[House Report 110-915]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress 
 2nd Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                110-915
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 590


               FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 110TH CONGRESS

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                   SUBMITTED BY MR. MARKEY, CHAIRMAN,

                SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

                           AND GLOBAL WARMING




 November 19, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
        Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
            Warming, House of Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, November 19, 2008.
    Pursuant to House Resolution 202, I submit the Final Staff 
Report for the 110th Congress from the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming to the Congressional 
Record, and printing by GPO.
            Sincerely,
                                          Edward J. Markey,
                                                          Chairman.
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Executive Summary................................................     1
The Climate and Energy Challenge.................................    12
    The Climate Crisis...........................................    12
    The Energy Crisis............................................    37
Energy and Climate ``Win-Win'' Solutions.........................    49
    Enact Economy-Wide ``Cap-and-Invest'' Legislation............    50
    Boost Efficiency of the Electricity Sector and Buildings.....    64
    Dramatically Expand Renewable Electricity Generation.........    72
    Drive the Development of Carbon Capture and Sequestration....    78
    Transform the U.S. Transportation System.....................    81
    Support Green Jobs and Clean Tech Growth.....................    96
    Protect American Consumers From High Energy Prices...........   100
    Responsibly Manage Domestic Oil and Gas Production...........   104
Oversight of the Bush Administration.............................   106
    EPA's Response to Massachusetts v. EPA.......................   106
    NHTSA's Implementation of Fuel Economy Standards.............   108
    Department of Energy.........................................   109
    Department of Interior.......................................   110
    EPA and Federal Trade Commission--Voluntary Carbon Offsets...   113
    Department of State..........................................   114
    Centers for Disease Control..................................   115
International Efforts............................................   115
    International Climate Negotiations...........................   115
    Select Committee Congressional Delegations...................   120
Additional Views.................................................   128
Appendix A--Hearings and Briefings of the Select Committee.......   135
                                                 Union Calendar No. 590
110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-915

======================================================================



 
               FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 110TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 November 19, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Markey, from the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
                    Warming submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
Warming submits the following Final Staff Report for the 110th 
Congress.

                           Executive Summary

    Global climate change presents one of the gravest threats 
not only to our planet's health, but also to the United States 
economy, national security, and public health. Scientists warn 
that we may be approaching a tipping point, after which it will 
become increasingly difficult, or perhaps impossible, to halt 
global warming and its catastrophic effects. The United States 
confronts this issue at the same time it faces a deepening 
energy crisis--characterized by skyrocketing prices, an 
increasing dependence on foreign oil, and continued reliance on 
high-carbon fuels that worsen the climate crisis.
    We are at a watershed moment in the history of energy 
production--and the choices we make at this juncture will 
determine the fate of our planet and the national security and 
economic future of the United States. Between now and 2030, 
over $20 trillion will be invested in energy infrastructure 
worldwide, and an estimated $1.5 trillion will be invested in 
the U.S. power sector alone. This new infrastructure is long-
lived and costly, and the decisions made in the next decade 
will set the course of the global and U.S. energy system--and 
of the global climate--for the next century and beyond. This 
transition also presents an unprecedented opportunity for 
economic growth and job creation in the clean energy technology 
sector. But the United States must act now if it is to be a 
leader in this rapidly developing global market.
    Recognizing the urgency of these challenges, Speaker Pelosi 
announced at the outset of the 110th Congress her intention to 
create a select committee to tackle them. On March 8, 2007, the 
House passed Resolution 202, establishing the Select Committee 
on Energy Independence and Global Warming and directing it to 
``investigate, study, make findings, and develop 
recommendations on policies, strategies, technologies and other 
innovations, intended to reduce the dependence of the United 
States on foreign sources of energy and achieve substantial and 
permanent reductions in emissions and other activities that 
contribute to climate change and global warming.''\1\ In 
keeping with this mandate, the Select Committee has worked to 
identify balanced and workable solutions to the urgent 
challenge of securing America's energy independence while 
combating global warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\H. Res. 202, Sec. 4(c), 110th Cong. (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past 18 months, the Select Committee has held over 
50 hearings on a broad array of subjects ranging from the 
security, economic, and environmental threats posed by climate 
change, to advanced vehicle and renewable energy technologies, 
to policy options for lowering prices at the gasoline pump. 
These hearings are listed in Appendix A of this report. Many 
were groundbreaking ``firsts''--including the first 
congressional hearing on the national security implications of 
climate change, the first ``green jobs'' hearing, the first 
hearing at which the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change testified, the first hearing on U.S. cities' 
efforts to combat climate change, the first hearing with the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the 
implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts 
v. EPA, the first hearing on the Department of the Interior's 
handling of the decision whether to list the polar bear as an 
endangered species, and the first hearing on the voluntary 
carbon offset market--to name a few. In addition, the Select 
Committee has held field hearings atop Cannon Mountain in New 
Hampshire, at the U.S. Conference of Mayors' meeting in 
Seattle, Washington, and in Hartford, Connecticut. Meanwhile, 
it has hosted numerous briefings to educate House staff on a 
broad array of key energy and climate issues.
    The Select Committee has aggressively pursued oversight of 
the Bush administration's energy and climate policies, 
including through oversight hearings, letters, and information 
requests focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Department 
of State, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    The Select Committee organized or participated in several 
major Congressional delegations focused on energy security and 
climate change issues. These include delegations led by Speaker 
Pelosi to Greenland and the European Union in May 2007 and to 
India in March 2008, as well as a Select Committee delegation 
to Brazil in February 2008. In addition, Select Committee staff 
delegations have traveled to the UN Climate Change Conference 
in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007 and to the National Center 
for Atmospheric Research, the National Ocean and Atmospheric 
Administration's Earth Systems Research Laboratory, and the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratories in Colorado.
    Finally, the Select Committee has worked to communicate 
directly with the American public about energy security and 
climate change issues--principally through its website, which 
has won the prestigious ``Golden Dot'' Award for the best 
website in all federal, state, and local government (presented 
by the School of Political Management at George Washington 
University), an Honorable Mention from the Webby Awards, a 
Pollie Award from the American Association of Political 
Consultants, and a Silver Mouse Award, presented by the 
Congressional Management Foundation. Chairman Markey--by 
``avatar''--delivered the first international address on 
climate using virtual world (``Second Life'') technology to the 
UN climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December 
2007.
    This Final Staff Report details the findings and 
recommendations of the Select Committee staff. Part I of the 
report addresses the challenges posed by the climate crisis and 
America's growing energy needs. Part II provides 
recommendations on a series of ``win-win'' solutions that will 
bolster America's energy security while achieving the 
reductions in global warming pollution needed to save the 
planet. Part III presents the findings and recommendations 
resulting from the Select Committee's oversight activities. 
Part IV discusses international issues, and reviews the 
findings of the Select Committee Congressional delegations to 
Greenland and the EU, Brazil, and India.
    The Report's key findings and recommendations are as 
follows:

                              KEY FINDINGS

    The scientific debate on the cause of climate change is 
over. A clear scientific consensus now holds that global 
warming is happening, that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are 
largely responsible, and that failure to dramatically reduce 
those emissions in the coming decades will result in 
catastrophic impacts. Human activities have changed the 
atmosphere as much in 200 years as natural variations changed 
it over 20,000 years. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon 
dioxide--key heat-trapping gas--have increased from 280 parts 
per million to 380 parts per million since 1750, and are higher 
than any level seen in the last 650,000 years. These 
concentrations could exceed 700 parts per million by 2100--
leading to an increase in global average surface temperature of 
over 11 +F--if current trends in emission growth continue.
    Among the more alarming predictions regarding the likely 
near- to medium-term impacts of unchecked global warming are 
the following:
     Increasingly severe water scarcity in the United 
States and globally, resulting in massive economic damages in 
the United States and subjecting up to 1.2 billion additional 
people in Asia, up to 220 million people in Africa, and up to 
80 million people in Latin America to water stress by 2030.
     Increasing warming and acidification of the 
oceans, contributing to the collapse of coral reefs around the 
world and severely impacting global fisheries.
     Sea level rise of at least 1-2 feet--and possibly 
much more--by 2100, subjecting the roughly 1 billion people 
living in coastal areas around the world to increased risk of 
inundation, storm surges, coastal erosion, and saltwater 
intrusion into drinking water supplies.
     Increased heavy precipitation events and flooding 
in the United States and globally, as well as the potential for 
more frequent and more intense hurricanes and extreme weather 
events.
     A broad range of adverse effects on public health 
including more frequent and more intense heat waves, thousands 
of additional deaths and millions of additional cases of 
respiratory illness due to ground-level ozone air pollution, as 
well as increased risk of infectious disease in the United 
States and many other regions of the world.
     More frequent and more intense wildfires, and a 
longer fire season, throughout the Western United States, 
together with a decline in forest health due to increased 
infestation from pests.
     Forty percent of the world's species could face 
extinction by the latter half of this century as a result of 
global climate change.
    Tragically, these impacts will fall disproportionately on 
vulnerable communities, particularly in the developing world, 
that are least responsible for climate change and least able to 
adapt to it. However, the United States and other wealthy 
countries will also suffer devastating economic, environmental, 
and human costs if global warming continues unabated.
    The potential costs of global warming--both globally and 
here in the United States--are staggering. Economic studies 
suggest that global warming could cost the global economy from 
5 to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Here in the 
United States, preliminary studies suggest that even a narrow 
range of global warming impacts could slash GDP by 1.8 to 3.6 
percent by 2100. These costs far outweigh the potential costs 
of economy-wide legislation to reduce global warming pollution.
    There is a growing consensus that climate change presents a 
serious and growing risk to the United States national security 
interests around the world, acting as a ``threat multiplier.'' 
Climate change impacts will increase the risk of water and food 
scarcity, mass migration, and resource conflict in the 
developing world, with the potential for destabilization in 
many regions. Climate change impacts will also affect military 
and strategic infrastructure and energy supplies, both here in 
the United States and abroad.
    To avert catastrophic global warming, it will be necessary 
to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50-85 
percent by 2050--including a reduction by the United States and 
other developed countries of at least 80 percent by 2050. 
Strong interim targets, including a reduction of U.S. emissions 
by at least 20 percent by 2020, will be needed to achieve these 
goals. This will require an unprecedented transformation of the 
U.S. and global economy and energy systems--an energy 
technology revolution, which the United States must lead.
    In the face of this crisis, the Bush administration's 
approach to climate change has been marked by pervasive delay, 
obfuscation, and political interference in scientific research 
and agency decision making. In addition to its well-documented 
attempts to censor government climate scientists, the Bush 
administration has worked aggressively to prevent the EPA from 
fulfilling its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions and has blocked California 
and over a dozen other states from implementing greenhouse gas 
emission standards for motor vehicles. Further, the 
administration has delayed progress in international climate 
talks, undermining the United Nations negotiations and refusing 
to agree to binding emission reduction targets.
    At the same time, the United States is confronting a 
deepening energy security crisis--characterized by skyrocketing 
energy prices, growing dependence on foreign oil, and a 
widening gap between rising energy demand and stagnant supply.
    The United States continuing ``addiction'' to oil presents 
a serious and growing threat to our national security and 
economy. The United States is the largest consumer of oil in 
the world, accounting for 25 percent of global demand--
principally to power our transportation system, which is 95 
percent dependent on oil. In the past 40 years, the United 
States has gone from importing 21 percent of the oil it 
consumes to importing nearly 70 percent. The vast majority of 
the world's oil--and virtually all of its spare production 
capacity--is located in countries that are members of OPEC. As 
a result, the United States national security and economy is 
increasingly threatened by the potential for a supply 
disruption or market manipulation by sometimes unfriendly 
foreign governments.
    Oil and gasoline prices have skyrocketed in the past year, 
and are predicted to remain at historically high levels for the 
foreseeable future, primarily as a result of rising global 
demand. Crude oil prices have increased by over 300 percent 
since 2001, and gasoline prices increased by 150 percent in 
this period. Even with the recent drop in prices, oil remains 
very expensive and volatile. While oil market speculation and 
the weak U.S. dollar have undoubtedly played an important role 
in the recent price run-up, experts agree that growing global 
demand--mostly in rapidly growing developing countries--is 
likely to result in sustained high prices for the foreseeable 
future. Soaring prices have had a crippling effect on American 
consumers--with mid-2008 gasoline expenses eating up nearly 10 
percent of an average American worker's pre-tax income. The oil 
and gas industry, meanwhile, is raking in record-breaking 
profits--$123 billion in 2007 and on track for $150 billion in 
2008--while reducing investment in new exploration and putting 
little or no investment into alternative energy sources or 
research and development.
    We cannot drill our way out of this problem. While the 
United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, it 
accounts for only 10 percent of global production and has less 
than 3 percent of global reserves. While the past year was 
marked by strident calls to open new areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
to drilling--and by the expiration of the 27-year moratorium on 
OCS drilling off the East and West Coasts of the United 
States--the facts make clear that increased drilling will have 
a negligible impact on crude oil supply or prices.
    U.S. electricity demand is rising faster than new supply is 
coming online, our electricity transmission and distribution 
infrastructure is outdated and overtaxed, and uncertainty about 
climate regulation is stalling new investment. U.S. electricity 
demand is predicted to increase by 29 percent by 2030, 
requiring the construction of over 290,000 megawatts of new 
generating capacity--or equivalent increases in efficiency. 
This rising demand is outstripping predicted increases in 
supply and in transmission capacity. Many regions of the 
country are predicted to see declining levels of reserve 
capacity--putting the reliability of the grid at greater risk. 
While coal remains the single largest source of electricity in 
the country (over 49 percent), the massive contribution of 
coal-fired power plants to global warming pollution and 
uncertainty regarding climate policy are making it increasingly 
inadvisable and difficult to build new conventional coal-fired 
plants. Natural gas and wind power, meanwhile, are experiencing 
strong growth. While many advocate nuclear power, massive 
expansion would be necessary even for it to maintain its 
current share of U.S. generation, and there are very 
substantial financial, market, and other obstacles to such an 
expansion.
    Natural gas demand and prices have risen dramatically in 
recent years, but the United States is not highly dependent on 
natural gas imports and new ``unconventional'' onshore 
resources are expanding domestic supply. Natural gas has become 
the fuel of choice for new power plants in the United States 
because of its low emissions and the comparatively low capital 
cost and short lead times for plant construction. Increased use 
of natural gas for residential and commercial heating is also 
contributing to rising demand. Natural gas prices have shot up 
over the past several years, with adverse impacts on 
residential and industrial consumers. Although the United 
States has less than 4 percent of global reserves, over 80 
percent of the natural gas we consume is domestically produced, 
with most of the remainder coming from Canada. Rising prices 
are contributing to a boom in ``unconventional'' domestic 
production from shales and coalbed methane, boosting domestic 
supply and putting downward pressure on prices. Completion of 
the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline would further expand access to 
domestic resources. In contrast, opening previously closed 
areas of the OCS to gas production area will not significantly 
increase supply or reduce prices.
    The energy security and climate challenges now facing us 
present a critical opportunity for economic growth and job 
creation. The policies recommended by this report will unleash 
an energy technology revolution that will far outstrip the 
information technology revolution of the past two decades in 
generating economic growth and American jobs. By contrast, if 
the United States does not seize this opportunity, it will 
become a laggard, instead of a leader, in what promises to be 
the largest global market of this century.

                   ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE 110TH CONGRESS

    The 110th Congress has taken a number of major steps 
towards addressing the climate and energy security challenges.
    Most importantly, the enactment of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA):
     Fuel Economy Standards: Raised corporate average 
fuel economy (CAFE) standards for the first time since 1975, to 
at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020--a minimum 40 percent 
increase over current standards--in keeping with the proposal 
advocated by Chairman Markey for the prior seven years.
     Renewable Fuel Standard: Established a renewable 
fuel standard that requires inclusion in the U.S. fuel supply 
of at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, over 
half of which must come from next-generation biofuels including 
cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel.
     Lighting, Appliance, and Federal Building 
Efficiency Standards: Established lighting and appliance 
efficiency standards, as well as new efficiency standards for 
federal buildings.
     Green Jobs Training: Established a comprehensive 
``green jobs'' training program for workers in the renewable 
energy and energy efficiency industries and authorized $125 
million per year for this program.
    Taken together, these policies are predicted to reduce U.S. 
oil consumption by 4 million barrels per day by 2030, 
equivalent to more than twice the oil we import from the 
Persian Gulf. They are predicted to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions by 1.3 billion metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent 
annually by 2030--equivalent to 24 percent of the reductions 
needed by 2030 to keep us on track to reduce total U.S. 
emissions by 80 percent by 2050. They are expected to produce 
$475 billion in net consumer savings by 2030--including $230 
billion from fuel economy standards alone--and will create 
hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
    In addition, as part of the economic rescue plan enacted on 
October 3, 2008 (H.R. 1424), Congress enacted the ``Energy 
Improvement and Extension Act of 2008''--which provides an $18 
billion package of tax credits for clean energy and energy 
efficiency. Included in this package were the following:
     Production Tax Credits for Renewable Electricity: 
A two-year extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for 
electricity generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, 
landfill gas and solid waste, and a one-year extension of the 
PTC for electricity generated from wind. For the first time, 
projects generating electricity from river and ocean currents, 
waves, tides, and thermal energy conversion are also eligible 
for the PTC.
     Investment Tax Credits for Renewable Electricity: 
An eight-year extension of investment tax credits (ITC) for up 
to 30 percent of the cost of residential and commercial-scale 
solar energy projects, together with removal of the $2,000 cap 
on residential photovoltaic solar investments, previously a 
significant barrier to growth in the residential market.
     Plug-In Hybrid Tax Credits: Tax credits on the 
purchase of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. 
The tax credit starts at $2,500 and increases based on battery 
capacity and vehicle size to up a maximum of $7,500 for cars 
and $15,000 for heavy-duty trucks.
     Carbon Capture and Storage Credits: Tax credits 
for carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects. 
Facilities would be eligible to receive a $20 tax credit for 
each metric ton of carbon dioxide captured and disposed of in 
secure geological storage and a $10 tax credit for each metric 
ton captured and used for qualified enhanced oil or natural gas 
recovery projects.
     Biofuel Credits: Incentives for the production of 
homegrown renewable fuels like biodiesel, and for the 
installation of E-85 pumps for consumers to fill up flexible-
fuel vehicles.
     Efficiency and Smart Grid Incentives: Incentives 
for energy conservation in commercial buildings, residential 
structures, energy efficient clothes washers, dishwashers and 
refrigerators, and accelerated depreciation for smart electric 
meters and grid equipment.
     Clean Renewable Energy Bonds: $800 million worth 
of new clean renewable energy bonds for electric cooperatives 
and public power providers to finance facilities that generate 
electricity from renewable resources.
     Energy Conservation Bonds: $800 million worth of 
new Energy Conservation Bonds for State and local governments 
to make energy conservation investments in public 
infrastructure and invest in research.
    The 110th Congress also enacted a number of measures aimed 
at protecting American consumers from high energy prices, 
including the following:
     LIHEAP Funding: Funding the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) at its full authorization level of 
$5.1 billion.
     Weatherization Assistance Program Funding: 
Increasing funding to the Weatherization Assistance Program, 
which supports weatherization of low-income homes to reduce 
energy costs, to $478 million--nearly double historic levels.
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension: 
Enacting H.R. 6022, the ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill 
Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008,'' which avoids 
wasteful spending and reduces pressures on oil prices by 
blocking the Department of Energy from buying oil for the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve during a period of historically 
high oil prices.
    Finally, the House passed several important energy security 
and climate measures that were not enacted into law, including 
the following:
     A national renewable electricity standard that 
would have required 15 percent of the national electricity 
supply to be generated using renewable resources by 2020 (up to 
4 percent of which could be satisfied through efficiency 
measures).
     Federal model building standards that would have 
required a 30 percent improvement in the energy efficiency of 
new residential and commercial buildings by 2010 and a 50 
percent improvement by 2020.
     ``Use-it-or-lose-it'' provisions that would 
require oil and gas companies to diligently pursue production 
on the 68 million acres of federal lands already leased to 
them.
     Recovery of $5.8 billion in Outer Continental 
Shelf oil and gas lease royalties lost due to erroneous 
omission of price caps for royalty relief in certain leases 
issued in 1998 and 1999.
     H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and 
Accountability Act of 2008, which would have addressed 
excessive speculation in energy markets by closing the so-
called ``London Loophole,'' which allowed traders to avoid 
regulation by offshoring their trades, requiring greater 
information be made public on trading activities in energy 
markets, and requiring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
to set position limits for energy futures markets.

                            RECOMMENDATIONS

    The 111th Congress and the next Administration should 
prioritize the implementation of the following recommendations, 
organized based on eight core objectives:
    1. Enact Economy-Wide ``Cap-and-Invest'' Legislation Based 
on the Following 10 Principles:
     Science-Based Emission Targets: Climate 
legislation must achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas 
emissions of at least 20 percent by 2020 and at least 80 
percent by 2050.
     Market-Based, Economy-Wide Cap-and-Trade System: 
To maximize cost savings, climate legislation should implement 
a market-based cap-and-trade system that covers as great a 
proportion of U.S. emissions as is practicable.
     Ensure Fairness and Effectiveness by Auctioning 
Pollution Allowances: Climate legislation should auction 100 
percent of pollution allowances, to ensure fairness and 
effectiveness of the cap-and-invest system and to minimize 
social costs.
     Consumer Focused: Climate legislation should 
return at least half of allowance auction proceeds directly to 
low- and middle-income households to offset any increase in 
energy costs.
     Invest in Efficiency, Clean Energy Technology, and 
American Workers: Climate legislation should spur the 
transition to a low-carbon economy by investing auction 
proceeds in energy efficiency programs, in the development, 
demonstration, and deployment of clean energy technologies, and 
in helping American workers to transition to good jobs in the 
new low-carbon economy.
     Ensure Global Participation: Climate legislation 
should include an integrated system of ``carrots'' and 
``sticks'' to ensure that other countries join with us in 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
     Smart Offsets and Incentives for Supplemental 
Emission Reductions: Climate legislation should establish 
rigorous standards governing the award of offset credits, and 
should provide robust financial incentives for supplemental 
reductions in ``uncapped'' emissions not eligible to generate 
offset credits.
     Rigorous Carbon Market Oversight: Climate 
legislation should establish a rigorous framework for oversight 
and regulation of the market for emission allowances, offset 
credits, and derivatives--ensuring transparency, fairness, and 
stability.
     Build Resilience to Climate Change Impacts: 
Climate legislation should build resilience to unavoidable 
impacts of climate change, both in the United States and in the 
most vulnerable developing countries. This must include 
investment in the necessary capacity to provide a robust Earth 
observation and prediction system.
     Integrate Complementary Policies and State and 
Local Roles: Climate legislation should integrate complementary 
policies (especially in the area of power sector, building, and 
transportation sector efficiency) to reduce the overall cost of 
reducing emissions, and should preserve appropriate roles for 
State and local action.
    2. Boost the Efficiency of the Power Sector and Residential 
and Commercial Buildings:
     National Building Efficiency Standards: Enact 
federal building efficiency standards requiring at least a 30 
percent improvement in new building efficiency by 2010 and a 50 
percent improvement by 2020.
     Incentives for Building Efficiency Retrofits: 
Provide funding for the zero net-energy commercial buildings 
initiative created under EISA, and promote building efficiency 
labeling standards for existing buildings.
     National Appliance Standards: Authorize new 
national appliance standards for high energy-consuming 
appliances such as flat-screen televisions, servers, and 
computers, and encourage the Department of Energy to promptly 
issue and/or update appliance efficiency standards under 
existing authority.
     National Energy Efficiency Resource Standard: 
Adopt a national energy efficiency resource standard that 
requires utilities to achieve gradually increasing level of 
annual efficiency gains.
     Performance-Based Incentives for State and Local 
Governments: Provide performance-based federal incentives--
potentially funded through cap-and-invest auction proceeds or a 
national wires charge--to encourage utilities, States, and 
local governments to adopt energy efficiency measures.
     Fund Combined Heat and Power, Fuel Cell, and Smart 
Grid RD&D Programs: Fully fund initiatives authorized under 
EISA to promote research, development, demonstration, and 
deployment of combined heat and power, fuel cells, and smart 
grid technologies.
    3. Expand Renewable Electricity Generation:
     National Renewable Electricity Standard: Establish 
national Renewable Electricity Standard requiring that 20 
percent of U.S. electricity be supplied by renewable sources by 
2020.
     5-8 Year Extension of Renewable Energy Tax 
Credits: Enact a five- to eight-year extension of the 
production tax credit for renewable electricity generation.
     Double Federal RD&D: Double current levels of 
federal investment in RD&D on renewable electricity generation.
     Develop a National Green Transmission and 
Distribution Policy: Encourage or require the Department of 
Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
formulate a national policy to encourage construction of 
transmission lines connecting renewable resources with 
population centers.
    4. Drive the Development of Carbon Capture and 
Sequestration (CCS) Technology:
     Fund CCS Demonstration Projects and R&D: Fully 
fund the CCS demonstration program authorized under Sections 
702 and 703 of EISA and increase funding for CCS-related R&D 
efforts.
     Performance Standards for New Plants: Enact 
legislation, either in tandem with cap-and-invest legislation 
or as a precursor to it, to require all new coal-fired power 
plants to implement CCS by 2020.
     Administration Task Force: Encourage or require 
the new administration to establish an interagency task force 
to address and make recommendations to Congress on regulatory 
and legal barriers to the commercial deployment of CCS, 
including a proposed framework for long-term liability issues.
    5. Transform the U.S. Transportation System Through Fuel 
Efficiency, Electric-Drive Vehicles, Low-Carbon Fuels, and 
Transportation Choices:
     Ensure Rigorous Implementation of CAFE Authority: 
Require NHTSA to use realistic estimates of fuel prices and 
technologies in determining the ``maximum feasible'' fuel 
economy standards for the U.S. fleet.
     Low-Carbon Fuel Standard: Enact a federal low-
carbon fuel standard that requires gradual and continuous 
reductions in the carbon intensity of the U.S. fuel supply, is 
harmonized with the existing renewable fuel standard from the 
present through 2022, and replaces the renewable fuel standard 
after 2022.
     Expand Tax Credits for Plug-In Hybrids and Other 
Advanced Vehicles: Provide tax credits for conversion of hybrid 
vehicles to plug-in hybrids.
     Fund Loan Guarantees for Advanced Battery 
Development: Fully fund loan guarantees for advanced battery 
development under Section 135 of EISA.
     Fund Electrification of State Vehicle Fleets: 
Establish a grant program to assist States with conversion of 
their vehicle fleets to plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.
     Double Federal RD&D: Double current levels of 
federal investment in RD&D on biofuels and advanced vehicle 
technologies.
     Promote Mass Transit and Smart Growth: Make 
promotion of mass transit and smart growth policies to reduce 
vehicle miles traveled a priority for transportation 
reauthorization and other relevant federal policies.
    6. Support Green Jobs and Clean Tech Growth:
     Fund Green Jobs Training: Fully fund the green 
jobs training program established under Section 1002 of EISA.
     Clean Tech Investment Support: Consider the 
establishment of institutions and mechanisms, such as a clean 
energy investment bank, to encourage private investment in 
clean energy technology.
    7. Provide Short-Term Energy Relief to American Consumers:
     Fully Fund LIHEAP and the Weatherization 
Assistance Program: Fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program at full 
authorization levels.
     Manage Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Protect 
Taxpayers and Consumers: Require the Department of Energy to 
swap 10 percent of the light crude in the SPR for heavy crude 
to better balance the Reserve. Provide guidance to the 
Department of Energy on management of the SPR during periods of 
high oil prices to avoid wasteful spending and to utilize the 
Reserve to provide short-term relief to consumers.
     Provide New Authority to Crack Down on 
Speculation: Amend the Commodities Exchange Act to close 
loopholes in the existing regulatory regime. Provide funding 
for 100 additional staff for the Commodities Futures Trading 
Commission to oversee energy commodities futures markets.
    8. Responsibly Manage Expanded Domestic Oil and Gas 
Production:
     Encourage Diligent Development of Existing Leases: 
Enact legislation to require oil and gas leaseholders that fail 
to develop such leases diligently to surrender them to the 
Department of the Interior so that they can be offered to other 
producers.
     Responsibly Address Outer Continental Shelf 
Drilling: Revisit the issue of Outer Continental Shelf oil and 
gas exploration and drilling to ensure that environmentally and 
economically sensitive areas are protected and that States' 
rights are respected in future OCS drilling activities.
     Encourage Development of the Alaska Natural Gas 
Pipeline: Encourage presidential leadership in completion of 
the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, which could expand domestic 
supply of natural gas to the lower 48 States by 7 percent of 
current levels.

                  I. The Climate and Energy Challenge


                         A. THE CLIMATE CRISIS

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

1. The scientific consensus on climate change

    Global warming refers to the global temperature rise and 
subsequent impacts from the increase of heat-trapping gases in 
the atmosphere from human activities, primarily the combustion 
of fossil fuels. This additional pollution enhances the so-
called ``greenhouse effect'' and warms the Earth. The 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 
its Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 that the evidence 
for warming is ``unequivocal''\2\ and that most of the observed 
warming is very likely--greater than 90 percent certainty--due 
to the increase of global warming pollution from human 
activities.\3\ Over the last century, the global average 
temperature has increased 1.4 +F, with almost 90 percent of the 
warming occurring over the last 50 years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 5 (2007).
    \3\Id. at 3.
    \4\Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just like the glass of a greenhouse traps warm air inside, 
certain gases in the atmosphere trap heat that would otherwise 
escape into space. There are a number of such ``greenhouse 
gases'': water vapor,\5\ carbon dioxide (CO2), 
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), high-
altitude ozone, and certain man-made industrial gases, 
including chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), 
and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Water vapor is different from the other greenhouse gases 
primarily because of the much shorter time it stays in the atmosphere--
days rather than years, decades or centuries. As noted below, the 
quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere depends primarily on 
temperature, rather than human activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The impact of each gas on global warming is a combination 
of its ability to trap heat, its concentration in the 
atmosphere, and how long it stays in the atmosphere. For 
example, while one molecule of methane traps more heat than one 
molecule of CO2, the higher concentration and longer 
atmospheric lifetime of CO2 means it has contributed 
more to global warming than methane has. Most efforts to 
control global warming pollution have focused on the 
CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels 
because they have the greatest effect and we have the greatest 
control over them.
    Since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of 
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts 
per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm.\6\ This 100 ppm change is 
the same increase as the world experienced from the last ice 
age about 20,000 years ago until just before the 1800's.\7\ 
Human activities have changed the atmosphere as much in 200 
years as natural variations changed it over 20,000 years. The 
current level is higher than any level seen in the last 650 
thousand years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\The total CO2-equivalent concentration of all 
greenhouse gases is 455 ppm. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 
2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, at 27 
(2007).
    \7\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 112 (2007).
    \8\Urs Siegenthaler, et al., Stable Carbon Cycle--Climate 
Relationship During the Late Pleistocene, 310 Science 1313 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scientists can model the temperature effects of natural and 
human-induced, or anthropogenic, changes in the global 
temperature. The results show that natural variations alone 
cannot explain the observed temperature rise of the last 
decades. The changes from human activities are necessary to 
fully explain the observed warming. Indeed, the IPCC has 
estimated that of the processes that can change global 
temperature, what they call ``radiative forcings,'' the 
components from human activities are cumulatively 10 times 
larger than the best estimates of the changes from solar 
activity.\9\ A 2007 study found that all the trends in the 
Sun's activity that could influence the temperature of the 
Earth have been in the opposite direction needed to explain the 
rise in temperature over the last 20 years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 4 (2007).
    \10\Lockwood and Froehlich, Recent Oppositely Directed Trends in 
Solar Climate Forcings and the Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, 
463, Proceedings of the Royal Society, 24427 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scientists predict that if GHG emissions continue to grow 
unchecked, global warming--and resulting climate change--will 
accelerate. The IPCC's estimate of the likely increase in 
global average surface temperature by 2100 ranges from 2 +F to 
11.5 +F above 2000 levels, depending on the scenario for 
greenhouse gas emissions growth.\11\ It should be emphasized, 
however, that current trends in emissions growth are consistent 
with or higher than the scenarios on the high end of this 
range. Business-as-usual emissions growth could result in 
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of well above 700 ppm 
by 2100,\12\ yielding a likely temperature increase of 8.8 to 
11 +F.\13\ These levels of warming will result in disastrous 
impacts for the planet, as the following sections explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, at 13, 69-
70 (2007).
    \12\See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Analysis of 
Bingaman-Specter Request on Global CO2 Concentrations at 7 
(Oct. 1, 2007), available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
downloads/s1766analysispart1.pdf.
    \13\See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 39 
(Table TS.2) (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, many scientists are increasingly concerned that, 
because of ``positive feedback'' mechanisms associated with 
climate change, we are approaching a ``tipping point'' beyond 
which climate change will accelerate and will become 
increasingly difficult to reverse. As Dr. James Hansen 
explained at a briefing before the Select Committee held 20 
years after his historic first testimony before Congress that 
human activities were altering the climate:

          Elements of a ``perfect storm,'' a global cataclysm, 
        are assembled. Climate can reach points such that 
        amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic 
        sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated 
        sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more 
        sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any 
        additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be 
        ice-free in the summer.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\James Hansen, ``Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping 
Points Near,'' Briefing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence 
and Global Warming, June 23, 2008, available at http://
www.columbia.edu/jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf.

Another worrisome climate feedback involves the methane stored 
in frozen arctic soils. Although it is hard to quantify, there 
is likely five times, if not more, carbon trapped in these 
soils than humans have released into the atmosphere from the 
burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.\15\ As 
these soils warm and release methane, temperatures will 
increase, causing more soil to melt and more methane to be 
released. How quickly this warming and release happens is a 
critical question. As Dr. Jack Fellows said about this question 
in testimony before the Select Committee, ``If it is released 
quickly, it could be the end of civilization.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Sergey A. Zimov, et al., Permafrost and the Global Carbon 
Budget, 312 Science 1612 (2006).
    \16\Transcript of Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
Global Warming hearing on ``Investing in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet 
America's Energy and Climate Challenges, Sept. 10, 2008, at 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Greenhouse gas emissions sources and trends

    The United States accounts for roughly 20 percent of global 
CO2 emissions, and U.S. emissions have grown 
steadily over the past two decades at a rate of roughly 1 
percent per year. In 2006 (the most recent year for which data 
is available), the United States emitted 7,054 million metric 
tons CO2 equivalent in greenhouse gases--a 14.7 
percent increase since 1990 (the earliest year for which EPA 
data are available). Net emissions, including sources and 
sinks, similarly increased from 1990 to 2006, from 5,411 to 
6,171 million metric tons CO2 equivalent.\17\ Absent 
policy interventions, U.S. emissions are expected to increase 
between 20 and 52 percent by 2025 from 2000 levels.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, at ES-4 to ES-6 (April 15, 2008) 
[hereinafter ``EPA Inventory''], available at http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf.
    \18\Kevin A. Baumert et al., World Resources Institute, Navigating 
the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Policy at 18 (2005) 
[hereinafter ``WRI Navigating the Numbers''], available at http://
pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2006 U.S. emissions were dominated by emissions from the 
electric power sector (comprising 34 percent of total U.S. 
emissions), transportation sector (28 percent), and industrial 
sector (19 percent). The remaining emissions were due to the 
agricultural (8 percent), commercial (6 percent), and 
residential (5 percent) sectors. Emissions from the electric 
power, transportation, and agricultural sectors have increased 
since 1990, while emissions from the industrial, commercial, 
and residential sectors have held steady or declined over the 
same period. If emissions from the generation of electric power 
are instead attributed to the end-use sectors, these 
proportions shift somewhat: The industrial (29 percent), 
commercial (17 percent), and residential (17 percent) sectors 
play an increasing role, while contributions from the 
transportation (28 percent) and agriculture (8 percent) sectors 
remain relatively constant.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\EPA Inventory, supra note 17, at ES-15 to ES-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2006, 80 percent of U.S. emissions were CO2 
from the combustion of fossil fuels. Additional CO2 
emissions (representing 5 percent total U.S. emissions) were 
generated from other activities, such as the manufacture of 
iron and steel and cement. Remaining emissions were comprised 
of CH4 (8 percent) and N2O (5 percent), 
largely from agricultural activities, landfills, natural gas 
systems, and coal mines, and HFCs (2 percent) used as a 
substitute for ozone-depleting substances. PFCs and 
SF6 each comprised less than 1 percent U.S. 
emissions. Net carbon sequestration (primarily in U.S. forests 
and agricultural soils) was 884 million metric tons 
CO2 equivalent--offsetting 13 percent of total U.S. 
emissions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\EPA Inventory, supra note 17, at ES-4 to ES-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global greenhouse gas emissions grew by 24 percent between 
1990 and 2004,\21\ have accelerated since then, and are now 
running above the IPCC's worst case scenario. While a slowing 
global economy in 2007 was expected to slow energy consumption 
and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions, global CO2 
output instead rose 3 percent from 2006 to 2007. Anthropogenic 
CO2 emissions are growing four times faster since 
2000 than during the previous decade, and are now running above 
the worst case emission scenario of the IPCC.\22\ In 2006, 
China surpassed the United States in total annual 
CO2 emissions,\23\ with each country accounting for 
more than 20 percent of the global total.\24\ The EU-25 
countries accounted for an additional 15 percent. India is on 
track to become the world's third largest emitter in 2008, 
surpassing Russia.\25\ When the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change was drafted in 1992, the 38 
countries initially agreeing to limit their greenhouse gas 
emissions were responsible for 62 percent of all carbon dioxide 
emissions. Today this number has fallen to around 47 percent, 
demonstrating the transformation of the global economy and the 
rapid growth occurring in many parts of the developing 
world.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 27 (2007).
    \22\Global Carbon Project, Carbon budget and trends 2007 (2008), at 
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index.htm (last visited 
Oct. 20, 2008).
    \23\Id.
    \24\International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2008 
at 45, 50, 56 (2008), available at: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/
free/2008/key_stats_2008.pdf.
    \25\Oak Ridge National Laboratory Press Release, ``CO2 
emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report'' (Sept. 24, 
2008), available at http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/
Press%20Release_OakRidge%20NationalLab_USA_final.pdf.
    \26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electricity and heat account for 25 percent of global 
emissions, followed by industry (21 percent), land use change 
and forestry (18 percent), buildings (15 percent), agriculture 
(15 percent), transport (14 percent), and waste (4 
percent).\27\ The International Energy Agency's (IEA's) 
Reference Scenario projects global greenhouse gas emissions to 
increase 44 percent between 2006 and 2030. Emissions from China 
and India are expected to grow by 86 and 104 percent, 
respectively, while emissions from the United States are 
expected to grow by 25 percent over the same time period.\28\ 
Emissions from the EU have stayed relatively flat since 1990, 
and the EU has unilaterally committed to reduce emissions by 20 
percent by 2020--and up to 30 percent with cooperation from the 
international community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\WRI Navigating the Numbers, supra note 18, at 57.
    \28\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook (2006); and 
International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While China has now overtaken the United States as the 
largest greenhouse gas emitter on an annual basis, the United 
States continues to have one of the highest per capita emission 
rates--far greater than India, China, or the EU. In 2005, the 
United States emitted 20 tons of CO2 per capita 
annually, compared to 12 tons per capita in Russia, 10 tons in 
Japan and the United Kingdom, and 8 tons per capita for the EU. 
The worldwide average per capita CO2 emissions level 
is 4.3 tons, and the average person in China and India is 
responsible for 4 tons and 1 ton of CO2 emissions 
per year, respectively.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 
2005, at Table H.1cco2 World Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions from 
the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980-2005 (2007) available 
at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the United States is responsible for nearly a 
third of the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in the 
atmosphere--nearly four times as much as China and over 14 
times as much as India. Developing countries with 80 percent of 
the world's population still account for 20 percent of the 
cumulative emissions since 1751. The poorest countries in the 
world--where 800 million people live--have contributed less 
than 1 percent of these cumulative emissions.\30\ For most 
industrialized countries, their historic (i.e., cumulative) 
share of global emissions is much higher than their current 
(i.e., annual) share. For the period between 1850 and 2002, the 
United States contributed 29 percent world's CO2 
emissions, leading all other countries. EU-25 follows closely 
behind, with a contribution of 27 percent world's 
CO2 emissions, but no other country contributes more 
than 10 percent. For example, China's cumulative contribution 
is 8 percent, and India's is only 2 percent.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Global Carbon Project, supra note 22.
    \31\WRI Navigating the Numbers, supra note 18, at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IPCC has concluded that, to have even a 50-50 chance of 
avoiding the dangerous climate change associated with a 3.6 +F 
increase in global average surface temperature, global 
emissions must be reduced by 50-85 percent by 2050. This 
requires the United States and other developed countries to 
reduce emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050.\32\ Given the 
current trajectory of rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions, 
both here in the United States and globally, a substantial 
change of course is required in the very near term to avoid the 
catastrophic impacts outlined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 38-39 (Table 
TS.2); Amy L. Luers et al., Union of Concerned Scientists, How to Avoid 
Dangerous Climate Change: A Target for U.S. Emission Reductions (Sept. 
2007), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/
big_picture_solutions/a-target-for-us-emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The catastrophic impacts of climate change

