us an answer on that particular 

point, please? 

Ms. JACKSON. Is the question whether there would be regulation 

under the Clean Air Act if this—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, you are going to have to regulate everything 

in sight for CO2 production and I am asking you how many or I 

am asking you to deny that we would have the situation where we 

would have as many as 106 regulations, perhaps more, on CO2

emissions because you would have to do it under the state implementation plans. You would have to do it under all kinds of other 

regulatory powers and the states and the federal government, and 

you would have, as I have defined it, a glorious mess. Do you deny 

that we would have a glorious mess if you had to do it under existing law? 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired but we would 

like to have you answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. I look forward to your answers, gentlemen and 

lady. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. First, let me state that I believe new 

legislation is the best way as the President has said, and I certainly agree, to address the problem of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions in our country. I believe that the 

endangerment finding, the proposal that is out, certainly addresses 

that which the Supreme Court compels us to do, which is to speak 

as the Clean Air Act says EPA must now as to whether greenhouse 

gases endanger public health and welfare, and that draft is out for 

comment. It certainly means that it is the first step in a potential 

regulation of greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act. 

And if your point, sir, is that it is more efficient to do it via a 

bill, via new legislation like this discussion draft envisions, then I 

couldn’t agree more. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Secretary Chu, do you want to add something to 

that? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes. To answer Chairman Emeritus Dingell’s ques- tion, the American Recovery Act is investing $2 billion in advanced 

manufacturing. Also, we are investing a significant amount of 

money in R&D to develop next generation of advanced batteries. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. The first question I have is this is directed at the 

Secretary of Energy. During your confirmation hearing, you testified that DOE has a legal obligation to safely dispose of nuclear 

waste. You said I am supportive of the fact that the nuclear industry is and should have to be part of our energy mix in this century. 

Doesn’t it concern you then that nuclear energy does not even seem 

to be a part of this bill, and I think this is a follow-up to Mr. 

Upton’s question. 

Mr. CHU. Well, not specifically a part of this bill. If you look at 

the sum package of all the bills like the America Recovery Act, nuclear energy is supported in those other bills. 

Mr. STEARNS. But don’t you think there should be a separate 

title in this bill for nuclear energy, just yes or no? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

Mr. CHU. Pardon? What was the question? 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you think there should be a separate title in 

this bill for nuclear energy, just yes or no? 

Mr. CHU. We are looking forward to working with the committee 

on—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Just yes or no. Do you think it should be? Can I 

have your yes or no answer? 

Mr. CHU. A separate title on nuclear energy? 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. Yes or no. 

Mr. CHU. I think nuclear energy can be mentioned in this bill but 

again it is working with this committee and the Administration in 

developing that. 

Mr. STEARNS. Is that a no then, you don’t think nuclear energy—— 

Mr. CHU. No, that was we will look forward to working with the 

committee and making sure that nuclear energy is part of our energy mix. 

Mr. STEARNS. Last September you made the statement that 

somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline 

to the levels in Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 a gallon. As 

Secretary of Energy will you speak for or against any measures 

that would raise the price of gasoline? 

Mr. CHU. As Secretary of Energy, I think especially now in today’s economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline and so we are looking forward to reducing the price of transportation in the American family, and this is 

done by encouraging fuel efficient cars. This is done by developing 

alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate 

source, an independent source, of transportation fuel. 

Mr. STEARNS. But you can’t honestly believe that you want the 

American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe? 

Mr. CHU. No, we don’t. 

Mr. STEARNS. But your statement somehow we have to figure out 

how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, doesn’t 

that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. You have also stated that the American electricity prices are anonymously low and that coal is our worst nightmare largely due to its contribution to global warming. As Secretary of Energy, will you support coal-fired electric generation in 

order to provide affordable electricity for the American people? 

Mr. CHU. I believe the full statement when I made that statement is that coal as it is used today in China and India especially 

where there is no trapping of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury particular matter, and no capture of carbon dioxide, and when 

China was building coal plants, close to one a week, without the 

sequestering of any of these pollutants, is a nightmare. So I think 

going forward, I have also said that the world is not going to turn 

its back on coal, and the United States again should take a leadership position, as we have done in scrubbing the sulfur dioxide, the 

nitrogen oxide, the lead particular matter, and working toward—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Does that mean you would support more coal burning operations generation? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

Mr. CHU. I certainly will be looking forward to supporting coal 

burning operations as we work towards clean coal, absolutely. 

Mr. STEARNS. Because President Obama in the campaign indicated if we can go to the moon, we certainly can burn coal cleanly, 

and he sort of indicated that he would support coal operation if the 

coal was burned cleanly. The EPA analysis contains a rather aggressive assumption about carbon capture and sequestration technology coming to market. Does the Department of Energy have any 

analysis that shows that CCS being available by let us say 2015? 

Mr. CHU. Well, if you look at where we are today in terms of the 

capture technology and sequestration technology, we are beginning—not only the United States, but Europe and Asia are beginning to look aggressively at piloting and bringing to commercial 

scale these projects. So it takes several years to build them. It 

takes several more years to have the lessons learned so that power 

companies can invest with confidence that this is not only technically feasible but it is economically feasible. And so at a minimum, I see 6, 8 years, for example, as a time when very serious 

deployment begins, but we are working as fast as we can to begin 

the testing both at pilot scale and at commercial scale. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, and I certainly want to add my kudos and commendations to my friend from 

Illinois, Secretary LaHood. It is good to see you again, Mr. Secretary, and welcome to all of our witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, 

I just want to make sure that the record is real clear here that it 

is my contention and others contention that this bill is silent on 

nuclear simply because of the fact that nuclear energy doesn’t generate any carbon emissions so the bill is silent on this, and I think 

that the future of the nuclear energy field is going to be quite good 

and quite positive and the nuclear energy field is subject under this 

bill. I want you to know that my state has enormous investments 

in nuclear facilities and we look forward to this bill and to the new 

era because we look forward to being able to generate jobs and additional revenues from nuclear energy. 

So, Mr. Chairman, the comments of those on the other side kind 

of remind me of the phrase this dog just don’t hunt no more because they are operating under kinds of premises here. So for the 

record, I want to clear that up. I do have a number of questions, 

and I am going to try to ask each and every one of you, if you will, 

to try to take a shot at these questions. I am going to ask them 

all together, if I might, because if time permits I got another area 

of questioning that I would like to engage on. Currently, the phrase 

green jobs and green job training and certification means different 

things for different jurisdictions, and each state or locality may define training and certification differently. In your opinion, should 

the federal government set standards for training and certification 

and should that be done through legislative language or through 

the EPA’s administration of the program? 

The next question, how do we ensure that local communities with 

large percentages of population without college or advanced degrees be recruited and trained in green job technologies in order to 

be a part of the job creation and economic boom that this new energy sector is create? And, lastly, how do we ensure that minority 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

and women-owned businesses are able to gain equal access to federal funding in order to take advantage of the entrepreneurship 

and innovative business opportunities that this new energy section 

will enable? Should the rules of the road be written through legislative action or through the administration and implementation 

within the agencies how do we track this funding and ensure that 

the people we are trying to reach are indeed recipients of this fund? 

Each one of you can take a crack at it. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just see if I can answer the 

question on green jobs because an economic recovery plan the Department of Labor is receiving a lot of money to really implement 

the kind of opportunities for training for green jobs and if Secretary Solis were here, she could really get into depth on this, but 

at our cabinet meeting that we had just this week with the President, she talked about the opportunities that are going to be created through her department with the money that comes from the 

Economic Recovery Plan for training for people in the whole area 

of green jobs. 

Mr. CHU. Let me also add that Secretary Solis and I had visited 

a community college recently where this community college was 

providing the proper training for these new green jobs. I think you 

raise a very important part. There are certainly many examples 

across the country where proper training programs have been developed. Right now because of the urgency of what we are trying 

to do in terms of getting the economic recovery money out there 

and in practice, we first want to just make sure that best practices 

are shared in states. 

Mr. RUSH. Administrator Jackson, would you speak specifically 

to the issue of certification and training? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, Mr. Rush. Let me first say that environmental justice in the future is going to also mean that this green 

economy is green for all as others have said to coin a phrase as others have coined. So I think that what you are asking is whether 

or not there needs to be assurances that all are actually able and 

ready to partake as we create and embark on putting America 

right in the bulls eye of the green energy economy, and certainly 

it should be. Again, I would defer to my colleague, Secretary Solis, 

as to how to do that. I am an environmental specialist myself. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. We would like to at this time recognize Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I certainly want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and it is 

great to have Secretary LaHood here with us who many of us had 

an opportunity to be in Congress with in 1994. But I think it is imperative that as we discuss this issue of energy policy that we not 

go into this with rose-colored glasses, and that we just get it all out 

on the table and then the Congress will make its decision and the 

American people will be very much aware of the pluses and the 

minuses about all of this. Now the economists a couple weeks ago 

or last week had an article entitled Saving the Planet and Creating 

Jobs May Be Incompatible, and in that article they specifically referred to President Obama when he was in Europe. He gave a 

speech, and he said think of what is happening in countries like 

Spain where they are making real investments in renewable enVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

ergy. They are surging ahead of us poised to take the lead in these 

new industries. 

This isn’t because they are smarter than us or work harder than 

us but because they are making investments with government 

funds in renewable energy, and these investments are paying off 

with good high wage jobs. And then we hear a lot about green jobs 

and we want green jobs. We need green jobs, particularly at this 

time in our nation’s history with our economic problems. And we 

have heard a lot of models being used about the jobs that are going 

to be created, and we hear models used about how cap and trade 

and renewable can improve the health care of the American people 

and can reduce dramatic weather changes and so forth. 

And we know that with all models there are all sorts of problems 

with models depending on the information that is going in. But I 

wanted to ask you all, you, Mr. Chu, particularly, and Ms. Jackson 

if you had read Gabriel Alvarez’s study. He is at King Juan Carlos 

University in Madrid. And he used empirical data based on the 

government subsidizing renewable energy in Spain, and he came 

up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost, and I 

know that President Obama in this renewable energy package is 

using Spain as one of the models. But for every job created in the 

renewable energy sector, so-called green job, they lost 2.2 jobs. And 

this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And have either one of you seen his study? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, I am not familiar with the study. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Were you aware of the study? Had you even 

heard about in? 

Ms. JACKSON. Generally, I know that there are many studies out. 

That particular study, I have not reviewed. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you have heard time and time again that 

people are concerned about loss of jobs. I mean the issue on cap 

and trade, of course, is that, yes, China, they are not using scrubbers. They are not using carbon capture and sequestration. They 

are bringing on one new coal power plant every 2 weeks. How do 

we deal with that, Mr. Secretary, if we unilaterally move to take 

steps and China and India and other countries are not, how do we 

deal with that? 

Mr. CHU. Well, this is an issue where I believe the United States 

should take a leadership role. The President has emphatically stated that, and I actually believe that other developing countries like 

China, Mexico has already stated that they want as a goal to reduce their carbon even though they are a developing country that 

they would like to reduce their carbon emission by 50 percent by 

2050, and I think if China—if the United States does take the lead 

China will follow. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I hope that as you work with the committee that you all will keep these jobs as a priority because if we 

are losing 2.2 jobs in existing industries as they did in Spain and 

they only picked up one job in green, the economy, then that is a 

losing proposition. And I would also just point out a study that 

Johns Hopkins did, for example, that said if you replace threefourths, for example, of U.S. coal based energy with higher priced 

energy because we are doing to increase the price of energy with 

cap and trade and other things it would lead to 150,000 premature 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

deaths annually in the U.S. alone. Now that was a study at Johns 

Hopkins. Have you all seen that study because we hear a lot of 

benefits, you know, from moving in the direction we are moving but 

this shows the negative aspect of it. Have you seen that study? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, Mr. Whitfield, but I would be happy to review 

it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, my time is expired. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair would 

request of the gentleman that he submit that study because I think 

the committee would like to look at it carefully. Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow 

up, first of all, on some questions that were being asked that Mr. 

Rush was asking about the effect of this legislation on low income 

individuals. And I am wondering, Administrator Jackson, if you 

could tell us in EPA’s analysis how the discussion draft might affect the economy and individual households, in particular low income households. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. The overall message from EPA’s modeling, and again it was based on assumptions from the drafters 

that I can discuss in a second was that the impact is quite modest 

on the economy in general and that the impact on the average 

household annualized over a year, an annualized impact for a year 

is around $98 to $140. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And why is that? Why is that impact relatively 

modest because to many outside observers they think that this is 

going to present a huge cost burden to American families. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, one of the opportunities and one of the 

things that I know this committee has before it to discuss is what 

happens with the money generated from the allowances, The value 

in the cap and trade system is in this currency called allowances. 

And one of the assumptions we made in the modeling was that 

about 40 percent of that money would go back to the American people to households in the form of rebates. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So even though the discussion draft is silent as to 

where the allowances would go if the committee made the determination to put at least 40 percent back to American families then 

that would help reduce the impact on individual households, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly that is the driver. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Another question that I have, and this is really for 

Secretary Chu but also either of the other witnesses could answer. 

I am wondering what your thoughts are about how realistic the 

discussion draft’s reduction targets are both near term and long 

term. 

Mr. CHU. I think they are aggressive but I think we can meet 

them. If you look back in history of how we have actually met certain things, the Clean Air Act, clean water, how we dealt with the 

ozone layer, invariably what happens especially that aggressive but 

obtainable target of 2050 that you reduce carbon by 83 percent, I 

think it is science and technology that is going to lead the way to 

give us those solutions. In the near term, efficiency will give us 

most of the gains immediately and it will also save us money. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Let me ask you this question. Much has been 

made by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

fact that India and China in particular but also other developing 

countries don’t seem to have much of a interest in controlling global climate change right now. Is that a reason for us to not move 

ahead with our aggressive goals in the U.S., Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. CHU. The view of China has changed dramatically in the last 

several years. I had the opportunity about a year and a half ago 

to speak with Premier Wen Jiabao for about an hour on this issue. 

They are taking it very seriously because they see the impacts of 

climate change in their own country, and so they are very—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, let me stop you. What about India? 

Mr. CHU. India is less far along in this realization. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So to answer my question then in particular with 

India but to a lesser degree with China and maybe other developing countries, is there lack of prioritization of this issue reason 

for us not to move forward? 

Mr. CHU. No. We have to move forward. Right now the United 

States and China represent 50 percent of the carbon emissions of 

the world, and as we go forward we have to take those leadership 

positions. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now if, say, we don’t get China participating fully 

although we hope we will, if we don’t get India and the other developing countries participating, what is that going to do towards the 

bill’s reduction targets. In other words, are the draft legislation’s 

targets tied to reductions in these third world countries or can we 

maintain some reductions in and of ourselves? 

Mr. CHU. No. I think what the bill is saying is that we will go 

forward and we will start to reduce, aggressively start to reduce 

the carbon emissions in the United States. But in a cap and trade 

scheme, it also provides for offsets. Some of those offsets, much of 

those offsets, will be in the United States to the parts of our country, but some of that could also be used to help bring in developing 

countries. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. Representative Bono 

Mack. 

Ms. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our 

distinguished panel of experts for their time today, and I just want 

to start by saying my congressional district is probably one of the 

most beautiful congressional districts with all due respect to all of 

my colleagues, and I am extremely proud of the work we have done 

on renewables. We have invested, we believe, if you start at one 

end of my congressional district you will see windmills that we are 

very famous for. You can go to the other end and see a lot of geothermal capacity and certainly a lot of hope in between for solar 

projects. But, conversely, my congressional district is also one of 

the top 5 hardest hit in the housing crisis. So this legislation is 

keenly important to me and to my district. As a Californian, I believe in innovation and I believe there is a lot in this bill that can 

go a long way towards energy independence. I believe there is a lot 

in this bill that will promote the technologies that we all believe 

in. 

But again I have very, very big concerns about the cost and what 

this will do to my constituents. California’s rates are on average 

about 65 percent higher than the rest of the nation for electricity, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

and this truly can be a matter of life and death for my constituents. In the summertime we see the deaths occur for people who 

are afraid to turn on their air conditioning. Years past, we saw a 

flawed deregulation bill in California that created vast, unattended 

consequences where we saw rolling blackouts, and we saw what 

flawed policy, whether it be out of Sacramento or Washington eventually, can do to harm people. 

So my concerns in this bill I believe has been well known and 

my colleague, Mr. Upton, has asked each of you answer the questions in writing about what will this do for the cost of energy on 

our consumers, and I look forward to seeing those answers from all 

of the panelists. I would like to know from Administrator Jackson 

the EU, California’s AB–32, the Western Climate Initiative, and 

Northeast RGGI system all handle transportation fields outside of 

the cap and trade program and in the case of California in particular works with fuels through a low carbon fuel standard. We 

have portions of both approaches in this draft legislation. Is it your 

opinion that putting fuels under the cap and trade is the right approach or can we separate fuels out with a low carbon standard? 

Ms. JACKSON. My opinion is that it is extraordinarily important 

that we deal with transportation fuels and that we do it in a way 

where we see meaningful reductions in the carbon foot print of 

those fuels like a renewable fuel standard, like the low carbon fuel 

standard which are in this bill. I do believe that there are alternate 

approaches, and I think the committee will have the opportunity to 

discuss that and find the most effective way of dealing with it. And 

I think anything EPA can do to assist you in those discussions we 

are happy to. 

Ms. BONO MACK. Well, you can start by answering a question, 

should it or should it not be under an economy wide cap and trade 

system? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I think that it can be addressed either way 

and I don’t think there is a right or a wrong. I think that it should 

be evaluated and discussed in terms of what gets the best result. 

Ms. BONO MACK. Secretary LaHood, I am a firm believer that the 

new clean diesel needs to be a little bit more thoroughly discussed 

in Washington that there is great promise in clean diesel but I 

might be entirely misguided. I would love to know your thoughts 

on clean diesel, and if there is a role whether it be under low carbon fuel standard or just increased CAFE where clean diesel might 

fit in. 

Mr. LAHOOD. First of all, I will agree with you that you have one 

of the most beautiful districts in the country, and some of the most 

beautiful golf courses too, by the way. But I am not prepared to 

talk about the diesel standard. I don’t know whether Secretary Chu 

or Administrator Jackson can do that but I would be happy to get 

back to you after I look into it. That is not something that I have 

expertise in. I don’t know if either one of these two folks want to 

say something about it not. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. I think the Department of Energy is certainly 

funding programs that develop clean diesels. As you know, there 

has been a change in the technology in diesels and moderate size 

diesel engines can now satisfy the very stringent California EPA 

rules on particular matter on NOX that we didn’t think was posVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

sible 5 or 10 years ago. I should also say that I am very proud of 

the fact that the Department of Energy funded a program that 

works with Sandia Labs with Cummings that makes large diesel 

engines to actually use high performance computing to design a 

cleaner diesel and it actually reduced the design time by 15 percent. The engine was designed in software and built and said it 

satisfies our design goal and they went into production. So clean 

diesel is something that we will be investing in. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BONO MACK. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Representative Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like our colleagues, I 

would like to welcome our new secretaries, and particularly our 

former colleague, Ray LaHood. Ms. Jackson, the EPA produced a 

preliminary analysis of the economic impact of the discussion draft 

that was publicized yesterday and the analysis did not measure the 

overlapping impacts of a carbon cap, the renewable electricity 

standard, the efficiency standards, the new plant regulations, and 

low carbon gasoline program. From what I understand, it was a 

preliminary draft and when can we expect the analysis measure 

that includes all parts of the bill taken together? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I think that we will be happy to provide additional modeling analysis once the bill is ready, once you have an 

actual bill. It was a discussion draft. It was incomplete. EPA was 

asked by the drafters to model a narrow portion of it, and as I mentioned we had to make quite a few assumptions to do that, but 

EPA stands ready to provide additional modeling analysis at the 

request of the committee. 

Mr. GREEN. I appreciate it. In fact, since we are going to mark 

up in our subcommittee next week, I don’t know if we can get those 

specifics to you because some of those decisions are being made 

now but I appreciate the update on the analysis. The discussion 

draft both regulates refining through a carbon cap and imposes a 

new gasoline standards for carbon essentially regulating these 

fuels twice. Last year, when the Senate considered a climate bill 

their estimates of gasoline price increases as high as 129 percent, 

and of course last year’s price of gasoline was $4 so 129 percent 

was very substantial compared to what gasoline may be today. 

My question for both EPA and DOE, would EPA and DOE perform an analysis of the case prices and supply that considers the 

impact of the implementation of the second stage of the renewable 

fuels program, the new low carbon program, and the carbon cap before we mark up the legislation. Is that possible that would look 

at both of those, the new low carbon program and the carbon cap 

before we get to a markup on the legislation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Are you asking about the low carbon program in 

this bill, sir? 

Mr. GREEN. In this bill, the low carbon program in this bill, along 

with the other requirements that we are going to have on refining 

capacity and ultimately the price of fuel. Does EPA and DOE have 

the capability to do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I know that EPA’s capabilities are focused around 

the impact of the cap and trade on emissions and then allowance 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

prices, but I am certainly happy to work with the Department of 

Energy to make sure we get you whatever we can. 

Mr. GREEN. Secretary Chu, is that possible? 

Mr. CHU. Pardon? Is what possible? 

Mr. GREEN. Since we had some estimates in the Senate last year 

on the climate change bill as high as 129 percent gasoline cost increases, does DOE perform an analysis of the gasoline price and 

supply that considers the impact of the implementation of the second stage renewable fuels program, the new low carbon program, 

and the carbon cap before we have an opportunity to mark up the 

legislation? 

Mr. CHU. Yes. We will get the EIA and we will get you that information. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. I guess this one is for Dr. Chu, Secretary 

Chu. In testimony you talk about the Administration believes the 

renewable electricity standard could help create a stable investment environment for America’s innovators to do what they do 

best, create new jobs and entire industries. And I know coming 

from the State of Texas, we don’t have a percentage. I know the 

bill calls for 25 percent renewable electricity standard. The House 

in 2007 passed a 15 percent renewable electricity standard that included electricity efficiencies. Why is the difference to have a national standard as compared to what a lot of states are doing? 

Some particularly in the south have hard kilowatt hours that they 

say this is what we are going to use from renewable electricity. 

And Texas is a good example because of growth in wind power. But 

why do we need a national standard to allow the states who are 

already doing it? 

Mr. CHU. Well, surprisingly when I—or maybe not surprisingly, 

but when I meet with industry representatives many of the industries’ representatives who are in these renewable energies want a 

national standard. It creates a uniform basis with that plus trading 

and the option for states to do this will create a market so that 

people who want to develop these new industries and further advance and deploy them will say that we have a market that we can 

make these hundreds of millions of dollars in investment across the 

country. 

Mr. GREEN. My colleague, Congresswoman DeGette, from Colorado pointed out some of the concerns I think some of us may have 

about international agreements because I represent an area that is 

refining capacity and the refining that we do in Houston, Texas 

could easily be transferred to China or India or Libya or Saudi Arabia who would love to enhance their product. Instead of being crude 

oil suppliers, they would love to be refined product suppliers. Our 

concern is that the United States needs to be a leader, but we also 

need to recognize that some of the requirements we do similar to 

what our trade legislation has in the past that even if a country 

has very strong environmental laws they are typically not enforced. 

Don’t you think particularly dealing with climate change and carbon because if a ton of carbon goes up in Houston, Texas and a ton 

of carbon goes up in China, it is basically the same on the worldwide impact unlike some of our other pollutants. Do you feel like 

this legislation, at least the draft that we have now, is strong 

enough in dealing with not only the United States leading but also 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

bringing the developing world along in trying to make sure that we 

don’t have that dislocation of some of our basic industries? 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but we would 

like to ask the witnesses to answer. 

Mr. CHU. Very briefly, I think this is the reason why this bill is 

advocating cap and trade, the cap and trade allowances begin in 

developing countries. I think the Administration wants to work 

very much with this committee on deciding how to dispose of the 

allocations. We already talked about the sensitivity, the most vulnerable parts of our society, and also there is a sensitivity with regard to the heavily energy intensive industries, so this is something the Administration will work with the committee in dealing 

with these issues. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Green. Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank our panelists for being here today. The first question I 

have given the complexity of this legislation, I just want to make 

sure each of you has actually read the draft bill in its entirety. Can 

you give me a yes or no, have you read it in its entirety? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I haven’t had time to read all 600 pages. 

Mr. WALDEN. 648, but that is—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. I have not had time to read all 648 pages. 

Mr. CHU. Neither have I. 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. Nor have I. My staff have certainly read through 

it. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Well, then I want to draw your attention to 

a couple of issues. First of all, I come from a district that is very 

rural, 70,000 square miles, home to 11 national forests where we 

have all kinds of catastrophic fires and enormous overgrowth of 

wood fiber. Is there a scientific reason, Dr. Chu, for excluding 

woody biomass off federal land under the definition on page 8 of 

biomass, and why would the Administration support that exclusion? 

Mr. CHU. Well, the Administration will be working with the draft 

of this bill. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you support this draft? Do you support the definition of biomass as found on page 8? 

Mr. CHU. I would certainly look forward to working with you in 

terms of looking at how biomass is defined. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Well, biomass is defined right now on page 8 

as you couldn’t take any of this off federal land. Federal land is 

completely excluded. I would love to know the scientific reason for 

doing that. Second, there are all these other definitions that private timber growers in my part of the world tell me would basically 

make it impossible for them to participate in woody biomass development. Whether that is a chip plant, whether that is a pellet 

plant, whether that is—all this stuff is being invested in right now. 

Our department of environmental quality in Oregon says basically 

there is virtually no emissions from heating sources that come that 

are heated with the wood pellets. This is a disc. They want to make 

these in my district using woody biomass off private and federal 

ground, put it in a mix with coal burning power plant reduce carbon emissions and improve efficiencies, and yet under this legislaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

tion you couldn’t do that. It wouldn’t count. Let me move on to 

hydro. Is hydro renewable or not? 

Mr. CHU. Hydro power is renewable. 

Mr. WALDEN. Can you give me the scientific reason for why 

hydro power prior to 2001 is not renewable in this legislation? 

Mr. CHU. I think whether it is included in this legislation or not 

just like the definition of biomass is not a scientific question. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. I agree. So there is no scientific reason. It is 

a political reason. 

Mr. CHU. I think the issue here with hydro power one wants to 

encourage new forms of renewable—— 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Let me go to that. Page 11, new forms. It says 

the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that 

the water surface elevation at any given location and time that 

would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is 

maintained subject to license, et cetera, et cetera. Now my understanding, we have a lot of wind energy in my district. All this energy is with the hydro system being able to store water when the 

wind is blowing and be able to balance out the load. This is Bonneville Power. Apologies to my colleagues here. This is wind energy 

1,000 megawatts that dropped to 0. This is the hydro system. Now 

is there any way that new hydro could be used to balance out wind 

energy if the pool level cannot be modified? 

Mr. CHU. Actually, I think that the—especially in Oregon and 

with Bonneville Power Administration, this is something I heartily 

not only support but am encouraging them to look at pump storage 

as a method of storing wind energy. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. And I don’t have any problem with that. I 

think it is great but you are going to store that behind some dam, 

right? 

Mr. CHU. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are going to affect the level somewhere, aren’t 

you, if you have hydro, if you had a hydro facility? Could we meet 

this definition that says at no time and in no location behind a facility that the water level could change because you added hydro? 

How would you read that? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I must confess I am not familiar with this particular part of the—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Page 11. And with all due respect, I am going to 

move on because I only have 40 seconds. Back to Ms. Jackson. In 

your EPA evaluation of the cost of this legislation, you only included, if I heard you correctly, the cap and trade provisions, correct, in your analysis? 

Ms. JACKSON. Correct. EPA was asked to model the impact of the 

cap and trade. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. So in your model since I have not had a 

chance to read through it, what percentage do you allocate to auction, what percent were allocated credits, and what cost per ton of 

carbon did you factor in your model? 

Ms. JACKSON. The allowance price that came out of EPA’s analysis in 2012 is $12 to $15 a ton, $17 to $22 a ton in 2020. And I 

forgot the other part of your question. 

Mr. WALDEN. Percent of auction and percent of allocation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

Ms. JACKSON. The model did not, I believe, I can double check 

this for you, but I don’t believe that question needed to be answered in order for the modeling to occur. I will double check. 

Mr. WALDEN. Because that hasn’t been answered in the draft 

text either. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Ms. Capps. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just take a second to continue for my friend, Mr. Walden, from Oregon. I grew up 

in the shadows of Grand Coulee Dam and we do have a lot of hydro 

energy in this country, and I know this discussion is what we 

should be doing this as a draft bill. My thought would be that if 

we counted everything we already have it would less incentivize us 

to go forward, and this legislation, I would hope, from my reading 

of it is something that we want to push us forward, and then at 

some point we will have a debate about what counts from what we 

already have just for starters. 

As the 39th Earth Day was celebrated on Sunday in my district, 

there was a lot of enthusiasm and anticipation that this year could 

mark a big turning point, that we are finally addressing in a very 

significant way some longstanding energy issues and the challenge 

now of global warming. A question quickly for each of the 3 of you. 

Secretary Chu, one of the important features of the discussion draft 

is that it is a very comprehensive approach to our energy problems 

and one title devoted to clean energy, deployment which will help 

us win the race against China and other countries to establish 

leadership in clean energy technology. Title 2 on energy efficiency, 

a huge title also, and Title 3 that sets up a system to reduce global 

warming pollution and hold energy companies accountable. And, finally, a title seeking to protect consumers as well as our industries 

as we transition to this new energy policy huge shift in the 21st 

century. 

A lot of people have been arguing that this is taking on so very 

much, that this comprehensive approach is way too much, that we 

should parse these out. Can you give us a brief but compelling reason why it is important to address these in a comprehensive way? 

Mr. CHU. I think it is because again going back to what the 

President has said. We have been doing this piecemeal for decades, 

and, quite frankly, because there are going to be trade offs here, 

there, and everywhere, so I commend this committee and the chairman on actually moving forward with a comprehensive bill. This is 

what the country needs. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you very much. Administrator Jackson, the recent endangerment finding is showing that greenhouse gases indeed do threaten the public’s health and welfare. And, you know, 

despite our very best efforts in this bill and other legislation as 

well, the climate is changing, has caused effects and will despite 

these efforts continue to do so, and that is why—I am a public 

health nurse by background, and I am committed along with you 

and others to ensuring that this legislation helps the American 

public and also helps developing countries adapt to the public 

health impact of climate change. I actually have some legislation 

to introduce separately on this topic. What are some significant 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

and targeted investments such as monitoring, planning, education, 

and so forth that would ensure that we promote and protect public 

health in a changing climate? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, one of the easiest investments that can be 

made is communities or governments investing in heating centers 

or places that protect people from extremes of climate. If we are 

looking at warming in areas, we have seen the impact, literally 

deaths, that happen in heat waves, and one of the ways that can 

easily be addressed is by making climate centers or comfort centers. You see that especially in urban areas. And on top of that, I 

think you mentioned education. First, public health professionals 

are on the front line of this so I thank you for your work, and educating people about how to deal with changes in the climate and 

how to, if they have health effects that are going to be exacerbated 

by that how to be aware and alert, not unlike we do with ozone 

alert days making them understand what is coming so that they 

take care of themselves is probably one of the first ways to keep 

you from having to take care of them first. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you so much, and there is more 

to come, I know. But, finally, Secretary LaHood, our former colleague, the average person in the United States now spends about 

20 percent of their income per month on transportation largely on 

maintaining and driving personal vehicles. What are some specific 

ways this legislation will help invest in people’s ability to take 

more affordable low carbon and transportation opportunities? 

Mr. LAHOOD. We think that there are opportunities to develop a 

concept called livable communities where you provide opportunities 

for people to get out of their automobiles, they want to walk to 

work, ride their bike to work, take a light rail to work, take a bus 

to work, and the model for this really is Portland, Oregon. They 

have done a marvelous job in really creating an opportunity for 

people to get out of their car and have opportunities. And we are 

working with the Secretary of HUD in developing a program that 

I hope can be included in the authorization bill of transportation 

and also a program under HUD to really move forward with livable 

communities and create some models around the country and some 

pilots around the country to form different alternatives to people 

just using their automobiles. 

Obviously, the announcement the President made on high speed 

rail, the work we are doing with transit districts under the Economic Stimulus Bill for more buses, cleaner buses, and the opportunities for light rail, we think this is our opportunity in transportation and HUD to work with this committee to create opportunities for people to use alternatives other than automobiles. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Capps. Your time has expired. Mr. 

Terry. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LaHood, my first 

question is for you, and this is a parochial question more than anything that has to do with cap and trade. But in the stimulus bill 

to our metropolitan area transit company buses, all we get is buses. 

We don’t get rail in our area. We are only a metropolitan area of 

700,000 so we don’t qualify. Our bus company is trading out their 

older diesel for just a newer brand diesel, not a cleaner energy, not 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

natural gas. Is that the intention of the stimulus dollars is just to 

let them trade out different one piece of diesel equipment for another piece of diesel bus? 

Mr. LAHOOD. The transit portion of the Economic Recovery Plan 

is our ability to work with transit districts around the country that 

want to buy new vehicles, build facilities whether they be bus facilities or bus shelters or facilities where—— 

Mr. TERRY. So the energy efficiency aspect isn’t a criteria? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I visited a bus company in St. Cloud, Minnesota, 

and the orders for these buses are way, way up. If they are building—— 

Mr. TERRY. But I just want to know if energy efficiency or clean 

energy is part of the criteria. I thought this was a softball question. 

I didn’t know it was difficult. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Our people in the Federal Transit Administration 

are encouraging transit districts to buy fuel efficient buses for their 

transit districts. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. I appreciate that. Dr. Chu, real quick, this isn’t 

even a question, just my rhetoric, but you said in your opening 

statement that you know coal is going to continue to be an energy 

source but we hear statements about cap and trade being used as 

a tool to force out coal as a fuel and even President Obama said 

when he was campaigning that under my plan of cap and trade 

system the electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket so if somebody wants to build a coal plant they can. It is just that it will 

bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum 

for all of the greenhouse gas that is being emitted. So you can see 

when the President makes statements like that that there is some 

cynicism when we hear about, well, coal is still going to be a fuel. 

Now, Administrator Jackson, does setting the rate at $11 or $12 

per ton of CO2 meet the Administration’s goal of bankrupting coal 

fired plants? Does that meet their goal? 

Ms. JACKSON. The Administration has no goal that is nefarious 

for coal. The President is on TV in ads. I see him talking about 

clean coal and how clean coal is crucial not only for the environment but to create jobs and make coal which is right now 50 percent—— 

Mr. TERRY. I am going to interrupt because I only have a minute, 

45. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is in here, and it is reported 

that methane is going to be calculated at a time of 25 times the 

potency of CO2. Can you point me to a scientific study that says 

methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? 

Ms. JACKSON. I would be happy to give you scientific backup for 

that statement. 

Mr. TERRY. I would appreciate that. Last, in regard to methane, 

what industry do we have in the United States that has to worry 

about methane emissions? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, methane is natural gas, CH4, so the natural 

gas industry obviously if any leaks in many states addressing leakage from natural gas pipelines is one vey quick and important way. 

The other are landfills, landfills gases in our country. As food 

waste decays, as organic waste decays it makes methane. And previously that has been vented—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

Mr. TERRY. What is the largest emitter of methane gas in the 

United States? 

Ms. JACKSON. It may well be livestock. 

Mr. TERRY. Welcome to Nebraska, the cattle state. OK. Is it then 

the EPA’s plan to start regulating the methane from cattle emissions? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA has no plans to regulate cattle emissions. 

Mr. TERRY. But there is nothing in this bill that exempts cattle? 

Ms. JACKSON. This bill takes regulation of greenhouse gases for 

sources into this bill away from the Clean Air Act, and it is the 

Clean Air Act threat where people have spun these ridiculous notions of EPA taxing cows or regulating—— 

Mr. TERRY. Well, that has been stated by publicly elected officials 

from Congress so it is not spun stories. But the point is about if 

nothing is in this bill that exempts the cattle industry, won’t cattle 

have to be regulated? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do believe there is an exemption but I will check 

on that. Obviously, this discussion draft it meant to make sure 

those interests are protected. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Just on that point for the gentleman’s information 

only very large sources are covered by this and there is a specific 

exemption for what would be considered cattle. We now go to Ms. 

Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recall in the last century when Ray LaHood and I had offices next to each other in the 

back of the back of the Cannon Office Building. Mine at least was 

contiguous space. His was divided by some kind of a construction 

barrier. My guess is that his digs have improved. I would like to 

welcome this panel and say how impressed I am by your credentials and experience on this issue. You can play a big role in guiding us, helping us, and helping the Administration to fashion the 

right legislation, the right comprehensive legislation on climate 

change. I want to hold up my regular prop which is the U.S. CAP 

blue print for legislative action. U.S. CAP is testifying in the next 

panel, but I want to say how impressed I am that a diverse group 

of industry and environmental representatives has developed a consensus on basic principles, and then how impressed I am that this 

committee has used this as the basis for the bill. 

I just want to ask you briefly to comment on whether you agree 

that U.S. CAP has played an important role here and whether you 

agree that these consensus principles which are not partisan are a 

very useful starting point. Let us start with Ray LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I am going to defer to these other two folks but I 

know from discussing this with staff that they have played a very 

valuable role. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. Dr. Chu. 

Mr. CHU. My understanding is that document says—I haven’t 

read it in detail, but my understanding is that document says that 

14 to 20 percent reduction in carbon emission by 2020 is economically possible to the United States, so that statement alone coming 

from industry is a very powerful statement. 

Ms. HARMAN. Secretary Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. I certainly agree with my colleagues. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. Now, Dr. Chu, welcome to a fellow Californian. Your experience in California is very valuable to those of 

us from California, but I think also to this effort since California, 

as everyone here knows, has been the leading state in terms of 

strict environmental regulation. There was a New Yorker article in 

December entitled Note to Detroit, Consider the Refrigerator. And 

this is a story by you, little profile, little picture of you here, and 

the experience of California which set out to regulate the efficiency 

of refrigerators. Of course, the industry objected but then, guess 

what, engineers rather than lobbyists figured out whether compliance was possible and now lo and behold the size of the average 

American refrigerator has increased by more than 10 percent while 

the price in inflation adjusted dollars has been cut in half. 

Meanwhile, energy use has dropped by two-thirds. I tell this 

story, Dr. Chu, because you had a role in this. You talked about 

it. In this bill in the efficiency sections we have some new bipartisan standards on regulating the efficiency of outdoor lighting, and 

we also have a cash for clunkers provision which would encourage 

folks to trade in old clunker refrigerators and appliances, trade 

them in, get ride of them, not plug them in in the basement, in exchange for efficient appliances. And I just welcome your thoughts 

and thoughts by anyone else on the panel about these provisions 

and the experience that California has had regulating the efficiency 

of appliances. 

Mr. CHU. Well, the refrigerator story is one of several stories but 

in fact the efficiency has gone up so that the present day refrigerators are using one-quarter of the energy they used in 1975. In 

fact, it was the anticipation of regulations, the regulations didn’t 

start for several years, but as soon as the manufacturers realized 

that they couldn’t go to either party that both parties in California 

strongly supported these regulations the efficiency immediately 

started improving. The reason the price went down inflation adjusted by a factor of 2 was because the better insulation and the 

smaller compressor of the refrigerator led to a reduction in the 

price. 

Now I cannot emphasize how important this was. If you look at 

the energy saved today, we have roughly 150 million refrigerators, 

the energy we are saving today relative to the 1974 standards are 

actually more energy saved than all of the wind and solar energy 

we are now producing in the United States, just refrigerators alone. 

And so we can do similar dramatic improvements in building efficiencies, transportation. Building efficiencies can be even a bigger 

success story than refrigerators. 

Ms. HARMAN. Any other comments? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I can go on and on. 

Ms. HARMAN. No. I was asking the others, Secretary Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, he is certainly the expert, but I think that 

story is repeated over and over again that often times the movement toward regulation and the call for national standards unlocks 

innovation. I am an engineer, you know unlocks engineers to move 

to where the market is going to be and unlocks the private sector 

investment to do it. We have seen it with cars. We have seen it 

with the phase out of gases that affect the ozone layer. Every time 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

we have a challenge once we make up our mind we are going to 

do it innovation kicks in and makes it a lot cheaper and quicker. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you so much. My time has expired. I just 

add that we are now seeing it with indoor lighting which this committee regulated a couple years ago and California is moving on to 

clunker television sets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Harman. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, one of the 

things Ms. Harman and I are working together on an incentive program to get us there, and when you look at the places where we 

provided incentives the market kicks in faster, cheaper, better. And 

I get a little worried that this is a huge government mandated program that is very complicated. Who is involved in the trading? Who 

actually determines at the end of the day what the value of CO2

or methane is? How do you quantify it? So a lot of the jobs we are 

talking about are going to be folks who aren’t really producing anything but they are going to be living on the backs of those who are 

producing something because the government mandated a system 

that really hasn’t been flushed out all that well. 

And I would hope that we would stop and pause for a minute 

and try to find ways to incentivize people. I had a bill in 2006, an 

energy star system for servers, computer servers, because the largest growing energy use in the United States at that time were server parts. And lo and behold built on an incentive system, it has 

radically changed the way—now they advertise on those servers 

which are the most efficient servers, and it changed the way. If you 

talk to the people in the industry, they say it absolutely changed 

the way we buy, produce, sell servers. Fantastic. We didn’t mandate anything. And it concerns me for a couple of reasons. 

And I wanted to talk to the Secretary for a minute. I come from 

Michigan. Nobody is hurt more in this economy than we are, and 

to say that this Administration has done more for the car companies than anyone else is a bit shocking to us who live there. And 

I will give a couple examples. They went in and the guy who cut 

the work force from General Motors in half got concessions from 

the union, produced the Car of the Year last year, the CTS Cadillac, oh, by the way, produced the Car of the Year, the Malibu, 

both of which are built in my district, by the way, this year. The 

government came in and said you got to go, you are fired, oh, and 

take the board with you and you have 30 days for a viability plan. 

That is pretty hard to recover from when you are going through all 

of those tough times. 

And, oh, by the way, they have more cars that get over 30 miles 

to the gallon than any other car company period in the world. The 

government didn’t do that. They did that. The Chevy Volt, which 

Mr. Dingell so aptly talked about will revolutionize the way we 

think about commuting and how we power our cars. It is the first 

time it is an electric driven engine that is charged by gasoline 

versus the other way around, which really radically departs even 

from hybrid technology, very exciting. Billions and billions of dollars of research, decades, they were ahead of the curve. And what 

do we do? We come to this committee and kick them around. They 

finally the attention of the American people. Really? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

In 2007 they mandated $80 billion in cost on these car compa- nies. Gasoline went to $4.50 and they are struggling to make it and 

we are losing jobs as fast as we can count them. So be careful when 

you tell us that. The proposal for cap and tax will raise the energy 

rates for producing everything in the United States of America. 

Secretary Chu, you mentioned that, gee, if we raise the rates of 

gasoline it is going to hurt average Americans. Absolutely right. If 

we dramatically raise the rates of electricity, we will not be competitive when it comes to building anything in the United States. 

It is an attack on the middle class. 

It is an absolute slap in the face to everybody that got up and 

built good cars or they built houses or they got in their car and 

drove somewhere to build something of use in the United States. 

And guess what India said this week? They are not going to play 

along. Go ahead, United States, make yourself uncompetitive because we have got lots of mouths to feed and we would love to be 

the new center of the middle class in the next several hundred 

years. I am just shocked that you would say that about a company 

who has done so much to survive and will lead the way in 2011 

when that Chevy Volt rolls off the line. Also, in the new proposal 

there is an inventory tax increase. And if you produce anything in 

a just in time manufacturing system, you are going to be hurt by 

this inventory tax increase so manufacturers are going to take it 

on both ends of this. 

That is very frustrating to those of us who represent lots of people who believe that the middle class is important. I had questions 

but the fact that you stand before us and tell us that you have done 

more for the automobile companies than any other administration, 

as you can tell put a burr under my saddle. We certainly don’t 

think so, and we would hope that you would look at every job lost. 

You talk about green jobs created. You forgot to tell us how many 

manufacturing jobs go overseas, and we know there is a bunch of 

them. So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue we better go slow and we 

better worry about the middle class in this country that is quickly 

evaporating because of all of the weight and burden we are putting 

on their ability to produce anything in the United States. 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired but, 

Secretary LaHood, if you would like to make a comment, we would 

allow you to do so. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I am from Washington. I just want to 

tell you I got some constituents who are so happy you 3 are here 

today. They have been waiting for you to get to Washington, D.C. 

The obvious one is Dennis Hayes, one of the two co-founders of 

Earth Day, but the non-obvious ones are the people at the Sapphire 

Energy Company, which are developing algae based biofuels which 

have 0 net CO2 emissions, the people at Infinia in Washington that 

have developed a sterling engine based solar power system, the 

people at AltaRock in North Seattle which are developing one of 

the world’s leading engineer geothermal systems, the people at 

McKinstry that is the world leading energy efficiency contractor 

really probably in the world, the Better Place people that are developing an electrical infrastructure for electric cars, the Ramgen company in Bellevue Washington, which has developed a way to seVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

quester CO2 so we maybe can use coal cleanly and create hundreds 

of jobs in this country. These people are thrilled that you are here 

to promote these job creation exercises. 

Now we have heard on many occasions people have said that 

President Obama said that this was going to be bad for the economy some time. I have heard him say repeatedly that in fact this 

bill is going to grow jobs and ultimately be good for the economy. 

I think this bill has been quite well balanced because it speaks to 

multiple technologies and multiple ways to create jobs. It hasn’t 

just picked favorites. Is that a fair assessment of this? I will just 

ask Dr. Chu that. 

Mr. CHU. Yes, it is a fair assessment. I would also want to emphasize that it is looking towards the future. To use a sports analogy, when Wayne Gretzky was asked how come he was such a mortal hockey player he said because I skated to where the puck will 

be, and I think this bill actually brings that—it positions America 

to go to the future and for the jobs of the future. 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to ask you about the low carbon fuel standard. I think an important portion of this bill that will promote the 

development of low carbon emitting fuels. We have tried to address 

this so that it is consistent with the other parts of the bill or other 

regulatory systems. For instance, it does not kick in effectively 

until the renewable fuel standard essentially expires so we have 

tried to tailor it in a careful fashion. It also really drives on the 

European experience that a cap and trade bill while very important 

is not the only game in town, and I think their experience is you 

have to take multiple approaches to this big challenge, not just a 

cap and trade system. I just wonder if you have any comments, either Dr. Chu or Secretary Jackson, in that regard. 

Ms. JACKSON. I absolutely agree that the design of the discussion 

draft is such that it phases the low carbon fuel standard in after 

the renewable fuel standards that are authorized also by a law of 

Congress are done. And I could not agree more that experience has 

shown that a cap and trade program while an extremely powerful 

tool to harness the kind of private capital that you just referenced 

in your opening remarks and certainly that is the key. The key is 

to make those who are investing in green energy future able to do 

it in a way that they know with certainty that this country is turning its gaze towards that. It makes the private sector full partners 

in the game, and I think it is part of why U.S. CAP—it is not just 

the big companies of U.S. CAP who have done extraordinary thinking on this in partnership with NGOs, but also the smaller folks. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I will take that as an answer. I do want 

to ask one more question. The longer I look at this, it becomes apparent that our ability to really maximize these clean resources of 

solar and wind and hydrokinetic and the like depends on the development of a grid system fit for this century which we do not have 

today. I think one of the great quotes I have heard is that the bad 

news is that Thomas Edison would recognize our grid system. This 

is not really a salutary remark. One of the things I hope we can 

work on in the development of this bill is a way to increase the 

ability to cite increased transmission systems so that we can access 

the solar in the southwest and the wind in the Midwest and the 

off shore wind and the hydrokinetic to move it where we need it, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

but we have some proposals to try to have back stop authority for 

the federal government to assist the siting of transmission in the 

event that we can’t do it through sort of the typical channels. 

Would you encourage us in that regard? Any comments you have, 

I would appreciate it. Dr. Chu, perhaps you want to—— 

Mr. CHU. I would encourage you to try to develop this. I think 

you are quite right. As we go forward and develop renewable energy that we have to concurrently develop a new transmission system that can handle that. The fact that wind and solar are variable 

means that you have to have a much more robust system that is 

able to port energy very rapidly from different parts of the country, 

so increased siting authority is one element. It can’t be the only 

element because after all just with increased siting authority alone, 

I think there has to be other elements that would help encourage 

the states and local areas to allow that, but is a very important 

part of our way into the future. 

Mr. INSLEE. We hope you will continue to encourage us all. 

Thanks very much. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. Ms. Blackburn. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

your patience this morning. Ms. Jackson, I wanted to talk with you 

a little bit about your pronouncement of regulating CO2 under the 

Clean Air Act and that you could do that or the agency could do 

that with or without Congress and our consent, and I would like 

to know what your time table is. How do you see the agency moving forward on that regulation? 

Ms. JACKSON. I would certainly like to just clarify that. It is not 

with or without Congress’ consent. It is actually the Clean Air Act, 

the law passed by Congress and signed by the President, that compels us to and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air 

Act that compelled EPA to make a finding, and it is a proposed 

finding. As far as time table, that time table starts with the proposal and a 60-day public comment. If it is finalized, and presuming it is finalized regulatory action would proceed after that. 

The history of the Clean Air Act, which is a good guide, is that proposed regulations under that Act take months to propose and, you 

know, after that the process—— 

Ms. BLACKBURN. OK. Let me ask you this then. With whatever 

emission standard that you use in that as you go through that period, will sectors of the economy such as Mr. Terry was talking 

about farming, and we all have great concerns about farming. 

Right now, building construction, we have tremendous concerns 

about that. Are they going to be forced to meet that standard? 

What do you see coming out at us through that? 

Ms. JACKSON. If there is regulation under the Clean Air Act in 

the future, if that happens, EPA would move as it does on other 

regulations to look at the largest sources first, and in our economy 

the largest sources of greenhouse gases are mobile sources, automobiles, and trucks, and then the large stationary sources, especially the power generation sector, so I think we could expect that 

if there were regulations that would be where EPA’s first regulatory actions would be. And, again, I don’t believe we would ever 

get to the small sources. I think those discussions are really being 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

made to scare people with a very unlikely future instead of focusing on the big issue which is cars and power generation. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. So you see it affecting cars. Would you apply 

that also to this bill in addition to your actions under the Clean 

Air or your proposed actions under the Clean Air Act, would you 

look at the bill and say the same thing that you would focus more 

on the large items such as transportation rather than farming and 

home construction? 

Ms. JACKSON. As the drafter pointed out, as the Chairman pointed out, actually the bill says that regulations would be for those 

large sources over—— 

Ms. BLACKBURN. OK. Let me come to Mr. LaHood then. And, Mr. 

Secretary, I would just like to ask you when you look at the low 

carbon fuel standard in the bill. What do you see that doing to 

prices at the pump if the focus is going to be on the large sectors 

like transportation fuels? What do you see that doing to the price 

at the pump? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I wouldn’t have any idea. I don’t know if Dr. 

Chu would or not. I simply don’t know the answer to that. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. OK. Dr. Chu, any comment? 

Mr. CHU. It will increase the price at the pump but the other 

issue is that also in this bill what we are focusing on is trying to 

hold transportation costs the same and so this is also we are encouraging higher mileage vehicles, things of that nature. And depending on how this committee working with the Administration 

works the allocations the impact on the American people for the 

total cost of living we hope to be as moderate as possible. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. So, in other words, you all see this as increasing 

the cost to the American consumer, the price at the pump and the 

price of electric power generation? 

Mr. CHU. We see this as shifting costs so that what happens as 

we return the allocations back to the American public and to the 

energy sectors that would be most adversely affected that the overall cost of living, if you will, which is the essential thing, plus the 

fact that we are aggressively moving towards higher efficiency, 

higher efficiency cars, higher efficiency homes that those costs actually could be held constant. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Chu, let me ask you this about the renewable energy, the 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy that 

would need to come on line every year in order to meet the 2025 

deadline at the 25 percent renewable energy standard. Do you 

think that that is a realistic goal? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, it is. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. And then how did you come to that conclusion? 

Mr. CHU. Well, actually in the following way. I actually asked 

the EIA for an analysis several weeks ago, and that we did is we 

took a base line of where we saw the base line going. Then we 

added to it the stimulus, the Economic Recover Act, which actually 

accelerates the deployment of renewable energy. Also, in the provision of the bill there are small power producers, for example, a university that has a cogent plant in a small town, you take those off. 

You don’t want this university to have a renewable portfolio. You 

take that off the mix from the 25 percent. It decreases the target 

by about 3 percent. Depending on whether efficiency is going to be 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

worked into this bill to take another 5 percent off, you are now 

talking about a difference of doing nothing and the 25 percent target as something on the scale of 5 or 6 percent additional beyond 

what the country—what the EIA projects the country is doing, so 

it is actually quite a reasonable bill in my opinion. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the panel 

here. And, Secretary Chu, maybe following up on the discussion 

with Mr. Inslee, I know when I had a chance to see you a few 

weeks ago, we had a brief discussion about the electric transmission issue about the need for finding ways to encourage greater 

investment and greater beefing up of that infrastructure. You had 

mentioned you had been having discussions, I think, with EIA and 

others about this. This draft probably needs to be beefed up on its 

transmission section. Do you have thoughts about how we should 

be looking at that issue and things we should incorporate in this 

draft bill in terms of encouraging investment in our transmission 

grid? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I am looking forward to actually working with 

the committee on this. Let me also say that not only the Department of Energy but Department of Interior, Agriculture, CEQ, have 

been meeting regularly. We have now regularly scheduled meetings 

in trying to formulate what we should be doing in terms of transmission and distribution. And so it is very much on our mind because as I said before this is a very necessary part of moving the 

country forward. We have somewhat old-fashioned energy and distribution system. It is divided into vertically organized utility companies, RTOs, ISOs, and in the past what happened is that these 

various sectors look out and they try to make the best judgments 

they can within their realm of responsibility. 

And what that has led to is we don’t have something that serves 

the nation in the best possible way, that we have incredible renewable energy resources, but they are distributed geographically 

across the country so I think anything that can help the siting, 

anything that can help get the states and the local communities to 

say, yes, this is a necessary part of the development of the United 

States would be very appreciative. 

Mr. MATHESON. I think there is broad consensus that we need 

to look at transmission policy in this Congress, and I am pleased 

to hear you are meeting with these other agencies. I think any 

input that you could offer us for legislative action to help move that 

forward, I think would be appreciate by all of us. The next question 

I want to ask you, Secretary Chu, if I could, one of the struggles, 

I think, that I am having right now with putting this whole bill together is that we have had hearings on specific issues for 21⁄2

years, and now we are trying to look how it all looks as one package. And the concept of cap and trade is that there is going to be 

a market base set of incentives to meet the cap, and that is the 

driver to let the market place figure out the most efficient ways to 

go about doing this. 

And yet there are a number of other sections of the bill where 

Congress goes in and specifically says, OK, on this technology we 

want to encourage it in this way and for that technology, that 

issue, we want to encourage it that way. And it is hard to find the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

right mix for how much Congress should get into those individuals 

or not. For example, carbon capture and sequestration, I think it 

is appropriate that we got to encourage that with the carbon capture sequestration of this bill. Have you thought about the context 

of this bill where we have a renewable portfolio standard, we have 

the energy efficiency standard, we have a lot of different components of the bill that are trying to achieve lower carbon emissions, 

but it is under this broad category of cap and trade. 

And should we—do you have concern about is Congress overly 

prescribing what we should do as opposed to the cap and trade 

mechanism that allows the market place to make those decisions? 

Mr. CHU. I think I will agree with you. Overall the cap and trade 

allows—it actually incentivizes the United States industry to look 

for lower carbon solutions. However, it is not going to start until 

2012. It is going to have to ramp up. We need to give industry and 

consumers time to adjust. And so I view, for example, the renewable electricity standard as a different tool that is also necessary 

because a renewable electricity standard then creates a market 

place, a guaranteed market place, for things like wind, solar, new 

geothermal, the river hydro, things of that nature. And that guarantees the market place so if I were an investor and said do I want 

to invest tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, will I have a market for that? 

Mr. MATHESON. Do you think no carbon emission coal production 

should be included in that mix then in terms of encouraging investors? 

Mr. CHU. I think the overall goal should be to encourage all 

forms of no or very low carbon emissions, but I would be glad to 

be working with the committee on these issues. But just say that 

the renewable electricity standard is a different mechanism that is 

somewhat orthogonal to cap and trade. It is to create a market, to 

create a draw that will guarantee the investors that they can actually have a customer. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. What was that word, octagonal? 

Mr. CHU. Pardon? 

Mr. WAXMAN. You said a word that I didn’t understand. 

Mr. CHU. Oh, orthogonal. That means—sorry. It means the carbon cap and trade is a way of overall globally putting the real cost 

of energy into the market place and letting the market then seek 

solutions. It is overall what we need but in addition to that it is 

something that more quickly stimulates investment in new technologies I think is also needed so in that case it is not exactly the 

same thing in a different way. It satisfies a different need. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Jackson, 

in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be 

created, green jobs that would be created, under a cap and trade 

bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill 

and that the discussion jobs bill in its entirety is aimed to jump 

start our moving to the green economy. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

Mr. SCALISE. And I think you quoted President Obama saying 

that it was his opinion that this bill would create millions of jobs. 

I think you used the term millions. Is there anything that you can 

base your determination on how many jobs would be created? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling 

on jobs creation numbers. 

Mr. SCALISE. Because you did do the analysis, and there are definitely a number of questions I have with the assumptions that are 

made in your analysis. I wasn’t sure since you used the term a jobs 

bill in your opening statement, I just wanted to know if you had 

anything to quantify or back that up. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I back it up on somewhat common sense 

which is that if we are trying to move to a clean energy economy, 

and we heard Secretary Chu talk about the fact that the innovations that we come up with in this country are being used by other 

countries and manufacturing is moving there. The rhetorical question is what is the plan to keep them here and how do we convince 

the private sector that we mean it, that we are going to be using 

the technologies. 

Mr. SCALISE. And this isn’t something that you said, some people 

in the Administration have claimed that there is no alternative 

plan. That is not an accurate statement because clearly there is an 

alternative plan that was presented last year on comprehensive energy. There is one that is being worked on this year on an alternative plan to cap and trade that would create jobs, pursue alternative sources of energy, but also make sure we don’t lose the jobs 

we have. And I think that has been a big concern raised by many 

groups predicting the number of jobs and with the term millions 

thrown around many industry groups have used the term that millions of jobs would be lost, exported out of the U.S. economy into 

countries like India and China. Do you have any estimates on how 

many jobs will be lost by cap and trade? 

Ms. JACKSON. All I know—I am not a jobs expert. All I know is 

that jobs have been lost and our economy is hurting, and this is 

a plan to address that by moving a manufacturing sector here that 

the world will need and that our country will need. 

Mr. SCALISE. While you might not be a jobs expert, you obviously 

are talking about and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would 

claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that 

it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost or if you don’t make 

that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Groups 

have made very large claims. I mean the National Association of 

Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as 

a result of a cap and trade energy tax, so I just wanted to know 

if you or any other members of the panel want to answer that question. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will go first and then I will turn it over to the 

other panelists, but I know that lobbyists claim large doomsday 

scenarios, quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That is 

what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990, and it didn’t 

happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent while this country cut acid rain by more than—— 

Mr. SCALISE. So you don’t think that there will be job losses. You 

are saying those doomsday scenarios by those groups—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe one of the tasks in moving forward as 

this committee discusses is to figure out the cap and trade process 

and the other aspects of the bill can be used to jump start and 

move us forward—— 

Mr. SCALISE. A lot of those details that aren’t in the language 

and that has been one of the expressions that has been by many 

members of this committee is that a lot of those details still are not 

written in this bill, the allowances. A big portion of the bill how 

this trading program would even work isn’t in the bill. Since it is 

silent on allowances, does the Administration have a position on allowances and how many allowances should be given for free to industry groups, to consumers? Do you all have a position on how allowances should be given away because that is an unanswered 

question in this bill? Do you have a position? Does your department 

have a position? 

Ms. JACKSON. The President has said that he believes that there 

should be a 100 percent auction of allowances. 

Mr. SCALISE. Should that be rebated to consumers because one 

of the concerns is how much and many predictions are out there 

backed up by a lot of evidence on how much money taxpayers, 

American families would pay. Peter Orszag, the President’s own 

budget director, last year gave testimony that a 15 percent reduction in carbon emissions would lead to a $1,300 a year increase in 

utility bills for every American family on top of the fact that they 

would be paying higher for gas prices, which many of you have already acknowledged, as well as other energy-related items, so some 

members of the Administration have actually put some quantified 

numbers there. So on the rebate side, would you be willing to rebate any amount that a consumer would have to pay in higher utility rates back to them based on the allowances? 

Ms. JACKSON. The President has also called for allowance value 

to be returned to those—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And I am running out of time so just yes or no. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired so we will give 

the witness a chance to answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. The Administration looks forward to 

working on those questions, and the President, though he has 

called for 100 percent auction, is interested in working with this 

committee on ways to mitigate impacts on the economy, and believes that the bones of that are in this discussion draft. And there 

is flesh to be put on those bones but that challenge could be addressed. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. Ms. Christensen. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three questions, I 

think. Administrator Jackson, I even asked several times about the 

recently proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public 

health which list in particular 6 gases. As you know, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Health Brain Trust, which I chair, 

also have as priorities the same population groups that you identify 

as being most vulnerable. And I realize you are still in the comment period and you have been asked a couple questions about 

this, but are you satisfied that this bill could do what is necessary 

to address this finding, and, if not, is there anything that could or 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

would be added to this comprehensive bill which among other 

things reduces harmful emissions to address this? 

For example, I think we list 5 greenhouse gases. We don’t list the 

floral carbons, and I am a little rusty on my organic chemistry, but 

should we add that to the list? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do believe we need to address floral carbons and 

I do believe that there are easy ways to do that. I know that one 

of the things being considered is a Montreal protocol like address. 

To answer your larger question, yes, I believe this bill does a much 

better job than what EPA could do now under the authorities it 

has. This is a better solution. There are other solutions. The Clean 

Air Act offers some direction but it is incomplete at best, and so 

I believe this bill is a much better way of addressing the 

endangerment finding, the proposal that we released last week. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Secretary LaHood, your department lists in your testimony several very active programs that reduce greenhouse gases and advocate cleaner energy in many areas, 

and I particularly appreciate the livable communities effort because 

as we try to address health, we look at the larger picture and the 

social determinants, and I think that this gets to that. And don’t 

forget, we talked about adding the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services with HUD, the HUD secretary in this effort. But do any 

of the projects that you have referenced specifically reach out to 

blighted, distressed communities, poor communities, minority communities that need this help the most? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Absolutely, and that is the reason that we are 

working with the HUD secretary. And I might mention that I am 

working with my two colleagues that are here with me today on 

the whole livable-communities issues. But Secretary and Dunham 

and I have had numerous discussions about this, how we can really 

share the resources from both departments in looking at communities, not only in terms of housing and different types of housing, 

but the transportation needs that need to be met so people can go 

to work and go to their doctors appointments. And we are going to 

include rural areas in this, too, because the rural areas have as 

great a need as any part of our country, and there will be a real 

collaboration within the administration to make the whole livable 

community include housing, not only in the urban area, but in the 

rural areas, and incorporate some of the activities that are going 

on in these departments, too. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Dr. Chu, it seems as though the nuclear-energy questions have kind of let up for a while, but just so I am 

clear, and it follows up on Congressman’s Rush’s question, where 

the bill refers to low-carbon energy producers, doesn’t that automatically include nuclear-energy producers. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I would agree with you that nuclear energy is a 

low-end, near-zero-carbon energy source. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. So when we talk about supporting and promoting low-energy carbon producers, we are, in essence, including 

nuclear energy. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, I mean, as I have pointed out before, there are 

other bills; whether it is incorporated in this bill is something that 

the administration will be working with this committee on. But cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

tainly the restarting nuclear energy has been supported, has been 

included in other bills, including the Economic Recovery Act. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Right, and I think you have been very clear 

about the administration’s position. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the 

panel here. It is good to see my friend Ray LaHood, who was a 

mentor and a friend, and I am really excited about your position. 

Dr. Chu, I look forward to meeting with you personally and having 

another chance in this committee to talk about the numerous 

things that are going on with the Department of Energy. I know 

your background. I have been following your experience, and I really do look forward to spending some time with you, and I hope we 

can get that arranged. Let me start out, those who have been following this debate for many, many years, there is no hiding where 

I am at. This is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in 

this country that I have ever experienced. I have lived through 

some tough times in Congress, impeachment, two wars, terrorist 

attacks. I fear this more than all of the above activities that have 

happened, and I will tell you why as I go through, but I have some 

questions. 

Secretary LaHood, has China agreed to a low-carbon fuel standard? Yes or no? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I don’t know. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think it is no. How about India? Have they 

agreed to some type of low-carbon fuel standard? 

Mr. LAHOOD. I don’t know. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would think that would be important to this debate if we are going to be world competitive. 

Dr. Chu, has China agreed to an international regime to cap carbon dioxide? 

Mr. CHU. Not yet. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Not yet. How about India? Has India agreed to an 

international regime to cap carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses? 

Mr. CHU. No, they have not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Administrator Jackson, what is the largest emitter 

of methane gas? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe we determined earlier, sir, that it is probably livestock. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I don’t think that is correct. I think that the 

largest emitter of methane gas is wetlands. So if wetlands is the 

largest emitter of methane gas, you are not proposing that we 

drain wetlands, are you? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, we are talking about anthropogenic causes of 

global warming. Wetlands are a natural feature. We are not going 

to regulate wetlands. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So the answer is, no, you are not proposing draining wetlands. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, we are not proposing draining wetlands. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Let me follow up on Congressman 

Green’s line of questioning. The problem that we have on the analVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

ysis of what Administrator Jack Newjew proposed to us is not your 

fault. It is the fault of this draft which has a big gaping hole, and 

that is what are the costs of the credits? What are the allocations? 

And my fear or my belief is that this is an intentional move to deceive us so that we are not allowed to do the cost-benefit analysis. 

Now, we know the cost-benefit analysis of the Lieberman-Warner 

Bill because the allegations were addressed, and those numbers 

have that the cost of energy cost of natural gas is an increase from 

26 to 36 percent by 2020, and 108 to 146 by 2030. Now, this is a 

bill that is less stringent than this proposal. The electricity cost in 

2020 under the Lieberman-Warner Bill was 28 to 33 percent increase, and in 2030, 101 percent to 129 percent. Do you dispute 

that analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Bill, anyone? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that analysis was done between EPA and 

DOE, and that is part of the analysis. The analysis of this discussion draft does not show skyrocketing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because we don’t have all of the data. We don’t 

have all of the credits. It is the height of hypocrisy for this administration and this leadership to bring a bill to a hearing when we 

don’t have the data to ask the great questions about the cost. And 

here is why: we talk about the Clean Air Act Amendments and No 

Job Lost, but I will tell you, my committee, these folks, have seen 

these. This is Kincaid-Peabody Number 10, Kincaid, Illinois. The 

Clean Air Act of 1990, do you know how many miners lost their 

jobs? And I have the ONIDIR stats; 1,200 mine workers lost their 

jobs. In the State of Ohio, we have got colleagues in this committee. 

Do you know how many jobs were lost in Ohio under the Clean Air 

Act Amendments? Let me ask this to Administrator Jackson. Do 

you know how many coal-miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments which you were addressing earlier? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thirty-five thousand, so those of us who want jobs 

are going to try to defeat this bill, and we are going to hold our 

colleagues on the other side accountable, especially if they are from 

areas that depend on the fossil-fuel economy. 

And I yield. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will now 

hear from Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

panel for your leadership and your testimony today. The American 

people are hungry for a new direction and a modern energy policy. 

I think the American people are so far beyond a lot of the partisan 

discussions in Washington. This really isn’t a partisan debate. 

That’s not what I hear back home. 

First of all, I want to thank you for your efforts on the recovery 

plan, because it shouldn’t be lost on us, for a historic foundation 

for a new direction for energy policy has already been laid under 

the recovery plan, and it is marrying job creation with our new energy future. The weatherization programs to save people money on 

their electric bill, greater energy efficiency, the transmission grid, 

these are vital investments for the future of this country. But we 

have got a whole lot more to do, and this discussion draft is a good 

starting point, but as you can tell, it is not going to be easy. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

Dr. Chu, a couple of months ago, the State of Florida received 

a final report on Florida’s renewable energy potential assessment, 

received by the Florida Governor’s Office. The Lawrence Berkley 

National Lab was involved as well. It states that solar technology 

has the largest renewable energy potential in the State of Florida. 

I guess this is not any surprise for the Sunshine State, but right 

now, we produce maybe two percent of our energy in Florida from 

renewable, and the leading producer isn’t even solar energy. It is 

biomass. 

It has been interesting, because even just with the discussions at 

the federal level and the state level, our electric utilities have started to invest in solar technology. The FPL is making a significant 

investment in South Florida in solar technologies, so I think this 

lends credence to your marketplace ideas and how important it is 

going to be. 

Will you go into greater detail on what we can do to make solar 

technologies more affordable? And is it going to be on the large 

scale? Are we doing enough in the discussion draft? Could you 

highlight certain concepts in the discussion draft? And what role do 

homeowners have to play, because there is a hunger out there to 

install solar panels if they were affordable and it made sense. 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think the first thing is the wonderful thing 

about solar energy, and I would agree with you in that report, is 

it has an enormous potential in the long run, if you consider how 

much sunlight energy is hitting the earth. I did a quick calculation 

a couple of years ago which suggested that a few percent, less than 

five percent of the world’s deserts, if you can harness solar energy, 

20 percent of the energy hitting that, and distribute it and store 

it, that would satisfy the world’s current electricity needs, just five 

percent of the world’s deserts. 

So the first thing I think one can do is there are lots of programs 

statewide, and also the federal government encouraging solar, but 

one of the things is that solar energy is generated at a time when 

you need the most amount of energy, during hot summer days, 

when the air conditioning is taxing the ability to generate electricity. So I would advocate to encourage all states to evolve into 

what we call real-time pricing. If you ask, on those hot summer 

days where people are running their air conditioning, what is the 

real cost of energy, well, it is quite high because the utility companies have to have installed backup generation systems for those 

one or two percent of the days, where in order to avoid a brownout, 

you have to have them running. But a lot of the time, most of the 

time, they are sitting idle, so that is invested capital sitting idle. 

So if you do real-time pricing so that on those hot summer days 

the real price of electricity for the electricity company, for the generators, is quite high. But alternatively, at nighttime, it is quite 

low. So that will encourage both businesses and homeowners to 

start to, if they can put off the use of energy at night, and use it 

during the day, that means we have to build less new power 

plants. The return on a particular investment will be much higher, 

which will drive the energy costs down for the businesses and for 

consumers. Real-time pricing will allow solar energy to give a big 

boost, because it is producing that energy when it is the most expensive. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

So that is one thing. The other thing is, quite frankly, we should 

be taking a leadership in inventing new solar technologies. Our 

first loan the Department of Energy approved was to a company 

that is going to next-generation thin-film solar technology. The 

company estimates that thousands of new jobs will be created. The 

jobs are incredibly important, and we are also trying to develop the 

technologies so the United States resumes its leadership position in 

new solar technologies that can drive the cost down considerably. 

And that is the other important part of this. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Castor. 

Now, the chair recognizes Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome 

the secretaries and administrator to the committee. Mr. LaHood, it 

is great to see you back in the Congress. 

I represent the San Joaquin Valley in California. A lot of farming 

happens there, and there is a lot more my constituents are worrying about than global warming right now. We have got an imposition from the Endangered Species Act that has shut down the 

pumps in the delta, and a lot of my farmers are getting a zero allocation this year. It is costing 40,000 to 60,000 jobs, and it is going 

to result in about a $9 billion in the state’s industry. And I honestly think that my state is suffering more from environmental 

alarmism than it is global warming, and added to that, this concept 

of cap and trade to me just seems to make the problem worse. 

Secretary Chu, welcome. I noticed that you paid a visit to California recently. I think you were quoted in the LA Times saying 

that because of global warming, agriculture in California was going 

to be gone in about 30 years. And one other quote, and I just want 

to have a dialog on this, was a quote that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe, which 

at the time was $8 a gallon. My concern for my constituents is that 

if you adopt something like a cap and trade system, the math 

doesn’t work. You add a price of gas onto the fact that we have a 

manmade drought in California, taking the water away. If you increase the price of a gallon of gas or diesel from $5 back up to $6 

a gallon, the way it was last year, you are going to see the state’s 

largest industry, $90 billion, the main supplier of fruits and vegetables to the nation, farm out. And if you don’t like the fact that 70 

percent of your energy comes from foreign countries, how would 

you like to have 70 percent of your food supply leave the country, 

because that is what happening in my neck of the woods? 

I, for the life of me, can’t figure out how you think that you can 

do something like this without dramatically increasing the national 

debt and deficit by subsidizing a false economy and by raising the 

price to consumers on energy. I think when the public finds out the 

true cost of this thing, you are going to see a smack down that the 

World Wrestling Federation would be proud to see by the public towards this plan, which is unreasonable. I think research, developing efficiencies in energy, and smoothing this transition to another source of fuel, I think, is a great idea. But this cap and trade 

notion, once the public finds out what their price is in the home 

at the fuel pump, they are not going to buy this. This will stop. 

This will not go anywhere when you see the true cost of this thing 

come down. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

In the energy portfolio of the United States, 70 percent of it consists of fossil fuels, 20 percent is nuclear, 10 percent is renewable, 

and of that renewable portion, 10 percent of it is hydroelectricity. 

That is about three percent. So you are proposing to take seven 

percent of our energy portfolio and make it how much, how long? 

And I guess my question to anybody who is going to answer this 

is what do you think is going to be the cost to the household, because I see numbers of $3,000 or over $3,000 of the cost of this 

plan to the household. And then, we have talked about the high 

price of gas, Secretary Chu, $8 or whatever. I mean it is an increase on the energy supply of the United States. How on earth do 

you think you can pull this off without breaking the back of the 

government and of the consumer? 

Ms. JACKSON. I will go first, and then, I will turn it over to the 

secretary. 

EPA’s modeling shows not at all those cost ranges, sir. It shows 

$98 to $140 for the average household per year, not $3,000. That 

is a misstatement of an MIT study that actually shows something 

close to—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. In your opinion. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, certainly it is my opinion. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I mean I am not sure I trust you for the facts 

as much as I would trust that study. How can I know? I mean how 

do I know your modeling is correct, and what are your assumptions? You mentioned 40 percent of the cap and trade revenues 

goes back to the household. How does that work? How does that 

happen? 

Ms. JACKSON. The history of EPA’s modeling shows that we are 

usually conservative, that we usually overestimate the cost, not underestimate. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. How does that 40 percent get back to the consumer? 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The witness 

will have a chance to answer briefly. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you could answer, how does that 40 percent 

get back? 

Ms. JACKSON. The 40 percent was modeled as a rebate back to 

American consumers, to American households. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. A check in the mail? 

Ms. JACKSON. It gets back to them. I don’t know the model. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Could you let me know how that gets back to 

the consumer, please? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, it is not my decision to make. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, then, maybe you better remodel so you 

can explain to people how that is going to get back in their pockets. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield to—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, I don’t have any time left, but I—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. The statement about California agriculture being 

gone, that wasn’t because of the bill. That was because of global 

warming. Is that correct? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. An interpretation of the results of global 

warming 40 years from now. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

Mr. CHU. Actually, if that was the quote, it was inaccurate, because I know about this. I was citing some studies, two studies, in 

fact, of predictions of what will happen if we continue on a business-as-usual model, and they took two scenarios. An optimist scenario, you keep carbon below 500 parts per million, a target that 

we are all trying to work towards, and in that study, in the first 

part of the century, by 2050, the snowpack in California will be reduced, and the optimistic scenario, by 26 percent. We will have 74 

percent of the snowpack that we have today. And in the more pessimistic scenario, business-as-usual scenario, it would be down to 

60 percent. By the end of this century, the 21st Century, it is considerably less, as much as 93-percent decrease in the snowpack in 

California if we continue as business as usual. And so it was that 

concern for the agriculture of California that I was speaking of. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And I respect that. If I could respond, Mr. 

Chairman? Environmental alarmism in the form of the Endangered 

Species Act that is a runaway locomotive, and the cost of this cap 

and trade system will kill agriculture long before global warming 

does. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here from John M. 

Riley, correcting the statement that they made, and it is a leader 

to the Republican leader, which has a much lower cost per family, 

and if it is possible to have this put in the record, if not, I will distribute it to the committee, but it is a corrective letter, which 

states, correctly, the right information. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Without objection—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would object, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman would object. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just so if my former colleague can do that, I would 

like the article from the Weekly Standard that debunks those numbers also included into the record. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Without objection, we will take both documents 

and put them in the record. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. WAXMAN. Ms. Sutton? 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your 

testimony. It has been very, very insightful. 

I think that at the beginning you all laid out the challenge that 

we face. We talked about the potential for jobs under this bill and 

your desire to jumpstart us towards that new green economy. And 

Secretary Chu, you also agreed that there is great potential, but 

you really put your finger on the point when you said that the 

question is how do we transition from here to there? And that is 

extraordinarily important to the people that I represent to the people in Ohio, and I think it is extraordinarily important to people 

far beyond Ohio. This is something that is going to require all of 

us to be a part of and all of us to benefit from, so not just in the 

long term, but in the near term. And so I think it is that near-term 

challenge that is the one that is so difficult for us to get past. 

Now, some comments were made by one of my colleagues a little 

while ago, and I think that the statement was those of us who 

want jobs are going to try to defeat this bill. I am not somebody 

who is going to try to defeat this bill. I certainly want jobs. I want 

them in the future, and I want them now for my folks. They need 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

them both now and then. I do want to find ways—and I believe it 

can be done-to collaborate, to get to those jobs of the future, without sacrificing the livelihood of the people in the process, because 

that gap in the middle is where we can lose so much. So that is 

where I come from with respect to these complicated issues and 

challenges we face, but it has to be done. We have to go where we 

know we need to go and we all agree we should go, but we can’t 

lose people in the process. 

So the first question I have, Secretary Chu, is regarding coal. Of 

course, about 86 percent of electricity consumed in Ohio, and more 

than half of the country’s electricity is produced by coal-fired power 

plants. Even with aggressive gross scenarios, and your testimony 

reflects this, the renewable energy, combined with energy efficiency 

measures, coal will still me a major U.S. energy source, at least in 

the near term, and probably well into our future. 

Clean coal technology is critical to address climate change here 

and abroad, yet there are no commercial scale carbon capture and 

storage projects worldwide. Secretary Chu, you have stated that we 

must develop an inexpensive way to capture and store carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, and that the U.S. has to take a lead. 

The Recovery Act, obviously, provided significant funding for CCS 

demonstration projects, but how does the administration plan to accelerate the development of these technologies, including those that 

offer very high levels of CO2 capture? 

Mr. CHU. Well, what we are doing is the following: we have had a certain amount of Economic Recovery Act money, $3.4 billion, in 

total, devoted towards trying to accelerate the progress on capture 

and sequestration of carbon from coal. We are moving forward as 

fast as we can. We have decided to fund a number of projects. We 

are looking forward to exploring all of the avenues we think have 

a reasonably good change of leading to the beginning of deployment 

in the next eight year, or optimistically, even less. So right now, 

what technology we should use is not there. Gasification is a promising technology. We would like, very much, to bring that to a commercial demonstration scale to see if it is economically viable. But 

there are other things. We also have to capture carbon at the stack. 

There are existing coal plants that have just been put up. A modern coal plant is a couple of billion dollars, and you are not going 

to turn this investment off, and as I said before, China is rapidly 

expanding their coal facilities, so we have to develop technologies 

that can capture the carbon at the stack, so we are looking a myriad of ways. I should also say that there are very active discussions. There are roughly ten projects being considered in Europe 

and several in Asia to really collaborate so that our dollars go as 

much as possible. So this is something very important to the 

United States. We have the largest coal reserves in the world. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Sutton. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Like representative Bono, I have one of the most beautiful districts, at least in North Texas. We have solar. We have research 

and development at Entech. We have got academic research at the 

University of Texas at Arlington that is on my Fort Worth campus. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

Wind energy, we manufacture the big windmill blades at what was 

formerly an oil-field-services warehouse up in Gainesville, Texas. 

We don’t have geothermal. We have got a lot of landfill and landfill 

methane, but when you think of the State of Texas, we have and 

have had a fairly robust renewable portfolio standard. We are the 

leader in wind energy. This is, of course, the result of the current 

governor and the previous governor, Rick Perry and George W. 

Bush, who made a commitment to wind energy, but Texas produces 

a lot of energy. So in order to meet a percentage in the renewable 

portfolio standard by 2020, even though we are the nation’s leader, 

by far, in the production of wind energy, if we are not able to count 

the energy that we produce with landfill methane, if we are not 

able to count, pound for pound, the amount of carbon dioxide that 

we save with energy efficiency, then we will have a very, very difficult time meeting energy-efficiency standards. Can you address 

that? Are there ways that we may write the regulations such that 

we could get credit for what we are doing with energy efficiency? 

Administrator Jackson, you said it was up to 40 percent of the 

energy that we consume now could be saved, but we are going to 

be restricted on how much of that we can count towards our renewable portfolio standard. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I will speak first. I am not sure about the details 

of the bill. I mean this is a good point of discussion, whether you 

can consider if you begin to capture the methane from landfills and 

sewage treatment plants, this is methane, otherwise, that would 

have escaped in the atmosphere. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me interrupt you because I only have a limited 

amount of time, and we have made the point for the chairman, and 

I think he heard you. 

Dr. Chu, you said in response to a question, United States is losing jobs, losing being the leader in technology development. Administrator Jackson, you said in your testimony that we are going to 

be producing clean-energy jobs, jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Yet Dr. Chu is concerned because many of the photovoltaics, 

many of the wind turbines are manufactured overseas, and if we 

make an enormous investment in photovoltaic and wind turbines, 

are those jobs not already shipped overseas? 

Mr. CHU. Actually, no, there are agreements—— 

Mr. BURGESS. But Secretary, with all due respect, you answered 

a question saying we have lost the leadership position in this country because that manufacturing has gone overseas, so we are no 

longer the leader. 

Mr. CHU. Well, I said that the technology leadership has gone 

overseas. The wind turbines were developed overseas, the modern 

wind turbines. But right now, today, the president is in Iowa. 

Mr. BURGESS. The second wind-producing state. 

Mr. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well under Texas, for the record. 

Mr. CHU. But my point is that it is an old Maytag plant where 

jobs were lost, but it is now manufacturing the towers for wind turbines. 

Mr. BURGESS. But still the point is that those jobs can go overseas. There is nothing in the legislation that I have seen before us 

that would prevent those jobs. When we make a statement was 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

made in the testimony submitted to us, ‘‘jobs that cannot be 

shipped overseas,’’ how are you going to ensure that those jobs are 

not going to be shipped overseas? Are we going to have trade barriers or tariffs? What are going to be the mechanisms that we will 

use? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, most people refer to energy-efficiency jobs. 

Those cannot be shipped overseas because energy-efficiency work 

must be done at home. 

Mr. BURGESS. Photovoltaics and wind turbines? 

Ms. JACKSON. Now, renewable sources can certainly go overseas 

and some have gone. We are in a race to get them back and to keep 

them here. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me interrupt because I am going to run out of 

time, but Dr. Chu, this last question will be for you. We heard Dr. 

Radanovich talk about the major economic convulsion that perhaps 

could result from the legislation that we are considering before this 

committee. We heard Ranking Member Barton talk about how did 

the oil get so far up north where it is so cold to begin with. Mr. 

Dingell is gone. Mr. Rogers is gone, but the great Michigan glacier 

from 15,000, 20,000 years ago actually melted because of global 

warming. I will stipulate that warming is happening. But we have 

not heard from anyone who has come and testified in this committee as to the smoking gun, if you will, that demonstrates that 

mankind is responsible for the global warming that is occurring as 

an aberration outside of naturally occurring solar cycles. So major 

economic convulsion, yet we lack the fundamental piece of evidence 

that would tell us that this is what we must do because we are, 

after all, causing the problem to occur. 

You are a scientist, Dr. Chu. Can you, perhaps, give some comfort to Mr. Radanovich’s constituents and my constituents that we 

indeed have that missing link that mankind is responsible for what 

is occurring. Perhaps the carbon dioxide is going up because the 

solar cycles have changed and the planet is warming. There is another plausible explanation. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Burgess, your time has expired. 

Mr. BURGESS. So I will yield to Dr. Chu for an answer. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Dr. Chu, you can give an answer, and then, we 

have to move on. 

Mr. CHU. In brief, I think there is very strong, compelling evidence that the lion’s share of what we are seeing, the warming that 

we are seeing, is due to human activity. I would be glad to meet 

with you and to go over the details of what that—— 

Mr. BURGESS. I wish you would. Your NOAA scientists could not 

provide us that information, so I would very much like to hear it 

from an expert such as yourself. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Gonzalez. Let me announce as I recognize Mr. 

Gonzalez, Administrator Jackson and others on the panel were 

promised they would be able to leave at 1:00, and I regret that all 

of the members won’t have a chance to ask questions. He will be 

the last one to ask questions, and then, we will proceed with the 

next panel, for those who did not get a chance to ask questions of 

this panel ask the first questions for the second panel. Mr. Gonzalez. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My question will be directed to Secretary LaHood. It is great to see you, 

and we do miss you. 

First of all, the general observation is that we all believe that as 

a result of this piece of legislation that the cost of energy will increase, and the consumption behavior is going to be modified, and 

that is a good thing, actually, and as I have said before, these are 

not insurmountable obstacles in passing a piece of legislation that 

is reality based. My concern is going to be more on fossil fuels and 

the need and the use of them during this transition or conversion 

period as we adopt new technologies, as more efficient vehicles are 

made available, alternative-fuel vehicles, battery operated, and 

such, because I think that is going to take time. 

Taking into consideration some of the following: we assume that 

we have a fixed number of vehicles now on the road, and we have 

to figure out how many of those are going to be retired, where are 

going with sales of vehicles and so on. Historically, 15 to 16 million 

vehicles were sold in the United States. For 2008, that was reduced 

to about 12 or 13 million. In 2009, it is projected it will be 8 or 

9 million. Historically, I guess I will call it the shelf-life of the vehicle, before you turn that over, is about 11 years. And I don’t know 

when you put all of these figures together where we are going to 

end up. I am trying to get an idea from Secretary LaHood of how 

long he thinks this transitional period will occur as we gain greater 

efficiencies and such. 

We also know that out of all of the millions of cars in the United 

States, which I have been told 200 million, and I will need to check 

that, there may be only 116,000 that are powered by natural gas, 

and that the market share of hybrids comprises no more than 2.2 

percent of our entire vehicle population in the United States. Taking into account how long it will take the technology, how long it 

will take the manufacturers to make the vehicles available and 

such, can we determine the need for the traditional fossil fuels, 

what I call the transitional or conversion fuels, as we leave one 

stage where we presently find ourselves to that which we are trying to attain when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Secretary 

LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, we complied with the president’s executive 

order to have a rule that will require the car manufacturers to 

have a much higher CAFE standard by 2011. And now that that 

work is done, we are working with EPA and others to try and figure out the path forward beyond 2011 to develop with car manufacturers and other the idea that we can get o a higher gasoline 

standard. So the direct answer to your question on fuel efficiency, 

the car manufacturers have to meet a much higher standard on 

CAFE standard by 2011 on the cars they manufacture. On the battery powered, they are way ahead of the curve on this. GM is going 

to be rolling out an automobile that is run on batteries. The hybrid 

vehicles are taking off. The flex-fuel vehicles are taking off. But we 

know that within the next couple of years, the American automobile manufacturers will have automobiles that will be powered 

by batteries, and we know that the fuel efficiency standards will 

be set much higher by 2011, and then, even higher than that beVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

yond that. So those are sort of the benchmarks that we are working 

with, with the American and other automobile industries. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And it does trouble me, because I want to support 

this final piece of legislation, that we are not dealing with realistic 

expectation of what the manufacturers will be able to provide out 

there for a willing and able buyer. We are not factoring in the economic hard times for the next few years, because I think they are 

going to be there, and people retaining their cars for longer periods 

of time. Manufacturers not being able to even meet the needs of vehicles that are totally more efficiently, but if they are, they are 

probably going to be hybrid, meaning that they still have an internal combustion engine that is going to be run with traditional fossil 

fuels. That doesn’t mean we are throwing in the towel and giving 

up on this endeavor. All I am saying is let us be realistic about the 

need for a domestic production and refining capacity in the United 

States. 

Mr. Secretary, in looking at energy independence when it comes 

to fuels, do we need to increase or decrease domestic production 

and refining capacity of fossil fuels in the United States in the foreseeable future? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I can’t be specific in answering that question, 

but it is something that everyone is investigating, looking into, debating. But I don’t have a specific answer for that at this point. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. 

I want to thank our three witnesses. You have been very, very 

helpful to us and patient in answering the questions, and we thank 

you so much for you input, and we will look forward to working 

with you on this legislation. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. The hearing will reconvene. We thank 

all of you for your patience, and we would ask our next group of 

witnesses to please come up and to take their seats in front of their 

names on the witness table. 

Thank you all very much for being here. Our next witness is Mr. 

Chad Holliday. Mr. Holliday was the CEO of DuPont until his retirement on January 1 of this year, and now serves as the chairman of its board. He is also the past chairman of the Business 

Roundtables Task Force on Environment Technology and Economy 

for the World Business Counsel for Sustainable Development. He 

coauthored the book Walking the Talk, the Business Case for Sustainable Development. Mr. Holliday, we welcome you. Please begin 

when you feel comfortable. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
159 

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES HOLLIDAY, JR., CHAIRMAN, DUPONT; RED CAVANEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CONOCOPHILLIPS; JIM 

ROGERS, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DUKE ENERGY 

CORP.; FRANCES BEINECKE, PRESIDENT, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; MEG MCDONALD, DIRECTOR, 

GLOBAL ISSUES, ALCOA INC.; AND DAVID CRANE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NRG ENERGY, INC. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES HOLLIDAY, JR. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here 

today. We appreciate you taking time for our presentation. I do 

come here in two roles. I come as the chairman of DuPont and also 

a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of companies and NGOs who have come together to forge a consensus 

view regarding the U.S. action on climate-change issues. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Holliday, could you move the microphone in 

just a little bit closer. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. We have put together this blueprint, which I 

think you are familiar with, which was the result of two years of 

work of discussing, greatly, the different options, and I believe that 

has been useful, and we are very glad to see that you have taken 

this into account in the bill that is before us today. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues to further improve 

the bill as you advance through this legislative process. 

DuPont’s approach to greenhouse gas production is for and by 

our experience the chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs in the 1980s, when 

atmospheric research on the role of CFCs became actively involved 

in what is called the Montreal Protocol. This international agreement allowed us to phase out the use of ozone-depleting substances, while providing adequate time and market signals to develop affective alternatives. These reductions also had great greenhouse gas benefits. 

The reduction for the Montreal Protocol were six times greater 

than the full reductions from the Kyoto Protocol, if it was fully enacted. So what we have seen from this experience is great benefits 

can come from this kind of activity. I am very proud of my company’s work in that, and I am also very proud of our country’s work 

in making that a success. 

As DuPont has become more aware of the potential business and 

environmental implications of climate change, we have looked for 

ways to contribute solutions. Since 1990 to 2004, we have reduced 

our own greenhouse gas emissions by 72 percent, while every 

project returned a positive return to our shareholders. We did it by 

using what we call an internal cap and trade mechanism that mirrored what a cap and trade would do in the external environment, 

inside, allowing the recourses to flow to the very best project. We 

think that is critical as we do something across the entire economy. 

Yet I want to be clear: voluntary efforts are not enough by themselves. We need a program that will focus the work and resources 

on the best opportunities while we drive the lowest cost, and that 

will take legislation across our entire economy. 

I firmly believe this is an opportunity for American industry to 

reinvent itself. There has never been a bigger opportunity that is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
160 

more perfectly sized to what American company and American universities can come together to make happen. So we are fundamentally behind this approach, and we believe it will have a very positive long-term impact to our overall economy. 

U.S. CAP is this diverse coalition I have described earlier, and 

we have worked very hard to resolve very difficult issues with our 

different perspectives from NGOs and companies from different industries, and we think it has been very helpful. We have made substantial progress, but we would be the first to say we have not answered all of the questions, and we are very glad to see that you 

have included much of this in the work that you have before us 

today. 

We are pleased to see this taking great forward steps, and we 

look forward to working with you as we go forward to hopefully 

come out with something that has the same power as the Montreal 

Protocol did once before. Creating an effective climate-change program will not be easy, but it is necessary, and the discussion is 

moving in the right direction. We appreciate all of the steps that 

you are doing to make this a success, and we believe these steps 

must be very aggressive and must recognize and encourage early 

actions for it to be very successful. Many companies have taken 

early actions, and undoubtedly, there will be a start date to whatever legislation you end up with. The last thing we want is all action to stop until that start happens, so including early action is 

very critical. We must also encourage innovation, research development, demonstration and deployment programs throughout the entire spectrum of our economy to make it a success. We believe that 

will be the best way to ensure that consumers are no unduly burdened by this bill. And we must use policy tools and offsets to keep 

the costs of the program manageable while achieving our long-term 

goals. 

In closing, I will refer to an old saying I think you must know 

very well. We must lead, follow, or get out of the way. Gentlemen, 

this is a time our country should lead. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holliday follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 72878A.055
162 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 72878A.056
163 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 72878A.057
164 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Holliday, very much. Our next witness is Mr. Red Cavaney, a senior vice president for government 

and public affairs for ConocoPhillips. Mr. Cavaney is the former 

president and chief executive officer of the American Petroleum Institute and American Plastics Council. He has served on the Senior 

White House Staffs of Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and 

Richard Nixon. 

Welcome, Mr. Cavaney. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF RED CAVANEY 

Mr. CAVANEY. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Chairman Waxman, and Ranking Member Barton, and members of the committee. 

On behalf of ConocoPhillips and our chairman and CEO, Jim 

Mulva, I am pleased to participate in this important hearing. 

ConocoPhillips supports the development of a comprehensive national climate protection program that addresses greenhouse gas 

emissions, while at the same time, ensuring the supply of secure 

and affordable energy that is necessary for our nation’s continued 

economic recovery and future growth. 

We believe the integrated set of policy regulations contained in 

the U.S. CAP blueprint for legislative action represents a viable 

path forward to this end. I have been asked to offer U.S. CAP’s insights on options to reduce the impact of climate-change technology 

on transportation-fuel consumers. In addition, I will touch on some 

policy areas that are of particular interest to ConocoPhillips and 

our industry. 

Our company recognizes that public policy to address climate 

change will come at a cost to U.S. consumers and businesses, but 

we believe, in the long run, the benefits to the overall American 

economy will outweigh these costs; however, in these challenging 

economic times, individuals and companies may not take much 

comfort in the promise of future benefits as they struggle to make 

a mortgage payment or to make payroll. This is why U.S. CAP believes it is critically important that any climate-change policy includes provisions aimed at dampening the impact of policy on both 

consumers and businesses. 

As a major provider of transportation fuels to the U.S. consumer, 

ConocoPhillips is keenly aware of how sensitive most consumers 

are to increases in the price of gasoline at the pump. To address 

the impact of climate policy on transportation-fuel consumers, U.S. 

CAP recommends the judicious use of allowance value to ensure 

the consumers transportation-fuel impacts from allowance prices 

are generally proportionate to their electricity and natural gas impacts. Allowance value for transportation consumers could be applied over a range of options that reduce transportation-fuel consumption. 

The impact of climate policy on companies that produce and deliver transportation fuels will also have implications for the consumer. Under the provisions of the discussion draft, the U.S. refining sector would face a multibillion-dollar annual compliance obligation while serving an accounting function for the government as 

the point of regulation for the end-users transportation-fuel emissions. This would be in addition to our compliance obligations associated with our own greenhouse gas emissions, with the current reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

newable fuel standard, and with any low-carbon fuel standard in 

the future. 

Based on the scale of our potential compliance burden, we are 

deeply concerned about our ability to fully pass on these costs, 

given the potential implications that even a small percentage of unrecoverable costs could have on this historically low-margin business. The consequences of not getting the policy right could be premature reduction in U.S. refining capacity, additional increases in 

gasoline prices, rising transportation, fuel imports, and further loss 

of American jobs. 

We stand ready to offer constructive suggestions for fair and equitable allowances for improving the low-carbon fuel standard included in the discussion draft, and in a variety of areas, from containment to market oversight to incentives for carbon capture and 

store. Based on the recent and ongoing work of the committee, we 

are encouraged by the potential of a path forward that could gain 

broad support, both within the halls of Congress and within homes 

across the land. We commend the comprehensiveness with which 

Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey are approaching this 

legislation and their careful consideration of U.S. CAP’s blueprint 

for legislative action. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, and on behalf of ConocoPhillips, I 

thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. We look forward to continued work with 

your committee on this very important matter. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cavaney follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 72878A.058
167 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 72878A.059
168 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 72878A.060
169 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 72878A.061
170 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 72878A.062
171 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 72878A.063
172 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cavaney, very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Jim Rogers. He is the CEO of Duke Energy Group. Mr. Rogers has more than 20 years’ experience as a 

chief executive officer in the electricity-utility industry. In addition 

to his position with Duke Energy, he is the chairman of the Edison 

Foundation and co-chair of the Alliance to Save Energy. 

We welcome you back, Mr. Rogers. Whenever you are ready, 

please, begin. 

STATEMENT OF JIM ROGERS 

Mr. ROGERS. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Waxman, Chairman Markey, Ranking Members Barton and Upton, 

and members of the committee. I am Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke. I 

am delighted to be here today and delighted to have an opportunity 

to support and discuss the discussion draft before us. 

More than 30 years ago, I started my career as a consumer advocate, fighting rate increase at utility companies. I sit here today as 

a consumer advocate on behalf of the 11 million customers that we 

provide electric service to in five states, also as a consumer advocate for those consumers in the 25 states where more than 50 percent of the electricity comes from coal. 

To supply our customers, we are the third largest generator of 

electricity in this country, third largest coal, third largest nuclear. 

We have a very diverse mix of coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, and we reflect much of the mix of generation in this country. We also have invested in renewable such as wind. We have 500 

megawatts under operation and 5,000 megawatts under development in the Western United States. We are also investing in biomass, where our goal is to build 10 to 12 50-megawatt bio power 

plants throughout the U.S. over the next five years. 

I have been an early, long-time advocate for climate-change legislation. I was a founding member of U.S. CAP. In our business, we 

plan for 40 to 50 years, and one of the reasons that I have been 

such a supporter of clear legislation on carbon is so that I will have 

the certainty that it will allow me to plan. I would have the certainty with respect to the roadmap forward. And most importantly, 

because we are the third largest emitter of CO2 in the country, I 

recognize that I am part of the problem and that we need to be 

part of the solution. And as I look out over the next period of time, 

between now and 2050, we recognize that every plant that we own 

and operate today will be retired and replaced. So if the mission 

is to provide low-carbon generation in the future, but we need to 

get started now with a clear path forward, and so I appreciate the 

work that you all have done in bringing this discussion draft forward at this time. 

But while I support climate-change legislation, I also recognize 

the importance of getting the carbon legislation, so it works not 

only for the environment but also for our customers. I know how 

difficult it is to achieve the right balance. U.S. CAP’s blueprint was 

developed after years of difficult discussion and seemingly endless 

negotiations. We are pleased the discussion draft includes many of 

our key recommendations from the blueprint, including a marketwide cap and trade program, a cap trajectory that falls within the 

blueprints recommendations, although I would note the early caps 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

are on the aggressive end of the range, where someone has said 

they have to hit the goalpost. It provides for cost-containment 

mechanisms, such as offsets, banking and borrowing, and 

multiyear compliance. It also provides provisions for research and 

deployment of carbon capture and storage to ensure that coal remains a choice. 

The environment is indifferent as to how the allowances are distributed. Consumers and businesses are not. Timetables and targets, in my judgment, assure the environment integrity of the bill. 

The key is in the transition. Of course, the elephant in the room 

is the mission section on how allowances will be allocated, a critical 

issue for many of us at the table, and most importantly for our customers. And I know that you all plan to work on this because there 

is much work that needs to get done to make this a reality. 

The other thing I would point out is that it is critical to get this 

transition right, and we at U.S. CAP spent a lot of time focusing 

on that, and within the blueprint are specific provisions that really 

address how we make the transition and why getting the transition 

right is so critical. 

In closing, I would briefly mention nuclear power. Earlier today, 

Secretary Chu mentioned it and his support for it. Any serious 

long-term carbon-reduction plan is an empty plate unless we, as a 

nation, commit to building zero-emission nuclear power plants. 

Other countries meeting carbon-reduction commitments will be relying on nuclear, and we shouldn’t count it out. 

In concluding, we believe it won’t be cheap; it won’t be easy; it 

won’t be quick. But I must be fair, and legislation must be now. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 72878A.064
175 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 72878A.065
176 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 72878A.066
177 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 72878A.067
178 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 72878A.068
179 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 72878A.069
180 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 72878A.070
181 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 72878A.071
182 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, very much. Our next witness, Ms. Frances Beinecke, is the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council and is on the Steering Committee of the 

U.S. Climate Action Partnership. She has worked with NRDC for 

more than 30 years and has held leadership roles in several other 

environmental organizations. 

We welcome you back before this panel, Dr. Beinecke. Whenever 

you feel comfortable, please, begin. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCES BEINECKE 

Ms. BEINECKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify to testify today on this Earth Day as a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. I am Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC. 

Chairman Waxman and Markey and Ranking Members Barton 

and Upton, thank you for holding this hearing on the American 

Clean Energy and Security Legislative Proposal. The discussion 

draft is an excellent starting point for enacting comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year. Passing effective climate legislation to address the eminent threat of global warming is NRDC’s 

highest priority, and it is vital to enact legislation as quickly as 

possible. 

We have known for several years that the scientific data on global warming points towards urgent action, and now the economic 

data is telling us that action is required as well. Rather than a reason for delay, the current recession amplifies the importance of acting quickly. If this Act were enacted tomorrow, millions of cleanenergy jobs would be created, starting right away, and we anticipate there will be minimum increased energy costs in the near 

term, because the limits on carbon emissions proposed in this 

would not go into effect until 2012, and by that time, the current 

recession should be in the rearview mirror. 

Inaction is simply not an option. Carbon regulation is moving forward. Last week, the EPA acted on what the law and science require and formally found what we have known for many years, 

that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and the environment. Congress has the opportunity to shape how carbon is controlled, going forward, and this committee is at work on it right 

now. If we delay and emissions continue to grow, it will become 

much harder to avoid the worst impacts of climate going haywire. 

In short, a slow start means a crash finish, with steeper and more 

costly emission cuts required for each year of delay. If we enact legislation this year, we can unleash American innovation and tackle 

this global challenge right now. 

Today, I want to focus on three critical issues: allocation of allowance value, cost containment, and international action. The allocation of the allowance value is a major issue for the committee to 

consider and was a central component of the U.S. Climate Action 

Partners Blueprint for Legislative Action. U.S. CAP strongly endorses an approach for distributing emission allowances that leads 

to achieving public objectives and not private windfalls. U.S. CAP 

believes that we can jumpstart the transition to a clean-energy 

economy without creating undue burden on consumers by initially 

distributing a significant portion of the allowances to capped entiVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

ties and economies sectors particularly disadvantaged by the secondary effects of a cap. This free distribution should be phased out 

over time with a transition to a full auction. 

The Blueprint identifies principals to guide the fair and equitable 

allocation of allowances. First, they should go to end-use consumers 

of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. Specifically, a 

significant portion should to regulated electric and natural gas 

local distribution companies, LDCs, on behalf of their customers, 

particularly in the early years of the program. The overall costs of 

achieving the environmental goals will be minimized if utilities 

used this value first to ensure that they are investing in all costeffective energy-efficient opportunities, and then, rebate the remaining value to their consumers in a transparent matter. 

Second, allowances should be given to energy-intensive industries 

with trade-exposed commodity products that face international 

competition, such as cement and steel. And this will limit the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and the outsourcing of U.S. emissions. 

Third, allowances should also be allocated for competitive power 

generators, low-income consumers, and worker transition and 

training, programs that drive low-emission technology to commercial viability, programs to reduce emissions from deforestation and 

forest degradation, 20-percent of emission sources, and adaptation 

needs of vulnerable people in ecosystems at home and abroad. 

Previous major environmental initiatives, such as controlling sulfur dioxide emissions, have proved far less costly to accomplish 

than predicted. Nonetheless, there is uncertainty about the cost of 

reducing global-warming pollution, and that is why the U.S. CAP 

Blueprint addresses cost containment. Although there are some 

material differences, the ACIS discussion draft reflects many of the 

measures discussed in the Blueprint. These include a broadly inclusive cap, emissions trading, unlimited banking of allowances, and 

effective multiyear compliance periods. The discussion draft also includes a larger role for emission offsets, provided that they meet, 

and I think this is crucial, strong environmental quality standards. 

Finally, the discussion draft includes a strategic offset and allowance-reserve pool, intended to prevent allowance price spikes by releasing additional offsets and/or borrowed allowances into the market in the event of excessively high allowance prices. 

The third issue I want to discuss briefly is international action. 

It is critical that the United States provides a path forward in environmental discussion as we lead to Copenhagen in the fall, and we 

need to provide key tools in the legislation to aid our climate negotiator in delivering a strong global warming solution, and we think 

the draft addresses this effectively as well. I want to thank you for 

the opportunity to testify and look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Beinecke follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 72878A.072
185 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 72878A.073
186 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 72878A.074
187 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 72878A.075
188 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 72878A.076
189 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 72878A.077
190 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Beinecke, very much. Our next witness is Ms. Meg McDonald, who is the director of global issues, 

Alcoa. She also served in Australia as Australia’s Ambassador for 

the Environment, where she was the lead negotiator for the Kyoto 

Protocol and has advised several Australian Government Trade 

Ministers. We welcome you, Ms. McDonald. 

STATEMENT OF MEG McDONALD 

Ms. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Waxman, 

Ranking Members Barton and Upton, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today as a member 

of the United States Climate Action Partnership, or U.S. CAP. 

I am here today to express Alcoa’s support for comprehensive climate legislation this year. We and others in U.S. CAP have welcomed the comprehensive approach taken it the American Clean 

Energy and Security Act. We, like the other colleagues at this table 

that you have heard, believe that climate change is a global issue, 

which requires leadership and immediate action from every sector 

of society. 

Alcoa is one of the world’s largest producers of aluminum and 

alumina. We are active in all segments of the industry from mining, refining and smelting to rolling and extrusions with some 

850,000 employees in 34 countries. The majority of our manufacturing base is here in the United States, and two-thirds of our 

smelting capacity, representing 30,000 U.S. jobs. The current global 

economic situation has meant significant and difficult changes in 

that manufacturing profile here in the United States and elsewhere. 

Aluminum is a globally and heavily traded, energy-intensive 

commodity, for which the global price is benchmarked according to 

the London Metal Exchange. Since last June, we have experienced 

dramatic drops in global demand, and the price of aluminum has 

dropped by more than 60 percent. Alcoa has put in place a detailed 

plan to weather the economic storm, with the hope of emerging 

stronger when the economy recovers. 

The energy-intensive nature of primary aluminum smelting has 

meant that the location of aluminum production is driven by energy costs. It has also meant that the industry has been a leader 

in energy efficiency. We also believe that aluminum is part of the 

solution to climate change because of its properties of lightweight 

into transport solution and because of its infinite recycling potential. 

Since 1990, Alcoa has reduced own direct greenhouse gas emissions by 36 percent, and that is despite a significant increase in our 

production over that same period. Alcoa has been part of U.S. CAP 

as a founding member and here today because we believe an economy-wide cap and trade program, as part of a comprehensive U.S. 

climate program can be constructed as to minimize the impact on 

the economic competitiveness of U.S. business like Alcoa as we 

make our transition to a lower carbon economy. 

There is a board consensus that the leakage cause must be 

solved to achieve effective climate legislation, and we and our U.S. 

CAP colleagues look forward to working with the committee to 

achieve this. There has never been such a critical time for us to be 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

focusing on this issue as many businesses like Alcoa, our workforce, and our communities confront the very difficult challenges 

created by the current economic downturn. During the evolution towards a comprehensive global emissions trading regimes, transition arrangements for energy-intensive trade-exposed sectors like 

ours will be necessary to protect our competitiveness and our employees’ jobs. It will be essential to protect the employment base 

and contribution to the U.S. economy that industry such as aluminum, steel, chemical, glass, and paper represent, and we think 

the most important way of doing this is through the allocation 

process as well as additional complimentary measures. U.S. CAP 

set out our own detailed thinking on the importance of inclusion of 

these in climate legislation in our blueprint, and we have included 

in that additional cost-containment measures, such as offsets in 

banking, the technology program, international linking of trading, 

and movement to a global system. Importantly, we also believe 

there should be specific credit for early action by companies such 

as ours, which have been reducing our emissions voluntarily. 

Alcoa believes that a cap and trade program that follows this approach will be successful in reducing emissions while avoiding 

shifting jobs, investments, and emissions from the U.S. to other nations. This sort of leadership from the United States is essential for 

setting the stage for reaching global agreement on climate change. 

We also believe that a climate-change framework established on 

this basis will bring a new vision and policy direction which will 

spur innovation through the U.S. economy and elsewhere. And we 

think if we act wisely and swiftly, this will assist in restoring 

growth, increasing jobs, and providing the means for America to be 

a global leader in low-carbon technology. 

Chairman Waxman and Markey, Alcoa joins our other U.S. CAP 

colleagues in looking forward to working with you, the subcommittee, and the committee in your objective in reporting a comprehensive and effective energy and global warming bill to the 

United States House of Representatives by Memorial Day. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McDonald follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 72878A.078
193 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 72878A.079
194 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. McDonald, very much. 

And our next witness is Mr. David Crane. He is the president 

and CEO of NRG Energy. Mr. Crane has been the president and 

CEO of NRG, a wholesale power-generation company, since December of 2003. We welcome you back, Mr. Crane, and we look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID CRANE 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Barton and Upton. Chairman Markey, as 

you mentioned, we are a competitive power-generation company, or 

wholesaler, as you say. We produce approximately 70 million megawatt hours per year, and like others in our industry, we do it in 

as a safe, inexpensive, and environmentally benign manner as postwar technology permits, and when I talk about postwar in this 

case, I am talking about post-World War II technology permits. But 

as global concern over climate change has grown, the management, 

employees, and possibly most importantly, the shareholders of 

NRG are aware that we have a moral imperative to reduce substantially the carbon intensity of our electricity production. Today, 

I welcome the opportunity to appear at your committee as you 

begin consideration of whether there should be an economic imperative aligned alongside that moral imperative to reduce emissions. 

