[Senate Hearing 110-1026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1026
STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL WARMING
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
MARCH 1, 2007
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-827 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
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
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
MARCH 1, 2007
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 5
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 44
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 46
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 48
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.... 49
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho....... 53
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland, prepared statement................................... 138
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut, prepared statement................................ 147
Corzine, Hon. Jon S., Governor, State of New Jersey.............. 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Thomas........................................... 59
Senator Inhofe........................................... 60
Perata, Hon. Don, President Pro Tem, California State Senate..... 80
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Nunez, Hon. Fabian, speaker, California State Assembly........... 82
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Response to additional questions from Senator Inhofe......... 104
Adkins, Dennis, chairman, House Committee on Energy and
Technology, Oklahoma State House............................... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Harvey, Hon. Ted, Senator, Colorado State Senate................. 108
Prepared statement........................................... 109
Nickels, Hon. Greg, Mayor, City of Seattle, WA................... 110
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cardin........................................... 124
Senator Inhofe........................................... 124
Cownie, Hon. Frank, Mayor, City of Des Moines, IA................ 125
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Homrighausen, Hon. Richard P., Mayor, City of Dover, OH.......... 128
Prepared statement........................................... 130
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 133
EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2004, April 15, 2006.................................. 68
United Nations Foundation, The Scientific Research Society,
Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and
Managing the Unavoidable, February 2007.................... 30-41
Schwarzenegger, Arnold....................................... 3
California Economists........................................ 85
Bruton, John, Ambassador, European Union, Delegation of the
European Commission........................................ 11
Bipartisan Elected Officials................................. 9
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse
Belief in Man-made Global Warming-Now Skeptic.............. 20-28
Article, Bay Journal, December 2004.............................. 140
STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL WARMING
THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Voinovich, Lautenberg,
Clinton, Cardin, Sanders, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Craig, Thomas
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
Senator Boxer. Good morning. The committee will come to
Today's hearing is about State, regional and local
approaches to global warming. We have wonderful witnesses today
who can really, I think, help us as we grapple with these
issues. I do want to welcome all of our witnesses, including
the good Governor, former Senator Jon Corzine, a former member
of this committee.
I also particularly want to welcome the two members of the
California State legislature. I never know in which order to
introduce you, because to me you are partners and you are
equals. I am very proud that Don Perata is here, President pro
tem of the California State Senate and Speaker of the Assembly,
Mr. Fabian Nunez.
I also want to welcome Mayor Nickels, from Seattle, and the
Mayor of Des Moines, IA, Frank Cownie. In addition, I want to
welcome State Representative Dennis Adkins of Oklahoma.
Welcome, sir. State Senator Ted Harvey of Colorado, welcome,
sir. And Mayor Richard Homrighausen of Dover, OH. Are you here?
He is on the way.
Let me say that we will have a more formal introduction of
Governor Corzine by Senator Lautenberg and hopefully by Senator
Menendez if he arrives on time.
Every day we learn more about how global warming is
threatening the well-being of the plant. Just a few weeks ago,
the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change released its
report, which makes it clear that global warming is happening
now and there is a 90 percent certainty humans are causing most
of the warming. Just yesterday, I was at a press conference
with Senator Bingaman and former Senator Tim Worth to discuss
this latest report Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the
Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. It is another United
Nations report by the United Nations Foundation, the Scientific
Research Society. So yet more and more studies are coming in on
The warming could have enormous consequences for mankind.
Left unchecked, global warming will lead to increased extreme
weather events, to sea level rises, to more floods and
hurricanes and to change in our weather patterns that could
reduce our water supplies. These are but a few of the effects
that global warming will have on our States and cities in the
years to come unless we act.
Today's hearing is about those States, regions and cities
that already recognize these facts and have taken strong,
bipartisan action to help stop global warming. In my opinion,
they are leading the way for the rest of the Nation. They
understand what is at stake for our future and for our
grandkids and their kids. They are sending us a signal that we
I want to show you a map. It shows you that 29 States
already have some form of climate action plan. Senator Inhofe,
I wanted to call this to your attention to show you that 29
States already have some form of a climate action plan. These
29 States have a combined population of nearly 180 million
people. Fourteen of the twenty-nine States shown in yellow have
set greenhouse gas reduction targets. Eight northeastern
States, including New Jersey, have agreed to reduce emissions
from powerplants through the regional greenhouse gas
initiatives. More States, such as Maryland, are expected to
join in this effort.
On Monday, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and New
Mexico announced a regional initiative to address global
warming. It is only a matter of time before more States follow.
I am especially proud of my State, California, which enacted
A.B. 32, the Nation's first economy-wide global warming bill,
authored by State Assembly Speaker Nunez, who is here today.
Under the leadership of State Senate President pro tem Perata,
California has also set strong emission standards for new
Now, I met yesterday with Governor Schwarzenegger. We had a
terrific meeting. He again continued to speak out for us to pay
attention to this issue. I am going to ask unanimous consent to
place the letter that he wrote to me for today's hearing into
the record. So without objection, it will be done.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. I will just read simply one paragraph:
``Global climate change is one of the most critical
environmental and political challenges of our time. The debate
is over, the science is in, and the time to act is now. Only by
putting aside our political differences and bringing all
parties and stakeholders together will we truly be able to
confront this crisis.'' I thank the Governor for this letter.
Governor Corzine's recent executive order requires New
Jersey to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80
percent from current levels by 2050. I commend his leadership.
Our cities have also taken action. Led by Seattle Mayor
Nickels, a bipartisan group of 407 mayors, representing over 59
million people, have signed onto the Climate Protection
Agreement. Finally, Mayor Cownie will tell us about the actions
he is taking in Des Moines to help his city and his actions
take action to fight global warming. They are fueling their
fleets with ethanol and biodiesel, they are building more bike
paths in Des Moines, they are encouraging their citizens to use
compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Now, these may seem like very small things. But in the end,
they add up. People everywhere are waking up to the reality of
global warming. Earlier this week, the investment community
announced plans to take over a major Texas utility and to scrap
its plans to build 11 new coal-fired powerplants. That decision
took heed of the editorial that Senator Bingaman and I wrote,
which made clear that permits for such plants to emit
greenhouse gases would not be granted for free. The days when
investors could ignore the possibility of greenhouse gas limits
are coming to a close.
There is increasing bipartisan consensus that we need to
move now to limit emissions. The States and cities that we will
hear from today are leading the charge. I am an optimist, and
like the States and cities who are taking action today, I
believe we can solve this problem, and in doing so, we will be
better for it in every single way. I look forward to hearing
all of the witnesses' testimony on this issue today.
It is my pleasure to call on the Ranking Member, Senator
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. You
mentioned a couple of things, some comments in your opening
statement. As far as the TXU is concerned, that is a huge
success that you guys have had in what I call divide and
conquer, to be able to get the natural gas people and the
nuclear people to realize how much money they can make by
shutting down coal-fired plants. It is something perhaps the
board of directors had a lot of pressure in getting them to do.
As far as the IPCC fourth assessment is concerned, the
interesting thing about this is, first of all, as we have said
before, this is not any kind of a science report, this is a
summary for policymakers. It has nothing to do with science. At
the same time, the United Nations came out by reducing man's
contribution by 25 percent. That is huge. And reducing the
anticipated sea level by one-half and also coming out with a
statement that livestock emissions are greater than man
emissions and even the transportation sector.
But we have an honest difference of opinion, and it will
surprise a lot of people to know that we agree on a lot of
things, such as the WRDA bill coming up that everyone in this
room is very much concerned about today. We will be discussing
the State perspectives on climate change. I would say to my
friend, Governor Corzine, I used to say, and I am sure that
Senator Voinovich would probably agree with me, with his
background, I tell my fellow Senators sometimes, I know what a
hard job is, I have been a mayor of a major city. The same
thing is true with being Governor of a State. So I recognize
you have a hard job right now.
We are discussing, as you know, the States are, I consider
to be 50 laboratories in this Country, each one taking a unique
policy pathway forward. In doing so, the experiments give
Federal policymakers examples of what policies work, what
policies don't work. And of course, the Federal Government also
has examples of failed ideas it should avoid repeating at all
costs. Cap and trade ranks high among these.
Multiple approaches have been taken that purport to address
climate change. Some States have clean coal R&D programs.
Others have tax credits for renewable energy and/or hybrid
cars. Still others have renewable portfolio standards. Most of
these States have taken a pragmatic approach that recognizes
the uniqueness of their circumstances. A group of northeastern
States and California have enacted cap and trade programs to
reduce emissions. Additionally, four Governors have pledged to
come up with plans to reduce emissions. Today we hear how
ambitious and important they are and what they plan to
But these programs haven't accomplished anything so far.
They are simply open promises that won't be kept and denials
about costs that will surely be paid.
California is a good example of an empty promise. It passed
a law bringing emissions back to the 1990 levels by 2020. This
baseline was not chosen arbitrarily, but to support the Kyoto
Protocol, which also uses 1990 baseline. Since Kyoto is the
only cap and trade program that is underway, I think it is
worth asking, how well has that worked? Of the 15 western
European countries that have signed onto Kyoto, and have
ratified it, only 2 will meet their targets, that is Sweden and
Britain. Great Britain only because it eliminated its coal
industry in the early 1990s.
Like most signatories, Canada and Japan won't meet their
targets. The simple fact is that the United States has spent
more Federal dollars on basic science as well as research and
development and done more to reduce our emissions rate than
Europe has since 2000. It is interesting, we have actually
reduced our emission rates more in the United States than
western Europe has. One thing, as long as we are talking about
Canada, it is very interesting, even though they were one of
the first ones to sign on, to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, the 60
scientists that advised the Canadians are now petitioning Prime
Minister Harper to withdraw, saying that ``If we had known 10
years ago what we know today, we would not have been a part of
The simple fact is, jobs are fleeing the European Union
because of its experiment into cap and trade. China, which will
become the world's biggest emitter of greenhouses in 2009 and
India and other developing nations will never sign on. As the
Deputy Director General of China's Office of Global
Environmental Affairs said in October, ``you cannot tell people
who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to
reduce their emissions.'' That is why California and the RGGI
programs, I believe, will fail. Although each of these regions
has yet to pay the cost, there will be costs and jobs will flee
these States. Cost will go up and purchase power will decline.
In RGGI States, for instance, the Charles River and
Associates, the CRA estimate, estimated a similar proposal
which would cost the region some 18,000 jobs in 2010.
Electricity prices, according to them, this is CRA, will rise
by 9 percent, hitting the elderly and the poor the hardest. The
poor are having to shoulder the increased burden of more than
double that of the rich, due to the cost of energy. Similarly,
purchasing power would decline by $270 per family.
It is interesting that this is based on this reduced
program, while the Wharton Econometric Survey uses figures 10
times greater, the average family of four, costing them in what
we would refer to as a tax increase, some $2,750 a year. So
let's be honest about these programs and their companion
proposals are here in Congress. They are the biggest tax
increases in history. In fact, they are worse than taxes,
because they will cost more and be less effective.
The only reason the alarmists have not proposed an outright
tax yet is that they know it will be more difficult to reward
the climate profiteers supporting them in their efforts, such
as we witnessed down in TXU only in the last few weeks.
So I would simply say in closing that I find it ironic that
deliverables are so openly crafting programs to directly
benefit powerful corporations and interest groups at the
expense of the poor, the elderly, the fixed income and the
working class. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman.
Today we are discussing State perspectives on climate change. As
you know, the States are 50 laboratories of this country--each taking a
unique policy pathway forward. In doing so, the experiments give
Federal policymakers examples of what policies work. Of course, the
Federal Government also has examples of failed ideas it should avoid
repeating at all costs--cap and trade ranks high among these.
Multiple approaches have been taken that purport to address climate
change. Some States have clean coal R&D programs, others have tax
credits for renewable energy or hybrid cars, and still others have
renewable portfolio standards. Most of these States have taken a
pragmatic approach that recognizes the uniqueness of their
A group of Northeastern States and California have enacted cap and
trade programs to reduce emissions. Additionally, four Governors have
joined Governor Schwarzenegger in pledging to come up with plans to
reduce emissions. Today we will hear how ambitious and important they
are, and what they plan to accomplish. But these programs haven't
accomplished anything. They are simply empty promises that won't be
kept and denials about costs that will surely be paid.
California is a good example of an empty promise--it passed a law
bringing emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. This baseline was not
chosen arbitrarily, but to support the Kyoto Protocol, which also uses
a 1990 baseline. Since Kyoto is the only cap and trade program that is
under way, it's worth asking--how well is that program working?
Of the 15 original EU countries, only two will meet their targets--
Sweden and Britain, and Britain only because it eliminated its coal
industry in the early 90s. And like most signatories, Canada and Japan
won't meet their targets either. The simple fact is that the United
States has spent more Federal dollars on basic science, as well as
research and development, and done more to reduce our emissions rate
than Europe since 2000. How did we do that?--By rejecting Kyoto's cap
and trade approach.
The simple fact is jobs are fleeing the EU because of its
experiment into cap and trade. And China--which will become the world's
biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2009--and India and other
developing nations will never sign on. As Lu Xuedu, Deputy Director
General of China's Office of Global Environmental Affairs, said in
October: ``You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to
eat that they need to reduce their emissions.''
That is why the California and RGGI programs will fail. Although
each of these regions has yet to pay the costs, there will be costs.
Jobs will flee these States, costs will go up and purchasing power will
In the RGGI States, for instance, Charles River Associates
estimated a similar proposal would cost the region 18,000 jobs in 2010.
Electricity prices would rise 9 percent, hitting the elderly and poor
the hardest, with the poor having to shoulder an increased burden more
than double that of the rich due to the costs of energy. Similarly,
purchasing power would decline $270 per family in 2010 and worsen
California will fare as badly. While the program they plan to
implement the law is so uncertain economic modeling is difficult, the
targets and timing suggest that the Wharton Econometric Forecasting
Associates Kyoto Protocol study is useful. That study found California
would see its economy decline by about 1 percent and 278,000 jobs.
Let's be honest about what these programs and their companion
proposals here in Congress really are--they are the biggest tax
increase in U.S. history. In fact, they are worse than taxes because
they will cost more and be less effective. And the only reason the
alarmists have not proposed an outright tax yet is they know it will be
more difficult to reward the climate profiteers supporting them in
In closing, I will simply say that I find it ironic that the
liberals are so openly crafting programs to directly benefit powerful
corporations and interest groups at the expense of the poor, elderly
and working class.
Senator Boxer. I am a bit speechless after that.
Senator Boxer. I would like to put in the record the list
of bipartisan elected officials who have attacked this issue
and include Democrat and Republican Governors. So I would like
to ask unanimous consent to place this in the record, showing
the bipartisan list of officials who have taken action.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. I also would like to ask unanimous consent
that I be able to place into the record a statement from the
European Union which says they are on track to meet their Kyoto
commitment. It is a letter to me on that point.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, for the record, I would
like to submit a list of scientists who at one time, 10 years
ago, were very strong supporters of reducing man-made gases,
and now realize that science has changed and they are on the
other side of the issue.
Senator Boxer. We would be happy to put that in the record.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. In addition, we are also going to put into
the record without objection, I hope, a list of the scientists
who issued the IPCC report and also this latest report of
scientific experts just yesterday who issued this report for
the United Nations, Confronting Climate Change. So we will have
the list of scientists who change their mind and the list of
scientists who are actually putting these reports out as well
as the letter from the European Union.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. We are going to continue now, we are going
to try to stick with the 5-minute opening statement. I am going
to call on Senator Lautenberg for his opening statement, and
then Senator, you can speak about your Governor now or you can
wait until we have all statements made and you can then
introduce him at that time.
Senator Lautenberg. Can I do it without charge to my
Senator Boxer. Yes.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. First, I want to thank Senator Inhofe
for his encouraging view of our intentions to reduce greenhouse
gas, thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, before I introduce
Governor Corzine, I just want to say that States are leading
when it comes to combating global warming. Now the Federal
Government needs to catch up. Our witnesses hail from States
with innovative and active programs to cut greenhouse gases and
control climate change.
In addition to Governor Corzine's initiatives to cut
emissions within our State, New Jersey has also joined six
eastern States to launch their Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, which will help curb emissions from powerplants.
Thirty-six of New Jersey's cities have joined nearly 400
other cities from across the Country to do what the Bush
administration won't do, and that is meet or beat the Kyoto
Protocols. New Jersey and other States are beginning to weave a
web of smart environmental regulations across the Country. But
the Federal Government is not doing its part to strengthen that
web. We can change that.
I strongly support Senator Sanders' Global Warming
Pollution Reduction Act, which calls for an 80 percent cut in
global warming pollutants by 2050. If we don't take the steps
now, we will continue to threaten succeeding populations,
including my grandchildren's grandchildren. It is not something
I am willing to throw away.
I have also been joined by Senator Boxer and Senator Snowe
in introducing the High Performance Green Buildings Act.
Buildings, from apartments to skyscrapers, account for nearly
40 percent of our greenhouse gases. The Federal Government is
the biggest landlord in the Country. By getting Federal
buildings to go green, we can put a significant dent in our
But the Federal Government needs to do more. We need caps
on greenhouse gas emissions from all powerplants and other
facilities that produce pollution. We need to increase cap-
based standards to get vehicle emissions and dependence on
foreign oil down. We need incentives for cities and businesses
to build in ways that are better for the environment.
We have to end the censorship and suppression of Government
scientists who do research on global warming. The public is
taking better care of our environment and they want to do more.
People are buying hybrids, cars based on fuel efficiency, for
example. Some in the private sector are also taking some
positive steps, the CEOs from some of America's largest
companies, like General Electric and DuPont are now calling for
Federal legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. So it is time
for the Federal Government to step up, do its part and support
our States, cities and towns that are already doing theirs.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Madame Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on how the
States are leading when it comes to combating global warming--and how
the Federal Government needs to catch up.
Among today's witnesses is my Governor, Jon Corzine. Our witnesses
hail from States with innovative and active programs to cut greenhouse
gases and control climate change.
In addition to Governor Corzine's move to cut emissions within our
state, New Jersey has also joined six eastern States to launch the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which will help curb emissions from
And 36 of New Jersey's cities have joined nearly 400 other cities
from across America to do what the Bush administration won't do: meet
or beat the Kyoto Protocols.
New Jersey and other States are beginning to weave a web of smart
environmental regulations across the country. But the Federal
Government is not doing its part to strengthen that web.
We can change that.
That is why I strongly support Senator Sanders' `Global Warming
Pollution Reduction Act,' which calls for an 80 percent cut in global
warming pollutants by 2050.
I have also been joined by Senators Snowe and Boxer in introducing
the `High Performance Green Buildings Act.'
Buildings--from apartments to skyscrapers--account for nearly 40
percent of our greenhouse gases. The Federal Government is the biggest
landlord in the country and by getting Federal buildings to ``go
green,'' we can put a significant dent in our emissions.
But the Federal Government needs to do more.
We need caps on greenhouse gas emissions from all powerplants and
other facilities that pollute.
We need to increase CAFE standards to get vehicle emissions and
dependence on foreign oil down.
We need incentives for cities and businesses to build in ways that
are better for the environment.
And we must end the censorship and suppression of government
scientists who do research on global warming.
The public is taking better care of our environment--and they want
to do more. People are buying hybrids and cars based on fuel
efficiency, for example.
Some in the private sector are also taking some positive steps.
The CEO's from some of America's largest companies, such as General
Electric and DuPont, and now calling for Federal legislation to reduce
It's time for the Federal Government to do its part--and to support
our States, cities and towns that are already doing theirs.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, if I might just say a
few words about Governor Corzine, no stranger to Capitol Hill.
The Governor and I used to be Senate colleagues. Both of us
initiated a job change, and I hope he enjoys as much as I do
mine. Now I am one of his constituents, he is one of mine. New
Jersey is proud of our Governor, because he is willing to step
up and do the right thing, even if it looks at the moment like
it is putting more pressure on us. But someone has to take a
longer view, and Governor Jon Corzine is willing to do that. We
see it in his leadership here to fight the fight against global
I am proud of New Jersey today, because New Jersey is among
a small group of States that is leading the Nation when it
comes to reducing global warming. Two weeks ago, Governor
Corzine signed an order to reduce New Jersey's total emissions
from cars, buildings and factories alike by 80 percent by 2050.
New Jersey and California are two of just a few States to take
So I am happy to see Jon Corzine here, back in his familiar
surroundings. But New Jersey needs him, so we will try not to
keep him here too long, and let the Federal Government do what
it needs to do. Please welcome Jon Corzine.
Governor Corzine. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, and we will go to
Senator Voinovich. Welcome, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Madam Chairman, I thank you for holding
this hearing today and I am glad that we have State and local
perspectives on global warming. I have often said this is a
difficult and controversial topic, with some declaring it a
hoax and some declaring that the end of the world is near. I
share neither of these beliefs, and it is going to be really
nice that we are having local government officials, State
officials. Because ordinarily, this is about maybe the 12th
hearing I have had in 8 years. Senator Corzine, you will
remember that some of the hearings we have had, at the end they
started out, the witnesses being very nice to each other, and
at the end I thought we had to stop them from going after each
other. I am sure that we are not going to have that today,
Madam Chairman, with our State and local government officials.
The reality is that not all global warming skeptics are
denialists or idealogues. Those in the environmental movement
are not all alarmists. We can learn a lot and achieve more if
we listen a little more to each other, and I suspect that is
what Americans believe and they expect, they expect us to work
I do believe that global warming is something that will
need to be addressed, and I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses today. I am particularly happy that an Ohioan has
been asked to testify, Mayor Richard Homrighausen, from Dover,
OH. As a former mayor and Governor, I can relate to the
problems cities and States face with respect to balancing both
environmental and economic needs. Mayor, you have to deal with
it every day. I have long advocated the need to harmonize our
environment, energy and economic needs. I hope this hearing
today helps us better understand how States are trying to
achieve these goals.
For the past 2 years, I have called for a second
declaration of independence: independence from foreign sources
of energy. For our Nation to take real action toward stemming
our exorbitantly high oil and natural gas prices, instead of
considering them separately, we must harmonize our environment
and energy and economic needs. This is an absolute must as we
consider any additional actions to address climate change. From
my own humble opinion, I agree with much of what Senator Inhofe
has had to say, too often we just don't get our energy,
economic and environmental people to sit down together. In
fact, the problem we have had for the last 8 years and why we
haven't made any progress is because we can't get them together
to put each others' shoes on and come up with something that
I think we also have to become well aware of the fact that
what we do is also going to be impacted dramatically by the
developing countries. For example, we know that China is
building a new coal-fired plant every week to 10 days, and many
of them lack modern pollution control devices. Those of you
from California are already feeling the effects of what is
going on in China.
This is a worldwide problem. We have to realize that we
have a role to play, but we also must recognize that others
have a role to play. The more we can engage them in this debate
the better off we are going to be, and so is the world. I think
that as a result, and some of you may not be familiar with
this, as a result of legislation we passed last year, we now
have an international initiative that is called the Asian
Pacific Partnership. It involves Australia, China, India,
Japan, South Korea and the United States. These are developing
countries, many of them, and what we are trying to do is come
up with technology that will not only benefit us but benefit
We just can't say we are going to deal with this in the
United States. We have to understand this is a global problem
and that by 2009, the Chinese are going to exceed our emissions
here in the United States. We were the bad guy for a long time.
But these other developing nations are coming along and we have
to be just as concerned about them as we are ourselves.
I would like to reiterate that I believe that global
warming is occurring. The ongoing debate is over how much is
due to natural causes and man-made causes. The issue is what do
we do from a responsible public policy perspective to deal with
the problem. It is something I hope this committee can work
together on to develop responsible global warming policies that
ultimately harmonize our energy, environment and economic
I want to point out one other thing, Madam Chairman, that
the technology, particularly to deal with emissions from coal-
fired plants, is still in its infancy. The only real major
thing that this Government has done is FutureGen, and that
won't be built for the next 2 to 3 years. We ought to have a
crash program of getting into that kind of research, so that we
have these coal-fired plants that are out there, so they can
retrofit, have the technology to retrofit them, make sure that
the new plants that are being built deal with greenhouse gases
I know that some of the States represented here really
don't care about it, because you get very little energy from
coal. But the fact is, it is a reality. The United States is
the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal is going to be a part of our
energy fix for a long, long time. Some of you from
environmental group say, well, we don't want any coal. The fact
of the matter is we are going to have coal. We had better get
with it as soon as we possibly can to deal with technology that
is going to limit those greenhouse emissions from those coal-
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. I agree with your
comments on coal. I think we are going to absolutely need to
find a solution, because we have 250 years worth of it. It
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Governor. Welcome. It is my belief that we have seen a major
sea change this year with our committee focused not just on
whether or not there is global warming, but clearly we are
focused on the solutions. A big part of this is going to be the
innovative efforts going on in the States across this Country.
Think globally, act locally used to be a bumper sticker,
and now it is a necessity. I can tell you that in my State, we
are not content to just sit around and wait for things to
happen. We have seen how long it has been taking to get the
fishhouses out on the lakes. We have seen the effects that it
has had for some of our hunters and activities. While we
believe the scientists and we believe in science, we are
actually seeing first-hand the effects of climate change in our
Today's hearing is especially timely for local people in
Minnesota. Just last week we passed a new law that is now
considered the Nation's most aggressive standard for promoting
renewable energy in electricity production. It is a 25-by-25
standard. By the year 2025, the State's energy companies are
required to generate 25 percent of their electricity from
renewable sources, such as wind, solar, water and biomass.
The standard is even higher for Minnesota's largest
utility, Excel Energy, which must reach 30 percent by 2020.
Excel, which supplies half the electricity in Minnesota, has
said that it expects to meet the new standard without a price
increase for consumers. Already, it has announced that it will
build a $210 million wind farm in Minnesota.
Almost as important as the renewable energy standard itself
is the bipartisan political energy that produced the new law.
It was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support, the vote
was 123 to 10 in the State House and 61 to 4 in the State
Senate. It was quickly signed into law by Republican Governor
The same thing is happening at the local level. I just went
across our State, and talking about middle-class tax cuts and
the Farm bill. Every place I went, people were bringing up
climate change. I was in the little town of Lanesboro, MN, in a
high school gym, Madam Chair, and all they wanted to talk about
is the new light bulbs that their city council had ordered them
to put up. They were very excited about their own efforts on
the local level.