            a. Going dry--increasing water scarcity and declining water 
                    quality
    One of the most dramatic impacts of global warming in the 
21st century will be the exacerbation of already severe water 
scarcity--both here in the United States and abroad. Freshwater 
scarcity and threats to water quality are increasing 
dramatically both in the United States and across the world. 
Over a billion people currently lack access to safe drinking 
water.\33\ By 2025, 1.8 billion people are expected to be 
living in regions experiencing water scarcity and ``two-thirds 
of the world's population could be living under water stressed 
conditions.''\34\ Climate change will greatly exacerbate 
current and future water stress. For example, the IPCC projects 
that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people in Africa alone 
will experience an increase of water stress due to climate 
change.\35\ For Asia, the number is between 120 million and 1.2 
billion people, and for Latin American it is 12 to 81 
million.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\German Advisory Council on Global Change, Climate Change as a 
Security Risk Summary for Policy-makers at 2 (2007).
    \34\United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, The Food 
Crisis and Sustainable Development (May 2008), available at http://
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/documents/bgrounder_foodcrisis.pdf.
    \35\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers at 13 
(2007).
    \36\Testimony of Rajendra Pachauri before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, ``Learning from a Laureate: 
Science, Security and Sustainability,'' Jan. 30, 2008; see also 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change and Water at 
36 (2008) [hereinafter ``IPCC Climate Change and Water''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming is leading to rapid melting of land ice, 
glaciers, ice caps, and snow fields which over time will 
exacerbate water scarcity in many regions of the globe. One-
sixth of the world population currently relies on meltwater 
from glaciers and snow cover for drinking water and irrigation 
for agriculture.\37\ The IPCC's 2008 Climate Change and Water 
report projects widespread reductions in snow cover throughout 
the 21st Century, and a 60 percent volume loss in glaciers in 
various regions.\38\ The melting of these ice reservoirs, which 
store 75 percent of the world's freshwater, will exacerbate 
water scarcity conditions.\39\ While melting will temporarily 
increase freshwater supply, more winter precipitation falling 
as rain rather than snow, and an earlier snowmelt season will 
deplete frozen freshwater reserves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers at 11 
(2007).
    \38\IPCC Climate Change and Water, supra note 36, at 28.
    \39\Id. at 19-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased water stress due to climate change will 
disproportionately affect the dry tropics and dry regions at 
lower mid-latitudes--notably Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, 
Brazil, and the American Southwest.\40\ According to the 2008 
IPCC Climate Change and Water Report, semi-arid and arid areas 
in Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, Brazil, and the western 
United States are ``projected to suffer a decrease of water 
resources due to climate change.''\41\ In Asia, decreasing 
precipitation and rising temperatures result in increasing 
frequency and intensity of droughts.\42\ In northwestern China 
and Mongolia, snow and glacier melt will cause floods in the 
spring in the near term but result in freshwater shortages by 
the end of the century.\43\ Global warming of 5.4 to 7.2 +F 
would result in more persistent El Nino conditions that would 
shift the Amazon rainforest from ``tropical forest to dry 
savannah''\44\--imperiling an ecosystem that sustains thousands 
of people and is one of the greatest concentrations of 
biodiversity on Earth.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Id. at 3.
    \41\Id. at 88.
    \42\Id. at 86.
    \43\Id. at 87.
    \44\Timothy M. Lenton et al., Tipping Elements in the Earth's 
climate system, 105 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
1790 (2008).
    \45\WWF Climate Change Programme, Climate Change Impacts in the 
Amazon: Review of Scientific Literature at http://assets.panda.org/
downloads/amazon_cc_impacts_lit_review_final_2.pdf (last visited Oct. 
20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States is already experiencing water stress, 
which will worsen severely in the coming decades due to climate 
change. In the American West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is at 
its lowest level in 20 years and threatens most of the water 
supply to Northern California.\46\ Experts warn that ``even the 
most optimistic climate models for the second half of this 
century suggest that 30 to 70 percent of this snowpack will 
disappear.''\47\ The Southwest is already experiencing a 
severely reduced flow in the Colorado River--upon which 30 
million people depend for water--as a consequence to decreasing 
snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains.\48\ The Midwest is expected 
to experience ``drought-like conditions resulting from elevated 
temperatures, which increases levels of evaporation, 
contributing to decreases in soil moisture and reductions in 
lake and river beds'' as a result of climate change.\49\ In 
addition to a range of other costs, agriculture in the Great 
Plains and the Southwest is likely to suffer massive economic 
losses due to increasing water scarcity.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Jon Gertner, ``The Future is Drying Up'', New York Times, Oct. 
21, 2008, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/
21water-t.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin.
    \47\Id.
    \48\Id.
    \49\Id.
    \50\Matthias Ruth et al., University of Maryland Center for 
Integrative Environmental Research, The US Economic Impacts of Climate 
Change and the Costs of Inaction at 24, 27 (2007), available at http://
dl.klima2008.net/ccsl/us_economic.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change will also negatively impact the quality of 
freshwater resources. For example, reduced flows will reduce 
rivers' ability to dilute effluent, leading to increased 
pathogen or chemical loading.\51\ In addition, increased heavy 
precipitation events due to climate change--discussed below--
``may increase the total microbial load in watercourses and 
drinking-water reservoirs.''\52\ And warmer water temperature 
combined with higher phosphorus concentrations will increase 
the occurrence of freshwater algal blooms, with adverse impacts 
on freshwater ecosystems and fisheries. Fish habitat may also 
be compromised because altered water chemistry will promote the 
intrusion of invasive species.\53\ These impacts will 
exacerbate the precarious state of freshwater fish species in 
North America, nearly 40 percent of which are already at 
risk.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\IPCC Climate Change and Water, supra note 36, at 67.
    \52\Id. at 68.
    \53\Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Program 
Strategy: Response to Climate Change at ii (Mar. 2008), available at 
http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/docs/TO5_DRAFT_CCR_Revised_10-
16.pdf.
    \54\Allison Winter, Fisheries: Freshwater species in steep 
decline--USGS, Greenwire, Sept. 10, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. The great melt--impacts on the Arctic and Antarctic
    The Arctic is literally one of the hotspots of global 
warming. Over the past 50 years average temperatures in the 
Arctic have increased as much as 7 +F, five times the global 
average.\55\ In the next 100 years, some areas in the Arctic 
may see an increase in average temperatures as high as 13 
+F.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Arctic 
Highlights at 4 (2004), available at http://www.amap.no/acia/
Highlights.pdf.
    \56\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As temperatures rise in the Arctic, sea ice and glaciers 
are melting at an unprecedented and alarming rate. In 2007, a 
record 386,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice melted away, an 
area larger than Texas and Arizona combined and as big a 
decline in one year as has occurred over the last decade.\57\ 
In 2008, the sea ice extent was only slightly greater than in 
2007, but the sea ice volume is likely the lowest on record due 
to the decline in multiyear old ice and the thinness of the 
remaining ice.\58\ Recent observations suggest that Arctic sea 
ice could completely disappear during the summer as early as 
2020.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\European Space Agency, ``Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice 
coverage in history,'' Sept. 14, 2007, at http://www.esa.int/esaCP/
SEMYTC13J6F_index_0.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \58\National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic Sea Ice Down to 
Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume, Oct. 2, 2008, at http:/
/nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html (last visited 
Oct. 20, 2008).
    \59\Julienne Stroeve et al. Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than 
forecast, 34 Geophysical Research Letters L09501 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an alarming rate. 
Between 1979 and 2002, the extent of melting in Greenland has 
increased on average by 16 percent--an area roughly the size of 
Sweden.\60\ In the record-breaking year of 2005, parts of 
Greenland melted that have never melted during the 27-year long 
satellite record.\61\ In May 2007, members of the Select 
Committee observed firsthand the disintegration of the 
Jakobshavn Glacier at Ilulissat in western Greenland. According 
to the scientists that met with the delegation and who have 
been monitoring the glacier for almost two decades, the 
receding of this glacier has doubled in the past eight years, 
from 5 to nearly 9 miles per year, draining a large portion of 
the ice sheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, supra note 55, at 6.
    \61\Sebastian H. Mernild et al., Surface Melt Area and Water 
Balance Modeling on the Greenland Ice Sheet 1995-2005, Journal of 
Hydrometeorology: In Press (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A complete melting of Greenland would result in a rise in 
global sea level of over 20 feet,\62\ with catastrophic 
consequences for coastal regions around the world. Furthermore, 
melting Arctic glaciers would contribute large amounts of fresh 
water into the ocean, potentially changing oceanic currents, 
damaging eco-systems and altering current weather conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\USGS Fact Sheet 002-00, Sea Level and Climate (2000), available 
at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Parts of Antarctica, too, are melting fast. At the opposite 
end of world, massive amounts of water are trapped in the two 
ice sheets of Antarctica. The larger East Antarctic ice sheet 
covers the majority of the continent, while the West Antarctic 
ice sheet has significant ice shelves partially floating in the 
ocean. Taken together, they contain 90 percent of Earth's ice 
and 70 percent of its freshwater and would raise sea level over 
200 feet if they completely melted.\63\ In the spring of 2002, 
scientists were shocked to discover that an ice shelf the size 
of Rhode Island had disintegrated from the West Antarctica ice 
sheet in just over a month.\64\ The collapse of the Larsen B 
ice shelf was a wake-up call to scientists who had thought that 
these large areas of ice would take a millennium to disappear, 
not a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\USGS Fact Sheet 2005-3055, Coastal Change and Glaciological 
Maps of Antarctica (2007), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/
3055/index.html.
    \64\N. F. Glasser & T.A. Scambos, A structural glaciological 
analysis of the 2002 Larsen B ice shelf collapse, 54 Journal of 
Glaciology 3-16 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. James Hansen testified before the Select Committee 
that, because the floating ice of the West Antarctic is subject 
to both warming air and ocean temperatures, it is especially 
vulnerable to global warming.\65\ Until recently, it was 
believed that only coastal areas of the West Antarctic were 
vulnerable to melting. Satellite analysis has now revealed that 
large inland regions are also showing signs of the impacts of 
warming. NASA and university researchers have found clear 
evidence that an area the size of California melted in January 
2005 in response to warm temperatures.\66\ One reason that 
Antarctica has not experienced the same increase in 
temperatures as the Arctic is the cooling effect of the ozone 
hole. Scientists predict that as the atmosphere recovers from 
ozone depletion, the interior of Antarctica will warm with the 
rest of the world.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Testimony of James Hansen before the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming, ``Danger Human-Made Interference with 
Climate'', April 26, 2007, at 13.
    \66\S. V. Nghiem et al., Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt Monitoring 
in Greenland and Antarctica, in Dynamic Planet (2007).
    \67\Judith Perlwitz et al., Impact of stratospheric ozone hole 
recovery on Antarctic climate, 35 Geophysical Research Letters L08714 
(2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            c. Warming and acidification of the world's oceans
    The world's oceans will suffer devastating impacts as a 
result of global climate change--as the Select Committee 
learned at its April 2, 2008 hearing entitled ``Rising Tides, 
Rising Temperatures: Global Warming's Impacts on the Oceans.''
    Oceans are already warming due to climate change. The 
oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth's surface and are critical 
components of the climate system for redistributing heat around 
the world and absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. 
According to the IPCC, global ocean temperature has risen by 
0.18 +F from 1961 to 2003.\68\ Since the ocean has a heat 
capacity 1,000 times greater than that of the atmosphere, it 
has taken up 20 times more heat than the atmosphere during this 
same period.\69\ As a result of the ocean's relatively large 
heat capacity, it has a great effect on the Earth's heat 
balance and how energy from solar radiation is distributed 
throughout the global environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
The Physical Science Basis at 387 (2007).
    \69\Id. at 389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 
causing acidification of the oceans. Elevated atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations lead to higher absorption of 
CO2 into the upper ocean, which makes the surface 
waters more acidic and reduces the concentration of carbonate 
ions. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), ocean chemistry currently is changing at 
least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed during the 
650,000 years preceding our industrial era.\70\ If current 
emission trends continue, the ocean will experience 
acidification to an extent and at rates that have not occurred 
for tens of millions of years. Ocean acidification has serious 
implications for the calcification rates of organisms living at 
all levels within the global ocean, from corals to zooplankton 
that serve as the foundation of many ocean food chains. 
According to NOAA, when dissolved carbon dioxide was increased 
to two times pre-industrial levels, a decrease in the 
calcification rate by 5 to 50 percent was observed.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Richard Feeley et al., Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Carbon Dioxide and Our 
Ocean Legacy (April 2006), available at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/
PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf.
    \71\Kathy Tedesco et al., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean 
Chemistry and Biology, at http:www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/
spot_1/33/23/2x-02/32/69/47/4 (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Warming and acidification of ocean waters due to climate 
change are contributing to the collapse of coral reefs around 
the globe. Coral reefs are habitat for about a quarter of 
marine species, are the most diverse among marine ecosystems, 
and are already in a state of decline. Recent studies indicate 
that over a third of all coral species are already 
endangered.\72\ When key temperature thresholds are exceeded, 
mass bleaching and complete coral mortality often result. By 
mid-century, these temperature thresholds are expected to be 
exceeded on an annual or bi-annual basis for the majority of 
reefs worldwide. After bleaching, algae quickly colonize dead 
corals and may make future coral growth and restoration more 
difficult. Other factors that influence the health of reefs are 
impacted by climate change, including sea level rise, storm 
severity and dust and mineral aerosols.\73\ These, together 
with non-climate factors such as over-fishing, invasion of non-
native species, pollution, and increased nutrient and sediment 
loads, add multiple stresses, increasing coral reefs' 
vulnerability to climate change. Corals could become rare on 
tropical and subtropical reefs by 2050 due to the combined 
effects of acidification and increasing frequency of extreme 
temperature events that cause bleaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Krent E. Carpenter et al., One-Third of Reef-Building Corals 
Face Elevated Extinction Risk from Climate Change and Local Impacts, 
Science Express, July 10, 2008.
    \73\R.A. Cropp and A.J. Gabric, Evidence for global coupling of 
phytoplankton and atmospheric aerosols, 4 Oceans 2003. Proceedings 2341 
(2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOAA estimates the commercial value of United States 
fisheries from coral reefs is over $100 million,\74\ and the 
total economic value of coral is estimated to be $30 
billion.\75\ Coastal states, like Florida, would be especially 
harmed where reef-based tourism in the Florida Keys generates 
$1.2 billion in annual revenue.\76\ Healthy coral reefs provide 
other benefits, as well, including shoreline protection, beach 
sand supply, potential pharmaceuticals, biodiversity, and fish 
habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Ocean 
Service Education, Importance of Coral Reefs, at http://
oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_importance.html 
(last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \75\Elizabeth Weise, Scientists: Global Warming could kill coral 
reefs by 2050, USA Today, Dec. 13, 2007, available at http://
www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-12-13-coral-
reefs_N.htm.
    \76\Thomas Damassa, World Resources Institute, The Value of 
Ecosystems (Dec. 5, 2006), available at http://www.wri.org/stories/
2006/12/value-coastal-ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change threatens global fisheries. Warmer water and 
acidification not only harm coral reefs that function as fish 
hatcheries, but could also change the circulation of the 
world's ocean currents. Most fish species have a fairly narrow 
range of optimum temperatures due to temperature effects on 
their basic metabolism and the availability of food sources 
that have their own optimum temperature ranges.\77\ A given 
species' geographic range may expand, shrink, or be relocated 
with changes in ocean conditions caused by climate change.\78\ 
The United Nations Environment Programme found that ``climate 
change may slow down ocean thermohaline circulation crucial to 
coastal water quality and nutrient cycling in more than 75 
percent of the world's fishing grounds.''\79\ Less hospitable 
waters would have a significant effect on the global fishing 
industry. In the United States alone, commercial and 
recreational fisheries contribute $60 billion to the economy 
each year and employ more than 500,000 people.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific 
Fisheries and Environmental Laboratory, Climate Variability and Marine 
Fisheries: How Does Climate Affect Fish Populations?, at http://
www.pfeg.noaa.gov/research/climatemarine/cmffish/cmffishery.html (last 
visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \78\James R. McGoodwin, ``Effects of climate variability on three 
fisheries economies in high-altitude regions: Implications for 
fisheries policies,'' 31 Marine Policy 40-55 (2007).
    \79\United Nations Environmental Programme, Press Release, Warmer 
World May Mean Less Fish, Feb. 22, 2008, at http://www.unep.org/
Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=528&ArticleID=5751 (last 
visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \80\Testimony of James L. Connaughton on the Reauthorization of 
Magnuson-Stevens, Senate Commerce Committee, Nov. 16, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, there is growing concern that the oceans' 
capability to absorb atmospheric CO2 may be 
declining--reducing a critical buffer against further climate 
change. The oceans are the largest natural reservoir for 
carbon, absorbing approximately one-third of the CO2 
added to the atmosphere by human activities each year.\81\ 
Recent research suggests that the vast Southern Ocean's 
capability to absorb atmospheric CO2 may be 
declining, due in part to saturation of surface waters.\82\ In 
addition, as water warming increases so does ocean 
stratification which ``reduces vertical mixing * * * leading to 
slower removal of excess carbon from the surface ocean.''\83\ 
This is yet another positive feedback mechanism that could 
speed climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\Tedesco et al., supra note 71.
    \82\Testimony of Vikki Spruill, before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, ``Global Warming's Impacts on 
the Oceans,'' April 29, 2008, at 9; Corinne Le Quere et al., Saturation 
of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change, 
316 Science 1735-38 (2007).
    \83\Inez Y. Fung et al., ``Evolution of carbon sinks in a changing 
climate,'' 102 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 11203 
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            d. Sea level rise and coastal impacts
    Sea levels are already rising, and are predicted to rise by 
at least 1-2 feet by 2100--with the potential for a nearly 40-
foot rise in sea level if the Greenland and West Antarctica ice 
sheets were to melt completely. The IPCC predicts that sea 
levels will rise by 8 to 24 inches above current levels by 
2100, primarily due to thermal expansion from rising ocean 
temperatures\84\--with current emissions trends more consistent 
with the higher end of this range. However, how much and how 
quickly the polar ice sheets will melt in response to global 
warming is a critical question. Many scientists are 
increasingly concerned that the Greenland and West Antarctic 
ice sheets are melting at a greater rate than previously 
predicted. Because scientists do not fully understand the 
dynamics of ice sheet melting, the IPCC found that larger 
values of sea level rise could not be excluded.\85\ A complete 
melting of the Greenland ice sheet alone would cause a 20-foot 
rise in sea level, and complete melting of the West Antarctic 
ice sheet would cause a 16-foot sea level rise. We know from 
geological history that as the massive ice sheets of the last 
Ice Age melted, sea level rose as fast as 15 feet per 
century.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: 
The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 70 (2007).
    \85\ Id. at 14.
    \86\ Testimony of James Hansen, before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming on ``Dangerous Human-Made 
Interference with Climate,'' April 26, 2007, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sea level rise will have severe impacts on the world's 
coastal populations, including here in the United States. 
Rising sea levels are already causing inundation of low-lying 
lands, erosion of wetlands and beaches, exacerbation of storm 
surges and flooding, and increases in the salinity of coastal 
estuaries and aquifers. The most dramatic near-term effects of 
sea level rise are being felt by inhabitants of small island 
states, the very existence of which is now endangered. Further, 
about one billion people live within 75 feet elevation of 
today's sea level, including many U.S. cities on the East Coast 
and Gulf of Mexico, almost all of Bangladesh, and areas 
occupied by more than 250 million people in China.\87\ In 
total, more than 70 percent of the world's population lives on 
coastal plains, and 11 of the world's 15 largest cities are on 
the coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, rising sea level due to climate change will 
threaten drinking water supplies in coastal areas--causing 
intrusion of saltwater into both surface water and ground 
water.\88\ New York City, Philadelphia, and much of 
California's Central Valley obtain some of their water from 
portions of rivers that are just upstream from the point where 
water currently turns salty during droughts.\89\ If sea level 
rise pushes salty water further upstream, existing water 
intakes might draw on salty water during dry periods. The 
freshwater Everglades currently recharge Florida's Biscayne 
aquifer, the primary water supply to the most populous counties 
in South Florida, including the cities of Miami and Fort 
Lauderdale. As rising water levels submerge low-lying portions 
of the Everglades, portions of the aquifer would become 
saline.\90\ Aquifers in New Jersey east of Philadelphia are 
recharged by the Delaware River which also may become saline in 
parts in the future, leading to a degradation of drinking water 
quality.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Zones and Sea Level 
Rise, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html 
(last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ Id.
    \91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            e. Extreme weather events
    Global warming has already changed the intensity, duration, 
frequency, and geographic range of a variety of weather 
patterns and will continue to do so--with potentially severe 
impacts on the United States and the world.\92\ There is a 
broad scientific consensus that the United States is vulnerable 
to weather hazards that will be exacerbated by climate change. 
The cost of damages from weather disasters has increased 
markedly from the 1980's, rising to over 100 billion dollars in 
2007. In addition to a rise in total cost, the frequency of 
weather disasters costing over one billion dollars has 
increased.\93\ In the United States, several hundred people 
already die from flooding and extreme heat events every year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis at 8 (2007); see generally U.S. 
Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis Assessment Product 3.3, 
Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: 
North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands at 8 (June 
2008).
    \93\ See National Climatic Data Center, Billion Dollar U.S. Weather 
Disasters, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html (last 
visited Oct. 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming will lead to more extreme precipitation 
events and flooding. As the atmosphere warms, it is able to 
hold more water vapor. When a storm occurs, this higher 
concentration of water vapor leads to rainfall occurring in 
larger quantities, which can result in flooding. The IPCC has 
found that ``[t]he frequency of heavy precipitation events has 
increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and 
observed increases of atmospheric water vapor.''\94\ The U.S. 
Climate Change Science Program has concluded that heavy 
precipitation events averaged over North America have increased 
over the past 50 years.\95\ In the future, it is very likely 
that North America will experience more frequent and intense 
heavy downpours and higher levels of total rainfall in extreme 
precipitation events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 8 (2007).
    \95\ U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 92, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Flooding and extreme precipitation events cost lives and 
can cause massive damages to infrastructure, property, and 
agricultural lands, as was highlighted by the flooding in the 
Midwestern United States in the summer of 2008. Those floods 
washed away nearly 2 percent of the nation's corn crop. The 
American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that crop losses 
would exceed $8 billion across the Midwest, with half of the 
total occurring in Iowa.\96\ An additional $1.5 billion in 
property damage occurred in Iowa\97\ and $1 billion in 
Indiana.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ National Climatic Data Center, Climate of 2008: Midwestern 
U.S. Flood Overview (updated July 9, 2008), at http://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/flood08.html#impacts
    \97\ Id.
    \98\ Phillip Fiorini, Purdue researchers to assess damage from 
Midwestern floods, Lafayette Online, Sept. 29, 2008, at http://
www.lafayette-online.com/purdue-news/2008/09/purdue-researchers-assess-
flood-impact/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased sea surface temperatures are a critical 
determining factor in the strength of hurricanes, and some 
scientists predict that global warming will result in an 
increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone frequency and 
intensity. The IPCC has found observational evidence for the 
increase in intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic since the 
1970s, correlated with increasing sea surface temperatures.\99\ 
Some researchers have argued that there is evidence for 
increased hurricane intensity around the world and emerging 
evidence for an increase in frequency of hurricanes in the 
Atlantic.\100\ Stronger hurricanes lead to more destructive 
winds and higher storm surges, increasing the risk to coastal 
communities in their paths. As sea level rises and storm surges 
increase, the vulnerability of cities to flooding, and the 
related impacts, increases significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 9 (2007).
    \100\ Testimony of Dr. Judith Curry before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing on ``Dangerous Climate 
Change,'' April 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Severe thunderstorms, hail, tornados, and winter storms may 
also increase. The current observational record for these 
smaller scale storms is insufficient to determine whether there 
are trends correlated to warming temperatures.\101\ However, 
these phenomena are often associated with heavy precipitation 
events and hurricanes; as the latter storms become more 
frequent and possibly increase in intensity, then the 
probability of thunderstorms, hail, and tornadoes should also 
increase. Warming temperatures may also expand the range over 
which tornados occur. Over the last few years, tornados have 
occurred earlier in the year and further north than what is 
typically thought of as ``tornado alley.''\102\ Finally, strong 
cold season storms are also likely to become more frequent, 
with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 9 (2007); 
U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 92, at 7.
    \102\Nicholas Riccardi, ``Twisters on a record pace''', L.A. Times, 
May 13, 2008, at A12, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2008/
may/13/nation/na-tornado13.
    \103\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 92, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change will lead to more frequent and more intense 
heat waves in the United States and globally.\104\ The impacts 
of heat waves are discussed further in the public health 
section that follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            f. Public health
    There is a broad consensus among experts within the 
worldwide public health community that climate change poses a 
serious risk to public health. The IPCC's Fourth Assessment 
report concluded that climate change's likely impacts on public 
health include:
     More frequent and more intense heat waves, leading 
to marked short-term increases in mortality.
     Increased numbers of people suffering from death, 
disease, and injury from floods, storms, fires and droughts.
     Increased cardio-respiratory morbidity and 
mortality associated with ground-level ozone pollution.
     Changes in the range of some infectious disease 
vectors.
     Increased malnutrition and consequent disorders, 
including those relating to child growth and development.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers at 48 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This assessment included a specific analysis of regional 
impacts to health, including in the United States.\106\ In 
addition, EPA,\107\ the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), \108\ and NOAA have all concluded climate 
change poses a serious public health risk. The World Health 
Organization (WHO) released a quantitative assessment 
concluding that the effects of climate change may have caused 
over 150,000 deaths in 2000 and that these impacts are likely 
to increase in the future.\109\ According to the IPCC, climate 
change contributes to the global burden of disease, premature 
death and other adverse health impacts.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability at 617-652 (2007).
    \107\Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change--Health and 
Environmental Effects, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/
health.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \108\Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Policy on 
Climate Change and Public Health, at http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/
pubs/Climate_Change_Policy.pdf (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \109\World Health Organization, Fact Sheet No. 266, Climate and 
health (Aug. 2007), at http://www.who.int/globalchange/en/.
    \110\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability at 391-431 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heat waves will increase in intensity and frequency in the 
United States and globally. According to the National Weather 
Service, heat waves kill on average 170 people per year in the 
United States, and 253 people died in 2006 alone.\111\ 
According to the CDC, from 1979 to 2003 more people died from 
heat waves in the United States than from all other natural 
disasters.\112\ The European heat wave of August 2003 is 
estimated to have killed up to 45,000 people.\113\ In France 
alone, nearly 15,000 people died due to soaring temperatures, 
which reached as high as 104 +F and remained extreme for two 
weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\National Weather Service, Natural Hazard Statistics: Weather 
Fatalities, at http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats.shtml (last visited 
Oct. 20, 2008).
    \112\Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Extreme Heat: A 
Prevention Guide to Promote Your Personal Health and Safety, at http://
www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/heat_guide.asp (last visited Oct. 
20, 2008).
    \113\European Commission, Directorate General for Health and 
Consumer Protection, The 2003 European heat wave, at http://
ec.europa.eu/health/ph--information/dissemination/unexpected/
unexpected_1_en.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is consensus that heat waves ``have become more 
frequent over most land areas'' and there is confidence that 
climate change will result in the ``very likely increase in 
frequency of hot extremes.''\114\ There is evidence that 
present day heat waves over Europe and North America ``coincide 
with a specific atmospheric circulation pattern that is 
intensified by ongoing increases in greenhouse gasses.''\115\ 
The intensity, duration and frequency of heat waves will 
increase in western and southern regions of the United States 
and in the Mediterranean region.\116\ Other areas not currently 
as susceptible, such as northwest North America, France, 
Germany, and the Balkans will also experience ``increased heat 
wave severity in the 21st century.''\117\ With continued 
warming by 2100, Washington, D.C. will experience the 
temperatures that Houston does today, Denver will be as warm as 
Memphis is today, and Anchorage will be as warm as New York 
City is today.\118\ The populations most at risk of dying in a 
heat wave are the elderly and people in underserved 
communities, and as growth in the U.S. population over the age 
of 65 coincides with warmer temperatures, more deaths can be 
anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers at 2, 8 (2007).
    \115\ Gerald A. Meehl & Claudia Tebaldi, More Intense, More 
Frequent, and Longer Lasting Heat Waves in the 21st Century, 305 
Science 994 (2004).
    \116\ Id.
    \117\ Id.
    \118\ Frank Ackerman & Elizabeth Stanton, Natural Resources Defense 
Council, The Cost of Climate Change: What We'll Pay if Global Warming 
Continues Unchecked at vi (May 2008), available at http://www.nrdc.org/
globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming will exacerbate ground-level ozone 
pollution, leading to substantial increases in deaths and 
respiratory illness. Ground-level ozone (O3), unlike 
other primary pollutants, is not emitted directly into the 
atmosphere, but is a secondary pollutant produced by reaction 
between nitrogen dioxide (NO3), hydrocarbons, and 
sunlight. The ozone forming reaction occurs at a higher rate 
with more intense sunlight and higher temperatures. Thus, as 
temperatures rise from global warming, ground level ozone is 
expected to increase. Ozone is a known public health threat 
that can damage lung tissue causing respiratory illness, and 
exacerbate pre-existing respiratory conditions. The IPCC 
predicts increased levels of ozone across the eastern United 
States, ``with the cities most polluted today experiencing the 
greatest increase in ozone pollution.''\119\ The increase in 
temperature in urban areas specifically and increases in ozone 
can increase rates of cardiovascular and pulmonary illnesses as 
well as temperature-related morbidity and mortality for 
children and the elderly.\120\ Similar impacts will be felt in 
urban areas around the globe. By mid-century, ozone related 
deaths from climate change are predicted to increase by 
approximately 4.5 percent from the 1990s levels.\121\ Even 
modest exposure to ozone may encourage the development of 
asthma in children.\122\ Recently, an analysis linking 
CO2 emissions to mortality revealed that for each 
increase of 1.8 +F caused by CO2, the resulting air 
pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional 
deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in 
the United States.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability at 632 (2007).
    \120\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment 
Product 4.6, Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health 
and Welfare and Human Systems at ES-96 (2008).
    \121\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability at 632 (2007).
    \122\R.K. McConnell et al., Asthma in exercising children exposed 
to ozone: A cohort study, 359 The Lancet 386 (2002); J.F. Gent et al., 
Association of low-level ozone and fine particles with respiratory 
symptoms in children with asthma, 29 J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1859 (2003).
    \123\Mark Jacobson, On the Causal Link Between Carbon Dioxide and 
Air Pollution Mortality, 35 Geophysical Research Letters L03809 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change will lead to changes in geographic 
distribution of infectious diseases, with potentially serious 
impacts on public health in the United States and globally. The 
WHO estimates that climate change was responsible in 2000 for 
approximately 2.4 percent of worldwide diarrhea, and 6 percent 
of malaria in some middle-income countries.\124\ While in the 
United States, diarrheal illnesses rarely result in death, the 
WHO estimates that worldwide there are approximately four 
billion cases of diarrhea each year, and 2.2 million deaths 
resulting from diarrheal illnesses. It is one of the leading 
causes of death among children in the developing world. Given 
the relationship between elevated temperatures and the 
incidence of diarrheal diseases if average global temperature 
increases by a further 1.8 +F (1 +C), this could result in an 
additional 320 million cases and 176,000 deaths from diarrheal 
illnesses annually.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\World Health Organization, World Health Report 2002: Reducing 
risks, promoting healthy life (2002).
    \125\W. Checkley et al., Effect of El Nino and ambient temperature 
on hospital admissions for diarrhoeal diseases in Peruvian children, 
355 The Lancet 442 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to EPA, ``Climate change may increase the risk of 
some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that 
appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other 
insects.''\126\ For example, the IPCC has concluded that the 
global population at risk from vector-borne malaria will 
increase by between 220 million and 400 million in the next 
century.\127\ Similarly, the IPCC predicts that climate change 
is likely to increase risk and geographic spread of the West 
Nile virus--another mosquito-borne disease.\128\ West Nile 
virus was first identified in the United States during the 
summer of 1999, and has since killed 1112 people.\129\ Shifting 
patterns of temperature may also redistribute ticks that 
transmit pathogens causing Lyme disease.\130\
            g. Forests and Wildfires
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change--Health and 
Environment Effects: Health, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
effects/health.html#climate (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \127\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability at 409 (Table 8.2) (2007).
    \128\Id. at 619.
    \129\Center for Disease Control, West Nile Virus Human Case Counts 
for 1999-2008, available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/
surv&control.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).
    \130\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 120, at 2-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The clearing and degradation of tropical forests is a major 
driver of global climate change. Forests cover about 30 percent 
of the Earth's land surface and hold almost half of the world's 
terrestrial carbon.\131\ They can act both as a source of 
carbon emissions to the atmosphere when cut, burned, or 
otherwise degraded and as a sink when they grow, removing 
carbon dioxide from the air through photosynthesis. Between 
1990 and 2005, carbon in forest biomass decreased in Africa, 
Asia, and South America primarily from deforestation, but 
increased in all other regions as previously cleared land in 
Europe and North America reverted from agriculture uses to 
forests.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \131\Richard A. Houghton, ``Tropical Deforestation as a source of 
greenhouse gas emissions,'' in Tropical Deforestation and Climate 
Change at 13 (P. Moutinho & S. Schwartzman eds., 2005), available at 
http://www.edf.org/documents/
4930_TropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChange.pdf.
    \132\United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Forest 
Resource Assessment 2005: Key Findings, at http://www.fao.org/forestry/
32250/en/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the 1950s, greenhouse gas emissions from land use 
change, including deforestation and degradation, have been 
significant, on the order of 20 to 50 percent of fossil fuel 
emissions.\133\ Deforestation and degradation currently account 
for 20 to 25 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas 
emissions, roughly equivalent to the total fossil fuel 
emissions from the United States.\134\ These emissions come 
predominantly from deforestation of tropical rainforests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\Richard A. Houghton, ``Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from 
Land-Use Changes: 1850-2005,'' in TRENDS: A Compendium of Data on 
Global Change (2008), available at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/
trends.htm.
    \134\Houghton, supra note 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tropical forests play an especially crucial role. Tropical 
forests encompass a variety of forest types around the 
equatorial region of the world. Nearly all the nutrient and 
carbon content of a tropical forest is in the living plants and 
the decomposing vegetation on the forest floor. Trees in 
tropical forests hold, on average, about 50 percent more carbon 
per acre than trees outside of the tropics.\135\ When forests 
are destroyed by fire, much of the carbon they store returns to 
the atmosphere, enhancing global warming. When a forest is 
cleared for crop or grazing land, the soils can become a large 
source of global warming emissions, depending on how farmers 
and ranchers manage the land. In places such as Indonesia, the 
soils of swampy lowland forests are rich in partially decayed 
organic matter, known as peat. During extended droughts, such 
as during El Nino events, the forests and the peat become 
flammable, especially if they have been degraded by logging or 
accidental fire. When they burn, they release huge volumes of 
CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rainforests also play another important part in the climate 
system--generating rainfall. Up to 30 percent of the rain that 
falls in tropical forests is generated by the forest 
itself.\136\ Water evaporates from the soil and vegetation, 
condenses into clouds, and falls again as rain in a perpetual 
self-watering cycle. Recent studies have also indicated that 
rainforests play an important role in rainfall well beyond the 
borders of the forest. The evaporation and rainfall in tropical 
forests helps cool the Earth's surface. In many computer models 
of future climate, replacing tropical forests with pasture and 
croplands creates a drier, hotter climate in the tropics.\137\ 
Some models also predict that tropical deforestation will 
disrupt rainfall patterns far outside the tropics, including in 
China, northern Mexico, and the south-central United 
States.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\NASA, Earth Observatory, Tropical Deforestation: Climate 
Impacts, at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/
deforestation_update2.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \137\Id.
    \138\David Werth & Ron Avissar, The local and global effects of 
Southeast Asian deforestation, 32 Geophysical Research Letters L20702 
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast to the emissions from deforestation in the 
tropical regions, forests in North America have been growing 
and acting as sinks for carbon in the last few decades. Growing 
vegetation in North America removed the equivalent of 
approximately 30 percent of the fossil fuel emissions produced 
from North America, and 50 percent of this sink was due to 
forest growth in the United States and Canada.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment 
Product 2.2, The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report: North American 
Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle at vii 
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forests are vulnerable to climate change. The climate 
strongly influences forest productivity, compositions, and 
disturbances such as forest fire, insect outbreaks and 
droughts. The impacts of climate change on many aspects of 
forest ecology are not well understood. In areas with adequate 
water availability, warmer temperatures have likely increased 
forest growth and will continue to do so. Increasing 
CO2 concentrations will likely increase 
photosynthesis but will only increase wood production in young 
forests where adequate nutrients and water are available. The 
impact on carbon storage in forest soils from rising 
temperatures and CO2 remains unclear.\140\ 
Increasing global temperatures are already affecting tropical 
forests, with droughts provoking forest fires in Amazonia and 
Indonesia. The combination of degraded forests from logging and 
agriculture with more extreme climate events suggests that 
forest fires are likely to play an even more important role in 
the future of tropical forests and their contribution of global 
warming pollution.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment 
Product 4.3, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land 
Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States at 7 
(2008).
    \141\Ane Alencar et al., ``Carbon emissions associated with forest 
fires in Brazil,'' in Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change at 23 
(P. Moutinho & S. Schwartzman eds. 2005), available at http://
www.edf.org/documents/4930_TropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChange.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is growing scientific consensus that climate change 
is already increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires 
in the United States, and this trend is likely to worsen in the 
coming decades. Scientists have concluded that from 1986 to 
2006 longer, warmer summers have resulted in a four-fold 
increase in major wildfires and a six-fold increase in the area 
of forest burned, compared to the period from 1970-1986.\142\ 
Similar results were published on wildfire activity in Canada 
from 1920-1999.\143\ In addition to more intense and more 
frequent fires, the length of the fire season and the burn 
duration of large fires have also increased. Models of future 
climate have consistently concluded that the areas burned will 
increase in the coming years and decades. For example, wildfire 
burn areas in Canada are expected to increase by 74 to 118 
percent in the next century,\144\ and similar increases are 
predicted for the western United States. With more wildfires 
come more greenhouse gas emissions. Although estimates vary 
widely, wildfires may represent up to 10 percent of total U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\Anthony L. Westerling et al., Warming and Earlier Spring 
Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity 313 Science 940 (2006).
    \143\N.P. Gillett et al., Detecting the effect of climate change on 
Canadian forest fires, 31 Geophysical Research Letters L18211 (2004).
    \144\M.D. Flannigan et al., Future Area Burned in Canada, 72 
Climatic Change 1 (2005).
    \145\Guido R. Van der Werf et al., Continental-Scale Partitioning 
of Fire Emissions During the 1997 to 2001 El Nino/La Nina Period, 303 
Science 73 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scientists have identified several mechanisms through which 
climate change is lengthening the fire season and increasing 
the frequency and intensity of wildfires. One extremely 
important factor is the impact of global warming on snowmelt. 
Warmer temperatures cause an earlier snowmelt which can lead to 
an earlier and longer dry season.\146\ This provides more 
opportunities for large fires by creating a longer period in 
which ignitions can occur and by increasing the drying of soils 
and vegetation making them more prone to fire. This has also 
expanded the range in which serious wildfires occur to higher 
elevations in mountainous regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\Westerling et al., supra note 142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming is also exacerbating insect infestations 
(most notably bark beetles), which in turn make forests more 
susceptible to wildfire. Drought stress makes trees and 
vegetation more susceptible to attack by insects, and warmer 
winter temperatures allow a higher number of insects to survive 
and increase their populations. Warmer temperatures can also 
increase reproductive rates of insects, resulting in two 
generations in a single year. Finally, warmer temperatures 
allow insects to invade areas previously outside their natural 
range, as has happened with the mountain pine beetle in the 
western United States. Research has clearly demonstrated the 
link between warmer temperatures and drought on extensive 
insect outbreaks in southwestern forests and Alaska.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supra note 140, at 81-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            h. Wildlife and Endangered Species
    If climate change goes unchecked, it could lead to the 
extinction of up to 40 percent of the world's species by the 
latter half of this century. The International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature's 2008 annual report lists 38 percent of 
catalogued species as already threatened with extinction--
including nearly 25 percent of all mammals.\148\ According to 
the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, ``the resilience of many 
ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an 
unprecedented combination of climate change, associated 
disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean 
acidification), and other global change drivers.''\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Press 
Release, IUCN Red list Reveals world's mammals in crisis, Oct. 6, 2008, 
at http://www.iucn.org/news_events/events/congress/
index.cfm?uNewsID=1695.
    \149\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers 
at 11 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the IPCC: ``Approximately 20-30% of plant and 
animal species assessed so far are likely to be at an increased 
risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature 
exceed 1.5-2.5 +C [2.7-4.5 +F].''\150\ Additional warming could 
lead to ``significant extinctions around the globe,'' including 
the loss of more than 40 percent of all plant and animal 
species.\151\ A 2004 study suggests that 15 to 37 percent of 
terrestrial species may be ``committed to extinction'' by 2050 
due to climate change.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\Id.
    \151\Id.; see also Testimony of Dr. Camille Parmesan before the 
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on 
``Dangerous Climate Change,'' April 26, 2007.
    \152\C.D. Thomas et al., Extinction risk from climate change, 427 
Nature 145 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The species most vulnerable to climate change have a 
specialized habitat, a narrow environmental tolerance that is 
likely to be exceeded due to climate change, and dependence on 
specific environmental triggers or interactions that are likely 
to be disrupted by climate change. The IPCC identifies ``coral 
reefs, the sea-ice biome, and other high-latitude ecosystems 
(e.g. boreal forests), mountain ecosystems and mediterranean-
climate ecosystems'' as the systems most vulnerable to the 
impacts of climate change.\153\ One tragic and iconic example 
is the polar bear. Polar bear populations are expected to 
decline by 30 percent in the next 35 to 50 years--and to 
disappear from Alaska altogether--due to disappearing habitat 
resulting from global warming.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \153\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment 
Report, Working Group II Report ``Impacts, Adaptation and 
Vulnerability'', Chapter 4, ``Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods and 
Services,'' P. 214.
    \154\See, e.g., Blaine Harden, ``Experts Predict Polar Bear 
Decline,'' Washington Post, Thursday, July 7, 2005; Page A03, available 
at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/
AR2005070601899.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. National security impacts