And I wanted to also offer you three general observations. First, 

combating climate change is inextricably linked to our country’s future energy usage and to a national energy policy, and the best answer lies in the center, where both environmental protection and 

energy security can be enhanced while avoiding the prospect of 

short- to medium-term dislocation to the economy. This, in my 

mind, is the fundamental principal upon which U.S. CAP was 

founded, and it informs virtually all of the recommendations set 

forth in the U.S. CAP Blueprint. A shared concern of five environmental groups and 25 major American corporations led, over the 

course of two years, to a carefully calibrated and interlinked set of 

recommendations. As such, we believe all members of the committee should carefully consider these recommendations, whether 

you are more motivated by reducing emittances of carbon in the atmosphere or by reducing remittances of American wages and 

wealth to the Middle East in order to pay for foreign-source fossil 

fuel. 

My second major point is that the potential embedded within climate-change legislation for regional wealth transfer and value destruction is real but can be effectively addressed with a sensible 

balanced between auctioned allowances and allowances allocated 

on a year-end basis and with complimentary measures for clean 

coal and other core technologies, including new, advanced nuclear 

projects. Wind, solar efficiency, and smart meters are all worthy 

technologies that our company is investing in, and they all deserve 

government support. But the fact is that if you run the numbers, 

it is nearly impossible to see how we win the battle against climate 

change without the successful demonstration and global deployment of clean coal technology and advanced nuclear plants. 

The transitional, partial allocation approach, which France has 

referred to, will help drive these investments as well as easing reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

gional imbalances. It will give emitters like us a financial runway 

of sufficient length to gain lift in our efforts to innovate and invest 

in low-carbon technologies that are critical to success in the fight 

against global warming. This is important because carbon will not 

be conquered just through increased funding of the Nation’s research. It will be conquered when companies in the electricity sector, like Duke and NRG, lead the way in demonstrating cuttingedge, low-carbon technology at scale and deploying it en mass. To illustrate, in 2006, NRG announced a plan to invest up to $15 

million and 10,000 megawatts of new low- or no-carbon projects in 

this country. Since that announcement, we have made significant 

advances in major investments in wind, solar, CCS, and advanced 

nuclear development. We are doing all of this as part of our philosophy that NRG wants to be a first-mover in the technologies, the 

projects, and the businesses that will be spawned by sustainability 

and climate change. 

Third and finally, the electricity industry, currently, is the largest emitting sector in the United States, but as it decarbonizes, it 

will become a central part of the solution, both in our ability to export our new technology to electric industries in other emitting nations, and in our ability to displace other forms of carbon-producing 

energy in other sectors in this country. At the center of our fossil 

fuel energy basis right now are the car, the high-voltage transmission system, and the base-load powerplants that feed it. Congress is in the position, right now, to alter fundamentally and for 

the better each of the three, but the electric car or the smart grid 

and low- to no-carbon base load power, emphasizing clean coal and 

advance nuclear, they need to be advanced together as part of a coherent and coordinated national energy and environment policy, 

and I believe it is exactly right to base that energy and environmental policy on a free-market basis like the cap and trade approach contemplated by the Waxman-Markey discussion draft. 

That will enable us to unleash the power of our free-market system 

on this issue. And even in the weakened state of the American 

economy, as an unabashed capitalist, I would say American capitalism remains the most potent peacetime force for a change on 

this planet. 

To do this, if we do this, I think all of us need to work, again, 

to define and find the common ground in the center. If we succeed, 

I am convinced that when the history is written of our age, it will 

be said that the first giant leap for mankind into the post-hydrocarbon age began in the ninth year of the third millennium, when 

the United States Congress pointed the American public away from 

consuming the earth’s resources in a non-sustainable way so that 

the life experience that all of us have enjoyed will be enjoyed equally by future generations of Americans. Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 72878A.080
197 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 72878A.081
198 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 72878A.082
199 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 72878A.083
200 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 72878A.084
201 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Crane, very much, and we thank 

all of you. 

And now, we will turn to questions from the committee members, 

and we will begin by recognizing the gentleman from California, 

Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

the panel for coming here today, and I find your testimony good 

and interesting. 

In your testimony, Mr. Holliday, you mentioned that DuPont reduced greenhouse gas emissions while reducing costs. Am I correct 

on that? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes, we reduced 72-percent greenhouse gas emissions over the period of time described, and we did it by letting the 

resources go to the very best projects, so every project we authorized at least earned 12-percent return, which was good for our 

shareholders, and so that is what we think is so key about the cap 

and trade approach, that it allows the resources to go to the best 

projects so people can trade and develop those. We think it makes 

a big difference. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Was there a net job gain or net job loss, or was 

it neutral? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. For the United States, it was a net job gain from 

that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Ms. McDonald, I am going to ask you a similar 

question. You said that Alcoa reduced the GHG emissions by 36 

percent. Was there an increase in cost or a decrease in cost for operations as a result of that program? 

Ms. MCDONALD. It was a result of some major changes in reducing our process emissions, and that has resulted in not only decreased costs but has increased our efficiency greatly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, and that brings me to my 

point, which is the thing that excites me about this bill is that if 

we do it correctly, we can get to the point where we pay less for 

energy and have better results and create a lot of green jobs in the 

process. 

I would like to ask the other panel members that I haven’t asked 

yet if they agree with that optimism. Do you think we can reduce 

energy costs and have a better quality of life and create jobs at the 

same time? Starting with Mr. Cavaney. 

Mr. CAVANEY. I believe on the front end, one of the things that 

is particularly important about looking at a framework as U.S. 

CAP has pulled together, it has a number of linked elements that 

help reduce the higher costs and the more volatility that we are 

likely to see in the earlier years. But as time goes on, as my colleague had mentioned, what you will find is you find over time the 

efficiencies will get better, and better, and better, and therefore, 

there is less need and less volatility in the system, and then, you 

will end up having made that transition in the most effective way. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think, over time, you are going to see the price 

of electricity rise. I think that is inevitable, and that is why it is 

critical that we get the regulatory models correct so that there are 

adequate investments in energy efficiency so that we are able to 

give consumers control over their use of electricity, and over time, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

they can reduce their bills by reducing their usage levels and productivity gains. 

But it is inevitable that the price of electricity is going to rise 

over the coming decades, and that comes off a decade-and-a-half 

where the real price of electricity has actually fallen. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, that is going to happen. Electricity prices 

are going to rise anyway, but I believe we can get ahead of that 

cost curve with efficiency gains, and that is the point that I am trying to make. 

Mr. ROGERS. I don’t want to mislead you. I think the price of 

electricity is going to rise in every event. It will rise in compliance 

with carbon legislation, but the way we address that is with productivity gains in its use, because what I envision is not only do 

we retire and replace existing plants with new plants that will 

drive prices up, but as we go from an analog grid to a smart grid, 

that will drive prices up. In 30 states where they have adopted renewable portfolio standards, that will drive prices up, and over 

time, you are going to see prices continue to rise. 

The big question is can we incent energy efficiency investments 

to control usage and get productivity gains. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Ms. Beinecke? 

Ms. BEINECKE. I would just like to emphasize that there are tremendous opportunities in energy efficiency. In California, you’ve 

had great experience. Even though the cost may be higher per kilowatt hour, the usage is left because of the very great mandate for 

energy efficiency there, so energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest 

way to get real reductions in carbon emissions and that will decrease the direct cost to the consumer, so the quicker that we can 

unleash that opportunity, the better it will be for the consumers 

across the country. And there’s just huge opportunities in the 

building sector, in the appliance sector, in commercial buildings, at 

home, et cetera, so there is a huge opportunity there. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Crane, you’ve got about six seconds, but 

they will give you another 30, maybe. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Chairman. Congressman, to me, the answer to your questions depends on what your view of future fossil 

fuel prices are. Our company’s view is that they are more likely to 

be like they were last June than they are right now. And if you 

think about that, and you think about where there money for fossil 

fuels goes, that there is no doubt in my mind that the American 

public will be more prosperous with the adoption of the type of 

technologies that will be incented by this legislation. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, are there members on that side that 

haven’t asked any questions yet? Have we recognized all of them? 

Mr. MARKEY. No, we have not. 

Mr. BARTON. Then, let us recognize that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. We appreciate that. That’s very generous. Thank you. 

We will recognize next the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it very much, and I appreciate that 

courtesy as well. 

Mr. BARTON. Just give me a vote when we go to mark up. 

Mr. SARBANES. There’s no free lunches anymore in America are 

there? 

Thanks for your testimony. I want to come back a little bit to the 

discussion you just had about the extent to which the expectations 

about consumer efficiency effect the models or the projections. And 

obviously, my view of the auction question, in other words how 

much free distribution there should be, at what levels and for how 

long, versus auctioning these allowances, as well as my view of 

what percentage of the proceeds ought to be coming back to the 

ratepayers, is significantly affected by my confidence or lack of confidence in the consumer, with some kind of rapidity, put these efficiencies in place. And I assume that the models that you have done 

are putting kind of assumption in place as to how quickly you can 

move with respect to the consumers efficiencies. 

But it is very elusive, and there is a kind of leap-of-faith element 

in many different aspects of this issue. I was curious of what the 

incentives are that you are thinking of offering to your ratepayers 

to become more efficient themselves, to take ownership of this, beyond, simply, their desire to escape the added burden that is going 

to come from increased electricity cost as you indicated. I mean 

what kind of partnerships are you going to enter into? What sort 

of programs will there be? And anybody can answer that. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think what is going on in virtually every state 

that we operate in, there is a total rethink of the regulatory model. 

In California, they adopted decoupling, but quite frankly, that 

leaves companies just economically indifferent and not much gets 

achieved through economic indifference. What will fundamentally 

change investment in energy efficiency will be a model that incents 

companies to invest in reducing megawatts in the same way we are 

incented to meet the growing demand to building a megawatt. 

So we have proposed in each of the states we operate in a savea-watt approach, which basically compensates us in the same way 

for reducing megawatts, so what you can see is that we will take 

hundreds of millions and billions of dollars over time, once the regulatory model is in place, to actually invest in our customers, to 

help them have productivity gains in their use of electricity, and 

I believe what will come, if we look back 5 to 10 years from now, 

what we call energy efficiency today will be very primitive compared to what will be done over the next decade. And I believe that 

will be driven at the state level. That will be driven by changing 

the regulatory models. 

Mr. SARBANES. So your investment could be seen as another way 

as giving the consumer kind of a rebate or a reward for being more 

efficient, and then, it kind of feeds on itself. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I actually think that technology is really the 

key here. I have come to believe to that putting a list of 15 things 

on the refrigerator for a family to do to reduce their usage is going 

to get the job done. Yes, there will be 10 percent of the people or 

15 percent of the people that would do that, but the ability to deploy technology, where you are writing software for the home, software for business, so you are using technology to match up to the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

comfort and convenience of the customer, and that automatically 

happens, so it is back of mind in the same way when somebody 

walks into a room and throws a switch, the lights come on. Nobody 

asks is that nuclear? Is that coal? Is that wind? 

We hope that the technology will evolve and the software will be 

written that it automatically occurs, and those energy efficiency 

gains occur in the home by the way is been programmed. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK, my time is up. I just wanted Mr. Chairman 

to note, for the record, this morning, I was at the U.S. Coast Guard 

yard in Baltimore, which, today, became the only U.S. Coast Guard 

facility in the world that is now going to be powered 100-percent 

by renewable energy. It is a landfill. They are capturing methane, 

piping it under the highway and bringing it into the Coast Guard 

Yard, and it is a real model for the federal government in partnership with private enterprise to take the lead. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much, and we now 

turn and recognize the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Waxman. 

I thank the panel members for your leadership on this. 

As we have been having discussions and getting questions from 

both sides of the aisle, a major concern is the economy and what 

the impact is of taking action. And I would say there is two schools 

of though here. One is that if we take action, it actually will threaten jobs, and I think many of people who take that position, it is 

not just political. It is a legitimate concern. And the other, and I 

think this is embodied by the bill that Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey have presented to us for discussion, embraces the confidence 

that we can actually create jobs, and it is the better way for our 

economy. 

I want to get your comments on that and how we address these 

concerns that some people are making about jobs, because we can 

either get stalled or answer the legitimate concerns that are raised. 

And I will start, Mr. Holliday, with you. I mean you have heard 

all of the concerns, and probably, you have had those discussions 

within your own company. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Exactly, and that is why we think in our Blueprint, the way we have talked about phasing things in, taking into 

account how the allowances are allocated so we don’t have a sudden shock to the system is very important. 

What I see from our company is in solar systems, biofuels, energy efficient systems for home, there are so many opportunities, 

if we had the market here, we would develop the manufacturing 

and new jobs here. It is a very complex situation. I don’t want to 

say it is simple, but I think it is very possible. 

Mr. WELCH. But your company is affected. I mean if we get it 

wrong, then employment could be adversely affected in your company, and obviously, you have got a responsibility to maintain your 

bottom line for your shareholders, so you have come to this conclusion that it is better to act. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Absolutely, without question. 

Mr. WELCH. And Mr. Rogers, how about you? Same thing, I mean 

you are in an industry where the more you produce and sell, the 

better your bottom line, and you are talking about a new way of 

doing business. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 

Mr. ROGERS. We believe now is the time to act. First, we are 

going to get more bang out of the buck that is spent in that part 

of the stimulus, the Green Stimulus, if we have a price of carbon 

and a roadmap going forward. So we think that gives us a chance 

to amplify on the dollars that have been spent. 

Secondly, I believe it is not shovel-ready jobs that we are going 

to produce. We are going to produce real 21st century jobs. As you 

start to look at deployment, in Indiana, we are building a coal gasification facility, and that will be the cleanest coal plant, but it also 

will become a site where we can do carbon capture and sequestration and start to scale it. So in my judgment, there will be lot of 

jobs developed and tied to having a price on carbon and having a 

clear vision with respect to the roadmap forward. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. Ms. McDonald, how about Alcoa? They 

have considered this, obviously. 

Ms. MCDONALD. Yes, we have, and we think that the long-term 

certainty that this legislation can provide is really important in 

providing that sort of confidence over the long term, because we believe that this is an issue that really requires action and requires 

U.S. leadership. And we believe the sort of technology that will be 

unleashed if we get the framework right will provide a basis for us 

to invest and for the lightweight technology has to be a marketfaring product. 

Mr. WELCH. I want to get your opinion on a thought that came 

to me as I was listening to the concerns raised by folks who were 

worried about us taking action. It is about jobs, and the people 

have their points that this will help or will hinder. And I share the 

view that you have expressed that it will help. 

But will there be any problem, as people on the panel see it, if 

we put into the bill some mechanism by which we could do an assessment every six months or so about what the impact was of renewable electricity standards or what the impact was of the cap 

and trade so we are answering the question specifically as we go 

along and building into the legislation some capacity to make adjustments that in the implementation of anything complicated will 

require adjustments? 

I will start, Mr. Crane, with you. 

Mr. CRANE. I don’t exactly about the six-month thing, but I think 

the U.S. CAP blueprint talks specifically about cost-control mechanisms to make sure that you are moderating the system as it goes 

along and looking at impact. 

Mr. WELCH. OK, Ms. Beinecke? 

Ms. BEINECKE. I think it is a good idea. I think that there has 

been a lot of studies done by different organizations, looking at 

what the job potential is. There certainly a lot of believe that the 

jobs are there, documenting it, and then calibrating areas that 

need incentives and those that don’t. It is a good thing to note. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. I think my time is up. I will yield back. 

Thank you all very much. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Welch. Mr. Blunt? 

Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to unnecessarily repeat anything that has already been done here, but I do 

have some questions. I know Mr. Rogers, in his submitted testimony, raised the issue about the renewable electricity standards 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
206 

that were included and had concerns about those. Does anybody 

else share the concerns about the renewable standards? 

Mr. Rogers, can you talk to me just a little bit more about that, 

how you think those standards could better serve the purpose of 

the bill here? 

Mr. ROGERS. My judgment is, as a cap and trade, once you let 

the market work, the market will select the right technologies, and 

the price on carbon will allow that to happen. We already have 30 

states with a renewable portfolio standard, so we are on the way 

to that happening. And what you will note is every one of them is 

different, because every state is different in terms of the availability of renewables. 

The other point I would make is, in a sense, a renewable portfolio standard, the way it is designed, it is picking technologies 

when those technologies have already got significant tax stimulus 

that are investment tax credits, bonuses. We are all aware of that 

as a wind producer, the availability of those incentives. So I think, 

in a sense, having a cap and trade system and a renewable portfolio standard, in a sense, is belt and suspenders, and a picking of 

technologies is not needed under a robust cap and trade system. 

Mr. BLUNT. Should nuclear be one of the available renewables? 

Mr. ROGERS. If the goal line is a low-carbon future, you would 

expand and transform the renewable portfolio standard into a lowcarbon standard. But now, we are on the road to command and 

control, and it raises a fundamental question about whether you 

really need a market approach cap and trade if all of a sudden you 

are moving to a 60-percent renewable low carbon portfolio because 

you are picking the technologies rather than letting the market 

pick it. 

Mr. BLUNT. Now, you think it would be practical at all for the 

states to determine in their state what their renewable standard 

should be for their states? I thought I heard you almost suggest 

that that was a workable alternative. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think it is a workable alternative, and that is why 

30 states have stepped up and done it, but you will notice in many 

of the states, what they have done is they have included energy efficiency as a component. The other thing they have done is they 

have a provision that provides an economic out because people on 

the state level are concerned because they are closer to the consumer. They are concerned about the price impact of a renewable 

portfolio standard, particularly if the prices are extremely high and 

will drive the price of electricity up in a sharp and unyielding way 

for consumers. 

Mr. BLUNT. Thank you. Mr. Holliday or anybody else can address 

this as well. Do you have any sense as where w move into where 

we are less competitive because of our utility rates that the two 

huge developing nations, India and China, would not try to move 

in and take advantage of that option, and is there any evidence 

that they have ever held back to not compete in a way that takes 

advantage of their new situation? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Well, I think we ought to see China and India as 

serious competitors to the country, and that is why I believe this 

action that we are talking about today is the right step if we can 

become leaders in more efficient energy. The overall equation is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
207 

how efficient is our energy? How about the cost of our energy 

versus the cost in China or the cost in India? So we have to make 

sure that that is the case. Very much, they are our competitors. 

Mr. BLUNT. And is the timeframe that we are getting there the 

right timeframe in your opinion? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think we need to lay out the game plan, and the 

industries will know what the opportunities are. My judgment is 

that science and the technology will come along faster than we currently think once we know exactly where the goal line is. 

Mr. BLUNT. So how long do you think it would take us to get to 

the point that we were a lower-cost energy producer? The transition here is actually what bother me the most. It is not the goal. 

It is getting there at a time that doesn’t create a competitive disadvantage for us. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. We are working on solar technology now. Solar is 

only 15 percent efficient. Fifty percent of the solar cells are made 

in China. They are my customers. I make the raw materials here 

for those solar cells. So if we could put in the right systems, I don’t 

see why we couldn’t move that solar cell manufacture here very 

fast and start making a difference with only a 15 to 30 percent efficiency. I can’t give you an exact timeline how long that will take, 

but it will be over a decade. 

Mr. BLUNT. Well, how does cap and trade make this more utility 

efficient? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. If cap and trade does, as Jim Rogers described, 

lets the resources move to the most efficient system, which is what 

is critical about it. That is what we have done inside our company, 

but it will take time. This is not a one- or two-year fix. 

Mr. BLUNT. But aren’t you adding cost to the system? I guess 

that is the timeline that I am most concerned about. And Mr. Rogers, I am going to let you answer this, too, because you obviously 

have an answer here, but go ahead, Mr. Holliday. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes, I think there will be some increase in the 

costs in the system, just as Jim described. I think it is critical that 

as you enact this legislation that it have the right safeguards that 

if China and India don’t ultimately follow, we have got some ways 

to make adjustment. 

Mr. BLUNT. And is it your opinion are any of those safeguards 

in the legislation now as you have looked at it? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. What we have proposed in our Blueprint from 

U.S. CAP, there is. I haven’t studied the detailed legislation to be 

100-percent sure. 

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Congressman, I think that you have really focused 

on one of the key issues, and that is this: we have go to get the 

transition right, and that is to smooth out the cost impact on consumers on a long enough period, and we have got to map up the 

transition period to our technology roadmap and the availability of 

technologies at prices that make sense. And I think we can do that. 

And I would say one other thing, and this really goes to the earlier question. I believe now is the time to address carbon legislation, when the economy is in a recessionary period, because we will 

be more focused on the economics of this than the theology of it. 

And what I mean by that is this: we can address climate. We can 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
208 

put a price on carbon. We can put a cap on emissions and let it 

decline over time. The key is to get the transition right, and that 

is a longer discussion about allocation of allowances. 

Mr. BLUNT. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Blunt. We have several members 

who should be recognized next, because they didn’t get a chance to 

ask questions of the last panel, but I would ask their permission, 

since I have leave for another appointment to be able to say some 

points and ask some question first. 

Without objection, I am grateful to my colleagues for this opportunity. 

Let me just say I have been involved in environmental battles for 

all of the time I have been in Congress, and I have never seen anything like U.S. CAP and this panel that is making this presentation today. So often what we have seen is one side environmentalist and the other side is industry, and then they fight it out. 

What you have done is come together over a two-and-a-half year 

period and discussed these issues and tried to figure out some way 

to accomplish the economic goals and the low-carbon future that we 

are going to need, so I want to thank you very much for the work 

you have done. 

Mr. Rogers, just to follow up on some of the points that came out 

in your answers to Mr. Blunt’s questions, when Secretary Chu was 

asked why do we need a renewable portfolio, and why don’t we just 

have the cap and trade get us to where we want to do, his response 

was that it would take awhile for cap and trade to get us to some 

of these points. It would be quite a while down the road, and he 

though a renewable portfolio, which doesn’t specific whether it is 

solar or wind but specifies among different renewables, that would 

get us some reductions right away. Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. ROGERS. I listened carefully to Secretary Chu’s answer this 

morning that you suggested, and my point of view kind of rolls out 

like this: one is, if you look at the study by EPA, you see a significant increase in wind already. And that is driven, and I say that 

as someone who is in the wind business, by the tax incentives that 

exist today, and with the new incentives, we are driven even more 

to invest. 

I think the key point from my standpoint, you have got 30 states 

with renewable portfolio standards. An approach would be to say 

every state should have a renewable portfolio, but leave it up to the 

states to determine what makes the most sense for them. And a 

way forward to that would be have a date certain for the states to 

design one, because quite frankly, not one size fits all, and the fact 

that you have 30 very different renewable portfolio standards today 

reflects the differences that exist in the different geographies and 

the different sensitivities around the country. 

So we can achieve what Secretary Chu is talking about by having 

every state have a renewable portfolio standard, but let each of 

them design their own. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, that is an interesting concept. Would you 

also allocate some help to the ratepayers in all of those states 

where there is a renewable portfolio standard driving up the cost. 

Mr. ROGERS. What do you mean by help? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
209 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, under the U.S. CAP proposal, the utility 

would be able to lower the rate for the ratepayer as a result of the 

increase of cost from the cap and trade. Here we would be talking 

about an increase in costs as a result of the renewable portfolio. Do 

you think that the ratepayers ought to get some assistance from 

the money generated from the cap and trade system? 

Mr. ROGERS. It would be my judgment, and maybe I am just a 

purist, but to the extent you have a cap and trade system, and you 

did the allocation of allowances, I would tie it to the cap and trade 

system, and I wouldn’t try to add or subtract from it, because it 

puts us on a slippery slope that if you are going to do it for that, 

why not for this, or why not for the next thing. Or as we have seen, 

some people have suggested using these revenues for purposes far 

beyond solving our climate challenge. I am a purist when it comes 

to—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I would object to that, but this is related to 

our climate problems. 

Dr. Beinecke, what are your thoughts on both of the issues? 

Ms. BEINECKE. I think that one of the things that we have seen, 

particular in the renewable area is that the uncertainty with sort 

of stop-and-start annual tax credits, and one of the things that Secretary Chu said and I think is really important is long-term consistent signals to allow investors to really make a commitment in 

the sector of renewal. And I think a renewable electricity standard 

actually does that because it provides a long-term, consistent signal 

to the investor to allow major investment in that are and increase 

the percentage that renewables provide. 

We have seen, just over the last year, sort of stops and starts and 

uncertainty in investments, and if we are really thinking about 

unleashing clean energy over the long term, a signal for that longterm consistency is important, and I think a renewable electricity 

standard does that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I see my time is about to expire, but we have 

heard repeatedly today concerns that passing legislation like the 

discussion draft would cripple the economy, yet you represent the 

core of our economy, manufacturing, utilities, and energy, so you 

are giving us the exact opposite message. You are saying that our 

economy and your company’s success depends on the passage of our 

legislation. Is that the conclusion I am to draw? And I guess that 

could be a yes-or-no answer. 

Mr. ROGERS. If you get the transition right, I think the answer 

is yes. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes. 

Mr. CAVANEY. Transition, yes. 

Ms. MCDONALD. Transition is the key. That is why we are here, 

but certainly, as well, it is critical that we have legislation which 

provides long-term certainty. 

Mr. CRANE. I agree with my colleagues, yes, on the transition. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sullivan, you didn’t get a chance to ask questions, so I am 

going to recognize you next. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Mr. 

Cavaney. How are you doing? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
210 

The Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft would include petroleum 

refiner within the definition of covered entities in the cap and trade 

provision of this bill. Recognizing that the legislation is currently 

silent on the choice between allocation and auction, can you please 

provide your thoughts on this issue? 

Mr. CAVANEY. We are covered, and we are also unique in our 

classification. We are covered for both our own greenhouse gas 

emissions that our refineries and other facilities make, but we are 

also, if you will, the point of regulation for the end users of our 

products that we manufacture for all of their greenhouse gas emissions, so we really dip in two buckets like no one else does. 

One of the challenges that we have is that unlike LDCs and others, we don’t have any legal mechanism where we can pass along 

costs or talk among colleagues. That’s basically prohibited by law. 

There are a number of studies that have been out in the public 

that would indicate that if we got zero allocation, that would assume we are able to pass along 100 percent of our costs, and that 

is just not the case. 

There are only two conditions where you can assume you might 

be able to pass along all of your costs. One is that you have perfectly inelastic demand, and the other is if you have totally elastic 

supply, and the U.S. refining industry has neither of those, so what 

we are trying to do is working with the staff and trying to update 

some studies, because any former studies really don’t reflect the 

world that we are going to be in. And we believe that we will come 

up with some situation that we would like to present that will 

show there is some merit to considering us in an allowance allocation system as a result of our uniqueness. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And one other question, Mr. Cavaney, retention of 

good-paying American jobs is at the forefront of policymakers 

minds as we debate this bill. The Waxman-Markey discussion draft 

contains a provision that would supply additional credit, known as 

rebates, to energy-intensive industries that produce products that 

are heavily traded in the international commerce. However, it is 

unclear whether petroleum refining would qualify for these rebates 

in the discussion draft. Your thoughts on this? 

Mr. CAVANEY. We are the second most energy intensive industry 

in America. We employ really good-paying jobs, and it is not quite 

clear to us whether we are qualified under that, but certainly, we 

would think we should be, because as a result, right now, there is 

about 6,500,000 barrels of oil of refining capacity that is being built 

outside of our borders, much of which is being targeted to come 

into this country, so if we don’t have some similar protections and 

some guidelines, we are concerned about leakage and ultimately increasing imports at the expense of our domestic production. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Cavaney. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize for 

my voice. But I want to share the chairman’s enthusiasm for seeing 

such a diverse group of people here today, talking about such an 

important issue to the future of our economy, our national security, 

and our country. 

I was very pleased, Ms. McDonald, to see Alcoa’s presence with 

the U.S. CAP. They have a huge production facility in Bettendorf, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
211 

Iowa, which I am very proud of, and I am proud of the jobs they 

create, and the incredible contribution they make to our national 

defense. But I am also very proud of companies like John Deere, 

who also has a presence in my district, and saw fit to exercise a 

leadership role in this important topic. And I think nothing brings 

that home more than the reason I was late getting here is because 

I was meeting with representatives IBM in the city of DeButte, 

which is the oldest city in Iowa and is my district, and IBM and 

DeButte are embarking on an important new partnership that 

grew out of IBM’s decision to locate a global delivery facility in 

DeButte, creating 1,300 jobs. And because DeButte has been at the 

forefront of some innovative leadership in a small- to medium-sized 

city in sustainability, there is a perfect combination of forward 

thinking by corporate America and a progressive community that 

want to completely change the way they look at their energy footprint. 

What I would like the panel to do is start by sharing some of the 

vision that each of your companies embarked upon to lead you to 

this table today and why this bill is so important to the future of 

corporate America. Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. I thought with such a far-reaching question I would 

maybe get to go at the end. But our vision starts from the fact that 

we recognize that we are a major emitter of carbon, and that was 

not sustainable in the future, and we expect to be around for a long 

time, and we needed to get there. 

But to us, again being the capitalist and believe in free market 

solutions, the opportunity here to sort of change the society we live 

in and to create, for us, what is essentially a low-growth industry, 

the electric industry as it is now, this is a high-growth opportunity 

for us, and particular when you look at the electric car, which for 

our industry is really the air conditioner of the 21st century in 

terms of electricity demand, we could be the solution, not only for 

our sector, but for the transportation sector, so that is what 

brought us to this place in time. 

Mr. BRALEY. Ms. McDonald? 

Ms. MCDONALD. We have had a similar journey, because we recognize that by its primary production, it is a very energy-intensive 

process, and we have found that we could successfully reduce our 

own process emissions, particularly in our smelting business, and 

engage in a lot of energy-efficiency projects. And we saw that this 

is something on which we must act, and there were ways of doing 

so which would be beneficial. And like Mr. Crane, we can see that 

moving to a world where there is increased emphasis on recycling, 

saving energy, using more recycled aluminum, and it is an opportunity for us to reduce our energy demand, but also to lower the 

resource overall. And so we can see growth in using recyclable aluminum, using more aluminum in transport for lightweight vehicles 

to save energy, to use aluminum in buildings, not only because it 

is recyclable, but also because it can create some more highly energy efficient buildings, and so we see the opportunity for setting 

up a long-term framework that will actually award those sorts of 

energy efficiency and lower resource use, and so we can see that 

that is going to be good for our company long-term and help us reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
212 

structure into that world and keep locations like Bettendorf 

healthy and growing. 

Ms. BEINECKE. There are so many clean tech companies around 

the country who come into our company every day with new ideas, 

new inventions, new technology. You see a huge opportunity to unleash. And what they want to know are what are the rules? What 

is the system that we can do this under. There is just a clamor out 

there right now. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. In the 20th century, it was our company and our 

industry’s mission to provide universal access to electricity. The 

reason we joined U.S. CAP is because we believe in the 21st century, our mission will be fundamentally different. One will be to 

decarbonizes our supply. Two will be to help our communities be 

more energy efficiency. And thirdly, we believe that this translates 

into energy security. Two statistics: 40 percent of the emissions 

today comes from the power sector; 30 percent comes from the 

transport sector. I can envision a world where you decarbonizes the 

generation fleets in this country. With plug-in hybrids and electric 

vehicles, we will have weaned ourselves from foreign oil, and we 

will have the energy security and independence that we all have 

dreamed about, and I believe our industry can play a role in making that happen. This is a first step on that journey. 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Crane and Mr. Rogers, the current draft has a renewable portfolio standard for electricity generation that does not include nuclear power. It doesn’t include new hydro, I believe, or old hydro, and it doesn’t include 

clean coal. Would you gentleman support a clean energy standard 

that included those energy sources? 

Mr. CRANE. I would, yes. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. It would be my judgment with a cap and trade system you don’t need a renewable portfolio standard or a clean technology standard, but if you are going to embrace and pick wind, 

and solar is a winner because of their low carbon, you should include nuclear as part of the low-carbon standard. 

Mr. BARTON. So your preference, Mr. Rogers, is to have no renewable standard at all. 

Mr. ROGERS. My preference is to leave it to the states to make 

judgments about whether they need a renewable portfolio standard 

in their state. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, Dr. Beinecke, do you have a position on that? 

Ms. BEINECKE. Yes, I should just say that U.S. CAP doesn’t have 

a position on the renewable electricity standard, so we are all 

speaking individually on this point. We actually support the renewable electricity standard for the reason that I said earlier, which 

is predictability of investment, long term. 

Mr. BARTON. Would you expand the definition to include some 

other things? 

Ms. BEINECKE. I like the definition that is in the bill now. 

Mr. BARTON. So you don’t want to include nuclear and you 

wouldn’t include clean coal? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
213 

Ms. BEINECKE. I wouldn’t, no. I wouldn’t. 

Mr. BARTON. That is fair. Now, here is the $64 question. All of 

you gentlemen and ladies that support this cap and trade system, 

do you support it if they keep the current draft and there are no 

free allowances? It is a pure auction system. Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. If it was 100-percent auction from the first year, no, 

we would not. 

Mr. BARTON. All right, Ms. McDonald. 

Ms. MCDONALD. Likewise, no, we would not support. 

Mr. BARTON. Dr. Beinecke? 

Ms. BEINECKE. We support what I talked about earlier which is 

in U.S. CAP, we designed an allocation system which the free allowance is going to—— 

Mr. BARTON. I just need to know whether you want a total auction like they current have or you think there should be allowances. I don’t need a lecture on—— 

Ms. BEINECKE. No, I am just saying that we designed a model, 

and that is what we support, the model in U.S. CAP. 

Mr. BARTON. So you do not support the current draft because it 

doesn’t have any free allowanced. 

Ms. BEINECKE. My understanding was that current draft hadn’t 

really defined how the allowances would get allocated, and that 

was on of the discussions which is why were proposing U.S. 

CAP’s—— 

Mr. BARTON. I guess that is fair. Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. I would oppose any legislation that had 100-percent 

auction. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, Mr. Cavaney? 

Mr. CAVANEY. Oppose 100-percent auction. 

Mr. BARTON. And Mr. Holliday? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Oppose 100-percent auction. 

Mr. BARTON. All right, how many of you are CEOs or at least decision makers in your company? I know Mr. Crane is and Mr. 

Holliday is. I think Mr. Rogers is. How many allowances does DuPont need, Mr. Holliday, either in tons or in millions or billions of 

dollars? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I don’t have a specific number, but they are not 

nearly as critical to us as they would be to some other companies 

in the equation. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. As I started the testimony, because of the fact that 

we are regulated in the five states we operate in, I am really 

speaking on behalf of my customers, and I would say that any cap 

and trade system that allocates allowances would start with a base 

period, and I would be looking at 100-percent allowance allocation, 

year one. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, that’s fair. Total free allowance, year one. Mr. 

Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. You know, we operate in competitive power-generation markets like Texas. 

Mr. BARTON. We love that you are in Texas and that Mr. Rogers’ 

company. I am all for you guys being in Texas. 

Mr. CRANE. The U.S. CAP approach is based on net compliance 

costs, so we produce, as an overall company in the U.S., 64 million 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
214 

tons of carbon a year. We don’t need carbon allowances to cover all 

that because the cost of electricity will rise to cover part of that. 

But the European system, which as you know—— 

Mr. BARTON. Doesn’t work. 

Mr. CRANE [continuing]. Lead to some windfalls, we can learn 

from that and do it in such a way so there are no windfalls, and 

all we are seeking in the early years is to cover our net compliance 

costs and then to ratchet down on a transitional basis. 

Mr. BARTON. My time is about to expire, Mr. Chairman. But 

there is a dichotomy. To go back to what Mr. Holliday said, you 

cannot have a system that puts a price on carbon and doesn’t raise 

costs. If you have these free allowances, whether it is for a little 

bit of time or all of the time, then you don’t get any benefit because 

you don’t price it, and you don’t bring the usage down. 

Now, there is another way to do it, and that is to use the Clean 

Air Act model where you set a regulatory compliance. You actually 

set a performance-based standard, do away with cap and trade, 

and there will be a Republican alternative that puts that on the 

table here in the very near future, Mr. Chairman. With that, I 

yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for 

coming today. While I believe there are some good things in this 

bill, there are others that cause me to pause and give me concern, 

and hopefully, some of you in these panels can help me with some 

of that. 

I am going to speak first about the shorter the answers, the more 

questions I can ask, but I value your opinion, and I want to hear 

it. 

Renewable electricity standard, if the whole point to this bill is 

to get carbon neutral, then, should it really matter where the energy comes from; and therefore do we need a renewable electricity 

standard? To any of you. Don’t be shy. 

Ms. BEINECKE. I think there is a real opportunity to unleash new 

technologies. As Secretary Chu mentioned earlier, even with the 

cap, the cap is not going to get going until after 2012, and we need 

to unleash technologies now. We need to figure out how to 

incentivize them. That is one way to do it. And certainly, we need 

more renewables to get to a clean-energy economy, so that is a design to do it. There may be other mechanisms, too, but unleashing 

that renewable opportunity, I think, is key. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would suggest, Congressman, that with the tax incentives we have, that is going to stimulate investment in renewables. The fact that 30 states have renewable portfolio standards 

and other states are looking at it, that is going to unleash investment in these technologies, and in a sense, we don’t need a national standard for a variety of reasons that I have discussed that 

is included in my testimony. 

Mr. ROSS. Let me ask you this. You know, I believe that in states 

where renewable works, we should be doing it. Unfortunately, I 

come from a state that is not a wind state. Our options for renewable electricity are limited, which means they would largely have 

to be imported at a higher cost to our consumers. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
215 

Let me ask you as it relates to the renewable electricity standard, what you do think that means for those of us in the Southeast, 

those of use in States like Arkansas, where we are not wind states? 

Would it mean higher electric bills for our working families and 

seniors, or how would we go about trying to meet such a standard. 

I mean there is a reason why the states that do not have one don’t 

have one, as it relates to a renewable electricity standard. You 

know, if you were a working family, a senior in Arkansas, what 

would this mean if the standard is passed? What would it mean, 

do you believe, for them? 

Mr. ROGERS. Congressman, I recently spoke at the Clinton 

school, and this issue came up there in the questions and gave me 

a chance to kind of think about it and respond to it. And my judgment is if you look at the 30 renewable portfolio standards we have 

today, they are all different because every state has different resources. And clearly, our company does business in the Carolinas, 

in Kentucky, in Ohio, and in Indiana, and every state is different 

in terms of the ability to produce wind or the availability of solar. 

All you have to look at is a wind map of the United States or a 

solar map to see the uneven distribution of those resources. 

The short answer to your question is for us that are not blessed 

with wind or the right solar concentration, it is going to mean higher prices without the ability to invest in the technology within the 

state. 

Mr. ROSS. I guess my concern is we are not a wind state. And 

I think, you know, where we have wind, we should use it. Where 

we have solar, we should use it. I think we need to use more coal, 

but we need to clean it up and hold the company’s feet to the fire 

to invest in the new technologies as they become available. We 

need to do more nuclear if we are serious about global warming. 

There are very few cleaner options. Natural gas, we need to do it 

all, and everything we can move from the science lab to the marketplace, I think we should. 

Anyone on this panel want to speak to how biomass is defined 

in this, and a lot of us believe if the definition was expanded that 

would help us some, but we still think we would have a difficult 

time getting to the required percent in the time allowed. Does anyone know anything about biomass and how we might be able to expand the definition of that to help states like Arkansas that simply 

don’t have enough wind? No? Wrong panel. 

Finally, let me just ask this: I know there is going to be some 

exemptions early on for steel, but I notice they are not for refineries, and yet we are too dependent on other countries for our energy. Should there be some type of exemption on the front end for 

refiners, just as we have for steel today? 

Mr. CAVANEY. Yes, sir, the refineries are the second most energyintensive industry within the country. We now currently import 10 

percent of our crude oil to use in our refineries. There is about 61⁄2

million barrels of world-class refinery construction underway, a 

good measure of it targeted for the United States, and if we don’t 

protect those 150-odd refineries we have here and the good jobs 

that they have, we are going to experience both loss of our own production capability here, we are going to significantly increase our 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
216 

imports, and we will have some leakage of jobs elsewhere as people 

try to figure out how to compete. 

So we would like to work with the committee to take a look at 

how we might be treated. We are unique. We are the only covered 

entity who is both on their own emissions as well as consumer 

emissions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cavaney, and we want to work 

with you and with the gentleman from Arkansas. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I would ask all of the witnesses this. You know, most of 

us on this side, and most of the people I deal with and hear from 

are convinced that we are going to have a very weakened competitive position in the United States under cap and trade, and I think 

you all recognize that and you probably observed it from the questions from this side, and maybe from folks that you have talked to 

on the streets that think we are really going to be affected by it. 

I would like to ask each one of you, what evidence does U.S. CAP 

have that China and other developing nations would not take strategic advantage of what is going to be a weakened competitive position in the United States under cap and trade. You may not agree 

with this. Do you all disagree when I say I think we are going to 

have a weakened competitive position in the Unites States under 

cap and trade? Is there anybody that disagrees with that? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. We must have provisions in the bill you are preparing to take into account if China and India and other key countries don’t follow in a significant way that keeps us competitive to 

make adjustments. But I think just the opposite is true. If we start 

first, we have a much better lead than letting them start first, and 

I think in the long run it will help us to be more competitive. 

Mr. HALL. But however we start, if it goes in the direction it is 

going now, do you see any way in the world that it can’t present 

us with a very weakened competitive position under cap and trade? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Absolutely, I think it will mean that we will be 

the leaders in developing the new technologies. 

Mr. HALL. We will be paying, too. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Absolutely, and that is what creates the incentives to create the new technologies, but I think there is a real opportunity for us, but there will be dislocations in doing that, and 

we must take that into account for the retraining of people for the 

new jobs. 

Mr. HALL. For any of you that have ever been in Sears or WalMart or anywhere, when you bought something, you noticed a piece 

of equipment there between you and the door that you had to go 

by, and it is called a cash register, and you have to pay for what 

you get. And the United States is going to have to do that, and 

there is just one way to do of that I know, and that is in continued 

and increased taxes on a generation not even born yet if we carry 

out the program that this bill sets in motion. 

So if you don’t agree that we are in a weakened competitive position, just assume that we are going to be in a weakened competitive position. Give me some evidence that you might have that U.S. 

CAP has that China and other developing nations wouldn’t take 

strategic advantage of it. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
217 

Mr. CRANE. Congressman, again, we think safeguards should put 

in against that. But I would also say there is an opportunity cost 

here and that is there is very strong evidence right now that 

China, as an industrial entity and as an exporter, is moving right 

now to take the lead in the electric car, to take the lead in gasification, to take the lead in nuclear power. These are all areas that 

are partially driven by concern about carbon, so in a sense by moving forward from where we sit, this give us, as a country, and opportunity to lead. 

Mr. HALL. You mean you think we have a good opportunity 

under cap and trade? You think the United States does as this proposes? 

Mr. CRANE. I absolutely think that a well-though-out cap and 

trade system will create incentives for innovation that this country 

is still the best at that can lead to development of great export opportunities. 

Mr. HALL. Do you think China is going by the cash register? 

Mr. ROGERS. Congressman, if I may, I would suggest to you that 

if we design this bill right, we get the transition right, it will not 

weaken our economy. It will put us in a position to be stronger over 

time. And I say that as someone who, about 50 percent of the customers that I serve make less than $40,000 a year, and they are 

in those Wal-Marts, and they are in Target, and they are looking 

for low prices, and they are concerned about increases, and their 

disposal income in the states that I serve are lower than the national average per capita. So I wouldn’t be sitting here today if I 

thought a cap and trade bill would hurt them. One that is poorly 

designed could hurt them. One that is poorly designed could hurt 

our country vis-a-vis China or other evolving countries, but the reality is, we need to get the design right. If we get it right, it will 

make us stronger. 

Mr. HALL. But haven’t you testified or someone testified that 

your customer’s rates would go up under the cap and trade as you 

see it in this bill. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is my judgment that our rates are going to go up 

anyway as a consequence of aging infrastructure and the need to 

reinvest in it. It is a consequence of certain other factors. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes—— 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask unanimous consent to 

include an article by the Washington Post on China Hopes Climate 

Deal Omits Exports. I ask unanimous consent to put this in the 

record. 

Mr. MARKEY. A unanimous consent request has been made by 

Mr. Hall in an unprecedented gesture by Mr. Hall to ask an article 

from the Washington Post be put into the record, and without objection, I want us all to be eyewitnesses to this historical moment. 

So without objection, so ordered. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. HALL. If you are going to accept it, I may just withdraw it. 

Mr. MARKEY. It will be included in the record. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Space, is recognized. 

Mr. SPACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank 

the panel members for being here today and your testimony today, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

but more so for your efforts with regards to U.S. CAP. I think it 

really represents a huge step forward in approaching these very 

challenging issues. I am convinced that there may be no more difficult issue for Congress to deal with this term, of all of those compelling issues out there, than climate change and would agree that 

something must be done. 

A lot of us are concerned about the effects it is going to have, 

clearly and I just heard some testimony about the international 

marketplace and how this may affect our ability to compete internationally. I agree with Mr. Rogers when he says if it is done right, 

it may enhance our ability to compete internationally. My question, 

however, relates to domestic marketplaces issues, and specifically, 

I think most of us who come from Middle America, from coal-producing states, from heavy manufacturing states, have some concerns about the regional discrepancies and inequities that this may 

incur. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, one of the things that U.S. CAP Blueprint embodies is a focus on making the transition and the allocation of allowances to help make the transition. We spent a lot of time talking about that and recognized the linkage between cost containment, and the transition so that it doesn’t hurt our economy during 

the transition, and we each can speak to that. 

But I think what is missing in the bill today is really is not addressed is the whole transition issue. How is that done? I mean 

President Obama talks about 100-percent appears to have pivoted 

off that a little. There is allocation of allowance approach, and 

there are many approaches. So I think the important thing that 

needs to get done is have a robust conversation about the impact. 

In your state, 86 percent of the electricity in Ohio comes from coal. 

It would be one of the most directly impacted of all of the states 

of the country with respect to an auction system, for instance. 

Mr. SPACE. Let me stop you, Jim, because I have a limited 

amount of time. I have only one more minute, and there was one 

more issue I wanted to talk about, and that is carbon capture and 

sequestration. The money that is devoted to CCS in the bill, it is 

my hope, will help offset some of those regional discrepancies that 

occur. Is that sufficient in your mind to help take care of some of 

those regional discrepancies? 

Mr. ROGERS. I think it is great to have money invested in carbon 

capture and sequestration, and over time, it will make a difference 

in terms of developing the technology, but the short answer is, 

what is going to solve the impact on different regions is how you 

allocate the allowances, and that needs to be addressed. That is the 

key to getting it right. 

Mr. SPACE. I have got 30 seconds. Does anyone want to weigh in? 

All right, thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Holliday, you said there could be dislocations or there would 

be dislocations as a result of cap and trade. What industry groups 

might suffer dislocations? I assume you mean job losses. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think the opportunities is what I was focusing 

on, and I believe that is for solar. I believe that is for bio-produced 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
219 

fuels that can come from switch grass and corn or products from 

this country that we are not using productively today. And what 

we will need to do is take people that are not employed or need 

retraining and be trained for these industries. So I think a companion piece of this legislation should be the training to help people move into the new industries that will be growing. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, how climate legislation treats the manufacturing 

sector is a critical issue that is sometimes overlooked. One specific 

concern of mine is how legislation avoids unintended consequences 

in the manufacturing sector. We can’t pass a bill that creates huge 

disincentives against future growth and manufacturing. How would 

you propose to guard against a raid rise in energy costs for the 

manufacturing sectors? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. First, I agree with you completely that is very 

critical, and one thing we must watch very closely is natural gas, 

because it is a key feedstock to so many manufacturing plants in 

your state and across the country, and we have got find a way that 

the exiting U.S. industry is not totally disadvantaged, versus some 

places in the Middle East. We need to take that into account in the 

bill. 

Mr. PITTS. I think it is well accepted that a cap and trade program would make our energy costs and production costs rise relative to countries without similarly stringent emissions controls 

systems, namely China and India. 

There would be leakage. We had testimony in the hearing earlier. There would be leakage of emissions in jobs to less rigorous 

regimes. What would your recommendations be for reducing this 

leakage, anybody? 

Mr. CRANE. I think we sound a bit like a broken record, but I 

think getting the transition right, we have a very adaptable economy with very adaptable companies in it, and avoiding a shock to 

the system. And that is why we think the committee should be very 

much focused on the transition period, and then, we think the consequences that you are referring to would not happen to significant 

extent. 

Mr. ROGERS. One of our companies is in Indiana, and we the 

largest utility in Indiana, and Indiana is one of the largest steel 

producing industries, and NewCorp is one of our largest customers. 

And if prices went up there dramatically, and they could if the 

transition isn’t done right, that could lead to a shutting down of 

plants and a loss of jobs, so I come back and say we have go to 

get the transition right, or it could have a devastating impact on 

our economy. The whole sport is around the transition and protecting our economy. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, if we pass the bill, as drafted, do you foresee an 

increase in gasoline and electricity process, Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. I think without seeing what I described in my testimony as the elephant in the room, no conversation around how the 

transition is going to work, I can’t answer that without seeing what 

that transition looks like. But I do believe, over time, electric prices 

are going to rise in every event, whether there is carbon legislation 

or not, and I believe a renewable portfolio standard will add to 

pricing. I think going to a smart grid will add to prices of electricity. And I think, over time, carbon legislation will lead to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
220 

crease in prices. I think that is inevitable, and as I said a few moments ago, it is not going to be cheap, and we just need to face up 

to that and find a way to mitigate the impact during the transition 

and find a way to create new technologies and new jobs along the 

way. 

Mr. PITTS. Dr. Beinecke, you wanted to say something? 

Ms. BEINECKE. Just to follow up to what Jim said, in U.S. CAP, 

we actually dealt with the issue of the transition, and that is why 

we made the proposal that we did for how the allocation of the allowances could take place. I mean the issue of going to gas or disruption, regionally, additional increased energy costs, we addressed 

those directly, and the Blueprint, actually, is designed to provide 

a blueprint, in fact, to address how that transition could take place. 

I think that, in many respects, looking back at the document gives 

our best thinking on how to have that transition occur most 

smoothly. 

Mr. PITTS. And did you come up with a price cost to remove a 

ton of CO2 in the study? 

Ms. BEINECKE. We didn’t come up with a price, but we came up 

with both how the allowances could be allocated, and then what 

cost-containment mechanisms would be with offsets and other 

mechanisms that are designed to do that, and included a major investment in efficiency to lower the cost of the consumption, so all 

of these things are linked, and I guess that is another important 

aspect is the linkage. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Just for the 

record, it is Dr. Bernanke for the banking crisis, and it is Dr. 

Beinecke for the climate and energy crisis. They are two different 

doctors for two different problems. 

The chair will recognize himself. We are waiting, by the way, for 

two roll calls to be called imminently on the House floor, at which 

point we will end the questioning for this panel. We will then break 

for those roll calls, and then we will move onto the next panel. 

I am going ask each one of you, if you could, quite briefly, just 

give us a brief response to the foundation principle of U.S. CAP, 

which is that action is needed now. Could you give your brief individual perceptions of what the consequences are for failing to act 

now in your opinion over the next generation. 

Mr. CRANE. We are sitting on $1.5 billion that we want to invest 

in low- and no-carbon technology, and our assets tend to be 50- to 

60-year assets, so we need certainly, and so we can start on this 

problem right now, but we need what the guidelines are in the 

Waxman-Markey Bill. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. McDonald? 

Ms. MCDONALD. Like Mr. Crane, our business is a long-term 

business, and we certainly believe that this is an issue that is a 

global issue. We are experiencing a lot of regulatory movement in 

Europe and elsewhere around the world, and so we believe that it 

is important for the United States to act as well, and we are looking for the certainty that that would provide for our own long-term 

investments as well as the market stimulus that it would have for 

a lot of our products. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Dr. Beinecke? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
221 

Ms. BEINECKE. We are part of U.S. CAP because we think that 

the science on global warming is powerful and overwhelming and 

we need action soon. We recognize that a solution that works for 

the environment has to work for the economy, too, and that business has to be part of it, which is why were willing to sit at the 

table with these companies and many more to try to work out our 

differences and come up with a proposal that we think can move 

us aggressively to reduce carbon emissions and address the economic issues that have been raised today in this hearing. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I adopt all of the statements that 

have been made to date and would add to it by saying that by 

starting now, it will translate into a lower cost of compliance over 

time and a better ability to smooth out the cost impact on consumers. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Cavaney? 

Mr. CAVANEY. Mr. Chairman, we are energy providers to the consumer, and we need investment certainty because the energy business is very long lead times and long investment cycles. We think 

a national approach gives us an opportunity to provide products 

without the variability of many states. We think that is important, 

and we feel that at the end of the day, the competitiveness that we 

will have globally, having gone through this period and adopting a 

program like outlined in the Blueprint makes great sense. 

Mr. MARKEY. And Mr. Holliday? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Two points: if we don’t act, China will take the 

lead from us in the technology, and that is serious. Second, I lead, 

I lead a group of scientists, and they remind me every day, this 

science is real, and we need to act now. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. And Mr. Rogers and Mr. Crane, very 

briefly, what additional partnerships beyond U.S. CAP do you 

think your industries will have to reach with the automotive industry, with the building industry, with energy-efficiency industries, in 

order to put together partnerships to solve the problem. 

Mr. CRANE. Well, I think where the electric industry has come 

up a little short is working on the transportation sector, because 

again, we are focused on solving our own problem, which is important, but the fact that we can solve the transportation industry’s 

problem is a big opportunity for us, and I would like to see our industry do more in that area. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. I would say that in U.S. CAP, many of those industries are represented and have been part of this discussion, and I 

would say that we are investing with respect to the auto industry, 

and our own company has invested significantly so that our grid 

will be ready when the plug-in hybrid is available. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what does that future portend, Mr. Rogers, in 

terms of the viability of the plug-in hybrid future of our country? 

Mr. ROGERS. I believe, first, we need to transform our grid from 

an analog grid to a smart grid. We are on the way to dong that. 

And secondly, I believe that produces an opportunity with a plugin hybrid, and I think it is sooner rather than later because the 

amount of work that is going into this is remarkable across the 

country. And as I talk to many auto companies, they are at work 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
222 

with respect to this, and so I believe it is in the future, and it will 

give us a greater utilization of our fleet, and will lower cost over 

time on a per-unit basis. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great, thank you, Mr. Rogers. And Mr. Cavaney, 

we will give you the final word. 

Mr. CAVANEY. I think one of the key things is to establish a price 

of carbon that will work across industries that allows people to 

have metrics that are coming even though you have to cooperate 

rather than produce the same products, and I think that the efforts 

that are underway here now are the beginning to try to identify 

what that is, I commend you on it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cavaney, very much. The chair’s 

time is expired. I now turn and recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, the ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier 

today, I am mostly concerned about jobs and the job loss, particularly with a cap and trade bill. And Mr. Cavaney, you talked a little bit about the cost, multibillion compliance cost that you will all 

suffer under. And you know, that I think Aruba has got the largest 

refinery in the world, Venezuela. Something tells me that Aruba is 

never going to be underneath this legislation. We may try our best 

to get India and China, but something tells me that Aruba is not 

going to have the off ramp to proceed. 

What is going to happen? Can you give some type of commitment 

as you look to produce gasoline for American? If you have additional costs in the multibillions to comply with this, what is the 

rest of the industry going to do in terms of domestic refinery production here? 

Mr. CAVANEY. Well, that is one of the things that we worked on 

together with our colleagues in U.S. CAP was to create these complimentary measures that address situations like this. Again, ours 

is an energy-intensive industry. We are going to be susceptible to 

those threats of increased imports if we are too disadvantaged, but 

there are the allowance allocations. There are the opportunities 

of—— 

Mr. UPTON. But at some point, they come due. You might have 

a year or two off, but at some point, they are going to come back 

and hit you. 

Mr. CAVANEY. But our other point is that if we get the certainty 

for investment here, we produce world-class materials in our industries for creating new opportunities. And we are investing very 

heavily, not only just in oil and gas, so we think that given framework similar to this that come through the system and giving that 

powerful signal is going to be our best effort to compete against, 

as Mr. Holliday as said, foreign nations which are not standing 

still. 

Mr. UPTON. Ms. McDonald, same question for you. Alcoa produces primary new aluminum and recycled aluminum in a pretty 

good quantity, I think, in this country. Is that right? 

Ms. MCDONALD. Indeed. 

Mr. UPTON. What is going to happen to Alcoa as it relates to the 

percentages now, versus other countries where you might have sizable operations? Isn’t there going to be a magnet to take those jobs 

someplace else if we impose these new cost burdens on them? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
223 

Ms. MCDONALD. I think our experience is very similar to what 

has been described. The producers of aluminum in Russian and 

China, now, are large because they have their own markets. And 

there is going to be a global regime impacting greenhouse gas emissions. Each country is going to be regulating it differently, but we 

think that for the United States to start to move now to provide 

that sort of long-term certainty and to provide the sort of transition 

and cost containment that we proposed as part of the U.S. CAP 

Blueprint would be the required conditions for us to get ahead of 

that game and to reduce the costs over the long term. 

Mr. UPTON. OK, I am running out of time. Thank you. Mr. Rogers, you confessed that you are the third-largest emitter. What percentage of electricity, now, do you produce that would be considered 

under a sort of Upton-Rogers definition of renewable? 

Mr. ROGERS. We are producing about 500 megawatts of wind. 

Mr. UPTON. But as a percentage? 

Mr. ROGERS. It is a very small percentage. I think, nationally, 

wind represents about one percent of the total. 

Mr. UPTON. So are you below one-percent wind now? 

Mr. ROGERS. We are, but if you look at our nuclear, about 96 percent of our electricity comes from coal and nuclear, 70 percent from 

coal and the remainder from nuclear. 

Mr. UPTON. As you know, I am one that supports using nuclear, 

which is greenhouse-gas emission free, to be counted, let the market work to that end. But say we are not able to get that provision 

in. We are going to try, but let us say we are not able to get that 

in, and we have the definition that passed as the Udall-Platts 

Amendment in the last Congress. How much will it cost you, Duke 

Energy, to meet a 25-percent standard by 2025? 

Mr. ROGERS. I don’t have that number at my fingertips, but I will 

send it to you and submit it for the record. 

Mr. UPTON. Would it be sizable? 

Mr. ROGERS. It will. 

Mr. UPTON. And the last question that I have, I have four seconds left. I had breakfast this morning with the Chairman of DTE. 

One in three customers in that region of Michigan are in arrears 

on their bills. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be uncollected. 

It is the same with other utilities around the country, more than 

20 percent. What is the percentage today for Duke Energy that is 

uncollectable? 

Mr. ROGERS. It is much lower than that, but it varies from state 

to state, but I would be delighted to submit that number to you, 

also. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity for the hearing. Mr. Cavaney, I know a lot of these questions may have been asked by different members, and the whole 

panel, but it is kind of like Congress, we say it is not said unless 

all of us say it, so we may have some duplication. 

I know the U.S. CAP Blueprint for legislative action called for 

the fuel-related GHG performance standards. Does the low-carbon 

fuel standard as written into the draft align with the U.S. CAP 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
224 

Blueprint for legislative action that is called for, and if not, how is 

it different? 

Mr. CAVANEY. No, sir, the Blueprint suggest that we not have an 

overlay of a low-carbon fuel standard on top of renewable fuel 

standards, and there is very good reasons why. A discussion draft 

has what I would call a donut hole in there. There is a period of 

time where from 2014 to 2022, we are to produce a low-carbon fuel 

with decreasing amounts, but during that entire period, we are not 

permitted to include all of the renewable fuels that we have already incorporated and will be incorporating into our renewable 

fuel standard. Also, there is a reach back to 2005, which does not 

give us permission to have a baseline anymore forward. We in 

North America and parts of South America rely on heavier fuels, 

which makes it much, much harder without the use of renewable 

and other things to reduce our standards, so we are going to have 

a very real problem trying to satisfy the consumer during that period, so we would suggest a closer look at the Blueprint in trying 

to harmonize that so we end up with one fuel. 

Mr. GREEN. Having heard the question from my colleague from 

Michigan for Alcoa, I used to have an Alcoa plant in Houston, and 

it had a number of employees who were constituents. The Waxman-Markey discussion drafts contains the provision that would 

supply additional credits. What are you thoughts regarding whether refineries should be eligible for that, for those rebates? Do you 

think refineries ought to be included with chemicals and aluminum 

and other products? 

Mr. CRANE. My view is you should take a look at each of those 

and look at their exposure, and find out whether or not you think 

that they are going to be somebody who is going to have leakage 

during the process. We think, looking at our industry, that we 

would like to work with the committee and try to be able to gain 

that opportunity. 

I don’t recall specific conversation about cogen within U.S. CAP, 

but I mean cogen, obviously is an exceedingly efficient form of energy, so I think it’s something that should be supported as a matter 

of public policy. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the time 

and again the responses, because energy efficiency should include 

cogeneration in some of our plants if we can do it. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. And did you exclude the 

natural gas from the future base load for some reason, Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. I think natural gas plays a role in the future base 

load, but we saw what happened when the country depends exclusively on natural gas for base load. It leads to a price spike that 

is not good for the economy. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, thank you, Mr. Crane. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Mr. 

Rogers and Cavaney. It turned out in Europe, the granting of free 

of allowances led to this huge windfall of profits by the utilities. I 

guess the question is isn’t the U.S. CAP just sort of a grand bargain to get the business support in exactly the same way? I mean 

that is what it looks like to us on this side, anyway. You might 

comment on that, Mr. Rogers, and then, you, Mr. Cavaney. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
225 

Mr. ROGERS. There are two important points. First of all, what 

happened in Europe was a consequence of not following what we 

did with the cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide. One, they 

didn’t have Bashers, so they couldn’t allocate it on Basher’s, and 

secondly, they had a short-term experimental period that created 

some gaming in the process, and it had a fundamentally different 

regulatory regime for power companies. They had deregulated, entirely, the industry there. So you have a different fact circumstances here in the U.S. today. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK, I appreciate that. 

Mr. ROGERS. But here is the second important point, and that is 

this: under our proposal all of the allowances go directly to a local 

distribution company or a local utility, which are regulated by the 

state, and there are no windfalls to utilities or corporations with 

respect to the granting of allowances under our proposals. That is 

one of the great myths that have floated around, and it is just 

wrong. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK, and Mr. Cavaney? 

Mr. CAVANEY. Yes, it is called free allocation and there is a misnomer there. Really, the intent is that this allowance that is made 

is to cover the unrecoverable costs of implementation here so ultimately the beneficiary of this is a softening of the volatility and increased prices that the consumer may experience about that, and 

there is an opportunity to look at these things and we are not going 

to be repeating, as Mr. Rogers says, the kind of incidences that 

occur in Europe. 

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Beinecke, we went on your Web site, and your 

Web site states, ‘‘New nuclear power plants are unlikely to provide 

a significant fraction of future U.S. needs for low carbon energy. 

NRDC favors more practical, economical, environmentally sustainable approaches to reducing the United States and global carbon 

emissions.’’ Now, here is a power source that emits zero carbon dioxide. Why is this not a solution to reduce carbon emissions based 

on what your Web site says? I mean, it seems to me that you 

should be at least neutral on this. 

Ms. BEINECKE. I would say we are generally neutral because we 

don’t oppose the existing 20 percent that is already provided by nuclear power. What we are really saying there is that we think there 

is tremendous opportunity in efficiency first and foremost, in renewables, in new technologies that need to be unleashed, that nuclear power is a mature power source in this country that has, you 

know, been with us for decades and it will continue to be, but what 

we are looking at is, what do we need to unleash in the future to 

really reduce carbon emissions, and those are new technologies 

that and new investments—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, nuclear—— 

Ms. BEINECKE [continuing]. That haven’t been experienced yet. 

Mr. STEARNS. But nuclear has zero carbon dioxide and no carbon 

emissions and you want to reduce carbon emissions. 

Ms. BEINECKE. Well, what I said is that I wouldn’t reduce the 20 

percent that is there but that what we are looking for, particularly 

from NRDC’s point of view, is, what are the new things that we 

have to bring online, and the bill is really designed to unleash the 

area of energy efficiency and appliances and homes and buildings 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
226 

which is both incredibly cost effective, actually earns money rather 

than costs money. So what we are focusing on is what we think the 

solutions are going forward that are not yet on the table, and we 

think, you know, nuclear is on the table and it will continue to be 

on the table and it will be a part of the solution—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you think—— 

Ms. BEINECKE [continuing]. But we don’t have to be the advocate 

for it. 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you think there should be a title in this bill for 

nuclear? Right now there—— 

Ms. BEINECKE. I don’t think it is necessary. I think there is a 

title in the 2005 energy bill, the 2007 energy bill. I don’t think that 

all of the subsidies and programs that were developed in those two 

bills have actually been fully implemented yet, so do we need another one right now? I would say no. 

Mr. STEARNS. This is in fact based upon we have already something that is practical, technologically efficient and you don’t think 

that we should have any encouragement for nuclear. I understand. 

Ms. BEINECKE. That isn’t what I said. I am sorry, sir. What I am 

suggesting is that there was a lot of encouragement in the last two 

energy bills and that I don’t think that it is necessary at this time 

in this bill. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been sitting here 

for a few hours. I know you have too and so have the witnesses but 

I want to say that the testimony of this panel as far as I am concerned is the central testimony that we need, and their ongoing advice is exactly for me the roadmap forward for this committee for 

a couple of reasons. Number one, most of you on the corporate side 

are in the business of producing materials and fuels that are going 

to be regulated under whatever we do. You know exactly precisely 

what the impact of this regulation will be on you, and I have listened carefully and all of you are saying that you want certainty 

so that you can plan forward, and I have also heard you say, or 

at least I heard Mr. Rogers say, and I applaud it, that at a time 

of economic downturn, which we are in, no one would quarrel with 

that, we can do this better because we are more focused on the economics than the theology. Does anyone want to quibble with anything I just said? No? Good. 

So my next idea, Mr. Chairman, is, instead of going to the vote, 

we ought to lock the doors and get our members here and sit down 

with these folks and with the kids in the green tee shirts for our 

inspiration and finish this. What do you think, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. MARKEY. We will be here late tonight so we might have to— 

I don’t think we are going to have a problem. We have every member’s attention for 5 hours. 

Ms. HARMAN. I have been, and I think none of you has missed 

it, carrying this prop around with me and holding it up at all occasions. It is at the top of my little folder of materials and I have had 

a chance today to read it more carefully than I had, and I would 

observe that it is a much more detailed blueprint than some who 

have been asking questions might know. It is not a bill but it sureVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
227 

ly has at least what I would use, if I were a thoughtful legislator, 

which I hope I am, to craft a bill, and guess what? The draft bill 

that we have has been based on these principles. Everybody agree 

with that? Good. 

Let me finally say, because maybe there are a few more members 

who want to ask questions before we have to go, that I have made 

another point which is that the composition of U.S. CAP is bipartisan. I don’t want to ask anyone your party affiliation but I do 

want to ask the group, is that statement of mine correct? Are some 

of the members of U.S. CAP, the leaders of these organizations, Republicans and some of them Democrats? Is that true? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, that is very true. 

Ms. HARMAN. That is very true? Well, good. So let me just finally 

say that, Mr. Chairman, I think we should regularly call on these 

people and the other 20 members of U.S. CAP who have participated in this work product and I really want to commend you again 

for using this consensus document as the basis for the legislation. 

I think we are going to end up somewhere right about here and we 

are going to do some very good work this year and provide the certainty that industry needs. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We are going to follow the gentlelady’s advice and 

the U.S. CAP as well. 

To the gentlemen from Illinois, Louisiana and Connecticut, here 

is where we are. The gentlemen from Louisiana and Connecticut 

have yet to ask questions. There is about 12 minutes left to go. If 

the gentleman from Illinois would agree to this, I would like to divide the time in 4-minute segments between the three of you, if 

that would be acceptable, and then we can adjourn with this panel 

being dismissed. Would you mind? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think I can do it that way, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Let me—the devil is in the details, and 

with respect to my colleague from California, who we all have great 

respect for, there is a gaping hole in this bill, which is the credits, 

which is the allocations, and what we fear is a stimulus-type proposal that gets dumped for markup at 11:00 the night before a 

10:00 markup in which you all don’t know whether you will be 

incentivized or harmed and it will get rammed through. Would you 

not agree that airing out the allocation issue in a transparent process in a hearing just like this would be helpful? Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, the allocation auction issue I think took up the 

most of the U.S. CAP’s time over the 21⁄2 years so I agree, we all 

agree, I think that is a very—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, let us ask everyone. Ms. McDonald? 

Ms. MCDONALD. We certainly support the whole approach that is 

contained in the blueprint, which is the allocation process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But I am talking about, don’t you think we as a 

Nation would be better if we had these credits here that we could 

have a hearing on over a period of days to discuss this allocation 

process? How long did it take you all to do it? 

Ms. MCDONALD. We certainly said that we want to work with the 

committee on that basis. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, the question is, would we not be better to 

have a hearing on the credits and the allocations so that you would 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
228 

know and the public would know what is in the details of this bill, 

yes or no? 

Ms. MCDONALD. It is not up to us I guess to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is up to you. You are testifying. My question is 

to you as an individual, would it not be beneficial to your company 

to know the details in a transparent process in a hearing on the 

bill, yes or no? You don’t know what to know? 

Ms. MCDONALD. We certainly want to know and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So would it be helpful to have a hearing on the 

credit allocations on a global climate change bill, yes or no? 

Ms. MCDONALD. We would certainly participate in the process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Why don’t you say yes or no, yes or no? 

Ms. MCDONALD. If we were invited to a hearing, we would certainly—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would it be helpful to your shareholders to know 

the cost of doing business prior to us voting on a bill? 

Ms. MCDONALD. Yes, we would certainly—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And could we not have that if we had the allocations published? 

Ms. MCDONALD. We would certainly want it published, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Doctor? 

Ms. BEINECKE. If there was a hearing, we would love to come 

and discuss it just as we have today with the allocations. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that would be helpful in us clearing up a lot 

of this issue since there is a gaping hole, a glaring hole in this bill 

about who is paying for what? 

Ms. BEINECKE. I think a transparent process would be helpful 

and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. On behalf of my customers, I would recommend a 

hearing on that specific issue. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Mr. Cavaney? 

Mr. CAVANEY. If transparent is possible, we will be there anytime, anyplace, and I think you should publish afterwards how the 

allocation was distributed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Holliday? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. It is critical you get this part right, whatever 

process works. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And obviously if we had a hearing and it was 

transparent, that would be helpful to you? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me just finish because I have limited time, Mr. 

Chairman. For ConocoPhillips, the section 526 of the 2007 energy 

bill provides a prohibition. Now, I have a great refinery collocated 

near my Congressional district that is really relying on the ability 

to use oil sand from Canada. Section 526 of the 2000 energy bill 

is a prohibition. Do you think that that should be addressed? 

Mr. MARKEY. I ask the gentleman to allow it to be submitted for 

the record so the other members can get their 4 minutes. Is that 

possible? I thank the gentleman. I appreciate it. 

The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
229 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions. 

Mr. Cavaney, if I could, one of the things that I am concerned 

about with the refining section of the bill has to deal with, Mr. 

LaHood insisted that the bill was not going to harm the refiners, 

but if we are going to try and hold refiners responsible for consumer emissions, then do I understand that you are going to be 

able to get 100 percent of your money back out of the—— 

Mr. CAVANEY. No, sir. Using EIA data for, I would say, 2012, and if you use a cost of $25 a ton for carbon, the allocation, our compliance obligation is going to be $68 billion. The only way we can pass 

all of that along, 100 percent along, is under two conditions: we either have inelastic demand or we have elastic supply. Neither one 

of those conditions exists in the United States refining business. So 

therefore zero is not the answer when you talk about an allowance 

allocation for the oil and gas industry. We also have to cover our 

own emissions so we are the only industry that is in both of those 

buckets, so we are in the process now. We have looked at all the 

studies. They don’t reflect the world going forward. We are doing 

some work with the committee and others but some adjustment 

needs to be made there and we also ought to address the area call 

for the energy-intensive and the trade exposed because we also 

have a lot of opportunities for incoming imports to displace good 

jobs here in United States. 

Mr. MELANCON. And that is one of my major concerns right 

there. So if I am producing oil and gas in south Louisiana, primarily oil, and I start shutting down refineries because you can’t 

stay in business, then what are we going to do, ship oil to foreign 

refineries and then ship gasoline back into the country? 

Mr. CAVANEY. Well, that depends on whether people want our 

oil. We may not be able to get our oil sold at a reliable price because other people may want to use different grades and so we will 

be just out in that big bucket of worldwide global supply. 

Mr. MELANCON. So instead of us just being dependent upon foreign countries for our energy needs in this country, we are going 

to be dependent upon their energy that they produced, their refiners and their ability to supply our country and keep our economy 

going? 

Mr. CAVANEY. It doesn’t have to be that way if we design this 

properly so that the protections are in place and we get to cover 

our uncoverable costs as we go through this implementation period. 

Mr. MELANCON. I would hope that the folks in your industry 

would work with us. I need to find a way to make sure that the 

United States gets as close as it can to energy independence in the 

future because we are definitely not anywhere close to that. This 

to me is important about carbon emissions but it is even more important to me about economic stability and the power of this country to stay an independent and strong Nation, and without our own 

energy sources, we are going to be in trouble. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. And we appreciate the gentleman yielding back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut. 

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for sticking with us this long. You know, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
230 

we are all very proud of the clean new technology companies that 

we have in our districts but they unfortunately are I think rapidly 

becoming the exception rather than the rule. We used to lead the 

world on solar and wind development and now places like China 

and Japan are vying for the top spot in photovoltaic production, 

and so I wanted to ask just one question to the panel, which is, this 

bill posits that by creating new market mechanisms through an 

RES and a cap-and-trade system that you are going to command 

the kind of private investment in clean new technologies that we 

want and need. There is also the route that countries like Korea 

and China have gone in making major public investments. I think 

80 percent of Korea’s stimulus bill was directly invested into these 

technologies. 

So the question is, do you believe that the market mechanisms 

in this bill really are going to provide real stimulus to that clean 

energy industry or are we going to also need a real mix of direct 

subsidy to try to back up the market mechanisms that we have included here? 

Mr. CRANE. Jim and I just came back from a green energy technology conference in California, and the entrepreneurs are alive 

and well but what is happening now is, they actually have the 

product that they didn’t have 1 or 2 years ago but the market has 

dried up and the market has dried up because people like us aren’t 

ready to invest until we know what the system is going to be. So 

I actually believe completely that a well-drafted bill will unleash— 

it will create the market that will allow that innovation advantage 

to actually continue in this country. 

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Any other comments? Let me then 

ask more specifically, one of the queries and concerns in the last 

panel was whether we are going to harness that technology and 

those industries domestically or whether the market mechanisms 

in this bill is just going to provide incentive for the production of 

these technologies somewhere else. Are there other things we can 

do in this bill to try to incentivize domestic production or is that 

going to happen naturally? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think speaking from our perspective at DuPont, 

we do a lot of research, I would study how other countries are 

incentivizing to make sure the technology is not only developed in 

this country but commercialized first in this country. I think there 

are mechanisms you can put in place the way you allocate your 

R&D dollars that could help that greatly. 

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, and we thank this very distinguished 

panel. Your work is the basis for the product that Mr. Waxman and 

I have put before the members. We will be consulting with you frequently for your expertise as we fill in additional details in the legislation but you are providing an enormous service to your country 

and we thank you so much. 

With that, the hearing will stand in recess until 4:00 at which 

point we will recognize the next panel for their opening statements. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. We welcome you all back to this historic hearing, 

and we apologize once again for the delay. We have no control over 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
231 

the length of the roll calls as they are conducted on the floor of the 

House, but we now are in a situation since those were the last roll 

calls on the House Floor that we can now have an uninterrupted 

hearing with brilliant witnesses and continue to build out this 

record on how to handle these very important issues that are facing 

our country. 

Let me begin by yielding for our first witness to the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and it is my pleasure to 

introduce one of the witnesses we have on our panel this afternoon, 

Mayor John Fetterman from Braddock, Pennsylvania. Braddock is 

a community in Allegheny County, and it is Allegheny County’s 

poorest community. This was once a thriving blue-collar town of 

20,000 people and a place where my father spent 20 years of his 

life working at U.S. Steel. Today Braddock has a population of 

2,800 people. John Fetterman has been someone who has been 

working tirelessly in his first term as mayor of Braddock and playing a critical role with youth employment in Braddock through 

green jobs. He had with the assistance of some foundations put together urban farming, community gardens. He has been assisting 

residents in Braddock to create vegetable gardens, and he is currently working on a program where youth will be assisting in the 

installation of the first green roof in the Mon Valley. He is someone 

who thinks outside the box and is trying to revitalize a community 

that is struggling and is hopeful that what we do today with this 

legislation will start a revolution in towns like Braddock and get 

people building things again. So it is my pleasure to have him here 

today and my pleasure to introduce him to the committee. 

Mr. MARKEY. And whenever you are ready, Mr. Fetterman, 

please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN FETTERMAN, MAYOR, BRADDOCK, 

PENNSYLVANIA; PAUL N. CICIO, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL 

ENERGY CONSUMERS OF AMERICA; KEVIN KNOBLOCH, 

PRESIDENT, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; DR. STEVEN HAYWARD, F.K. WEYERHAEUSER FELLOW, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; DAVID KREUTZER, SENIOR POLICY 

ANALYST IN ENERGY ECONOMICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION; NATHANIEL KEOHANE, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND ANALYSIS, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; AND MYRON EBELL, DIRECTOR, 

ENERGY AND GLOBAL WARMING POLICY, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF JOHN FETTERMAN 

Mr. FETTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barton and members of the 

committee, thank you for inviting me here today. I am John 

Fetterman and I am proud to be the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania. 

My testimony this afternoon will be short and straight to the 

point. I don’t pretend to be an expert in economics or energy policy 

but I do know what I have seen with my own eyes. The path we 

are on has failed. In my part of Pennsylvania, we have lost a quarter of a million jobs in the steel industry in the past decades. OnceVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
232 

thriving towns like Braddock are facing economic devastation. 

Communities and families face desperate times. We need change 

and we need it now. 

For decades we have watched jobs leave America. For decades we 

have heard about the dangers of America’s addiction to foreign oil. 

For decades we have seen real changes blocked by those who profit 

from the status quo. If there is a silver lining to this current economic crisis, and from where I sit, it is awfully difficult to find one, 

it is that America may now finally be ready to find a new path and 

to face the tough questions we have ignored for so long. 

I believe that new path starts with a cap on carbon pollution. By 

driving massive new private investment into clean energy industries, a cap offers us the chance to create jobs, and not just hightech positions making solar cells or exotic technology but the kind 

of blue-collar jobs that can revive a town like Braddock or Akron 

or Detroit. Jobs making 250 tons of steel or 8,000 parts it takes to 

make a wind turbine, jobs making new windows like they do in an 

old factory in Vandergrift, Pennsylvania, a factory that was shut 

down but revived to make those very windows, or LED lights like 

they make in North Carolina and export to China or one of the 

thousands of other products it will take to build this new energy 

economy. 

The government investment in clean energy in the Recovery Act 

was a good start but we will not truly transform this economy until 

we spur the private sector into action. This nation is full of entrepreneurs, investors, inventors and steelworkers prepared to 

jumpstart a true energy revolution, and this will only happen once 

you pass a cap on carbon pollution. To win the most jobs and the 

most economic opportunity, we must be a market leader in these 

new products and technologies, and a cap on carbon in the United 

States will spur our companies to be the early movers in these new 

markets supplying solutions at home and selling these solutions 

across the globe. 

So I respectfully ask this Congress to please be bold, to overhaul 

our economy and free us from our addiction to imported oil. I ask 

you to ignore the scare tactics of the well-funded interests and to 

answer the call of Braddock to build a new energy future and a 

new American century with the ready hands of America’s workers. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fetterman follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
233 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 72878A.085
234 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Fetterman, very much. 

Our second witness is Paul Cicio. He is the president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, a trade association of manufacturing-sector companies. Mr. Cicio, whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL N. CICIO 

Mr. CICIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Upton. Members of the committee, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America is the only trade association in the United 

States whose members are exclusively from the manufacturing sector, energy intensive and cross sector. Our companies employ over 

850,000 employees nationwide. Manufacturing is the only sector of 

the economy that has a long history of significant investment in energy efficiency. Our greenhouse gas emissions are only 2.6 percent 

above 1990 levels while other sector emissions are up about 30 percent. We provide the majority of cogenerated electricity for the 

country, which is over 100 percent more energy efficient than electric utility production. We are national leaders in the use of recycled steel, aluminum, glass and paper, which is also extraordinarily 

energy efficient. Our products provide the building blocks necessary 

to grow the economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions when 

our customers use our products. 

We are a model for doing the right thing for business and the 

environment. Unfortunately, we do not see provisions in the bill 

that either reward us for our past energy efficiency actions, use of 

combined heat and power or recycling or encourage us to do more. 

This is a shortcoming of the bill. We have several key points: Number one, legislative provisions that are designed to preserve domestic competitiveness of the industrial sector and prevent jobs from 

moving overseas will create in our concern about retaliatory trade 

actions. Neither Congress nor the EPA can effectively regulate our 

offshore competitors through their actions. 

Number two, we should not impose unilaterally on U.S. manufacturing costs. A global agreement that addresses the industrial sector uniformly and in the context of fair trade and increasing productivity is the only way to avoid job losses. 

Number three, U.S. demand for our products will continue. It is 

just a question of whether they will be supplied domestically or imported. We compete in a global marketplace where pennies on the 

dollar can determine whether we win or lose within a national competition. Unfortunately, as Mayor Fetterman said, from 2000 to 

2008, imports are up 29 percent and manufacturing employment 

fell 22 percent, a loss of 3.8 million jobs. These numbers would indicate that we are losing that competitiveness battle. 

Number four, the provisions entitled ‘‘Preserving Domestic Competitiveness’’ provides for 85 percent of average needed allowances. 

Without 100 percent allowances and without reimbursement for 

higher natural gas and electricity costs, we will lose competitiveness, relative competitiveness. 

Number five, increasing our greenhouse gas costs before comparable costs are placed on our competitors, our global competitors, 

will put competitiveness at risk. Countries like China and India 

have said they will not jeopardize their competitiveness and neiVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
235 

ther should we. Congress must understand that when manufacturers from developing countries engage in international trade, they 

no longer have developing-country excuses for not meeting comparable greenhouse gas reduction requirements and costs. Many of 

them are world-class competitors using the latest technology and 

they are owned by their governments and often they are subsidized. 

Number six, reducing our Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions 

from about 7 billion tons to 5 billion tons in a relatively short time 

period without a readily available abundant supply of low-cost carbon that is affordable will drive up energy prices. Energy efficiency 

and renewable energy will help but it will not close the gap. Carbon capture sequestration and nuclear will not be contributors over 

the next 10 years, which means the power sector will be dependent 

upon natural gas for power generation. Expansion of renewable energy means electric utility companies will be required to build natural gas-fired backup plants. It is extremely important to note that 

natural gas-fired power generation sets the marginal price for electricity. The implications are significant. As demand for natural gas 

goes up, prices go up and electricity across the country, a double 

hit. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cicio follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
236 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 72878A.086
237 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 72878A.087
238 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 72878A.088
239 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cicio, very much. You will have opportunities in the question-and-answer period to expand upon your 

thoughts. 

Our next witness is Mr. Kevin Knobloch. He is the president of 

the Union of Concerned Scientists. He has more than 30 years of 

legislative and advocacy experience and has served as the president 

of the Union of Concerned Scientists since 2003. We welcome you, 

Mr. Knobloch. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT KEVIN KNOBLOCH 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for 

this opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Union of 

Concerned Scientists. UCS is a national science-based nonprofit organization that has been working for a healthy environment and 

a safer world for 40 years. I applaud the leadership of this committee for moving this issue forward at this critical time. 

Today I am pleased to share the results of a major study we have 

conducted over the last 2 years to examine the energy and economic implications of a comprehensive suite of energy, transportation and climate policies that we call the Climate 2030 Blueprint. 

This comprehensive approach is similar to the one proposed by 

Chairman Waxman and subcommittee Chairman Markey in their 

draft legislation. We used a modified version of the U.S. Department of Energy’s national energy modeling system for our analysis. 

Our results show that we can build a comprehensive and competitive 21st century clean energy economy that saves consumers 

and businesses money and gives our children a future without 

huge, damaging costs of unchecked climate change and this future 

is well within our technological and financial abilities. 

To highlight just a few of our major findings, our analysis found 

that by 2030, one, under the Blueprint, our Nation meets a carbon 

cap of 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 56 percent below 

2005 levels by 2030. The electricity sector contributes more than 

half of the emission cuts in 2030. The transportation sector contributes the second largest area of emissions reductions. The Blueprint 

policies will also cut mercury, acid rain, smog and soot pollution, 

improving air and water quality and saving lives. Two, we can 

achieve these deep reductions in carbon emissions while saving 

American consumers and businesses $465 billion annually in 2030 

while maintaining about the same rate of economic growth as the 

reference case. The Blueprint builds $1.6 trillion in cumulative net 

savings between 2010 and 2030. Families will see an average 

household savings of $900 a year in 2030 while businesses will altogether save nearly $130 billion a year in the year 2030. Households and businesses in every region of the Nation, even coal-dependent States and regions, will see lower energy bills. And third, 

we can cut the use of oil and petroleum products by 6 million barrels a day in 2030, as much oil as we currently import from the 

OPEC nations. 

We did not find that all of these benefits will come for free but 

we found cost savings for reductions in energy use due to efficiency 

will more than offset the modest increase in energy prices and upfront investment costs. The key to the success is a comprehensive 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
240 

policy approach remodel. The transportation policies get us cleaner 

cars, cleaner fuels and better transportation options. The energy 

policies get us more efficient appliances, buildings and industry, renewable energy and more-efficient natural gas generation. A transparent and smartly designed cap-and-trade policy assures the emissions reductions the United States needs to help avoid the worst 

effects of global warming. This comprehensive approach is so critical that when we stripped out the sector-specific energy and transportation policies in our analysis, the cumulative savings for households and businesses in 2030 were reduced dramatically from 1.6 

trillion to 600 billion. 

We have a historic opportunity to reinvent our economy, to make 

it more resilient and efficient and to produce a bow wave of new 

high-quality jobs, especially in regions that have strong manufacturing capacity, a seasoned, able labor force and needed resources 

and infrastructure. In this new home-grown economy, we need people to build wind turbines, build carbon capture and storage infrastructure, weatherize and retrofit homes, install solar panels and 

manufacture advanced cars and fuels as well as to design, transport, maintain, repair, market and sell all of the above. In my travels around the country, I hear a growing call for a new clean energy economy that is designed to also solve large, stubborn problems, by reducing our dependence on oil, making us less vulnerable 

to blackouts, creating jobs, tackling climate change and improving 

our families’ health. We know that if we continue down a path of 

no action, our risks and vulnerabilities will increase, leading to significantly higher costs than if we act boldly today. The WaxmanMarkey legislation is a strong start on to this path and on to this 

clean energy future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knobloch follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
241 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 72878A.089
242 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 72878A.090
243 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 72878A.091
244 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 72878A.092
245 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 72878A.093
246 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 72878A.094
247 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 72878A.095
248 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 72878A.096
249 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 72878A.097
250 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 72878A.098
251 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 72878A.099
252 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 72878A.100
253 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 72878A.101
254 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 72878A.102
255 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 72878A.103
256 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 72878A.104
257 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 72878A.105
258 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 72878A.106
259 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Knobloch, very much. 

Our next witness is Dr. Steven Hayward, who is the F.K. 

Weyerhaeuser fellow in economics at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. We 

welcome you, Dr. Hayward. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN HAYWARD 

Mr. HAYWARD. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Upton. You know, I don’t relish being in the role of a naysayer, 

partly because it goes against my own optimistic nature, and I tend 

to be something of a techno-optimist. I have a lot of excitement 

about things I see going on in the areas of energy research and development, and I am an optimist about a great many things. 

However, I do find myself troubled by an awful lot of what I 

think is sort of wishful thinking, and too much, I will just put it 

casually, happy talk about the matter. 

I mean, the last panel, I kept hearing that there is nothing but 

win-win situations out there in the world, and it seems to me that 

we seem to feel that we can repeal the laws of economics and the 

laws of physics at the same time. It may be quite true that for certain industries and certain companies, you do quite well if you give 

them allowances to emit carbon for free, but it does seem to remind 

me of that remark of Charlie Wilson, from the Eisenhower Era 

that, to paraphrase his remark, it is not clear that what is good 

for GE is good for America. 

Well, I prepared my analysis today in this sort of confusing 

schedule, more tailored for the next panel about green jobs, but a 

couple of general comments. It seems to me the difficulty here is 

that on the one hand, we want to make carbon more expensive, but 

on the other hand, we don’t want anyone to pay higher costs for 

it. To the extent that we have lots of rebates and give away free 

allowances, it will mitigate the reductions you are likely to get 

from it. It would be, to use a simple analogy, as if we decided to 

try and reduce cigarette smoking by raising the tax on cigarettes, 

but then rebated the tax back to smokers at the end of the month. 

I don’t think that would be very effective, or it would certainly reduce its effectiveness. 

A couple of observations here. It seems to me there are three 

questions to answer, or to ponder more deeply. One is, would a 

green jobs policy, or narrow RPS mandates, I say narrow because, 

for example, the U.S. Conference of Mayors report on green jobs includes jobs in the nuclear industry as green jobs, yet the nuclear 

industry is conspicuously excluded from non-carbon sources contemplated in the draft discussion. But would a green jobs policy 

and renewable mandates result in net employment gains and net 

economic growth in the absence of such policy? 

Of course, it is true, in the ordinary sense that when the Federal 

Government spends more resources, either directly, through appropriations, or indirectly, through tax breaks and subsidies and mandates, you will generate employment where little or none existed 

before, just as our very large spending over the decades for defense 

spending generated a lot of employment where it didn’t exist before. But I would think the example of defense spending is one we 

would want to ponder a little bit. It is precisely the reason we don’t 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

see defense spending as a route to permanent prosperity, because 

it does not necessarily add productive and self-sustaining capacity 

to the private economy. 

There is a lot of academic literature—I have made some reference to it in the statement I have submitted to the committee, 

and I won’t repeat it all here—a lot of academic literature calling 

into question a lot of the analysis and assumptions of the green 

jobs ideas. I think I will just skip over that in the interest of time 

and getting to your questions, and say that I think, as a summary 

statement, in the fullness of time, we are going to look back on this 

period, say 20 or 30 years from now, as the climate policy equivalent of wage and price controls to fight inflation back in the 1970s. 

Or maybe to pick an example that is a little closer to home, the 

Gramm-Rudman approach to cutting the deficit in the late 1980s. 

And we are going to decide on some fundamentally different approaches to tackling this problem. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayward follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
261 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 72878A.107
262 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 72878A.108
263 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 72878A.109
264 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Haywood, very much. Our next witness is Dr. David Kreutzer, who is the Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation 

Center for Data Analysis. He previously taught economics at James 

Madison University, where he served as the Director of the International Business Program. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID KREUTZER 

Mr. KREUTZER. Thank you. I will read the disclaimer first, at the 

risk of being redundant. My name is David Kreutzer. I am the Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the 

Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my 

own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for this opportunity to address you 

concerning the economic impacts of cap and trade policies. Cap and 

trade is a tax. It artificially restricts access to fossil fuels that provide 85 percent of our Nation’s energy. This restriction drives up 

energy costs, drives down income, and drives jobs away. 

Today, I will discuss several of the most critical economic impacts. Last year, the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage 

Foundation projected the costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate 

Change Bill. The emissions target for the Lieberman-Warner Bill 

was a 70 percent cut by the year 2050. It should be clearly noted 

that our analysis could only project for the first 20 years, at which 

point, the carbon reduction scheme is only halfway to this 70 percent reduction goal. 

The first impact is on national income. Between 2012 and 2030, 

gross domestic product, the broadest measure of national income, 

drops by nearly $5 trillion, after adjusting for inflation. The second 

impact is the tax transfer. Coincidentally, it is also $5 trillion. So, 

you have a $5 trillion reduction in the size of the pie, and from that 

pie, you cut another $5 trillion piece to spread around. This money 

is transferred from energy consumers to the government, or those 

lucky enough to be given the pollution permits, which are also 

known as allowances. 

The third, and arguably, most painful impact is on employment. 

Employment drops overall, but the energy intensive manufacturing 

sector is especially hard-hit. By 2030, manufacturing employment 

loses nearly three million jobs because of cap and trade’s energy restrictions. A map included in the written testimony shows that this 

impact will be uneven, as manufacturing is relatively more important to the economies of some states than it is to others. Though 

some of those who lose or never get manufacturing jobs will find 

employment in the service sector, overall unemployment rises by 

over 800,000 in some years, due to the effects of cap and trade. 

Another point to note is that these job losses are net of any green 

jobs created by CO2 restrictions. In the written testimony is a copy 

of a page from the May 1945 issue of Mechanics Illustrated. It 

shows what we would call a green job in postwar Paris, a cyclist 

powering an electric generator. This was an imaginative solution to 

a lack of coal-generated current, done by an ingenious beauty shop 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
265 

operator, perhaps. Today, a human-powered generator could 

produce about $0.10 of electricity in an eight hour shift. 

Now, I don’t think anybody is proposing that, but with sufficient 

subsidies, we could induce people to ride and pedal generators. The 

problem, of course, is that it moves human labor from producing 

output worth over $50 per day, and that would be at minimum 

wage, to producing something worth only $0.10 per day. Yes, we 

could point to the people riding these bicycle generators and count 

them as green jobs created, but the overall impact is to reduce economic output by at least $50 per day per person. 

Energy sources that require subsidies are energy sources that 

use inputs whose value is greater than the value of the output. 

Just as subsidizing a cyclist to generate $0.10 of electricity per day 

will not expand the economy, forcing energy to flow through uneconomic bottlenecks is not a stimulus. Rather, it will reduce income. 

In summary, we find the first two decades of a 40 year program 

to cut CO2 by 70 percent will lead to $5 trillion of lost gross domestic product, will increase energy taxes by another $5 trillion, will 

lead to three million lost manufacturing jobs, and 400,000 to 

800,000 fewer jobs overall, even after accounting for green job creation. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kreutzer follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
266 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 72878A.110
267 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 72878A.111
268 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 72878A.112
269 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 72878A.113
270 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 72878A.114
271 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 72878A.115
272 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 72878A.116
273 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 72878A.117
274 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Kreutzer, very much. Our next witness is Dr. Nathaniel Keohane, who is—Dr. Keohane. Keohane. 

Keohane, Director of Environmental Economic Policy and Analysis 

for the Environmental Defense Fund. 

Dr. Keohane oversees EDF’s analytical work on the economics of 

climate change, and helps develop its policy positions on global 

warming. Formerly, he was an associate professor of economics at 

the Yale School of Management. 

We welcome you, Doctor, and whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL KEOHANE 

Mr. KEOHANE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the distinguished members of the committee, for holding this hearing. I am 

very honored to be here today. 

The climate crisis is our responsibility, and it is within our power 

to address. We can easily afford strong action. What we cannot afford is more delay. The catastrophic consequences of unchecked climate change may seem remote, but they will happen within the 

lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. If we fail to address 

this problem, we must be willing to tell our children we could have 

addressed this crisis for a little over a dime a day per person, but 

we chose not to. 

My message today is simple. The most expensive climate change 

policy is not having one at all. The economic costs of unchecked climate change are real, and they will be severe. Fortunately, the best 

available economic analysis shows that the U.S. can easily afford 

the pollution cuts necessary to solve this problem. In my written 

testimony, I present results from a range of economic forecasts 

published last year by government and academia, analyzing earlier 

proposed legislation. Just yesterday, though, the Environmental 

Protection Agency released new results that specifically analyze the 

draft legislation released by this committee, and I would like to 

highlight some of those results for you now. 

First, EPA’s new analysis shows that our economy will grow 

strongly under the proposed bill before you today. Their study estimates that if Congress passes climate legislation this year, U.S. 

economic output will be 71 percent larger in the year 2030 than it 

is today. The difference between that amount and what the analysis estimates will happen if we do nothing about climate change 

amounts to half a percent to a little over 1 percent of GDP in the 

year 2030. 

To put that in perspective, if the economy, if the American economy will reach $23 trillion in January of 2030 if we do nothing to 

address climate change, it will get there by April or June at the 

latest with a carbon cap. Now, so far, I have been telling you about 

the costs of climate policy, the estimated costs compared to business as usual. But in reality, the business as usual scenario in 

these models doesn’t exist. It is a fantasyland in which there are 

no economic costs of unchecked climate change, and we all know 

that there is no such future. So, these models that I am talking 

about just look at one side of the ledger, the costs of action, but 

not the benefits of avoiding climate change and its consequences. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
275 

So, still looking at that one side of the ledger, what are the costs 

for the average American family? EPA gives us a clear sense of 

what those are likely to be and they are small. The average estimated cost to households in the year 2015 is just $14 to $75 per 

year, sorry, in that year in present value, that is $0.04 to $0.21 a 

day. Over the entire life of the bill, the annual cost is just $98 to 

$140 per household. That is $0.27 to $0.38 a day for the average 

American family, or $0.11 to $0.15 a day per person. That includes 

all of the estimated costs of this bill, now, of the cap and trade program on carbon. 

Now, you might say it is just one study, but in truth, this study 

is completely consistent with everything else we know. As my written testimony describes in detail, the consensus among credible 

economic analysis is that the American economy will grow robustly 

while cutting carbon pollution and investing in a clean energy economy. 

Now, I am sure we are going to hear lots of numbers in the next 

few weeks that have been cherry-picked from reports issued by 

whatever modelers for hire can be found to support the latest or 

the desired point. 

Forecasts aren’t crystal balls. They are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and some of the assumptions used to 

get some of the numbers you may have heard are just simply not 

credible. The EPA, in its analysis, has set the gold standard in this 

report by using two of the most credible, transparent, and peer-reviewed models available, and the bottom line from that analysis is 

that for around $0.13 a day, and I brought $0.13 with me, around 

$0.13 a day, we can solve climate change, help get our economy off 

foreign oil, and invest in the clean energy economy. 

As I said in the beginning, the climate crisis is our responsibility, 

and it is within our power to address it. We can easily afford strong 

action. What we cannot afford is more delay. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keohane follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
276 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 72878A.118
277 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 72878A.119
278 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 72878A.120
279 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 304 72878A.121
280 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 72878A.122
281 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 72878A.123
282 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 307 72878A.124
283 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 308 72878A.125
284 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 309 72878A.126
285 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 72878A.127
286 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 311 72878A.128
287 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 312 72878A.129
288 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 72878A.130
289 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 72878A.131
290 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 72878A.132
291 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 72878A.133
292 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 72878A.134
293 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 72878A.135
294 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 72878A.136
295 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 72878A.137
296 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 72878A.138
297 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 72878A.139
298 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 72878A.140
299 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 324 72878A.141
300 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 325 72878A.142
301 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 326 72878A.143
302 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Keohane. And our final witness, 

Myron Ebell, is the Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy 

at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He also chairs the Cooler 

Heads Coalition. 

We welcome you to a place that needs that, Dr. Ebell. Thank you 

for your leadership in that area. 

Mr. EBELL. Mister. 

Mr. MARKEY. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

Mr. EBELL. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Markey, for inviting me 

to testify here today. 

Before I begin, let me say that I refer to several studies and articles in my very short testimony, and I would like to ask that they 

be submitted for the record. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection. 

Mr. EBELL. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. So ordered. 

STATEMENT OF MYRON EBELL 

Mr. EBELL. My name is Myron Ebell, and I am Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. I am speaking here today on behalf of CEI. We oppose this 

bill. We hope that it will be defeated, and we will do whatever we 

can within our limited resources to defeat it. 

Rather than summarize my very brief testimony, I would like to 

just respond to several things I have heard today. This morning, 

with the Administration witnesses, we heard some astonishing 

claims in very matter of fact, conversational answers, that this bill 

will create jobs, that it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, 

and that it will help the economy. I believe Dr. Chu and Administrator Jackson said that several times, and I think Secretary 

LaHood said it at least once. 

I think that each one of these is wrong, and certainly, each one 

of these claims is arguable. I am not much for modeling. I think 

it depends, as Dr. Keohane said, it depends on what the assumptions are, and you can get almost any answer you want out of a 

climate model or an economic model. 

I would rather look at historical experience. We have many of the 

policies in your draft bill, Chairman Markey, being tried today, and 

have been tried for several years in the European Union and in 

California. California is falling off an economic cliff. Now, it is not 

the only reason that they have run up the price of energy so that 

they have the highest gasoline taxes in the Nation. They have a 

shortage, a continuing shortage of refined gasoline. That they have 

among the highest electric rates in the Nation, comparable with 

yours in Massachusetts. But it is one of the reasons that their 

economy is falling off a cliff. 

They used to have a very substantial, energy intensive manufacturing sector. They used to produce aircraft. They used to produce 

armaments. They used to produce a lot of automobiles. They used 

to have a steel mill and an iron mine. All of that is gone. Now, that 

has made them less carbon intensive. They don’t produce as many 

emissions, but they still consume all those things. They just buy 

them from out of state. Somebody has to still produce stuff. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

So, I am very skeptical of these claims. Now, the second panel 

from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, and I have some very 

harsh things to say about the members of the Climate Action Partnership in my testimony. It seems to me that these are guys on the 

make. They want to get rich off the backs of American consumers, 

and they want you to enable them to do it. And I would urge you 

to take a step back from the astonishing statement in your executive summary, which the Committee put out on this bill, that says 

that this, Title III, the Cap and Trade Program, was designed with, 

to conform to the recommendations of the Climate Action Partnership. And I would also ask to submit for the record, and I am sorry 

he is not here, a letter from Chairman Waxman in 2004, to the Administrator of the EPA, complaining about this very thing, when it 

was revealed that an EPA rule had been written with the cooperation of outside businesses and their lobbyists from a well-known 

D.C. law firm. And I think Chairman Waxman was exactly right 

then, and I would hope that you would think this over again. 

Now, Mr. Rogers said that this will all work if we have a welldesigned program. I would like to ask you in your experience how 

many government programs that have been enacted in your time 

in Congress have been well designed. I would just like you to keep 

that in mind as you consider this enormous, huge hit on the American economy, and how easy it will be to design it so that it is well 

designed. I just can’t see it. 

Now, Mr. Barton asked, and since he isn’t here, I will answer his 

question, do you favor 100 percent auctioning? Would you still 

favor this bill? Well, I will still oppose this bill, but I do favor 100 

percent auctioning. I think 100 percent auctioning of the rationing 

coupons removes a tremendous amount of the opportunity for gaming the system, con games, and corruption. And so, I would encourage you all to vote for an amendment that would have 100 percent 

auctioning. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ebell follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 330 72878A.144
305 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 72878A.145
306 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 332 72878A.146
307 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 333 72878A.147
308 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Ebell, very much. You hit the number right on the minute. Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for a round of questions. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I wasn’t going to ask Mr. Ebell any question, but I, where 

did all those jobs go, that left California? 

Mr. EBELL. You know, I think most of them went either abroad 

or to the heartland states that have lower energy prices, lower 

taxes, a less stringent regulatory atmosphere, and have. You know, 

I remember when Dr. John Christy from the University of Alabama 

at Huntsville testified, I think before this committee, and he said 

you know, California used to have a vibrant auto industry, but in 

2008, more automobiles will be assembled in Alabama than any 

other state. We have workers who do harder work, and we have 

lower—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Ebell, the reason I ask is, look, this is the 

obvious, and we go around and around on these things, and I really 

don’t get something as fundamental as why some jobs leave certain 

jobs. Sometimes, it is just that there are certain concerns that are 

addressed in certain areas, that may not be in others, and it increases the cost of labor, such as fair wages, a living wage, safe 

working conditions, small things like that. 

I am sure this country could still be incredibly productive at incredibly low cost had we maintained something like slavery, or 

maybe just forgotten about child labor, or safe working conditions, 

or minimum wage. There is all sorts of ways to reduce cost. I would 

like to think that we have matured and developed as a country, 

where sometimes, we just do that which is fair, equitable, and 

right, even though it may increase the cost. And I think there is 

a fundamental philosophical difference, I think, that is going on 

here. 

But let us just get to the matter at hand. Dr. Keohane and Dr. 

Kreutzer, the only thing that you all share is the first letter of your 

last names, because it seems, Dr. Kreutzer, you simply don’t believe that there is a need to act on greenhouse gas emissions. 

Would that be a fair statement? I want to start off with that. I 

mean, I really want your honest answer, because I thought we debated that. I thought we were past it. But if that is your premise, 

then it goes to the very heart of maybe some of your opinions. 

Do you believe we should be taking any action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 

Mr. KREUTZER. I can only talk about the ones that are being proposed in this bill and elsewhere. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, no. 

Mr. KREUTZER. The cost—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, let us forget about this bill. Should we be 

addressing it in any form or fashion? 

Mr. KREUTZER. If it is free, yes. OK. Why not? But it is not free. 

That is the problem, and—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So, what would be the alternative? 

Mr. KREUTZER. And Dr. Keohane said that this bill would solve 

the climate change problem. It doesn’t even come close to having—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. So, you are just—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

Mr. KREUTZER [continuing]. Impact. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. It is the approach that you object to, but you believe, as your colleague—— 

Mr. KREUTZER. I don’t—I don’t—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ [continuing]. Believes, that truly, gas emissions, 

or greenhouse gas emissions truly pose a problem, and one that 

needs to be addressed? 

Mr. KREUTZER. They don’t pose—I don’t think there is enough 

evidence to say there is catastrophic problems coming down the 

road from greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. 

Mr. KREUTZER. All right. You know, there will be some increase 

in sea level. There will be some without greenhouse, without manmade greenhouse gas emissions rising. There will be some when we 

cut it back by, you know, 70 percent or 80 percent. All right. And 

I would like to have an economy that is strong enough that when 

we have the climate variability that we are going to have with or 

without climate action, that we have an economy that is strong 

enough to get through it, as we have done for the past couple of 

hundred years. We are getting stronger and stronger. We are going 

to be able to handle a foot and a half of sea level rise. And we are 

not going to stop it with this bill, and that is the problem. 

It is huge cost, very little benefits, and I wish this committee 

would look at what is the benefit? If you, this isn’t denier math, 

that isn’t flat Earth math. This isn’t man never went to the Moon 

math. The IPCC says that a doubling of CO2 emissions will lead 

to a 2 to 4.5 degree increase in world temperature. The EPA, looking at the Lieberman-Warner Bill, said that bill would lower greenhouse gas emissions from about 719 parts per million to about 695. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Let me ask, Dr. Kreutzer—— 

Mr. KREUTZER. That is a 0.1 to 0.2—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, what you are saying is we have plenty of 

time, and whatever is inevitable is something we could handle 

along the way, as long as we have a strong, robust economy. 

Now, if you were wrong, what might be the consequence of too 

little, too late, or would you be able to even address the adverse 

effects at a later date? 

Mr. KREUTZER. We would be able to address that at a later date, 

if it—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. That is—— 

Mr. KREUTZER [continuing]. Becomes clear that—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ [continuing]. When I want to go to Dr. Keohane. 

Do you agree with any of those basic premises? One, that it really 

doesn’t pose a danger, we don’t need immediate action? If, as in 

when, we will be able to deal with it. 

Mr. KEOHANE. It won’t surprise you to know, Congressman, that 

I don’t agree with those premises. I think the—I am not a scientist, 

but I read the science and I talk to scientists, and I think the 

science is clear that if we don’t do anything about climate change, 

the consequences will be catastrophic, that unchecked climate 

change is going to lead to severe and real economic damages. 

I mean, Dr. Kreutzer says that addressing it won’t be free. The 

thing that won’t be free, the thing that is really going to cost us 

is the damages from climate change if we don’t do anything about 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

it. This is a problem where we are not taking account of those costs 

at all in what we are doing right now, and that is the most important problem that we have to solve. 

Now, this is a global problem, and this is a problem that will require concerted international action to address, but the U.S. is part 

of that community, and we need to take the lead, and that is what 

this bill would do. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for your patience today. This has been absolutely fascinating to listen to, and to hear the different opinions. 

Mr. Cicio, I think I want to start with you, because I appreciated 

what you said. We should not jeopardize our competitiveness. 

Mr. CICIO. Well, absolutely. We shouldn’t. Our organization and 

our companies have done an incredibly great job of continuing to 

reduce their energy consumption, because it makes us more competitive, and higher costs are OK, but you have got to have higher 

costs on our competitors overseas, or we lose the jobs. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Well, and I would like to come, I would like for 

you just to touch on what you think the electric industry will do 

to achieve efficiencies and meet the renewable electricity standards 

that are in the proposed legislation, and how you balance that, and 

how we still remain globally competitive with goods. 

Mr. CICIO. Well, the Renewable Portfolio Standard is only one 

part of the challenge of higher electricity costs. For one, paper companies, which are some of my companies, use that, use renewable 

energy to biomass as a raw material feedstock. And if electric utilities are utilizing that to meet the standard, it could put the paper 

business industry out of business. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. CICIO. But states are endowed with different renewable resources, and that is why our view is that that is the decision that 

should be made at the state level, where they know how much renewable resources are available and at what cost. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. And can make those appropriate adjustments. 

Mr. CICIO. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Mr. Kreutzer, when I was talking with Mr. 

Chu, and questioning him earlier today, I asked him about the 25 

percent standard, and working toward that by 2025, and he said 

it was going to be easily achieved. So, do you agree or disagree 

with that? 

Mr. KREUTZER. Well, it is going to be costly. We actually, in our 

analysis, we gave that away. We said let us assume that all of the 

renewable standards set up by the states can be met at reasonable 

cost. So, when we did our analysis of Lieberman-Warner, this very 

difficult to achieve standard, we said we are going to meet that. 

Still, $5 trillion worth of lost GDP in 20 years, $5 trillion worth of 

energy taxes, three million lost manufacturing jobs. All of that was 

even though we assumed we could meet the Renewable Portfolio 

Standard that was a little bit less, but close to 25 percent. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Hayward, when I had talked with Secretary LaHood, I asked him about, and then, subsequently Mr. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

Chu, about the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the effect on prices 

at the pump. And, as we look at transportation fuels. And will it 

lead to greater or lessened dependence on foreign oil? 