That is what we are seeing across this Country, with the
work in New Jersey, with the work just recently announced in
the five western States and the work that is going on in
California. I admire the States and communities for their
initiative, and what they are doing should inspire national
action. With all of these many efforts and initiatives at the
local, State and regional levels, I ask, how many bills has
Congress passed to actually limit the greenhouse gases that
contribute to global warming and climate change? Right now, the
answer is zero. My hope is that we will be able to change that
number sooner rather than later.
We are all students of government, so we know the famous
phrase, laboratories of democracy. That is how Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis described the special role of States in
our Federal system. ``It is one of the happy incidents of the
Federal system,'' Brandeis wrote over 70 years ago, ``that a
single, courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as
a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments
without risk to the rest of the Country.''
But Brandeis did not mean for this to serve as an excuse
for inaction by the national Government. Good ideas and
successful innovations are supposed to emerge from the
laboratory and serve as a model for national policy and action.
That is now our responsibility. The courage we are seeing in
the States as they deal with global warming should be matched
by courage right here in Washington. We should be prepared to
act on a national level, especially when the local and State
communities are showing us the way.
In this spirit, I look froward to our discussion today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar follows:]
Statement of Hon. Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator from the
State of Minnesota
I look forward to today's discussion of local, State and regional
perspectives on global warming and climate change.
Some observers have suggested that public attitudes on global
warming may soon reach a ``tipping point'' that will spur sweeping
changes in our society.
Already, many of the most innovative efforts are coming at the
local, State and regional levels.
Think globally, act locally'' used to be a bumper sticker. Now it's
I can tell you that, in my state of Minnesota, people are growing
ever more concerned. Minnesotans love being out in nature. This winter
I have heard from ice fishermen, snowmobilers and cross-cross skiers
who tell me they personally see the signs of global warming and climate
In our State, when we see something that concerns us, we're not
content to sit around. We want to do something to make a difference. We
want to take action.
Today's hearing is especially timely.
Just last week, Minnesota passed a new law that is now considered
the Nation's most aggressive standard for promoting renewable energy in
It's a ``25-by-25'' standard. By the year 2025, the State's energy
companies are required to generate 25 percent of their electricity from
renewable sources such as wind, water, solar and biomass. The standard
is even higher for Minnesota's largest utility, Xcel Energy, which must
reach 30 percent by 2020.
Xcel, which supplies half the electricity in Minnesota, has said
that it expects to meet the new standard without a price increase for
consumers. Already, it has announced that it will build a $210 million,
100-megawatt wind farm in Minnesota.
Almost as important as the renewable energy standard itself is the
bipartisan political energy that produced this new law.
It was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support. The vote was
123 to 10 in the State House, and 61 to 4 in the State Senate. It was
quickly signed into law by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty.
This new law is further demonstration that elected officials and
policymakers across the spectrum understand what's at stake.
The same thing is happening at the local level. St. Paul, our
capital city, has implemented a creative and forward-thinking Urban
CO2 Reduction Plan to reduce its carbon footprint.
It's not only about combating global warming and climate change.
It's also about reducing pollution and improving air quality. It's
about promoting economic development and technological innovation. And
it's about ensuring our future energy independence and security.
We are seeing other major climate change initiatives elsewhere in
Earlier this week, governors from five Western States (including
California and Arizona) announced that they will work together to
reduce greenhouse gases by setting regional targets for lower emissions
and establishing a regional ``cap-and-trade'' system for buying and
selling greenhouse gas credits.
This new regional project builds on the greenhouse gas emissions
measure that the California legislature passed and California Governor
Schwarzenegger signed into law last year.
And it builds on other regional initiatives--especially the
landmark Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative with seven northeastern and
mid-Atlantic States that have also agreed to a regional ``cap-and-
trade'' system aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
One of the States in that initiative is New Jersey. I am pleased to
see Governor Corzine with us today. I look forward to hearing more
about the executive order he signed last month setting a State economy-
wide goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I also look forward to hearing from Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who
has led the way with the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. More
than 400 mayors (representing over 59 million Americans) have pledged
to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas reduction goals in
their own communities.
I admire these States and communities for their initiative. And
what they're doing should be an inspiration for national action.
With all of these many efforts and initiatives at the local, State
and regional levels, how many bills has Congress passed to actually
limit the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and
Right now, the answer is zero. My hope is that we will be able to
change that number--sooner rather than later.
As Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano explained the other day: ``In
the absence of meaningful Federal action, it has been up to the States
to take action to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the country.''
We are all students of government. So we know the famous phrase
``laboratories of democracy.'' That's how Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis described the special role of States in our Federal system.
In this model, States are where new ideas can emerge . . . where
policymakers can experiment . . . where innovative proposals can be
``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,''
Brandeis wrote over 70 years ago, ``that a single courageous state may,
if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and
economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''
But he did not mean for this to serve as an excuse for inaction by
the national government. Good ideas and successful innovations are
supposed to emerge from the laboratory and serve as a model for
national policy and action. That is now our responsibility.
The courage we're seeing in the States as they deal with global
warming should be matched by courage right here in Washington. We
should be prepared to act on a national level--especially when the
States and local communities are showing us the way.
In this spirit, I look forward to our discussion today.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be short.
I think it might kind of nice to listen to the witnesses that
we have today.
I thank you for having this hearing, however, and I believe
hearing from the regional and about the regional impacts is
very, very important. I am very concerned about having an
energy mix. I believe we have to have an understanding of how
important it is to deal with our resources as we look forward
here, of course, as there has already been some discussion
about coal. As you might imagine, I have a strong feeling about
But we need to make sure what we do here doesn't injure our
national economy. So I will file my report. I would tell you
that we don't produce enough gas to provide for our energy. We
have coal, as has been pointed out here, for about 200 years
worth of energy. So our real challenge is how do we use the
resources we have in an environmentally clean way and an
efficient way to be able to do that. That is really where we
So I will submit my statement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]
Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming
First, I'd like to thank the Chair for convening this hearing. I
believe that the regional impacts of greenhouse gas reductions are the
most important part of the climate change debate. I would have liked to
hear from a witness that is as concerned about the role that coal plays
in our economy and energy mix as I am. I believe several witnesses have
a rational understanding of how important this resource is, however.
I will repeat what we're all very used to hearing at this point. It
is extremely important that any actions taken by the Federal Government
do not harm our economy or our national energy security. I fear that
extreme measures proposed by some will, in fact, cause this to happen.
As an example, compliance with some proposals would require a shift to
more natural gas. We can't produce all of that natural gas here in the
United States. We're trying to help in Wyoming but it's not enough, and
folks are growing tired of the breakneck pace of development in my
State. Unless our coastal States begin to share more of this production
burden, we will be in a very difficult situation.
What we'll end up needing to do, of course, is building liquefied
natural gas terminals in coastal States like New Jersey to import what
we cannot produce here at home. The gas we'll import will come from
countries like Iran and Russia. The leaders of these countries have
already started talking about forming a cartel, like OPEC, for natural
I'd like to hear from Governor Corzine about what he thinks of
liquefied natural gas terminals and drilling offshore. My guess is that
he doesn't support either one. I support drilling off our coasts, but I
am opposed to importing natural gas. We already depend on foreign
countries for oil to run our transport sector. I do not want to become
reliant on these same volatile regions to generate our electricity.
That would harm our national security.
What do we do about this problem then? Well, we have 200 years
worth of energy sitting 60 feet underground in the Powder River Basin
of Wyoming in the form of coal. What we need to do is advance clean
coal technologies so this domestic resource can be used in a more
efficient and environmental way.
Another one we hear a lot about is that greenhouse gas emissions
are an international problem. I agree. China is putting a coal
powerplant into service every 10 days and India is growing just as
fast. These countries will rely heavily on coal as their economies
develop--that is a fact. Everyone, though, must understand that a
liquefied natural gas terminal on our coast does nothing to reduce the
emissions of China and India. Advancing clean coal technologies and
sharing them internationally does a lot of good, however.
Wyoming's perspective is one of a State that is willing to help,
but we need to have a rational conversation about the best way to do
these things. I hope that effort can begin today. I thank the witnesses
for being here today.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Sanders, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and then
you for holding this important hearing.
Let me be very clear. There are some people who say, well,
we shouldn't be alarmists. Madam Chair, I am an alarmist. I
think that the debate is over. I think global warming is real.
I think global warming is man-made. I think if we as a Nation
and as a planet do not get our act together, we are looking at
disasters to come for our kids and our grandchildren. There are
some people who say, well, gee, if we act too strongly, and you
and I have proposed some very strong legislation, if we act
very aggressively on global warming, it will have a negative
impact on the economy.
Let me tell you, if we do not act aggressively on global
warming, the impact on the economy will be far, far more
severe. I believe, there is no question in my mind that the
Congress has been much, much too slow in moving forward and I
hope this year we will change that pattern. To my mind, what
this Country has to do is move toward a new Manhattan-type
project. We moved aggressively on World War II, President
Kennedy moved us forward in getting a man to the moon. Now is
the time for a partnership between Government and the private
sector to in fact say, we are going to break our dependency on
fossil fuels, we are going to move toward energy efficiency and
we can do that. The technologies are out there. What has been
lacking for many years is the political will. I hope that that
will be changed right now.
I happen to believe that if we move forward in that
direction we can create millions of good paying jobs, as we
save the planet for our kids and our grandchildren.
Now, in fact, while the Federal Government has not been
aggressive, while we have a President who virtually refuses to
acknowledge the reality of global warming, the truth is that
cities and towns and States have been moving forward. As
Senator Klobuchar mentioned, one of the beauties of our system
is that if Minnesota moves forward or Vermont moves forward,
the rest of the Country learns from that process. So I have
been impressed by what States are doing. I have been impressed
by what municipalities have been doing and I very much look
forward to hearing the testimony today, so that we as a Federal
Government can learn best practices.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is
always a pleasure to be able to join with you in these
continuing discussions of global warming. I know this committee
has other responsibilities, but we are having lots of
opportunities and I thank you for holding this hearing to get
the important impact from the States.
One of the things I think we are going to learn today is
that some of the current climate change proposals have the
ability to hurt certain regions more than others. I think we
have to account for the differences among the areas of the
Country to ensure that actions we require are fair and
affordable to all of our families and workers.
There is an old principle, where you stand depends upon
where you sit. That applies across bipartisan lines as well.
The chart here, this chart shows why carbon plans will hit
States differently. These pie charts show how different States
derive their electricity from different fuel sources.
Now, Missouri, we depend upon coal for 85 percent of our
power. New Jersey depends upon coal only 20 percent, and
California only 1 percent. So coal cost don't have an impact in
California, much less in New Jersey. But these climate plans
that hit coal hard will cause real economic distress,
relatively speaking, States already emphasizing lower carbon
energy with natural gas or nuclear are not going to be hit so
There are some economic consequences, Madam Chair. You have
to have a strong economy to be able to afford environmental
improvements. The strength of the American economy has allowed
us to do a better job in controlling greenhouse gas emissions
than our European Union friends who so loudly proclaimed their
love for Kyoto but have not been able to cut the mustard.
Keeping the economy strong will allow us to make more gains in
dealing with environmental problems.
I saw first-hand, Madam Chair, the environmental disaster
of socialist East Germany. I went there just after the wall
fell. I saw chemical plants with terrible smells putting fluid,
liquid into open creeks, flowing into the sea. It looked like
very dark coffee. But it smelled like something that I won't
describe, because we are too close to lunch time to describe
it. Getting the East German economy revived, West Germany with
its strong economy, is the only way that we can make that
But there is also another problem. Putting heavy costs on
coal can have major unintended consequences. I hope they are
unintended. But the more you put pressure on coal, the less
resources will be available to develop the clean coal
technology that we must have. On the regional basis, plans that
place an unfair degree of pain on midwestern families and
workers would include caps set too low or too soon, lack of
safety valves or requiring auctions that force consumers to pay
twice for their energy, once when it is produced and again
through the auction process.
Now, the witnesses here today from New Jersey espouse this,
just the same sort of anti-coal bias. Indeed, it is easy to
determine who are for the plans that are unfair and
unaffordable by many looking at this chart. Here are the States
in the tan, our States that depend upon coal. The States not so
colored are the ones, like the northeast and the west coast
that don't depend upon coal. No wonder the people who are
champions of carbon caps come from the white colored States. We
in the Midwest don't intend to stand by and see it happen.
I would say in my remaining seconds that one of the things
that we have to do is wean the greedy natural-gas burning
electric utilities off of that valuable resource. I have quoted
before, but maybe somebody hasn't heard it, 25 years ago,
Professor Glenn Seaborg, a Nobel laureate, said burning natural
gas to produce electricity is like throwing your most valuable
antique furniture into the fireplace to heat your house.
Madam Chair, I have lots more, but I see my time is up, and
I thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Bond, it is really great to have you
here, because you really are very animated on this. I just want
to repeat, there seems to be an argument, I personally believe
clean coal technology is absolutely essential. We have to deal
with it, and I am very open to it and want to do it.
I also wanted to mention, to get 20 percent of your power
from coal is a lot of energy. So I do think we will look
forward to hearing Senator Corzine on that.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I could not
disagree more with Senator Bond's description of the problems
we face. We have heard an eloquent, passionate description of
why we can't do anything. I reject that. I think that we can do
whatever we put our minds to. We just haven't been willing to
do that in the last several years.
So I commend the Chairman, because she is willing to lead
us on a path that will not only be good for the environment, it
will be good for the economy and it will be good for our
security. On Monday, I was at a coal-fired plant outside of
Buffalo, NY, that is looking to be one of the very first in our
Country to move toward an integrated gasifcation system. It is
going to take some help in order for them to do that. We have
subsidized the oil and gas industry for decades. It is time to
take those subsidies, those tax breaks, and put them to work on
behalf of clean coal and renewables. I hope that we can address
that. I have a proposal to do that with a strategic energy fund
that would get us on the right path for deploying new
technologies in a way that will begin to let us seriously deal
with climate change.
I am delighted to see our former member of this committee
here. If we ever stop talking, he will have a chance to
testify. Governor Corzine and I shared a great, great time on
this committee early on trying to deal with some of the
consequences of the attacks of 9/11. He was the strongest voice
with the best plan on dealing with chemical plants. He is back
again to talk about more of his far-reaching ideas that will
really make a difference.
I notice, too, that there are representatives from
California, both the President pro tem of the California State
Senate, and the Speaker of the California State Assembly.
Because it is interesting to note that when people talk about
how we cannot deal with climate change without wrecking our
economy, California has had a flat per capita usage of
electricity for 30 years. Why? Because California took steps to
try to reduce demand, to do more energy efficiency and
conservation. The rest of the Country has had an increase in 50
percent of the use of electricity on a per capita basis.
So when people say we can't do this, I say, ``well, I don't
think that is true.'' In fact, California is doing it.
There are a lot of good ideas that are at work right now
across our Country. I commend the Chairman for giving us this
opportunity to learn more about what is actually working in the
States. It is our challenge to take it to scale, to put into
place a framework for a national program. That is what we are
going to do under your leadership, and again, I thank you for
leading the way.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Clinton.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, I came late, and I
apologize. So because of the patience of our former colleague
here and his presence before the committee today, I say let the
Senator Boxer. Well, the show began a long time ago.
Senator Craig. So I noticed.
Senator Boxer. But you are most generous of spirit and we
Just to delay it a tad more, I have asked Senator Menendez,
because he felt so strongly about saying a few words, as
Senator Lautenberg did, about his Governor. Senator?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chairlady, and thank you
and Senator Inhofe for the opportunity to join in the honor and
privilege of introducing my predecessor here in the Senate and
our Governor Jon Corzine to the committee. In the years since
Governor Corzine has taken office, he has exhibited tremendous
leadership on a broad array of policy issues, taken on some of
the toughest issues in our State. He has demonstrated a
steadfast determination to work to improve the quality of life
for all New Jerseyians.
One of the areas that I am proud to say that he is leading
New Jersey into excellence in is his stewardship of the
environment, to a commitment of making the tough decisions that
need to be made in order to ensure that our children and
grandchildren are left with a healthier world than the one we
are living in today. I think our Governor knows the tremendous
risk that our State, our Nation and our planet face if we do
not take serious action to combat global warming and that we do
not do so sooner rather than later.
But he also has the foresight to recognize the tremendous
opportunities that New Jersey can take advantage of quickly and
decisively, the advantage that the Nation as a whole could
enjoy relative to the rest of the world if we, as Congress, act
similarly. Now, having some of our colleagues' comments, I
would say that what is not acceptable is to put any part of the
Nation to put our collective health, security and well-being at
risk. We are all in this together. I think that when we come to
that conclusion we will all be able to move forward in a way
that will achieve our collective goals.
Individual actions to reduce greenhouse gases, either by
making your home more energy efficient or purchasing carbon
offsets are good starts, as are State and regional actions like
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Western Regional
Climate Action Initiative. But they are no substitute for a
robust national climate policy.
So I want to applaud Governor Corzine for his steps in New
Jersey, making New Jersey one of the leaders on this issue. I
applaud your leadership, Madam Chairlady, and the committee,
for making this one of the highest priorities of the new
Congress. Again, thank you for the opportunity to introduce our
Governor and my good friend, Jon Corzine.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Governor Corzine. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I
appreciate very much the kind words of Senator Menendez and
Senator Lautenberg, who are great partners, by the way, in
framing the issues for the public in the State of New Jersey in
making sure that we are addressing these issues and moving
forward. We are really in a partnership. I hope that we will
have one more broadly with the Federal Government.
I commend both Chairperson Boxer and Senator Inhofe for
inviting me. Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk
about an issue that, I guess I would concur that I am pretty
well convinced we have a problem. I read the IPCC report and
find it chilling.
We have tried to, as you mentioned, Madam Chairman, set
statewide targets for stabilizing New Jersey's greenhouse gas
emissions, both resetting to 1990, but also putting together a
long-term vision that will have to be matched with
restructuring the 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050. It
should not be achieved on a precipitous basis. It needs to be
done over a period of time, and restructuring our economy will
be good. It is important that those of us at State and local
levels are addressing this issue. I am proud of the steps that
are being taken.
I may not be the terminator of greenhouse gases, but we are
working very hard to actually be a part of a broader movement
that is occurring across the Country that recognizes the need,
the vulnerability, but also accepts that there is a challenge,
but not a prohibitive challenge, to make sure that we do the
best job we can to keep our economy strong. In fact, I think it
is a false choice. I will try to comment about that in a
I look at this whole debate as one of both recognizing
vulnerability and also recognizing opportunity. There is no
question, I identify with the icehouses, fishing, if you go to
the Jersey shore and its barrier coast and see the erosion of
our beach line in a very tangible way, you can do the
scientific research, which you can see for yourselves the
reality. Something is changing. I believe it is the unchecked
human caused emissions that are a part, if not the driving
force of this. They have severe adverse impacts to our
environment, and I believe the economy, since we are driven so
much by our tourist economy and so much of our densely
populated State lives within 50 miles of the coastline. I don't
think this is just an issue that you can only look at what it
is going to do to your business climate. You have to look at it
much more broadly. I think New Orleans is a pretty clear case
that there are vulnerabilities that end up costing money.
That is the vulnerability side. On the opportunity side,
and by the way, I could have talked about national security and
energy independence with regard to vulnerability. I will leave
that to other folks. The opportunity is this can be an economic
driver in our society. We look at it as a driver for new
markets in efficiency and clean energy technologies,
technological innovation. New Jersey wants to be at the
forefront, including by the way, clean coal technologies. We
want to see that happen. We think we can change that carbon
And I will say that there is another advantage. The States
that are the first movers in this will have a competitive
advantage when they speak to what happens in the world as we go
forward. This change is going to be addressed. It is just when,
not whether, in my view. If we in the State of New Jersey or
California or New York or wherever it is that you have
addressed these issues, will be in a much better position to
have a stronger economy as time goes on. It shouldn't, again,
be precipitous. It needs to be as we go forward.
So I am very, very keen on making sure our State fulfills
its responsibilities in being a strong voice for change here.
It is important, though, that we begin to deal with this at the
Federal level. I think I have heard these debates some time
before, as Senator Clinton mentioned. I think we heard them
actually in 2001 and 2002. But we need to do this for very
serious reasons that apply to people's lives, like businesses
need to make long-term capital plans. We need to make sure that
the leakage problems that go on when we do it in one region or
one State don't end up undermining the efforts. We all live in
one world. So I think it is important that we do it.
We need resources from the Federal Government to go along,
whether it is developing new technologies like the strategic
energy investments that Senator Clinton talked about or others.
We need to be working on developing the output. That is going
to take dollars, and I think the Federal Government needs to be
working on that with us. We are going to put together, we are
going to ask for a Governor's climate protection leadership
council. I am going to call for all the Governors, hopefully we
will get as many as possible to participate in this, both as a
voice to push forward, the kinds of things that I think have
been suggested, to improve it on targeting, but also in
implications for policy. We need to move forward there.
So I hope that you all will pass meaningful legislation,
not just legislation that checks the box, but something that
actually gets us into a position where we are changing. I think
you need a portfolio approach. It is not just about energy
production and powerplants. It is also about CAFE standards. It
is about making sure that we have building codes that work and
produce efficiencies. It is about renewable portfolio
standards. It is a composite of things. If we don't think of it
on a holistic basis, I think we will fail.
In my formal statement I have laid down several principles
that I think should be included in Federal legislation. There
certainly should be a strong science basis to that, we ought to
have a portfolio approach, as I talked about. You ought to look
to the States for that laboratory of experimentation that was
But maybe just as important, I am a little fired up about
this with respect to chemical security efforts, we shouldn't
have Federal legislation that preempts States that actually are
taking aggressive stands with regard to pushing forward on
this. So I commend the committee and the Chairwoman for the
efforts to put together the leadership to move this forward.
This is one of those issues that is most important to the
future of our children and children's children. It is
bipartisan and there is bipartisan support for us taking this
on. I hope that you will come to a positive conclusion in
embracing many of the ideas.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Governor Corzine follows:]
Statement of Jon S. Corzine, Governor, State of New Jersey
Thank you Chairwoman Boxer and Senator Inhofe for inviting me to
testify. I particularly want to thank my good friend, the senior
Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has long been a leader
on environmental protection. I am happy to be back among friends and I
want to commend all my former colleagues and committee members on both
sides of the aisle for holding this hearing and taking the steps
necessary to begin tackling the issue of climate change on a national
As most of you know, I recently issued an Executive Order that sets
statewide targets for stabilizing New Jersey's greenhouse gas emissions
at 1990 levels by 2020 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80
percent below 2006 levels by 2050.
Yes, it is true that the challenges New Jersey faces are merely
part of a much larger global problem. And, yes, we need to overcome the
most crippling barrier we face--the false idea that we can't reduce
greenhouse gas emissions without hurting the economy.
But I took this action because climate change, driven by unchecked
human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, will result in severe
adverse impacts to both the environment and economy of New Jersey.
New Jersey is especially vulnerable to the environmental and
economic effects of climate change, including the effect of sea level
rise on the State's densely developed coastline from increased
incidence and severity of flooding. Likewise, New Jersey's economy is
also especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change with our
active ports, a vibrant agricultural sector and a significant coastal-
based tourism industry.
While climate change presents acute risks for New Jersey,
addressing this challenge also provides great opportunity. Reducing
greenhouse gas emissions will support New Jersey's economic growth
strategy by creating economic drivers that build markets for energy
efficiency and clean energy technologies, and spur technical innovation
and job growth.
In short, reducing our carbon footprint can and should go hand-in-
hand with increasing economic vitality.
Moving aggressively now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will
also place New Jersey's economy at a competitive advantage in
responding to the requirements of an anticipated Federal program to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I am not alone in recognizing the economic opportunities presented
by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My counterparts in Maine,
Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, Delaware and Maryland, along with New Jersey, are leading the
charge through our work on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Governors Schwarzenegger of California, Napolitano of Arizona,
Richardson of New Mexico, Gregoire of Washington, and Blagojevich of
Illinois have all set aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction
targets for their States. Additionally, Governors of five western
States have formed the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative.
Each day, additional States make commitments to fight the battle
against global warming--regardless of whether they are red or blue--in
large part because of the vacuum of leadership at the Federal level.
While States are currently taking the lead, we need Federal action
to set minimum requirements that allow businesses to make long-term
capital planning decisions. State efforts will provide many useful
lessons to inform the design of Federal legislation. However, absent
unifying Federal policy that sets minimum requirements, multiple State
efforts will create an environment of uncertainty for business.
States' actions are the foundation for future Federal programs and,
as such, the Federal Government needs to recognize the critical
resources States bring to bear on this issue. Federal monies need to be
made available now to States who are leading in the development of
policies on this issue, acknowledging the critical role that those
States' planning and actions have on development of Federal programs.
To build momentum for Federal action, I intend to reach out to
other governors that have asserted strong leadership in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to call for the formation of a Governors'
Climate Protection Leadership Council. I believe that the time is ripe
for States demonstrating leadership in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to coordinate their efforts, both to accelerate progress in
implementing emissions reduction policies at the State level and to
drive the policy debate at the Federal level.
A coalition of leadership States will provide a more effective
voice of advocacy for a strong Federal greenhouse gas regulatory
program that acknowledges a role for States in its design and
It is imperative for Congress to act, but it is also imperative for
Congress to act to create meaningful--not symbolic--Federal laws. Weak
or marginal Federal laws will only turn back the progress States have
Today I ask you to redouble your efforts to pass meaningful Federal
climate change legislation. The long-term wellbeing of New Jersey
ultimately depends on a strong Federal program to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, as well as a reengagement by the Federal Government in
international negotiations to further develop a global response to
Additionally, more emphasis needs to be placed on energy efficiency
initiatives, such as new appliance standards and enhanced building
codes. I urge you to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(``CAFE'') standards. In New Jersey, nearly 50 percent of our carbon
dioxide emissions are from the transportation sector. Increased fuel
mileage standards at the Federal level will greatly assist in our
efforts to meet our climate change goals.