    The current and projected impacts of global warming have 
serious national security consequences for the United States 
and our allies, in many cases acting as ``threat multipliers.'' 
The security issues raised by global warming have received 
increasing scrutiny in the last few years both in Congress and 
in international venues, including a debate at the UN Security 
Council in April 2007. The first-ever U.S. government analysis 
of the security threats posed by global climate change was 
issued in June 2008 as the National Intelligence Assessment 
(NIA), National Security Implications of Global Climate Change 
to 2030. The 2008 NIA was the result of a process initiated, in 
part, by Chairman Markey's April 2007 introduction of H.R. 
1961, the ``Climate Change Security Oversight Act,'' which 
required the U.S. Intelligence Community to analyze the 
national security implications of global climate change. In 
addition, U.S. and European military and security policy 
analysts have issued a number of public reports exploring the 
security consequences of global warming and potential 
responses. All of these reports emphasize concerns over a few 
key security impacts, including migration, water scarcity, 
infrastructure at risk from extreme weather, and new economic 
routes and access to new energy resources. In most cases, 
global warming is not creating ``new'' security threats, but 
rather is acting as a ``threat multiplier.''\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\Testimony of Gen. Gordon Sullivan (retired), before the Select 
Committee, hearing on ``Geopolitical Implications of Rising Oil 
Dependence and Global Warming,'' April 18, 2008, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Numerous impacts of global warming could ultimately 
increase both the temporary and permanent migration of people 
inside and across existing national borders--increasing risks 
of geopolitical instability. Nations dealing with an influx may 
have neither the resources nor the desire to support climate 
migrants.\156\ As in the past, movement of people into new 
territory can increase the likelihood of conflict and the 
potential need for intervention from U.S. and allied military 
forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\Testimony of Thomas Fingar before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming and the House Intelligence 
Community Management Committee, Joint Hearing on ``The National 
Security Implications of Climate Change,'' June 25, 2008, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rising sea levels threaten low-lying island nations and 
populous coastal areas. Even if not totally inundated, rising 
sea levels can render these areas uninhabitable due to sea 
water incursion into fresh water resources and increased 
exposure to storms. For example, the risk of coastal flooding 
in Bangladesh is growing and could force 30 million people to 
search for higher ground in a country already known for 
political violence. India is already building a wall along its 
border with Bangladesh.\157\ The densely populated and oil-rich 
Niger Delta is already the scene of conflict over the sharing 
of oil revenues. Land loss and increased risk of storms will 
exacerbate these tensions as well as the challenge of 
maintaining the existing oil infrastructure. Other important 
economic and agricultural coastal areas, like Egypt's Nile 
Delta and China's southeast coast, are also threatened from 
rising sea-levels and severe storms. Similar impacts in Central 
America and the Caribbean could add pressure to pre-existing 
migration patterns from those areas to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\George Black, ``The Gathering Storm'', OnEarth, Summer 2008, 
available at http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-
storm?page=all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased water scarcity due to climate change exacerbates 
the risk of conflict over water resources. As discussed above, 
changing precipitation patterns and increasing temperatures are 
likely to increase the risk of water scarcity and degraded 
water quality in many areas. Security experts have long been 
concerned about the prospects for conflict over water resources 
in many regions of the developing world, which will be 
exacerbated by climate change. Water scarcity will also 
increase the pressure on groups to migrate to areas perceived 
to have more resources.
    Rapidly melting glaciers in the Andes and the Tibetan 
Plateau threaten the water supply for some of the most populous 
countries in the world. The major rivers of India and China 
originate in the Tibetan Plateau glaciers and are an important 
component of their summer flows. Dwindling water resources or 
changes in the flow regime could heighten existing tensions 
within the countries and between the two and their neighbors. 
For transnational watersheds, even projects designed to adapt 
to climate change, like new reservoirs, will have to be managed 
in a way to allow equitable water distribution and governance 
systems that minimize the possibility of their use for 
strategic leverage.
    Climate change is already contributing to current 
conflicts. For example, scientists have traced declines in 
rainfall in the Darfur region to disruption in the African 
monsoon due to warming sea surface temperatures.\158\ As their 
lands failed, tension between African farmers and Arab herders 
increased and became a contributing factor to the genocide that 
has occurred there. In the Select Committee's first hearing, 
General Gordon Sullivan, the Army Chief of Staff during U.S. 
operations in Somalia in 1993, testified that drought and food 
scarcity allowed the Somali warlords to use incoming food aid 
as leverage over the population, necessitating the intervention 
of U.S. military forces.\159\ He cautioned that the U.S. 
military will have to prepare to deal with more situations of 
this kind due to the impacts of global warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\Alessandra Giannini et al., A Global Perspective on African 
Climate, 90 Climatic Change 359 (2008).
    \159\Transcript of Select Committee hearing on ``Geopolitical 
Implications of Rising Oil Dependence and Global Warming,'' April 18, 
2007, at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming will directly impact U.S. military 
infrastructure at risk of damage from extreme weather and 
melting permafrost. Infrastructure upgrades, repair and 
replacement to increase resilience to global warming impacts, 
and rebuilding after extreme weather events will be costly. For 
example, the East and Gulf Coasts will be at increased risk 
from storm surge, and U.S. naval shipbuilding facilities have 
already been damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many 
active U.S. coastal military installations around the world are 
at a significant and increasing risk of damage from storm 
surges and associated flooding and damages.\160\ For example, 
the U.S. airbase at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which is 
critical to operations in Iraq and the surrounding region, is 
an average of four feet above sea level and is threatened by 
sea level rise and storm surges.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \160\Testimony of Thomas Fingar before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming and the House Intelligence 
Community Management Committee, Joint Hearing on ``The National 
Security Implications of Global Warming,'' June 25, 2008, at 15.
    \161\The CNA Corporation, National Security and the Threat of 
Climate Change at 37 (2007), available at http://
securityandclimate.cna.org/report/
National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming impacts also threaten energy supplies, as 
demonstrated in the devastating hurricane season in 2005. The 
paths of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita passed through 
three-quarters of the oil platforms and two-thirds of the 
natural gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and a major 
concentration of refining capacity on land. Together they 
destroyed over a hundred offshore platforms and damaged 183 
pipelines. Over 1.5 million barrels of oil and 10 billion cubic 
feet of natural gas production per day was taken off-line for 
both hurricanes. Katrina also significantly affected 
electricity supply with 2.7 million customers and other 
critical infrastructure losing power.\162\ In Alaska, melting 
permafrost and fewer days with an adequate amount of snow for 
exploration purposes could hinder oil production and transport 
of oil from fields on the North Slope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\Testimony of Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, before Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Oct. 27, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, accelerating melting of Arctic sea ice is 
impacting the United States' strategic interests in the region. 
Russia has moved to stake claim to over 460,000 square miles of 
territory, including areas with potential oil and natural gas 
resources.\163\ With the opening of the Northwest Passage for 
the first time in recorded history, the Prime Minister of 
Canada announced his intention to increase his country's 
military presence in the Arctic.\164\ Other circumpolar 
nations, including the United States, have begun to examine 
their potential claims on Arctic territory and identify 
necessary preparations for increased maritime traffic in the 
area. Given that the 2008 melt was almost as great as 2007, 
this issue will remain one of immediate concern. As new 
economic routes and energy resources become available, the 
United States will have to adapt and perhaps redeploy resources 
to deal with the changing physical and economic landscape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\Scott Borgerson, ``Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security 
Implications of Global Warming,'' Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008.
    \164\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The Economic Costs of Climate Change

    Climate change impacts of the types described above will 
have staggering economic impacts in the United States and the 
rest of the world in the coming decades. Measuring these 
impacts in dollars is a unique challenge, requiring analysis of 
local and global impacts, long time horizons, quantification of 
risk and uncertainty, and capturing the possibility of tipping 
points that induce major, catastrophic change. While the 
variables are many and complex, estimates of potential economic 
impacts are massive. The Stern Review--one of the most in-depth 
and respected economic impact analyses on climate change 
conducted thus far--used formal economic models to estimate 
that unabated climate change will cost at least 5 percent of 
global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and 
forever.\165\ This amounts to around $3.3 trillion per year at 
the current value of the global economy.\166\ If a wider range 
of risks and impacts is taken into account, the damages could 
rise to 20 percent of GDP or more annually over the next two 
centuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (2006).
    \166\CIA World Fact Book. available at https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#Econ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the United States, the economic impacts of climate 
change will be felt throughout the country and within all 
sectors of the economy. The greatest economic impacts will stem 
from stress to fresh water supply networks, changes to the 
agricultural sector, threats to coastal infrastructure from 
storms and sea level rise, effects on energy supply and demand, 
increased risk to human health, and more frequent and extensive 
forest fires.\167\ Tourism and other weather-dependent 
industries will continue to be hit especially hard as well. 
Modeling results from a recent Tufts University and Natural 
Resources Defense Council study show that if present trends 
continue, the total cost of four global warming impacts alone--
hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water 
costs--will cost the United States nearly $1.9 trillion 
annually by 2100 (in constant 2008 dollars), or 1.8 percent of 
U.S. GDP. Factoring in a wider range of harms such as health 
impacts and wildlife damages, these costs could reach 3.6 
percent of GDP annually in the United States by 2100.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\Ruth et al., supra note 50, at 10-15.
    \168\Ackerman & Stanton, supra note 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 6. Impacts on vulnerable communities

    While the ramifications of climate change will be felt in 
every community, the greatest impacts will be borne by those 
already most economically vulnerable and who have contributed 
least to climate change. This makes climate change not only an 
issue of the environment, but also one of justice and human 
rights. Left unabated, climate change will exacerbate deep 
inequalities within countries and between them. The human face 
of the climate story is one in which communities least 
responsible for the climate crisis are the first pushed to the 
edge of survival, and then ultimately over the edge if they are 
unable to adapt to climate changes. This was underscored at the 
Select Committee's October 18, 2007 hearing entitled ``Energy 
and Global Warming Solutions for Vulnerable Communities,'' at 
which it heard from representatives of communities, both here 
in the United States and overseas, particularly vulnerable to 
the impacts of climate change.
    Climate change will have devastating impacts on the 
developing world, reversing gains in poverty reduction, food 
security and nutrition, health, and basic services and putting 
millions of lives at risk. Poor communities are especially 
vulnerable because they have less capacity to adapt to changes 
in climate and are more dependent on climate-sensitive 
resources such as local water and food supplies.\169\ Increased 
exposure to drought and water scarcity, more intense storms, 
floods, and other environmental pressures will hold back the 
efforts of the world's poor to build a better life for 
themselves and their children. Climate change is likely to 
reverse many of the recent gains in poverty alleviation around 
the world, adding to the total of 2.6 billion people now living 
on $2 a day or less. By the end of the century, an additional 
145-220 million people in South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa 
could fall below the $2 per day poverty level as a result of 
climate change impacts.\170\ According to the Stern Review, 
unchecked climate change could turn 200 million people into 
refugees this century, precipitating the largest migration in 
history as entire countries and regions succumb to drought or 
flood. In addition, increased frequency and severity of 
droughts and floods will affect crop productivity and food 
production, disproportionately affecting the 850 million people 
already experiencing food scarcity.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers 
at 7, 22 (2007).
    \170\Stern Review, supra note 165, at 55.
    \171\Id. at 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This prospective devastation is more easily grasped through 
actual experiences. In testimony before the Select Committee, 
Amjad Abdulla, representing the Republic of the Maldives, 
explained how his island country is dealing with both the long 
and short term challenges of global warming. Rising ocean 
temperatures, coupled with increasing acidification from 
CO2 dissolved in sea water, threaten what are 
considered to be some of the most beautiful and productive 
coral reefs in the world. These reefs are the foundation of the 
Maldives' economy, driving a productive fishing industry and 
attracting large numbers of tourists. In the long term, rising 
sea levels represent a truly existential threat. With the 
highest point on the islands little more than six feet above 
sea level, all 1,190 islands making up the Maldives could 
eventually be rendered uninhabitable.
    Poor communities and communities of color within the United 
States are vulnerable to climate change impacts as well, and 
suffer disproportionately from illnesses due to the social 
determinants of health. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 
around 39 million citizens in the United States are 
impoverished, over 50 percent living in urban settings. As the 
devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 demonstrated, poorer 
communities are especially vulnerable to extreme weather 
events. Poorer communities and communities of color are also 
more vulnerable to public health impacts of climate change. As 
explained above, the frequency of respiratory diseases like 
asthma is directly related to high concentrations of ground 
level ozone, which are known to increase as a result of global 
warming and often accumulate in unsafe levels in urban 
environments. Today, over 70 percent of African Americans live 
in counties in violation of federal air pollution 
standards,\172\ and 78 percent of African Americans and Latinos 
live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant, compared to 
56 percent of non-Hispanic whites.\173\ In all of the largest 
44 major metropolitan areas in the United States, African 
Americans are more likely than whites to be exposed to higher 
air toxic concentrations. As a result, African Americans are 
nearly three times as likely to be hospitalized or killed by 
asthma.\174\ In Harlem, New York, 25 percent of children now 
have asthma.\175\ Latinos--66 percent of whom live in areas 
that violate federal air quality standards--face 
disproportionate health impacts as well.\176\ These impacts are 
exacerbated by their disproportionate lack of health insurance 
and lower utilization of health services compared with both 
non-Hispanic whites and African Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Climate Change and 
Extreme Weather Events: An Unequal Burden on African Americans (Sept. 
2005), available at http://www.cbcfinc.org/pdf/
climatechange_issuebrf.pdf.
    \173\Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, Climate 
of Change: African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate Policy 
for the U.S. at 12 (2008), available at 
http://www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf.
    \174\Id. at 2.
    \175\Richard Perez-Pena, Study Finds Asthma in 25% of Children in 
Central Harlem, New York Times, April 19, 2003.
    \176\Adrianna Quintero-Somaini et al., Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Hidden Danger: Environmental Health Threats in the Latino 
Community at vii, 14 (2004), available at http://www.nrdc.org/health/
effects/latino/english/latino_en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The WHO has found that negative public health impacts of 
climate change, discussed above, will likely disproportionately 
impact communities that are already vulnerable. In 2007, more 
than 46 million Americans lacked health insurance. Minorities 
are more likely to be uninsured regardless of income level and 
often experience greater challenges in accessing health care 
services. Consequently, they are more likely to suffer as a 
result of public health impacts related to climate change.
    Vulnerable Alaskans are already dealing with the harsh 
reality of global warming. According to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, at least three Alaskan villages--Shishmaref, 
Kivalina, and Newtok--will be lost to coastal erosion due to 
rising sea levels in the next 8 to 13 years.\177\ With flooding 
and erosion currently affecting 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, 
of Alaska Native villages to some extent,\178\ the number of 
villages needing major assistance is sure to swell over the 
next century. The cost of saving these villages through either 
man-made erosion protection or total community relocation could 
be up to $200 million or more per village.\179\ As devastating 
as it may be to watch a town fall into the sea, the more 
destructive and irreplaceable transformation occurring within 
these native communities is to cultures and traditional ways of 
life. As Mike Williams, Vice-Chairman of the Alaska Inter-
Tribal Council, eloquently testified before the Select 
Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \177\U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Village Erosion Technical 
Assistance Program (April 2006), available at: http://
housemajority.org/coms/cli/AVETA_Report.pdf
    \178\Government Accountability Office. Alaska Native Villages, 
Report No. GAO-04-895T (June 29, 2004), available at: http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d04895t.pdf.
    \179\U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 177.

          Global warming is undermining the social identity and 
        cultural survival of Alaska Natives and American 
        Indians. As we watch our ice melt, our forests burn, 
        our villages sink, our sea level rise, our temperatures 
        increase, our oceans acidify, and our animals become 
        diseased and dislocated, we recognize that our health 
        and our traditional ways of life are at risk. Our 
        elders, in particular, are deeply concerned about what 
        they are witnessing. In Alaska, unpredictable weather 
        and ice conditions make travel and time-honored 
        subsistence practices hazardous, endangering our 
        lives.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\Testimony of Mike Williams before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Energy and Global 
Warming Solutions for Vulnerable Communities,'' October 18, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          B. THE ENERGY CRISIS

    Even as the impending climate crisis looms before us, the 
United States is already facing a deepening energy crisis. The 
most critical aspect of that crisis is our growing dependence 
on foreign oil, coupled with the skyrocketing prices of oil and 
gasoline. But in a range of other key areas, including natural 
gas and electricity generation and transmission, the United 
States is facing challenges arising from growing demand, limits 
on supply, and rising global prices. At the same time, we find 
ourselves on the cusp of an unprecedented wave of investment in 
infrastructure and technology, which will benefit those workers 
and companies positioned to answer the challenge. Between now 
and 2030, over $20 trillion will be invested in energy 
infrastructure worldwide, and an estimated $1.5 trillion will 
be invested in the U.S. power sector alone. This places us at a 
critical decision point in the development of the U.S. and 
global energy economies.

1. The oil challenge

    The single greatest energy security challenge facing the 
United States in the 21st century is our growing dependence on 
foreign oil. The United States imported 4.9 billion barrels oil 
in 2007, or 58.2 percent of its total oil consumption. This 
import figure is up from 52.9 percent of total consumption in 
2000 and 42.2 percent in 1990. The dramatic rise in oil prices 
over the past several years--driven primarily by rising global 
demand--has highlighted the growing urgency of this challenge. 
At the same time, combustion of oil in the United States 
accounts for nearly a third of our greenhouse gas emissions--
more than the total emissions of the Russian Federation (which 
ranks third in the world in emissions).\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\For U.S. petroleum-related emissions, see Energy Information 
Administration, International Energy Annual 2005, Table H.2co2, 
``Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Petroleum, 1980-
2005,'' available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/
tableh2co2.xls. For total greenhouse gas emissions by country, see 
UNFCCC, Subsidiary Body for Implementation, National greenhouse gas 
inventory data for the period 1990-2005, at 17 (Table 4) (Oct. 27, 
2007), available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/sbi/eng/
30.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil and gasoline prices have skyrocketed over the past 
several years. The price of oil has risen from $18 per barrel 
in January 2002, to $147 per barrel in July of 2008, an 
increase of over 700 percent.\182\ Prices doubled in just 12 
months between July 2007 and July 2008, before declining to 
under $80 per barrel by October 2008 in the face of an 
expanding global financial crisis.\183\ Similarly, gasoline 
prices soared from under $1.50 per gallon in January 2001 to 
over $4.11 in July 2008, before declining to under $3.00 in 
October 2008.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\Energy Information Administration, Daily Cushing, OK WTI Spot 
Price FOB (spot prices for Cushing, OK West Texas Intermediate crude 
oil, the benchmark price for the United States), available at http://
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm.
    \183\Id.
    \184\Energy Information Administration, Weekly U.S. Regular All 
Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices, available at http://
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_rt_usw.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These price hikes have had a crippling impact on American 
consumers. Each $1 per gallon increase in the average cost of 
gasoline adds nearly $600 to an average American's annual 
transportation fuel bill.\185\ For the average American worker, 
who makes $30,000 a year, $3.75 per gallon gasoline consumes 
about 8 percent of that person's total pre-tax income.\186\ 
Witnesses at the Select Committee's May 9, 2007 hearing on the 
``Economics of Dependence on Foreign Oil--Rising Gasoline 
Prices'' testified that, even as of May of 2007 (with gasoline 
prices at just above $3.00 per gallon), American consumers, 
businesses, and local governments were experiencing severe 
impacts--including school districts eliminating school bus 
service or charging parents for such service, and farmers and 
small businesses facing substantial losses due to rising fuel 
prices. At the Select Committee's September 25, 2008 hearing on 
``The Future of LIHEAP Funding: Will Families Get the Cold 
Shoulder this Winter?,'' discussed at greater length below, the 
Select Committee learned that the 8 million American households 
that rely on heating oil to warm their homes should expect to 
pay an average $2,524 in heating costs during the 2009-2010 
winter, an increase of 30 percent over the previous winter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \185\This is based on EPA estimates of fuel economy and miles 
driven of an average U.S. passenger vehicle. See Environmental 
Protection Agency, Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a 
Typical Passenger Vehicle, Fact Sheet EPA420-F-05-004 (Feb. 2005), 
available at http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm.
    \186\According to the Department of Transportation, U.S. cars, 
vans, pickups, and SUVs in 2005 traveled an average of 11,856 miles and 
used 594 gallons of gasoline over the course of the year. U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Annual 
Vehicle Distance Traveled in Kilometers and Related Data - 2005, By 
Highway Category and Vehicle Type (Table VM-1M) (Nov. 2006), available 
at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/pdf/vm1m.pdf. Based on 
those figures, with gasoline prices at $3.75 per gallon, the average 
consumer would spend $2,227.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As consumers suffer, oil company profits soar. This was 
underscored by the Select Committee's April 2008 hearing 
entitled ``Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway 
Prices, and the Pursuit of Alternatives,'' at which top 
executives from the five largest independent oil companies 
testified. In 2002, these five companies--ExxonMobil, 
ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP, and Chevron--had a combined net 
income of over $28 billion. By 2007, these same companies 
recorded yearly profits of over $123 billion. In 2008, they are 
projected to make over $150 billion in profits. Average CEO 
compensation at the five oil majors is over $23 million per 
year.
    Meanwhile, the major oil companies fail to invest in either 
new supplies or oil alternatives on the scale needed. Instead 
of favoring greater exploration or alternative energy 
investments, the oil majors have increased stock buybacks from 
$10 billion in 2003 to $60 billion in 2006.\187\ As the Select 
Committee learned on June 11, 2008 in a hearing entitled ``The 
Future of Oil,'' the exploration spending of the five largest 
oil companies was flat or decreased between 1998 and 2006. 
Despite professing a strong commitment to development of 
renewable energy sources, the largest U.S. oil company--
ExxonMobil, with 2007 profits of over $40 billion--revealed at 
a Select Committee hearing that it invests only $10 million 
annually in renewable energy research and projects, or less 
than three hundredths of one percent of ExxonMobil's annual 
profits. The other four companies estimated their investments 
in renewable energy at $100-200 million per year over the past 
five years. As the Select Committee heard at a September 10, 
2008 hearing entitled, ``Investing in the Future: R&D Needs to 
Meet America's Energy and Climate Challenge,'' research and 
development (R&D) investments by the major oil companies is 
miniscule compared to other sectors. While companies in sectors 
like biotech, information technology, and semiconductors 
routinely invest 13 to 18 percent of revenues in R&D, the major 
oil companies invest only 0.002 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\See Select Committee Staff Report, ``Big Oil: Where Have All 
the Profits Gone?'' (May 21, 2008), available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0045.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although excessive speculation and a weak U.S. dollar 
undoubtedly played a role in the recent run-up in oil prices, 
experts forecast sustained high prices for the foreseeable 
future--largely due to limited supply and dramatically 
increasing global demand, especially in China, India, and the 
Middle East. Many experts believe that market fundamentals 
indicate that the oil market has entered a period of sustained 
high prices.\188\ The world's oil spigots are close to fully 
open, and spare production capacity has nearly disappeared 
around the world. By 2030, global demand for oil is expected to 
expand by 30-38 percent above current levels of 84 million 
barrels per day (mbd).\189\ Most of the increase in demand is 
anticipated to come from China, India, and the Middle East. 
Demand from China alone grew 5.1 percent per year between 1980 
and 2004 and is expected to continue to grow rapidly.\190\ In 
the United States, absent significant changes in driving habits 
or in vehicle fuel efficiency beyond what is already required 
by EISA, demand for oil is expected to grow from 20.7 mbd today 
to 22.8 mbd in 2030--an 11 percent increase.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\See, e.g., Testimony of Adam Sieminski and Testimony of Amy 
Myers Jaffee, before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
Global Warming, hearing on ``The Future of Oil'' (June 11, 2008).
    \189\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006 at 86 
(2006).
    \190\Id. at 87.
    \191\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 
at 81 (2008) [hereinafter ``EIA AEO 2008''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The oil crisis is basically a transportation challenge. The 
transportation sector accounts for approximately 69 percent of 
U.S. oil consumption, and motor vehicles alone account for 
roughly 59 percent of consumption.\192\ The U.S. transportation 
system is over 95 percent dependent on oil as a fuel source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \192\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, 
Tables 5.11 and 5.13c (June 2008). The industrial sector accounts for 
approximately 24.4 percent, the residential and commercial sectors 
approximately 1.6 percent, and the electric power sector approximately 
1.4 percent. Id. at Tables 5.11, 5.13a, 5.13b, 5.13c, and 5.13d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States is increasingly dependent on foreign 
sources of oil--imposing a massive drain on the U.S. economy. 
The United States accounts for 25 percent of global oil 
consumption but accounts for less than 10 percent of global 
production and has around 2 percent of proven oil reserves. 
Meanwhile, over the past three decades, we have seen a dramatic 
increase in the United States' reliance on imported oil to 
satisfy its growing demand. Net imports have grown from 21 
percent in 1970, to 52.9 percent in 2000, and to over 58 
percent today.\193\ Oil imports cost the United States a 
staggering $319 billion in 2007, over 45 percent of our total 
trade deficit--up from less than 24 percent of the trade 
deficit in 2002.\194\ Dr. David L. Greene of the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory estimates that the full cost of dependence 
on foreign oil to the U.S. economy is much higher--$750 billion 
in 2008, including a loss of potential GDP of $352 billion 
(about 2 percent of total GDP).\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, 
Petroleum Net Imports by Country of Origin, Table 5.7 (June 2008).
    \194\For U.S. trade deficit numbers, see Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, ``U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services--Exports, 
Imports, and Balances,'' available at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/
international/trade/trad_time_series.xls. For U.S. oil import 
expenditures, see U.S. Census Bureau, FT 900: U.S. International Trade 
in Goods and Services, Exhibit 17 (Imports of Energy-Related Petroleum 
Products, Including Crude Oil) (July 2008), available at http://
www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/
exh17.pdf, and FT 900: U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, 
Exhibit 17 (Imports of Energy-Related Petroleum Products, Including 
Crude Oil) (July 2003), available at http://www.census.gov/foreign-
trade/Press-Release/2003pr/07/exh17.pdf.
    \195\David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ``Costs of Oil 
Dependence Update 2008: Summary'' (Aug. 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This growing dependence on foreign oil has dire 
implications for U.S. national security and economic stability. 
Dependence on imported oil makes the United States increasingly 
vulnerable to foreign governments' manipulation of supply and 
prices, as well as to potential disruptions in global supply. 
OPEC countries control 76 percent of estimated global oil 
reserves and account for 38 percent of global production.\196\ 
Moreover, investor-owned companies control only about 6 percent 
of the world's known oil reserves. By contrast, government-
owned and operated companies in oil-producing countries, such 
as Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia or the National Iranian Oil 
Company in Iran, control most of the rest.\197\ Of the top 20 
oil producing companies in the world, 14 are national oil 
companies (NOCs) or newly privatized NOCs.\198\ Although Canada 
and Mexico supply a substantial proportion of U.S. imports, 
OPEC countries control virtually all of the world's marginal 
production capacity and therefore have the ability to set the 
global price for this commodity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 
2005, Table G.1 (World Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Plant 
Liquids, and Other Liquids, 1980-2005) (2007), available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableg1.xls; BP Statistical 
Review of World Energy June 2008, Table A1 (Oil--Proved Reserves), 
available at http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/
globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/
statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/
spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2008.xls#'Oil--
Proved reserves'!A1.
    \197\David Baker, ``Big Oil has trouble finding new fields,'' San 
Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 1, 2008, available at http://www.sfgate.com/
cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/BUMDUOD7S.DTL.
    \198\Amy Myers Jaffe & Ronald Soligo, The International Oil 
Companies at 3 (Nov. 2007) (The James A. Baker III Institute for Public 
Policy), available at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/
NOC_IOCs_Jaffe-Soligo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This makes the United States uniquely vulnerable to a 
supply crisis, which could be created by a range of scenarios. 
These include a cutoff of oil supplies by a major exporter such 
as Venezuela, a confrontation with Iran, an Iranian or 
terrorist threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which 16-17 
million barrels of oil passes each day, terrorist attacks on 
major oil production facilities or export infrastructure in 
Nigeria or elsewhere, a broadening of conflict in Iraq, or 
destruction of oil production or fuel refining infrastructure 
as a result of a severe storm or natural disaster.\199\ This 
vulnerability was underscored at the Select Committee's 
November 7, 2007 hearing entitled ``Oil Shock: Potential for 
Crisis,'' at which former Commander of the U.S. Pacific 
Command, Admiral Dennis Blair, and former EPA Administrator 
Carol Browner testified on ``Oil Shockwave''--a ``war game'' 
exercise focusing on a crippling oil crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \199\See, e.g., Testimony of Amy Myers Jaffe, before the Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``The 
Future of Oil'' (June 11, 2008), at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite increasingly strident calls to open the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
to drilling, the facts make clear that we cannot drill our way 
out of this problem. More drilling may be good for U.S. oil 
company profits but will have little or no impact on prices 
consumers pay for oil or gasoline and will not substantially 
reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. As a preliminary matter, 
it bears emphasis that there is no shortage of opportunities 
for drilling on federal lands in the United States. Oil and gas 
companies currently hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of 
federal lands and offshore areas on which they are not 
currently producing.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \200\See, e.g., Testimony of Athan Manuel, before the Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on the 
``Future of Oil'' (June 11, 2008), at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With regard to the OCS, nearly 83 percent of technically 
recoverable offshore oil reserves offshore in the United States 
are located in areas already available for leasing and 
drilling.\201\ Of a total of 101 billion barrels of reserves, 
only 18 billion barrels are in areas that, up until October 1, 
2008, were off limits--including 10 billion barrels off the 
coast of California, where there is a consistent record of 
bipartisan opposition to drilling.\202\ The Department of 
Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates 
that, even if the entire lower 48 OCS were opened to drilling, 
this would increase cumulative U.S. oil production by only 1.6 
percent by 2030 and would have an ``insignificant'' impact on 
prices.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\U.S. Mineral Management Service, Report to Congress: 
Comprehensive Inventory of U.S. OCS Oil and Natural Gas Resources (Feb. 
2006). Available at http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/PDFs/
FinalInvRptToCongress050106.pdf. Figures are adjusted to account for 
the estimated 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 79.96 trillion cubic feet 
of gas in the Gulf of Mexico that were made accessible following this 
inventory by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.
    \202\Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access 
to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer 
Continental Shelf (2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
otheranalysis/ongr.html.
    \203\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, EIA estimates 
that if the Refuge were opened for drilling, production would 
likely peak in 2027 at just 0.78 million barrels per day--
reducing world oil prices by 78 cents per barrel in EIA's 
average price and resource case--corresponding to an estimated 
4 cent per gallon decrease in the price of gasoline.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \204\Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Crude Oil 
Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (May 2008), available 
at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html. See also 
Testimony of Athan Manuel before the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming, ``The Future of Oil'' at 3-4 (June 11, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, regardless of U.S. oil production trends, there 
are serious questions about how increasing global demand will 
be met--and whether it can be met at all. This concern was 
underscored at the Select Committee's June 2008 hearing on the 
``The Future of Oil.'' Estimates of the total petroleum 
resource currently in the ground--both conventional and 
unconventional\205\--vary from 14 to 24 trillion barrels.\206\ 
However, actual ``proven reserves'' that have already been 
discovered and are expected to be economically producible are 
much lower--estimated at between 1.1 and 1.4 trillion barrels 
worldwide. Chevron Corporation has estimated that humanity has 
consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil during the past 125 years, 
but that it will take just 30 years to burn through another 
trillion barrels. The IEA estimates current proven reserves, 
including non-conventional sources, could last 42 years if they 
were produced at current rates.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \205\Conventional oil is crude oil and natural gas liquids produced 
from underground reservoirs by means of conventional wells. Non-
conventional oil includes oil shales, oil sands, and extra-heavy crude.
    \206\Energy Information Administration, Long-term Global Oil 
Scenarios: Looking Beyond 2030 (Slide presentation by Glen Sweetnam 
from EIA 2008 Energy Conference, April 7, 2008) (EIA uses 20.6 trillion 
barrels as its base case.).
    \207\International Energy Agency, supra note 189, at 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time, generating new oil supply is proving 
increasingly difficult. The fields that oil companies find are 
generally in hard-to-reach places like deep water areas in the 
Gulf of Mexico, where drilling and pumping costs far more than 
it does on land. Much of these companies' current oil supplies 
come from old giant fields which are now in decline and 
deepwater fields which may have shorter lifespans than 
traditional fields.\208\ Further, a growing share of reserve 
additions are coming from revised appraisals of existing 
fields, not the discovery of new fields. Even with advances in 
technology, the average size of discoveries per exploratory 
well is around 10 million barrels, which is half the output of 
wells dug between 1965 and 1979.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \208\MatthewR. Simmons, Simmons & Company International, The 21st 
Century Energy Crisis Has Arrived (Presentation to the CFA Society of 
Atlanta: April 16, 2008).
    \209\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006 at 90 
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OPEC's oil production capacity has not kept up with demand 
growth and has actually fallen over the past 25 years, from 38 
mbd in 1979 to roughly 31 mbd today. Yet, for the world to 
reach the 2030 oil supply targets offered by IEA and EIA, 
roughly 60 percent of new supplies would need to come from 
OPEC. More than half of that volume is projected to come from 
just three countries whose relations with the United States 
are, at a minimum, strained and whose own domestic stability is 
questioned by many: Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
    In short, the shrinking margin between stagnant supply and 
soaring demand provides yet another reason that the United 
States and the world need to begin to look beyond oil to meet 
our growing energy needs.

2. The electricity challenge

    The U.S. power sector is facing rapid and sustained growth 
in demand over the coming decades. EIA projects that 
electricity demand will grow by 29 percent from 2006 to 
2030,\210\ as compared with a projected 23 percent growth in 
the U.S. population.\211\ Most of the predicted demand growth 
is in the commercial and residential sectors, with 49 and 27 
percent projected growth, respectively. This increase in demand 
is fueled by a combination of population growth, population 
shifts towards warmer regions with higher cooling needs, and 
increasing reliance on electrically powered appliances and 
equipment. EIA estimates that this increase in demand, together 
with the expected retirement of 45 gigawatts of generating 
capacity, will require the construction of 263 gigawatts of new 
capacity (or equivalent increases in efficiency above and 
beyond predicted increases).\212\ The largest portion of new 
capacity will be needed in the southeast (characterized by 
rapid population growth and high cooling needs).\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 67.
    \211\See U.S. Census Bureau, Interim Projections of the Total 
Population of the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 
2030, available at http://www.census.gov/population/projections/
SummaryTabA1.pdf.
    \212\EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 68.
    \213\EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rapidly growing demand together with underinvestment in 
transmission infrastructure is creating concerns about the 
reliability of the electrical grid. A number of steps have been 
taken to increase grid reliability in the wake of the 2003 
blackouts in the northeast. However, transmission congestion 
remains a problem and the margin between capacity and demand is 
growing thinner in many regions of the country--notably the 
Midwest, Southwest, and California--creating concerns about the 
potential for brownouts or blackouts in the next several 
years.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \214\See generally North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 
2007 Long-term Reliability Assessment (Oct. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Retail electricity prices have seen a steady upward march 
over the last decade--due to rising fuel and infrastructure 
costs. Prices have increased from an average of 6.81 cents per 
kilowatt hour in 1999 to 9.14 cents in 2007--a 34 percent 
rise.\215\ Larger and faster upticks in prices are expected in 
many areas of the country due to rising costs of coal and 
natural gas, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\Energy Information Administration, Average Retail Price of 
Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector (Aug. 25, 
2008), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf.electricity/epm/
table5_3.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electricity generation is heavily dependent on water, and 
growing water scarcity due to climate change will constrain 
power generation in many areas here in the United States and 
abroad. Power plants that convert thermal energy into 
electricity--primarily coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear 
power plants--currently produce 90 percent of U.S. electricity 
and consume massive amounts of the country's fresh water supply 
for steam generation and cooling. Hydroelectric power, which 
accounts for another 7 percent of U.S. power generation, is of 
course highly dependent on water flow. As the Select Committee 
heard from Dan Keppen of the Family Farm Alliance in a July 10, 
2008 hearing entitled ``Global Warming Effects on Extreme 
Weather,'' water used by electric utilities accounts for 20 
percent of all the non-farm water consumed in the United 
States. This figure could rise to 60 percent by 2030, with 
fast-growing regions like the Southwest and Southeast hit the 
hardest. Over the last two years, decreased river flow and 
increased water temperatures already have led to shut-downs of 
nuclear power plants in the southeastern United States. These 
problems will be exacerbated as global warming increases 
temperatures and water scarcity.
    The overall fuel mix for power generation in the United 
States has remained relatively stable over the past decade. 
Coal remains the leading fuel source, accounting for 49 percent 
of generation, followed by natural gas with 21 percent, and 
nuclear with 19 percent. Hydroelectric power accounts for 6 
percent, and non-hydro renewables (wind, solar, and geothermal) 
provide 2.4 percent.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \216\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, 
at 224-26 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The construction of new generating capacity, however, 
suggests a shift towards heavier reliance on natural gas and an 
explosion in wind power. In 2007, natural gas accounted for 56 
percent of all new generating capacity, wind accounted for over 
30 percent, and coal accounted for just 9.5 percent--with oil 
and hydro making up the balance.\217\ Shattering all its 
previous records, the wind energy industry installed 5,244 
megawatts in 2007, expanding the nation's total wind power 
generating capacity by 45 percent in a single calendar year and 
injecting an investment of over $9 billion into the 
economy.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual with 
data for 2006, at Table 2.4 (Planned Nameplate Capacity Additions from 
New Generators, by Energy Source, 2007 through 2011) (2007), available 
at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p4.html.
    \218\American Wind Energy Association, AWEA 2007 Market Report 
(2008), available at
http://www.awea.org/projects/pdf/Market_Report_Jan08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, there are substantial obstacles to expansion of 
coal and nuclear generation--two of the mainstays of the 
current U.S. generation portfolio.