Those are two issues that we hear a lot about from our constituents. They are concerned about the dependence issues. They are 

concerned about the price at the pump, so as you look at the low 

carbon standards, what do you think? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Oh, boy, I have a hard time making up my mind 

about that. Because there are so many moving parts. I mean, the 

big, one of the big problems to try and solve in transportation is 

how do we have a portable fuel? I mean, that is why we want gasoline or diesel or biofuels or something. You want something to put 

in a tank, or in an energy supply for a car, so we talk a lot over 

the years about hydrogen. We are talking about plug-in hybrids 

with much bigger battery capacity. We are talking now about, 

biofuels from algae is being talked about. 

The difficulty here is once again, if the government tries to pick 

winners, you may actually clog up the market for innovation. I 

don’t know that anybody is really happy about the way the whole 

ethanol business has gone, including most environmentalists, but 

yet, we are kind of path-dependent on that now, because you have 

a lot of powerful interests who don’t want to change the program 

there. I think that is a good example and case study of how you 

can actually retard progress. 

So, you know, I try to keep an open mind about that, but that 

is, I think, very hard to predict, how that is going to turn out. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Well, but my constituents say, is this going to 

cost us more, or is it going to save us money? So, where do you 

think that is going to come down? 

Mr. HAYWARD. In the short run, it is going to cost you more, I 

would think. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Cost more. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Long run, I don’t think anyone can say. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I 

have got a couple of other questions. I will submit those. 

Mr. MARKEY. And we will ask the witnesses to respond in writing to those questions. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I saw a 

recent analysis from Mr. Knobloch’s group that stated some interesting facts. 

In 2007 and 2008, more wind power was installed than in the 

previous 20 years combined, and more than 70 wind turbine component facilities opened, expanded, or were announced. The Renewable Electricity Standard that this legislation contains is an economic engine for the future. According to the Union of Concerned 

Scientists, an RES would create 297,000 new jobs in renewable energy development. A robust RES would drive investment to the 

tune of $263.4 billion in cities and towns across this country. We 

can achieve these economic benefits even while taking the equivalent of 45.3 million cars off our roads. 

Mr. Knobloch, in my hometown of Sacramento, we are attempting to create a center of clean energy technology that would drive 

our local economy, and I visited a number of these new regional 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

companies when I was back home last week. With this background, 

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the job creation components of this legislation. 

Can you expand a bit on what types of jobs would be created 

with this legislation? 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

You know, the great thing about the Renewable Electricity 

Standard debate is that we are not dependent on modeling. We can 

look at the 28 states that have adopted a renewable electricity 

standard, and the success of that policy has been tremendous. At 

least half of those states have gone back before the time limit for 

the increase percentage of renewables and increased the percentage, because they were doing so well. A state like Texas, years 

ahead of the timeframe went in and doubled the amount of renewables that they would expect from that policy, and now, Texas is, 

of course, the national leader in wind power, and has three times 

the installed wind electricity of the State of California. 

And you can also look to before there was any renewable electricity standard policies. The renewable sector was floundering. 

And so here, what happened was that government came in, set a 

standard, did not pick winners and losers, technological winners 

and losers. It did define what is renewables, and there are some 

very legitimate debates going on as to what belongs in there. 

Ms. MATSUI. Now, some opponents of this legislation argue that 

new jobs would only be created because other jobs will be lost. In 

the case of RES, is this a zero-sum game when it comes to jobs, 

or are the hundreds of thousands of jobs it creates going to be on 

top of the existing job figures? 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. Well, this analysis that you are referring to, 

which is not part of our blueprint, it was a separate analysis, 

showed that the renewables sector, that a national renewable electricity standard would create three times the number of jobs that 

would be created in the same time span in the fossil fuels sector. 

So, it nets out positive when it is well designed. 

When you listen to any kind of jobs analysis, you want to be sure 

that there is a control for what is happening in the economy already, and get your arms around that, but we are quite confident 

that whether it is, you know, the steelworkers in Pennsylvania who 

got laid off, and are now building towers for wind turbines, truckers, people who pour concrete, people who design wind turbines 

and the associated machinery, there is dozens of different job disciplines that go into making this technology. 

Ms. MATSUI. I would like to turn to something that is really 

something in my district, I represent the most at risk river city in 

the Nation in Sacramento, and studies are seeing that the Sierra 

Nevada snowpack would disappear under a business as usual scenario. So, that represents great challenges to my district. 

This is to Dr. Keohane. With this in mind, will you please expand on the point you made in your testimony, that the threat 

from water-related impacts of climate change could be in the billions of dollars? 

Mr. KEOHANE. Absolutely. That was a quote from a study that 

Frank Ackerman at Tufts University did, as part of just looking at 

four types of impacts on the United States, one of them being inVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

creased water scarcity, and when they added up all those four analyses, all those four costs, the other were increased energy costs and 

coastal flooding, which is important in other areas of the country, 

and also, increased hurricane intensity, they got hundreds of billions of dollars in costs from unchecked climate change. That is 

what we would pay in business as usual. That is why I said it 

wasn’t free not to do anything about this. And that is just from 

those four costs. That excludes a huge other number of damages. 

So, that kind of concern, that is going to be, the water scarcity is 

going to be relevant to the American West, and there are going to 

be other concerns that are relevant to other parts of the country. 

Ms. MATSUI. I thank you. I see my time is up. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted 

that this is the last panel. We have had eight hours panel, almost, 

today. 

Mr. MARKEY. This is not the last panel. 

Mr. UPTON. Today, it is, the last panel today, right? 

Mr. MARKEY. No. One more to go. 

Mr. UPTON. There isn’t another panel. There is not another 

panel. There is? 

Mr. MARKEY. This is an all you can eat. It is all you can eat. 

There is no—— 

Mr. UPTON. Who is on the fourth panel? Raise your hand? Oh, 

I am sorry. I will stay. I am sorry I asked that question. My time 

really shouldn’t be—I was going to say that—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Let us start. We are going to start. The gentleman 

was a little bit disoriented, and we are going to start again. 

Mr. UPTON. I didn’t realize. I have this big list, I just didn’t turn 

the page, but there it is. I was going to say that I am looking forward to co-hosting with you tonight, with Disney, the show Earth. 

Mr. MARKEY. Perhaps you will be hosting. 

Mr. UPTON. Is this another panel after this one? 

Mr. MARKEY. No, no. 

Mr. UPTON. I actually have a detail for us, in terms of our remarks tonight, so maybe I will get your time. Anyway, I just want 

to say a couple things. 

For me, I do want to see emissions reduced. I want to see plenty 

of incentives to provide cleaner energy for all of our citizens, but 

I also want it to be fair, and I don’t want to put the U.S. at a big 

disadvantage, and the headlines that I cited in my opening statement some eight hours ago, with India and China not willing to 

participate, and every opportunity that they have been given, and 

whether it is before this committee in the last year, or now, in public statements, I think puts our Nation at a severe disadvantage. 

And it is not that we are going to do nothing. We are going to 

do a lot, whether it is with energy appliance standards, it is with 

building standards. It is with lighting standards. It is with auto 

standards. It is, there is a lengthy list that, in fact, we are going 

to do a lot to reduce our emissions. And when I look at, what I 

cited this morning, and that we have had, in essence, comparable 

growth, the United States and EU. They had a cap and trade 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

scheme. They desperately want us to participate with them, because their emissions went up while ours went down. 

There was significant leakage, I think, of jobs. Their energy 

prices did go up, and when we hear from the Chairman of AEP, 

who testified at some point in the last couple weeks that they 

thought that their energy prices in Ohio would go up 40 to 50 percent, because Ohio uses more than 90 percent coal, we know that 

that is the same for Indiana. Michigan is about 60, 65 percent. 

Those costs get passed along, and yes, you can help with the subsidies, I guess run a little bit along the lines of LIHEAP for low 

income individuals, so that they don’t bear the brunt of that higher 

cost, and Dr. Hayward, I loved your example on cigarettes. 

But the jobs don’t stay. Not when they can go someplace else at 

a lower cost, knowing that they are competing in a global economy. 

And so, what we want to do is, and there is no off-ramps, from my 

read of this legislation. Yes, there is some discussion with the idea 

of allowing us to have an important that somehow would be WTO 

amenable, but again, the jury is out. I don’t know whether that is 

going to work or not. 

I have a feeling, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to have a vote 

on whether or not the Administration ought to have 100 percent 

auction here. I know the Administration supported that in the testimony that they gave in the first panel today. We will find out 

where the votes are, whether that ought to be part of the package, 

and what happens if, in fact, it is an amendment that is adopted. 

Mr. Ebell, your comments, I think, were right online, as we look 

at the costs associated, and what is going to happen to businesses. 

But how do you counter that with Dr. Keohane’s—am I saying that 

right? Keohane? It is not right. 

Mr. KEOHANE. Keohane, but it is close. 

Mr. UPTON. Keohane, all right. Is it spelled right? All right. I 

mean, how do you comport that, your two testimonies together. Dr. 

Keohane says that it is going to be $0.07 to $0.10 a day, and yet, 

we hear some pretty different numbers when we actually go into 

the field, at least as we look at the Midwest. 

Mr. EBELL. Thank you, Representative Upton. I appreciate your 

leadership on this issue. We know it can’t be that inexpensive. If 

it were that inexpensive, we wouldn’t be having these rancorous 

debates. 

The fact is that energy prices have to go up significantly if emission cuts are going to be made. President Obama recognized this 

when he was running for President, and he said: ‘‘Under my plan 

of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’’ Peter Orszag, now the head of OMB, then head of CBO, 

when he testified here, said this won’t work unless prices go up. 

In the European Union, there has been tremendous consternation about the price of the rationing coupons, because they yo-yo 

up and down, and the people who want to, who are actually serious 

about making emissions cuts, keep pointing out that the price has 

to stay up in order to force emissions down. When it keeps yo-yoing 

up and down, nobody has an incentive to reduce their emissions, 

because they are going to hope that they are going to get some 

cheap rationing coupons, you know, if not this month, next month. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

So, I just think it is beyond believability that this is going to be 

inexpensive. It is going to be incredibly expensive. 

Mr. UPTON. So, the answer is yes. Go ahead. 

Mr. KEOHANE. Thank you. Well, with all due respect, I don’t— 

I am not quite sure how Mr. Ebell knows that it can’t possibly be 

as inexpensive as the best analysis we have from the best economic 

models we have, which is what the EPA analysis represents. That 

is what those models estimate. Now, sure, there are, you know, the 

models aren’t perfect, but if you look at the record, we have always 

overestimated the costs of environmental regulation. That was a 

finding by some researches at Resources for the Future, who looked 

at and found a consistent pattern of overestimation, and that’s because frankly, we don’t know how to model technological change, 

and these models, these analyses, can’t capture the scope of technological change that we will see when we use a market-based system 

that unlocks American innovation. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, just to close, because my time is expired, it 

seems like based on what you just said, maybe we ought to have 

an amendment that would offer a safety valve, that if it goes up 

more than $0.20, the whole thing will be struck after the enacting 

clause. Maybe we will see an amendment like that. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair 

recognizes the, the chair is uncertain here. I am going to continue 

to recognize members of the minority. OK, the chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. We can go to Mr. Shimkus if you 

like, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. I am sorry that I haven’t been here, because it seems 

like you all are having so much fun in here when I got here. I will 

stay a while. I want to ask some questions, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for recognizing me, and thank you for accepting that 

Washington Post. I appreciate that. 

You know, it is my opinion, and the opinion of most of us over 

here, and the opinion of maybe half of you out there, that we are 

going to be in a weakened competitive position in the United States 

under cap and trade. I believe it deeply, and have a lot of reasons 

to believe it, and you all are in responsible positions, and know 

more about your business than I know about your business, but I 

know you are a businessman, successful, or you wouldn’t be here. 

So, I just can’t see why you can’t understand, if you don’t understand, why we wouldn’t be in a weakened competitive position 

under cap and trade as it is written here. We—I have—the chairman is a good friend of mine, and I like the chairman. We elect 

one another, I think. I criticize him in his district, and he criticizes 

me in mine, but we have a mutual understanding, and I respect 

him. I really do. And he is funny. 

But in the Washington Post, China hopes climate deal omits exports. Now, this ought to tell you how China thinks, and they are 

one of the big players, they are the big player in this, other than 

us, and if they don’t play, and I mentioned this this morning, it is 

a little bit, maybe, simple, but when you go to Wal-Mart or Sears, 

or your wives go to Neiman’s, or anywhere, you are going to see 

a machine on your way out, that you got to go by that machine. 

It is called a cash register, and you have to pay, and somebody has 

got to pay. And China has never indicated, in one instance, that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

they want to pay their share, and they are polluting the air as we 

sit here today, and I think I read the other day where about every 

sixth day, they open a plant that is not conducive to clean air. 

And I am very pro-coal. I am pro-nuclear. I live in Texas, and 

we have fossil fuels there, and I don’t know how we are going to 

do away with fossil fuels. Of course, we have to have technology 

and keep continuing to pursue cleansing. Anybody in their right 

sense knows that, but anybody that thinks we can just overnight 

do away with fossil fuels is just dreaming. They are just thinking. 

And it would be wonderful, but that hasn’t happened, and elements 

here in Washington and around the country have fought us drilling 

offshore, fought us drilling off the coast of Florida, fought us from 

drilling up in ANWR, and we could, we don’t even have to have any 

help from anybody else. We have plenty right here at home if we 

could just mine it, and we should have. But we haven’t. 

So, we find ourselves in the position where it is China, one of the 

big players, not only won’t agree to curtail their polluting the skies, 

but I think they are insolent enough to indicate, and I am going 

to read you a little bit from this Washington Post deal. It says: 

‘‘Countries importing Chinese goods should be responsible for the 

heat trapping gases released during manufacturing, a top Chinese 

official said yesterday.’’ That was Li Gao, I don’t know if that is the 

right pronunciation, but that is the way it looks to me. Anyway, he 

is the climate change, he directs the Climate Change Department 

at the National Development and Reform Commission. So, he is the 

top guy, so far as I know, over there. He is their top climate negotiator, and he said that, and he said: ‘‘As one of the developing 

countries, we are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. We produce products, and these products are consumed 

by other countries. This share of emissions should be taken by the 

consumers, not the producers.’’ They are not even willing to pay for 

their own emissions. 

Now, please take that into consideration when you make your decisions. So, I would ask this question. What evidence, and I will 

begin over here, Mr. Ebell, I can’t see that far, but Mr. what is his 

name? Mr. Ebell. That is what I thought it said, but I couldn’t pronounce it. 

What evidence does U.S. CAP have that China and other developing nations will not take strategic advantage of what will be a 

weakened competitive position of the United States under cap and 

trade? 

Mr. EBELL. Representative Hall, I don’t believe that they have 

any evidence, and in fact, I think they do plan to take competitive 

advantage, and they also want to be paid for their emissions reductions. And I think you can see how expensive it is going to be to 

reduce emissions, because everyone believes it will be cheaper to 

reduce emissions in developing countries than it will be in the 

United States, and yet, they are talking, in the European Union 

and in China and in India, about sending hundreds of billions of 

dollars a year to developing countries to reduce emissions. So, the 

idea that the EPA model is believable, no, it doesn’t pass the laugh 

test. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely an indication, not an indication, it is just 

proof that they are not going to play fair with us. They are not 

going to take care of their emissions. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. KEOHANE. I just wanted to say, again, with respect to my fellow panelists, I think the best judges of the businesses and the 

competitive positions of the U.S. CAP companies are those U.S. 

CAP CEOs and not Mr. Ebell, and I will say there is, in this bill, 

I think these concerns you have laid out are real, but the bill has 

provisions to deal with them. And I think the way forward is for 

the United States to do what it has always done best, which is to 

lead. And if we lead on this crucial issue, then we will be producing 

the next generation of low carbon technologies here at home. We 

will be exporting them instead of importing them from others. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. HALL. May I make one last statement to the gentleman? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, you may. 

Mr. HALL. The cash register that I spoke about is in all of these 

countries, China, Russia, they are going to walk, you are going to 

allow them to walk right by the cash register and leave it to the 

children that are unborn today, taxes to fall on their backs. I don’t 

believe you really want to do that. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the hearing 

and being patient. I appreciate the panel for staying as long as you 

have. 

A couple things. I asked this question to an earlier panel. Does 

everyone agree that India does not have a low carbon fuel standard? Everybody is nodding in agreement with that. Does everyone 

agree, I am just doing this quickly, so I can get to other questions. 

Does everyone agree that China does not have a low carbon fuel 

standard? OK. Everybody is shaking their head. Mayor, do you 

agree? Thank you. 

What about, does everyone agree that India currently is not 

under a cap and trade regime? Does everyone agree with that? And 

Mayor, you too? OK. And does everyone agree that India is not 

under a cap and trade regime? OK. Well, with heads nodding in 

assent. 

One of our problems is that, and I have used this terminology 

numerous times, all the pain and no gain, because there is really 

a debate about whether countries will comply, if our leadership will 

spur an international accord. So, briefly, do you agree that if we 

lead, China and India will comply to a low carbon fuel standard 

and a cap and trade regime. Real quickly, if you can get yes and 

no, Mr. Ebell, you had first. Microphone. Be quickly, though, yes 

or no would be helpful. 

Mr. EBELL. Yes. I think we can guarantee it, if we put a provision in the bill saying it will not go into effect until there is an 

international agreement that has been ratified that is binding. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And we used to talk about that. We used to use 

the terminology of an off-ramp, but that has been jettisoned. Dr. 

Keohane. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

Mr. KEOHANE. I will say if we do not do anything, then they 

won’t take a cap on their own, but if we do lead, that is the only 

way we will get there. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, will they? Yes or no. Will they, if we do lead, 

I guess is the question. You believe they will. 

Mr. KEOHANE. I think if we do lead, China and India will follow. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. China will do it, and India will both do low carbon 

fuels and a cap and trade. 

Mr. KEOHANE. I think, I don’t know what mechanism they will 

use, but I think if we lead, we will see China and India—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. OK. Great. 

Mr. KEOHANE [continuing]. Follow on our—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Mr. Kreutzer. 

Mr. KREUTZER. I don’t think they will. They certainly won’t accept a cap that the EPA assumes, which will be about half of the 

one we are getting. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Dr. Hayward. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think it is very unlikely. Here is the problem. 

Even in an optimistic scenario, a lot of low carbon technologies that 

we can afford as a rich country are still going to be more expensive 

than fossil fuels for developing countries who, by the way, control 

about 80 percent of the world’s fossil fuels. It takes quite a flight 

of fancy, it seems to me, to think that they are not going to use 

those fossil fuels, especially if they get cheaper on the world market as we use less of them. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Mr. Knobloch. 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. I think we are leaving a vacuum. I think if we 

lead, they will. China today has a national renewable electricity 

standard. They have fuel economy standards that are competitive 

with—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They are also building a new power plant, coalfired power plant every week. 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. Yes, sir, that is so. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. But if we don’t lead, it is assured that they won’t 

adopt that policy. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Oh, you think they will comply, if we move, on 

both low carbon fuel—— 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. I think if—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. And cap and trade regime. 

Mr. KNOBLOCH. I think if we lead, and they, and we lead broadly 

in negotiations, and they accept a cap, then some of these policies 

will flow from there. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Mr. Cicio. 

Mr. CICIO. I don’t. I don’t. I don’t think so, and particularly for 

the industrial sector, which is their engine of jobs growth, so I don’t 

think so. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mayor. 

Mr. FETTERMAN. I do believe they will eventually follow, because 

the practices that they are currently engaging will, are not sustainable environmentally, and it will lead to an environmental catastrophe. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, yes, and I would, and I don’t want to debate 

you, but carbon dioxide is not a toxic pollutant. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

Mr. FETTERMAN. I am sorry, what was that? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Carbon dioxide is not a toxic pollutant. Would you 

agree with that? 

Mr. FETTERMAN. It is toxic in excessive amounts. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is not. Does everyone—does anyone believe that 

carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant? At 15—and we are at, in the 

atmosphere right now? 380. OK. Let me go, and so much to discuss. 

Let me talk about real jobs for a second. I just toured a supercritical new coal-fired power plant in Lively Grove, Washington County. Washington County has 15,000 employees. This power plant is, 

right now has 1,200 construction jobs, an additional 400 building 

a coal mine across the street that will have 500 full-time power 

plant jobs, and 400 coalmine jobs once in operation. Those are real 

jobs that are at risk. Because what happens in carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, 40 percent, and I will end on this, Mr. 

Chairman, 40 percent, 100 percent of the electricity output will 

then be cut to only 60 percent that can go on the market, because 

it is going to take 40 percent of the energy created by this power 

plant to initiate the carbon capture and sequestration provision 

that is limiting its ability to really get a return on the investment. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the Ranking Member of the 

full committee. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to ask, 

I don’t think I will take the full five minutes. Mr. Cicio, is it your 

view that there should be no cap and trade program at all? Is that 

a fair assessment? 

Mr. CICIO. We, as an organization, have not taken a position either for or opposed. What we look at is cost effectiveness, cost number one, cost number two, cost number three. In my testimony, I 

said that our industry has done an incredibly good job of continuing to drive down energy consumption and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. We do not support policies, any policy, a cap 

and trade policy or any other policy that is not cost effective. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, then let me ask it a different way. Can you 

develop a cap and trade program that doesn’t add cost to the economy? 

Mr. CICIO. No, sir. I would say in my opinion, that is not possible. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Mr. Hayward, it says that you are a 

Weyerhaeuser Fellow. That is a forestry company. Do you think 

that we can reforest America with enough offsets to cover the allowances in, if we had a cap and trade bill that didn’t give away 

allowances? That is a terribly complicated question. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The Weyerhaeuser Chair at AEI is something the 

family set up over 30 years ago, at the same time they set up a 

chair at Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental 

Studies. I don’t do that much work on forestry, actually. I do the 

sludge part of the environment. 

But I have looked at some numbers of this. We have actually 

been reforesting pretty rapidly in this country, a million acres a 

year net forest growth in the 1990s, according to a study the Clinton Administration set in motion. But it is hard to get some numVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

bers on this, but I think the general answer is no, you actually 

can’t take up all of our carbon emissions through carbon sinks. But 

some portion of them, and that I am hesitant to give you a figure 

on that, but it is not anywhere near enough to the targets that we 

are setting out for. 

Mr. BARTON. I think, Mr. Keohane, do you want to answer that? 

Or are you just looking at him? 

Mr. KEOHANE. Well, I was actually going to highlight the enormous potential for helping to protect the tropical rainforests, and 

in doing so, reduce greenhouse gas emissions there, and help reduce costs here at home. 

Mr. BARTON. I am not opposed to tropical rainforest protection. 

My problem within the United States, if we set up an offset program, I am reasonably confident that we can enforce it and implement it. I am not as confident overseas. So, my problem with the 

tropical rainforest is not that I don’t want to protect them, and I 

wouldn’t, and I would even be willing to figure out a way to give 

some credits, if we could ensure that they would actually be enforced and implementable in those countries. And I don’t have that 

confidence level overseas. That is my problem, what you just said. 

Mr. KEOHANE. Well, I agree that enforcement and verification is 

crucial, but I think we have the satellite monitoring and the on the 

ground monitoring to do that reliably. 

Mr. BARTON. My last question, I am going to ask this to my 

friend at the Heritage Foundation, if we have a renewable energy 

standard or a clean energy standard, should we include nuclear 

power? 

Mr. KREUTZER. Yes, I don’t understand why that gets left out. If 

the goal is CO2, and CO2 is the worry, nuclear produces essentially 

zero CO2 per kilowatt-hour. 

Mr. BARTON. What about clean coal technology? 

Mr. KREUTZER. Clean coal technology, as Mr. Shimkus pointed 

out, is pretty expensive. Right now, we don’t have, those of us at 

Heritage, and I don’t speak for Heritage, but I know that some of 

the people I talk with are doubtful that it will be commercially 

available any time in the next couple of decades. That is our concern. 

Mr. BARTON. But theoretically, it—— 

Mr. KREUTZER. The science is there, but you have to do something in addition to pulling it out of the effluent, you have to put 

essentially supertankers per day worth of compressed liquefied CO2

someplace. And I think that is a problem. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much, and we thank 

the panel for your expert testimony, and if you would, please remain available, because over the next several weeks, we would like 

to rely upon your expertise. Thank you all so, so much for your expertise today. 

And we are going to now ask the next panel to come up to testify, 

as well, before the panel. 

Welcome, and we appreciate very much our final panel for being 

seated here. And we are going to begin by recognizing, excuse me, 

we are going to recognize first Mr. Frank Ackerman. He is a Senior 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
321 

Economist from the Stockholm Environmental Institute at Tufts 

University. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENTS OF FRANK ACKERMAN, SENIOR ECONOMIST, 

STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE—US CENTER, 

TUFTS UNIVERSITY; KATE GORDON, CO–DIRECTOR, APOLLO 

ALLIANCE; DENISE BODE, CEO, AMERICAN WIND ENERGY 

ASSOCIATION; DAVID MANNING, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL GRID; AND YVETTE PENA, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BLUE GREEN ALLIANCE 

STATEMENT OF FRANK ACKERMAN 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, and based on prior travel arrangements, I will have to leave the room no later than 6:45. I can answer questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. I think we are going to be able to accommodate 

you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify on my research on 

the costs of climate change. 

This hearing comes at a crucial juncture, not only because a new 

Congress and a new Administration are beginning to make changes 

in climate policy. New initiatives are on the table, in part, because 

there has been a fundamental shift in the terms of the debate, with 

the controversy moving from science to economics. 

In the realm of science, the influence of an isolated handful of 

climate skeptics is rapidly waning. The world’s scientists have 

never been so unanimous and so ominous in their warnings of future hazards. But while the climate science debate is approaching 

closure, the climate economics debate is still wide opening. 

Climate change is happening. It is threatening our future 

wellbeing, but how much can we afford to do about it? The most 

powerful argument for inaction today is the claim that the costs of 

reducing emissions would be intolerable. The damage to the economy, it is alleged, would be worse than the climate problem we are 

attempting to solve. 

Other witnesses have addressed the costs of climate policy. My 

testimony addresses the other side of the coin, the costs of inaction. 

Dr. Keohane mentioned this briefly in his remarks in the last 

panel. When it comes to climate change today, there is no longer 

any choice of avoiding all costs. The status quo is no longer an option. That is, the costs of climate change are not a discretionary 

purchase, like choosing whether to buy a new car this year or wait 

another year. It is more like a homeowner deciding whether it is 

time to repair the ever-widening cracks in the foundation of a 

house. The longer you wait, the more expensive it will be. Wait 

long enough, and it may become impossible to save the house. 

My research shows that for the United States as a whole, even 

a partial accounting of the costs of inaction is well above 1 percent 

of GDP, rising steadily in dollars and as a percentage over time. 

For some parts of the country, such as Florida, a similar partial accounting of the costs of inaction in another study we did reaches 

5 percent of state income within this century. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
322 

For particularly vulnerable parts of the world, such as the islands of the Caribbean, the costs will be disastrously greater, with 

one likely consequence being a much increased flow of refugees out 

of that region. 

Damages that will result from inaction include, but are not limited to the impacts of increasingly severe hurricanes, more coastal 

property at risk from rising sea level and storm surges, increased 

energy costs for air conditioning, as temperatures rise, growing 

scarcity and rising costs for water, losses in agriculture to hotter 

and drier conditions, and losses of tourism revenue as weather conditions worsen. 

My written testimony details these, and has references to the detailed studies from which they are taken. Rather than try to walk 

you through any of those calculations, I would like to take a 

minute to talk about what some of my newer research implies 

about an issue that came up in the last panel, about competitiveness. 

I have been looking at the question of China’s trade and its carbon intensity, and the remarkable fact is that China does not have 

a comparative advantage in carbon-intensive goods. China’s imports are as carbon-intensive as carbon-intensive as its exports, in 

a sense, more. China has a comparative advantage in low cost 

labor, and they export things that are based on low cost labor, 

which are not the carbon-intensive products in the world economy. 

It is completely a mistake to think that concerns about competitiveness lead to thinking that China is going to rush ahead based on 

lower cost carbon. 

If we want to think about competitiveness on the environment, 

I think we would be more useful to think about the country that 

is really winning in world trade, in most recent years, which is 

Germany. Germany has high wages, it has high energy costs, and 

it has a renewable energy standard. It is part of a cap and trade 

system. It is the world-beater, in terms of exports, and they don’t 

seem to be crippled by those European environmental regulations. 

They have a big trade surplus in manufacturing. So, not only is 

China not the winner in carbon-intensive things. Germany has a 

lot of very carbon-intensive exports, but it is not necessary to cut 

wages to the Chinese level, to cut environmental regulations back 

to the Chinese level. 

Why is it that you can lead the world in exports with European 

wages, regulations, and energy costs? I think that is the question 

that we ought to be looking at before we jump to any conclusions 

about what small changes in climate policy are going to mean for 

competitiveness. 

So, thank you. I will be happy to answer questions if I am still 

here, or in writing, if I have to leave. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerman follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
323 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 72878A.148
324 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 351 72878A.149
325 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 352 72878A.150
326 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 353 72878A.151
327 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 354 72878A.152
328 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 355 72878A.153
329 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 356 72878A.154
330 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 357 72878A.155
331 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 72878A.156
332 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 72878A.157
333 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 72878A.158
334 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361 72878A.159
335 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 72878A.160
336 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 72878A.161
337 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 72878A.162
338 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 365 72878A.163
339 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 366 72878A.164
340 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 367 72878A.165
341 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman, very much. Our next 

witness is Ms. Kate Gordon. She is the Co-Director of the National 

Apollo Alliance. We thank you so much for being here. Turn on 

that microphone, please. 

STATEMENT OF KATE GORDON 

Ms. GORDON. Thanks for your patience, also, in staying so late. 

I also am going to have to run out of here at some point, so, for 

a flight. 

This is a critical moment. You keep hearing this. We are at a moment of climate crisis, but also, economic crisis, and also, an equity 

crisis. We have an inequality at a high in this country, and everything has sort of converged. We really need to consider whether we 

are continuing with business as usual, or whether we are looking 

at a new path, where we can simultaneously achieve climate stability and energy security, and economic prosperity. 

And this is, I think the bill in front of you is a good and exciting 

step toward that, but I also want to say it is critical, at this moment, that we take a comprehensive approach. It is not going to 

be enough just to regulate. We need to take the kind of comprehensive approach that the countries that are beating us in this space, 

which I agree are the European countries, that those countries 

have taken. 

What those countries have done is to say not only do we create 

the regulations that create demand in these sectors for clean energy and efficiency, they have also invested in their workforce. 

They have also invested in their manufacturing sectors. These 

countries have not succeeded and they are not ahead of us because 

of lower wages and cheaper processes. They are ahead of us because they have looked both to demand and supply, when looking 

at clean energy and energy efficiency. 

There is no guarantee. There is no magic pill that is going to create jobs from this bill if we don’t take a comprehensive approach. 

There is no guarantee that, for instance, construction jobs in efficiency will be good jobs, unless we put in prevailing wage standards and other guarantees. There is no guarantee manufacturing 

jobs will stay in the United States, unless we invest in retooling 

and scaling up our manufacturing sector, so that the 70,000 manufacturing firms today, that are making the component parts that 

could be part of the supply chain, unless those firms can retool and 

retrain to be part of that supply chain. 

There is no guarantee that workers will be ready for the clean 

energy economy unless we invest in training programs that really 

help all Americans, including those without four year college degrees. And I would just urge the committee to think about the 

workforce provisions of the bill, and really expand those, to include 

folks who are not in four year colleges. The vast majority of the 

jobs that we have seen coming out of the green economy in manufacturing and construction operations and installation, the majority 

of those will be the kind of middle skill jobs that are really most 

available to those with two year associate degrees, with technical 

degrees. So, really looking at those folks as well. 

We have seen, I think, in some ways, the Recovery Act as a precursor to the kind of bill we are looking at today, the way of doing 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

comprehensive investment, combined with workforce investment. 

That bill is already leading, through its sections on creating demand for efficiency and renewable energy. It is already leading to 

jobs throughout the country. In my testimony, written testimony, 

I talked about the company, Serious Materials, which just bought 

a Chicago window factor, and is turning it into an efficient window 

factory, in part, because of demand created by the Recovery Act for 

efficient products. 

We also have seen companies in other parts of the Midwest retool, going from producing regular glass to efficient glass, going 

from producing gearboxes for tractors to gearboxes for wind turbines. This is already happening, and it will continue to happen. 

There is a hundred stories from the Recovery Act. We could turn 

that into a thousand or ten thousand stories from this type of bill. 

So, we encourage you, as you are looking at the bill, to think big. 

Don’t just think about, you know, the cap and trade section. Don’t 

just think about imported oil and energy savings. Think about 

workers, and the countless Americans who might finally be able to 

earn a living wage, and be able to enter the middle class, or be able 

to invent cutting edge technologies that will put us on the forefront 

of the clean energy future. 

We have, as a country, always come to crisis, come out of crisis 

stronger, and come out of crisis with new innovations and new 

leadership, and we can do that again. 

And I just encourage you to look beyond the individual pieces of 

this bill, to where we want to go as a country, and how we want 

to be competitive. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement Ms. Gordon follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 72878A.166
344 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 72878A.167
345 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 72878A.168
346 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 72878A.169
347 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 72878A.170
348 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 72878A.171
349 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Gordon, very much. Our next witness, Denise Bode, is the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. Welcome back. 

Ms. BODE. Thank you, Mr. Markey. It is always nice to be here. 

Mr. MARKEY. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DENISE BODE 

Ms. BODE. Thank you very much. I would like to start off by 

thanking you all for drafting the American Clean Energy Security 

Act. It is an important step forward. In my testimony, I will focus 

on all aspects of it, but my oral testimony, I want to focus on the 

wind industry’s top priority, and that is early passage of the Renewable Electricity Standard, and what it means to jobs, good 

manufacturing jobs, as well as electric generation jobs in the 

United States. 

Short-term extensions of the Renewable Energy Production Credit, the PTC, have helped keep wind energy companies competitive 

with traditional forms of energy, but the short-term extensions 

have created planning and investment uncertainty. The booms and 

busts, the extension and the lack of extension have created uncertainty for new development of wind generation businesses, and 

most especially, for the build-out of brand new manufacturing base 

in the U.S. 

By eliminating this uncertainty, a National Renewable Electric 

Standard would provide the long-term commitment to manufacturers and developers alike to invest billions of dollars in the American worker, that will be around forever in an industry where the 

source of fuel is infinite. 

This business certainty will help quickly deploy renewable energy sources in the short term, to help achieve stronger emission 

reductions in the future at a lower cost. If you thought last year’s 

historic high for wind, contributing 42 percent of new generation 

capacity in the U.S., just wait to what you will see with a lasting 

commitment to renewables. 

Last year, while the U.S. economy was shedding hundreds of 

thousands of jobs, the wind industry added 35,000 new jobs, in addition to 55 new expanded or announced manufacturing facilities 

across the country. The renewable energy industry, with wind 

power playing a major role, is really poised to help lead the country 

out of the current recession and create a more sound economy. 

During the Bush Administration, the Department of Energy concluded that wind energy could feasibly supply 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity by 2030. The 20 percent wind energy report, that 

is just one scenario, certainly, we can do more, and we are already 

doing more. But I wanted to announce this. Even this one scenario, 

that they said that the numerous benefits from achieving that level 

of deployment would include supporting 500,000 new jobs, generating over $1 trillion in economic impact by the year 2030, decreasing natural gas prices by 12 percent, saving consumers between 

$43 billion and $171 billion, and avoided 825 million tons of carbon 

dioxide emissions in the electric sector in 2030, the equivalent of 

taking out 140 million cars off the road. 

Unfortunately, though, the United States is at a competitive disadvantage compared to the 37 countries around the world that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
350 

have national renewable electric energy requirements, including 

China and India, which have mandatory requirements. 

The importance and benefits of a national RES are unbelievable, 

because we stand at a critical crossroads, as we determine how to 

promote job growth, building back a new economy of jobs that will 

be there forever. 

In addition to keeping our Nation competitive with other countries, there are many other benefits. Numerous studies conclude 

that a national RES would save consumers money, as renewable 

energy sources displace fossil fuel, and avoid the volatility of fossil 

fuel prices. 

An excellent real world example that I was involved in as the 

Chairman of the State Commission in Oklahoma was the renewable electricity development that brought down costs to consumers, 

is the experience of Oklahoma Gas & Electric. The entire cost of 

Oklahoma Gas & Electric’s Centennial Wind Project in Oklahoma 

was entirely offset by the natural gas fuel savings in 2007 alone, 

saving consumers in Arkansas and Oklahoma money. And that is 

a state that clearly can benefit. 

A national RES would create jobs. Of course, you know, the 46 

states with power plants and manufacturing facilities, job growth 

is already expanding in every region of the country. A national 

RES will also bring benefits to all areas. The Energy Information 

Administration has found that the Southeastern United States 

would be a net renewable energy exporter by 2019 under a national 

RES. Because a variety of resources are eligible for RES compliance, all regions of the country will be able to utilize other abundant renewable resources besides wind to meet the requirements. 

Further wind energy projects exist in 35 states already. 

Whereas other fuels are shipped by rails, pipelines, a national 

RES would promote the shipment of wind via transmission lines, 

and allow utilities to purchase renewable energy credits from 

windy regions. It is a downpayment too, on the greenhouse gas 

emissions. And I know I am up against my deadline, and I know 

you will pound that, but I want to tell you more thing. 

What is really critical here is the study, just came out within the 

last month, that said in Europe alone, the wind generation that 

was added has avoided 7 percent of the greenhouse emissions from 

electric generation that would have been there before. So, it is an 

immediate impact on removing carbon right now. 

Thank you very much for my opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bode follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
351 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 72878A.172
352 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 72878A.173
353 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 72878A.174
354 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 72878A.175
355 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 72878A.176
356 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Bode. Our next witness is Mr. 

David Manning. He is the Vice President for External Affairs at 

National Grid, where he is responsible for federal issues and relations. He has also served as the President of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, so we welcome you, sir. Whenever you 

are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MANNING 

Mr. MANNING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you 

know, I may be the only one here that was on the rigs in the high 

Arctic and also a delegate to Kyoto. So, just quickly, thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, Ranking Member Upton, and members of the committee. 

National Grid is a very large natural gas and electricity provider 

in the Northeast. We work from New York to New Hampshire. We 

serve about 15 million people. I am here to speak very specifically, 

however, sir, on the analysis which is available to us to explain the 

economic benefits of energy efficiency investment. 

A couple of years ago, at the World Economic Forum, there was 

great debate over whether or not we can do climate change, whether or not we can drive energy efficiency without bankrupting the 

economy, and we heard a lot about that this evening, in terms of 

the cost of action. 

There was a lack of substantive evidence, and a group pulled together, including ourselves, Shell, DTE, Honeywell, Environmental 

Defense, the NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and 

we all partnered with McKinsey, and produced a study. It took over 

a year in production, and it analyzed all of the various means open 

to us, in terms of investing in energy efficiency technologies. It was 

vetted by MIT, Princeton, Texas A&M, UC–Davis, and if you look 

at nothing else, I have attached to my written testimony what I 

call the McKinsey Curve. And the McKinsey Curve, which came 

out in 2007, demonstrates that about 40 percent of the technologies 

that they reviewed fully pay for themselves within their lifetime. 

So, there is no net cost to those technologies. Quite obviously, you 

start with residential electronics. We know that computers can be 

much more effective, much more efficient. Residential lighting. 

And as you work through, you then go into vehicles, you go into 

fuel, intensity of carbon fuels. So, we have a pretty thorough analysis, setting out all of the various opportunities, and it is to drive 

a significant shift in capital investment away from less efficient, 

more emitting technologies, and driving us to more cost-effective 

solutions that assume no technological breakthroughs, 80 percent 

of the options reviewed relied on proven technology. The balance 

were considered high potential, and high potential in 2007 included 

cellulosic biofuels and plug-in hybrids, and of course, now, a number of companies are testing plug-in hybrids. 

So, it looked at a series of options, going from least cost to greatest cost, and this is consistent with what New York City found in 

its New York City 2030 Program, that a great deal of the emissions 

within urban centers are in buildings. So, your easy and earliest 

hits were in buildings and appliances. Moving on, vehicles and fuel 

carbon intensity. The third move was industrials, sinks and forests, 

and then, finally electric power options. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
357 

What it also found was the maximum of all of those categories, 

no one category contributed more than 11 percent to the solution. 

So, it is widely dispersed through the economy, and of course, that 

is part of our point, is that in order to invest in these technologies, 

you are driving an entire new industry. 

Just a few examples. Obviously, we have been doing a lot of work 

in energy efficiency in New Hampshire. We have been working 

throughout New England. In Massachusetts, we go back some 30 

years in this experience. 

Just in the last year alone, we are partnering with Positive Energy. This is a firm doing a pilot in Massachusetts. They are based 

on the West Coast, and they are coming up with a tracking system 

for customers to demonstrate how their fuel consumption relates to 

those with similar properties. 

Reflex Lighting Group, now doing state of the art design work in 

Boston for commercial space. DMI, R.G. Vanderweil, two new design firms that are doing energy efficiency programs and products 

for commercial and customer installations. We are working with 

them. 

Evergreen Solar, Sharp Solar, these are made, locally manufactured solar providers and Solar Design Associates are designing 

our new building, which we are about to open just outside of Boston, which will be the second largest solar array in New England, 

and that will be open in May, 330,000 square foot lead-certified 

building, dedicated for National Grid, powered, of course, by a solar 

array. 

So, those are all, those companies didn’t exist a year or two ago, 

so my point, sir, is that, and panel, is that we have a very real opportunity to not only pay for these opportunities and energy savings, but to drive new jobs. Very quickly, we spend $215 billion annually on the production of electricity. We only invest $2.6 billion in energy efficiency. In natural gas, we spend $1 to $2 per mcf on energy efficiency, compared to, I mean, the cost, I am sorry, would be $1 to $2, compared to the cost of the fuel of $6 to $8. And multiple studies have 

demonstrated that you can do energy efficiency for approximately 

$0.03 per kilowatt-hour saved, and electricity costs, of course, 

range anywhere from $0.06 to $0.12 and beyond. 

A lot of this has taken place in New England, because of our 

highest cost of energy, but we can do it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manning follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 387 72878A.177
359 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 388 72878A.178
360 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 389 72878A.179
361 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 72878A.180
362 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 72878A.181
363 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 72878A.182
364 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 72878A.183
365 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Manning, very much. Our final 

witness is Yvette Pena, who is Legislative Director of the Blue 

Green Alliance, a partnership between labor unions and environmental organizations, comprising more than six million people in 

support of good jobs and a green economy. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF YVETTE PENA 

Ms. PENA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the committee. I am testifying today, I am afraid David Foster 

was supposed to testify, so obviously, I am not him. He is our Executive Director. He is very sorry he had to leave. He had a commitment outside of the country. 

The Blue Green Alliance is made up of the United Steelworkers, 

the Sierra Club, the Laborers International Union, the National 

Resource Defense Council, the Communication Workers of America, 

and SEIU. This collaboration of labor unions and environmental organizations is based on our common goal to build a clean energy 

economy, and economy that both creates good green union jobs and 

combats global warming. 

Several weeks ago, in response to the deepening economic and 

climate crisis, the Blue Green Alliance put forward a policy statement on climate change, the first such statement issued jointly by 

both labor unions and environmental organizations. The policy 

statement stressed the importance of including targets that rely on 

the best scientific evidence in an economy-wide cap and trade system that contains mechanisms to prevent job loss and globally competitive energy-intensive industries. And above all, the statement 

made clear that comprehensive climate change legislation should 

focus on the creation and retention of millions of family-sustaining 

green jobs. I have submitted a copy of our policy statement for the 

record following my written testimony. 

Solving global warming will not be the economic calamity that 

some are predicting. Done right, the transition to a green economy 

will be the most important economic development tool of the Twenty First Century. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 took the first step in that direction, with a meaningful down 

payment on investment in the green economy. But this down payment could be wasted, if we don’t continue to make the large scale 

investments that are necessary to transition the Nation into a 

clean energy economy. 

Policies, such as the strong Renewable Electricity Standard, 

which is included in the draft bill, are essential in creating a regulatory framework that supports renewable energy, energy efficiency, and new transmission, as they provide important market 

signals that will attract private investment at the scale necessary 

to put Americans back to work. 

A study released by the Blue Green Alliance on the Renewable 

Energy Policy Project of component manufacturing in the renewable energy industry found that 850,000 manufacturing jobs could 

be created with $160 billion of investments in manufacturing. 

New wind turbine equipment plans have also been built in communities across the country, including North and South Dakota, 

Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arkansas, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
366 

New York, North Carolina, and other places directly employing 

thousands of workers. 

Comprehensive climate change legislation will also reinvigorate 

the construction industry, in which 1.9 million people are now out 

of work. We must make greater investments in both commercial 

retrofitting and residential weatherization, with the right standards that others have spoken about. 

Such energy savings can be put to use to finance a high wage, 

high road weatherization industry, where livable wages are paid, 

health care is provided, and essential career and apprenticeship job 

training opportunities are made available to communities across 

America. 

As members of the committee are fully aware, global warming is 

a global problem. U.S. climate change legislation must not create 

perverse incentives for energy-intensive industries to close their 

U.S. facilities because of rising energy costs and relocate them to 

countries that do not take effective action to curb emissions. Nor 

should energy-intensive industries be left vulnerable to imports 

from countries that do not price carbon in energy-intensive products. In either case, Americans lose jobs and global warming emissions increase. 

Among the mechanisms available to resolve the international 

competitive issue are allowance allocations to energy-intensive industries, border adjustment mechanisms, and globally measurable 

and enforceable sectoral agreements within the framework of an 

international treaty. 

We are confident that this committee can craft the appropriate 

combination of these mechanisms to ensure that our domestic manufacturing industries remain both competitive and play their critical role in reducing their own emissions. 

Global warming is already destroying the livelihood of workers 

available. Doing nothing is not an option. Before us are critical 

choices and decisions. Will we build the clean energy economy and 

put America’s factory and construction workers back on the job? 

Will we advocate a new development model for developing countries, that emphasizes consumption in their economies, instead of 

unsustainable trade deficits and hours? 

Will we look back a year from now and say that we stood up for 

our country, our climate, and all humanity when it mattered? Your 

choices will decide which path we go down as a Nation. I believe 

that with the vision that has been laid out in the draft legislation, 

you have already taken steps down the right path for our workers 

and for our environment. 

The Blue Green Alliance and its partner organizations look forward to working with members of the committee as you continue 

to work on this critical piece of legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
367 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 72878A.184
368 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 72878A.185
369 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 72878A.186
370 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 400 72878A.187
371 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 401 72878A.188
372 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 402 72878A.189
373 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you, Ms. Pena, very much. And now, we 

will turn and recognize Ms. Castor, from the State of Florida. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very 

much for your testimony today. I hear a lot from students and 

young entrepreneurs, and they are very motivated these days to 

enter a green jobs field. 

What is your best advice for a young person, what should they 

be studying in school? How should they be preparing? Where are 

the opportunities today for those jobs? 

Mr. MANNING. I would love to start. We have a real issue in this 

country, in terms of math and science education. And this doesn’t 

just apply to the new economy, the new energy economy. It applies 

to all of the work that we must do as utilities to keep our own systems reliable. 

So, I would have to say off the top that if you are having that 

conversation, if anyone has the aptitude or the interest to pursue 

science and—speaking as a retired lawyer, I can offer great respect 

for mathematicians, for scientists, for engineers, but beyond that, 

of course, I think what is really significant is that the educational 

institutions that we now meet with and talk to, they are designing 

these programs, in terms of design, architecture, engineering, 

science, that it is very difficult for us to know what we are going 

to need. The Bipartisan Action Group is meeting again tomorrow 

on this very issue, trying to figure out what sorts of means they 

will have, in terms of personnel. 

Don’t forget also, the average age of an employee within our company is very close to 50. So, when you talk to these people, remind 

them that there is an entire generation of energy providers who are 

very close to retirement. So, I think there is a pretty broad scope 

open to them. 

Ms. GORDON. Thank you for the question. I think it is a great 

one. It is incredibly important to not limit the scope of the notion 

of what a green job is. Ideally, we would love to see jobs in inventing, making, installing, using, maintaining, operating all of these 

systems here in this country, and that is a huge range of occupations, and a huge range of areas and sectors. It is one of the reasons it has been hard to count the jobs, because they are so diverse 

across so many sectors. 

I think, I would agree that math and science, math and science 

are critical not just for engineering, but what we are hearing from 

the folks, our union partners who are running apprenticeship programs in electrical and in the building trades, is they also need 

folks to come in with basic math and science. It is an incredibly important skill. 

I would also just reiterate what I said earlier, that many of these 

jobs are jobs that don’t need a four year degree, and while we want 

our young people, who are interested, all the young people who are 

interested and excited about going to a four year college should be 

able to do that. But not all young people are in that category. 

There is 150,000 dropouts last year in California. The Gates 

Foundation surveyed them, and found 80 percent of them said if 

they had had job experience while in school, they would have 

stayed in school. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
374 

And that is an incredibly important statistic, and I think we 

need to give opportunities to folks who want to go into the trades, 

opportunities to folks who want to be building hands-on, building 

these systems that we are talking about. 

Ms. BODE. As one of the mainstream, sort of new renewable industry. 

Mr. MARKEY. Turn on the microphone, please. 

Ms. BODE. We want, am I on? OK, now I am. We represent both 

the people involved in manufacturing of wind turbines, and there 

is over 8,000 parts in a wind turbine, as well as those people that 

develop the wind farms. So, we deal with both, so what we have 

been trying to do, and are doing through our Education Committee, 

is developing curricula that will provide the job training, and working with a number of educational institutions, junior colleges, votech schools, as well as four year colleges, to develop the breadth 

of training that will be necessary for these jobs. 

We have, at our Wind Power Conference that will be in Chicago, 

Illinois the first week in May, we will have approximately 20,000 

people attending that conference. We have one of the days of the 

conference set aside for young people and for people in academics, 

who want to come in and meet the 1,200 exhibitors who are manufacturer, supply chain folks, as well as developers, to talk with job 

possibilities. And we are there to talk with them as well. 

So, contact us. We are putting together an internship program. 

We are all about the jobs and the people. 

Ms. BODE. And I have another question. It is a bit broader. You 

know, last week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its 

proposed endangerment finding, that follows on the U.S. Supreme 

Court decision that says EPA has the legal authority and obligation 

to regulate greenhouse gases. 

And you know, if the Congress, if we can’t get it together and 

pass a cap and trade, or an Energy Bill here, it will probably be 

left to EPA to regulate it. What would that do to green jobs initiatives and to your growing industries? 

Mr. MANNING. Again, if I could open. I think we had a strong 

preference, which is one of the reasons we are very pleased to be 

included in this panel, we have a strong preference for a legislative 

response which can provide the kind of flexibility and the investment opportunities that make sense. 

We are a very large company. We are a very large industry, all 

of us collectively. Our preference would be that we come up with 

a regime, or that you come up with a regime which we can, instead 

of rules that we can live by, and drive the right kind of investments. 

So, Mass. v. EPA, we are very familiar with that case. We are 

very familiar with the work of the EPA, in terms of regulating 

what we do as power generators. Our preference would be that we 

come up with, or that you come up with a set of rules that will address this problem. We are very anxious to get on with it. 

Ms. BODE. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BODE. OK. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Upton. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
375 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Manning, we sort of chuckled back here when 

you said you were very glad to be on this panel. If I were you, I 

would have asked to have been on panel 2 or 3. I have just a couple 

questions, and hopefully, will not take my full five minutes. 

Ms. Pena, you talked about the Blue Green Coalition and how 

broad it is, which was exciting to hear. I am a supporter of a renewable portfolio standard. Obviously, the question is what is in 

the details, what is in the base. I am one that happens to believe 

that hydro ought to be in there, both old and new. Waste energy, 

I think, is very important. We see that in my district. A gas line 

runs right through a landfill, and they provide gas heat or gas for, 

I believe, 1,200 homes a day from the methane produced from that. 

I am a supporter of nuclear, and that is my question for you. We 

have two nuclear plants in my district. We had the unfortunate incident last fall of having a turbine lose a blade, and it was destroyed. And there are now 500 folks working to repair that turbine. As you can imagine, it is pretty big. That turbine was made 

in Germany, because we turned the switch from green to red on 

nuclear, we lost, we have lost a lot of jobs. Among them, I think 

in your coalition, you talked about the steelworkers. 

When my two plants were built, 85 percent of the components of 

those two plants were built in this country. Because we have not 

turned on a new plant in a couple of decades, 85 percent of the 

components are now made someplace else, as we have seen with 

this turbine. Would your organization support nuclear, with no 

greenhouse gas emissions, as part of the renewable portfolio standard? 

Ms. PENA. We do not have a position on nuclear energy. Some 

various organizations—— 

Mr. UPTON. Well, we might be able to convince you. 

Ms. PENA [continuing]. Have varying positions on the issue. 

Mr. UPTON. I just know that the steelworkers, I believe they are 

supportive of that. Well, I don’t know. It would be great if you 

could go back to them, because this would really create tens of 

thousands of jobs, if we are able to do that. 

Knowing my time is running out, I am going to not use all my 

time. Ms. Bode, a question that I have been asking my crew for a 

long time, and maybe you know the answer. 

This proposal, the draft deal, has a 25 percent standard by ’25. 

Obviously, a lot of that is wind. Unlike some people from Massachusetts, I actually support in water, Lake Michigan, though I 

don’t, maybe Mr. Manning, I don’t know whether you support it off 

Nantucket or not. Do you? You do. Do you hear that, Mr. Markey? 

He supports wind off Nantucket. 

Maybe, you will be delegated to panel 5 next time. 

Mr. MARKEY. How about wind in Lake Michigan? 

Mr. UPTON. I just said that I support that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Oh, you do. OK, oh, good. 

Mr. UPTON. I do. I do support that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Excellent, excellent. 

Mr. UPTON. The question, though, that I have for you, Ms. Bode, 

is we actually, we have some of those green jobs that we’ve talked 

about. In my district, we actually make the cap, which weighs 

32,000 pounds, on the 80 meter wind turbines. Great, good jobs, in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
376 

a little town in my district. Now, they provide, if we end up going 

to 25 percent, I don’t know what the wind component of that will 

be. I would guess what, 10 to 15 maybe, if we don’t include—how 

much, knowing that today, it is less than 1 percent wind, how 

much space in America do we need for, how many wind turbines 

do we need, at 80 meters tall, because they are the most efficient, 

right? 

Ms. BODE. Actually, they are actually going up to 100 feet. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. Well, 80 meters. But in essence. 

Ms. BODE. One hundred. 

Mr. UPTON. How much space do we need, land space do we need? 

Ms. BODE. Right now, there are 35 states that are producing, 

that have wind turbines and wind generation. 

Mr. UPTON. Right. 

Ms. BODE. In terms of producing wind. In terms of the space to 

do that, I think, I haven’t measured it in terms of half of the state, 

or part of the state, but I think the footprint is probably less important, in the fact that the wind turbine—— 

Mr. UPTON. Well, do we need—— 

Ms. BODE. A wind turbine, put up on land, continues to allow the 

land to have multiple uses, and in fact, you know, that is, you 

know, in some respects, that is very different than all—— 

Mr. UPTON. Do we need—— 

Ms. BODE [continuing]. Other forms of generation. 

Mr. UPTON. But how close do you put these 80 meter jobs together? 

Ms. BODE. Well, let us put it this way. In Germany, they have 

20 percent penetration, and I think they are very comfortable with 

the amount of wind turbines they have put up in their country. The 

same thing with Italy, France, and it is a much smaller space for 

them to put it—— 

Mr. UPTON. Again, remember, I am a supporter. 

Ms. BODE. Yes. 

Mr. UPTON. Do we need the size of Iowa? Do we need the size 

of—I mean, how much space do we need to generate 10 to 15 percent of our energy from wind? 

Ms. BODE. I have no idea. 

Mr. UPTON. All right. 

Ms. BODE. Well, I mean, but the point is that you do not—you 

are not taking land out of—— 

Mr. UPTON. Can you find out and get back to me? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield, I have got some 

stats. 

Mr. MARKEY. Tell you what, the gentleman’s time has expired, 

and I can recognize from, if the gentleman wouldn’t mind, I can 

recognize the gentleman from Illinois on his own time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Then I am not going to use my stats instead of my 

question. 

Ms. BODE. Well, and I would be up to answer to his question, my 

brilliant staffer, who has a lot more statistics than I do at his fingertips, if I could answer. 

Mr. MARKEY. Sure. 

Ms. BODE. Apparently, it is, actual land use is 2 to 5 percent of 

the land covered, which is less than half of the area of Anchorage, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
377 

Alaska. So, onshore land use would be approximately 12.3 million 

acres, but of course, in almost every case, that land has continued 

to be multiple use. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. Understand that. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me just add to that, then. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. Take a steel mill that uses 545 million kilowatts per 

year. It would require roughly 138 wind turbines on roughly 12,443 

acres of land, for a total output. However, during peak load at that 

steel mill, it requires 100,000 kilowatts. For that, you would need 

roughly 825 turbines on 33,000 acres of land to account for peak 

load. This wind panacea is just scary. 

The President, in his inaugural address, said we will run our factories, manufacturing factories, on wind and solar. Dr. Seuss 

couldn’t write a better line. That is irresponsible. Base load generation will always be major traditional electricity generation, whether 

that is coal or that is nuclear power, or it is going to be major 

hydro. Now, renewables can help, and I am probably one of the few 

Members who climbed a wind turbine, Mr. Chairman. I know you 

would be shocked that I actually climbed one during my break. 

I encourage everybody to visit coal-fired power plants or 

coalmines. I also did climb all the way up to the top of a turbine, 

and got a good tour of that. So, we are not anti-this, but for people 

to propose that we are going to solve our electricity problems and 

stay competitive worldwide on wind and solar, are being very disingenuous. And so, that is why part of our debate is, in this bill, 

which has a gaping hole, which is the credit allocation. Are you all 

comfortable with the fact that there are some folks cutting backroom deals on the credit allocations, and that we are not here discussing the allocation of those credits right now. 

Ms. Pena? 

Mr. MANNING. If I could—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I asked Ms. Pena first. 

Mr. MANNING. Oh, I am sorry. 

Ms. PENA. Thank you for—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Real quickly. I have only got 2:40, and the chairman’s hot on time. 

Ms. PENA. And that question will be answered, and obviously, we 

are having a lot of discussions on it. We need to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, you are part of the backroom deals, too. 

Ms. PENA. Well, I—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes? 

Ms. PENA. No, no. I mean, obviously, the chairman has—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No. There is deals being cut right now, so if you 

are not back there, you had better get back there, because folks are 

negotiating these credits. Now, we should be discussing these credits out here in the open, so that we can then also score them. So, 

do you think we should have those out for everyone to see, so we 

can address the benefits? 

Ms. PENA. I believe we need allocations, and we need investments—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. How about transparency? 

Ms. PENA [continuing]. Manufacturing—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
378 

Mr. SHIMKUS. How about transparency? You all are for transparency, aren’t you? 

Ms. PENA. There is transparency in this process, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. There is. So, can you tell me the credit allocation 

right now? 

Ms. PENA. It is being discussed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And who is discussing it? 

Ms. PENA. The chairman, the various constituencies. The—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In the backrooms. In the backroom, which I have 

not been invited to yet. That is not dealing and helping me on coal 

production and electricity generation. 

Ms. PENA. I can only answer what we believe, and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Manning? 

Mr. MANNING. Our position has been very public, in terms of allocation. We believe that—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Should there be, let me ask this question. My time 

is—should there be 100 percent auction? Ms. Pena, yes or no, 100 

percent auction? Yes or no. 

Ms. PENA. We need to continue to discuss that. 

Mr. MANNING. We need to move promptly to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. 100 percent auction, yes or no. 

Mr. MANNING. Ultimately, yes. 

Ms. SHIMKUS. Yes. Ms. Bode, 100 percent auction. Should we 

have 100 percent auction? Ms. Bode? 

Ms. BODE. I don’t know what is being discussed in the back 

rooms. I am sorry. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, the question is should we have 100 percent 

auction of credits? 

Ms. BODE. Oh, OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The question is, should we have 100 percent auction of credits? Aren’t these important questions? Mr. Chairman? 

Ms. BODE. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, did you invite the panel here? 

Mr. MARKEY. I don’t think there should be 100 percent. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am asking the panel that you have invited. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Please. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Should they be answering? Should there be 100 

percent auction of credits? 

Ms. BODE. I don’t know the answer to your question. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Next. 

Ms. GORDON. I think we, our alliance hasn’t come to a specific 

position on this, but we definitely believe there needs to be a transition period, where—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Ackerman, please. 

Ms. GORDON. Ultimately, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Should there be 100 percent—someone. 

Ms. GORDON. But there needs to be a transition period, that includes some allocations, and we need to make sure we invest auction proceeds back into the clean energy economy. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, I am in favor of 100 percent auction. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And I am in favor of transparency in making 

these deals. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
379 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I think the question of is there transitional assistance needed is a separable question. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. But we should be discussing these credits. 

If we move to markup of a bill on Tuesday, and we don’t have the 

credit allocation, that will pose a question, Mr. Chairman, one that 

you asked in past Energy Bills, of who is writing the bill in the 

back room. And with that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. And I thank all 

of the members of the committee for this historically long hearing, 

and you don’t hear many witnesses ever say thank you for inviting 

me this evening to testify. As one of our witnesses—— 

Ms. BODE. Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. 

Ms. BODE. I just wanted a point of personal privilege. I wanted 

to share the fact that my brother and sister-in-law are here from 

Carlisle, Massachusetts. They are in the tiers with their two 

daughters. 

Mr. MARKEY. Where are they, please? I would love to see them, 

and welcome from Carlisle. 

Ms. BODE. And this is the first Congressional hearing they have 

ever been to, and so, I just wanted to make sure that everyone 

knew that they were here. 

Mr. MARKEY. Hopefully they weren’t here at—Carlisle is like the 

aristocracy of Massachusetts. So, thank you so much for being here 

today, and your sister-in-law did a fantastic job here today. 

Tomorrow morning, by the way, our first hearing is on the allocation policies of carbon credits, in order to assist and benefit consumers, and we will have seven witnesses, beginning at 9:30 tomorrow morning, to begin the discussion of carbon credits and its implementation, in a way that will protect consumers in America. 

Again, we thank all of you for your patience today, and for your 

tremendous contributions to this process. Thank you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
380 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 72878A.190
381 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 72878A.191
382 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 72878A.192
383 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 72878A.193
384 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 72878A.194
385 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 72878A.195
386 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 72878A.196
387 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 72878A.197
388 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 418 72878A.198
389 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 419 72878A.199
390 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 420 72878A.200
391 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 421 72878A.201
392 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 422 72878A.202
393 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 423 72878A.203
394 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 424 72878A.204
395 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425 72878A.205
396 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 426 72878A.206
397 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 427 72878A.207
398 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 428 72878A.208
399 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 429 72878A.209
400 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 430 72878A.210
401 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 431 72878A.211
402 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 432 72878A.212
403 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 433 72878A.213

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(405) 

THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY SECURITY 

ACT OF 2009—DAY 3 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Doyle, Inslee, Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, Welch, Dingell, Green, Capps, Harman, Gonzalez, 

Baldwin, Ross, Matheson, Barrow, Waxman [ex officio], Upton, 

Hall, Stearns, Shimkus, Shadegg, Pitts, Walden, Sullivan, Burgess, 

Scalise, Sutton, Barton [ex officio]. 

Staff Present: John Jimison, Senior Counsel; Karen Lightfoot, 

Communications Director; Matt Weiner, Special Assistant; Mitch 

Smiley, Special Assistant; Melissa Bez, Professional Staff; Alex 

Barron, Professional Staff; William Carty, Minority Professional 

Staff; Peter Spencer, Minority Professional Staff; and Garett 

Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

Mr. MARKEY. This hearing will come to order. 

Today we will begin our second full day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Yesterday we heard from 

three members of the Obama Cabinet, from CEOs of the United 

States Climate Action Partnership, from Mayor John Fetterman of 

Braddock, Pennsylvania, and from numerous experts, scientists, 

and economists, all with a stake in the best way to go about creating a new energy economy. 

Today we will hear from three panels. The first panel will provide us with input on how best to allocate emission allowances and 

ways that can assist and benefit consumers. That panel includes 

representatives of major trade associations associated with electricity production and natural gas usage, as well as advocates for 

low-income consumers. 

The second panel will advise us on ways in which we can ensure 

international competitiveness and help encourage international 

participation in our efforts to fight global warming and maintain 

a level playing field. It will feature major stakeholders like Dow 

Chemical and the United Steel Workers. 

And our final panel will help us to understand how we can 

produce low carbon electricity, both from coal with carbon capture 

and storage, and from renewable energy sources like wind, geothermal, and solar. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

Today is about the nuts and bolts of our legislation, how we help 

consumers, keep jobs here in America, and begin transforming our 

energy system. With the information that we glean from today’s 

witnesses, we can better craft solid solutions for our energy and environment future. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And I turn 

to recognize our Ranking Member, if he has any introductory comments. 

Mr. UPTON. I hope you liked the movie last night. 

Chairman Markey and I were the co-host of the Disney movie on 

Earth last night. That is one of the reasons we finished Panel 4 by 

6:45, so we could get there to the opening. 

But I have no opening statement. Let’s just get right to it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me turn to the Chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Waxman, and ask if he has any. And I do not see Mr. Barton. 

So let me then turn and introduce Jeff Sterba. He was elected 

chairman of the Edison Electric Institute in 2007. Edison Electric 

Institute is a national association of shareholder-owned electric 

companies, their international affiliates, and industry associates. 

He is also the chairman, president, and CEO of PMN Resources, 

an energy holding company serving New Mexico and Texas. 

Mr. Sterba, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENTS OF JEFFRY E. STERBA, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, 

PNM RESOURCES INC., ON BEHALF OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE; GLENN ENGLISH, CEO, NATIONAL RURAL 

ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; MARK CRISSON, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION; JOHN SOMERHALDER, II, CHAIRMAN, CEO, AND PRESIDENT, AGL RESOURCES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS 

ASSOCIATION; RICHARD MORGAN, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION; RICHARD 

COWART, DIRECTOR, REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT; 

ROBERT GREENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES; ROBERT MICHAELS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY; 

AND DARRYL BASSETT, EMPOWER CONSUMERS 

STATEMENT OF JEFFRY E. STERBA 

Mr. STERBA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the introduction. And I would first like to commend you and this 

committee for holding these hearings. This is a complex topic, and 

education and understanding of the ramifications of what you may 

do is an exceptionally important aspect of it, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. 

I am here to represent Edison Electric Institute. And as an organization, we have endorsed principles associated with climate 

change that will help ensure that we can achieve the kinds of 

greenhouse gas reductions that are necessary, but to do it in a way 

in which we protect the impact on consumers. That is a very important aspect of, I think, this program, because electricity is so pervasive in everything that consumers use, whether you are a business, 

a residential consumer, or a major industry. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

For our industry, moving to a low carbon future is about turning 

over capital stock. These are expensive, long-lived generation assets that are currently being paid for in customers’ rates. The turnover of this capital stock is not going to be simple, it is not going 

to be cheap, it won’t occur overnight. It has to be done in concert 

with the development of technologies that will allow us to move to 

low carbon equipment to be used to meet customers’ needs, things 

like carbon capture and storage which you have addressed in your 

proposed legislation. 

Care in this transition is paramount to ensure that the resulting 

cost increases to customers are reasonable and absorbable by the 

economy. We strongly believe that an allocation of allowances for 

the benefit of consumers is a critical part of this care and transition that will enable an affordable path to aggressive greenhouse 

gas reductions. 

I want to spend my limited time talking about why we believe 

the allocation of emission allowances to the electric sector is the 

most effective way to minimize adverse impacts on customers, and 

then to explain a specific proposal that EEI has developed that our 

entire membership has endorsed as to how this allocation could 

occur. 

The cap-and-trade system that Congress established to reduce 

sulfur dioxide as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is 

truly the most successful example of a cap-and-trade system in the 

world. To date, emissions have been reduced by more than 50 percent, at a cost far less than what was anticipated at the time it was 

done and without the existence or the occurrence of any windfall 

profits. In that case, 97 percent of all allowances were allocated to 

regulated emissions sources and only 3 percent were put up for 

auction. 

In the proposed cap-and-trade system, by having allowances allocated to consumers or allocated for the benefit of consumers, you 

avoid the double whammy. By double whammy, I mean customers 

having to pay for the higher cost of new resources that will have 

to be added, plus the cost of allowances to cover what you have to 

remit, to cover the emissions that you have from existing fossil fuel 

resources. 

It is important to note that by allocating these allowances for 

consumer benefit, the primary goals of a cap-and-trade system are 

still intact. There is a price that is placed on carbon which we need 

to understand and see so we can make informed decisions on resources, and the environmental improvements of greenhouse gas 

reductions occur just as they would if the allowances were auctioned. 

Some have argued that money raised by allowance auctions could 

be provided back to consumers as a means to buffer the cost impact. So what is the difference between that and allocating allowances to the distribution company to flow those benefits back to 

consumers? 

First, most of the proposals to implement either a low income tax 

credit or send payments to individuals would not benefit commercial customers, industrial customers, the source of jobs within our 

economy. But it is not just that. It is also the impact on the balance 

of the public sector. What happens to hospitals? What happens to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 

schools? They wouldn’t receive the value. It would be going to consumers. And so hospitals and bus stations and everything else that 

provides services to consumers, their rates would go up, and those 

costs would then be flowed on to consumers. 

So the increased cost of electricity would affect the economy 

through higher prices for goods and services, and higher taxes for 

local governments to cover their costs. An allocation system that 

benefits all electricity consumers helps cushion these cost increases 

through the economy. And I think, also, the efficiency of not taking 

the money from consumers through high electricity prices in the 

first place seems, at least to me, a better solution than taking it 

and then trying to pass it back to consumers through taxation and/ 

or spending policies. 

Another argument that is made against allocations is that, look 

at the European situation, and it led to windfalls. So we shouldn’t 

let that happen, so we shouldn’t have allocations. But what led to 

windfalls is because of the structure of their system in the EU. 

First, they overallocated allowances because they did not have a 

good baseline on what greenhouse gas emissions were. In the 

United States, we have that good baseline. 

Second, they made the allocations totally to all unregulated generators in the electricity sector. And it is a competitive market that 

they operated over there, where many of the States in the United 

States are not competitive markets on the retail side. And the result was that they got some benefit of price uplift and they also got 

an allocation. That led to windfalls. 

The approach that we are proposing and that EEI has developed 

ensures that that will not occur, because we know what the baseline of greenhouse gas emissions are and we know how to structure 

a system through the allocations being given to the regulated side 

of the business, to the largest extent, so that they flow to the benefit of customers. 

Let me briefly walk through the EEI proposal so that that is out 

on the table. The initial allocation to the electric public sector 

should be 40 percent of all allowances, because that is the proportion of our sector’s share of the national greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emissions. This 40 percent allocation should remain in place 

until critical technologies such as carbon capture and storage, 

which are essential to achieving long-term climate policy objectives, 

are commercially available. Then our sector share could gradually 

decline, as consumer costs for cleaner energy would also decline. 

Within the electric sector, these allowances would be divided 

among regulated distribution companies and merchant coal generators. Only merchant coal generators. Merchant coal generators 

would receive allowances based on about 50 percent of their base 

year emissions. And this is solely to cover that portion of the cost 

that isn’t recovered through the marketplace. 

There is a clear agreement on our part that there should not be 

windfalls to merchant coal generators, and what we are proposing 

is very different than what was done in the EU model. The allowances would enable these generation facilities to continue to operate, avoid a rush to gas, which would have consequences to all consumers, while new generation resources are developed. The vast 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
409 

majority of allowances would be allocated to the distribution company based on an even split between emissions and retail sales. 

By allocating to the distribution company, we ensure that the 

value of that allowance flows through to consumers. And that is 

the main point: How do we do this in a way in which we mitigate 

the cost impact to consumers? 

So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time to visit with you. I look 

forward to your questions, and particularly those around how do 

we make sure that consumers are not adversed by doing the right 

thing. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you Mr. Sterba. It was a very important 

proposal to put on the table for the members’ consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sterba follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
410 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 439 72878A.214
411 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 440 72878A.215
412 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 441 72878A.216
413 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 442 72878A.217
414 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 443 72878A.218
415 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 444 72878A.219
416 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 445 72878A.220
417 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 446 72878A.221
418 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 447 72878A.222
419 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 448 72878A.223
420 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 449 72878A.224
421 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 450 72878A.225
422 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 451 72878A.226
423 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 452 72878A.227
424 

Mr. MARKEY. Next, we welcome our former colleague and a good 

friend, Glenn English, who is the president of the National Rural 

Electric Corporation. He represented Oklahoma’s Sixth Congressional District for many years in Congress. His organization advocates for consumer-owned cooperatives on energy and operational 

issues as well as the rural community and economic development. 

We welcome you back to Congress, Glenn. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN ENGLISH 

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that. And I do want to stress we are a cooperative; we are owned 

by consumers, and our focus really is to do two things. First of all, 

to make sure that our membership have enough power to keep 

their lights on and to maintain their standard of living; the second 

is to, of course, make sure that electric power is affordable. So that 

is where we are coming from. We are not for profit. We are not for 

profit. 

There are no rewards in any way for a particular fuel, so we 

have no fuel choice from the standpoint of generating that electric 

power. It all comes down to this question of the cost of power, and 

how we can deliver that power to our membership in the most affordable manner possible. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking only from a standpoint of 

electricity as it applies to the bill, of course. And I would like to 

also call the attention of the committee to a commitment that was 

made years ago in 1932, first made in 1932 and then reiterated 

several times over the next ten years by Franklin Roosevelt when 

he made the observation that in this country that electric power is 

no longer a luxury and had become a necessity. A necessity. 

And I would suggest, as we move to deal with this particular 

issue and this challenge, that we keep that in mind. That probably 

is a little different category perhaps than other issues regarding 

carbon, food, clothing, housing, and then electricity. I think most 

people would agree that in order to maintain that standard of living in this country, that is what we have to have. 

So, anyway, I would like to just lay out a few markers, Mr. 

Chairman, as we move forward to deal with this particular challenge. The first thing is, and the dean of the House, I think, made 

this point some time ago about trying to regulate carbon through 

the Clean Air Act. I believe he described it as being a glorious 

mess. And I think that would probably be the case. It wasn’t designed to do that. I remember, I was here when we passed it the 

last time, I believe it was 1990, Mr. Chairman, and I remember I 

voted for it. I don’t remember any discussion about the carbon 

when we were talking about that. So this is not designed to do that 

kind of a job. 

So in reality, I think we have all got to face the fact that we have 

got to have a bill; but I would also suggest not just any bill. It has 

got to be a bill, I think, that addresses the carbon issue and the 

carbon issue alone. In other words, what I would suggest, it is a 

bill that needs to be simple, if such things can be done. It needs 

to be flexible. It certainly needs to be affordable. And it needs to 

have sustainability. And what I mean by ‘‘sustainability,’’ Mr. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

Chairman, is one that is going to last through the years. This is 

a long-term project we are embarking on, and certainly the next 10 

or 15 years are probably going to be the most challenging as we 

move down that road. 

And we also need one that is effective. So I would suggest a commonsense approach as we begin to put these pieces together to 

have a workable bill that accomplishes its objective. 

The next thing I would suggest is it not be legislation that is designed to raise revenue. It shouldn’t be a revenue enhancing endeavor. It should be something that is trying to achieve the objective of reducing carbon emissions in the country, and that alone. 

So that means auction is not a good idea. We would discourage the 

committee from going down that road. That means that allowances 

should be free, particularly as far as applies to the electric utility 

industry. And we would also suggest that it should be done on the 

distribution level, so that the full benefit of those allowances 

should go to consumers. Of course, our not-for-profit status, that is 

where they go. 

I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that as we look at the caps, 

they should be established with an eye toward the question of technology: What can we do, and when can we do it? I think we all appreciate and understand that this bill, this effort, what we are 

going to try to accomplish here if we are going to keep the lights 

on and keep electric bills affordable, we need technology; and we 

are going to have to make some very significant advancements, and 

we are very hopeful that is going to be the case. 

In some cases I guess you could say, Mr. Chairman, we are betting on the come, and we need to do everything we can to make 

sure that we speed up that technology and get it developed, get it 

on line, so it can be utilized, so we can get back to a full complement of fuels. 

And we would also suggest, again looking at it from the consumers’ standpoint, Mr. Chairman, that there should be some kind 

of safety valve device that makes certain that consumers are assured that we will, in fact, have a limit on any economic damage, 

that this thing will get out of control, that we are going to try to 

contain those costs. I know that you have addressed that in the 

draft. I would suggest it probably needs to be done in a little different manner than what you have in the draft. I appreciate the 

thought. 

And also as we move forward with renewables, Mr. Chairman, 

we are very committed to renewables. We in fact serve 70 percent 

of the land mass of the United States. So most of the renewable 

energy that is going to be generated in this country is going to be 

done in rural America and areas served by electric cooperatives. 

We just established a national renewable cooperative which allows 

small distribution systems all over the country to invest in renewable projects. 

But I would also suggest that there is a wide range of difference 

in different parts of the country. Some areas can produce renewables far more economically, far easier, and far greater magnitude 

than you can in other regions. And that is why we think it should 

be looked at nationally and what can be done nationally. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest that for that reason 

there needs to be a small utility exemption, about 4 million 

megawatts per year. And I think we can make a serious workable 

start and move down the road to the objective you are trying to 

achieve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. English, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. English follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
427 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 456 72878A.228
428 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 457 72878A.229
429 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 458 72878A.230
430 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 459 72878A.231
431 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 460 72878A.232
432 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 461 72878A.233
433 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 462 72878A.234
434 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 463 72878A.235
435 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 464 72878A.236
436 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 465 72878A.237
437 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 466 72878A.238
438 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 467 72878A.239
439 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 468 72878A.240
440 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 469 72878A.241
441 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 470 72878A.242
442 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 471 72878A.243
443 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 472 72878A.244
444 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 473 72878A.245
445 

Mr. MARKEY. And our next witness is Mr. Mark Crisson. He is 

the CEO of the American Public Power Association, which is the 

service organization for more than 2,000 community-owned electric 

utilities. Prior to his current position Mr. Crisson was at Tacoma 

Power in Washington State for nearly 30 years. Whenever you are 

ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF MARK CRISSON 

Mr. CRISSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am 

Mark Crisson, president and CEO of the American Public Power 

Association. And, as you said, we represent over 2,000 publicly 

owned, not-for-profit power systems across the United States, 49 

States. We serve cities as large as Los Angeles, but most of our 

members, the vast majority of our members serve communities of 

10,000 people or less. 

Mr. Chairman, APPA supports congressional action to address 

climate change. But as my colleagues have stated we are very concerned that achieving environmental goals be properly balanced 

with affordable costs to the consumers and the economy. Consequently, we have developed a detailed set of principles on implementation of a cap-and-trade program. 

We believe it is critically important that the transition to a low 

carbon future be managed in a way that keeps electricity affordable 

and reliable in order to be sustainable and workable in the long 

term. Thus, our first principle is legislation must include a safety 

valve or other stringent cost containment mechanism that sets a 

maximum price on carbon. 

While we support the inclusion in your draft bill of an offset regime and the use of banking and borrowing, we do not think these 

are adequate measures. We urge the committee to include a price 

ceiling on CO2 in the next version of your draft. We also have concerns that the provisions governing the establishment and use of 

offsets are inadequate for cost containment purposes, and would 

like to work with the committee to improve these provisions. 

Regarding the issue of emission allowances, the electric utilities 

sector should receive an allowance allocation proportionate to its 

share of total emissions, or about 40 percent, all of which we feel 

should be allocated to load-serving entities or local distribution 

companies. This will provide the industry with allowances sufficient to maintain reliability and affording time to adapt during a 

transition period when low emission technology is under development. Allowances should go to the local distribution companies because they are in the best position to ensure that allowance revenues are used to reduce cost to electric consumers. Allocating allowances, as opposed to fossil fuel generators, would eliminate the 

prospect of windfall profits that have resulted in some cases in the 

European Union cap-and-trade system. 

We think the allocation to the LLCs is particularly important in 

regions that have restructured wholesale power markets that are 

under Federal jurisdiction and run by regional transmission organizations, such as the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, the Greater 

Midwest and California, because allocating allowances to independent generators in these markets will raise the already high 

wholesale prices these markets are producing. This is because fossil 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
446 

fuel generators nearly always set the clearing price in the wholesale electricity supply auctions in these markets. Should they receive allowances, these fossil fuel generators will add the value of 

these allowances to their bids into these markets, thereby adding 

that cost to other generation bidding into the market, including noor low-carbon generations such as nuclear plants. 

EPP also has serious concerns about auctioning allowances. An 

auction by its nature disadvantages small entities like most of my 

member systems. It is important, therefore, that if an auction is 

conducted, that it be designed to restrict speculation and minimize 

potential for volatility and allowance prices. 

With a stringent cost-control mechanism in place, APPA would 

support phasing in an auction gradually over time. But without 

such a control mechanism, we think no auction should occur until 

new emissions control technology is commercially available to industry. 

It is also essential that all net auction proceeds be used only for 

targeted research and development, energy efficiency, and mitigation of cost impact on consumers. In other words, areas directly related to addressing the climate change issue. 

Mr. Chairman, regarding the proposed renewable electricity 

standard, APPA supports a workable Federal RES of 15 percent by 

2020. However, our support contemplates that such a standard 

would be in place prior to implementation of a Federal greenhouse 

gas reduction mandate, and would serve to provide a bridge between the present and the time when technology has been developed to significantly capture and store carbon. 

We also believe that once a Federal cap-and-trade program is implemented, an RES is neither necessary nor property. By its nature, the RES limits the flexibility of our industry, while a cap-andtrade program is intended to provide the industry more flexibility 

to tailor a compliance program. Enacting the two simultaneously 

will increase compliance costs for many utility systems. 

Regarding the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, we do not 

support such a standard but would urge that the RES permit a significant percentage of the standard be met by using energy efficiency measures. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, APPA has serious concerns about the 

new source performance standards included in Title I, because several of our members have facilities in various stages of permitting 

and construction. These standards would also effectively create a 

moratorium on coal in a post-2015 world and raise some significant 

challenges for facilities yet to be permitted between 2009 and 2015, 

because basically there is no commercially deployable coal generation technology in the U.S. that can achieve the proposed standard 

of 1,100 pounds for megawatt hours. We would strongly urge the 

committee to delete this provision. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any questions you have. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Crisson, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crisson follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
447 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 477 72878A.246
448 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 478 72878A.247
449 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 479 72878A.248
450 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 480 72878A.249
451 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 481 72878A.250
452 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 482 72878A.251
453 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 483 72878A.252
454 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 484 72878A.253
455 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 485 72878A.254
456 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 486 72878A.255
457 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 487 72878A.256
458 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 488 72878A.257
459 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 489 72878A.258
460 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 490 72878A.259
461 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 491 72878A.260
462 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 492 72878A.261
463 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 493 72878A.262
464 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 494 72878A.263
465 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 495 72878A.264
466 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 496 72878A.265
467 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 497 72878A.266
468 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 498 72878A.267
469 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 499 72878A.268
470 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 500 72878A.269
471 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 501 72878A.270
472 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 502 72878A.271
473 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Barrow, to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the Chair for the courtesy of allowing me 

to introduce our next witness. 

I want to welcome Mr. John Somerhalder here to the committee 

today. Mr. Somerhalder is the chairman of the board, president 

and CEO of AGL Resources down in Atlanta. He is a chemical engineer, has been in the natural gas businesses for 30 years. And 

I think you will find, as he speaks for the American Gas Association today, that the folks in natural gas are already doing a lot of 

the things we want them to do, already early starters in the area 

of efficiency and trying to reduce our carbon footprint. 

So it is a privilege for me to welcome you. Thank you, Mr. 

Somerhalder, for being here today. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SOMERHALDER, II 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee. 

My company has utilities in addition to, in Georgia and Florida, 

Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey, and natural gas 

storage facilities in Texas and Louisiana. I am pleased today to testify on behalf of the American Gas Association, of which I am vice 

chair and chair of the Climate Change Task Force. 

The AGA’s 202 members deliver natural gas to more than 171 

million Americans. In terms of helping in the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas utilities have two great resources: 

our fuel and our customers. Our fuel is a clean, efficient, abundant, 

and a domestic energy source, with 98 percent of America’s natural 

gas being produced in the United States or in Canada. It is the 

dominant source of energy for residential and commercial heat, hot 

water, and cooking. Yet it produces only about 6 percent of the 

total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Upon combustion, natural gas 

creates 43 percent less carbon dioxide than coal and 28 percent less 

than petroleum. 

In terms of our customers, they lead the Nation in energy efficiency. Since 1970, the number of residential natural gas customers 

has increased from 38 million to 65 million, but the energy consumption and carbon emissions have remained flat in that time period. This results from a trend of declining use per customer. This 

dramatic reduction is attributable to tighter homes, more efficient 

appliances, and energy efficiency measures, many of which were 

implemented by natural gas utilities. 

Clearly, natural gas is part of the climate change solution. It offers an immediate answer with technology that is available today. 

The most efficient and effective way to use natural gas is directly 

in our homes and businesses. More than 90 percent of the energy 

that leaves the wellhead gets to the customer, rather than indirectly to produce electricity where two-thirds of the energy can be 

lost. 

In light of the above factors, we maintain that a national, programmatic, focused effort rather than a cap-and-trade effort for 

these customers is the best way to ensure equity while not subjecting customers to unpredictable allowance cost. We do not want 

to see our customers competing with electricity generators and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
474 

large industrials for the allowances necessary to heat their homes 

and cook their food. 

We believe, and history proves, that programmatic measures uniformly applied can accomplish what we want without the undue 

cost and complexities of the cap-and-trade system. However, if programmatic measures are not acceptable, AGA supports including 

natural gas residential and commercial sectors—excluding them 

from the scope of the cap-and-trade system until 2016, as proposed 

in the discussion draft bill. AGA believes that most allowances required for residential and commercial gas customers should be allocated rather than auctioned, as allocating allowances is the best 

way to ensure that price impacts on our customers will be minimized. Local natural gas utilities, as regulated by State public utility commissions, make no profit on natural gas prices when they 

rise. Similarly, they would not make any profit on allocated allowances. The natural gas utilities will need the ability to pass on the 

cost of these allowances, and the climate change bill should provide 

for this rate-making treatment. 

We support the proposed carbon footprint labeling in the draft 

bill. Giving customers this carbon output information will provide 

them with the essential information that they need to play a role 

in reducing our carbon output. The discussion draft bill proposes to 

establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard for both electric 

utilities and natural gas utilities. 

While the end result is a laudable one, the lack of clarity in the 

language addressing EERS causes concerns. First, the legislation 

could have the unintended consequence of limiting carbon-driven 

fuel switching, and could even increase the Nation’s dependence on 

foreign oil by preventing conversion to high efficiency gas applications from less efficient fuels. 

Second, the imposition of these penalties could be a barrier to 

economic growth and development by raising the cost of energy to 

both new and existing customers. 

And, third, the focus is on large after-tax penalties rather than 

incentives, and it is tied to consumer behavior which the utility 

cannot directly control. 

Mr. Chairman and committee members, there are many other 

issues, including research and development, natural gas vehicles, 

and renewable gas that we don’t have time to address now but are 

included in my written testimony. 

That concludes my remarks, and I will be happy to address your 

questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Somerhalder II follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
475 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 506 72878A.272
476 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 507 72878A.273
477 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 508 72878A.274
478 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 509 72878A.275
479 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 510 72878A.276
480 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 511 72878A.277
481 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 512 72878A.278
482 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 513 72878A.279
483 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 514 72878A.280
484 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 515 72878A.281
485 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 516 72878A.282
486 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 517 72878A.283
487 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 518 72878A.284
488 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 519 72878A.285
489 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness is Richard Morgan. He is a member of the Energy Resources and Environmental Committee of the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners which 

represent State public service commissions that regulate utilities. 

Mr. Morgan also leads the NARUC Task Force on Climate Policy. 

And he is serving in his second term as commissioner on the District of Columbia Public Service Commission. 

Please begin when you are ready, Mr. Morgan. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD MORGAN 

Mr. MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Richard Morgan, and I am a member 

of the District of Columbia Public Service Commission. I am testifying on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners. I am honored to have the opportunity to appear before you this morning regarding the American Clean Energy and 

Security Act. 

NARUC is on record as supporting a well-designed, economywide Federal program to limit greenhouse gas emissions in order 

to remove existing uncertainties that are hampering critically needed investment in electricity transmission and generation. 

In concept, NARUC supports the goal of auctioning emissions allowances under a cap-and-trade mechanism, but we believe it is appropriate to provide a transitional allocation of free allowances in 

order to minimize economic dislocations as we move toward a 100 

percent auction. However, as OMB Director Peter Orszag correctly 

points out, when allowances were given away to European power 

generators, shareholders, not consumers, got most of the proceeds 

as windfall profits. It is precisely for this reason that NARUC opposes the allocation of no-cost allowances to electricity generators. 

State regulators propose a different approach to ease the transition in the electric sector. Instead of giving away allowances to 

power generators, which are often unregulated, give them only to 

regulated local distribution companies which own the wires used to 

distribute electricity. These LDCs, as we call them, are always subject to rate-setting authority such as State public utility commissions or consumer-owned utilities, where they can ensure that consumers, not utility shareholders, receive the benefits of free allowances. In fact, State regulators already have in place mechanisms 

for flowing through to consumers the benefits of free emissions allowances from the existing acid rain program. 

President Obama has stated that reducing carbon emissions 

must be done in a way that insulates consumers as much as possible from potentially dramatic rate increases. Giving allowances to 

LDCs as a proxy for their customers provides an efficient means 

of softening the impact on consumers and solves the windfall profits problem at the same time. Under this approach, revenues associated with pricing greenhouse gases would be returned to the very 

consumers who would be at risk for paying higher energy prices. 

Regulators could direct a portion of the proceeds toward mitigating 

the impacts of pricing carbon, such as through expenditures on energy efficiency or low-income energy assistance programs. Meanwhile, generation decisions would still be influenced by the full effect of pricing greenhouse gas emissions. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
490 

How the proceeds of a cap-and-trade mechanism are spent is 

every bit as important as putting a price on carbon in the first 

place. Assuming an allocation to LDCs, State regulators can direct 

the proceeds toward investments such as energy efficiency that reinforce the goals of limiting greenhouse gas emissions and thereby 

lower the overall costs of achieving emissions reductions. And you 

will hear more about this from our next witness, Mr. Cowart. 

Mr. Chairman, you have surely noticed similarities between 

NARUC’s proposal and those of some industry groups. In fact, 

EEI’s testimony refers to NARUC’s support for an allocation to 

LDCs, but that is really where the similarities end. There are some 

important distinctions that I want to bring to your attention. These 

industry groups, which have unregulated generators among their 

members, naturally seek an allocation of free allowances not just 

for LDCs but for merchant generators as well. NARUC objects to 

giving free allowances to electric generators under any circumstances, and I would like to explain why. 

First, in many States generators are unregulated, and State commissions have no way to ensure that consumers would receive the 

benefits of these free allowances. There is no reason to expect an 

outcome any different from what happened in Europe. 

These companies say that they need allowances to cover their socalled net compliance costs, an argument that we find curious since 

there is no commercial technology available to remove CO2 emissions from an existing generator. These merchant generators are 

not trade exposed in the sense of competing in overseas markets; 

they are purely domestic. 

Free allowances won’t help to keep dirty generators operating 

even if that were desirable. If carbon prices are too high, the company could simply shut down its generator and keep the value of 

the allowance stream for its shareholders as sort of a golden parachute. 

Under the formula proposed by EEIC, electric sector allowances 

would go first to merchant generators based on historic emissions; 

LDCs would then get only what is left. And the generators’ share 

could grow if the utilities decide to spin off more generators into 

unregulated subsidiaries. 

Finally, any electric sector allowances given to generators would 

not be available to help soften the impact of pricing carbon on consumers through their LDCs. Those who advocate an allocation to 

generators have not explained how this would help consumers in 

any way or why it would not produce a windfall for their shareholders just as it did in Europe. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, NARUC believes that through a carefully designed cap-and-trade mechanism 

and appropriate distribution of emission allowances, carbon restrictions can be implemented without undue economic burden on consumers. 

Thank you for your time and consideration this morning. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Morgan, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
491 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 523 72878A.286
492 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 524 72878A.287
493 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 525 72878A.288
494 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 526 72878A.289
495 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 527 72878A.290
496 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 528 72878A.291
497 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 529 72878A.292
498 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 530 72878A.293
499 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 531 72878A.294
500 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness, Mr. Richard Cowart, director of 

the Regulatory Assistance Project, has served as commissioner and 

chair of the Vermont Public Service Board for 13 years. He was 

elected president of the New England Conference of Public Utility 

Commissioners, and was chair of the NARUC National Committee 

on Energy Resources and Environment. 

Mr. Cowart, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD COWART 

Mr. COWART. Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this morning about the critical role of enduse energy efficiency in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 

containing the cost of climate change legislation. 

Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by congratulating you for the comprehensive approach you are taking to global warming pollution 

and the progress that Congress is making in addressing this critical issue. 

Given the scale of this issue, it is no surprise that climate legislation raises concerns about prices and about impacts on consumers. I have been a State environmental commissioner, public 

utilities commissioner, and as an advisor to many governments. So, 

for about 25 years I have been working to protect consumers while 

promoting advanced utility services needed for a modern economy. 

My testimony boils down fairly simply. I am focusing on the central role that carbon credit allocation can play in protecting consumers and containing the costs of climate legislation. 

The good news is that a smart allocation policy linked to a smart 

investment strategy can greatly reduce the consumer cost of the 

proposed cap-and-trade program. My overall message is very simple: Congress should design the climate program to reduce emissions through greater energy efficiency, not just through higher 

carbon prices. For the power sector, the best way to do this is 

through a consumer allocation for efficiency; that is, by allocating 

the sectors’ allowances to local distribution companies or other 

State-supervised entities acting as trustees for consumers. The 

trustees can then auction the allowances to emitters and recycle 

the revenue for the benefit of consumers. 

Moreover, the best way to help consumers and to lower the cost 

of the entire climate program is to invest a large fraction of those 

funds in low carbon resources, especially cost-effective end-use efficiency. 

My written testimony elaborates on four points, so I am just 

going to touch on them here. 

First, as I just stated, it is essential to think of climate legislation as a combination of programs, including both regulatory and 

market measures to lower emissions. It is not just cap-and-trade, 

it is not just a renewable electricity standard, it is not just better 

building codes. It is really all of the above. 

When California completed its exhaustive examination of this 

issue recently, the Air Resources Board came out with a scoping 

plan. At least 75 percent of the carbon reductions in the California 

plan are going to be accomplished through mechanisms that people 

call the complementary policies. That 75 percent I would view as 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
501 

the foundation for the cap-and-trade program which is intended to 

deliver the other 25 percent. 

My second point is that energy efficiency is the equivalent of a 

low-cost carbon scrubber for the power sector. And the good news 

is that utility-scale energy efficiency is relatively inexpensive at 3 

cents a kilowatt hour. It is much less than the cost of supply and 

delivery, which is usually two to five times more expensive. 

Efficiency opportunities exist in large quantities in all regions of 

the country, whether your system is a coal system, a gas system, 

a hydro system; any region of the country, energy efficiency resources can be tapped to benefit customers. 

My third point is on price impacts and cost containment. Simply 

put, energy efficiency is the key to cost containment in the climate 

legislation. Adding a price signal to the cost of electricity is useful 

in trying to reduce carbon emissions. But trying to meet our goals 

through price alone will be much more costly than a cap-and-trade 

program that builds efficiency right into its architecture. And this 

realization has two sides, and I want to touch on both of them. 

First, it is hard to get to where we want to go through carbon 

prices alone. People are often surprised to learn how hard it is to 

reduce power sector carbon through price signals. On the consumers’ side, it takes a very high price because of low price elasticity to actually reduce carbon as much as we need. And, on the 

generator’s side, it takes a very high price in order to significantly 

change the dispatch across our power grids. 

This leads to my final point which concerns allocations. As I have 

said earlier, the best way to control costs in the power sector is not 

by giving allowances for freer generators, but by allocating them to 

local distribution companies or other consumers trustees supervised by state regulators. Those trustees can sell the allowances 

and apply the proceeds to benefit consumers. This will deliver 

much more low-cost efficiency than a purely price-driven approach 

to allowanced allocation. 

Our studies show that for the same dollar cost in rates, efficiency 

programs will save five to seven times more carbon than would result from carbon taxes or credit markets alone. So, five to seven 

times greater savings on the environmental side for the same cost 

to consumers. 

I will close by noting that there is a good model in the United 

States for the practice that I am describing here, and that is the 

RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. If you look at the 

experience of RGGI, all ten RGGI States considered this question 

and concluded that almost all the allowances should be auctioned, 

and that almost all, or 70 percent, of the revenues associated with 

the program should be recycled back for the benefit of consumers 

principally through low-cost energy efficiency. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cowart, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cowart follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
502 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 535 72878A.295
503 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 536 72878A.296
504 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 537 72878A.297
505 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 538 72878A.298
506 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 539 72878A.299
507 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 540 72878A.300
508 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 541 72878A.301
509 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 542 72878A.302
510 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 543 72878A.303
511 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 544 72878A.304
512 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 545 72878A.305
513 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 546 72878A.306
514 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 547 72878A.307
515 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 548 72878A.308
516 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 549 72878A.309
517 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 550 72878A.310
518 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 551 72878A.311
519 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 552 72878A.312
520 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 553 72878A.313
521 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Greenstein, founder 

and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He has had a long and distinguished career, but it included 

winning a MacArthur fellowship. And he was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement 

and Tax Reform. We welcome you back, sir. Whenever you are 

ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREENSTEIN 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you 

know, the work of our center in this area has focused on developing 

proposals to protect the budgets of low- and middle-income consumers in a way that is effective in reaching them, efficient, and 

consistent with energy conservation goals. With these goals in 

mind, we have designed an energy refund or rebate to offset the 

increases in households’ overall energy expenses that would result 

from an emissions cap, not just their increases in utilities bills, 

which will account for less than half the overall hit to consumers’ 

budgets. 

We recommend that consumer relief be provided through the tax 

system and existing benefit delivery systems. Under the proposal 

we have developed, 95 percent of households in the bottom fifth of 

the income distribution and over 98 percent of those in the middle 

fifth and the fifth in between would be reached automatically, without new bureaucratic structures, no new applications required, and 

low administrative costs. 

Here is how it would work. Most households qualifying for an energy refund would get it through the form of a refundable income 

tax credit that would be provided in paychecks through adjustments to employer withholding, as is being done with the tax credit 

that you enacted in the recovery legislation in February. 

For seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, they would 

get their refund as a direct payment from the Social Security Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, again, as being 

done under the recovery legislation. And, finally, very poor households participating in programs like food stamps would receive 

monthly energy refunds through the debit card systems that every 

State human service agency in the country operates to provide 

other low-income benefits. Those systems have proved to be efficient and highly effective. 

Now, some, including other of my fellow panelists here, have proposed instead routing funds for consumer relief through local utility distribution companies. While that may seem reasonable at first 

blush, our analysis indicates that such an approach would be unwise for several reasons. 

First, the utility company approach is aimed at electricity and 

natural gas bills. It doesn’t address the full impact of an emissions 

cap on consumers’ budgets. Over half of the impact would be in 

other areas, gasoline, increased prices for a whole array of goods 

and services that use energy in their manufacture or transportation to market. Consumer relief that only focuses on home or 

even business electricity and gas bills leaves consumers with a 

large, uncompensated hole in their budgets. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
522 

Secondly, this approach would cause prices for other forms of energy and energy products other than electricity and gas to rise even 

more, and it would increase the overall cost to the economy of 

meeting the cap. This is not just our conclusion. This is in the EPA 

study of your draft bill released this week, and it is in the study 

of Resources for the Future, the premier environmental think tank. 

The issue is that keeping the utility bills low would blunt the 

price signal an emissions cap is supposed to send and, as a result, 

you get less reduction in electricity and natural gas use. 

Now, if the cap is a given amount of tons of carbon emissions and 

you get less reduction from electricity and natural gas, you must 

get greater reduction from all other forms of energy. In order to do 

that, the price of other forms of energy has to rise more. In the Resources for the Future study, they estimated that this kind of an 

approach would cause the overall allowance price to be 15 percent 

higher than it otherwise would be. In the EPA study released earlier this week, and I am quoting, ‘‘Returning the allowance value 

of consumers of electricity via local distribution companies prevents 

electricity prices from rising, but makes the cap-and-trade policy 

more costly overall. This form of redistribution makes cap-andtrade more costly since greater emissions reductions have to be 

achieved by other sectors of the economy.’’ 

A third and final problem here is that while the LDCs are regulated utilities, the quality of State utility regulation is uneven 

across the country. And the fact that they are regulated is no guarantee that in every area of the country, free distribution of allowances to the LDCs will produce well-targeted and effective consumer relief. This is an issue some consumer organizations have 

expressed concerns about. 

So, to wrap up, a refundable energy tax credit delivered through 

paychecks coupled with electronic benefits transfers and payments 

from Social Security and Veterans Affairs would be the most effective way to provide relief to low- and middle-income consumers. 

Other mechanisms would provide less consumer relief per dollar of 

cost. And this is why the newly formed Climate Equity Alliance 

has, as a basic principle, providing the consumer relief directly 

through the kind of mechanism I have described rather than 

through utility companies. This is an alliance that includes leading 

civil rights groups like the NAACP and the National Hispanic Environmental Council, leading religious organizations like the U.S. 

Conference of Catholic Bishops, SCIU, and the Center for American 

Progress. 

Having said this, we all know that deadlock serves no one. We 

all know that agreement needs to be reached to move this legislation. So, in the spirit of compromise, let me swallow hard and suggest a possible middle ground from what you are hearing on this 

panel. 

Mr. MARKEY. We will give you extra time right now. That is a 

very important sentence you just said. Thank you. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. While I believe providing consumer relief 

through the local distribution companies is unwise for all the reasons I have mentioned, it seems that that would need to be a component of something that would move particularly in this committee. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
523 

So the suggestion would be, rather than, as some have suggested, 

combining a very large LDC piece and a small low-income consumer piece to supplement it, to have a somewhat more moderate 

LDC piece combined with an energy tax credit designed such that 

the sum of the LDC relief and the tax piece together fully offset 

the hit to the budgets of the typical middle-income household. 

The Social Security, Veterans, and debit card pieces obviously 

would still be a part of it for those groups. And then, over time, 

as energy efficiency and other matters kicked in over time the free 

distribution of allowances to LDCs would phase down, the direct 

relief, the tax piece would phase up and would stay at the level 

based on what was happening with energy prices that you needed 

to provide the consumer relief to make the typical consumer whole. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenstein follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
524 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 557 72878A.314
525 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 558 72878A.315
526 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 559 72878A.316
527 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 560 72878A.317
528 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 561 72878A.318
529 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 562 72878A.319
530 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 563 72878A.320
531 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 564 72878A.321
532 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 565 72878A.322
533 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 566 72878A.323
534 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 567 72878A.324
535 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 568 72878A.325
536 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness, Dr. Robert Michaels, is a professor of economics at California State University, Fullerton. Mr. 

Michaels is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. We welcome you, Dr. Michaels. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MICHAELS 

Mr. MICHAELS. Thank you, Chairman Markey. I am honored to 

be here. 

I come from California, where we supposedly set a lot of trends. 

And the first thing I want to do is summarize a few problems California has that may be quite important for the content of the legislation we are talking about here because your legislation depends, 

among other things, on a national renewable portfolio standard. 

The thing that is clear now is that California’s utilities are far 

out of compliance with their standard. It appears that it is going 

to be impossible for them to move on to tighter standards. And 

there are a variety of reasons, including regulatory uncertainty and 

citing problems with transmission. 

Second, the supposed effect of energy efficiency policies in California needs to be reconsidered. It has been highly touted that California’s per capita electricity consumption is staying constant instead of rising like the rest of the country. What this really reflects, 

we can look at the statistics, it is a departure of industrial customers. 

Studies that show for the Air Resources Board that it is going 

to be a painless transition that creates jobs to California’s cap-andtrade system, these have been thoroughly discredited by peer reviewers from places that even include the Pew Foundation. 

The smart grid, cost-benefit figures for the smart grid have gone 

in every which way in the applications for California. They have 

gone from negative to positive largely on the basis of assumptions 

that the utility will be able to control people’s power in their 

homes. 

Those are important, but there is a more important thing about 

this bill that I think really matters at the base. This bill is a tax 

bill. This bill is very anti-consumer. It has one acknowledged policy: It is to raise energy prices to Americans; and, when it does so, 

it is going to make America less competitive in an ever more competitive world. 

For reasons they can best explain, some people are on record as 

favoring higher prices. As important as those prices are, are the 

policies that will increase them. Every major provision of this bill 

is at base a tax, and every one of them is called something else. 

The renewable electricity standard is a cleverly disguised tax. 

None of it is ever going to appear on the Federal books. Instead, 

the bill will simply force utilities to purchase renewable energy, 

leave State regulators with no choice but to fold the costs into 

households bills. Another tax turns up in the proposed auction of 

allowances. The official term is ‘‘auction,’’ again, the real term is 

‘‘tax.’’ An easy way to see this: Look at the plans for spending the 

revenue. Details aren’t firm, but it is possible to code to consumer 

rebates, deficit paydown, health care financing. There are only two 

possible sources, debt and taxes. And this is a tax. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
537 

Like all other taxes, allowance charges compel business owners 

to divert funds they could otherwise have used to operate their 

firms and employ people. Those who believe that the respending of 

revenue from auctions will create jobs have been conspicuously silent about the jobs that are going to be destroyed in the initial allocation process. 

The bill’s effects start with scarcer energy. They hardly end 

there. They will be increasing the prices of all other goods and 

services that use energy in their production. If that is so, we are 

talking lower standards of living for Americans, not higher, and 

talking about making American goods less desirable to foreign purchasers, not more. 

This bill’s thrust is to make energy needlessly scarce, and then 

somehow we reach a conclusion that this action is good for the 

economy. 

Think of it simply: If workers work with more talented workers, 

they are going to be more productive than workers who labor alone. 

Workers with more advanced equipment to work with, and more of 

it, are going to be more productive than workers who are without 

it. Workers with better and more abundant energy are going to be 

more productive than workers who do not have access to it. 

This bill’s logic seems to reverse all of that, and tell us that less 

energy is going to somehow do the exact opposite of all these other 

things that workers work with. There is no economics in it. 

Scarce energy creates jobs by making workers less productive, so 

that it takes more of them to get something done. This bill does 

not create prosperity. This bill is going to produce a less competitive, less productive economy that has lower incomes, less opportunity, and less wealth to hand down to future generations. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Michaels, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Michaels follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
538 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 572 72878A.326
539 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 573 72878A.327
540 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 574 72878A.328
541 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 575 72878A.329
542 

Mr. MARKEY. And our final witness before questions from the 

subcommittee members is Mr. Darryl Bassett, spokesman for the 

Empower Consumers Coalition. Mr. Bassett formerly served as 

ArkansasState Public Utility Commission. Mr. Bassett, please 

begin whenever you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF DARRYL BASSETT 

Mr. BASSETT. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and members of the subcommittee. Having been familiar, Mr. 

Chairman, with your body of work while I was a commissioner, I 

have a great deal of respect for that body of work. 

It is a privilege and an honor to be able to come to this committee and testify on what impacts we believe consumers may very 

well face if Congress does in fact adopt energy or climate policies 

without adequate cost containments. But I would be remiss if I 

went any further without recognizing the presence of one of Arkansas’ favorite sons, Congressman Mike Ross, and certainly his diligence in representing the people back home. We are awful proud 

of him back there. 

But it is an honor and it is a privilege to offer my perspective 

on how policies in the current draft might very well impact the 

poor, the elderly, the consumers on fixed incomes, those institutions of higher education, hospitals, and small businesses. These 

are people, members of the committee, whose story generally gets 

kind of lost in the wash anytime government, whether it be State 

or Federal, considers sweeping public policy changes. And as a 

former utility commissioner, I am acutely aware that the first question that consumers generally have when confronted with sweeping 

policy changes is, one, how much is that policy going to cost? And, 

two, who is going to have to pay it? And, personally and quite candidly, answering that second question is always easier to do than 

answering the first. 

So, consequently, I want to certainly applaud the EPA for their 

recent analysis. I think, consider, it a great first step in answering 

that first question, which is, how much is the implementation of 

this proposed draft going to cost the American people. 

However, that analysis that I have had a chance to peruse, while 

certainly well intentioned, doesn’t go, in my opinion, far enough 

given the overlapping mandates in the draft. 

The draft, as you know, considers mandates on renewables, energy efficiency, standards for new power plants, Federal gasoline 

standards. There are provisions there for cap-and-trade and issues 

involving greenhouse gas. So I think it is fair to say that the consumer is going to be concerned about what the total cost of the proposal is going to be, and will certainly be less than content if we 

only offer them an analysis that covers cap-and-trade, as the EPA 

analysis does. 

There is little disagreement among consumers that the cap-andtrade program is going to cost them a lot of money. We are looking 

at studies that go anywhere from an EPA estimate of $983 billion 

by 2030 to one done by the American Council for Capital Formation 

that says it is upwards of $1 trillion. Consumers are also aware 

that renewables are going to be costly. What one Texas utility pays 

for wind recently more than doubled. And Dr. Michaels just gave 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
543 

you some indication about what is going on in California. They are 

among the Nation’s highest utility rates, but they also have one of 

the highest renewable mandates. 

What concerns us quite frankly though is putting the two of 

them together, the cap and trade as well as the renewable portfolio. 

I believe that if we are not careful what we could pose is potentially devastating consequences on the most vulnerable in our country because what we were looking at when we look at that potentiality, we empower consumers, we then respectfully ask that the 

committee before it moves further consider an analysis that takes 

into consideration all of the proposals and what their simultaneous 

implementation would be before passing any type of climate change 

or any type of renewable legislation. 