I have attached a list of principles for Federal action on climate
change that draws from the approach my administration has taken to
designing emissions reduction policies and measures, both at the State
level and through regional efforts, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas
I hope that you will find these principles useful as you consider
the multitude of Federal climate change bills that have recently been
At a minimum, Federal climate change legislation should establish
strong science-based emissions reduction limits. An emissions reduction
on the order of 80 percent relative to current levels by 2050 will
likely be needed to avoid dangerous interference with the climate
Federal legislation should also acknowledge that a portfolio
approach is required, and that implementing a Federal cap-and-trade
program alone would be ill advised and insufficient. State climate
change action plans have evaluated a multitude of policy measures for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This portfolio approach should
inform the development of Federal legislation.
Federal legislation should acknowledge an ongoing role for States
in the design and implementation of a Federal emissions reduction
program. Congress can learn a great deal by reviewing the work already
done at the State level to evaluate and develop greenhouse gas
emissions reduction policies. One prominent example is the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is the only effort in the United
States to date to actually articulate the detailed design of a
CO2 cap-and-trade program for the power sector. A role for
States should be institutionalized through Federal legislation.
Finally, I want to underline the following. States are currently
the leaders in addressing climate change, and will likely continue to
push the envelope after Federal legislation is enacted. Federal
legislation should facilitate the role of the States as policy
innovators by explicitly preventing Federal preemption of State
programs that go beyond Federal minimum requirements, as well as
preventing preemption of State programs outside the scope of Federal
New Jersey is a great example of this innovation. While the goals I
have set for New Jersey are aggressive, we believe they can be met, and
we intend to meet them by building on actions already underway to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We have played a leadership role in the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative (``RGGI''), the first-ever cap-and-trade program addressing
CO2 in the United States. RGGI will cap power sector
CO2 emissions in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States at
approximately current levels through 2014 and reduce emissions to 10
percent below this level by 2019, a reduction of 16 percent relative to
projected 2020 business-as-usual emissions.
We have enacted California's greenhouse gas tailpipe standards for
light-duty vehicles, which is projected to result in an 18 percent
reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions from the New Jersey
light-duty vehicle fleet in 2020 relative to projected business-as-
We have increased the New Jersey Renewable Portfolio Standard to 20
percent by 2020, which will require 20 percent of all electricity sold
at the retail level in New Jersey to come from Class I renewable energy
sources, such as solar, wind, and sustainable biomass.
I have directed our Energy Master Plan Committee, a multi-agency
initiative, to develop recommendations for reducing statewide energy
use by 20 percent in 2020 relative to business-as-usual projections.
Approximately 85 percent of New Jersey's greenhouse gas emissions are
due to combustion of fossil fuels for energy.
I have appointed a Director of Energy Savings in the Department of
Treasury to set targets for reducing energy usage in State facilities
and reducing fuel consumption by the State vehicle fleet.
These measures take us a long way toward meeting New Jersey's 2020
emissions target, but further actions will be necessary. I have
directed New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, in
coordination with representatives of the Board of Public Utilities, the
Department of Transportation, and the Department of Community Affairs,
to provide recommendations to me within the next 6 months for achieving
New Jersey's 2020 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue.
I look forward to working with you as we jointly tackle the historic
environmental challenge of climate change at both the Federal and State
principles for effective, scientifically sound federal climate change
Emissions Reduction Requirement.--Incorporate a science-based,
long-term emissions reduction requirement with a goal of avoiding
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Based on
current state of the science, legislation should stabilize and begin to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the next 10 years, and achieve
emissions reduction of 80 percent relative to current levels by 2050.
Legislation should institutionalize a periodic review of climate
science and allow for a revision of emissions reduction requirements
based on the current state of the science.
Policy Approach.--Pursue a portfolio approach to reducing
emissions, acknowledging that a cap-and-trade program may be
appropriate for some sectors (e.g., large stationary sources), but that
other policies may be more appropriate for addressing emissions from
other sectors. States have a unique capacity to implement a portfolio
of policies and measures that address energy production, energy
efficiency, transportation, waste management, agriculture, and other
Design Process.--Learn from and build upon the policy work already
completed or underway at the State level when crafting federal emission
reductions programs (e.g., RGGI, California AB 32, state climate action
Implementation Process (Role for States).--Institutionalize a role
for States in designing and implementing statutorily mandated federal
emissions reduction regulations under the auspices of a federal
portfolio approach. This would provide a role for States to help
articulate the details of Federal emissions reduction programs,
building upon the analyses being done by leadership States through
their climate action planning processes and regional emissions
reduction programs such as RGGI.
Explicitly prevent federal preemption of State programs that go
beyond federal minimum requirements, as well as preemption of State
programs outside the scope of federal initiatives.
Cap-and-Trade Program Design.--Avoid the use of safety valves or
Allocate allowances in a manner that maximizes consumer benefits
and market transformation impacts. In the electric power sector,
allowances should be auctioned, in recognition that large portions of
the United States have instituted competitive wholesale electricity
markets. The monies from the auctions should be used for measures that
both reduce our carbon footprint and enhance our competitiveness, such
as energy efficiency projects.
Signal that new conventional coal-fired powerplants constructed
from this day forward will not be grandfathered under a federal cap-
and-trade system, and will need to purchase allowances on the open
Limit the use of emissions offsets, to ensure that a majority of
emissions reductions are achieved from the capped sector or sectors.
Emissions offsets should be incorporated as a flexibility mechanism
that is designed to be supplemental to on-system emissions reductions.
Design robust requirements to ensure that emissions offsets are of
high quality and represent incremental emissions reductions beyond
business-as-usual reductions. Should include strong additionality
criteria to avoid crediting of ``anyway tons'' and provide a reasonable
assurance that the cap-and-trade program is what is actually driving
emission reductions achieved through offsets. Quantification and
verification protocols should be rigorous and detailed, and apply
conservative assumptions when appropriate.
Responses by Governor Corzine to Additional Questions from
Question 1. New Jersey is one of many States that have adopted
regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am concerned
that the costs associated with making these changes are inevitably
passed onto consumers. Can you describe to us what you believe are the
top 3 most affordable ways to achieve these greenhouse gas emissions
Response. The backbone of any greenhouse gas emissions reduction
program is the implementation of aggressive mandatory policies and
financial incentive structures to improve end-use energy efficiency.
Very significant potential remains to reduce energy use through
improvements in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
Energy efficiency improvements provide net financial benefits and often
increase economic competitiveness. Aggressive energy efficiency
improvements can also serve to reduce the market price of primary
fuels, such as natural gas. In the electricity sector, aggressive
energy efficiency and demand-side management actions have been shown to
reduce the price of wholesale electricity at times when these prices
are at their peak. Energy efficiency and demand-side management also
enhances electricity reliability and defers the need to expand
electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, providing
additional cost savings to consumers.
Question 2. You discussed the Executive Order you've issued to
stabilize gases at 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them further by 2050.
Can you explain the enforcement mechanism that was included in the
Executive Order to make sure that those targets are in fact, achieved?
Response. The greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets I set
through Executive Order No. 54 were intended to focus multiple State
agencies and policies on a unified objective of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Pursuant to the Order, a number of key State agencies, led
by the Department of Environmental Protection, were tasked with
providing to me specific recommendations by the end of the summer for
policies and mechanisms to meet both the 2020 and 2050 targets. In
addition, the DEP will be required to report progress towards meeting
the targets every 2 years to measure progress and recommend whether
additional measures are necessary.
A number of actions New Jersey is taking now to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions place the State on a trajectory to meet the 2020 target,
although additional measures will be necessary. The State is already
targeting the two largest greenhouse gas-emitting sectors through
mandatory programs and has proposed an aggressive statewide energy
efficiency goal. Key measures enacted or under consideration include
The New Jersey Energy Master Plan goal of reducing
statewide energy use by 20 percent in 2020 relative to projected
business-as-usual energy use, and recommended measures to achieve this
reduction, would achieve significant greenhouse gas emissions
reductions (more than 85 percent of New Jersey greenhouse gas emissions
are due to combustion of fossil fuels for energy). Completion of the
Plan is expected in late 2007.
Enactment of the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)
program greenhouse gas omissions standards for tight-duty vehicles is
projected to result in an 18 percent reduction in CO2-
equivalent emissions from the New Jersey light-duty vehicle fleet in
2020 relative to projected business-as-usual emissions. The adopted
rules require automakers to reduce fleet-wide average greenhouse gas
emissions from the vehicles they sell in New Jersey 30 percent by 2016.
Implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI) is projected to result in a 16 percent reduction in regional
power sector CO2 emissions in 2020 relative to projected
business-as-usual emissions. The first mandatory market-based program
to reduce carbon emissions in the United States, the RGGI cap-and-trade
program will cap regional powerplant CO2 emissions at
approximately current levels from 2009 through 2014 and reduce
emissions 10 percent by 2019.
The increase of the Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2006
to 20 percent by 2020 will support achievement of the RGGI cap and will
lead to supplemental greenhouse gas emissions reductions that occur
outside the geographic scope of RGGI (e.g., portions of the PJM
electricity control area not subject to the RGGI program).
Question 3. You discussed the economic advantages of acting early
to make abiding by a federal requirement to reduce these gases easier.
Do you believe that the economic advantages for your State remain
intact if Congress decides against implementing a mandatory national
program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Response. The economic advantages to New Jersey of acting now to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions are apparent. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions will support New Jersey's economic growth strategy by
creating economic drivers that build markets for energy efficiency and
clean energy technologies, and spur technical innovation and job
growth. While I believe that a national program is inevitable and
crucial, given the compelling scientific consensus that human
activities are driving climate change, New Jersey would still derive a
competitive advantage through efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, were Congress to decide against implementing a federal
program. Energy efficiency, which is the backbone of New Jersey's
strategy for meeting the 2020 emissions reduction target, will provide
net economic benefits for the State and reduce our vulnerability to
fossil fuel price volatility. In addition, improving energy efficiency
will provide an engine for job growth, as saving a unit of energy
creates more jobs than supplying one. Rather than shipping dollars out
of State to purchase primary energy we will be investing dollars in the
State to tap the large available energy efficiency ``virtual supply''
to meet a greater portion of New Jersey's energy needs. As a result, I
strongly believe that aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction
policy is well aligned with sound energy policy in supporting the long-
term sustainable growth of the New Jersey economy.
Responses by Governor Corzine to Additional Questions from
Question 1. Governor, given that the Kyoto Protocol cap and trade
program is providing to be such a colossal failure, would you tell us
how New Jersey's situation is different that would explain your
optimism that a cap and trade program will work in New Jersey?
Response. Emissions trading programs addressing SO2 and
NO have demonstrated that cap-and-trade programs spur innovation and
achieve emissions reductions at a significantly lower cost than
originally projected by policy makers. Given the numerous potential
measures and technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the
context of a multi-sector emissions trading program, and the wide
variation in control costs for different measures and technologies,
there is every indication that greenhouse gases are even more amenable
to a cap-and-trade approach than criteria pollutants.
Question 2. Do you plan to build more nuclear plants in your State
and do you support nuclear power?
Response. Nuclear energy provides approximately 52 percent of New
Jersey's in-state generation and obviously plays a significant role in
our energy portfolio. A new nuclear facility has not been ordered in
the United State in 28 years, however recent changes in the federal
policy have brought about a resurgence in nuclear energy. Several
reactors are in various stages of planning, international nuclear
vendors are forming new alliances and rising uranium prices have led to
the development of new mines.
In spring 2007, PSEG announced that they were in exploratory talks
with another company to build another reactor, most likely at their
Salem Generating Station in southern New Jersey. The company cited the
need to identify its intentions by the end of 2008 in order to take
advantage of federal incentives, including tax credits, risk insurance
and loan guarantees.
Question 3. Where are you going to get your emission reductions to
meet this target? Are you planning to shut down all remaining coal
plants in your State and replace them primarily with natural gas?
Response. The emissions reduction targets I have set for the State
are multi-sector and are not limited to the electricity sector, as the
question suggests. I have tasked an interagency working group to
provide recommendations to me by the end of the summer for how best to
meet both the 2020 and 2050 Statewide emissions reduction targets.
addressing electricity sector emissions
New Jersey is a leader in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI), a 10-state CO2 cap-and-trade program for the power
sector slated to begin in 2009. Extensive electricity sector modeling
during the development of the RGGI program, using a model widely used
by the industry itself, has shown that the costs of the program will
likely be modest and are not projected to result in a significant
retirement of existing coal-fired electric generating capacity in the
While there are currently no fully commercialized end-of-stack
control technologies for CO2, there are emerging end-of-
stack options in the early commercialization and deployment phase,
including carbon capture and storage technologies and carbon scrubbing
technologies. Placing a price on carbon through a cap-and-trade program
is critical to speeding the commercialization of these technologies,
which will lower long-terms emissions reduction costs. These
technologies will facilitate a continued role for coal-fired generation
in a carbon-constrained economy. Absent end-of-stack controls, a number
of compliance options are available in the near-term to electric
generators subject to RGGI, including heat rate improvements, fuel
switching, co-firing of biofuels, environmental dispatch of a company
portfolio of units that considers the CO2 emissions rate of
individual units, and the use of emissions offsets.
RGGI will also address the demand-side of the equation, through an
auction of allowances and the use of the realized revenue to provide
incentives for improvements in electricity end-use energy efficiency.
This approach is discussed in more detail in response to question no.
Question 4. It is a fairly well understood economic phenomenon that
closing significant numbers of coal plants increases gas demand and
increases both the average cost and volatility of natural gas prices.
Aren't you worried about higher electric costs in your State, lost jobs
in the manufacturing sector which is heavily reliant on natural gas as
a feed stock?
Response. While RGGI is not expected to lead to a significant
retirement of coal-fired generation, the RGGI program is addressing
emissions reduction from both a supply-side and demand-side approach.
The demand-side component of RGGI will mitigate both electricity and
fuel price increases resulting from the imposition of a carbon cap.
The RGGI cap-and-trade program establishes a regional emissions
budget (the cap), and creates allowances, each of which allow a
regulated source to emit one ton of CO2. These allowances
may be traded freely among both regulated and non-regulated parties. At
the end of a compliance period, a regulated source must submit
allowances equivalent to its emissions. In past cap-and-trade programs
for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx),
allowances were distributed to sources for free, often based on
historic operation. The RGGI memorandum of understanding (MOU) sets
forth a different approach. Under the MOU, the RGGI-participating
States agreed to allocate a minimum of 25 percent of the allowances to
support ``consumer benefit or strategic energy purposes.''\1\ The
understanding among RGGI-participating States is that these allowances
would be auctioned and the revenues would be used to support the
general program goals outlined in the MOU.
\1\ The MOU defines these terms as including ``use of allowances to
promote energy efficiency, to directly mitigate electricity ratepayer
impacts, to promote renewable or non-carbon-emitting energy
technologies, to stimulate or reward investment in the development of
innovative carbon emissions abatement technologies with significant
carbon reduction potential. . . .''
During the negotiation of the MOU, New Jersey was at the forefront
in advocating for a large consumer allocation, and also advocating that
a primary focus of this allocation be on reducing electricity demand in
the RGGI region. No end-of-stack controls are now commercially
available to limit CO2 emissions.\2\ As a result, a
CO2 cap-and-trade program will benefit from having a strong
end-use component integrated into its design. This allows RGGI to adopt
both a supply-side (electricity generation) and demand-side
(electricity use) focus, facilitating the achievement of emissions
reductions at least cost.
\2\ As mentioned previously, there are emerging end-of-stack
options in the early commercialization and deployment phase. Absent
end-of-stank controls, a number of compliance options are available to
electric generators subject to RGGI, including heat rate improvements,
fuel switching, co-firing of biofuels, environmental dispatch of a
company portfolio of units that considers the CO2 emissions
rate of individual units, and the use of emissions offsets.
Electricity market dynamics also support the use of CO2
allowance value to reduce electricity demand, which will in turn reduce
aggregate RGGI compliance costs. RGGI is being implemented in a
restructured, competitive wholesale electricity market. Electric
generators are therefore expected to factor the opportunity cost of
using CO2 allowances into their bid prices whether
allowances are given out for free or they are required to purchase
allowances on the market.\3\ As a result, the carbon compliance cost of
the marginal generation unit will be factored into the market-clearing
price of electricity, which will allow generators subject to RGGI to
recover a significant portion of their compliance costs through an
increase in the wholesale market price of electricity (assuming
generators must purchase allowances). If allowances are distributed for
free, this allows the generation sector as a whole to realize a net
increase in revenues as a result of the cap-and-trade program, because
revenue received through a rise in wholesale electricity prices will
substantially exceed CO2 compliance costs. This dynamic has
in fact been borne out through the initial experience of the European
Union Emissions Trading Scheme for CO2 which allocated the
vast majority of allowances to regulated sources for free. Early market
impacts in the EU have generated significant controversy and led for a
call by many to auction allowances.
\3\ Allowances will have a market value, irrespective of the
original allocation method.
Question 5. New Jersey relies far more heavily on natural gas for
home heating than in other States on average. Aren't you worried about
heating costs for the elderly, poor and working class in New Jersey?
Response. As mentioned previously, aggressive efforts to reduce
energy demand will provide net economic benefits and employment gains
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A distinction should be made
between energy prices and energy costs. A carbon constraint will
increase prices for conventional fossil energy. However, the price
signal from a greenhouse gas constraint will also incentivise energy
efficiency, which if pursued aggressively, could reduce total energy
costs paid by consumers. I do acknowledge that the poor face a higher
energy cost burden as a percentage of their total income. For this
reason, I support channeling energy efficiency incentives to low-income
communities to help low-income consumers reduce their energy costs
through the implementation of energy efficiency improvements and the
provision ratepayer assistance where appropriate. We intend to dedicate
a significant percentage of the revenue from the sale of RGGI
allowances to support the energy needs of low-income households.
Question 6. Since oven the Bingamnan proposal here in the Senate--
which covers the entire economy--would only reduce temperatures by
0.008 Celsius, what good do you think your plan will do in reducing
global temperatures and do you think it is worth the harm it will do to
the working class in your State?
Response. Addressing climate change requires a global commitment
from multiple nations, States, and localities. No action by single
actor can solve a global environmental problem. However, the fact that
multiple parties must take collective action does not negate the
environmental value to be derived by the actions of each party, nor
argue against action by individual parties. Such logic is an excuse for
inaction, and ignores the reality that the global emissions reductions
necessary to stabilize the climate will be achieved through incremental
emissions reductions by many nations, States, and localities.
As a State uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change,
New Jersey has a responsibility to take aggressive action to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. New Jersey is especially vulnerable to the
environmental and economic effects of climate change, including the
impact of sea level rise on the State's densely developed coastline
from increased incidence and severity of flooding. Likewise, New
Jersey's economy is also especially vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change with our active ports, a vibrant agricultural sector,
and a significant coastal-based tourism industry.
The actions by New Jersey and other States, collectively through
regional programs and individually, is in fact bearing fruit beyond
State borders. State action is driving action at the federal level,
which is vital if New Jersey hopes to mitigate the impact of climate
change on our economy, infrastructure, and environment. Action at the
federal level in the United States is in turn vital if we hope to bring
large developing nations such as China and India into a mandatory
international emissions reduction framework.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Governor. It is wonderful
to have you back in the Senate.
I am going to keep, if it is OK, including myself, keep the
question period to 4 minutes so we can get to our next panel.
Governor, I want to ask this question based on your
expertise in the financial sector that you bring to your work.
Earlier this week, Goldman Sachs, together with other
investment firms, announced takeover plans for TXU, a Texas
utility. Part of the deal was that the new TXU would scrap
plans to build traditional style coal-fired powerplants. Do you
think the investment community is waking up to this new reality
and taking global warming into account as it plans for the
Governor Corzine. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Do you see other example?
Governor Corzine. I think actually what you are seeing is
investors realizing that change is in process. It is entrained.
That to invest in a power company that is not going to reflect
that over a period of time is to actually impair the rates of
return on capital for the buyers. The people that are actually
involved in this TXU, aside from the Goldman Sachs people, who
I don't know, are going to demand long-term rates of return on
capital that are commensurate with the best alternatives. I
think they are reflecting through those decisions what a lot of
investors are doing, is we ought to get ahead of the curve as
opposed to being behind it, which would be the case if you
continue to build the 11 powerplants without the new
Senator Boxer. Sticking with the economic approach, are you
familiar with the Stern Review?
Governor Corzine. I am not.
Senator Boxer. Sir Nicholas Stern, the former chief
economist of the World Bank, conducted a recent study, October
2006, of the cost of climate change. His principal conclusion
is that the overall cost of climate change are equivalent to
losing at least 5 percent of global GDP each year. The worst
case scenarios increase the loss to 20 percent of global GDP.
Based on the report's findings, a dollar invested now can save
Now, I am not asking you whether you agree with this,
obviously you haven't read the report. But he is extremely well
So I think the false choice, as you used that expression,
that we have to choose between a terrible, if we do anything
about global warming we are going to see terrible economic
atmosphere is absolutely refuted by the experts. Coming from
California, where we have done an amazing job in a bipartisan
way, and I would say it is nothing to do with liberals, it is
just smart, common sense steps on both sides of the aisle to
make sure that we are energy efficient. We are actually saving
money. Our businesses are saving money.
So in my minute that I have left, I would like you to just
expound a little bit about this shibboleth, as I call it, or if
you do something for the environment you are going to have a
weak economy. Because I think it is the opposite.
Governor Corzine. Well, as I said, if you use a portfolio
approach, you are looking to energy efficiencies, which
hopefully will use less energy to accomplish the same ends if
you have a renewable portfolio standard, that you don't
implement precipitously but you do it over a period of time,
you will have alternative sources that are competing. If
everyone is operating with cleaner technology and we have a
more healthy environment, I think it will show up in some of
our costs with regard to health care and other issues.
I believe there is a tremendous economic opportunity for
those that are the creators of new technology and bring
innovation to this. That is what you are seeing by this TXU
investment. I think this is clearly a situation where there are
some identifiable costs by not dealing with it, whether it is
the shoreline along New Jersey, 127 miles of Atlantic Ocean
that is no longer as productive as it would be otherwise, or
the other elements that I talked about against, yes, there will
be some short-term costs. But those will be more than paid for,
in my view, by the positives that come through this process.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Governor Corzine, thank you for being here.
It is nice to see you again.
Let me just ask you a question. New Jersey is different
than most other States in that you are reliant upon coal for
only 20, 19 percent, I understand, of your energy.
Governor Corzine. Something in that nature, yes.
Senator Inhofe. Something like that. I saw the charts that
were held up by Senator Bond, which showed the differences. I
would suggest that my State of Oklahoma is very similar to
Missouri. So it really would affect different States
differently, and I think we understand that.
It is hard to compare your Executive Order to meet the 1990
levels by 2020 and then 80 percent reductions by 2050. Because
that is not exactly what Kyoto did. But it is more stringent if
you take it all the way out to 2050 than Kyoto.
Now, Senator Boxer brings up, and I am glad she did, the
cost of this. You are probably familiar with the Wharton
Econometric Survey, because that was made actually when you
were in the U.S. Senate. In that, they take the Nation as a
whole and say that it would be very, very punishing
economically to the Country. I think the best way to
characterize it is that it would cost the average family of
four $2,750 a year.
I know that you are debating this, the other side of this
issue, but you do not agree with that survey, is that correct?
Governor Corzine. I think that is what an economic analysis
might show, other things being equal. But I don't think other
things are going to be equal at the same time. There are other
issues that will provide for efficiency, alternative sources of
energy and hopefully that there will be useful support for
these alternative energies and clean fuels that come from the
Federal Government in the same way that we supported the oil
and gas industry.
Senator Inhofe. I have to try and cut it a little bit short
here, because it is a 4-minute timeframe. Would you, if you are
going to meet these goals, you are going to have to have some
kind of energy in New Jersey. Are you suggesting more nuclear
powerplants in New Jersey?
Governor Corzine. Well, not at this point, we certainly
aren't. But that is an alternative. There are other
alternatives that we are very closely examining right now, wind
power, offshore, we are examining methane and other biofuels.
We are talking about all kinds of other ethanol approaches to
try to improve and we are looking at clean coal. We are
building LNG plant in southern New Jersey.
Senator Inhofe. So the clean coal, that is interesting, and
I would agree with that. Actually the plants that were shut
down as a result of the lawsuit in Texas, under TXU, were clean
coal technology plants. In fact, they were replacing existing
plants with newer technology. So I am glad to hear you say
that, because there has to be a place in this mix for coal.
Governor Corzine. We are in the mist of an energy master
plan which is examining both likely demands, considering what
we look to use alternative energies and efficiencies, and then
we will lay out where we think we will generate that power
from. But it is, it needs to be a very comprehensive approach
that one takes in all these areas.
On the TXU issue, I understand, at least from the
conversations that I have had from some of the people that are
involved in it, that there is a very strong sense that they
will put the most powerful clean coal technology in place. But
I am not familiar with the details.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I would hope that would be true.
However, if they are cutting down the number of new plants from
11 down to 3, that makes it much more difficult for them. Of
course, this is, this in a way is a Texas problem. But it is
one that Governor Perry had the courage to stand up and say, we
have to have energy for our citizens without taxing them
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
Next we are going to go to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Governor Corzine, thanks for your leadership in New Jersey,
in more areas than this. It is really appreciated by the
citizens across the State.
Is it possible to achieve the goals that are set out in our
plans for New Jersey unless we have like programs developed to
the west of us?
Governor Corzine. We would do a lot better if the programs,
the States to the west of us implement these kinds of
initiatives. But it is not impossible for us. We are going to
implement, as you well know, higher mileage standards for light
vehicles and other issues. As a matter of fact, the greatest
producer of greenhouse gases in New Jersey comes from cars. So
to not include CAFE standards and changes in requirements with
regard to tailpipes is a huge mistake. We can do a lot of self-
help work in New Jersey by addressing some of our own issues.
As I talked about the renewable portfolio standard and
efficiencies in building codes, can take us a long way toward
getting to our 2020 objectives. Getting to our 2050 objectives,
I really believe is as much in your hands as it is in ours,
although we will be able to accomplish some of our ends. A lot
of leakage will occur if we don't have the help of the Federal
Senator Lautenberg. So many things we do here directly
affect or are affected by other programs that are underway. For
instance, in transportation, we know very well that if we put
more into railroads, efficient railroads, we are going to
reduce some of the pollution that comes from the cars sitting
out there and that stuff.
Senator Inhofe, I think maybe tried to throw you a slider.