Coal

    Coal remains a key fuel for the electric power sector, both 
for the United States and the rest of the world. Often referred 
to as the Saudi Arabia of coal, the United States has the 
largest coal reserves in the world (27 percent of global 
reserves) and produces over a billion short tons of coal 
annually. Over 90 percent of U.S. coal consumption is used for 
electricity generation. It is frequently asserted that U.S. 
reserves are sufficient to last 250 years at current rates of 
consumption, though a recent National Research Council report 
emphasized that this estimate could not be confirmed and some 
question whether full recovery is feasible.\219\ China and 
India, two of the largest, fastest growing economies in the 
world, have large reserves and rely on coal for most of their 
electricity generation (79 percent for China and 68 percent for 
India).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \219\See National Research Council, Coal: Research and Development 
to Support National Energy Policy at 3 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coal presents a serious challenge from the perspective of 
global warming. Because of coal's high carbon content, coal-
fired power plants emit roughly twice as much carbon dioxide 
per unit of electricity as natural gas-fired plants. Existing 
coal-fired plants account for about a third of U.S. 
CO2 emissions. Projected business-as-usual expansion 
in conventional coal-fired power plants would make achievement 
of our climate goals impossible. Absent limits on 
CO2 emissions, EIA estimates that over half of new 
capacity added by 2030 will be provided by coal-fired 
generation. If constructed without carbon controls, these new 
coal-fired plants alone would increase U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions by over 10 percent. Globally, an estimated 1.4 
million megawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity is 
expected to be built by 2030--the lion's share in China and 
India. If built without carbon controls, these plants alone 
would increase global greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 30 
percent above present levels.
    Here in the United States, there has been a major slowdown 
in construction of new coal-fired power plants. According to 
one tally, 59 coal-fired power plant projects were cancelled in 
2007 alone,\220\ and the pace of cancellations has continued in 
2008. Of the 36,000 megawatts of new coal-fired generating 
capacity predicted to be constructed between 2002 and 2007, 
only around 4,500 megawatts were actually built.\221\ This 
slowdown was due in large part to public and regulatory 
opposition related coal plants' emissions of CO2 as 
well as conventional pollutants, such as mercury. This 
opposition, together with uncertainty about future climate 
regulation, is making it increasingly difficult for new coal-
fired power plants to secure financing. For example, in 
February 2008, three of what were then Wall Street's biggest 
investment banks issued standards requiring utilities seeking 
financing for coal-fired power plants to demonstrate that the 
plants will be economically viable even with stringent federal 
controls on CO2 emissions.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\See Coal Moratorium Now, Progress Towards a Coal Moratorium 59 
Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007, available at http://
cmnow.org/59plants.pdf.
    \221\National Energy Technology Laboratories, Tracking New Coal-
Fired Power Plants, June 30, 2008, at 5, available at http://
www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf.
    \222\See, e.g., Jeffrey Ball, ``Wall Street Shows Skepticism Over 
Coal: Banks Push Utilities To Plan for Impact Of Emissions Caps,'' Wall 
Street Journal, Feb. 4, 2008, at A6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear Power

    While some are forecasting a nuclear ``renaissance'', a 
massive wave of construction in the next two decades would be 
necessary just to maintain nuclear power's current share of 
U.S. electricity generation. For nuclear power to maintain its 
current 19 percent share of U.S. electricity supply, around 50 
new nuclear plants will need to be constructed by 2030. For 
nuclear power to grow to supply 30 percent of U.S. electricity, 
more than 100 reactors would need to be built by 2030.
    A large and sustained expansion in nuclear generation is 
unlikely in light of the major hurdles facing the industry. The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive applications 
for 34 new nuclear power plants by the end of 2009.\223\ Until 
this year, it had been three decades since a new application 
had been submitted. The last reactor completed in the United 
States came online in 1996 after a construction period of 23 
years. A pattern of cost overruns and construction delays drove 
private investors away from nuclear energy in the 1970s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\EERE Network News, NRC Expects Applications for 34 Nuclear 
Power Plants by 2010 (July 16, 2008), available at http://
apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost projections for new nuclear power plants have 
increased dramatically--in many cases surpassing the total 
value of the electric utility--making it extremely unlikely new 
plants can be financed without taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. 
Just a few years ago, the nuclear industry was projecting a new 
1,000 megawatt reactor would cost around $2 billion. A 2007 
Keystone Center study found costs for the same plant could 
reach $4 billion. New plants are now expected to cost $6-8 
billion each, a figure which approaches or exceeds the total 
market capitalization of many electric power companies.\224\ 
For the 67 nuclear plants that have come online in the United 
States since 1976, on average more than 13 years passed between 
when a new plant application was officially accepted by the 
Nuclear Regulatory Committee and when the plant began 
commercial operation.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \224\Nuclear Energy Institute response to follow-up questions 
submitted by Rep. Markey after the June 19, 2008, hearing on climate 
change in the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of the House 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Frank Bowman, President and CEO of 
the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified during that hearing. Received 
Oct. 21, 2008.
    \225\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of these costs and risks, it remains in doubt 
whether private financing will be available for any new nuclear 
facilities without the assurance of federal government 
guarantees on the loans. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates the risk of default on these loans to be ``very 
high--well above 50 percent.''\226\ The Department of Energy 
has received applications for federal loan guarantees from 21 
proposed nuclear power plants. But the $122 billion in 
requested assistance far surpasses the $18.5 billion Congress 
made available in loan support. The director of the Department 
of Energy's loan program office has stated that $18.5 billion 
could probably accommodate only two power plants.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \226\Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, S.14, Energy 
Policy Act of 2003, at 11 (May 7, 2003), available at http://
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf.
    \227\Katherine Ling, ``Nuclear Power: 17 apply for DOE loan 
guarantees, far exceeding available cash,'' Greenwire, Oct. 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has stated that 
additional financing from French and Japanese government export 
credit agencies, in exchange for agreements on the sourcing of 
reactor components, could--in conjunction with the federal loan 
guarantees--increase the number of nuclear plants receiving 
loan guarantees to three or four.\228\ At no time ``in the 
immediate future'' does NEI anticipate private companies will 
be able to finance new nuclear plants without the aid of 
federal loan guarantees.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \228\Nuclear Energy Institute, supra note 224.
    \229\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, the United States has not found a solution to 
the problem of long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel. 
Approximately 56,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste is 
stored at 65 operating and 9 decommissioned reactor sites 
around the country. Without any expansion in the current fleet, 
spent fuel waste will grow to more than 80,000 metric tons by 
the end of existing reactor licenses, and would expand to over 
120,000 metric tons if all current licenses are renewed.\230\ 
The Yucca Mountain facility has been plagued by delays, cost 
overruns, serious questions about safety, and political 
opposition. The Department of Energy projects that it will open 
no earlier than 2017, and there are substantial doubts as to 
whether it will ever do so. Even if it is opened, Yucca 
Mountain will have a 70,000 metric ton capacity, making it is 
insufficient to accommodate all the waste from existing 
facilities. An expansion of 45 to 100 additional reactors would 
require the construction of another Yucca Mountain-sized 
facility every 17-24 years for as long as the fleet was in 
operation. Without resolution of the waste disposal issue, it 
is difficult to see how a significant expansion of nuclear 
power can proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \230\The Keystone Center, Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding at 75 
(June 2007), available at http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/
FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The natural gas challenge

    The United States accounts for over 22 percent of global 
consumption of natural gas, but has only 3.4 percent of global 
reserves. However, domestic production satisfies 80 percent of 
U.S. demand--and over 80 percent of U.S. imports come from 
Canada. Although there is slightly greater geographic 
distribution of natural gas reserves around the world than oil, 
the majority of natural gas reserves are still concentrated in 
relatively few countries--notably Russia (27.2 percent of 
global reserves), Iran (15.3 percent), and Qatar (14.6 
percent).\231\ According to EIA, U.S. annual consumption of 
natural gas in 2007 was 23 trillion cubic feet or 63 billion 
cubic feet per day. Of that, the United States imports about 
4.6 trillion cubic feet--approximately 20 percent. In 2007, 83 
percent of U.S. natural gas imports came from Canada by 
pipeline. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in 2007 totaled 
about 770 billion cubic feet--just over 3 percent of U.S. 
consumption.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \231\Energy Information Administration, International Energy 
Outlook 2008, at 44 (Table 6) (2008), available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf.
    \232\Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Imports by 
Country, available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/
ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Natural gas has become the fuel of choice for new power 
plants in the United States, because of its low emissions of 
CO2 and conventional air pollutants in comparison 
with coal. In addition, natural gas plays a critical role as a 
feedstock and fuel for U.S. manufacturing. The four main 
consumers of natural gas in the United States are electricity 
generation (30 percent), and the residential (20 percent), 
commercial (13 percent), and industrial (29 percent) 
sectors.\233\ Natural gas accounted for 55 percent of new 
generating capacity built in the United States in 2007. In 
addition, over half of U.S. homes are heated or cooled with 
natural gas, and over 70 percent of new homes are designed to 
use natural gas for space heating.\234\ In the commercial 
sector, the primary uses of natural gas are also space heating 
and cooling and water heating. Industrial consumption of 
natural gas is focused primarily in the pulp and paper, metals, 
chemicals, petroleum refining, stone, clay and glass, plastic, 
and food processing industries--including as a feedstock for 
the manufacturing of a wide range of products, such as 
fertilizer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \233\Energy Information Administration. Natural Gas Consumption by 
End Use, at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm.
    \234\Natural Gas Supply Association, Natural Gas Overview 
Residential Uses, available at http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/
uses_residential.asp (last accessed on October 26, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There has been a substantial increase in natural gas prices 
over the past several years, which has had an adverse effect on 
U.S. manufacturers that depend on this resource. The average 
annual Henry Hub spot price in 2007 was $6.97 per million Btu--
more than double the average annual price of $3.36 in 
2002.\235\ Rising natural gas prices have had a serious adverse 
impact on the U.S. manufacturing sector, particularly in 
specific sectors like fertilizer production. At the Select 
Committee's July 30, 2008 hearing entitled ``What's Cooking 
With Gas?: The Role of Natural Gas in Energy Independence and 
Global Warming Solutions,'' Rich Wells of The Dow Chemical 
Company testified that natural gas price increases over the 
past eight years have ``contributed significantly to the U.S. 
manufacturing sector losing over 3.7 million jobs, the chemical 
industry losing nearly 120,000 jobs, and the permanent loss of 
nearly half our fertilizer production capacity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Year-In-Review 
2007 (Mar. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fortunately, U.S. natural gas production from 
``unconventional'' onshore sources--principally shale 
resources--is increasing rapidly and has the potential to 
provide substantial new resources and to relieve pressure on 
prices. In the past few years, U.S. natural gas production has 
increased after a decade of essentially flat production. EIA 
predicts that production will continue to increase for the next 
few years if demand and prices stay high.\236\ This increase 
has come in large part from the development of unconventional 
resources, which now are the source of 47 percent of U.S. 
natural gas production. New drilling technologies, especially 
horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, have allowed the 
extraction of natural gas from geologic formations that could 
not be tapped with traditional techniques. In the western 
United States, there has been a dramatic increase in production 
of natural gas associated with coal deposits, so-called coalbed 
methane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\Energy Information Administration, ``Is U.S. natural gas 
production increasing?'' (June 2008), available at http://
tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/natural_gas_production.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shale formations are growing in importance for natural gas 
production. They are widely distributed, large, and contain 
huge resources of natural gas, but are just starting their full 
development. According to the EIA, the production from one 
Barnett Shale field in Texas alone contributes more than 6 
percent of production from the lower 48 States, which is more 
than from Louisiana, one of the largest producing states.\237\ 
Since 2005, more shale resources have been discovered including 
the recent announcement by Chesapeake Energy of the Haynesville 
field located in East Texas and Louisiana. The company says 
wells drilled on its leases could produce as much as 44 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas--nearly twice what the 
United States consumed last year.\238\ Based on their National 
Oil and Gas Assessment, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates 
that in ``continuous resources,'' which are typically 
unconventional formations like shales, there is 328 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas\239\ or approximately 14 years of 
resources at current consumption levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \237\Id.
    \238\Ben Casselman, ``Chesapeake, Plains Set to Tap Gas Field,'' 
Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2008.
    \239\Calculation based on mean vales for the regional assessments 
from the USGS National Oil and Gas Assessment, available at http://
energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development of these unconventional resources has raised 
concerns over water quality and availability that may reduce 
production in some parts of the country. Hydraulic fracturing 
requires the injection of large amounts of water, which can 
include dangerous contaminates and threaten underground 
drinking water supplies.\240\ Coalbed methane production 
releases saline water from the coal seams that can also contain 
arsenic, lead and other heavy metals\241\ and must be dealt 
with properly to avoid contamination of water supplies or 
destruction of pasture as has occurred in some areas of 
Wyoming.\242\ In some areas of the country, water supply 
systems are struggling to meet the demands of increased natural 
gas production on top of existing drinking and agriculture 
usage.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \240\Steve Hargreaves, Natural gas vs. contaminated water, 
CNNMoney.com, July 29, 2008, at http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/
economy/_shale_drilling/index.htm.
    \241\U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-156-00, Water Produced 
With Coal Bed Methane (Nov. 2000), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/
fs/fs-0156-00/fs-0156-00.pdf.
    \242\Hal Clifford, Wyoming's powder key, High Country News, Nov. 5, 
2001, available at 
http://www.hcn.org/issues/214/10823.
    \243\Vickie Welborn, ``Competition for Water Raises Concerns'' 
Shreveport Times, August 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline could bring 
online a substantial new source of domestic supply. Alaska's 
North Slope has massive natural gas resources, with potential 
recoverable reserves estimated at 100 trillion cubic feet.\244\ 
Proposals for a natural gas pipeline to transport this 
``stranded'' resource to markets in the lower 48 States--over 
3000 miles via Alberta, Canada to Chicago--have been discussed 
for over two decades. In 2004, Congress enacted the Alaska 
Natural Gas Pipeline Act, which, among other things, authorized 
$18 billion in loan guarantees to support construction of the 
pipeline. As natural gas prices have risen over the past 
decade, interest in development of a pipeline has likewise 
increased. The State of Alaska has established its own 
framework for promoting the pipeline--awarding a license to 
build the pipeline to TransCanada Corporation in August 2008 
with $500 million in state support. Nevertheless, the ultimate 
fate of the pipeline--estimated to cost up to $40 billion--
remains unclear.\245\ If built, the pipeline at full initial 
capacity could deliver 4.5 billion cubic feet per day of 
natural gas to the lower 48--equivalent to 7 percent of current 
domestic consumption.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \244\William F. Hederman, Congressional Research Service, ``The 
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: Status and Current Policy Issues,'' No. 
RL34671, at 9 (Sept. 12, 2008).
    \245\See, e.g., Serge Kovaleski and Mike McIntire, ``Palin's 
Pipeline Is Years From Being A Reality,'' New York Times, Sept. 10, 
2008.
    \246\William F. Hederman, Congressional Research Service, ``The 
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: Status and Current Policy Issues,'' No. 
RL34671, at 5 (Sept. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By contrast, recent proposals to open new areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf for gas production are unlikely to lead 
to substantial new production or to significant downward 
pressure on prices. According to EIA, total U.S. proven natural 
gas reserves--resources that have been identified and tested 
and either have been or will be developed--were 211 trillion 
cubic feet at the end of 2006. Of the total U.S. proven natural 
gas reserves, 15 trillion cubic feet or about 7 percent were 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore reserves. EIA estimates 
that 73 percent of these technically recoverable natural gas 
resources in the OCS (or all but 2 percent of total proven 
natural gas reserves) are available for leasing and 
development.\247\ Furthermore, EIA's analysis found that 
``lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase 
substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the 
OCS.''\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \247\Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access 
to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer 
Continental Shelf (2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
otheranalysis/ongr.html.
    \248\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              II. Energy and Climate ``Win-Win'' Solutions

    Global climate change and energy security are inextricably 
intertwined and together present one of the greatest challenges 
in the history of the United States and the world. To preserve 
our planetary home for ourselves and future generations, we 
must move swiftly to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the next 
couple decades. Ultimately, we must achieve global reductions 
of at least 50-85 percent by mid-century, requiring U.S. 
emissions to be cut by at least 80 percent in that time frame. 
At the same time, to preserve the United States' economic 
stability and national security, it is imperative that we move 
quickly to achieve energy independence. That can only be done 
by revolutionizing our transportation system to wean ourselves 
of oil, and by ramping up efficiency and clean electricity 
generation to power our growing economy.
    The challenge facing America--and the core mission of the 
Select Committee--is to identify ``win-win'' solutions that 
simultaneously enhance energy security and combat global 
warming. Climate solutions are by necessity energy solutions: 
Energy production and consumption generate the vast majority of 
U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions, and it is only by 
transforming our energy system that we will achieve the cuts 
needed to halt global warming. Fortunately, most of the leading 
technological solutions to global warming will substantially 
enhance energy security--including, most notably, boosting 
energy efficiency in the electric power, transportation, and 
buildings sectors, expanding renewable electricity generation, 
developing and deploying carbon capture and sequestration, 
expanding advanced biofuels production, and moving towards 
electric-drive vehicles. These are true ``win-win'' solutions.
    The same cannot be said of some of the purported energy 
security solutions currently on the table. Notably, increasing 
our reliance on high-carbon fuels, such as coal-to-liquids, tar 
sands, or tar shale, may increase the domestic energy supply, 
but could greatly hinder our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. Increased domestic production of oil and natural gas 
can provide a ``bridge'' measure to help alleviate dependence 
on foreign oil in the medium-term, but its impact will be 
limited at best and it moves us no closer to solving the 
climate crisis. To the extent that a narrow focus on drilling 
distracts us from the larger challenges that are facing us, it 
will undermine our long-term energy and economic security.
    This part lays out a series of recommendations--identifying 
``win-win'' solutions that should be the priorities for 
enactment by the 111th Congress. The first and most overarching 
of these is the enactment of economy-wide ``cap-and-invest'' 
legislation that will simultaneously cut global warming 
pollution, protect American consumers, and channel private and 
public investment towards low-carbon energy technologies. In 
addition, we identify a series of sector-specific complementary 
measures--for the electric power sector, the built environment, 
and the transportation sector--that will support and enhance 
low-carbon energy technology development and deployment in 
these sectors.
    In addition, in the section entitled ``Support Green Jobs 
and Clean Tech Investment,'' the report highlights the 
prospects for economic growth and green job creation these 
policies will bring. As the United States is facing one of the 
most serious economic crises in history, this blueprint for 
change provides the key to jumpstart a powerful engine of 
economic recovery and development.
    Finally, in the last two sections, the report identifies a 
series of measures needed to provide American consumers with 
short-term relief from high energy prices and to help guide the 
responsible development of domestic oil and gas resources while 
the United States brings alternative energy sources online.

          A. ENACT ECONOMY-WIDE ``CAP-AND-INVEST'' LEGISLATION

    The number one priority for energy security and climate 
change in the 111th Congress should be the adoption of economy-
wide ``cap-and-invest'' legislation that will combat climate 
change while spurring an energy technology revolution. A number 
of proposals were introduced in the 110th Congress that provide 
useful precedents and ideas from which the next Congress can 
draw. These include:
           H.R. 6186, the Investing in Climate Action 
        and Protection Act (iCAP), introduced by Mr. Markey
           The October 2008 climate legislation 
        discussion draft circulated by Mr. Dingell and Mr. 
        Boucher
           S. 3036, Lieberman-Warner Climate Security 
        Act, introduced by Sen. Boxer
           H.R. 6316, the Climate MATTERS Act, 
        introduced by Mr. Doggett
           H.R. 1519, the Safe Climate Act, introduced 
        by Mr. Waxman
           S. 1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act, 
        introduced by Sen. Bingaman and Sen. Specter
    Based upon the Select Committee's work during the 110th 
Congress, balanced and workable climate legislation should 
adhere to the following design principles:
    1. Science-Based Emission Targets: Reduce U.S. global 
warming pollution by at least 20 percent by 2020 and at least 
80 percent by 2050, the necessary U.S. contribution to 
stabilize atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases and 
avoid dangerous global warming.
    2. Economy-Wide, Market-Based, Cap-and-Trade Approach: 
Utilize an economy-wide cap-and-trade system as the principal 
mechanism for achieving our emissions reduction targets.
    3. Ensure Effectiveness and Fairness Through Auctions: 
Auction pollution allowances, instead of giving them free-of-
charge to polluters, to avoid windfall profits to polluters, 
ensure fairness, and reduce social costs.
    4. Consumer Focused: Return a substantial portion of the 
auction proceeds to low- and middle-income households to help 
compensate for any increase in energy costs as a result of 
climate legislation.
    5. Invest in Efficiency, Technology, and American Workers: 
Make substantial investments to spur increases in energy 
efficiency and the development and deployment of low-carbon 
technologies, and to help American workers transition to the 
new low-carbon economy.
    6. Ensure Global Participation: Include an integrated 
package of ``carrots'' and ``sticks'' to ensure that major-
emitting developing countries, like China and India, take 
comparable action on global warming--and to avoid negative 
effects on the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
    7. Smart Offsets and Incentives for Supplemental Emission 
Reductions: Establish rigorous standards governing the award of 
offset credits and provide robust financial incentives for 
supplemental reductions in ``uncapped'' emissions not eligible 
to generate offset credits.
    8. Rigorous Market Oversight: Establish a rigorous 
framework for market oversight and regulation to ensure 
transparency, fairness, and stability in the market for 
emission allowances, offset credits, and the derivatives 
thereof.
    9. Build Resilience to Climate Change Impacts: Build 
resilience to unavoidable impacts of climate change, both in 
the United States and in vulnerable developing countries. This 
must include investment in the necessary capacity to provide a 
robust Earth observation and prediction system.
    10. Integrate Complementary Policies and State and Local 
Roles: Integrate cap-and-invest with complementary policies to 
overcome market barriers and reduce the overall cost of climate 
legislation, and preserve appropriate roles for State and local 
action on climate change.
    1. Reduce U.S. global warming pollution by at least 20 
percent by 2020 and at least 80 percent by 2050, the necessary 
U.S. contribution to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of 
heat-trapping gases and avoid dangerous global warming.
    It is imperative that any proposal ensure that the United 
States meets science-based emissions reduction targets to avoid 
impacts of dangerous global warming. According to the IPCC's 
Fourth Assessment Report, stabilizing greenhouse gas 
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent 
dangerous interference with the climate system will require a 
global effort to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions 
worldwide by at least 50 to 85 percent below 2000 levels by 
2050.\249\ The IPCC and others estimate that, to play its part, 
the United States must reduce its total emissions by at least 
80 percent from current levels over that timeframe.\250\ 
Establishing stringent near-term reduction targets will be 
essential to achieving adequate cumulative emission reductions, 
and to ensuring that long-term reduction targets are achieved 
in a cost-effective manner. At minimum, U.S. emissions should 
be reduced by 20 percent by 2020. A comprehensive climate 
proposal should also provide a mechanism for periodic review, 
whereby the United States' emissions reduction goals may be 
strengthened if the latest scientific information dictates that 
it is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \249\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 15 
(Table SPM.5) (2007).
    \250\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 38-39 
(Table TS.2) (2007); Amy L. Luers et al. (Union of Concerned 
Scientists), How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target for U.S. 
Emission Reductions (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/
global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/a-target-or-us-
emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Utilize an economy-wide, market-based cap-and-trade 
system as the principal mechanism for achieving emissions 
reduction targets.
    A market-based cap-and-trade system is the most cost-
effective mechanism to achieve deep and certain emissions 
reductions in the United States. Unlike traditional command-
and-control regulations like emissions performance standards, a 
cap-and-trade system allows reductions to be made where the 
cost is lowest, saving compliance and administrative costs and 
increasing flexibility. One alternative to a cap-and-trade 
system is a carbon tax, which can provide an effective 
mechanism to incentivize economy-wide emission reductions. For 
example, Rep. Larson has introduced H.R. 3416, the ``America's 
Energy Security Trust Fund Act,'' an economy-wide carbon tax 
bill which is discussed in Rep. Larson's additional views, 
appended to this report. A cap-and-trade system has the 
advantage of guaranteeing a specified level of emissions 
reductions over a given timeframe--which is essential given the 
gravity of the impending climate crisis.
    To lower the overall cost of climate legislation, ensure 
fairness, and avoid perverse incentives, as many sources of 
emissions as is practicable should be included in the cap-and-
trade program. Of course, it is not practicable or cost-
effective to include all sources in such a program. Examples of 
categories that, because of administrative costs and 
difficulty, should not be under the cap include: (1) sources 
for which measurement of emissions is exceedingly difficult, 
and (2) categories that comprise very numerous sources, have 
very low emissions at each source, and are not susceptible to 
regulation at an ``upstream'' choke point (see discussion 
below). For these reasons, emissions from landfills, wastewater 
treatment facilities, coal mines, and small farms and 
agricultural soil management, for example, should be excluded 
from the cap--though some of these sources are readily 
susceptible to regulation through performance standards. Select 
Committee staff research indicates that 87 percent of U.S. 
emissions can be included in a cap-and-trade system, including 
virtually all emissions from the industrial, energy, and 
transportation sectors.
    Two additional important choices must be made--the point at 
which to regulate the ``capped'' emissions and the emissions 
threshold that determines whether a source is included or not 
included in the cap. Each emissions stream may be capped 
upstream, downstream, or midstream. An ``upstream'' cap places 
the point of regulation with the point-of-entry of fossil fuels 
or fluorinated industrial greenhouse gases (like HFCs, PFCs, 
SF6, or NF3) into commerce in the United 
States. A ``downstream'' cap is one in which the point of 
regulation coincides with the point of emissions of greenhouse 
gases. A ``midstream'' cap places the cap somewhere in between. 
For example, emissions from coal combustion could be regulated 
upstream at the coal mines or downstream at the electric power 
or industrial facilities burning the coal. Similarly, emissions 
from transportation could be regulated upstream at the 
refineries or (theoretically) downstream at the level of 
individual car, plane, train, and ship owners. Natural gas 
offers even more options: upstream at the wellheads, downstream 
at the electric power, industrial, commercial, or residential 
users of the gas, or midstream at the natural gas processing 
plants or natural gas distribution companies. Most current 
proposals employ some combination of upstream, downstream, and 
midstream caps.
    Many economists favor upstream caps because they reduce the 
number of points of regulation, and therefore--it is argued--
reduce administrative costs.\251\ Nevertheless, downstream caps 
for power plants and large industrial point sources generally 
are preferable, because these entities directly control the 
decisions that affect the emissions-intensity of their 
operations. If emissions thresholds are set correctly, the 
number of covered sources is manageable. And in the case of 
electric power plants, these entities also typically already 
monitor their CO2 emissions and have experience with 
other market-based approaches to environmental protection.\252\ 
Downstream caps are not feasible for the transportation sector 
or for industrial gases, which are characterized by a vast 
number of dispersed emission sources. Combustion of natural gas 
in the residential and commercial sectors poses a unique 
problem. It is not advisable to place an upstream cap on 
natural gas processing plants, as at least one legislative 
proposal this Congress has done. Doing so would eliminate 
coverage of emissions from the use of ``pipeline-quality'' gas, 
which is not processed and currently represents at least 25 
percent natural gas produced in the United States.\253\ 
Creating this loophole could encourage increased production of 
pipeline quality gas, further decreasing the cap's coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \251\Robert N. Stavins, ``Addressing climate change with a 
comprehensive U.S. cap-and-trade system,'' ENRP Discussion Paper 2008-
01, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. 
Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA (Jan. 2008); Robert 
Repetto, ``National Climate Policy: Choosing the Right Architecture'', 
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (June 2007).
    \252\CERA Advisory Service/North American Environmental Startegies 
(for Edison Electric Institute and National Commission on Energy 
Policy), ``Design Issues for Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Reduction 
Strategies'' (Feb. 2006).
    \253\Select Committee Majority staff communication with Department 
of Energy staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To maximize emissions coverage while reducing 
administrative complexities, a mixed approach including 
upstream and downstream caps is recommended. This approach 
would include the following:
           Power Plants and Industrial Facilities: A 
        downstream cap on power plants and industrial 
        facilities;
           Transportation and Other Liquid- and Gaseous 
        Coal or Petroleum-Based Fuels: An upstream cap on 
        producers or importers of petroleum- or coal-based 
        liquid or gaseous fuels--capturing most of the 
        emissions attributable to the transportation sector, as 
        well as those attributable to home heating oil and oil-
        fired electric generating units;
           Fluorinated Gases: An upstream cap is placed 
        on producers or importers of HFCs, PFCs, 
        SF6, or NF3;
           Residential and Commercial Natural Gas Use: 
        A midstream cap on natural gas local distribution 
        companies--capturing emissions from residential and 
        commercial use of natural gas; and
           Geological Carbon Sequestration Sites: A 
        downstream cap carbon capture and sequestration sites 
        to capture any leakage of carbon dioxide.
    To avoid double-counting of emissions, (1) industrial 
facilities and electric utilities should not be required to 
submit allowances for any emissions resulting from the use of 
petroleum- or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels; (2) natural 
gas local distribution companies should not be required to 
submit allowances for emissions resulting from combustion of 
any natural gas delivered to industrial facilities and electric 
utilities subject to the program; and (3) industrial facilities 
and power plants should not be required to submit allowances 
for emissions of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, or NF3 
that are purchased for use at the facility.
    The second choice to be made is what level of emissions 
from a given source should trigger compliance responsibilities. 
This choice of emissions threshold affects both the number of 
facilities with compliance obligations and the aggregate 
emissions covered under the cap. To maximize emissions coverage 
while limiting administrative costs, a fair test is that 
entities that do not emit 10,000 metric tons CO2-
equivalent of greenhouse gases annually should not be required 
to submit allowances. A 10,000 metric ton CO2-
equivalent threshold would account for 80 percent of emissions 
from the manufacturing sector (while burdening only 2 percent 
of facilities with compliance requirements) and virtually 100 
percent of emissions from the electric power sector (while 
burdening 35 percent of facilities) in the United States.\254\ 
This threshold would yield approximately 10,000 regulated 
entities for an economy-wide program. Other proposals recommend 
a higher threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO2-
equivalent like the one used in the EU's reporting program. 
Research by the California Environmental Protection Agency 
indicates that in California, raising the reporting threshold 
from 10,000 metric ton CO2-equivalent to 25,000 
metric ton CO2-equivalent for currently permitted 
facilities would decrease emissions coverage by only 2 percent, 
but decrease the number of affected facilities by half.\255\ 
Similar analysis should be performed on a national level, 
taking into consideration the scope of the national program, 
before making a final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \254\Tristram West and Naomi Pena, Determining Thresholds for 
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 37 Environmental 
Science and Technology 1059 (2003).
    \255\California EPA/Air Resources Board, State Report: Initial 
Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for Mandatory 
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions at 52 (Oct. 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. Auction pollution allowances, instead of giving them 
free-of-charge to polluters, to avoid windfall profits to 
polluters, ensure fairness, and reduce social costs.
    One of the key questions in designing a cap-and-trade 
system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is how to allocate 
tradable allowances. This was the subject of the Select 
Committee's January 23, 2008 hearing entitled ``Cap, Auction, 
and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and 
Trade.'' As a general matter, allowance allocation does not 
affect the achievement of the program's environmental goal; the 
emissions cap must be met regardless of how allowances are 
distributed. However, allowance allocation does significantly 
affect how costs and benefits are distributed, and it can also 
affect the system's overall cost. In addition, allocation is 
relevant to environmental performance insofar as auctioning and 
revenue recycling (or allocation of allowances for public 
benefit purposes) can be used to achieve reductions in 
emissions by sources not covered by the overall emissions cap--
for example, by providing financial incentives for agricultural 
or forestry practices or projects that sequester carbon.
    The government has long experience in auctioning public 
resources, whether radio spectrum or mineral rights. The 
ability to pollute is another public resource, and Congress, as 
the steward of that resource, should obtain fair value for it 
through auctions.
    Furthermore, economic theory and real-world experience 
indicate that--except in certain contexts such as utilities 
subject to cost-of-service regulation--free allocation of 
allowances may lead to windfall profits for polluters.\256\ 
This is so because, even where polluters receive allowances for 
free, these allowances have substantial value. As a result, a 
firm's decision to produce a marginal unit of electricity or 
other product carries with it an opportunity cost--the cost of 
having to submit allowances to the government equivalent to the 
emissions generated in producing that marginal unit, rather 
than selling those allowances on the open market. Many 
economists conclude that, except in limited circumstances, 
polluters can be expected to incorporate this cost into the 
product's price, even though they received the allowances for 
free. This results in a net transfer of wealth from consumers 
to polluters. There is growing evidence that, consistent with 
these predictions, free allocation under Phase I of the EU 
Emissions Trading System (ETS) led to windfall profits in some 
sectors.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \256\Testimony of Dallas Burtraw, Robert Greenstein, and Peter 
Zapfel before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
Warming, hearing on ``Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue 
Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade'' (Jan. 23, 2008).
    \257\Testimony of Peter Zapfel before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Cap, Auction, and 
Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade'' 
(Jan. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Auctions avoid this problem and have a number of other 
potential advantages as well. Auctioning eliminates the need to 
come up with rules for allocating allowances among incumbent 
polluters and accommodating new entrants into the market--and 
avoids ``rent seeking'' behavior among polluters seeking to 
secure free allocations. Auctioning can also provide an 
earlier, stronger, and clearer price signal to reduce 
emissions. Finally, auctions generate revenues that can be used 
for a variety of beneficial public purposes. Such purposes 
could include rebates or tax credits to reduce the program's 
economic impacts on consumers, reduction of distortionary taxes 
on labor or capital, transitional support for workers in 
adversely affected industries, investment in research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies such 
as renewables and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), 
efficiency policies, policies that reduce emissions from 
sectors not subject to the cap, and investment in adaptation to 
the impacts of climate change.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \258\Testimony of Dallas Burtraw, Robert Greenstein, and John 
Podesta before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
Warming, hearing on ``Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue 
Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade'' (Jan. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Existing market-based systems are moving towards full 
auctioning. The European Commission has proposed that, for 
Phase II of the EU ETS (2013-2016), the ETS should shift to 100 
percent auctions for utilities and greatly increased reliance 
on auctions for industrial sources.\259\ In the United States, 
most of the states participating in the northeastern Regional 
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have adopted full or near-full 
auctioning of allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \259\Testimony of Peter Zapfel before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Cap, Auction, and 
Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade'' 
(Jan. 23, 2008); Commission of the European Communities, Proposal to 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 
amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the 
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the Community (Jan. 
23, 2008), available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/
emission/pdf/com_2008_16_en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Auction design is critically important to ensuring market 
liquidity and stability. To optimize liquidity and stability, 
auctions should be held on a quarterly basis using forward 
auctioning of allowances--up to four years prior to the date of 
compliance obligations. Providing a regular and frequent supply 
of allowances to the market, some well in advance of compliance 
obligation deadlines, will help to reduce volatility, contain 
costs, increase liquidity, and increase certainty for regulated 
entities. A broad range of auction formats are possible, but 
two--the single-round, sealed-bid, uniform price format and 
what is known as an ``ascending clock'' multiple round format--
have garnered support from economists working in this 
area.\260\ RGGI's initial auction utilized the former, but 
future RGGI auctions may employ the latter if necessary to 
address evolving market conditions.\261\ Auction design should 
incorporate mechanisms--such as bidding limits and publication 
of bid information, among others--to enhance transparency and 
reduce the potential for collusion or manipulation.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \260\See Charles Holt et al., Auction Design for Selling CO2 
Emission Allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (Oct. 
2007), available at http://www.rggi.org/docs/rggi_auction_final.pdf; 
Peter Crampton, ``Comments on the RGGI Market Design'' (Nov. 15, 2007), 
available at http://www.cramton.umd.edu/papers2005-2009/cramton-rggi-
market-design-comments.pdf.
    \261\Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Design Elements for 
Regional Allowance Auctions under the Regional Greenhouse Gas 
Initiative (Mar. 17, 2008), available at http://www.rggi.org/docs/
20080317auction_design.pdf.
    \262\Holt et al., supra note 260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. Return a substantial portion of the auction proceeds to 
low- and middle-income households to help compensate for any 
increase in energy costs as a result of climate legislation.
    Auctioning allowances allows the government to transfer the 
value of the allowances (i.e., auction proceeds) to low- and 
middle-income households to compensate for any increase in 
energy costs due to climate legislation. Federal climate 
legislation can and should avoid burdening low-income 
households, which spend a greater share of their income on 
energy costs in comparison with higher-income households. 
Research by the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities 
(CBPP) demonstrates that setting aside 14 percent of allowance 
value would be sufficient to compensate for increased energy 
costs for the 20 percent of American households with the lowest 
incomes.\263\ The ``Climate Change Rebate Act of 2008'' (H.R. 
7194), introduced by Select Committee member Rep. Hilda Solis, 
compensates households in the bottom two income quintiles for 
reductions in purchasing power associated with increased energy 
costs under climate legislation. However, middle-class 
households can and should be protected as well. For example, 
Chairman Markey's iCAP bill (H.R. 6186), which sets aside 55 
percent of allowance value for this purpose, compensates 
virtually all increased energy costs for 66 percent of U.S. 
households (including all households of four earning under 
$70,000 per year) and provide benefits to over 80 percent of 
U.S. households (including all households of four earning up to 
$110,000 per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \263\Testimony of Robert Greenstein before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Cap, Auction, and 
Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade'' 
(Jan. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Refundable tax credits and rebates should each play a role 
in transferring funds to low- and middle-income households. For 
those households that file tax returns, refundable tax credits 
are a simple, efficient way to deliver funds. It is possible to 
design a tax credit that, like the earned income tax credit 
(EITC), phases in with earnings and is adjusted for family 
size, but would be available to households with higher incomes. 
There is a good case for designing a separate tax credit for 
seniors, whose needs are likely to be smaller since they 
receive Social Security benefits with automatic cost-of-living 
adjustments that account for any increases in consumer prices. 
Credits for seniors could phase in with the sum of their Social 
Security benefits, pension income, and veterans' benefits. For 
lower-income households that do not always file taxes and may 
need benefits on a more frequent basis, monthly cash rebates 
can be provided using the Electronic Benefit Transfer system 
already used for food stamps.\264\ H.R. 6186 and H.R. 7194 
include each of these elements: a refundable tax credit, a 
senior tax credit, and a rebate program for low-income 
households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \264\See Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, Fact Sheet: How a 
``Climate Rebate'' Would Work (June 3, 2008), available at http://
www.cbpp.org/60930908climate-fact.htm; Testimony of Robert Greenstein; 
Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
Warming, hearing on ``Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue 
Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade'' (Jan. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Direct compensation has some important advantages over 
providing consumer-relief funds to utilities or other entities. 
First, compensating households directly ensures that consumers 
will still receive the signal of higher energy prices, thus 
incentivizing greater efficiency and a transition to lower-
carbon energy sources, yet will ultimately not suffer 
financially as a result of climate legislation. In addition, 
direct consumer relief provides a mechanism to address energy 
costs other than those related to electricity (such as 
gasoline).
    5. Make substantial investments to spur energy efficiency, 
develop low-carbon technologies, and help American workers to 
transition to the new, low-carbon economy.
    A significant portion of auction proceeds should be used to 
spur the development of zero- and low-carbon energy 
technologies in the United States. These investments will speed 
the commercialization of new technologies, reduce the overall 
cost of climate legislation, and grow the U.S. economy by 
positioning us to be able to sell these technologies around the 
world.
    First, a cap-and-invest program can provide a crucial 
funding source for programs to increase energy efficiency--
particularly in the electric power and transportation sectors. 
As discussed at greater length below, such programs can deliver 
major reductions in GHG emissions, greatly enhance our energy 
security, and substantially reduce the cost of achieving our 
climate goals. H.R. 6186 proposes an innovative approach to the 
promotion of efficiency measures, by establishing a pay-for-
performance program under which States receive funding from 
auction proceeds based on their performance in increasing 
efficiency in the electric power sector and buildings. 
Competitive grants supporting State and local programs to 
reduce vehicle miles traveled--thus increasing the efficiency 
of the transportation sector--are also authorized. These 
provisions have been incorporated into the Dingell-Boucher 
discussion draft circulated in October 2008.
    Second, cap-and-invest legislation should focus on 
strategic investments in research, development, demonstration, 
and deployment of renewable energy technologies and CCS. 
Congress has authorized a range of important RD&D programs 
under EISA and other recent legislation, but these programs 
have not yet received adequate funding. To speed the widespread 
early deployment of renewable electricity generation--which 
will help renewable technologies to mature quickly to cost 
parity with fossil fuel technologies--cap-and-invest 
legislation should provide a long-term funding stream for 
incentive programs. Incentives can be designed as tax credits 
(such as the current Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax 
Credit) or as a package of production payments (perhaps awarded 
through a reverse auction) for commercial-scale operations and 
rebates for the purchase and installation of distributed 
generation technologies such as solar panels. Climate 
legislation should provide cost-sharing grants to cover 
incremental costs of implementing CCS technology at coal-fired 
power plants in order to bring this technology to market before 
a carbon price signal alone will. Other priorities for 
technology funding under a climate proposal, many of which are 
discussed in the sections that follow, include electric 
transmission and distribution efficiency (including smart-grid 
technologies), low-carbon renewable fuels, low-emission 
vehicles, and building efficiency.
    Finally, the proposal should include robust programs to 
assist American workers with the transition to a low-carbon 
economy. Green jobs training programs, such as those enacted 
under EISA, should be supported. In addition, a program should 
be established to provide training, income support, and tax 
credits for health care insurance for up to two years to any 
workers affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy. 
Both S. 3036 and H.R. 6186 provide models for such a program.
    6. Include ``carrots'' and ``sticks'' to ensure that major-
emitting developing countries, like China and India, take 
comparable action on global warming--and to avoid negative 
effects on the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
    It is imperative that any proposal include provisions to 
encourage international action to combat climate change. 
Without international action, dangerous global warming cannot 
be avoided.
    First, a climate proposal should encourage the President to 
work proactively under the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change, and in other appropriate forums, to 
establish binding agreements committing all major greenhouse 
gas-emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction 
of global greenhouse gas emissions.
    Second, a climate proposal should create ``carrots'' to 
encourage our trading partners to take action that is 
comparable to that of the United States to combat climate 
change. Carrots could include access to funding for deployment 
of clean energy technologies in developing countries and 
assistance for countries that take actions to reduce emissions 
from deforestation. The ability to sell offset credits into the 
U.S. carbon market should also be conditioned upon a country 
taking comparable action. (This restriction could be lifted, 
however, for countries that are among the least developed of 
developing nations or countries with very low greenhouse gas 
emissions.)
    Third, a climate proposal must include ``sticks'' to 
prevent adverse impacts on U.S. competitiveness. A border 
adjustment mechanism should be put in place to assign an 
additional cost to imports from countries that have not taken 
comparable action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Countries 
that have not taken comparable action should be required to 
purchase special ``international reserve allowances'' to 
accompany their imports and account for the greenhouse gas 
emissions from the production of those goods. The pool of 
international reserve allowances should be separate from the 
domestic allowance pool, so that the program will not affect 
domestic emission levels or the price of domestic emission 
allowances. Proceeds from the sale of international reserve 
allowances can be used to supplement clean technology transfer 
and international adaptation programs. Least-developed 
countries and countries with very low greenhouse gas emissions 
may be exempted from this requirement. A number of proposals, 
including S. 1766, S. 3036, H.R. 6186, and the Dingell-Boucher 
discussion draft have included border measures of this type.
    In designing the international reserve allowance program, 
Congress must be cognizant of World Trade Organization 
restrictions and design the program carefully to maximize 
chances of withstanding legal challenges. In addition, a time 
lag between the beginning of the U.S. cap and trade program and 
the implementation of an international reserve allowance 
program will be necessary, as international negotiations may 
take a number of years. To prevent production shifting abroad 
and thus resulting in loss of U.S. jobs and an undermining of 
the environmental objective of the legislation, a proposal 
should provide assistance to trade-exposed U.S. manufacturing 
industries during this interim period. This interim program 
should be designed carefully to encourage early reductions in 
greenhouse gas emissions and avoid windfall profits to 
polluters. To do this, allocation of assistance within a sector 
should be based upon production levels rather than emissions 
levels.
    7. Establish rigorous standards governing the award of 
offset credits and provide robust financial incentives for 
supplemental reductions in ``uncapped'' emissions not eligible 
to generate offset credits.
    Comprehensive climate legislation should contain thoughtful 
use of both ``offsets,'' which can reduce the overall cost of a 
cap-and-invest system, and targeted financial incentives that 
can deliver supplemental reductions in emissions or increases 
in sequestration.
    Offset credits should be awarded for reductions in 
``uncapped'' emissions or increases in biological sequestration 
that can be clearly demonstrated to be real, verifiable, 
additional, permanent, and enforceable. EPA should develop 
standard measurement methodologies for project types eligible 
for offset credits and put in place rigorous standards for 
project development and approval. The risk of allowing offsets 
into the market is that if they are not real, verifiable, 
additional, permanent, and enforceable, they will compromise 
the United States' overall emissions cap. For this reason, 
caution dictates that only a short list of ``uncapped'' 
emissions or biological sequestration opportunities be allowed 
to earn offset credits. These include reductions in emissions 
from sources difficult to cap, such as oil and gas systems, 
livestock operations, and abandoned coal mines, and increases 
in biological carbon sequestration through afforestation and 
reforestation. As for international offset credits, there has 
been substantial concern in recent years about the integrity of 
some categories of credits issued under the Kyoto Protocol's 
Clean Development Mechanism. It is essential that a rigorous 
regulatory screening mechanism be established to determine 
which, if any, international offset credits should be allowed 
to be used in a U.S. cap-and-invest system. Finally, 
appropriate quantitative limits should be placed on the use of 
both domestic and international offset credits, to avoid 
flooding the market and to ensure that adequate investment is 
directed towards the transformation of our energy economy.
    Because financial incentives are less risky in that they 
cannot compromise the emissions cap, Congress should consider a 
proposal providing direct financial support, but not offset 
credits, for projects where the climate benefits are less 
certain. These include projects that increase biological 
sequestration of carbon or reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
through improved agricultural soil management and forest 
management practices. Providing financial incentives for U.S. 
farmers and foresters to achieve greenhouse gas reductions 
through such projects can deliver substantial climate and other 
environmental benefits, while channeling income and jobs to 
rural areas.
    On the international level, massive supplemental reductions 
are possible through the provision of incentives to encourage 
developing countries to implement national policies to slow 
deforestation and forest degradation--which account for 20 
percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives can also 
be used to encourage deployment of clean energy technologies--
including American-made technologies--in developing countries, 
helping to bridge the financial gap between clean and ``dirty'' 
technologies in these countries. As explained above, access to 
such incentives can be made contingent upon these countries 
taking comparable action to combat climate change, providing 
important ``carrots'' to encourage such action.
    8. Establish a rigorous market oversight regime to ensure 
transparency, fairness, and stability in the market for 
emission allowances, offset credits, and the derivatives 
thereof.
    Economy-wide climate legislation will establish a market in 
tradable emission allowances and offset credits--and related 
derivatives, such as futures and options--that is likely to be 
valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The 
recent subprime mortgage meltdown on Wall Street, excessive 
speculation in the oil and natural gas markets, and 
manipulation of the electricity markets--among other historical 
examples--all underscore the critical need for vigorous 
government oversight of this new carbon market. Avoiding 
manipulation of the carbon market takes on a special importance 
for at least two reasons: First, consumers will bear the burden 
of price volatility in the carbon markets resulting from 
excessive speculation or market manipulation, in the form of 
higher energy prices, just as they have in the case of the oil 
markets. Second, the carbon market is one of the few examples 
in which the government is effectively requiring private 
parties to participate in a new market.
    The carbon market created under a cap-and-invest system can 
be divided into three components: (1) auctions of emission 
allowances, (2) a secondary market involving trading of 
emission allowances and offset credits, and (3) a market in 
derivatives, such as futures and options, based on emission 
allowances and offset credits. Oversight of the auction market 
should be assigned to the agency charged with conducting 
auctions (EPA in most legislative proposals), which should be 
given adequate authority for that purpose. It is possible that, 
under recent legislation amending the Commodities Exchange Act, 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will have some 
authority over futures and options contracts based on emission 
allowances or offset credits--to the extent that such contracts 
serve a ``significant price discovery function.''\265\ However, 
there is no existing regulatory authority over the secondary 
market in allowances and offsets themselves, except to the 
extent that such trading is conducted on already-regulated 
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \265\Renee Johnson et al., The 2008 Farm Bill: Major Provisions and 
Legislative Action, Congressional Research Service Report No. RL34696, 
at 38 (Oct. 3, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While further work needs to be done on the design of an 
appropriate regulatory oversight system for the carbon market, 
it is apparent that several core principles should govern that 
system:
     Immediate New Authority: First, a robust oversight 
system needs to be authorized by Congress concurrently with the 
establishment of the carbon market through climate legislation.
     Unitary Regulator: Second, regulation over the 
secondary market in emission allowances and offset credits, on 
the one hand, and derivatives based on these instruments, on 
the other, should not be divided among multiple agencies. These 
markets operate in an integrated fashion, and it is imperative 
that a unitary regulator have authority to oversee both the 
spot market and the futures market.
     Relationship with Energy Markets: Third, because 
of the close interrelationship between the carbon market and 
markets in energy commodities like electricity, coal, and 
natural gas, there is some value to assigning oversight of the 
carbon markets to an entity, like the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, that already has oversight responsibilities in the 
energy markets.
     Maximize Transparency and Oversight: Fourth, one 
means of maximizing transparency and oversight and enforcement 
authority over carbon market trading would be to require, to 
the greatest extent possible, that trading occur on federally 
regulated exchanges. There may be important benefits to over-
the-counter (OTC)--meaning off-exchange--trading in derivatives 
for legitimate hedging purposes. But if OTC trading is to be 
permitted, alternative oversight mechanisms such as large-
trader reporting requirements, may be appropriate.
     Robust Anti-Manipulation and Enforcement 
Authority: Fifth, whatever the mechanism for regulatory 
oversight, the federal regulator should be given robust 
authority to monitor the market, ensure public reporting of 
price and other transaction data, and to prevent fraud, 
manipulation, and excessive speculation--including strong 
enforcement authorities.
    These principles are reflected in Title II of Chairman 
Markey's iCAP bill (H.R. 6186), the most detailed proposal to 
date for carbon market oversight, which charges the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission with regulating the carbon market. 
The iCAP carbon market oversight provisions are incorporated 
into the Dingell-Boucher discussion draft circulated in October 
2008.
    9. Build resilience to unavoidable impacts of climate 
change.
    Unfortunately some impacts from climate change are now 
unavoidable, regardless of the path we choose to take. As 
discussed above, these impacts will be borne most heavily by 
vulnerable communities, both here in the United States and 
abroad.
    Climate legislation should include funding to aid 
communities in the United States and in vulnerable developing 
countries in adapting to these impacts of climate change. 
Domestically, climate legislation should include the following 
elements:
     Regional and National Assessments: Establish a 
federally-led process to periodically assess the United 
States's vulnerability to climate change impacts in the near-, 
medium-, and long term, at regional and national levels. This 
process should capitalize on the economies of scale for 
scientific observation and research at the federal level, while 
involving researchers, institutions, public officials, and 
other stakeholders at the State and local level in developing 
``down-scale'' assessments of climate impacts.
     National Climate Service: Establish a National 
Climate Service to provide research products and decision tools 
to federal, State, local, and tribal decision-makers, to enable 
them to assess and appropriately respond to predicted climate 
change impacts.
     National Adaptation Strategy: Establish an 
interagency group at the federal level to develop and 
periodically update, in coordination with federal, State, 
local, and tribal stakeholders, a national strategy to protect 
our infrastructure, public health systems, and our natural 
resources, wildlife, and fisheries from climate change impacts.
     Federal Agency Adaptation Plans: Require federal 
agencies to develop and implement plans to address climate 
change impacts within their respective jurisdictions.
     Fund State, Local, and Tribal Adaptation Projects: 
Provide a mechanism to fund State, local, and tribal government 
programs and projects to build resilience to climate change 
impacts.
    These policies will require a substantial federal 
investment in policy-relevant climate monitoring, 
observational, modeling, and research capacity to provide a 
robust Earth observation and prediction system. Chairman 
Markey's iCAP bill (H.R. 6186) provides the most detailed 
legislative proposal thus far on domestic adaptation programs, 
and the domestic adaptation provisions of iCAP are incorporated 
into the Dingell-Boucher discussion as one potential option for 
use of allowance value.
    Internationally, climate legislation should provide aid to 
the most vulnerable developing nations to increase their 
resilience to the impacts of climate change. As explained 
above, lower-income countries in the developing world that are 
least responsible for climate change are likely to suffer some 
of the worst impacts and have the least capacity to respond to 
those impacts. The United States, as one of the wealthiest 
countries and one of the largest contributors historically and 
currently to climate change, has a moral obligation to help 
these countries build their resilience. Moreover, it is in our 
national security interests to do so--to lessen the impacts 
discussed above, which can destabilize developing countries and 
act as threat multipliers that undermine U.S. interests abroad. 
International adaptation programs should receive robust funding 
and may be implemented through the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID), through multilateral 
mechanisms set up through the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, through other international 
entities, or some combination of the foregoing.
    10. Integrate the cap-and-invest program with complementary 
policies to overcome market barriers and reduce the overall 
cost of climate legislation, and permit appropriate continuing 
state and local action.
    An economy-wide cap-and-invest program must be the keystone 
of the United States's climate and energy security policy. To a 
greater extent than any other policy option, such a program 
will provide an overarching, strategic policy requiring cuts in 
greenhouse gas emissions and investment in the transition to a 
prosperous, low-carbon economy.
    However, further policies external to a cap-and-trade 
program may be required to achieve emissions reduction targets 
in a cost-effective manner. Complementary policies will be 
especially important in the transportation sector, where 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires changes in vehicles, 
fuels, and consumer behavior, and in the built environment, 
where reducing direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions 
requires changes in buildings, appliances, lighting, heating, 
cooling, and consumer behavior. A range of such policies is 
discussed in the following sections.
    In addition, while it is imperative that the federal 
government take the lead on national climate and energy policy, 
State and local governments should continue to play a critical 
role in these areas. That is particularly so in areas of 
traditional state or local preeminence, such as land-use and 
smart-growth planning to increase the efficiency of our 
transportation system, efficiency policies in the electricity 
and natural gas sectors, building efficiency standards, 
policies to promote deployment of renewable electricity 
generation such as state renewable electricity standards, and 
programs to increase resilience to climate change impacts. 
State and local governments have helped to catalyze federal 
action on energy and climate issues, and it is important that 
they be given space to continue to do so.