Our concern, quite frankly and honestly, is not with the draft. As 

I said initially, I am familiar with your body of work and certainly 

with your reputation for integrity. That goes without saying. But 

what we feel, while we feel the draft is well-intentioned, we are 

concerned about the unintended consequences of well-intentioned 

legislation. And so we feel that at this critical juncture in our Nation’s history we can’t afford to make sweeping decisions on farreaching legislation without a full appreciation of the extent to 

which our people, your constituents, are going to prosper or are 

going to suffer. 

Now the answer to that second question that I said the consumers are going to ask, who is going to pay, well, it is always the 

consumer. But the answer really, that doesn’t address what they 

are really trying to ask because at the heart of this thing we know 

that some of those consumers are going to suffer more than others. 

We know that history tells us anytime we apply a one-size-fits-all 

approach nationally, there is going to be a disproportionate burden 

placed on some members across the country. And ultimately it falls 

on the consumers who are least able to afford it. That is communities of color, that is the elderly, that is those living in poverty, 

those living on fixed incomes. They are going to pay an inordinate 

amount of their monthly income on energy. 

So I have to agree with the nonpartisan statement that came out 

of the Congressional Budget Office that characterized that particular effect as being regressive. It said, and I quote, price increases resulting from a carbon cap would be regressive; that is, 

they would place a relatively greater burden on low income households than on higher income ones. We know that in 2008 the average American family that had a disposable income of $52,500 a 

year last year spent 12 percent of that income on energy. We also 

know that those who were making less than $50,000, which essentially is 51 percent of all U.S. households, spent 24 percent on energy. And those making between $10,000 and $30,000 actually 

spent 26 percent of that income on energy. 

We also know that in 2008 African American households as well 

as Hispanic households with incomes less than $50,000 spent over 

a quarter of that income on energy. So it is not surprising that consumers are going to be concerned about how much more they are 

going to be asked to bear from any type of legislation. 

Mr. MARKEY. If you could summarize please, Mr. Bassett. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
544 

Mr. BASSETT. Well, in summary we are concerned that the bill 

should address in totality all of the costs that are going to be incurred. One, we would ask the legislation go through a rigorous 

cost analysis. Second, we would ask you that you would consider 

mechanisms that would establish some type of floor or ceiling with 

regard to carbon allowances so that you can mitigate any type of 

unintended consequences. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify, and Empower Consumers certainly looks forward to working with this committee as we go forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bassett follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
545 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 579 72878A.330
546 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 580 72878A.331
547 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 581 72878A.332
548 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 582 72878A.333
549 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 583 72878A.334
550 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 584 72878A.335
551 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 585 72878A.336
552 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 586 72878A.337
553 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 587 72878A.338
554 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 588 72878A.339
555 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Bassett, very much. Now we will 

turn to questions from the subcommittee members. The Chair will 

recognize himself and let me turn to you, Mr. Cowart, and you, Mr. 

Greenstein, so I can ask you a little bit of a question so you can 

both get a chance to expand on the impact on consumers. 

Can you talk a little bit about what happens if we put together 

a good formula dealing with energy efficiency, recycling revenues 

and the cost of inaction? We saw the price of a barrel of oil spike 

to $147 a barrel last year if we don’t put together a plan to break 

our dependence on imported oil. 

Mr. Cowart. 

Mr. COWART. I will start. My message is plain here, that cost-effective energy efficiency is the cost containment mechanism you are 

looking for. And I encourage all the subcommittee members to look 

really carefully at all the mechanisms in this legislation that would 

promote end-use energy efficiency. And I suspect that Mr. Greenstein and I are going to agree that that is one of the ways to bring 

prices down across the board for everybody. 

And secondly, that in particular we should support targeted lowincome energy assistance that would direct cost-effective energy efficiency, particularly to low-income families, through such things as 

dramatically expanding the weatherization programs. 

So there are a lot of mechanisms here to help consumers both directly and indirectly by lowering carbon prices and lowering power 

prices through aggressive energy efficiency actions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. Let me go to you, Mr. Greenstein. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I think things like energy efficiency and consumer relief go hand in hand. The way that we think of and the 

way we recommend you think of and I think the way the committee, as I understand it, is thinking of consumer relief is that the 

consumer relief be related to some share of the permits. The more 

effective the efficiency and shifts to alternative forms, cleaner 

forms of energy, via the price signal are, then the less will be the 

amount that the allowances sell for, and the smaller will be the hit 

on consumers’ budgets. I don’t think this bears one way or another 

on the form of the consumer relief. But under the proposal that I 

have suggested with tax credits, to payments on Social Security 

and veterans and the debit card mechanism, the amount of the rebate would be tied each year to the price that the allowances were 

selling for and thereby to the overall impact on consumers. So the 

better the results one gets from investments in efficiency and alternative energy, the less the burden both on the overall economy and 

on consumers. And if X percent of the permits are going for consumer relief, the dollar amount of that relief will be less because 

the impact on their budgets will be less because the efficiency is 

working. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Greenstein. 

Mr. Sterba, in my home State of Massachusetts there are two 

large coal-burning power plants, the Salem plant and the Brayton 

Point plant. Since our State required utilities to spin off these 

plants as part of its restructuring plan, they are not subject to regulation by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. If we 

were to give Dominion Power, which owns Salem, and PGE which 

owns Brayton Point, free allocations, what would prevent them 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
556 

from pocketing that financial windfall rather than passing on the 

savings to the consumer? 

Mr. STERBA. Mr. Chairman, the primary benefit that will go to 

those consumers is the allocation that would be made to the LDC 

that serves the consumers in that area. The purpose of a small allocation—and we are talking about less than 10 percent of the total 

allocations to the electricity sector that would go to coal generators—the purpose of that is to help cover the costs that are not recovered by that coal generator through the price of electricity 

caused by the imposition of a cap and trade. So it helps cover that 

small component of cost that is not recovered through the market 

price. 

Yes, they will sell it. Yes, that generates revenue to them. What 

it does do—and let me use Texas, where I am more familiar, Mr. 

Chairman, because I operate there—is it helps ensure that that 

coal resource stays viable for a period of time because the allowances that are allocated to that generator would decline. But it 

helps ensure that you don’t end up causing that unit to be shut 

down or mothballed and replaced with gas generation. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me go to, if I may, Mr. Morgan. Do you agree 

with that? 

Mr. MORGAN. I agree in part that the benefits to consumers come 

through the allocation to the LDCs. But I don’t see how the consumer gets any benefit from giving of free allowances to the generator because those benefits are—we have no way to make sure that 

they get passed along. The company, in fact, wouldn’t necessarily 

even keep that plant operating. If it becomes uneconomic because 

carbon is being priced, the allowance allocation is based on the 

baseline and they would get this perpetual stream of allowances 

into the future even if the plant has been retired. So there really 

isn’t any incentive for them to even keep the plant running. And 

there is every opportunity for them to pass along the value of that 

future allowance stream to the shareholders and really no way for 

it to get to—— 

Mr. MARKEY. My time has expired. We have to continue this conversation, I think. My time has expired. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, a number 

of States actually exceed 90 percent of their power produced from 

coal. And I have always been a supporter of clean coal technology. 

And Mr. Sterba, you indicated that you thought that there should 

be free allowances until technology is in place that will actually reduce those emissions. 

I was a cosponsor of the Boucher bill last year. I hope that we 

can proceed on it this year. But if it works—and I hope that it 

does—it is still 8 or 10 years probably away before it is actually 

in place and you can actually see it begin to be implemented with 

a number of different facilities around the Nation, particularly in 

the Midwest. 

So assuming that that is all accurate, you would want a free allocation until that technology is on the shelf ready to use, is that 

right? 

Mr. STERBA. Yes, sir. In fact, I think that free allocations in 

order to help mitigate consumer impact should last longer than just 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
557 

8 to 10 years. I think—but they would be declining as the cap declines. So to me, you should be thinking about allocations that 

would last 20 to 30 years. But it is a declining amount, and that 

is for the consumer protection purposes. 

Mr. UPTON. Now as we talk about consumers getting money 

back, in essence a rebate, our State, Michigan, my State, Michigan, 

we have lost 150,000 jobs in the last number of months. Estimates 

that were released earlier this week by the University of Michigan 

show that we are going to lose more than 230,000 before the end 

of the year. We already provide 79 weeks of unemployment benefits, and you might have seen the news this morning that GM is 

suspected of closing all of their facilities or virtually all of them for 

9 weeks beginning next month, which will impact even more than 

what was shown by the U of M. 

I know that there is a lot of thoughts about rebating consumers. 

Of the panel here, how many believe that consumers also should 

be employers eligible for such rebates that you might impose, as 

Mr. Greenstein indicated, for those—Mr. Sterba. Anyone else believe that employers should be able to receive rebates as well as 

individuals? Just two? Can I have a show of hands? Three. Mr. 

Morgan, you are a ‘‘no’’ then, is that right? Mr. Greenstein, are you 

a ‘‘no’’? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. My sense is the most efficient way to do this 

is employers will have some increased cost that they will pass 

through to consumers. And the system I recommend, this is part 

of the impact on consumers that would be compensated. 

Mr. UPTON. Okay. Mr. English, you indicated that you are looking for an out, was it 4 million megawatts, is that what it was? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, I was suggesting that as far as small utilities 

are concerned, that is what Small Business Administration identifies as small utility exemption, so, yes, I would suggest that on renewable electricity standard. 

Mr. UPTON. Okay. What is the average renewables now? I support renewables, wind, solar, a whole number, hydro. What is the 

average of your membership in terms of what they would now provide for renewables? What percentage? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, I think it depends on what you define as renewable. That is part of the difficulty we have. Different States 

have different definitions. What we would include, which would include hydro, is about 11 percent. And you are talking about roughly 

we use—about 9 percent of the power that electric cooperatives use 

does come from renewable energy that is hydro. 

Mr. UPTON. If you include a broader base, include hydro, include 

a whole number that waste energy, do you support the 25 by 25? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, I am a member of the steering committee of 

the group known by 25 by 25 that has that as an objective. And 

I think that does comes down as to how flexible you are going to 

be, how inclusive. 

Let me add quickly, there is another problem here. And that is, 

if we are going to produce renewable energy on a large scale and 

we would advocate that that is what needs to be done if we meet 

these standards, that the one thing that you are going to have to 

have as a part of this legislation is siting. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
558 

Mr. UPTON. That is my last question. I have 28 seconds. I want 

to come back to it. Mr. Morgan, Mr. Cowart, there is nothing as 

I read this bill—as we look at renewables, we have had a problem 

in California. I support renewables, whether they be off Nantucket 

or whether they be in Lake Michigan for wind. With that also 

comes the siting or the connection to the transmission lines. We 

have seen a pretty vocal struggle in California where the senior 

center there has announced that the Mojave Desert should not be 

a place for solar. We have seen off San Diego a major solar park 

being—the transmission lines trying to be sited sued by the Sierra 

Club. Is there a length of time the local PUCs should make a decision before FERC comes in with a heavier hand? 

Mr. ENGLISH. I think it is going to have to be a very, very short 

time if in fact we are going to meet these objectives. That is the 

whole point. If you are going to have a carbon cap on it and we 

are going to rely heavily on renewable energy, we have to have 

siting and have it very, very quickly. And I would suggest that that 

has to be focused primarily on renewable energy, on the building 

of that high voltage transmission. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Morgan, you agree? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes. If I could add, the amount of time available 

for commissions to review—first of all, we don’t see any evidence 

that that is a problem right now. There are many other problems 

associated with siting transmission lines. A lot of the problems, 

particularly in the West, have been associated with siting lines 

across Federal land. And we do, in fact, have legislation in place 

now that provides the Federal backstop where commissions don’t 

act within a certain amount of time. 

NARUC would prefer to give a chance for this law to work. We 

don’t see any evidence that it is not working. And we are, in fact, 

open to discussions about further changes in transmission policy. 

But we would like to see the current law given a chance to work. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sterba, Mr. Morgan 

stated that he is opposed to allowances for merchant generators. I 

wonder if you would like to explain why you think it is important 

to allocate credits to merchant generators as called for in the U.S. 

cap report. 

Mr. STERBA. Yes, sir. Thank you. First, I only believe that it is 

appropriate to allocate to some merchant generators. In the typical 

markets in the United States natural gas sets the market clearing 

price. So included in that price will be the cost of allowance for natural gas. Natural gas emits about 50 percent of the carbon that a 

coal plant emits. So part of that 50 percent is already being reflected in the price. The only thing we are proposing—and with this 

comment I will represent both EEI and U.S. cap—is the coverage 

of the other 50 percent for unregulated coal generation. If we do 

not maintain for a period of time that level of unregulated coal generation, which represents about 16 percent, 17 percent of all generation in the United States, we run the risk of a switch and a 

rush to gas which will increase natural gas prices for all consumers. That is a very hidden cost that is real. And we have seen 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
559 

what happens when natural gas prices move from $4, $5, $6 to $14, 

$15, $16. 

Mr. DOYLE. How do you feel about that clarification, Mr. Morgan? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, first of all, having those allowances available, 

which are based on the baseline, does not provide an incentive to 

keep that plant running. If the plant is not economic because of 

pricing carbon, the most efficient thing for the company to do is 

shut the plant down and keep the allowances and you will have the 

rush to gas anyway. Really what it is, is just—as I said earlier, it 

is kind of a golden parachute for these old dirty plants to help 

cover their obligations to their shareholders. It is not going to keep 

the plants running. It is not going to help solve that problem. 

Mr. STERBA. Mr. Doyle, if I could, and this is a personal statement. As an owner of unregulated coal generation in Texas, if I 

don’t have a plant running, I shouldn’t get allowances. I agree with 

that. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. Let me ask you also, Mr. Sterba, the draft text 

calls for alternative compliance payments to be set at 5 cents per 

kilowatt hour. How does that affect your membership in the real 

world? What would the effect of that be? 

Mr. STERBA. Well, the effect is to increase cost. I believe that 

somewhere in the 2.5 cent alternative cost is appropriate. I think 

5 cents imposes a heavy burden on consumers. One of the biggest 

concerns I have got is that we will do the right thing by putting 

in place carbon legislation. But we do it in a way in which electricity prices increase to a point where we get a consumer backlash. 

We have seen it happen in California, in the California gaffufle of 

2001. We have seen it happen elsewhere where things happen and 

consumers respond by saying ‘‘no more’’. We need to do this smartly, and if we create systems that cause prices to go up too much 

too fast, we will get that consumer backlash. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Cowart, many of us on the panel here have concerns that the 25 percent renewable standard is going to be very 

difficult to meet in certain regions of the country. And one of the 

ideas, one of the ways to lessen that burden would be to expand 

the list of qualifying energy sources, to recognize things such as 

methane recovery and waste to energy and distributed generation. 

What are your thoughts on expanding the list of qualifying energy sources to meet a 25 percent standard? 

Mr. COWART. Well, with respect to the list you just gave, I support it. I think that there are good reasons to expand certainly the 

qualified renewables to include methane conversion, which is, as 

you know, from a global warming perspective that is a double winner and definitely ought to be encouraged. I think that there is 

some merit to allowing a piece of a renewable portfolio standard to 

be met by accelerated achievement in energy efficiency as well. As 

a general matter we like to keep them separate and there are good 

reasons for that. But for some regions of the country where they 

think that it is going to take longer to get the renewables going, 

it allows some efficiency, early action on efficiency to qualify. 

Mr. DOYLE. And just a final question because I just have 7 seconds left, just a show of hands. How many on the panel would support 100 percent auction of these credits? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
560 

Mr. MORGAN. Now or later? 

Mr. DOYLE. Now. Well, of course later but right now. Just one? 

Okay. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

the ranking member of the full committee. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure where to 

start. I guess I will start by complimenting Mr. Sterba. It is good 

to see you, sir. 

Mr. STERBA. Thank you. 

Mr. BARTON. When I walked in, you kind of changed your look. 

I thought I was looking at Ming the Magnificent of Flash Gordon, 

which is a good look, not a bad look. 

Mr. STERBA. I appreciate your taste, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Let me just start out by clarifying something that 

our distinguished subcommittee chairman said. One of the reasons 

we are apparently doing this bill is to become less dependent on 

imported oil, which I support the goal. How much imported oil is 

used in the generation of electricity among the member companies 

of EEI? 

Mr. STERBA. Mr. Barton, I don’t recall the specific number. It is 

fairly small. 

Mr. BARTON. It is close to zero. 

Mr. STERBA. It might be in the 1 percent range. 

Mr. BARTON. Yeah. So we are not going to get a lot out of this 

bill that—because the imported oil is going for the transportation 

industry. It is not going for the power generation industry. 

Mr. STERBA. That is correct. And I think that is where plug-in 

hybrids come in for the future. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, speaking of plug-in hybrids, hybrids are made 

in my district down in Arlington, Texas. The additional cost of the 

hybrid is such that it never pays for itself. At $4 a gallon gasoline 

it took somewhere between 10 to 15 years. At $2 gasoline, you are 

buying a hybrid just because you want to buy a hybrid. There is 

no payback to it. And in any scenario, the GM plant in my district 

that makes the GMC hybrid, the Cadillac hybrid, they have the capacity to make approximately 60 per hour. In the entire country I 

am told they are selling about 30 a week. 

So let’s don’t kid ourselves. Unless we force America—and I 

mean force ’em, this theology that everybody is going to transition 

to an electric vehicle or a hybrid vehicle, unless it is mandated by 

Federal law, backed up by the Army, it is not going to happen. 

I do want to thank you, Mr. English, for reminding the committee of jurisdiction that when we passed the Clean Air Act 

amendments in 1990, which I voted for too, we explicitly didn’t include CO2. It wasn’t serendipitous that we just kind of forgot about 

it. We debated it and thought about it, and we didn’t think CO2

was a pollutant and needed to be regulated as a criteria pollutant 

under the Clean Air Act. 

The Republican alternative when we put it out for this bill is 

going to have a provision from Congresswoman Blackburn, a member of the committee, that explicitly states that, which is something 

that I think the committee members need to keep in mind. 

Mr. Michaels, I want to ask you a question since you talk a little 

bit about cost. Could you explain to the committee and to me how 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
561 

raising the price of any commodity, in this case CO2, can be absorbed without being passed on to anybody in the economy, which 

is apparently what my friends on the other side think they can do. 

Mr. MICHAELS. The fundamentals of supply and demand say that 

no matter what kind of increase in price, increase in tax there is, 

there is going to be—part of it is going to be borne by consumers, 

part of it may be borne by producers, by consumers as higher 

prices, by producers as having lower profits, fewer funds that they 

can reinvest in their businesses. The exact details of how the numbers break down in the carbon case is a subject of considerable debate, and certainly in California they haven’t settled that issue yet. 

Mr. BARTON. Let’s assume that by some miracle Mr. Doyle, my 

good friend, can come up with an allowance system that doesn’t 

cost anybody anything. Then there is no reason to use less of the 

commodity that is being capped, is there, if there is no cost to it? 

Mr. MICHAELS. But the only way that could happen would be if 

allowances were redundant and it was as good as if they didn’t 

exist at all. 

Mr. BARTON. My time has almost expired, Mr. Chairman. I do 

want to compliment you. Yesterday I learned that the oil and gas 

in Alaska is there as a result of continental plate shift. And I am 

sure that I may learn something of a similar value as this hearing 

progresses with the other 20 witnesses that we have here today. So 

I am going to yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am glad my good friend Mr. Barton mentions Alaska because as we speak the tundra is melting because of carbon dioxide. The polar ice cap is disappearing because of carbon dioxide. 

The oceans that sustain the salmon fishery of Alaska are becoming 

much more acidic because of carbon dioxide. 

So I just want to ask you a preliminary question to the extent 

I hope you can answer a yes or no pretty much to this question. 

I want to just ask each of you very quickly to answer this. 

Do you believe that the threats associated with the pollutant carbon dioxide and the threats of changing the climate and the acidity 

of our oceans are significant enough to the United States that we 

should endeavor to cap, to limit the amount of this pollution in the 

atmosphere, Mr. Sterba? 

Mr. STERBA. Yes. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I think we are doing it no matter what. 

Mr. CRISSON. Yes, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. Yes, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, NARUC supports taking Federal action to reduce carbon emissions. 

Mr. COWART. Absolutely. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. MICHAELS. The science is not yet clear enough to make a decision on as drastic a policy as this. 

Mr. BASSETT. Yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. The reason I ask that question is that we have two 

very significantly different approaches. One side of this committee 

believes that this problem demands action. One side believes that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
562 

this is not a problem and therefore has not proposed any action to 

deal with this problem. So I take the majority of your answers to 

be that these industries suggest we need action. And there has 

been and there will be much criticism of the proposal we have 

made to take action on this problem. But we have made a proposal. 

We have stepped up to the plate to suggest one cause of action. We 

have come up with ideas on how to solve this problem. And simply 

sniping at this particular proposal, although in the finest American 

tradition, is not going to help us solve this problem. And I look forward to one day where all members of this committee can start 

being part of the solution rather than being part of the problem 

and not taking any action. 

So I want to ask about the action that we should take. First, the 

question I want to ask is, could someone help us on the best way 

to assist the siting of transmission? I do believe in this bill there 

are some additional measures we should consider that as these renewable sources start to come online with concentrated solar offshore wind we are going to see a significant increase for need for 

transmission lines. And I think we need some backstop Federal authority to site those. 

I will turn to Mr. English for his thoughts. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, thank you very much. Let me just say, I 

would respond that we have a more practical situation in front of 

us right now. I think the Clean Air Act is going to be used to address this issue. And I think that this committee and the Congress 

needs to make sure that we have something that is deliberately 

passed to address the carbon issue. 

Second is renewables have got to play a huge role in this thing. 

And from a practical standpoint we have to move very rapidly if, 

in fact, this legislation is going to be timely as far as—and I think 

that is what you intend. 

Mr. INSLEE. When you say move rapidly, are you referring to 

transmission? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Particularly transmission. I think efficiency, we 

have got to be very aggressive on it. And quite frankly, I don’t 

think we are anywhere close to what we need to have done on that. 

Secondly, as far as transmission is concerned, I understand ‘‘not 

in my backyard’’ ‘‘I don’t want any part of it.’’ But quite frankly if, 

given the amount of reliance that I expect that we are going to 

have on renewable energy and what I think probably the authors 

of this bill intend, we have to have that siting, probably we need 

the siting yesterday, not tomorrow, not 2 years from now, not 5 

years. We cannot build the renewable energy that is going to be 

necessary to move this country forward and to even approach 15 

percent or 20 percent, much less 25 percent, unless that siting is 

done within the next 2 years. 

Mr. INSLEE. We will be making some suggestions to the committee about how to move that forward in future drafts of the bill. 

And we hope any and all of you can help us with your insights on 

how to draft that. Very quickly, as we recycle the money from the 

auction proceeds, and I do believe there should be 100 percent or 

high level of auction except for the permits that Mr. Doyle and I 

have fashioned, a measure to go back to energy-intensive manufacturing industries. But as we recycle that, what is the best way to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
563 

do it if we want to encourage the use of those recycled dollars back 

to consumers to use it for efficiency improvements? Is it just increasing the weatherization program or some voucher program? 

I will take about a 20-second answer if the Chair will allow it 

from someone. Mr. Cowart. 

Mr. COWART. We need an entire suite of energy efficiency programs. It includes weatherization, it includes assistance to industries. It includes assistance for retooling factories. It includes commercial energy efficiency as well. The local distribution companies 

or other trustees appointed by and supervised by State regulators 

are the best means to ensure that these dollars are returned to customers in the form of enhanced efficiency. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Greenstein, we are out of time. I want to respect 

the Chair. 

Mr. MARKEY. Quickly, Mr. Greenstein. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I was just going to say, in terms of consumers’ 

efficiency investments, you are going to get consumers investing 

more in home efficiencies themselves if they see the price signal in 

their utility bills and they are made whole by a direct payment so 

they still see the—if you are to officially keep the bill down, there 

is going to be less incentive for them themselves to take conservation and efficiencies. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. The first question I have for each of 

you, and I want a yes or no answer. Have you read the draft discussion bill yourself in its entirety? Mr. Bassett. 

Mr. BASSETT. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Michaels. 

Mr. MICHAELS. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Greenstein. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. In its entirety, no. Parts of it, yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Cowart. 

Mr. COWART. Same answer. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Morgan. 

Mr. MORGAN. Same answer. 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. Same answer. 

Mr. CRISSON. Not entirely. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Not entirely. 

Mr. STERBA. Not entirely. 

Mr. WALDEN. I have not either, but I am just about there. 648 

pages and I think I am down to about 603 right now. 

The reason I ask that is not to put you on the hot seat except 

that our job here is to legislate. So every word matters. Despite 

what my colleagues on the other side may think that we are not 

supposed to ask questions, I intend to ask questions, and I intend 

to pursue this pretty aggressively because I think we are about to 

put into law a policy that will have enormous ramifications for consumers, small businesses, every American and our future. And so 

I am going to take my time, and I may invoke my rights under the 

House rules, which cannot be superseded by this committee, to get 

5 minutes for each of you for questions. Because I think it is that 

important of an issue. So let’s start out. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
564 

Mr. English, I appreciate your testimony today and your work on 

behalf of the rural electric co-ops. You have a very good organization and I work closely with my members in my district. Explain 

to me how the provisions in this bill affect your members, a lot of 

them very small little cooperatives out across very rural landscapes, when it comes to them participating in an auction. Can you 

explain to me how they compete with a five-member board or a 10- 

member board out in Hood River or John Day or somewhere? 

Mr. ENGLISH. We don’t think even our largest members can compete in that kind of an environment at an auction. It would be extremely difficult for us to do so. And let me also say, that does need 

to take into account the regional ramifications of an auction. 

Mr. WALDEN. And yet in the Northwest we have enormous wind 

energy, a lot of it in my district. I am proud of it. But I also know 

that one of the great synergistic actions there is being able to use 

the hydro system as a storage battery. There are provisions in this 

legislation that both completely discriminate against hydroelectric 

power as renewable, if it was online prior to 2001, as well as any 

new hydro is not considered renewable if in some way it affects the 

pool level behind a storage facility at any time or any location. 

Doesn’t that pretty much rule out new hydro as a battery for 

wind? 

Mr. ENGLISH. I think it is a mistake to eliminate any kind of renewable whatsoever. We are looking at biomass, we are looking at 

all different aspects of generating renewable energy. But again I 

want to go back to the biggest limitation on renewable energy is 

transmission and is the question of siting. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to bring this up again. This is Bonneville Power’s hourly measurements of wind energy in the Northwest. You see the dramatic drop in output of wind. You have to 

have something to balance it out. We are going to move forward 

with renewable energy, which is a good thing, but it cannot be done 

in a vacuum. 

So can somebody explain to me how you do not need other power 

sources that you can bring online rapidly to balance this out. The 

same would go with solar at night. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I will just say very quickly, you are right. 

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate that. Let’s talk about natural gas. 

Does anybody believe here that this legislation will not drive up 

the cost of natural gas? 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. For the reasons that were mentioned earlier, 

clearly even your example related to intermittent sources of power 

from renewable, that will require generation that can back it up. 

Natural gas is the quickest source of new facilities that could come 

on the quickest to back that up. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so everybody is agreeing, yes, natural gas— 

anybody disagree? And I don’t mean to move fast. But I am down 

to a minute. Smart grid. I am going to go back to Mr. English on 

this. As I read this legislation, everybody that serves a power customer is going to have to have a plan put in place rather rapidly 

on how to deal with plug-in hybrids and a smart grid technology. 

Now out in Fossil, Oregon, there is one person for every 9 miles 

of power line. Can you explain to me if there is a cost associated 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
565 

with that smart grid technology and that plug-in requirement here 

and how that would be addressed? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, first of all, let me just say—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I drive hybrids, by the way, despite my ranking 

member. 

Mr. ENGLISH. First of all, we don’t have a clear definition of what 

smart grid means. Second, we are very proud. Of course electric cooperatives seem to be well in advance of the rest of the industry, 

according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in this 

area. Third is we think the very need for efficiency is going to drive 

a good deal of new technology. And fourth, you have to have flexibility to address the kind of situation that you have locally. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I realize my time for this round has 

run out. I would encourage you each to read this bill in its entirety 

word for word because every word in this bill has an enormous impact, and I can’t wait until we get into trying to figure out biomass 

which if it comes off of Federal land is not renewable and probably 

not even off private forest land and why municipal solid waste converted into energy is not renewable. There are a lot of questions 

here, Mr. Chairman, and I hope we get time to ask them. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The main electric utility 

in my district is the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, popularly known as SMUD. It consistently receives high marks of customer satisfaction while investing significantly in energy efficiency 

and renewable energy development. SMUD supports a transparent 

cap-and-trade system to get greenhouse gases under control. It has 

also undertaken a number of positive and voluntary programs that 

help people control their energy usage and increase the amount of 

energy they use from renewable sources. SMUD is highly supportive of allocating emission allowances directly to the LDCs, of 

which SMUD is one. The idea behind this is that LDCs are able 

to pass potential savings directly onto their rate payers while 

avoiding windfall profits. 

Mr. Sterba, I know that SMUD agrees with you that allocation 

should be distributed directly to LDCs. I know this is one of the 

main issues that this committee will have to deal with before 

marking up the draft legislation before us. So I would like to delve 

a little bit more deeply into the details. SMUD tells me that giving 

allowances directly to LDCs would protect against windfalls to generators and illuminate opportunities for market manipulation. 

Why do you think the LDCs are in a better position than anywhere else along the energy supply chain to protect the consumer 

welfare and guard against windfall profits? 

Mr. STERBA. The distribution company is, in our instances, for 

shareholder-owned utilities, are regulated. The regulator is familiar 

with how to handle the costs and the benefits of trading in allowances. It is done today relative to SO2 and in many instances NOX. So we have proven mechanisms by which those benefits from an allowance are flowed through to customers, and I know that that 

would continue to exist. 

Ms. MATSUI. Let’s assume for a moment that some of the emission allocations under this bill would be auctioned. In the case of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
566 

an auction, is it your opinion that LDC should also receive the 

lion’s share of the auction revenue to pass through to the ratepayers? 

Mr. STERBA. In the instance that you—for the allocated share of 

allowances associated with electric generation, as it is allocated— 

I am sorry—as that auction moves on, I believe the Congress 

should consider providing the value of those allowances, cash if you 

will, back to the regulated entity to help mitigate impact if it 

chooses not to do an allocation. The much simpler way is to allocate 

and allow the commission in each State to oversee how those values are provided back to consumers. 

Ms. MATSUI. Okay. Just a follow-up on that. We need to ensure 

as much discretionary auction revenues go toward complementary 

policies to mitigate and adapt to climatic change. How are the 

LDCs positioned relative to other entities in the supply chain to ensure that the auction revenue is spent on activities that would reduce further global warming, emissions, weatherization and renewables, efficiency, et cetera? 

Mr. STERBA. I think there are certainly other things that can be 

done with proceeds resulting from auctions. For example, in helping to ensure there is a very robust weatherization program. The 

use of those funds to invest in technology. If what we are about is 

creating a mechanism or a set of mechanisms to reduce our carbon 

footprint, why should not all of the value that is associated with 

imposing these costs on the economy be used for that purpose? 

Ms. MATSUI. Okay. In your testimony you referenced the oil fund 

payment the Alaskans receive every year. I was thinking about the 

Alaska situation earlier this weekend and it seems to me that returning money directly to consumers in this way might sound good 

politically but would create problems down the line when the emissions cap starts to drive down the amount of revenue generated 

from the cap-and-trade program. 

How can we best ensure that consumers are assisted with temporary higher energy costs without making them dependent on a 

rebate payment from the Federal Government? 

Mr. STERBA. The absolute simplest way is to provide an allocation to the LDC such that that cost is never incurred by the consumer. Prices at—I agree with Mr. Cowart that prices don’t drive 

everything. And so having that allocation made to the LDC such 

that that cost is not passed back on to consumers is the best appropriate strategy. 

Ms. MATSUI. Okay. So the role that the LDC is playing in ensuring the allocation of revenues, you can really believe the LDCs can 

really play an effective role in essence in the allocation of revenues? 

Mr. STERBA. Yes, I do. 

Ms. MATSUI. Okay. Looks like my time is almost up. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a great start to 

start really hashing out the numbers as we tried to address yesterday. And I would appeal to the chairman that once they decide on 

a mark that we have a hearing on the numbers. I also appeal to 

the chairman that—I know you want to move this fast—but enough 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
567 

time is given for everyone to score this out. And let me just ask 

that to the panel. I did this yesterday. 

Do you agree that transparency is better than a lack of transparency in this process? Everybody agree with that? Everybody is 

shaking their head yes. Would it be better for us to know the numbers that are proposed a week prior to the markup of a bill? Does 

everyone agree with that, transparent process? Everyone agree? 

Yes, everybody is shaking their head yes. I am assuming everybody 

is shaking their head yes. No one is willing to go on record saying 

no, we would rather have a full and transparent process. At least 

a week amount of time. 

Should we have time in a full transparent process, a time to 

allow people who are making the economic analysis, the numbers 

so that a proper economic analysis of the impacts, good or bad, 

those that will help move to a green economy and those that may— 

does everybody agree that that should be part of this process, a 

full, transparent, regular order process so we can debate this? Anyone disagree with that? So everyone is agreeing, Mr. Chairman. 

So I would hope that in this—and there is great divergent opinions. And we have got a lot of committees and a lot of processes. 

The marker is really down for these numbers to be laid out in time 

for us to really have a credible debate. 

Now why is this important? It is important because there are 

going to be job losses. There is a supposition that there will be job 

gains. There are some people claiming that there will be an equal 

amount of job losses to job growth. I reject that proposal. I think 

the Spanish study also rejects it. For every one job created there 

were two jobs lost. 

And so we will continue to focus on job creation. Why is this important to me? You all have talked about the Clean Air Act, the 

90 amendments. We cannot use the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and say that the cap-and-trade provision on a small amount 

of emittents with available technology is related to the huge 

amount of captured emittents, if you want to call carbon dioxide 

that, and the inability to have any technology to do it at this time. 

Peabody Mine Number 10, Kincaid, Illinois, fuel switching, Mr. 

Chairman. That is what this natural gas debate is. Fuel switching 

cost 1,200 United Mine Workers jobs in one coal mine. And the 

commodity was switched. There was a fuel switched. These guys 

lost their jobs. Done poorly with no transparency, you are going to 

have fuel switching and I am going to lose more. The number I 

would like to use was even more. 

And they came to our hearings. To the chairman’s credit we had 

the Ohio Mine Association here a couple weeks ago. You know how 

many mine workers’ jobs were lost during the 1990 Clean Air Act 

amendments in Ohio? 35,000 mine workers’ jobs. Now, what does 

that mean to rural America? For this piece of coal from Willow 

Creek Mine, underground employment, 411 miners. The prep plant 

has 51. This is just one mine. 462 jobs. This is in rural, poor southeastern Illinois. The total economic impact for this one mine in 

poor southeastern Illinois is $123 million. That is money that goes 

to the local schools, to the local roads, to the local county, to hire 

sheriffs. That is what is endangered if we don’t do this right. If we 

are going to fuel a switch to natural gas, these jobs are lost. NatVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00577 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
568 

ural gas is high—especially, Mr. Chairman, if we don’t move to 

more exploration, location and recovery of natural gas emissions. 

Appreciate your panel, and the fight continues. I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know the issue 

of allowances is really at the heart of cap and trade. It is difficult 

and it is politically difficult. So I appreciate the diversity of opinions that are expressed here this morning. And I think this panel 

represents the diversity of the opinions of the American public. So 

if we can work in the face of this diversity to find something that 

is passable by this committee and by the House, I think we will 

have something that will be beneficial and it will work. 

Personally I believe—and in terms of allowances, allocations that 

we should go as far upstream as possible, but I realize politically 

for a number of legitimate reasons that that isn’t going to happen. 

And so I appreciate the spirit of compromise shown by Mr. Greenstein in biting your tongue and saying well, okay, we will work 

with the LDC. So I hope that the committee can work in that spirit 

and find legislation that we can live with. 

Now I have a couple of questions. Mr. Sterba, I think your presentation was very good. I appreciate that. I lived in New Mexico 

for many years. So I understand the situation. 

We have seen though in the past or recent past the opponents 

of clean energy crying wolf in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments 

and to a lesser degree with the Montreal Protocol, and yet those 

catastrophic predictions were never borne out, and in fact we saw 

a good benefit at very little cost. So I would like to ask you what 

you think made these estimates so wrong and what lessons can we 

learn from that experience? 

Mr. STERBA. I think in the instance of the Clean Air Act amendments for sulfur dioxide, for example, it is that—and the point that 

was made by Mr. Shimkus is true. There were technologies that 

could be used and what happened is that they ended up costing a 

lot less than people assumed. And it is the power of a market. And 

that is the value I think of a cap-and-trade system is it capitalizes 

on that power of the market to drive the costs for compliance down. 

So where $3,000 was an expected value for the cost of an allowance, it turned out to be $300. So I think that is—and that is one 

of the things we want to capture. 

The difference here is there are some new technologies that must 

be developed. Carbon capture and storage to ensure that it is available. And that is what we have to get to. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you. One of the things that is sticky 

in California particularly is that we have invested a lot in efficiency. And how do we get credit for that early efficiency? 

Mr. Cowart, could you take a stab at that? How could we give 

credit in allowances for this? 

Mr. COWART. There are actually two answers to that question. 

First is the good news. The good news is that as I talk to people 

in California they think they have an advantage in an environment 

such as the one we are entering because in California you know 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
569 

how to do energy efficiency and that actually you are not disadvantaged by the fact that you have in place the human capital and the 

experience to do the job. 

But to answer your question directly, it is through the selection 

of a baseline period for the allocation to LDCs. We are proposing 

an allocation to LDCs in part based upon consumption levels, and 

it is important that that selection of consumption level be done in 

such a way as to reward successful performance over time in the 

delivery of efficiency so that if you are successful tomorrow, for example, in delivering efficiency to your customers, that next year 

your allocation doesn’t go down just because of that. And the same 

thing could be said in terms of back-casting to a baseline. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. I know the Edison Electric Institute 

is leading the effort in terms of small grid, and I appreciate that 

because I spent many years in the 1990s developing a smart grid 

utility meter for residential use. So I think there is potential there. 

One of the things that I think gives the greatest potential is 

marrying smart meters with hybrid vehicles. 

Could you comment on that, Mr. Sterba? 

Mr. STERBA. Well, smart meters are a part of the smart grid and 

it is an essential component of it that allows communication to 

occur in two directions instead of only just in one. And we absolutely in order to facilitate plug-in hybrids—which today have a 

cost disadvantage, but frankly I personally believe that will change 

dramatically over time. We have to be able to help ensure that 

those vehicles cannot just be users of electricity but also storers of 

electricity for the benefit of the grid. And that means that you have 

to have a meter or the capacity to measure electricity going both 

ways and to communicate price signals so that the ability for someone who owns a plug-in hybrid to support the grid can be recognized on an economic basis. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. My time has expired. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Dr. Michaels, we often hear that California is the 

leader in climate change policy. You testified that people, using 

California as an example of effective energy efficiency policy, have 

an untenable case. Would you elaborate on that? 

Mr. MICHAELS. I just went through several basic points about it. 

Yes, there are some California energy efficiency programs that 

have delivered. But as a simple fact, the California Energy Commission has always looked at projected resource needs in the future, and they have almost invariably overestimated what the likely contribution of efficiency is going to be. 

Mr. PITTS. If you could look at the policy of California on climate 

change, what would be the main lesson that we could draw from 

California utility policies? 

Mr. MICHAELS. It is infinitely more complicated than anyone 

could imagine, and there is no precedent for it. Everybody who 

talks about using some model to get numbers, the bad news is you 

are talking about something unbelievably complex, as much so as 

the whole economy plus the whole ecosystem. We don’t know how 

to do this. The projections you get, if you look at the Federal figures, use models from the Energy Information Administration, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
570 

which itself has shown what incredibly poor predictors of things 

they are in its own documents. 

Mr. PITTS. Some of your fellow panelists advocate different types 

of allocation schemes to protect consumers. Are there any schemes 

that will truly insulate consumers and small businesses from the 

cost impacts of this cap-and-trading scheme? 

Mr. MICHAELS. How could there be? After all, what you are doing 

is making something that was formerly free; namely, the right to 

emit carbon, scarce. All you have done is you have increased the 

cost of doing business for businesses, you have increased the cost 

of living for consumers ultimately, because some of that is going to 

be passed on to them. 

There is no way to insulate the entire economy or even a major 

segment of it from as massive a scarcity as we are thinking about 

creating here. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, you have said, Dr. Michaels, every major provision of this bill is at base a tax. Would you elaborate on that? Why 

is the renewable electricity standard a tax, for instance? 

Mr. MICHAELS. The renewable electricity standard is not a Federal tax that is going to be explicitly paid to this government; but 

what it is, is a mandate upon States that their utilities catch a certain fraction of their power from renewables over the course of time 

in the future. 

Renewables are not cost effective now. We don’t know when, if 

ever, they are going to be. Even wind, which is the most common 

renewable—and renewable is almost a synonym for wind—still is 

not cost effective without a Federal subsidy, production tax credit, 

and accelerated depreciation. We are talking about people’s electric 

bills rising because regulators have to fold these costs in for regulated utilities. That is as good as a tax. 

Mr. PITTS. From your understanding of the issue, Dr. Michaels, 

would imposing this tax on energy lead to any meaningful global 

emissions reductions? 

Mr. MICHAELS. I am not an expert on that, but I am aware that 

as a fraction of global emissions the U.S. is relatively small. And 

my understanding—and I am not an expert again—is that it is 

going to take a much larger increase than is ever contemplated in 

this legislation to make a dent in it. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, you say the bill will have massive effects on 

both consumers and small businesses. Does anyone on the panel 

disagree with that? Mr. Cowart. 

Mr. COWART. Well, I will disagree to this extent. To the degree 

that we are smart about how we implement it and to the degree 

that we recycle revenue that advances highly efficient technologies, 

the impacts on consumers and businesses can be quite moderated. 

Mr. BASSETT. I think the impact is going to be disproportionate, 

and that is why I underscored any approach should be an approach 

that recognizes regional differences. Obviously, some consumers in 

certain parts of the country are going to be disproportionately impacted because of their coal dependency. So any formula needs to 

take that into consideration. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Greenstein. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I think it all depends on how the legislation is 

designed. Well-designed legislation that makes appropriate use of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
571 

auction proceeds and permit allocations, as I have indicated, can 

hold low and middle income consumers harmless generally. And 

with regard to businesses, while I don’t think—I am going to commend the answer I gave earlier to Mr. Upton. While I don’t think 

it makes sense to do allowances generally for businesses, there may 

be particular businesses or particular sectors that need transition 

help of some sort. Whether it is through allowances or other mechanisms, I am not sure what the best mechanism is. 

Mr. PITTS. Dr. Michaels, what is your response to that? 

Mr. MICHAELS. It is not at all clear to me how, again—simply reduces to a question of scarcity. All you are doing is making something scarce that was relatively abundant before. And there is no 

way—there are ways to make a little bit more or a little bit less 

be borne by one class of customers or another; but by and large, 

this is very, very small relative to the totality that is being contemplated here, if I look at the bill. 

Mr. PITTS. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Morgan, currently what percentage of the District of Columbia electricity is produced by what is defined as renewable electricity in this bill? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, the District of Columbia currently imports 

more than 98 percent of its electricity from outside. So it is a little 

bit hard to answer that question. 

We do have some solar generation on some Federal facilities and 

universities and a growing number of homes. 

Mr. GREEN. But you don’t have a percentage? 

Mr. MORGAN. I don’t. I can tell you it is very small. 

Mr. GREEN. I think as a customer, and some Members are customers. On a yearly basis we get ours in a bill showing what percentage, and it is very small. I think less than 1 percent. 

Mr. MORGAN. We do have a requirement for the load-serving entities to report on the energy mix. Most of that power is imported 

and includes renewables. 

Mr. GREEN. Again, whether you import it or what, because we 

import power. In fact, that is the goal of this bill, is to be able to 

import power from parts of the country that generate it to parts 

that don’t. But, still, the mandate would cover it. 

And I noticed the Public Counsel for Columbia’s Equal Opportunity Council, Betty Knowle, was concerned about the 20 percent 

mandate that the District’s standard would cost about $26 million 

annually. Does D.C. Currently have a 20 percent mandate? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes. The City Council recently increased the renewables portfolio standard for the District to eventually reach 20 

percent in the year 2020. That is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me ask others from groups, the co-ops, the EEI, 

and in the public sector. What are the percentage, Glenn, or does 

co-ops actually have—and I know you have had a discussion on 

what is considered. I know the bill actually considers qualified hydropower. But what is the percentage of the real co-ops that have 

and what would be defined as renewable energy in the bill? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
572 

Mr. ENGLISH. As I mentioned, as defined by the bill would be 

about down to 2 percent, would be roughly. 

Mr. GREEN. Because general hydropower is not, quote, qualified? 

Mr. ENGLISH. That is correct. 

Mr. CRISSON. In the case of the publics, Mr. Congressman. As 

customers of the power marketing administrations, they use a lot 

of hydroelectric. But you are not including hydroelectric from either 

the PMAs or the generation that is owned by our members. It is 

right around the industry average, which is about 3 percent. 

Mr. STERBA. And I think on the investor-owned side, that may 

be a little higher than the general average because we are complying with mandates in a number of States. But it is certainly no 

higher than 4 percent overall. 

Mr. GREEN. And I guess the last one would be the—well, and 

that is EEI, I guess, the investor. 

Mr. STERBA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. That is, I guess, our concern on the electricity and 

national standard of 25 percent, although 25 by 25 and—to get 

there. And I know in the State of Texas we are doing so many 

things with wind power, and actually our public utility commission 

committed $5 billion to transmit that power to get to the DallasFort Worth, the urban markets, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston, 

Galveston. And the legislature now is expanding solar compared to 

what they did with wind power. But there is some concern we still 

may not be able to do 25 percent in 2025 even with the growth that 

we are doing. Is there a response to that or compared to other 

States? 

Mr. CRISSON. Mr. Congressman, I would just add that the 15 percent limit that we support for a Federal RES is really a very aggressive standard. When you look at the fact that right now the 

total national renewable resource capacity excluding hydro is about 

3 percent in 2008, we are talking about a five-fold increase in a little over 10 years with 15 percent. And even with the recent State 

renewable energy standards Mr. Sterba referred to in the recent 

years, the year over year increase has been about 5 percent. 

To get just to 15 percent, you are talking about nearly a 14 percent year over year increase. And it is a very aggressive standard. 

Mr. STERBA. I would echo that, Mr. Green, and add one other 

thing. That it is not just the percentage, but it is also what qualifies. And that can dramatically change whether or not you can get 

to that standard. 

There is also an electrical stability issue associated with intermittent generation. You have to be careful. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Bassett, in the few seconds I have left, some 

have discussed the EPA’s preliminary and economic analysis. Have 

you had a chance to review it? 

Mr. BASSETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. It does not assume an RES or a low carbon fuel 

standard. Do you have any thoughts on the EPA’s analysis, economic analysis? 

Mr. BASSETT. Well, I said earlier I thought it was a great first 

step. But it doesn’t go far enough, because there are overlapping 

mandates in this particular draft that have to be taken into consideration. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
573 

I would think the committee would be remiss if they would move 

forward without having a complete analysis of all of the variables 

that are included in the draft, and then, further, understand what 

the simultaneous implementation of all those provisions would 

have, that impact on consumers. 

So while I applaud it as a good first step, I don’t think it goes 

far enough in dealing with the other provisions in the draft. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my first question 

is for Mr. Sterba and Mr. English, Mr. Crisson. 

What is your position with regards to implementing a domestic 

cap-and-trade program before there is substantial and verifiable 

commitment to emissions reductions by China, India, and similar 

emission heavy developing nations? 

Mr. STERBA. EEI’s position is that we believe that the U.S. 

should provide leadership and go forward with some form of climate change legislation. But it must be in the context of international negotiations to help bring along the other countries, because if we are the only ones that do it we don’t get there. But neither do—and this is my personal statement—do I believe we can 

just say we won’t do anything until the others do it first. 

Mr. ENGLISH. We agree that other countries should be included. 

And certainly someone the magnitude of China needs to be a party 

of this. I think there is an issue of who goes first. And as you said, 

the problem that we face right now is that we are going first, unless the Congress wants to stop that, through the Clean Air Act. 

I think the Supreme Court started that ball rolling nearly 2 years 

ago. 

So I suppose we are leading, but I certainly think that Congress 

needs to do everything they can to get other countries to join with 

us. 

Mr. CRISSON. Mr. Congressman, we would support moving ahead 

with a workable and sustainable cap-and-trade system, some kind 

of mechanism to address climate change in order to show leadership in the international community. We would be very concerned, 

however, if there was not some kind of reciprocity shown in the 

very near future by countries like China and India. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And the next question is I guess for all of the panelists. What are your concerns or position on leakage, the process 

by which companies will move business operations to foreign countries to avoid higher costs in the U.S.? 

Mr. MICHAELS. In California that has been a very, very major 

issue with the implementation of the State program. And even the 

most optimistic projections that are coming from people who have 

been analyzing the State program—I don’t place much faith in 

them, but even the most optimistic ones are that California is going 

to lose a very substantial fraction of what industrial load is left. 

Essentially, what is going to be left in California is only the kind 

of businesses that can’t move because of their closeness to the consumer. Electrically, you are going to be seeing the same issue, and 

that is being played out once again not just in California but in the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
574 

negotiations over the Western Climate Initiative. If California outlaws coal-fired power imports, it just means the plants in other 

States are going to produce electricity for those residents. 

Mr. BASSETT. I think my answer to that question is obvious. Any 

time there is a possibility for loss of jobs, whether it is major corporations or small businesses that will certainly be affected by this 

draft, they are concerned. And so that is why I think that, going 

forward, we need to make certain that we are considering all of the 

variables. And that is why I have underscored my initial concerns 

earlier. 

Mr. COWART. Leakage is certainly a problem in any cap-andtrade regime, and we need to be careful about how we approach it. 

It is one of the reasons that we need a national program, frankly, 

because of the State-to-State competition problems that cause leakage across State borders. 

And with respect to international arrangements, I support transitional assistance to industries that are affected by international 

trade concerns. And I think I echo the comments of those made 

earlier, that we as a nation need to be engaged quite actively with 

other countries to make sure that we create over time as level a 

playing field as we can. 

Mr. MORGAN. I agree with Mr. Cowart. I think we need to look 

at the issue of leakage in the context of an international approach. 

The fact that the United States is thus far not part of international 

agreements already is creating a leakage problem in the other direction. What we really need to do is work together with other nations to address this problem. 

And I also wanted to highlight the issue of leakage when you are 

looking at State or regional programs which are already in place 

in parts of the U.S. And, as Mr. Cowart said, that is a problem that 

could be solved by developing a national program and having arrangements for dealing with interchange between U.S. and Canada 

of electricity and that sort of thing. 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. We have already seen in the past the comment about rush to gas. We have seen that impact businesses and 

industries in our areas when we had gas used so much for power 

generation. 

What this has the potential to do, in addition to increasing demand for natural gas, if we have carbon allowance costs for residential customers and small businesses, that has the potential to 

impact their businesses and do just what you fear. So, for those 

reasons, we think it is necessary that we deal with the allowances 

and allocating those in the appropriate way to mitigate that impact. 

Mr. CRISSON. We share that concern. And as Mr. Somerhalder 

pointed out, this is one of the big advantages of 100 percent allocation of allowances, particularly in the transition early years as we 

move to a low carbon energy system. 

Mr. STERBA. I agree that one of the biggest challenges that we 

can face is not just thinking about what is the impact on electricity 

but what is the impact on the mix. 

If we throw coal out prematurely, out of the mix, we can have 

a significant impact on natural gas prices that not only affect residential customers but all of the industries that use it as feedstock, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
575 

and the inability for them to remain competitive in an international market. 

Mr. WELCH [presiding]. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Two of the issues that have been raised constantly, among others, are the impact on jobs but also the impact on cost, the cost to 

the consumer. 

Mr. Cowart, welcome. You and I worked together in Vermont, 

and I appreciate the work you did there and around the country 

and the world. I would ask you to further elaborate on the potential of the efficiency as a means of reducing energy costs. I mean, 

if we are going to be concerned about the consumer, as we must, 

residential consumer and the business consumer, to elaborate on 

how efficiency can be their friend. 

Mr. COWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the efficiency opportunity is well demonstrated throughout the country. The reservoir is large and it is largely untapped, 

and it can be tapped at low cost. We know that in the power sector 

we could achieve at least 1 percent, probably 2 percent, a year in 

total demand reduction incrementally through aggressive energy 

efficiency programs that would be cost effective. They would save 

customers more money than they cost. And what happens when 

you do that is really four things. 

First of all, every customer who is participating in an efficiency 

program or is investing in efficiency will see a lower bill. That is 

the first benefit. The second benefit is that by reducing demand for 

electricity and natural gas we reduce the clearing prices. And those 

benefits occur to everybody on the system. So the upward pressure 

that we are worried about here on clean energy and on energy 

prices generally can be significantly moderated by energy efficiency 

at the customer level. 

The third benefit is that by reducing demand for consumption, 

we actually reduce demand for carbon allowances. And this is part 

of the answer to Dr. Michaels’ concern about scarcity. One of the 

ways to affect any scarce resource is to reduce demand for it, which 

can be done through energy efficiency, reducing demand for carbon 

allowances. 

And then the last point, for the half of the United States that 

exists in a competitive wholesale power market arena, is that when 

you reduce clearing prices and when you reduce carbon prices, you 

are reducing the cost of power across almost all megawatt hours 

across the entire grid. So the benefits from being a lot smarter 

about efficiency can be quite widespread. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Greenstein, given your proposal and your concerns about 

LDCs but the objective you have to protect consumers, what are 

your thoughts on allocating allowances of 15 percent, I think is the 

figure people have used, to LDCs specifically for efficiency to reduce cost to consumers? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I don’t have any specific percentage. I agree 

with Mr. Cowart and others that efficiency is important. I am not 

an expert on what is the best way under this bill to achieve the 

efficiency gains. To the degree that allocating permits to LDCs specifically for efficiency would be the best or one of the best ways to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
576 

get efficiency gains, if that is the case, then I would think it is a 

good idea. I certainly think that there ought to be some efficiency 

investment under this legislation. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Sterba, what about you? Has efficiency got to be 

a core component of any approach to address this problem? 

Mr. STERBA. Absolutely. And I think that is one of the areas 

where State regulators come into play in helping develop along 

with utilities, the elimination of disincentives and the provision of 

incentives such that we maximize energy efficiency capacity. 

Mr. WELCH. And what would you define as the specific disincentives to utilities to aggressively promote efficiency? 

Mr. STERBA. One that exists in many jurisdictions today is the 

fact that you are incented to sell more of a product. That is wrong. 

We need to change that fundamental business model. 

Mr. WELCH. Which we would do by what? 

Mr. STERBA. It could be done by a number of mechanisms. People 

use the phrase decoupling as one. The problem is, it means a lot 

of different things to different people. But there are clearly mechanisms that we can change that business model. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. My time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

members of the panel. Let me try to go through a series of questions. Mr. Sterba, let me begin with you. 

Certain energy sources are subsidized by the Federal Government. What I would like to do is see if you can quantify for me how 

much, whether it is by kilowatt or by megawatt, the subsidy for 

natural gas is. Do you know that number? 

Mr. STERBA. I do not. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Would you assume it is zero or near zero? Does 

anybody on the panel know? How about the subsidy for coal, per 

megawatt or kilowatt? Mr. English. 

Mr. ENGLISH. When you get in and talk about the issue of subsidy, that gets to be very misleading. If you are talking about using 

the Tax Code and providing benefits under the Tax Code as being 

part of that subsidy, then I think every fuel has a subsidy; every 

fuel receives assistance. But amounts, I don’t have amounts. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I am trying to get the relative amount of the subsidy. We know there is a substantial subsidy for solar. Does anybody know how much it is per megawatt? 

Mr. STERBA. Currently, the production tax credit is I believe 2.1 

cents for renewables. And then it could also be investment tax 

credit, which is 30 percent, I believe. 

Mr. SHADEGG. So can you give me a number per megawatt for 

solar? 

Mr. STERBA. Well, the production tax credit would be 2.1 cents, 

or $21 a megawatt hour. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And then the other one you mentioned? 

Mr. STERBA. That would be applicable to any renewable at this 

time. I would agree with Mr. English, there are certain built subsidies that have occurred at different stages of fuel being developed. Any fuel source that was developed probably had some subsidies at different points in time. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
577 

Mr. SHADEGG. Do you know what the current subsidy for wind 

is? 

Mr. STERBA. On the production tax credit, it would be the same, 

the 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I thought it would be useful to know what those 

subsidies are relative one fuel to the other, natural gas or coal, relative to solar and wind. 

The next question I would like to ask to the entire panel, and 

I would like to get a yes or no answer from each of you, if I might. 

Do you agree that this legislation will increase the cost of energy 

produced in the United States? Yes or no. Mr. Sterba. 

Mr. STERBA. Yes. The degree to which it does is dependent 

on—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. Yes or no? I am short on time. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Yes. 

Mr. CRISSON. Yes. 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN. Qualified yes. 

Mr. COWART. Qualified yes. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. MICHAELS. Unqualified yes. 

Mr. BASSETT. Yes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. If you agree that it will in fact increase the cost 

of energy in the United States, do you also agree that it will increase the costs of all goods which require energy to produce them, 

steel, or anything? 

Mr. STERBA. Yes. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Yes. 

Mr. CRISSON. Yes. 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN. To the extent efficiency substitutes for energy, no. 

Mr. COWART. Yes. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. Bassett. In general, yes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Dr. Michaels, did I get my unqualified yes? 

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you very much. Let me ask another. Isn’t 

it in fact—and I think either Mr. Cowart or Mr. Greenstein, you 

made this point. One of the goals of the legislation is to increase 

the cost of energy to induce the efficiency that you talked about, 

Mr. Cowart, and to discourage the use of the consumption of energy? Isn’t that correct, Mr. Sterba? 

Mr. STERBA. I think the purpose is to provide a price signal for 

a commodity that is by public policy opinion being made scarce. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Which you do by increasing cost. Right? 

Mr. STERBA. Yes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. Mr. English? 

Mr. ENGLISH. I am not going to interpret motives here, but let 

me just say I think we have to send on the front end of it that it 

is basically to reduce the emission of carbons. 

Mr. SHADEGG. By setting a price signal. 

Mr. ENGLISH. It does set a price. By putting a limitation on the 

carbon being used in the country, yes, that sends a price signal. 

Mr. CRISSON. Combination of cap and price. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
578 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. I agree. 

Mr. COWART. I actually don’t think that the purpose is to raise 

the price. The purpose is to reduce emission. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Did Mr. Morgan not respond? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, I do agree that the purpose is to send a price 

signal. Putting a cap on the quantity is one way of doing that. But 

price— 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, you are not putting a cap on the total quantity. You are putting a cap on the quantity per industry, and then 

charging for that for anyone—actually, you might charge for that 

initial catch and then also charge for exceeding the cap. 

Mr. MORGAN. Either way. I mean, you are trying to make the 

product more scarce, as Dr. Michaels pointed out. 

Mr. SHADEGG. By increasing the price and sending the price signal? 

Mr. MORGAN. That is correct. That is certainly part of the purpose. Of course, as we pointed out, there are some ways to offset 

that. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Sure. We are not talking about offsetting. Does it 

in fact send a price signal, or isn’t that a part of the structure of 

the bill? 

Mr. Cowart. 

Mr. COWART. I think that a price signal is useful, but that the 

other policies that are inherent in the bill are actually more important. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. 

Mr. Greenstein, I am really looking for does it—is one of the 

goals to send a pricing—increasing the pricing of the cost of energy 

so that we consume less and therefore reduce CO2 emissions? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. A key purpose is to send a price signal both so 

that we consume less, but also that we switch to cleaner sources 

of energy. But the fact that it sends a price signal should not be 

interpreted to be a negative for the economy. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I was just asking the question. Don’t read motives 

into my question. Dr. Michaels? 

Mr. MICHAELS. It is a price signal. The real question with price 

as well is, what are you getting for it? If in fact we are getting very 

little in the way of solutions to the whole world’s carbon problem, 

then all we are doing is it is a burnt offering type of sacrifice. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Bassett. 

Mr. BASSETT. I won’t ascribe motives to the drafters or to your 

question. But I will say that the net effect of setting a price signal 

in this instance will raise prices. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, my time 

has long since expired. 

Mr. MARKEY. I wasn’t sure whether Mr. Michaels was in the Old 

Testament or the New Testament. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Earlier, I think some people involved in the discussion have implied that this is the only piece of legislation that is out there that 

addresses an energy policy. I would direct them to an alternative 

plan that has been on the table for about a year now and is actually still out there on debate, something that we are going to be 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
579 

presenting most of the components of this bill. The American Energy Act that was filed in the last Congress will be filed again and 

debated as part of an alternative to this cap-and-trade energy tax. 

But it is a bill that actually involves an all-of-the-above energy policy that will not only support and in fact fund research and development to advance the alternatives, like wind and solar, but also 

make recognition of our own natural resources here in this country, 

to explore additional natural resources like oil, like natural gas, 

sources that we are using today, clean coal technology, and also nuclear power, which is a very reliable, efficient source of energy 

many other countries are using that this cap-and-trade energy tax 

does not contemplate at all; and then, also encourage people to 

make those efficiencies that they are making today that many more 

will make. 

So anybody who suggests that one group of people on this committee is just against everything, they are being very disingenuous 

because this is a bill that has been out there for about a year now, 

many of the components of which will be presented as an alternative, a bill that will actually create American jobs here in this 

country, create those green jobs that we are talking about, but not 

invoke policies that will export millions of jobs out of this country 

which the cap-and-trade energy bill clearly will do. No one has disputed those findings. 

And so, with that, I go to the bill that we are debating today, 

and specifically the allocation policies that this panel is discussing. 

And I am going to have some questions, but first for those of us 

who have been going through this bill, one of the big frustrations 

that we feel is not only a frustration to us as members, I am sure 

many of you who are trying to do analysis of this bill, but also to 

the American people who are trying to contemplate whether or not 

this is good policy or bad, is the main details of this bill, especially 

what this committee is talking about today on allocation policies. 

If you go to page 478 of the bill, which actually is supposed to 

be talking about the main source of how this whole cap-and-trade 

scheme would work. 

Let’s go through. Disbursement of allowances and proceeds from 

auctions of allowances. Subsection A, allocation of emission allowances. The administrator shall allocate emission allowances established under section 721 in the following amounts. 

So, you want to go read those amounts? It says: To be supplied. 

The section is blank. 

You go next to section B, auction of emission allowances. The administrator shall auction emission allowances established under 

section 721 in the following amounts: To be supplied. 

Subsection 3, funds established. There is established in the 

Treasury of the United States the following funds: The strategic reserve fund, one. Number two: Other funds to be supplied. 

We are talking about what many people have described as one 

of the most important initiatives brought before this Congress in 

decades, the most important change in energy policy our country 

has probably seen, and the bulk of the details don’t even exist 

today, aren’t even presented to the public. 

Now, there is discussion that many of these details are being 

worked out behind closed doors and some of those deals are being 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
580 

cut as we speak. Unfortunately, none of that is being done here in 

this committee meeting where the transparency is supposed to be 

where the people can actually watch and participate in the discussion, where experts can actually give detailed analysis of the components of the bill and the policies that would affect every consumer in America. 

So with that, I want to ask Mr. Bassett, because you have testified that—you talked about the rigorous cost analysis that you 

would like to see done on it. When it comes to the details of this 

bill that are completely left unanswered, how do you do a real cost 

analysis to estimate how much this is going to cost American families, how many jobs will be exported to foreign countries, when so 

many of the details are left out? 

Mr. BASSETT. Well, you can’t. And that is a concern that I have, 

as I was reviewing the bill, and I know that consumers across the 

country are going to have. So what I would do is encourage this 

committee before you move is to consider cost estimates on every 

provision that is in the bill. And then go further, as I have said 

earlier, then test for the impact that a simultaneous implementation of those are going to be. 

I just don’t see how you can reach a conclusion as grave as this. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I know we are running out of time. I am sorry 

to cut you off. I want to ask anybody on the panel if they would 

address the question. Should we, and is it responsible, to go forward with a debate on a bill this important when so many of the 

key components are not even included that we can assess, analyze, 

and discuss? Does anybody think it is responsible to be going forward with this right now? 

Nobody responded. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. If I could just say, there is every reason to have 

debate on all the issues that we already know, all the parts of the 

bill that are filled in, and what a number of us think or are recommending today should be in there for the parts of the bill that 

aren’t filled in. And I presume, at the appropriate time, you will 

get a fully filled in bill and you all have further debate on it at that 

time. 

Mr. SCALISE. Right. And with nine panelists, we probably have 

nine different ideas that are very divergent on how that should be. 

Unfortunately, we should be all debating one set—because ultimately this committee would pass one set plan, not nine different 

plans. Unfortunately, we can’t debate that one set plan because it 

doesn’t exist and it is not before us today. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. And unless the 

gentleman from New York has questions, then all time for questioning for this panel has been completed. But you have provided 

a very valuable set of testimonies for the committee. And I can actually see some—I won’t call them deals, but I can actually see 

some new working arrangements that could be constructed out of 

your testimony to create a format, create a formula that we might 

be able to use. And amongst your testimony, I think that it has 

been perhaps the most productive that we have had so far because 

this is a very thorny question. But yet I can see a lot of desire to 

find a working formula that we could use. And we thank you for 

your testimony. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
581 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to trigger the House 

5-minute rule. But following on what you said, because somebody 

here on the panel mentioned the importance of worker transition 

during this process, I don’t remember who it was, but somebody 

did. And I would refer them to page 568, where the section 424 for 

worker transition is. I would encourage you to read it fully, because 

all we can read is: To be supplied. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. And we thank 

all of you for your testimony. We would like to stay in close working cooperation with you in the next month or so. Thank you. 

Now we would ask the witnesses to take their places at the witness table. 

Welcome. Welcome to the second panel. And this panel will deal 

with the issue of ensuring U.S. competitiveness and international 

participation. 

Our first witness is Mr. Jack McMackin. He is a principal in the 

law firm of Williams and Jensen, and a Director of Owens Illinois, 

a leading producer of glass containers. He is here today on behalf 

of the Energy Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation. 

We welcome you, Mr. McMackin. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENTS OF JACK McMACKIN, PRINCIPAL, WILLIAMS AND 

JENSEN, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE ENERGY INTENSIVE MANUFACTURERS WORKING GROUP ON GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION; RICH WELLS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENERGY, THE 

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; TOM CONWAY, INTERNATIONAL 

VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED STEEL WORKERS; TREVOR 

HOUSER, VISITING FELLOW, PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR 

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS; ELLIOT DIRINGER, VICE 

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES, PEW CENTER ON 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; LEE LANE, RESIDENT FELLOW, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; REVEREND C. DOUGLAS SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA INTERFAITH 

CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY 

STATEMENT OF JACK McMACKIN 

Mr. MCMACKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Energy Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation 

appreciates this opportunity to testify today. 

I am Jack McMackin, a Principal in the law firm of Williams and 

Jensen, and I have served for 15 years as a Director of Owens Illinois. OI is headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio, and it is the world’s 

leading producer of glass containers. 

As this subcommittee is aware, our group was formed early last 

year for a limited but important purpose: To engage constructively 

with Members of Congress, the environmental community, labor, 

and all interested stakeholders to attempt to solve the economic 

and environmental problem that is known as carbon leakage, or job 

leakage. Our focus has been exclusively on the Inslee-Doyle type 

grant of free allowances or allowance value rebates. 

Since I appeared before the subcommittee last month, our working group has expanded. We include representatives of all of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
582 

traditionally recognized energy intensive sectors as well as companies from smaller sectors that our work has identified as subject 

to leakage. Our members include AK Steel, Alcoa, Corning, Cliffs 

Natural Resources, Dow, Wholesome U.S., New Page Corporation, 

New Corps, Owens Corning, Owens Illinois, PPG, Rio Tinto, Terra 

Industries, U.S. Steel, and Weyerhauser. Much has changed, and 

much progress has been made since last month. The upshot is that 

we are more convinced than ever that the leakage problem can be 

adequately addressed in climate legislation. 

Since our earlier testimony, Congressmen Inslee and Doyle have 

introduced a new and strengthened version of their anti-leakage 

bill, and the discussion draft in turn has adopted much of the Inslee-Doyle mechanism. As a result, the discussion draft contains a 

structure that can work. 

That said, the draft also leaves critical decisions unmade and 

critical issues unfinished. The success of the anti-leakage provision 

hangs in the balance. Before turning to what we view as the two 

most important remaining issues, let me briefly mention one of the 

draft’s key advances. 

The discussion draft, like the new Inslee-Doyle bill, has adopted 

a principled data driven mechanism for determining which sectors 

or subsectors should be eligible for anti-leakage allowances. Industries meeting specific energy intensity and trade intensity levels 

would be presumptively eligible, and others may make individual 

showings. This was a mechanism we advocated. We believe it is a 

major advance, and that it brings a reasonable level of certainty as 

well as fairness to the process. 

Now, for the two key remaining issues. The first is funding of the 

provision with an adequate number of allowances. The discussion 

draft of course is silent on this issue. My written testimony updates 

in some detail our submissions to the committee on this critical 

issue. 

In short, we believe the provision requires in the range of 850 

to 900 million allowances. That represents about 16 percent of the 

allowances in the discussion draft’s highest year, its fifth. 

The second issue is the phasedown or termination of the antileakage allowance program. The solution to the problem cannot be 

phased out or terminated before the underlying problem of regulation-caused production cost disparity is solved; and, the underlying 

problem will be solved only when other countries producing energyintensive materials adopt climate change legislation that imposes 

on their industries costs comparable to what the ACES bill would 

impose on ours. We believe that the Inslee-Doyle bill is very close 

to creating a workable mechanism to govern phasedown and termination of the provision, but that the ACES bill has yet to do so. 

Chairman Markey, I would like to mention one final other matter, an issue upon which you in particular have shown persistent 

leadership, and that is recycling. Use by energy intensive industries of recycled materials in lieu of raw materials produces enormous savings in energy and even greater reductions in carbon 

emissions, greater because not only combustion emissions, but also 

process emissions are greatly reduced. 

Those of us in the packaging industry, for instance, can make a 

bottle or a can out of recycled bottles or cans with a fraction of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
583 

carbon emissions; yet, we cannot get enough recycled materials. We 

urge you to include muscular effective provisions in the bill to enhance the opportunities for all energy intensive industries to obtain 

and make use of recycled materials. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we commend you and all who have 

worked so hard to make possible the remarkable progress on the 

anti-leakage provisions, and we very much look forward to cooperating with you in any way that we can. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMackin follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
584 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 618 72878A.340
585 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 72878A.341
586 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 72878A.342
587 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 72878A.343
588 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 622 72878A.344
589 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 623 72878A.345
590 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 624 72878A.346
591 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 625 72878A.347
592 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 626 72878A.348
593 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 627 72878A.349
594 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 628 72878A.350
595 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 629 72878A.351
596 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 630 72878A.352
597 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 631 72878A.353
598 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 632 72878A.354
599 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 633 72878A.355
600 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 634 72878A.356
601 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 635 72878A.357
602 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 636 72878A.358
603 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. McMackin, very much. 

Our second witness is back again. We welcome you, sir, Rich 

Wells. He serves as Vice President of Energy for Dow Chemical 

Company. He has also had lead position in management at Dow 

Chemical’s global advocacy activities in the areas of climate change 

and energy policy. He was appointed to the Michigan Climate 

Change Action Council in 2008. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF RICH WELLS 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on the competitiveness provisions of the 

American Clean Energy and Security Act. I am Vice President of 

Energy for Dow Chemical, a leading specialty chemical and advanced materials company with over 50,000 employees, half of 

which are located in the U.S. 

Today, I would like to address Dow’s position on climate change. 

As a member of U.S. Climate Action Partnership, or US–CAP, Dow 

supports enactment of environmentally effective, economy sustainable, and fair climate change legislation. 

As a representative from an energy intensive and trade exposed 

sector, I would like to give you a glimpse into what the chemical 

industry is doing to save Americans energy and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. 

Since 1990, the U.S. chemical industry has achieved energy efficiency gains of 28 percent. At Dow, that number is 38 percent. In 

Dow’s case, we have saved over 1,600 trillion BTUs of energy since 

1994, the electrical equivalent to power every home in California 

for one year. And our track record on greenhouse gas emissions reductions is equally impressive. At Dow, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by over 20 percent. This has resulted in preventing more than 86 million metric tons of CO2 from entering the 

atmosphere. The U.S. chemical industry as a whole can report 

similar numbers, numbers that would have exceeded Kyoto Protocol targets. 

The chemical industry also contributes a number of energy saving products and materials to American society. This includes 

building and appliance insulation, as well as material that enables 

solar and wind power and other efficiency applications such as 

lighting. 

Simply put, the American chemical industry uses energy to save 

energy. In fact, a soon to be released McKenzie study shows that 

the products of chemistry reduce an average of three tons of greenhouse gas emissions for every one ton produced in our manufacturing process. As you can see, from an energy and greenhouse gas 

reduction viewpoint, this is an excellent story. However, from an 

economic standpoint the situation is much different. 

Over the past 10 years, the U.S. chemical industry, a $660 billion 

enterprise, has lost over 120,000 jobs, or approximately 15 percent 

of our total workforce. For the most part, this loss of jobs can be 

attributed to high and volatile energy prices. As an example, Dow’s 

energy and feedstock costs have gone from $8 billion in 2002 to 

over $27 billion in 2008. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
604 

In order for a cap-and-trade system to be economically sustainable, it must be designed such that American energy intensive and 

trade exposed manufacturers remain globally competitive. We see 

the approach included in the discussion draft as a positive step towards protecting U.S. manufacturers. This approach defines these 

sectors based on objective criteria, and includes a provision to reduce or eliminate the allowances when the potential for carbon 

leakage has been reduced or eliminated. However, I would caution 

that it is critical the number of allowances be adequate to compensate those sectors that meet the eligibility criteria. If Congress 

does not set aside enough allowances to address the carbon leakage 

issue, then it will fail to protect American jobs in the manufacturing sector. 

We also believe it is critical that the allowances not be reduced 

or eliminated until the competitive disadvantage is reduced or 

eliminated. Targeted assistance to energy intensive industries 

should be terminated only when the carbon leakage problem is 

solved through an international agreement. 

In addition to the provisions that pertain to energy intensive and 

trade exposed sectors, other provisions of the bill also would impact 

the competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturers. For example, the bill 

would provide compensatory allowances to companies that use fossil energy as a feedstock material rather than as a fuel source. 

Unfortunately, this provision is unworkable in its current form, 

and we recommend that it be modified to ensure that nonemissive 

uses of fossil energy are properly compensated. 

Dow also recommends changes to the bill to avoid excessive fuel 

switching from coal to natural gas in the power sector. These 

changes would include establishing a trigger price for the release 

of additional allowances and offsets from the Strategic Reserve to 

avoid the so-called dash to gas. 

In conclusion, Congress should pass energy and climate change 

legislation that maintains the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers as we transition to a low carbon economy. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
605 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 640 72878A.359
606 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 641 72878A.360
607 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 642 72878A.361
608 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 643 72878A.362
609 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 644 72878A.363
610 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 645 72878A.364
611 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 646 72878A.365
612 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 647 72878A.366
613 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Wells, very much. 

Now let us welcome Tom Conway, the International Vice President of the United Steel Workers. He has been in the steel business since 1978. Since working with the United Steel Workers, he 

has been involved in most of the major collective bargaining efforts 

within the United States steel industry. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF TOM CONWAY 

Mr. CONWAY. Thank you. Good afternoon. On behalf of the members of the Steel Workers, I would like to thank Chairmen Waxman 

and Markey and the committee for holding the hearing, and in particular recognize your leadership and the hard work you do in 

crafting difficult climate policy that will ensure the competitiveness 

of U.S. workers and their industries. 

My name is Tom Conway. I am the Vice President of Steel Workers Union. The USW has long been a leader in the labor movement 

on environment issues, and we support the advancement of a climate policy. Our members work in nearly every sector of every 

economy. We produce a wide range of products, including paper, 

grass, cement, chemicals, aluminum, rubber, and of course steel. 

All these products are produced in facilities that are as efficient as 

any in the world, and we are ready to lead the way in the development and production in the next generation of clean energy products that will help revitalize the American economy and reassert 

our Nation’s leadership on the cutting edge of new technology. But 

we can only answer that call if our jobs are not squandered to the 

law of unintended but not necessarily unforeseen consequences. 

A well-designed climate policy can fuel America’s recovery and 

ensure that the economy comes back stronger and cleaner than before. But a poorly designed policy can have the opposite effect and 

cost thousands and millions of American jobs. In commodity-based 

industries such as ours, even small differences in production costs 

can have a huge effect. 

In crafting legislation, Congress must address the critical need to 

mitigate the competitive disadvantage that will be placed on these 

industries as well as the carbon leakage that will occur as a result. 

Only by fully addressing the leakage issue can Congress meet their 

environmental and investment goals, and ensure that the jobs that 

exist today in energy intensive industries are not lost nor the manufacturing of these products offshore. Failure to fully address these 

issues not only endangers our recovery from the current recession, 

but will likely result in making the problem of climate change 

worse instead of better. 

For the purpose of time, I am going to get straight to our suggested improvements in the competitiveness provision, but ask that 

members refer to my full testimony which I have submitted to the 

record. 

One of the most delicate balancing acts in designing an 

economywide climate change policy is properly constructing transition assistance to specific industries that develop clean energy process and products. We are keenly aware of all the concerns, such as 

quantity, time length of assistance, and windfall profits associated 

with this assistance. And, from that perspective, the Inslee-Doyle 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
614 

approach of tying allocations or rebates to output is the best and 

most effective allocation system that has been proposed to date, as 

eligibility is targeted very narrowly to those industries which demonstrate a high energy intensity profile and a potential for significant competitive disadvantage. 

However, while an allocation system such as output-based rebate 

systems seeks to mitigate the cost differential between domestic 

and international products by reducing the effective cost of compliance for producers, it is not designed to completely eliminate that 

differential. In the discussion draft, manufacturers and covered sectors or subsectors would be rebated 85 percent of the sector average carbon cost of producing each covered good. This rebate level 

would not only penalize the worst performers in the sector, but 

would impose an unrebated cost and a competitive disadvantage on 

a majority of companies in these sectors. As long as that differential exists at any level, a commensurate amount of leakage will be 

unavoidable. Therefore, the rebates must be coupled with a border 

adjustment to equalize carbon costs if the carbon leakage issue is 

to be fully addressed and America’s environmental economic goals 

achieved. 

Once such a broader adjustment is enacted the rebate level can 

and will act as an incentive to producers to reduce emissions. Until 

then, however, it will not eliminate the threat of leakage. In the 

interim, we must ensure that these cost pressures do not effectively 

destroy critical sectors of the economy until the full extent of the 

competitiveness program can be implement. 

On the rebate levels, rebates to companies in covered sectors and 

subsectors should be increased to 100 percent of each firm’s direct 

or indirect compliance cost from the date of enactment of the domestic program until the date of the enactment of an effective border adjustment. Once the border adjustmentis in place, we would 

recommend that the rebates be paid at 100 percent of the sector’s 

average per unit of output. This will ensure the producers who are 

better than average for their sectors will not be penalized despite 

their high performance, and will provide below average producers 

an incentive to reduce emissions to avoid paying an unrebated cost 

of compliance. As these below average companies improve their 

performance, this will drive the sector average emissions down, 

prompting companies to continue to reduce emissions. 

A border adjustment should be enacted as quickly as possible. Although we are aware of the arguments that suggest some period 

of time is necessary before it can be done to allow for negotiation 

of an international treaty and to meet U.N. international obligations, as such, we are prepared to accept whatever length of time 

is necessary for there to be done right as long as we eliminate leakage concerns during the interim through a full rebating of compliance costs. 

On the issue of presidential discretion, we have strong concerns 

with the discretion given to the President under the International 

Reserve Allowance Program in the discussion draft. Under that 

provision, in 2017 the President is directed to make a determination whether the rebates have been effective at preventing leakage, 

and no requirement that he make any subsequent determination. 

If the President does determine that leakage is occurring, then that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
615 

leakage and the job loss that goes with it will be allowed to continue for an additional 2 to 3 years while regulations are written 

before a border adjustment is enacted to prevent it. If he decides 

no leakage exists, on that day in 2017 there is no recourse should 

leakage develop later, either when the rebates begin to phase out, 

or foreign competitors simply wait until after that day to flood our 

markets with dirty products. 

Finally, the decision to implement a border mechanism should 

not be left to the discretion of the President or anyone else. The 

legislation should require that the border adjustment begin on a 

certain date, and direct the President to issue regulations in sufficient time that it may begin on time. 

Addressing the potentially catastrophic issues posed by climate 

change is a challenge of our generation, and meeting that challenge 

will require the mobilization of everyone in the world behind a 

common purpose. It is time for America to reclaim its position of 

leadership in the world economy, and the United Steel Workers are 

ready to do everything in our power to assist that process. 

Again, I am grateful to Chairmen Waxman and Markey for holding this hearing, for the leadership provided by them, particularly 

Mr. Inslee and Mr. Doyle. We look forward to working with you 

and the committee now and in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conway follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
616 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 651 72878A.367
617 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 652 72878A.368
618 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 72878A.369
619 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 72878A.370
620 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 655 72878A.371
621 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 72878A.372
622 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 72878A.373
623 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 72878A.374
624 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 72878A.375
625 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Conway, very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Conway, very much. 

Our next witness, Trevor Houser, is visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Mr. Houser’s work focuses on analyzing energy markets and climate change. 

We welcome you, Dr. Houser. 

STATEMENT OF TREVOR HOUSER 

Mr. HOUSER. Thank you very much. And thank you for holding 

this important hearing. 

My name is Trevor Houser. I am a visiting fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In conjunction with the 

World Resources Institute, we published a book last year called, 

‘‘Leveling the Carbon Playing Field,’’ and have been active in trying 

to ensure that U.S. climate policy doesn’t undermine U.S. competitiveness. And it is my honor to be here speaking on that topic before you today. 

I would just like to point out before I start that my comments 

are those of my own and not of the Peterson Institute. 

Climate policy will impact the competitiveness of the U.S. economy in several ways, and our ability to maximize the upside and 

minimize the downside breaks down to roughly four factors. The 

first, our ability to create a level playing field for carbon-intensive 

industries, the topic of this hearing today, but it is not limited to 

that of course. It is our ability to capture opportunities in low-carbon technology, reduce dependence on imported foreign oil and 

catalyze improvements in productivity more broadly. 

I am going to focus my comments on the first, that is the topic 

of this hearing, but it is important to keep in mind that the impact 

of climate policy on trade-exposed carbon-intensive industries is 

just one component of broader U.S. economic competitiveness. 

The bill before you today reduces U.S. emissions along the lines 

necessary at a global level to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change. And I commend you for that effort. It also puts the 

U.S. in a leadership position for international negotiations. 

But as the outcome of those negotiations remains unclear, it is 

appropriate that we think about ways to prevent aggressive action 

here at home from undermining the competitiveness of our industry and risk that it would force industry to relocate, thus undermining the effectiveness of climate policy here at home. 

In our work looking at trade-exposed carbon-intensive industries 

that are vulnerable to leakage, we find that it is a limited group 

of industries accounting for about half a percent of U.S. employment and 1.5 percent of U.S. GDP. Now I don’t say those numbers 

to say that leakage isn’t a challenge. It is to say that it is a manageable challenge and one that we can deal with affordably 

through allowance revenue within the context of a broader bill. 

Using the criteria laid out in the Inslee-Doyle provision, we assessed how many industries that at a six digit NAICS level would 

qualify, and it is a fairly affordable undertaking. About 11 percent 

of allowance value in the year 2014 would be required to hold the 

industries that qualify by the explicit criteria in the Inslee-Doyle 

provision harmless. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
626 

Of those industries, a fair amount are agriculture and mining industries. And one of my comments to the committee would be to 

assess whether that was explicit intent to include agricultural industries and mining industries in the criteria, as our view is that 

they face different economics than manufacturing; that if you are 

mining or you are agriculture, the factor endowment, where you 

can actually grow the crops or mine the copper, is generally a more 

important consideration than carbon costs. So it is one issue I 

would ask the committee to consider. 

We believe that this provision would be sufficient to address 

emissions leakage. If it is sufficient, then trade measures are not 

required. If it is not sufficient and trade measures are required, 

what is important is that to the extent that a price is put on imported goods, that that is discounted by the amount of support that 

we provide for our domestic industries. It is critical that we don’t 

double pay our industries through domestic support and adjustments at the border. That is important because it is a violation of 

our trade commitments, but also because it would set a bad precedent for other countries to do the same, to outwardly subsidize 

their industries under climate policy. 

The more important question I think is what this transitions to. 

Domestic supports are transitionary measures, and I think everybody on this panel would agree that the goal ultimately is to get 

to an international agreement that can effectively address emissions leakage. I think what is important in thinking about this legislation is how it can inform that process and how it can be specific 

about what types of international agreement would be necessary to 

phase out output-based rebating here in the U.S. I think that in 

the draft so far, there has been some vagueness there, and I think 

that that bears clarification. 

Let me turn to make a couple comments about the international 

environment. We have moved a long way from where we were in 

1997, and the outlook for a global agreement I would say is good. 

But that doesn’t necessarily mean the same commitments by all 

different countries, right. Europe is going to reduce emissions more 

aggressively likely than here in the U.S., and countries in the developing world are going to reduce emissions less aggressively than 

we are. 

Now, from an environmental standpoint, that is okay as long as 

we all get to the same 2050 end-point, but that means different 

carbon prices for a transitionary period, which has impacts for 

trade-exposed carbon-intensive industries. Over the long term, we 

can deal with that through a harmonized carbon tax globally or 

through linking cap-and-trade systems. But as we get that infrastructure set up, we would like to see coming out of international 

negotiations some specific commitments on key industries among 

other major producers to level the playing field. If we can get that 

type of agreement between major producers, then that will more effectively address the issue of emissions leakage, and we will make 

sure that we are reducing emissions of steel produced in China, not 

just in China for export to the U.S. 

I think that the bill before you today makes an important start 

in specifying costs at an industry level that would be necessary to 

reduce output-based rebating. I would ask that in going forward 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
627 

you provide guidance to the negotiators on what you would like to 

see. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Houser follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
628 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 664 72878A.376
629 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 665 72878A.377
630 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 666 72878A.378
631 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 667 72878A.379
632 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 668 72878A.380
633 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 669 72878A.381
634 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 670 72878A.382
635 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 671 72878A.383
636 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 672 72878A.384
637 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 673 72878A.385
638 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Houser, very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Elliot Diringer. He is vice president of 

international strategies from the Pew Center on Global Climate 

Change. He has a long, very impressive history in this area. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ELLIOT DIRINGER 

Mr. DIRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

An essential complement to a strong domestic climate program 

is an effective international agreement ensuring that other major 

economies contribute to their fair share to what must be a global 

effort. U.S. domestic legislation must therefore be designed to 

maximize prospects for such an agreement. The Pew Center believes that, on the whole, the Waxman-Markey discussion draft 

provides a strong basis for effective international engagement. 

I would like to highlight the draft’s many strengths and suggest 

ways it could be further refined to help achieve a fair and effective 

global agreement. To facilitate strong U.S. participation in the 

global effort, domestic legislation must do several things. 

First, the legislation must set a solid foundation for a verifiable 

international commitment by the United States. By establishing 

ambitious mandatory targets through 2050, the discussion draft 

would indeed provide the basis in domestic law for a corresponding 

U.S. commitment under international law. The United States will 

have greater leverage in international negotiations, however, if it 

has the flexibility to take additional actions that can encourage 

stronger commitments by others. 

One way this can be done is by facilitating emission reductions 

outside the United States above and beyond those required for domestic compliance. The discussion draft would establish one such 

mechanism by using a portion of emission allowances to reduce deforestation in developing countries. We encourage the committee to 

consider allowing the use of allowance value to facilitate other 

types of mitigation action in developing countries as well. 

Second, a domestic climate action must create positive incentives 

for emission reduction commitments by the major emerging economies, both through public finance and through market-based mechanisms. With respect to public financing, the Pew Center recommends a phased strategy providing some immediate assistance 

to developing countries and greater support once countries commit 

to effective climate policies. 

The International Clean Technology Fund proposed in the discussion draft would constitute an important element of such a strategy. We believe the draft could be further strengthened in several 

ways. 

It should authorize immediate appropriations for two purposes: 

first, to support capacity building activities in developing countries; 

and second, to fulfill the United States’ pledge to fund the World 

Bank’s new Clean Technology Fund. 

For the longer term, the legislation should designate a portion of 

allowance value for sustained support for technology deployment. 

As proposed in the discussion draft, this support should be conditioned on a recipient country’s ratification of an international cliVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00648 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
639 

mate agreement. With respect to market-based approaches, the 

Pew Center strongly supports the use of international emissions 

offsets both as an incentive for developing country action and as a 

mechanism to contain costs in the U.S. cap-and-trade system. 

We believe the offset provisions of the discussion draft would provide a strong incentive for developing countries to assume reasonable climate commitments. Importantly, the draft would recognize 

credits issued by an international body under a new climate agreement. This would enable the United States to influence the redesign and reform of the existing clean development mechanism or 

the design of a new international crediting mechanism. 

Third, domestic climate legislation must dedicate resources to 

help poor vulnerable countries adapt to the impacts of climate 

change. The draft would establish a stronger framework for delivering direct bilateral resistance, and importantly, it would reserve 

40 to 60 percent of the support available for U.S. contributions to 

an international adaptation fund. 

To help secure a strong climate agreement, the legislation must 

establish a clear predictable and sustained source of funding for 

these efforts. The Pew Center strongly supports designating an appropriate portion of allowance value for these purposes. 

Fourth, domestic climate legislation must facilitate the linkage of 

the United States’ emissions trading system in a global greenhouse 

gas market. We believe the discussion draft would lay the necessary foundation for linkage to other market-based systems. By 

recognizing allowances from programs establishing sectoral targets, 

it would provide another important incentive for stronger efforts by 

countries not yet prepared to take on economy-wide targets. 

Finally, domestic climate legislation must include transitional 

measures to address potential competitiveness risks to energy-intensive trade-exposed industries. The discussion draft takes a very 

sound approach to managing these risks. The use of output-based 

rebates as proposed would address the transitional competitiveness 

concerns likely to arise under a cap-and-trade system while maintaining the environmental integrity of the program and providing 

an ongoing incentive to producers to improve their performance. 

Critically, the draft contemplates the use of unilateral trade 

measures only as a last resort and only if the President determines 

that the rebate program has not been effective. This preserves 

trade measures as an option but defers their use to allow a reasonable period to assess the efficacy of the rebate program and to 

achieve effective international agreements. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Pew Center believes that with 

modest improvements the Waxman-Markey discussion draft would 

effectively position the United States to lead efforts toward an equitable and effective international agreement. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Diringer follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
640 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 676 72878A.386
641 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 677 72878A.387
642 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 678 72878A.388
643 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 72878A.389
644 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 680 72878A.390
645 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 681 72878A.391
646 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 682 72878A.392
647 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Diringer, very much. 

We have been notified that there are seven roll calls on the floor 

of the House. We have 3.5 minutes for the members to go over to 

make these votes. So what we will do is we will take a 1 hour recess until 1:45 so that the Members can make these votes and our 

witnesses, if they would like, can grab a bite to eat. But we will 

recommence at that point in time. And we apologize to all concerned. We have no control over the floor schedule. 

So we will take a 1 hour recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you all so much for being here. 

This is a little bit like the 1950s when your mother was still 

home so you went home for lunch as a break in school and you 

came back all energized, ready for those final two classes before 

you went out into the schoolyard. 

So we thank you all for being here. 

And our next witness is Lee Lane, who is a resident fellow at the 

American Enterprise Institute and is codirector for AEI’s Project on 

Climate Engineering. Mr. Lane was previously a consultant to 

Charles River Associates International where he produced analysis 

of climate and energy issues. 

Welcome, Mr. Lane, whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF LEE LANE 

Mr. LANE. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey. 

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to discuss with you a 

piece of legislation that is obviously quite ambitious and important. 

I refer, of course, to the American Clean Energy and Security Act. 

The draft bill is an ambitious effort to grapple with what I believe is a very serious challenge posed by rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. With climate change, though, there 

are no easy solutions, and many purported solutions are actually 

likely to amount to costly errors. 

If enacted, this legislation would work far-reaching changes on 

the American economy, yet the bill’s approach appears to be based 

on assumptions that clash with what I think are four basic realities 

of current climate policy, and my statement focuses on these, and 

let me just summarize them briefly if I may. 

First, the costs of the proposed emissions cutbacks would very 

probably exceed their benefits. Rapid emission cuts, like those 

called for in the bill’s cap-and-trade provisions, will lead to needlessly high costs. Furthermore, the draft bill’s regulatory mandates 

are likely to raise costs without adding benefits. You heard some 

allusions to the problem of a duplicative system this morning in 

some of the testimony from the first panel. I suspect that this is 

potentially a serious problem. 

Secondly, deep unilateral U.S. emissions cuts will not improve 

the prospects for reaching an effective global accord and may actually harm them. I suspect this is a place where there are some disagreements on the panel, but I think it is an issue worth discussing. Greenhouse gas control as an issue is 85 percent about 

striking a global bargain. It is only about 15 percent a matter of 

domestic energy and emissions control policy. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
648 

Enacting this bill in its current form would amount to giving 

away America’s biggest stack of bargaining chips, its willingness to 

incur costs in domestic greenhouse gas controls. And it would 

amount to giving it away for free and before the serious bargaining 

has really even begun. The U.S. has not used this kind of strategy 

in its bargains on trade negotiations or arms controls or other important negotiations and I think for very good reasons. 

Third, with the legislation or without it, the conditions that 

would be required to reach an effective global greenhouse gas control accord are, in fact, absent. For many key nations, the costs of 

a greenhouse gas control agreement exceeds its perceived benefits. 

Globally, the benefits are both very unevenly distributed and highly uncertain. These same factors have defeated previous attempts 

to reach agreement. My greatest fear is that this bill could become 

a step toward another agreement that is like the Kyoto protocol, 

both costly and ineffectual. 

Fourth, the U.S. can and should take action on climate change. 

My answer to Mr. Inslee’s question earlier today is that, yes, I take 

climate change quite seriously. But realism about climate change 

demands a serious but patient approach to greenhouse gas curbs. 

A combination of gradual emissions cuts, basic science research 

and adaptation can, I think, protect U.S. national interests without 

incurring excessive costs and without causing undue conflict with 

other global powers like China, India, Japan, and Russia. 

Some features of the draft bill reflect what I believe are valuable 

insights. For example, I believe that it is right to stress adaptation 

and the need to advance technology. These are crucial aspects of 

climate policy. In these areas, my statement offers a few suggestions about how its efforts, the bill’s efforts, in these directions 

might be made more cost effective. I hope those suggestions are 

useful and that, as the bill evolves, it does so in ways that will increase its benefits and decrease its costs. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lane follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
649 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 686 72878A.393
650 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 687 72878A.394
651 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 688 72878A.395
652 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 689 72878A.396
653 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 690 72878A.397
654 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 691 72878A.398
655 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 692 72878A.399
656 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 693 72878A.400
657 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 694 72878A.401
658 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 695 72878A.402
659 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 72878A.403
660 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 72878A.404
661 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 698 72878A.405
662 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 699 72878A.406
663 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 700 72878A.407
664 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 701 72878A.408
665 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Lane, very much. 

Our next witness is the Reverend Douglas Smith. He is the executive director of the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy. He 

was formerly on the staff of the World Council of Churches in Geneva. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND C. DOUGLAS SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you so much, members of the committee. 

I am Doug Smith, the executive director of the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, an organization that seeks to address hunger, poverty, and the care for God’s creation through the 

development and adoption of sound policy. While the faith community is so diverse that no one can really claim to represent it completely, I would like to share with you the perspective of many of 

us, including the National Council of Churches and a number of 

our ecumenical and interfaith organizations. 

First and foremost, we applaud the inclusion of strong international adaptation assistance measures in the draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. We see this as a necessary 

component of any U.S. legislation, particularly as we work to ensure strong and robust responses to a post-Kyoto agreement. 

I would like to speak to the importance of this section as understood by the faith community. We must ensure that generations 

know that we acted in good faith to protect all people from the impact of global climate change. Because of the interconnectedness of 

God’s creation, we share not only the need to provide adaptation 

funding for developing countries but also the responsibility as people of good conscience and, for many of us, of common faith. 

Our best scientists and global security analysts tell us that climate change will impact hunger poverty and war very nearly. By 

the middle of this century, 1 billion people will likely face significant water shortages. And with 75 percent of persons in developing 

countries subsisting on agriculture, they can be assured of a famine-filled future. And sadly, we could be assured of an unstable geopolitical future if we do not act with boldness, act with compassion, 

and act with immediacy. 

In the faith-based NGO community, we are already witnessing 

how climate change is complicating our capacity to serve others 

internationally. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and 

the Virginia Interfaith Center recently sent one of my staff to Nicaragua. Mr. Rinn tells the story of Santa Marta, an ancient east 

coast indigenous Miskito community whose language has never 

needed a word for hurricane, and yet, in 2007, Felix, a category five 

hurricane, practically wiped Santa Marta off of the map. 

As weather patterns shift as a result of global climate change, 

people like the citizens of Santa Marta are struggling to adapt to 

emerging realities for which they are unprepared. This is why it is 

so important that we provide adaptation funding to developing 

countries. It is because the international consequences of global climate change are already today impacting millions of people. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
666 

And that leads the faith community to be united in our call to 

provide for international adaptation assistance to protect the most 

vulnerable communities around the world. 

We urge the committee to support the language included in the 

American Clean Energy and Security Act, but we do ask for the following legislative priorities to find their way into any final bill: 

Number one, the funds should be appropriately targeted in terms 

of recipient countries. They should go to the most vulnerable developing countries, and no more than 10 percent should go annually 

to any one country. 

Two, local communities must be engaged in a participatory process with adequate monitoring, evaluation, and transparency. 

Number three, the funds provided should be in addition to current funding levels of official development assistance. 

Number four, the funds should be appropriately targeting adaptation around climate impacts, around drought, natural disasters, 

disease and migration. 

And number five, legislation should also enhance developing 

country efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing deforestation, encouraging reforestation, and by transitioning to 

cleaner energy technologies. 

We in the U.S. have a moral responsibility to those in need during this global crisis. I would say that loving our neighbors includes 

equipping them to protect themselves from climate change, and I 

would like to ask you today to commit to providing substantial financial support annually of no less than $7 billion per year. That 

is the minimum that we should be able to do for those in desperate 

need. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify on these important 

matters and for your time this afternoon. 

[The statement of Reverend Smith follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
667 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 705 72878A.409
668 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 706 72878A.410
669 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 707 72878A.411
670 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Reverend, very much. 

The Chair now turns to recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. McMackin, Michael and I have been working on an effort to 

provide some security against job leakage for some time. We introduced our bill in October. It has just been the last week or two we 

have heard about concerns from the oil refineries, which surprises 

me, frankly, that this is now arising. Have the oil refinery folks attempted to join your coalition or asked to be involved in your efforts? 

Mr. MCMACKIN. No, Mr. Inslee. 

In some ways I guess I am not surprised in that it has always 

been seen as a unique case. The witness from ConocoPhillips yesterday I think said it right. There were two studies. Those two 

studies may be outdated, but they indicated that the oil industry 

might be able to pass along these costs, unlike the other energyintensive industries in our coalition. I do think it is a special case, 

and it ought to be treated specially, different than the provision for 

the energy-intensive trade-exposed industries. 

Mr. INSLEE. I think there is good cause to believe they are in a 

different situation. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t think about 

that, particularly small refiners. But I do think there is a different 

case. 

I want to ask Dr. Houser about this. You have written a book 

about this. And I think that there is a concern about treating them 

the same where they are different. Do you think that petroleum refineries are different from other energy-intensive manufacturing industries from a job-leakage perspective? 

Mr. HOUSER. Sure. Thank you very much. 

First, I would say, in our analysis of the criteria as you have laid 

it out in the Inslee-Doyle provision, refineries do not qualify under 

either the energy-intensity or the carbon-intensity metric. So, in 

our assessment, energy cost as a share of shipment value for refineries is about 2.5 percent, and the cutoff line is 5 percent. At 2.5 

percent, there are a lot of other industries that no one would think 

of as being energy-intensive that are at that same line. 

The refineries have suggested that we look at still gas, which is 

not included in the purchase value, in the surveys that are outlined 

in the Inslee-Doyle provision. We did that, and even including a 

fairly high-priced assumption for still gas does not put refineries 

over the threshold to qualify. 

As Mr. McMackin said, the empirical studies that have been 

done in Europe ex-post looking at the impact of phase two of the 

EU emissions trading scheme on refineries found no evidence of 

leakage there. I guess the additional point that I would make is 

that the output-based nature of the rebating program that you 

have developed with Representative Doyle is to try to ensure that 

these goods that we need for a low-carbon future, like steel and 

glass, can still be manufactured here in the U.S. 

The goal of climate policy is to move away from fossil fuels. And 

so we don’t want an output-tied allowance for fossil fuels. It goes 

against the goal of the program. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
671 

Mr. INSLEE. So the bottom line, even though we are all justifiably 

concerned about job leakage in any sector of our economy, you 

think there is a significant reason to distinguish the oil refineries 

from the energy-intensive manufacturers. Is that your statement? 

Mr. HOUSER. I think that is right. There may be legitimate competitiveness concerns that refineries face. I think that if they can 

demonstrate that, it should be dealt with under a separate provision, not the output-based rebate. 

Mr. INSLEE. Right. And I would suggest that if those special provisions have specific proposals, we hope they will come forward. Actually, there is an ad hoc coalition for small business refiners that 

have made a proposal. We are happy to look at these proposals, but 

I think it is going to be a unique case, and it would require a specific criteria in that regard. So we will be looking forward to any 

suggestions in this regard. 

I want to appreciate Reverend Smith’s comments. Reverend, just 

from a non-ecumenical standpoint, is there any faith that you are 

aware of, Buddhist, Hindu, Baptist, Catholic, for the full spectrum 

of human faith, is there any faith that you think non-action dealing 

with climate change would be really consistent with the sort of 

stewardship views of those faiths? 

Mr. SMITH. Sir, I would say that I am unaware of any faith community who would not want action taken to protect the one earth 

that we have. And I am aware of only concern within the faith 

community about climate change. 

Mr. INSLEE. So this is one that, by taking action, fair to say, we 

might unite all the Creator’s children on this one. Is that about a 

fair statement? 

Mr. SMITH. It is a fair statement. 

Mr. INSLEE. We hope to do that. That will be another good reason 

to pass this bill. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD [presiding]. Thank you very much, sir. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I apologize for not being here for the testimony of all the 

witnesses. I do have a couple of questions, and hopefully the time 

won’t expire before I am done. 

Mr. Conway, I have two nuclear plants in my district, and we are 

hoping to add some reactors, thus adding jobs, in the future. And 

it is my understanding that the steelworkers are very supportive 

of additional nuclear across the country. 

And as you know, our energy needs are going to grow by about 

30 to 40 percent by the year 2030. Nuclear has no greenhouse gas 

emissions, thousands of jobs. When my two plants were built, 85 

percent of the components came from within the United States. 

Today they are looking at a new plant in Congressman Dingell’s 

district at the Fermi plant on the other side of the State from 

where I live. If they are successful in getting that reactor approved 

by the NRC, it is likely that 85 percent of the components are 

going to come from someplace else other than the United States. 

They are currently repairing a steel turbine at one of my facilities, 500 and some jobs while they are repairing it. It was made 

in Germany. Would the steelworkers support—this bill, as you may 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
672 

know has nothing on nuclear in it. Would the steelworkers support 

adding a title to try and streamline the process to bring back nuclear in maybe a little faster way than not, knowing that it will 

add lots of jobs? 

Mr. CONWAY. As you know, we have workers in that industry 

and work hard on behalf, on their behalf as well as everyone else. 

And we don’t believe that a comprehensive energy policy going forward excludes nuclear. And like everyone else, I guess we struggle 

with storage and issues like that. But we are not naive about that. 

So we would support anything that does that. 

More importantly, your discussion about the supply chain that 

centers around that facility and the manufacturing facilities that 

are around and located to it, we think that has been lacking in a 

lot of the discussion in creating a renewable sector in this country 

and that the country hasn’t built out the manufacturing supply 

chain. So we would welcome it, and we would be glad to work with 

you on that. 

Mr. UPTON. As much as I would like to see the issue of the disposal of high-level nuclear waste addressed in this bill, I confess 

that we probably—that is not a doable thing. 

Mr. CONWAY. I understand. 

Mr. UPTON. But we can in fact streamline the process and I 

think switch the light from red to green. And your support would 

be helpful. And I think that it would be strongly bipartisan as we 

embark on that issue. 

I don’t know if you saw last week’s Washington Post, but there 

was a headline: ‘‘India Rejects Calls for Emissions Cuts. Officials 

Say Growth Will Be Compromised.’’ 

It goes on to say, no way that they are not going to participate. 

I know that it is in the interest of a number of members, I believe Mr. Inslee and Mr. Doyle have an amendment that is going 

to be part of this that calls for a border adjustment so that we 

would, in essence, be able to have a tax on imported goods, steel 

is an example, from countries that don’t have a cap-and-trade program. If, however, the WTO rules that that is not compliant, would 

the steelworkers support an off-ramp or in essence the jettison of 

that provision? 

Mr. CONWAY. Look, we believe it is compliant with the WTO provisions. And I guess we would cross that bridge when we get to it. 

But we think that border adjustability doesn’t come into play if you 

are going to make your product the right way. And so, the way we 

view it, it is sort of like severance pay. You ask a company for severance pay. If they are going to fight about it, they intend to lay 

off some people. If people are going to fight about border 

adjustability, you have to sort of worry about what their intents 

are going to be and the way they intend to make it. 

Right now they face steal expansion in China, 400, 500 million 

tons over the last decade. And If you think about it, it is the newest steel production that has gone on in the planet, but still China 

emits 2.5, 3 times the U.S. steel industry. So it is easy to deduce 

that the best of statements may not match up with intentions. 

And one way to make sure that people are honest in a time of 

growth in nations like China and India is that there is a border 

adjustability. And if you make it the right way and you make it 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
673 

clean, you don’t have to worry about it. But if you don’t, you would 

pay for it as if you had, and we— 

Mr. UPTON. But if they rule it out, and Susan Schwab sent a letter last year to our committee saying that she didn’t think it would 

be WTO compliant, so let’s say the jury is out today; you have got 

evidence on both sides, but ultimately if they say thumbs down— 

Mr. CONWAY. Look, we are not particularly thrilled with everything the WTO says anyway. 

Mr. UPTON. I know. 

Mr. CONWAY. I would not look to posit a position on that until 

we hear from them. 

Mr. UPTON. I know my time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. We have run out of Ds. Can you believe it? 

Mr. WALDEN. That is fine with me if you run out of Ds. Maybe 

we could do that more often, maybe when we vote. I am just kidding. 

Mr. UPTON. Is it possible now to call up the bill? We can dispense 

with the bill quick. We can all catch our planes going home today 

and not worry about—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I am staying for tomorrow. I am reclaiming my 

time. 

Mr. Lane, would border tariffs and other trade measures motivate China to go along and impose stiff emission cuts? 

Mr. LANE. Sir, I don’t believe that they will, nor do I think that 

the prospect of updating subsidy provisions will have that effect. I 

think there is every reason for thinking that China and India will 

continue to resist imposing on their economies the cost of significant restrictions on greenhouse gases. And frankly, I don’t believe 

that there is anything that the United States and its government 

is able to do at reasonable cost to us, to ourselves, that will change 

their attitudes on that point. 

Mr. WALDEN. And do you think they are big enough and capable 

enough that they would just pay the tariffs anyway and probably 

just move on? 

Mr. LANE. They probably wouldn’t even have to. My own assessment would be that they would simply increase their exports to 

countries like Japan. 

Mr. WALDEN. Oh, and work around—— 

Mr. LANE. And change the geographic pattern of trade flows 

rather than actually reducing their exports at all. 

Mr. WALDEN. So your point is that these countries who don’t participate in a cap-and-trade scheme could get very creative and work 

around the tariffs anyway. 

Mr. LANE. Yes, very easily. 

Mr. WALDEN. Putting our workers at a disadvantage. 

Mr. LANE. I believe so. 

Mr. WALDEN. Costing us manufacturing jobs. 

Mr. LANE. And eliminating most of the point of greenhouse gas 

controls, because if they—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
674 

Mr. WALDEN. Is it true that China is building two coal-fired 

plants basically a week? 

Mr. LANE. I have heard numerous figures. I don’t know whether 

it is one, two, or more, but they are clearly rapidly increasing their 

coal-fired electric capacity. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to ask this panel like I have I think 

every other panel that has been here. 

Have you all read the bill? Simple yes or no. 

Mr. Lane. 

Reverend Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No not in it is entirety. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Diringer. 

Mr. DIRINGER. Not in its entirety. 

Mr. WALDEN. Dr. Houser. 

Mr. HOUSER. I read it. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are a good man. 

Mr. Conway. 

Mr. CONWAY. Not in its entirety. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. Not in its entirety. 

Mr. MCMACKIN. All of the cap-and-trade title. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am talking about the whole bill. 

Mr. MCMACKIN. No, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. I guess I would ask you a question on page 527 of 

the bill, they have inserted a private right of action so that any individual can sue anybody for enforcement, even for fairly de minimis emissions of carbon. 

And I am going to flip to that real quick because I want to know 

whether you support that provision of the bill because they define 

a harm that would include any effect of air pollution, including climate change currently occurring or at risk of occurring, and the incremental exacerbation of any such effect or risk that is associated 

with a small incremental emission air pollutant, and then it goes 

on from there. And the person would only have to say they might 

be affected in the future. Do you support that private right of action in this legislation? 

Mr. DIRINGER. Mr. McMackin. 

Mr. MCMACKIN. Yes, Congressman, our group is focused solely 

on the anti-leakage provisions. But I probably wouldn’t be going too 

far out on a limb to say we would have considerable problems with 

a private right of action that is that robust. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. As you have described it, no, I would not. 

Mr. CONWAY. No, I would need to read it more and understand 

it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Dr. Houser. Mr. Diringer. 