That was in the question about nuclear energy. I want to say
this to you. There was a time that in this house you wouldn't
even use the word nuclear. Now the NRC has applications for
plants that are being widely of interest, trying to process
these. Because in desperation to do something to protect our
citizens, to protect this globe of ours from disappearing in a
fog that they are looking for opportunities to reduce it. Maybe
the politicians aren't always in tune with the people, but that
is usually a lagging thing, anyway. It comes after elections,
often, that you see the measure of the performance.
But I think it is likely that all kinds of sources will be
examined, the problems that we have are not unique, there are
just more of them. Governor, I commend you for always being
willing to take the path that is a little bumpy to get to a
smooth ride at the end. We thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Governor Senator, I am not going to ask
you which title you like the best for the job.
Governor Corzine. They have other titles in New Jersey.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that I think is real
important, and I am glad you brought it up, is that greenhouse
gases are caused by lots of sources. It seems to me, Madam
Chairman, we ought to have a chart up here about where it is
all coming from, because so often we have a tendency just to
concentrate on the emissions coming from fossil fueled
I am suggesting to you, when I was chairman of the National
Governors Association, we tried to get together, when I was
going through the chairs, to get the northeast doing lenders
together with the midwest and the far west on a policy. We
couldn't do it, because at that time we were fingerpointing
that, you know, your problems with emissions in New York was
because of the Ohio plants and then we had, and you understand
this because of your background in finance, you had the utility
companies that all had their oar in the water also, because
whatever you did would affect their rates. There was that
Since that time, we have had an enormous number of mergers.
So a lot of these utilities are wearing the same pair of shoes,
for the most part.
It seems to me that one of the most constructive things
that you could do, now that the States are getting into this,
would be to see if you can get Ray Shepach and the Governors
Association to really sit down and look at this issue, talk
about No. 1, some type of reasonable cap and trade, and I know
that frightens a lot of people, what is reasonable in that area
if you are going to go that route. Second of all, to talk about
the issue of technology. It is one that I brought up in my
opening statement, that the technology really isn't out there.
There is this concept that, oh, yes, you can do it tomorrow,
but the fact is, we can't. If you look at them, the way we are
spending in the Department of Energy out of the 2005 bill, we
are really not doing very much at all in terms of technology
dealing with greenhouse gases, particularly from utilities.
Now, Senator Clinton talks about a Manhattan project. The
fact of the matter is, we don't spend the money that is
necessary. It seems to me that the Governors could put together
a kind of a consensus and come up here and really put the
pressure on us to say, look, whether we have coal-fired or not
coal-fired, we know this is an important issue that needs to be
taken care of, not only for the United States, but for the
world. We should be the leader in clean-coal technology, and
take care of us and take care of the rest of the world.
The other thing is that to recognize that we have an
international problem and get them to come back here and talk
about some initiatives that the Federal Government should be
taking in order to have more of these Asian Pacific
partnerships to deal with that issue, too, to put things in the
kind of perspective that we need.
But I think if you keep going the way we are, every State
doing this and that, this issue, I know you don't want to be
preempted, but you get, if you are out in the business, you can
go crazy with all the various roles that you have. What do you
think about that?
Governor Corzine. Let me take that last piece. The reason
that States are being so aggressive is that there isn't a
feeling of action that is occurring with regard to this issue.
Now, maybe that, different people respectfully can have
different views about that. But the overwhelming weight of
evidence in most of our minds in at least the States that were
white, that Senator Inhofe showed up, is that there is a
serious problem that needs to be addressed. From a practical
standpoint, it doesn't matter whether it is natural or whether
it is because it is man-made. Something is going on. The
reality is that we need to take action to protect the quality
of life we have.
So if it is not going to happen on the Federal level, we
want to be aggressive in trying to mobilize as much of the
Country as we can. That is what, not on my watch, but under
Governor Pataki's watch, the RGGI, or the cap and trade program
was put together in the northeast and it is a Republican
Governor in the west that is taking the initiative on elements
of lead here.
We need to be moving. If it is not going to happen, we
shouldn't be preempted by the Federal Government writing
regulations that are weak-kneed with regard to it. I hope we
don't do that.
I couldn't agree more that we need to invest in these
technological advances. We have spent billions of dollars over
decades on oil and gas production. We ought to turn that into
alternative ways to produce energy that both reduce our
dependence internationally, which is good for this Country to
start with, and also, addresses this fundamental issue.
Senator Boxer. Governor----
Governor Corzine. Last, I would just say, you have to take
a portfolio approach. Cars, how we transport ourselves is an
important ingredient in this whole process.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich, I think you are right. I will put in the
record the U.S. emissions as of 2004 that show each greenhouse
gas, carbon dioxides 85 percent of the problem, methane 8
percent, nitrous oxides 5 percent and fluorinated gases 2
percent. I will put that into the record just because I think
it is an important part of this discussion.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Now Senator Klobuchar, we are going in order
of arrival and back and forth.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Governor Corzine. That was
just to explain that I am not the most senior member.
Senator Klobuchar. As if anyone didn't notice.
I just wanted to follow up on some of the things you were
saying about trying to move forward together and not divide
people. I was thinking about what Senator Bond had been saying
about the States in the midwest versus the other States
represented here. I want to again reiterate that in our State
just this week we passed a 25 percent renewable portfolio
standard for electricity, by 2025. It was voted on 123 to 10 in
the house, 61 to 4 in the State Senate, signed into law by a
Republican Governor. I also point out that again, it is in the
midwest, one of the States that showed up on Mr. Bond's chart.
Along those lines, I want to follow up on what Senator
Voinovich was asking about, and that is the technology issues.
One of the things that I see with this issue is not only should
we have an obligation to lead morally, but if we don't start
leading technologically, other countries are going to pick up
the slack. Could you comment about that, with your background
in the Senate, Governor, and in the investment world?
Governor Corzine. Capital is going to flow to where the
returns are most attractive. As a business person I have seen
that happen over and over again. If other countries come up
with the clean coal technology that allows you to sequester it,
allows you to produce the energy, those companies that generate
that technology are going to win. It takes investment to be
able to get to the answers on a lot of these questions. Some of
it is basic, fundamental research that doesn't have immediate
paybacks. It may have paybacks in 10 years. Sequestration is
one of those areas where there is a lot of work that needs to
be done if you want to use coal.
We need to get on with that, or we are going to get left
behind. Because other people are focusing on it and it is
absolutely essential that we be at the cutting edge. We are not
always going to win in the manufacturing sector in this world.
We need to be at the cutting edge on innovation. So all of the
Senators that have made this point, I underscore and put an
exclamation point after it. I can assure you that New Jersey is
going to do everything we can to make sure that our State
uniquely is in the front edge of that curve.
Senator Klobuchar. One last business question. You talked
about in your written testimony about the effect that climate
change could have on the economy in New Jersey. Specifically
you mentioned the agricultural community. Could you talk a
little bit about that?
Governor Corzine. I think I actually said the tourism
industry. I would hate to see Atlantic City covered with a foot
of water. It wouldn't be good for the gaming business. But it
is, we have had a series of floods on the non-Atlantic
coastline of New Jersey on the Delaware River on a repeated
basis. I think 3 out of the last 5 years, we have had major
floods, because something is changing. Fifty-year floods, not
just your normal floods, ones that have exceeded expectations.
That is extremely expensive for the agricultural elements that
are there, but it is very expensive for the community at large.
So I think the practical dollars and sense that are going
on year in and year out tell us we need to act.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Perfect timing.
Senator Craig, and I understand that Senator Sanders, you
have yielded your spot to Senator Clinton? Am I right on that?
OK. So it will be Senator Craig then Senator Clinton.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
again, Governor Senator. Thank you for coming before the
There is so much of what you say I agree with, even though
some of my critics would not agree that I agree. It is always
fascinating to watch how we all try to stereotypically create
certain images. My frustration with what you are doing is not
in the microsense, it is in the macrosense. Our Country, this
Senate, some years ago refused to deal with Kyoto because they
knew they could not, based on current technology, do so in a
uniform way without damaging the economy and because there were
major players in the world out there, like China and India, who
simply refused to play. They couldn't afford to based on their
perception of their economy and what was going on.
I say that based on the context that we all believe in,
especially those of us who have been in State legislatures,
that States are marvelous laboratories from which to do things
that Congress cannot collectively do. If you are a big enough
State, I don't compare you with California, California has some
uniqueness, you set it apart and it is still one of the world's
larger economies. But the reality is quite simple, that some
things that know no boundaries, i.e., like pollution,
greenhouse gases and all of that, while States can create some
uniqueness, they really don't become significant players. That
is why national policy and broad-based international policy is
so much more valuable in a concept like this.
It is my observation, and I don't blame you for the
politics of your State, that you could shut the economy of New
Jersey off completely and make it the greenest State in the
world and convince Harry Reid to take your nuclear waste. If
you did all of that, you wouldn't change the temperature in the
increasing warming pattern of this earth one-tenth of 1
percent, if at all. Now, I think that is what frustrates all of
us here, not of your effort. That is yours to do and that is
for the citizens of New Jersey to choose.
But we are not happy with where we are as a Country. I am
not. We have passed some significant energy policy and we have
to do more. But in the process of doing more, none of us want
to turn the economy off. It is so interesting, I was kind of
Peck's bad boy week before last when I appeared before the G-8
plus 5 and suggested to them that in the last two quarters, as
a unit of production, based on CO2 emissions, the
United States had become the cleanest country in the world. It
was viewed as a statement of arrogance. I found that really
quite fascinating, Governor, because it is a true statement.
Because we are now all about technology and all technology
being clean technology.
So I applaud your efforts, I don't criticize them. I have
one of the cleanest States in the Nation, because I have the
great privilege of having hydro-based power as a dominant
force. We are inexpensive, we make California look like a
pauper when it comes to energy prices. We do very well.
But we also have some coal-fired that we would hope down
the road we retrofit and make cleaner. I say that as an
observation, but to welcome you to the committee, and
appreciate your presence here.
But Madam Chairman, I become very skeptical of a piece-by-
piece solution to a very big problem. The reality that why
Idaho won't be a player until we have a national solution is
because we could impact our own economy but have zero effect in
reality. That is, I think, a concern. We are clean now, we are
going to stay clean. The citizens of our State and our
legislature have said so. We are fortunate. Other States are
less the case, at the same time, you heard the Senator from
Missouri talking about the risk of shut-down of their economies
My time is up. Madam Chairman, Governor, again, thank you.
I don't have a question for you, but I do what to recognize
your efforts and I don't collectively criticize them.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Governor Corzine. Madam Chairman, I want to say--15
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Governor Corzine. This is an issue that is bottoms up in
its solution. We will find it. We have a community, West
Orange, that is putting itself on an energy diet. The kids are
out trying to convince folks to go from incandescent bulbs to
fluorescent bulbs. You are right, we can't change what is
happening in the global environment, because we are just a
little slice of it in the State of New Jersey.
But if we don't take our steps, just like those children
who are out selling this concept of going from incandescent
bulbs to fluorescent bulbs, we won't change the world. It is
important that those of us stand up and stand together and that
increasingly is happening on a broader basis. So I think that
is positive, and hopefully that will lead to a national
Senator Boxer. Senator Clinton?
Senator Clinton. Amen, amen, Governor. Thank you, Senator
Sanders. I appreciate that. I have to get to the Senate Armed
Services Committee Afghanistan hearing.
I just want to make three points. No. 1, as we move
forward, I think it is important for this committee to try as
best as we can to establish an evidence base for the decisions
we are going to make. My understanding is that the European
Union since 1990 has actually declined in its CO2
emissions by .8 percent and the United States has gone up by 16
percent. So I think that it is important that we get an
evidence base on which to make policy.
No. 2, I am absolutely in agreement with what Governor
Corzine said, and we have some mayors who are going to be
testifying in the next panel, the Mayor of Seattle, the Mayor
of Des Moines, the Mayor of Dover and others. We have to have
as much activity at all levels of society as we can.
I remember when Sputnik went up, and my fifth grade teacher
came in and said, children, the President wants you to study
math and science. I actually thought that President Eisenhower
had called Mrs. Krause and told her to go tell us to study math
We need a similar level of engagement. Now, my studying
math wasn't going to change the world. But at the same time,
having the political support starting in my household going up
for President Eisenhower to do DARPA, for President Kennedy to
do the space program and the Apollo program did change the
world. So we are asking for action at all levels, both of
Government and in the private sector as well as at the
individual citizen level.
No. 3, I really wish Senator Voinovich were still here,
because he and I worked together in the last Congress to pass
legislation to clean up diesel. Again, it wasn't going to
change the world overnight, but it was an important marker to
lay down. We put in legislation with appropriations to begin to
try to clean up school buses, construction equipment and other
ways that said, you know, we can do better. By the way,
American companies will produce the technology that we need for
these pollution controls. So it was a win-win.
That is how I see the coal issue. I am very sympathetic to
the concerns of those from the midwest and other States that
have a very high percentage of their energy coming from coal.
But I guess I would reverse the concern by saying, if we don't
start now to come up with an American manufacturing base for
clean coal technology, we will eventually get around to it, but
the technology will be made and imported into our Country
instead of made and exported from our Country.
So when TXU decided not to build 11 plants and to only
build 3, that was a step forward. The problem is they are still
pulverized coal plants. What they should be are new generation
clean coal technology that will capture and store the carbon.
We need those experiments. This Congress is the only place
where that money and direction can come from, to put in at
least five demonstration projects, one of them I hope is
outside Buffalo, NY, because they are all ready to go. The
private utility is moving forward as quickly as it can within
the investment environment as it exists now.
But we could do more to incentivize that. So, I hope that
Senator Voinovich and the Chair and others of us working
together, we will deal with this coal issue. It is real and we
can do better on it.
I guess to Governor Corzine, you mentioned the need for new
technology and new thinking about climate and energy. I also
have proposed a model based on DARPA, which again, President
Eisenhower created after Sputnik, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency. It took our best minds from our universities,
our private sector, and just let them loose, figure out what we
were going to do.
Well, out of it did come the Internet and many other
advances that have revolutionized our economy, put people to
work, raised our standard of living. I am convinced if we did
this in the energy field, we would have the same results within
a decade. So there is work for all of us to do. I am thrilled
that under the leadership of Senator Boxer, our Congress is
going to begin to address that. Again, thanks to Governor
Corzine for being such a leader in this and helping to set the
stage for the rest of us.
Senator Boxer. Senator Clinton, thank you so much. I like
your idea of this evidence-based record. Because we do have
different Senators putting out different comments and we just
need to collect that. I will task the staff with that.
Senator Sanders, to be followed by Senators Whitehouse and
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, what we seem to be hearing from a number of
Senators is the idea that it is absolutely imperative and
Governor Corzine, you mentioned as well, I think, that we move
forward in whether you call it a Manhattan project or new
Apollo project, that in fact for the first time we recognize
that we have a global crisis, a national crisis and that it is
imperative that we harness the resources on the Federal
leadership, the Federal Government has the resources, the
private sector and the State and local government, that we
begin to bring people together to say we have a crisis and we
are going to solve this crisis within the next 20 or 30 years
with the United States of America playing a leadership role.
The components of going forward are breaking our dependence
on fossil fuel, increasing energy efficiency and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. I think what the Governor has said,
if I understood him correctly, that you believe as we go
forward in fact we can create jobs. While there will be
certainly some economic dislocation, overall it can be a
Governor Corzine. It is a long-run win, absolutely.
Senator Sanders. What I would like to ask you is, based on
your background both in the private sector and in Government,
how would you envisage a new Manhattan project? What would be
the relationship between the Federal, State and local
governments and the private sector? How can we harness the
energy to develop new technologies and make this economically
Governor Corzine. Well, first of all, I think that there
does have to be serious investment dollars made in the core
research functions. Whether it is taking solar technology and
actually making it practical, whether it is sequestration,
whether it is the kinds of things that Senator Clinton talked
about, and some of that may actually need some subsidization.
Senator Sanders. Let me ask you this. I just talked to a
fellow from Germany the other day who helped write legislation
in Germany which pays people if they have solar paneling in
their own house, they get a very good price for producing that
solar paneling. It is part of a decentralized subsidy. Is that
something that New Jersey----
Governor Corzine. Sure. We actually have a clean energy
plan. It is, I wouldn't write home to mom about it being the
best thing in the world, but it is trying to subsidize the
applications of solar and other alternative fuels. But we have
to do that. We have to do it actually in the energy production
field. We need, if TXU is only going to produce three clean
coal plants, because that is all they can afford to do, it
might be possible that we would want to give them tax credits
in the same way that we have given it for oil drilling and
exploration, so that they could do four or five, if that were
the demand. I don't know the layout.
We need practical work on basic research in our
universities and in our research communities. Then we need real
effort in bringing that into an applied context.
Senator Sanders. Let me ask you this. I know New Jersey is
not generally considered to be a major agricultural State, but
Governor Corzine. We are the Garden State, remember.
Senator Sanders. Right. What are you doing, what ideas do
you have with regard to biofuels in the east?
Governor Corzine. We have, unfortunately, far too many
garbage dumps. So we have a lot of methane tapping that ends up
producing gas. We also do----
Senator Sanders. You are using the methane from the
Governor Corzine. Right. We do geothermal.
Senator Sanders. Do you do much biofuels? Are you farmers
Governor Corzine. We do not do biofuels. We are about to
make a commitment on our first biofuels plant, which started
out to be corn based, and we are trying to get it into
Senator Sanders. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin is going to pass, is that right? And Senator
Whitehouse. Then we are going to the next panel.
Senator Whitehouse. Governor, I am delighted that you are
here. You have the experience of executive leadership, you have
the experience of having been in this building and know what we
are all going through. You have considerable experience in the
financial and capital worlds.
Governor Corzine. I used to sit in that chair.
Senator Whitehouse. You were this junior once.
I see a lot of the problems that we face here as ones in
which the market forces operate very effectively and properly
in a defined market. But they create externalities. Whether
they are the negative externalities of pollution of positive
externalities, in this case, of being able to seize export
products in this new technology, protecting our climate from
what unfortunate things we seem to see coming and the ability
to concentrate both capital and expertise, so that we become
sort of a center of energy and center of expertise in terms of
this new technology.
Now, when you have a situation like that in which there are
huge positive externalities and you don't want to just leave it
to the market, because it is not reflecting those positives, to
drive the public policy result, you have to accelerate the
market a little bit, what from your experience in the financial
world would be, I understand what you told Senator Cardin about
funding research and doing all the things we traditionally do.
Are there ways to jump start or accelerate in the financial and
capital markets their investment in this area and what are the
ones that in your experience have proven either more effective
or less effective? Are there ones you would give us caution
about, ones you would encourage us to try to apply?
Governor Corzine. That is a terrific question. I have seen
loan guarantees that reduced the cost of capital that are
wraparounds, you see it in the nuclear power industry, that was
very important in the early stages of production of it that
were really the foundation on which a lot of powerplants were
built in another period and time. You see it in the housing
industry. I would like to see more of it, actually, in the
housing industry, so that we could have greater development of
affordable housing. It is a way to both mix private capital and
public capital. This is in the application fields.
I think the basic research effort is going to have to be
grant work and you have to get----
Senator Whitehouse. Understood.
Governor Corzine [continuing]. The NSA and other national
science foundations and other elements focused on this as an
issue. But I think using loan guarantees as opposed to outright
grants has often been successful in other avenues where you
wanted to get broad bases to it.
Now, you know, the oil and gas industry has benefited from
oil depletion allowances. This is not new work. So you can
accelerate depreciation as another technique and it has been
very successful. That might very well be the appropriate way to
approach this issue with regard to restructuring the powerplant
industry and applying clean coal technology when billions of
dollars would be applied. You know, somebody asked about
nuclear power earlier, you have to check, we will have to
review if that were the direction that society wanted to take
particularly as a transitionary step. Some of the most adamant
environmentalists have actually switched to say we have to do
that as an intermediate bridge. I am not advocating that, but
we need to make sure that those kinds of capital elements are
in place that would allow that to happen, if that is the
direction we want to take.
Senator Whitehouse. I thank you for your testimony, and I
thank the Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senators.
Governor, you have triggered a most amazing debate.
Something about you that just brought out, I think, the best in
everybody here. It has been wonderful and we thank you very
Governor Corzine. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Our next panel, please come forward as fast
as you can, because we are going to hold your statements to 4
minutes each instead of 5. We didn't expect it to go so long,
but we had such a terrific turnout of colleagues.
Senator Cantwell is here to introduce our Mayor of Seattle.
Senator Cantwell, you can just sit on the end here, in Senator
Whitehouse's seat, because he has left. I would love you to,
because I have already given a very flowery introduction of my
two wonderful friends from California, why don't you introduce
to us the Mayor of Seattle, and then we will start with Senator
Perata, we will work our way right down this way.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer, and members
of the committee, for the opportunity to introduce the Mayor of
my State's largest city, Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle. I am
proud to be here today to introduce Mayor Nickels and even
prouder of what the citizens of Washington State and Seattle
have been able to do in our ongoing efforts to reduce our
climate footprint and leave a livable planet for future
As most of you know, the United States contributes about
one-fourth of the world's greenhouse emissions, but to my
frustration and I am sure many of the people on this committee,
the Administration has refused to engage in an international
effort to begin tackling this critical challenge. Fortunately,
in the absence of Federal leadership, a number of cities and
States have taken it upon themselves to try to reduce their
carbon footprints and the results have been impressive.
In 2005, Mayor Nickels launched an initiative to get cities
to pledge to cut their greenhouse emissions by 7 percent below
the 1990 levels by 2012. His initiative is filling a vacuum
nationwide. It has received enthusiastic reception and now has
been endorsed by over 400 mayors in every State in America who
collectively represent 60 million citizens. In our State, all
our major cities have signed onto the agreement, and we are
very proud of that fact. I know that our former colleague and
now Governor noted the Garden State motto. Well, they don't
call Washington the Evergreen State for nothing. So we are very
proud of this effort.
I believe that you will hear from the Mayor and these
cities that they are reaping the economic and environmental and
security benefits of these initiatives. I believe these more
localized efforts are part of a growing groundswell of public
awareness of the threat of climate change and the urgency to do
something about it. As I can say from my own State, it is very
important for us to deal with this issue. I know that members
of this committee may look at it as a security issue or an
economic issue or the opportunity to take advantage of new,
high-energy wage jobs. But for us, it doesn't matter what the
motivation is. The need to act and act immediately is
Climate change, as the Mayor will tell you, is impacting
every corner of the world. But for us in the pacific Northwest,
we can become particularly hard hit, because our temperatures
are rising faster than the global average. Glaciers in the
Cascade Mountains and the Olympic Mountains have retreated for
over the last 50 years, and climate change is expected to alter
our region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water,
salmon recovery efforts and the availability of emission-free
hydropower. As my colleague from the northwest was mentioning,
the northwest hydro system, we are 70 percent reliant on our
electricity from that hydro system. So impacts in global
warming directly have impacts on that hydro system, and these
changes will likely impact billions of dollars of our economic
infrastructure associated with irrigation systems, municipal
water supplies, national forests, ski resorts and a variety of
other things. So we can wait no longer.
So thank you, Madam Chair, for your committee's work and
their importance of this hearing today. Thank you to Mayor
Nickels and the other panelists.
As a member of the Energy Committee, Finance Committee and
Commerce Committee, we will all work with you to get
legislation to the Senate floor and onto the President's desk.
You will have an ally in me, and you couldn't have found a
better witness for today's hearing than Mayor Greg Nickels.
Again, I thank the Chairwoman and the committee.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. You are welcome
to sit with us as long as you would like to.
Now it is with great pride I introduce our first two
panelists: Senator Don Perata, a real leader on this, and to be
followed by Speaker Nunez.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON PERATA, PRESIDENT PRO TEM, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Perata. I thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished
Senators. It is an honor to be here today to participate in
this discussion. To date, it is very enlightening. I hope I add
I am not a climate scientist nor an economist. I am a
former high school teacher and a native Californian, and like
all of you, an elected official that has a singular concern,
and that is the planet that we leave to our kids and our
I am going to cut more directly to something that has been
riveting through the committee in the discussions, and that is
whether or not you can reduce global emissions and stop climate
change without doing injury to the economy. In California, we
have been working on these issues for 30 years. As has been
cited by Senator Boxer and Senator Clinton, we have made
progress. Today, we are, in fact, Governor Reagan before he
became President signed the State's first major energy
efficiency law in 1974, when the first oil shock hit California
and the United States.
We have in California some of the best cutting edge
technology in the world. What we are seeing right now is our
policies that we are making in Sacramento are being implemented
down the street, across the State. We are making it possible
for others in the industry to break new ground. They are
investing in California, they are investing in technologies
because it is good for business and jobs are being produced. In
the Silicon Valley, which is better known than for anything
than technology chips and things of that nature, we are finding
jobs being developed in the areas of solar panels, new
computers that trigger the efficiencies as we discussed in your
office yesterday, where now light coming into a room can adjust
the lights in the room. So you are always one step ahead of
where you need to be.
In southern California, there have been great strides made
for electric cars. In my own district, there is something very
curious going on. We have been talking about diesel emissions.
In the Bay area, there is a company that has developed and
manufactures in California a device to be placed on school
buses, tractor trailers, anything that has a diesel engine and
can reduce immediately to zero emissions the carbon coming out
of those engines.
There are 280,000 trucks traveling daily to southern
California ports. That bad air ends up being blown into the
Central Valley and into the Inland Empire, the middle parts of
our State. So by that one device being developed, we are in
effect cleaning up the air around the coast and inland. For
people who say, well, that is only California, yes, but it is
California. If every State is able to do that, we first show by
doing, and that is what we are finding effective in California.
California has just passed $42 billion in bonds. In that
are efficiencies and green legislation, so that as we do
things, we build or rebuild California, we are doing it clean
and green and we are making money and creating jobs. It can be
I would ask only one thing in conclusion. Whatever you do,
please don't do anything to preempt the strides that are being
made in New Jersey, Washington, California and elsewhere. Thank
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perata follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Perata, President Pro Tem, California State
Madam Chair and Distinguished Senators:
Thank you for holding this hearing, and for the privilege of
addressing the committee. I'm honored to be here with my fellow
Californian, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and Mayor Nickels, both of
whom are national leaders in the fight against global warming.