      B. BOOST EFFICIENCY OF THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR AND BUILDINGS

    The largest and least expensive way to expand electricity 
supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by improving 
energy efficiency. Numerous studies have confirmed the basic 
notion that the best and cheapest power plant is the one we 
never have to build--because greater efficiency leads to 
reduced demand. For example, a December 2007 McKinsey & Company 
analysis found that the United States could reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions in 2030 by 3 to 4.5 billion tons of carbon 
dioxide equivalent using currently available approaches and 
high-potential emerging technologies at a marginal cost of $50 
per ton or less.\266\ However, nearly 40 percent of this 
abatement potential could be achieved at a net savings. 
Investments in these areas would yield positive economic 
returns over their life cycle, by reducing total energy costs, 
and thus substantially offset the overall social cost of a 
climate program. The vast majority of these profitable 
abatement options exist in the area of energy efficiency.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \266\For reference, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2006 
were approximately 7.1 billion tons carbon dioxide equivalent.
    \267\McKinsey & Company, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 
How Much at What Cost? (Dec. 2007), available at: http://
www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Studies show that, in the electricity sector, efficiency 
measures can deliver nearly a 25 percent reduction in demand 
over the next 20 years--providing a highly cost-effective means 
of meeting rising demand. A 2004 survey by the American Council 
for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) of 11 different 
studies showed that the median achievable potential for 
electricity efficiency gains was 24 percent over the next 20 
years (an average of 1.2 percent per year).\268\ Remarkably, 
that is nearly equivalent to EIA's prediction for electricity 
demand growth between now and 2030--though that prediction 
already incorporates some expected efficiency gains. The same 
study found that a 9 percent reduction of natural gas 
consumption is achievable through efficiency measures in the 
next 15 to 20 years.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \268\Steven Nadel et al., ``The Technical, Economic and Achievable 
Potential for Energy-Efficiency in the U.S.--A Meta-Analysis of Recent 
Studies,'' Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy 
Efficiency in Buildings (2004).
    \269\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to being the cleanest way of meeting that 
demand, efficiency is also the cheapest. Even without including 
carbon prices, efficiency measures can increase available 
resources at a cost of roughly $0.03/kWh, as compared with 
nearly $0.07/kWh for coal- or gas-fired generation. A May 2006 
study found that, for the ten northeastern states participating 
in RGGI, 20-30 percent of the reference forecast for 
electricity demand could be achieved through cost-effective 
improvements in energy efficiency.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \270\William Prindle et al., Energy Efficiency's Role in a Cap-and-
Trade System: Modeling Results from the Regional Greenhouse Gas 
Initiative, ACEEE Report Number E064 (May 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several studies have shown that investment in complementary 
efficiency programs can substantially reduce the overall cost 
of climate legislation. A 2006 ACEEE analysis of RGGI showed 
that, by doubling current efficiency investments in the region, 
wholesale power market prices could be kept flat through 2020 
and then would rise by less than 0.5 percent through 2024.\271\ 
A doubling of energy efficiency investment would also reduce 
carbon allowance prices by about one-third below baseline 
allowance prices in 2024, and would increase regional economic 
growth by 0.6 percent in 2021 relative to the base case. Recent 
modeling by Resources for the Future predicts that use of 100 
percent of RGGI auction proceeds in efficiency measures reduces 
allowance prices by 25-30 percent as compared with use of only 
25 percent for efficiency. Based on similar analyses, most RGGI 
states have opted to auction virtually all allowances and to 
invest most of the auction proceeds in State-led efficiency 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \271\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of a host of market barriers, the carbon price 
provided by a cap-and-trade program--standing alone--will not 
lead to optimal adoption of efficiency measures. For example, 
the buildings and appliances sectors are characterized by split 
incentives--where buyers or users would achieve lifecycle cost 
savings from more efficient homes or appliances, but builders 
and manufacturers have a disincentive to improve efficiency 
because it would increase sticker prices. Consumers generally 
do not have adequate information to distinguish between 
different homes or products on the basis of efficiency. In 
addition, consumers may apply irrationally high discount rates 
in making purchasing decisions--requiring that a more efficient 
home or product ``pay back'' the increased cost within a very 
short time frame, even though the consumer would be financially 
better off in the medium- to long-term with the more efficient 
home or product. In the power sector, electric utilities often 
are the actor best positioned to increase demand-side 
efficiency, but have a disincentive to do so because revenues 
are based on the volume of electricity sold. Because a cap-and-
trade program does not address these and other market barriers, 
on its own such a program is not likely to achieve the full 
cost-saving benefits of efficiency measures. The result is 
that, absent coherent policies, achievement of the 
environmental objectives of the cap-and-trade system will be 
more expensive than is necessary.
    To ensure optimal deployment of efficiency measures, and 
achieve the cost savings that they provide, complementary 
policies are necessary. These policies can include both 
regulatory drivers and financial incentives.

Buildings and appliances

    Improving energy efficiency in buildings and appliances is 
the area of greatest emission abatement and energy- and cost-
saving potential. Efficiency improvements in this category 
include lighting retrofits, higher performance for appliances, 
improvements in heating, ventilation and air conditioning 
systems, as well as better building envelopes and building 
control systems. Over the next 30 years, the built environment 
in the United States is expected to increase by an amount 
roughly equal to 70 percent of today's existing building 
stock--providing a crucial opportunity for energy savings and 
emission reductions.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \272\Marilyn A. Brown, Toward a Climate Friendly Built Environment 
at 3-4 (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, June 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Buildings, not transportation, are the largest single 
source of greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings contribute up to 
48 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.\273\ In 2007 over 
three-quarters of the electricity generated by U.S. power 
plants was used in commercial, residential, and industrial 
buildings,\274\ and roughly one-third of the natural gas 
consumed was used for residential and commercial use.\275\ Most 
of this energy consumption, and resulting emissions, stem from 
the energy used to operate lighting, heating, and cooling in 
buildings, and could be considerably decreased. The IPCC found 
that by 2030, 29 percent of global projected baseline emissions 
could be cost-effectively reduced in the residential and 
commercial building sectors.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \273\American Institute of Architects, Architects and Climate 
Change, available at http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/
architectsandclimatechange.pdf.
    \274\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, 
Table 2.1a (Energy Consumption by Sector, Selected Years, 1949-2007). 
Approximately 40 percent of energy consumed in 2007 was used in 
residential and commercial buildings alone.
    \275\Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Consumption by 
End Use 2007, available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/
ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm.
    \276\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment 
Report, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change at 389 
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal, State, and local governments can lead by example. 
For several years, State and local governments have 
incorporated green building guidelines in municipal, 
residential, and commercial buildings. At the Select 
Committee's May 14, 2008 hearing entitled ``Building Green, 
Saving Green: Constructing Sustainable and Energy-Efficient 
Buildings,'' San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom testified about 
the success San Francisco enjoyed as one of the first cities to 
require the United States Green Building Council's Leadership 
in Energy and Environmental Design's (LEED) standard 
certification for all new municipal construction and major 
renovation projects. The city offers expedited building permits 
for energy-efficient building projects, saving contractors time 
and money as they build more efficiently. Other cities have 
adopted some form of LEED or Green Globes certification for 
large or new municipal buildings. At the federal level, EISA 
included rigorous energy efficiency performance standards for 
new federal buildings and major retrofits costing over $2.5 
million, including a 55 percent reduction in fossil fuel-
generated energy consumption by 2010 (relative to a 2003 
baseline) and a 100 percent reduction by 2030. Among other 
measures, EISA also established an Office of Federal High-
Performance Green Buildings within the General Services 
Administration, charged with promoting green building standards 
in federal building construction and management.
    Building codes are critically important in driving energy 
efficiency. Building and energy codes prescribe the minimum 
standards for a building to be declared structurally sound and 
habitable. Though these codes were originally implemented to 
protect the safety of inhabitants, they can also improve energy 
and water efficiency. Once these codes are adopted by law, they 
become building standards. The International Code Council (ICC) 
and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) have developed commonly adopted 
building and energy codes formed with the consensus of various 
building sector professionals. As States and localities adopt 
more recent building codes they improve the baseline energy 
efficiency of buildings. The House on September 16, 2008 passed 
H.R. 6899, The Comprehensive American Energy Security and 
Consumer Protection Act, which included provisions to encourage 
adoption of updated codes. Specifically, these provisions 
require DOE and States to update energy codes for new buildings 
by 30 percent by 2010 and 50 percent by 2020 and for States to 
adopt the federal model codes or efficiency-equivalent codes. 
Incentive funding is offered for adopting the code and training 
officials to implement the codes. These building codes could 
avoid 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2 per year by 
2030 and reduce the need to build more than 30 new large coal-
fired power plants over the coming decades. The Senate did not 
act on this legislation.
    Improving building energy efficiency is profitable and 
creates jobs. The IPCC has stated that appliance standards and 
building energy codes could reduce energy use profitably by 
2030 through existing technology and government support.\277\ 
The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is one example of 
such government support. The program leverages government and 
other community resources to improve the energy efficiency of 
low-income family homes. For every $1 invested in WAP, the 
program returns $1.53 in energy savings. Each WAP family saves 
an average of $358 per year,\278\ and the program supports 
8,000 local jobs nationally.\279\ Energy efficient buildings 
are profitable to owners and builders. The cost of a green 
building can fall within an initial ``non-green'' budget, or 
with minimal cost difference, and this cost is offset by 
avoided utility expenses.\280\ As consumers become aware of the 
cost benefits of efficient buildings, developers are seeing an 
increased demand and premiums for energy efficient 
buildings.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \277\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment 
Report, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change at 389 
(2007).
    \278\U.S. Department of Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program 
Fact Sheet (June 2006), available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
office_eere/pdfs/wap_fs.pdf.
    \279\U.S. Department of Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program 
website, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/weatherization/improving.cfm 
(last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \280\Lisa Fay Matthiessen & Peter Morris, Costing Green: A 
Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology at 25 (July 
2004), available at http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/
Cost_of_Green_Full.pdf.
    \281\McGraw-Hill, Green Building Smart Market Report 2006 at 4 
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electric power sector efficiency

    Within the electric power sector, one key policy option for 
incentivizing efficiency is restructuring the way utilities are 
motivated to make profits. As noted above, the only incentive 
in most markets currently is for utilities to drive demand and 
produce the greatest quantity of electricity as cheaply as 
possible to meet that demand. In some States, however, the 
direct link between electricity generation and profits has been 
broken. In these ``decoupled'' markets, utilities submit their 
revenue requirements and estimated sales to regulators. The 
State's public utility commission sets the rates by regularly 
applying adjustments to ensure that utilities collect no more 
and no less than is necessary to run the business and provide a 
fair return to investors. Decoupling ensures that utilities 
maintain their expected earnings even as energy efficiency 
programs reduce sales. It bears mention that many State public 
utility commissions adopted a somewhat similar ``incentive 
regulation'' scheme in the telecommunications sector a decade 
or more ago, with great benefit to telephone utilities and 
consumers alike. Five States have adopted decoupling for some 
or all of their electricity markets, and at least nine others 
are considering doing so. Approximately 13 States have adopted 
decoupling for natural gas.
    Demand-side management (DSM)--referring to an array of 
programs and mechanisms to reduce or manage electricity 
demand--can greatly increase efficiency. In many states, 
utilities or state government entities manage DSM programs that 
provide technical assistance and incentives to energy consumers 
to deploy more efficient lighting, appliances, building shells, 
and other technologies. DSM programs are also used to shift 
demand in response to supply conditions, for example, having 
electricity customers reduce their consumption at critical 
times or in response to market prices. Reducing summer peak 
demand--those times when utilities face the greatest strain on 
their electricity generation, transmission, and distribution 
systems--is important in reducing overall electricity 
consumption but also for reducing the need to run costly peak 
generating units, which typically run on natural gas. Energy 
efficiency initiatives, along with expanded demand response 
programs, have the potential to reduce summer peak demand 
significantly. A February 2008 study by ACEEE found that the 
state of Maryland could use DSM to reduce summer peak demand by 
32 percent below baseline levels in 2015 and 47 percent in 
2025.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \282\Maggie Eldridge et al., Energy Efficiency: the First Fuel for 
a Clean Energy Future: Resources for Meeting Maryland's Electricity 
Needs, ACEEE (Feb. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another policy option for increasing energy efficiency is 
an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS)--a market-based 
mechanism that encourages more efficient generation, 
transmission, and use of electricity. An EERS establishes 
electric and/or gas energy savings targets for utilities, often 
with flexibility to achieve the target through a market-based 
trading system. Currently, 15 States have some type of EERS in 
place or in development.\283\ State public utility commissions 
typically oversee these programs and are responsible for 
verifying energy saving improvements. As part of the original 
energy bill (H.R. 3221) that passed the House last July, the 15 
percent renewable electricity standard (RES) allowed 4 percent 
to be achieved through energy efficiency. This 4 percent 
requirement was effectively an EERS. Stand-alone EERS policies 
have long been proposed at the federal level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \283\American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Energy 
Resource Standards Around the World (Sept. 2007), available at http://
www.aceee.org/energy/state/6pgEERS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined heat and power (CHP) could greatly improve 
efficiency by capturing the vast resource of ``waste heat'' 
produced by industrial, commercial, and residential facilities. 
CHP, also known as cogeneration, is the simultaneous production 
of electricity and heat from a single fuel source, such as 
natural gas, biomass, biogas, coal, waste heat, or oil. CHP 
technology can be used by industrial facilities and commercial 
and large residential buildings to increase energy efficiency 
and reliability, as well as reduce air pollution and greenhouse 
gas emissions.\284\ A study commissioned by the Department of 
Energy assessing the market potential for CHP applications 
estimates that, in the industrial sector alone, smaller CHP 
technologies (known as distributed generation) could provide 
33,000 megawatts of power generating capacity using currently 
available technologies--over 3 percent of current U.S. 
capacity.\285\ EISA included a number of programs to spur 
installation of CHP systems, such as the Waste Energy Recovery 
Incentive Grant Program and the Energy-Intensive Industries 
Program, established under Section 451 of the Act. But these 
programs have not yet received funding and additional 
assistance may be necessary to meet the potential for these 
technologies. Further assistance for these projects could be 
provided in the form of direct financial grants, tax 
incentives, low-interest loans, or utility and environmental 
policies that increase the financial prospects for a 
project.\286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \284\Environmental Protection Agency, Combined Heat and Power 
Partnership: Basic Information, at http://www.epa.gov/chp/index.html 
(last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
    \285\Resource Dynamics Corporation, Cooling, Heating, and Power for 
Industry: A Market Assessment at 2, prepared for U.S. Department of 
Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Aug. 2003), available at 
http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/pdfs/
chp_industry_market_assessment_0803.pdf.
    \286\Environmental Protection Agency, Combined Heat and Power 
Partnership: Funding Resources, at http://www.epa.gov/chp/funding/
index.html (lasted visited Oct. 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fuel cells are another important tool for advanced energy 
storage, increased energy efficiency, reduced emissions, and an 
opportunity for increasing domestic energy supply and energy 
security. Fuel cells are highly reliable and flexible in 
installation and operation, and energy, when stored as hydrogen 
in the form of a gas or a liquid, will never dissipate until it 
is used, making it a good application for emergency generators 
and other critical energy applications. When using hydrogen 
from a renewable source, fuel cells offer a multi-purpose 
renewable energy source. They have the potential to replace the 
internal combustion engine in vehicles and provide power for 
stationary and portable power applications. Many portable 
devices can be powered by fuel cells, such as laptop computers 
and cell phones. They can also be used for stationary 
applications, such as providing electricity to power homes and 
businesses. Fuel cells can be used in transportation 
applications, such as powering automobiles, buses, and other 
vehicles. Moreover, they offer a cleaner and more efficient 
alternative to traditional combustion-based engines and power 
plants. Currently, most internal combustion engines operate 
with around 25 percent efficiency and power plants achieve 
about 35 percent efficiency; however, a stationary fuel cell 
when used in a combined heat and power system can have an 
efficiency level of greater than 85 percent.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \287\See, e.g., Connecticut Hydrogen Fuel Cell Coalition, Hydrogen 
Fuel Cell Benefits, 
at http://www.chfcc.org/Resources/benefits.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Modernization of the electricity transmission and 
distribution system--particularly through ``smart grid'' 
investments--promises substantial benefits in increased system 
efficiency, reliability, and flexibility, and reduced peak 
loads and electricity prices. Smart grid technologies 
essentially involve the use of digital communications and 
information technology for a variety of grid functions, 
including monitoring, measuring, and responding to electricity 
demand and congestion; sensing and locating system disruptions 
or security threats and deploying automated protective 
responses; implementing ``smart'' meters in homes and 
businesses that allow consumers to receive time-of-use pricing 
information and to communicate consumer preferences to the 
grid; and implementing ``smart'' appliances that can be 
programmed to respond to communications from the grid regarding 
pricing or load. Collectively, these technologies can 
substantially increase the efficiency of the grid and can 
reduce peak load demand, both of which reduce the need for 
construction of new generation.\288\ In addition, an array of 
other grid modernization technologies--such as the deployment 
of high-efficiency superconductor power distribution cables--
can further enhance grid efficiency and reliability.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \288\See, e.g., testimony before the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, hearing on ``Facilitating the Transition to a Smart Electric 
Grid,'' May 3, 2007.
    \289\See Testimony of Greg Yurek before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Renewing America's 
Future: Energy Visions of Tomorrow, Today,'' July 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 110th Congress has taken some significant steps forward 
on smart grid development. Title XIII of EISA established a 
Smart Grid Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary of Energy 
on grid modernization issues and requires the Secretary to 
report to Congress biennially on the state of grid 
modernization efforts, including recommendations for 
Congressional action. In addition, EISA requires DOE to 
establish a program of regional demonstration projects for 
smart grid technologies, as well as a Smart Grid Investment 
Matching Grant Program to reimburse 20 percent of qualifying 
smart grid investments. Finally, Section 306 of the Energy 
Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (enacted as part of H.R. 
1424, the economic rescue legislation enacted in October 2008), 
provides for accelerated depreciation (for purposes of the tax 
code) of investments in smart meters and other smart grid 
technologies.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Cap and Invest: Congress should make funding for 
performance-based incentives for State and local efficiency 
programs, including adoption and implementation of building 
efficiency programs, a centerpiece of cap-and-invest 
legislation. As noted above, Chairman Markey's iCAP bill (H.R. 
6186) provides a model for the incorporation of such incentives 
into climate legislation, and these provisions have been 
incorporated into the discussion draft introduced by Chairmen 
Dingell and Boucher in October 2008.
     National Model Building Efficiency Standards for 
New Buildings: Congress should enact the national building 
efficiency standards that were included in H.R. 6449, the 
``Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer 
Protection Act''--which would require States to adopt and 
enforce building codes requiring a 30 percent improvement in 
new building energy efficiency by 2010 and a 50 percent 
improvement by 2020.
     Efficiency Labeling Programs for Existing and New 
Buildings: Congress should support measures to provide 
consumers with transparent information on the energy efficiency 
of existing and new buildings. For example, Chairmen Dingell 
and Boucher's climate legislation discussion draft outlines an 
Energy Performance Labeling Requirement for buildings, grouped 
according to use and labeled based on their energy efficiency 
and performance. This requirement builds on the existing Energy 
Star qualified new homes label by additionally considering the 
efficiency of existing buildings.
     Energy Efficiency Tax Credits: Congress should 
make the Energy Policy Act of 2005 tax credits for qualified 
energy efficiency improvements permanent. These credits allow 
homeowners to recoup some of the costs of making approved 
energy efficient improvements to their primary home or 
business.
     New Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings: 
The federal government should adopt the recently adopted 
International Energy Conservation Code of 2008 for new federal 
buildings, even those that fall under exceptions outlined in 
EISA. The new IECC code will achieve an approximate 15 percent 
increase in energy efficiency compared to the 2005 IECC energy 
code.
     Appliance Efficiency Standards: Congress should 
enact legislation requiring the Department of Energy to 
establish new efficiency standards for appliances and equipment 
not yet covered by current legislation, such as flat-screen 
televisions, computers, and data servers. The Department of 
Energy should move forward aggressively with promulgation of 
new appliance efficiency standards pursuant to its existing 
authority under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and 
Congress should provide close oversight of this process.
     National Energy Efficiency Resource Standard: 
Congress should enact a market-based federal energy efficiency 
resource standard requiring electric utilities to achieve 
gradually increasing annual improvements in efficiency--either 
in tandem with a national Renewable Electricity Standard, or 
independently thereof.
     Combined Heat and Power: Congress should fully 
fund the Energy-Intensive Industries Program established under 
Section 451 of EISA.
     Fuel Cells: Congress should study the potential 
role of the federal government in promoting hydrogen fuel cell 
development and deployment in service of increased energy 
efficiency, for example through large-scale federal procurement 
programs.
     Smart Grid Development and Deployment: Congress 
should fully fund the smart grid research, development, and 
demonstration program under Section 1304 of EISA and the Smart 
Grid Investment Matching Grant Program established under 
Section 1306 of EISA. Congress should prioritize consideration 
and potential adoption of the grid modernization 
recommendations of the Secretary of Energy and the Smart Grid 
Task Force submitted pursuant to Section 1303 of EISA. Finally, 
Congress should consider establishing a dedicated funding 
source to promote smart grid and transmission investments, 
either through a set-aside under cap-and-invest legislation or 
through a national ``wires charge.''

        C. DRAMATICALLY EXPAND RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION

    Renewable sources can become a major contributor to the 
U.S. electricity supply within the foreseeable future. 
Renewables currently generate 8.4 percent of the country's 
electricity, with non-hydro renewables responsible for just 2.5 
percent.\290\ Reaching 20 percent of total generation by 2020 
is an ambitious--but achievable--target for renewables based on 
the current state of the technologies and the available 
renewable resources. Reaching this target would require around 
200,000 megawatts of new renewable generation, depending 
significantly on how large a role electricity plays in fuelling 
the transportation sector and the extent to which energy 
efficiency can reduce demand growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \290\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, 
Table 8.2b Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector, Selected 
Years, 1949-2007 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adoption of a national renewable electricity standard (RES) 
requiring that 20 percent of electricity generated in the 
United States come from renewable sources by 2020 should be a 
centerpiece of our national energy strategy. A key driver of 
renewable energy growth in the United States has been state-
level RES's. Twenty-six States along with Washington, DC, now 
have RES's, and more than 46 percent of nationwide electrical 
load is covered under these mandatory policies. The types and 
quantities of renewable electricity required under these 
programs vary widely among the states, but it has become clear 
that States with RES's are deploying more renewable electricity 
generation than States with them. While only 11 States have had 
these programs in place for at least four years, more than half 
of the non-hydro renewable electricity generating capacity 
added in the United States over the last decade has occurred in 
States with RES programs. Current mandatory State RES policies 
will require the addition of more than 60,000 megawatts of new 
renewable electricity capacity by 2025. At the same time, RES 
policies are having little or no impact on consumer electricity 
rates and in many markets the renewable electricity is priced 
competitively with fossil fuel-based generation.\291\ During 
the 110th Congress, the House twice passed a national RES of 15 
percent by 2020--with the option to meet up to 4 percent with 
efficiency--but the Bush Administration threatened to veto the 
measure and the Senate was unable to pass it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \291\Ryan Wiser & Galen Barbose, Renewables Portfolio Standards in 
the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007, Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory (April 2008), available at http://
eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-154e-revised.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tax incentives--including the Production Tax Credit (PTC) 
and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC)--will also play a key role 
in deploying renewable electricity generation. These two 
policies have been a major driver of renewable energy 
development over the past several years by giving individuals, 
businesses, and utilities incentives to invest in renewable 
energy generation. These tax credit programs help renewables to 
be deployed at sufficient scale to begin to move down the cost 
curve and become more competitive with traditional fossil fuel-
based generation. Moreover, they provide a policy ``bridge'' 
that is helping the renewable energy industry survive in an 
environment where the benefits of low- and zero-carbon 
emissions are not properly valued by the market. Unfortunately, 
between 1999 and 2004, the PTC has expired on three separate 
occasions which has led to a boom-bust cycle of development, 
especially in the wind industry.
    In conjunction with the economic rescue package enacted 
into law in October 2008 (H.R. 1424), the 110th Congress 
extended the ITC for eight years and the PTC for two years for 
electricity derived from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, 
landfill gas and solid waste, and one year for electricity 
derived from wind. For the first time, renewable energy 
projects harnessing river and ocean currents, waves, tides, and 
thermal energy conversion are also eligible for the PTC. 
However, because of the current financial crisis, there are 
concerns as to whether project developers will be able to take 
full advantage of the tax credits in 2009. Moreover, a longer-
term extension of the production tax credit is crucial to 
provide investors with the certainty needed to move forward 
with sustained investments in renewable electricity generation 
and in the underlying technologies.
    Feed-in tariffs provide another potential option for 
encouraging expansion of renewable electricity generation. Over 
40 countries, States, and provinces around the world use so-
called feed-in tariff policies to promote deployment of 
renewable electricity generation. Feed-in tariffs--often called 
renewable energy payments (REP) policies in the United States--
require utilities to purchase electricity from renewable 
electricity generators on a priority basis through long-term 
(5-25 year), fixed-rate power-purchase agreements. The rates 
are generally set by the government on a cost basis to provide 
for a reasonable rate of return on investment, with cost 
recovery guaranteed through system benefits charges to 
electricity customers. As opposed to RES policies that set 
deployment levels (e.g., 20 percent by 2020) and allow the 
market to determine the price for renewable energy, feed-in 
tariff policies provide broad support for a diverse range of 
renewable energy technologies by setting different rates for 
different technologies. Germany's Renewable Energy Sources Act 
of 2000 has been successful in using feed-in tariff policies to 
spur record rates of investment and job growth in the renewable 
energy sector. There is now a growing interest in adopting 
feed-in tariff policies in the United States with several 
States now considering such policies, including Michigan, 
Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Washington, and 
California.
    Transmission has quickly become recognized as one of the 
most prominent barriers to the wide-scale deployment of 
renewable electricity. Building the generation where renewable 
resources are strongest and most abundant will require the 
construction of transmission lines to move the power out of 
rural areas where it is generated to population centers where 
it can be used. In addition to expanded transmission access, 
smart-grid technologies--discussed above--can help to reliably 
integrate renewable electric power generation while enabling 
electric vehicles to store electricity and provide enhanced 
demand response capabilities. Where possible, States are taking 
important steps to address this barrier. For example, the 
Western Governors' Association is working with the Department 
of Energy to identify ``renewable energy zones'' and conceptual 
transmission plans for delivering renewable energy from these 
zones to load centers. However, federal leadership will be 
critical in helping to ensure that adequate new transmission is 
built, establishing streamlined procedures and standards for 
interconnection, and encouraging deployment of smart-grid 
technologies to enable full utilization of renewable resources.
    The federal government has an important role to play in 
eliminating regulatory barriers to the expansion of renewable 
electricity generation. Despite the success of State-level 
initiatives to promote renewables, the balkanized structure for 
electricity regulation and the inconsistency of federal and 
State incentive programs have created a relatively unstable 
investment climate for the domestic renewable electricity 
market, limiting financing opportunities for individual 
projects and domestic manufacturing capacity. The federal 
government has a key role to play in helping to rationalize 
these programs and regulatory regimes to encourage expanded 
renewable electricity generation.
    While in no way a comprehensive list, the renewable 
resources outlined below are most likely to contribute 
significantly to the U.S. and global electricity supply over 
the next two to three decades.