Mr. HOUSER. I would need to—— 

Mr. DIRINGER. I understand this is similar to standard provision 

and in many environmental statutes have played an important role 

in the enforcement of those statutes over the years. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you would support it? 

Mr. DIRINGER. I would have to look at the language. 

Mr. WALDEN. Reverend Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. I am not familiar with the language. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
675 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Lane. 

Mr. LANE. Let me withhold final judgment while saying I am extremely skeptical about anything that has so much potential for 

generating litigation. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. I appreciate that. 

I want to go on to one of my favorite topics which is hydropower. 

I represent a district that has lots of dams along the Columbia 

River and gets most of its power, a good percentage of it at least, 

from the hydro system. 

Mr. Conway, I know steelworkers used to have aluminum plants 

in my district, or there were aluminum plants that had many of 

your members who relied very much on that hydropower for the 

production of aluminum. Those plants now are closed and gone. 

Does anybody on this panel think hydropower should not be considered as a renewable energy source, Mr. Lane? 

Mr. LANE. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Reverend Smith. 

Mr. DIRINGER. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Dr. Houser. 

Mr. Conway. 

Mr. CONWAY. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. McMackin. 

Mr. MCMACKIN. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you all believe hydro should be considered as renewable. Okay. Good. 

Now, Mr. Wells, Dow Chemical, I want to ask you this question, 

if I vote and we enact a cap-and-trade system which necessarily 

raises energy costs, everybody else has testified that it will, will 

your company guarantee me you won’t chase cheaper energy for 

your manufacturing offshore? 

Mr. WELLS. If the competitive provisions I have testified to are 

included in the cap-and-trade, and energy prices for trade-exposed 

and energy-intensive manufacturers stay competitive, no, we will 

not. We will go where the energy is competitive. And as the provision—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So you will go where the energy is competitive. 

And China and India would not be involved. Are you saying China 

and India have to be involved in this same scheme? 

Mr. WELLS. For this bill to make sense for a trade-exposed and 

energy-intensive manufacturing, you would have to have those provisions that allows us to stay competitive from an energy perspective with them. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the Chairman emeritus of the 

full committee, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

I want to continue on the questions my colleague just finished. 

Going across, starting at your right and my left, if you please, gentlemen. Yes or no, are you content with the provisions of the bill 

that deal with countries such as India or China which do not have 

a cap of their own? Yes or no, please. 

Mr. LANE. No. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
676 

Mr. SMITH. I believe the United States needs to be a leader. 

Mr. DINGELL. I am sorry. 

Mr. SMITH. I believe the United States needs to be a leader in 

this realm. 

Mr. DINGELL. So you think it is good that they should not have 

a cap, and we should? 

Mr. SMITH. No, Mr. Chairman. That is not at all what I say. I 

think the United States should be a leader. 

Mr. DINGELL. Just yes or no. I don’t want a lot of toe dancing. 

Are you content with the provisions that deal with the United 

States but don’t deal with India and China? 

Mr. SMITH. I am. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. You are. 

And you, sir. 

Mr. DIRINGER. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. And you. 

Mr. HOUSER. I think they come pretty close. 

Mr. DINGELL. And you, sir. 

Mr. CONWAY. No, not entirely. 

Mr. DINGELL. Why? 

Mr. CONWAY. We think there is a transition period where our industries who have to come up to speed ought to be rebated the full 

cost of compliance for a period of time and then go to an average 

sector. And so we think eventually it is there, but there is an initial time period where we need it phased in and protect the jobs 

that we have. 

Mr. WELLS. We are supportive of, again, the transition that it 

protects those industries that would be in competition with those 

places that do not have a cap. 

Mr. DINGELL. And after the competition? 

Mr. WELLS. Excuse me. 

Mr. DINGELL. And after that time? 

Mr. WELLS. If the transition—those protections would have to 

stay in place until places like China, India would have a similar 

situation. 

Mr. DINGELL. Do you know that, or do you just hope? 

Mr. WELLS. Through working with people like Mr. McMackin, we 

are comfortable with that, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. And you, sir. 

Our next panel member, please, are you satisfied with the provisions that deal with countries such as India and China which may 

or may not have a cap of their own, yes or no? 

Mr. MCMACKIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Our group has been focused exclusively on perfecting the antileakage provisions to the extent possible. We believe those have to 

be a bridge to an agreement that leads to a situation where we 

have equalized costs with foreign producers. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Now going across, same direction again, yes or no, is there any 

more that you would like to see in terms of protections for American industry included in the legislation, yes or no, if you please? 

Mr. LANE. My answer would be yes. Principally in the form of 

controls on the overall costs of the bill. 

Mr. DINGELL. And you, sir. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
677 

Mr. SMITH. I would say, sir, that I am not familiar with those 

provisions within the bill because I am here specifically to speak 

about international adaptation. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

And you. 

Mr. DIRINGER. I would like to reserve judgment as I focus particularly on the bill’s relation to international negotiations, and 

there may be other aspects of the bill with respect to your question 

that I would want to look at. 

Mr. DINGELL. Next panelist. 

Mr. HOUSER. I feel like the phaseout portion of the bill could use 

a little bit more clarification. 

Mr. DINGELL. And again, sir. 

Mr. CONWAY. We think it needs a border-adjustability provision 

at its onset and remains in place during the life of the understandings. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Next panelist. 

Mr. WELLS. We would like to see the feed stock exemption for the 

chemical industry perfected a bit more. 

Mr. DINGELL. And you, sir. 

Mr. MCMACKIN. And, Mr. Chairman, we think the leakage provision needs strengthened and some of the other provisions, as Dow 

has testified, like the non-emissive provisions, need better definition. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, I happen to think that Mr. Doyle and Mr. Inslee 

have done a good job of directing their attention to protecting 

trade-exposed industries in this legislation. 

Do you feel that the draft bill does an adequate job of protecting 

those industries, starting again if you please, sir, on your far right? 

Mr. LANE. I would say that it probably does a better job of protecting those industries than it does of leveling the playing field for 

the U.S. economy as a whole. 

Mr. DINGELL. Next panelist, please. 

Mr. SMITH. I would say, sir, that that is not my specialty within 

the bill. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Next panelist. 

Mr. DIRINGER. We are very comfortable with the general framework laid out in the bill. 

Mr. DINGELL. Next panelist. 

Mr. HOUSER. Yes. 

Mr. CONWAY. Not quite. We think it is close. It needs some more 

refinement, as we have discussed earlier, on the border 

adjustability in the 100 percent rebate on compliance. 

Mr. DINGELL. And our next panelist. 

Mr. WELLS. As long as the protection stays in place until such 

time as there is an international level playing field, yes, we are 

comfortable. 

Mr. MCMACKIN. It is an excellent structure, Mr. Chairman. A lot 

will depend on whether it is adequately funded with allowances. 

We think that would require between 850 and 900 million allowances a year. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
678 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, you have been very courteous. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At this time, the Chair is going to recognize a member of the full 

committee. She is not a member of the subcommittee, but certainly 

she is welcome and recognized at this time for 5 minutes, the 

gentlelady from Tennessee. 

The members of the subcommittee will, obviously, have priority. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have heard some testimony from a few of you about operations you have in other countries. I think, Mr. Wells, you talked 

about maybe 50 percent of Dow Chemical’s workforce is out of the 

country. What are some of the factors in deciding whether or not 

you are going to build a plant or expand a plant in the United 

States versus going to another country? 

Mr. WELLS. Certainly the implications of the cost to the region, 

and for us, a large part of that is energy, as I have testified today 

and testified in front of this group before, and then certainly the 

closeness of the market; where is the market developing? When you 

apply those two things together, when you look at what has happened to our industry, the U.S. chemical industry over the last say 

8 years, and you look at what energy prices have done, natural gas 

from 2002 to 2008 has gone up by nearly 500 percent. Chemical industry has gone from being very positive, from a trade perspective, 

one of the highest in the country, to now we have a trade deficit. 

Mr. SCALISE. So what are some of the top countries that you go 

to when Dow goes to another country as opposed to here? 

Mr. WELLS. From an energy perspective, certainly the Middle 

East, where we can get our feed stocks, which are byproducts of the 

energy process, natural gas, byproducts of oil, so the Middle East 

is where we can get low cost, and of course, we are moving into 

the expanding markets, places like China, India. 

Mr. SCALISE. Do any of those countries that you have just mentioned, do any of those have any kind of cap policy on greenhouse 

gases, specifically carbon? 

Mr. WELLS. Not the ones that I mentioned, no. 

Mr. SCALISE. And so, you know, some of us look at the bill, and 

of course, there are a lot of details that are left out. But one of the 

things, if we go back to President Obama’s actual budget that was 

passed by the House just a few weeks ago, his budget envisions 

raising about $640 billion from a cap-and-trade energy tax. So, 

clearly, whether or not the details are in the bill, and of course 

many of the details are not, on how this whole trading mechanism 

would work and who would get these free allowances, ultimately 

the President’s own budget says that they have got to come up with 

some kind of mechanism that raises $646 billion in new taxes, in 

essence. 

And so if a bill is going to come out of this committee, I hope a 

bill like the one presented does not, as I talked about earlier, the 

American Energy Act is a true alternative bill that we have proposed for comprehensive national energy policy that will fund the 

alternative sources of energy, create those new jobs, while also not 

running off the existing jobs we have and encouraging things like 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
679 

clean coal, encouraging more nuclear power, which emits no carbon. 

So there is another alternative out there, but the bill that we are 

discussing today clearly has a big cost, $646 billion. How would a 

company like Dow react if these new conditions come on, and you 

are not given the allowances you think you might be getting, and 

then you have got to make a business decision, as you have in the 

past, to keep those jobs in the United States or to move them to 

one of the countries that doesn’t emit or that doesn’t control emissions? Ultimately have y’all started making any of those decisions, 

or are you waiting for this bill to come out to see what you are 

going to do? 

Mr. WELLS. If the bill—a bill that comes out is not looked at such 

things as carbon leakage, doesn’t handle such things as carbon 

leakage, the feed stock exemption is extremely important to the 

U.S. chemical industry, and then avoiding the dash to gas, as we 

have talked about many times; if a bill does not have those things, 

and it is safe to say what you have seen happen because of the rising energy prices over the last decade would continue to happen, 

we would be exasperated by the climate change bill. 

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Conway, in relation to the steelworkers, I am 

familiar with a steel plant that is proposed to be built. Right now 

it is proposed to be built in the United States, in fact in south Louisiana, but they are looking at two sites, they are looking at the 

United States, the south Louisiana facility, or Brazil, and they 

have made it clear now—a few months ago they pulled back on any 

decisions until they see what happens with cap-and-trade energy 

tax bill. And they said basically if this bill passes, they are going 

to build that plant, but they are going to build it in Brazil. And we are talking about a $2 billion investment, 700 good jobs, 

steelworkers, that would be created and that will be created, and 

the question is, will they be created in the United States, which 

has environmental controls already in place that are much better 

than Brazil, or will it be built in Brazil where they will not have 

the same controls and, in fact, if somebody is concerned about carbon emissions, more carbon will be emitted if that plant is built in 

Brazil, yet passage of this bill will dictate whether those 700 jobs 

and the $2 billion investment go to Brazil; do you, when you are 

looking at that, especially as your workforce issues are going to become more concerned by legislation like this that would run some 

of these companies off, what are your thoughts on how that would 

affect employees in your industry? 

Mr. CONWAY. Congressman, we think there is much of that going 

on anyway, and if, in fact, the purpose of the bill is to try and reduce carbon on a global basis, we understand that this leads to a 

global sectoral agreement where people across the world agree on 

what emissions ought to be in a sector. 

Mr. SCALISE. Of course, countries like Brazil and, as we have 

heard earlier, China and India will not comply. 

Mr. CONWAY. A company in Germany, a German company, who 

is moving into Alabama, who intends to put up half a steel plant 

because it intends to run the other half of the plant in Brazil where 

it can emit a lot of carbon, and it will import slabs there; that 

doesn’t solve the carbon problem. And if what we are here to do 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
680 

is try and solve the problem of carbon emissions, then we need that 

global sectoral agreement. And our position is, simply, until we 

reach it, we ought to treat the steel made in Brazil as if it were 

made the right way and the clean way, and that is what the—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Of course, we know it has not, and those remedies 

are not in this bill, unfortunately. 

So I appreciate the gentleman’s time. I yield my time. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. At this time, the Chair will recognize himself 

for 5 minutes. 

Let me just take a moment to join my colleagues who have been 

discussing this today and say that I agree that it is critical that 

we must protect our industry and manufacturing base in this legislation. Without question, we must do that. 

And so I want to go on the record publicly thanking my colleagues Jay Inslee and Mike Doyle for their hard work in developing a plan. And to make sure that these jobs stay right here in 

America. 

In my district down in the eastern part of North Carolina, there 

are a number of different energy-intensive trade-exposed industries, such as Nucor Steel, which is in a small town named Winton, 

North Carolina. That industry employs nearly 500 people, goodpaying jobs, produces $2.8 million tons of steel plate from recycled 

scrap each year. These are the kinds of jobs that we can ill afford 

to lose in a district where 21 of 23 counties have more than doubledigit unemployment. 

And so I want to thank these two gentlemen for their work as 

well as the other members of the committee. I also want to thank 

all of you for your testimony today. Specifically, I want to address 

this to Mr. McMackin. 

Do I understand from your testimony, sir, both your testimony 

today and back in March, that you think that allocating 15 percent 

of allowances should be sufficient to support the eligible trade-exposed industries? 

Mr. MCMACKIN. Yes, Congressman, with this footnote: That 15 

percent, which was the same number that was in the original Inslee-Doyle bill, same number which by the way was in the Senate 

in the Brown-Stabenow amendment, was based upon the number 

of allocations in the Lieberman-Warner bill, about $5.7 billion. The 

annual allocations in this bill are a little lower, so, actually, I think 

the math comes out to about 16 percent. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I understand that you believe that the problem at hand can adequately be solved with using free allocation to 

eligible trade-exposed industries and that, as you write in your testimony, the draft has adopted a structure that can really work. Is 

this correct? 

Mr. MCMACKIN. That is right, Congressman. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me now speak briefly to Pastor Smith. 

Thank you for your testimony and for your work in general. 

Thank you so very much. 

Can you, Pastor, briefly paint a picture for us about how money 

to a country like Zimbabwe provides security for that country as 

well as our country? 

Mr. SMITH. Sir, many of us are aware of the situation in 

Zimbabwe currently where we have millions of people now that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
681 

face famine. We have civil unrest in places. It is really a dangerous 

cocktail when you mix famine and poverty with a government 

which is nondemocratic. When we add the issue of climate change 

in that, it really becomes quite difficult because what was previously the breadbasket of Africa then creates an unstable situation 

continent-wide in this kind of a situation, because what ends up 

happening is the investments that we have made in the past in development essentially gets wiped out. 

And so when we create opportunities for international adaptation 

through funding through this Congress, what we do is we ensure 

an investment today helps us keep countries like Zimbabwe able to 

continue to feed their people, able to participate in a global economic system, able to resist nefarious groups that may try to go in 

and co-op a very difficult situation in the country. And ultimately, 

it also helps to secure the investments that we have made through 

the NGO community and USAID in the past years in order to lift 

that country out of the desperate situation it finds itself in. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

Finally Mr. Wells, do you concur with the 15 percent assessment 

by your colleague to the left, you think that would be sufficient? 

Mr. WELLS. Yes, as a member of his organization, yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. So 15 percent, you want to go on record saying—— 

Mr. WELLS. With the caveat that he has already talked about, 

yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

The Chair yields back the balance of his time. 

Now we will go to the gentlelady from Tennessee, a member from 

the full committee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try not 

to take all 5 minutes. 

I do appreciate being recognized, and I appreciate that you all 

would be here. 

I tell you it is fascinating listening to your responses. I think I 

would like to hear from you on some questions after you all have 

had an opportunity to read the bill and weigh back in with us at 

that point. 

Dr. Houser, I wanted just to ask you, my district, I have got, I 

am in Tennessee, have a lot of rural area, ag offsets that EPA 

would be able to structure under this bill. They would had have 

pretty broad discretion on structuring those ag offsets, and when 

we talk about competitiveness and global competitiveness, I am curious what your opinion is on how EPA should go about handling 

the agricultural offsets that they will be able to put in place, and 

also if you think that the imposition of cap-and-trade will diminish 

the competitiveness of the American agricultural community. 

Mr. HOUSER. I think it is an important point to bring up, to 

think about how this bill impacts competitiveness more broadly. 

And agriculture is obviously an important sector there. 

Offsets, domestic agricultural offsets, are important for several 

reasons, primarily because they will help reduce the cost of the bill. 

The EPA assessment of the Waxman-Markey bill that came out 

earlier this week shows that international offsets and domestic offsets will have a lot of the same cost benefits, reduce the cost for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
682 

compliance for the climate bill by half. So domestic agricultural offsets will play an important role there. 

To the extent that agricultural entities are not capped themselves, so they don’t face direct domestic compliance costs, but are 

recipients of offset investments, then that agricultural industry will 

have a competitive advantage vis-a-vis its counterparts in other 

countries, because it has no direct compliance cost but is receiving 

some offset—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. But do you see this driving up the cost of our 

domestic food supply, of our domestic yarn and clothing supply? 

Mr. HOUSER. Fossil fuels in the economy will—the price of fossil 

fuels will certainly increase. The increase in the EPA economic assessment was fairly modest, but it will certainly increase. So then 

the question is, how quickly can we improve efficiency so that an 

increase in energy prices doesn’t translate into an overall increase 

in energy costs? 

Dow Chemical has spoken to how, over the past 18 years, they 

have reduced the energy intensity of a unit of production 38 percent. That type of improvement in agriculture and manufacturing 

is possible and is spurred on by a carbon price. So we can have 

higher energy prices and not higher energy costs. It just all comes 

down to efficiency. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. How long do you think it takes us to get to the 

efficiency that would allow them to be competitive. 

Mr. HOUSER. I think that the rate of improvement that companies like Dow and the U.S. steel industry has demonstrated over 

the past decade, they have improved efficiency faster than the current bill would reduce emissions, so just on a business-as-usual 

trend, they are outpacing what the increase in energy price would 

be. So I am optimistic that other sectors of the economy have that 

ability as well. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay. Thank you. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. Great. I thank the gentlelady. 

Let me give each one of you 30 seconds, tell us what you want 

us to know as we are putting together this legislation over the next 

several weeks. You have got 30 seconds each, give us your closing 

point that you want us to remember. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Lane. 

Mr. LANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess the single point that I would emphasize is that, as long 

as the cost of the bill is so high because of the speed of the emissions reductions, it is bound to have a negative impact on the U.S. 

economy. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Lane. 

Thirty seconds a piece. 

Reverend Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think the one thing that I would 

want to leave the committee with is the need to have very realistic 

numbers within the bill specifically on international adaptation 

funding and knowing that any funding we put today towards adaptation is investment in the future. And I believe and many of our 

coalition believe that $7 billion is the very minimum where we 

need to start. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
683 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Diringer. 

Mr. DIRINGER. The prospects for an agreement in Copenhagen 

will be greatly enhanced if Congress can provide some certainty as 

to the U.S. ability to help fund technology deployment and adaptation efforts internationally. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Houser. 

Mr. HOUSER. That the competitiveness issues that we are talking 

about here today are manageable and can be dealt with affordably 

in the context of an economy-wide cap. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Conway. 

Mr. CONWAY. That we would be naive to believe that the rest of 

the world that produces products will voluntarily reduce their carbon on their own without a border-adjustability mechanism. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. We have the ability here to do a real win-win. We 

can work on solving this problem at the same time maintaining the 

competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. McMackin. 

Mr. MCMACKIN. On the leakage problem for energy-intensive 

trade-exposed industries, the bill has an excellent structure by 

adopting the Inslee-Doyle structure. The key will be adequate funding of that provision through allowances. We think that would be 

about 850 to 900 million allowances a year. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. McMackin. 

Thank you to all of you. I subscribe to Mr. Conway’s philosophy 

here that we must act in ways that deal with human nature, even 

as it is reflected in other nations’ behavior, and we must ensure 

that as we act in a way that is responsible, that we don’t expose 

ourselves to other actions which will be irresponsible. And we must 

ensure that we construct this legislation in a way that guarantees 

that American workers are not affected adversely because we have 

not dealt with the reality of the fact that nations and human 

beings think the same and the proper protections must be built in 

to ensure that there are no innocent victims that we are creating. 

So thank you so much. We will now, with thanks from the committee, request that you remain available over the next several 

weeks so we can continue to consult with you. 

And we will then move on to the final panel. Thank you. 

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to our third panel today. This is 

a very, very important set of issues we are about to discuss. 

We will begin with our first witness, Dr. Howard Gruenspecht. 

He is Administrator of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. He has worked extensively on electricity 

policy issues and economy-wide energy modeling for 25 years. He 

is a friend of this committee, a source of information on an ongoing 

basis. 

We welcome you back, Doctor. If you could move that microphone 

in, we would appreciate it. And whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
684 

STATEMENTS OF HOWARD GRUENSPECHT, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENERGY INFORMATION AGENCY; 

DAN W. REICHER, DIRECTOR, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INITIATIVES, GOOGLE; DIAN M. GRUENEICH, COMMISSIONER, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; 

JAMES L. ROBO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, FPL GROUP; GREGORY P. KUNKEL, VICE PRESIDENT 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, TENASKA, INC.; DAVID G. 

HAWKINS, DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE PROGRAMS, NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; EUGENE M. TRISKO, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; JONATHAN BRIGGS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAS, HYDROGEN ENERGY INTERNATIONAL L.L.C.; JAMES KERR, 

PARTNER, McGUIRE WOODS LLP, FORMER COMMISSIONER, 

NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; JAY 

APT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CARNEGIE MELLON ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY CENTER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD GRUENSPECHT 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the Energy Information Administration’s analysis 

of the renewable electricity standard, or RES, program in Title I. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could I just interrupt you for one second? It is like 

being in Yankee Stadium, and all of a sudden in walks Lou Gehrig 

or in walks Mickey Mantle. And in walks Bobby Garcia, the former 

great Congressman from the State of New York. So it is so great 

to see you. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I grew up in New York, also. 

Mr. MARKEY. So it is like being in Cooperstown when one of the 

all-time greats walks in. 

We will start all over again. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you again. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Energy Information Administration’s analysis of the renewable electricity standard, or RES, program in Title I of the 

American Clean Energy and Security Act’s discussion draft. 

EIA is the independent statistical and analytical agency within 

the Department of Energy that produces objective, timely, and relevant data projections and analyses to assist policymakers, help 

markets function efficiently, and inform the public. We do not promote, formulate, or take positions on policy issues; and our views 

should not be construed as representing those of the Department 

of Energy or the administration. 

Since I appeared before the committee 2 months ago, EIA has 

updated its Annual Energy Outlook reference case to reflect enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, 

which provides significant new Federal funding, loan guarantees, 

and tax credits to stimulate investments in renewable energy. The 

potential impact of the ARRA provisions on the projected use of renewable generation is large enough that an analysis of the RES 

that did not include ARRA in the reference case could provide misVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00694 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
685 

leading results, and we do include it in this analysis here that I 

will discuss. 

The RES proposal sets a target of 25 percent of coverage sales 

of electricity in 2025 and beyond be provided by eligible renewable 

energy. However, because of exemptions provided to small sellers 

and to sales of electricity from certain generation sources and the 

possibility that credits for qualified State energy efficiency programs could be used to meet a portion of the RES requirement, the 

amount of eligible renewables as a share of total electricity sales 

required to comply with the RES would be lower than the nominal 

target. 

EIA modeled two RES policy cases for this analysis. One case assumes that the maximum level of efficiency credits, up to one-fifth 

of the RES target in any given year, are claimed, while the other 

case that assumes that States cannot qualify for or elect not to use 

efficiency credits. 

Turning now to some of the main results from our analysis. 

Power sellers will turn to a mix of renewable fuels to comply 

with the RES. In absolute terms, the key fuels are projected to be 

biomass and wind, but other renewable fuels, including solar and 

geothermal, are also projected to grow significantly in percentage 

terms. 

The higher renewable generation stimulated by the RES leads to 

lower coal and natural gas generation. The increased use of renewables stimulated by the RES also leads to lower electricity sector 

carbon dioxide emissions. Electricity sector carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 are between 7 percent and 12 percent below the referenced case level in the two RES cases. 

Given the amount of eligible renewable generation projected in 

the referenced case, the RES is not expected to affect national average electricity prices until 2020. As the required RES share increases to its maximum value in 2025, the value of the RES credits 

increases and the impacts on national average electricity prices become evident. 

The projected peak effect on national average electricity prices is 

between 2.7 percent and 2.9 percent in our two RES cases. Because 

of regional difference in electricity and market structure, State 

RES requirements, and the different availability of resources in different areas, price impacts may vary by region, as shown in my 

written testimony. 

The quantitative results I have just discussed reflect the modeling analysis of the RES provisions on a standalone basis. We recognize that the RES could have significant interactions with other 

programs in the chairman’s discussion draft. For example, in previous analyses, EIA has generally found that a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases leads to significant growth in the use 

of renewable energy for electricity generation, which becomes more 

attractive when the cost of using fossil fuels goes up. 

To the extent that the proposed cap-and-trade program induces 

more renewable resources than required by a concurrent RES proposal, one might expect RES compliance costs to be reflected in the 

value of carbon dioxide allowances. Therefore, adding our standalone estimates of the cost of an RES to a standalone estimate of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
686 

a cap-and-trade program cost would overstate the project combined 

costs of implementing the two programs concurrently. 

In contrast, an energy efficiency resource standard which can reduce or eliminate projected growth and electricity load and, therefore, the need for additional generation capacity makes it more 

likely that a given RES target will require that generation from 

new eligible renewable capacity replace generation from existing 

capacity rather than from other types of new capacity. The cost 

penalty associated with backing out existing capacity whose capital 

cost has already sunk is typically much larger than the cost penalty associated with backing out alternative types of new capacity. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes my 

testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gruenspecht, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gruenspecht follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
687 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 725 72878A.412
688 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 72878A.413
689 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 72878A.414
690 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 72878A.415
691 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 72878A.416
692 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 72878A.417
693 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 72878A.418
694 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 72878A.419
695 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 72878A.420
696 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 72878A.421
697 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 72878A.422
698 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 72878A.423
699 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 72878A.424
700 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness is Dan Reicher. He is Director of 

Climate Change and Energy Initiatives at Google. He was previously cofounder of the New Energy Capital Corporation and 

served as Assistant Attorney General for Environmental Protection 

for Massachusetts. So we thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF DAN W. REICHER 

Mr. REICHER. First, I want to applaud the subcommittee’s work 

on this path-breaking and comprehensive bill. 

I will make three points in my opening statement related to the 

renewable energy standard, energy project finance, and energy information. 

First, Mr. Chairman, the renewable energy standard in the bill 

is technically and economically achievable. Our Nation has more 

than adequate renewable energy resources to meet the RES. With 

continued technological advances and policy support, they become 

more cost effective every day; and by implementing the RES in conjunction with the energy efficiency resource standard, we can dramatically cut the need to add additional generation. 

In my testimony, I highlight what may be the sleeping giant of 

renewable energy. Enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, uses a 

common technique in the oil industry to fracture hot rock deep 

below the Earth’s surface. Water is injected into the rock, where it 

is heated to produce steam and then piped to the surface to generate electricity. A 2007 MIT study found that just 2 percent of the 

heat below the Continental U.S. between 3 and 10 kilometers is 

equivalent to over 2,500 times total U.S. annual energy use. 

At Google, we have mapped the EGS resource State by State; 

and I would like to submit the 50-State map for the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Our calculations show that just 2 percent of the EGS generation 

potential in South Carolina is almost two-thirds of current generating capacity. In Texas, it is double. In Arkansas, it is triple. In 

Maine, it is quadruple. In Oregon, it is nine times; in Idaho, 32 

times its existing capacity. And, Mr. Chairman, only half jokingly, 

if the Big Dig in Boston had been vertical instead of horizontal, we 

might be powering a good chunk of Massachusetts using EGS. 

The beauty of EGS is that it provides baseload generation 24 

hours a day. The U.S. once led in EGS technology, but leadership 

is now in Australia, where commercial projects are under construction, and Europe, where demonstration projects at the megawatt 

scale are already operating. We have a chance to catch up, thanks 

to $400 million for geothermal in the stimulus legislation. 

In addition to adopting an RES, the House should look at providing a credit multiplier for baseload technologies like EGS. The 

House should also authorize and appropriate significant Federal 

support for EGS for R&D beyond the stimulus. I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, an oversight hearing on this potentially transformational technology. 

Turning to my second point, the legislation we are considering 

does not directly address a critical issue in advancing our clean energy economy, increasing access to capital for the deployment of literally trillions of dollars worth of clean energy products that will 

be essential to meeting our climate and energy goals, including an 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
701 

RES and EERS. Last week, Senators Bingaman and Murkowski 

jointly released the discussion draft of a bill that would create the 

21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Administration, or 

CEDA. I know Congressman Inslee has also been advancing this 

concept, and Congressman Van Hollen introduced a separate proposal. 

The mission of CEDA would be to encourage wide-scale deployment of clean energy technologies, particularly those that are perceived as too risky by commercial lenders but with high potential 

to address our environmental, economic, and security challenges. 

Moving a technology from small pilot project to full commercialscale plan is often the point at which many promising energy technologies die. We call it the ‘‘Valley of Death’’. I urge the committee 

to consider incorporating the CEDA approach into the legislation 

we are considering today in order to address this critical problem. 

My third and final point involves improving access to energy information. With a national RES and EERS, Congress should also 

ensure that electricity consumers, large and small, have a more accurate picture of their electricity usage as well as the source and 

mix of their power. Congress should work to ensure that utilities 

provide consumer access to energy information through smart meters and other dividers and as near real-time as possible. 

President Obama has talked about how the smart grid funding 

in the stimulus bill could support the installation of as many as 40 

million smart meters. However, draft guidance issued by the DOE 

on the smart grid program may discourage large-scale smart meter 

deployments. Congress should push DOE to support large investments in smart meter deployments and ensure consumer access to 

data. 

Finally, I would like to urge the subcommittee to work with the 

new administration to determine how the Energy Information Administration could play a much more vital role in providing consumers and businesses with critical energy information. 

For example, with a national RES and EERS, the Federal Government will need to collect data at an unprecedented level in 

order to ensure compliance. Congress should ensure that EIA has 

timely access to critical data to gauge progress on key clean energy 

programs. This will require an extension of EIA’s role and an increase in its funding. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Reicher, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reicher follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
702 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 72878A.425
703 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 72878A.426
704 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 743 72878A.427
705 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 744 72878A.428
706 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 745 72878A.429
707 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 746 72878A.430
708 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 747 72878A.431
709 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 72878A.432
710 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 72878A.433
711 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 72878A.434
712 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness, Dian Grueneich, has been Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission since 2005. 

She is a nationally recognized expert on energy and environmental 

issues. And, to be honest with you, the reason I have asked her to 

come here today is because she is the only witness I have ever 

heard who knows how to make energy efficiency sound exciting. So 

since I have heard her do it before, I thought I would give her another chance. 

So welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF DIAN M. GRUENEICH 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Thank you so much. I would love to be talking 

on energy efficiency. I have slipped it in a little bit, but I am actually here today on transmission, renewables and—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Transmission needs even more work to sound exciting. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. I will start with my first promo. 

We are building transmission in California. We are building it to 

make renewables. If California, with all of our environmental rules 

and all of our environmental activists, can do it, everywhere in the 

country can do it. 

This is the Tehachapi Wind Project. It is under development; 

and, when finished, it is going to bring 4,500 megawatts of wind 

into the transmission grid. So there we go, if that is exciting. 

But, getting back, let me, first of all, thank you for having me 

today. I am speaking on my own behalf, but I also bring greetings 

from Mike Peevey, who is President of our Commission. He has reviewed my testimony and wanted to make sure that I passed on 

that he personally feels very strongly about these remarks as well 

and agrees with them. 

Let’s start with renewable energy. As Dan Reichert just said, 

there really is no question that the United States is blessed with 

renewables. This is not a question that we don’t have the resources. It is not a question that we don’t have the technical capability. It is a question of political will to make it happen. That is 

the very good news. 

As of January of this year, 33 States have RPSs or renewable 

goals, 33 States. At the State level, what we are waiting for is the 

national renewable standard. It will make a dramatic difference in 

our ability if we can have as a Nation all the States, all the utilities moving ahead. 

In California, we have a 20 percent renewable standard, but our 

Governor has now signed an executive order to have our State get 

to 33 percent renewables by 2020, and our legislature is now considering the bills to codify it. If California can set our goals at 33 

percent, again, the rest of the country really can get to the levels 

that we are talking about in this bill. 

There is some really smart flexible items in the bill on renewables. One of the items that Dan talked about was the part that 

you can meet your renewable provisions through energy efficiency. 

In a pure world, you probably wouldn’t do that. You would probably just say go with renewables. But this is a bill, in my mind, 

that is really trying to make this workable. Every State can do energy efficiency. We need to make sure that that provision is senVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00722 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
713 

sible, that it is not just a loophole but it lets the States that may 

be farther removed from renewables really come in and go after the 

renewables section. 

Another part that I think is very creative that we frankly hadn’t 

thought of in California, but I have now talked with our legislators 

and suggested they think about it, is the provision that says that 

you can have a credit of three times the renewables if you do local 

distributed generation. That is a really smart thing to put in the 

bill, because what it does is that when you are building renewables 

out to the areas like the Tehachapis, believe me, it takes years to 

plan and permit and finance and build those transmission lines. 

But when you can instead look to do renewables right in your 

neighborhood, I mean, you can put solar photovoltaics on the rooftops of Costcos and Wal-Marts. You can have people in the neighborhood start to say we will even make it in the our own homes 

on our roofs. And when you give it a three times credit, in my 

mind, we can have some States who have never even had renewables before start to become the leaders. And I hate to say put California and Texas to shame, but that is what we may start happening by some of these very creative provisions in the bill. 

Let me turn to transmission planning quickly. The interesting 

thing about the bill is the most important provisions on transmission planning are not in the transmission planning section. 

These are the provisions that make it a sensible way to do transmission planning. They are the energy efficiency provision. They 

are the renewable electric portfolio standard. They are the enhancement of the smart grid. They are the focus on distributed 

generation. All of those are the factors that let you reduce the need 

for transmission. Because we don’t build transmission just to have 

transmission lines. We build transmission because it carries electricity. 

By having in this bill the fundamental building blocks that make 

you look at an entire system that will minimize how much transmission you need, you have got it right. This is in many ways the 

best way that I have seen looking at electricity in 30 years because 

you have put in place those building blocks that say when you are 

doing transmission planning you are actually doing it in the context of a very sensible approach. 

The other thing that I will say about transmission is that it directs FERC to take into account all of these demand side aspects 

when they have an expanded role in transmission planning. That 

is absolutely critical. If Congress is going to give FERC or any 

other agency at the Federal level a larger role in transmission, and 

particularly in transmission planning, it is essential to have in 

there the provisions that they must look at the demand side. In 

fact, I think that the bill should go further and direct FERC in all 

of its decisions with regard to transmission, including approving 

transmission investment, that it does not discriminate against the 

demand side or against distributed generation. 

Let me just end with the smart grid, that I think that again it 

has got it right. The one part that I would add would be to have 

some provisions that provide increased technical assistance to the 

States. Smart grid is going to happen, because there are thousands 

of decisions that government and the private sector are going to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
714 

make. What you heard from Dan about an increasing the information available, that is critical. But we are all going to need much 

better technical assistance, and that would help. 

The very last thing that I will say is to thank you very much for 

letting me testify today. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grueneich follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
715 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 72878A.435
716 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 755 72878A.436
717 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 756 72878A.437
718 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 757 72878A.438
719 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 758 72878A.439
720 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 759 72878A.440
721 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 760 72878A.441
722 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 72878A.442
723 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 72878A.443
724 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 72878A.444
725 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness is James Robo. He is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Florida Power and Light, or 

FPL, Group. Mr. Robo previously served as Vice President at that 

company. 

We thank you so much for testifying today. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. ROBO 

Mr. ROBO. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton, and members of the committee. I am the President and 

Chief Operating Officer of FPL Group, North America’s largest producer of renewable energy; and it is my pleasure to be here today 

to talk about the importance of enacting a renewable electricity 

standard this year. 

FPL Group is the Nation’s number one producer of electricity 

from the wind and from the sun. Our wind fleet can power approximately one and a half million homes and makes up a quarter of 

the entire U.S. wind energy market. Our solar power plants in 

California’s Mohave Desert are the largest in the world. 

In Florida, we are building 110 megawatts of solar power, 

enough to vault the State into second place in the Nation in solar 

production in the span of only 18 months. And just this week, FPL 

announced Energy Smart Miami, one of the country’s largest implementations of smart grid technology to improve energy efficiency 

and reduce carbon emissions. 

We are proud that FPL Group has one of the lowest CO2 emissions rates of any electric power company in the Nation. In fact, 

if every utility were as clean as FPL Group, CO2 emissions from 

the power sector would be reduced by nearly 50 percent. Total U.S. 

carbon emissions would be reduced by 20 percent, which is the 

equivalent of removing 209 million cars from the road, roughly 80 

percent of the Nation’s vehicles. 

Renewable energy holds tremendous potential for the United 

States. Each year, enough solar energy strikes a 90- by 90-mile 

patch of the Mohave Desert to meet the annual electricity needs of 

the entire country, and enough wind power sweeps across the Dakotas to meet more than half our electricity needs. We have barely 

begun to tap this nearly unlimited resource. 

To do so, it is vital that Congress enact a renewable electricity 

standard this year; and here is why. First, an RES will help create 

a clean energy economy. Many countries are betting that the world 

of the future will thirst for low-carbon energy in the way it thirsts 

for oil today. We can’t afford to remain on the sidelines while the 

renewables industry and jobs that go along with it are created elsewhere. We are already falling behind even Europe in this regard. 

In fact, nearly every one of FPL Group’s largest renewable energy 

competitors is from outside the United States. 

Second, an RES will give the renewable energy industry certainty and will give utility decisionmakers a sense of urgency. In 

the electricity power sector, we make capital decisions with a 30- 

year time horizon. We can’t spend billions of dollars to build a 

clean energy economy without confidence that demand for low-carbon power will remain strong. 

A Federal RES with timelines extending to 2039 will send the 

clearest possible signal to investors that demand for renewables 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
726 

will continue, and the targets that utilities must meet along the 

way will provide the urgency needed for prompt action. The best 

incentive to ensure timely and proactive utility decisionmaking 

around renewables is a reasonable yet firm target. 

Third, a Federal RES will drive down the cost of renewables. 

Make no mistake, in many markets today renewables such as wind 

are competitively priced, despite the fact that they are disadvantaged versus fossil fuels due to the lack of a price on carbon. The 

cost of wind power has fallen by roughly 25 percent over the past 

decade even as the average electric bill in the U.S. Has risen by 

nearly 50 percent. By stimulating demand, an RES will continue 

to drive down the cost of renewables over time. 

Fourth, a Federal RES will ensure that only the most cost-efficient renewables get built. The current patchwork of more than 30 

different State regimes is cumbersome, costly, and creates incentives for bad decisions. For example, many States require utilities 

to buy only in-State renewable energy even if it costs more than 

renewable energy purchased from elsewhere. That is like forcing 

grocery stores in Maine to buy oranges grown only in Maine. It 

makes no economic sense. 

And, finally, an RES is essential to address the threat of climate 

change. That is, threat isn’t just environmental; it is economic. 

Those who say the cost of addressing climate change is too high assume that doing nothing is free. On the contrary, unchecked climate change could cost the United States tens of billions of dollars 

over the next two decades. 

But no matter what your beliefs are about climate change, investing in renewable energy makes sense for America. It will replace finite fossil fuels with the infinite energy of the wind and the 

sun. It will result in cleaner air; it will conserve precious water; it 

will strengthen our energy security in a volatile world; and, finally, 

it will keep us competitive in the race to build a clean energy economy. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, sir, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robo follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
727 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 72878A.445
728 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 72878A.446
729 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 72878A.447
730 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 72878A.448
731 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness is Gregory Kunkel. He is the Vice 

President of Environmental Affairs at Tenaska. Mr. Kunkel directs 

environmental compliance, permitting, and water resources issues 

at that company. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. KUNKEL 

Mr. KUNKEL. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton—and happy birthday, by the way—and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to discuss Tenaska’s two commercial-scale electric generation projects using carbon capture and 

storage technologies, Trailblazer in Texas and Taylorville in Illinois. 

My name is Dr. Greg Kunkel; and I am Vice President of Environmental Affairs of Omaha-based Tenaska, one of the largest 

independent power producers in the United States. Tenaska currently employs nearly 700 people and has developed approximately 

9,000 megawatts of natural gas-fired electric generating capacity 

across the United States. 

Our affiliates market natural gas, electric power, and biofuels 

and also are involved in private equity funds and acquisition management focused on energy space, including renewable energy, infrastructure development, natural gas pipelines and storage, and 

electric transmission. 

The Natural Resource Defense Council benchmarks Tenaska’s 

power plants as having the lowest carbon footprint of any of our 

peers, less than half the national average emission rate of greenhouse gases. However, as clean as our fleet is, like a number of our 

peers in the independent power sector, our older long-term contract 

did not explicitly anticipate the cost of carbon control. To ensure 

that these clean, efficient facilities can keep operating, we urge the 

committee to provide a mechanism to hold these contracted facilities harmless for the duration of their contracts. 

Now, with regard to carbon capture and storage, Tenaska’s current initiatives, Trailblazer and Taylorville, may give the subcommittee some sense of the CCS projects that we believe can be 

built with today’s proven technologies. 

When Tenaska embarked on developing these utility scale CCS 

projects, natural gas prices were high and volatile, and there was 

a glut of gas generation. This encouraged us to consider coal for 

baseload power facilities. However, we recognized that new Federal, regional, and State greenhouse gas emission controls were 

very likely during these plants’ 50-year life. Of course, just last 

week, EPA issued its endangerment finding and is considering 

comprehensive rulemaking to regulate carbon emissions; and now 

Congress is taking up the issue in earnest. 

Tenaska’s objective has been to find ways to develop the baseload 

resources required for the electricity market, but we weren’t willing 

to invest in solid fuel projects without addressing the climate 

change issue. So the question before us was how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the design of projects today. To that end, 

we needed to assure ourselves that carbon capture technologies are 

ready for a utility scale project, a secure home was available for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
732 

captured carbon dioxide, and the economics and long-term financing arrangements for such projects could work. 

On February 19, 2008, Tenaska announced the Trailblazer Energy Center, a 760 megawatt gross and 600 megawatt net output 

supercritical pulverized coal electric generation facility with the capability to capture 85 to 90 percent of its carbon dioxide. The site 

is near pipelines to the world’s largest market for carbon dioxide, 

Permian Basin Enhanced Oil Recovery. Two railroads serve the 

site, and the electrical interconnection also nearby. 

The comment period on Trailblazer’s draft air permit closed on 

April 17, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will 

be working toward a final permit over the next months. We have 

received competitive proposals for the facility’s design and construction and are working on detailed engineering studies to support the financial closing and a construction start in 2010. Commercial operation could be as early as 2015. 

Through our work with leading EPC contractors and equipment 

manufacturers, Tenaska is increasingly confident that we can finance the project and negotiate suitable terms for the plant’s construction. Local and State governments have provided tax incentives for building the plant and are encouraging oil producers to 

use the facility’s CO2. We still need some form of Federal incentive 

participation to make the project work, but that seems increasingly 

likely. 

Trailblazer’s significance is that it will demonstrate post-combustion capture technology for existing power plants that today contribute 2 billion tons to the U.S. emission inventory and 10 billion 

tons to the worldwide emission inventory. By locating near a viable 

CO2 market, Trailblazer can pioneer this technology at a reduced 

cost. 

The Taylorville Energy Center is a Hybrid Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle electric generation facility being developed 

by Christian County Generation with Tenaska as the managing 

partner. The project will manufacture pipeline-quality substitute 

natural gas, or methane, from Illinois bituminous coal. SNG will 

fuel the power block. 

The amount of SNG produced will significantly exceed our requirements, annually freeing up 10 billion cubic feet of SNG for 

eventual sale offsite. The facility will employ 1,500 construction 

workers and create hundreds of permanent jobs in the coal and 

power sectors. 

Taylorville will capture 50 to 60 percent of the carbon dioxide 

that would have otherwise been emitted, remove moisture and sulfur compounds, and compress the carbon dioxide stream for pipeline transport either to nearby geologic sequestration wells or for 

use in EOR operations elsewhere. The power island will have criteria pollutant emissions equal to those of a combined-cycle natural 

gas generation facility. No electric generation facility utilizing coalderived fuel operating anywhere approaches the proposed emission 

performance of Taylorville. Yet the project relies exclusively on 

proven technologies for coal gasification, gas processing, and power 

generation. 

The one important thing for all these types of projects—and we 

think that they are real projects that can come off in the near fuVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00742 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
733 

ture and begin construction as early as next year—is providing 

some sort of regulatory framework and certainty for these projects. 

We have provided specific comments on aspects of the ACES draft 

in our testimony, and we look to those provisions. But there is a 

whole variety of ways that the bill could support these types of 

projects. 

Mr. MARKEY. And how much CO2 can you take out of the coal? 

Mr. KUNKEL. The Trailblazer project in Texas would take 90 percent. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kunkel follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
734 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 72878A.449
735 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 72878A.450
736 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 72878A.451
737 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 72878A.452
738 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 72878A.453
739 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 72878A.454
740 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 72878A.455
741 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 781 72878A.456
742 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 782 72878A.457
743 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 72878A.458
744 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 784 72878A.459
745 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Hawkins, Mr. David Hawkins, the Director of 

Climate Programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, one 

of the most frequent visitors to this committee in its history. He 

has been working on air pollution issues for over 30 years. 

We welcome you back. Whenever you are comfortable, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. HAWKINS 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify today. I am going to focus today on a pathway for coal. 

NRDC, as an environmental organization, is a strong supporter 

of efficiency and renewable energy resources, but we also believe 

that it is important to have a pathway for advanced coal. It is important in order to get the policy support for the protection of the 

climate programs that we need, and it is important to actually 

make those climate protection programs happen more easily in the 

real world. We think we can get deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions faster and at lower costs if coal with carbon capture is on the 

table as part of the toolbox, and that is why we very strongly support it. 

NRDC is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, and 

we put forward in that document what we believed was an integrated package of policy support for carbon capture and disposal. 

There were four things that we recommended. 

The first was a requirement for the government to get its act together in terms of developing the necessary permitting rules. 

The second was a program to do early government financial support so that we could get five gigawatts of coal capacity with carbon 

capture deployed by 2015. It sounds like Tenaska could be part of 

that five gigawatts. 

The third element would be a transitional program where the 

early movers in the carbon capture world would get a financial incentive. This is very important to overcome the competitive barriers to these kinds of technologies, even in the early years of a 

cap-and-trade program. 

And the fourth thing we recommended was a set of mandatory 

emissions standards for new coal plants so that we would have 

clarity and an assurance that we didn’t have to rely just on market 

forces but we would have that good old-fashioned regulation that 

says: Here’s a performance standard. You need to meet it. And, by 

the way, there will be financial incentives to help you do even better. 

The ACES discussion draft does a great job of embracing these 

concepts and articulating them. And while there are a few places 

where some added detail would be helpful, we think that it is a 

very great job, and we are very supportive of it. 

In our view, carbon capture and disposal is a real option. It can 

be made into a reality out in the world if it has adequate policy 

support. That policy support has been lacking, but it can be provided through the kind of provisions that are in the ACES draft 

and, for that reason, we support it. 

Mr. Chairman, we have heard lots of concerns over the last couple of days about whether the technology is available or whether 

it is available at a reasonable cost; and there have been lots of conVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00755 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
746 

cerns and legitimately expressed concerns about the fact that this 

may cost too much, that we simply can’t afford to do what is being 

proposed in this legislation. 

Well, 73 years ago, the predecessor of this committee heard from 

then chairman Sam Rayburn about the need to have a major energy advance. It was called Rural Electrification Act of 1936, and 

some of the same arguments that we have heard mounted today 

about the need to protect the climate and whether we could afford 

to do it were put forward then. It was said that the technology did 

not exist to bring electricity to rural Americans. It was said that, 

if it did exist, it would be simply too expensive and ruin us. 

Well, 73 years ago, this committee acted, and it passed out by 

one vote the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, and the result was 

an economy that the world still cannot beat. This is the world’s 

greatest economy, and it is brought to that level in large part by 

electrification. It was that kind of technological advance and willingness to say, you know, we think these challenges can be met. 

Today, the challenge is even greater and the stakes are higher 

and the rewards are greater. But it is going to come down to the 

same thing: The men and women of this committee voting to do 

what we need to do to create the future that we need to create. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. And it comes in full circle, doesn’t it? 73 years ago, we were voting to bring electricity to 

rural America; now we are going to be voting on bringing electricity 

from rural America, the sun and the wind and biomass, to urban 

America. And we might only win by one vote, but that will be the 

perfect circle then when it is completed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
747 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 787 72878A.460
748 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 788 72878A.461
749 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 789 72878A.462
750 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 790 72878A.463
751 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 791 72878A.464
752 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 792 72878A.465
753 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 793 72878A.466
754 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 794 72878A.467
755 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 795 72878A.468
756 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 796 72878A.469
757 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 797 72878A.470
758 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 798 72878A.471
759 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 799 72878A.472
760 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next witness is Eugene Trisko on behalf of the 

United Mine Workers of America. Mr. Trisko has represented the 

United Mine Workers for more than 20 years. He is a member of 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act Advisory 

Committee and has appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia concerning the Clean Air Act. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE M. TRISKO 

Mr. TRISKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Upton. 

I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the United 

Mine Workers. 

The UMWA has sought technological solutions to the environmental challenges facing coal for decades. The UMWA recognizes 

that climate change legislation poses potentially the greatest threat 

to its membership and to the continued use of coal. In July, 2007, 

the Mine Workers and other industrial unions endorsed the bipartisan Bingaman-Specter climate change bill. Achieving the proper 

balance among technology incentives and the timing and stringency 

of emission reductions will be essential for obtaining bipartisan 

support for climate legislation. 

One half of our electricity today is generated by coal. Twentythree States rely on coal for more than half of their electric supplies. To reduce coal in our energy mix means using another fuel 

to replace it for baseload generation, most likely a combination of 

natural gas and nuclear. 

There is a great deal in this proposed legislation that UMWA 

supports. We strongly endorse section 114, incorporating the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act reintroduced this 

year by Representative Boucher and a bipartisan group of cosponsors. The programs called for by this section will provide critical 

nonbudget support for the early demonstration of CCS technologies 

on the commercial scale. 

CCS technology is the principal means for assuring that coal can 

continue to supply a significant share of our electric generating 

needs. These technologies also can provide a major source of new, 

well-paying low-carbon jobs. 

Our statement summarizes a recent study showing that deployment of 65 to 100 gigawatts of new advanced coal capacity with 

CCS could create five to seven million job years of employment during construction and more than one quarter million permanent 

jobs. 

UMWA supports the objectives of the CCS incentives provided in 

section 115. The Mine Workers recommend that the committee develop an allowanced-based mechanism for funding qualifying CCS 

facilities. Such incentives will be critical to attracting capital investment in new and retrofit applications. 

The timing and availability of section 115 support should provide 

planning certainty. We regard the period from 2020 to 2040 as critical for avoiding a large-scale loss of coal markets. As to scale, we 

recommend a range of 65 to 100 gigawatts of new and retrofit capacity based on U.S. EPA’s analysis of previous climate bills. 

The Mine Workers recommend the bill avoids specifying CO2 performance standards limited to coal-based generating units. NSPS 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
761 

are unnecessary for these sources since all cap sources will be required to comply with the bill’s declining cap. 

To avoid the risk of WTO challenges, we suggest that the bill’s 

international border adjustment provisions be modified consistent 

with IBEW and AEP suggested changes submitted to the committee on April 17. 

UMWA favors the largest possible use of allowance allocations to 

the electric distribution and independent generation sectors and to 

vulnerable manufacturing industries. We support the recommended 

approach to allocations outlined in the recent letter to Chairman 

Waxman by the IBW and the utility workers. 

UMWA is mainly concerned about the 20 percent reduction target for the year 2020. This target is well above the 6 percent target 

proposed by the Dingell-Boucher December, 2008, discussion draft 

and President Obama’s proposed 14 percent target. 

Commercial use of CCS by 2020 is likely to be limited to a handful of early mover plants. Recent modeling of similar emission control proposals shows that one-third to one-half of coal-based generating capacity could be retired between 2015 and 2030. EPA’s preliminary modeling of the bill shows this occurring by 2040, even 

with aggressive CCS assumptions. Such impacts must be avoided 

if the Nation is to retain domestic coal as a principal energy supply. The UMWA thus urges moderation in the choice of the 2020 

target, recognizing that the majority of the emission reductions required by the bill occur later in the program when technological advances should facilitate the continued use of coal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

Mr. INSLEE [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trisko follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
762 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 803 72878A.473
763 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 804 72878A.474
764 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 805 72878A.475
765 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 806 72878A.476
766 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 807 72878A.477
767 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 808 72878A.478
768 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 809 72878A.479
769 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 810 72878A.480
770 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 811 72878A.481
771 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 812 72878A.482
772 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 813 72878A.483
773 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 814 72878A.484
774 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 815 72878A.485
775 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 816 72878A.486
776 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 817 72878A.487
777 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 818 72878A.488
778 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 819 72878A.489
779 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 820 72878A.490
780 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 821 72878A.491
781 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 822 72878A.492
782 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 823 72878A.493
783 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 824 72878A.494
784 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 825 72878A.495
785 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 826 72878A.496
786 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 72878A.497
787 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 72878A.498
788 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 72878A.499
789 

Mr. INSLEE. The next witness is Jonathan Briggs, who is Regional Director of the Americas for Hydrogen Energy. Mr. Briggs 

is responsible for managing Hydrogen Energy’s project in California and developing other Hydrogen Energy business opportunities in North America. 

Thank you, Mr. Briggs. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BRIGGS 

Mr. BRIGGS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify before you today. 

HEI, or Hydrogen Energy International, offers commercial-scale 

deployments of low-carbon hydrogen fueled power plants with carbon capture and storage. It offers the ability to bring together the 

complementary skills of its two parent companies, BP and Rio 

Tinto. 

Hydrogen Energy, HEI, is currently developing two projects, one 

in Abu Dhabi, the other in California. The project in California is 

located in Kern County and will distribute 250 megawatts of muchneeded, baseload low-carbon power. 

The project’s primary feedstock is petroleum coke, a refinery byproduct, along with coal as needed, and will capture and store 90 

percent of its CO2 emissions in the Elk Hills oil field for sequestration and Enhanced Oil Recovery. The project has been designed 

and developed to provide numerous environmental and economic 

benefits for the State. 

It will conserve freshwater resource by using brackish groundwater with zero liquid discharge. It will create 1,500 construction 

jobs and 100 permanent jobs in an economically depressed region 

of the State, and the project will also significantly boost State and 

local tax revenue from EOR. 

Just 2 months ago, the PUC voted 5-0 to direct $30 million of 

support to our project. This is unprecedented and a demonstration 

of political leadership that first mover projects such as ours need. 

And while I have the opportunity, I would like to thank CPUC, 

including Commissioner Grueneich, for recognizing the need for inState, low-carbon baseload power. We filed for the planning permits and the site license and will be up and running by 2015, contingent on the development of an appropriate policy support framework. 

In order to meet the aggressive emission reduction goals that are 

outlined in the draft ACES bill, CCS must be widely deployed and 

quickly to drive down the costs of future plants. Just as pre-combustion capture technology is proven, so is the storage of CO2. 

In the U.S., there are more than 3,500 miles of CO2 pipelines to 

support Enhanced Oil Recovery, an activity which has been conducted safely and without incident for the last 30 years. We believe 

that storing CO2 in existing oil and gas fields in connection with 

the EOR will significantly advance the near-term deployment of 

CCS by bringing down the costs of early moving projects such as 

ours. 

Like other forms of clean energy, CCS is more expensive than 

conventional energy. The majority of the extra capital costs lies 

with the power plant rather than the sequestration activity. The 

cost of CCS today is more than $100 per ton of CO2. That may 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
790 

seem like a lot, but remember this technology is still in the early 

development stages; and despite other technologies having enjoyed 

years of learning, low-carbon hydrogen power with CCS is competitive with nuclear and renewable energies. So cost, while important, 

is not a reason to forgo or stall the rollout of this technology. 

The draft ACES bill is a welcome first step to identifying CCS 

as a needed technology to mitigate GHT emissions. HEI appreciates the support shown for CCS in the Waxman-Markey draft, 

particularly fixed incentive payments which are critical to project 

sanction; feedstock neutrality; and recognition of geologic sequestration combined with enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. 

In addition, we hope that any climate change bill would also recognize the need for early movers, provide clear and definitive performance qualification terms, and tie fiscal support to the levels of 

CO2 capture such as the 90 percent that I referred to earlier. 

Before I close, I would like to leave the committee with one other 

recommendation regarding the regulatory certainty needed to allow 

CCS to move forward. We need one regulator, one set of regulations, and acknowledgement that EOR and sequestration can act 

simultaneously. 

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to testify before you today and remind you that CCS is ready today. We just 

need fixed near- and medium-term incentives to get these projects 

off the ground. 

Thank you. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Briggs. 

You have 10 seconds left. I am just dying to know, is your sequestration through pumping into oil fuels? Is that the sequestration system you are using? 

Mr. BRIGGS. It will be. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Briggs follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
791 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 833 72878A.500
792 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 834 72878A.501
793 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 835 72878A.502
794 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 836 72878A.503
795 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 837 72878A.504
796 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 838 72878A.505
797 

Mr. INSLEE. Our next witness is Mr. James Kerr, who is a partner with McGuire Woods LLP. He has previously served as Commissioner on the North Carolina Utilities Commission and is President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners for 2007–2008. Today, he is appearing on behalf of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council. 

Thanks, Mr. Kerr. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES KERR 

Mr. KERR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My perspective today is that of a former utility regulator, where 

I examined regulatory policy to be sure that it was both cost-effective and equitable among and between customer classes and across 

regions. 

My testimony focuses on the RES and the CCS portions of the 

bill that is before the subcommittee. Let me first focus in these remarks on what I believe to be certain inequities concerns and costeffectiveness concerns with the RES. I am concerned that the bill, 

as drafted, will be both ineffective and inequitable for ratepayers 

in the Southeast and Midwest where cost-effective and renewable 

resources are limited. 

The first concern is that the RES conflicts with a market-based 

cap-and-trade program. Renewables are simply one option to 

decarbonize power fleets and reduce carbon. They may or may not 

be the most cost-effective option for doing that, however; and the 

price signals set by the cap is supposed to decide this. Since the 

RES performance-based standard must be complied with regardless 

of the cost, that undermines the cap’s basic least-cost approach. In 

effect, the RES effects that renewables and not the other alternatives to be the most cost-effective solution of carbon reduction 

under the cap all the way up to the full amount of the RES. 

Most troubling would be is that there appear to be no economic 

studies supporting the fact that a 25 percent RES by 2025 will 

produce the most cost-effective carbon reduction or cost-effective 

carbon reduction program in the cap program itself. Hence, I refer 

to RES. 

Second, the RES gives ratepayers three compliance options, each 

of which is uneconomic to them and provides little benefit. 

My second concern is that ratepayers in resource-poor States will 

be assessed significant costs to comply with the RES for which they 

will receive no benefit. Instead, the monies will flow to the benefit 

of the ratepayers in resource-rich States and either subsidize those 

ratepayers’ RES compliance costs or those ratepayers’ fleet 

decarbonization efforts and associated carbon cap costs. 

To illustrate this, I thought I would use the example where I am 

a utility owner or a regulator or, for that matter, simply a citizen 

in a resource-poor State where renewables tend to cost more than 

in resource-rich States. I would have three choices available to me 

under this legislative proposal. 

First, I can build above market. By that, I mean higher cost renewable power than the prevailing REC price, renewable facilities 

in my State. That will ensure that green jobs and investment capital provided by ratepayers remained in State and that will provide 

some benefits towards carbon compliance in State. But the cost for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
798 

compliance with the RES will be higher than if other alternatives 

are adopted. 

However, since I also get a carbon benefit if I build my own renewables facility, I need to subtract that cost saving from my renewables costs, and those economics will likely make me build 

some and perhaps many above-market renewable facilities. 

That result makes sense to me and my ratepayers, because it is 

the lowest-cost solution to the dual-compliance obligations of the 

carbon cap and the RES, but it makes no sense as national policy. 

The result will be nationally more above-market renewable facilities in the Southeast and Midwest and fewer economic renewable 

facilities in resource-rich States. And, of course, since renewables 

will be part of the compliance with the carbon cap and the overall 

cost of renewables is higher than it need to be because above-market facilities are built, the cost of compliance with that cap nationally will be higher than they would be without the RES. 

My second choice is to purchase RECs, to fund construction of renewable facilities in another State with better renewable resources. 

If I do that, my ratepayers’ compliance costs with the RES will be 

lower, but I will have to go back to them for more money to fund 

investments in carbon reductions for my system since I have received no carbon benefit from the renewable power facility funded 

by my ratepayers REC dollars. 

In addition, I will have funded the creation of green jobs in the 

resource-rich State but not my own, and I will have funded fleet 

decarbonization efforts in the resource-rich State through construction of a renewable facility but not my own. As a consequence, I 

have subsidized the carbon compliance cost of the ratepayers in the 

resource-rich State who will not see rate increases to fund the carbon reductions my renewable power facility has made for them. 

My third choice is to make an alternative compliance payment. 

This option would allow my ratepayers to comply with the RES at 

a lower cost, but, again, they see no carbon reduction benefits for 

the payment, and I will have to go back to them for additional 

monies to fund my own carbon reduction efforts. 

In addition, the monies I spend making alternative compliance 

payments are returned to the resource-rich States that complied 

with the RES and presumably refunded to those ratepayers. Thus, 

my alternative compliance payments subsidize RES compliance 

cost of citizens in resource-rich States, but my ratepayers see no 

benefits. 

As a former public servant and citizen, I do not like any of these 

choices. None make any economic sense to my ratepayers and they 

do nothing to address climate change since the cap already requires 

carbon reductions independent of the RES. 

Frankly, I am baffled as to why I would have to make a choice 

between three such poor options. No one has told me that renewables up to the full amount of the RES are the most cost-effective 

way to reduce carbon, and no one has told me that the U.S. renewables industry cannot sustain itself based on the price signal that 

cap will send the existing plethora of the 33 State RES requirements and other financial incentives available to renewables. It 

seems to me that the primary effect of the RES requirement is to 

pick winners and losers and that the ratepayers in resource-rich 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
799 

States will be the clear winners, while ratepayers in resource-poor 

States will be the clear losers. 

I want to be clear. I am not against renewables in any way. They 

are an important part of the toolkit to address climate change, and 

they will be employed at scale under any carbon cap up to the 

point that they are the most cost-effective alternative. What I am 

against is the imposition of a very large Federal renewables mandate that effectively advantages ratepayers in resource-rich States 

and disadvantages ratepayers in resource-poor States for no compelling reason. 

While I do not see the need for any mandatory Federal RES, my 

testimony does have suggestions that will limit but not eliminate 

these inequities. 

Finally, with respect to CCS, the ERCC supports the efforts in 

the bill to generate research, development, and deployment of CCS. 

We also, however, provide a couple of comments that might help 

shape that piece of the legislation. 

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Kerr. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
800 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 842 72878A.506
801 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 843 72878A.507
802 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 844 72878A.508
803 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 845 72878A.509
804 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 846 72878A.510
805 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 847 72878A.511
806 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 848 72878A.512
807 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 849 72878A.513
808 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 850 72878A.514
809 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 851 72878A.515
810 

Mr. INSLEE. Our next witness is Dr. Jay Apt, who is Executive 

Director of the Carnegie-Mellon Electricity Industry Center and an 

associate professor at Carnegie-Mellon University. We hope Dr. Apt 

feels very much at home today, because he has been in space flying 

four times and logging more than 35 days in that environment and 

over 10 hours in space walks. 

We hope this is as easy an experience, Dr. Apt. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF JAY APT 

Mr. APT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like to tell people that I 

am probably the only person in the room who owes their life to 

solar cells. 

I appreciate not only the invitation but your stamina. 

As you said, Carnegie-Mellon, I am a faculty member in both the 

engineering school and the business college. I have studied the 

electric power industry for many years at our Carnegie-Mellon 

Electricity Industry Center. But burning any appreciable fraction 

of the estimated fossil fuel resources on this planet without carbon 

dioxide control is going to send CO2 levels to places that humans 

have never experienced and cause really dangerous climate change. 

There is no question that the singular focus, our goal, ought to be 

controlling CO2. 

Renewable energy sources are going to be an important part of 

whatever we do in this country, but I caution that a singular emphasis on renewable energy is not the best way to meet that overriding goal of controlling CO2. 

We spend about 3 percent of GDP annually on electricity. Removing 80 percent of the CO2 from electric power with the most costeffective technologies will take about two-thirds of a percent of 

GDP. That turns out to be just about what we spend on the Clean 

Air Act. That is affordable. But if we try to specify which technologies, like renewables, are the only ones that need apply and 

don’t allow the least expensive technologies to compete, costs can 

grow to unaffordable levels. It is important to develop competing 

low-carbon technologies to keep costs low, rather than trying to select technologies based on attributes that have little to do with controlling CO2. 

A national RES is a costly way to reduce CO2 emissions, because 

renewable and low greenhouse gas are not synonyms. There are 

several other practical and often less expensive ways, and you 

heard about some of them just now, to reduce CO2 from electric 

power generation. 

As you know, renewable energy is concentrated only in certain 

States. The Southeast doesn’t have either good wind or good solar. 

It does have biomass, but that is going to be needed for production 

of liquid fuels. Legislation should give each region the greatest 

flexibility to reduce CO2 at the least cost, including renewables, efficiency, conservation, fossil fuels with CCS, and nuclear. 

Mandating technologies can be much more expensive than mandating performance. Renewable performance standards unnecessarily increase costs in an attempt to eliminate the use of uranium, 

coal, natural gas, and large hydropower. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
811 

What is needed instead is a carbon performance standard that 

lowers the limits in a predictable fashion on the emission of CO2

for every kilowatt hour produced. To affordably lower CO2, we are 

going to need everything that works. No power source is free of 

problems. 

Our research has examined what was then the largest solar ray 

in the country in the desert in Arizona. It had a duty cycle, what 

we call the capacity factor, of 19 percent averaged over 2 years. All 

the wind farms in Texas last year added together had a capacity 

factor of 29 percent. That means that 70 percent of the time you 

have got to use something else. And our research shows that natural gas turbines used to provide fill-in powers as the wind rises 

and falls or clouds cover the sun produce more CO2 and much more 

NOX, nitrogen oxide, than they do when running steadily. That 

lessens the beneficial effects of wind or solar. 

One solution is to store large amounts of electricity when these 

sources are generating. The discussion draft doesn’t appear to me 

to contain significant incentives for large-scale storage, and I think 

it ought to. 

If our industries are to be able to afford electricity, it is essential 

that demonstration coal plants with carbon capture be built to improve the technology and show that we can sequester CO2 without 

leakage in a range of geology. The section 114 incentives seem to 

me to be at the low end of what is required to demonstrate the 

commercial viability of sequestration. It is also essential that we 

build half a dozen nuclear plants using new technology to assess 

their costs and performance, or we are going to be importing that 

technology from abroad. 

I hope that you will keep two principles in mind. 

First, focus on reducing carbon dioxide, rather than singling out 

renewables as the answer. There are significant savings, from letting all the technologies compete in satisfying the goals of lowering 

greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy security, while ensuring that energy prices aren’t so high that they derail our economy. 

Second, ensure that efficiency gains generating electricity as well 

as in using it can count in any low-carbon legislative mandate such 

as section 231 of the discussion draft. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

Along with my written testimony, I provided the subcommittee 

with one of our published papers. I think the research outlined in 

the paper might be of interest and value and would ask that that 

be included as part of the hearing record. 

Mr. INSLEE. Hearing no objection, Dr. Apt, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Apt follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
812 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 855 72878A.516
813 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 856 72878A.517
814 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 857 72878A.518
815 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 858 72878A.519
816 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 859 72878A.520
817 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 860 72878A.521
818 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 861 72878A.522
819 

Mr. INSLEE. We will start questioning with Tammy Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you all for 

your patience and your testimony here this afternoon. 

We just returned to session from a recess, and over the course 

of my recess I had a chance to do a great tour of some of the most 

innovative Wisconsin-based companies that are doing all sorts of 

exciting things in the energy area in anticipation of the work we 

are doing on the climate change bill. 

One of the places I visited is a company called Orion based in 

Nashua, Wisconsin; and they are managing a solar light type technology that can illuminate factory floors electricity free by concentrating daylight. Just last month, the company was even touted by 

President Obama for having innovators and creating jobs that will 

foster our economic recovery and create clean technology to power 

our long-term prosperity. 

Now, like the solar light pipe, there exists a number of distributed renewable energy resources such as solar water heaters, solar 

air heating and cooling, geothermal heat pumps that deliver measurable and verifiable renewable energy at the load source. These 

technologies help businesses and homeowners lower their utility 

bills; and because they produce clean energy at the load source, 

they certainly lessen the burden on our Nation’s transmission infrastructure. 

As I understand it and have looked into it, some States have included these technologies in their renewable portfolio standards, 

and others have not, because these technologies do not actually 

generate electricity even though we can sort of monitor virtually 

with meters the electricity consumption displaced by these technologies. 

So I want to ask, I think, Mr. Reicher and Commissioner 

Grueneich, do you think these types of technologies should be considered as a part of our renewable energy technologies and can 

they provide benefits under a national renewable portfolio or electricity standard? 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Yes, and yes. 

Let me also say I want to congratulate your State. We are not 

talking about energy efficiency, but in a recent report you are 

ranked number five in the country. I am very happy to hear about 

some of the technologies that are being developed. I think that this 

is an example where we see innovation at the State level, and I 

think that it definitely is an example of the types of new technologies coming on line that can and should be included when we 

are looking at the renewable standard. 

Mr. REICHER. And I would add that, as you know, there is already a three X multiplier for on-site generation. It would be interesting to take a look at what of these technologies might be included and, if not, how that might be adjusted. That is number one. 

Number two, of course, the energy efficiency resource standard 

would capture some of the value of this as well by cutting electricity demand. 

So I think the interplay between the two of those should at least 

help these technologies. What we may want to do is look a little 

bit further and see if there is ways to move them forward even better. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
820 

Ms. BALDWIN. And that was precisely my second question. 

Should this technology be a part of the energy efficiency resource 

standard? You sort of jumped to that answer already. 

On the distributed generation multiplier, another one of my stops 

on my tour last week was to an anaerobic digester on a dairy farm. 

Now, I think Wisconsin is the leader in the country in deployment 

of anaerobic digester systems, but all of them are smaller than two 

megawatts. The one that I visited is generating enough electricity 

for about 600 homes in the area. 

The proposed definition in our draft discussion bill right now 

would exclude small biomass generation systems from receiving the 

distributed generation credit multiplier because they rely on combustion, and the proposal appears to make distributed solar and 

wind more valuable than distributed biomass. And I guess I would 

want to ask your opinion also on what guidance you would give our 

committee as we get into the details of the bill on this issue of 

should it count or not. Commissioner? 

Ms. GRUENEICH. I will say that we are facing in California, as 

we have had now a couple of years under our belt—I guess 3 or 

4 now—on our renewable standard that as the technology is improving, and we have got a project that Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company is doing also with one of our dairy farms, where we are 

seeing that we do have to look at modifying our definition of what 

qualifies. And I think that it will be important for the committee 

to really take a look throughout the country at what are the different projects that have emerged, take a good look at the definitions. 

And I totally concur with Dan. Let’s make sure that things don’t 

fall between the cracks of what is considered a renewable or what 

is considered an energy efficiency, and it doesn’t qualify for either 

one. So I think that is real good homework. We want to capture 

the most innovative projects. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask a question to 

our carbon capture and sequestration experts. I see my time has 

expired. 

Mr. INSLEE. The Chair is extending an additional minute to all 

committee members who are so dedicated to be here. 

Ms. BALDWIN [continuing]. Along with my other stops on my energy tour I got a chance to visit a coal plant owned by WEE Energy 

in Wisconsin that is doing a demonstration project on carbon capture—not the sequestration part, but they are right now succeeding 

in capturing 90 percent of the CO2 emitted, but only doing this 

demonstration project on 1 percent of the flue gas. So it is a small 

demonstration project. A larger scale project, sort of tenfold the 

size, will be under way soon in West Virginia. 

I would love our CCS experts to address a couple of quick questions. One is the job creation potential. The second is, if we do not 

have a cap in the end, would you expect whole scale commercial 

deployment of this technology without it? I have concerns that we 

wouldn’t. 

And then, finally, this is a huge issue, but Wisconsin is not particularly geologically—well, we don’t have the geological formations 

necessary for storage in state which brings up transportation 

issues. And I wonder whether the funds collected by the CCS proviVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00830 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
821 

sions of the bill will apply to researchers’ transportation for CO2

and the costs associated with that. But—I know that is broad, but 

I would love to hear our CCS experts address those three areas. 

Mr. KUNKEL. We have been following the WEE Energy project 

there too, and they are tackling one of the most interesting parts 

of this that could have big promise for reducing the costs of it, 

which is the energy efficiency penalty using ammonia technology. 

And we think that is very promising, and we are following that 

technology and considering that very closely. That sort of goes to 

one of your questions. 

Your second question was jobs. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Actually, that was the first question. The second 

was the relationship between the cap and the deployment of this 

technology. 

Mr. KUNKEL. Yeah. Certainly large-scale deployment won’t happen without there being some kind of a market value, if society 

doesn’t value the reduction of emissions in some way. And—that 

has to happen, and what we are working at is getting the cost of 

that down to where it happens at a reasonable price; and we believe that that can happen as well. 

Jobs, our projects in both Texas and Illinois will—the one thing, 

they take a long time to build; it is like a 4-year construction cycle, 

1,500 jobs at the peak and even as many as 2,000 in some cases. 

So, for a retrofit, that project would be much less, but it is still a 

very substantial project employing a significant number of people. 

Mr. INSLEE [presiding]. Thank you. We are now moving on to Mr. 

Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Apt, I want to come back to your testimony. You talked about 

a carbon performance. If you look at that for the base as an RPS, 

you probably could include nuclear as part of that, right, because 

it has—that has no greenhouse gas emissions? 

Mr. APT. Certainly. 

One of the statistics I like to tell people is, in my home State of 

Pennsylvania, we are nearly last in renewables, but we are first in 

low carbon because of the percentage of nuclear that we have. 

Mr. UPTON. You said that the solar array in Arizona was only 

19 percent, which means that it is out? 

Mr. APT. Sure. It can’t be more than 50 percent because it is 

night half the time. 

Mr. UPTON. I know they don’t have daylight savings time. That 

is probably another hour. 

Mr. APT. The thing that surprised us was that it wasn’t higher 

than it is. That is because of the intermittency caused by the 

clouds. We have looked at the solar rays in other locations. The 

DOE has a solar roof here, and that is 11 percent as it turns out. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Robo, you mentioned that you are managing the largest solar 

bank in the world; is that right? 

Mr. ROBO. That is right. 

Mr. UPTON. In the Mojave Desert. How big is it? What is the 

size? 

Mr. ROBO. Three hundred megawatts. 

Mr. UPTON. What is the footprint? How big is it? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
822 

Mr. ROBO. The footprint is tens of acres, it is about an acre a 

megawatt, so it is about 300 acres. 

Mr. UPTON. There has been some debate that I have seen in the 

press—we mentioned this either today or yesterday at one of these 

hearings—that the senior Senator from California has not been all 

that supportive. Is that true or not? Is it that project or is that another one? 

Mr. ROBO. No. It is not our project. Our project is already built. 

Mr. UPTON. Is this another project that is going to rival you as 

the largest in the world then? 

Mr. ROBO. There are several new projects that are being considered in California. We have several that are under—that are trying 

to be permitted right now. Other folks are being—other folks are 

trying to permit projects. 

Our, actually, two projects that are furthest along in the permitting process are outside of Senator Feinstein’s areas. 

Mr. UPTON. Now when you began the construction of this or to 

get the licensing and the approvals, did you have trouble hooking 

it into the transmission lines? And how long did that take? 

Mr. ROBO. These projects, the projects we have right now in California are actually quite old. They were built in the late 1980searly 1990s and took several years to develop—any large-scale 

solar project in any of the areas that we are looking at. 

We are developing large-scale solar projects in Florida, California, Arizona, Colorado. It really depends in the jurisdiction. We 

have built 110 megawatts of solar in Florida in the space of a year. 

California would take 5 years. 

Mr. UPTON. Would it be helpful in this bill, if this bill moves forward, to have some type of allowance to allow FERC to step in if 

folks like your seatmate there are not entirely cooperative in getting things hooked up? 

Mr. ROBO. We think having FERC have—— 

Mr. UPTON. Constructive. 

Mr. ROBO. We think having FERC have ultimate siting authority 

makes good sense. 

Mr. UPTON. Ms. Grueneich, you talked about California going to 

33 percent by 2020. I seem to remember at one point they were 20 

percent by next year is; is that right? 

Ms. GRUENEICH. We have—our current law is 20 percent by next 

year. There are what some would call flexible provisions that will 

allow it to be another year or two probably. But we are on target. 

Mr. UPTON. So you think they will hit it? 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Yes. 

Mr. UPTON. Again, I am not from California. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Yes. 

Mr. UPTON. Last question I have in my minute that is remaining, Messrs. Briggs, Kerr and Trisko, as we look at the issue of carbon capture, something that has to be part of coal’s future, there 

is nothing in this bill, as I understand it, relating to the long-term 

liability issues. 

Does that need to be part of this, if you could each comment on 

that? 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
823 

Mr. UPTON. I don’t know if you had it cited in the longer part 

of your testimony or not. 

Mr. TRISKO. The bill contains a provision for research on longterm liability issues, and we think that that underscores the need 

for resolution of the long-term liability question. 

Mr. UPTON. Would the others dis—Dr. Kunkel, would you agree? 

Just maybe to speed this along in my remaining 5 seconds. 

Mr. KUNKEL. I do think there is the need for kind of a study, but 

there is also some—we have a project that we want to take to financing next year. So I think there needs to be some consideration 

for the pioneering projects, a first group of projects, and to take 

care of those. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Just very quickly, one of the advantages of our parent companies being familiar with the subsurface, we are willing 

to move ahead of these sorts of frameworks not being defined because we are comfortable with it. But we have also been—we have 

also suggested a framework for liability as it moves through a 

project from operatorship to postclosure. 

Mr. KERR. Congressman Upton, I would say ‘‘yes’’ completely, 

and I would also point out—and I think Representative Baldwin 

mentioned the transportation issue in your question. There are a 

number of these issues around CCS that are very important. And 

one of the things that this subcommittee needs to focus on is, when 

you look at EPA analysis of this bill and bills in the last Congress, 

there are very aggressive assumptions about when resources like 

CCS will be available, and yet they don’t match up with what—the 

realistic issues like liability transportation, so I think when you 

look at the analysis, look at the presumptions and then realize 

there are a plethora of what seem like sort of minor issues. 

The sooner we deal with those in a bill like this, I think the more 

rapidly we can deploy these technologies, which then will maybe 

justify some of the assumptions being used in the economic analysis. 

Mr. UPTON. Dr. Apt. 

Mr. APT. At CMU we have started a large project on the legal 

and regulatory environment for deep underground sequestration. 

And a lot of paths through the thicket lead to dead ends. 

We have put out a draft of—a working paper on that. We give 

presentation on January. We will be happy to talk with you more 

about it. 

We are expecting to put out a final on that later this summer, 

and we would love to work with y’all. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. The Chair will proceed. 

Mr. Reicher, thanks for being here. Thanks for Google’s vision 

and the work they are doing. I wanted to ask, you alluded to the 

necessity for some financing mechanism across what has been 

called ‘‘the valley of death,’’ particularly for the first commercial 

projects. 

There are a couple of approaches that have been proposed. I have 

proposed one approach. And we have tried to focus in our approach 

somewhat more narrowly than others to make sure we target the 

risky adventures that really do not have access to commercial lending credit—narrower insofar as the target, but broader as far as alVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00833 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
824 

lowing the use of the full financial tools that could be available, 

multiple systems to really finance these. 

I just wonder if you want to comment on those approaches and 

what you think we need. 

Mr. REICHER. Congressman, I think the approach that you are 

looking at which is quite similar to the approach that Senators 

Bingaman and Murkowski are looking at, I do think that is the 

right way to go; and let me explain why I reached that conclusion. 

The issue we face is the following: There is today in developing 

new energy technology both private and public capital to get technologies to the pilot stage. We have a burgeoning venture capital 

world, there is a variety of funding available at the Federal level 

for the lower-cost development of this to the pilot stage. The valley 

of death begins when you get a technology, whether it is renewables, efficiency, clean coal a whole host of technologies, when you 

get to that successful pilot stage and you have got to go from there 

to large commercial deployment. But it is those first few large commercial projects that the bankers will say, too risky, we are not interested, come back when you have built the first couple and talk 

to us then. That is the valley of death, and that is what your bill 

and that is what Senator Bingaman and Murkowski’s bill would 

deal with well. 

The tools, as you say, are quite broad—loans, loan guarantees, 

other credit enhancements and also secondary market support so 

we could, in fact, develop clean energy-backed bonds as well. So a 

whole set of tools focused right on that, that really critical moment 

where so many technologies across the entire energy spectrum die, 

between pilot scale and multiple large commercial projects being 

built. 

So I salute you in what you are doing, Senators Bingaman and 

Murkowski are doing a hearing next Tuesday to try to advance 

this. 

Mr. INSLEE. Great. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Kunkel your effort, the Tenaska project, I am told is in 

Taylorville, Illinois; is that right? 

Mr. KUNKEL. Taylorville, Illinois. 

Mr. INSLEE. Is that Mr. Shimkus’s district? 

Mr. KUNKEL. It is. 

Mr. INSLEE. It is a great district. He is a great Congressman, of 

course. 

If you are successful and we have got a great cap-and-trade bill 

that helps drive investment into your project, because your project 

would be more cost competitive once we have a cap-and-trade system, would that allow people to continue to mine coal, also create 

jobs associated with your project, and continue the coal-based economy in that area? 

Mr. KUNKEL. It would definitely spur the development of these 

types of projects and that project in particular. 

Mr. INSLEE. And would the existence of a cap-and-trade system 

increase your attractiveness to investors to invest in that coal-sequestered technology? Would it make it more attractive vis-a-vis 

other technologies? 

Mr. KUNKEL. We believe it is going to be attractive in any case 

because of the particular conditions of the project. But certainly 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
825 

that would be helpful in kind of setting a framework in which those 

investments are going to be encouraged in the future. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I will happily fulfill the responsibility of conveying that to Mr. Shimkus, that a cap-and-trade system could 

help a business in his district and employ perhaps 1,500 people. 

Thank you for that. 

Dr. Apt, you said something that was really interesting to me. 

I think—and I want to make sure that I understood your assessment, and I think you bring up a very interesting point. As I understand what you told us, if we are successful in policies that do, 

in fact, find the least costly ways of dealing with this—and I understand that is an ‘‘if’’ at the moment, and you have some critique 

of that effort—but if we are successful in that regard, do I understand that the costs you have assessed are about two-thirds of a 

percent of GDP, which are in the range of what we did successfully 

in the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. APT. That is correct, if the costs are kept to $35 to $50 a ton 

of CO2. 

The difficulty is that that applies to things like coal with CCS. 

It does not apply to things like natural gas with postcombustion 

capture that could be about $80 a ton of CO2. At the moment, the 

best solar PV or solar thermal are many multiples of that. 

Mr. INSLEE. So, if I can, how much loss to the GDP, the no-action 

scenario if we do nothing, if we do what some have suggested here 

to do nothing, not to address this issue of climate change, is the 

amount of loss to our GDP due to drought and, you know, changes 

in the climate, perhaps some health-related impacts? 

Do you think those reductions of our economic well-being will exceed what we tried to avoid in the Clean Air Act? Is this a worse 

problem than what we tried to solve in the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. APT. The answer is a complicated one because it depends on 

the details regionally, what happens. In California, one of the 

things that drove people to action there was the prediction that the 

snowpack in the Sierra would be much worse off a few years from 

now without control of CO2. That is not going to be the case everyplace. There are going to be winners and losers. 

In the Clean Air Act there was a clear—or I should say, dirty 

and present danger. It is a conceptual thing at the moment for 

most people. That is why downscaling studies like the Sierra 

snowpack is so very important in making people understand how 

it affects them. 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me just—I don’t want to take too much time. 

But I will just tell you, one Congressman’s assessment is that the 

danger to our communities and the danger to our Nation has the 

capacity to be quite a bit more severe than what we were suffering 

under the Clean Air Act for a whole variety of different reasons 

and that, because of that, an investment anywhere close to what 

we did with the Clean Air Act would make sense because of the 

potential danger faced. 

Mr. APT. I would concur. Any investment of the type, the twothirds of a percent of GDP that we did in the Clean Air Act not 

only makes sense, but it is clear that we accepted that, although 

with a great deal of kicking and screaming. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
826 

Anything much more than that, certainly many multiples of that, 

is probably a very different animal. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Walden of Oregon. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Apt, let me go back to you because you said solar is about $80 a ton, carbon equivalent. 

Mr. APT. No. That is natural gas with postcombustion capture at 

the moment. Solar PV and solar thermal are many times that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Many times that? 

Mr. APT. You know, it depends. At the moment, you could bring in a good solar thermal plant for perhaps $200 a ton of avoided 

CO2. And I think Mr. Robo would—— 

Mr. WALDEN. The reason I ask that is, yesterday we had testimony from the EPA Administrator, Ms. Jackson, who indicated her 

analysis of this bill, given whatever they plugged in. I thought she 

said, in the first few years it was $17 a ton for carbon, that that 

is what they used as a price, and then maybe as much as $20 or 

$30. We are trying to get all those data points. 

So I find it fascinating, you are saying $35 to $50; it may be as 

high as $80. 

Mr. APT. It is one of the reasons why I think that a carbon performance standard is going to be much more effective than a—let’s 

say $17 a ton, because it is going to affect investment. It is going 

to take $35 to $50 a ton to really affect investment in the area I 

know about, the electric power industry. 

Or you can do a carbon portfolio standard that says, as California has done, you can emit no more than X, in that case, 1,100 

pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour; and that declines. 

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. I am going to move down to Mr. 

Gruenspecht because in your testimony you state, in absolute 

terms, the key terms are projected to be biomass and wind; but 

other renewable fuels including solar and geothermal are also projected to grow significantly in percentage terms. 

What would constitute the biomass that you reference? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Well, there could be both co-firing of biomass 

in existing plants that currently burn coal. 

Mr. WALDEN. That would be like woody biomass? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. That would be woody biomass. That could be 

used in a modest proportion as part of the feed to that existing 

plant. That is attractive to the extent there is not a big capital investment involved. 

Mr. WALDEN. Would that be the primary source you are looking 

at when you use the term ‘‘biomass’’? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Or you could have dedicated biomass crops. 

You could have—switchgrass as well can be burned, as well as—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And I have raised this issue every other chance I 

have had, the deal with woody biomass on Federal land. 

Mr. Hawkins, I understand NRDC is the one who is responsible 

for the language in the 2007 energy bill that precluded fuel sources 

made from woody biomass on Federal lands from being applied toward the fuel standard; is that correct? 

Mr. HAWKINS. We supported safeguards so that we would not 

have adverse land use changes associated with the renewables. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
827 

Mr. WALDEN. So it was your language or you were the ones who 

principally said that? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I wish we had the power to actually write language and have it show up in legislation. 

Mr. WALDEN. Did you have any role in the language regarding 

biomass in this draft? Did NRDC have any role in the biomass language in this draft? 

Mr. HAWKINS. We didn’t review any draft before you saw it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Did you submit draft language? Did you participate 

in the discussions in what you thought ought to be—that is not a 

bad thing, by the way. I am just trying to figure it out. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I don’t believe we submitted any language on the 

biomass provisions. 

But if we did—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you support these biomass provisions that are 

in this bill? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Do we support them? Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so you think it is okay to exclude all woody 

biomass on Federal lands as being considered biomass? 

Mr. HAWKINS. We think that until and unless we have safeguards in place that address everyone’s concerns about the impact 

of sourcing some of these biomass resources, that it is an appropriate safeguard, yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. To just simply say, woody biomass off Federal land 

isn’t biomass? That is what you say. 

Mr. HAWKINS. To say that it shouldn’t be an eligible source of a 

resource for purposes of complying with this obligation, that is appropriate policy. 

Mr. WALDEN. Obviously you can have that opinion. I disagree vehemently with it, as you might have noticed by now, and hope to 

change it. 

Ms. Grueneich. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Not to be confused with Gruenspecht. 

Mr. WALDEN. Got it. And it is turned as well. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. It is a very green panel. 

Mr. REICHER. This is the German end of the panel. 

Mr. WALDEN. The German end of the panel, and Mr. Reicher too. 

First of all, Google has got a facility in my district. One of the 

reasons is because of our low-cost hydropower, which I think is renewable, but this bill does not. But I want to go to geothermal because I think both of you may have mentioned that. 

I was told by our scientists at Oregon Institute of Technology we 

could replace two-thirds of Oregon’s electricity generation needs by 

geothermal. I have also been told by University of Washington scientists you could replace all of Oregon’s gasoline consumption with 

methanol made from woody biomass due to the backlog on our forests. So it looks to me like there are some enormous opportunities 

here to use new energy types in a very effective way. 

When we move off of that, though, and into distributive energy, 

which I think is also a key element and gets at the real issue of 

transmission which you have raised, we have got a huge fight out 

across my district right now about the siting of transmission lines, 

principally because they go over Federal land. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
828 

In one case, a company I believe is trying to avoid any Federal 

land because of the siting fights. So now they are going to try to 

drive it right over everybody’s farm and field, which is another 

huge problem. 

The other case, we may deny an entire wind project over 180 

acres of BLM ground that they need to run the supply line to private land. How do we address these issues? 

Ms. GRUENEICH. I have spent 4 years on transmission permitting. 

I will just say, it is not in the bill. I think one of the most significant provisions that somebody needs to put in the bill on transmission—the planning part is great, and I will talk a moment 

about that, but we have huge problems with the Federal land use 

agencies in transmission permitting. And I hear a lot about the 

problem from the State agencies. 

Just about every land permit—every transmission project in 

California and it sounds like in Oregon, and it is a lot in the 

West—ends up going through Federal lands; and we need somewhere in all these bills that are going through on transmission, 

something in my—this is my personal opinion—that really talks 

about the Federal land use, agencies having to streamline their 

transmission permitting projects. 

We do MOUs with BLM and U.S. Forest Service on a regular 

basis that have schedules, and they never stick to the schedules. 

We have had projects that an entire year has been lost after we 

have permitted them under our sequel, our environmental review, 

which is tough, and we still wait another year to finish the Federal 

permitting. 

So I am a strong believer that this cuts both ways, that it is the 

Federal land use agencies, and a little bit of language in there that 

has them streamlining some of their processes could help. 

There is a terrific process—I will just be real quick—going on in 

the entire western United States called western REZ, Renewable 

Energy Zone—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Ms. GRUENEICH [continuing]. That is looking at every single 

State; and nobody is worried about red, green, blue anything that 

is really going down to the level again of transmission planning we 

need, of what are those resources in the States. And we are finding 

some really good information. 

We talk about, we think that States are resource poor on renewables. When we are actually spending time looking at this, we are 

finding that there is a lot more, frankly, than we thought about. 

And so I do think that this is a ray of hope that we are going 

to be able to come together. And once we know those resources, 

that is, where we are able to look at what are the transmission 

lines that are going to make sense, and then get our act together; 

and if they are the ones we need, let’s get them built. 

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Walden, if I could just add, one of other aspects of this is improving citizen engagement, getting people involved earlier, giving them the information they need to understand what the options are in terms of transmission. 

We have been working with some organizations, including 

NRDC, at actually building mapping capabilities using Google tools 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
829 

and other kinds of tools to get this information to people. If you engage them earlier, if you give them the options, walk them through 

the process, often some of this, some of the opposition can be overcome. 

But I would second what Commissioner Grueneich said about the 

critical need to engage Federal agencies more readily. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I know we are over. Are we going 

to have a second-round opportunity for questions? This is such a 

great panel, but there are so many of them. 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. Okay. And there are so few of us that 

I think we can do that then as a result. I think it works out well. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair will recognize himself at this point for 

a round of questions. And, you know, I think there are two ways 

you can look at the renewables issue. You can look at it in a rearview mirror or you can look out the windshield at the future as it 

is arriving. 

So you can use two sets of numbers. One set of numbers can be, 

oh, my goodness, only 1 or 2 or 3 percent of our electricity comes 

from renewables, excluding hydro. That is not a good picture. How 

are we ever going to be able to provide the electrical generation we 

need for our country in the future? 

Of course, another way of looking at it is 2008. 8,500 new 

megawatts of wind generated in our country, 400 new megawatts 

of solar generated in our country, 205 new megawatts of biomass 

generated in our country, 138 new megawatts of geothermal generated in our country; only 1,100 new megawatts of coal and 9,700 

megawatts of natural gas, zero in nuclear. So, my goodness, when 

you add it all up, 45 percent of all new electrical generation in the 

United States in 2008 was from renewables, and that is before we 

pass a national renewable electricity standard. 

If we were looking out the windshield, looking ahead, and we had 

a national renewable electricity standard and we had the incentives that were put on the books in order to give incentives for 

States and individual companies to deploy renewables; if you look 

at the State of Texas having the legislature authorize $5 billion to 

build a transmission system out to the west in the State to capture 

the wind and the solar; if you look at Florida Power and Light initiatives—how many new megawatts of solar in Florida, Mr. Robo? 

Mr. ROBO. One hundred ten. 

Mr. MARKEY. One hundred ten. 

You can see that all over the country there is massive new interest. 

And, Dr. Kunkel, you have a technology that you believe is going 

to give coal a big future, as well, because you believe that we can 

capture the carbon that is generated from coal burning; is that correct? 

Mr. KUNKEL. No. That is right. And we think there are technologies we can get financed and go to construction next year. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am feeling so good, you know, after this panel. 

And that is why I do want a second round. This is just—you know 

this is—you guys are like walking antidepressant pills sitting at 

this panel. So thank you for coming in today. 

Mr. Trisko. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
830 

Mr. TRISKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We didn’t comment directly in our prepared statement on the RES requirements, but 

your question recalls—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Can I say this, that was not a question. My question there was in the form of an answer, okay, so I was just laying 

out what the answer is going forward. 

But you can take it as a question, and please comment. 

Mr. TRISKO. I will interpret it as such, Mr. Chairman. 

It calls to my mind Commissioner Kerr’s comments regarding the 

effects of a cap-and-trade program on providing significant incentives in the market to bring new renewable energy supplies on; and 

that very much will be the case, particularly if allowances, as we 

advocate, are given to the wires companies and to the distribution 

companies. 

The first power sources that they will want to obtain to sell to 

their customers will be power sources for which they don’t have to 

give up an allowance, that are zero carbon-based sources. So that 

will create the correct market incentives in the resource, the renewable resource-rich States that the Commissioner referred to, in 

order to develop those in a very cost-effective and rational manner. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, sir. Very much. 

So in listening to the testimony—and, Mr. Robo, you are making 

money on this all across the country. You are very optimistic about 

the vast capacity for our country to generate electricity from renewable sources? 

Mr. ROBO. That is right. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is going to be a profit-making business? 

Mr. ROBO. It is a profit-making business and—you can be successful being green, and I think that has been a critical part of our 

strategy over the last decade. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

And again back to you, Dr. Kunkel. Do you have reason to give 

really a sense of confidence to the coal miners, to the coal industry 

that there is a real future ahead for them, and the technology will 

catch up and make them compatible with our goals in reducing 

greenhouse gases? 

Mr. KUNKEL. We do look at it differently. We are developers of 

power projects. That is what we do for a living. And for us, the impediment is not these rules, but the lack of rules. What we need 

is a set of rules where we can move forward. We can finance 

projects knowing what the rules are going to be in the future. And 

in the absence of those rules, is quite an impediment to coal-based 

development. 

Mr. MARKEY. So in your opinion the best friend of the coal industry will be that we put predictable, consistent rules on the books 

and then the technology will come into place that makes that electrical generating source compatible with the goals that we are setting for the country? 

Mr. KUNKEL. I think there have been legitimate concerns about 

the viability and the technology. Things that we are doing are 

going to be, you know, many times larger than the next largest 

one. 

And so we do need some time to go through this scale-up process, 

but we are convinced we can do it. And we can move forward. And 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
831 

then once those pioneering projects have demonstrated themselves, 

I think the opportunities for broad deployment are definitely there. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. 

And again, I would like—and maybe, perhaps you, Mr. Briggs, 

you could deal with that decline in the cost of generating renewables that Mr. Robo was talking about earlier, this 25 percent decline that has occurred over the last decade. 

Do you see the same thing happening over in CCS? Do you see 

the—kind of the once the marketplace established that we will see 

a development of a technology, but then a decline in cost curve for 

the deployment of that technology? 

Mr. BRIGGS. I believe so, yes. The main thing is to get out there 

and start getting on the learning curve. I wanted to go on record 

and answer the question you just asked. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BRIGGS. The technology is there today. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to create 

any new depression for you, but actually—— 

Mr. MARKEY. He is a physician so he won’t do it. I know he won’t 

do it. 

Mr. BURGESS. I find myself agreeing with you. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is the Hippocratic Oath. 

Mr. BURGESS. I am so happy that you have recognized the vision 

and contribution of not just our current governor of Texas, but our 

former governor—that would be George W. Bush—who had the 

foresight and vision to create this renewable portfolio and standard 

which allows us to be the number one wind-generating State in the 

country. 

Mr. MARKEY. I come here to praise Governor Bush for what he 

did in the 1990s. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I will have to tell you too, I didn’t expect to 

be encouraged today, but I have been. It is probably more muted 

than your encouragement. 

But, Dr. Apt, your testimony—and I really appreciate your honesty and recognize that there are a lot of areas where we disagree. 

But your last two thesis statements that you have in your written testimony, that you related to us, probably may be the most important testimony that we have received in the last 1,000 hours of 

testimony we have had on this subject in this committee: Focus on 

reducing carbon dioxide rather than singling out renewables as the 

answer. The simplicity is almost—I am going to use it like a—as 

a haiku or something that I can repeat for myself. 

This is the correct direction for us to go. I have been terribly disturbed by what I see are some of the inequities in the draft language for a State like Texas that has made the incredible investment to get to where it is. And yet if we have the federally mandated renewable energy standard, we may not produce a percentage that is going to be required, although as far as the number of 

megawatts we are producing with the renewable energy, we are far 

ahead of everyone else. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
832 

But your concept of, let all technologies compete in satisfying the 

goals would mean to me then that the technology of energy conservation and some of the newer things that are happening with 

attic systems and insulation, low-heat glass, high-efficiency air conditioners, tankless water heaters, those should be eligible to be considered just the same as the newest nanotechnology, photovoltaic 

solar cell. 

So I am encouraged when I hear you say that. Unfortunately, the 

chairman was out of the room. That is why I wanted to be sure I 

repeated it; the chairman was out of the room when you gave your 

testimony. 

I think this is something that I would like to see us work on in 

that draft language, to limit the number of—the percentage that a 

State like Texas could take credit for in creating efficiencies does 

not seem to me to be fair; the creation of a standard that is almost 

unattainable in a State that is as large as Texas and produces as 

much power as we do, those concepts have been very troubling to 

me, that we may mandate a Federal system that sends our already 

robust State system and moves it into a condition of noncompliance 

or one where our ratepayers may be punished because we can’t 

quite get up to the percentage standard. 

I am and I remain concerned about some of the distributional 

problems we have—again, a State as large as Texas. 

Mr. Reicher, I apologize. I was out of the room when you gave 

your testimony, but picking up on what you were discussing with 

Mr. Walden, clearly there are more innovative ways of going about 

site and providing the transmission capacity than what historically 

has happened in the past. And our good friend, Boone Pickens, 

back home, who is anxious to get his electrons from Amarillo back 

to the Metroplex, perhaps there are ways to do that without disrupting all of the farmers and ranchers and landowners who live 

betwixt and between, and that has been the tension and that has 

been the problem. And then, of course, it is not just Amarillo and 

Dallas. It is out Interstate 10 and back to the Houston metropolitan area, the San Antonio metropolitan area. 

So we have a lot of wind generation capacity. It is just not where 

the folks are, and then bringing the electrons back to where the 

folks are has been the challenge. Not that they haven’t made great 

strides; in the last 10 years, they have. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. REICHER. Congressman, by way of another antidepressant, 

let me point out that your State of Texas—I am looking at actually 

the resource map for enhanced geothermal systems. You have an 

extraordinary resource in Texas. Your total generating capacity 

today is about 100,000 megawatts; that is all sources—coal, gas, 

wind. Two percent of your EGS, Enhanced Geothermal Source, 

would represent over 175,000 megawatts. 

I learned something that you probably know well. You have a 

quote-unquote problem in Texas called ‘‘hot oil.’’ It turns out, what 

hot oil is is when you drill down you find high temperature oil in 

many parts of the State, and that is because there is a really robust geothermal resource down there. 

What oil companies in your State are now beginning to look at 

quite carefully is how can we both continue to extract oil and gas 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
833 

but how can we also begin to develop the geothermal resource? 

And, as I say, yours is a very vast one. It is well distributed. You 

would reduce the need for transmission. 

So I actually think you can get to a 25 by 25 quite read readily. 

Given the wind resource, given this geothermal resource, given the 

solar resource, you can get there and you can be making money at 

it. 

Mr. BURGESS. I don’t disagree with that. But I would also—to Dr. 

Apt’s point, there is no point in discriminating one technology over 

another. If we have two nuclear plants, one which is being doubled 

in size over the next several years, why not get credit for that as 

well? If we have a robust program in going back and retrofitting 

homes with energy, products of increased energy efficiency, why 

not get credit for that as well? 

Mr. REICHER. You do, absolutely. The RPS, as written, would 

allow you to get one-fifth mandate through energy efficiency. That 

is, in fact, quite clear and, in my mind, quite an improvement. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me just ask a question of Dr. Apt. 

The fact that it is restricted to one-fifth, does that really comply 

with your philosophy of treating all carbon equally? 

Mr. APT. My view is that renewables are absolutely a part of the 

solution. But by mandating a particular technology, whether it be 

EGS or solar or biomass, you are constraining the problem so that 

you increase costs and may have other effects. 

EGS, the big effect in Texas will be water. I think that, in general, you have got to focus on one issue, and here it is reducing 

CO2. 

Mr. BURGESS. And if we use the reduction of CO2 as the currency, then—whether it is from energy efficiency whether it is from 

other areas; it does not all have to be wind, solar and biomass. New 

hydro. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. KERR. If I might add, one of the points I wanted to make, 

if you are going to have an RES, it will be favored and disfavored 

States based on the availability of the paper technologies. If you 

are going to have an RES—and again I am not sure if it is consistent with the cap proposal—but if you would allow efficiency to 

operate in an unfettered manner, efficiency is available everywhere. It should be put on equal footing with generation, would 

smooth out some of those resource discrepancies and then the associated costs, inefficiencies and discrepancies. 

If you are going to persist, and I am not sure you should, I think 

it would be a huge improvement to allow efficiency to operate in 

an unfettered manner. 

Mr. BURGESS. I really think it is the common ground that I have 

with Mr. Markey. And you can see I have depressed him by going 

over time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Not at all. Again, I have nothing to do. I am willing 

to go on indefinitely on this subject. I love this subject. I find it exciting. 

So the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Grueneich, I should tell you, as someone who represents a 

large public land State, your comments about the challenges of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
834 

dealing with Federal lands agencies and permitting are certainly— 

I am sympathetic to what you are saying. I think as part of a discussion about encouraging opportunities for new types of generation, renewable energy to have an opportunity to get to market in 

this country, we do have to have a serious discussion in this committee and legislation about how to encourage siting of transmission, because it is not happening now. And there are impediments to it and I think it is something where the draft legislation 

is a little light right now. 

So any suggestions people have in that to beef up that part of 

the bill, to encourage development of transmission infrastructure, 

I think would be very welcome to everyone. I think that is one of 

the least—I think everybody on this committee, actually on both 

sides of the aisle, has a pretty strong feeling about the need for enhanced transmission infrastructure. 

At the risk of going a little bit off topic for what this panel was 

asked to talk about, which was low-carbon electricity and carbon 

capture and storage and renewables, I wanted to at least frame the 

issue as also associated with the renewable fuel standard that was 

passed by this Congress previously. 

Do you think that this legislation ought to revisit that issue? And 

I may be asking this panel the wrong question. But it seems to me 

that the corn ethanol policy we had in this country is actually creating far more greenhouse gases in the life cycle context than people first anticipated. A lot of organizations have come up with information to help validate that. 

The subsidy of corn ethanol, in my opinion, is—personally, I 

think it is bad Federal policy at this point. Do people think that 

we ought to take a look at opening that up as part of this effort 

as we look at broad-based energy legislation? And again, I apologize if folks on this panel, it is not their area of expertise. Has 

somebody got a thought on that? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Congressman Matheson. I am Dave 

Hawkins from NRDC, and NRDC is part of U.S. Climate Action 

Partnership, and USCAP has recommended a low-carbon fuel 

standard and recommended that it be one that is implemented as 

we transition from the renewable fuels standard. 

Mr. MATHESON. Right. 

Mr. HAWKINS. And the speed of that transition, the timing of 

that transition, the conditions of that transition are things that 

this committee will need to wrestle with. But we do think that having a low-carbon fuel standard that applies to all of the transportation fuel options, including electricity—which actually does connect to the topic of this because if we do produce electricity with 

carbon capture and storage and use it to run plug-in hybrids, we 

can back out oil that way, as well, and that should be regarded as 

a low-carbon fuel. 

Mr. MATHESON. And I concur. I think the low-carbon fuel standard is the way to go and I think that the current RFS should be 

phased out so I think that is helpful. 

Mr. APT. May I make one comment? We have done some analysis 

of the California low-carbon fuel standard. It is superb. It is really 

an excellent way to reduce greenhouse gas. And it has the right 

structure. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
835 

Ms. GRUENEICH. And here I was going to just bring it up. So I 

will defer to Dr. Apt. 

Mr. MATHESON. But I think it is consistent. As you said before, 

you are not picking a specific technology; you are saying, set the 

standard and let the market figure out the best way to reach it. 

I think that that is what we have seen, as opposed to Congress saying, Oh, well, let’s make ethanol from corn. 

Mr. APT. Let me make just one remark that harks back to something that was said earlier about transmission. 

Bringing in the folks early is really crucial. A Federal eminent 

domain is unlikely to do anything more than get people to dig in 

their heels. It is just not going to go down that well. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, those are fighting words where I come 

from: Federal eminent domain. 

Mr. APT. You know what actually happens, when you look at a 

lot of the transmission that has gotten built is that people monetize 

their pain. And it happened in Connecticut with a crosstown cable; 

it is happening in West Virginia with AEP’s line. And folks get involved and they get their pain recognized. They get people to respect them, and then the transmission gets built. It doesn’t get 

built with eminent domain. 

Mr. MATHESON. Okay. Mr. Chairman, my time is about to expire. 

I will yield back. Thanks. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

So we need Dr. Burgess back again because now we are at the 

pain management. 

But it can be managed. Okay? Willing to pay the price? 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I obviously welcome Mr. Robo, who is CEO of Florida Power and Light. I don’t 

know when you got hired whether they told you this is part of your 

job description to sit here on a Thursday afternoon at 5:15 answering these questions. But we appreciate your being here. 

And also Florida Power and Light is one of the leaders in Florida 

in renewables. So that they are in a way ahead of the curve. So 

they saw this in advance. 

But my question is for Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Kunkel. In Poe 

County, Florida, which is a little south of my congressional district, 

we have a state-of-the-art coal gasification plant that has successfully produced electricity since 1996. This technology is well suited 

to carbon capture. And so as we look to coal gasification and other 

clean coal technologies as part of the climate solution, the question 

would be, what do you see as the best way to incentivize these 

technologies so that we can continue to have them available, considering their efficiency? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Congressman Stearns. Yes, the Poe 

County plant run by Tampa Electric is certainly one of the leaders 

in doing gasification in the United States and one that has provided a great deal of operational experience. The first couple of 

years of that plant had some operational difficulties, but they have 

learned how to run that plant, run it reliably. 

I think that their testimony today, if they were here, would be 

that it is the most reliable unit on their system and the one that 

is dispatched the most. It was built with some Federal support. It 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
836 

doesn’t capture its carbon. And if we want to create a structure 

that will allow plants to be built that actually capture their carbon, 

then we are going to need the kind of policy package which is in 

the Waxman-Markey discussion draft, a policy package that combines clear regulatory requirements both for the storage of the CO2

and also for the performance of the new coal-fired power plants and 

coupling it with financial incentives that are bankable financial incentives for the early deployment opportunities in this area. 

And it is very important that they be bankable, which means a 

different model than applying to the Federal Government for an 

award and hope that you win. The odds are better than the lottery, 

but they are not all that much more certain than the lottery. 

We need something that—if you want to go to Wall Street and 

get your project financed, you need something that is better than 

the lottery. And the structure that is in the Waxman-Markey bill 

I would commend to your consideration because what it says is 

that if you have a project which captures the CO2, you are entitled 

to get a payment of X dollars per ton, captured. 

There is no government uncertainty there. There is no sort of, 

you know, ‘‘file your application and hope that you win the lottery.’’ 

You have an expectation that you can go to Wall Street with, and 

that will help finance the project. 

Mr. STEARNS. Why haven’t the folks in Poe County done this? 

Mr. HAWKINS. We don’t have the policy enacted yet. But with 

your help, maybe they will. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you say you need a policy before you do it with 

the coal sequestration or the carbon capture? You wouldn’t do this 

on your own; you would need the incentives? 

Mr. HAWKINS. That is exactly right. We operate in an electricity 

generating system where the marginal operating costs determine 

how much the plant gets run. And if you don’t have the marginal 

operating costs covered for this additional cost of capturing the carbon, then you are not going to install that kind of capture. It will 

only happen if you get the economics right. And for the early 

projects, that means that you need a financial incentive payment. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Trisko, I was going to ask Mr. Kunkel and 

then I will ask you. Thank you. 