I'm not a climate scientist or a resource economist--I'm a former
school teacher, a native Californian and--like all of you--an elected
official who worries about what kind of world we're leaving our kids
Today, I want to make three points to the committee:
First, California can serve as a model for federal efforts to
combat global warming and its impacts. Last year we passed two very
important laws: one prohibiting utilities from entering into long-term
contracts for power produced by dirty coal-burning plants, and another
setting a target to reduce the state's total greenhouse gas emissions
The latter measure, known as AB 32, has received plenty of
attention. It's a good law authored by Mr. Nunez. The best thing about
it is it commits the state to reining in its greenhouse gas emissions.
Many of the details of how to do this must be worked out, but we're on
the right track. The other law is one I wrote to promote cleaner coal
technologies. I'm glad to see that the Chairwoman of this committee has
included provisions of that measure in her bill. There are more than 30
new coal plants proposed in the Western United States, and 150 for the
nation as a whole. California is a big customer for the electricity
from those plants. Taken together, those plants could produce up to 120
million tons of carbon dioxide emissions; by contrast, the total
emissions from all sources in the entire state of Oregon is about 70
California enacted SB 1368 to send a strong signal to the western
energy markets. Our energy must be clean--we won't buy power from coal
plants spewing greenhouse gases by the ton. To be clear, California has
not said ``no'' to coal; rather, we've said that we want cleaner coal
plants that can provide us energy without producing massive global
Similar measures to SB 1368 are being considered in the Oregon and
Washington legislatures. While it's gratifying to know that other
states are following California's lead, there is no substitute for a
national policy. So I encourage all of you to move forward with the
Now, what we have done in California is much more than just pass
two landmark bills. Climate change and its dramatic effects are front
page news today. But long before global warming began grabbing
headlines, California worked to protect the environment and reduce air
pollution. California has led a quiet revolution for decades to achieve
one of the lowest per capita carbon emissions rate in the country. Over
the years, state lawmakers have boosted energy efficiency, increased
the diversity of our energy sources and improved our air quality.
It was in fact Governor Ronald Reagan who signed the state's first
major energy efficiency law in 1974, in the wake of America's first
foreign oil scare. Today, the same energy efficiency programs created
30 years ago serve as a cornerstone of California's efforts to reduce
greenhouse gases. By 2008, our state's energy efficiency programs will
reduce carbon dioxide emissions--a major cause of global warming--by
more than 3 million tons per year. That's the equivalent to taking
650,000 polluting cars off the road. And since the cheapest kilowatt of
electricity is the one not used, it will save Californians millions of
dollars on their monthly utility bills.
In California, we're proud to be trendsetters. And much of what
we've done could easily be adapted at the national level. That brings
me to my second point: We need your leadership to win this battle. Only
with your help can we transform our current fossil-fuel based economy
into the new energy economy needed in the 21st century.
As you know, there are many things a state like California can do
for itself, and there are many things it cannot. The challenge before
you is to craft federal legislation that helps bend the curve, as
California is doing, so that overall U.S. climate change emissions
begin to head downward. That demands the same comprehensive approach
taken by California to cover all major sources of global warming
pollution--not a piecemeal plan affecting only one set of emission
sources, one type of emissions, or one type of mechanism to achieve
reductions. It means direct and measurable emission reductions,
flexible financial and tax incentives, and addressing more than just
We also need Congress to provide tools, such as a 10-year extension
of the renewable production and investment tax credit. The uncertainty
over this important incentive is a big problem for new renewable energy
And finally, we must have Washington's leadership to get off what
the President has called ``our national addiction to oil.'' We can do
this through more efficient cars, clean alternative fuels and better
My third and final point is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions
creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Over the past several decades,
California has adopted the most aggressive clean air, energy efficiency
and renewable energy policies in the United States. During that same
time, our gross state product increased by 83 percent, the second
largest rate of growth of any state in the country. Key business
incubators--such as Silicon Valley in the north and the biotech
corridor in the south--generate jobs, revenues, and clean technologies.
The super-efficient solar panels produced by Powerlight Corporation in
my district, and the sleek new electric cars manufactured by Tesla
Corporation in the South Bay area, are examples of these technologies.
Just two weeks ago, British Petroleum announced a new $500 million
investment in a clean fuels research facility on the University of
California campus in my Senate district.
The evidence is clear: California's climate policies are attracting
business and jobs to the state, not driving them away. Business and
industry leaders support strong state climate change policies like the
laws we have passed in California because they know it's good for
In California, voters last fall approved the single largest
infrastructure investment bond in the history of the United States. It
provides $42.7 billion to revitalize transportation, housing, flood
protection, and schools. The public wants us to overhaul our aging and
inadequate infrastructure--and doing it will be good for our economy--
but not at the expense of our air or environment. That is the
overriding challenge of this new century: To continue to grow our
economy while holding ourselves to higher standards of environmental
In closing, I want to emphasize that, for all of the work we've
done, even states as large as California can't do it alone. We need
strong and decisive action at the federal and international levels.
After all, this is a global problem. The job ahead isn't easy or
painless, as some would have us believe. We've only just begun to
understand the scope of global warming and the magnitude of the changes
it may bring. Today, more than ever, the state and Federal Government
must cooperate and attack this problem together.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Senator Boxer. Very important message.
Mr. Speaker, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. FABIAN NUNEZ, SPEAKER, CALIFORNIA STATE
Mr. Nunez. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I hope it is
politically correct in Washington to say Madam Chair as opposed
to Madam Chairman.
I want to thank you very much for inviting Senator Perata
and I to express our thoughts on why California did what it did
to confront the climate change concerns that we have. First of
all, and certainly to all of the members of this committee, I
want to be clear that when we approved Assembly Bill 32 in
California, we didn't do it out of an altruistic sense that we
wanted to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right
thing, although that is important as well in some case. But in
California, we saw a real threat, a threat to places like Los
Angeles, residents of the Central Valley as well, and farmers
who, if they saw that their fresh water that they needed wasn't
available to them, or could be contaminated with salinity, it
was a real challenge.
We saw the threat to our natural resources, for example,
including key environmental and economic treasures like the
beautiful coast of California, Yosemite and Lake Tahoe. In
response, through an unusual partnership between the Democratic
legislature and a Republican Governor, last year in California
we passed gold standard legislation, Assembly Bill 32, the
Global Warming Solutions Act. AB32 establishes regulations that
will phase in a 25 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from
the State's largest emitters by the year 2020, which in essence
is a reduction below the 1990 levels in that 16-year period. In
2008, the California Air Resources Board is going to begin to
require industries to report carbon dioxide emissions. The
Board is also going to establish a cap on those greenhouse
The data that we collect over that 4-year period is going
to determine which industries are the most significant on the
dioxide footprint. From 2008 to 2012, outreach programs are
going to begin to educate industries on how to best achieve
these reductions. Then from 2012 to 2020, industry will begin
to implement efforts to reduce their carbon output and take
advantage of established market mechanisms that may be required
to reduce some of these emissions. Those cuts, in essence, are
going to bring us down to the 1990 levels.
I want to stress that this simply was not an effort
supported by Democrats in the legislature and a Republican
Governor, but businesses came to the table. One of the largest
utilities in California, Pacific Gas and Electric, Senator
Boxer, you are very familiar with them, were strong supporters
of this legislation. Entrepreneurs stepped up to the plate.
Several CEOs and venture capitalists came on board, people like
John Doerr, whose firm has invested in venture capital efforts
such as Amazon.com and Google and many other technology firms
also came to the table because they saw the importance of
making this investment in alternative fuels.
Let me just say for me, on a very personal level,
representing an inner city from Los Angeles, issues of
environmental justice and economic opportunity are vital and
are powerful, very, very powerful motivators. I want the
economy for the future of the children of California to be a
clean economy. I want the neighborhoods that children live in
to be clean neighborhoods. I think that our enforceable limits
provide clear market incentives that are going to reduce
pollution and unleash entrepreneurs to pursue clean
technologies in our State.
U.C. economists predict a boom in our State's annual gross
product of $60 billion. One study suggests that we are going to
create, over a 12-year period, 83,000 jobs in this area,
Senator. Just in closing, let me say that gold built the
California economy. I believe that through AB32, green is going
to be what sustains it.
Thank you very much, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nunez follows:]
Statement of Fabian Nunez, Speaker, California State Assembly
Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to discuss California's
experience confronting climate change. In California, we saw the threat
to Los Angeles residents and Central Valley farmers if the fresh water
they need is contaminated with salinity. We saw the threat to our
natural resources, including key environmental and economic treasures
like the coast, Yosemite and Lake Tahoe.
In response, through an unusual partnership between Democratic
legislators and a Republican governor, we passed gold-standard
legislation, AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32
establishes regulations that will phase in a 25 percent cut in carbon
dioxide emissions from the state's five largest emitters by 2020. In
2008, the California Air Resources Board will begin requiring industry
to report carbon dioxide emissions. The board will also establish a cap
on greenhouse gas emissions.
The data we collect over a 4-year period will determine which
industries are the most significant on dioxide. From 2008 until 2012,
outreach programs will educate industry on how to achieve reductions.
From 2012 on to 2020, industry will begin to implement efforts to
reduce carbon output and take advantage of established market
mechanisms. That cut will bring carbon emissions down to 1990 levels.
In addition to strong environmental support, even one of our
State's largest utilities, PG&E, backed AB 32. Several high tech CEOs
and venture capital leaders also came on board, including John Doerr
whose firm provided venture capital to Amazon.com, Google, Intuit and
other technology firms. I think they see the clear market signal we are
sending to spur a high-tech, green economy for our state. For me,
elected from inner-city Los Angeles, environmental justice and economic
opportunity are powerful motivators. I want the economy for our
children to be a clean economy. I want the neighborhoods they live in
to be clean neighborhoods.
Our enforceable limit provides clear market incentives to reduce
pollution, unleashing entrepreneurs to pursue clean technologies. One
study found meeting the limit we've established will create 83,000
jobs. UC economists predict a boost to our state's annual Gross Product
of $60 billion. Gold built the California economy. Green will sustain
This year, in addition to overseeing the implementation of AB 32
the Assembly is advancing legislation on green building and alternative
fuels; developing R&D opportunities; reducing emissions from landfills,
and using bond funds to promote sustainability. And in all of these
efforts, we are at this committee's disposal to help replicate
California's experience at the national level.
Thank you for this opportunity Madam Chair. And thank you for your
dynamic leadership on this issue.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses from Fabian Nunez to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. I am shocked that you would divert your State's
economic resources toward reducing greenhouse gases when California is
the dirtiest air pollution State in the Nation. Thousands of people die
in your State every year because California has refused to take the
actions necessary to meet existing laws. The elderly, those with
children and anyone with respiratory problems should be outraged you
would choose to make this symbolic measure more important than their
health, their very lives. How do you respond to this statement?
Response. The Senator's ``shock'' is misplaced. California has some
of the strongest air pollution laws in the Nation, yet there are areas
of our state where topography, traffic congestion, and concentrations
of specific industries do continue to present air quality issues. As a
response, last year the California Legislature worked in a bipartisan
fashion with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to pass not only AB 32 to
address global warming, but also to put over $40 billion of
transportation, flood protection, parks and affordable hosing bonds
before the voters. Embedded within each of these bonds are specific
provisions to address a variety of environmental issues, particularly
air quality issues. For example, within the transportation bond there
is over $1 billion dedicated to address air quality issues. The bonds
also commit billions of dollars to such air quality measures as
alternative fuels, new/advanced technologies to move goods through
California's ports, traffic congestion issues, and clean construction
equipment and school buses as well as transit orientated development,
urban infill housing, land conservation and proper land use planning.
Additionally, in terms of fighting global warming, the American Lung
Association notes that several studies have shown that increased
emissions of air contaminants, higher temperatures and the increased
smog that accompanies higher temperatures make many health conditions
worse. Warmer temperatures would also increase the likelihood of
increased wildfires along with the carbon dioxide and particulates they
produce. Rather than the ``outrage'' Senator Inhofe calls for, all
these actions have proven to be popular with the people of California.
Question 2. What is the estimated impact on global temperature that
AB 32 will have over the bill's lifetime?
Response. If, as I expressed my hope for during my testimony before
the committee, AB 32 is replicated in other states and by the Federal
Government, I believe the global impact of AB 32 will indeed be
significant. As you must know, AB 32 is just one step toward the
ultimate goal of having the United States working with the global
community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore global
temperatures. Through AB 32's mandated requirements, California will
reduce its greenhouse gases by 25 percent to 1990 levels, roughly 174
million metric tons. Even the most committed global warming denier has
to acknowledge the significance of that reduction.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Speaker.
The Republican side has asked if we could break up the, let
us just say, pro-action side of this debate. I think they are
right, I think they are fair. So we are going to have the Hon.
Dennis Adkins, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
Technology, Oklahoma State House, go next, and after him, the
Hon. Ted Harvey, Senator, Colorado State Senate, if that is OK.
So the Hon. Mr. Adkins.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS ADKINS, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND TECHNOLOGY, OKLAHOMA STATE HOUSE
Mr. Adkins. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe
and members of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I am Dennis Adkins and I am from the great State of
Oklahoma, representing District 75, which includes parts of
Tulsa and Broken Arrow in Oklahoma. I also serve as the Energy
and Technology Chairman for the State of Oklahoma in the House,
and I have served in that capacity since 2005.
The Committee on Energy and Technology has jurisdiction on
all State legislation affecting oil and gas, and it also has
utility regulation under its jurisdiction. Oklahoma is an
energy State. We have 10 percent of this Nation's proven
reserves of natural gas. The oil and gas industry as a whole in
Oklahoma has produced energy valued in excess of $10 billion
for the past 2 years, representing more than 10 percent of our
gross State product.
During the past 15 years, Oklahoma's oil and natural gas
producers have paid a gross production tax of more than $400
million annually. In this most recent fiscal year, that figure
was increased to $1 billion. This tax revenue from the energy
industry funds our schools, roads, bridges, health care and
other vital State services. No other industry in Oklahoma
provides such a significant portion of the State's resources.
Additionally, the energy sector employs 55,000 Oklahomans.
In the past 24 months, this industry has created 4,000 new
jobs. Oil and gas in Oklahoma is important and the salaries
double for the Oklahoma workers if they are in the oil and gas
In electricity generation, Oklahomans heavily rely on coal
and natural gas. Roughly 56 percent of the total electric
generation is coal-based and roughly 38 percent is from natural
gas-based generation, with a growing wind power sector as well.
These percentages of electricity generation, of course, can and
do vary greatly from State to State. For example, hydroelectric
and nuclear resources can be and are reliable in other parts of
Like the rest of the Country, we in Oklahoma see many
scientific, Government and media reports about climate change.
We are interested in knowing the facts, also.
I am not a scientist by profession, but I do intend to
testify from this perspective. I am a State legislator and I
believe that my job is to pass legislation to deal with
problems facing my State based on the best available
information. Therefore, I am greatly concerned by one fact.
That fact is that there does not seem to be an agreement on
climate change, and yet there does seem to be a great rush to
The States represented here today can capably comment on
what their States are doing or what their States are doing in
conjunction with other States to address greenhouse gas
emission controls. The representatives from these States
certainly understand their State's energy profiles, needs and
economic impacts better than I do. Instead of me describing
what California does or doesn't do or what the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast may or may not be
doing right or wrong, it is better for me to describe what I
think States like Oklahoma will be concerned about as any
legislation addressing climate change is considered.
Senator Boxer. Sir, could you try to wrap up with your most
important thing, because we only have 20 seconds left on your
Mr. Adkins. Sure. Our own Senator Inhofe is a national
leader, especially on issues like climate change. I understand
that he has said that carbon cap proposals would be the largest
single tax increase to date, costing the American public more
than $300 billion. However, regardless of the investments in
renewable fuels, renewables can only provide a small part of
the U.S. electric power. Oklahomans realize that we need a
diversified energy supply, such as clean coal, natural gas and
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
committee, and I appreciate the committee allowing a
representative from an energy State to come and testify. Thank
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adkins follows:]
Statement of Dennis Adkins, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and
Technology, Oklahoma State House
Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of
the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am Dennis Adkins, and I
am an Oklahoma State Representative for District 75 that includes parts
of the cities of Tulsa and Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. I am also the
chairman of the Oklahoma House Committee on Energy and Technology and
have served in that capacity since 2005. The Committee on Energy and
Technology has jurisdiction on all state legislation affecting the oil
and gas industry in Oklahoma and utility regulation. In addition to
serving in the state legislature, I am involved in the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Energy Council. Both ALEC
and the Energy Council are organizations comprised of state legislators
from throughout the country.
Oklahoma is an energy state. We have 10 percent of this Nation's
proven reserves of natural gas. The oil and gas industry as a whole in
Oklahoma has produced energy valued in excess of $10 billion for the
past 2 years representing more than 10 percent of our gross state
product. During the past 15 years, Oklahoma's oil and natural gas
producers have paid gross production taxes averaging more than $400
million annually, and in the most recent fiscal year that figure
increased to $1 billion. This tax revenue from the energy industry
funds schools, roads, health care and other vital state services. No
other industry in Oklahoma provides such a significant portion of the
state's revenue sources.
Additionally, the energy sector employs more than 55,000
Oklahomans. In the past 24 months, this industry has created more than
4,000 jobs. Oil and natural gas workers are paid more than double the
average salary for Oklahoma workers.
In electricity generation, Oklahoman's heavily rely on coal and
natural gas. Roughly 56 percent of total electricity generation is coal
based followed by roughly 38 percent of natural gas based generation
with a growing wind power sector as well. These percentages of
electricity generation sources, of course, can and do vary greatly
state to state as, for example, hydroelectric and nuclear sources are
very viable in certain other parts of the nation.
Like the rest of the country, we in Oklahoma see the many
scientific, government, and media reports on climate change, and we are
interested in knowing the facts.
Respected people on both sides of the issue present seemingly very
compelling facts about their particular point of view.
I am not a scientist by profession, and do not intend to testify
from that perspective. I am a state legislator. I believe it is my job
to work to pass legislation to deal with problems facing my state based
on the best available information and facts. Therefore, I am greatly
concerned by one clear fact. That fact is that there does not seem to
be agreement on the issue of climate change, and yet there seems to be
a great rush to action.
Without the facts, I think it would be very possible to pass
federal legislation or legislation in the states that might cost people
substantially. I do not wish to be misunderstood and simply labeled as
a naysayer, but a rush to pass legislation addressing climate change
may make it appear that we, as elected officials, are doing something
to address a problem, but in reality, not accomplish anything
meaningful toward solving climate change. I understand that even if all
industrialized nations would have faithfully followed the caps
implemented by the Kyoto Protocol, the result would only shave a
fraction of a degree Celsius of earth's temperatures. After all, what
we are principally talking about is controlling carbon dioxide
emissions. However, this gas is non-toxic to humans. It does not impair
visibility. It does not foul the air we breathe, neither does it cause
respiratory diseases, all of which hardly are characteristics of a bona
fide pollutant. In fact, I have even heard it argued that moderate
warming from 0.5 to 1.5 degree Celsius might enhance agricultural
productivity, which is also extremely important to my state and other
states like Oklahoma.
We already have seen at least a couple of examples of what states
have developed or enacted into state law addressing greenhouse gas
emissions. With Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, California will require monitoring and annual
reporting from the state's most significant contributors to greenhouse
gas emissions. The legislation seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020 and achieve additional reductions into the
future. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an agreement
among some Northeastern states, seeks to develop a northeastern
regional cap and trade program covering carbon dioxide emissions from
powerplants in that region, placing a cap on current carbon dioxide
levels, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions levels by 10 percent by
The States represented here today will capably comment on what
their state is doing or what their state is doing in conjunction with
other states to address greenhouse gas emission controls. The
representatives from these states certainly understand their states'
energy profiles, needs, and economic impacts perhaps better than I
would. Instead of me describing what California and what states in the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast may have done wrong
or right, which may simply be my opinion, perhaps it would be more
productive to use my time to describe what I think a state like
Oklahoma will be concerned about as any legislation addressing climate
change is considered.
First and foremost, we would be concerned about the impact on
Oklahomans. We would want to carefully weigh the proposed benefits of
any action to the impact it will have on our citizens' pocketbooks, our
economy, as well as on the environment.
Oklahoma is blessed to have an abundant supply of electricity at
rates below the national average. Unfortunately, we are not as blessed
when it comes to cool summers. Oklahoma can get hot in the summertime
driving up power consumption as a result and that translates into high
electric bills. I know because I hear from my constituents, and I am a
Frankly, while I am aware of polling that suggests that many
Americans are concerned about climate change, I am not sure they have
calculated the impact the cost of addressing it will have on them.
As state and federal legislators, we all heard the public uproar
when the cost of gasoline began climbing. A few winters ago, we heard
loud and clear that citizens were not at all pleased with the increase
in natural gas prices. Now, we are talking about taking steps that
could drive energy prices even higher without a clearly articulated
I suppose the easy thing to do would be to pass legislation
federally or in the states to attempt to address climate change. But if
we do, absent the facts surrounding the cost and benefit, I do not
believe we have served our constituents very well.
If I have ever heard of an issue that needs more comprehensive
study, climate change is it. I think our nation is poised to make
massive investment on the backs of consumers, not knowing if the proper
technology even exists and if those investments will even help.
Generally speaking, measures such as carbon caps, cap and trade
systems, and emission allowances would inevitably raise energy prices,
raise costs of consumer products and services, reduce profits, impair
productivity and may not achieve global reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, under the Kyoto Protocol, emissions reductions
are imposed on developed countries, while developing countries such as
India and China, which will ultimately surpass the United States in
carbon dioxide emissions, are left out.
I have read forecasts estimating various costs from compliance with
carbon dioxide caps. For instance, I have read that implementing the
Kyoto Protocol would have cost the entire U.S. economy over $300
billion by 2010 and implementing the standards in Kyoto would have
resulted in an annual lost of nearly $3,000 per household by 2010.
Information published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration
estimated that cutting carbon emissions five percent below 1990 levels,
as required in the Kyoto Protocol, would have reduced the U.S. Gross
Domestic Product to up to $340 billion by 2012 which it estimated would
translate into a cost of $4,500 for every family of four. There have
been many proposals circulating in Congress for the past number of
years, and they all address greenhouse gas emission reductions from
various industrial sectors in various manners. I am not going to
pretend to be an expert on each proposal and their forecasted
reductions and costs. However, what they all seemingly have in common
are substantially increased energy costs for consumers.
Our own Senator Inhofe, who is a national leader especially on the
issue of climate change, I understand has said that carbon cap
proposals would be the largest single tax increase to date costing the
American public $300 billion annually.
Does that mean we in Oklahoma are simply taking the posture of
standing still in the meantime, of course not.
In Oklahoma, for example, our utilities are becoming leaders in
wind power. Without mandates, our state has over 500 megaWatts of wind
power. Although I realize this falls behind larger states that have
developed their infrastructure over a longer period of time, over the
last three years, Oklahoma now has the fifth largest wind generation
base in the country. In fact, as transmission costs climb to $1 million
per mile, our largest problem is transmission of this energy from the
western portion of the state throughout the rest state.
Pending in the Oklahoma Legislature presently is a measure that
will establish the Oklahoma Bio-fuels Center over the next four years.
Oklahoma will invest $40 million in a consortium among the University
of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the Noble Foundation to
engage in research developing the bio-fuels sector focusing on
At the same time, while the majority of the electricity capacity in
Oklahoma is natural gas fired at roughly 58 percent, I know the utility
sector is presently investing in building a new coal-fired plant in the
central part of the state, and they are going above and beyond the
standard technology. We are planning to build a cutting edge plant that
will reduce greenhouse gases and other emissions.
However, regardless of the investments in renewable fuels,
renewables continue only to provide a small part of the total U.S.
electric power. Oklahomans realize we need a diverse energy supply
making use of clean coal, natural gas, and renewable sources with
limited constraints on development and economic impacts.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee this
morning and appreciate this committee allowing a representative from an
energy state like Oklahoma to share their views.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
The Hon. Ted Harvey, Senator, Colorado State Senate.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED HARVEY, SENATOR, COLORADO STATE SENATE
Mr. Harvey. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
committee for having me here today. It is an honor to be here.
My name is Ted Harvey and I currently serve in the Colorado
State Senate. For the last 6 years, I have served on the
Agricultural, Natural Resource and Energy committees in the
House and now in the State Senate. Additionally, I have a
master's degree in public administration, with a concentration
in environmental policy and law.
As you are aware, there are many academic specialties in
the field of environmental sciences. Trying to get the experts
to agree on anything is almost impossible. The debate over
global warming change is no different, and the debate has been
going on for almost 100 years. ``Geologists think the world may
be frozen again,'' this was the headline in the New York Times
on February 24, 1885. On January 2, 1939, an article claimed
the earth was warming again. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek
published an article entitled ``The Cooling World.'' Indeed,
the temperature of the earth's climate had been falling for 30
years, according to Newsweek's 1975 article. Climatologists
everywhere were offering doomsday scenarios if public
policymakers such as yourself did not act quickly.
Yet only 13 years later, in 1988, a NASA scientist
testified before Congress that global warming was in effect and
was serious. Thus began the current debate on global warming.
Since 1988, studies on the cause of the current increase in the
temperature of the earth's climate have resulted in
contradictory conclusions regarding man's involvement.
Scientists and politicians alike are using these findings to
pursue their own political and geo-economic agendas.
In his documentary, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' Vice
President Al Gore argues that unless we do something about
CO2 emissions, much of Greenland's ice will melt
into the ocean, rising sea levels over 20 feet by the year
2100. This is a serious claim. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, recently released the
summary for policymakers, that you all received, that predicts
a rise in sea level between 8 and 17 inches. There is a big
difference between 20 feet and 17 inches.
Research following the IPCC's climate change 2100, the
scientific basis, reveals that much of their conclusions have
been called into question or totally disproved, specifically,
the famous hockey stick graph that was the basis for much of
the Gore movie and the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, just this
month, Science magazine published an article stating that the
recent loss of Greenland's glaciers has reversed.
Over the last 40 years, this body has encouraged the
development of new technology that is clean, renewable and
economically viable. For example, through technology,
competition and scientifically sound regulation, Colorado has
made tremendous strides in cleaning its environment. Denver is
no longer known for its brown cloud. In fact, one might argue
that our air is as clean as it was in 1893, when America the
Beautiful was written from the top of our very own Pike's Peak.
Colorado very proudly leads the world in the development of
clean technology from power generation. The National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, NREL, is located in Colorado and is
pioneering this new frontier.