Wind

    More than 20,000 megawatts of new wind capacity was 
installed worldwide in 2007, more than a quarter of which was 
installed in the United States. Germany is the global leader in 
installed wind capacity, with the United States now second. 
Wind generating capacity has been growing at more than a 30 
percent annual rate in the United States since 2000. In 2007 
wind power accounted for 35 percent of all new generating 
capacity in the United States.
    Department of Energy research suggests generating 20 
percent of electricity from wind in the United States is an 
ambitious yet feasible scenario if certain challenges are 
overcome.\292\ With policy support, the United States is 
protected to have more than 60,000 megawatts of wind installed 
by 2012 and by 2016 it could reach 112,000 megawatts, 
surpassing nuclear capacity in the United States. To meet this 
goal, wind turbine production capacity would have to ramp up to 
16,000 new megawatts per year by around 2018--up from current 
production capacity of approximately 7,000 megawatts per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \292\U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy By 2030: Increasing 
Wind Energy's Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008), 
available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As wind technology continues to improve, prices are falling 
and capacity factors are increasing. The cost of wind energy 
over the past 20 years has dropped from 40 cents per kWh to 4 
to 6 cents per kWh at good sites. While most new wind turbines 
in the United States produce 1.5 to 2 megawatts of power, 
superconducting materials may enable the construction of 10 
megawatt turbines in the near future.\293\ Increases in the 
capacity factor of the turbines--or the percentage of time in 
which they are producing at their full capacity--have grown 11 
percent over the past two years and will continue to increase 
as the technology improves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \293\Testimony of Greg Yurek before the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming, on ``Renewing America's Future: Energy 
Visions of Tomorrow, Today'' (July 31, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solar

    With more energy in the form of solar radiation striking 
the Earth's surface in an hour than humanity uses in an entire 
year, the available solar resource is enormous. Capturing this 
energy and converting it into electricity is primarily done 
through photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight into direct 
electrical current and concentrating solar power, which 
concentrates the sun's energy using huge mirrors or lenses and 
then uses this heat to run a conventional turbine.
    Solar photovoltaics (PV) have experienced explosive growth 
over the last several years--but, unfortunately, the United 
States is falling behind in this lucrative emerging market. 
World capacity grew 62 percent in 2007 alone\294\ and installed 
capacity has grown from 1,200 megawatts in 2000 to 9,200 
megawatts in 2007.\295\ Solar PV installations in the United 
States grew by over 80 percent in 2007.\296\ Nevertheless, the 
United States fell to the fourth largest PV market in the 
world, behind Germany, Japan, and Spain. Technology advances 
and increases in the scale of production in the solar industry 
have exceeded those of any other renewable energy sector as 
prices for PV modules have fallen to around $4 per watt from 
almost $100 per watt in 1975. Solar PV prices have declined an 
average of 4 percent per year over the past 15 years.\297\ The 
Department of Energy's Solar America Initiative seeks to make 
solar PV cost-competitive with conventional forms of 
electricity by 2015. With huge investments in new production of 
polysilicon (the critical input for most PV cells) ready to 
come online in 2009, the materials shortage that plagued the 
industry for the last few years will likely be alleviated. 
Production costs--and PV module prices--are expected to 
continue falling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \294\Solarbuzz, Marketbuzz 2008: Annual World Solar Photovoltaic 
industry Report (2008), available at http://www.solarbuzz.com/
Marketbuzz2008-intro.htm.
    \295\European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, 
Solar Generation V--2008 Solar electricity for over one billion people 
and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at http://
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-
generation-v-2008.pdf.
    \296\Jonathan Dorn, Earth Policy Institute, Solar Cell Production 
Jumps 50 Percent in 2007 (Dec. 27, 2007), at http://www.earth-
policy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007.htm.
    \297\Solarbuzz. Fast Solar Energy Facts: Global Performance, at 
http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the next two decades, solar PV will become a major 
source of power--both here in the United States and globally. 
Solar PV is projected to grow from a $20 billion industry in 
2007 to a $74 billion industry within a decade. A study from 
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that installed 
capacity in the United States could climb to 10,000 megawatts 
by 2015, 26,000 megawatts by 2020, and ultimately more than 
100,000 megawatts by 2030 with the passage of the critical 8-
year extension of the investment tax credits included in the 
financial rescue package enacted in October, 2008.\298\ 
Globally, research from the European Photovoltaic Industry 
Association and Greenpeace suggests that by 2030, global PV 
capacity could reach 1,864,000 megawatts and satisfy the 
electricity needs of 14 percent of the world's population.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \298\Robert Margolis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 
Quantifying the Benefits of Extending the Solar ITC (Feb. 2008)
    \299\European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, 
Solar-Generation V--2008: Solar electricity for over one billion people 
and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at http://
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-
generation-v-2008.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Concentrating solar power (CSP) systems will deliver large-
scale, centralized electricity generation from solar energy. 
CSP systems are generally utility-scale projects with many 
acres of mirrors and lenses that can produce dozens to hundreds 
of megawatts of electrical power. The National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory has identified the potential for nearly 7,000,000 
megawatts of solar thermal power generation in the southwestern 
United States, roughly seven times current U.S. electric 
generating capacity. More than 4,000 megawatts of solar thermal 
projects are currently in development nationwide, and 
Environment America has projected 80,000 megawatts could be 
built by 2030 with investment tax credit support.\300\ The cost 
of energy from solar thermal power plants is estimated to be 
approximately 14 to 16 cents/kWh.\301\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \300\Solar Energy Industries Association, U.S. Solar Industry: 2007 
Year in Review (2007), available at http://seia.org/galleries/pdf/
Year_in_Review_2007_sm.pdf.
    \301\Bernadette del Chiaro et al., Environment America Research and 
Policy Center, On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against 
Global Warming (Spring 2008), available at http://
www.environmentcalifornia.org/uploads/EX/qu/EXqur2dJBZQbJESwUtulZA/On-
The-Rise.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geothermal

    The United States has about 35 percent of the world's 
installed capacity of geothermal energy, with about 2,500 
megawatts connected to the grid across six States. While 
several new facilities are in construction around the country, 
the amount of electricity produced from geothermal energy has 
essentially been flat for the past two decades. New facilities 
are estimated to be able to produce base load electricity for 5 
to 7 cents/kWh.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \302\California Energy Commission, Comparative Cost of California 
Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies, Final Staff Report 
(June 2003), available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-06-
06_100-03-001F.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States has massive, untapped geothermal energy 
resources. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
recently found that the electric generation potential from 
currently identified geothermal systems distributed over 13 
U.S. states is more than 9,000 megawatts. Their estimated power 
production potential from yet to be discovered geothermal 
resources is more than 30,000 megawatts. An additional 500,000 
megawatts may be available by harnessing geothermal reservoirs 
characterized by high temperature, but low permeability, rock 
formations.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \303\U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet: Assessment of Moderate- 
and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States (2008), 
available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/pdf/fs2008-3082.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An MIT study estimated that recovering a small fraction of 
the available resource using conventional geothermal as well as 
enhanced (or engineered) geothermal systems, could feasibly 
yield 100,000 megawatts of electrical power in the United 
States by 2050.\304\ And a study sponsored by the Western 
Governors Association found 5,600 megawatts of new geothermal 
capacity could be added through 2015 and 13,000 megawatts 
within the next 20 years in their 13-State region.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \304\Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Future of 
Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the United 
States in the 21st Century at 1-3 (2006), available at http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/future_geo_energy.pdf.
    \305\Martin Vorum & Jefferson Tester, ``Potential Carbon Emissions 
Reductions from Geothermal Energy by 2030,'' in Tackling Climate Change 
in the U.S. at 153 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomass

    Biomass currently supplies more electricity in the United 
States than wind, solar, and geothermal power combined, and the 
potential for additional generation from this energy source is 
vast. Biomass available for electricity generation includes 
residues from forests, primary mills, and agriculture, as well 
as dedicated energy crops and urban wood wastes. Biomass can be 
used as the sole fuel source for power plants, or it can be 
used in conventional power plants to substitute for a portion 
of the traditional fuel, typically coal, in a process called 
co-firing. While most co-firing plants use biomass for between 
1 and 8 percent of heat input,\306\ biomass can effectively 
substitute for up to 20 percent of the coal used in the 
boiler.\307\ In addition to reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas 
emissions, co-firing biomass also lowers fuel costs, avoids 
landfilling, and reduces emissions of sulfur oxide and nitrogen 
oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \306\Zia Haq, Energy Information Administration, Biomass for 
Electricity Generation, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/
analysispaper/biomass/.
    \307\Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Biomass Cofiring in 
Coal-fired Boilers, DOE/EE-0288. (2004), available at http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_biomass_cofiring.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An EIA analysis of the impacts of a 15 percent national 
renewable electricity requirement found that electricity 
production from biomass could grow by a factor of eight between 
2005 and 2030.\308\ Most of this generation would come in the 
southeastern United States, where nearly a third of the 
country's biomass feedstock potential exists.\309\ The EIA 
found that the Southeast region could meet nearly its entire 15 
percent renewable requirement through 2020 with indigenous 
biomass resources.\310\ In a September 20, 2007 Select 
Committee hearing on renewable electricity standards, venture 
capitalist Nancy Floyd, founder and managing director of Nth 
Power, agreed that a biopower industry could be jumpstarted in 
the South that would drive private investment and spur the 
regional economy. Using biomass for electricity would help the 
region create thousands of blue collar jobs, increase global 
export opportunities, and keep billions of dollars in the 
Southeast that would have otherwise left to import coal and 
other fuels from other States and countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \308\Energy Information Administration, Impacts of a 15-Percent 
Renewable Portfolio Standard at 9 (Table 2: Summary Results) (June 
2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/pdf/
sroiaf(2007)03.pdf.
    \309\Marie Walsh et al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass 
Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis 
(Jan. 2000), available at http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/
index.html.
    \310\Energy Information Administration, Regional Generation Impacts 
of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (Supplement to 
Report #: SR-OIAF/2007-03) (June 2007), available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/pdf/regional_generation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Cap-and-Invest: Enact a mandatory, economy-wide 
cap-and-invest system to provide a stable, long-term price 
signal for carbon and to correct the massive market failure 
currently putting renewable electricity generation at a 
competitive disadvantage with high-carbon electricity sources. 
Use allowance auction proceeds to fund early deployment of 
renewable electricity generation, either through extension of 
the production tax credit and investment tax credit or through 
an analogous rebate or grant program.
     National Renewable Electricity Standard: Enact a 
Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) to require utilities to 
meet a gradually increasing percentage of their generation with 
renewable sources. This technology-neutral approach allows 
utilities to meet the standard using the most cost effective 
renewable option in the area in which they operate.
     Double Federal RD&D Spending: Double federal 
investment in research, development, and demonstration to 
accelerate the pace of innovation and technology development 
and reassure private investors that this area is important to 
the public and worth their investment.
     5-8 Year Extension of the Production Tax Credit: 
Provide a five- to eight-year extension of the production tax 
credit for renewable electricity generation, to provide the 
investment certainty needed for manufacturers and developers of 
renewable energy systems--especially in the wind industry--to 
expand.
     Develop a National Green Transmission Policy: The 
Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, in collaboration with States, federal land 
management agencies, and industry and non-governmental 
stakeholders, should conduct a national assessment of 
transmission infrastructure needs to support an expansion of 
renewable electricity generation and should develop a 
comprehensive national policy to enable the construction of 
green transmission.

      D. DRIVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION

    Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies will be 
crucial to reconciling our continued reliance on coal with the 
urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was the 
clear message of the Select Committee's September 6, 2007 
hearing on ``The Future of Coal,'' at which Governor Dave 
Freudenthal of Wyoming testified together with several leading 
industry and non-governmental experts. As foreshadowed above, 
this is both a domestic and a global issue because the United 
States has vast coal reserves and currently relies on coal for 
nearly 50 percent of its electricity generation, while China 
and India also have large reserves and are even more dependent 
on coal for power generation.
    CCS involves physical capture of CO2 at power 
plants and other major point sources and compression and 
injection of CO2 into deep geological reservoirs (or 
some other means of permanent sequestration, such as 
integration into concrete). There are three principal 
technology options for capturing CO2 emissions at 
coal-fired power plants: (1) pre-combustion capture using 
integrated combined cycle (IGCC) technology; (2) pre-combustion 
capture using oxy-fuel combustion; and (3) post-combustion 
capture using solvents or membranes. Research indicates that it 
is possible to capture greater than 85 percent of the emissions 
stream generated by a power plant or other major industrial 
source, though implementation of currently available capture 
technology does impose a significant energy penalty.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \311\For discussion of capture technologies, see, e.g., 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Coal at 17-40 
(2007) [hereinafter ``MIT Future of Coal'']; Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, 
Summary for Policymakers at 5-12 (2005) [hereinafter ``IPCC CCS 
Report''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If captured CO2 is to be injected, it is 
compressed into a dense fluid (supercritical) state for 
transport via pipeline to an injection site. Three types of 
geologic formations are well-suited to long-term storage of 
injected CO2: depleted oil and gas fields, saline 
formations, and deep coal seams. Surveys indicate that both 
global and U.S. storage capacity is potentially vast. Even the 
IPCC's low-end estimate of 1680 gigatons of global capacity is 
equivalent to over 70 years of emissions from all global fossil 
fuel combustion at current levels, while the high-end capacity 
estimate would be over six times greater.\312\ The Department 
of Energy projects that U.S. domestic geologic formations 
``have at least enough capacity to store several centuries' 
worth of point source emissions'' from the United States.\313\ 
There appears to be a good correlation between emissions 
sources and geological basins suitable for long-term storage, 
and preliminary assessments suggest that risks to human health 
and the environment from large-scale injection of 
CO2 are limited.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \312\IPCC CCS Report, supra note 311, at 197.
    \313\U.S. Department of Energy, Carbon Sequestration: Technology 
Roadmap and Program Plan 2005, at 4 (2005) available at http://
fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/programplans/
2005/sequestration_roadmap_2005.pdf.
    \314\IPCC CCS Report, supra note 311, at 8; MIT Future of Coal, 
supra note 311, at 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although most of the technologies on which CCS is based are 
already proven, they have not yet been integrated or 
implemented at commercial scale. Underground injection of 
naturally produced CO2 has been used since the early 
1970s as part of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, and 
there are several major commercial projects worldwide that 
inject captured CO2 for underground storage, as well 
as a growing number of pilot-scale projects. However, 
successful commercial development of CCS requires that we move 
quickly to implement commercial-scale demonstration projects 
integrating capture and storage technologies.
    Because of the costs of implementing CCS technologies, they 
will not be deployed on a commercial scale without the 
establishment of appropriate regulatory drivers. For example, 
projected construction costs for IGCC plants using CCS are 32-
47 percent greater than for conventional IGCC plants while 
supercritical pulverized coal plants using CCS have capital 
costs 60-73 percent greater than conventional supercritical 
pulverized coal plants.\315\ Absent regulatory limits on 
CO2 emissions, implementation of CCS is expected to 
increase the overall cost of electricity by 25 to 85 percent in 
comparison with an uncontrolled plant--at least for first-
generation projects.\316\ State utility regulation in most 
cases would prevent utilities from recovering this cost 
differential, making utilities highly unlikely to invest in CCS 
in the absence of regulatory requirements to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \315\Testimony of Robert Sussman before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``The Future of 
Coal,'' Sept. 6, 2007 (using studies conducted by the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, the Department of Natural Resources and the 
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency).
    \316\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, substantial legal and regulatory obstacles 
must be resolved before widespread commercial deployment of CCS 
will be possible. EPA has recently promulgated a proposed rule 
governing regulation, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, of 
geological injection of CO2 for sequestration.\317\ 
However, as a recent Government Accountability Office report 
requested by the Select Committee emphasized, the proposed rule 
leaves unclear a host of regulatory issues--including how 
releases of CO2 to the atmosphere will be addressed, 
and how geological injection of CO2 will be treated 
under other environmental statutes such as CERCLA and 
RCRA.\318\ In addition, there are substantial unanswered 
questions regarding who has ownership over injected 
CO2 and who will be liable for any damage resulting 
from leakage of injected CO2.\319\ Some of these 
issues--particularly with regard to property rules--will likely 
be answered at the State level. The liability issue in 
particular may require the enactment of a federal legal 
framework governing these issues in future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \317\Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Requirements Under 
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide 
(CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; Proposed Rule, 73 
Fed. Reg. 43,492 (July 25, 2008).
    \318\Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: Federal 
Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage 
As a Key Mitigation Option, No. GAO-08-1080 (Sept. 2008).
    \319\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even enactment of economy-wide climate legislation, 
standing alone, likely would not result in widespread 
commercial deployment of CCS within the next two decades, 
because the price of carbon will not be high enough to justify 
CCS before that time. Multiple analyses have concluded that the 
price per ton of CO2 necessary to make 
implementation of CCS economically rational is on the order of 
$25-50 or more.\320\ Under the climate proposals currently 
under consideration, these carbon price thresholds may not be 
reached until far into the future, making commercial deployment 
of CCS unlikely in the next two decades without additional 
policy drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \320\Testimony Robert Sussman before the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming hearing on ``The Future of Coal,'' 
Sept. 6, 2007 (Using studies conducted by the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology, the Department of Natural Resources and the Public 
Service Commission of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complementary policies--including performance standards for 
new coal-fired power plants and financial incentives for early 
adopters of CCS technology for coal-fired power plants--will be 
necessary to ensure rapid development and deployment of CCS. 
Adoption of national performance standards requiring 
implementation of CCS technologies, by a date certain, on all 
new coal-fired power plants would provide the private sector 
with a strong signal and powerful incentives to move forward 
rapidly with development and deployment of such technologies. 
H.R. 6186 includes such performance standards, as does the 
Dingell-Boucher climate legislation discussion draft circulated 
in October 2008--the latter with later implementation deadlines 
than the former. Simultaneously, the federal government can 
provide support in the form of funding for early movers, under 
a cap-and-invest program, for the incremental costs of 
implementing CCS. Most proposed climate legislation has 
included such incentives in one form or another.
    Congress has taken some important preliminary steps to 
promote development of CCS-related technologies. Most 
importantly, Sections 702 and 703 of EISA require the 
Department of Energy to undertake 3-5 large-scale capture 
projects and 7 large-scale geological storage projects and 
authorizes nearly $2 billion over four years for that purpose. 
EISA Sections 711 and 714 require the Department of Interior to 
conclude a comprehensive assessment of geological storage 
opportunities in the United States and to make recommendations 
to Congress regarding a framework for geological sequestration 
on federal lands. In addition, as part of the ``Energy 
Improvement and Extension Act of 2008'' (enacted as part of 
H.R. 1424, the October 2008 economic rescue legislation), 
Congress provided tax credits for CCS projects: $20 per metric 
ton of CO2 captured and disposed of in secure 
geological storage and $10 per ton captured and used for 
qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery projects.
    Despite these steps forward, the CCS demonstration program 
remains underfunded, and concerted action is necessary to speed 
the development and commercial deployment of CCS. The 
Department of Energy's current technology roadmap does not 
predict widespread commercial availability of CCS until 2020--
by which time substantial new convention coal-fired generation 
capacity may already have been constructed in the U.S. and 
globally without CCS capability built in. The next 
Administration and Congress must make CCS demonstration and an 
urgent priority, so that the United States can both implement 
this technology domestically and export it to the remainder of 
the world.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Fund CCS Demonstration Projects and R&D 
Activities: Congress should fully fund the CCS demonstration 
program authorized by EISA and the Administration should move 
expeditiously to implement that program. In addition, Congress 
should dramatically increase federal spending on CCS research 
and development activities authorized under the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005.
     Performance Standards for New Coal-Fired Power 
Plants: Congress should enact legislation, either in tandem 
with economy-wide cap-and-invest legislation or (if necessary) 
independently of it, mandating that all new coal-fired power 
plants implement CCS within a reasonable period after 
commencing operation.
     Fund CCS Deployment Through Cap-and-Invest: 
Congress should include funding for CCS demonstration projects 
and deployment incentives in comprehensive cap-and-invest 
climate legislation.
     Establish an Interagency CCS Task Force: The next 
Administration should promptly establish an interagency task 
force to address--in a proactive and coordinated fashion--the 
legal and regulatory obstacles to commercial deployment of CCS. 
This effort should include:
           Completing a detailed national assessment of 
        geological storage opportunities.
           Completing EPA's underground injection 
        regulations under existing legal authority, and 
        providing recommendations to Congress regarding any 
        additional regulatory authority needed to address 
        CO2 injection activities.
           Making comprehensive recommendations to 
        Congress regarding the appropriate legal framework 
        needed to address financial responsibility and other 
        issues associated with CCS.

 E. TRANSFORM THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THROUGH FUEL EFFICIENCY, 
 ELECTRIC-DRIVE VEHICLES, LOW-CARBON FUELS, AND TRANSPORTATION CHOICES

    The U.S. transportation sector produces roughly a third of 
total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounts for nearly 70 
percent of total U.S. oil consumption, and is 95 percent 
dependent upon petroleum. To reduce both oil consumption and 
emissions in the transportation sector will require the United 
States to address three interrelated issues--the efficiency of 
our vehicles, the fuels that power them, and how much we drive 
them.

1. Vehicles--increase fuel economy and transition to electric drive

    Implementing higher fuel economy standards is one of the 
single most important means to increase the United States' 
energy independence. After Congress first increased fuel 
economy standards for automobiles from 13 miles per gallon 
(mpg) to 27.5 mpg starting in 1975, imported oil as a 
percentage of total U.S. consumption fell from 47 percent in 
1977 to 27 percent in 1985. However, after Congress in the mid-
1990s blocked both the Clinton Administration's authority to 
increase fuel economy standards and Chairman Markey's repeated 
legislative efforts to do so, U.S. dependence on imported oil 
skyrocketed to 60 percent by 2005.
    The 110th Congress scored a major achievement on this front 
by mandating that fuel economy standards increase by at least 
40 percent by 2020. With the passage of EISA, Congress for the 
first time since 1975 mandated an increase in fuel economy 
standards for the nation's fleet of cars and light trucks to 
achieve the maximum feasible standard for each model year 
beginning in 2011 such that the average of the fleet achieves 
at least 35 mpg by 2020. This will save at least 2.5 million 
barrels of oil per day by 2030--more than all the oil currently 
imported from the Persian Gulf. In addition, it will reduce 
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by more than 500 million metric 
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2030 and will 
save consumers almost $22 billion annually by 2020 in gasoline 
that they will not have to buy, even after paying for the new 
fuel efficient technologies.
    In addition, Congress has provided substantial support for 
research, development, demonstration, and deployment of 
technologies to improve vehicle efficiency. In addition to 
setting new CAFE standards, EISA authorized a number of 
research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs 
for plug-in hybrid, advanced vehicle battery, and other 
advanced vehicle technologies. EISA also authorized $25 billion 
in loans to support retooling of U.S. auto manufacturing 
facilities to produce more fuel efficient vehicles--a program 
that was fully funded under H.R. 2638, the Continuing 
Resolution enacted September 30, 2008.
    The future of transportation lies in the transition from 
internal combustion engines to electric vehicles. As the Select 
Committee learned during its July 2007 and June 2008 hearings 
focusing on efficient vehicles, the development of plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and all-electric vehicles hold 
great potential to enhance America's energy independence and 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Electric motors are three to 
four times more efficient at turning their fuel into useful 
work than either gasoline or diesel engines. They also consume 
no energy while idling and utilize regenerative braking to 
recharge the vehicle's battery. The oil refining and delivery 
process is also extremely inefficient and energy-intensive 
compared to back-end processes required to get electricity to 
its point of use.
    General Motors, Chrysler, Toyota, and Nissan have all 
announced plans to produce all-electric vehicles or PHEVs for 
the U.S. market, with the Chevrolet Volt expected to be the 
first vehicle from the major manufacturers to hit the market in 
2010. Plug-in models like the Volt are expected to have an all-
electric range of around 40 miles. Since 75 percent of 
Americans drive less than 40 miles per day, these vehicles 
would allow most drivers to eliminate gasoline from their daily 
commutes altogether. An alternative, more transformative 
approach is currently being developed by California-based 
Project Better Place and Nissan in Denmark and Israel. Under 
this approach, a company maintains ownership of batteries--
thereby substantially lowering the upfront cost of the 
vehicles--and car owners would substitute out or recharge 
batteries at stations around the country when the vehicle needs 
a fresh charge. If fully implemented, this approach would 
extend vehicle range indefinitely and thus makes electric 
vehicles more readily available to greater segments of the 
driving population. However, it requires government support to 
help build the infrastructure needed for drivers to switch 
batteries.
    The electric grid is an important and readily available 
piece of infrastructure that could power the transport sector 
in the United States. The electric infrastructure is currently 
designed to meet the highest expected demand for power, which 
only occurs for a few hundred hours a year. During the night 
more than 50 percent of generating capacity lies idle. By 
utilizing this idle generating capacity, the Department of 
Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that up to 
84 percent of U.S. cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility 
vehicles can be transitioned to electricity without building a 
single new power plant. Since only 1.6 percent of U.S. 
electricity comes from burning oil, an 84 percent level of 
electric vehicle penetration is estimated to eliminate the 
consumption of 6.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, 
more than all the oil currently imported from OPEC countries. 
With the cost of gasoline at $3.50 per gallon and the national 
average cost of electricity of 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour, an 
electric vehicle runs on an equivalent of around 84 cents per 
gallon.
    PHEVs slash greenhouse gas emissions, even with our current 
electricity fuel mix. As highlighted by Austin Texas Mayor Will 
Wynn in testimony before the Select Committee on July 12, 2007, 
a battery-powered electric vehicle generates only 40 percent of 
the greenhouse gases produced by an equivalent gasoline 
vehicle, despite nearly half of U.S. electricity coming from 
carbon-intensive coal combustion. Greenhouse gas benefits will 
improve in the future as renewable electricity generation ramps 
up.
    The 110th Congress has taken important steps towards the 
promotion of electric vehicles and domestic production of 
efficient vehicles. The tax credits passed in the economic 
rescue package (H.R. 1424) would range from $2,500 to $15,000, 
depending on the vehicle's size and battery capacity, and would 
be used against the purchase of a new plug-in vehicle until the 
total number of qualified vehicles sold in the United States 
reached 250,000. In addition, Congress appropriated $25 billion 
in loans to assist the auto industry retool existing 
manufacturing plants to build more fuel efficient vehicles, 
pursuant to Section 136 of EISA.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Ensure Rigorous Implementation of CAFE Standards: 
Congress should encourage or require NHTSA to adopt realistic 
estimates of future gasoline prices in analyzing the economic 
feasibility of EISA's fuel economy standards, and should 
closely oversee NHTSA's development and implementation of those 
standards (for more on this, see the NHTSA oversight section 
below).
     Grant the California Waiver Request: EPA should 
grant the Clean Air Act waiver sought by California to impose 
more stringent tailpipe standards on its automotive fleet 
(standards which more than a dozen additional States also wish 
to adopt). This waiver was denied in December 2007 by the Bush 
Administration.
     Expand Tax Credits for Efficient Vehicles and for 
PHEV Conversions: Congress should continue to aggressively 
promote the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid and 
all-electric vehicles. In addition to the just-enacted tax 
incentives for the purchase or plug-in hybrid vehicles, 
Congress should support additional tax incentives for 
conversion of existing cars and trucks to electric vehicles and 
should consider tax credits for trading in less fuel efficient 
vehicles in order to purchase fuel efficient ones.
     Expand Federal RD&D: Congress should support a 
robust program of research, development, and demonstration of 
advanced automotive technologies--particularly advanced battery 
technologies that will support the transition to electric 
vehicles.
     Fund Loan Guarantees for Advanced Battery 
Development: Congress should fully fund Section 135 of EISA 
which authorizes loan guarantees for the development of 
advanced batteries for plug-in-hybrid and all-electric 
vehicles.
     Oversee Loan Guarantee for Auto Plant Retooling: 
Congress should aggressively oversee the implementation of the 
EISA Sec. 136 loan guarantee program for advanced technology 
vehicles.
     Establish State Electric Vehicle Grant Program: 
Congress should create a ``State Electric Vehicle Grant 
Program,'' similar to other federal energy efficiency programs, 
to enable State and local governments to apply for grants to 
procure plug-in-hybrid or all-electric vehicle fleets as well 
as install any needed charging and/or battery swapping 
infrastructure.