Dr. Kunkel. 

Mr. KUNKEL. Yes. I really agree with that very much. The types 

of project development we do are project-financed projects. In other 

words, we will sell the entire output of electricity for a 25- or 30- 

year project life right up front with our, you know, some customer 

to whom we are selling this power. And then we will operate that 

plant for them over the long term. 

These are large, large financings. Each of these projects we are working on is over $3 billion. So these are very large financings. 

And one of the things that is happening to us in looking at this future commodity market of carbon dioxide is that it will be a highly 

volatile potential commodity market. 

So if there are incentive systems that give us kind of a known 

stream of financial support for these new technologies, and early 

on, the program when—if it is designed right, carbon prices should 

actually be pretty low. If there is a known stream for that, then 

that is something I can take to my finance guys to put in their pro 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
837 

forma, and they can persuade investors and lenders that that is 

real. 

So those aspects are critical to really moving these projects forward. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Trisko. 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes, Congressman. Thank you. 

And I have also had the pleasure of visiting the Poe County 

plant. It is a marvel of technology. I was just going to point out 

that we have a precedent in Title IV of the Clean Air Act, in the 

acid rain title that was added in 1990 for the provision of bonus 

allowances for utilities that employed scrubber technology early in 

Phase I rather than later in Phase II, and that bonus allowance 

program was so popular that it was oversubscribed. 

It was known before the allowances were to be given out that 

there was more demand for them than supply. And the Utility Air 

Regulatory Group basically did an allocation of the available pool 

among its membership so that everybody had certainty as to the 

amount of allowances that they would receive. And that pool, which 

was not nearly as large as the one that the United Mine Workers 

had advocated, was responsible for putting about 13 gigawatts of 

scrubbers on in Phase I rather than waiting until Phase II. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. 

Mr. Briggs wants to answer and then thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Very briefly Congressman. I concur with the 

MLDC’s comments and also add, if one of the reasons why, in the 

early phases of these projects, you are looking for all the value you 

can get to supplement the value of CO2 as a commodity value in 

the absence of incentives. 

And it is obviously dependent on States. One of the reasons we 

are in California is, you are looking at States who will go ahead 

of that policy mechanism and take the lead. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could I just ask, Mr. Robo, what do you think by 

2025 is the achievable goal for Florida under a national renewable 

electricity standard? Do you think Florida has capacity for 25 percent of its electricity to come from renewables? 

Mr. ROBO. Chairman Markey, I am very bullish, solar PV economics. And we have seen just in the last year the cost of solar 

photovoltaic come down from July—from our first project to the 

ones we are proposing right now—come down from 20 percent; and 

I think by the middle of this decade we are going to see grid parity 

with solar PV in Florida. 

And so I think we have a real opportunity to have a big penetration of solar in Florida, but certainly by the middle of the next decade. 

We have been very—— 

Mr. MARKEY. By 2025. But by 2025 do you think 25 percent is 

possible? 

Mr. ROBO. I do think it is possible, depending on how quickly the 

technology comes down the cost curve. But I have been—actually, 

I have been personally surprised at how quickly it has come down. 

Mr. MARKEY. But is your gut now telling you that that decline 

in the cost curve now is now inexorable, and you can see how their 

economies of scale are kicking in? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
838 

Mr. ROBO. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, 

Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The discussion draft includes energy efficiency resource standards, as you know, requiring the utilities to achieve a certain level 

of electricity or natural gas savings. In many cases, energy efficiency measures more than pay for themselves by reducing electricity bills. Not all, but I want to ask a couple of questions about 

that; and I will start with you, Ms. Grueneich. 

California has its own energy efficiency resource standards, so 

you have had some experience with this type of policy. Do you 

think that the energy efficiency resource standard in this discussion draft strengthens our prospects for success? 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Absolutely. The energy efficiency performance 

standard is certainly among the top three items that need to—— 

Mr. WELCH. I would like to elaborate on this because the debate 

we are having here is whether the action we take creates jobs or 

causes jobs, reduces costs or increases costs. And we are deeply divided on that. And those States that have taken steps that we are 

proposing be taken nationally are in a special place, I think, to 

offer some practical experience. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Certainly. 

First of all, we in California, as in—everywhere in the United 

States and just about everywhere in the world, we are in terrible, 

terrible economic times. I haven’t heard one person say, ‘‘And the 

reason why California is having all these problems is because you 

have got ahead of the country on clean energy.’’ I mean, the economic problems we are suffering from are not stemming from the 

fact that we have engaged in clean energy. In fact, a lot of the jobs 

that we have that we still have are because people are still pursuing energy efficiency; and they are expanding because people are 

looking at installing solar. 

And so the whole job conundrum actually, I think, in the little 

bit I have been listening yesterday and today, to me is turned 

around, quite frankly. We should be looking at the jobs we have 

been able to grow. And here, just quickly, a study that came out 

from the University of Berkeley for the jobs that we have created 

in California over our—from 1972 to 2006—on our energy efficiency 

is that we have created about 1.5 million full-time equivalent jobs 

with a total payroll of over $45 billion, driven by well-documented 

household energy savings of $56 billion. 

As a result of this, it was able to direct a greater percentage of 

its consumption to in-state employment-intensive goods and services, whose supply chains also largely reside within the State, creating a multiplier effect of job creation. 

I want to take a moment to recognize Vermont. You have got a 

terrific energy efficiency program and you are doing the same thing 

too. You are keeping the jobs within the State and growing them. 

And that is what this is all about. 

Mr. REICHER. Congressman, could I add that—— 

Mr. WELCH. I was going to ask you a different question, Mr. 

Reicher. Good to see you. 

Mr. REICHER. Good to see you, Congressman. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
839 

Mr. WELCH. Some folks are arguing we should just include efficiency in the renewable electricity standard and skip the energy efficiency resource standard. And I am asking your thoughts on that. 

Mr. REICHER. I think that what is proposed makes sense, both 

standards, but with a—the carve-out of around 20 percent within 

the renewable energy standard. I think that how those get integrated is not completely clear in the bill right now and needs some 

further fleshing out. But I think the two concepts, as multiple 

States have adopted renewable energy standards—as we know, 

multiple States have adopted energy efficiency resource standards; 

they are working well—I think it makes sense for the Federal Government to step up and do both, but as I say, make sure that there 

is integration across there. 

I just wanted to add one quick thing about energy efficiency. The 

hot new opportunity in the venture capital—the clean technology 

venture capital world right now is indeed energy efficiency. As we 

sit here in Washington, there is a whole conference out in California called the Energy Efficiency Finance Forum. This is bringing 

financial people to the table saying, all right, how can we bring 

even more capital to energy efficiency? Because that is the lowhanging fruit right now. 

And California, as the Commissioner said, has made great 

strides keeping energy use flat per capita for the last 20 years 

while it has grown 50 percent in much of the rest of the country. 

Mr. WELCH. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Robo, how do you see the renewable electricity standard? 

Bottom line: job creator or job killer? 

Mr. ROBO. We see it as a large job creator, Congressman. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

I yield back. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for a second round. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to pick up on a 

couple of comments here. Ms. Grueneich, you talked about how we 

can create and grow jobs. I want to get back to my soap box on biomass. I can’t resist because Harney County, Oregon, is up to seasonally unadjusted 20 percent unemployment; Oregon is second to 

Michigan in unemployment overall. 

My district has 11 national forests. There is a lot of interest in 

biomass. But when you have got a county that is 70 or 80 percent 

controlled by the Federal Government and you have got 20 percent 

unemployment, they don’t get where Mr. Hawkins is coming from. 

And why when you have a forest like this—may look good on a 

poster like that, but it is completely out of sync with nature in 

terms of being managed for old growth characteristics for Ponderosa pine. That is a fire waiting to happen. 

That forest, exact same scene, has now been thinned. And that 

is how an old growth forest should be managed. 

The issue before us is, after you have done this work and thinned 

it out to where the biologists and botanists and everybody else say 

it should be, why shouldn’t you be able to take the waste material 

that came out of that thinning project and have it count toward 

biomass in renewable energy? And this is the frustration we have. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
840 

There was a biomass facility with green investors ready to go 

into Harney County, who could not get a guaranteed supply of 

woody biomass to make their investor satisfied. And yet the forest 

there, at the rate they are treating, will take 25 to 28 years at the 

current rate of treatment to get it in balance. 

So you see why they don’t get where Mr. Hawkins’ organization 

is at when it comes to saying, nothing off this Federal ground can 

you count as woody biomass for renewable energy consideration? 

Does California have that standard? 

Ms. GRUENEICH. I honestly don’t know. I will be happy to look 

into it. 

It seems to me that the difficult issue here is the balancing that 

we know forests are a way in which we are helping to reduce 

greenhouse gases because of—— 

Mr. WALDEN. If they are properly managed and don’t go into fire. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. And what we want to avoid doing is on the one 

hand having more forests cut down in order to then produce the 

biomass fuel to meet the renewable standard to satisfy the climate 

change, and then on the other hand to think about how are we 

going to continue to have sustainable forests. 

I am not a forestry expert, so where you draw the line going into 

the forests or not—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Here is the deal. Here is the deal. This legislation 

is so poorly written on those areas. 

First of all, it directs the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to come up with adaptive management plans for the forest 

dealing with carbon and do so in 1 year. Each forest already has 

to come up with its own management plan, follow full NEPA, and 

that is just to do the planning process. Those often take 5 to 8 

years, to develop a 10-year plan. I am not making this stuff up. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. That, I am aware of. 

Mr. WALDEN. You understand this. 

So this legislation says to every agency in all Federal ground, 

you will create a plan in 1 year and report back. That is just never 

going to happen. I mean these timelines in this bill are embarrassingly poorly constructed, to be honest with you. 

But then I go to like page 368 and it talks about electricity 

sources. And it excludes renewable biomass from, I guess, the base 

load. And have you all by the way read the full text of the bill? I 

have asked every panel this. Yes or no. 

Have you read the whole bill, Dr. Apt. 

Mr. APT. I read the parts a nonlawyer can understand. 

Mr. WALDEN. I stayed in a Holiday Inn, but I am not even a lawyer. Mr. Kerr. 

Mr. KERR. Not all parts. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Not all parts, no. 

Mr. TRISKO. Not all parts, sir. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have got mine already tabbed and indexed. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you have read the whole bill? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have skimmed the whole thing and some pages 

faster than others. 

Mr. WALDEN. I understand. I am struggling too. 

Mr. KUNKEL. Not all parts. 

Mr. ROBO. Not all parts. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
841 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Just about the whole thing, but I have to confess, I think I skipped over the biomass definition. 

Mr. WALDEN. Go back to that. 

Mr. REICHER. 648 pages. I have looked at every page. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRUENEICH. Absolutely not. 

Mr. WALDEN. Perfect. All right. As I say, I wore out one pair of 

reading glasses. I have got another in my desk. 

I am trying to figure out, even on page 368 when it talks about 

compliance obligations and then talks about electricity sources, it 

excludes renewable biomass as an electricity source. 

Now renewable biomass is already defined early on to be all—to 

exclude all Federal lands and all this. So can somebody tell me why 

renewable biomass would be excluded in this electricity source? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I can answer that one. 

It is because if you make electricity from renewable biomass, you 

don’t have to turn in an allowance. This is the compliance obligation section of the bill, and this is a benefit for renewable biomass. 

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. Good. But now we know that if you make 

it from woody biomass off Federal ground, which is occurring in my 

district now, where they are heating—they replaced an oil-burning 

stove in a high school in Enterprise; using hog fuel wood chips, 

they are saving an enormous amount of fuel, replace it with wood, 

very few emissions, a lot less than that, it doesn’t qualify. How 

does that make sense? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, you know what I would say? These hearings 

are educational experiences for the witnesses sometimes too. 

And you have obviously thought a lot about this issue, Congressman. And I am not the organizational expert on the biomass issues. 

But if you have the time, we would very much like to come in and 

visit with you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I would be happy to do that. My door is always 

open. 

Because the hospital in Harney County, where this biomass— 

they switched to a wood pellet-burning stove, and they cut their 

fuel costs by two-thirds. And DEQ, our Department of Environmental Quality—at least the hospital folks told me this—it has virtually no emissions; and they take out a garbage-can size of ash 

every 2 to 3 months, and it is from wood chips. 

In Sweden, 18 percent of their renewable energy now is from 

woody biomass. 

You have said, from the energy information, this is where we are 

going. We have got the Federal land, 47 percent of the Forest Service budget spent fighting catastrophic fire. You know that in California. We know that in Oregon. 

And my time is way over. You have been most generous, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am learning a lot too. It is an interesting subject. 

Does the gentleman from Vermont wish to be recognized again? 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to talk a little bit about carbon capture sequestration, and 

address my questions to Mr. Hawkins. 

Mr. Hawkins, I just wish if you would elaborate on why U.S. Cap 

members believe that we need a set of complementary policies in 

place for carbon capture and sequestration and, more broadly, I 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
842 

guess, for coal; and, what would happen if we don’t have a comprehensive approach? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. The cap-and-trade program by itself in the 

early years, especially one that has a substantial number of offsets 

and cost containment provisions, is likely to have a fairly modest 

economic signal. And as Dr. Kunkel and others have testified, these 

early projects, whether it is for carbon capture or some advanced 

forms of renewables, these early projects are likely to have incremental costs that are higher than the carbon clearing price in the 

early years of these programs. 

So if you rely solely on the market signal from the cap as the 

only device, you are likely to get a bunch of decisions which look 

optimal from the standpoint of the individual investor, but in fact, 

are suboptimal from the standpoint of where society needs to head. 

We have got to—this is a marathon. Controlling carbon is a marathon. And if you run it like a sprint, which is what tends to happen when you have these short-term economic signals and a high 

discount rate, you are not going to finish the race. 

So we tend to think that having a multiple set of strategies, 

which are enabled by the bill and incented by the bill, is very powerful. I say that a bicycle is more stable than a pogo stick, a tricycle is more stable than a bicycle, and a wide-stanced four-wheel 

vehicle is more stable than all of them. And we have a bunch of 

platforms here that can be used to drive home CO2 reductions. 

And so my variant on Dr. Apt’s point is, yes, the focus needs to 

be on CO2, but sometimes it is good to have a turtle strategy, have 

a lot of eggs on the beach, because you are not entirely sure right 

now what is going to be the one that is going to get you to victory, 

and you probably need more than one. And having a strategy that 

gets all of these in the game so that you have as many things to 

pick from we think is the right way to do it. 

Mr. WELCH. So just describe, what will happen with the deployment of the new coal-based power plants these provisions are 

adopting? And one of the concerns folks have been—things we need 

to do, one of the concerns folks have expressed is this dash for gas 

and what the displacement would occur and how that would affect 

the price in a very disruptive way. Could you comment on that? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. We discussed this at great length in the U.S. 

Cap group, and everyone was concerned about the dash to gas 

being something to be avoided. And that is why there is a package 

that says there is an emission performance standard for new coal 

and there is a financial incentive, the stream of payments for carbon capture. And our view is that that payment stream ought to 

be sized at a level where an investor that is looking at a fossil investment plant says, you know, this is a better business proposition 

to build a coal plant that captures its carbon and we get that financial incentive than it is to build a natural gas plant that vents its 

carbon and we get no financial incentive. 

Mr. WELCH. And there has been lot of concern raised about the 

timing of the deployment of the carbon capture and storage technology, saying that commercial deployment is not expected until 

2025. But those estimates assume there is no cost to emitting global warming pollution, no requirement to use carbon capture and 

storage technology, and no significant financial support for the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
843 

technology. What do these estimates tell you about the timing for 

deployment of CCS technology if this legislation in its draft form 

or close to it is adopted? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, what we do is pay attention to witnesses like 

Dr. Kunkel from Tenaska and Hydrogen Energy. And Dr. Kunkel 

has testified that they could break ground next year on their 

project if they have the right policy support, and that could be up 

and running as fast as any coal plant that breaks ground next 

year. 

Our view is that this can happen very quickly. There are a bunch 

of commercial operators that are ready to go as soon as the policy 

signals get straightened out. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Trisko. 

Mr. TRISKO. Congressman, if I could elaborate on David’s point. 

First, from a practical standpoint. If you were talking about having a plant, an operating advanced coal plant equipped with carbon 

capture and storage that was online and producing electricity in 

the year 2020, that plant in effect would need to be in the permitting stage today leaving aside all of the issues concerning financial 

incentives in the bill and the like. To get a plant on line by 2020, 

the plant needs to be in permitting today. We do not have at this 

point, beyond the number of plants such as AEP, the Duke plant, 

the Tenaska facilities, we do not have any assurance of significant 

penetration at a commercial scale by the year 2020 beyond the 

kind of three gigawatt level that is proposed in the Boucher bill. 

And the Boucher bill is designed to handle the demand, if you will, 

for commercial scale demonstration facilities between now and 

2020. It is after the year—it is after the year 2020 when we would 

anticipate that the second suite of financial incentives, those that 

are to be defined by what is now the open-ended section 115 that 

David has spoken about, those plants would come online after the 

year 2020. And the indications are that there would be significant 

demand for them going out to 2030 and 2040. 

Mr. WELCH. Dr. Kunkel, do you agree with the 2020 timeline assessment? 

Mr. KUNKEL. Well, not for us. And, of course, we are in permitting, and our project in Illinois has received a permit and so on. 

And, of course, it does take time to develop these projects. 

One of the things I would point out is that in the post-combustion capture technologies that we are looking at as opposed to 

IGCC, that the period of time required to build that piece on the 

back of an existing power plant as a retrofit might be something 

like two and a half years of construction time. I mean, these things 

all take significant amounts of time. But it is less than the full construction cycle of a power plant. 

So if we could demonstrate that technology at commercial scale, 

let’s say, at Trailblazer, by 2015, and run it for a year and convince 

people this really works, then the designs and so on could be perfected and a new generation could be online and operating as retrofits within a couple of years after that point. So maybe that gets 

you around to the 2020 time frame for that. But, maybe let hydrogen energy talk more about the IGCC opportunity. 

Mr. WELCH. Yield back to the chairman. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
844 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really came down here 

just to ask you to give this panel a meal voucher since they have 

been here all day and probably didn’t get to eat much lunch or 

whatever. But as long as I am here, I thought I would ask one 

question. 

I want to ask Dr. Apt, I believe—first, thank you for your service 

to the country as an astronaut and all that you have done. But I 

am told that you testified that you think a performance-based 

standard based on the Clean Air Act model is much better to use 

in terms of some very complex cap-and-trade scheme. I just got a 

synopsis of Congressman Boucher’s letter to Congressman Waxman 

that is single-spaced, four pages of changes to the proposed capand-trade legislation. And that is just a summary of the changes. 

So, in the Republican alternative that has yet to be unveiled, we 

are waiting to see the allocation scheme in the main bill, but we 

are going to have a Republican alternative. We use a performancebased standard for coal based on the best available clean coal technology, and then put some incentives in in terms of beating that 

standard of accelerated depreciation so that we could encourage 

new technology but at the same time allow coal to be used as a fuel 

source for electricity. Could you comment on that? 

Mr. APT. Sure. Thanks very much. 

In my view, best available technology has frozen technology in a 

lot of areas. I would encourage you to look, rather, at an emissions 

standard that lowers with time. As you know, the California standard is 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour. That has the effect of saying, okay, we will freeze things at natural gas or better. And that 

is okay if you just take a snapshot in time. But it would be better 

if it declined in time so that you know you have got to take 80 percent of the CO2 out of the electric power industry by let’s say 2040, 

2050, so that if you had something like that that declined, then Mr. 

Briggs’ plant that emits 400 pounds per megawatt hour looks pretty good. 

On the other hand, if you think it is going to freeze at 1,100, it 

doesn’t look so good. So that is a modification that I hope you 

would consider. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Does the gentleman from Vermont have any other 

questions? Okay. Well, let’s do this then, with my apologies to the 

ranking member. I was going to give each one of these witnesses 

one minute to tell us what they want to remember. But given the 

size of the panel, that is double the time which any member would 

have to question a witness. But, with unanimous consent, I will 

make that motion that we give each one of you a one-minute opportunity to tell us what it is that you want the committee to retain 

as we go through the drafting and ultimate markup of this legislation. We will go in reverse order of the original panel. And we will 

start with you Dr. Apt. 

Mr. APT. Well, since I have got to go back to Pittsburgh, I will 

be short. Two things. Focus on CO2. Renewables and low carbon 

aren’t synonyms. And two, allow efficiencies all through the sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00854 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
845 

tem, generation and transmission, as well as on the customer side 

of the meter, to count. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Kerr. 

Mr. KERR. I would adopt those two points. And I would also say 

focus on what you are trying to do, and not put inconsistent or contradictory pieces of policy together in a way that will operate to 

make things less efficient, more expensive to ratepayers. And, also, 

that aren’t just jobs following renewables, there are jobs that are 

followed by CCS and nuclear and other noncarbon-emitting technologies. And a job is a job. They don’t distinguish between renewable jobs or CCS or other sorts of jobs. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Briggs. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Well, first of all, I am very pleased that CCS seems 

to be given as part of the mix. I would also say there is a distinction, we haven’t really touched on it too much, between our technology and Tenaska’s technology pre and post. It doesn’t really 

matter. CCS is available today. But I think the right incentive 

mechanism is important as we have covered, I think. And then one 

regulator to cover the actual policy framework around it is also 

vital. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Trisko. 

Mr. TRISKO. Ensure that the targets and time tables that are 

adopted in the bill, particularly in the short term, are consistent 

with the expected widespread availability of CCS technology, so as 

to avoid the result, for example, evident in EPA’s analysis—preliminary analysis of the bill that suggests that generation from fossil-based electricity would decline from 4.3 terawatt hours in the 

year 2050 to 1.3 terawatt hours in the year 2050 under scenario 

three. That, to us, is an unacceptable outcome. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Hawkins. 

Mr. HAWKINS. First, I would say avoid focusing on technologies, 

but keep in mind the facts on the ground that need to change to 

cut carbon emissions. And I feel quite confident in predicting that, 

regardless of technology pathways, 50 years from now we are going 

to have electricity, we are going to have vehicles, we are going to 

have fuels, and we are going to have buildings. And we need strategies that are going to drive decarbonization in each one of those 

areas. And you have got a lot of policies in the bill that are aimed 

at doing just that, and there can be good and useful debate about 

how to focus on harmonizing those so they integrate well. But 

those are the four big linemen that we have to think about, electricity, vehicles, fuels, and buildings. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Dr. Kunkel. 

Mr. KUNKEL. One of the most relevant things we can do as 

Americans on this large problem is to tackle the problem that the 

Chinese and Indians will have, which is CCS, basically. They are 

building a lot of coal-fired power plants, new ones, pretty good ones 

I bet, and improving ones. But they don’t have this technology. If 

we can find cost-effective ways to employ it, if we can develop that, 

then that will be a huge contribution. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Robo. 

Mr. ROBO. Enacting a renewable electricity standard is really 

critical for the U.S. to continue to drive its success in the clean energy economy and to retain its competitiveness globally. Clean tech 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
846 

is the way of the future, and we need to be competitive as a Nation 

in that industry. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Ms. Grueneich. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Four points. One, the bill, you got it right. Let’s 

get it passed. Two is we do need the renewable portfolio standard. 

We can’t just say let’s have carbon standards. To do transmission, 

you need to plan for something. And we are just not going to be 

able to get the transmission we need unless we have that renewable standard set out there. Three, States are your partners. In all 

of this legislation, think about how you can be really utilizing the 

States, helping the States working together. And four as I have two 

15-year-olds, and they thank you. I don’t want to go home without 

being able to say, you know, we have been working hard at the 

state level; we need the Federal level to step up, and my children 

need that. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Reicher. 

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Chairman, there are a broad array of ways 

that we can get at this climate crisis that we are facing, and there 

are smart ways from both an environmental and an economic perspective. Energy efficiency is indeed the low-hanging fruit. We 

ought to go out and pick it. It does grow back because of the improvements in technologies. Renewable is coming on strong. There 

was a huge array of opportunities. The resource base is vast in this 

country. We do need to crack the code on transmission, or a lot of 

what we need to get done isn’t going to happen. I think the subcommittee’s bill is headed in the right direction. Please do look at 

this issue of making sure there is adequate capital. And I do commend the work that Congressman Inslee and also Senators Bingaman and Murkowski are doing on that front. 

And, lastly, let’s take a look at this geothermal stuff. It is the 

sleeping giant. Whether it is Texas or it is Alaska or it is Florida, 

there is a lot there. The oil and gas industry is interested in it. 

Let’s do a hearing and explore it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. And Dr. Gruenspecht. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Mr. Chairman, beyond endorsing Mr. 

Reicher’s surprise endorsement of my agency, I would say that EIA 

looks forward to providing the committee, both sides of the committee, with data and analyses to support your policy deliberations. 

EIA’s first administrator, Lincoln Moses—great name—once said 

there are no facts about the future. However, I think policymakers 

can definitely benefit from considering how transparent and objective, if not always prescient, projections are affected by the different policies that they have under consideration. So, I am from 

the Federal Government, the executive branch. I am here to help 

you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Doctor. And we will leave you out of 

this final quick question. 

I will ask each one of you, yes or no, do you think we can construct a cap-and-trade system that can work and can be done consistent with the long-term economic goals of our country? Mr. 

Reicher. 

Mr. REICHER. We can and we must. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Grueneich. 

Ms. GRUENEICH. Ditto. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
847 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Robo. 

Mr. ROBO. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Kunkel. 

Mr. KUNKEL. I think we can. I think the guy on the street needs 

to see the benefit to him, and he doesn’t quite see it yet. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Hawkins. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Absolutely. This is the most important work that 

you will do in your career. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Trisko. 

Mr. TRISKO. Absolutely. And the devil will always remain in the 

details. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Kerr. 

Mr. KERR. Absolutely. But timing, technology, and the avoidance 

of severe economic disruptions in the early years are key to gaining 

the public support for the long-term success. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Dr. Apt. 

Mr. APT. Yes. I think it can. But I worry that you will labor 

mightily and give forth with a cap-and-trade that will produce a 

carbon price that is too low to affect physical change. And that 

really worries me. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. By the way, Doctor, you were born in 

Springfield, Massachusetts, and an astronaut. Congratulations. We 

are proud of you. Thank you. This is just a fantastic panel. Thank 

you all so, so much for your great contributions to this discussion. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(849) 

THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY SECURITY 

ACT OF 2009—DAY 4 

FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Butterfield, McNerney, 

Welch, Dingell, Harman, Baldwin, Waxman (ex officio), 

Christensen, Sutton, Upton, Pitts, Walden, Burgess, Scalise, Barton (ex officio), Radanovich, and Blackburn. 

Staff Present: Matt Weiner, Special Assistant; Melissa Bez, Professional Staff; Earley Green, Chief Clerk; Sharon Davis, Legislative Clerk; Caren Anchman, Communications Associate; Karen 

Lightfoot, Communications Director; Mitch Smiley, Special Assistant; Matt Eisenberg, Special Assistant; Alex Barron, Professional 

Staff; Alexandra Teitz, Senior Counsel; John Jimison, Senior Counsel; Ben Hengst, Senior Policy Analyst; Phil Barrett, Staff Director; 

Kristin Amerling, General Counsel; and Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Environment and Energy. 

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning, and welcome to this historically important hearing. 

When people look at Vice President Al Gore, they think of an 

award winning movie, ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.’’ I think, however, 

of a different movie, ‘‘Back to the Future.’’ Thirty years ago, I sat 

in this same room with Al Gore, who left this committee to become 

an outstanding Vice President and to win an Oscar and a Nobel 

Prize for, imagine this, a documentary on climate change. 

And with Henry Waxman and John Dingell and I, who, while we 

are kind of like Peter Pan, we stayed behind and debated a new 

generation, as others went off. But this is our Back to the Future 

moment, except today, we gather at a time when the Good Earth 

is calling us to energy Independence Day, and that goal should not 

take us From Here to Eternity. 

Long before greenhouse gases and global warming became a subject of daily discussions, Al Gore, Henry Waxman, John Dingell, 

and I debated ways to improve the Clean Air Act. Vice President 

Gore was a leader of the debate in the 1980s, and now, the whole 

world knows that he has long been a visionary. It is sometimes 

said that a prophet is someone who is right but too soon. Al Gore 

is an example of someone who not only was right early, very early, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
850 

in fact, but who dedicated his life to educating our country, so that 

they, too, saw the threat he foresaw decades ago. 

I am equally pleased to welcome Senator John Warner to our 

committee. Late last year, I was fortunate to be at a dinner honoring John Warner for his outstanding career in public life. His 

speech that night confirmed for me that John Warner is an outstanding leader, who is committed to our national security and our 

environmental security. He has given great service to his state and 

our country, as someone who stood for what he saw as the right 

policy, and did not bend to the politics of the day. His leadership 

on climate change legislation was the culmination of a great career, 

and we are indeed honored to have him here with us today. 

So, we welcome you both to our committee, and I don’t know if 

you have any welcoming comments. 

Let me turn to the full committee chairman, Mr. Waxman, if you 

would like to—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for all those references to the movies that are made in 

my district. 

And I won’t try to top you with any film references, but I think 

it is a great honor to welcome our two witnesses this morning. 

They are very distinguished gentlemen. Senator Warner, who has 

had an illustrious career in serving his country in many capacities. 

And Vice President Gore, we are always pleased to see and welcome back to the committee on which he served in the beginning 

of his Congressional career. He has gone on to do great things, and 

has become a spokesman for an issue that is very important to our 

deliberations. 

Thank you both for being here. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Chairman. Let me recognize Fred 

Upton, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you. We welcome you gentlemen. This 

is, obviously, a timely issue. This is the third day of where we have 

had more than 60 witnesses this week. This is a day that we are 

not in session with votes on the House floor. I would ask unanimous consent that members not on this subcommittee have an opportunity to ask questions following the regular order of the subcommittee members, if I might. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. UPTON. We welcome your testimony, and we hope that you 

can be here a good part of the day to answer our many good questions. 

Welcome, both of you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would the Ranking Member of the full committee 

like to—— 

Mr. BARTON. Simply to echo your introduction and Mr. Waxman’s 

introduction, since you talked about Back to the Future, one of our 

questions that Dr. Burgess is going to ask the Vice President is if 

he is the inventor of the flux capacitor. But we welcome both of you 

gentlemen. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman very much. 

Now, we turn to our extremely distinguished panel. We welcome 

you back, Vice President Gore. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
851 

STATEMENTS OF HONORABLE ALBERT GORE, JR., FORMER 

VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND HONORABLE 

JOHN WARNER, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR 

STATEMENT OF ALBERT GORE, JR. 

Mr. GORE. Well, thank you, Chairman Markey and Mr. Upton, 

Chairman Waxman and Congressman Barton, Chairman Emeritus 

John Dingell. 

I was telling Senator Warner in the cloakroom here that it was 

one of the greatest honors of my life to be a member of this committee, and my principal mentor in the Congress was John Dingell, 

and I told Senator Warner that just about everything I learned 

about the legislative process came from John Dingell, and it is with 

great emotion that I come back to this hearing room, and members 

of the committee, members of the subcommittee, members of the 

full committee, it is an honor to be able to appear before you here 

today. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you move the microphone in just a little bit 

closer, please? 

Mr. GORE. Sure. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. GORE. It is also my great honor to testify with my friend and 

former colleague in the Senate, John Warner. I served on the 

Armed Services Committee under his chairmanship, and his long 

record of service to the Senate and the country is truly remarkable. 

Senator Warner has consistently looked with a steady gaze past 

the politics of the day, to thoughtfully and intensely focus on the 

national interest. His approach really reminds me of another great 

American from another era, the great Senator Arthur Vandenberg 

from Michigan, who helped to create the United Nations and 

NATO and the Marshall Plan. He understood that our Nation, 

when faced with great peril, must rise above partisanship to meet 

the challenge. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Vice President, can you push that button. Is 

the microphone—— 

Mr. GORE. There we go. 

Mr. MARKEY. There. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. GORE. You want me to repeat all of my words about Senator 

Warner? 

I believe that we have arrived at another such moment. Our 

country is at risk on three fronts. The economic crisis is clear. Our 

national security remains at risk, so long as we remain dangerously dependent on flows of foreign oil from reserves owned by 

sovereign states that are vulnerable to disruption. The rate of new 

discoveries, as members of this committee know, is falling, even as 

demand elsewhere in the world is rising. 

Most importantly, of course, we are, along with the rest of humanity, facing the dire and growing threat of the climate crisis. It 

is at the very heart of those threats that this committee and this 

Congress must direct its focus. I am here today to lend my support 

to what I believe to be one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress. I believe this legislation has 

the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the Marshall Plan of the late 1940s. By 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
852 

repowering America with a transition to a clean energy economy, 

and ending our dangerous overreliance on carbon-based fuels, 

which is, after all, the common thread running through all three 

of these crises, this bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem 

from our dependence on foreign oil. 

We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day 

that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families. Each day that we continue on our current path, America loses more of its competitive 

edge, and each day that we wait, we increase the risk that we will 

leave our children and grandchildren an irreparably damaged planet. Passage of this legislation will restore America’s leadership of 

the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis, and 

it is truly a moral imperative. Moreover, the scientific evidence of 

how serious this climate crisis is becoming continues to amass 

week after week. 

Let me share with you just a few recent examples. The Arctic is 

warming at an unprecedented rate. New research, which draws 

upon recently declassified data collected by U.S. nuclear submarines traveling under the Arctic icecap for the last 50 years, has 

given us for the first time a three-dimensional view of the icecap, 

and researchers at the Naval Postgraduate School have told us 

that the entire Arctic icecap, which for most of the last three million years has covered an area the size of the lower 48 States, may 

completely and totally disappear in summer in as little as five 

years. 

Almost half of the ice in the Arctic cap has already melted during 

the last 20 years. The dark ocean, once uncovered, absorbs 90 percent of the solar heat that used to bounce off the highly reflective 

ice. As a direct consequence, some of the vast amounts of frozen 

carbon in the permafrost in the land surrounding the Arctic Ocean 

are beginning to be released as methane, as the frozen tundra 

thaws, threatening a doubling of global warming pollution in the 

atmosphere unless we take action quickly. 

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet has reached a new record, 

which was a staggering 60 percent above the previous high in 1998. 

The most recent eleven summers there have all experienced melting greater than the average of the past 35 year time series. Glacial earthquakes have been increasing on Greenland as the melt 

water tunnels down through the ice to the bedrock below. Were the 

Greenland ice sheet to melt, crack up, and slip into the North Atlantic, sea level worldwide would rise almost 20 feet. 

We already know that the Antarctic peninsula is warming at 

three to five times the global average rate. At the time when I participated in one of the first hearings on global warming on this 

committee in the 1970s, a researcher warned that an early alarm 

bell that this crisis was reaching emergency proportions would be 

if we saw the breakup of large ice sheets on the Antarctic peninsula. That is why the Larsen—and this warming has already 

caused the Larsen B ice shelf, which was the size of Rhode Island, 

to collapse. Several other ice shelves have also collapsed in the last 

20 years. Another large shelf, the Wilkins ice shelf, which is roughVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00862 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
853 

ly the size of Northern Ireland, is now beginning to disintegrate 

right before our very eyes. 

A recent study in the journal Science has now confirmed that the 

entire West Antarctic ice sheet is warming. Scientists have told us 

that if it were to collapse and slide into the sea, we would experience global sea level rise of another 20 feet. Each meter of sea level 

increase leads to 100 million climate refugees. Recent studies have 

shown that many coastal areas in the United States are at risk, 

particularly Southern Florida and Southern Louisiana. 

Also, carbon dioxide pollution is now changing the very chemistry 

of the world ocean. Ocean acidification is already underway and is 

accelerating. A recent paper published in Science described how the 

seawater off the coast of Northern California has now already, for 

some periods of the year, become so acidic from CO2 that it is actually corrosive. To give some sense of perspective, for the last 44 

million years, the average pH has been 8.2, and the scientists at 

Scripps have now measured levels off the north coast of California 

and Oregon at a pH of 7.75. Now, the lower the pH, the more acidic 

the ocean water. 

Coral polyps that make reefs, and everything in the ocean that 

makes a shell, are now beginning to suffer from a kind of 

osteoporosis, because the acidification levels have reached the state 

that it begins to dissolve the shells as they are formed. Salmon 

have now disappeared off the coast of California. Researchers are 

now working to determine the cause, and whether or not this is 

due to acidity and the relationship between acidity and the socalled ‘‘dead zones’’ of extreme oxygen depletion that now stretch 

from the West Coast of North America, Central America, and 

South America, almost all the way across the Pacific, in a wedge 

that stretches to the West. The health and productivity of the entire ocean is now at risk. 

The Union of Forest Research Organizations, with 14 international collaborating partners, have reported that forests may lose 

their carbon regulating service, and that ‘‘it could be lost entirely 

if the Earth heats up 2.5 degrees Centigrade.’’ Throughout the 

American West, tree deaths are now at record levels, with the 

records being broken year after year. That is the reason why Canada’s vast forest has now become a net contributor of CO2 to the 

atmosphere, rather than absorbing it. The Amazon, the forests of 

Central Africa, Siberia, and Indonesia, are all now at risk. 

This year, a number of groups, ranging from the National Audubon Society to the Department of Interior, released the U.S. State 

of the Birds Report, showing that nearly a third of the Nation’s 800 

bird species are now endangered, threatened, or in significant decline, due to habitat loss, invasive species, and other threats, including climate change, the major shift attributed to the climate 

crisis related to the migratory patterns, and a large, consistent 

shift northward among a vast range of bird species in the United 

States. 

Some of the most intriguing new research is in the area of extreme weather events and rainfall. A recent study by German scientists in the publication Climate Change, projects that extreme 

precipitation will increase significantly in regions that are already 

experiencing extreme rainfall. Manmade global warming has alVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00863 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
854 

ready increased the moisture content of the air throughout the 

world, causing bigger downpours. Each additional degree of temperature causes another 7 percent increase in the moisture content 

of the world’s air, and leads to even larger downpours when storm 

conditions trigger heavy rains and snows. 

To bring an example of this home, 2009 saw the eighth ten year 

flood of Fargo, North Dakota since 1989. Last year, in Iowa, Cedar 

Rapids was hit by a flood that significantly exceeded the 500 year 

floodplain. All time flood records are being broken in regions 

throughout the world. Conversely, those regions that are presently 

dry are projected to become much drier, because higher average 

higher temperatures also evaporate the soil moisture. 

The American West and the Southeast have been experiencing 

prolonged, severe drought and historic water shortages. In a study 

published in January 2008 in Science, scientists from the Scripps 

Institute estimated that 60 percent of the changes in the water 

cycle in the American West are due to increased atmospheric, manmade greenhouse gases. It predicts that although Western states 

are already struggling to supply water for farms and cities, more 

severe climatic changes will strain the system even more. Agriculture in our largest farm state, California, is at high risk. 

Australia has been experiencing what many there call a thousand year drought, along with record high temperatures. Some cities had 110 degrees for four straight days two months ago. And 

then, of course, they had the mega-fires that caused so much death 

and destruction. 

Federal officials from our own National Interagency Fire Center 

report that we have seen twice as many wildfires during the first 

three months of this year, compared to the same period last year. 

Due to the worsening drought, the outlook for more record fires, especially in Texas, Florida, and California, is not good. 

A number of new studies continue to show that climate change 

is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. Although we cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming, we can certainly 

look at the trend. Dr. Greg Holland, from the National Center for 

Atmospheric Research, says that we have already experienced a 

300 to 400 percent increase in Category 5 storms in the past ten 

years in the United States. Last August, hundreds of thousands of 

people had to evacuate as Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast, 

and then, of course, there is the destruction of Galveston and areas 

of New Orleans, where the residents are still recovering. 

The same is happening in the rest of the world. Last year, Cyclone Nargis killed 20,000 people in Myanmar, and caused the suffering of tens of thousands more. For these, and many, many other 

reasons, now is the time to act. And luckily, positive change is on 

the way. 

In February, when the Congress voted to pass the stimulus bill, 

it laid the groundwork for critical investments in energy efficiency, 

renewables, a Unified National Smart Grid, and an historic transition to clean cars. This was a crucial downpayment that will create 

millions of new jobs, hasten our economic recovery, strengthen our 

national security, and begin solving the climate crisis. 

But now, we must take another step together, and pass the 

American Clean Energy and Security Act. Chairman Waxman and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
855 

Chairman Markey have pulled together the best ideas in the Congress, to begin solving the climate crisis, while increasing our energy independence, and stimulating our economic recovery. 

Let me highlight just a few items in the bill that I believe to be 

of particular importance. First, it promotes the rapid introduction 

of the clean and renewable technologies that will create new, good, 

sustainable jobs, and reduce our reliance on carbon-based fuels. It 

is time to close the carbon loophole, and begin the steep reductions 

that we need to make in the pollution that causes global warning. 

Second, it helps us use energy more efficiently and transmit it 

over a secure, modernized, digital smart grid system. Of course, 

this move to repower America must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would face a hardship. For example, we must recognize and protect those who have toiled in 

dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. I believe we ought to guarantee good jobs for any coalminer displaced 

by impacts on the coal industry. 

And this bill also focuses on intensive R&D to explore carbon 

capture and sequestration, to determine whether and where it can 

be a key part of the solution. I have always strongly supported intensive R&D on carbon capture and sequestration and demonstration projects, and I am happy that at long last, this committee has 

found a way to do that. 

Our country cannot afford more of the status quo, more gasoline 

price instability, more job losses, more outsourcing of factories, 

more years of sending $2 billion every 24 years to foreign countries 

for oil, and our soldiers and their families cannot take another ten 

years of repeated troop deployments to regions that just happen to 

have large oil supplies. Moreover, the best way to secure a global 

agreement that guarantees that other nations will also reduce their 

global warming pollution is for our country to lead the world in 

meeting this historic challenge. 

The United States of America is the world’s leader. We are the 

only Nation in the world that can lead. Once we find and reestablish the moral courage to take on this issue, the rest of the world 

will come along. Now is the time to act, before the world gathers 

in Copenhagen this December to solve this crisis. Not next year, 

this year. 

I strongly urge bipartisan support of this crucial legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gore follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
856 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 898 72878A.523
857 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 899 72878A.524
858 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 900 72878A.525
859 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 901 72878A.526
860 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 902 72878A.527
861 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, very much. And 

now, we turn to welcome our other distinguished American, Senator John Warner. Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WARNER 

Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and our good friend, Chairman Dingell, and the distinguished 

Ranking Members, Mr. Upton, Mr. Barton. 

It is really a privilege to come back to the Congress in the retired 

status. I assure you that I checked the applicable laws and so forth, 

and I am delivering a statement this morning consistent with those 

regulations, which I shall follow carefully. 

But I want to say a word about the fine gentleman on my left. 

We breakfasted together this morning, just as if we were still in 

the Senate together. Talked about the many men and women that 

mentored us in our legislative careers, and I just want to say to 

you, my dear friend, you have had an extraordinary public service 

career, and you are charging ahead as strongly today as you have 

ever done in the history of that career. And as you said, our parents are rather proud of both of us. So, I thank you, and I thank 

those in this room that I have served and worked with these years, 

and for the gracious statements. 

This is serious business, very, very serious business. Having 

served 30 years in the other body, I have seen the panorama of legislative challenges in that period, and indeed, prior thereto, I 

served for five years in the Pentagon, in the Department of Defense, and testified before the Congress. But this particular moment in our history is critical, and future generations will look 

back at this day and tomorrow and in the future, and see what we 

did, and maybe, what we didn’t do. So, I thank the leadership, both 

the Democrats and Republicans of this committee, for taking the 

initiative, and the members to make it work. 

I think, also, the committee should pause to express its appreciation to the extraordinary number of organizations, largely the ones 

I work with today are the nonprofits, but indeed, the corporate and 

business center, sectors of our country, have come together, and I 

think there is a good, strong, constructive dialogue going on. 

Unfortunately, we are greeted, the Vice President and I were 

talking this morning, by articles like the one in the New York 

Times this morning, but let us hope that is behind us, and that as 

Members of Congress, and as witnesses, we come here and speak 

the absolute truth, and if I may underline, speak in such a way 

that all levels of America can understand what the challenges are 

before us, the complexity, the long, rough road ahead to reach 

those goals, that hopefully this legislation will establish, and that 

my beloved Senate will join in a conference, and we will get a law. 

All too often, I have watched and each of us have, the advertisements today. And they oversimplify the problem. I mean, you see 

very attractive actors and actresses get out and say well, clean coal 

technology is just around the corner. We know it is not around the 

corner. They talk about well, wind power, wind and solar are vital 

parts of working a way out of this situation, but each of those requires substantial planning, engineering, tax subsidies, support. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
862 

Take, for instance, we are talking about the smart grid. It looks 

to be a quicker approach to begin to correct things with that smart 

grid, but to do it, we are going to have to work through condemnation laws, to get the land over which those grids have got to travel, 

particularly, to convey the energy from the very valuable and abundant source of wind. 

I saw the other day where, in California, the solar panels are 

using an extraordinary amount of water, so when you go into one 

situation, you have got to figure out what it affects adversely in the 

other. So, this is a tough road ahead of us, and I am glad the leadership of this House of Representatives has tackled it and is going 

to move forward. 

The Vice President very carefully carried a lot of the factual material here this morning, and I won’t try and repeat it. I would ask 

unanimous consent my entire statement go in. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection. 

Mr. WARNER. Because I want to move through, somewhat swiftly, 

so we can take the questions, and actually hear from the membership. Since I have retired or left the Senate, I have continued to 

work in this area, and will continue to do so, because I feel very 

strongly committed. 

I was privileged, for 14 months in the Senate, to join with my 

very good friend, Joseph Lieberman, an extraordinary, courageous 

legislator, in putting together our bill, and with the support of our 

chairman, Senator Boxer, and a lean, but nevertheless majority of 

the Senate, I was the only Republican that cast a vote to get that 

bill out. And I don’t say that in any derogatory sense towards my 

colleagues. I respect their views, but I think, as we go along, and 

one of the things that, as I go back and wish we had done, was to 

give a little territory to get that bill through, and we didn’t perhaps 

give enough territory to begin to get at least a greater deliberation 

than the few days on the Senate floor, to have laid a stronger foundation for this committee and other elements of the Congress to 

cover this subject. 

I want to talk about that foundation. In my judgment, this subject of climate change, the future of energy, and our national security are all interwoven very closely, and I hope that the Congress 

recognizes that they have got to build their legislation on a foundation with three legs on it: the energy leg, the global climate change 

leg, and the national security leg. 

And it is that national security that I want to dwell on here for 

a few minutes, because I think that is the most significant contribution I can make. I want to credit many national security experts who have expressed their concerns, most of which I share. 

Many senior retired officers, and I say with a sense of humility, I 

have had an opportunity, many years in the Pentagon, many years 

in the Congress on the Armed Services Committee, to work with 

the same officers today who are retired. They don’t have a political 

bone in their system. They are only speaking out in terms of their 

projection of the responsibilities for the Armed Forces of the United 

States, as this global situation appears to worsen. And I will address the specifics on that. 

But I want to take, I don’t often like to take quotes, but this one, 

I think, is worthy of your attention. One extraordinary soldier, one 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
863 

I worked with, and you did, too, Mr. Vice President, the former 

Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General Gordon Sullivan, 

who chaired the Military Advisory Board on the Center for Naval 

Analysis—that Center has done a lot of valuable work in this 

area—succinctly framed the situation as follows: ‘‘The Cold War’’— 

and he is referencing, of course, our, the former Soviet Union—‘‘the 

Cold War was a specter, but climate change is inevitable. If we 

keep on with business as usual, we will reach a point where some 

of the worst effects are inevitable. Back then, the challenge was to 

stop a particular action. Now, the challenge is to inspire a particular action. We have to act if we are to avoid the worst of the 

effects.’’ 

If I may, I was hoping that Chairman Dingell would be here 

today, I want to go back and, just a brief personal recollection. I 

grew up during the Great Depression, and then, the years of World 

War II. I was privileged to, in the last year of the War, wear the 

uniform of a young sailor, when my distinguished colleague, Chairman Dingell, was really in the thick of the fighting. Well, you are 

now. 

Our generation was referred to as the Greatest Generation, but 

the thing about it is, and I don’t want to be too prosaic, but I think 

back, of the inspiration that it took to get through those periods in 

American history. Went back and read that wonderful speech given 

by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural. ‘‘The only thing we 

have to fear is fear itself.’’ 

There is a very substantial element of fear attached to this subject. Now, we are, as a Nation, together with other nations in the 

world, facing one of the most unprecedented and difficult economic 

situations ever in history. We also have our brave men and women 

of the Armed Forces fighting two wars. And the question is raised, 

is this the time to challenge an issue of this magnitude, which has 

ramifications of cost to everyone here in this country, and is going 

to require sacrifices? And I say to you, as my distinguished colleague said, yes, it is the time. 

I witnessed personally the Nation survive those trials of the Depression and the War, and it emerge and redevelop itself, and become a stronger Nation, stronger than any of us ever imagined we 

could achieve in the late ’40s and ’50s. We can do that again, but 

it is going to take your leadership. We will do it again. We have 

to, because every day that goes by increases the cost, as I understand it, involved in this situation. 

Let me say that one thing that we have got going for us as legislators, is that there is a desire among a broad cross-section of the 

American people to do something. They want it done. They don’t 

understand all of the complexity and all the technical things, but 

instinctively, they are saying we are with you. But the duty we 

have is to be honest with them, tell them it is going to be a burden, 

and tell them it is going to take time. I mean, clean coal technology, which is so important to my state, Virginia, and I have 

looked into this question of capture and sequestration, and transfer 

and sequestration. 

That is going to take big bucks and a lot of time to perfect it, 

so I say to you most respectfully, as I look back at the legislation 

that we put forward in the Senate, we had in there provisions, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
864 

I used to characterize it, is that the President of the United States 

is the engineer driving this big train. He had the throttle to push, 

he had the brake to slow down. In order to allow our power sector, 

our engineering sector, transportation sector, manufacturing sector, 

to do the job that I think in their heart instinctively they want to 

do, we have got to give them the assurance that the timetables we 

establish have got to be such that they can keep pace with their 

responsibility to meet the needs of the citizens today, and at the 

same time, engage in the research and development of the solutions that we have, but do it in a timely fashion. 

The most challenging thing for this committee in this legislation 

is to devise that language, to give the President, and the President 

has stepped forward, and shown a measure of strong leadership on 

this subject, and a willingness to work with the Congress, but we 

have got to devise that language that enables the President, indeed 

the people in this country, to do the work that has got to be done 

in such a way that we don’t put on the burden that they have to 

bear before the technology has been done and the infrastructure installed for them to continue. 

I mean, in the coal industry, if we move too swiftly, coal is likely 

to switch to natural gas. Now, natural gas, people think is, you listen to some of them, it is fewer, but it has 50 percent of the greenhouse carbon and so forth, am I not correct, as does coal, and we 

don’t have identified yet the sources of gas to meet the demand if 

the power industry suddenly were forced, as a matter of necessity, 

so as not to violate the law, to shift to gas. 

So, give to the President the language, I wrote it in the previous 

bill, and I hope that you can even do a better job, to give the President the authority to correct certain situations if this country cannot meet its obligations under the law. 

So, if I were in the Senate today, I would be doing one other 

thing, and that is, I would be working to try and incorporate language, I hope in both bodies, that would recognize the enormous 

benefit of bringing to the table, you had commerce, you had energy, 

you had transportation at this table, but bring to the table the defense sector, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and certain elements of the infrastructure in the private sector that support our defense, and let them express their views. Let 

them be charged by the Congress in this legislation for the accountability to do their share to reach these goals, because as the Vice 

President recited, the effects of climate change, and I am not here 

to argue the science, but certainly, the reality, he spoke about the 

Arctic, the Antarctic and the North Pole and so forth. We were 

talking about those submarines, and how they had to do the scientific work to determine the thickness of the ice, and how that 

database, which was begun in 1958, now shows you how much that 

has shrunk over a period of time. 

But it is the members of the military that will be called upon to 

help those nations who, as a consequence of the erratic nature of 

climate change, could be losing their sovereignty, suffering mass 

migrations, political instability, creating a vacuum. So, many of 

these nations are now on the verge of political collapse, and this 

push from a climatic condition could shove them over where they 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
865 

lose their sovereignty. Somalia is an example of that with the 

drought, on that littoral of Africa. 

We have got to be sure that we are doing everything to alleviate 

these situations, because we are the only country that has the military capability, particularly the lift capability, the transportation 

capability, to get there in a timely way, and do what we can in a 

humanitarian way to alleviate the suffering that is occasioned by 

these situations. 

Stability in the world is absolutely critical, and we are called 

upon, as you said, Mr. Vice President, we are the leader, we are 

the one that has the strongest of the militaries, and we will be 

called upon. To the extent that our military has to perform missions occasioned by climatic conditions or others, is the extent to 

which they have less ability to do missions elsewhere, so there is 

a direct cause and effect between what our military are called upon 

to do, to do our normal role of protecting freedom in the world, and 

to meet these situations. Whether it is crop failures or famine, disease, mass migration of people across borders, destruction of the 

vital infrastructure, all of these things can lead to failed nations 

and instability. 

So, I just want to conclude by saying we are the best equipped. 

We are prepared. The United States has always been of a soft 

heart, to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and this poses 

a real problem. 

I go back to one other admiral. I served with him when he was 

NATO Commander, NATO South. And he said, as part of the Military Advisory Board, national security and the threat of climate 

change, he said, this is Admiral Joseph Lopez, I think Joe has only 

voted. I don’t know if he has ever done anything in the political 

world. I have known him that well. And he said: ‘‘You have a very 

real change in natural systems that are most likely to happen in 

regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.’’ 

That sums it up, and delaying action on this just raises costs, 

leaves us less prepared to try to alleviate the stress that we have 

put on our military. 

So, I strongly urge that you look at the possibility of injecting in 

this record somewhere the views of our departments, and hopefully, 

language which will hold them accountable, and make them as 

much a partner as the other departments and agencies of our government. And I am sure my good friend Congressman Ike Skelton, 

can work with you to see that happens. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Warner follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
866 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 909 72878A.528
867 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 910 72878A.529
868 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 911 72878A.530
869 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 912 72878A.531
870 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 913 72878A.532
871 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 914 72878A.533
872 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 915 72878A.534
873 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 916 72878A.535
874 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 917 72878A.536
875 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 918 72878A.537
876 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 919 72878A.538
877 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 920 72878A.539
878 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

And now, we will turn to questions from the committee, and the 

chair will recognize himself, and let me ask you this, Vice President Gore. 

We are in an economic recession right now. Our energy policies 

in the past have not protected us against price spikes, or the impact on our economy, our national security. Could you talk a little 

bit about what your view is with regard to how the legislation 

pending before this committee could actually have a positive impact 

upon the workers of our country, in the long run? 

Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I believe that one part of the answer to the economic crisis is to 

create jobs with public investments in infrastructure. Economists 

across the spectrum, from liberal to moderate to conservative, all 

agree that these are the unusual circumstances where both sides 

say yes, we need to have public investment to get the economy 

moving more quickly again. And all sides agree that the best shortterm investments to create jobs quickly is in infrastructure. 

The focus on green infrastructure, to lay the foundation for our 

21st century economy, is the logical place to make those investments. Prior to the current era, the largest surge in economic 

growth and productivity was the Industrial Revolution. Historians 

say that one among many reasons for the onset of the Industrial 

Revolution was the perception in England and Scotland, where it 

began, that they were running out of trees, and so, that gave them 

an extra impetus to go for the coal, and the new steam engine and 

the other devices ran on coal. 

Now, it is obvious that we are either at or near peak oil, especially for, people argue about this, but the affordable light, sweet 

oil, of course there is more of this heavy, dirty oil that is very high 

priced, and that is a different story altogether. But we are at or 

near the peak for the oil that dominates the market today. 

As the rate of new discoveries declines, the secular demand in 

places like China and India is rising. If we didn’t have a global recession today, the oil price would be truly at all time record levels. 

For the last 35 years, since the fall of 1973, when President Richard Nixon responded to the Arab OPEC oil embargo by saying we 

have got to have, become energy independent, we have been on a 

rollercoaster, with the price going up, delivering body blows to our 

economy, and just as we summon the political will to do something 

about it, the price collapses again, and that political will dissipates. 

As President Obama put it, we have gone from shock to trance. 

But this rollercoaster is headed toward a crash, and we are in the 

front car. So, when you talk about energy prices, remember last 

summer, and what happened then. And remember what is going to 

happen as the global economy recovers, and the price skyrockets 

again, what are you all going to say to your constituents about 

what you can do then? Well, you can say well, we don’t have any 

control over OPEC. We don’t have any control over the world oil 

markets. 

Well, this bill makes it clear that we do have some control over 

OPEC. We can form a bipartisan national will to shake off the 

trance and keep our eyes on the ball, and protect the American 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
879 

people from the skyrocketing prices that are in our future if we just 

do the same old thing, and expect the same old results. 

So, we can create jobs by putting people to work, building the 

Unified National Smart Grid, building the solar panels, building 

the windmills, building the geothermal installations, insulating 

homes, changing out the heating and lighting systems. And those 

jobs can’t be outsourced. They are here, right here, and as the work 

is done, it makes our country stronger, and positions us to lead the 

world in this new energy revolution. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. I am going 

to turn and recognized the Ranking Member, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask two questions. 

I will ask them in somewhat rapid fire, and let both of you respond, but it may take me a minute to finish the first one. All of 

us here want to reduce emissions, and we want to reduce emissions 

without losing jobs, and we want to do it in such a way that the 

costs will not impact our Nation’s capability to be competitive with 

other countries overseas. But we know that the most contentious 

issue is cap and trade, which may of the panelists, the last two 

days, have said, in fact, it would increase costs. Last year, Senator 

Warner, you knew well your bill failed to get the necessary votes 

to pass with cloture. Another 12 that voted for that said that they 

would vote no on final passage in a letter, including my two Senators, Senator Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin. 

This month, April, by almost a two to one margin, the Senate rejected cap and trade as part of reconciliation, which of course, 

would have required only 50 votes instead of 60. You have seen the 

headlines. This from last week in the Washington Post, India rejects calls for emission cuts. The same has been broadcast as it relates to China. And I would note that it is pretty interesting to me 

that some of the same folks in the Congress who were opposed to 

entry of the WTO of China, because the conditions on China 

weren’t tough enough, now are in favor of, in fact, believing that 

the WTO will have the framework to provide for the tariffs on 

goods produced in China. 

But there is a legitimate fear that there is going to be serious 

leakage of jobs to China and India, and frankly, my state can’t afford to lose any more. We have lost 150,000 jobs in Michigan this 

year already. If somehow, cap and trade defied all the odds and got 

to the President’s desk, legal challenges probably taking years will 

start, not knowing how many jobs will depart, as it relates to WTO. 

As it impacts the planet, by the way, the steelworkers have indicated that they emit only 1.4 tons of carbon for every ton of steel 

produced in the U.S., versus about 4 tons of carbon per ton in 

China. What would be wrong with the WTO taking up the cap and 

trade debate, and requiring all member nations to, in fact, have a 

plank, an enforcement plank, as part of their participation in WTO, 

so that we know in advance whether or not they would comply or 

not, and would be in agreement? 

The second question that I have is, doesn’t nuclear have to be 

part of this equation? Senator Gore, when you testified, or Vice 

President Gore, when you testified before this committee in the last 

Congress, many of us noted that there wasn’t a word in your book, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
880 

or a scene which would have been worth a thousand words, right, 

a picture, in the movie about nuclear. EPA’s own analysis said that 

in order to meet the targets set in this bill, there has to be a 200 

percent increase in nuclear. The President has called for doubling 

or tripling renewables. Shouldn’t we be doing the same thing with 

nuclear? 

Mr. WARNER. I will be very brief. 

On the nuclear, I am proud to say I was part of a Navy that ran 

ships all over the world with those plants. We had the best safety 

record, still have it. Nuclear power is safe. It is relegated to the 

sidelines because of the cost and lack of the industrial base, and 

fear. We have got to do a frontal assault, and explain the safety 

is there, that it is zero greenhouse emissions, but the cost initially 

is pretty heavy, and we have got to encourage the Congress to put 

forth the tax provisions, the guarantees, and other legislation is 

needed to jumpstart this industry. I couldn’t agree with you more 

the need to have nuclear power as a part of it. 

As to the WTO, we recognize that greenhouse emissions know no 

border. They come from all the countries, and if we in the United 

States and other countries begin to take up and burden our taxpayers with costs to achieve some reduction, and the others go fullbore in the opposite direction, they will just cancel out our efforts. 

The WTO provides a forum in which we can begin to induce, particularly for China and India, to come and join. I somehow hope 

there is a sense of consciousness in those governments that they 

are duty bound to step up this time, at the fourth time international conference in Copenhagen, and begin to pull on the oar 

with the rest of us. 

Mr. GORE. Thank you, Congressman Upton. 

First of all, I am glad you cited the steelworkers, because the 

steelworkers have formally endorsed this. They are strongly in support of this legislation and the cap and trade approach generally. 

Secondly, you mentioned India and China. I think it is important 

to have that discussion, and while they are often lumped together, 

in my view, they are actually very different, as they relate to the 

challenge of the climate crisis. Partway through this century, India 

will surpass China in population, and at some point, may rival 

China in industrial power. 

But the reality today and for the near term future is very different. China is one of the two largest emitters, along with us. 

India really is not. It is growing, but the significance of China is 

way larger than that of India, where this crisis is concerned. And 

while it is true the headline you quoted, with respect to India. I 

gave my slideshow in the Indian parliament. I have met with them 

and their leaders numerous times, and I can tell you, there is a lot 

of movement in India. But the position you quoted, at present, is 

correct. 

With China, it is a little bit different. They are now actively moving. They have far larger investments in green infrastructure than 

the United States does, even after the stimulus bill, even after this 

bill is adopted. They see the future. They have, by far, the largest 

solar installations. They are moving on every single front, and 

there have been active discussions between Beijing and the provincial governments about internal reduction targets, a kind of reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00890 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
881 

gional cap, region by region, in China. And they have left the door 

open to a very different approach at the meeting in December, compared to what they have done in the past. 

Just last week, the head of the International Energy Agency, in 

consultation with Chinese authorities, issued a report showing why 

it is absolutely essential for China to reduce their CO2 emissions. 

So, I think that if the United States takes the lead, I think it is 

very likely we will see a very different response from China this 

time. 

Now, on the WTO issue that you mentioned, there are provisions 

in this bill that accomplish substantially the result that you talk 

about in your question, and there are those who say a nondiscriminatory approach, taken by a country that has established limitations on carbon, if it is applied evenhandedly, might well survive 

in the WTO. I wouldn’t leave it up to them to come to an answer, 

because it might be like the Doha Round. It might be endless. 

I think we can’t turn it over to the WTO. I think we have got 

to be in charge of our own destiny, and then, if it has an international dimension, where we say oK, we have got to even this out, 

if some Country X doesn’t have any limitations, we will find a legal 

way to even that out. This bill puts in place mechanisms to go 

down that road, if it becomes necessary. So, I think that is excellent. 

Now, finally, the nuclear discussion would take more time. I 

don’t want to impose on the time restrictions here. But I will give 

you a brief answer. I am anti-nuclear. I am skeptical that will play 

a much larger role than it does now. And I won’t go through all 

the reasons. Let us assume, for the moment, that we solve the nuclear waste storage problem. Let us assume that we solve the problem of accidents by the people who are operating these reactors. 

They are all one-offs. There is not a single one that is like another 

one, so they are a little bit vulnerable. But let us assume that we 

can solve that. 

For the eight years I was in the White House, every single nuclear weapons proliferation problem we had to deal with was connected to a reactor problem, and though the technologies are somewhat different, if you are a dictator in a country that has a reactor 

program, and you have got a team of scientists and engineers capable of managing that and a fuel cycle, you can force them to work 

secretly at night to build you nuclear weapons. That is what North 

Korea did. That is what Iran is trying to do. That is what has happened elsewhere. 

So, in some of these unstable regions, if we modeled the behavior 

to put these nuclear reactors everywhere in the world, we would 

rue that day. We would also run out of fuel pretty quickly, and 

have to go to these other cycles that enrich the fuel even more, 

which would make the weapons problem much, much worse. 

But the final issue is cost. There is not a single engineering or 

construction firm anywhere in this country who can give you an accurate cost projection for what it takes to build a nuclear reactor, 

not a single one. And the utilities are scared of those overruns. 

And there is another issue. Along with the expense, they only 

come in one size, extra large, because the economies of scale for the 

foreseeable decades ahead mandate a very large size. I know that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
882 

there are research projects on smaller reactors. They are at least 

15, 20 years away. I hope they get one. 

But here is the problem that the current generation of reactors 

poses. The utility managers face an uncertain future on demand 

projection. You had a witness earlier this week who pointed out 

what the projections for energy use in the 1970s were, and how 

high they went, and what the actual results were. I remember in 

the Tennessee Valley, TVA, in response to demand projections 

showing an annualized compounded 7 percent increase in electricity demand, started 20 some odd reactors, and then after that 

embargo that I mentioned earlier, oil prices shot up, coal prices 

ought not be tied to oil, but they are, because of the substitution, 

and then electricity prices went up. That 7 percent figure went 

down to 1 percent, and most of those reactors had to be canceled, 

and that is the real reason why there weren’t any orders after 

1973. It is the expense, and the lack of flexibility. If you are looking 

15 years out, in a time which like the 1970s, once again has a lot 

of uncertainty about what the future demand is going to be, and 

what the future price is going to be, you want more flexibility, 

smaller increments. 

That is why for each of the last two years, the largest new increments for electricity generation in the United States were wind, because they are going for these smaller increments that give them 

more flexibility. So, again, I am not opposed to nuclear. I think it 

ought to compete in the marketplace. I do think that for all of those 

reasons, it is likely to play only a small increased role from what 

it does now. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Henry Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Vice President Gore 

and Senator Warner, I thank you for your testimony, and for your 

leadership on the energy and the global warming issues. 

Two days ago, we had testimony from a group called the United 

States Climate Action Partnership. It is a coalition of industry and 

environmental leaders, and their testimony was remarkable, because instead of corporate CEOs and environmental leaders opposing each other, which is what usually happens when we deal with 

environmental bills, they were united in calling for strong, effective 

energy and climate legislation. 

And your testimony today is remarkable in a similar way. You 

come from opposing political parties, yet you are united in calling 

for enactment of market-based controls on carbon emissions. To 

succeed, we are going to have to bridge differences between environmentalists and industry, Democrats and Republicans, and your 

testimony shows that we can do that. 

In my conversation with my colleagues, I often hear from Members who tell me they want to do something, but they are worried 

about their districts and what will happen in the transition to a 

clean energy economy. They are concerned about meeting the costs 

of this transition. 

How would each of you answer Members of Congress who raise 

those concerns? They are legitimate concerns. What would you tell 

them, Mr. Gore and Mr. Warner? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
883 

Mr. WARNER. I would give a short answer. I was privileged to be 

in the Senate when we did the Clean Air Act, second round, the 

Clean Air Act, and I watched that unfold. I was privileged to work 

with George Mitchell, Pat Moynihan, John Chafee. They were the 

three, the triumvirate, the three, they were sort of the Four Horsemen. And it was strong leadership from the top down in the Senate. 

When the bill came to the floor out of the committee, we recognized that it was bogged down. George Mitchell then undertook 

around the clock, to see Members individually, singly, and so forth, 

to try and work through their constituencies, which oftentimes is 

different, as we well know, in different portions of the country. But 

it was that strong leadership that got it done, and you ought to go 

back and research some of the rhetoric and the press at that time. 

They thought the sky was going to fall in if that Clean Air Act 

were passed. 

Well, what is the result? Energy and the clean air did survive. 

The industrial base formulated a means to do it, and are doing it 

far below the original cost projections. So, I would just say we have 

to muster the courage, and point to those chapters in history when 

the Congress has led forcefully and achieved it, and this time, I 

think fortunately, the President is going to be a strong ally. 

Mr. GORE. I think that the cost of energy will come down when 

we make this transition to renewable energy. Look at electric cars, 

for example. The internal combustion engine, for most of the time 

it has been used, has had an efficiency of about 15 percent. An 

electric motor has an efficiency of about 90 percent. You can run 

an electric car on the equivalent of $1 a gallon gasoline. 

How do we get from here to there? We have to make the investments, and make the adjustments in the energy marketplace to accomplish this transition. We have two paths that we can pick. One 

is to keep on being hostage to OPEC, even as we know this marketplace is leading to sky high prices, as the oil reserves begin to deplete, and as the demand rises. Or we can decide we are going to 

control our own destiny, and put in place this infrastructure that 

will allow us to give the American people lower energy prices. 

Now, what is the cost of the transition? The latest and most, 

what I regard as the most authoritative estimate of the cost of the 

transition, is about $0.30 per day. As you said, Mr. Chairman, the 

cost of a postage stamp. And that doesn’t even take into account 

the savings that the same household paying that $0.30 a day can 

make if they take advantage of the other provisions that will allow 

them to insulate and change out the windows and lighting, and 

have sharp decreases in their energy consumption. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I think you are making a very valid point. 

We do have regional differences. We represent different parts of the 

country and different constituencies, but we have a national interest to figure out how to get this done, and to recognize that we 

have to reconcile these concerns, that are very legitimate. 

I think the two of you illustrate that. As we heard from the 

USCAP the other day, we have got to keep working at it. I remember that Clean Air Act reauthorization. We worked hard on this 

committee, and under the leadership of Chairman Dingell, we got 

a bill out 41 to 1 out of committee, and the first cap and trade proVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00893 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
884 

gram was in that legislation to deal with the acid rain problem. Industry told us it would cost billions of dollars, and instead, it was 

a tenth of what they predicted. So, I think we need to push things 

forward, do it in a responsible way, try to bring everybody along 

with us, because we all have a national concern, international concern, as we address our regional ones as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out, 

since we keep talking about the Clean Air Act, amendments of 

1990, that I was on the committee, and I was one of those Republicans who voted with Chairman Dingell. In fact, I was a cosponsor 

of the bill, and I know most people think I have gone over to the 

dark side now, but at least in my early years in the Congress, I 

was in the light. And I think I still am, in some regards. 

I want to point out, before I ask my question, that we have Lord 

Monckton in the audience. Republicans had asked that he be allowed to testify today, and that wasn’t possible. He did testify earlier, as Mr. Markey has pointed out, but we appreciate you coming 

over from London to at least observe the hearing. 

I was somewhat taken aback, Mr. Vice President, by your listing 

of current environmental problems attributed to global warming. 

You did miss a few, though. The Dallas Cowboys have not won a 

playoff game in ten years. You didn’t mention that. And you also, 

as Mr. Markey pointed out to me, the Boston, the New England Patriots didn’t make it to the Super Bowl. I would add those to the 

list of problems that you enumerated. 

I do want to directly go to one of the problems that you talked 

about. You talked about CO2 concentrations rising in the oceans, 

and the effect that that is, or could be having. I have a book here, 

called CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs, by Dr. Craig Idso, Id-s-o, who has a magazine that he publishes each month called CO2

Science, and I am going to read the summary from the book, and 

I will put it in the record. ‘‘The rising CO2 content of the atmosphere may induce changes in ocean chemistry pH that could slightly reduce coral calcification rates, but potential positive effects of 

hydrospheric CO2 enrichment may more than compensate for this 

modest negative phenomenon. Theoretical predictions indicate that 

coral calcification rates should decline as a result of increasing CO2

concentrations by as much as 40 percent by the year 2100. However, real world observations indicate that elevated CO2 and elevated temperatures are having just the opposite effect. In light of 

the above observations, and in conjunction with all the material 

presented, it is clear that climate alarmist claims of impending marine species extinctions, due to increases in both temperature and 

atmospheric CO2 concentration are not only not supported by real 

world evidence. They are actually refuted by it.’’ 

Now, I just put that into the record, to point out that some of 

the phenomena that you indicate are obviously occurring. You 

know, if they are occurring, they are occurring, but to lay that at 

the feet of global warming is not substantiated by the science, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
885 

some of these alarmist predictions are just that. They are predictions. They will not be fact. 

Now, let us get to some things that are fact. We know that the 

United States each year creates manmade CO2 emissions in the 

neighborhood of 7 billion metric tons, 7 billion. If you cost that 

manmade CO2 at $100 a ton, which most of the experts who have 

looked at the cap and trade system say that the tons cost is going 

to be between $100 and $200 billion, if you take the $100 a ton 

number, that is $700 billion a year. Now, my friend Mr. Markey 

and Mr. Waxman are engaging in some trading right now. They 

are trying to give free allowances to perhaps get votes. I won’t say 

they are doing that, but it appears to me that they are doing that. 

So, they are going to give some allowances away. Let us say they 

give 3.5 billion tons of allowances away. That still means that there 

is going to be 3.5 billions of tons that have to be costed. Let us say that we take the EPA estimate, that it is only $20 a ton, not $100. I think it is going to be a lot more than $20, but 

we will take the EPA number. That is still, if they give away half 

the allowances, and they only cost $20 a ton, that number is $70 

billion a year. How in the world can we have a cap and trade system that doesn’t cost jobs and doesn’t cost the economy, even if it 

is only half the tons at $20 a ton? 

Mr. GORE. Congressman Barton, I want to address your, the 

point that you made about the science. I don’t question your sincerity for one moment. 

Mr. BARTON. And I don’t question yours, so we are equal on that. 

Mr. GORE. Thank you. I believe that it is important to look at 

the sources of the science that we rely on. With all due respect, I 

believe that you have relied on people you have trusted, who have 

given you bad information. I don’t blame the investors who trusted 

Bernie Madoff, but he gave them bad information. And—— 

Mr. BARTON. I have never talked to Bernie Madoff. 

Mr. GORE. I am not saying that you have. But he gave them bad 

information, and committed a massive fraud that ended up hurting, most of all, the people who trusted him. 

Senator Warner made reference in his opening statement to the 

story on the front page of the New York Times this morning. Absolutely incredible. The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 

14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all this 

science, and their own people told them what the international scientific community is saying is correct. There is no legitimate basis 

for denying it. 

Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger 

than Bernie Madoff’s fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global 

warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific 

review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, 

they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money. 

And the CEO—— 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Vice President—— 

Mr. GORE. —of the largest, if I could just finish my response, 

Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I don’t—look, I will stipulate that CO2 concentrations are going up. There is no debate about that. There are 

about 380 parts per million, and they are going to rise in the neighVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00895 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
886 

borhood of 500 parts per million in the next 50 to 100 years. I will 

stipulate that. Now, the consequences of that, and whether that is 

because of manmade CO2, I think are debatable, and I don’t know 

about this scientific peer review that you just talked about, but if 

somebody lied about something 14 years ago, I am sure Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey will conduct an investigation and oversight 

hearing into that. 

My question to you was about the cost of the allowance system. 

How are we going to pay for it, and how many jobs are we going 

to lose? Now, if you have got information about something that 

happened 14 years ago, I am sure, again, our chairman and subcommittee chairman, Mr. Stupak, who is the Oversight Subcommittee chairman, we will look at it. But answer my question 

about the cost, please. 

Mr. GORE. Yes, it is on the front page of the New York Times 

today, by Andrew Revkin. 

The leading corporate carbon polluters themselves conducted a 

review of the science and found that it is valid, and to the point 

you made a moment ago, they verified in their own studies that 

manmade global warming is raising temperatures and causing this 

crisis. 

Mr. BARTON. I don’t think that can be proven. 

Mr. GORE. Like Bernie Madoff, they lied about it in order to 

make money, and they themselves profited. The CEO of the largest 

got a onetime payment of $400 million. Now, again, those who have 

trusted them and believed them are due an apology. These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a 

massive fraud for the last 14 years. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. BARTON. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the Chairman Emeritus of the committee, the gentleman 

from Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Thank you for recognizing me. You have made me very happy 

today. I get to welcome back two very dear friends, great public 

servants, real patriots, men of distinction and ability, wonderful 

leaders. My old friend John Warner, who lived down the street 

from me, and who has shown himself to be a man of extraordinary 

courtesy and decency in all of his activities. My very special friend 

Albert Gore, whose father and my father and families were friends 

for many years, who served with distinction on this committee, and 

I want to say we had a lot of fun here working on the same questions in earlier days that we are today. And I want to say how 

proud I am to see him back, and to thank him for being here with 

us today. 

Gentlemen, when I was at Kyoto, the Chinese, I asked them, I 

said now, you are not going to be covered by this agreement. They 

said no. And they said, I said when will you be covered? They said 

well, we are a developing country, so we are not going to be, we 

are not going to ever be covered by it. And they indicated that they 

really didn’t intend to be covered by it. 

So, now, we have got ourselves in a situation where we are going 

to go forward, and I think we have to go forward, but the question 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
887 

is how are we, if we go forward, are we going to see that we don’t 

carry the burdens of the whole situation? Kyoto gave us the situation where the Eastern Europeans were out, because they were 

former Communists, and they were excluded. The Europeans all 

had rightly excluded themselves from coverage. The developing nations were excluded. And when I looked around the room to see 

who was going to be covered by this proposition, I found it was only 

one country, the United States. 

Now, how do we see to it that these other countries do things, 

that we are going to do and that we agree have to be done, and 

that we are not the only country who is going to suffer the economic penalties of going forward on this, while these other folks 

ride on our back? 

Mr. GORE. Congressman Dingell, thank you for your kind words. 

Mr. DINGELL. I meant them. 

Mr. GORE. Senator Warner—I know, and I appreciate it. Senator 

Warner mentioned your work, others did on the Clean Air Act. I 

want to also recall that you were the principal author of the National Environmental Policy Act, and in the same year that was 

passed, the first, the original Clean Air Act was carried by Ed 

Muskie, and our good friend Howard Baker, my fellow Tennessean. 

It passed 425 to 4 on the House floor, and because of the bipartisan 

leadership in the Senate, I believe it passed unanimously, and I 

think, I would just express the hope that we can find our way back 

to that kind of bipartisanship. 

Now, on your question. I believe that the provisions in this bill 

put in place a mechanism for dealing with any recalcitrant nation 

that does not go along, and I believe we have the legal authority 

under the WTO to do that. But before we ever get to that stage, 

I honestly believe that when the United States leads the way, we 

are going to see a big shift with a momentum toward a truly global 

agreement. We talked a little bit about India and China earlier. 

There was a story and a study last week showing, according to one 

scientist, 75 percent of all the ice and snow in the Himalayas could 

be gone in a decade, partly because of global warming and the 

black—— 

Mr. DINGELL. I want to make it clear, I don’t quarrel with 

the—— 

Mr. GORE. I know you don’t, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. You and I know each other for a long time, and I 

am concerned that other folks are going to skin us. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. We are going to do the things, and they are going 

to derive the benefits, and we are going to spend the money, and 

we are going to lose the jobs. Now, how do we protect our people, 

and how do we see that we provide protection for the trade exposed 

industries? 

Mr. GORE. Right. 

Mr. DINGELL. And I am not satisfied that this bill has an adequate protection for our workers and our industries in those area, 

particularly given the attitudes of other countries, which expect us 

to carry the load, while they get a free ride. 

Mr. GORE. Well, just to briefly finish the point, because it is in 

direct response to that question. I was citing that particular science 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
888 

study as an illustration of why I believe that China in particular 

is moving much closer to joining a global agreement. And I believe 

that if the United States leads, we will get a global agreement that 

avoids the problems that you are talking about. 

Were it not to unfold in that way, I believe that we would have 

the means to protect against the problems that you worry about 

rightly, and I believe that we should afford ourselves of that protection, and use those tools. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, let me get to one more question, because the 

time is running out. 

We have a choice between, we have got to finance this, and we 

have got to enforce it. Cap and trade is one mechanism. Energy tax 

is another. Every economist says that a carbon tax is a better, 

more efficient, fairer way of doing it. The Europeans have had two, 

and maybe three, fine failures in their application of cap and trade. 

How do we avoid the mistakes that they made, and how do we 

come up with something that gets us the best? 

Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and 

it is a great big one. And so, I want to get a bill that works. How 

do we choose the best course, cap and trade, carbon tax? At times, 

my dear friend Albert, you have been an advocate of a carbon tax 

as the better way to go. How do we address this problem? 

Mr. GORE. Well, I have, for 20 years, supported a CO2 tax that 

is given back to the people, so that it is revenue neutral, but accomplishes the desired effect, but I have never proposed it as a 

substitute for cap and trade. I am in favor of both. 

And a number of the countries around the world that have done 

the best job of addressing the climate crisis and strengthening their 

economies, have in fact put both in place. But I believe that the cap 

and trade approach is the essential first step, partly because it is 

the only basis upon which we can envision a truly global agreement, because it is very difficult to imagine a harmonized global 

tax. 

Mr. DINGELL. I apologize, my dear friend, for interrupting you, 

but how do we avoid the mistakes that the Europeans made? They 

screwed it up twice real good. How do we avoid those? How do we 

get a program that really carries out our responsibility and our 

trust to the American people? 

Mr. GORE. I know Senator Warner wants to make a comment, 

but just briefly, I think by learning from the mistakes that they 

made, as they themselves have learned from their own mistakes. 

Mr. DINGELL. I am not satisfied—— 

Mr. GORE. Their initial allocation was off. They have gone back 

and made significant changes. I think that it is beginning to work 

very effectively there, and country by country, we are seeing the results there. So, I think we can learn from what they have already 

learned. 

Mr. WARNER. Just a brief reply on the issue of China. You put 

your finger on, the man on the street out here is asking us that 

very same question. And my response would be as follows. Because 

of our inability to reconcile differences in the last international 

round, the United States gave cover, they gave protection to China 

and India, to stand back behind us and say they are not going to 

go, we are not going to go. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
889 

That is why I urge this committee, in its deliberations, you may 

not achieve all that you set out to do in this very courageous bill 

thus far, but as we say, get a beachhead on this issue in this Congress, because it is only going to get more complicated and tougher 

for successive Congresses. Lay the beachhead, and let us hope that 

we can build on that foundation, and go forward in the coming 

years and achieve totality of our goals. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Senator, very much. The gentleman’s 

time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Vice President and Senator. Since we don’t have the allocation language yet. 

It hasn’t been released. Whether it is auction or allocation of free 

credits or carbon tax, do you think that Congress and the American 

business community, and the American people would benefit from 

a complete and open hearing on this allocation language once it is 

released, whatever it might be? Should we have open, transparent 

hearings on this before we act? 

Mr. GORE. I mean, I support the leadership of the committee and 

its approach to gathering information, and that would be my answer. 

Mr. PITTS. OK. Senator Warner. 

Mr. WARNER. Well, I would join my colleague on that point. I 

mean, I think transparency is more vital with this legislation than 

anything I have seen in recent times, because—— 

Mr. PITTS. So, we should have a hearing if—once we have the 

language—— 

Mr. WARNER. Well, I am presumptuous to come over here, as a 

member of the former body, and tell you how to go about your business. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. 

Mr. WARNER. I just strongly urge you to do something in this 

Congress. Now, the cap and trade is tough. It is a tough issue, but 

we don’t want to appear that we are using cap and trade as a 

means to just tax those who can pay to distribute it all over. 

Mr. PITTS. OK. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. WARNER. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Vice President, I did not hear your answer to Mr. 

Barton’s question. What is the cost of this bill to every American 

family? 

Mr. GORE. Well, the study that I think that is most authoritative, before taking into account the savings in their energy use 

that this bill will occasion, is around $0.30 a day. But again, let 

me emphasize that I think there will be actual reductions. And the 

reason is actually very simple. During the days of very cheap energy earlier in the century, we developed patterns that led to huge 

amounts of waste in energy that we all began to just kind of take 

for granted. And with the better engineering and the better science, 

the retrofitting and installation of more efficient ways of using energy really allow sharp reductions. 

In the State of California, which adopted some of the provisions 

that are similar to those in this bill, for the last 30 years, there 

has been a zero increase in energy use per capita, but while the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
890 

economy has grown in California, GDP by 80 percent over the same 

period of time. 

Mr. PITTS. OK. Is that $0.30 per family per day, or per person? 

Mr. GORE. I believe it is per household. 

Mr. PITTS. Per household. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. And do you concur with that, Senator Warner? 

Mr. GORE. About a postage stamp per day, but again, I think 

that much more than that will be saved by implementing the other 

provisions of the bill. 

Mr. PITTS. And can you supply us with the study, or the reference to the study? 

Mr. GORE. I believe that it is the EPA study that was produced 

two days ago, three days ago. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. GORE. And I believe it has been presented to the committee. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. William Nordhaus, one of the most distinguished experts on the economics of climate change, has pointed 

out that the Kyoto Protocol would have imposed disproportionately 

large costs on the U.S., yet it would have had almost no effect on 

global temperatures. In large part, the lack of results stem from 

the refusal of China and India to adopt firm, binding caps on their 

domestic emission. How do you explain the statements of China 

and India, that they made at Bali, demanding that the developed 

world pay them for any greenhouse reduction costs that they incur? 

They have demanded that the developed world pay them for any 

greenhouse gas reductions that they make. 

Mr. GORE. Well, the rhetoric between the developed and the developing countries has been in a rut for years and decades. The reality of the world today is that China has moved a long way. China 

is ready to move at Copenhagen. I think you have got a very different situation with China today. 

Mr. PITTS. So, you do not feel that this principle of income transfers to the developing countries is valid. 

Mr. GORE. I think that technology assistance and adaptation, I 

think adaptation to the impacts of climate change is particularly 

important, and I think the way it is addressed in this bill is excellent. 

Mr. WARNER. I associate myself with the comments of my colleague here. We just dismiss that type of argument out of hand. I 

think world condemnation of China and India will come about 

shortly, if there is some foundation in fact, and I believe it is, of 

the EPA finding that this is detrimental to health, those two nations ought to be high on the areas where that health is going to 

be affected, and this may change their thinking. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Vice President, I hope you will convey our thanks to Tipper Gore for her work on this cause as well. 

I have got two questions today. 

First, I want to ask about a position a relatively well known individual has taken at one time about a cap and trade position. I just 

want to read a question and an answer, a quote from February 15, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
891 

2007. This former Congressman was asked in 2000: ‘‘Candidate 

George Bush pledged mandatory carbon caps. It was a campaign 

pledge. What did you think of it at the time? Were you for that?’’ 

This former Congressman answered: ‘‘I think if you have mandatory carbon caps, combined with a trading system much like what 

we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax incentive program for investing in the solution, that there is a package there that is very, 

very good. And frankly, it is something I would strongly support.’’ 

This action plan is essentially what we are doing in this bill, of 

a carbon cap, a trading system, and incentives for the development 

of entrepreneurship. This former Congressman went on to say that 

caps with a trading system on sulfur has worked brilliantly, because it brought free market attitudes, entrepreneurship, and technology, and made it very profitable to have less sulfur. So people 

said wow, it is worth my time and effort. 

Now, that former Congressman who said that on February 15, 

2007 was former Congressman Newt Gingrich, who will shortly 

come into this room and testify that this bill is a combination of 

bubonic plague and Ebola virus for the U.S. economy. 

Is there any scientific reason, of which you are aware, that would 

make a carbon cap system, of the type we have proposed, productive economically, and a wise move on February 15, 2007, and 

today, unfathomably destructive? 

Mr. GORE. I think I will try to dance around that question. 

Mr. INSLEE. You are entitled to, as a former Vice President. You 

have that right. We will take that as a rhetorical question, and—— 

Mr. GORE. Well, see, I think that one of the great questions here, 

for those of us who believe in capitalism and the power of the marketplace, is why don’t we use this great tool to solve the biggest 

crisis we are facing? CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless, and 

more importantly, it is not registered on the accounting ledgers. It 

has no price associated with it. So, the old aphorism, out of sight, 

out of mind, applies. As a consequence, we in this world, today, will 

put 70 million tons of it into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding the planet. 

Scientists have known for 150 years that CO2 traps heat, and for 

100 years, have worried that a massive increase would trap so 

much heat that it would cause big changes. And for the last 25 

years, we have had the preeminent scientific organization in the 

world, the 3,000 best scientists in the world, from 113 countries, 

have issued four unanimous reports saying we have got to deal 

with it. 

So, how are we going to deal with it? The best way to deal with 

it is to use the marketplace. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Vice President, I want to ask you about, in a 

local impact, how that would work. I was happening to talk a guy 

who runs Taylor Shellfish. They have an oyster farm in Puget 

Sound, really reputable business for a long time. They can’t grow 

oyster seed now in Puget Sound the last couple of years, and there 

is a very strong suspicion it is associated with the acidification of 

the ocean, which you educated us about. 

By the way, the NOAA research is that this is happening in the 

West Coast United States, probably twice as fast, which is now 30 

percent worse than preindustrial times, there is new research on 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
892 

this. He could lose his business as a result of a policy of inaction, 

which some are suggesting here, that we should not act. And many 

of us believe that the costs of inaction here are much greater than 

the cost of action, that we will reduce the cost to the U.S. economy 

by actually acting. And I have got a lot of business in my district, 

like right across the right, Sapphire Energy. They are doing algaebased biofuels, Infinia Energy, doing Stirling Engine solar. We can 

grow the economy and avoid the devastation a lot of these businesses, like the Taylor Oyster Farm may have. Is that a fair projection of what the future could be? 

Mr. GORE. Well, I think it is, and it is a challenge to the moral 

imagination, to deal with the scope and scale of these changes. The 

idea that the entire world ocean would grow so acidic that everything that makes a shell will be unable to do so, unless we take 

action, is just astounding. And at the base of the food chain are 

these tiny little critters that have very thin shells. They are already being affected. If the base of the food chain is affected, then 

everything up the food chain is affected. 

The coral reefs are already under stress, great stress. A study 

just came out showing the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, the 

largest reef system in the world, thousands of miles, will be functionally dead by 2050 without action. Now, it is a combination of 

the warming water temperatures and the acidification, but yes. No, 

I think you are right on target. We need to address this. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. GORE. And thank you, Congressman Inslee, for your outstanding leadership and initiative on this issue over the years. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice 

President, Senator. It is good to have you before the committee. 

I wanted to just note that Mr. Vice President, your reference to 

$0.30 a day comes from an EPA study, I believe. Unfortunately, 

that EPA study also assumes 150 percent growth in nuclear power 

in order to achieve that $0.30 a day, and that nuclear part is not 

in this bill. 

I know there is concern about worker retraining. Mr. Vice President, you have said you wanted every coal worker who lost his job 

to get a job. Unfortunately, the worker transition piece in this bill, 

all we have is in parentheses, to be supplied, page 568 of the bill. 

And I have asked every other witness this, have you each read the 

bill in its entirety? Can I get a yes or no? 

Mr. GORE. Congressman, I have read all 648 pages of this bill. 

It took me two transcontinental flights on United Airlines to finish 

it. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I get another one at 2:00. Senator Warner, 

have you read the bill? 

Mr. WARNER. The answer is no, I have not. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Let us, then let us go on to a couple of 

points, because—— 

Mr. WARNER. I am trying to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Vice President, because you talked about an 

issue that is dear to my heart, and I have raised it at every hearing I have participated in, and that is the health of America’s forVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00902 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
893 

ests. I come from a district with 11 National Forests in it, with 20 

percent unemployment in some of these counties, because nothing 

is happening meaningful in these forests. I am a big advocate of 

biomass. Do you support, yes or no, because we are tight on time, 

biomass from federal forests as a renewable energy source? 

Mr. GORE. You know, I think the protection of the federal forest 

is important, and Congressman, as a matter of curiosity, are you 

seeing the tree death in your forests from the—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. GORE. —beetles and the drying? 

Mr. WALDEN. In fact, this is from 1989. Tanner Gulch fire. It 

wiped out Spring Chinook Salmon Run in Oregon’s Upper Grande 

Ronde River. This is an overchoked forest, although it looks fairly 

healthy from this picture. In California federal forests, here is what 

happens after you treat it and get it in, sorry. I am sorry. Here is 

what happens when you treat it, and try and manage it for old 

growth. This is the Malheur National Forest. It is out in Harney 

County. They have 20 percent unemployment right now. This is 

what happens when you don’t treat it, and it burns. 

Mr. GORE. When you say treat it—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Get in and manage it the way the biologists believe 

it should be managed. We have a 79 year backlog at the rate we 

are treating right now, to get these forests into balance, to deal 

with the climate change that you outlined. And the Forest Service, 

as you know, has done terrific research work over the years, trying 

to figure out climate change, and what needs to be done as management in these forests. 

That Malheur National Forest I referenced, they are at least 25 

years out, based on the limited amount of acreage. We had investors that were ready to go into that county with 20 percent unemployment, and do woody biomass production of renewable energy, 

and they cannot even get certainty from the forest of supply. 

This legislation, on page 8, says woody biomass is not renewable 

if it comes off federal ground, period. Beyond that, the way it is 

written, I have had private land foresters tell me, even off their 

private land, it would shut down biomass facilities if you followed 

this. 

Does that make any sense to you? 

Mr. GORE. Yes, sure. Yes. No, I understand exactly what you are 

saying. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you agree with shutting it down? Do you agree 

with this language? 

Mr. GORE. I don’t have a lot of confidence, based on what has 

happened in the past, when something, you know, I think that if 

you and I could sit down and talk about every little detail of which 

tree and so forth. You know, in Canada, they have this kind, a 

management approach. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GORE. And yet, their forests are being devastated. 

Mr. WALDEN. And why is that? 

Mr. GORE. It is primarily because the warmer temperatures are 

allowing that—— 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. So, doesn’t that—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
894 

Mr. GORE. If I could finish my—you asked me a question. If I 

could finish my answer. It is primarily, according to them, because 

the warmer temperatures—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GORE. —due to manmade global warming, are causing the 

pine beetles and bark beetles to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GORE. —go on the rampage—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GORE. And they have lost many billions of dollars of—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GORE. And when they die and get dry in the higher temperatures, they are vulnerable to fire—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GORE. —and we have had all time record forest fires. 

Mr. WALDEN. So, doesn’t that speak to managing those forests, 

to thin them out, when you know you are going to have drought, 

to open up the stands, get them back in balance with nature, and 

to be able to—the thing I am fighting here is, when you take—— 

Mr. GORE. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. —that material out, to do exactly what Canada is 

doing, to do exactly what needs to happen on the Fremont-Winema 

National Forests, where you have more than 200,000 acres of federal forestland that is exactly that way, bug-infested lodge pole 

pine, when that material comes out, why in the Devil do we say 

it is not renewable, and can’t be turned into pucks like this, to help 

reduce carbon from coal? This could be put in a coal plant in my 

district, if they could get enough of this made. This comes out of 

Canada, by the way. They are doing that. Why do we preclude it 

in this bill? 

Mr. GORE. Well, I think the record of what has happened when 

it has been opened up in the past has given a lot of people pause, 

and diminished their confidence that it could be managed in a way 

that resembles the right result, but—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Now, as you know, Mr. Vice President, every forest 

has a management plan, and every activity on that forest requires 

full NEPA. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am just tapping you to just, I am not gaveling 

you, I am just tapping to let you know that you are past. 

Mr. WALDEN. Because a lot of these answers have gone on for 

twelve minutes after the five. I guess the point here is every activity on a federal forest already is covered by NEPA, isn’t it? Every 

management activity. 

Mr. GORE. I don’t think those provisions of NEPA have been effective in preventing some of the abuses that occurred during some 

times in the past. 

Mr. WALDEN. I will tell you this. I will close. Why don’t you come 

out, and I will take you to the Malheur National Forest. And together, we will walk in these stands, or the Winema, FremontWinema National Forests, and we will meet with the professionals. 

Or up in the Wallowa-Whitman, where they are heating the school 

with biomass. Or the Harney County—apparently, I am out of 

time. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
895 

Mr. GORE. I appreciate your invitation, Congressman. I have 

been to the forests of Oregon. I would love to come back. I was active in forming the Forest Plan of 1994 for the Pacific Northwest. 

Mr. WALDEN. The Northwest Forest Plan. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Which has its own set of issues being implemented. 

Mr. GORE. Yes, but it has been largely a great success. 

Mr. WALDEN. I dispute that. 

Mr. GORE. Well—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

also thank both of you for your testimony today, and for your extraordinary service to our country. 

Let me try to go in a little different direction if I can, and this 

time goes very quickly, as you can imagine. But I represent a very 

low income district in Eastern North Carolina, Greenville, Rocky 

Mount, Elizabeth City, very low income district. We are the fourth 

from the bottom in the United States of America, in terms of median family income. I think the income is like $30,400 per year. 

And so we are, essentially, a poor district. 

And so, I am obviously concerned about the costs of this legislation, and what it will do to low income families, not just for electricity, but for everything that we consume, plastics and rubber, 

and food and the like. And so, my question to you is, Mr. Gore, 

what do I tell a single parent, for example, in my district, with two 

children, two young children, making $8 an hour? What can I say 

to reassure her that she will be able to afford the cost of this legislation? 

And it may be $0.30 a day, it may end up being much more than 

that. I hope that you are right, and that the, those on the other 

side of the aisle are wrong, but if it happens to be expensive, my 

families, my low income families, cannot absorb the cost of this legislation. I need some help with that. 

Mr. GORE. Well, I think other provisions of this bill can lead to 

reductions in the cost for that family. And as we saw in Hurricane—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But not immediate reductions. 

Mr. GORE. Well, it depends on how quickly they are implemented, and how they are taken advantage of. And let me say that, 

as we saw with Hurricane Katrina, low income families are often 

the most likely the suffer the harmful consequences if we do not 

address the global warming issue. And the new job creation that 

comes from the green energy jobs that are being created, are going 

to benefit the same communities of low income families. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, that is very difficult to explain to a low 

income family that is already in the deficit, in deficit spending. It 

is very difficult, and we need to do a better job in crafting this legislation, to make sure that we have an economic offset, some type 

of assistance for low income families, to make sure that they do not 

pay an inordinate price for this legislation. 

Senator Warner, as you can see from the ebb and flow of the testimony today, there are some who criticize this legislation as a 

measure that will result in fewer American jobs and fewer investVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00905 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
896 

ment opportunities. You talked a few minutes ago about creating 

a beachhead. I know what that means in military language, but 

how can we develop a political beachhead to make sure that the 

American people understand this, and to make sure that the element of fear does not dominate this conversation? 

Mr. WARNER. I shared the burdens you have, of talking to my 

people when I was leading the effort in the Senate. It was a brand 

new concept, and we couldn’t establish clear cost parameters. But 

I would say to that wonderful family, the cost today, hopefully, will 

result in an America that they pass on to their children that they 

can enjoy, as did their parents. 

I do believe, and I say this respectfully, Mr. Chairman, and when 

we worked on our bill, I tried to resist a lot of the efforts, good intentioned, to take such funds that were going to be developed by 

the cap and trade concept, and spread them around in areas other 

than directly for the goals of increasing our energy, clean energy 

output. I think if you begin to try and utilize this bill as another 

means by which to take care of well deserving families and well deserving causes, you are going to lose public support. 

They will pay if they are confident that the dollars in this bill 

go towards the goal of clean energy, cost effective energy, and improved health. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. So, you would not support the concept of offsetting the economic impact on low income families. 

Mr. WARNER. Well, there may be other ways to do it than this 

piece of legislation. If we make this, I would say, when I talk to 

my colleagues, a welfare bill, I don’t think the public is going to 

begin to support it. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. On the question of the loss of jobs, the—— 

Mr. WARNER. The loss of jobs—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Does taking action on this legislation come at 

the expense of American jobs? 

Mr. WARNER. No, I think quite the contrary. There, authoritative 

polling that shows that the American public looks at this bill as a 

means to increase the number of jobs, as well as help improve 

health conditions, and they are quite anxious to see that it will 

help our national security. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate both witnesses 

being with us today. I appreciate your willingness to hear from 

members of the subcommittee. 

Vice President Gore, when you were here in our subcommittee, 

maybe it has been two years ago, as you were leaving, I recall the 

statement was made that, about a carbon tax that would just replace the existing payroll tax and income tax, and there is a, certainly Tom Friedman writing in the New York Times a couple of 

weeks ago, asked the very same question. Would we not be better, 

rather than trying to play hide the ball with cap and trade, would 

we not be better just being honest with the American people, and 

saying we are going to tax energy? We are going to tax carbon. 

And perhaps to the extent that we tried to make that revenue 

neutral by replacing the payroll tax, replacing at least a portion of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
897 

the income tax with this new carbon tax, would that not be a 

straightforward way for us to go about this, rather than us try to 

pick winners and loser? 

Mr. GORE. As I said earlier, Congressman, thank you for your 

question, as I said earlier, I have supported a revenue neutral CO2

tax, with the money given back. It could be given back to the people in a variety of different ways. But I do not support it to the 

exclusion of cap and trade. I think that cap and trade is the essential first step in order to use the market forces to address this problem, and to secure a global agreement around that principle, which 

already has broad support throughout the world. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I actually would dispute that concept, but 

here is part of our problem. I absolutely agree with both of you 

about the economic factors. There is no question that the energy, 

cost of energy, the burden of energy costs on our families has been 

significant, and it will be significant again in the future. So, finding 

ways to deliver energy at a reasonable cost is important, and I— 

no argument with that. 

No argument about the security question. Our good friend, Boone 

Pickens, said it so eloquently last summer, that we are funding 

both sides of the War on Terror. People get that. Our trade deficit 

that has been so high recently, people get the negative impact that 

that has on our economy, and I think one of you even references 

peak oil to some degree. At some point, oil likely is going to be a 

finite resource, and looking for other sources. Absolute agreement 

to that point. 

But we always, then, come down to arguing about, did global 

warming cause Katrina? Did global warming cause the death of a 

polar bear? And there are going to be arguments on both sides. 

Why not just leave that aside? Why not focus on the security? Why 

not focus on the economy? Why do we have to be in a position of 

picking winners and losers? 

We have just watched a financial meltdown in this country the 

likes of which hasn’t been seen in some time. Now, if people like 

credit default swaps, they are really going to like the carbon swaps 

that are going to occur, and the carbon futures swaps. We spent 

a full day in this committee last summer, talking about the manipulation of the energy futures market in oil. We are going to create, 

I fear, another such system that people who are, have an inclination to react dishonestly to systems, are going to actually have a 

new opportunity. Is that not a problem? 

Mr. GORE. Well, let me look at your analogy in a slightly different way. There were warnings that the credit default swaps and 

the subprime mortgages, and the other activities that caused the 

financial crisis were going to bring us ruin if we didn’t address 

them, and nothing was done about it. If I could finish my answer. 

There are warnings now of a far worse catastrophe, and they are 

coming from a unified IPCC representing the global scientific community, and if nothing were to be done about it, the results would 

be far worse. Now, let us look at the subprime mortgages. I remember the days when you made a down payment and proved you could 

make the monthly payments. And the risk, we were told the risk 

was washed away by securitizing them and lumping them together, 

and that assumption collapsed. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
898 

We now have several trillion dollars of subprime carbon assets, 

whose value is based on an assumption that it is perfectly OK to 

put 70 million tons of that pollution up there every 24 hours—— 

Mr. BURGESS. And this is what—— 

Mr. GORE. So, the reason, in answering your first question. 

Mr. BURGESS. I am going to have to interrupt you. 

Mr. GORE. Why we—why can’t we ignore it—— 

Mr. BURGESS. I am going to run out of time. 

Mr. GORE. —because it is the biggest crisis we have ever faced. 

Mr. BURGESS. And no one who has come before this committee 

from a scientific basis can show us the smoking gun that mankind 

is causing this to happen. There are, you can create relationships 

between the number of sunspots and the partisan makeup of the 

Senate. Anything can be proven, if you are willing to take the time 

to have the numbers. 

Mr. GORE. Congressman Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me just go to another point, because it was a 

terribly important—— 

Mr. GORE. Could I respond to that? 

Mr. BURGESS. No, I need to make this point. Dr. Apt, who was 

with us yesterday, and he said it so eloquently, that we have to 

focus on reducing carbon dioxide, rather than trying to pick winners and losers in this. If we will focus on what is the reasonable 

thing to do, whether we want to focus on security, whether we 

want to focus on the economy, or we can spend a lot more time arguing about the science of climate change. 

When we construct this bill, and Senator Lieberman, or Senator 

Warner said it so well, when we construct this bill, we have to have 

the flexibility that we give people credit for doing the energy efficiency things that we want them to do. We give people credit for 

creating the newer technologies that we want them to do, rather 

than us pick every jot and tittle of winners and loser in the bill, 

which is unfortunately the draft that we have in front of us. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Vice President? 

Mr. WARNER. Could I have just a minute, less than a minute? I 

think a carbon tax is very simple, very understandable, but I think 

it would bring the bill down. I don’t think you will get the votes 

to support it. The inherent advantages—— 

Mr. BURGESS. And just for the record, I would not support a carbon tax. 

Mr. WARNER. Yes, well, all right. The inherent, I think inherently, in a cap and trade system that can be devised, is the incentive for the industrial base of this country, the technological base, 

to solve the problems and to go forward. It also, if we have a bill, 

it begins to enable that same base to do its long range planning. 

The power industry has to look forward 10, 12, 15 years out, as to 

their requirements, and if we keep hanging over this, global warming thing over their head, they can’t make their orderly planning. 

We have got to get the beachhead. We have got to tell them here 

is what we are trying to do, and can you do it, if we give you this 

flexibility and this support. And they did it in clean air. They can 

do it in this. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
899 

Mr. BURGESS. I would just make the point, this bill does not have 

the flexibility inherent in the language as it is before us today. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would 

like to ask the committee, with unanimous consent, that I be allowed to submit comments for the record on behalf of the National 

Association of Realtors. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so included. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Gore, I have to, Vice President 

Gore, I have to just admire how you have been willing to put your 

personal reputation on the line year after year, for something that 

you truly believe in, despite the most vicious attacks on your character, that are totally without merit. And that takes a great 

amount of bravery, and I have the greatest amount of respect for 

you for doing that. 

Mr. GORE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, you have been pretty explicit about the 

economic rollercoaster that we have been on, due to energy instability, the price instability of energies. Do you believe, that I believe, like I believe, that by increasing energy efficiency, and finding new sources of energy, that we can get ahead of the energy cost 

problem, and ultimately, pay less for energy, for better results with 

the cap and trade system, which will also create jobs, and stabilize 

the economy, and get rid of that rollercoaster? 

Mr. GORE. I certainly do agree with that. I think that if we made 

up our minds to lead this transition, we would benefit not only 

with millions of new jobs, but also, with lower energy costs and a 

much more productive economy. I don’t think there is any question 

about it. The only question is whether we are going to lead the 

world, or whether we are going to follow those who provide leadership elsewhere. If we lead, we get the jobs. We get the technologies 

to sell elsewhere, and we get the productivity gains. That is the 

role I think we ought to adopt. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Vice President. Senator, do you 

want to respond to that? 

Mr. Gore, you mentioned the smart grid as a part of the solution 

to reducing our carbon emissions. Can you explain the connection 

there? I think it is something that a lot of people don’t quite understand. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. The phrase smart grid is confusing to some, because in many parts of the world, it is used to describe the distribution of energy, and the use of smart meters that give homeowners and business owners a better way to reduce the wasteful 

use of energy, and use efficiency and conservation more effectively. 

But maybe we ought to call it a supergrid. That is what the Europeans call one of their proposals, because it essentially has two 

components. It makes it possible to transmit over high technology 

lines, over a long distance, renewable electricity from the areas 

with high sunlight, in the desert, for example, to the cities where 

it is used. And from the wind corridor, that my friend Boone Pickens talks about a lot, running up north and south along the High 

Plains and the Mountain States, and take that electricity to the citVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00909 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
900 

ies where it is used, and from the geothermal areas. That is the 

first part, long distance, low loss transmission, from areas that 

don’t have a lot of people, but do have a lot of renewable resources, 

to the places where it can be used. 

The second feature of it involves the use of data processing, 

chips, a very cheap but very powerful and effective information 

technology, to empower the end users to use less and get more, and 

to sell electricity back into the grid, if they put photovoltaic cells 

on their roof, or use small wind, or other forms of what is called 

distributed power generation. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. That was a fairly detailed discussion. 

Do you have any comments about the value of using a Green 

Bank, in terms of making the transition easier for the American 

people, or for the individuals and families in our country? 

Mr. GORE. Well, that is not in the draft of this legislation, and 

I want to reiterate and make it clear that I support this legislation, 

but I am familiar with the proposal that my friend of 50 years, 

Reed Hunt, has put together, with others, called a Green Bank. I 

think it is a very imaginative, very excellent idea, and I commend 

it to your attention. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you. You know, your list of impacts 

due to global warming was fairly sobering. And if we are marching 

along that path, it is fairly risky. Do you think that that is, do you 

think we are sort of on a steady state, or do you think we are accelerating our march down that path? 

Mr. GORE. Well, we are presently accelerating in a direction toward a precipice. We still have time to change course, and I will 

answer in a way that is also relevant to the answer. The time ran 

out on the exchange that I was having with Congressman Burgess. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Feel free to end, to respond to that earlier question. 

Mr. GORE. Not too long from now, the next generation is going 

to look back at the beginning years of this century, and ask one of 

two questions. Either they will ask what were you thinking? Didn’t 

you hear the scientists? Why did you prefer to listen to some 

outlier quack that got money from these carbon polluters that were 

engaged in a massive fraud? Why didn’t you listen to the global scientific community? Just because you didn’t have access to the scientific studies of the carbon polluters themselves, because they hid 

them, is no excuse. What were you thinking? Why did you let this 

happen? 

Or they will ask a second question, the one I want them to ask. 

How did you find the moral courage to look past the short term 

controversies of the day, and rise to solve a crisis that so many said 

was inconvenient to address? Thank you. 

Senator Warner’s generation won a war in the Pacific and in Europe simultaneously, and then put down the Marshall Plan and the 

United Nations and the post-War recovery. It wasn’t very convenient for them to do, but they did it because our national security 

was at stake. Our national security is at stake now, and it is a 

challenge that this Congress must rise to. 

I don’t know how to say it. I wish I could find the words, to get 

past the partisan divide that both sides have contributed to, but I 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
901 

really wish I could find the words to, that would unlock this. It 

shouldn’t be partisan. It should be something we do together in our 

national interest. The next generations are calling out to us. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we debate what I agree is a very important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation, in my opinion, and many others would 

have very detrimental effects on our economy if it was implemented the way it has been drafted. We have been trying to get 

a quantifiable grasp on the cost of this bill, how much it would actually cost American families, how many jobs would be created and 

lost, and we have, number one, on the science side, we have had 

very divergent views. We have had dozens of experts come over the 

last few days and testify, giving very different opinions on the 

science. 