On the eastern plains, our spacious skies have winds strong
enough to sustain large wind farms. Colorado was on the cutting
edge of this new development. Our eastern plains are blanketed
with miles of amber waves of corn, and we are using this
resource to develop ethanol in impressive quantities.
Colorado's purple mountain majesties are covered by pine
forests that are being decimated by pine beetles. In true
western ingenuity, we see this problem as an opportunity to
reinvigorate a once-dying lumber industry, using these dead
stands as biomass and biofuel, another renewable energy source.
Finally, Colorado is known for its blue skies and over 300
annual days of sunshine. NREL is capitalizing on our
environment to develop the next generation of solar
technologies. The United States of America is the greatest
Nation on the face of the earth. Through Government policies
that encourage ingenuity and responsibility, our free market
system has brought forth environmental advancements that man
could have only dreamt of 40 years ago.
To impede innovation and dictate policy through draconian
regulation would only harm our economy and endanger our
Nation's competitiveness and security. I pray the Lord will
give you wisdom as you deliberate the interests of our Country,
and may God shed His grace on thee.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harvey follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ted Harvey, Senator, Colorado State Senate
Thank you Madam Chair and thank you committee for having me here
My name is Ted Harvey, and I currently serve in the Colorado State
Senate. For the last 6 years I've served on the Agriculture, Natural
Resource and Energy Committee. Additionally, I have a master's degree
in public administration with a concentration in environmental law and
As you are aware there are many academic specialties in the field
of environmental sciences. Trying to get the experts to agree on
anything is almost impossible. The debate over global climate change is
no different. The debate has been going on for almost 100 years.
``Geologists think the world may be frozen again.'' This was the
headline in the New York Times on February 24, 1885.
A January 2, 1939 article claimed the earth was growing warmer.
On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published an article entitled ``The
Indeed the temperature of the earth's climate had been falling for
30 years prior to Newsweek's 1975 article. Climatologists everywhere
were offering doomsday scenarios if public policy makers did not act
Yet, only 13 years later in 1988, a NASA scientist testified before
Congress that global warming was in effect and was serious . . . and
thus began our current debate on global warming.
Since 1988 studies on the cause of the current increase in
temperature of the earth's climate have resulted in contradictory
conclusions regarding man's involvement. Scientists and politicians
alike are using these findings to pursue their own political or geo-
In his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Vice President Al Gore
argues that unless we do something about CO2 emissions much
of Greenland's ice will melt into the ocean, raising sea levels over 20
feet by the year 2100. This is a serious claim. Where did he get his
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently
released their Summary for Policy Makers that predicts a rise in sea
level between 8 and 17 inches by 2100. There is a big difference
between 17 inches and 20 ft.
Research following the IPCC's Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis reveals that many of their conclusions have been called into
question or totally disproved--specifically, the famous ``hockey
stick'' graph that was the basis for much of the Gore movie and the
In fact, just this month Science Magazine published an article
stating the recent loss of Greenland's glaciers has reversed!
Over the last 40 years Congress has encouraged the development of
new technology that is clean, renewable and economically viable. For
example, through technology, competition and scientifically sound
regulation, Colorado has made tremendous strides in cleaning its
environment. Denver is no longer known for its brown cloud. In fact,
one might argue that our air is as clean as it was in 1893 when
``America the Beautiful'' was written from atop our very own Pikes
Colorado proudly leads the world in the development of clean
technology for power generation. The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), located in Colorado, is pioneering this new
On the eastern plains, our spacious skies have winds strong enough
to sustain large wind farms. Colorado is on the cutting edge of this
Our eastern plains are blanketed with miles of amber waves of. . .
corn, and we are using this resource to develop ethanol in impressive
Colorado's purple mountain majesties are covered by pine forests
that are being decimated by pine beetles. In true western ingenuity we
see this problem as an opportunity to re-invigorate a once dying lumber
industry using these dead stands as biomass for biofuel--another
renewable energy source.
Finally, Colorado is known for its blue skies and over 300 annual
days of sunshine. NREL is capitalizing on our environment to develop
the next generation of solar technologies.
The United States of America is the greatest nation on the face of
the earth. Through government policy that encourages ingenuity and
responsibility, our free market system has brought forth environmental
advancements that man could have only dreamt of 40 years ago.
To impede innovation and dictate policy through draconian
regulation would only harm our economy and endanger our Nation's
competitiveness and security.
I pray that Lord will give you wisdom as you deliberate the
interests of our country and may God shed his grace, on thee. . . .
Thank you for your time.
Senator Boxer. I pray we do something about global warming.
God is testing us, that is for sure.
The Mayor of Seattle.
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG NICKELS, MAYOR, CITY OF SEATTLE, WA
Mayor Nickels. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
committee. As the others have observed, it is an honor to be
here and a pleasure to be able to talk about this important
issue. I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her kind
It is also a pleasure to be in front of the committee with
three former mayors sitting on the committee, because I know we
are in good hands.
I am here today representing the 600,000 people of Seattle,
and as co-chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate
Protection Council. I have submitted longer comments for the
record, but I will keep my remarks before the committee brief
this morning. Five years ago, when I became Mayor of Seattle, I
was like a lot of people in this Country. I knew about global
warming, I thought it was a serious problem, but I thought it
was a long way away and far into the future.
The ``aha'' moment for me came during the winter of 2004
and 2005, which in the Cascade Mountains was a winter without
snow. That is a bad thing. There was no ski season, and of
course, that is a tragedy in and of itself. But for Seattle, we
rely on that snow for our water and for our hydroelectric
power. We have century-old systems, sustainable systems that
captures that snow melt and turns it into drinking water and
into very clean power.
As I got weekly reports from my directors of water and
power, it became clear that global warming was not a distant
threat and it was not far in the future: it was happening today
and it was happening in our community. In fact, according to
the University of Washington's climate impact group, the
average snow pack in the Cascade mountains has declined by
about 30 percent since the end of World War II and even more in
some of the lower elevation areas that we rely on for our water
and our power.
That winter, of course, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect
in 141 countries but not in the United States. I was frustrated
by the lack of action by our Country at the Federal level, so I
pledged that Seattle would take local action to meet or exceed
the reductions set by the Kyoto Protocol, specifically 7
percent reduction by the year 2012. But I also realized that if
Seattle did this alone, as Senator Craig pointed out, it would
be purely a symbolic gesture, it would mean very little.
So I challenged other mayors around the Country to join
with me in this effort, and as of today 409 mayors have signed
onto the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and each and
every one of them has pledged to take local action to reduce
global warming pollution. Just to put that into perspective, if
we were a country we would be slightly larger than the
population of Italy, we would be equal to the population of the
United Kingdom and we are catching up on France. These are
mayors who are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. They
are leaders of some of our largest cities, New York and Los
Angeles and Chicago and Philadelphia and some of our smaller
cities as well. They range from Boozman, MT to Akron, OH, from
Belleview, NE to Burlington, VT, and Cleveland, OH, to Des
We are very much not a symbolic effort. You have not 50
laboratories, you have 409 laboratories that are working to
find creative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I pulled together community leaders in Seattle to figure
out what we could do to reduce our emissions by 680,000 tons,
which would be equivalent to that 7 percent. We are building
our first light rail system. The cruise ships that visit our
port plug into shore power, instead of running their diesel
engines when they are in our city. We have among the most
energy efficient green buildings of any city in the United
States, and we are encouraging more and more people to give up
long commutes and live instead in the heart of our city.
Our publicly owned electric utility, Seattle City Light, is
the first major power supplier in the Country to be greenhouse
gas neutral. We literally are powering our city without
toasting the planet. But we have a much bigger challenge ahead
of us, Madam Chair, and I want to just suggest three things----
Senator Boxer. If you do it quickly.
Mayor Nickels [continuing]. That I would like this
committee to face. One, like California, we believe a strong
cap on emissions is necessary, 80 percent by the year 2050, we
see as supported by science. Second, we believe that a cap and
trade system will encourage markets to behave in a way that
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those are top down
approaches that will get us part of the way.
But in order to get all of the way, you are going to need
to engage the people of America in this effort at the grass
roots. Recognize the role of cities. For the first time in
human history, we represent more than half of the people who
live on this planet and we consume more than 75 percent of the
energy that is consumed on this planet. Use us as laboratories.
Create, based on the very successful Community Development
Block Grant model, an energy and environment block grant, so
that we can take these ideas and bring them up to scale, that
can make a difference not only for our Nation, but for our
[The prepared statement of Mayor Nickels follows:]
Statement of Greg Nickels, Mayor, Seattle, WA
Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the committee,
thank you very much for the invitation to testify before you today.
More importantly, thank you for your leadership on an issue of
paramount importance to our nation: global climate disruption.
We are at a historic juncture in this country. The scientific
consensus on global warming is increasingly clear and unequivocal--it
is happening and human activities are causing it.
My message to you today is twofold:
First, let's act now. Let's not wait until the 111th or 112th
Congress. Let's seize the moment. Put in place a clear, strong and
effective federal policy that is necessary to stabilize the climate: 80
percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, based on 1990
Second, America's mayors are ready, willing and able to work with
you to develop and implement this policy. We are ready to build public
support in our communities--including our business communities--to meet
this challenge. We are ready to implement local solutions. In fact,
many of us are already doing just that.
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement 409 mayors across the
country have signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement\1\ that I initiated with eight other mayors just over 2 year
ago. These mayors represent over 60 million people--nearly a fifth of
the U.S. population--in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.
They are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. They are leaders of
some of our biggest cities and smallest towns--from Richmond, Virginia
and Bozeman, Montana to Akron, Ohio and Cookeville, Tennessee.
\1\ See Attachment A: U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The
resolution can also be found at: http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/
Like most economic and environmental issues, climate disruption
does not follow geographic or political boundaries. Its impacts affect
us all; however the opportunities that global warming solutions present
are open to all. That's why the U.S. Mayors Climate Agreement has
resonated across the country, regardless of where cities are on the
map, and where mayors sit on the political spectrum. That's why
Republican mayors from cities such as New York; San Diego; Bellevue,
NE; and Arlington, TX have joined Democratic mayors such as myself.
In signing the Agreement, these 409 mayors\2\ are pledging to take
local action to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their
own communities. Cities across our nation are pledging support for
bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes (1) clear
timetables and emissions limits and (2) a flexible, market-based system
of tradable allowances among emitting industries.
\2\ See Attachment B: Map of the Participating Cities. The map is
updated at: http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/default.htm#who
We are not just signing a piece of paper. We are making tough
choices. We are investing our taxpayers' money. We are transforming our
cities into laboratories for climate protection. In short, we are
making a difference, and laying the groundwork for strong federal
policies and programs.
For example, we are making the sometimes difficult but necessary
changes to land-use policies and regulations. We are reining in sprawl
and increasing density in our urban cities, changes that reduce energy
and fuel use by cutting greenhouse gases an average of close to 30
We are investing heavily in public transit, building more bike
paths and making it safer for pedestrians to walk to work, school and
parks. By doing this, fewer people will need their cars to get around.
We are walking the talk. City governments are using their
purchasing power to buy electric hybrid vehicles and biodiesel for our
fleets, energy-efficient computers for our offices, and super-efficient
LED (light-emitting diode) bulbs for our traffic signals. We're
designing ``green,'' energy-efficient buildings and re-using methane
gas at our landfills and wastewater treatment plants.
We are doing many of these things in Seattle. But we are most proud
that our publicly-owned utility--Seattle City Light--is the first
electric utility in the nation to be greenhouse gas neutral. It has
achieved this through conservation, using renewable energy resources
and investing in offset projects that lower our city's carbon
footprint, encourage new business opportunities and improve local air
quality. For example, City Light is working with the cruise ship
industry to connect ships to shore power while in port rather than burn
diesel. We have launched a biodiesel program that pays for the use of
this cleaner fuel in local buses, Washington State ferries and city
trucks. These and other programs are economically efficient and will
help us lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Seattle is certainly not alone in such pioneering efforts.
The city of Irvine, California, the city is supporting the Zero
Emission Vehicle Network Enabled Transport program (ZEV-NET), which
makes zero-emission vehicles available to participating employers and
Burlington, Vermont has a Climate Action Plan and joined the 10
Percent Challenge Campaign. The campaign challenges everyone--
individuals, businesses, the city and others--to reduce their emissions
by 10 percent or more.
In Dayton, city leaders are switching traffic signals to LED
technology at hundreds of intersections, reducing carbon emissions
significantly. They have also developed a co-generation facility at
their wastewater treatment facility. Its engines use methane gas
produced at anaerobic digester plant.
Alexandria, Virginia, the historic city just across the Potomac, is
modernizing its buildings to LEED standards. They have funded this
project through bond revenues and the annual budget.
In St. Paul, Minnesota, the city initiated the Saint Paul
Environmental-Economic Partnership Project in 1993 to implement its
Urban CO2 Reduction Plan. This plan includes diversifying
transportation options, reforesting the urban landscape, increasing
energy efficiency, promoting alternative energy and increasing
recycling and reducing waste.
The list goes on and on. Our nation's commitment to climate
protection grows stronger each day.\3\
\3\ These examples and others can be found in Energy and
Environment: The United States Conference of Mayors Best Practices
Guide, January 2007. To learn more about the Burlington, Vermont
example, please go to: http://www.burlingtonelectric.com/SpecialTopics/
Why are a growing number of mayors and communities making global
warming a local priority? There are three key reasons.
First, we're increasingly concerned about local impacts, not only
on our urban environments, but on our economies and overall quality-of-
life. We are the first responders to emergencies and we will feel the
most immediate effects of rising seas, more fires, more unpredictable
weather patterns. In Washington State we are already beginning to see
some of the impacts of global climate disruption in the Cascade
Mountains, where changing snow melts and shrinking glaciers threaten
our major source of water and electricity.
Second, we're excited about the economic opportunities presented by
this challenge to make our cities more climate-friendly--opportunities
for our families and businesses to save money through increased
efficiencies, and opportunities for our companies to create jobs and
revenues by inventing and producing cleaner energy sources and
technologies. In the Seattle area, for example, green building and
biodiesel production already are emerging as strong and growing sectors
of our economy.
Third, we feel a strong sense of responsibility. A large percentage
of the world's energy--something on the order of 75 percent--is
consumed in or by the world's cities. So we can't solve global warming
without making our cities significantly more energy-efficient and less
dependent on fossil fuels. Cities are on the critical pathway to a
global solution. And American cities, in particular--among the
wealthiest on Earth--have a responsibility to lead the way.
That's why in February of 2005-- a year in which we were nearly
``snowless in Seattle''-- I challenged my own community to meet or beat
the climate pollution-cutting goal of the Kyoto Protocol, and invited
my fellow mayors across the country to do the same. In the longer term,
I believe much deeper cuts are necessary. But I wanted to challenge the
government and the community to make significant cuts in the short-
term, on my watch as mayor: 7 percent reductions from 1990 levels by
By that time, we already had reduced our city government emissions
by about 60 percent from 1990 levels, thanks in large part to the
efforts of our publicly owned utility--Seattle City Light--to make
itself the Nation's first ``climate-neutral'' utility. We also had
aggressive recycling, green building and green fleet management
But despite our success as a city government, we saw that
community-wide emissions were rising dramatically, driven in large part
by motor vehicle emissions. So we turned our attention to shrinking the
community's ``carbon footprint.'' We established a Green Ribbon
Commission on Climate Protection consisting of about 20 of our
community's most-respected leaders and experts. It was co-chaired by
Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation and founder of
Earth Day, and Orin Smith, the now-retired CEO of the Starbucks Coffee
Company. And it includes the president of the board of REI, Inc., Bill
Ruckelshaus, the three-time U.S. EPA Administrator, and many other
leaders from the business, government, and nonprofit sectors.
The commission spent a year poring over data and reviewing best
practices from around the world. Their work culminated in the Seattle
Climate Action Plan, which I released in September of 2006.\4\ This is
a blueprint for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our
community. It features a variety of strategies for reducing car-
dependence in Seattle, increasing fuel efficiency and the use of
biofuels, and improving energy efficiency and the use of renewable
\4\ See Attachment C: Seattle, a Climate of Change: Meeting the
Kyoto Challenge-Climate Action Plan Executive Summary, September 2006.
The Executive Summary and the full report can also be found at: http://
We've created the Seattle Climate Partnership, a voluntary pact
among Seattle-area employers to assess and reduce their own carbon
footprints, and to come together to help meet our community-wide goals.
Thirty employers have joined the Partnership already, including
Starbucks, REI, the Port of Seattle, the University of Washington,
GroupHealth Cooperative, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and
the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Seattle does all this because our citizens are demanding it. They
expect leadership from their elected officials, their business leaders
and their public power agencies to step up to this tremendous challenge
we all face.
In addition to the activities we are undertaking in Seattle, the
State of Washington is also moving toward implementing a climate plan.
The governor has just issued an Executive Order calling for the state
to implement a climate action plan that includes greenhouse gas
reduction targets. Likewise, there are over a dozen bills pending
before our state legislature calling for actions dealing with climate
change. And this past Monday, my governor announced that Washington
will join with Oregon, California, Arizona and New Mexico to form the
Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, pledging to work together
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, while voluntary actions by cities or state mandates are
important what we really need is federal leadership. Not just because
it is the most powerful way to confront this problem but also because
it will allow us to achieve the most reductions for the least costs to
We believe this is the year for federal action. Specifically, we
believe Congress needs to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction plan that
calls for a hard and declining cap on emissions and allows for carbon
trading among entities. To achieve the most reductions at the lowest
possible cost we believe that this trading program should allocate
allowances in ways that encourage hydropower and other renewable
resources, rewards past and future conservation and energy efficiency,
and recognizes credit for early action.
united states conference of mayors and the 110th congress
I am pleased that the U.S. Conference of Mayors has been the
leading local government organization on this issue. The U.S.
Conference of Mayors led by Mayor Douglas Palmer of Trenton, New
Jersey, recently released its 10-Point Plan, for Strong Cities, Strong
Families, for a Strong America at our 75th Winter Meeting.\5\ The
mayors were so pleased, Madame Chair, that you could join them to share
your vision on the need for action by Congress to further the nation's
progress on climate protection.
\5\A copy of 10-Point Plan, for Strong Cities, Strong Families, for
a Strong America can be found at: http://usmayors.org/uscm/news/press--
In our 10-Point Plan, the nation's mayors have made action on
federal climate legislation our lead issue. As I have noted, the mayors
want to play a strong role in helping you and members of this committee
make the federal policy changes that will further progress in our
communities, in our states and the nation.
The mayors are proposing an Energy and Environmental Block Grant
initiative, modeled after the very successful Community Development
Block Grant program. We believe such an initiative is particularly
critical at this juncture as cities strive to expand their climate
protection efforts. The nation has a real interest in expanding the
many local initiatives that are underway in my city and others all
across the country. This block grant would accelerate the many
innovations emerging in our cities, which are the laboratories of
future solutions to this vast challenge before us.
Our goal with this block grant initiative would be to use federal
grants to (1) improve community energy efficiency; (2) develop and
implement community strategies to reduce carbon emissions, including
but not limited to achieving ``carbon free'' buildings by 2030; (3)
develop and implement community and transportation energy conservation
programs; (4) encourage the development of new technologies and systems
to decrease our dependence on foreign oil; and (5) promotion and
development of alternative/renewable energy sources.
We need the Federal Government to take on a leadership role now so
that we move beyond the grassroots innovation that is blossoming in
every state in the country. This Congress needs to move quickly to
adopt meaningful carbon policies--ideally through a broad-based cap and
trading program to reduce this country's greenhouse gas emissions. This
will harness market forces and allow the powerful engine of our economy
to find the most innovative and cost-effective solutions to this global
Mayors from across the United States look forward to working with
you on this challenge.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Greg Nickels to Additional Questions from Senator Cardin
Question 1a. I noted with interest your reference to an effort at
the Port of Seattle to have ships ``plug-in'' while at dockside,
enabling vessels to turn off their diesel engines and thus reducing air
Response. Seattle City Light, Seattle's municipal electric utility,
worked with the Port of Seattle, Princess and Holland-America cruise
lines, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) to provide shore
power connections to four ships that visit the Port of Seattle
facilities. These ships are in Port on Friday, Saturday and Sunday
during the cruise season, May through September. Princess has been
using shore power since 2005 and Holland-America since 2006. City Light
engineers worked closely with the Port and cruise lines on tight
deadlines to make the project a reality. A grant from the EPA West
Coast Diesel Collaborative helped defray some of City Light's costs.
The cruise lines pay for the electricity they use, and City Light
purchases the greenhouse gas reduction rights (offsets) that result
from using electricity rather than diesel. In addition to reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, the use of shore power also eliminated diesel
particulate emissions while the ships are in port, an important health
Question 1b. Would you please provide additional information to the
committee on this innovative approach, including: Who pays for/
maintains the electrical hook-ups at dockside?
Response. The cruise lines pay for and maintain the dockside
Question 1c. Is the program voluntary or mandatory?
Response. The program is voluntary.
Question 1d. Is there an estimate of emissions reductions
associated with this initiative?
Response. When electricity is used instead of diesel, there are
zero emissions at the dock location, an important health benefit since
ports are often near major population centers. Studies by the Port of
Seattle indicate that ``hoteling'' of ocean-going vessels is a source
of criteria pollutants such as NOx, SO2, and particulates
and diesel particulate matter. The overall emission reductions will
depend on how the electricity is produced, and the emissions of the
ship's diesel engines. If the northwest regional electricity market mix
is assumed, Seattle City Light has estimated that several thousand
metric tons of carbon dioxide are avoided each cruise season through
the use of shore power.
Question 1e. Are these air emission reductions part of the Clean
Air Act Washington State Implementation Plan?
Response. The cruise ship electrification is not part of the
Washington SIP. It was implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions in the vicinity of the cruise
ship terminal. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency negotiated it with the port
and cruise lines after the cruise lines rejected the use of lower
sulfur fuels while at the dock.
Responses by Greg Nickels to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. It is estimated that even full implementation of Kyoto
would impact global temperature by only 0.07C. What impact on global
temperature will this program have? And at what cost to the 60 million
residents of the 409-member cities? (Currently there are 527-member
Response. The Kyoto targets embedded in the Mayor's Climate
Protection Agreement (MCPA) are intended to be a first step to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by local governments and to spur action at the
state and Federal Government levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has established the emission reductions necessary
to truly normalize climate variability. Seattle endorses a long-term
target of 60 percent emission reductions from 1990 levels, while
remaining committed to the near-term target in the MCPA of 7 percent
below 1990 levels by 2012.
There are significant economic costs associated with inaction which
could easily overwhelm costs associated with reducing greenhouse gases.
Globally, the most recent report from the IPCC lists many widespread
changes that are already being observed; many are considered warning
signals of an already changing climate. For example, since the 1970's
we have seen harsher and longer droughts in the tropics and subtropics
and an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the Northern
Atlantic. Heavy rain storms have increased over most land areas.
The Pacific Northwest, where we are overwhelmingly reliant on
hydropower, is particularly at risk. Seattle City Light, our city's
publicly owned electricity provider, receives 90 percent of its
electricity from hydropower, much of it from dams operating in the
Northern Cascades. Snow packs have already been reduced in the Cascades
since the end of World War II and University of Washington climate
scientists expect to see this trend continue and even accelerate in the
coming decades. Reductions in snow pack will reduce the viability of
hydropower in the Pacific Northwest at great potential expense to area
utilities and residents.
Question 2. Were you aware that Claude Allegre--the former
Socialist party Leader and geophysicist who is a member of both the
French and U.S. academies of science who used to be a leading alarmist
about global warming--has now reversed his position? He now thinks it
may be due to natural variability and that this is about money. How do
you respond to this statement?
Response. The City of Seattle believes that human-related climate
change is real; that it poses the single largest environmental threat
with consequences for economies and communities throughout the world;
that it is underway; and that Congress should act soon to pass
legislation calling for greenhouse gas reductions. While continuing to
press for national leadership to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the
City of Seattle has chosen to take actions now, believing that local
governments, citizens and businesses must lead by example.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for that excellent testimony.
Now we are going to hear from the Mayor of Des Moines,
Frank Cownie, the Hon. Mayor. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK COWNIE, MAYOR, CITY OF DES MOINES, IA
Mayor Cownie. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Frank Cownie and
I am the Mayor of Des Moines, IA, which is the capital of the
great State of Iowa.
As I thought about what I was going to testify to when I
came here, one of the reasons we are so concerned about global
warming and climate protection has to do with quality of life.
We think that is our No. 1 asset. We have committed, in the
city of Des Moines, to minimize all the costs and the causes
that would jeopardize it and try to make strategic investments
that we hope will improve that.
It takes guts at every level of government, whether you are
sitting in a Federal office or a State office or a local
office, because the people are going to see the results of what
we do or the consequences of what we don't do, and they are
going to be people that we don't even know. They are
generations away, mostly, and quite frankly, they will never
vote for us. But we have to do it for them, that is part of our
future and our calling.
I will cite a few of the things and the initiatives that we
have pursued in the city of Des Moines and were provided in my
written testimony. We have a Mayor's Task Force that convenes
citizens of every walk of life, whether they are low or
moderate income, or those more well to do, that are coming
together and looking at things that they can do in their homes,
in their businesses, in their households. Our task force's
written directives to the city council and the city manager, we
have written resolutions, we have held town hall meetings with
many national level environmental advocates, including
Interfaith Power and Light president and founder, Sally
We have purchased hybrid vehicles for our police
department. We have replaced other vehicles in other
departments that operate on biofuels and we are told have a 30
percent increase in fuel efficiency. We are retrofitting
municipal buildings to become more energy efficient and improve
the lighting and insulation and significantly reduce not only
greenhouse gas emissions but operating costs.
We have replaced incandescent street lights and stop
signals with more efficient LEDs that already have saved us
over $120,000 a year. We are encouraging the use and expanding
our mass transit system, the Des Moines Area Rapid Transit
System. We have recently entered into a contract for the
development of a 100 million gallon ethanol production facility
at our ag-emergent park which will be lead certified. Our
regional solid waste landfill captures enough methane to
provide electric power to 10,000 homes.
All of our actions have not only benefited our bottom line,
but we feel have improved the environment. Every level of
government has its role, and Federal action, we feel, is needed
now, because the challenge to protect our quality of life for
every citizen is one that every city and every town across this
We cannot address this problem alone, quite frankly, we
need your help.