2. Fuels--promote advanced biofuels and restrict high-carbon fuels

            Biofuels
    Biofuels--and particularly advanced biofuels--can 
dramatically reduce our reliance on imported oil while at the 
same time cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol biofuels 
convert the starches and sugar in plant-based materials into 
ethanol, typically using either an enzymatic or a gasification 
process. Current ethanol production uses corn, beets, cereals, 
or sugar cane for feedstock. Almost all U.S. ethanol is 
produced from corn starch. Cellulosic ethanol, by contrast, is 
produced from the non-edible parts of plants; it can be 
produced from algae waste biomass, switchgrass and other plants 
that require lower energy or water inputs compared to 
conventional feedstock. Cellulosic ethanol faces some remaining 
technical and economic hurdles, but offers great promise 
because it does not compete with food production for feedstock 
(as corn-based ethanol does) and has lower lifecycle greenhouse 
gas emissions. Biodiesel, made of fats from animal or vegetable 
oils, is virtually indistinguishable from traditional 
petroleum-based diesel.
    Because they can be domestically produced, biofuels have 
become an integral element of efforts to reduce oil imports. 
Biofuels accounted for only four percent of total U.S. fuel 
consumption as of 2006, but EIA projects that they will account 
for nearly 16 percent of consumption by 2030.\321\ A 2005 
report prepared for the Department of Energy found that the 
United States could produce sufficient biomass to produce 
biofuels to displace 30 percent of current fuel consumption by 
2030.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \321\EIA AEO 2008, supra note 191, at 81.
    \322\See generally Robert D. Perlack et al., Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory Technical Report, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and 
Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual 
Supply (2005), available at http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/
billion_ton_vision.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Depending on the biofuel source, lifecycle greenhouse gas 
emissions from biofuels can be 12 to 71 percent lower than the 
greenhouse gas emissions from conventional petroleum-based 
fuel.\323\ Some researchers and stakeholders have expressed 
concerns about so-called ``dirty'' biofuels, which have hidden 
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions or other adverse 
environmental impacts attributable, for example, to clearing of 
tropical forests to produce palm oil for biofuels.\324\ These 
concerns can be addressed through lifecycle emissions standards 
and sustainability standards, which are incorporated into the 
current U.S. renewable fuel standard (discussed below) and can 
be included in a future low-carbon fuel standard (also 
discussed below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \323\Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gas 
Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuel Use, Doc. No. 
EPA420-F-07-035 (April 2007), available at http://www.epa.gov/OMS/
renewablefuels/420f07035.pdf.
    \324\Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential 
and Implications for Sustainable Energy and Agriculture. German 
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection at 196-201 
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. biofuels development and production are surging, 
thanks to federal incentives and mandates. After the 1979 oil 
embargo, a tax credit for blending ethanol with gasoline was 
introduced, and biofuels tax credits continue today. The May 
2008 Farm Bill adjusted the tax credit for blending ethanol 
into gasoline down to $0.45 per gallon for corn ethanol and up 
to $1.01 per gallon for cellulosic ethanol. The tax credit for 
blending biodiesel is $1.00 per gallon.
    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a Renewable Fuels 
Standard (RFS) under Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 
establishing a national mandate to blend in an increasing 
volume of biofuels on an annual schedule, culminating in 7.5 
billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. In 2007, EISA expanded and 
restructured the RFS--requiring the U.S. fuel supply to include 
36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, with subsidiary 
mandates for production of non-corn-based ``advanced 
biofuels,'' biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuels. 
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of advanced biofuels and 
biomass-based diesel must be 50 percent below the average 
emissions of the U.S. fuel supply in 2005, and a 60 percent 
reduction is required for cellulosic biofuels. In addition, 35 
states have some form of RFS or financial incentives for 
biofuel production. Ethanol is currently blended into about 46 
percent of U.S. gasoline, the majority as a 10 percent blend in 
gasoline (E10). Every automobile in the United States can run 
on E10. Flex-fuel vehicles, which are more widely available in 
Brazil and other parts of the world than in the United States, 
can operate on fuel blends of up to 85 percent ethanol (E85). 
New engine designs and technology are being developed to 
capitalize on ethanol's higher octane and reduce its fuel 
economy penalty.
    U.S. production of fuel ethanol jumped from 175 million 
gallons in 1980 to an estimated 6.5 billion gallons in 
2007.\325\ Biodiesel has also enjoyed phenomenal growth in the 
last few years, growing from U.S. sales of 2 million gallons in 
2000 to 250 million gallons in 2006.\326\ The National 
Biodiesel Board reported in January 2008 that the existing 
production capacity for biodiesel stands at 2.24 billion 
gallons per year, with another 1.23 billion gallons of annual 
capacity planned for development by the end of 2008.\327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \325\Renewable Fuels Association, Changing the Climate: Ethanol 
Industry Outlook 2008 at 2 (2008).
    \326\Miguel Carriquiry, U.S. Biodiesel Production: Recent 
Developments and Prospects, 13(2) Iowa Ag Review 8 (Spring 2007), 
available at http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_07/
IAR.pdf.
    \327\National Biodiesel Board, U.S. Biodiesel Production Capacity 
(Jan. 25, 2008), available at http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/
fuelfactsheets/Production_Capacity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Biofuels lack a strong infrastructure for fuel 
transportation. Biofuels are largely transported via railway, 
tanker truck, and barge. The increasing supply and demand of 
ethanol may require new infrastructure to supply biofuels. 
Biodiesel can travel through the existing diesel fuel pipeline 
and storage systems, but ethanol faces challenges. Ethanol 
picks up excess water and petroleum sludge in existing gasoline 
pipelines, which can compromise ethanol fuel integrity. 
Furthermore, existing pipelines require additional maintenance 
to prevent corrosion of pipe joints. Ethanol storage tanks 
differ from conventional fuel tanks, though a conventional fuel 
tank can be converted for ethanol for approximately 
$1,000.\328\ These differences may partially explain the low 
number of ethanol fuel stations. Currently, over 1,800 
locations in the United States have E85 pumps, but these are 
primarily located in the Midwest.\329\ Nationwide, there are 
700 major commercial fleets using biodiesel and 1100 retail 
filling stations.\330\ To help improve the availability of 
biofuels, EISA included provisions that prohibited corporate 
bans on installing E85 pumps and mandated an ethanol pipeline 
feasibility study and grants to assist with the conversion of 
infrastructure and storage for renewable fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \328\Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential 
and Implications for Sustainable Energy and Agriculture at 241 (2007).
    \329\See National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, E85 Refueling 
Locations by State, at http://www.e85refueling.com/
states.php?PHPSESSID=9924807cbc680ae06ce6c66004859b75.
    \330\National Biodiesel Board, National Trucking Company's 
Biodiesel Study Shows Positive Results (Mar. 21, 2007), available at 
http://www.biodiesel.org/news/07clicktrhrus/20070321_decker.shtm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the United States is the largest producer of 
biofuels, other countries are developing and promoting them 
vigorously. The global biofuels market will expand from $20.5 
billion in 2006 to $80.9 billion in 2016, driven by increasing 
government mandates and continuing high oil prices.\331\ The 
United States is a large contributor to this effort, leading 
the world in fuel ethanol production. Brazil is the second-
largest producer by a slim margin (41.1 percent of the market 
compared to the 47.9 percent U.S. share) and relies on ethanol 
from domestic sugarcane (a non-food crop) for 40 percent of 
their auto fuel supply.\332\ Brazil's biofuels industry is 
discussed at greater length in the section below on the Select 
Committee's Congressional delegation to Brazil in February 
2008. Germany, Sweden, France and Spain are the largest 
European Union ethanol producers, primarily using beets and 
cereals as feedstock.\333\ Biodiesel production is led by 
Germany, followed by the United States, France and Italy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \331\Joel Makower et al., Clean Edge Research, Clean-Energy Trends 
2007 at 3 (2007), available at http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/
Trends2007.pdf.
    \332\Worldwatch Institute, supra note 324, at 6.
    \333\Id. at 7, 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Concerns about the impact of biofuels production on U.S. 
food prices are likely overstated, but provide another reason 
to move towards greater reliance on cellulosic biofuels. 
Currently, most biofuels in the United States and Europe are 
made from food crops. Natural disasters, high commodity prices, 
and other factors have caused concern that biofuel feedstocks 
are becoming too valuable to sell as food supplies to poor 
communities. However, less than a third of U.S. retail food 
contains corn as a major ingredient and rising prices for corn-
related products raises overall U.S. retail food prices less 
than 1 percentage point per year above the normal rate of 
inflation.\334\ Although the United States is not severely 
impacted by higher ethanol feedstock costs, low-income 
developing nations may face a greater challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \334\Ephraim Leibtag, Corn Prices Near Record High, But What About 
Food Costs?, 6 Amber Waves 11 (Feb. 2008), available at http://
www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/PDF/CornPrices.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Greater development of cellulosic biofuels allays concerns 
that biofuels may raise food prices. Developing cellulosic 
fuels from non-food sources such as switchgrass, corn stover, 
and bamboo weakens the link between food and fuel. Furthermore, 
advances in biofuel technology could help developing nations 
meet their own energy needs while bolstering agricultural 
communities abroad. This would require investment in 
agricultural communities and developing cellulosic biofuel 
infrastructure, something that is already occurring in the 
United States and abroad. Dr. Susan Lechine, Founder and Chief 
Scientist of SunEthanol, spoke of cellulosic ethanol 
development before the Select Committee hearing entitled ``The 
Gas is Greener: The Future of Biofuels'' on October 24, 2007. 
She noted that cost-effective cellulosic ethanol production is 
achievable in the near term, that it requires significant 
resources for research and development, and that it will have 
enormous positive impacts on the environment and the economy, 
especially for rural economies. At the Select Committee's July 
31, 2008 hearing entitled ``Renewing America's Future: Energy 
Visions of Tomorrow, Today,'' Dr. Aristides Patrinos, President 
of Synthetic Genomics Inc., discussed his work with Dr. Craig 
Venter to design and synthesize microbial cells with far 
superior capabilities in converting biomass feedstocks into 
fuels. Utilizing cutting-edge genomic technology, this company 
is pursuing a wide range of next generation fuels that, if 
feasible, will be superior to traditional biofuels (ethanol and 
biodiesel), more adapted to the existing infrastructure and 
able to compete successfully with gasoline and other fossil 
fuels.
            Natural gas
    Natural gas provides some benefits as a transportation 
fuel, but there are concerns that substantially expanding 
transportation demand for natural gas will raise prices--to the 
detriment of industrial and other consumers. Transportation 
currently accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. natural gas 
consumption, and is used primarily to replace diesel in urban 
bus, truck, and auto fleets. According to EIA, the United 
States has only about 119,000 natural gas vehicles on the road, 
which displace the equivalent of about 200 million gallons of 
gasoline annually.\335\ Currently, Honda makes the only natural 
gas passenger vehicle available for purchase in the United 
States--with sales of 500 to 1000 vehicles annually. They have 
also designed a home-fueling station so car owners can fill up 
their vehicles in their own garages. At current natural gas 
prices, home refueling with natural gas costs the equivalent of 
$1.00 to $1.50 per gallon of conventional gasoline.\336\ Some 
analyses have concluded that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 
from natural gas vehicles are lower than for plug-in hybrids, 
depending on the fuel source for the electricity used to power 
them.\337\ The United States imports only about 20 percent of 
the natural gas it consumes (almost exclusively from Canada), 
as compared with nearly 60 percent for oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \335\Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional 
Transportation Fuels 2006 (Part II--User and Fuel Data), Tables VI 
(Estimated Number of Alternative Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United 
States, by Fuel Type, 2003-2006) and C1 (Estimated Consumption of 
Vehicle Fuels in the United States, by Fuel Type, 2003-2006) (May 
2008), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/
atftables/afvtransfuel_II.html.
    \336\Testimony of John German (American Honda Motor Company), 
before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, 
hearing on ``What's Cooking with Gas: The Role of Natural Gas in Energy 
Independence and Global Warming Solutions,'' July 30, 2008.
    \337\Id. at Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on these factors, some stakeholders, such as oil 
billionaire T. Boone Pickens, have urged Congress to promote 
expanded reliance on natural gas as a transportation fuel. At 
the same time, however, industrial consumers of natural gas 
have emphasized the adverse impacts of already high natural gas 
prices on U.S. industry and competitiveness--and have cautioned 
against creating another source of demand that could drive 
prices yet higher.\338\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \338\Testimony of Rich Wells (Dow Chemical Company), before the 
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on 
``What's Cooking with Gas: The Role of Natural Gas in Energy 
Independence and Global Warming Solutions,'' July 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            High-carbon fuels
    ``High-carbon'' transportation fuels--such as those derived 
from tar sands, oil shale, or coal--present unacceptably high 
costs in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and production-
related environmental impacts. While some look to these fuels 
as potential substitutes for imported oil, increased reliance 
on them will undermine our security in the long-term by greatly 
exacerbating the climate challenge.
    Tar sands are a mixture of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, 
a heavy black viscous oil that can be mined and processed to 
extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. 
The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in 
its natural state. Instead, the tar sand deposits are mined 
using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is 
extracted by taking huge amounts of water, using energy to 
convert it to steam, injecting the steam underground to 
``cook'' the sands, and then pumping the melted bitumen to the 
surface.\339\ Around 80 percent of the world's known tar sand 
resources are in Alberta, Canada,\340\ and tar sands currently 
are used to produce 40 percent of Canada's oil supply.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \339\Bureau of Land Management, Oil Shale & Tar Sands Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement Information Center website, at http://
ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm (last visited Oct. 21, 2008) 
[hereinafter ``BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands EIS''].
    \340\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Mitigation of Climate Change at 268 (2007).
    \341\BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands EIS, supra note 339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The process of retrieving and processing tar sands is 
extremely energy-, land-, and water-intensive. Between two and 
four tons of tar sand-laden earth, along with three barrels of 
water, are required to produce just one barrel of oil. In 
Alberta's Beaver Basin, 9 percent of total surface water is 
consumed by the region's tar sand operation.\342\ Most of this 
waste water ends up in toxic tailings ponds that now cover over 
50 square miles of what was once boreal forest in Alberta.\343\ 
The great amounts of energy needed for extraction and 
processing mean that oil sands produce three to four times the 
pre-combustion emissions compared to conventional petroleum oil 
extraction and refining.\344\ Total lifecycle greenhouse gas 
emissions are nearly three times those of conventional 
petroleum.\345\ The mining and processing of tar sands are 
Canada's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, 
currently accounting for 4 percent of the country's total 
emissions (without including the actual combustion of the 
fuel).\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \342\Alberta Department of Energy, Fact Sheet: Oil Sands 
Consultation: Multistakeholder Committee Interim Report at Page 12 
(Nov. 30, 2006), available at http://
www.oilsandsconsultations.gov.ab.ca/docs/
InterimReport_Appendix_FactSheet.pdf.
    \343\Rob Gillies, Environmentalists weigh costs of Alberta oil 
sands, International Herald Tribune, Aug. 25, 2008, available at http:/
/www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=15617946.
    \344\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Mitigation of Climate Change at 268 (2007).
    \345\Ann Bordetsky et al., Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Driving it Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's 
Transportation Future at 7 (June 2007).
    \346\Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada's oil 
sands: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, at http://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/
issues/greenhouse_gas_emissions.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil shale production technology remains unproven and 
presents very serious environmental risks. By far the largest 
deposits of oil shale in the world are found in the United 
States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of 
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. There is an estimated 800 billion 
barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the area, more 
than 70 percent of which is on federally owned and managed 
lands.\347\ At present, fundamental uncertainty remains about 
the technology that could ultimately be used for large-scale 
extraction, as well as the larger cost and environmental 
implications.\348\ Even optimistic estimates predict it will 
take 20 years for tar shales to produce 1 million barrels of 
oil per day and 30 years to produce 3 million barrels of oil 
per day.\349\ Moreover, oil shale's low energy content combined 
with its complex, expensive, and energy intensive extraction 
and refining requirements makes it a problematic energy option. 
Large-scale tar shale processing is estimated to produce five 
times the pre-combustion emissions of conventional petroleum, 
making it even more energy intensive than tar sands.\350\ If 
coal plants were used to power tar shale development in the 
Green River Formation, there would be an 80 percent annual 
increase in CO2 emissions in Colorado, Utah and 
Wyoming.\351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \347\BLM Oil Shale & Tar Sands EIS, supra note 339.
    \348\Michael Toman et al., Unconventional Fossil-Based Fuels: 
Economic and Environmental Trade-Offs at xiii (Oct. 2008) (RAND study 
sponsored by the National Commission on Energy Policy), available at: 
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR580.pdf.
    \349\James Bartis et al., Oil Shale Development in the United 
States at 23 (2005), available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/
2005/RAND_MG414.pdf.
    \350\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 
2007: Mitigation of Climate Change at 268 (2007).
    \351\The Wilderness Society, Oil Shale Fact Sheet, at http://
www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/
Oil_Shale_Tar_Sands_FS_global_warming.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coal-to-liquid fuels are similarly problematic from a 
climate and environment perspective. Coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels 
are produced using the Fischer-Tropsch process to gasify coal 
and then convert it to liquid fuel. The production process for 
CTL generates twice as much CO2 emissions per gallon 
than as conventional petroleum-derived fuel.\352\ CCS 
technologies have not yet been fully developed and 
sequestration of emissions from coal-fired power plants should 
be given priority in use of limited geological and other 
resources. But even with CCS, lifecycle greenhouse gas 
emissions from CTL are likely to be higher than those from 
comparable petroleum-based fuels.\353\ Like tar sands and tar 
shale, CTL production requires massive quantities of water--5 
to 7.3 gallons for each gallon of CTL.\354\ Moreover, to 
produce enough CTL to substitute even 10 percent of the current 
U.S. fuel supply would require a 36 percent increase in current 
coal production\355\--which, because of unsustainable mining 
practices like mountaintop removal, would result in severe 
negative environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \352\Toman et al. supra note 348, at 44.
    \353\Id.
    \354\National Energy Technology Laboratory, Emerging Issues for 
Fossil Energy and Water: Investigation of Water Issues Related to Coal 
Mining, Coal to Liquids, Oil Shale and Carbon Capture and 
Sequestration. At 20 (June 2006), available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/
technologies/oil-gas/publications/AP/IssuesforFEandWater.pdf.
    \355\Toman et al., supra note 348, at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Low-carbon fuel standard
    A low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), which requires that the 
average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of fuels be 
gradually reduced from some baseline over time, provides an 
important mechanism for reducing fuel-related emissions. A LCFS 
provides an important policy mechanism for pushing low-carbon 
technology development and emission reductions in the 
transportation sector. A LCFS has certain advantages over a 
renewable fuel standard, because it focuses on the goal of 
emission reductions without regard to specific fuel type. As 
such, it advantages comparatively ``clean'' biofuels and also 
promotes electricity as a vehicle fuel. A LCFS can be adopted 
in complement with vehicle fuel economy or emission standards, 
as the State of California has done. California's LCFS requires 
a 10 percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions by 2020.\356\ 
But even if a cap-and-invest system is adopted that covers 
transportation fuels, a LCFS serves at least two important 
purposes. First, it captures ``upstream'' emissions associated 
with fuel production, including overseas production, which 
might not otherwise be accounted for in a cap-and-invest 
system. Second, it helps to push the development of new fuel 
technologies more rapidly than the price signal of a cap-and-
invest system alone would do--helping to bring advanced 
biofuels and electric vehicles to market more quickly. Third 
and relatedly, to the extent that a LCFS promotes development 
of domestic clean fuel sources, it can contribute to reducing 
oil imports at the same time that it helps reduce 
transportation sector emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \356\For analysis of the California LCFS, see, e.g., Alex Farrell 
et al., A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for California, Part 2: Policy 
Analysis (Aug. 1, 2007), available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/
low_carbon_fuel_standard/UC_LCFS_study_Part_2-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Establish a National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard: 
Congress should enact a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that 
would set a mandatory schedule for reducing the lifecycle 
greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the U.S. fuel supply. 
This LCFS should be harmonized with the existing RFS through 
2022 and should effectively replace the RFS from 2023 and 
thereafter.
     Expand Federal RD&D: Congress should increase 
funding for biofuel research, development, and demonstration 
programs established under Title II, Subtitle B of EISA, and 
should support research and development of genomics-driven 
technologies that produce fuels from renewable feedstocks and 
from CO2.
     Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Grants: Congress 
should support expanded storage and dispensing infrastructure 
for biofuels through the Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Grant 
program under Section 244 of EISA.
     Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credits: 
Congress should consider extending the Alternative Fuel Vehicle 
Refueling Property Credit, under which fueling stations can 
claim a 30 percent credit for the cost of installing clean-fuel 
vehicle refueling equipment. H.R. 1424 extended the credit 
until December 31, 2010, but Congress should consider expanding 
the credit to 2015 or increasing the percentage of the credit 
to 50 percent.

3. Reduce vehicle miles traveled while improving quality of life

    The United States cannot meet its oil- and greenhouse gas 
reduction goals through vehicle efficiency improvements and 
low-carbon fuels alone. We must also reduce how much we drive 
in a way that preserves mobility and improves quality of life. 
The amount we drive is typically measured in ``vehicle miles 
traveled'' or VMT. Per capita VMT in the United States is 
dramatically higher than in other advanced industrial 
countries--5,700 miles a year compared with 2,368 in Japan and 
3,961 in Germany as of 1997.\357\ VMT in the United States is 
not only high in comparison with other countries; it is also 
growing at a dramatic rate. In 2000, VMT reached 2.8 trillion 
vehicle-miles, almost four times VMT in 1960.\358\ It is 
projected that VMT will increase another 60 percent by 2030, in 
step with the growing U.S. population.\359\ If left unchecked, 
this projected VMT growth will substantially reduce the oil 
consumption and greenhouse gas reduction benefits of EISA--
while at the same time contributing to increases in 
conventional air pollution, auto fatalities, and increased 
traffic congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \357\Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation's Highways--2000, 
Office of Highway Policy Information. Publication No. FHWA-PL-01-1012 
(2000), at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm.
    \358\Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation's Highways--2000, 
at 24 (2000), available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/
our_ntns_hwys.pdf.
    \359\U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Vision 2030 
at 5 (Jan. 2008), available at http://www.rita.dot.gov/publications/
transportation_vision_2030/pdf/entire.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VMT is expected to continue to rise both because the U.S. 
population is expected to increase by a third of its present 
size by 2050 and because housing size is steadily increasing, 
creating greater space between destinations as a result.\360\ 
Since 1977, the size of the average U.S. home has increased 
over 46 percent (from 1,720 to 2,521 square feet)\361\ while 
the average household size in the United States dropped from 
3.67 members in 1940 to 2.62 in 2002.\362\ Houses built in 1950 
had 290 square feet per family member; houses built in 2003 
provided three times more space--893 square feet--per 
person.\363\ As these larger houses and housing developments 
are built, sprawl increases and open spaces begin to shrink. It 
is estimated that up to 5.8 million acres of farmland and open 
space will be converted to commercial or residential uses by 
2025.\364\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \360\For the 2050 estimate see Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn, Pew 
Research Center, Immigration to Play Lead Role in Future U.S. Growth: 
U.S. Population Projections 2005-2050 (Feb. 11, 2008), available at 
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections. 
For the July 2008 estimated U.S. population, see Central Intelligence 
Agency, The World Factbook: United States (last visited Oct. 20, 2008), 
available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/print/us.html.
    \361\U.S. Census Bureau, Highlights of Annual 2007 Characteristics 
of New Housing, at http://www.census.gov/const/www/
highanncharac2007.html.
    \362\U.S. Census Bureau, Table HH-6, Average Population Per 
Household and Family: 1940 to Present, Internet release date September 
15, 2004, at 
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabHH-6.pdf.
    \363\Alex Wilson and Jessica Boehland, Small is Beautiful: U.S. 
House Size, Resource Size, and the Environment, 9 Journal of Industrial 
Ecology 277 (2005).
    \364\Predicting Urban Sprawl in Top 20 U.S. Coastal Cities, The 
Helm (Fall 2000), available at http://www.iisgcp.org/news/helm/
fall2000.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A broad array of policies can help communities to ``grow 
smarter,'' while reducing VMT. Increasing mass transit and 
creating more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly infrastructure 
can encourage people to travel without using a car. Planning 
roads and pathways to create shorter, direct links to 
destinations can limit car distances. Such planning is often 
referred to as ``smart growth'' or ``green communities.'' 
Communities that use smart growth principles offer 
environmental and financial benefits. By reducing time spent in 
cars, global warming pollutants are lessened. Smart growth 
planning also lowers the costs of road maintenance, highway 
expansion, and infrastructure needed to deliver utilities. 
These lower infrastructure costs allow States and localities to 
redirect budget funds to other fiscal priorities or lower 
taxes.
    Although most of these policies are implemented at the 
local, State, or regional level, federal policy can play a 
substantial role in supporting them. Federal funding for 
transportation and housing and urban development have important 
impacts on transportation infrastructure and driving patterns 
and can support smart growth. Brownfield revitalization funding 
can transform unused, contaminated industrial urban land into 
viable communities without undue strain on existing 
infrastructure.
    Reducing VMT saves consumers and taxpayers money. The high 
cost of infrastructure associated with spreading development 
can strain government budgets. Personal budgets are also 
impacted by sprawl. Access to transit can reduce the need of a 
car in a two-worker household, resulting in roughly $6,000 
yearly savings and a 30 percent reduction in transportation-
related carbon emissions.\365\ In 2007, Americans took 10.3 
billion trips using public transportation, a 32 percent 
increase since 1995.\366\ Many believe that this increase is 
due to rising gas prices.\367\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \365\American Public Transit Association, 2008 Public 
Transportation Fact Book at 10 (June 2008), available at http://
www.apta.com/research/stats/factbook/documents08/
2008_fact_book_final_part_1.pdf.
    \366\Id. at 7.
    \367\Id. at 13; see also KFH Group, Inc. for the American Public 
Transportation Association, How Transit Agencies are Addressing the 
Impact of Fuel Price and Ridership Increases at 3 (Sept. 22, 2008), 
available at http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/
impact_of_fuel_price.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Americans support expanding smart growth planning and mass 
transit. A 2007 Smart Growth America poll conducted in 
conjunction with the National Association of Realtors revealed 
broad public support for pedestrian friendly communities that 
employed a mix of residential and commercial uses. At the 
Select Committee's June 18, 2008 hearing entitled ``Planning 
Communities for a Changing Climate,'' Smart Growth America 
director David Goldberg cited a 2007 Growth and Transportation 
Survey that revealed three quarters of Americans believe that 
being smarter about development and improving public 
transportation are better long-term solutions for reducing 
traffic congestion than building new roads. Half of those 
surveyed think improving public transit would be the best way 
to reduce congestion.
    Both urban and rural areas can benefit from smart growth. 
Two witnesses at the Select Committee's ``Planning Communities 
for a Changing Climate'' hearing provided very different 
examples of how to implement smart growth strategies through 
economic development. Dr. Sultan Al-Jaber discussed the 
development of Masdar City, a carbon neutral, zero-waste city 
being built in Abu Dhabi for 50,000 people. Masdar will utilize 
public transportation and 100 percent renewable energy to 
develop and market commercially viable products to reduce 
energy, waste, and water consumption. Steve Hewitt, City 
Administrator of Greensburg, Kansas, testified about his small 
rural town's decision to reduce their carbon footprint. After a 
tornado destroyed 95 percent of Greensburg, the community 
decided to rebuild their main-street based town using the 
principles of smart growth community planning and building 
efficiency standards. By focusing on ``greener'' development, 
they expect to create a sustainable local industry and a 
stronger economic base.
    The 110th Congress has taken some initial steps to promote 
mass transit and smart growth. It passed H.R. 6052, ``The 
Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008,'' 
which offers grants to assist with the costs of transit fare, 
facilities, and operations for public transit, including 
intercity bus services. It also supports commuter alternative 
programs. In addition, the House passed H.R. 6899, ``The 
Comprehensive American Energy and Security Consumer Protection 
Act,'' which provides incentives to lenders and financial 
institutions to provide lower interest loans to consumers who 
live in mixed use, dense areas by accounting for money saved by 
living in less car-dependent areas. The Senate did not take up 
this bill.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
      Cap and Invest: Congress should provide funding, 
on a competitive basis, through cap-and-invest legislation for 
State and local efforts to reduce VMT--for example through mass 
transit and smart growth planning and policies. For example, 
H.R. 6186 and the Dingell-Boucher climate legislation 
discussion draft provide for such funding.
      Prioritize Smart Growth in Transportation 
Reauthorization: Encouraging smart growth and expanding mass 
transit should be a central focus on the transportation 
reauthorization process in the 111th Congress. The next 
transportation reauthorization bill should encourage transit-
oriented development and discourage actions to convert open 
spaces without regional or statewide land use plans.
      Provide Smart Growth Support to State and Local 
Governments: Congress should enact H.R. 6495, the 
``Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act 
of 2008,'' sponsored by Select Committee member Rep. Earl 
Blumenauer. This legislation provides grants to state and local 
governments and rural and metropolitan planning organizations 
for the purpose of reducing VMT, technology upgrades to make 
public transportation systems more efficient, and establishes a 
location efficient mortgage goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
of 15 percent by 2019.
      Support ``Complete Streets'': Congress should 
enact the ``complete streets'' principles in H.R. 5951, the 
``Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2008.'' This bill requires 
all federally-funded transportation projects to accommodate 
complete streets principles to ensure that pedestrians, the 
disabled and cyclists, among others, are accommodated.

4. Move towards a lower-carbon aviation sector

    Aviation is an increasingly significant factor in 
transportation greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Aviation 
emissions generate 12 percent of U.S. transportation 
CO2 emissions and 3 percent of total U.S. 
CO2 emissions.\368\ Experts predict an increase in 
aviation and its impact on the environment. The Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that U.S. aviation 
demand will double or triple by 2025\369\ and worldwide 
aviation emissions are expected to increase 3 to 5 percent per 
year.\370\ Emissions from international aviation rose 48 
percent from 1990-2000.\371\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \368\Energy Information Administration, U.S. Carbon Dioxide 
Emissions from Energy Use in the Transportation Sector, 1990-1998. 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg99rpt/tbl8.html; 
Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005, Table A-108 at p. A-128 and Table ES-2 
at p. ES-6 (April 15, 2007).
    \369\Federal Air Administration, Next Generation Air Transportation 
System Integrated Plan at 8 (Dec. 2004), available at http://
www.jpdo.gov/library/ngats_v1_1204r.pdf.
    \370\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the 
Global Atmosphere, Summary for Policymakers, How are Aviation Emissions 
Projected to Grow in the Future? (1999), available at http://
www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/.
    \371\United National Framework on Climate Change, Executive Summary 
of the Compilation and Synthesis Report on Third National 
Communications from Annex I Parties at 6 (May 16, 2003), available at 
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2003/sbi/07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aviation emissions have a unique impact on the environment. 
Airplanes emit CO2, nitrous oxide, particulate 
matter, and water vapor. The release of aviation emissions in 
high levels of the atmosphere change the properties of clouds 
and contrails and can change ozone levels. Inflight emissions 
particles freeze, forming new clouds which could impact weather 
patterns.\372\ While the effects of CO2 on the 
atmosphere are well known, the combined effect of 
CO2 and other gases at high altitudes are not as 
well understood and could double or quadruple the warming 
effect of CO2 alone.\373\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \372\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the 
Global Atmosphere: A Special Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III in 
Collaboration with the Scientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal 
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Section 3.3, 3.4, 
6.1.2 (1999).
    \373\Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, The Environmental 
Effects of Civil Aircraft in Flight at 11-15 (Mar. 22, 2007), available 
at http://www.rcep.org.uk/aviation/av04-09s2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aviation emissions are under greater scrutiny than ever 
before. Foreign countries, States, and members of Congress are 
taking note of aviation's role in global warming. The European 
Union has recently included aviation in its Emissions Trading 
Scheme. Six States and the District of Columbia, in conjunction 
with five environmental groups, have petitioned the EPA to 
regulate aircraft greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air 
Act.
    Decreasing aviation emissions requires a three-fold 
emphasis on improving aircraft technology, increasing 
operational efficiency, and developing low-carbon fuels. The 
aviation industry and governments around the world will need to 
support more efficient technology and operations as well as 
lower-carbon fuel for airplanes. Technology has been developed 
to improve fuel use and associated emissions. On existing 
planes, lighter equipment and winglets can be attached to 
improve air drag. At the April 2, 2008 Select Committee hearing 
entitled ``From the Wright Brothers to the Right Solutions: 
Curbing Soaring Aviation Emissions,'' witness Jim May, 
President and CEO of the Air Transport Association, testified 
that new engines and planes would greatly improve fuel 
efficiency. He additionally noted the high cost of fuel has 
strained the ability of airlines to purchase new equipment.
    Changes in aviation operations proposed in the FAA NextGen 
program can streamline flights to reduce emissions. 
Incorporating continuous descent approaches, improved plane 
location technology, and decreasing the vertical distance 
between planes can streamline flights and prevent fuel-burning 
holding patterns, take-offs, and landings. Dan Elwell, 
Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy, Planning, and 
Environment for the FAA testified at the Select Committee 
hearing about the importance of employing these operations as 
well as others.
    There are several jet fuels being developed that may reduce 
the need for oil-based jet fuel and emit fewer global warming 
pollutants when burned. Virgin Airlines had a successful 
commercial test flight using a mix of conventional jet fuel and 
biofuel in February 2008, and other airlines have announced 
similar intentions. The Virgin flight used jet fuel developed 
from sustainable coconut and babassu oil, but companies are 
also developing a jet fuel from algae, which would use less 
water and natural resources than other plant-based biofuels. 
EISA Section 202 (amending Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act) 
provided an incentive for jet biofuel production by giving jet 
biofuel producers ``additional renewable fuel'' credits, which 
can be used to help satisfy refiners' obligations under the 
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). However, jet fuels are not 
directly subject to the RFS mandate.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     FAA Reauthorization: As part of the FAA 
reauthorization bill, Congress should enact the policies 
included in Title V of H.R. 2881 and S. 1300, which include the 
CLEEN--Continuous, Low Energy, Emissions, and Noise program--to 
develop lower energy, decreased emissions and noise technology 
for aircraft, and the NextGen program that outlines operations 
systems to eliminate unnecessary emissions.
     Support Low-Carbon Aviation Fuels: Congress should 
include aviations fuels in the low-carbon fuel standard 
described above and should expand support for the development 
of first and second generation jet biofuel, by enacting a 
gradually increasing mandate for the production of jet biofuel 
and by offering tax incentives for such production.
     Reform NextGen: The FAA should reform the NextGen 
program to place a stronger emphasis on reduction of aviation-
related greenhouse gas emissions.
     Clean Air Act Petition for Rulemaking: In response 
to the State and local governments' petition for rulemaking, 
EPA should promptly issue a determination as to whether 
aircraft greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated pursuant 
to the Clean Air Act.

              F. SUPPORT GREEN JOBS AND CLEAN TECH GROWTH

    The win-win energy and climate solutions set forth above 
present an unprecedented opportunity for an innovation-driven 
economic revival in which clean energy solutions--built by 
American workers--are marketed around the world. In an April 
2008 Select Committee hearing entitled ``Green Capital: Seeding 
Innovation and the Future Economy,'' representatives from some 
of the country's leading venture capital firms testified that 
unabated climate change is one of the greatest risks facing 
humanity and that mitigating it constitutes one of the greatest 
investment and job creation opportunities in history. The 
business opportunity presented by clean energy technologies was 
echoed time and again at Select Committee hearings throughout 
the past 18 months. Recent investment and growth in the clean 
energy sector echoes this outlook. Solar, wind, biofuels, 
geothermal, hybrid- and all-electric vehicles, advanced 
batteries, green buildings, and other clean-energy technologies 
provided bright spots in an otherwise sluggish economy in 2007. 
As the U.S. economy struggled with plummeting housing prices, 
rising foreclosure rates, record oil prices, and creeping 
unemployment, the clean energy sector continued to demonstrate 
robust growth, attract large private sector investment, and 
create many new jobs.
    Declining costs, coupled with State renewable electricity 
standards and federal tax incentives, have led to a dramatic 
expansion in renewable electricity generation. Renewable 
technologies experienced a record-breaking year in the United 
States in 2007. A world-leading 5,244 megawatts of new wind 
capacity was installed in the United States, enough to power 
1.5 million homes. This amounts to 35 percent of the new 
electricity generating capacity installed nationwide.\374\ 
Public policies that put these technologies on an even playing 
field with their fossil fuel counterparts will further drive 
down their costs and accelerate deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \374\American Wind Energy Association, supra note 218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As mature industries increasingly move overseas to access 
cheaper labor, technology and innovation-driven sectors will 
become the key to sustaining economic growth and creating good 
jobs. The $26 billion invested by venture capitalists across 
all sectors in 2006 represented 0.2 percent of U.S. GDP, but 
the $2.3 trillion in revenues these firms generated made up 18 
percent of U.S. GDP. The U.S. semiconductor industry--the focus 
of U.S. venture capital through the 1980s and early 1990s--now 
employs 240,000 people in high-wage manufacturing jobs and had 
sales totaling $102 billion in the global market in 2000, 
around half of total worldwide sales. In 1999, this sector was 
the largest value-added industry in manufacturing in the United 
States, larger than the iron, steel, and motor vehicle 
industries combined.\375\ The recent infusion of significant 
venture capital into clean energy indicates the sector's 
potential for similar growth and job creation over the coming 
decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \375\Testimony of Bill Unger (Environmental Entrepreneurs), 
Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
Warming hearing on ``Blowing in the Wind: Renewable Energy as the 
Answer to an Economy Adrift,'' March 6, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The clean tech sector is booming. U.S.-based venture 
capital investments in the clean energy sector rose to nearly 
$3 billion in 2007, a 70 percent increase over 2006. The clean 
energy sector now receives around 10 percent of all U.S. 
venture capital investments.\376\ Worldwide revenue of solar 
photovoltaics (PV), wind, biofuels, and fuel cells grew 40 
percent in 2007, up from $55 billion in 2006 to $77.3 billion 
in 2007.\377\ New global investments in energy technologies--
including venture capital, project finance, public markets, and 
research and development--have expanded by 60 percent from 
$92.6 billion in 2006 to $148.4 billion in 2007.\378\ Most 
investment in clean energy innovation is occurring outside the 
established energy industries. The five major independent oil 
companies, for example, invested less than one hundredth of one 
percent of 2007 revenues in research and development. Companies 
in innovation-oriented sectors like the biotech, information 
technology, and semiconductors routinely invest 15 to 18 
percent of revenues in R&D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \376\Joel Makower, et al., Clean Energy Trends 2008 (Mar. 2008), 
available at http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/Trends2008.pdf.
    \377\Id.
    \378\Chris Greenwood, New Energy Finance, slide presentation on 
Global Trends in Clean Energy Development at 6 (2008), available at 
http://www.eia.org.au/files/78V73UGICR/Greenwood.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The renewable energy and efficiency technology sector has 
already become a major engine of job creation and numerous 
studies confirm that adoption of supportive public policies 
will yield substantial job growth. Research commissioned by the 
American Solar Energy Society found that in 2006 the energy 
efficiency industry had revenues of $933 billion and created 8 
million jobs, 50 percent of these in manufacturing. Aggressive 
investment in energy efficiency would result in the creation of 
32 million new jobs and nearly $4 trillion in revenues by 
2030.\379\ Analyses of state-level efficiency programs 
similarly have found that such programs have substantial 
benefits in terms of job creation and economic growth.\380\ For 
example, a recent study showed that California's energy 
efficiency programs resulted in a net increase of nearly 1.5 
million jobs from 1977 to 2007.\381\ Moreover, State efficiency 
programs have been shown to produce savings at a rate of two 
dollars or more for every dollar invested.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \379\Roger H. Bezdek, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: 
Economic Drivers for the 21st Century (2007), available at http://
www.ases.org/ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf.
    \380\See Maggie Eldridge et al., Energy Efficiency: the First Fuel 
for a Clean Energy Future: Resources for Meeting Maryland's Electricity 
Needs, ACEEE (Feb. 2008); California Public Utilities Commission and 
California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency--California's Highest 
Priority Resource (Aug. 2006), available at ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/
Egy_Efficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf.
    \381\Felicity Barringer, Green Policies in California Generated 
Jobs, Study Finds, New York Times, Oct. 20, 2008, available at http://
www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/business/20green.html.
    \382\See, e.g., California Public Utilities Commission and 
California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency--California's Highest 
Priority Resource (Aug. 2006), available at ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/
Egy_Efficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investments in renewable energy create, on average, three 
to five times as many jobs as similar investments in fossil-
fuel energy systems.\383\ Analysis by the Union of Concerned 
Scientists finds that if utilities were to generate an average 
of 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, 
185,000 new jobs would be created by 2020.\384\ A report by 
Navigant Consulting concluded that expiration of the tax 
credits for renewable electricity generation would have 
resulted in the loss of 116,000 job opportunities and $19 
billion in private investment in the U.S. in 2009.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \383\Testimony of Daniel Kammen before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Investing in the 
Future: R&D needs to meet America's Energy and Climate Challenges,'' 
Sept. 10, 2008; see also Daniel Kammen et al., Putting Renewables to 
Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate? (2004), 
available at 
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/vrael/papers.html#econdev.
    \384\Union of Concerned Scientists, Cashing in on Clean Energy, 
July 2007 Update, available at http://ucsusa.org/assets/documents/
clean_energy/cashing-in-national.pdf.
    \385\Navigant Consulting, Economic Impacts of the Tax Credit 
Expiration, Final Report prepared for the American Wind Energy 
Association (AWEA) and the Solar Energy Research and Education 
Foundation (SEREF) (Feb. 13, 2008), available at http://www.awea.org/
newsroom/pdf/Tax_Credit_Impact.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Biofuels production has substantial benefits for domestic 
economic growth and job creation, particularly in rural areas. 
In the United States, the ethanol industry is estimated to 
employ between 147,000 and 200,000 people from farming to 
biofuels plant construction and operation.\386\ The Department 
of Energy has noted conservative projections of 10,000 to 
20,000 additional jobs for every billion gallons of ethanol 
production.\387\ In Brazil, it is estimated that support for 
biofuels production has saved almost $50 billion in imported 
oil and created as many as one million rural jobs.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \386\Worldwatch Institute, supra note 224, at 124.
    \387\U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Genomics: GTL, 
Cellulosic Ethanol: Benefits and Challenges at http://
genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/benefits.shtml (last visited Oct. 20, 
2008).
    \388\Worldwatch Institute, supra note 224, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investment in efficiency and clean energy technology can be 
an engine of economic stimulus and job creation for the 
flagging U.S. economy. This was the focus of the Select 
Committee's September 18, 2008 hearing entitled ``The Green 
Road to Economic Recovery.'' For example, the Center for 
American Progress and the University of Massachusetts--
Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute found that $100 
billion targeted investment in five energy efficiency and 
renewable energy production strategies could generate 2 million 
new jobs, roughly 800,000 of which would be in the construction 
sector.\389\ Such an approach would outperform an economic 
stimulus approach focused on increasing household spending, 
such as through rebate checks, by creating 300,000 more jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \389\Robert Pollin et al., Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good 
Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon economy, Center for American 
Progress and Political Economy Research Institute (Sept. 2008), 
available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/
green_recovery.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the 12 months ending August 31, 2008, the number of 
unemployed persons increased by 2.2 million and the 
unemployment rate increased to 6.1 percent, the highest level 
in more than five years. Manufacturing and construction were 
the hardest hit sectors.\390\ Putting American workers back to 
work on retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, 
expanding mass transit and freight rail, constructing a 
``smart'' electrical grid, building and installing wind and 
solar energy systems, as well as developing next-generation 
biofuels will ensure the clean energy technology revolution 
brings working Americans along with it. The extension of the 
Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit for renewable 
electricity sources, the FY 2009 expansion of funding for the 
Weatherization Assistance Program (which funds building 
efficiency retrofits for low-income households), and the 
recently funded $25 billion loan program for the domestic auto 
industry to retool facilities to produce more high-tech, fuel 
efficient vehicles represent some strong first steps in this 
direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \390\U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment Situation: 
September 2008, at http://www.bls.gov//news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The shift to the green economy can be a broad-based 
economic program that benefits not only the holders of capital 
but also the low- and moderate-income Americans who are 
suffering disproportionately in today's economy. Green jobs 
expert Van Jones testified at the Select Committee's May 22, 
2007 hearing entitled ``Economic Impacts of Global Warming: 
Green Jobs,'' that jobs in the renewables and efficiency 
industries can provide pathways out of poverty for at risk 
youth and underserved communities, as well as for rural 
communities. At that same hearing, witnesses called for 
investments in training of workers for these jobs, including 
targeted training in underserved communities. Congress 
recognized this opportunity by including H.R. 2847, introduced 
by Rep. Hilda Solis, in EISA (Section 1002). This provision 
authorizes $125 million annually for a new jobs training 
program for the renewable energy and energy efficiency 
industries.
    If we are to make America a global leader in clean 
technology, we will need to dramatically increase federal RD&D 
funding. Federal funding for energy research and development 
has fallen to $3-4 billion a year, one-third the levels of the 
late 1970s, in constant dollars. As President Susan Hockfield 
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology described in 
testimony before the Select Committee on September 10, 2008, 
``In 1980, 10 percent of federal research dollars went to 
energy. Today, when we really need energy answers, it is an 
embarrassing two percent.''\391\ This trend must be reversed if 
America is to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \391\Testimony of Susan Hockfield before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Investing in the 
Future: R&D Needs to Meet America's Energy and Climate Challenges,'' 
Sept. 10, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Green Jobs Training: In addition to enacting the 
policies outlined above, fully fund the green jobs training 
program established under Section 1002 of EISA.
     Federal RD&D Funding: Congress should double 
federal research, development, and demonstration funding for 
clean energy technologies in order to help ensure the United 
States' role as a leader in the clean tech sector.
     Encourage Private Financing of Clean Tech and 
Efficiency: Congress should study the potential for alternative 
financing mechanisms, such as a federal clean energy bank, that 
will further encourage the entry of private capital into the 
clean tech and efficiency sectors.

         G. PROTECT AMERICAN CONSUMERS FROM HIGH ENERGY PRICES

Increasing funding for LIHEAP

    This winter, Americans throughout the nation are likely to 
face major challenges heating their homes. The Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) was established to help 
reduce the impact of home energy expenses on the nation's most 
vulnerable populations by providing assistance to help with 
their heating and cooling bills and weatherizing their homes. 
American families facing escalating home heating costs this 
winter are already coping with rising gasoline and food prices. 
At current prices, the average consumer at the top end of the 
lowest quintile income bracket is spending nearly 11 percent of 
their pretax income on gasoline.\392\ Incredibly, many families 
will spend even more money heating their homes than they have 
spent this year paying record prices at the pump. Families 
receiving LIHEAP assistance will spend, on average, roughly 15 
percent of their income on home energy bills.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \392\For figures on the average income of households in the lowest 
income quintile, see U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health 
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006, at 38 (Table A-3: 
Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2006) (2007), 
available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf.
    \393\National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, Issue 
Brief: The Low Income Energy Assistance Program. Providing Heating and 
Cooling Assistance to Low Income Families at 2 (Nov. 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Around 8 million American households in the United States 
use heating oil to warm their homes. Of the 8.1 million 
households in the United States that use heating oil to heat 
their homes, 6.2 million households, or roughly 78 percent, are 
located in the Northeast region of the country.\394\ The New 
England region, in particular, relies heavily upon heating oil, 
with more than half of homes--roughly 53 percent--dependent 
upon this fuel source for heating. According to EIA, an average 
household using heating oil should expect to pay $2,524 in 
heating costs this winter, an increase of 30 percent over last 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \394\Energy Information Administration, Residential Heating Oil 
Prices, What Consumers Should Know (2008), available at: http://
www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/heatingoil/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More than 51 percent of households nationwide heat their 
homes with natural gas. These 58 million U.S. households should 
expect to pay around $1,017 to heat their home this winter, an 
increase of 19 percent over last year. Roughly 30 percent of 
homes, or nearly 39 million American households, use 
electricity for heat. These households will likely face heating 
costs of $944 this winter, a 10 percent increase over last 
year. Finally, the 6.5 million American households using 
propane to heat their homes should expect to pay $1,890 this 
winter, an increase of 13 percent over last year.
    While the number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance 
has been increasing in recent years, the 5.3 million households 
served in Fiscal Year 2007 still represents only a small 
fraction--15 percent--of all households eligible for 
assistance.\395\ Despite skyrocketing home heating prices and 
the importance of LIHEAP to millions of families, the Bush 
Administration's budget request proposed to cut total LIHEAP 
funding by 22 percent this year, to $570 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \395\Libby Perl, The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
(LIHEAP): Program and Funding, Congressional Research Service Report 
No. RL31865, at 14 (Table 3) (Sept. 18, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Select Committee held a hearing on rising home energy 
costs and the future of LIHEAP funding on September 25, 2008, 
at which Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and other 
witnesses described the desperate need for an increase in 
LIHEAP funding. On September 30, 2008, President Bush signed 
into law H.R. 2638, a continuing resolution which included $5.1 
billion in funding for LIHEAP and also expanded the eligibility 
requirements to allow states to provide assistance to people 
making up to 75 percent of state median income.

Increasing funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program

    The Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income 
families to permanently reduce their energy bills by making 
their homes more energy efficient. According to the Department 
of Energy, weatherization reduces heating bills by 32 percent 
by making homes more efficient, and according to the National 
Association for State Community Services Programs, homes 
weatherized in 2008 will save an average of more than $413. 
Analyses of State-level home efficiency programs have been 
found to produce savings at a rate of two dollars or more for 
every dollar invested.\396\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \396\Roger H. Bezdek, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: 
Economic Drivers for the 21st Century (2007), available at http://
www.ases.org/ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Weatherization not only permanently reduces families' 
energy bills by making their homes more efficient, it also 
spurs economic growth and job creation. Every one million 
dollars invested in weatherization creates between 40 and 45 
jobs.\397\ The Department of Energy's own estimates of the 
impact on job growth are even higher, projecting that 52 jobs 
are created for every $1 million invested. Nationwide, 
weatherization supports 8,000 jobs in low-income 
communities.\398\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \397\Northeast Midwest Coalition, ``2008 LIHEAP Fact Sheet.''
    \398\U.S. Department of Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program 
website, at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/weatherization/improving.cfm 
(last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 4, 2008, the day the President's budget for 
Fiscal Year 2009 was released, the Department of Energy website 
called the Weatherization Assistance program ``this country's 
longest running, and perhaps most successful energy efficiency 
program.'' Nevertheless, the President's budget proposal 
released that day would have completely eliminated this 
program. In the September 2008 Continuing Resolution, Congress 
responded by increasing the funding for the Weatherization 
Assistance Program by $250 million to a total of $478 million--
about twice the historical funding level.