On the economics of it, we have not had the same kind of divergence. In fact, most economists and experts that have testified on 

the cost acknowledge, in fact, I will refer to President Obama’s own 

budget, that was just passed two weeks ago. If you go to page 119 

of the President’s budget, he is anticipating generating $646 billion 

in new tax revenue from this bill. So, clearly, the President expects 

this bill to generate $646 billion in new taxes, that even his own 

Budget Director has said would be passed on to consumers. 

Senator Warner, we had seen numbers on the Lieberman-Warner 

Bill, the President’s Budget Director today, he was the head of 

CBO last year, when he testified on your bill, he said it would have 

cost consumers about $1,300 a year more in their average utility 

bills, in addition to everything else they buy that is related to electricity, gasoline, food, anything else. 

Can you, and then Senator Gore, talk to the numbers that the 

Congressional Budget Office, and now, the President’s Budget Director, gave to your bill, and how that would relate to this bill, in 

terms of the cost to American families, of implementing a cap and 

trade energy tax? 

Mr. WARNER. I would say that the work done by the Budget Office on the bill that I was privileged to be working with, is a good 

foundation, and that you can, I think many of the assumptions 

would carry over to this legislation. 

But Congressman, we have got to make a start. If we are looking 

for absolute certainty, we are never going to get a bill. We have to 

start the learning curve, start the process, and then build on it. 

And that is why I strongly urge that you incorporate language, to 

give to the Chief Executive Officer of this country the authority to 

move in when he believes that corrections have to be made. 

Mr. SCALISE. And of course, we don’t see that in this, and I am 

sorry to interrupt, but I know my time is limited. Vice President 

Gore. 

Mr. GORE. Congressman, you began by denying that there is a 

consensus on the science. There is a consensus on the science. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, you mustn’t have been listening to our testimony that we have had for the last few days with dozens of experts 

that have come in, who have given completely different views. So, 

I would—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
902 

Mr. GORE. Well, there—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I would encourage you to go back and look at the 

testimony this committee has heard. 

Mr. GORE. There are people who still believe that the Moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona. 

Mr. SCALISE. And neither of us are one of those, and I know you 

like giving those cute anecdotes. This is not a cutesy issue. We are 

talking about—— 

Mr. GORE. No. That—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Export millions of jobs out of our economy, out of our country, and testimony has been given just to those 

numbers. And so, we are talking about a serious consequence that 

there would be on this country, and the carbon leakage that would 

occur, where the carbon would be emitted, but it would be emitted 

in China, in India, and the jobs would go to China and India. And 

that has been testified before this committee in the last few days 

as well. 

Mr. GORE. Man—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Would you testify about the actual cost. Do you 

want—— 

Mr. GORE. Man—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. To testify about the cost? 

Mr. GORE. Manmade global warming pollution causes global 

warming. That is not a cutesy issue. It is not an open issue. 

Mr. SCALISE. And it is your opinion. Obviously, you have stated 

it many times. 

Mr. GORE. It is the opinion of—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Would you talk to the cost? 

Mr. GORE [continuing]. The global scientific community, and 

more importantly—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And not in unanimity. There are others on the 

other side. 

Mr. GORE. More importantly, Congressman, that opinion is the 

opinion of the scientific studies conducted by the largest carbon polluters 14 years ago, who have lied to you, and who have lied to the 

American people for 14 years. 

Mr. SCALISE. And you talk about carbon—and I have got— I am 

running out of time. We talk about carbon polluters. You talk about 

them. It is my understanding that back in 1997, when you were 

Vice President, Enron’s CEO, Ken Lay, was involved in discussions 

with you at the White House, about helping develop this type of 

policy, this trading scheme. Is that accurate, is it inaccurate? It has 

been reported. 

Mr. GORE. I don’t know. But I met with Ken Lay, as lots of people did, before anybody knew that he was a crook. 

Mr. SCALISE. Right. And clearly, you can see why so many of us 

are concerned about this type of cap and trade energy tax, that 

would be literally turning over this country’s energy economy—— 

Mr. GORE. I didn’t know him well enough to call him Kenny Boy. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well—but you knew him well enough to help him 

devise this trading scheme, and obviously, we know what Enron 

and these big guys on Wall Street, like Goldman Sachs, and I know 

you have got interests with Goldman Sachs. 

Mr. GORE. No. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
903 

Mr. SCALISE. These people—well, it is—that has been reported. 

Is that not accurate? 

Mr. GORE. No, I wish I did. I don’t. 

Mr. SCALISE. With executives from, you are partnered in companies with executives from Goldman Sachs. Well, if you are not. Either way, Enron clearly had an interest in doing this. When they 

were around, we saw what they did, and when you see the types 

of people involved in wanting to set up this kind of scheme, you can 

see why so many of us are concerned about turning—— 

Mr. GORE. Are you—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Our energy economy over to a scheme 

that was devised by companies like Enron and some of these Wall 

Street firms—— 

Mr. GORE. Well, that—I mean—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. That have wrecked our financial economy. 

Mr. GORE. I don’t really know if you want me to respond to that. 

I guess what you are trying to say, you are trying to state that 

there is some kind of—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I mean, clearly, there would be big winners and big 

losers. 

Mr. GORE. You are trying to say that there is some kind of—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Scalise, please allow the Vice President to answer. 

Mr. GORE [continuing]. Guilt by association. Is that your—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Not association. I am saying that there are going 

to be big winners and big losers in this bill, and that has been discussed by everybody talking. Big winners and big losers, but some 

of the big winners are some of the very financial experts that 

helped destroy our financial marketplace, and I think that should 

be noted, that companies like Enron helped come up with this trading scheme that we are going to vote, in cap and trade. 

Mr. GORE. Enron didn’t create this proposal in any way, shape, 

or form. That is a false accusation. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, the details are not in this bill. The details are 

not in this bill, and I would suggest that they are. 

Mr. WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I do need a few minutes. I really 

have had a marvelous opportunity to work with many, many interested parties across this country on this subject, including corporate America and the business community. And I hope that those 

following this hearing don’t get the views that the wrongdoing by 

what I hope is a very small minority should not be brushed across 

the whole spectrum. 

Indeed, if we are going to solve this problem, we have got to rely 

on the corporate America, the financial America, the technical 

America, to work our way out within the constraints and directions 

of the legislation. But I find that there is far, in the majority, most 

people are trying to responsibly come up with solutions to this 

problem. 

Mr. SCALISE. And here is an alternative. The American Energy 

Act, which was filed last year—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Which I still think is a better alternative—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
904 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. To cap and trade is still out there. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, and for the 

record—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. For the record, the proposal that we are considering has had the CEO of General Electric, of Alcoa, of Rio Tinto, 

of corporations across the country, who have testified in conjunction with major environmental groups. That is the proposal that we 

are considering. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. 

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. 

I am a new member of this committee, and as I have listened to 

the questions of my colleagues on both sides, I have come to the 

conclusion that there are those of us who, I think, basically take 

the view that you have advocated, that we have to act, and then, 

some of the opposition comes from folks who don’t believe it is necessary. They essentially deny the existence of the problem. But 

there are many good faith questions about what the impact will be 

on jobs, the dislocation, the economy. People like Mr. Burgess, Mr. 

Walden, have asked that questions that, frankly, I think those of 

us who are advocates have the burden of doing our best to answer. 

But at times, it sometimes seems as though those concerns become not so much addressed to solve the problem, but to avoid action. And Senator, I am going to ask you, based on your 30 years 

of service in the United States Senate, having to find common 

ground with people on the other side of the aisle, what advice do 

you have to those of us who share your view that this is a bill that 

has to be passed? How do we find a way to reach agreement with 

the good faith objections that come from people who don’t agree 

with us quite yet? 

Mr. WARNER. Well, that has been the history of our Congress 

since its very inception. We are admired by the world for many reasons, and one is that we have the longest continuously surviving 

form of government, and it provides for healthy debate. It provides, 

to the extent possible, for full debate. 

Unfortunately, our chamber, the Senate, now has had less and 

less debate, because of resorting to certain rules which are on the 

book, created by ourselves, but it is important that the views of 

those in opposition be heard, respected, because I think most people are conscientious, who object to this. But we have got to find 

a way. You cannot just accept, throw up your hands. We can’t do 

it. We just must do it. 

Maybe you are not going to, and I hope you get as much as you 

think you can, but you are not going to get the whole loaf. You are 

going to get a part of it, but you will have sent the signal across 

America that the Congress is ready to move forward on this issue, 

and that will get the attention here at home, and that will get the 

attention of the world. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, and Mr. Gore, I want to ask you your 

thoughts on a couple of approaches that I think make sense to 

take, in order to try to build some of these bridges. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
905 

One is efficiency. You have talked about that. My view, and I 

have some aspects in this bill, that say we start addressing this by 

efficiency. It is within our control. We have got a provision in the 

bill, a small one, but important one, to allow homeowners to get tax 

credits, businesses to get tax credits and incentives, for saving. The 

more they save, the more of an incentive they get. It is the local 

jobs that you spoke about. I would hope that that would be a way 

of finding some common ground. 

And a second issue may be to incorporate into this legislation a 

monitoring device to basically ask these questions every three 

months or six months, about what is, in fact, the job impact, because those are fair questions. 

And I want to get your advice and thoughts about suggestions 

you might have to try to provide some legitimate reassurance to legitimate questions that are raised about dislocation and economic 

impact. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. Well, I think the provisions of the bill in the current draft adequately and imaginatively address that question. I 

think there would be potentially massive job losses, if we did not 

adopt this legislation, because if we just continue on with business 

as usual, ignoring the warnings, and then, just sit and wait until 

the oil prices go sky high again, that is what would cause the massive job losses. 

I think that the creation of jobs by this bill will far, far outstrip 

any losses that would be associated with it. I genuinely believe 

that. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. And what do you think about having in the bill 

some provision to actually try to monitor that, some referee that 

is actually looking at the data, what is the impact of each provision 

of the bill, and providing, as we go along, some data that hopefully 

is credible? 

Mr. GORE. Well, that sounds like a good idea to me. I know that 

there are provisions in the legislation now that require regular reports and regular analyses of several matters, some of which do relate to this. If they need to be fine-tuned, then maybe that is a 

good thing. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you very much. Senator. 

Mr. WARNER. While I haven’t read the whole bill, I have studied 

those portions I felt that would be addressed today, and particularly, the area of national security. 

So, I think you should monitor. In order to give the President the 

guidelines as to move forward with the throttle or pull back on the 

throttle. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back, but I just want 

to tell the Vice President that my office in 1404 Longworth, I believe was your dad’s, that is what they were saying, when he was 

in Congress. 

Mr. GORE. Oh, that is great. I didn’t know that. 

Mr. WELCH. And I am living in an apartment that you may be 

familiar with, it is the Tennessee Apartment in the Methodist 

House with Congressman Cooper. 

Mr. GORE. Oh, great. 

Mr. WELCH. And I don’t know if you left anything behind, but we 

will check. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
906 

Mr. GORE. Not that I know of, but thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses, Mr. Vice President, Senator Warner. It is an honor to 

have you here, and we appreciate your knowledge and insights on 

this issue. 

Our Nation’s security, our planet’s sustainability, and our children’s future really do hang in the balance at this moment. And 

the world is watching our every step. They are looking to us, with 

the largest economy, the greatest innovations, the richest resources, to bring leadership and commitment to this issue, and to 

Copenhagen and beyond. I believe we absolutely cannot show up to 

Copenhagen empty-handed. 

Mr. Vice President, I know you have met with leaders from all 

over the globe on this issue and many others. And so, I would like 

you to speak, in perhaps a little bit of a crystal ball, looking into 

the future, how would the world respond to our bringing the policies in this bill to the table in Copenhagen, and how would the 

world react if we fail to act, and we don’t have those policies to 

bring to the negotiating table in Copenhagen? 

Mr. GORE. I think the enactment of this legislation and the adoption of a position by the Obama Administration, that was in keeping with this legislation, would be met with great relief and approval, although I must tell you that the reductions in this legislation and those proposed by the Obama Administration are far short 

of what would cause cheering and celebration in the rest of the 

world, because so many other parts of the world have already gone 

much farther. 

But I think that it would be met with a sigh of relief. I think 

there would be, I think it would lead to a major shift by countries 

around the world, and would lead to an agreement that would put 

in place a mechanism for solving the climate crisis. 

Were this legislation not to pass, and if the Administration went 

to this global negotiation without this legislation, then I think we 

might well see a slow motion collapse of the negotiation, much as 

the Doha Round has all but collapsed. And I think that would be 

awful to contemplate. 

I have no idea how the world could regroup and come up with 

some other approach, without wasting decades, and of course, as 

many of you are well aware, some of the leading scientists in the 

world have said for some time now that we may be within a decade 

or so of crossing a tipping point beyond which this could unravel 

on us. 

I mentioned in my opening statement that the disappearance of 

the ice in the Arctic is already leading to methane releases from 

the thawing tundra. If that were to accelerate, it would be one of 

several tipping points that we really ought to avoid crossing. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Well, I have fairly recent recollections of the December 2007 round in Bali, where one negotiator, I think it was 

from Papua New Guinea, was famously quoted as saying to the 

U.S., we look to your leadership, we yearn for your leadership, but 

if you are not going to lead, please get out of the way. And I do 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
907 

not want to see any sort of repeat of that type of thing on the world 

stage. 

Now, I want to relate to your struggle a few moments ago, to 

come up with the right words to define this moment, because we 

are talking and asking questions based on the concerns that our 

current constituents raise with us about this measure. And I wonder, what if the future generations had a voice, and if people living 

in our districts in 2080 or 2090 could speak to us now, what would 

they be saying? And I think we would be acting fairly hastily, if 

indeed, we could hear their voices as we hear our constituents 

today. 

I will give you one piece of poetry, actually, that I think brings 

it out pretty well, by a fellow named Drew Dellinger. He says: ‘‘It’s 

3:23 in the morning, and I am awake, because my great great 

grandchildren won’t let me sleep. My great great grandchildren ask 

me in my dreams, what did you do when the planet was plundered? What did you do when the Earth was unraveling?’’ 

And with that, I want to ask Senator Warner if—— 

Mr. MARKEY. If you could ask one quick question. 

Ms. BALDWIN. I had heard an anecdote, and I wanted to hear 

from you if it was true, that you came to your position on climate 

change, and your leadership role, at the urging of your grandchildren. Is that correct? 

Mr. WARNER. Yes, that is quite true, in many ways. But I also, 

the gentleman that came from forest country, I went out in 1943, 

of course, that was before you were born, and worked in the forest 

as a firefighter and a trailblazer. And those were pristine forests. 

A couple of years ago, I was out there in the same region. I asked 

the Forest Service to take me in. I didn’t know where I was. I 

couldn’t recognize it any. We drank out of the streams. We swam 

in the streams. We enjoyed the pristine forests. It is gone. 

So, my children and grandchildren hold me accountable, and indeed, my own personal experiences were a factor. But it came always back to national security, as I am urging this committee to 

incorporate. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired, and all questions from the subcommittee members has now expired. Now, consistent with a prior unanimous consent request to allow members 

of the full committee, who are not members of the subcommittee, 

to ask questions of our two witnesses, we will proceed to recognize 

those members. 

However, I want them to know that I am going to rigidly employ 

the five minute rule with those four members, and I urge you, if 

you want an answer from the witnesses, not to have a five minute 

statement with a question at the five minute point, because you 

will not be receiving an answer, because we have Speaker Gingrich 

waiting for us in the anteroom, and each of you will be given five 

minutes, so please try to give the witnesses time to answer your 

question in the five minute time period. 

We will begin by recognizing the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Chairman Markey, and I want to 

welcome Mr. Vice President and Senator to the committee hearing. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
908 

I was born and raised in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, right next to Yosemite, and I just, this debate, listening to 

this debate is very interesting, but I am very intimate with forest 

policy, forest management practices in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, very intimately involved with the California drought and 

what is going on out there. And I can tell you that the things that 

more adversely affect California’s water supply and forest management practices in California is environmental alarmism, and it has 

resulted in some very bad management of our national forests. Has 

led to fuel buildups, more intense fires, that leave the area more 

devastated. 

In the San Joaquin, in the water supply in California, it is due 

to three different lawsuits that have restricted water deliveries for 

agriculture for a delta smelt, a worthless little worm in the delta 

that needs to go the way of the dinosaur, you know, and they have 

shut pumps down and restricted water deliveries to California over 

that thing, when what is eating it is a striped bass, which is a nonnative species in the delta, and yet, the collaboration between environmentalists and sport fishermen has led to the dealing with the 

truth of the situation in the delta. As a result of that, there are 

zero water deliveries to my farmers. It is costing 40,000 to 60,000 

jobs this year, and a $6 billion hit to our economy. 

That is not global warming. That is not global warming that is 

causing problems in our forests. It is the result of bad policy, because of environmental alarmism. And I think that the current debate over global warming and cap and trade is another result of environmental alarmism. And I want to, you know, there is a couple 

of transitions we have made in the history of the country. 

We had the light bulb came up, and we had either to move from 

candle power to light bulbs. We had cars. Finally, Henry Ford came 

up with the car. We needed to move from horses to cars. Hell, even 

when we went to the Moon, we had a Moon to shoot for. But you 

are saying on fossil fuels, and setting up a scheme, frankly, that 

is causing to leave fossil fuels for an unidentified replacement. And 

the notion that you can do that on renewable energies, and the 

technology that we have right now, to me is disingenuous. The fact 

that you can rely on this transition with solar and wind energy, 

and enhance the economy, and reduce our reliance on foreign fuels, 

that to me is the biggest fraud that is being perpetrated in this 

country right now. 

I think that there is ample evidence that the planet is warming. 

I think it is debatable whether it is manmade, caused. I think that 

if you want, if you are even concerned about the world coming to 

an end, there is nothing that we can do to prevent that from happening, and that kind of alarmism. 

My problem is that you can’t make this transition without breaking the back of the economy of the United States, unless you have 

a new fuel that you can jump to. I would much rather spend billions of dollars that you are planning on spending, identifying a 

new energy source, and then let us identify that, and then we can 

make the transition to the new energy source. But I have got to 

tell you, your notion that this planet is going to fry in 30 years. 

This Congress doesn’t know what is going to happen in a week, let 

alone 30, 40 years. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
909 

I think if you, that the way to address this problem is to put our 

efforts behind identifying a reliable replacement for fossil fuels, 

and you have not identified it so far, and any transition that you 

think you are going to make is going to be so heavily subsidized 

that you are going to bankrupt this country on this notion of cap 

and trade. 

I am—no. I am all for efficiencies. We have air problems in California, renewable energies, things that keep the air clean out there, 

but unless you come up with a replacement to fossil fuels, you are 

not going to be able to make that transition, and I think that aside 

from the sky is falling, we are going to be dead in 30 years and 

the planet is going to burn up, I think the reasonable approach to 

this problem is innovation, efficiency, a robust economy, which you 

will destroy with cap and trade, and moving toward a new energy 

source that we can all start to rely on—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 

said what I want to say. 

Mr. MARKEY. I know you have, but I think I am going to modify 

my earlier statements. 

Mr. GORE. Could I respond briefly? 

Mr. MARKEY. And allow the witnesses—no further interventions 

by the members after five minutes will be allowed. Mr. Vice President. 

Mr. GORE. Congressman, I think we actually do have an excellent idea of where the renewable energy can come from. The very 

best—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you would like—explain to Congress—if you 

are going to bankrupt this country. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. So—I should be able to respond. 

Mr. MARKEY. If the gentleman is going—you did not give him 

time within your five minutes, which was the request which I made 

of the gentleman, is now being given this time under a unanimous 

consent request. The Vice President sought several times to gain 

your attention to answer your question within that five minute period. 

You did not choose to recognize him. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If he would give, then—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The Vice President is now—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If he would, then, give me the benefit of explaining the costs of this—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The Vice President is now—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH [continuing]. Program to the American people, 

then I will—— 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. Going to answer your question. 

Mr. RADANOVICH [continuing]. Then I would love to hear that response from the Vice President. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Vice President is going to answer your question. Thank you. 

Mr. GORE. I will just say briefly that I think we do know pretty 

well exactly what the sources of renewable energy can be. And the 

cost is coming down almost as rapidly as in the early days of computer chips, when you got that Moore’s Law curve. We are beginVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00919 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
910 

ning to see something like that in photovoltaics. Concentrating 

solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind power, geothermal, efficiency, 

and conservation are, I think, now ready to go. 

So, I will—well, let me just make one other point. Enough sunlight falls on the land surface of the Earth in 45 minutes to provide 

a full year’s worth of energy use for the entire planet. And the engineers and scientists in this country have been making fantastic 

breakthroughs in how to innovate more efficient versions of it. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Nothing—Senator Warner. 

Mr. WARNER. Something that I said this morning, and I don’t 

think that my colleague, either, is predicated on we are going to 

abandon fossil fuels. It is more how can we do it more efficiently, 

and in such a way, consume them so as to have minimal damage 

to the environment and to health. So, we are always going to have 

that. 

But we put such emphasis as we can to encourage wind, solar, 

and the like, but it is not going to transplant fossil fuels. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Senator. The chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to 

welcome Vice President Gore and Senator Warner, and to thank 

you for your service, as well, and for the leadership you have provided on this issue, which has really brought about the consensus 

that we have in this country, that we must act today. 

I guess I would ask both of you, many in the committee have 

complained about the 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, in poor communities especially. The American Public Power 

Association on the panel yesterday recommended 15 percent reduction by 2025. 

Is that good enough, and what would you suggest to help communities and power companies reach that 25 percent that they don’t 

think they can reach today? 

Mr. GORE. No, I don’t think that would be good enough at all. 

The committee draft already represents a significant compromise, 

compared to what the, what others in the global negotiation are already doing, and what the scientific community says is advisable. 

I support the committee bill, regardless of that, because I think 

it is an excellent bill, and will set in motion a process of change 

that will lead to steeper reductions in a way that benefits our economy tremendously. But to cut back from the reductions in the bill, 

I think would cross a line that we should not cross at all. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Did you want to add anything, Senator Warner? 

Mr. WARNER. Again, I come back to a basic premise I have. Let 

us draft the legislation, so we are directing ourselves towards resolution of the problems of how do we take our existing and additional energy sources, and do it efficiently and healthy. 

I tried, as best I could, not to let the Senate bill begin to be a 

welfare, or to help the needy. Those needs are there. They are definite, and how well you know that. But this legislation is directed 

towards a new energy policy. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But that being said, and this was my second 

question anyway, there are many communities, especially AfricanVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00920 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
911 

American, Hispanic-American, Native American, that have not 

been really benefiting from our economy as it is today. Do you 

think that our new green economy can be a vehicle to help close 

the gaps for those communities, and bring them into the mainstream? And I would ask both of you that question. 

Mr. WARNER. I would say to those groups that you have identified, who are just as, have every right to the clean air and clean 

water and good food as do I, that this bill is directed to help them 

improve their quality of life, no matter what their economic status 

may be. 

Mr. GORE. I will, you know, Van Jones, who is now a part of the 

Administration in charge of green jobs, is the most eloquent 

spokesman I know on this point. But just to give a couple of examples. This bill will have a lot of incentives to unleash many jobs in 

insulating homes, changing out lighting and windows, and those 

jobs can’t be outsourced. They are in the community, and they are 

good jobs, and there are a lot of them. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. It has been mentioned several 

times throughout the hearings that the benefits of addressing the 

concerns discussed in the bill, as both of you have basically just 

said, will over the long term, buffer the costs for the American people. The bill discusses the necessity for the Federal Government to 

establish measures to assist natural resources adapting to climate 

change. Are there one or two specific strategies that we should 

focus our attentions on? 

And additionally, to what extent will support of international adaptation strategies, such as preventing deforestation, assist in reducing the pressures levied on the United States and territories? 

Mr. GORE. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a very 

eloquent statement this past week, and part of their statement 

supports robust measures for adaptation, and both here at home 

and internationally. And I think that is very crucial, and I commend the authors of the bill for including it, and I agree with you 

that it is very important to do it. 

We look at the fact that poor and disadvantaged people in our 

country, as well as in the rest of the world, are those most likely 

to be victims of this. Indeed, many already have been, and so, adaptation is a crucial part of the response. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

both of you for your patience today. Vice President Gore, you and 

I have had the opportunity to represent some of the same people 

from a truly wonderful state. And you talked a little bit about people have to have trust in what you are doing, and I think you know 

that this bill is going to fundamentally change the way America 

works, and it is going to affect families. We have all talked about 

how it affects individuals, and what it is going to do to their budgets, and what it is going to do to jobs in this country. 

And given the magnitude of those changes, I think it is really important that no suspicion or shadow fall on the foremost advocates 

of climate change legislation, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to kind of clear the air about your motives, and maybe set 

the record straight for some of your former constituents. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
912 

And I have got an article from October 8, New York Times Magazine, about a firm called Kleiner Perkins, a capital firm called 

Kleiner Perkins. Are you aware of that company? 

Mr. GORE. Well, yes. I am a partner in Kleiner Perkins. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. So, you are a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now, they have invested about $1 billion in 40 companies that are 

going to benefit from cap and trade legislation. So, is the legislation 

that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are 

going to personally benefit from? 

Mr. GORE. I believe that the transition to a green economy is 

good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested 

in it, but every penny that I have made, I have put right into a 

nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness 

of why we have to take on this challenge. 

And Congresswoman, if you are, if you believe that the reason 

I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, 

you don’t know me. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Sir, I am not making accusations. I am asking 

questions that have been asked of me. 

Mr. GORE. Well. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. And individuals, constituents, that were seeking 

a point of clarity. So, I am asking—— 

Mr. GORE. I understand exactly what you are doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does. 

Ms. BLACKBURN [continuing]. You for that point of clarity. And 

well, you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? 

Does all of it go to a not for profit that is an educational not for 

profit? 

Mr. GORE. Every penny that I have made has gone—— 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Every penny—— 

Mr. GORE [continuing]. To it. Every penny from the movie, from 

the book, from any investments in renewable energy. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. GORE. I have been willing to put my money where my mouth 

is. Do you think there is something wrong with being active in 

business in this country? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. I am simply asking for clarification of the relationship. 

Mr. GORE. I am proud of it. I am proud of it. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, and I appreciate the answer. And 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady yields back, and I will, for the 

record, say that for eight years, I sat next to Al Gore on this committee, and on every one of these issues, he took a stand, he took 

a stand decades ago that is identical to the stand which he is taking as he sits here before our committee today, and there is one 

thing that I can say about the Vice President, is that he was a visionary. He identified these issues. He forced this committee and 

the Senate to consider it long before it was ready to deal with it, 

and his time has come on this issue. A prophet is being honored 

in this committee today, but by the world. He won a Nobel Prize 

for his work on this subject. The world has come to recognize that, 

and I think that his service to our country and our planet is something that I think is absolutely unchallengeable. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
913 

We will complete the questioning of our special guests with the 

gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to our witnesses. I regret that this very serious subject sometimes has turned into something that has resulted in sort of personal and somewhat, sometimes partisan appearing attacks. 

And Senator Warner, if I could just begin with you. You spent 

a good deal of time serving this country in the United States Senate, and one of the questions that I have, as a Member sitting over 

here, and certainly dedicated to trying to find a way to work this 

out. 

I come from Ohio. It is a challenging issue for us, but I believe 

in the science, and I believe in the merits of the potential. I do 

worry about the transition, and we can talk about that, so I am 

looking for solutions, to find a way to get from here to there. But 

Senator, in the Senate, I am concerned about the Senate, and 

whether or not they will pass a significant global climate change 

bill. 

Do you foresee that any time in the near future, based on your 

experience? 

Mr. WARNER. I would have to respond that I think the Senate 

will, in a very serious and conscientious way, review such legislation as may be generated by this committee, and hopefully will, in 

my own judgment. And I have learned that the distinguished chairperson of our committee, former committee, Senator Boxer, is laying plans, possibly, to introduce a bill in the Senate. 

I do believe the time has come that both parties will conscientiously work on this issue, but quite frankly, I think it would be 

not in my province to try and predict what that outcome will be. 

We are at the basic threshold of the legislative process, going 

through this very important and extraordinary hearing agenda. We 

took 14 months to cover much of the same territory. 

But nevertheless, I have faith in the Congress to objectively and 

honestly look at this situation, and hopefully come up with a bipartisan solution. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Senator. 

Vice President Gore, again, thank you for your work on this 

issue, and for the consensus that has finally come to be. And I just 

want to talk to you, just very briefly, or get your opinion very briefly. You mentioned in your testimony about the need for coal miners 

to have access to a job. And the question is kind of twofold. It 

would, well, threefold, perhaps. How would that work, and how fast 

would that happen? And are there other workers who are going to 

be similarly displaced, who should be given that kind of guarantee 

as well? Thank you. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. Yes, I think there ought to be attention to that. 

Absolutely. The bill already devotes considerable attention to it, 

but I have always had the position that anyone displaced by this 

has a right, not just to job training, but to a job. And I think that 

we have to manage the transition in a way that takes care of those 

who. I think the society as a whole benefits. I think the economy 

grows. But those who are especially affected, I think they have a 

right to it. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
914 

Ms. SUTTON. How about manufacture, employees in manufacturing plants, and that may be impacted by some of the things that 

we heard discussed here today, in the moment? 

See, my concern is that while I believe in the potential of green 

jobs—— 

Mr. GORE. Yes. Yes. 

Ms. SUTTON. And we have a very different problem in Ohio than 

my dear friend Congressman Inslee described it, as the causes of 

global warming, or not the causes, but global warming is causing 

job loss for him, you know, in this moment. So, he wants to stave 

off that, and I understand and respect that, and I am with him in 

trying to address that. But we also have a lot of, our folks, they 

care about this issue. They care about the environment. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. 

Ms. SUTTON. But if you don’t have a job today, the concerns of 

this bigger issue, and where we need to go, become very difficult 

to address, when you have kids you can’t, you know—— 

Mr. GORE. Yes. 

Ms. SUTTON. You can’t get what they need, and—— 

Mr. GORE. Yes. 

Ms. SUTTON [continuing]. Put food on the table, so it becomes almost a luxury to try and deal with that. 

Mr. GORE. Yes. And I understand your question very well. It is 

very well put, and we would still face that challenge, if the legislation didn’t pass. In fact, we have been facing that challenge. I believe this bill will make it better. 

I will give you an example from Ohio. There is a company that 

famously, very proud of the fact that they made the giant bolts for 

the Golden Gate Bridge, and they went through some hard times, 

and had to lay a lot of people off. They are now hiring people, or 

have been, to make windmills, to make parts for windmills. 

And I think it is a good example of how new jobs in Ohio will 

be created, are being created by the shift to green energy, and will 

be created in significantly larger numbers with the incentives and 

motivations in this bill. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Let us complete this way. Let us ask each of you to give a summary statement to the committee before you leave. It has been our 

honor to have you with us here today. 

Could we begin with you, Senator Warner? 

Mr. WARNER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say, very 

briefly, that the Congress today, in this hearing, has served their 

respective constituents well. We have had an open and free debate. 

We have clearly expressed to one another our concerns about this 

legislation, but it, I hope, renews our strength to go back and counsel with our constituents, and listen to our constituents, and seek 

out a way to lead. The country has to lead on this issue. 

Thank the chair. Having been a chairman myself, I know the 

challenges, and I think you have fulfilled them very well. 

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

Vice President Gore. 

Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, I began by noting how it brings a lot 

of emotions for me to walk in at the beginning of the hearing this 

morning, and be, once again, in this room, where I spent eight 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
915 

years. I have sat through many hearings like this one in this chamber, many markups like the one you are about to embark upon. 

Having gone through many bills, I have to tell you that I am extremely impressed with what you and Chairman Waxman and others have done in really drilling deeply into so many aspects, virtually all of the aspects of this issue, and I want to compliment you 

and Chairman Waxman and the others for the work product you 

have produced. 

I know that in the committee process, there will be debates. 

There will be changes and so forth. That is the way it works. I 

would urge you, during that process, to stay on this side of the line 

that preserves the effectiveness of this legislation. And I know you 

will. 

My main point is, I compliment you on the bill. It is an honor 

to appear before this committee, agree or disagree with the views 

of some. I appreciate the questions and the exchanges, and thank 

you very much for inviting me. 

It is good to be back. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. And it is our honor to have two of our 

greatest citizens of our country to appear before the committee 

today with the thanks of the committee and our country. 

We will take a brief recess, while our two witnesses are able to 

leave, and before we introduce Speaker Gingrich. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Our next one person panel features another familiar face to many of us, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. 

If the last panel was Back to the Future, then I guess this second 

panel is Back to the Future II. And the Speaker is gracing us with 

his presence here today. He served as Speaker from 1995 until 

1999, and it is an honor for us to have you with us here today, Mr. 

Speaker. 

We welcome you, and I will turn to the gentleman from Michigan, if you would like to extend—— 

Mr. UPTON. We are grateful that he is here, and in the interest 

of time, I think we will get started. 

Mr. MARKEY. I turn to the chairman of the full committee. I turn 

to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, as well. 

Mr. BARTON. Just simply say since we are Back to the Future II, 

where they went out to the Wild West, your bill would give us a 

carbon footprint equivalent to 1875, which is about when that 

movie was, so we appreciate our Speaker being here. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is your introduction, Speaker Gingrich. We 

look forward to hearing from, your testimony here today. Whenever 

you are comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER 

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the sheer endurance you and the members of this committee have shown so far. 

Mr. BARTON. Make sure that microphone is on. 

Mr. GINGRICH. I am sorry. It should be on. Is it not on? 

Mr. BARTON. Is the light on. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
916 

Mr. GINGRICH. Yes, the green light is on. So, this should be all 

right. OK. 

I just want to thank you, and commend you for the endurance 

that you all have shown so far today. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can we say, Mr. Speaker, there are 21 witnesses 

after you, if you want to get a sense of the place we are in the 

hearing today. 

Mr. GINGRICH. And I want to ask permission for my written testimony to be placed in the record. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, in its entirety, it will be included 

in the record. 

Mr. GINGRICH. I, to meet Greg Walden’s permanent question, I 

did begin reading the draft bill, but to be candid, I stopped around 

page 236, where it describes the Secretary of Energy as a Jacuzzi 

Czar, under the title portable electric spa. Actually, it is page 233. 

And at that point, I decided I had the gist of the bill, and decided 

I would develop my testimony. 

Let me just say, I want to begin with, from a background, I 

taught environmental studies at West Georgia College. I was coordinator. I participated in the second Earth Day. I supported the 

clean air system that we developed for sulfuric oxide, which actually involved a very limited number of sites in the initial application. It was 263 units at 110 plants. Later on, it was expanded to 

a total of 2,000 units, which the Jacuzzi section alone would dwarf. 

And so, I do think there are some substantial differences between 

what we did in 1990, and the bill that as the Republican Whip, I 

helped pass, and what you are looking at today. 

I want to start with two general observations. One from, I guess, 

my namesake, King Canute, and the other, from the Polish resistance to Communism, which adopted the principle of two plus two 

equals four. Canute was asked, in the Middle Ages, by, his staff 

had been telling him how powerful he was. And so, he went down 

to the ocean, and told the waves to stop. And the waves did not 

stop. And he turned to his staff, and said this is a hint that I am 

not as powerful as you have been saying. 

This bill strikes me as a remarkable inability to learn the lesson 

of King Canute. If you look at the housing disaster, where the Congress decided 15 years ago, people who couldn’t afford houses 

should buy houses, and banks should loan money to people who 

couldn’t afford to buy houses, and then you look at the Federal Reserve, which decided that interest rates should be kept low enough 

to create a huge bubble on Wall Street. We don’t seem to be able 

to learn from any of this. This bill massively expands the Department of Energy’s power, gives all sorts of authority to the Secretary 

of Energy. Let me just quote two examples of why this is a huge 

mistake. 

The General Accounting Office said on the FutureGen Project, 

which is very important to this country’s future, and very important to getting to green coal and carbon sequestration: ‘‘Contrary 

to best practices, DOE did not base its decision to restructure 

FutureGen on a comprehensive analysis of factors such as the associated costs, benefits, and risks. DOE made its decision largely on 

the conclusion that costs for the original FutureGen had doubled, 

and would escalate substantially. However, in its decision, DOE 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
917 

compared two cost estimates for the original FutureGen that were 

not comparable, because DOE’s $950 million estimate was in constant 2004 dollars, and the $1.8 billion estimate of DOE’s industry 

partners was inflated through 2017.’’ 

So, you end up in a situation where, in the most important clean 

coal project of our time, the Department of Energy, which had 

promised in 2003 to deliver a working plant in 2008, announced in 

2008 it might get to a working plant in 2016. On efficiency standards, the General Accounting Office said: ‘‘DOE has missed all 34 

Congressional deadlines’’—all 34 Congressional deadlines—‘‘for setting energy efficiency standards for the 20 product categories with 

statutory deadlines in the past. DOE’s delays range from less than 

a year to 15 years. DOE has yet to finish 17 categories of such consumer products as kitchen ranges and ovens, dishwashers and 

water heaters, and such industrial equipment as distribution transformers. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that 

delays in setting standards for the four consumer product categories that consume the most energy, refrigerators and freezers, 

central air conditioners and heat pumps, water heaters, and clothes 

washers, will cost at least $28 billion in foregone energy savings by 

2030. DOE officials could not agree on the cause of delays.’’ 

Now, I just want to suggest to you, to take this Department, and 

give it 646 pages of additional power, is an astonishing avoidance 

of King Canute’s record. 

The second is, on page 362 in this bill, you in effect mandate an 

83 percent reduction in carbon by 2050. Now, that is exactly like 

telling the ocean to quit moving. The idea that we are actually 

going to get an 83 percent reduction in carbon, in my judgment, is 

a fantasy, barring a major scientific breakthrough, which legislators have zero ability to legislate. You can invest in it, you can 

hope for it, but to legislate, it strikes me, is exactly King Canute’s 

rule. 

On two plus two equals four, I just want to put in the record a 

quote from George Weigel, and a quote from Orwell’s 1984, both of 

which point out that the State can tell you two plus two equals 

five, but it isn’t true. 

Now, Congressman John Dingell captured the two plus two 

equals four exactly right, when he said earlier today, this bill is a 

big tax increase. And I want to make this quite clear. This bill is 

an energy tax. President Obama’s budget makes clear it is a $646 

billion energy tax. That is what he has in the budget with an asterisk that says it will raise more than that. 

The press reports indicate the Administration believes that that 

energy tax would actually raise around $1.9 trillion, which for a 

648 page bill means it is between $1 billion and $3 billion a page. 

Now, energy tax kills jobs, and Vice President Gore was talking 

earlier about how China is improving. I just want to quote, about 

India and China, two things. And this is from my written testimony. India is saying no to crippling its economy, no to stemming 

its growth, and no to punishing its citizens. One particular member, actually, of the Indian delegation to the U.N. conference in 

Bonn, said: ‘‘If the question is whether India will take on binding 

emission reduction commitments, the answer is no.’’ He went on to 

say: ‘‘This sort of energy tax is morally wrong for India.’’ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
918 

China, too, believes emission caps are the wrong answer. The 

lead climate negotiator for China said the following regarding who 

should pay to cut emissions: ‘‘As one of the developing countries, 

we are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. 

We produce products, and these products are consumed by other 

countries. This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers, not the producers.’’ And in fact, what the Chinese are saying is, they want us to pay for their emissions, on the grounds that 

we buy their products, which I think is actually a pretty large 

amount of chutzpah. 

As Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said: ‘‘If other countries 

don’t impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage.’’ 

And I think in this economy at this time, that is the number one 

thing to look at. An energy tax punishes senior citizens. It punishes 

rural Americans. If you use electricity, it punishes you. If you use 

heating oil, it punishes you. If you use gasoline, it punishes you. 

This bill will increase your cost of living, and may kill your job. The 

Tax Foundation estimates this bill, that an energy tax, could kill 

965,000 jobs, and reduce the economy by $138 billion a year. 

What is even more troubling about this bill, though, is it continues the recent tradition that Congress has adopted, and that is 

to move from Lincoln’s government of the People, by the People, 

and for the People, towards a government which punishes the People into behavior. I favor incentivizing the future. I am opposed to 

punishing the present. 

We did not create the transcontinental railroads by punishing 

stagecoaches. I could strongly support an incentivized bill to maximize new technologies and to maximize green technologies. I would 

also point out that Vice President Gore’s reference to $0.30 a day 

came from an intellectually dishonest EPA study which included 

150 percent increase in the number of nuclear power plants, and 

the EPA study itself indicated that it had been instructed by the 

committee staff not to, in fact, base its study on the bill. It is a 

footnote in the EPA study. 

Now, prudence suggests that we do need to consider the facts 

and that there are reasonable, affordable steps that might work. 

This committee should look at where we Americans as a country 

can move forward. Vice President Gore cited three risks we face; 

economic concerns, national security concerns, and the environment. I would add a fourth risk, which is the threat of big government, big bureaucracy, big deficits, and political manipulation. 

And I would be glad to engage in a dialogue on how we can meet 

these threats, because I think we do need a serious dialogue. You 

know, at Vice President Gore’s request I made a commercial with 

Speaker Pelosi. We said that we would address climate change, 

that we needed cleaner energy sources, and that we needed a lot 

of innovation. I can accept all three of those, but a dialogue ought 

to be both ways. It ought to be not an automatic agreement or a 

salute but rather a genuine conversation. 

Vice President Gore made some startling and in some cases I 

think deeply misleading assertions. He cited Bernie Madoff and described bad information and talked about massive fraud, but, in 

fact, I think that it is very important to look in detail at his on testimony. He pointed—he said, for example, the rate—this is a quote. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
919 

‘‘The rate of new discoveries is falling for energy.’’ That is factually 

not true. In the last 3 years we have found 100 years of natural 

gas in the United States, because we now have new technology 

drilling at 8,000 feet, and we have literally found 100 years of natural gas in the last 3 years. 

In Brazil they found three fields, the Tupi field alone in 2007, a 

second field recently, and just in January an Exxon, Hess consortium found a third field. Brazilian reserves have gone from ten billion barrels to 100 billion, but, of course, that is an off-shore Atlantic Ocean field, which was up until last October illegal to look for 

in this country. 

The Bachen field in North Dakota and Montana has jumped from 

a 1995, U.S. geological survey estimate of 151 million barrels in 

April of 2008, they raised it by 2,500 percent. They now believe 

there are between three and four billion barrels of oil in the 

Bachen field. 

What Vice President Gore does not tell you is that having supported the government stopping the exploration for oil, having supported the government stopping the development of shale oil in 

Colorado, having supported the reduction in the use of coal where 

we have 27 percent of the world reserves, we are then told that 

these government-imposed shortages prove we have no resources. 

That is fundamentally not true, and yet the Obama budget proposes to raise taxes on oil and natural gas development at exactly 

the time this economy needs more development and more jobs. 

On the facts of climate change, we need a national inquiry, and 

let me be quite clear in the spirit of the commercial I did with 

Speaker Pelosi at Vice President Gore’s request. I want to invite 

Vice President Gore to join in a non-partisan inquiry, and I would 

love to have this committee agree to help sponsor it, so that every 

high school and college campus this coming October could have a 

discussion about the facts. 

For example, Vice President Gore in his testimony talked about 

the likelihood of a 20-foot rise in sea level. Let me say if we had 

a catastrophic 20-foot rise in sea level, that would be bad. I am 

happy to stipulate. That would be bad. However, even the intergovernmental panel on climate change said the probable maximum 

is between 7 and 23 inches over the next 100 years. 

Now, 7 and 23 inches over 100 years is radically different than 

20 feet, but let me go a couple stages further. A recent report on 

Greenland, this is from the American Geophysical Union, a report 

said the following. ‘‘So much for Greenland ices Armageddon.’’ This 

is a quote within that. ‘‘It has come to an end. Glaciologist Havey 

Murray of Swanson University in the United Kingdom, said during 

a session at the meeting, ‘‘There seems to have been a synchronous 

switch off of the speed up.’’ She said, ‘‘Nearly everywhere around 

southeast Greenland outlook glacial flows have returned to the levels of 2000.’’ That is from January of this year. 

On the question of whether or not Antarctic ice is, in fact, 

shrinking, let me just quote from the Australians who said, slightly 

longer, ‘‘Antarctica has 80 percent of the earth’s ice, 90 percent of 

the earth’s ice and 80 percent of its fresh water.’’ According to the 

Australians, ‘‘Extensive melting of Antarctica ice sheets would be 

required to raise sea level substantially. Ice is melting in parts of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
920 

western Antarctica. The destabilization of the Wilkins Ice Shelf 

generated international headlines, however, the picture is very different in East Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by 

Australia. East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica 

and parts of it are cooling.’’ The Scientific Committee on Antarctic 

Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown significant cooling in recent decades. Australia Antarctic Division Glaciology Program head Ian Allison said, ‘‘Sea and ice losses in west 

Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. 

Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,’’ 

Allison said. 

‘‘So ice core drilling and the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station 

in east Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center shows that last year the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.8 nine meters, its densest in 10 years.’’ 

Finally on coral die-offs it is hard to understand why carbon dioxide or current temperatures would lead to coral die-offs. Coral 

was very abundant in earlier eras when the earth’s temperature 

was as much as 10 to 15 degrees warmer and atmospheric CO2 was 

two to seven times higher. I am an amateur paleontologist. I would 

be glad to take the vice president to the Smithsonian or the American Museum of Natural History where we can look at all sorts of 

marine invertebrate life, which is collected as fossils, because, in 

fact, they used carbon quite effectively. 

All I am suggesting is that there is a sufficient debate over facts, 

not over theories, over facts, that will be very useful to have an inquiry on every college and high school campus, allow everyone to 

present their evidence, and discuss in a way, a genuine dialogue 

about this. 

But while I think there is no evidence that we need to rush to 

a massive energy tax increase or a massive increase in government, 

there are many steps we could take that are reasonable and that 

are legitimate. I suggest 38 of them in my testimony. I am just 

going to mention a couple quickly here. 

First, I think we should rebuild the American economy with 

American energy, both for jobs and for national security. I think it 

is very important that we have a pro-American energy bias in our 

system. 

Second, I do think that green coal and carbon sequestration is 

the most important single breakthrough we could make because 

the objective fact is China is adding one coal-burning plant a week. 

There is no evidence they are going to slow down, and unless you 

get to an affordable green technology for coal, there is no possibility 

that American developments are going to affect the volume of carbon in the atmosphere because the Chinese will more than offset 

any savings we have. 

Third, I think that enhanced oil recovery as a component of carbon sequestration could lead to up to 100 billion barrels of additional oil coming out of existing fields, which is a key answer to the 

peak oil question, which creates jobs in the U.S., keeps money in 

the U.S., helps our foreign exchange rate, solves an environmental 

challenge, while also solving an economic challenge. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
921 

Fourth, the U.S. should expand the use of biofuels, including ethanol, and I agree with two questions. One on page 8, why would 

you exclude biomass from federal forest lands. I mean, I think that 

is a—makes zero sense in terms of the sound management of federal forests and in terms of biomass, and second, on page 110 why 

would you exclude energy from municipal wastes. If we can get 

methane production from municipal waste, why isn’t that a totally 

legitimate use of biofuel on a renewable basis? 

Number five, you should add a section on nuclear energy. I 

thought the dialogue between the committee and Vice President 

Gore was fascinating. China has the largest nuclear building program in the world. Now, if the vice president wants to come here 

and tell this committee he is encouraged by China, then he has to 

confront nuclear energy. The French produce 80 percent of their 

electricity from nuclear energy. If we maxed that, we would take 

2 billion, 100 million tons of carbon dioxide a year out of the atmosphere. The fact is that Vice President Gore mentioned one off reactor. That is entirely a function of government policy. If we wanted 

to, we could follow the Japanese and Canadians develop a clear 

model of a routine, repetitive nuclear reactor, build a huge number 

of them. 

If you want to lower the cost to building nuclear power plants, 

streamline the permit system and streamline the litigation system, 

bring American production down to the rate of Japan or France. It 

takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant in Japan. It takes 15 

to 20 if you can get past the litigation in the United States. 

And finally, any notion that civilian development of nuclear reactors by the United States has any impact on nuclear weapons 

worldwide I think requires you to ignore that North Korea and 

Iran are doing quite fine on their own, and they don’t seem to have 

any need for an American nuclear program to develop their nuclear 

weapons. 

Sixth, I want to just close by recommending something that, not 

just to this committee, but to the whole Congress, and this may be 

bolder than anything that is in the current bill. We are on the edge 

of a huge opportunity in science. There is going to be four to seven 

times as much new science the next 25 years, 65 percent of it coming outside the United States. We have more scientists alive than 

all of previous human history. They are every year getting better 

computers and better instruments, they are connected by e-mail 

and by zip code. I mean, by e-mail and by cell phone. Today they 

are then connected to licensing and venture capital and royalties 

so they can move from the laboratory to the market more rapidly 

than ever. 

We recently had an Alzheimer’s study group report that you 

know fully well about, Chairman Markey, where we proposed a 

very bold, fundamental change in the budget act to go from an accountant design science budget to ask the scientific community to 

optimum they could invest. There is no zone other than health 

where it would be more appropriate than in the field of energy and 

the environment to fundamentally reshape how we invest in 

science and to set as a goal very radical, dramatic breakthroughs 

to get affordable, reproducible, and scalable breakthroughs in energy, which I think are possible. I do think that part of this bill 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
922 

is moving in the right direction. I would love to find a way to design a very bold breakout, whether it is hydrogen, new materials 

technologies, or a variety of other things. I think they could be 

there. 

But I would just close by urging you don’t mandate beyond the 

technology. When we passed the act in 1990, we actually knew the 

technology existed for sulfuric acid to be dealt with. We didn’t—and 

we did it for a very limited number of sites. This is a fundamentally different question, and it threatens the entire American economy. 

But I appreciate very much the chance to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrich follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
923 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 966 72878A.540
924 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 967 72878A.541
925 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 968 72878A.542
926 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 969 72878A.543
927 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 970 72878A.544
928 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 971 72878A.545
929 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 972 72878A.546
930 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 973 72878A.547
931 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 974 72878A.548
932 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 975 72878A.549
933 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 976 72878A.550
934 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 977 72878A.551
935 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 978 72878A.552
936 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 979 72878A.553
937 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 980 72878A.554
938 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 981 72878A.555
939 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 982 72878A.556
940 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 983 72878A.557
941 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 984 72878A.558
942 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 985 72878A.559
943 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 986 72878A.560
944 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 987 72878A.561
945 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 988 72878A.562
946 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 989 72878A.563
947 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 990 72878A.564
948 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 991 72878A.565
949 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 992 72878A.566
950 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much. 

We will begin by recognizing the chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me first so I could attend to some other business. 

Mr. Gingrich, as I hear what you are saying is it can’t be done, 

it costs too much, there is really not that great a threat anyway, 

and we don’t want to rush out and spend government money and 

have government programs in the large government. But it was interesting your proposals were rebuild the American economy with 

greener energy. I assume that is going to cost somebody some 

money. Green coal and carbon sequestration. Of course we need it. 

It is going to cost some money. Enhanced oil recovery, expand 

biofuels, nuclear energy. We ought to ask the scientists how much 

money they want. I don’t disagree with those ideas, but I don’t 

know how you do it without spending some money, and quite 

frankly, I would rather give the marketplace some incentives to get 

some of these results than to have government funds do it, attempt 

to do it, because I think the free economic system that we have is 

the best way to get results. 

But as I look at your basic core argument, it is going to cost too much, and in fact, you said it is going to be a glorified $1 to $2 

trillion new energy tax will cost households over $3,000 a year. Is 

that right? Is that your position? 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, those are the numbers I have seen. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Well, those are numbers that have been cited, 

and the problem with these numbers if they are simply not true. 

Republican members have cited this before at other hearings, and 

they say that this is supported by an MIT study, but the author 

of this study, Dr. John Riley, said the estimate is a gross exaggeration, that the study is 2 years old, uses outdated data, examines 

a different piece of legislation. 

I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, two letters 

that Dr. Riley sent to Minority Leader Bainer explaining that Republicans are mischaracterizing his work. Just yesterday Dr. Riley 

confirmed that, ‘‘The Republican approach to estimating the cost of 

cap-and-trade is just wrong.’’ EPA analyzed the—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection it will be included in the record. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Cost of the bill that Mr. Markey and 

I have proposed, and this analysis says the bill will cost the average family less than 40 cents per day. When the American people 

hear statements that you have made, they get scared, which is exactly what I think is intended. Let us scare people. This is not a 

new tactic. I remember over the years we have heard it over and 

over again from industry. Twenty years ago when we were doing 

the Clean Air Act opponents of the Acid Rain Provision said it 

would bankrupt the utility industry. In fact, we cut emissions in 

half at a fraction of the cost the naysayers predicted. They said it 

was certain that we would lose the air conditioning in our office 

buildings and that we simply couldn’t make cleaner automobiles. 

All of these predictions turned out to be completely inaccurate. 

I believe that you are trying to give us a false choice. Our economic future and clean energy are inextricably intertwined. The 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
951 

economy that will grow the fastest in this century will be the one 

that makes the greatest investment in new energy technologies. 

Nearly 40 years ago this committee passed the original Clean Air 

Act and since that time in 40 years we have reduced dangerous air 

pollutants by 60 percent or more. You acted as if it would be incredible that we could reduce carbon emissions by huge numbers. 

Incredible that we did that under the Clean Air Act and during the 

same period our population has grown by 50 percent and our economy by over 200 percent. 

There aren’t that many of us in the room that were here when 

we did the Clean Air Act. I don’t know if you—you certainly 

weren’t here in 1970. You were here in 1990. We heard all of these 

scare tactics firsthand and what the Congress did on a bipartisan 

basis is we let commonsense prevail. We acted decisively to clean 

up air pollution, and our Nation has benefited ever since. 

And I would suggest that your ideas are not bold. They are a repeat of the old scare tactics. Let us get the American people really 

scared. The Democrats are going to charge you more money than 

it is impossible to achieve. Why only the South Pole on one side 

is sinking and other side not. I just think that the American people 

ought to see through what you have to say, and I would hope you 

would not go to every campus to give your speeches but urge Republicans and Democrats to work together, just don’t attack Gore 

and attack the President and attack the Democrats. Work with us, 

and if you don’t think it is a problem, then I don’t know why you 

are even giving us those six or seven solutions, because I think 

there is a problem, and you ought to face up to us and help us 

solve that problem. 

My time has expired and yield back the time. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Am I allowed to respond? 

VOICE. The gentleman would be allowed to respond. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I didn’t ask a question, and I don’t mind if 

he responds, but the rules that I understand we have always had 

is members have 5 minutes to either ask a question, I asked you 

one upfront, and then to say whatever we want to say. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would certainly think you ought to be able to respond if you want to, but that is going to be up to the committee 

to violate the rules and give you an extra privilege that other people have not had. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, we have—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. I can recognize—— 

Mr. BARTON. Ask to speak out of order, either one. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman is recognized for that purpose. 

Mr. BARTON. The chairman of the subcommittee explicitly gave 

Vice President Gore earlier today the opportunity to respond to 

Congressman Radanovich’s statement, which wasn’t a question, 

and Mr. Markey—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, in that case if the gentleman would yield I 

will ask unanimous consent that the—Mr. Gingrich be given 3 minutes to respond. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, he should just be given—we should give—— 

Mr. GINGRICH. I can do it in much less—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
952 

Mr. BARTON. —the Speaker of the House the same courtesy we 

gave the Vice President of the United States. 

Mr. GINGRICH. I can do it in much less than 3 minutes. 

Let me must say first of all, that the $640 billion tax increase 

comes out of the Obama budget and has an asterisk indicating it 

will be more than that. That is not my number. That is the President’s director of the budget’s number. 

Second—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. You said that is how much would come in a capand-trade program that would be then redistributed. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Yes. It is in the budget, so it could be redistributed. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So you take money, and you redistribute it. 

Mr. GINGRICH. But it would be redistributed. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK, and you propose some redistributing of dollars 

as well. 

Mr. GINGRICH. On the MIT study I—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Where does your money come from? 

Mr. GINGRICH. I would ask permission, if I might—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Where does your money come from for your ideas 

here? Where is the money going to come from that we are going 

to transform the American economy with American energy? 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, look. I think when you—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Where is it going to come from for green coal and 

carbon sequestration? That is an expensive proposition. We have 

got to do it. We have got to invest in it. Where is the money going 

to come from to transform the way scientists are able to do their 

work? 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, first of all, in a Congress which passed a 

$787 billion stimulus without reading the bill, I think we can find 

the money. I am perfectly happy to work together to find the 

money. 

Second, I have never said I am against the government 

incentivizing change. I am against the government punishing 

change. 

Third, I would like to put in the record a recent article in the 

Weekly Standard called Fuzzy Math, which is actually John 

McCormack’s conversation with the MIT professor, and in terms of 

citations, I would cite $10,800 cost per family of four by 2020, according to a laperstudy, $2,700 per family of four according to Warden econometrics, and $750 per year for the porous quintile according to the Center for Budget Policy Priorities as some of my 

sources. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Gingrich—— 

Mr. GINGRICH. Finally—— 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. I don’t object to any of those going in 

the record, but Mr. Gingrich, I am sure glad you are not in charge 

of foreign policy. Do you think the only way to incentivize a country 

is by offering them more and more carrots? You have got to have 

some—— 

Mr. GINGRICH. I don’t think—— 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. And sometimes—— 

Mr. GINGRICH. Chairman. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
953 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. You have to say to incentivize you we 

are going to give you some assistance, but there are going to be 

consequences. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think of American citizens 

the way I think of foreign dictators, and I don’t think this Congress 

should punish the American people. I think this Congress has 

every right to reward the American people, but I don’t think Lincoln’s government of the people, by the people, and for the people 

should be turned into a government punishing the people, and that 

is the major difference. 

Lastly I would point out that in the EPA analysis of your bill, 

your bill is not complete, and the EPA analysis included 150 percent increase in nuclear power, and there is no nuclear power section of the bill. So I would be perfectly happy to talk to you in more 

detail when the bill is complete. I would be glad to come back and 

testify if the bill gets completed, but this is an incomplete bill, and 

the EPA analysis had certain assumptions that don’t relate to the 

bill. But I am always delighted to be here with the chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to put in the record this famous MIT study is based 

between 2015, and 2050, there will be an annual, which means 

every year, average of $366 billion in revenues. You take that number, you divide by the number of households in America, which 

MIT estimates to be 117 million, and lo and behold that equals 

$3,128 per household. 

Now, you can redistribute it, you can play with the numbers, you 

can go up on your allowances, down on your allowances, but the 

fact remains if we put anything close to what we think Mr. Markey 

and Mr. Waxman are going to put on the table in terms of a capand-trade system, it is going to raise huge amounts of money, billions and billions of dollars every year, and somebody is going to 

pay for it, and that somebody is the American taxpayer and the 

American consumer. That is number one. 

Number two. When Mr. Waxman asked about how you do the research and how you pay for carbon sequestration, he well knows 

that Mr. Boucher and myself and other members of the committee 

have a bill that assesses a very small fee, like per mill fee, per 

megawatt or—yes, megawatt of electricity produced where the industry itself pays for the fund that develops this sequestration 

technology for carbon capture, our conversion, and sequestration. 

That bill is part of the 648-page draft. The Boucher proposal that 

I support and many Republicans support is in this draft bill. What 

is not in this draft bill is the actual allowance system, scheme and 

who gets free allowances and who has to pay for allowances. That 

is not in this bill. And that is—there may be good reasons why it 

is not in the bill, but it is not in the bill. 

Now, my question to you, Mr. Speaker, the draft bill has a renewable electricity portfolio standard called RES, but it does not 

include nuclear power and does not include clean coal technology. 

The Republican alternative will have a clean energy standard 

which will include both nuclear and clean coal technology. Which 

of those two definitions, if any, do you support? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
954 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, obviously I would support including clean 

coal technology and nuclear power, but let me point out in terms 

of one of the things that the chairman asked me a minute ago, if 

you simply pass regulatory and litigation reform for nuclear power, 

I suspect you get a dramatic increase in nuclear power investment 

at no cost to the Federal Government. It would be beneficial for the 

committee to hold a hearing and invite in the nuclear power industry and say, if we wanted to have a robust nuclear power industry 

with no federal investment, what changes would we need to get to 

a clean, simple, guaranteed approach that allowed companies to go 

out and actually build a nuclear power plant. And I think you 

would be startled at how many nuclear power plants you could 

build if they weren’t faced with massive litigation, continuous regulation, and an increasingly difficult-to-deal-with Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which in effect is virtually guaranteed that it 

is too expensive to build the very plant here that is routinely built 

in either France or Japan. 

Mr. BARTON. My last question, Mr. Speaker, I think we have 

pointed out repeatedly the problems with the cap-and-trade system. 

The fact that it doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked in Europe, it is going 

to be hugely expensive, it is going to cost lots of money, it is going 

to cost millions of American jobs. The Republican alternative does 

always with cap-and-trade and puts in its place an efficiency or 

performance standard similar to what we put in the Clean Air Act 

amendments of 1990. We used existing—the best available technology as the standard in a given incentive for plants. If they develop better technology, they then get an accelerated depreciation 

on their tax returns. 

I know you haven’t had a chance to look at the Republican alternative, but does that sound like something that would be better in 

your view than a cap-and-trade program that simply doesn’t work? 

Mr. GINGRICH. I think the history of America is that when you 

reward people, when you have prizes, when you have incentives, 

you can get extraordinary levels of entrepreneurial energy and an 

amazing amount of inventiveness. And historically whether it was 

prizes for airlines for aviation breakthroughs in the ’20s and ’30s 

or it was the grants of land in order to build the railroads, the 

Transcontinental Railroad in the 19th century, we have been very 

successful as a country in incentivizing the future. We are not very 

effective when we either bureaucratize it or punish the present. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I must say this has been surprising testimony because I think 

many people will ask what happened to the old Newt Gingrich. We 

expected an optimist, someone who believes in the creative power 

of the American economy, but we have had a sudden attack of pessimism that we can’t solve this problem. And I want to ask you 

some questions about that. Perhaps we can put up a chart here on 

this screen about some questions you were asked on February 15, 

1970, if we can get the first slide up. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
955 

You were basically asked—you are going to help us out there, I 

hope. You were basically asked if you supported a cap on carbon 

in 1970, which basically is what this bill is. This is—excuse me. 

2007. And you said, and I am just going to read several of your 

quotes. You said, ‘‘I think that if you have a mandatory, have mandatory caps, combined with a trading system, much like we did 

with sulfur, and if you have a tax incentive program for investing 

in the solutions, that there is a package that is very, very good, 

and frankly, it is something I would strongly support.’’ 

This bill is exactly that package. It is a mandatory cap. It protects Americans from unrestrained pollution. It is exactly what we 

did for sulfur dioxide, and if you will put up the next slide, please, 

we will just take some—just so you will know I am just picking 

these at random, in the same interview said, ‘‘The caps with the 

trading system on sulfur has worked brilliantly. It has brought free 

market attitudes, entrepreneurship, and technology and made it 

very profitable to have less sulfur.’’ So people said, wow. It is worth 

my time and effort. 

Next slide, please. You went on to say, and I will read this. ‘‘I 

think,’’ I will just read the last paragraph. ‘‘I think that we are 

right at a tipping point where you could begin to imagine the development of an entirely-new generation of systems where you had a 

combination of a carbon cap with a trading system. You had prizes 

for the invention of major breakthroughs, and you had incentives 

for investing in the new breakthroughs and accelerating their use 

and their development. And you could imagine a world 15 years 

from now that is dramatically greener than the world we are currently in.’’ 

Now, the bill that we are working on does basically what you 

said you wanted to see happen in 2007. It is a mandatory cap. We 

are no longer allowed polluting industries to put pollution in unlimited amounts into the atmosphere, and we are going to require polluting industries to pay some amount for the right to put pollution 

into this atmosphere. 

We will use a trading system to have the most efficient as the 

market will determine allocation of those scare resource. We will 

have investment in these technologies of the ones that you alluded 

to. We have incentives in this bill, tax and otherwise, just as you 

alluded to in 2007. 

So I am trying to figure out why this massive change in your position, and I ask myself, well, is it because we found out that this 

program would be more expensive than we thought. Well, I know 

that is not the situation. I am holding a letter of April 14 from Dr. 

John Riley of MIT, who is the author of this report being quoted 

by Republicans trying to scare Americans thinking this is going to 

destroy the economy. 

And what he said is, ‘‘Dear Representative Boehner, I write to 

correct an estimate I sent on April 13 to counter what we feel is 

a misrepresentation of our work by the National Republican Congressional Committee.’’ Continuing, ‘‘A collect estimate of that cost 

as opposed to auction revenue for the average household just in 

2015, is about $80 per family or $65 if more appropriately stated 

in present value terms discounted in an annual 4 percent rate.’’ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
956 

That is 18 cents per day. The Republican party unfortunately is 

trying to tell people that the continued climate that we have here 

is too expensive at 18 cents a day. I don’t believe that is too expensive. I also believe it could end up being cheaper, given the enormous technological creativity of our economy. 

So I will just ask you this. Just a very, very simple question, Mr. 

Gingrich. Do you believe a dramatic reduction by use of a cap-andtrade system that would cost Americans 18 cents a day is too much 

to pay to save the planet? 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, as I said earlier in two plus two equals four and if you think that the $646 billion Obama tax increase in this 

budget can be translated into 18 cents a day, I think you probably 

think two plus two equals 700. The fact is the cap-and-trade system I supposed in 1970, affected 263 units and at its peak affected 

2,000. Now, if you want to write a bill that covers the 2,000 most 

polluting places and say, fine, those 2,000 are part of cap-andtrade, I would be glad to look at it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Could I ask you—— 

Mr. GINGRICH. If you want to include as I said in—if I might, if 

you include as I said in that quote very strong incentives, I would 

be glad to look at it. If you include prizes, I would be glad to look 

at it. If you would liberate the nuclear power industry from trial 

lawyers and regulatory controls, I would be glad to look at it. This 

bill does none of those things. 

This bill actually has the Department of—the Secretary of Energy regulating Jacuzzis. Now, the idea that we are going to have 

a cap-and-trade system that regulates Jacuzzis strikes me as close 

to being nuts. 

Mr. INSLEE. Could I just—I just really would like you—I would 

like to know what you think about this. By the way, the only 

Jacuzzis this will regulate will have to produce 2,500 megawatts of 

energy, oK, to be covered, so you don’t have to worry about 

Jacuzzis. 

But just let me ask you this question. In your opinion do you believe 18 cents a day for the American family is too much to save 

the planet? You can give us your thoughts about that. What do you 

think? 

Mr. GINGRICH. I think if you could convince anybody that that is 

the real price, I—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Well—— 

Mr. GINGRICH [continuing]. As I said awhile ago, then explain 

the $646 billion that is in the Obama budget. I mean, if you and 

the President have an argument, you don’t have an argument with 

me. I am citing the President. Let me just ask you—— 

Mr. INSLEE. I just think—— 

Mr. GINGRICH [continuing]. Let me ask, because maybe I misunderstood. So maybe you can help me, Congressman Inslee. On 

page 233, line five, portable electric spas. Now, I don’t know what 

a portable electric spa is. I was told it was a Jacuzzi, but that is 

in this bill. Page 233. Now, that is why I said, when I got to that 

point, I quit reading the bill. 

Mr. INSLEE. We will give you a hot spa that is energy efficient. 

I hope that doesn’t offend you. My point is is that the economists 

who are testifying in this committee, including one called by the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
957 

Republicans yesterday, said there would be a minimal cost of this. 

One yesterday, Dr. Jay Apt, former U.S. astronaut, told us that it 

won’t cost us any more than compliance with the Clean Air Act. He 

said that was well worth the cost. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to go back to John Dingell’s statement earlier this 

morning when he said that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it is a real 

big one, and the EU screwed this thing up twice to put it in his 

words. 

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have you back, and I am one that believes that we can, in fact, reduce emissions and deal with the 

issue in a major way, and you and I were both in the Congress 

with Mr. Barton, Mr. Markey, certainly Mr. Dingell when we took 

this issue up back in the ’90s called the BTU tax. A lot of us labeled it the big time unemployment, and we knew at the time that 

the Senate was never going to take that bill up, but somehow we 

had a march in the House. The Republicans were in the minority, 

and that BTU tax did pass, 219 t 213, and the Senate to their word 

never took the bill up. 

As we look at the landscape today with the Senate failing to take 

up the Warner, Lieberman bill last year, failing to get 60 votes, 

with another 12 that said that they would have voted against it 

had it made it to closure, when we look at the vote earlier this 

month in April where the Senate voted almost by a two-to-one margin, including my two senators, Evan Bayh, a number of others in 

the mid-west region, the rust belt, who, again, said it should not 

be part of reconciliation as part of the budget, thus requiring 60 

votes instead of 50. They said no. And as we try to work together 

on a bill to me it is quite apparent that even if the House passes 

a cap-and-trade tax as Mr. Dingell called it, it is not going to fly 

in the Senate. So why don’t we work together on a number of 

things that, in fact, can bring us together? 

Things like a renewable portfolio standard to include non-carbon 

emissions as part of that. Thirty states have moved forward. Michigan among them. Texas among them. Presume Massachusetts 

among them. But as we look at the list of states with a high percentage of carbon-based fuels, we look at Massachusetts at 90, better than 90 percent, Michigan 86 percent, Texas at 95 percent, 

even Wyoming at 97 percent. I think it is clear that we can take 

a number of steps to focus on renewals, and we ought to make sure 

that waste to energy is part of that, we ought to make sure that 

wind and solar incentives are there. I am one that believes that nuclear, which, of course, has no greenhouse gases emissions, we 

ought to be looking at that as part of that portfolio, and I am convinced that we will have bipartisan majority on a number of those 

issues where we can, in fact, move that legislation ultimately getting to the President’s desk. 

You have made some good points about nuclear, and it is not 

part of this bill. I intend to work with Republicans and Democrats 

to add that title to the bill when we get to markup in the next 

week or two. I want to make sure that we don’t have caps on emisVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 00967 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
958 

sions before we have technology that can actually make sure that 

we get to those. 

What is your sense in terms of the argument that I raised this 

morning about the WTO? Would that be a good idea to have an off 

ramp? 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, I think the people have to recognize the 

very grave danger that this bill is going to kill jobs in the United 

States and that the bill is not going to have any automatic affect 

on other countries except to export factories and export work. I do 

want to recognize that the distinguished Chairman and my very 

deal friend has come in, and it is a great honor to be with him, 

and we did many different things together over the years, most of 

them I have to say for the good I would like to think or for the 

country. 

But I do think his testimony this morning or his comments this 

morning when he was talking with the vice president and with 

Senator Warner, this is a tax, and here is the core challenge that 

I find fascinating, and it is something which Mr. Butterfield I 

thought alluded to in his questions earlier and that Ms. Sutton alluded to. The argument is that we have to raise the cost in order 

to get people to transition out of fossil fuels because fossil fuels are 

inexpensive. OK. That is a legitimate argument, however, when 

you raise the cost, you are raising the cost, and then people say, 

but there is not really a higher cost when they raise the cost because somehow magically we are going to get to the promised land 

where there will be a lower cost after the higher cost. 

But if you are a normal person in this economy, if you have 

looked at us lose millions of jobs, if you are worried about your 

marginal last dollar of your income, the fact that eventually someday we will reach Nirvana, may not comfort you while you go 

broke. And to think that the challenge for everybody who wants to 

punish us into change, understand, the people you are trying to 

punish are the American people. I am very much in favor as I 

think you are, Mr. Upton, to incentivize us into dramatic change. 

I think you could write a bill that will be truly bipartisan that 

would have a dramatic number of breakthroughs in getting to a 

cleaner environment and to less carbon in the atmosphere. 

But it would do so in a positive way, and it would do so by 

incentivizing rather than punishing, and it would do so in a clean 

way that did not require a massive expansion of government bureaucracy. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman 

Emeritus of the committee. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. I would like to begin by welcoming my 

old friend, Mr. Gingrich, back. Glad to see you here, Newt. 

I share your concern on the points that you have raised as you 

have gone over these matters. The question of competitiveness in 

this matter is a very important one. The question of how it is we 

are to address this business of global warming at the same time 

while we are dealing with the other questions of preserving competitiveness is a matter of great concern. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
959 

China and Indians you have indicated have indicated that they 

are going to be developing countries for always and that means we 

have some problems. There are others who are out from under the 

burdens of this under the Quioto Agreement and will have a potential for a large advantage over the United States. These things I 

find are very, very troublesome to me, and so the first question is 

how do we see to it that we don’t be the only country in the world 

which carries this load? How do we, for example, address the questions of trade? How do we, for example, address the questions of 

dealing with the business of cap-and-trade so that it doesn’t impose 

excessive burdens on our people while letting others get away? 

What do we do with regard to addressing these concerns within the 

framework of a global cap-and-trade package but also within the 

framework of things like GAT and the WTO? 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, let me say first of all, Mr. Chairman, you 

know full well in Michigan, in the area that you have represented 

to ably, what the pain has been of unemployment and of competition killing jobs. I worry a great deal the European experience was 

captured in one study in which a cement plant left Belgium under 

cap-and-trade and opened up in Morocco, actually emitting more 

carbon in Morocco than it was originally emitting in Belgium, taking the jobs away from Belgians and giving them to Moroccans. 

And I do worry that if we unilaterally adopt this that it would be 

a disaster. Now, those, Vice President Gore, for example, was very 

optimistic about the Chinese. You know, it might be useful to offer 

an amendment that said that the cap-and-trade section of this bill 

would only go into effect when it was certified that the Chinese had 

adopted a comparable program. I think that would be one way to 

guarantee that we, A, I think would probably never go into effect, 

but, B, that we wouldn’t be kidding ourselves with what we are 

going to do to American jobs. 

In this economy—— 

Mr. DINGELL. When I was at Quioto told me that they were only, 

that they were a developing country, they were not going to be covered by the agreement, and that they would never be covered by 

the agreement because they are always going to be a developing 

country. 

Mr. BARTON. I am a witness to that. That really happened. 

Mr. DINGELL. Yes. Now, the problem that is our concern here is 

we have to do something about the wasteful use of energy in this 

country, and I desperately want to support this bill, principally for 

that reason. 

But the question is if—we have this nasty balancing. On the one 

hand we have got to deal with the question of how we make other 

countries comply and cooperate, how we at the same time achieve 

the efficiencies that we have got to do, how we force other countries 

to comply, and how we don’t wind up with a huge mess and a loss 

of jobs on our own hands. 

Mr. GINGRICH. I think you are putting your finger on the heart 

of the challenge of this bill. Let me just say I believe you could 

write a bill that liberated the nuclear power energy industry and 

allowed us to move towards dramatically more nuclear, which 

would take a great deal of carbon out of the atmosphere. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
960 

I believe you could write a bill which dramatically incentivized 

moving towards a green coal system of carbon sequestration and 

using the carbon then to have an AMSOIL recovery. I think you 

could write a bill which had very substantial increase in research 

and development for materials technology, for hydrogen, and for 

other breakthroughs. I think frankly you could move ethanol from 

10 to 15 percent of all liquid fuels and you could move towards a 

much better use of natural gas, and the combined effect would both 

dramatically increase the American economy, reduce the amount of 

carbon loading in the atmosphere, create a lot of American jobs, 

and improve our national security. 

None of the things I just mentioned requires a national federal 

bureaucracy to micromanage Jacuzzis and none of the things I just 

mentioned requires punishing anybody. And I think that has got to 

be part of the key. We have in a world market, when we unilaterally punish Americans, we cripple the American worker in competing with our foreign competitors. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now, I got one other question. You and 

I have been floundering around in this morass for a long time, and 

both of us have seen our concerns and interests and feelings 

change. In April of 2007, you had some comments on this, and in 

April of 2008, you had some other comments. 

In 2007, you said my message is that evidence is sufficient that 

we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce 

the carbon loading of the atmosphere and do it urgently. In April 

of 2008, we—you said I want to be clear. I don’t think that we have 

conclusive proof of global warming, and I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it. 

How do we rhyme those two statements? 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I believe, and 

then I went on to say as a conservative I think conservation and 

caution are part of being a conservative. And I think that as a prudent person you can take steps to limit carbon loading of the atmosphere without having conclusively proved anything about that 

causality of whether carbon loading has an affect on the temperature of the earth, because I think frankly it is clear that as Mr. 

Barton earlier indicated that there has been an increase in carbon 

loading of the atmosphere, and there will probably be a continuing 

increase. 

In the interim I also wrote a book called Contract with the 

Earth, and I believe that it—I think one of the reasons I volunteered to come here today is I believe if we can find and incentivize 

a positive way to more to a new generation of greener energy, and 

if we can find a way to do it that increases the competitiveness of 

the American economy, it is absolutely in our national security interests and our quality of life interest to do it. 

And so I do think that there are practical steps we could take, 

and I would associate myself with Mr. Upton’s description of the 

kind of bipartisan bill that I think could have very widespread support that would help Michigan create jobs, that wouldn’t kill more 

jobs, and it would actually expand the choices of the American people. It wouldn’t try to punish them into change. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. It is good to see you back. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Good to see you, sir. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
961 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will recognize himself. 

You asked, Mr. Speaker, what would the nuclear industry ask. 

Well, I can tell you that the asked his committee in 1992, to combine the construction and operating license. We did that. That was 

the 1992, Energy Act. In 2005, President Bush, the Republican 

House and Senate, they asked the nuclear industry what do you 

need. They said, well, we need to consolidate the licensing proceedings for modular nuclear reactors. That is exactly what was in 

the 2005, Energy Act. 

But in addition to that we have authorized the Price Anderson 

Act for them for 25 years to protect them against insurance exposure because they are the only industry that cannot, in fact, get insurance from the private sector that we enacted a production tax 

credit for the nuclear industry. We enacted a tax credit that allows 

all nuclear power plant owners to deduct the cost of the money 

they put into their nuclear power plant decommissioning funds 

from their taxes. We authorized the DOE to assist companies in 

helping to get their power plant licensing requirements through the 

NRC. We authorized the wide-ranging DOE R&D Program and nuclear power plant technologies, and perhaps most importantly, and 

this is what they say is absolutely the bottom line need that they 

have, we authorized a $50 billion government-backed loan guarantees for the nuclear industry and other advanced technologies, 

which means that if the utility defaults, the American taxpayer is 

on the line for the money, which is the system in France and 

China. They are Socialist and Communist countries. We adopted 

that provision for them. 

However, there is no question that even with all that said and 

done that if there is a cap-and-trade system put in place and a low 

carbon economy is created, that would be the best marketplace incentive for the utility industry to move back towards the nuclear 

industry. Because then a premium would be placed upon it. 

So the marketplace is the best place for them, although they 

have been dependant upon government support for the last 50 

years, and they have only intensified in that request over the last 

3 or 4 years, which has been met by the Congress. So that is just 

the reality of the nuclear industry. It will do better in a cap-andtrade system. 

Second, on your point about the 34 times that the Department 

of Energy missed their deadlines for appliance sufficiency, that is 

accurate. They did. I know that because I requested the GAO report on that issue. I know and have a concern about it because 

they missed the deadline required in my appliance sufficiency law. 

Now, without question that led to an additional dozens of power 

plants that had to be built, fossil fuel plants, in order to generate 

the electricity for those appliances. However, the reality is in addition that when you were speaker, there was actually a writer that 

barred adoption of any new or revised appliance sufficiency standards, and a second writer actually barred any new standards for 

fluorescent light bulbs. 

So to bring this up to the Jacuzzi amendment, the hot job 

amendment, that provision is inside of the appliance efficiency 

standards that we are going to require. Now, of all of the things 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
962 

that we would want to have high energy efficiency, it would be I 

would think Jacuzzis. I mean, there is a discretionary purchase in 

the American economy, and all we are saying there is like light 

bulbs or refrigerators or stoves, that there should be high standards for energy efficiency in the manufacture of Jacuzzis and hot 

tubs. It is just part of what, it is part of what you were criticizing 

in the very beginning in terms of the Department of Energy, not 

meeting high energy efficiency standard. And by the way, the 

standard that we included is the industry consensus standard, and 

a standard they say they believe all industry participants can meet. 

And I would just add this one other thing, which is that beginning in 1995, there was a rider attached to every transportation 

bill, which banned the Department of Transportation from improving the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive. So 

in the same way that not having high standards for appliances, led 

to more fossil fuel, electrical generating plants had to be built, 

sending more CO2 up into the atmosphere. 

So, too, their delaying the improvement in the fuel economy 

standards lead to more imported oil, yes, but ultimately delayed 

the point in time in which the auto industry would have to meet 

the innovation tests that the rest of the world was applying to our 

auto industry. 

So I just point all those things out just to let you know that in 

the confines of this bill the nuclear industry is a huge beneficiary. 

The appliance and other industries will be dealt with in a way that 

I think matches the kind of prize that they should be receiving for 

innovation, but it is just creating this ‘‘work smarter, not harder’’ 

economy that depends upon innovation rather than the importation 

or the burning of domestic fossil fuels unnecessarily, although 

where it is necessary, we obviously need it to continue. 

So that is the only point I would make to you, Mr. Speaker. 

These are the things that I have been working on my entire career, 

and in a lot of ways this bill that we are now debating makes it 

possible for us to move to the innovation economy. It makes it possible for us to move forward to now deal with the reality that we 

only have 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves while consuming 25 

percent of it, which is an unsustainable long-term profile for our 

country. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Just two quick comments. You have shown great 

fortitude today and great patience. Two comments. One, on the 

question of reserves, I would just cite back what I had said earlier 

when you realize the U.S. geological survey just increased the 

Bachen reserve by 2,500 percent to between 3 and 4 billion barrels 

from what would have been a very small reserve, and you realize 

that the Brazilians went and the last few years from 10 billion to 

100 billion because they have barrels of reserve, because they actually permitted looking for oil. I think—and we literally have gotten 

100 years supply of natural gas discovered in the last 3 years. I 

think that the reserve issue is not, is actually not valid but is a 

function of bad government policy, and I just would say I can’t 

imagine a much better way to close the difference between being 

liberal and conservative in America than whether or not one could 

allow consumers to actually evaluate Jacuzzis or whether we needed a federal department of Jacuzzi regulation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
963 

I think it is a perfect contrast in our two approaches, and I have 

great respect for you and what you are trying to do, but I do think 

it is a pretty dramatic difference in our view of how America 

should operate. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but, again, I am 

only referring back to your own criticism of the Department of Energy, and by the way, that was the Bush Department of Energy 

that missed all 34 deadlines—— 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, I would say that—— 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. For energy efficiency. 

Mr. GINGRICH [continuing]. The mismanagement, for example, of 

nuclear waste, clean up processes has been an ongoing Department 

of Energy problem across several Administrations. 

And I have limited faith in the ability of federal bureaucracies 

to operate with agility and alacrity. 

Mr. MARKEY. And I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but the reality 

is is that the FutureGen product that you talked about and are 

critical of the Department of Energy decision to walk away from 

was a decision made by the Bush Department of Energy in 2000. 

Mr. GINGRICH. I agree with you, and I am happy to be bipartisan 

in my criticism. 

Mr. MARKEY. Just so you know we put $3 billion into the stimulus bill for climate change and sequestration. We have already 

$10 billion built into this bill for carbon capture and sequestration 

research, development, and demonstration projects. The fundamental flaw to be honest with you with the nuclear waste site, because I was here. I was actually chairman of this subcommittee 

back in that era, was that rather than listening to the National 

Academy of Sciences the—this Congress back then in that time decided that they would pick Yucca Mountain in Nevada, ignoring the 

National Academy of Sciences. So it was not a science-based decision. It was strictly political, and that is what we are now reaping 

the harvest of because whether you put something near a river, 

near an earthquake fall, you are going to wind up long-term with 

real problems if you are trying to isolate nuclear materials for 20 

or 30,000 years. 

So we are hoping that we can create a bridge here. We are hoping that we will be able to work together, Mr. Speaker, with Republicans on this issue to find a way that we can move forward, 

because in the long run we only have 3 percent of the world’s global oil reserves. Even if it became 4 percent, we now consume 25 

percent, and it is—in the long run incumbent upon us to find a 

technological solution to it, and the quicker that we get to it, the 

quicker that we put in place the incentives for market-based, 

science-based, breakthroughs. Then I think the sooner that we will 

be able to tell those countries around the world that we import 13 

million barrels of oil from—on a daily basis that we don’t need 

their oil anymore than we need their sand, but there is no way we 

are producing an extra 13 million barrels of oil a day. We only 

produce eight million barrels of oil a day today. 

So we need a plan in place in order to be successful, and we want 

to really work on a bipartisan basis, which would be the Democrats 

and Republicans to accomplish that goal. It is an honor for us to 

have you with us today. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
964 

I would like to conclude by giving you an opportunity to give us 

your closing thoughts, your comments in terms of what you want 

us to remember as we go forward with the consideration of this legislation. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Well, first of all, I am very honored that you let 

me come over and share these ideas with you, and I am very grateful for the patience and the length of time that you put in today. 

I would say that there is a way to develop an incentivized and 

a positive approach that can accelerate dramatically our moving towards more effective energy systems. I think that to the degree we 

divert that into trying to build a national bureaucracy and trying 

to create a national managed system that it is likely to carry us 

down a road we don’t do very well, and I agree with what Chairman Dingell said earlier this morning that watching the two efforts 

by the Europeans has not been very encouraging in terms of the 

likelihood of designing the system. 

But I do appreciate the way you have approached it, and I hope 

that you and Mr. Upton are able to find some common ground on 

which to write a bipartisan bill. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. And, again, it is our honor to have you here with 

us. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. We have 21 more witnesses to go today, and the 

chairman needs approximately a 3-minute break before we begin 

the next panel. So we will stand in recess for 3 or 4 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Ladies and gentlemen, we apologize to you but we 

had historic guests visiting the committee today. We are moving at 

a rapid pace to try to construct our historic legislation that 

matches the quality of the witnesses which we have appearing before us. On this next panel, we have a group of nationally recognized experts in their subject area and we are going to begin with 

Ian Bowles. Mr. Bowles is the secretary of the Executive Office of 

Energy and Environmental Affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He also served as associate director of the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality and senior director of the Global 

Environmental Affairs Directorate at the National Security Council. We welcome you, Mr. Bowles. By the way, I will introduce all 

of you so you won’t have to reintroduce yourself, which might save 

you 15 or 20 seconds in your testimonies, so whenever you are 

ready, Mr. Bowles, please begin. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
965 

STATEMENTS OF IAN BOWLES, SECRETARY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; DAVE McCURDY, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; 

ALAN REUTHER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL 

UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW); DANIEL 

SPERLING, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION 

STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS; DAVID FRIEDMAN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CLEAN VEHICLES PROGRAM, 

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; DAVID GARDINER, 

PRESIDENT, DAVID GARDINER AND ASSOCIATES, LLC (ON 

BEHALF OF ENERGY FUTURE COALITION); JEFF GENZER, 

COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS; CHARLES T. DREVNA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL AND REFINERS ASSOCIATION; ANDREW DeLASKI, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APPLIANCE STANDARDS AWARENESS PROJECT; AND CHARLES RICHARDSON, ON BEHALF 

OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS 

STATEMENT OF IAN BOWLES 

Mr. BOWLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your terrific work on 

this legislation. I am sure as you stare at this panel, it feels like 

Heartbreak Hill in the Boston Marathon, so I commend you for 

your patience in these proceedings and thank you for having us 

here today. 

Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that Governor Patrick 

and the work we have been doing on clean energy is very much 

aligned with the legislation that you and your team have produced 

and we appreciate the thoughtful approach to developing a federalstate partnership that advances the goals of clean energy and 

greenhouse gas reduction. I also want to note that many States 

have been leading in this area for recent years and we all welcome 

this important legislation. 

In short, the legislation builds on, buttresses and accelerates but 

doesn’t supplant proven State programs on energy efficiency and 

renewable energy. On energy efficiency, the bill creates a strong 

new set of federal standards but also recognizes that much of the 

retail work retrofitting will be done and implemented at State and 

local levels. On renewable energy, the legislation recognizes the regional diversity of clean power solutions and the fundamentally regional nature of electricity markets and the need to bolster, not 

eliminate, such markets. And on transmission, I think it carefully 

resists the call for some top-down central planning that would disrupt competitive energy markets such as we have in the Northeast 

and instead creates a market-based set of mandates that in our 

view is a superior way to accelerate renewable energy. 

On regulation of greenhouse gases, the bill rightfully crafts unified, robust national program but it still leaves the States tools to 

innovate and continue to contribute to low-carbon solutions. As you 

consider the design of the cap-and-trade program, we in Massachusetts endorse 100 percent auction approach. No other system provides the clarity and simplicity to the private sector and it also allows the federal government acting on behalf of the public interest 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
966 

to put the proceeds to work to mitigate economic and consumer impacts, accelerate renewable energy and energy efficiency and realign our public transportation infrastructure. Let me say in the 

case of our experiment with RGGI in the Northeast, our permit 

auctions have run smoothly and we are putting tens of millions of 

dollars to work creating jobs and reducing energy costs for our consumers. As you consider a transition to the federal program, we believe such programs are needed and should be funded, not just for 

the RGGI States but for all 50 States, and the federal recovery legislation begins that process with the State energy program funding. 

As you develop your priorities for spending auction proceeds, we 

really strongly encourage the committee to put a big push on energy efficiency and make it a large part of your investment. 

The proposed Energy Efficiency Resource Standard also represents a complementary tool to accomplish this. In Massachusetts, 

we have restructured our electricity market so that efficiency now 

competes with power generation on price to meet the low demand. 

The EERS would create a similar mandate for other States. 

For those who say the EERS may be too stringent, I would note 

that in Massachusetts we have met through measures over the last 

decade 8 percent of our load through energy efficiency investments. 

In rough terms, that would be equivalent to the 2017 mandate in 

your legislation. So I encourage the committee to retain, include robust measures on energy efficiency and I would encourage you also 

to add some more significant measures on monitoring and 

verification so that we can demonstrate to the public what these 

investments in energy efficiency are producing. 

In building codes, I think the work based on the IECC and 

ASHRAE standards is terrific. We in Massachusetts are building 

our new code currently on the 2009, not 2006 code, and I would encourage the committee to look closely at the 2009 code potentially 

as the basis. 

On transportation, the bill breaks new ground by incorporating 

greenhouse gas standards for vehicle emissions and transportation 

planning. I encourage the committee to go further even by tying 

federal highway funds to greenhouse gas reductions, consider incentives for vehicle mile traveled reductions and give the States 

some flexibility to set and enforce greenhouse gas targets. 

On fuels, the proposal in the legislation is a transition to the renewable fuel standard, to transition that standard into a low-carbon fuel standard. We think that is the right policy. If anything, 

we would encourage you to move the timeline more quickly but also 

to recognize some of the regional opportunities and the special considerations such as we have in the Northeast where we don’t want 

to have leakage out of transportation fuels into things like home 

heating oil. 

In a related vein, we fully support the higher efficiency standards for appliances, especially the provision that allows States to 

set more-stringent standards where conditions warrant. As you 

may know, in the Commonwealth we have a State law that requires furnace efficiency standards for cold weather States. We 

think there are some important regional differences there. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
967 

In sum, I would say this is a terrific piece of legislation. We commend you and your staff for your hard work and I would be delighted to take the committee’s questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowles follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
968 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1012 72878A.567
969 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1013 72878A.568
970 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1014 72878A.569
971 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1015 72878A.570
972 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1016 72878A.571
973 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1017 72878A.572
974 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1018 72878A.573
975 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1019 72878A.574
976 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1020 72878A.575
977 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1021 72878A.576
978 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, very much. 

Our next witness, Dave McCurdy, is a former extremely distinguished Member of the United States Congress, former chairman 

of the Intelligence Committee, and he is now using all of those political skills and intelligence as the president and CEO of the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers and he was previously the 

president and CEO of the Electronic Industries Alliance. We welcome you back, Dave. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE McCURDY 

Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

and Ranking Member Upton and Chairman Dingell. It is always a 

pleasure to be back. I will tell you, I have chaired a lot of hearings 

in my career as well but I am not sure any would match the marathon of the last 4 days, so I commend you for your interest and endurance, and I would respectfully suggest that if there is only one 

thing you recall from my testimony today, just remember this, that 

automakers are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

from the vehicles we sell and from our assembly plants, and today 

I am going to focus on how we can work together to accomplish 

that. 

To begin with, the Alliance supports federal legislation for an 

economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions reduction program. We 

agree with the chairman, Administrator Jackson and others that a 

comprehensive legislative approach is superior to regulating greenhouse gas under the existing Clean Air Act. When we look ahead 

and envision what a low-carbon future for automobiles will look 

like, here is what we see. It is going to require substantial investment in advanced vehicle technologies. Secondly, our country needs 

complementary policies for fuels, and third, we need a single national program for improving fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Let me start with investment in technologies. Providing clean energy necessary for continued economic growth and prosperity will 

require rapid development and commercial-scale deployment of advanced technology across many sectors including motor vehicles. 

We strongly urge the committee to use revenues generated from 

the proposed cap-and-trade system to help fund research, development and implementation of new technologies and upgrading and 

retooling of manufacturing facilities to provide the next generation 

of green vehicles. According to the endangerment finding released 

by EPA last week, light-duty vehicles, cars, trucks and SUVs that 

we drive, account for around 17 percent of manmade greenhouse 

gas emissions in the United States. In order to realize the significant reductions we know we will have to achieve in our sector, we 

need sizable, sustained investments to take advanced low-carbon 

vehicle technologies from our laboratories to our customers’ garages. Frontloading investments in these technologies is particularly critical for automakers, given the long lead times to develop 

new technologies, the extended periods needed to ramp up production of new technologies and the long-lived nature of our products. 

Given the importance of this sector, we urge at least 5 percent of 

annual allowance value, either in the form of allowances or revenue, be dedicated specifically to development and deployment of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
979 

advanced technologies for light-duty vehicles. We are open to further discussions with the committee on how to allocate such resources among manufacturers, suppliers and consumers. 

With regard to fuels, the draft bill’s approach of capping emissions primarily upstream at the fuel source allows for the broadest 

possible coverage and also will result in price signals at the rate 

of about 8.5 cents, 8–1/2 cents per gallon of gasoline for every $10 

ton of carbon. Clean vehicles need clean fuels so the Alliance supports a low-carbon fuel standard such as the one included in section 121 of the draft. Lowering the carbon content of the fuels we 

put into our fuel tanks will help lower greenhouse gas emissions 

from the fuel source to our tailpipes for years to come, and the benefits of cleaner fuels can be realized by all the 250 million autos 

on the road today. 

Finally, a key concern for automakers is that we not be subject 

to duplicative and incompatible State and federal regulatory approaches either from mobile sources or stationary sources. It is well 

known that the Alliance strongly supports a single national program for motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy 

to bridge State and federal programs. We support the authors’ efforts to clarify the roles of existing regulatory framework and the 

States with regard to our manufacturing facilities. We will continue 

to work constructively with Congress, the Administration and all 

other stakeholders to ensure a national vehicle program administered by the federal government that not only enhances energy security and addresses climate change but also gives automakers a 

clear roadmap to compliance. 

Before I close, I wanted to raise one other issue that is important 

to members of this committee. Last month President Obama pointed to a fleet modernization or so-called cash for clunkers programs 

that had been successful in Europe and announced he would work 

with Congress to fund the program from existing dollars in the Recovery Act. The Alliance welcomes presidential as well as Congressional support for fleet modernization program. We will continue 

working towards creating a program available to all manufacturers 

and consumers. A well-crafted fleet modernization program will deliver two important benefits. In the near term, it will stimulate 

auto sales during the current economic credit crisis and in the long 

term it will help replace older, less fuel-efficient vehicles with 

cleaner, safer, more fuel-efficient ones. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the transition to a new way of using 

energy and new energy sources requires that we collaborate with 

government and other industries like never before. The next generation of vehicles will require a new generation of fuels and supporting infrastructure. You have our commitment to continue reinventing the automobile. We will continue to provide Americans 

with a wide range of vehicles that are highly fuel efficient and we 

will be at the leading edge of the world’s low-carbon economy, an 

economy in which green auto jobs are a fundamental part of the 

engine driving our communities. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCurdy follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
980 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1025 72878A.577
981 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1026 72878A.578
982 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1027 72878A.579
983 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1028 72878A.580
984 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1029 72878A.581
985 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1030 72878A.582
986 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1031 72878A.583
987 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1032 72878A.584
988 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dave, very much. 

Our next witness, Mr. Alan Reuther, is the legislative director for 

the International Union of the United Auto Workers. He is a member of one of the most aristocratic automobile families in the history of our country and we are honored to have you with us today, 

sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN REUTHER 

Mr. REUTHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be 

here on behalf of the UAW, which represents over 1 million active 

and retired members, many of whom work for or receive retirement 

benefits from the auto manufacturers and parts supplies. We appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. 

The UAW supports the provisions of Title II establishing an 

economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. We welcome the inclusion of mechanisms to contain 

costs. However, we believe the provisions in Title IV that seek to 

preserve the competitiveness of domestic industries need to be 

strengthened in a number of ways. For example, these provisions 

should be expanded to include products such as auto parts that 

contain large amounts of energy-intensive materials. Most importantly, the UAW believes a substantial amount of the revenues 

from the auction of carbon allowances should be used to help auto 

manufacturers and parts companies with the major upfront costs 

associated with meeting tougher vehicle efficiency standards. This 

includes at least another $25 billion to fund the existing section 

136, advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program, as well as funds for the new program that may be established under section 124 of Title I. 

In addition, revenues should be used to pay for other costs associated with meting tougher vehicle efficiency standards beyond 

those linked to advanced technology vehicles. Because of their current difficult financial situations, the Detroit-based automakers 

and many parts suppliers do not have the resources to make the 

necessary investments. 

The UAW also supports the clean fuels and vehicles provisions 

in Title I of the discussion draft. The low carbon fuel standard can 

make a major contribution to reducing our Nation’s consumption of 

oil and greenhouse gas emissions. The provision supporting largescale demonstrations of electric vehicles can create demand for the 

production of these vehicles and the provisions in section 124 

granting financial support to automakers to retool plants to build 

plug-in electric drive vehicles in this country can accelerate the introduction of these vehicles but also ensure that they will be produced in the United States by American workers. 

The UAW applauds the transportation planning requirements in 

Title II which recognize that initiatives to reduce vehicle miles 

traveled must be an important part of any effort to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation 

sector. Although the light-duty vehicle efficiency provisions in Title 

II take the commendable step of calling for the harmonization of 

standards that may be set by NHTSA, EPA and the State of California, they do not purport to establish any minimum benchmark 

for such standards beyond 2015. Instead, they merely provide a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
989 

green light for subsequent regulatory action by the State of California. The UAW believes this approach has several deficiencies. It 

fails to provide any certainty that there will be guaranteed minimum improvements in vehicle efficiency over an extended period 

of time and it fails to provide automakers with certainty as to what 

will be required of them. In lieu of this approach, the UAW submits 

that it would be preferable to mandate minimum national harmonized vehicle efficiency standards that must be met by the automakers for specified dates extending through 2030. These could be 

set at specific MPG targets or as percentage improvements from a 

certain baseline. The UAW recognizes that this alternative approach would have to embody a negotiated agreement between 

NHTSA, EPA and the State of California as well as other stakeholders. This could reflect the desire of California for more-stringent reductions in vehicle emissions and oil consumption. However, 

we believe it also should reject some of the deficiencies in California law AB 1493 including the exemption of foreign automakers, 

the one-size-fits-all flat MPG approach and the lack of any antibacksliding rule. Under the alternative approach that we are suggesting, the legislation could specify that it is not altering existing 

law regarding the authority of California and other States after the 

end date of any negotiated agreement on a harmonized national vehicle efficiency standard. 

In conclusion, the UAW appreciates the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. We look forward to working with you, Mr. 

Chairman, and the other members of the committee and the entire 

Congress to craft improved provisions relating to vehicle efficiency 

standards and providing the resources needed by automakers and 

parts supplies to meet new efficiency standards. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reuther follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
990 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1035 72878A.585
991 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1036 72878A.586
992 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1037 72878A.587
993 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1038 72878A.588
994 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1039 72878A.589
995 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1040 72878A.590
996 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1041 72878A.591
997 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1042 72878A.592
998 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1043 72878A.593
999 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1044 72878A.594
1000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1045 72878A.595
1001 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1046 72878A.596
1002 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1047 72878A.597
1003 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1048 72878A.598
1004 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Reuther, very much. 

Our next witness is Dr. Dan Sperling. Dr. Sperling is the founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California Davis. He was appointed to the automotive engineering seat on the California Air Resources Board by Governor 

Schwarzenegger and served as co-director of the California Low 

Carbon Fuel Standards Study. We welcome you, Dr. Sperling. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL SPERLING 

Mr. SPERLING. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here, and it is 

a special pleasure because I bring important news on the low-carbon fuel standard from California. Last night the California Air Resources Board made history. We voted to adopt a low-carbon fuel 

standard. It will take effect in January 2011. It requires a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy for 

gasoline and diesel fuel by 2020, and I note that 11 other States 

have signed MOUs to also adopt the low-carbon fuel standard and 

that the European Union is also moving toward adopting policies 

that closely resemble a low-carbon fuel standard. 

So I would like to point out that there are a number of reasons 

why the United States should follow California’s lead and adopt a 

low-carbon fuel standard. One, it applies to all potential transportation fuels, unlike the current renewable fuel standard that Congress passed in 2007, which only applies to biofuels. Another feature is the emissions are measured on a lifecycle basis, and this is 

the scientifically correct way to regulate greenhouse gases to include all the emissions in the energy chain from the oil well, the 

coal mine or the cornfield all the way to the vehicle. Neither cap 

and trade nor the renewable fuel standards program are based on 

lifecycle measurements. Another key feature is it uses a performance standard, not volumetric mandates, as is the case with the renewable fuel standard and thus it allows industry and it allows 

customers to pick the winners. The winners are not picked and the 

losers are not picked by government in this case. It harnesses market forces to stimulate innovation. The low-carbon fuel standard allows the energy providers to buy and sell credits among each other, 

creating a market for these low-carbon fuel standard credits and 

reducing the overall cost of developing low-carbon fuels. And so 

what it is doing is, it is creating a durable, permanent framework 

for orchestrating the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels. 

The history of alternative fuels is one of ad hoc short-lived policy 

actions. We have seen policymakers and the media jump from one 

solution to another, from syn fuels to methanol to battery electrics 

to hydrogen to corn ethanol and now the fuel du jour, the technology du jour is plug-in hybrids. We need a more permanent policy framework that sends consistent signals to industry and consumers and that doesn’t pick winners. And very importantly, it also 

achieves both energy security and climate goals, and I would note 

that producers of oil sands complain that they will be put out of 

business with a low-carbon fuel standard, and this is just not true. 

The low-carbon fuel standard does not preclude any fuel. Rather, 

it provides an incentive to produce fuels more efficiently and with 

less carbon, and indeed, senior oil executives have indicated to me 

that with sufficient incentive they could make gasoline from oil 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1005 

sands with less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline from conventional oil. And lastly, a low-carbon fuel standard reduces oil 

price volatility and it caps petroleum price increases. 

So the proposed national LCFS is modeled on the California lowcarbon fuel standard but it has two differences. First is that the 

proposed national standard in this bill does not include biofuels 

until 2023. It assumes that the renewable fuel standard enacted in 

the EISA of 2007 will handle the biofuels until then. The result is 

that until 2023 the national low-carbon fuel standard only targets 

petroleum and non-biofuel options, mostly electricity, natural gas 

and hydrogen. Failure to integrate the renewable fuel standard 

into the low-carbon fuel standard until 2023 is problematic. Keeping the biofuels separate from other alternative fuels reduces the 

flexibility of the market to respond to the targets and it also reduces incentives to produce the very lowest carbon fuels. So unlike 

the renewable fuel standard, the low-carbon fuel standard provides 

incentives for continuous improvements. 

The other difference, the second important difference between 

the two is that the national standard has more modest targets. The 

California low-carbon fuel standard has a target of 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gases per unit of energy by 2020 with further reductions to follow. The national one sets a target of zero percent improvement until 2022 and then in 2023 when the RFS and 

the biofuels are folded in, it jumps to 5 percent but it is still considerably less, and then it goes to 10 percent in 2030. I would argue 

for higher targets. 

OK, so the recommendations, just very quickly, the RFS should 

be integrated into the national LCFS as soon as possible. Targets 

should be more aggressive and the federal program should not preempt the State programs but the priority is, adopt this low-carbon 

fuel standard. It is a good idea, even in a limited fashion. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sperling follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1006 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1052 72878A.599
1007 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1053 72878A.600
1008 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1054 72878A.601
1009 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Sperling, very much. 

Our next witness, David Friedman, is the research director of the 

clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mr. 

Friedman has served on three major committees for the National 

Academy of Sciences covering fuel economy, fuel-efficient tires and 

fuel cell vehicles. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FRIEDMAN 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. I would also like to thank you specifically for your leadership on fuel economy. That was the important first step on transportation. 

But now as we look to where we need to go from here, the discussion draft before us represents the essential next step, and as my 

testimony will show, the transportation system can go much farther than the progress delivered under the 2007 energy bill. What 

America needs is a comprehensive approach that addresses transportation as a system of vehicles, fuels and infrastructure and a 

strong cap that covers all parts of the economy including transportation. 

We released a 2-year peer-reviewed study on Wednesday before 

the full committee. Our Climate 2030 Blueprint demonstrates the 

need for a well-designed cap-and-trade system and a comprehensive set of policies for the energy and transportation sectors. With 

this approach, we can accumulate $1.6 trillion in savings through 

2030. Let me say that again: we can save money while tackling climate change. Now, if we remove some of the complementary policies, we will still save $600 billion but it will go down. These complementary policies are essential to saving money while addressing 

climate change. 

Now, the results of our study highlight that the draft bill will 

also require significant action by the Administration to make these 

policies work. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency 

will need to set strong global warming emission standards for all 

vehicles and off-road equipment. There are opportunities to save 

money and cut carbon emissions from every vehicle, every ship, 

every plane. The EPA must also protect and defend State authority 

to help bring about cleaner cars and fuels in recognition both of the 

unique circumstances in those States and the history of leadership 

on these issues from California and many others. Thanks in large 

part to California and the States that have supported its efforts, 

cars and trucks today are 90 percent cleaner when it comes to 

smog than those sold 40 years ago. So I believe that EPA can head 

a partnership with States and with NHTSA that provides the clarity and certainty that automakers need. 

Now, automakers that don’t invest in this future and in these 

clean and efficient technologies will be left by the side of the road 

but as a result of this, in these hard economic times, it does make 

sense for the federal government to help the auto industry. However, taxpayers deserve a return on their investment, a requirement that automakers at least meet nationwide the same global 

warming emission standards adopted by California and 14 other 

States. That said, we cannot, we must not put all the responsibility 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1010 

on the auto industry. Oil companies and fuel providers must step 

up and that is why EPA will also need to make a transition from 

a renewable fuel standard that covers only 10 percent of today’s 

transportation fuels to a low-carbon fuel standard that covers all 

fuels and counts all direct and indirect emissions. 

State and local governments and everyone who drives must also 

step up. The Department of Transportation will have to build on 

their plans to develop a smarter transportation, working with local 

governments to help get people where they need to go with fewer 

miles and less pollution. This will require investments in transit 

and support for pay-per-mile programs that will keep our roads 

and bridges repaired. EPA also has a significant role to play here 

in setting up standards to evaluate local transportation plans but 

there must also be consequences associated with making and meeting effective plans. 

Finally, we need our scientists and engineers to step up and to 

deliver on the promise of fuel cell, plug-in and battery electric vehicles and the lowest carbon fuels. If Congress and the Administration step up to the plate, the UCS Climate 2030 Blueprint shows 

that the United States can cut carbon emissions from cars and 

light trucks to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. We can hold 

carbon emissions from freight trucks steady despite an 80 percent 

growth in the economy through 2030. At the same time, we can deliver net annual savings of $120 billion to consumers and businesses in 2030 alone. Consumers specifically will save about $580 

per household per year. We are not talking about how much it will 

cost, we are talking about how much money they will save as a result of cutting global warming emissions. 

Now, by 2030, we will also have additional benefits. We can reduce transportation’s addiction to oil by more than 3 million barrels per day, more than we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf region, and this is all on top of the benefits that you 

helped deliver through the 2007 energy bill. When you look at today’s economy and the prospect of rising gas prices and rising carbon emissions, once we beat this recession we simply cannot afford 

to ignore this opportunity to invest in a cleaner transportation future and the jobs that investment will create. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1011 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1057 72878A.602
1012 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1058 72878A.603
1013 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1059 72878A.604
1014 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1060 72878A.605
1015 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1061 72878A.606
1016 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1062 72878A.607
1017 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1063 72878A.608
1018 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1064 72878A.609
1019 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1065 72878A.610
1020 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1066 72878A.611
1021 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1067 72878A.612
1022 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1068 72878A.613
1023 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Friedman, very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. David Gardiner. He is the founder and 

president of David Gardiner and Associates, an energy and climate 

consulting firm. He previously served as the executive director of 

the White House Climate Change Task Force during the Clinton 

administration. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GARDINER 

Mr. GARDINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This morning Congressman Butterfield asked a question about 

what he could say to his low-income consumers in his district about 

this broad legislation and we believe that a key part of the answer 

to that question is, we are going to deliver a lot more energy efficiency to you and particularly as contained in your discussion draft, 

we should adopt an energy efficiency resource standard. An energy 

efficiency resource standard, as in your bill, Mr. Chairman, would 

require utility companies to deliver increasing amounts of energy 

efficiency to their customers, specifically that we would deliver 15 

percent more energy efficiency by 2020 in the electricity area and 

10 percent for natural gas. With this requirement, which we have 

in place in 19 States already today, what utility companies do is 

to turn around and offer rebates to their customers for investing 

in energy efficiency appliances and making energy efficient homes. 

Colorado, for example, has just adopted a standard and the utility 

there, Excel, has recently launched two programs to offer rebates 

to homebuilders because it is cheaper for Colorado to pay for a 

more efficient home than it is to build a power plant to serve that. 

Now, under your draft discussion bill, Mr. Chairman, this provision 

for an energy efficiency resource standard saves consumers $170 

billion by 2020. It is exactly the kind of thing that Congressman 

Butterfield is looking for for his low-income consumers. It also creates 220,000 new net jobs because there is a lot of jobs out there 

making homes more energy efficient and building more energy-efficient appliances. It also will avoid the equivalent of $48 million 

automobiles worth of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Now, there are some who have suggested that what we should 

do is to merge the energy efficient resource standard with a renewable electricity standard. That is an unwise path because that will 

lead to less energy efficiency and it will increase consumer costs. 