If I might take just a moment, a personal comment, we serve
at the base level of government. We really are at the pothole
level, people are in our faces every day. It seems to me that
we cannot really impact climate change without people change.
What people do in their everyday lives is the key. I sense a
new awareness and a willingness on the part of Des Moines'
citizens to seek change for the sake of the environment. If you
can empower us at this pothole level of government to work
directly with our citizens to develop grassroots solutions, we
can achieve real progress.
First, it is important for you to enact legislation to
create Federal tax credits or other incentives that will
promote energy efficiency. If I----
Senator Boxer. Do you want to summarize the other action
items for us?
Mayor Cownie. Yes. I think we could look at other
opportunities, like tax shifts from things that we want to
things that we don't want, set standards, CAFE standards,
renewable electric standards, packaging standards, recycling
standards, water use standards, pedestrian-oriented development
standards. Second, it is essential for you to fund research and
development, so that we can commercialize some of the things
through those programs with demonstration projects in our
municipalities across this Country.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Cownie follows:]
Statement of Frank Cownie, Mayor, City of Des Moines, IA
Chairman Boxer, distinguished members of the committee, good
morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify about the important
role of local governments in responding to global warming. My name is
Frank Cownie, and I am the Mayor of the City of Des Moines, Iowa. My
testimony today will focus on the leadership role that my city has
played in practicing and promoting energy conservation.
As both the capital and largest city, Des Moines is the cultural,
economic, and geographic center of the State of Iowa. About 200,000
people live in Des Moines, and the City is recognized as a center for
government, education, business, culture, and the arts. Des Moines is
also quickly becoming a national leader in using energy conservation
and environmental protection strategies.
I signed the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement along with over
400 other Mayors because our residents recognize that there is a finite
amount of energy and resources available. Scarcity of resources
increases costs. We view this as a crucial issue in protecting our
economic vitality and our high quality of life. Our quality of life is
our single greatest asset in Iowa, and we are committed to protecting
it and to minimizing costs that would jeopardize it.
That is why we have taken action at the local level. Last year I
established the Mayor's Task Force on Energy Conservation and
Environmental Enhancement to examine energy usage and environmental
protection in Des Moines. We, as the local government, united the
broad-based support of residents, businesses, faith-based and non-
profit organizations. In addition to the direction set by the Mayor's
Task Force, my colleagues and I on the City Council have made
sustainability part of our overall goals for the City. Our objective is
to become a leader in promoting environmental sustainability and
transportation alternatives. To that end, we are pursuing a number of
One of our first major initiatives was introducing hybrid and
alternative fuel vehicles into our city fleet. Our Police Department
now uses hybrid vehicles for neighborhood patrol and in the detective
bureau. As a routine practice, our centralized fleet management staff
strives to obtain greater fuel efficiencies every time they purchase
replacement vehicles. This is accomplished by writing bid
specifications for smaller vehicles or vehicles that utilize
alternative fuels, like biodiesel and ethanol.
Another important piece of our goal for sustainability in Des
Moines is about providing transportation options to give our residents
alternatives to driving their cars. The Greater Des Moines region is
building a one-of-a-kind trail system, with over 300 miles of
recreational trails to connect Central Iowa. The City of Des Moines
alone maintains 29 miles of trails, and we are adding more bike lanes
to make it easier for our residents and visitors to bike and walk
rather than drive their cars.
The Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) was created
last year as a regional approach to public transit. DART is planning to
expand its routes and hours of operation. This year, for the first
time, buses will run on Sundays, which will make it more convenient for
our residents to get around without their cars. The City is also
leading by partnering with the State and the business community to
provide the initial seed money for a downtown shuttle. This service
will encourage downtown workers to choose transit, again--instead of
their cars, to get around the central city during the day. This will
ultimately reduce energy consumption and emissions.
We're also working to improve the energy efficiency of our
municipal buildings and infrastructure. We have improved lighting and
installed timers in our City parking facilities and in some municipal
buildings. We have replaced incandescent traffic signals with more
energy-efficient LED bulbs to reduce our electricity consumption. This
alone is saving the City $120,000 on energy costs. We have done
numerous facility roof insulation upgrades to reduce heating costs and
We have completed comprehensive upgrades in our fire stations and
parks facilities. These include energy efficient windows and improved
roof insulation. In one building, the roof insulation alone will reduce
energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 40 percent.
As another unique improvement, we are installing a solar hot water
heating system to augment an existing gas-fired water heater. A solar
hot water heating system can supply, on average in the Midwest, 65
percent of the demand for hot water. This will result in significant
energy savings and reduced carbon dioxide emissions. The City is also
working on LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
certification for municipal buildings, with one currently under
construction. All of these improvements are part of previously planned
and budgeted upgrades. In Des Moines, we view routine maintenance as an
ongoing opportunity to pursue energy efficiency.
Our Park and Recreation Department staff and volunteers have been
strong leaders in the sustainability movement, particularly as it
relates to preserving our open land and green spaces. The Park and
Recreation Department is pursuing water quality projects, natural
management plans for parks, natural forest regeneration, and planting
native species. By planting more trees and native prairie grasses, we
reduce the need for irrigation, conserve water, and use less chemical
fertilizers. In short, conservation has become our way of doing
business in Des Moines parks. A ``Green Design Checklist'' helps to
ensure conservation efforts are infused into the design of all parks
For its efforts, the City of Des Moines Park and Recreation
Department won a 2006 Urban Steward Award from the Polk County Soil and
Water Conservation District. The City of Des Moines was recognized for
its recycling program as well. MidAmerica Recycling awarded Des Moines
with a Certificate of Recognition for Recycling Excellence for
recycling nearly 6,800 tons in 2006.
The City of Des Moines is also engaged in promoting the research
and development of alternative fuel sources. We are in the process of
selling land in our Agrimergent Technology Park to a company for a 100
million gallon ethanol production facility. As part of the contract,
the business is required to produce a LEED-certified project and to
pursue innovative technologies to reduce its natural gas consumption
through alternative fuels that will be more environmentally beneficial
and more cost-effective, such as biogas.
Finally, the Metro Waste Authority in Des Moines is recovering
enough methane at our solid waste landfill to provide electricity for
10,000 homes. This electricity is sold and provides a revenue stream
for the Authority. Like our other initiatives, this action not only
benefits the environment, but it helps our economic bottom line.
In closing, I want to encourage the committee that federal action
on this issue is needed now, because the challenge to protect our
quality of life is one that every city and town in the country faces.
We cannot address the issue on our own. We need your help.
First, it is important for you to enact legislation to create
incentives to promote energy efficiency and reduce resource
consumption. These incentives might include federal tax credits, CAFE
standards, recycling standards, water use standards or packaging
standards that take into account the life cycle costs of product
manufacturing, use and disposal.
Second, it is essential for you to fund (a) research and
development activities that can be commercialized, (b) greenhouse gas
emissions inventories, and (c) demonstration projects in which
municipalities like Des Moines can participate to engage our residents
to DO JUST ONE THING.
Many of our local initiatives have been aimed internally at
improving energy efficiency in our municipal buildings and fleet. The
next step is to help our residents to recognize the environmental and
economic benefits of practicing energy conservation. It can be as
simple as using compact fluorescent light bulbs, dialing the thermostat
down in winter and up summer, buying vehicles that use bio-fuels or
hybrid technology, taking the bus to work, planning trips for
efficiency, carpooling, walking, biking, and planting trees--all that
result in saving money and in protecting resources for future
generations. These are steps that every citizen can take.
Similarly, we need to convene our business partners and key
greenhouse gas emitters and begin to empower them to take actions that
will make a difference. Imagine all of the resources that could be
conserved and costs averted. Imagine all of the new business
opportunities that could result from increased market demand.
We have a choice. Either we can stay the course, working on our own
with marginal success, or we can move forward in partnership with the
Federal Government to create a significant, positive impact upon on our
environment and economy. We choose to go forward. It is now time for
federal action to invest in our future, our children's future, our
grandchildren's future and with a vision for the next seven
generations. We are committed to improving the quality of life in our
communities and appreciate your leadership to assist us in
accomplishing this far-reaching goal. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
And last but not least, we welcome the Mayor of the city of
Dover, Ohio, the Hon. Richard Homrighausen. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD P. HOMRIGHAUSEN, MAYOR, CITY OF
Mayor Homrighausen. Good afternoon, Chairman Boxer, Senator
Voinovich and committee members. My name is Richard
Homrighausen and I am the Mayor of Dover, OH.
Dover is a small community in southeastern Ohio with a
population of approximately 13,000 members in the heart of the
industrial midwest. There are more than 900 commercial and
industrial business interests located in the city. As you would
expect, our goal is to provide reliable, affordable services to
these businesses and residents, including electric power. Our
97- year history as a municipal electric community certainly
supports these efforts.
Dover's effort toward achieving our goal of affordable,
reliable energy is accomplished by a diversified resource
portfolio. With our onsite capacity, the city is able to
generate 30 percent of its electric needs through a mix of
coal-fired, coal with natural gas and diesel generation. In
addition, the city owns 9 megawatts of capacity from AMP-Ohio's
coal-fired Richard Gorsick station in Marietta, 1 megawatt of
hydropower generated by New York Power Authority, 3 megawatts
from a landfill gas joint venture and 3 megawatts generated by
AEP. Any additional generation is purchased through our
wholesale supplier, AMP-Ohio, a joint action organization with
119 municipal member communities in five States on an as-needed
The reliability and security value of our onsite capacity
was punctuated by the events of the August 2003 blackout in our
part of the Country. While surrounding communities were without
power for hours and in some instances days, the city of Dover
never lost power. I am proud to say that Ohio is working to
leave behind its outdated image as being the heart of the rust
belt. Ohio's public power communities are leading the way in
terms of environmentally responsible electric generation in our
region, collectively, wind, run-of-the-river hydropower, and
landfill gas are all part of the generation portfolio to
available to AMP-Ohio member cities.
Energy conservation is also a priority and something we
have been working to implement and raise awareness of in the
city of Dover. All of us share a concern about the environment
and the recent attention being given to climate change, and the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions is an important discussion.
But as is usually the case, how best to address these issues is
at the heart of the debate.
My main concern is that the cost will fall
disproportionately on the poor and the elderly, those least
able to afford such measure, and that impact will hit
especially close to home. Following the death of my wife
Linda's father at age 45, my mother-in-law was able to raise
her other two sisters and send them to school on her social
security income alone. Today, her only source of income is her
$720 social security check. She lives in a 928 square foot
apartment that we were fortunate enough to be able to build for
her next to our house. Twenty-four percent of her social
security goes toward her utilities, $92 in gas and $80 for
electric, water and sewer. Thankfully, she lives in a public
power community that provides affordable and reliable electric
generation by coal, or she would not be able to live alone.
Granted, it is also a big help that we don't charge her any
Mayor Homrighausen. My point is that it only leaves her
$548 for food, medicine, insurance, gasoline and automobile
expenses, cable and phone. Any increase beyond what she has to
pay now would be devastating. Fortunately, she is not alone,
but others are not as lucky.
My point is to stress the importance of a message that
there is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing these
issues. States are unique and have engaged on this issue in
ways that make sense and work for them. A Federal program that
sets limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would
disproportionately penalize some regions, including my own.
Nationally, coal represents roughly one half of our
available power supply, and that figure is higher in my region,
with utilities emitting approximately 40 percent of all
greenhouse gas emissions. Compare this to California, where
coal has limited use in the generation of resource mix, and
utilities are responsible for about 20 percent of the
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, California's economy
does not reflect the same industrial base that exists in our
region of the Country, an industrial base that supplies
products throughout the Nation and is highly sensitive to
electric prices in a global market. In-State generation of coal
has not been an option for California utilities for decades,
while the midwest region is highly dependent on coal-fired
Senator Boxer. If you would like to wrap up, you have gone
over time. If you want to leave us with one final fabulous
Mayor Homrighausen. As the committee continues to
investigate climate change and consider possible new regulatory
regimes, I urge you to remember cities like Dover, OH. Please
recognize that we have an industrial base that helps supply the
Nation, that we are located in a region with a still-struggling
economy and that our part of the Country is historically
dependent on coal-fired generation and doesn't have the ability
to rely on renewable resources to the same extent as other
[The prepared statement of Mayor Homrighausen follows:]
Statement of Richard P. Homrighausen, Mayor, City of Dover, OH
Good morning Chairman Boxer, and members of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, my name is Richard P. Homrighausen, and I
am the Mayor of the City of Dover, Ohio. As a Mayor from a small
Southeastern Ohio town, I am honored to be invited for the third time,
to testify before this committee and offer a state and local government
perspective on climate change. I will focus my remarks on my concerns
about how the regulations being discussed would impact local
governments--especially those like my community, which owns and
operates a small coal-fired generation facility.
Dover, Ohio, with a population of approximately 13,000, is in the
heart of the industrial Midwest, and I believe our experiences are
shared by a great number of small to mid-sized municipalities across
the region. There are more than 900 commercial and industrial business
interests located in the City of Dover. As you would expect, our goal
is to provide reliable, affordable services to these businesses and
residents--including electric power. Our 97-year history as a municipal
electric community certainly supports these efforts.
Dover's effort toward achieving our goal of affordable, reliable
energy is accomplished by incorporating a variety of different
processes. The city-owned, 14-megawatt coal-fired powerplant (which is
also co-fired with natural gas) is our main source of generation. An
additional 18-megawatts of ``stand-by'' electricity can be generated by
our natural gas turbine. We have seven diesel generators with a total
capacity of 13.4 megawatts. Four of these diesel units are solely owned
by the city and three are jointly owned by the city and AMP-Ohio. In
addition to our on-site generation capacity, the city owns nine
megawatts of capacity from AMP-Ohio's coal-fired Richard H. Gorsuch
Generating Plant in Marietta, Ohio, one megawatt of hydro power
generated by the New York Power Authority, three megawatts from a
landfill gas joint venture, and three megawatts generated by AEP.
Finally, any additional needs we have are purchased through our
wholesale supplier, AMP-Ohio, on an as-needed basis.
With our on-site capacity we are able to generate approximately 30
percent of our energy demand locally. The reliability and security
value of this local resource was punctuated by the events of the August
2003 blackout in our part of the country. While surrounding communities
were without power for hours, and in some instances days, the city of
Dover never lost power. As noted, our partner in our effort to supply
affordable reliable power to our community is American Municipal Power-
Ohio, a joint action organization with 119 member-municipal electric
systems in five states.
I'm proud to say that Ohio is working to leave behind its outdated
image as being the heart of the ``rust belt''. Ohio's public power
communities are leading the way in terms of environmentally responsible
electric generation in our region. Collectively, wind, run-of-the-river
hydropower and landfill gas are all part of the generation portfolio
available to AMP-Ohio member utilities. Energy conservation is also a
priority--and something we've been working to raise awareness of in the
City of Dover.
All of us share a concern about the environment, and the recent
attention being given to climate change and the impact of greenhouse
gas emissions is an important discussion. But, as is usually the case,
how best to address these issues is the heart of the debate. I've read
about various statistics relating to the impact of the different
climate change proposals on the economy, on energy production and on
energy prices. Since I am not a scientist or economist, I cannot debate
the validity of such studies and whether their results are high, low or
right on. However, I am concerned that the cost impact will fall
disproportionately on the poor and elderly--those least able to afford
such measures. And, that the impacts will hit especially close to home.
Following the death of my wife Linda's father, at age 45, my
mother-in-law raised Linda's two sisters on social security alone, and
she was able to put them through college. Today, her only source of
income is her $720 Social Security check. She lives in a 928-square-
foot apartment we were able to build for her next to our house. Twenty
four percent of her Social Security goes for her utilities--$92 in gas
and $80 for electric, water and sewer. Thankfully, she lives in a
public power community that provides affordable and reliable
electricity generated by coal or she would not be able to live alone.
Granted, it is also a big help that we don't charge her rent, but my
point is that almost a fourth of her income goes for utilities, which
only leaves her $548 for food, medicine, insurance, gasoline and
automobile expenses, cable and phone. Any increase beyond what she has
to pay now would be devastating. Fortunately, she is not alone--others
are not as lucky.
My point is to stress the importance of the message that there is
no ``one size fits all'' approach to addressing these issues. States
are unique and have engaged on this issue in ways that makes sense and
works for them. Some states have clean coal research and development
programs, others have tax credits for renewable energy, and still
others have renewable portfolio standards. A federal program that sets
limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could
disproportionately penalize some regions. For example, for regions that
are highly reliant on coal for delivery of electricity, or on natural
gas for manufacturing, a federal mandatory program could be
economically devastating--natural gas used for manufacturing would be
diverted to electricity production and prices would become higher and
much more volatile. This is something we have already experienced in
recent years, although to a much smaller degree.
One of the issues I was asked to consider in my testimony today was
the California plan. There are obvious and important differences
between California and other regions of the country. I believe that we
need to strive to find answers that work to achieve desired goals--yet
balance the needs of the entire nation, and in my case, Ohio in
Nationally, coal represents roughly one-half of our available power
supply, and that figure is higher in my region with utilities emitting
approximately 40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Compare this
to California where coal has limited use in the generation resource
mix, and utilities are responsible for about 20 percent of the
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, California's economy does not
reflect the same industrial base that exists in our region of the
country--an industrial base that supplies products throughout the
nation and is highly sensitive to electricity prices in a global
market. In-state generation of coal has not been an option for
California utilities for decades, but the Midwest region, and indeed
the nation as a whole cannot shut coal out as a resource option--not if
we also want to maintain our national goals of energy independence,
reliability and affordability.
One component, as I understand, of the California Plan is a
utility-specific ban on long-term power supply agreements with coal-
fired plants that emit more carbon than a combined cycle natural gas
plant. Presumably, this is a stocking horse for integrated gasification
combined cycle technology, which has become the belle of the ball in
terms of coal generation in recent years, and many people feel
represents the future of coal generation. They may be right, and I
certainly support advancements that allow us to burn coal more cleanly.
But, with respect to IGCC, the reality is that there is not enough
operational data on the performance of IGCC in real world applications
to crown it the only option.
There are, however, promising back-end control technologies for
traditional coal facilities, such as ammonia and amine scrubbing, with
the potential to capture carbon as well. As the debate moves forward in
Congress, I believe it is important to focus on the desired end result
and take a technology-agnostic approach to allow for the development
and deployment of as many innovative options as possible. We need to
ensure that workable options to reduce carbon emissions from coal
plants are both viable and credible and take into account not only
costs, but also operational considerations.
Looking specifically at my community of Dover, Ohio, we are highly
dependent on coal-fired generation, both through our local facility and
our purchases from the wholesale market. However, unlike larger private
utility companies, we do not own or have access to a fleet of
powerplants that we can selectively control or shut down. Any new
climate program must recognize these differences and provide meaningful
options for cities like Dover.
Of course, the logical question is ``What is Dover doing?'' As I
mentioned, Dover generates a portion of our electric needs by operating
a 14-megawatt coal-fired boiler, co-fired with natural gas burners.
Dover was the first municipal electric utility to install co-firing in
a commitment to reducing emissions at start-up. Dover is also
investigating wind generation by planning to install wind monitors at
three of our water towers and at a fourth site the city owns. Although
Dover is located in the Tuscarawas Valley, which experiences
intermittent wind flow, we won't know if wind generation is feasible
until all pertinent data is collected. By late August of this year,
Dover's new bag house will be in operation, which will further reduce
the emissions from our coal-fired unit. As we speak, our antiquated
Boilers #1, #2 and #3 are in the process of being demolished to provide
the needed space in our generating facility to install new, state-of-
the-art clean coal generation should it become affordable. In the mean
time, through our wholesale power supplier, Dover is a participant in
the development of new coal-fired generation utilizing proven
generation technology with innovative back end control technology, and
we are participating in a pilot studying potential carbon capture
methods. Through our wholesale supplier, we are also part of the
Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership.
Public power communities in my region have taken important steps to
diversify our existing generation supply and utilize ``clean''
resources, including wind, landfill gas and run-of-the-river hydro
power--and have been recognized statewide and nationally for those
efforts. These investments have been at a scale and scope that work for
our region--and we are looking at additional generation investments
that are carbon free.
The City of Dover has been designated a ``Tree City USA'' for 26
consecutive years. During that time we have planted 3,540 curb strip
trees. Additionally, for the past 23 years the city has distributed an
average of 235 Dogwood trees to all first-grade students in the Dover
grade schools, for a total of 5,405 additional trees. The city has
three parks with several thousand trees, or an additional +/- 6,000
trees. Since the mid 1980's the city has developed 13 residential
allotments ranging in size from 12 lots to 150 lots, with each lot
required to have a least one tree planted. (The majority of these trees
are included in the curb strip tree numbers). This does not take into
account all of the other trees in the city that are on private property
and in addition to our curb strip trees. All combined, a minimum of
15,000 trees have been planted within the city over the last 26 years.
Energy efficiency is clearly a critical component in the climate
change equation, since reduced consumption of electricity in most cases
reduces emissions and in all cases postpones the need for new
generation. We are utilizing tools that provide practical advice in
energy conservation available from our national association, the
American Public Power Association, for use with our consumers. The city
has an energy audit program, working with our largest customers to help
them identify the benefits of increased use of energy efficient
lighting and other measures to reduce energy demand. We have made
conservation a theme in communications with our residential customers
through festivals and other events, emphasizing the critical importance
of reducing demand. We routinely distribute energy information and
energy conservation tips in our monthly utility bills. The city has
also accomplished system upgrades, improving voltages and increasing
overall efficiency of our electric system. The city has changed our
street lighting program by replacing high voltage, high energy street
lights with energy efficient street lights. Dover has 2892 total street
lights. To date we have replaced 2250 or 78 percent of our street
lights. The monthly savings in kWhrs realized is 18,667. It takes 1.35
pounds of coal to generate 1 kWhr of electricity. Multiplying 18,667
kWhrs by 1.35 equals 25,200.45 pounds of coal or 12.6 tons of coal per
month which equals 151.2 tons of coal the City of Dover does not have
to burn just by changing our street lights. Once we complete our
change-out program this year, the City of Dover will save an additional
43 tons of coal on an annual basis. In addition, we have held mercury
thermometer recycling events, which not only keep these devices
containing mercury out of our solid waste streams, but also serve to
remind residents to ``think globally and act locally.'' These are
outward and visible examples of a commitment to a clean environment and
to future generations.
As the committee continues to investigate climate change and
consider possible new regulatory regimes, I urge you to remember cities
like Dover, Ohio. Please recognize that we have an industrial base that
helps supply the nation, that we are located in a region with a still-
struggling economy, and that our part of the country is historically
dependent on coal-fired generation and doesn't have the ability to rely
on renewable resources to the same extent as some other regions.
Please also recognize that we understand the need to be responsible
environmental stewards and are looking for ways to balance the desire
to do so with our need to maintain a viable economy. A plan that starts
everyone at ``square one'' and doesn't recognize the investments
already made is neither viable nor credible. In short, don't penalize
us for our past good behavior, nor unreasonably restrict our ability to
meet the needs of our community. We also encourage you not to pre-empt
state efforts to tailor programs that work to balance the unique needs
of the varying regions of our great country.
I would hope that any regulatory structure enacted would be
economy-wide and apply to all industry sectors, would take into account
the financial impacts on consumers and protect the ability of the
United States to compete in a global marketplace, and would recognize
the need to maintain reliability and protect national security. I also
whole-heartedly welcome investments the Federal Government can make in
advancing a range of clean-coal technologies, renewable energy
generation and energy efficiency programs that benefit all utility
sectors and consumers.
This committee, and Congress, has an enormous task at hand. I would
ask you to consider the information I have presented, the information
presented by my fellow panelists and all other pertinent information
available, prior to finalizing any legislation. Please keep in mind
that passing legislation too quickly increases the risk of passing the
Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity and your work on
this issue, and I look forward to responding to any questions you might
Responses by Mayor Richard Homrighausen to Additional Questions from
Question 1. Mayor Homrighausen, if a federal law were enacted
similar to California's and the Executive Order signed by Governor
Corzine, what impact would that have on people like your mother-in-law?
Response. The impact these measures will have on people like my
mother-in-law will be devastating. While the intent of these measures
is noble the reality is that the average American cannot afford the
costs associated with compliance. As I see it, these measures are a
back door attempt to achieve the Kyoto Protocol, which the majority of
the American people and Congress do not agree with.
It would be a different story if the 2 largest contributors to
global warming, China and India, were made to comply, but they don't so
the majority of the burden will lie on the backs of the American
people. Additionally, Mexico, where a great deal of America's jobs have
been outsourced to, does not have to comply, which only makes this
burden the more unbearable.
If we are to be serious in our attempt to curb global warming
Congress must take measures to invoke serious economic sanctions on all
countries, whether they be developing countries or not, who are not
being good stewards of our environment by emitting vast quantities of
pollutants into our atmosphere. If these measures are not taken then
enacting these measures on our own people will be a hollow attempt, and
fall far short in curbing a worldwide problem.
As I have pointed out in my testimony, my mother-in-law cannot
afford any additional cost beyond those she already has. Any increase
in compliance costs will directly impact, not only my mother-in-law,
but all people in our country.
2Question 2. Mayor, you testified about the industrial base in your
region which supplies the nation. If draconian policies are put in
place which dramatically increase natural gas price volatility, what
will that do to your local economy and those of neighboring Ohio towns
Response. Dover is already experiencing the effects of high natural
gas prices. Dover was the first Municipal Electric Utility in the
country to install natural gas burners to co-fire our start-up process
in an attempt to reduce our emissions. The high cost of natural gas has
caused the city to limit the use of these burners because the cost far
exceeds the benefit gained by burning natural gas.
As natural gas prices increase the cost of doing business
increases. As the cost of doing business increases the cost of goods
produced increases. As the cost of goods produced increases profit
margins decrease so does the competitive edge of any given company. As
the ability to compete is reduced the desire to outsource these goods
is increased. Once goods are outsourced these jobs are gone. The City
of Dover, and/or any city in the country, need only look at the number
of manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the past several years
to determine what any major spike in natural gas prices will do to our
If you have an entire country dependant upon the majority of its
electricity being supplied by natural gas generation then you have a
recipe for disaster. The United States cannot afford to continue to put
us at a disadvantage by placing more and more stringent requirements on
our industry. Congress has to be serious about its desire and
commitment to developing clean coal technology in order for us to
continue to be the leader of the free world.