Our own analysis indicates that could be as much as a $70 billion 

increase for consumers. On the converse side, the energy efficiency 

resource standard and the renewable electricity standard actually 

lower the costs of meeting a cap on carbon dioxide and they do so 

by approximately 15 percent. They do it because they eliminate the 

barriers that are out there for cost-effective investments in energy 

efficiency. The chief barrier to that is that in most States in the 

country, electric utility companies lose money if there are significant investments, that they make significant investments in energy 

efficiency. So an energy efficiency resource standard turns that 

around and makes energy efficiency a profitable venture for electric 

utility companies and starts to deliver the kinds of savings that 

consumers are going to want to need and can be an important component of making sure that the achievement of our greenhouse gas 

reductions is done at the lowest possible cost. So we urge the comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01033 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1024 

mittee to not only retain the discussion draft provision on the energy efficiency resource standard but to make sure that we move 

forward as rapidly as possible to get this in place because energy 

efficiency is a resource that we can start taking advantage of today. 

We can start saving consumers money today and we can start creating those jobs in energy efficiency today so it is urgent that the 

Congress move forward with adopting the energy efficiency resource standard. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardiner follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1025 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1071 72878A.614
1026 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1072 72878A.615
1027 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1073 72878A.616
1028 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gardiner, and your testimony was 

consistent with your energy philosophy. You yielded back 1 minute 

to us. We appreciate that, really a great gift to us today. 

Our next witness, Mr. Jeff Genzer, is counsel for National Association of State Energy Officials. Mr. Genzer, we welcome you, and 

whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF GENZER 

Mr. GENZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The energy efficiency programs within the bill are solid and we 

generally support them. I won’t focus on the appliance provisions 

since Mr. DeLaski will be discussing that. 

Number one, NASEO supports specific 30 percent increases in 

both residential and commercial building energy codes and standards. These should be federal and mandatory and need to happen 

quickly. The residential code should be adopted and effective on 

January 1, 2010, which represents a 30 percent increase over the 

2006 international energy conservation code. It has become clear to 

State energy officials that the residential consensus code process 

has become dominated by interests that refuse to recognize the role 

that new homes play in energy use and climate change and that 

seek to maintain the status quo despite the very acceptable costs, 

in fact cost reductions for consumers of moving to much more efficient buildings. 

On the commercial side, ASHRAE should be given an opportunity to achieve a 30 percent commercial building standard increase over ASHRAE 90.0 2004. However, it needs to be effective 

on January 1, 2011. We cannot achieve our energy and climate 

goals without this. We have waited far too long already. We simply 

cannot accept the ridiculous argument that it is never a good time 

to raise energy-efficient building codes, never good in flush times, 

never good in bad times. Homeowners live in these homes and consumer energy for centuries. Every day we wait is another day of 

dollars out the pockets of homeowners and taxpayers. The costs of 

achieving the same gains in energy efficiency is an order of magnitude higher when we retrofit than during the initial construction. 

Funding will be required for States and local governments to conduct compliance, training and enforcement. The only possible 

source is at the federal level but we would maintain that the national interest in reducing the 10 percent share of global greenhouse gas emissions that comes through out buildings warrants 

that federal investment. 

Two, we support the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program that was sponsored by Representative Welch. It 

will lead to significant increases in energy efficiency for homeowners, commercial buildings and public buildings. This will lead 

to local jobs, putting building contractors back to work and it will 

produce real energy savings for real people and return dollars to 

communities. 

Third, we supply the rebate program to get homeowners out of 

the older pre-1976 manufactured housing. We support the program 

sponsored by Representative Baron Hill. 

Number four, we support a building energy performance labeling 

program. We don’t understand why anyone engaged in helping 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1029 

Americans make wide decisions when owning, operating, buying or 

selling a building would reject an effort to allow consistent, comprehensive and understandable information about that building’s 

energy consumption to be readily and indeed publicly available. 

Fifth, most state energy offices support an energy efficiency resource standard but want to ensure the State-administered programs will be allowed to continue. 

Six, the State Energy and Environmental Development Fund, the 

SEED Fund included in the bill, is another positive program and 

would provide a good overlay for energy and environmental program initiatives. We look forward to working with the subcommittee and the committee in examining these programs. A 

number of items that have been discussed and will be discussed at 

these hearings are certainly worth including. 

Commissioner Grunich discussed yesterday a proposal on State 

planning. Bill Becker will be on the next panel from NACAA. He 

will be discussing our desire to avoid State preemption and permit 

States to run programs on the environmental side that are more 

robust than the federal program. Third, Representative Van Hollen 

made a good proposal for a federal energy loan bank. While it is 

a good idea at the local level, we are concerned that it will be very 

difficult for the Department of Energy despite Secretary Chu’s 

monumental efforts to get their loan program going at DOE to run 

it from the federal level. 

I want to, in my 19 seconds left, mention to Congresswoman 

Baldwin that my daughter is a junior at Wisconsin and I have a 

rising freshman. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Genzer follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1030 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1076 72878A.617
1031 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1077 72878A.618
1032 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1078 72878A.619
1033 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1079 72878A.620
1034 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1080 72878A.621
1035 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1081 72878A.622
1036 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you, Mr. Genzer. 

Our next witness is Mr. Charles Drevna. He is the president of 

the National Petroleum and Refiners Association. He has more 

than 35 years of experience in that field. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES T. DREVNA 

Mr. DREVNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Upton and Congresswoman Baldwin. Thank you for having me 

here today. 

Addressing climate change requires realistic long-term strategies 

that recognize the vital role that all forms of energy will play in 

maintaining our country’s security, economic strength and quality 

of life. NPRA supports the advancement and deployment of new 

technologies that will bring reliable, affordable and clean supplies 

of domestic energy to consumers. We do, however, have some serious concerns with the ability of the discussion draft, the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, to achieve these goals, particularly in relationship to the transportation sector regarding the 

discussion draft, but rather than attempt to simply condense the 

written statement in the time allotted, I will briefly reiterate some 

specific areas of concern. 

These include the adoption of a low-carbon fuel standard. At 

best, the LCFS is redundant and overly costly. More likely, it is 

contradictory and punitive. We do not need the LCFS if fuels are 

regulated under the cap through a scientifically achievable timeframe. The compliance timeframes in the discussion draft are, in 

our opinion, again, on the transportation sector, overly aggressive. 

Another area of concern is the refining industry, we believe and 

we hope to demonstrate, that the refining industry is indeed energy 

intensive and subject to international competition as opposed to 

what the findings of the discussion draft. And finally, we have 

some questions concerning the allocation of emission allowances. 

There seems to be a dearth of knowledge on how those will be handled in the discussion draft. Now, I anticipate that the committee 

will have questions regarding these items among others and I look 

forward to discussing them with you. 

In the remaining time I have, I want to focus somewhat on links. 

A rather rudimentary description of the petroleum refining process 

but one that must be achieved in order to facilitate technological 

and commercial success is a rearrangement of the links between 

and among hydrocarbon molecules. It has been a very long time 

since refineries were described as structures that boil oil or simply 

are a bubble in the oil pipeline. Today’s refineries are complex, sophisticated, state-of-the-art facilities that operate most efficiently 

while providing consumers with the reliable products that drive the 

Nation’s economy from clean burning gasoline, diesel and home 

heating oil to the petrochemical feedstocks that are building blocks 

for a multitude of products, asphalt to aspirin, cosmetics to computers, heart valves to helmets, pharmaceuticals to patio furniture. 

The domestic refining industry is the linchpin for these products. 

Transforming various hydrocarbon molecules, again, rearranging 

the molecular links of the oil in a technologically advanced, environmentally sound and economically viable fashion is vital to the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1037 

success of the domestic refining industry and the overall economy 

it drives. 

There are more consequential links as well, the link between energy and economic strength for the entire Nation and the link between energy and American security. The question before this committee today and ultimately for the entire Nation is, will the current draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 

or similar legislation forge stronger, more viable links than these 

vital chains or will doing so lead to adverse economic impacts not 

on just the domestic refining industry but on the Nation’s economy. 

The answers to these questions must be fully investigated, understood and documented before enactment of any legislation. Most 

likely, we have but one chance to get it right. The Nation simply 

can’t afford anything short of a complete understanding. 

Lastly, the provisions of the draft legislation neglect to ensure 

one other link, the link between international participation and the 

ultimate success of the initiative. For example, and we have heard 

this over and over today, China continues to state that it will not 

participate in any program that restricts its emissions. International participation is a critical issue as we need to implement 

any program. One ton of CO2 emitted in Columbus, Ohio, is indistinguishable from one ton emitted in Beijing, Mumbai or Moscow. 

The possible consequences should determine the pace or else the 

pace could determine the consequences. Mr. McCurdy stated that 

you good people have sat here for 4 days in a marathon and I commend you for that. Again, I really commend you for that. But don’t 

try to sprint to the finish line. Keep the marathon going. It is a 

marathon, not a sprint. We have to know everything before we can 

go forward, and to that extent, I would ask that we have some 

more hearings on the transportation sector of this bill. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Drevna follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1038 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1085 72878A.623
1039 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1086 72878A.624
1040 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1087 72878A.625
1041 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1088 72878A.626
1042 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1089 72878A.627
1043 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1090 72878A.628
1044 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1091 72878A.629
1045 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1092 72878A.630
1046 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1093 72878A.631
1047 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1094 72878A.632
1048 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1095 72878A.633
1049 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1096 72878A.634
1050 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1097 72878A.635
1051 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1098 72878A.636
1052 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1099 72878A.637
1053 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1100 72878A.638
1054 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Drevna. I have been on the Energy 

Committee for 33 years, the Natural Resources Committee for 33 

years, so that is 66 years of hearings that I have gone to, and the 

Speaker created a Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence and that gave me 3 more years of hearings that 

I have had on the subject, so I do think of it as a marathon, believe 

me. Most of these issues have been percolating around here for a 

long, long time. That much I can promise you. 

Our next witness is—and I don’t think anyone else is ever going 

to try it again, go to the number of hearings I have gone to on 

these subjects. You can already see the effect that today’s hearing 

has had on our membership. 

Our next witness is—— 

Mr. UPTON. If the gentleman would yield for just a second, I remember when Mr. Dingell had hearings like these and he had coffee in front of everybody and so they went maybe a little faster. 

Mr. MARKEY. In many ways they went a lot faster with that coffee in front of them. 

Mr. Andrew DeLaski is the executive director of the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, a coalition dedicated to advancing 

cost-effective appliance and equipment efficiency standards. He is 

joining us here today from my home State of Massachusetts, so we 

welcome you, Mr. DeLaski. 

Mr. SPERLING. Excuse me, Chairman. I have to leave. I have a 

flight back to California out of Dulles now. I am really sorry. 

Mr. MARKEY. And we apologize to you, Dr. Sperling, and by the 

way to all of the witnesses and those who are accompanying our 

witnesses today, you could, I think, capture the intensity of interest 

which the members had in the questioning of Vice President Gore 

and Newt Gingrich, so it went for an unexpectedly long period of 

time and it is with our apologies to you that we request that you 

work with us over the next month or so towards developing a bill 

which does reflect, you know, the highest aspirations. Thank you, 

sir. 

Mr. SPERLING. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, back to you, Mr. DeLaski. Whenever you are 

ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW DeLASKI 

Mr. DELASKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just say a word 

about ASAP. ASAP is a coalition project which consists of representatives of energy efficiency advocacy organizations, environmental and consumer groups including low-income advocacy organizations, State government and utilities. Our mission, as you said, 

is to advance cost-effective energy efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and equipment. 

My testimony today is limited to subtitle B concerning the appliance and equipment standards in the bill. I will summarize just a 

few key points from my in-depth testimony. Congress first enacted 

natural appliance, equipment and lighting standards in 1988, as 

Chairman Markey well knows, in legislation that you authored. It 

added new standards in 1992, 2005 and 2007. In general, Congress 

has established initial standards by statute and directed the Department of Energy to review standards on a set schedule, increasVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1055 

ing to higher efficiency levels if shown to be technically feasible 

and economically justified. The American Council for Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, estimates that absent existing national 

standards, U.S. electricity use of peak electric demand would be 

about 10 percent higher in 2010 than currently projected. ACEEE 

also estimates that consumers and businesses which buy the affected products will net more than $400 billion in net savings from 

already existing standards. 

The enormous energy, environmental and economic benefits delivered by national product efficiency standards have contributed to 

a history of strong bipartisan support and cooperation for new 

standards and enhancements to the Department of Energy’s program structure. The bill before us today builds on this successful 

history. 

We thank Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey for including the important appliance efficiency subtitle in 

ACES. The subtitle consists of three parts. Sections 211 and 212 

enact specific new standards for six categories of products including 

portable electric spas, as we learned earlier. Section 213 provides 

critical enhancements to improve overall effectiveness and responsiveness of a DOE program, and sections 214 and 215 provide the 

voluntary programs including EnergyStar. We estimate that the 

specific standards included in ACES will save at least 17 billion 

kilowatt-hours annually by 2020, or roughly enough to meet the 

needs of 11⁄2 million typical U.S. households. The standards included in the bill would reduce power sector carbon dioxide emissions by about 12 million metric tons per year in 2020. 

I would like to especially call out the outdoor lighting standard 

initially introduced by Representative Harman. This standard offers the lion’s share of the savings from the specific standards in 

the bill. Discussion between members of the industry and efficiency 

proponents that I work with are ongoing. We remain optimistic 

that we will have further joint recommendations to present to you 

shortly on outdoor lighting. 

The program reforms in ACES are just as important as the specific efficiency standards. As we have gained experience with DOE 

rulemakings through the course of several Administrations, we 

have learned some of the shortcomings of a statutory structure 

which can stand in the way of cost-effective efficiency gains. The 

bill contains several important reforms which address some of 

these shortcomings, and I will highlight just two but we support 

the entire package of reforms for the Department of Energy’s program. First, the bill makes clear the DOE authority to apply more 

than one efficiency metric as part of a single product’s efficiency 

standard. While Congress has set more than one requirement for 

at least a dozen products in statute, DOE has recently held that 

the law prevents the agency from including more than one requirement per product. Often a standard for a given product must include more than one element to capture different aspects of a product’s efficiency, for example, energy and water efficiency, gas and 

electric efficiency in the case of a furnace which uses both gas and 

electricity, or to capture the cost-effective savings from controls or 

other technologies that are not reflected in a product’s test method. 

For example, successful application of smart grid technology and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1056 

demand response technology may depend on specific appliances including particular control features. Such features are typically not 

represented in a performance test method but may be a critical feature of future energy efficiency standards. The Department’s current interpretation of the law will prevent this sort of requirement 

in future appliance standards. This provision passed the House in 

2007 and we strongly urge you to act on it again. 

Another area I would like to highlight concerns the preemption 

limits that national standards place on State building codes. House 

and Senate energy bills have proposed federal targets of 30 percent 

savings in new buildings in the near term and 50 percent savings 

later through better building codes. However, the preemption associated with national appliance standards effectively puts savings 

from space and water heating and air conditioning off limits even 

when such savings would be very cost-effective for new construction 

and major renovations. The discussion draft will create new flexibility for State building codes while still preserving a basic structure, a basic federal preemption framework. 

There are several other program reforms which we also support. 

Suffice it to say that as a package, these reforms significantly 

strengthen the national appliance standards program and will pave 

the way for greater energy savings and benefits. 

Finally, with respect to the voluntary programs, we are concerned that the limits in section 215 which are placed on the 

EnergyStar program would make some of the existing EnergyStar 

programs, home furnaces and other products, would end those programs. We urge that section be modified. 

In sum, we support the subtitle and look forward to working with 

the committee to make it even better. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLaski follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1057 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1104 72878A.639
1058 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1105 72878A.640
1059 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1106 72878A.641
1060 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1107 72878A.642
1061 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1108 72878A.643
1062 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1109 72878A.644
1063 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1110 72878A.645
1064 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1111 72878A.646
1065 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1112 72878A.647
1066 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1113 72878A.648
1067 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1114 72878A.649
1068 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1115 72878A.650
1069 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1116 72878A.651
1070 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1117 72878A.652
1071 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1118 72878A.653
1072 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1119 72878A.654
1073 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1120 72878A.655
1074 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1121 72878A.656
1075 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1122 72878A.657
1076 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1123 72878A.658
1077 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1124 72878A.659
1078 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1125 72878A.660
1079 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. DeLaski, very much. 

Our final witness is Mr. Dwight ‘‘Sonny’’ Richardson. He is the 

chairman of the National Association of Home Builders Construction Codes and Standards Committee. He is also president of Richardson Home Builders in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Please begin when 

you are ready, Mr. Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES RICHARDSON 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Upton and Ms. Baldwin. I appreciate the opportunity to travel to 

Washington to discuss the energy bill, the carbon cap bill, global 

climate change bill with you on behalf of the 200,000 members of 

the National Association of Home Builders, NAHB. 

As you well know, we in the home building industry are facing 

devastating times in addition to the environmental and energy 

challenges facing our country. From building 2 million homes in 

2006, we expect to construct less than 500,000 this year nationwide. Nonetheless, amidst the worst housing downturn since the 

Great Depression, I can personally attest to the strides our industry has made in energy efficiency and sustainability for our Nation’s new homes. According to the Energy Information Administration, newer homes, those built since 1991, account for only 2.5 percent of all energy consumed nationally. Our industry has pioneered 

development of the only national green building standard approved 

by the American National Standards Institute and has invested 

millions in an industry-transforming green building program, saving both energy and natural resources. 

Drawing on my lifetime experience, I am a second-generation 

home building, in the construction field, I believe that some of the 

policy approaches put forth in the American Clean Energy and Security Act draft are unlikely to produce the expected energy savings. In particular, the provisions in section 201 aggressively increase energy targets for new homes, provide greater authority for 

the Department of Energy to modify codes and give little flexibility 

to State or local areas with specific geographic and climatic conditions. The current language is problematic for a number of reasons. 

In the broadest sense, seeking significant savings from new homes, 

smallest, most energy efficient misses the target. Increasing costs 

and reducing affordability for newer, more efficient homes adversely affects lower and moderate income families that spent the 

most as a percentage of income on energy. In some instances, the 

provisions in section 201 exceed a number of successful programs 

such as EPA’s Energy Star for Homes and many green building 

programs, not just the new national green building standard. Striving solely for small incremental savings without accommodation for 

the more robust sustainability framework of a green program 

means that the more environmentally sound green homes could be 

noncompliant with the targets outlined in section 201 yet these 

homes have a smaller carbon footprint because of sustainable design and resource considerations not covered by energy codes alone. 

On the other hand, NAHB is pleased to see that section 202 of 

the draft legislation provides resources to consumers to upgrade 

their existing homes and buildings and equally pleased that Vice 

President Gore supports this path. This will direct the resources of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1080 

the federal government at the largest consumer of energy in the 

residential sector, older homes. According to the Census Bureau, 

there are roughly 128 million homes in the United States today 

and fully 74 percent, or 94 million, were built before the existence 

of modern energy codes. Home builders have done their part and 

are doing their part to make newer homes more efficient. Now the 

federal government can help residents of existing homes continue 

to help to do their fair share to reduce energy consumption. 

Despite our economic challenges, our home building industry has 

voluntarily taken the initiative to develop a rigorous national green 

building standard, continues to implement energy efficiency in new 

construction and is working diligently to preserve housing affordability for the next generation of green and energy efficient homes. 

NAHB supports improving efficiency in national model codes and 

participates along with many others in the development process of 

the International Code Council. Because codes by their very nature 

do not address all aspects of energy consumption in housing, 

NAHB hopes that Congress will carefully consider an integrated 

energy strategy for the residential sector. This includes many aspects beyond the reach of codes such as equipment efficiency, occupant behavior, plug loads and appliance choices. Our NAHB members are stakeholders in both the building and energy efficiency industries. We look forward to working with the subcommittee to 

craft policies that effectively address the energy challenges facing 

our Nation and housing. 

My written comments provide additional details on these points 

as well as recommendations for changes to the draft legislation the 

committee will soon consider. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and testify on behalf of my National Association of 

Home Builders. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1081 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1129 72878A.661
1082 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1130 72878A.662
1083 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1131 72878A.663
1084 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1132 72878A.664
1085 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1133 72878A.665
1086 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1134 72878A.666
1087 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1135 72878A.667
1088 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1136 72878A.668
1089 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1137 72878A.669
1090 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1138 72878A.670
1091 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1139 72878A.671
1092 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1140 72878A.672
1093 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1141 72878A.673
1094 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Richardson, very much, and now 

we turn to questions from the subcommittee members and we 

begin with the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Genzer, I am 

not starting with you just because your daughter goes to UW Madison but I do have a question because I think you would be great 

to answer. 

I have been sharing with my fellow committee members about 

how I spent my spring recess, which included an energy tour of my 

home State and meeting with innovators and renewable energy 

producers. One of the sites that I had the chance to visit was Johnson Controls. Johnson Controls does a wide range of things but 

they have a building energy efficiency segment of their business 

and in fact we had a representative of Johnson Controls testify a 

few months back before our subcommittee. Just a couple of weeks 

ago the company announced that they would be involved in retrofitting the Empire State Building using innovative processes and 

state-of-the-art tools that should help reduce the building’s energy 

consumption by a pretty impressive 38 percent per year with technologies that will pay off in a 2-year timeframe. That would probably place it, I think, in the top 10 percent of all U.S. office buildings in terms of energy efficiency. But one of the things I found interesting in my discussions with employees at Johnson Controls 

was an interesting conundrum. Because many of the commercial 

buildings turn over ownership so often, sometimes as rapidly as 

every 3 years or so, the incentive of owners to make energy efficiency improvements and investments often just don’t exist, and so 

I would love to hear your thoughts about how we on this panel 

could incentivize this sort of energy efficiency improvement in some 

of these buildings. I have been tossing around a few ideas of my 

own but I would to hear yours right now. 

Mr. GENZER. Thank you. First of all, the whole energy service 

performance contracting programs that Johnson Controls is really 

one of the leaders in is a great model. In fact, a lot of the funds 

that came through the stimulus package targeted to the State energy program, what we are seeing in a lot of the states is that a 

lot of those funds are being targeted to energy service performance 

contracts. So that is one of the real preeminent examples and we 

can certainly give you more information on a state-by-state basis 

as that moves forward. In terms of incentives for commercial building owners where they need payback periods in a shorter period of 

time, one of the elements of the draft bill now, the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program that is in the bill, 

I think Representative Welch is the chief sponsor of that, included 

targets for commercial buildings on a per-square-foot-basis for 

extra incentives. So we think that is a great idea. It is one of the 

steps. There is also additional things that could be done in terms 

of energy service performance contracts. 

We are trying to do a lot more at the State level on that and extension of the commercial building energy efficiency tax deduction 

is another one that would be helpful. We are spending a lot of time 

working with commercial building owners on a State-by-State basis 

to try to see if there are additional incentives. So we would certainly work with them and it is a great idea, and also I think Mr. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1095 

Gardiner might have a comment about the tie-in with the energy 

efficiency resource standard. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Absolutely, and I actually have another question 

and a time limit, so if you want to make a quick comment, Mr. 

Gardiner, and then I have—— 

Mr. GARDINER. Just as I said in my opening statement, that 

under an energy efficiency resource standard what happens is that 

utility companies offer rebates including to commercial building 

owners to do this and so it takes away the problem that you identify, which is one of the serious barriers to efficiency which is the 

builder or the landlord isn’t necessarily the person who is responsible for paying the energy bill, may not own the building for a long 

period of time so the rebates that utility companies offer under the 

provisions in the draft discussion under the energy efficiency resource standard are, I think, a critical incentive. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Let me jump in quickly with my second question, 

and I am very supportive of the EERS in the bill. Based on information I have received from my constituency, I feel like Wisconsin 

is well suited to comply with the EERS through at least 2012. 

However, I do have a question. One of the things we talked about 

in another section of the bill is the potential for widespread deployment of electric vehicles over the next 15 or more years, and if we 

see this widespread deployment, the base quantities for retail electricity distributors could grow quite rapidly and thus the amount 

of electricity savings that they will be required to achieve could 

grow rapidly, could kind of potentially transform the EERS savings 

required, making them a little bit more challenging to meet, and 

expensive to meet, and I am wondering if this is the intent, and 

if not, is there anything we should be looking at modifying in anticipation of the potential of widespread deployment of electric vehicles. 

Mr. GARDINER. The Energy Information Administration says 

today that actually if you look out towards the future that the 

amount of electricity that vehicles like that might consume is still 

projected to be relatively small. That could, of course, change in the 

way that you suggest and we think that was a good idea so I think 

that there could be some provision that would allow the Secretary 

of Energy, for example, to modify that if he or she saw that the 

amount of electric vehicles were consuming a large amount of energy. But I think at the moment it looks like it is a relatively small 

problem, at least through 2020, but it is an issue and I think it is 

certainly worthy of further discussion to look at. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. If I could just make a quick comment, our blueprint included a significant ramp-up in plug-in hybrids to reaching 

20 percent of sales by 2030, so expecting very aggressive progress 

on that technology, and under our blueprint when you invest in efficiency and when you invest in renewable electricity, the grid can 

handle that, and frankly, I would love to have the problem where 

we have too many plug-ins on the road. That is a problem I look 

forward to having some day. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too sadly will 

have to leave you with the last panel on your own, I am afraid, I 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1096 

regret to say. Before I start, I want to put into the record a letter 

from the International Code Council addressed to yourself, Chairman Waxman, Mr. Barton and myself. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. We will include it in the record without objection. 

Mr. UPTON. And I want to focus just a little bit on autos before 

I get in my auto and depart. Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Reuther are 

good friends of mine too. I appreciate all the work that you have 

done for our State as we try to have the auto industry survive. Mr. 

McCurdy, you talked a lot about having a single standard, and of 

course, that is in the bill but the standard is California, and the 

way that I read it, it allows them to in fact change the standard, 

and when they change it, that is California, so does the rest of the 

Nation then follow their lead. Is that your understanding of the 

way that it is in the draft as well? 

Mr. MCCURDY. Mr. Upton, thank you for your comments earlier 

too and I very much appreciate working with you and I have for 

a number of years. Section 221, I believe, is the section you are referring to and sub 4, and I think the draft made an effort to address at least three of the concerns in the first three sections about 

the standard. The fourth section, I think Mr. Reuther and I both 

would concur, needs work and that is the area that we would like 

to see the committee continue conversations. I think the Obama 

Administration has an opportunity to create a single national approach that would be administered by the federal government so 

that we eliminate the duplicative and potentially conflicting standards. The reason there are concerns, it is not just a question of 

stringency. The structure is one of the major challenges of compliance, enforcement, and several other provisions, and that has to be 

harmonized and I think the Administration is going to try to address that, and I think they are going to have to work with Congress as well. So again, you know, we do strongly support a single 

national standard. 

One comment that my friend, Mr. Reuther, made with regard to 

future. It is clear that under the EISA, the energy bill of 2007, 

which we supported and the CAFE provisions that we can see our 

way to 2016. Beyond that, though, is an area of major concern. It 

is a concern because of the need for clarity and predictability because of the need to ramp up to produce the kinds of technologies. 

Mr. Friedman mentioned 20 percent plug-in hybrids by 2030. That 

is an extremely aggressive number. We would like to be there but 

I am not sure that without proper incentives, without a real energy 

policy that incentivizes consumers, there is certainly no guarantee 

that that will occur. So we need—there is not one single silver bullet technology but it is clear we need certainty and predictability, 

and I think that section is one that on a bipartisan basis that we 

should address and look forward to working with you on it. 

Mr. UPTON. And Mr. Reuther, do you want to comment on that 

at all? 

Mr. REUTHER. We read the draft bill a little bit differently. To 

us, it appears to say through 2015 there would be a harmonized 

standard but after that point in time nothing is clear except there 

is a green light for California to go ahead, and as I indicated in 

testimony, we would like to see longer-term harmonization and cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1097 

tainty both for the environmental fuel savings benefits but also because it will assist the companies in knowing what is required of 

them, where they have to put their emphasis in terms of investments and technology. 

Mr. UPTON. Now, both of you talked about substantial investment to be able to get to that point and I presume that that comes 

from, as you said, Mr. McCurdy, 5 percent of the allocation. I would 

presume then if the Obama Administration’s request of 100 percent 

auction, therefore leaving nothing to be taken out of that for allocations, you all would be opposed to the bill. Is that right? 

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, I said either allocations or revenue, so it is 

a question. I think that section in the bill is not clear. I am sure 

it is something that the committee is going to be working on but 

the point I hope is clear, and that is, if we are going to be held 

accountable or responsible for EPA’s number of 17 percent of the 

emissions and we understand the incredible cost associated with 

addressing that, that there should be dedicated revenues or allocations for the investments needed for research and development, 

production, retooling, which is going to be quite substantial. 

Mr. UPTON. Just in closing, I know my time is expired, I was 

glad to hear you talk about the clunkers bill. I think that is very 

important to get the consumers back into the showroom and send 

the green light to all of our autoworkers, whether they be suppliers 

or assembly folks. It is key and I am glad that we have bipartisan 

support led by our colleague, Betty Sutton from our committee and 

Candice Miller from Michigan, which I am a cosponsor. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. We recognize another sponsor of the cash for clunkers legislation, Mr. Inslee, for 

questioning. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. McCurdy, some of us have been looking at the Project Better 

Place model of trying to improve infrastructure for charging and 

swapping out batteries. Could you give us your group’s thoughts 

about it? How do we make that work? We do have a provision in 

the bill that will help development of infrastructure. I appreciate 

your comments on that. 

Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. And I don’t mean to limit my comments to Project 

Better Place. There are other companies involved in this as well. 

Mr. MCCURDY. No, you are exactly right. It is good to see you 

and I appreciate your support. As I indicated in my written statement, fuels and autos are a system and for the past few decades 

I think the focus has been on the autos and not as much on fuels 

or the system. If we move to the electrification of vehicles, whether 

it is—and again, there are a number of business models out there, 

we can’t comment on which one is most likely to succeed but it is 

clear the infrastructure has to be there and you have to move now 

in order to pave the way for whether it is plug-ins, fully electric 

vehicles, whether it is—and that is where the smart grid comes in. 

It is also where utilities, I think, are going to be incentivized to address that as well. What you need is the ability to recharge, whether it is home, through a smart grid at night when the rates are 

lower or your place of work or if you moving around urban environments, and it is clear the current infrastructure is not there to supVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1098 

port that, so this is an important investment. Better Place, that 

you mentioned, is one where they have a different business model 

but they want to have fast charging or replace the batteries themselves. Again, we are not going to down-select one particular technology but we think the infrastructure could be supportive of the 

entire electrification process. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Mr. MCCURDY. I wanted to ask Mr. Sperling and Mr. Drevna, the 

discussion about the low-carbon fuel standard, Mr. Drevna—and I 

missed your oral testimony but I was just reading your testimony 

and you were making reference that you thought that there was a 

possibility that the approach to the bill would discriminate against 

certain petroleum products, I think you were referring to Canadian 

tar sands, and I don’t understand that criticism. Basically the bill 

would have ‘‘some discrimination’’ but it is based on carbon content. All the creators’ children would be treated the same, it is just 

dependent on how much carbon content is in each fuel source. So 

I don’t consider the bill discriminatory in that sense. It simply 

judges each system based on its carbon content. Perhaps Mr. 

Drevna and Mr. Sperling could comment on that. 

Mr. DREVNA. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. Unfortunately, Mr. Sperling 

had to catch an airplane. The question about the low-carbon fuel 

standard, what you are saying, there are two parts to it that we 

see. One is that the bill, the draft itself has a cap, a cap-and-trade 

mechanism, and the bill also contains a low-carbon fuel standard. 

We view those two things, as I said in my oral testimony, at best 

duplicative and redundant and at worst is punitive and counterproductive. We have no control over the—the only way to get lowcarbon fuel standard is to blend non-carbon fuels into gasoline or 

diesel. We have no control over the technology, advancing those 

new fuels. We have no control over the infrastructure. If you have 

a cap, that is a performance standard. Then you are saying you 

have to do more, do a low-carbon fuel standard and then when you 

look at the renewable fuel standard that we are still obligated 

under EPACT 2005 as amended by EISA 2007, we have got three 

potentially competing kinds of legislation and regulation we have 

to look at. I think there is a misconception among a lot of folks, 

and I know the draft says well, we are going to phase out the RFS 

as we ramp up the LCFS. In theory, that sounds marvelous. In 

practicality, it is very difficult for refiners to do so. We don’t have 

a magic switch that we flip one day and say oK, now we are out 

of the RFS and went to the LCFS. It is almost like the proponents 

believe that there are two dimmer switches, one we are going to 

raise on the LCFS while we lower the RFS. Unfortunately, Mr. Inslee, it simply doesn’t work that way, and again I go back to saying, 

if you have a cap, you have a performance standard, you know, it 

is one thing to have a belt and suspenders, you know, but these 

two are competing. They could potentially be competing because 

there are many studies out there right now that suggest that a 

low-carbon fuel standard is actually more energy intensive than 

other ways of reducing carbon, and I will be more than happy—I 

don’t want to use up all your time. I will be more than happy 

to—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1099 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that. I think you came up with three 

criticisms I hadn’t even heard yet. 

Mr. DREVNA. Well, and again, I will be more than happy to discuss these with you. This is why I suggested that, you know, we 

would suggest another hearing on this for the transportation sector. We heard a lot this morning about a lot of things involving 

electricity. We really—you know, from my parochial interest, and 

I shouldn’t even say parochial. This is a nation’s interest. From our 

interest, we have to fully understand what the impact is going to 

be on transportation fuels because as we all know, this is what 

drives the economy. 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you very 

much for your leadership on the low-carbon fuel standard. You 

have been very important to making progress in this area. I think 

part of what we are seeing, when people don’t want to make 

progress they try to make things sound a lot more complicated 

than they really are. The low-carbon fuel standard is a very 

straightforward policy that creates market for cleaner fuels, and 

one of the problems, one of the challenges with a cap-and-trade system is if we do it right, if we add in the complementary policies, 

sure, we will maybe increase gasoline prices 15, 20 cents a gallon. 

Well, it took a near quadrupling of gas prices last summer to get 

significant change out of consumers. Fifteen or 20 cents a gallon is 

not going to stimulate low-carbon biofuels, it is not going to stimulate electric vehicles, it is not going to stimulate fuel cell vehicles. 

A low-carbon fuel standard will do just that. Also, it is not just 

about alternative fuels. Refineries have the potential to increase efficiency 10 to 20 percent. We have got a wellspring of efficiency improvements that can be sent throughout the economy and refineries 

are part of that. So there is a lot of potential. This is really a lot 

simpler than I think people make it seem. It is really the same 

case with vehicle standards. Once EPA sets strong enough standards, California has already made clear they will cede to EPA’s authority when they set strong standards. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I am over my time. I just want to make 

one closing comment. Throughout these discussions, one of the 

things we are trying to do is really promote the creation of new 

technology. We have to have new technologies here, and even if we 

could do certain things at zero cost today that don’t get us to the 

ultimate goal, we have to create these new technologies. I think 

this helps. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would like to 

continue on a little bit with the subject that Congressman Inslee 

was discussing, and that is fuel economy standards and the automotive sector, and ask if I could, Mr. Reuther and Mr. McCurdy 

and Mr. Friedman, if we could just have a little discussion about 

the 2007 fuel economy standard, 35 miles per gallon for the fleet 

by 2020, combined with the $25 billion in the Green Car Factory 

Funds, combined with the $2 billion for the Battery Fund that has 

been created in the stimulus, and just give me some sense of your 

optimism about how we just might reach a tipping point in 3, 4, 

5 years where we move much more rapidly than even the law reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1100 

quires because of the adoption of these green car new technologies 

that will be manufactured by every company not only in the United 

States but around the world. Mr. McCurdy. 

Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We obviously applaud 

the efforts to dedicate some revenue or some funds after the passage of EISA, $25 billion section 136 funds. As we know, that was 

over a year ago. Those funds are just now—the loans are just now 

starting to be made available. The battery money is important. You 

have particularly strong interest in those technologies. That is a 

step, a small step in the right direction. If you recall, the NHTSA 

estimates for the cost to the U.S. sector for compliance with CAFE 

was going to be roughly $85 billion. So 25 is a down payment. I 

think it is an important step. But if you want to accelerate that, 

which is really where you would like to go, it is going to take considerable more investment, and it is not just a question of money. 

I mean, with all due respect to Mr. Friedman, it is not as easy as 

perhaps some would say in theory. I mean, you actually have to go 

beyond the laboratory and get it deployed. In the manufacturing 

world and when you are dealing with consumers, the real key is 

being able to have it where it is a warrantable product that will 

last whether it is in the rather cold climate of Wisconsin in the 

winter or the summers in Arizona, and so batteries, that is a big 

challenge to battery and electrification. But having said that, we 

are very optimistic and hopeful about transformation to the new 

technologies and we want to work with Congress and the Administration in order to make that happen. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Reuther. 

Mr. REUTHER. We believe that the 2007 law was a very good law 

and we are optimistic the companies will be able to meet the standard in that law and perhaps do even better than that. It is my understanding that already enough applications have been submitted 

to exceed the $25 billion. It has already been appropriated for the 

section 136 program and that is part of why we believe that there 

is a need to provide additional funding going forward. I also have 

to underscore, though, that the ability of the companies to achieve 

better results in the future is being impacted by the current severe 

recession in the industry, which is severely straining the financial 

resources of the companies. It is also changing the underlying assumptions. I mean, one of the key assumptions that goes into the 

cost-benefit analyses is the number of vehicle sales. That affects 

the reductions that you get and emissions. It affects the cost of diffusing the technology across the entire fleet. So I think everyone 

is going to have to go back and revisit the calculations on what can 

be achievable going forward, given the dramatic change that we are 

seeing in the nature of the auto market. 

Mr. MARKEY. As the auto marketplace once again goes from 10 

million cars a year back up to 16 or 17 million cars per year which 

are sold in the United States, and I do subscribe to Vice President 

Gore’s analysis that as we recover and as the Chinese and Indian 

economies and other developing countries’ economies continue to 

expand, we will see an inexorable rise in the price of gasoline here 

in the United States. Do you think that it is likely that the automotive industry will plan now that they have this much lower deVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1101 

mand for that 16- or 17-million-vehicle world that will be re-created in 3 or 4 years hopefully in a way that has a higher percentage of vehicles coming from this energy efficient or plug-in hybrid 

or straight hybrid vehicles, Mr. Reuther? 

Mr. REUTHER. Well, I think a lot of analysts are questioning 

whether we will be getting back to the 16, 17 million vehicles sales 

level, that there may have been a long-term change in the overall 

demand. So I think that is an important thing. We do agree that 

over time the gas prices are going to be going to higher levels. I 

mean, we believe there is a need for the government to try and 

incentivize and drive the electrification of the industry and to drive 

that process as quickly as possible, and we want to work with you 

to be supportive of that. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am just working from my own personal set of assumptions, that maybe we do have to pay cash for clunkers, which 

I think we ultimately will wind up doing here, but there is going 

to be a point at which people spend their own cash for new cars, 

and that is when the economy recovers and I think it is a pretty 

good bet that people will not like riding around in clunkers if they 

have got the cash back in their pockets and I think that is a good 

planning premise. 

Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said in my testimony and I will reinforce today, I think that there are good reasons 

to try to help the auto industry through these difficult times to invest in the auto industry to help them get through these difficult 

times. Any time you invest in technology you create more jobs, and 

if we invest in the auto industry tied to performance standards, 

any time the federal taxpayers put out money, they should expect 

something in return so there should be performance standards tied 

to those investments. If we make those investments, I do think the 

auto industry can make significant changes. In fact, we are already 

seeing it. This is an article from Business Week. Detroit finds 

green in recycled fuel economy ideas. It is about how Ford wants 

mixed fuel saving tricks from the 1950s and is now using them to 

boost mileage and cut emissions. The auto industry has the technology. The engineers and autoworkers are incredibly talented. If 

you give them the chance, if you make the investment in them, if 

you trust them to help cut our emissions and make us less dependent on oil, they will deliver. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Friedman. 

Let me ask you, Mr. McCurdy. 

Mr. MCCURDY. I just have one comment on that Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, I have had long discussions and conversations about 

this. Four dollar gasoline did more to move consumers to fuel-efficient vehicles and choices than any regulation, any edict, any government action, and if prices do recover—and just one other point, 

your numbers are accurate on production levels. We have dropped 

from a high of 17 million vehicles to below 10 million vehicles currently annualized sale. Assuming a V-shaped recovery, and that is 

an optimistic assumption, you are looking at 2014, 2015 minimum 

to get back to those kinds of levels. We would welcome 12 and 13 

million unit sales at this point. But the important thing is, even 

with this downturn, this industry continues to invest more than 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1102 

any other industry in those technologies, in research and development. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. McCurdy. 

And let me ask you, Mr. Bowles, one final question, and that is 

to relate to us the lesson, if you can succinctly, that the regional 

greenhouse gas initiative that Massachusetts and nine other States 

are a part of that has kind of an equivalent system out in California, the West Coast and that other States are looking at. What 

can we learn from what happened in terms of having a system in 

place that creates new incentives for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere? 

Mr. BOWLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the question, and really on behalf of the 10 RGGI states, I think we can 

report remarkable success. We learned from the experience of the 

European Union and the windfall profits that were given to power 

generators when they were given on an allocation basis their permits and then held them in reserve and ultimately sold them later 

at a greater price and ended up making money off the permits 

when the point was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Massachusetts, we have adopted 100 percent auction policy. We have 

been through three auctions in the Nation’s first functioning capand-trade. The price of the auctions have gone up modestly at each 

point from about $3 a permit to about $3.50 a permit. In Massachusetts we have raised $43 million that we are plowing back into 

energy efficiency. We are seeing jobs being created by people saving 

money on their electric bills from those investments. So I think 

what we have taken from it is that an auction system works, it 

works brilliantly. We haven’t had big surprises. We have generated 

resources back for economically efficient returns that are protecting 

the environment and creating jobs at the same time. 

Mr. MARKEY. And can you give us some sense of what the response is in those 10 States to this system that right now is limited 

to the utility sector? 

Mr. BOWLES. Yes, very well. I mean, in Massachusetts we are 

spending about $150 million a year on energy efficiency anyway as 

a baseline. We are adding significant new resources and expanding 

those programs so I would say it has been very well received in 

Massachusetts and I think across the footprint of the 10 RGGI 

States. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Great. Here is what I am going to ask each 

one of you to give us your 30-second summary as we move forward 

in terms of what you want this committee to remember as we move 

forward over the next month on passing a climate change and energy bill out of this committee. We will go in reverse order and we 

will give you, Mr. DeLaski, the first shot. 

Mr. DELASKI. I will just reiterate that our support for the subtitle concerning appliance standards and urge you to keep that subtitle strong and to maintain the reforms to enable the Department 

of Energy to set standards stronger as they move forward to get 

their program back on track. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Drevna. 

Mr. DREVNA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could sum it up in 30 

seconds or less, I would urge the committee and the Congress to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1103 

make sure we know all the consequences intended and unintended 

as we forge on, as you forge on with the legislation. It is just too 

important, and again from the transportation sector, I think we 

should sit down again and talk about the transportation sector and 

talk about what is in the discussion draft and where we have some 

concerns and where we have some other ideas for you. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Drevna, very much. 

Mr. Genzer. 

Mr. GENZER. The stimulus package was a good start, a great 

start on energy efficiency funding, things you have been fighting 

for for 35 years. The Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program and the other elements of the efficiency part of 

this bill should definitely good forward and it is also time to move 

forward aggressively on building codes, both at the residential and 

the commercial level. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Genzer. 

Mr. Gardiner. 

Mr. GARDINER. The energy efficiency resource standard that is 

contained in the discussion draft is a great deal for consumers. It 

is going to save them $170 billion. It is also a critical—coupled with 

the renewable electricity standard, it is a critical cost containment 

strategy that will yield the lowest cost carbon reductions as we go 

forward to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The key to addressing 

transportation is looking at it as a system, addressing vehicles, 

fuels and a smarter transportation infrastructure and more investment in transit. This bill deserves to pass because it addresses all 

of these issues. It requires leadership from the Administration on 

top of that but it sets us down the right path. The thing that we 

have to do is prepare for our future, and if we look back at $4-agallon gasoline, one of the things that that did is, it started moving 

consumers away from car companies that weren’t ready and to the 

car companies that were ready with the best technology. We can’t 

afford for that to happen again. We need to make sure they all 

have the best technology. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Freidman. 

Mr. Reuther. 

Mr. REUTHER. UAW believes that discussion draft has many excellent provisions. We look forward to working with you and the 

entire subcommittee to refine the vehicle efficiency standards to 

provide longer-term certainty both on fuel economy environmental 

benefits and certainty to the companies on the directions they need 

to go with the technology, and we look forward to working with you 

to make sure that the resources are there so that the companies 

can do that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Reuther. 

Mr. McCurdy. 

Mr. MCCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I said earlier automakers are committed to reducing CO2 from the vehicles that we sell and the 

plants where we manufacture them. We think the discussion draft 

provides a platform for discussion. We share some of the concerns 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1104 

as indicated by Mr. Reuther and believe that we can work to improve those. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. McCurdy. 

And Mr. Bowles. 

Mr. BOWLES. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this hearing 

today and the opportunity. Three points to recall. One is, please 

keep the strong federal-State partnership found in the draft. It 

builds on mechanisms that work and accelerates them, not replacing them. Second, with due respect, we urge you to get on with it. 

Congressional leadership on clean energy and climate change is 

long overdue. You have personally been a tremendous advocate. 

Movement through this body is vitally important. And third, the 

promise of the clean energy economy is real. It is happening in the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We thank you for your leadership. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Bowles, very much. And by the 

way, I just would like to say that any three of you would be a fantastic panel alone at an ordinary time and I appreciate your understanding that time is of the essence. This is the year. Copenhagen 

is in December. We have to move and we have to have these issues, 

and you are right, we are getting it on, Mr. Bowles. You saw that 

today with the Vice President and Speaker Gingrich. We are in the 

middle of an historic debate in this committee. We thank you all, 

very much, for your participation. 

While this panel leaves and the next one assembles behind their 

names, we will take a 2-minute break. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much. We invite our witnesses to come and to sit behind their nametags at 4:25 

on Friday afternoon. I just want you to know that this is all part 

of our plan to get rid of everybody so we could have the most important panel to ourselves with unlimited questioning by the chairman and by Ms. Baldwin, and so the whole day, this has been the 

plan, just so we have this special panel for that purpose. 

To begin, I am going to ask Congresswoman Baldwin to introduce our first witness. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to introduce a constituent whose expertise in conservation and climate 

change is well known and well documented. During her 17 years 

with the Nature Conservancy, Tia Nelson led that organization’s 

climate change program where she played a key role in developing 

forest protection and restoration as a climate change mitigation 

strategy. Tia received the EPA’s climate change leadership award 

in the year 2000. Since 2004, Tia has served as executive secretary 

of the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, and in 

2007, Governor Jim Doyle appointed Tia as co-chair of the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming, a broad coalition of Wisconsin’s experts and leaders that in 2008 produced a nearly unanimous report on the ways Wisconsin can be a leader in addressing 

the challenges presented by climate change, reduce our dependence 

on fossil fuel and advance the State’s energy independence objectives. As the daughter of Wisconsin’s great Congressman, governor 

and U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, you 

can certainly say that Tia’s dedication to preserving land and water 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1105 

resources is in her blood. She is carrying on her father’s great environmental legacy and forcefully creating her own. He would be 

justly proud to see her with us today. Tia. 

STATEMENTS OF TIA NELSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC LANDS, STATE OF 

WISCONSIN; BILL BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES; CARL 

ROYAL, COUNSEL, SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, FORMERLY SENIOR 

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE; JON ANDA, EXECUTIVE-IN-RESIDENCE, 

FUQUA SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, DUKE UNIVERSITY, VISITING 

FELLOW NICHOLAS INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTION; DAVID DONIGER, POLICY DIRECTOR, CLIMATE CENTER, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; 

PATRICIA MULROY, GENERAL MANAGER, LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT/SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY; ANNE E. SMITH, VICE PRESIDENT, PRACTICE LEADER 

OF CLIMATE AND SUSTAINABILITY, CRA INTERNATIONAL; 

AND WILLIAM L. KOVACS, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT, 

TECHNOLOGY AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, U.S. CHAMBER 

OF COMMERCE 

STATEMENT OF TIA NELSON 

Ms. NELSON. Thank you so much for your very kind introduction. 

I am quite grateful. I am proud to be represented by you in Congress and grateful too for your environmental leadership. Thank 

you, Chairman Markey, for your endurance this week. I am grateful to be here today. In the interest of conservation and efficiency, 

I plan on trying to be very brief and talk very fast. 

I am here to share with you a little bit about Wisconsin’s experience. Governor Doyle, who has been a leader on the issue of climate change, appointed a task force which I co-chair with my distinguished colleague, Roy Filley from WPPI Energy, and Roy and 

I co-chaired a group of 29 stakeholders representing industry, 

tribes, environmentalists, manufacturers, labor interests, agricultural interests, citizens, and we reached near-unanimous consensus 

on our report which Tammy just held up for you. 

The governor tasked us with three objectives. Number one was 

to identify short- and long-term targets for emissions reductions. 

Number two was to present policy recommendations to achieve 

these goals. Number three was to identify opportunities to address 

climate change while growing Wisconsin’s economy and creating 

jobs. We worked for a year. We produced a report, as I said, nearunanimous support. That report has many similarities to your bill, 

Mr. Chairman. The renewable energy and efficiency titles are quite 

similar. The renewable portfolio standard, the low-carbon fuel 

standard, the energy efficiency language, the building codes, the 

lighting standards and a few others are remarkably similar to our 

report. These are the measures that are most cost effective, as you 

know, and we in our process identified them similarly. 

So first and foremost, Mr. Chairman, I would like to applaud 

you. The committee draft offers real solutions to address climate 

change, promote energy independence and modernize our energy 

infrastructure, and I support the draft you have put forward and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1106 

believe if we work together it will work for Wisconsin and for the 

Nation. 

The biggest challenge for us is working on cost containment. Wisconsin, as progressive and long of an environmental tradition as we 

have, Wisconsin is heavily reliant on coal. About 70 percent of our 

energy comes from coal. We are the third largest manufacturer in 

the United States. This means that cap and trades poses some real 

cost challenges for us but we believe that we can work with you 

on those costs. The draft does not propose an allowance structure 

and I am not here to support a particular approach but I thought 

it would be valuable to share with you what we did in the task 

force because what we did in the task force ended up uniting this 

diverse group of stakeholders to support a bill that has strong 

emission reduction targets. They are almost identical to yours, a 

little tougher in the mid term and a little weaker in the long term 

but effectively about the same. We have tough targets. We have tripling conservation and efficiency increasing renewables two and a 

half fold and it is quite—and endorsing a cap and trade, not a 

State cap and trade but a federal cap and trade. 

The biggest issue for us to discuss was how to do cost containment as a heavy coal-dependent State. We came up with an idea 

that I haven’t heard yet that I hope you will seriously consider. The 

discussion to date has been about allocation issues and whether to 

auction all allowances or allocate them for free. These are the two 

extremes. What we did was come up with a compromise. That compromise united the group. That compromise suggested that up to 

90 percent of the allowances in the early years, maybe for a period 

as long as 10 years, up to 90 percent would be allocated but not 

for free, would be allocated at a small fee, and that you would increase the auction percentage and decrease the allocated at a fee 

percentage over time to give us time to transition our economy in 

essence. That fee structure gives you cost certainty, gives you cost 

containment. It creates a predictable revenue stream which you 

can then draw on to help low-income folks do energy efficiency, do 

investments in climate research and so on. So that is how we got 

at the issue of cost abatement. For a State like Wisconsin, offsets 

will also be important. We have very important forest and farm industries and we believe that changes in land-use practices can help 

mitigate climate change. I was thrilled to see in your bill that you 

included offsets both international and domestic and recognized the 

role of forestry. Many people don’t know that deforestation is more 

than 20 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions globally and 

as a matter of fact, those emissions exceed the emissions from all 

of the planes, trains and automobiles in the world. You cannot address climate change without addressing the issue of deforestation 

and assisting developing countries in funding alternatives to destroying not only their forests and emitting greenhouse gases but 

other environmental benefits of the forest. 

So those are the two most important issues for us in terms of 

cost containment. We want to embrace most strongly your draft bill 

and discuss with you ways to help make it work for Wisconsin. We 

are grateful for your leadership and I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nelson follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1156 72878A.674
1108 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1157 72878A.675
1109 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1158 72878A.676
1110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1159 72878A.677
1111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1160 72878A.678
1112 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1161 72878A.679
1113 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1162 72878A.680
1114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1163 72878A.681
1115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1164 72878A.682
1116 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. In the same way that we had Mr. Reuther earlier, the Nelsons of course are environmental aristocracy, 

and I think everyone is feeling good to be on this panel with you 

here on the 39th anniversary and hopefully by the 40th anniversary of Earth Day we will have resolved all of these issues. 

Ms. NELSON. I am going to hold you to that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I think we can do it but it is, as you can see 

from the earlier preliminary rounds that we had here, it is going 

to be contentious but I think ultimately achievable. 

Ms. NELSON. Well, you have a big challenge but I want you to 

know that Wisconsin is keen to work with you on overcoming some 

of those challenges. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Our next witness is Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. He served as the first executive director of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 

Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control 

Officers. So whenever you are comfortable, Mr. Becker, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF BILL BECKER 

Mr. BECKER. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Congresswoman 

Baldwin. My name is Bill Becker. I am the executive director of the 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies. We are an association 

of air pollution control agencies in 53 States and territories and 

more than 165 major metropolitan areas across the country, and 

undoubtedly every one of them is watching this hearing through 

the Internet today and into the evening. 

Chairman Markey, our association applauds you and Chairman 

Waxman and your staffs for not only the incredible amount of hard 

work that went into drafting this proposal but for your leadership 

and the level of commitment being put forth for moving this legislation so quickly and yet so thoughtfully. By carefully balancing the 

vast array of diverse interests, you found a center point around 

which consensus can ultimately be achieved. You have put the 

prospect of success on this critical issue which for so long has been 

so elusive within reach and taken together the core components of 

this bill comprise a solid foundation for a realistic and federal climate program. We are particularly pleased that you have included 

a mandatory economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction strategy with 

quantifiable and enforceable limits and significant near, mid and 

long-term reduction targets, generally strong language protecting 

the rights of States and localities to exercise leadership in responding to global warming, performance standards for stationary 

sources of greenhouse gases, a renewable electricity standard, a 

low-carbon fuel standard, requirements for cleaner, more efficient 

transportation, provisions for adapting to global warming and 

many others. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1117 

Is this precisely the bill that our association would have written 

had we held the pen? No, not exactly, but we fully understand the 

perspective from which you crafted this legislation and toward that 

end have developed a set of recommendations that we believe are 

consistent with that perspective and can be incorporated into the 

bill without upsetting the balance you worked so hard to achieve. 

Our written testimony details each of our recommendations, and 

what I would like to do is spend a couple of minutes highlighting 

three of them. 

First, we agree with the emissions reduction targets in the bill 

that are significant and that they are part of a compromise, part 

of the U.S. CAP proposal. At issue, however, is whether they are 

sufficient to avert dangerous anthropogenic warming. Since the last 

IPCC report was released in early 2007, scientific developments 

have shown that global warming is proceeding more quickly and 

with greater impacts than previously thought. Accordingly, we urge 

that you consider strengthening the reduction targets or at the 

very least ensure that these targets not be weakened as the bill 

moves through Congress. 

Second, while we support the offset integrity provisions in the 

discussion draft, which are designed to ensure that any offset credit represents permanent, enforceable, additional and verifiable 

emissions reductions, we are concerned about the generous offset 

credit pool which would allowed capped sources to use up to 2 billion offset credits each year to meet their compliance obligations. 

When cap sources purchase offset credits rather then reduce their 

own greenhouse gas emissions, this dilutes the effectiveness of the 

cap. 

And finally, we are pleased that the bill would amend the existing Clean Air Act savings clause to make clear that States and localities have the authority to enact various important measures 

and strategies. I am sorry Congressman Upton isn’t here for this 

because we think it is very clear in the bill that you have preserved 

not only California’s ability to retain its own greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles but you have not tampered with the authority in the Clean Air Act under section 177 for other states to opt 

into California’s program. 

We are troubled by the provision in your bill that would preempt 

State and local governments from 2012 through 2017 from implementing or enforcing their own caps, thereby compelling the dissolution of regional cap-and-trade programs such as RGGI, the 

Midwestern Accord and the Western Climate Initiative as well as 

California’s program. We recognize this provision may be intended 

to create a breather during which the federal cap-and-trade program would be the only one in existence. Nonetheless, this would 

revoke an important state and local authority. Moreover, we fear 

that if the bill is weakened as it moves through the legislative process yet this timeout remains, States would be required to surrender 

their successful programs and revenue in exchange for an inferior 

federal program. Instead, these State and regional path-breaking 

programs should be provided the option to decide whether the federal program is rigorous enough and the choice to transition into 

the federal program. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1118 

So in conclusion, a successful national climate protection program must be predicated on a strong local-State-federal partnership. In order for our Nation to meet our greenhouse gas targets, 

we must ensure that all levels of government are fully engaged in 

the design and implementation of this program. We look forward 

to working with the committee as it moves through Congress and 

to President Obama’s desk for signature. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Becker follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1119 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1168 72878A.683
1120 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1169 72878A.684
1121 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1170 72878A.685
1122 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1171 72878A.686
1123 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1172 72878A.687
1124 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1173 72878A.688
1125 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1174 72878A.689
1126 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1175 72878A.690
1127 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1176 72878A.691
1128 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1177 72878A.692
1129 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1178 72878A.693
1130 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1179 72878A.694
1131 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Becker, very much. 

Our next witness is Carl Royal, a member of the Securities and 

Futures Regulation Practice Group of Schiff Harden LLP. He has 

over 30 years of experience in the regulation of markets and market participants under the federal securities and commodities laws 

and he has spent 14 years at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange 

serving as senior vice president and general counsel, and on a day 

when we heard Ken Lay’s name mentioned again, Mr. Royal can 

perhaps give us good instruction as to how to construct this marketplace in a way that will protect against fraud and manipulation. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CARL ROYAL 

Mr. ROYAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that this bill 

and this committee’s jurisdiction is covering a very wide territory 

as the various other speakers have already covered. I am going to 

focus on a very narrow aspect of that, and that is the trading part 

of cap and trade and how that market should be regulated. 

I think there are two basic themes that are of critical importance 

here. First is just recognizing that it is very important to have a 

well-regulated market to avoid some of the abuses that we have 

seen in other markets. In this market in particular, because it has 

such an impact over so many sectors of the economy and there is 

going to be of great importance to users of emissions and the general public so I do believe that it is essential that the regulatory 

framework to be created by Congress protect the integrity of the 

market and ensure that the market achieve its environmental purpose. It therefore should meet the following objectives. It should be 

designed to be as transparent as possible. Participants in the market should be protected from manipulation and fraud and the market should resist the development of speculative bubbles that divert 

prices away from the fundamental drivers of supply and demand. 

Because this market is one that is being created de novo, this 

gives Congress an opportunity to create a market that can avoid 

some of the problems that we have seen in other markets. In my 

view, if we can provide a regulatory framework that combines an 

exchange trading requirement, strict limitations on traders such as 

position limits and margin requirements, and tough enforcement 

provisions, it then would be possible to achieve protection of the 

public in those areas. I recognize that there have been other markets in recent months where there have been some serious problems, credit default swaps, for example, but I would point out that 

that was a market that exists in the unregulated over-the-counter 

market and is not necessarily a problem with the instruments but 

perhaps in the market and how it was not regulated effectiveness. 

If you move a market to an exchange environment, I think you can 

avoid many of those problems. 

I think first that exchange trading maximizes market transparency because all parties in the market as well as the federal 

regulators have access to pricing information in real time and can 

see what other traders are doing. Second, exchange traded products 

have standardized terms that make them easy to understand easy 

to price. That improves market liquidity which helps keep the cost 

of trading low. Third, exchange trading comes with clearing by a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1132 

central clearinghouse acting as central counterparty to all transactions. Under central counterparty clearing, all positions are valued every day based on market prices as determined by a neutral 

party. If a position’s value goes down, there is a daily call for cash 

called variation margin. This financial discipline would have prevented many of the problems that are now being faced by banks 

and other participants holding mortgage-backed securities and 

other forms of OTC derivatives that are worth much less than the 

banks are valuing them on their balance sheets. 

Further details on some regulatory suggestions are contained in 

my written remarks, and I thank the committee for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Royal follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1133 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1182 72878A.695
1134 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1183 72878A.696
1135 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1184 72878A.697
1136 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1185 72878A.698
1137 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1186 72878A.699
1138 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1187 72878A.700
1139 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1188 72878A.701
1140 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1189 72878A.702
1141 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Royal, very much. 

Our next witness, Jon Anda, is a visiting fellow of the Nicholas 

Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. 

Mr. Anda was previously president of the Environmental Markets 

Network at the Environmental Defense Fund. He has worked to 

create a framework for the U.S. carbon market that is fair, efficient 

and responsive to lessons learned in the financial crisis. And that 

is very important because we have many people who are saying 

well, how can we create a new market here, and won’t that be dangerous, you know, mentioning Bernie Madoff or mentioning Ken 

Lay or mentioning credit default swaps or other machinations of 

the marketplace that have occurred. The truth is that what Bernie 

Madoff did was illegal and there were clues actually to track him 

down 10 years ago that just were not followed up on, and in credit 

default swaps there were many warnings over the years as well as 

there are in many of these other areas that ultimately came to hurt 

confidence in the marketplace. But at the same time we are not 

going to abandon the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ 

or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and say trading just can’t 

occur because that would bring capitalism to its knees. And so that 

is why we have Mr. Royal and Mr. Anda here today to help us to 

frame the way in which we can create a marketplace that will 

work, be transparent, honest, and if manipulation does occur, lead 

to the apprehension of and ultimate imprisonment of someone who 

abuses the system. 

So we welcome you, Mr. Anda, and whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JON ANDA 

Mr. ANDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we obviously have 

a risk with creating a new financial market for carbon but we also 

have a great opportunity. Carbon actually could set a standard that 

could be used in other markets, and Carl referred to that and I certainly support that point. 

Let me just write down some comments about the work the committee has done. I think you did two things really right in establishing fairness efficiency but also taking some lessons from the recent financial crisis. The first one was in allowances. The discussion draft sets a best execution standard for allowances. That 

means that anyone who buys an allowance is assured of getting the 

best price available in the market. That is something we do in our 

equity markets under something called the national market system 

and that was a great thing for the committee to do. 

Secondly, the committee made a very important decision in derivatives. In derivates, the discussion draft says that derivates will 

basically be traded on listed regulated markets, the kind that Carl 

described, rather than in the OTC market which is very common 

for commodities. Sometimes people put carbon the commodities 

world. I think those were bold decisions and set the right tone for 

the bill. So I will talk maybe a little bit more about those later but 

I want to add some context to these decisions. I know it is late on 

a Friday afternoon but I think just a few numbers are instructive. 

Over the life of the bill, you are going to be issuing 131 billion 

allowances but initially we might have as little as 5 billion outVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1142 

standing of we just do an auction for 1 year. So in the financial 

world we call this a really small float, 131 billion over the life and 

5 years out in the first year. Now, another way to think about that 

is that you are telling emitters that they have to abate carbon over 

38 years, that they want to manage that risk, they only have 1 

year of allowances worth to trade to manage their risk. So what 

will that lead to? That is going to lead to huge demand for derivatives, absolutely huge demand, and I don’t think that is a problem. 

I just think it is a good idea if you are going to have huge demand 

for derivatives recognize it and have those derivatives traded transparently and in a way that the system doesn’t get out of control. 

As an aside, I would encourage you to think about increasing the 

flow. You can do that as you have already provided in the discussion draft. You can auction an extra 4 years worth upfront. But if 

you think about using that provision, if you did it you have maybe 

25 billion tons to auction in the first 5 years. If that was $20 a ton, 

you would hosting a half a trillion dollar auction. That is a little 

too big. So that is a tough way to do it. But to the extent that you 

do have free allocations, either for all the topics we have talked 

about the last few days, leakage or giving them to LDCs, do it up 

front so that we have more allowances and a less derivatives-dependent market. 

Lastly, I would encourage you to think about something like 

rights. The government auctions rights to emitters to buy allowances in, say, 5 years’ time at a fixed price, say $20. That would 

be a way of sort of pre-selling the rights and providing some financing to emitters and clearly I won’t discuss that late on a Friday 

afternoon in my 5 minutes. 

Let me just go back to the best execution point and make one little comment. I love the national market system. In my 20 years at 

Morgan Stanley, I came mostly out of the equity business and we 

certainly are—our markets have benefited from that rule. But carbon isn’t, you know, thousands of stocks, it is basically one instrument, and I think certainly one option for the allowance market 

would be to have a central marketplace, one electronic, what I call 

a CLOB for carbon, a central limit order book where all the trades 

occur, everybody can see the bids and offers. I think that is something that might be a good idea and might even be embraced by 

the market participants. 

In the derivatives area, I just want to make one important comment, what goes hand in hand with requiring listed exchange trading of derivatives. You have to have rationale accounting so that 

emitters can use these instruments. So if an emitter, one of your 

local utilities, wants to buy a future and their intention is to exercise that future in a few years and turn it in for compliance, don’t 

make them market to market. They are just locking in an expense 

and deferring it. If you do market to market, one of the main reasons people do OTC highly structured derivatives is to avoid market to market so get the accounting right. U.S. CAP mentions rational accounting in their blueprint and I think what we want to 

do, we want these derivative markets to be kind of like farmers use 

derivatives all the time. It is part of their normal course of business and I hope it can be for emitters too. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1143 

So just to conclude, I apologize for this being a bit technical but 

if you want to go a little further you can read my written testimony 

and also included in my testimony as an appendix is a primer on 

carbon markets that we at the Nicholas Institute wrote just a couple months ago and it gives a lot of background on this important 

topic, but again, I congratulate the committee on setting the tone 

for a fair and efficient U.S. carbon market that does take lessons 

form the financial crisis. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anda follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1144 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1193 72878A.703
1145 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1194 72878A.704
1146 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1195 72878A.705
1147 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Anda, very much. Just for your information, the regulation of the securities marketplace was proposed here in this committee until the year 2000 when the Republican majority moved it over to the Banking Committee and so I 

was the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the financial marketplace so I find this a fascinatingly exciting subject 

that you are talking about, and I would only note to you that in 

1994, the last year I was chairman, I had introduced a bill to regulate derivates. Alan Greenspan sat where you are sitting and his 

testimony was that counterparties have a stake in the stability of 

the system so we did not need any kind of regulatory system in the 

derivatives marketplace. I think we have now learned that derivatives in and of themselves are not good or bad but unregulated derivatives in a non-transparent marketplace is like a hydrogen bomb 

aimed at the economy, and so by learning these lessons, putting in 

place a well-structured regulatory marketplace, I think we have a 

chance to incorporate each one of these instruments in a rational 

financial system. 

Our next witness, David Doniger, is the policy director of NRDC’s 

Climate Center. Mr. Doniger works on policies to cut global warming pollution from power plants, motor vehicles and other major industries and leads NRDC’s work to complete the phase-out of 

chemicals that deplete the earth’s protective ozone layer. David 

also served for 8 years in the Clinton Administration where he was 

director of climate policy at the Environmental Protection Agency. 

We welcome you here, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID DONIGER 

Mr. DONIGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to focus today on the relationship between your new bill 

and the current Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court found in Massachusetts versus EPA that EPA already has the authority and responsibility to control carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants under the Clean Air Act. NRDC salutes Administrator Lisa 

Jackson and the Obama Administration for issuing the 

endangerment determination a week ago, officially recognizing 

what she called the compelling and overwhelming evidence that 

global warming is dangerous to our health and well-being. We can 

take a big bite out of global warming pollution using the Clean Air 

Act we have today but we cannot do all that is needed under the 

current law. We need the legislation before this committee to cap 

and cut carbon emissions, to raise energy efficiency and energy 

standards and to rebuild the economy and create millions of new 

jobs on a foundation of clean energy. 

The ACES bill wisely proposes to keep and in most instances 

strengthen provisions of the current Clean Air Act. Despite the Supreme Court decision, there are some who claim that no part of the 

existing law should ever be used because if EPA ever starts using 

the Clean Air Act to address big sources like cars and power 

plants, it will not be able to stop itself from regulating every donut 

shop and barbecue in the land. But EPA has the tools to focus on 

the big sources, not the tiny ones. Donut lovers and barbecue fans 

can sleep soundly at night. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1148 

NRDC supports the ACES provisions reaffirming the Clean Air 

Act authority to set performance standards for vehicles. We support the goal of coordinating the Clean Air Act and CAFE standards and setting new ones that meet or exceed California’s pioneering levels. This is a plan that retains California’s critical leadership while also giving the auto industry the benefits of practical 

national uniformity. For power plants and major industries, EPA 

also had authority under section 111 of the current Clean Air Act. 

Indeed, Administrator Jackson is required to act soon on power 

plants in another case, a companion case to the Massachusetts 

case. The ACES bill tailors the current Clean Air Act provisions for 

power plants. We support those provisions. 

The bill does contain a number of proposed exemptions from the 

Clean Air Act. Two of the changes NRDC believes make sense, that 

is, not to regulate greenhouse gases under the ambient standards 

or hazardous air pollutant programs. We support the bill’s provisions to set new source standards for sources outside the cap but 

we disagree with exempting sources covered by the cap from those 

same new source standards. And we also disagree with the complete elimination of the case-by-case new source review for large, 

new and expanded carbon emission sources to meet the donut shop 

concern. It is sufficient to limit new source review to sources of 

more than 10,000 tons of CO2 equivalent. 

Let me say a word about the role of the States. During the long 

period of federal abdication, States have led the way, and if the 

federal program should come off the rails at some future point, it 

is critical that States be able to pick up the slack once again. 

States have capabilities to curb emissions and deliver energy efficiency and renewable energy that the federal government can’t 

match, and for these reasons NRDC strongly supports the many 

provisions of the ACES bill that would harness State capabilities 

and protect their role. There is one very troubling exception 

though, a 6-year suspension of State authority to implement or enforce cap-and-trade-type programs. NRDC doesn’t believe a real 

case has been made for why any such suspension is needed. We 

suggested in the written testimony a possible way forward that 

would keep States in the game and keep a strong state program. 

One last word about equal access to justice. The ACES bill expresses an entirely commonsense intent that persons with either 

environmental or economic injuries should have equal access to the 

courts when EPA’s compliance with the new is in question. These 

provisions are fair and balanced and they should be retained. 

So I covered carbon market regulation issues in my written testimony. I would be happy to comment on those too in Q&A. But 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doniger follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1149 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1198 72878A.706
1150 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1199 72878A.707
1151 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1200 72878A.708
1152 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1201 72878A.709
1153 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1202 72878A.710
1154 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1203 72878A.711
1155 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1204 72878A.712
1156 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1205 72878A.713
1157 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1206 72878A.714
1158 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1207 72878A.715
1159 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1208 72878A.716
1160 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1209 72878A.717
1161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1210 72878A.718
1162 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1211 72878A.719
1163 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1212 72878A.720
1164 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1213 72878A.721
1165 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1214 72878A.722
1166 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1215 72878A.723
1167 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you so very much for being here, Mr. 

Doniger. 

Our next witness, Patricia Mulroy, is the general manager of the 

Las Vegas Valley Water District and Southern Nevada Water Authority. Ms. Mulroy oversees the operations of the Las Vegas Valley 

Water District and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which 

is responsible for acquiring, treating and delivering water to southern Nevada. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MULROY 

Ms. MULROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also here today on 

behalf as a member of the board of the Association of Metropolitan 

Water Agencies and on the board of the Water Research Foundation, and on behalf of America’s water utilities, I want to congratulate you and thank you for your ship on a bill that many of us have 

been awaiting anxiously for some time. 

While the primary focus of the bill is energy, water and energy 

are inextricably linked and must be considered together. The Department of Energy estimates that 4 percent of our country’s energy is consumed by the treatment, transmission and delivery of 

water while conversely the generation of energy consumes vast 

amounts of water resources. We in the water utility business are 

on the frontline of climate change and for us it is happening right 

now. Water utilities are learning to adapt to this reality and we 

have to if we are going to provide safe, reliable water supply to our 

Nation. My experience reflects the challenges facing the American 

Southwest where the flows of the Colorado River support nearly 30 

million people and irrigate 15 percent of the Nation’s crops. During 

this decade the seven States that share this river had witnessed 

cumulative flows drop 11.8 trillion gallons below average. If this 

drought continues, in 3 years Hoover Dam will cease generating 

electricity. Other regions are also beginning to see the effects, 

whether it is floods in the Midwest or groundwater aquifers beginning to see saltwater intrusion, and you know only too well the 

drought that has been ravaging the Southeast. 

My agency’s first adaptation strategy was to adopt one of the Nation’s most aggressive water conservation programs, having paid 

our customers $110 million to remove grass and replace it with 

desert vegetation. This has resulted in reducing our water use by 

22 billion gallons over the same time period where our population 

swelled by 400,000 inhabitants. We are also racing to build a new 

intake that goes deeper within Lake Meade. In California, officials 

are grapping with not only worsening Colorado River conditions 

but a drought in the Sierra and restricted use of in-State supplies. 

My purpose today is not to induce alarm but rather to convey the 

magnitude of the situation and offer water industry perspective on 

adaptation strategies. 

One of our most immediate needs is research, not just more research but more focus applied research. There are nearly two dozen 

climate change models but none of them adequately predict effects 

on a watershed-specific scale. The development of these strategies 

requires actionable research that explores the full range of impacts. 

To that end, we recommend that the federal government partner 

with the Water Research Foundation to optimize the value of these 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1168 

research investments. I encourage you to incorporate into your legislation the Climate Change Drinking Water Adaptation Research 

Act, which was sponsored last year by Representative Diana 

DeGette and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which provides 

funding for climate change-related research from a small percentage of the cap-and-trade proceeds. This applied research will help 

provide information water managers need to make sound policy decisions. But even the best-studied strategies won’t work if they cannot be implemented. Climate change adaptation also means new 

water infrastructure. Our new Lake Meade intake will cost $1 billion and this is only one project in one community. Considering all 

the water agencies that will likely be affected, the financial implications are staggering. 

To help communities capitalize the necessary investments, we 

propose your legislation also include a concept similar to the proposed green bank for energy investments. A blue bank for water infrastructure would provide municipal water agencies the necessary 

capital to enact adaptation strategies utilizing a portion of the proceeds from a cap-and-trade system. Providing access to low-cost 

loans for climate change-qualified projects would enable us to 

proactively adapt. To be clear, I feel strongly that water agencies 

should be financially self-sufficient. These funds would be subject 

to repayment by the water agencies which are historically among 

the country’s most secure borrowers. 

Again, on behalf of the water industry, I would like to thank you 

very much for including us in this historic conversation and respectfully ask that you support our efforts to adapt and surmount 

the challenges of our changing climate. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mulroy follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1169 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1219 72878A.724
1170 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1220 72878A.725
1171 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1221 72878A.726
1172 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1222 72878A.727
1173 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1223 72878A.728
1174 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1224 72878A.729
1175 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1225 72878A.730
1176 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1226 72878A.731
1177 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1227 72878A.732
1178 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1228 72878A.733
1179 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1229 72878A.734
1180 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1230 72878A.735
1181 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1231 72878A.736
1182 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1232 72878A.737
1183 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1233 72878A.738
1184 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1234 72878A.739
1185 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1235 72878A.740
1186 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1236 72878A.741
1187 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1237 72878A.742
1188 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1238 72878A.743
1189 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1239 72878A.744
1190 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1240 72878A.745
1191 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you so much. 

Our next witness is Anne Smith, who is vice president of and 

practice leader of climate and sustainability for CRA International. 

At CRA, Ms. Smith specializes in environmental policy and corporate compliance strategy. Before joining CRA, Ms. Smith was a 

vice president at Decision Focus Incorporated, leading that company’s policy analysis. We welcome you here, Dr. Smith. Whenever 

you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE E. SMITH 

Ms. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you 

for inviting me. My testimony today is my own and does not represent my company, CRA, or any of its clients. 

Let us be honest here. Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions 

in order to actually substantially reduce the risks of climate change 

will be a costly undertaking no matter how it is done. Therefore, 

a successful emissions policy that is both credible and enduring is 

going to have to have a laser-like focus on cost minimization. The 

ACES bill lacks this focus right now. Even though it does contain 

a cap-and-trade program, which is often thought of as a cost-minimizing approach, achieving cost-effectiveness will be elusive with 

this bill for two reasons, first, its other non-market regulatory 

schemes, and second, uncertainty in the allowance prices in the cap 

and trade. 

First, the bill piles on excessive and redundant regulatory 

schemes on top of the cap and trade that reflect the command control mentality of yesteryear such as a renewable electricity standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, energy efficiency resource standard and many more including even a Jacuzzi-specific that we have 

been hearing about today. These prescriptive provisions will undercut the transparency and predictability of the carbon prices under 

the cap and that will only increase the costs of meeting the greenhouse gas objectives or the target for greenhouse gases in the bill. 

To minimize costs, Congress needs to remove those mandates, but 

even without those redundant programs, the bill’s cap-and-trade 

program has its own barriers to cost minimization and this is allowance price uncertainty and volatility. These will hinder business 

planning and disrupt a company’s credit worthiness. 

The U.S. experience with SO2 and NOX caps tells us that emission prices will be very unstable. SO2 prices varied between $100 

and $1,500 per ton in just the past 4 years, and that was despite 

a large bank of allowances. Europe’s carbon cap has seen prices cycling up and down by a factor of four in the space of a few years. 

And despite assurances early on that Europe’s carbon price volatility was only a feature of that cap’s so-called learning phase, now 

we can see that those price swings are actually a feature of the 

cap’s mature phase as well. In the E.U., this carbon price uncertainty has inhibited companies from investing in the low-carbon 

technologies that are desired, and that same problem will occur 

under U.S. CAP that allows that same price uncertainty to occur 

here too. 

Carbon price volatility introduces another concern that has not 

been discussed widely, credit risk. Companies will need to buy and 

hold allowances whose total value may be very large compared to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1192 

their current cash flows and balance sheets. Allowance price variations can create cash-flow crunches and balance sheet variations 

that in turn will translate into credit ratings being reduced and increased difficulty in raising funding for new investments. 

The ACES bill has no provisions for providing the necessary 

price certainty and price stability to avoid these problems. Banking 

does not eliminate volatility. We have seen that in the U.S. and 

European experiences. Offsets do not either. The experience with 

the clean development mechanism says they may actually increase 

price uncertainty. And the bill’s strategic reserve of allowances also 

does not. This provision would let prices vary by at least a factor 

of two before it would even come into effect and it doesn’t ensure 

any actual price ceiling when the prices do spike. 

The bill needs to directly and transparently establish allowance 

price ceilings and price floors in order to remove these financial uncertainties which are only going to serve to exacerbate the policy’s 

costs. Some fear that price ceilings will take away the certainty of 

adequate reductions in emissions. However, the certainty that is 

needed for emissions is their long-term reduction to nearly zero 

globally, not any specific reduction in a specific year in the United 

States. Achieving that long-term zero-emissions goal will require 

sustained investment over a very, very long period of time in utterly new directions and this is more likely to happen under a policy that establishes a carbon price signal that is predictable and 

credible for decades to come. 

And finally, we need a full accounting of the cost of this bill. 

EPA’s analysis of the cost of the cap doesn’t consider the command 

and control aspects of the bill nor the costs that are created by the 

allowance price uncertainty that we can expect. So it is misleading 

to present EPA’s analysis as even a preliminary estimate of the impacts of this particular bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1193 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1244 72878A.746
1194 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1245 72878A.747
1195 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1246 72878A.748
1196 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1247 72878A.749
1197 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1248 72878A.750
1198 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1249 72878A.751
1199 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1250 72878A.752
1200 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1251 72878A.753
1201 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1252 72878A.754
1202 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1253 72878A.755
1203 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1254 72878A.756
1204 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1255 72878A.757
1205 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith. 

Our next witness is William Kovacs, the vice president of environment technology and regulatory affairs for the United States 

Chamber of Commerce. In government service, Mr. Kovacs served 

as vice chairman and chairman of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 

hazardous waste facilities siting board and chief counsel and staff 

director of the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce. Was that on this committee, sir? 

Mr. KOVACS. Yes, sir. I am really that old. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what years were those? 

Mr. KOVACS. Nineteen seventy-four, 1975, through about 1978. 

Mr. MARKEY. So when I was here? 

Mr. KOVACS. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you were the chief counsel for Brock Adams? 

Mr. KOVACS. Fred Rooney. 

Mr. MARKEY. For Fred Rooney. Yes, great. Good to see you again. 

Welcome back. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM KOVACS 

Mr. KOVACS. Thank you for inviting us here today, and I have 

to tell you that when I was listening to you say this was your 66th 

year of hearings and I am your 60th witness, all I can say is what 

pressure. I have to say something really quick and something he 

has never heard, so that is quite a task. 

Let me start off by saying, the Chamber really does support trying to find ways to reduce greenhouse gases, we have made that 

clear in all of your testimony, accelerate the use of energy efficiency and certainly find new ways to put green technologies into 

the marketplace, and with that I just want to add a few suggestions because I think that they would really help move your bill 

forward. The first is, as you consider how you are going to do this, 

probably the one part that troubles us the most is, you have very 

steep emission reductions over the course of the years but there is 

really no assurance in the bill that as you force fossil fuels out of 

the system, that there is a mechanism for bringing substitute technologies into the system, and I say that because, and I am just 

going to use one example. If you just take the 115,000-megawatt 

windows that you are going to need, that is going to take enough 

space that is literally going to equal going around the earth twice, 

and it is an enormous land mass, and the problem you are going 

to run into is not that price isn’t going to drive technologies but 

many times NIMBYs are going to drive technologies out, and one 

of the things we have done with this project is we have tried to 

identify the fact that in the last 18 months there have been 65 renewable facilities that have not been able to get to the marketplace 

because of NIMBYs and 13 grid systems. So we think long term 

that is a very serious problem. 

Second, in terms of the Clean Air Act, we just think it is inappropriate, and if you are going to set up a structure you ought to set 

up a structure for carbon because it is going to be more workable. 

I think this idea of capping the large businesses with cap and trade 

and then going into new source performance standards for the medium-sized businesses and then leaving it unclear and vague as to 

the small businesses what you run the risk of with the small busiVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1206 

ness is once an endangerment finding is made, there is going to be 

a lawsuit and you are going to have 26 million small businesses 

trapped in a new source performance standard. I don’t think the 

agency can handle that. 

In terms of citizen suits, this might be the most troubling. I 

mean, you really—the cause of action has expanded so far. It is not 

just against government but it is against government with some 

limited monetary damages so that is the beginning of waiver of 

sovereign immunity. You remove the article 3 type actual case and 

actual harm for thought of harm, and long term that is just going 

to be more citizen suits, more projects stopped. And then when you 

have unlimited attorneys’ fees, you are giving an incentive to the 

lawyers to bring these lawsuits. That is just not going to help you 

get the technology into the marketplace that you need. 

And then finally, on the preemption of State laws, again this is 

just going back to where we were before and that is you can’t preempt it for 5 years and then let the States act. If the federal government is going to do it, you need one comprehensive unified law 

that makes sense, that the industry understands so that we can 

start developing the technologies as opposed to trying to fragment 

it to please a lot of different interests. 

With that, thank you very much for having me here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kovacs follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1207 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1258 72878A.758
1208 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1259 72878A.759
1209 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1260 72878A.760
1210 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1261 72878A.761
1211 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1262 72878A.762
1212 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1263 72878A.763
1213 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1264 72878A.764
1214 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1265 72878A.765
1215 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1266 72878A.766
1216 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1267 72878A.767
1217 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1268 72878A.768
1218 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1269 72878A.769
1219 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1270 72878A.770
1220 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1271 72878A.771
1221 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1272 72878A.772
1222 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1273 72878A.773
1223 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1274 72878A.774
1224 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1275 72878A.775
1225 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1276 72878A.776
1226 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1277 72878A.777
1227 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1278 72878A.778
1228 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1279 72878A.779
1229 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1280 72878A.780
1230 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1281 72878A.781
1231 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1282 72878A.782
1232 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1283 72878A.783
1233 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1284 72878A.784
1234 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Kovacs, very much. 

We will now recognize the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, for a round of questions. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, but before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the testimony of Thomas 

Gibson from the American Iron and Steel Institute on the bill. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1235 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1286 72878A.786
1236 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1287 72878A.787
1237 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1288 72878A.788
1238 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1289 72878A.789
1239 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1290 72878A.790
1240 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Tia, I appreciated your testimony and telling us a 

little bit about the real diversity among the stakeholders on Governor Doyle’s task force on global warming and the fact that you 

were able to reach near consensus on a number of recommendations that you note are similar to the provisions contained in the 

draft discussion bill before us. We have also taken in this committee testimony from representatives of U.S. CAP that had a similarly diverse array of stakeholders and they were also able to reach 

substantial agreement around a blueprint for taking action on climate change, and I see similarities when I look across the Congress and this committee in terms of the diversity of interests and 

diversity of districts that we represent. So in many ways we have 

a similar task immediately before us in trying to gather support 

and gain a majority. While we would love to have a nearly unanimous vote in this committee on climate change legislation, I think 

we will be happy if we get a good majority vote on this. But I wonder if you can tell us about your yearlong experience leading the 

governor’s task force on global warming with these diverse stakeholders, how they were able to come together to reach a set of goals 

and reduction targets that satisfied so many varied perspectives 

and if you could tell us particularly what were some of the key 

issues that you had to surmount and the perhaps significant points 

of contention that you were able to overcome. 

Ms. NELSON. Yes. Thank you for your question. Part of our success was, I think we just fatigued everyone. We were at it for—and 

I see that Chairman Markey is pursuing the same strategy, so I 

wish him a lot of luck. We met for—we were originally set to meet 

for 9 months. We met for well over a year and it was a difficult 

process. I think everyone came to the table in good faith, which obviously helped quite a bit. Ultimately what we did, and I give enormous credit to my co-chair for this particular strategy, after listening to multiple stakeholders about multiple strategies, agreeing 

that we wanted strong targets, recognizing that we would need to 

dramatically increase investments in conservation and efficiency 

and renewables to meet those targets, and then realizing that we 

couldn’t without a cap-and-trade program, it became clear to Roy 

and I that we were going to have to put in front of the group in 

essence a straw man proposal that we hoped was delicately balancing the tradeoffs between constituencies without compromising 

the environmental integrity of our product, our report which the 

governor accepted in its entirety, I failed to mention before, and 

which is going to be introduced hopefully in the legislature, we are 

drafting it now, in the fall. 

For industry, manufacturing, utilities, the cost containment issue 

was huge so the way we kept them on board was a very frank, you 

know, recognition that Wisconsin will have challenges in competitiveness as a heavy coal dependent, heavy manufacturing, and our 

manufacturing sector tend to be more energy intensive. We have to 

be extremely sensitive to global competitiveness. And so by paying 

a lot of attention to the cost containment measure, we moved our 

RPS up, our existing RPS, and then increased it two and a half 

fold, the same as in the chairman’s draft bill, 25 by 25. So really 

the compromise, for the environmentalists the cap and the integrity 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1241 

of the cap was essential, and for industry it was essential to recognize that Wisconsin is in a very economically vulnerable position 

being so heavily dependent on coal, and this allocation proposal 

that we came up with that allows for a transition—this is just for 

a limited period of time—it allows us to transition. Really that allocation got us where we needed to go. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you. 

I have a question. I will say that I have very limited knowledge 

on the market structure discussion but I find it incredibly important on this and so maybe you can help me understand it better. 

I will start with Mr. Anda and certainly Mr. Royal can comment 

on this. As I understand the futures market, you have hedgers and 

speculators. You have people who would want to possess futures on 

carbon that might actually use them some day because they are 

emitters, and then you have those just want to be a part of this 

market. Do we treat these two groups differently? Do you propose 

that we do? And how do we—especially with speculators, what sort 

of safeguards would you advise us to build into this market as we 

develop it? 

Mr. ANDA. Well, I will let Carl perhaps handle the point about 

speculators but it is important that the market be open to all. The 

two points that I wanted to make are, number one, let us have that 

derivative trading in a place where we can see it, not over the 

counter but on listed, transparent exchanges, number one. Number 

two, market-to-market accounting is fine for financial institutions 

and hedge funds. They do that anyway. But let us create something 

for the covered entities where they can effectively cover their carbon risk using futures and options, because we might not give them 

any allowances to bank. Let us let them use those instruments, 

and if their intention is to submit for compliance, let us have accounting for them that in effect is special because they would treat 

this as a deferred expense whereas a speculator would market to 

market. 

Mr. ROYAL. Just very briefly, you do need to have speculators in 

the market, otherwise called liquidity providers, because when 

somebody wants to buy you need somebody on the other side to be 

the seller or else you don’t have a market. In terms of treating 

them differently, I think you can. I mean, for example, in the area 

of position limits, an emitter would need to have a larger quantity 

of allowances because, you know, it actually needs it for its business where as a speculator is doing it just to provide liquidity for 

the market and so wouldn’t need to have such a large limit, and 

I think the regulatory agency could, you know, establish different 

standards for those different types of market participants. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Do you have any early guidance for us on what 

sort of position limits we would be looking at? 

Mr. ROYAL. I don’t know the market well enough to how it is 

going to develop to be able to answer that. I think that is probably 

an area that might be delegated to the agency that is in charge of 

the market. 

Mr. ANDA. I would just comment that the exchanges today do a 

pretty good job of setting limits because their members don’t want 

to create excessive risk within the exchange, so where things get 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1242 

onto exchanges, you know, things tend to avoid blowups. When 

they are off exchange, that is a different story. 

Mr. DONIGER. My colleague, Andy Stevenson, who is in the same 

field as these gentlemen, in our written testimony we recommended 5 percent position limits in the futures for any given 

vintage of a future, delivery date, with an adjustment that if an 

emitter had the kind of need that Mr. Royal suggested, that they 

might be holding 5 percent above their own needs. But a 5 percent 

seems to be an adequate amount in our judgment. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Let me turn to 

you, Ms. Mulroy, and I am very intrigued by your blue bank idea. 

I had testimony from the mayor of Philadelphia recently and he 

talked about the need for some way of dealing with his water supply problem and the protection of his watershed. Could you tell me 

how, let us say for Philadelphia’s purposes, a blue bank might work 

to deal with those two problems? 

Ms. MULROY. Yes, sir. I am not as familiar with Philadelphia as 

I am with New York, who shares a similar concern to Philadelphia, 

and actually are a member of the Climate Coalition that eight of 

us have formed in the United States. For them, the question is, increased flooding will contaminate reservoirs that today feed New 

York City and do not require treatment. At some point in time they 

are going to have to build treatment facilities which will cost them 

billions of dollars for treating water they have never had to treat 

before, because as those flood flows increase, it will contaminate 

those reservoirs. 

Mr. MARKEY. So how would the blue bank then work for New 

York City? 

Ms. MULROY. For the blue bank, let us say in the case of New 

York, it would help them finance those treatment plants to protect 

New York City and allow them to build them in a timely fashion 

and not sit through 3 years of a boil order in New York after the 

contamination has occurred. 

Mr. MARKEY. Interesting. So just so I can understand a little bit 

about this concept that you have, does it have a coalition behind 

it or is this an idea that you have personally? 

Ms. MULROY. No, there is a coalition of water agencies in the 

United States behind it. I think all of us whether we were in Florida, whether we are in New York or whether on the West Coast 

know that the way we have been managing water resources for the 

last 100 years is obsolete and whether it is investments in helping 

our communities make changes, investments in conservation that 

we can capitalize or whether it is new facilities because our water 

supplies are either being contaminated or disappearing before our 

eyes. We know we are facing those challenges. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Anda and Mr. Royal, let us take the European marketplace 

right now, and talk a little bit about how the price of a carbon credit has fluctuated between $40 a euro and $6 or $8 a euro. Is that 

a good thing, a bad thing or that is the way the market works and 

it is better than the government making decisions about where the 

price should be and differing economic circumstances. Mr. Royal? 

Mr. ROYAL. Yes. I mean, I am not familiar with that exact market but I think in general, I mean, markets do go up and down and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1243 

that is one of their functions. I think in this context, it could even 

serve a useful purpose because it would be countercyclical because 

in times of booming economies, you would expect more demand for 

the allowances and that would tend to increase prices at a time 

when it could be afforded whereas in times like we are having now 

where industries are closing plants, you would have less need, less 

demand for the allowances which would then tend to drive the 

price down, so in a way having a market-based mechanism would 

be self-correcting and it would, you know, help smooth out some of 

these economic cycles. 

Mr. MARKEY. See, that is how I view markets, but, you know, 

some people would say that is an indication of a market not working, but I would basically argue that is a perfect example of the 

market working. 

Mr. Anda, your comments. 

Mr. ANDA. I just think two things. First of all, to highlight the 

point about the major factor in the market is the global economic 

recession. If you look in the EPA’s recent work on evaluating your 

draft discussion, there was an interesting chart in there that 

showed that in 2006 our business as usual or reference scenario for 

emissions in the United States was, we were going to go from 6 billion to over 8 billion. The current numbers go from 6 billion to 

about 6.3 billion. So think about the impact. We have really 

changed our assumptions about how much we are going to emit 

without policy where those same factors have driven prices down 

in Europe, point number one. 

Point number two, let us not forget that the European market 

ends on the last day of 2012 and so while allowances are bankable 

into the next period, we don’t really know what the next period is 

going to be so I don’t think it is fair. The world emits, as you know, 

30 billion tons of emissions from CO2. A little over 2 billion are covered in the European trading system. They were bold enough to 

start with a small market. When we come in, I think we will have 

less volatility and a bigger market. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Doniger? 

Mr. DONIGER. If I may add two points to that, and partial re- sponse also to Anne Smith’s comments about volatility, the $40 

mark was hit at a point in the early experiment with the E.U. 

when they received for the first time accurate information about 

emission levels. In other words, they started their program without 

full information about how much was being emitted in the first 

place and there was a systemic overestimate of how many emissions there were going to be and people paid more for the allowances on the basis of that. When the data came in, there was an 

adjustment. This problem will not happen here because we already 

have much better data about actual emissions from the power sector, and thanks to the EPA’s proposal of a more comprehensive 

emissions inventory system, even in advance of your legislation, we 

are going to have much better information across the board when 

the program starts. 

The other thing is, as Jon was just mentioning, if a program 

comes to an end, then there is a possibility that the allowances become valueless near the end. That is the advantage of your sketchVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:56 Apr 13, 2012 Jkt 072878 PO 00000 Frm 01253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A878.XXX A878

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1244 

ing out a long-term carbon budget with a declining cap, and since 

there will be long-term continuity, there won’t be that problem of 

the program coming to an end or appearing to come to an end and 

people having doubt about what the allowances are worth. 

Mr. MARKEY. There is very little likelihood of the European program coming to an end either. 

Let me go to you, Mr. Kovacs. Some of the members on the 

Chamber board, Duke Energy, Alcoa, testified before this committee earlier this week, and while your board represents a broad 

coalition, it appears that many and possibly most of your members 

support a domestic policy that would set goals and the means for 

reducing the overall levels of U.S. global warming pollution. How 

do you reconcile the Chamber’s position with those of some of the 

firms that sit on the Chamber board who are testifying before our 

committee asking us to pass a cap-and-trade bill? 

Mr. KOVACS. I guess I thought you would never ask. Look, within 

our federation, we have roughly about 3.5 million members, 3,000 

state and local chambers and 1,000 trade associations. That is an 

enormous difference, so when we analyze a bill like yours, for example, and there was an example I used today, let us just take the 

application of the new source performance review. You have one 

group which is relatively small in numbers, 30, that would sit there 

and literally be exempt from the new source performance review 

because of the caps. Then you have the second tier, you know, 

thousands of members that would be subject to it, and then you 

have the 26 million small businesses out there that in some way 

have no idea whether they are going to be subject or not but could 

be challenged, and every one would be hit by an attorney’s fee, so 

what we tried to do is, we take the entire policy. We apply our 

principles to what it is you are trying to do and we make a determination of whether or not it meets those principles, which are, 

does it harm the economy, does it promote competitiveness, does it 

accelerate technology, do we have enough energy in the environment and how is it going to affect the international structure, and 

that is how we do it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is the Chamber willing to come forward with proposals that tell us what they would be comfortable with as the regulatory scheme? 

Mr. KOVACS. I thought you would never ask. We actually had a 

debate on this issue today, 3 hours, where we had the proponents 

of a carbon tax, the proponents of a cap and trade representing 

U.S. CAP and we had quite a spirited discussion, and you know, 

frankly, it was probably the most optimistic discussion I have had. 

I don’t know that I am free to tell you the results but there certainly was a lot of talk and a lot of willingness to find out how it 

is we get reductions in a way that helps the economy. 

Mr. MARKEY. And your statement that Congress should not mandate the use of technologies before they actually exist, we don’t 

have any mandates for any specific technologies in the legislation 

so I am just wondering what you are referring to. 

Mr. KOVACS. I will give you an example. Probably the biggest 

issue that we care about is that we don’t think you can get enough 

energy back in the system as a substitute for what you are going 

to take out. I will give you an example, clean coal, the Bard facility 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1245 

in Ohio. Here was an example where they went through the DOE 

loan guarantee process. They literally got all of their permits. They 

were about to break ground and then they were notified by several 

environmental groups that they were going to sue. DOE then decided that the risk of that lawsuit was so great, they were going 

to pull the loan guarantees. This is clean coal, and so what happened is, the company walked away from the project, and if that 

was the only project, we probably wouldn’t care but we have right 

now looked, and we have only been doing this a month, we have 

got about 300. I mean, there are other, it is not just energy. The 

other day we had a presentation on cell towers and someone said 

well, there are 800 on hold because of this. This is a big issue and 

we have to deal with it, and we got a lot of cooperation in the stimulus plan when we started off, how do we move this through. We 

wanted a time limit, and Senator Boxer and Senator Barrasso finally came to an agreement that we would use the most expedited 

route. But this is an issue that I think if you can solve and start 

making us feel like we are going to have real energy in this country 

and it is not going to get stopped, you are going to then find that 

some of our major concerns are really starting to be addressed. 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, we are not mandating any particular technology in the legislation, but I would say this to you in terms of 

kind of an extension of the optimistic meeting that you had today. 

Were you in two places at once or how did that work today for you? 

Mr. KOVACS. That was from 8:30 to 12. I am not closing in on 

the number of years of hearings that you have had. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, what I am saying is, I thought that you might 

be, you know, ubiquitous and omniscient, like super Chamber of 

Commerce. In 2008, there were about 9,500 new megawatts of natural gas capacity installed in the United States. There was about 

1,500 new megawatts of coal installed in the United States. But 

the really, I think, kind of ‘‘O. Henry ending’’ to this is that while 

there was no new nuclear, there hasn’t been for 15 years and there 

won’t be for another 10 years because it takes that long to build 

a new plant, there were 8,500 new megawatts of wind installed in 

the United States in 2008, 400 new megawatts of solar, 150 new 

megawatts of geothermal and 100 new megawatts of biomass, so 

that is 9,000, more than 9,000 new megawatts from renewables. In 

other words, 45 percent of all new installed capacity in the United 

States in 2008 were renewables, and that is before we pass a national renewable electricity standard. That is before we build incentives for a low-carbon economy. So while we are not mandating any 

specific new technology, it is obvious that the technologies are 

there and would be improved as the economies of scale kicked in 

as the market grew larger and larger. So I am a little bit perhaps 

more of an optimist because of my own experience with the 1996 

Telecommunications Act, which I introduced in 1993 before this 

committee. After it finally passed in 1996, we went from a point 

where not one home in America had broadband in 1996, not one 

home, to a point where 10 years later there is a whole new vocabulary, YouTube, Google, eBay, Amazon, Hulu, thousands of companies, millions of new jobs. They didn’t exist because the market 

wasn’t there before 1996 for broadband. It was all narrowband. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1246 

So here we are talking about the same kind of a situation where 

there was an equivalent copper wire that we just had to move to 

digital, we had to move to broadband, we had to move to fiber 

optic. Well, we have another copper wire for electricity in America 

and it really hasn’t been improved upon, and I agree with the 

chairman when he says, you know, we might go back 70, 80 years 

and the truth is that Thomas Alva Edison would recognize our electricity grid if he came back today. We need a revolution. But I 

think that the problem that I have with the Chamber is that the 

Chamber opposed the Telecom Act of 1996, and it was basically 

making the same arguments, you know, how do you move from a 

black rotary dial phone to a world where everyone has got devices 

in their pockets and you have all these new, you know, companies 

that are going to be created, and so you are right, it does take a 

little bit of a leap but a leap based upon our own American experience with technology and the entrepreneurial spirit. So my hope is 

that the meeting that you had today will lead to a more optimistic 

view about what the private sector can do when a new marketplace 

is created and unleash the opportunities for thousands of companies that will be created, that will create a whole new vocabulary 

10 years from now when people look back at this antiquated energy 

system which we have. And by the way, I would include in that a 

carbon capture system that probably won’t look anything like anyone is talking about today and probably involves enzymes and acetic acids that are reformulating the way in which coal is burned 

and turning it into a positive product. But we have got to get on 

with that business, Mr. Kovacs, and I really urge the Chamber to 

just look back at its own history, especially with the Telecommunications Act and opposing that. 

Mr. KOVACS. Do you want me to respond? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, please. 

Mr. KOVACS. On the telecom issue, first of all, I wasn’t there but 

my recollection is, especially as it had gone into broadband, is that 

they didn’t want regulation on it because the wire system as being 

a regulated system was drying up and they needed a non-regulated 

system to put in $150 billion in investment. Here in this Act, all 

I am trying to say is, you have got a structure here which layers 

cap and trade in two capacities, then you have regulations, then 

you have litigation. What I am saying is, is that I don’t know that 

that structure will work, and the fact that you have 8,500 new 

megawatts of wind capacity, that is wonderful. What we are saying 

is, to get to the 10 percent you need 115,000. That is a long leap 

and it is a lot of land mass and it is a lot of litigation and—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Can I say this? It is really not a big leap if you just 

take us from now to 2025 and you add just—well, it is actually 

nine total and just go nine times 15 years or 16 years, we have got 

the number. That is if we don’t do any better between now and 

2025 if we just keep the pace that we are right now before we pass 

a national law. So all I am saying to you, Mr. Kovacs, it is such 

a rear-view-mirror view of what technology can accomplish. You 

know, if we look out the windshield towards the future, just using 

2008 as the metric, we wind up doing it, creating the jobs here and 

just revolutionizing our Nation’s relationship with imported oil and 

with greenhouse gases. So that is really I am—in a lot of ways, you 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1247 

know, we do need the Chamber of Commerce to look at this and 

to look at it optimistically and to realize that the benefits will flow 

right across the whole society. 

And I will just give you one other example and I won’t hold you 

beyond that. I am going to ask each one of you to give us in 30 

seconds what you want us to remember about your testimony. But 

here when I was the chairman, we moved over 200 megahertz of 

spectrum in 1993. Why did we do that? We took it from the defense 

department, we gave it over to the Department of Commerce because there were only two cell phone companies in the United 

States. They were both analog. They were both charging 50 cents 

a minute. They both projected relatively limited American use of 

cell phones. Obviously at 50 cents a minute there weren’t a lot of 

people going to be carrying that around in their pocket. So what 

we did was, we moved over the spectrum but said for the third, 

fourth, fifth and sixth license in every marketplace from Philadelphia to Las Vegas, they couldn’t be owned by the first two companies. Well, guess what the third, fourth, fifth and sixth companies 

did? They went digital. By 1995, their price was under 10 cents a 

minute and the first two companies, guess what? They both had to 

go digital and they were both under 10 cents a minute and then 

it was a race on to see can we put pictures on that phone, can we 

put data on that phone, can we have a huge basket of minutes, and 

here we are today all walking around, everyone in this room, with 

one or two devices in their pocket, none of it possible before that. 

So I guess what I am saying to you and really I would say to everybody who is interested in this issue, is that with just a little bit 

of optimism, not looking at some rocket science or putting a man 

on the moon but just what is already happening in America. If we 

gave the right boost to it, we could have this revolution just so far 

exceed anything that we are even talking about today. That is 

what happened in the telecommunications sector, both wireless and 

wireline, and I think if we give people a chance in a new marketplace that the same thing will happen, Mr. Kovacs. So that is my 

message and I just hope that it is received in the Darwinian, paranoia-inducing, market-oriented way that we are going to try to construct this bill and put in the right market protections, transparency, anti-fraud, anti-manipulation and then just step back the 

way we did after 1996 and we don’t know who the winners and losers are going to be. We don’t know if there is going to be a NYNEX 

or a Bell Atlantic or a Bell South. All we know is that the companies that win will be the ones that adapt quickly and that is how 

it should be in our country, really Darwinian, and in a lot of ways, 

I hate to say it, that is what we are talking about for our planet 

too. It is a real challenge for us in this Darwinian moment that we 

can adapt so that we can put in place the incentives that make 

people rich while also protecting the planet. 

So we will come back to you, Ms. Nelson, and we will give you 

an opportunity for 30 seconds to tell us what it is that you want 

us to remember. 

Ms. NELSON. Thank you, sir. You deserve the endurance prize. 

I am grateful for your interest. My message is simple. Help States 

like Wisconsin mitigate costs without compromising the integrity of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1248 

the emission reduction goal and we will be your partner in finding 

a climate change solution. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Nelson. 

Mr. Becker. 

Mr. BECKER. Thank you. I have three points to make. The first 

is that you and Congressman Waxman and others who worked on 

this bill should be very proud of your efforts. It is a very good bill. 

The second point is, as you know full well, this was a compromise 

and yet this will be probably be the high water mark before this 

gets signed into law. It is going to undergo significant change and 

it is going to get weaker. And the third point is, in light of that, 

it is very important that you strengthen the federal, State and local 

partnerships and preserve the rights of States and localities to not 

only fill whatever gaps exist but to be able to address emerging 

problems in the future. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Becker. 

Mr. Royal. 

Mr. ROYAL. I will be very brief. In a cap-and-trade market, it is 

essential that Congress create a regulatory framework that protects the integrity of the market and ensures that the market 

achieve its environmental purpose. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Royal. 

Mr. Anda. 

Mr. ANDA. Three technical comments and one other. Increase the 

initial flow, think about a central marketplace to get your best execution requirement, the CLOB for carbon I talked about, and make 

sure that emitters can use the exchange-traded derivatives that 

you want to create. Lastly, I would just say I heard a lot of testimony today. Chairman Markey, I hope that you are in a position 

as Mr. Gore was this morning to be a witness. Your comments are 

great. I think they should be—I would like to see them expanded 

in a nice half-hour, hour format and good luck to you in your work. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Anda, very much. 

Mr. Doniger. 

Mr. DONIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What this committee is 

doing is writing the next generation of the Clean Air Act and we 

have the existing Clean Air Act and what you are doing. We need 

them both and we need these things to merge and it can be done 

in a way that makes for an effective carbon control program and 

an integrated system that takes advantage of the best of the clean 

air laws that we have already. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Mulroy. 

Ms. MULROY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We in the water industry, 

many of us have been anxiously awaiting this day where we in this 

country take this issue of climate change head on and begin to 

make the necessary changes for us. Because it is a decadal issue, 

we will feel the impacts and we are looking for assistance for research which is so desperately needed to quantify those implications and in making the necessary adaptations that we have to 

make. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Smith. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1249 

Ms. SMITH. Two points. First, get back to cost minimization by 

stripping out the prescriptive and redundant measures so that that 

market-based approach can work in its Darwinian glory, and by incorporating features that provide price predictability so that you 

can unleash those investments. Second, I would like to correct the 

record. The prices in the E.U. did go up in the range of $40 a ton 

twice, once during the early phase and the second time just about 

a year ago. So it is not just a phenomenon of the learning phase. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Smith. 

And Mr. Kovacs, you have the final word of our historic hearings. 

Mr. KOVACS. Well, thank you for your good humor, if nothing 

else. I just wanted to say the success of broadband was really due 

a lot to what you did but also you didn’t regulate it and I think 

that that is something we need. I am not saying we shouldn’t have 

a regulatory system here but if you are going to do it, it needs to 

be transparent, understandable. You need to avoid overlapping and 

confusing regulatory structures between the Clean Air Act and 

whatever it is you are going to do. You need to find some way to 

limit litigation so we can get the projects moving, and I think at 

the end you need to appreciate the fact that if we are really going 

to reduce GHGs in the atmosphere, we have to have some way in 

which to engage the international community and we would suggest that the way to do that is an international treaty. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Kovacs, very much. The paradox 

of telecommunications regulation and regulation here is that you 

actually need new regulations in order to undo all of the old regulations that protected industries against change and that is the paradox, that in order to create a truly competitive marketplace that 

just doesn’t play into the needs of the largest utilities whether they 

be telephone, cable or electric utilities because all of the laws have 

been written on their behalf at the state and federal level for 100 

years. You actually have to create a whole new set of laws, of regulations that ensure that the smaller distributed competitors can 

then begin to deploy their technologies. That is the paradox. But 

ultimately you wind up with many, many more, thousands of additional competitors trying to provide information services or here 

they will be energy and efficiency services for our country. And so 

that is kind of the paradox here, and while it seems as though we 

are regulating, what we are really doing is undoing the regulatory 

protection that was given to these industries for 100 years while 

the assumption of monopoly on the wires was taken for granted 

when in fact it is just the opposite if you change the regulatory dynamic. So that is what we are trying to do in this legislation. We 

have already done it in telecommunications. We have done it in 

cable. And this is the final wire going into the home. This is the 

final set of issues that we have to deal with across the board, and 

if we do it, then we can get out of the way because people’s interests in becoming millionaires and billionaires will completely 

trump anything that we can do because they will be out turning 

green into gold all across our country with their new technologies 

and their deployment. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1250 

This has been a historic set of hearings. We thank all of you for 

your participation, and please stay close to us over the next month 

or so. We are going to need your ongoing advice. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
1251 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1302 72878A.791
1252 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1303 72878A.792
1253 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1304 72878A.793
1254 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1305 72878A.794