During the hearing I was appalled when Senator Sanders made the
following statement (on page 79 of the transcript) `` . . . I am
wondering what we could do at the Federal level. There have been some
indications that if we literally gave away, gave away compact
fluorescent light bulbs, we end up saving money.'' Now I totally
understand the intent is to lower our energy usage which in turn
reduces the amount of electricity needed, which reduces our demand for
energy and the emissions from generation, which saves money everyone
money. However, what I don't understand is why anyone in the Federal
Government would even consider giving billions and billions of dollars
to one of the worst polluters in the world--China--where these bulbs
Dover is home to one of the last incandescent light bulb
manufacturing facilities in the country, General Electric, where they
manufacture the filament used in incandescent bulbs. If the Federal
Government were to supply billions of CFB's to our citizenry then GE in
Dover will close. Why not expend these monies on producing affordable
CFB's ``MADE IN AMERICA'' instead of funding our major competitor?
Senator Boxer. I think that is a very important point,
So we have heard from everybody, it has been a terrific
panel. I am going to use my 4 minutes to make a couple of
comments, ask a question of my Californians. But I just wanted
to point out, Mr. Harvey, before you leave, I want to give you
this interesting article. It is so amazing that today this
article would run. In the Washington Post, rapid warming
spreads havoc in Canada's forests, tiny beetles destroy pines.
Millions of acres of Canada's lush green forests are turning
red in spasms of death. A voracious beetle whose population
exploded with the warming climate is killing more trees than
wildfires or logging. ``It's pretty gut-wrenching,'' said Allen
Carroll, a research scientist at the Pacific Forestay Center in
Victoria, whose scientific studies tracked a lockstep between
warmer winters and the spread of the beetle. ``People say
climate change is something for our kids to worry about. No,
Then, this is what really caught my attention in the
article. Ironically, the town is booming. The beetle has killed
so many trees, the officials have more than doubled the
allowable timber harvest, just taking a lead from you, so
loggers can cut and haul away as many dead trees as possible
before they rot. The icy roads are choked with giant trucks
growling toward the mills loaded with logs, marked with the
telltale blue stain fungus. But the boom will end when what
people hear called beetle wood is removed or rots out, and no
one is sure how long it will take. The forest industry will be
running at about half speed.
So the point of this is, it is ironic that you mentioned
the great opportunity you had. But this is a tragedy in the
long run. We need to avoid the tragedy. I don't think it is a
great thing to sit here and say, well, we will preside over the
end of the forests. It is not right. We did inherit God's green
earth and we do have an obligation. By the way, I agree with
those of you from the coal States who are throwing up a red
flag. We have to work together to make this work.
So here is my question for my Californians, my heroes of
the day here, along with Mayor Nickels and Mayor Cownie. But
they are my home-grown heroes. Here is the thing. The others
are making it sound like, some of the others who oppose what
you are doing, in essence, or don't seem to understand it or
don't get it, they are saying it was a piece of cake. Now, I
don't understand how it could be so easy. It wasn't easy. The
fact is, we drive more cars than anyone. Cars are responsible,
mobile sources, for about at least a third of the problem.
So I just want to ask you politically, it makes it look
like this was the easiest thing in the world. If you could give
us a sense of how it was. I don't think it was that easy.
Mr. Nunez. Well, it certainly was a big challenge to pass
Assembly Bill 32 in California last year. Just ask the oil
refinery industry, for example, or the cement industry, for
that matter, or heavy manufacturing in California, the utility
industry. But I think in essence people realize that we are
seeing the effects of global warming, as others are, at the
Just a quick example, the Sierra snow pack started melting
in 2004 in mid-March, which was the earliest in 90 years. In
essence, we rely on that snow pack to eventually get us water
to southern California and to sustain the agricultural industry
in the Central Valley. So I think in essence what happened is
people were thinking that perhaps this was not a good idea,
this was a tough thing to do, these standards were tough
standards, albeit California has already played a major role in
conserving electricity and gas and energy. Conservation has
always been a big part of our home stay in California, as you
know, Senator. We have always been very conscientious about
water quality and air quality.
But we felt that we needed to go further. Here is the
reason why. I listened very carefully to what some of the
Senators said earlier, who perhaps feel that we need to wait
until countries like India or China act. Here is the problem.
We represent, at the global level, as a Country, less than 5
percent of the population of the world, yet we are responsible
for over 30 percent of the world's emissions. In China, they
are building a coal plant a week. India is going through the
same type of industrial revolution that we went through over
150 years ago. Yes, they are big polluters. But if we wait for
them to act and don't play a central role at the global level
as a Nation, there is a lot to lose. I believe that we owe it
to our children and our children's children to act now.
This wasn't easy to do in California. It was tough. It was
a tough choice to make, not just for us as legislators,
certainly for the Republican Governor in our State, Governor
Schwarzenegger. It was a tough decision for him to make. But we
did it because we believed that it was not only our
responsibility, Senator, but our obligation to act.
Senator Boxer. Thanks. Don, do you have anything quickly to
Mr. Perata. California is really a self-contained
laboratory. What we have found, the Speaker mentioned cement.
We found that once we started talking about putting caps on it,
they started talking about, can we add more limestone, which
would cost less to produce, less energy and would have the same
strength. In an earthquake State, that is important.
Again, there is money to be made, there are jobs to be
created. I think why most Californians understand that this is
a valuable exercise, and beyond the environment, is that we
have lost our defense base, we have lost our manufacturing
base. These are the technologies that are going to create the
new wave of jobs. We will develop something in California that
at the time India and China decide that they are no longer
going to choke on their air, we will be able to clean it for
Senator Boxer. I think that is such an important point.
This is such a plus. It is not gloom and doom and beetles and
cutting down trees. It is avoidance of those things.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I just couldn't help but
think, looking at all of you here, that I was before this
committee as a member of the State legislature in Ohio, was the
father of the Environmental Protection Agency and came down
here and testified. As Mayor of the city of Cleveland, I was
here testifying before this committee. I was here before this
committee as Governor of Ohio. This is my 40th year in this
I would like you to know that for the last 8 years, we have
been trying to come up with some kind of compromise to deal
with NOx, SOx, mercury and greenhouse gases. The problem has
been, we have never been able to get any agreement on the
greenhouse gases, because there is such a difference of opinion
in terms of the science and so on. As a result of that, we
really have not done a good enough job on NOx, SOx and mercury.
So we are at the stage where we are probably going to continue
to do nothing for the next couple of years, because of a lot of
a difference of opinion.
But one of the things that has come out here today, and
Mayor Homrighausen, thank you for being here. I know you had a
real health problem, thank you for being here. He has been here
two or three times to testify. What I would like to do is to
challenge each of you, I was very active in an NGA, and we had
the Big Seven. We had the National Council of State
Legislators. They have committees that deal with the
environment. You are in charge at the U.S. Conference of Mayors
in terms of their committee. In fact, when I thought of you, I
thought of Charlie Royer, I don't know if you know Charlie or
Mayor Nickels. Saw him night before last.
Senator Voinovich. Really? If you see him again, say hello
to him for me. Great, great guy.
And then we have the National Governors. Madam Chairman, I
think it would be really good if we would convene, we call it
the Big Seven, to come together to talk about this issue, to
see if we can get some consensus out there among State and
local government organizations and come here to Congress with
some reasonable proposal. Cap and trade has always been kind of
a no, no, no. But I think that if done properly and with the
right timing, it might be something that we could get done.
But if you could get together and agree to something,
representing, I gave you the statistics, I mean, it is
different. California has hardly any coal, and Mayor, we have
about 90 percent coal. It falls all over the Country
But the point that Mr. Nunez made, we are not looking to
delay anything. I believe that we need to get going full blast
to deal with this. But the real issue here is this whole issue
of technology. It is the thing that is holding us back. What we
need to do is get that technology, make it work here in the
United States and then deal with what is going on around the
world. Because a lot of those plants are going to be built
without dealing with greenhouse gases. How do you put something
on them that does deal with the greenhouse gases?
So the only question I have is that, what do you think
about the idea of all of you getting together and trying to
come up with some policy that you can come up here and lobby us
in terms of, this is what we want to do? You have taken the
leadership, the States have, the cities have. You have done a
great job. You have actually done more than we have done, a lot
more. What do you think of that?
Mr. Perata. I am up for it.
Mr. Nunez. I certainly think that you have some great minds
here in the Congress as well. I do believe that ultimately,
there is a saying that says something like necessity is the
mother of invention. I believe that until and unless you create
a market through real specified mechanisms that require a
reduction in our carbon footprint that the time with which the
new technologies, for example, coal, I hear a lot of discussion
about coal, coal gasification and other alternative ways to
make our air cleaner and not depend upon the antiquated forms
of energy that we continue to use. Until and unless we have a
real necessity and an urgency to produce them, then those
technologies will not come. I think we have to create them.
Senator Voinovich. Let me say this. Senator Clinton talked
about a Manhattan project. In other words, I think we are at
that stage right now. If we are going to get a cap, reasonable
cap and trade program, you have to have the prospect that we
have the technology out there to really do a job with
greenhouse gases. I think we have a role to play. I think if we
wait for the market to do this, it is not going to happen. By
the way, we don't have time to wait. There are people saying,
well, put the caps on, and then all of a sudden, this is going
to sprout. I think that it hasn't. I think we need to, we have
a role in the Federal Government to get on this thing now.
Mr. Perata. Senator, if I might, there are some great
things going on in our State. We would love to have you come.
We just got a $500 million grant from British Petroleum for the
UC Campus at Berkeley to do renewable energy research. There
are many things going on. It might be just the thing you need
is a little time in California and we will show you some of the
things that are happening. It is very stimulating. It really
Mayor Cownie. Senator, I think that one thing you might do
immediately that the Conference of Mayors has worked on is that
energy and environmental block grant that is kind of patterned
after the CDBG. My problems in Des Moines are different than
they are in Seattle.
Senator Voinovich. By the way, you had better lobby for
CDBG, because they are going to try and knock it out again.
Mayor Cownie. As soon as we leave this meeting, we will
head right over----
Mayor Cownie. But I think that whether it is Honolulu or it
is New Orleans or Seattle or Des Moines, or any place across
this Country, we all have different needs. Certainly we need to
do baseline studies, we need to know what our emissions are,
where they came from. Then we can put a plan together to try to
But there are things people can do every single day in
their lives, and I think we need to empower them to do that and
educate them. That is something else that we can do also with
these dollars. Let local governments decide and State
governments how they are going to use it and where it is needed
in their particular localities.
Senator Boxer. Mayor Nickels, you have the last word, and
then we are going to go to Senator Cardin, who has been so
patient. He hasn't even had round one yet.
Mayor Nickels. And Senator Mayor, I think the U.S.
Conference of Mayors would be very excited to engage in that
kind of a process. We have sensed this year a real climate of
change here on this issue, both here in the Senate and on the
House side. We think that is very encouraging and we would like
to participate in moving this issue forward, not next Congress
or the Congress after, but this Congress.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Cardin, you have been so
patient. Please go ahead.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to listen
to our colleagues from State and local government, because I
think we can learn a lot from the initiatives that have taken
place. I believe in federalism, and I think it is very
In order to get in two rounds, I am going to ask that my
opening statement be included in the record.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely, yes.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing today. Justice
Louis Brandeis famously said that ``States are the laboratories of
democracy.'' This hearing certainly attests to the truth of that
dictum. The regional, state, and local initiatives to slow, stop, and
ultimately reverse the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that we
will hear about today are truly significant.
Consider California: if it were its own country, it would have the
world's 8th largest economy. So when Californians set out to reduce
their GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels over the next
several decades, we shouldn't underestimate the impact that will have
in fighting global warming.
I applaud the witnesses here today who are taking the lead in
fighting global warming on behalf of their states, cities, and
What's disheartening about today's hearing is that these officials
feel compelled to act in large part because the Federal Government is
abdicating its responsibility. As important as all of these regional,
state, and local actions are, we still need leadership from President
Bush and from Congress.
We have heard from the scientists. The most recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that
global warming is happening and the causes are largely anthropogenic.
We have heard from enlightened business leaders who formed the
Climate Action Partnership to advocate national strategies for fighting
I appreciate the fact that private sector and state and local
public sector leaders are stepping in to fill the breach created by the
current administration's inaction on the most pressing environmental
issue of our generation. But the fact is, we need national leadership.
And we need it right away.
I'm proud of what Maryland is doing to fight global warming.
Several cities, including Baltimore, Annapolis, Rockville, and
Gaithersburg, are participating in the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement, which commits them to voluntarily implement Kyoto agreement
within their municipalities.
Later this year, Maryland will become a full partner in the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). ``REGGIE,'' as it is known,
is a cooperative effort by several Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States
to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from powerplants by
stabilizing CO2 emissions at current levels from 2009 to
2015, and then cutting them 10 percent by 2019.
Maryland is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global
warming. Tide gauge records for the last century show that the rate of
sea level rise in Maryland is nearly twice the global average. Studies
indicate that this rate is accelerating and may increase to 2 or 3 feet
along Maryland's shores by the year 2100.
More than 12 percent of the State's land is designated under the
National Flood Insurance Program as a Special Flood Hazard Area. An
estimated 68,000 homes and buildings are located within the floodplain,
representing nearly $8 billion in assessed value. Allstate Insurance,
one of our largest insurers, recently announced that it will stop
writing new homeowners' policies in coastal areas of the State, citing
concerns that a warmer Atlantic Ocean will lead to more and stronger
hurricanes hitting the Northeast.
About a third of the marshes at Blackwater Wildlife Refuge on
Maryland's Eastern Shore have been lost to sea level rise over the past
70 years. Smith Island, the only inhabited island community in Maryland
and the subject of a recent documentary on global warming, has lost 30
percent of its land mass to sea level rise since 1850.
According to 2005 report of the Maryland Emergency Management
Agency, Maryland is the 3rd most vulnerable state to flooding and has
the 5th longest evacuation times during a tropical storm or hurricane
So we don't have a choice. We need to do everything possible to
curb global warming and rising sea levels. But we can't do it alone.
The Federal Government has to join us in this effort.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Speaker Nunez, I held your position in the
Maryland legislature when we initiated the Chesapeake Bay
program, worked first with the entities in Maryland, then our
surrounding States, and then ultimately came to the Federal
Government as a partner. I think we made great progress,
because we tested the issues at the State level, the local
level then the regional levels before coming to Washington. I
think you are doing the same thing with the laws that you are
The California law is now being looked at in the Maryland
legislature. I expect the Maryland legislature is going to pass
a bill very similar to your initiative. That is what federalism
should be all about. Mayor Nickels, seven of our
municipalities, a part of your initiative, including Baltimore
City. So we are working together, trying to come up with a
proposal that will reflect what we need in this Country.
I respect the different views that have been expressed by
this panel. There are different views as to what we need to do
as far as our environment is concerned. But I don't believe
there is any disagreement that we need to become energy
independent. We need to do that for many reasons. I think
everyone on this panel would agree that for national security,
we don't want to continue to give money to entities that are
very much against our national security interest. Every time we
fill up our tank, we are helping to support extremists who
disagree with our way of life.
I don't think there is any disagreement here about the
economic impact, about becoming energy independent, so we don't
have to worry about OPEC countries changing the price of oil
affecting our economy. I would think we would also acknowledge
that becoming energy independent will be much friendlier to our
environment, something that we all have sensitivity to.
So I would hope that we would frame this debate, rather
than as Senator Voinovich has pointed out, there are different
views here in Congress and our ability to pass legislation this
year is very much compromised by that. But I don't think we can
wait. States and local governments have done their job and they
are continuing to do that. But there is a need for Federal
action here. There is a need for leadership at the national
level. We have a lot from what has been done at the State and
local governments. We need, for the sake of our security,
economy and environment, we need to move forward.
I would hope that we would follow some of the
recommendations that we have heard from our States. They have
tested these programs, they know what works, they know the
economic impact. They know how businesses have been able to
respond and deal with the challenges of caps and the other
issues. We have that information, thanks to the good work done
by your States and your municipalities.
I think it is now incumbent upon us to take a look at that
and develop some national leadership, so that we can work in
stronger partnership with the work that has been done here.
Madam Chair, I thank you for taking us down this path. I have
found this hearing to be extremely helpful. I just want to
thank all the panelists for being patient and presenting your
information. This will not be the last time that we are going
to call upon you to help us as we wrestle with a national
policy that I think will be good, not just for our environment,
which we need to deal with, Madam Chair, I agree with you, we
need to deal with our environmental risks of global warming.
But it is also important for our national security and for our
economic interests. I think all of us should be able to come
together with the programs so the Federal Government has a more
aggressive partnership in this effort. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a
fascinating and important hearing. We are one Country with
States that have very different needs. While I disagree with
our friends from the coal and oil producing States, I
understand what you are talking about. Your economies are
dependent upon that type of production, you are part of an
America that has to be understood as we move, I believe, in a
new direction, in the same way that I hope you understand the
needs of Vermont, in a State where the weather gets 20 or 30
below zero, and we all have our needs and we work together.
It seems to me, in listening to the testimony, that what
they call the lowest hanging fruit seems to be energy
efficiency. I would like to hear some discussion from our local
and State officials about what they are doing in terms of light
bulbs, for example. In Australia, they are literally talking
about banning incandescent light bulbs. The compact
fluorescents are far more energy efficient. I want to hear what
some of your cities and States are doing. I want to hear what
you are doing in terms of moving your own transportation
systems away from cars that get bad mileage, the hybrids, how
far you have gone in that direction.
I know in Burlington, when I was Mayor, we passed the bond
issue. The result is that despite a lot of growth in
Burlington, we are consuming less electricity today than we did
20 years ago.
So let's talk about it, let's start with California. The
other question for my friend in California, who killed the
electric car and what can we do about that?
Senator Sanders. Mr. Nunez, can you start on that one?
Mr. Nunez. Sure, I will start. Senator Clinton alluded to
that 30-year timeframe, in which California, in terms of our
per capita consumption, has been flat while the rest of the
Country has actually gone up 50 percent. That is true because
of the laws that we have passed over the years in California,
both in the area of the protection of the environment, but also
in conservation. In the last 6 years, a lot of has been done
also in terms of transportation and emission standards, which
now in California, you know, we drive somewhere in the
neighborhood of 20 to 30 percent of the hybrid vehicles.
Senator Sanders. Is the electric car still being discussed?
Mr. Nunez. It is being discussed, but there were some
problems in terms of how efficient it was to move people from
point A to point B. But I think there is no question that with
the new technologies that are coming to bear, there certainly
is the opportunity for electrical vehicle to once again make
their way back into the California market.
Senator Sanders. OK, let me ask anybody who wants to
respond, just something as simple as light bulbs. I know
Senator Boxer has been talking about that for the Federal
Government, just moving away from incandescent light bulbs.
What your cities or States been doing? Mayor Nickels, do you
want to say a word on that?
Mayor Nickels. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator. Our
electric utility, which is owned by the city, recently gave
away 13,000 of the compact fluorescent bulbs.
Senator Sanders. Let me ask you a question, and Madam
Chair, I am wondering what we could do at the Federal level.
There have been some indications that if we literally gave
away, gave away compact fluorescent light bulbs, we end up
saving money. Is that what you are saying, Mayor Nickels?
Mayor Nickels. They are many times more efficient, and
while the initial cost is higher, they last many times longer.
The payback is remarkably short.
Senator Sanders. So do you see a potential in encouraging
Mayor Nickels. Yes. In Seattle, we decided we would lead by
example. So we reduced the city government's emissions first by
60 percent from 1990 levels. We did that by converting to many
hybrid vehicles, we have converted our diesel to biodiesel. In
fact, in my neighborhood, the local Safeway, which is the
largest grocery chain, opened up a biodiesel pump at their
station, first one in the Country in the Safeway chain. They
are buying the biodiesel from a company in Iowa.
We have traded in the beloved mayoral Town Car for a
hybrid, a tough decision, but one I thought was important. We
are striving to become the green building capital of America,
so that the architects and engineers and suppliers in Seattle
have a chance to create jobs in those industries that we can
export the services and products elsewhere in the Country and
Senator Sanders. Mayor Cownie.
Mayor Cownie. We are doing many of the same things that
Mayor Nickels is doing. Additionally, when we go out and meet
with citizens, and I talk about empowering citizens, they all
were sitting around, tell us what to do, tell us what to do. So
we have a Just-Do-One-Thing program that we are doing, and we
give them a little bag, when we go to these town hall meetings,
and we put a compact fluorescent in there. We tell them it
takes 18 seconds to go switch out an old one, put in a new one.
We give them a whole list of other things that they can do in
their households each day to make a difference.
Senator Sanders. That is great. My time has run out, Madam
Chair, but I would also say that one of the areas we want to
look at as we move away from incandescent to compact
fluorescents, is we don't manufacture those bulbs, I don't
believe, in the United States of America. If we are talking
about getting millions of people to use those bulbs, we could
make some money if one of these companies would start producing
these things in one of our towns.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. You are so right about that. Every single
one of those bulbs, because believe me, I did a survey, made in
China. The irony of all this. Basically with China saying, we
are not ready to do anything. But they are making these light
Anyway, let me thank everyone so much. As my colleagues
said, this has been a very long hearing for good reason.
Because all of you are very provocative in what you said, and I
thought Governor Corzine was as well. Colleagues are so
interested, and it makes me so happy as a committee chair. It
is like, what if you called a meeting and nobody came.
Senator Boxer. As you know, as Speaker, that does happen
now and then. Here it is just a lot of attendance and it makes
me really feel good. We even went to New Orleans on Monday for
a field hearing and we had seven Senators there. So that was
OK, so in closing this, I get a chance to say the last
word, which is always hard for people who don't agree with me.
But let me just say, on the question of whether global warming
is occurring, it always sort of breaks my heart when people say
the science is confused and so on. I would love to share with
those of you who are skeptics the latest scientific reports and
the bona fides of the people who have signed onto these
documents. Because it is one thing to keep saying there is no
consensus. I am sure there were always those who said, the
earth is flat. There are still people who say HIV doesn't cause
AIDS. There are even people who say there is no link between
tobacco and cancer. You always have a few.
But the preponderance of the evidence on global warming is
in. I just hate to see us waste time on it. I think the
legitimate things that the antis said today are very important
for us to hear, that please be mindful in a coal State, that if
you move forward, we have to ease the burden on the consumers.
Absolutely. I think that Senator Voinovich's call and Senator
Clinton's and my own feelings on clean coal and a Manhattan-
like project to find truly clean coal, those things are
necessary. The technology piece has to go along with everything
else we are doing.
But I do agree with Speaker Nunez when he says that, if you
are clear about the caps, then somehow the smart money will
follow. We already see it happening with the biggest
corporations coming forward and supporting us as we strive to
find some common ground to become partners with those of you
who have taken action. I think that is what I want to be, is a
partner. I want to do things that enhance what you are doing
and that allow you to still keep on going, because you are the
laboratories in the best sense of the word.
So in closing, I think we could put our hands over our eyes
and then over our ears and our mouths and just say, we are not
going to pay attention to this. Believe me, it is a lot easier.
But the greatest generation, what they did for us, our grandpas
and our great-grandpas, they did it for their great-grandkids
that they may never see. We have this challenge. It is not as
immediately life-threatening, obviously, as what they faced.
But it is life-threatening to the future.
So we can't just hide behind feel-good statements here. We
have to get down and do it. I am, as I said in the beginning,
an optimist. I am filled with hope. This is the greatest
country on the face of the earth, Mr. Harvey, I totally agree.
That is why we are up for this challenge. We can do this in the
right way. I am so proud of my State, and Mayor Nickels, of
what you have done, Mayor Cownie. All of you who are grappling
with this on the ground, I used to be a county supervisor. I
know the buck stops right there. They have your phone number,
they meet you in the street. It is hard either way, and we have
to have answers.
So let's work together. I think that's the key. Let's not
have these great divides, because time is clicking and it is
not our friend.
Thank you very much, and this hearing has come to a close.
Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 1 o'clock p.m., the committee was
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the
State of Connecticut
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for keeping the
attention of this committee focused squarely on the supremely important
need to curb global warming.
Many of us here in Congress have been aware for some time that,
when it comes to global warming, state and local governments have been
filling the vacuum left by federal inaction. It was only in preparing
for this hearing, however, that I had an opportunity to learn just how
many state and local governments have taken strong steps already.
Fourteen states have actually set state-wide targets for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty-nine states have completed climate
action plans. Thirty-one states are involved already in regional
greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. I am not sure whether the various
members of Congress who still oppose federal legislation to mandate
greenhouse gas reductions realize how many of their constituent
businesses are already subject to such mandates. All of the businesses
I talk to prefer, for several reasons, a uniform national system to a
patchwork of state and regional ones. I would think the same would be
true of many large employers in my colleagues' states.
Of course, creating political pressure for a comprehensive national
strategy is by no means the only virtue of these local, state, and
regional initiatives. For one thing, the non-federal initiatives are
reducing greenhouse gases right now. For another, they are doing
invaluable design and testing work--dealing with emissions registries,
monitoring and compliance programs, trading markets, and offsets--that
will inform the inevitable federal system. The comprehensive national
system that I believe Congress will soon enact will be more effective,
more efficient, and more durable because of the ingenious and
courageous work that is being done today at the local, state, and
I cannot discuss genius and courage on the issue of global warming
without mentioning Connecticut. I am extremely proud to represent a
state that has always been, and continues to be, a national leader on
policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Connecticut is a founding
member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for powerplants. In
2004, the state passed laws and issued executive orders to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions across all major sectors of the state's
economy. For example, those laws adopt California's automobile
emissions standards, set efficiency standards for products and
appliances, require greenhouse gas emissions reporting, and mandate a
plan to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by
2010 and to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. In early 2005,
Governor Rell's administration submitted the plan to the Connecticut
General Assembly. That document, encompassing 55 separate initiatives,
represents one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive, economy-
wide state plans for curbing global warming pollution. Many of the
initiatives comprising Connecticut's plan are now in place and reducing
Madame Chairwoman, I could not resist the temptation to brag a bit
about Connecticut's enormously productive efforts in this area. I
appreciate my colleagues' patience. I am just extremely proud of my
constituents and Connecticut's government.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.