Managing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    Even as oil and gas prices have skyrocketed over the past 
year, the Bush Administration was contributing to high prices 
and wasting taxpayer dollars by continuing to fill the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) during a time of record oil 
prices. On April 4, 2008, the Department of Energy announced 
that it would solicit bids for an additional 13 million barrels 
of oil for the SPR through the Royalty-in-Kind program. The 
Department also announced that it would increase the rate at 
which the SPR was being filled from 70,000 barrels per day to 
76,000 barrels per day beginning in August 2008 and continuing 
through December 2008.\399\ With oil prices above $100 at the 
time, filling the SPR at the rate of 76,000 barrels per day 
could have cost the federal government more than $2.5 billion 
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \399\Department of Energy, Press Release, ``SPR to Continue 
Royalty-in-Kind Fill Program'' (April 4, 2008), available at http://
www.doe.gov/news/6142.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To call attention to the adverse impacts that continuing to 
fill the SPR during a time of record oil prices was having on 
consumers and the treasury, the Select Committee held a hearing 
entitled ``Pumping up Prices: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
and Record Gas Prices'' on April 24, 2008. Dr. Frank Rusco, 
Acting Director, Natural Resources and the Environment at the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before the 
Committee that ``[t]aking barrels of oil off the market to put 
in the Reserve puts upward pressure on prices.''\400\ Dr. Rusco 
also noted GAO's recommendations that the Administration should 
``put fewer barrels into the Reserve when prices are higher and 
more when prices are lower. One way to do this is to buy a 
constant dollar amount of oil each month rather than buying a 
constant number of barrels.''\401\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \400\Hearing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
Global Warming, ``Pumping up Prices: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
and Record Gas Prices,'' April 24, 2008, Transcript at 32.
    \401\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Members of Congress in both the House and Senate had called 
on the Bush Administration to temporarily halt the fill of the 
SPR in order to ease upward pressure on oil prices and save 
taxpayer dollars. Ninety-four Democratic House Members, led by 
Chairman Markey and the entire Democratic Leadership, called on 
the President to suspend the fill of the SPR in a letter on May 
7, 2008. However, the Bush Administration signaled its 
intention to continue filling the reserve and go forward with 
the solicitation of 13 million barrels of additional oil to 
increase the fill rate for the remainder of the year.
    As a result, Congress passed H.R. 6022, the ``Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act 
of 2008''--which President Bush signed into law on May 19, 
2008. Chairman Markey was an original cosponsor of this 
legislation to temporarily suspend the acquisition of oil to 
fill the SPR during the remainder of calendar year 2008 unless 
the price of oil dropped below $75 per barrel for the most 
recent 90-day period.
    Deploying oil from the SPR has a proven record of driving 
down oil prices when it has been used in the past and could 
have helped prick the speculative bubble in the summer of 2008. 
Oil has been released or swapped from the reserve in 
significant quantities on a number of occasions.\402\ In 1991, 
when President George H.W. Bush deployed oil from the reserve, 
oil prices fell 33.4 percent in a single day. In 2000, 
President Clinton loaned SPR oil to the market and prices again 
immediately dropped by 18.7 percent. And in 2005, when 
President Bush himself released oil following Hurricane 
Katrina, prices fell 9.1 percent.\403\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \402\Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Petroleum 
Reserves, at http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/
index.html#Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve (last visited Oct. 20, 
2008).
    \403\See Energy Information Administration, Cushing, OK WTI Spot 
Price FOB, at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the Bush Administration refused to take this 
action when oil prices were spiking during the summer of 2008. 
At a hearing of the Select Committee on May 22, 2008, Chairman 
Markey pressed for Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman to commit 
to releasing oil from the SPR to help consumers. As a result of 
the Administration's refusal to take action that could have 
immediately lowered prices, Chairman Markey drafted legislation 
with Rep. Nick Lampson to require a swap of 10 percent of the 
light oil currently in the reserve for heavier crudes. H.R. 
6578, the ``Consumer Energy Supply Act of 2008,'' would deploy 
70 million barrels of light crude onto the market within six 
months of the bill's enactment. The legislation would then 
direct the Secretary of Energy to subsequently purchase an 
equivalent volume of heavy oil within five years in such a way 
as to maximize the financial return to the Federal government.
    Dr. Rusco of GAO described the effects of exchanging light 
for heavy oil in the reserve at the April 24, 2008 Select 
Committee hearing: ``DOE has not, but should, put heavier 
grades of oil in the Reserve, because, a) many U.S. refineries 
run most efficiently using heavier oil than what is currently 
in the Reserve, and b) heavier oils are cheaper than light 
oils. [S]wapping some of the light oil in the SPR for heavier 
oils * * * would have a dampening effect on the price of these 
light oils by putting them on the market now rather than taking 
them off.''\404\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \404\Hearing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
Global Warming, ``Pumping up Prices: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
and Record Gas Prices,'' April 24, 2004, Transcript at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kyle Simpson, a former Department of Energy official, 
agreed at a later Select Committee hearing, noting: ``History 
shows that strategically releasing oil from the SPR is good 
public policy and can have an immediately beneficial impact on 
crude oil and petroleum product prices.'' Mr. Simpson continued 
that the release of SPR oil ``has had and should continue to 
have the effect of quelling speculation and calming markets, 
resulting in immediate crude oil and product price 
reductions.''\405\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \405\Testimony of C. Kyle Simpson before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, hearing on ``Immediate Relief 
from High Oil Prices: Deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' July 
23, 2008, at 2, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 8, 2008, Speaker Pelosi called on President Bush to 
swap out 10 percent of the SPR in order to help consumers 
facing record prices. The text of H.R. 6578 was included in the 
Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection 
Act, H.R. 6899, which passed the House with strong bipartisan 
support on September 16, 2008 by a vote of 236-189. The Senate 
did not take action on the bill.

Cracking down on speculation

    Over the summer, there was mounting evidence that 
skyrocketing oil prices were at least in part attributable to 
excessive market speculation. Indeed, during an April 1, 2008 
Select Committee hearing, J. Stephen Simon, ExxonMobil's number 
two executive worldwide, testified that based on market 
fundamentals of supply and demand, ``the price [of oil] should 
be somewhere around $50-55 a barrel'' and it was a weakening 
dollar, geopolitical instability, and speculation that was 
driving prices to their level above $100 per barrel at the 
time.\406\ The House considered multiple pieces of legislation 
in the 110th Congress to curb speculation in the oil markets. 
In May, Congress passed the farm bill over President Bush's 
veto that included language to help close the so-called ``Enron 
Loophole'' by bringing energy commodity trades under greater 
federal oversight. On September 18, 2008, the House passed H.R. 
6604, the ``Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability 
Act of 2008.'' This legislation would have closed the so-called 
``London Loophole,'' which allowed traders to avoid regulation 
by offshoring their trades. It also would have increased 
transparency by requiring greater information be made public on 
trading activities in energy markets and subjecting index and 
swap dealers to strict reporting and record keeping 
requirements. In addition, it required the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission to set position limits for energy futures 
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \406\Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, 
hearing on ``Drilling for Answer: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices, 
and the Pursuit of Alternatives,'' April 1, 2008, Transcript at 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Fully Fund LIHEAP and the Weatherization 
Assistance Program: Congress should continue to fully fund 
LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
     Manage the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Protect 
Taxpayers and Consumers: The Department of Energy should cut 
back on or stop filling the SPR when oil prices are high, and 
swap heavier, less expensive oil for light oil currently in the 
SPR, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office. In 
addition, the Department should manage the SPR to protect 
consumers against extreme gasoline price spikes.
     Crack Down on Excessive Speculation: Congress 
should pass legislation to permanently close remaining 
loopholes in energy market oversight that allow excessive 
speculation to occur, and should expand the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission staff to enable more rigorous enforcement of 
existing regulation.

         H. RESPONSIBLY MANAGE DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

    As explained above, expanding domestic oil and gas 
production is unlikely to have a significant impact on oil, 
natural gas, or gasoline prices or to substantially reduce U.S. 
dependence on foreign oil. It is therefore imperative that the 
United States move aggressively to develop alternative energy 
sources, as recommended above. However, as these alternative 
sources are expanded, oil and gas will of course continue to 
play an important role, and the United States should pursue 
responsible development of domestic resources.
    Until this year, offshore oil and gas production off the 
East and West Coasts of the United States was largely 
prohibited by overlapping Executive and Congressional 
moratoria. Since FY 1982, Congress has included a moratorium on 
such drilling in annual appropriations bills. In 1990, 
President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order preventing 
OCS drilling in these areas, and President Clinton subsequently 
extended the executive moratorium through 2012. On July 14, 
2008, President Bush issued a Presidential Directive rescinding 
the executive ban. On September 30, 2008, the 27-year-old 
Congressional moratorium on drilling in federal waters off the 
East and West Coast expired.
    As a result, if the next Administration and the 111th 
Congress allow the status quo to continue, oil and gas drilling 
can occur as close as three miles to the shoreline--the limit 
of federal authority. Drilling that close to our nation's 
beaches would disrupt the tourism and commercial fishing 
industries and leave fragile environmental areas such as the 
Georges Bank off the coast of New England exposed to drilling. 
Northeast fishery landings are valued at approximately $800 
million annually and Georges Bank is the key to the region's 
fishery. New Bedford, Massachusetts is by far the most 
productive fishing port in the United States, in terms of value 
of catch, and commercial fishing brought $350 million into 
Massachusetts in 2007. Allowing oil and gas drilling in Georges 
Bank could have severe adverse effects on this ecosystem and 
our nation's most important fishery.
    Under Speaker Pelosi's leadership, the House has already 
gone on record in favor of a compromise offshore drilling 
plan--the ``Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer 
Protection Act'' (H.R. 6899)--which passed the House in a 
strong, bipartisan vote on September 16, 2008. This plan would 
allow for increased OCS production while at the same time 
protecting the areas within 100 miles of the coast. It would 
also have expanded support for renewable energy and increased 
efficiency. At Chairman Markey's urging, the bill protected 
sensitive marine areas such as Georges Bank and National Marine 
Sanctuaries from drilling.
    In addition to OCS drilling, there are a number of other 
issues relating to domestic oil and gas production that demand 
attention. A strong majority of the 110th Congress supported 
the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008, of which 
Chairman Markey was a lead sponsor, to require oil companies to 
diligently develop the 68 million acres of nonproducing leases 
they already hold. In addition, a series of Gulf of Mexico 
leases issued in 1998 and 1999 erroneously omitted price caps 
for royalty relief. Legislation drafted by Chairman Markey to 
fix the faulty leases has passed the House in the last two 
Congresses. Taxpayers stand to lose between $10 and $60 billion 
if legislation is not passed to correct this problem.\407\ 
Finally, as explained above, construction of the Alaska Natural 
Gas Pipeline could could deliver 4.5 billion cubic feet per day 
of natural gas to the lower 48 States--equivalent to 7 percent 
of current domestic consumption.\408\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \407\Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Royalties, 
Royalty Relief Will Likely Cost the Federal Government Billions but 
Final Costs Have Yet to Be Determined, Report No. GAO-07-369T, at 3 
(Jan. 18, 2007), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07369t.pdf.
    \408\William F. Hederman, The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: Status 
and Current Policy Issues, Congressional Research Service Report No. 
RL34671, at 5 (Sept. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     OCS Drilling Legislation: Congress must work with 
the next President to pass comprehensive legislation dealing 
with offshore drilling to ensure that the nation's beaches and 
marine resources, as well as affected States' rights, are 
protected.
     ``Use It or Lose It'': Congress should enact 
legislation requiring oil and gas companies to diligently 
develop the leases they currently hold.
     Fix 1998-1999 Gulf of Mexico Leases: Congress 
should enact legislation correcting the faulty 1998-1999 Gulf 
of Mexico leases to protect American taxpayers from a $10 to 
$60 billion loss.
     Encourage Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas 
Pipeline: Congress should work with the new Administration to 
encourage development of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

               III. Oversight of the Bush Administration

    The Select Committee has pursued aggressive oversight of 
the Bush Administration's actions relating to climate change 
and energy security--including review of EPA, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Department of 
Energy, the Department of the Interior, and other agencies. In 
the course of many of these activities, the Committee has 
uncovered a deeply troubling pattern of delay, obfuscation, and 
political interference. The next Administration will have a 
great deal of work to do to correct these problems.

               A. EPA'S RESPONSE TO MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA

    The April 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. 
EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), held--contrary to EPA's position 
under the Bush Administration--that greenhouse gases are ``air 
pollutants'' subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The 
decision required EPA to determine whether greenhouse gas 
emissions from motor vehicles and fuels cause or contribute to 
air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 
public health or welfare (a so-called ``endangerment 
finding''), and if so, to issue regulations addressing such 
emissions.
    On May 14, 2007, President Bush directed EPA, along with 
other agencies, to prepare proposed rules in response to 
Massachusetts v. EPA by the end of 2007 and to finalize such 
rules by the end of 2008,\409\ a timeline reiterated by EPA 
Administrator Stephen Johnson at a June 8, 2007 hearing of the 
Select Committee. This resulted in an extensive interagency 
process led by EPA to assess whether greenhouse gas emissions 
from motor vehicles endangered public health or welfare and to 
develop, in close collaboration with the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, proposed regulations to reduce 
such emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \409\See President Bush Discusses CAFE and Alternative Fuel 
Standards (May 14, 2007), at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2007/05/20070514-4.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In January 2008, Chairman Markey sent a letter to 
Administrator Johnson requesting that he appear before the 
Select Committee, and also that he provide a copy of the draft 
regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that had 
reportedly been prepared but never formally proposed. Later 
that month, he reiterated his request in a telephone 
conversation with the Administrator and also asked that a copy 
of the draft endangerment finding be provided. Although 
Administrator Johnson personally agreed to these requests, EPA 
ultimately refused to provide these documents, stating that to 
do so would be confusing to the public, would result in the 
release of ``pre-decisional'' materials, and would have a 
``chilling'' effect on future EPA deliberations.
    Because EPA provided no legally valid reason for 
withholding documents from Congress, the Select Committee, on 
April 3, 2008, issued a subpoena, on a bipartisan basis, for 
the documents. After negotiations with the White House and EPA, 
Select Committee staff viewed the requested documents on June 
20, 2008. In the first half of 2008, Select Committee staff 
also began an extensive series of on- and off-the-record 
conversations with current and former EPA officials related to 
the Agency's response to the Massachusetts v. EPA decision--
including its April 2008 decision to abandon a regulatory 
response in favor of a non-regulatory Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that defers action to the next 
President.\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \410\See, for example, Juliet Eilperin and R. Jeffrey Smith, ``EPA 
Won't Act on Emissions This Year,'' Washington Post, July 11, 2008, at 
A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The culmination of these oversight activities was the July 
18, 2008 publication of a Select Committee staff report 
entitled ``Investigation of the Bush Administration's Response 
to Massachusetts v. EPA: How Big Oil Persuaded the Bush 
Administration to Abandon Proposed Regulations for Global 
Warming Pollution.'' The main conclusions of the report are as 
follows:
     There was widespread agreement within the Bush 
Administration that greenhouse gas emissions from motor 
vehicles endanger public welfare and should be regulated. EPA 
additionally concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from 
stationary sources such as power plants and refineries should 
also be regulated using Clean Air Act authority.
     Numerous heads of Cabinet agencies and White House 
offices endorsed (i) EPA's finding that greenhouse gas 
emissions endanger public welfare, and (ii) EPA's proposals 
that both vehicle and stationary source greenhouse gas 
emissions should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
     In keeping with a prior approval from the White 
House, EPA in December 2007 transmitted to the White House 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a draft ``endangerment 
finding'' for motor vehicles and fuels. However, OMB 
subsequently refused to acknowledge receipt of the finding and 
unsuccessfully pressured EPA to withdraw it.
     Oil industry lobbyists argued against regulatory 
action with the support of the Office of Vice President Cheney. 
Doing the oil industry's bidding, the Bush administration then 
reversed course--deciding to issue a non-regulatory ANPR in 
lieu of regulations.
    By mid-April 2008, President Bush announced in a speech 
that ``the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the 
National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate 
global climate change,'' and went on to assert that Congress, 
not the Executive Branch, was responsible for deciding how to 
address greenhouse gas emissions. Appended to the EPA's text of 
the ANPR released on July 11, 2008 were letters from a number 
of Cabinet secretaries and heads of White House offices--all of 
whom had previously supported regulation of both vehicles and 
stationary sources under the Clean Air Act--embracing the 
President's and the oil industry's views that the Clean Air Act 
was a flawed instrument unsuited for regulation of greenhouse 
gases. The issuance of the ANPR assured that the Bush 
Administration would take no meaningful action to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions despite the Supreme Court's decision 
in Massachusetts v. EPA.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Endangerment Finding: EPA should promptly issue a 
formal ``endangerment finding'' recognizing that greenhouse gas 
emissions from motor vehicles and combustion of fuels for 
onroad and nonroad vehicles and engines--and other appropriate 
source categories--may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 
public health and welfare and should be regulated by EPA under 
the Clean Air Act.
     Clean Air Act Regulations: EPA should promptly 
develop and issue regulations to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from both mobile and stationary sources using Clean 
Air Act authority, and submit to Congress any recommendations 
for legislation needed to clarify such authority. Congress 
should provide aggressive oversight of EPA's implementation of 
its legal obligations under the Clean Air Act.

          B. NHTSA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

    EISA directed the Department of Transportation, through the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to 
raise fuel economy standards for both cars and light trucks to 
a fleet-wide average of at least thirty-five miles per gallon 
(mpg) in 2020 starting with model year 2011 vehicles. In each 
model year, NHTSA is additionally directed to require the 
maximum feasible fuel economy increase.
    In setting the maximum feasible increase, NHTSA uses a 
computer model that compares the costs of incorporating fuel 
efficient technologies into the projected automotive fleet 
(using model information provided by automakers) with the 
benefits of incorporating them (including direct benefits such 
as the gasoline costs that consumers would not have to spend, 
and indirect benefits such as the monetized cost of 
CO2 emissions that would not occur, or energy 
security costs that would not have to be borne). Analysis by 
NHTSA and others has shown that assuming a higher price of 
gasoline for a given model year has by far the largest impact 
on how high the maximum feasible standard can be set while 
remaining economically practicable.
    On April 22, 2008, NHTSA issued a proposed rule including 
proposed standards for model years 2011-2015 which should 
result in a projected fleetwide average of 31.6 mpg. However, 
in its proposal NHTSA used the Energy Information 
Administration's (EIA) 2008 mid-range forecast for gasoline 
prices that range from $2.42/gallon in 2016 to $2.51/gallon in 
2030--well below current prices. NHTSA's reliance on these 
highly unrealistic projections have the effect of artificially 
lowering the calculated ``maximum feasible'' fuel economy 
standards that NHTSA is directed by law to promulgate.
    For modeling purposes only, NHTSA used EIA's higher 
gasoline price scenario: $3.14/gallon in 2016 to $3.74/gallon 
in 2030. This analysis demonstrated that fleet-wide fuel 
economy of nearly 35 mpg in 2015 is cost-effectively 
achievable. Moreover, the Select Committee's investigation into 
the Bush Administration's response to the Massachusetts v. EPA 
Supreme Court decision (discussed above) also found that when 
EPA used the EIA 2007 high gasoline price projections of $2.75 
in 2017 to $3.20 in 2030 to calculate its proposed automobile 
tailpipe emissions standards, it found that the car fleet could 
cost-effectively achieve an effective fuel economy standard of 
43.3 mpg by 2018 and light trucks could achieve a standard of 
30.6 mpg by 2017.
    On June 11, 2008, Guy Caruso, then-Administrator of EIA, 
testified before the House Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming. During questioning, 
Administrator Caruso agreed that NHTSA should use EIA's high 
gas price scenario in setting fuel economy standards. However, 
in a June 27, 2008 Select Committee hearing, the Department of 
Transportation refused to commit to doing so. On July 29, 2008, 
Chairman Markey and Congressman Todd Russell Platts introduced 
H.R. 6643, the ``Accuracy in Fuel Economy Standards Act,'' 
which would compel NHTSA to take this common sense approach.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Accurate Price Benchmarks for Fuel Economy 
Standards: Congress should enact H.R. 6643, the ``Accuracy in 
Fuel Economy Standards Act,'' to ensure that NHTSA uses the 
more accurate high gas price scenario developed by EIA when 
setting fuel economy standards.
     Oversight of CAFE Implementation: Congress should 
continue to aggressively oversee NHTSA's implementation of the 
fuel economy provisions in EISA, to ensure that NHTSA is using 
realistic and current assessments not only of projected 
gasoline prices, but also of the costs of fuel efficient 
technologies, the types of technologies that are available, the 
monetized indirect benefits of incorporating fuel efficient 
technologies, and the types of vehicles that are likely to be 
part of the automotive fleet.

                        C. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

1. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    As explained above, the Select Committee pursued aggressive 
oversight of the Department of Energy's management of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, holding two hearings on the 
management of the SPR on April 24, 2008 and on deploying oil 
from the SPR on July 23, 2008. Recommendations on management of 
the SPR are reflected above.

2. Saudi nuclear agreement

    On May 16, 2008, the United States signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with Saudi Arabia that would provide for 
the nuclear energy cooperation between the two countries. The 
MOU states, in part, that ``participants intend to cooperate, 
subject to their respective national laws, in the areas of: 
development of mutually acceptable requirements for 
appropriately-sized light water reactors and fuel service 
arrangements for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; promoting the 
establishment of arrangements that would allow future civilian 
light water nuclear reactors deployed in the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia access to reliable nuclear fuel supplies and services; 
development of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's civilian nuclear 
energy use in a manner that contributes to global efforts to 
prevent nuclear energy proliferation.''
    During a May 22, 2008 Select Committee oversight hearing, 
Chairman Markey questioned Secretary Bodman about the need to 
provide nuclear power to Saudi Arabia, given that it has the 
world's largest oil reserves and huge potential for solar 
electricity generation. Chairman Markey noted that facilitating 
the development of nuclear technology in Saudi Arabia makes 
little sense given the volatility of the region and the 
country's massive solar energy potential and natural gas 
resources. Astonishingly, Secretary Bodman testified that he 
was not involved in the formulation or negotiation of the 
agreement. Following the hearing, Chairman Markey introduced 
H.R. 6298, which would prevent the United States from entering 
into any further nuclear agreements with Saudi Arabia and to 
ban any U.S. exports of any nuclear materials, equipment or 
technology to Saudi Arabia.

 D. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR--ENDANGERED POLAR BEARS AND CHUKCHI SEA OIL 
                            AND GAS LEASING

    The Bush Administration delayed a decision whether to list 
the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act until after it 
had completed an oil and gas lease sale in essential polar bear 
habitat off the coast of Alaska.
    Polar bears depend on sea ice for nearly every aspect of 
life, including hunting Arctic ringed seals, which serve as 
their primary food. Arctic sea ice is already being affected by 
global warming. According to a study earlier this year by 
scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research 
(NCAR), the Arctic Ocean could be devoid of ice as early as 
2040. Furthermore, in re-analyzing arctic sea ice data, NASA 
scientist Jay Zwally projected that the Arctic Ocean could be 
ice-free as early as the summer of 2012. At a briefing held by 
the Select Committee on the warming Arctic on September 25, 
2007, Members heard from former Interior Department official 
Deborah Williams who spoke of how Alaska has warmed at four 
times the rate of the rest of the globe over the last 50 
years.\411\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \411\Briefing hosted by the Select Committee on Energy Independence 
and Global Warming entitled ``Briefing on the Melting Arctic: Global 
Warming's Impacts on the Polar Region,'' Sept. 25, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States has two polar bear populations, both in 
Alaska--the southern Beaufort Sea population and the Chukchi 
and Bering Seas population. There is significant overlap 
between these two populations in the western Beaufort and 
eastern Chukchi Sea. According to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, both of these population stocks are currently in 
decline. The southern Beaufort Sea population has been 
estimated at roughly 1,500 bears and is believed to be 
declining. An accurate assessment of polar bear populations for 
the Chukchi and Bering Seas population does not exist, but it 
is thought that this population consists of approximately 2,000 
bears and is also declining.\412\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \412\U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 
Polar Bear: Conservation Issues, at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/
mmm/polarbear/issues.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bush Administration's own scientists project that the 
prospects for the polar bear's survival are bleak. Last year, 
Dr. Steven Amstrup, the government's leading polar bear 
scientist, headed up a team of scientists charged with 
examining the impacts of sea ice loss on polar bear 
populations. In a series of reports released last fall, Dr. 
Amstrup's team concluded that by mid-century, two-thirds of all 
the world's polar bears could disappear and that polar bears 
could be gone entirely from Alaska. Dr. Amstrup's team also 
noted that based on recent observations, this dire assessment 
could actually be conservative.\413\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \413\U.S. Geological Survey, New Polar Bear Finding, at http://
www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/ (last visited Oct. 20, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the mounting scientific evidence that global 
warming endangers polar bears, the Bush Administration 
manipulated the process for listing under the Endangered 
Species Act to facilitate oil and gas leasing in the Chukchi 
Sea, an essential habitat area for polar bears. In September 
2005, the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service 
(MMS) had announced its intent to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for a lease sale in the Chukchi Sea 
Outer Continental Shelf planning area. Lease sale 193 would 
cover nearly 30 million acres in the Chukchi Sea.
    On January 9, 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service published 
a proposed rule to list the polar bear as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act. However, the Service found that the 
designation of critical habitat was ``not determinable.''\414\ 
The Secretary is required to make a designation of critical 
habitat ``concurrently'' with the determination to list a 
species under the Act unless the critical habitat for a species 
is ``not then determinable.''\415\ The Interior Department 
chose at that time not to designate critical habitat for the 
polar bear, which likely would have included areas in the 
Chukchi Sea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \414\U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Rule To 
List the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened Throughout Its 
Range; Proposed Rule72 Fed. Reg. 1096, 1097 (Jan. 9, 2007).
    \415\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(6)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The MMS published its final EIS for the Chukchi Sea lease 
sale in June 2007, which concluded that polar bears would be 
extremely vulnerable to a potential oil spill in the Arctic 
Ocean, especially at certain times of year. ``Oil spills have 
the greatest potential for affecting polar bears in part due to 
the difficulties involved in cleaning up spills in remote 
areas, given the wide variety of possible (sea) ice conditions 
in the Chukchi Sea.''\416\ In addition, despite referring to a 
large oil spill as an ``unlikely event,'' the MMS estimates in 
the EIS that there is a 33-51 percent chance that an oil spill 
greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels will occur in offshore 
waters as a result of oil and gas activities.\417\ In response 
to the draft EIS, EPA had submitted comments questioning MMS' 
assessment of the risk of an oil spill, stating that ``the 
actual likelihood that a large oil spill would occur and 
significantly impact high-value resources should be considered 
much greater.'' EPA also suggested that the MMS assessment of 
the cumulative impact of oil and gas activities in northern 
Alaska was inadequate. However, it appears that MMS failed to 
address EPA's comments in the final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \416\Minerals Management Service, Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and 
Gas Lease Sale 193, Final Environmental Impact Statement at II-38 (May 
2007).
    \417\Id. at ES-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 2, 2008, MMS published its final notice of sale 
for the Chukchi Sea lease sale. The Endangered Species Act 
requires that the Secretary make a final determination as to 
whether a species warrants listing under the act within one 
year of the date of publication of the proposed rule. However, 
on January 7, 2008, Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall 
announced that the Service would miss its statutorily required 
deadline of January 9, 2008 for issuing a final listing 
decision for the polar bear.
    Because the Bush Administration appeared to be delaying the 
Endangered Species Act listing decision for the polar bear 
until after it had held the Chukchi oil lease sale in polar 
bear habitat, the Select Committee held a hearing on January 
17, 2008, entitled ``On Thin Ice: the Future of the Polar 
Bear.'' This was the first Congressional hearing looking at the 
implications of the timing of these two critical decisions 
within the Interior Department. The Select Committee received 
testimony from the directors of MMS (the Interior Department 
agency responsible for conducting the Chukchi Sea oil lease 
sale) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (the agency responsible 
for listing the polar bear). During the hearing, Chairman 
Markey questioned the two directors whether the Secretary of 
the Interior could and should step in to delay the oil lease 
sale until after a decision on whether and how to protect the 
polar bear was made. Former Fish and Wildlife Service Director 
Jamie Rappaport Clark testified in support of the Secretary 
making the polar bear listing decision before going ahead with 
the lease sale, stating, ``On the one hand [the Secretary] has 
an obvious statutory responsibility to make a decision based on 
the best science available, whether or not the polar bear 
deserves the protection of the Endangered Species Act. On the 
other hand, he has a somewhat discretionary decision on timing 
of oil and gas leasing in the Chukchi, very different 
decisions.''\418\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \418\Id at 96-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the hearing, Chairman Markey introduced H.R. 
5058, a bill which would delay the Chukchi Lease sale and 
related drilling activities until after the Fish and Wildlife 
Service had made a decision on whether or not to list the polar 
bear.
    The Interior Department conducted the Chukchi Lease sale as 
scheduled on February 6, 2008. Subsequently, on May 15, 2008, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule listing the 
polar bear as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act. 
However, in listing the polar bear as threatened, the Service 
left a loophole to allow oil and gas activities to continue in 
Alaska, which are contributing to the loss of the polar bear's 
Arctic habitat. Specifically, when issuing the ``threatened'' 
listing, the Administration simultaneously issued an interim 
final rule for the polar bear under section 4(d) of the ESA. 
This so-called ``4(d) rule'' was used to allow oil and gas 
activities to continue in Alaska as long as companies comply 
with existing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act.
    On October 6, 2008, in a settlement of litigation brought 
by environmental groups, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed 
its earlier decision not to designate critical for polar bears. 
The settlement sets a deadline of June 30, 2010, for issuance 
of a final rule designating critical habitat.
    Recommendations: The 111th Congress and the next 
Administration should prioritize the following actions:
     Close Endangered Species Act Loophole: The 
Department of Interior must close the regulatory loophole in 
the polar bear listing that allows for oil and gas activities 
to proceed unchecked in essential polar bear habitat off the 
coast of Alaska.
     Oversee Critical Habitat Designation: Congress 
should provide oversight to ensure that the Department of the 
Interior moves expeditiously to designate critical habitat for 
the polar bear.

E. EPA AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION--OVERSIGHT OF THE VOLUNTARY CARBON 
                             OFFSET MARKET

    In July 2007, the Select Committee held a hearing entitled 
``Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Getting What You Pay For,'' at 
which it examined the voluntary carbon offset market. Carbon 
offsets are based on the notion that individuals or companies 
can neutralize the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to 
some or all of their activities by supporting projects that 
either reduce emissions elsewhere or enhance biological 
sequestration of carbon. Common examples of offset projects 
include capturing and flaring of methane emissions from 
landfills or farm animal waste, substituting renewable 
electricity generation for conventional fossil fuel-based 
generation, undertaking energy efficiency improvements, and 
reforestation or no-till agricultural practices intended to 
increase sequestration of carbon in trees or soils.
    Recently, a growing number of companies have begun to sell 
carbon offsets--intangible commodities representing the 
greenhouse gas reductions purportedly achieved by offset 
projects--both at retail to consumers and at wholesale to 
companies and other large-scale buyers. The voluntary offset 
market is growing dramatically. In the United States, there are 
now over 30 companies selling offsets at retail prices ranging 
from $5 to over $50 per ton of CO2 equivalent. The 
value of the global voluntary offset market is estimated to be 
well over $100 million annually, and experts project that it 
easily could grow to several hundred million dollars annually 
in the foreseeable future.
    Although few would contend that this voluntary market is 
likely to yield greenhouse gas reductions on a large enough 
scale to put a real dent in rising global emissions, it has the 
potential to make a nontrivial contribution. Perhaps more 
important, many believe this market provides a potentially 
important avenue for educating the public about global warming 
and giving citizens a sense of participation in addressing 
climate change. Notwithstanding its promise, the voluntary 
offset market has become a source of growing controversy. Some 
of this controversy centers on the debate over whether offsets 
are being used as a convenient excuse to avoid changes in 
behavior that could directly (and perhaps more significantly) 
reduce emissions. More important, however, have been a number 
of reports raising doubts as to whether consumers are really 
getting what they pay for when they buy offsets--that is, 
whether offsets actually represent real and permanent 
reductions. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the 
voluntary offset market is unregulated and many offset 
providers do not give consumers adequate information about 
their projects or accounting methods. Consumers may be unaware 
of the complex accounting issues relating to offsets, and may 
have little idea of whether and how the provider has addressed 
these issues. Voluntary standards have proliferated, but there 
has been little or no government oversight.
    Following the July 2007 hearing, Chairman Markey wrote to 
Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC), urging the FTC to undertake a public process designed to 
update its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims 
(the so-called ``green guides'') to address voluntary carbon 
offsets--with the objective of preventing unfair or deceptive 
conduct in this market and assuring consumer confidence. 
Subsequently, Chairman Markey wrote to EPA Administrator 
Stephen Johnson, requesting that EPA take a leadership role in 
helping to develop standards governing the voluntary offset 
market and that it assist the FTC in implementing its mandate 
to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive trade 
practices. The FTC responded by agreeing to hold a series of 
public workshops on the voluntary carbon offset market, in 
preparation for the revision of its green guides. EPA, for its 
part, agreed to assist the FTC as well as to continue its own 
efforts to develop offset standards through its Climate Leaders 
program.

                         F. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

1. Hunt Oil

    In September 2007, it was revealed that Hunt Oil Company 
and Kurdistan's regional government had signed a production-
sharing contract for petroleum exploration in the Kurdistan 
region of northern Iraq. Both the U.S. State Department and the 
Iraqi Oil minister expressed alarm that the contract damaged 
the ongoing negotiations to create a national Iraqi oil revenue 
law.
    Chairman Markey on October 2 and October 12, 2007, sent 
letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requesting a 
timeline of events surrounding the Hunt Oil contract and 
questioning the role of the Department of State in this 
episode. Chairman Markey expressed concern that Ray Hunt, CEO 
of Hunt Oil and a major fundraiser for President Bush, may have 
used his membership on the influential President's Foreign 
Intelligence Advisory Board to work with the Kurdistan 
government, or that Hunt's close ties with the Bush 
Administration had lent legitimacy to a practice that U.S. and 
Iraqi officials criticized.
    On October 18, 2007, the State Department replied that Hunt 
Oil provided prior notice to the U.S. government of its 
intentions to sign an oil contract with the Kurdistan Regional 
Government, and that State Department officials told Hunt Oil 
that its company would ``incur significant political and legal 
risk by signing contracts with any party before the Hydrocarbon 
Framework Law is passed by the Iraqi Parliament and that 
signature of such contracts would needlessly elevate tensions 
between the KRG [Kurdistan Regional Government] and the 
Government of Iraq.'' The State Department noted that the Hunt 
Oil contract negotiation ``is not helpful'' given that it 
``complicates negotiations'' for the Hydrocarbon Framework Law.
    The State Department refused to answer questions regarding 
Mr. Hunt's dual role as both President of Hunt Oil and also a 
senior foreign intelligence advisor to the President of the 
United States. Mr. Markey wrote to the White House on October 
19, 2007 to ask when the White House knew of Hunt Oil's 
activities in Iraq, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that 
PFIAB members do not use classified information for personal 
gain or bias their advice on intelligence matters in light of 
their business interests, and how the White House will respond 
to other private companies who might pursue oil drilling rights 
in Iraq prior to the Iraqi government establishing an oil 
sharing agreement. The White House did not respond to this 
inquiry.

2. Human rights

    In recognition of the growing humanitarian impacts of 
climate change, the United Nations Human Rights Council--of 
which the United States is not a member--was presented with a 
resolution directing the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 
to conduct a study of the impacts of climate change on human 
rights and encouraging UN members to contribute to the study. 
In response, Chairman Markey wrote a letter to State Department 
Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky, challenging the State 
Department to determine whether climate change would impact 
human rights, and whether this would create threats to our 
national security. Undersecretary Dobriansky responded that the 
State Department does not consider there to be any ``direct 
formal relationship between'' climate change and human rights, 
but acknowledges that protection of the environment ``may 
further the realization of certain human rights.'' She noted 
further that the United States had ``participated 
constructively'' in informal negotiations on the resolution 
discussed above. The UN Human Rights Council ultimately adopted 
the resolution by consensus on March 28, 2008.\419\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \419\See United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 7/23, 
Human Rights and Climate Change (Mar. 28, 2008), available at http://
ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             G. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

    There has long been broad agreement throughout the public 
health community that climate change poses a serious threat to 
public health both in the United States and around the world. 
However, when Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Dr. 
Julie Gerberding was asked to testify before the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works in October 2007, the 
White House censored her testimony.\420\ She was prevented from 
stating what CDC's own scientists, other public health 
researchers, and the IPCC had concluded about climate change's 
impacts on health. In response, Chairman Markey wrote to Dr. 
Gerberding in December 2007 requesting her views on the threat 
to public health posed by global warming. In April 2008, the 
Select Committee held a hearing on public health and climate 
change, at which Dr. Howard Frumkin, Director of CDC's National 
Center on Environmental Health, testified. The Select Committee 
engaged in active oversight of the CDC testimony clearance 
process. At the hearing, Dr. Frumkin was able to clearly state 
what had been removed from Dr. Gerberding's testimony: ``The 
CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.'' 
This was the first time during Congressional testimony that a 
federal agency official acknowledged climate change could have 
major consequences for human health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \420\See, e.g., Juliet Eilperin, ``Cheney's Staff Cut Testimony on 
Warming,'' Washington Post, July 9, 2008, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       IV. International Efforts


                 A. INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS

    A global effort will be required to protect the planet from 
the looming climate crisis--putting international climate 
negotiations at the heart of the fight against global warming. 
As highlighted above, global greenhouse gas emissions will need 
to be cut by at least 50-85 percent by 2050 to prevent 
dangerous global warming. While the United States and other 
developed countries are responsible for most of the cumulative 
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and are among 
the highest per capita emitters in the world, the largest 
proportion of the projected growth in global greenhouse gas 
emissions over the coming decades will come from the developing 
world. The past two years have seen substantial new 
developments with regard to international climate negotiations. 
With the conclusion of an agreement in Bali, Indonesia in 
December 2007 establishing a ``roadmap'' for future 
negotiations, many are now looking towards the negotiation of a 
post-Kyoto global framework to govern international efforts in 
this sphere after 2012. The Bali roadmap calls for the 
completion of such an agreement at the Fifteenth Conference of 
the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at 
Copenhagen in December 2009.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

    In 1992, the United Nations convened 172 nations at the 
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro for the first attempt of 
governments to fundamentally address global warming. From the 
summit, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change (UNFCCC) emerged. It came into effect in 1994 and was 
ultimately ratified by 192 nations, including the United 
States. The Convention set the ultimate objective of 
stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at safe 
levels and incorporated a voluntary initial goal that 
industrialized countries should take the lead in tackling the 
problem by cutting their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.

The Kyoto Protocol

    In 1995, the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties 
(COP) to the UNFCCC adopted the Berlin Mandate, which called 
for the negotiation of a new agreement that would augment the 
UNFCCC with stricter demands for reducing emissions. This led 
to the development of the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed in 
1997 by 84 countries. The Protocol set mandatory targets for 
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the world's 
developed countries by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 
levels between 2008 and 2012. Ultimately 175 countries--
including virtually all developed countries other than the 
United States and Australia--ratified the Protocol, which 
officially entered into force in February 2005. Australia 
ratified the Protocol in December 2007, leaving the United 
States as the only industrialized country that has not done so.
    Kyoto establishes a cap-and-trade system that allows 
developed countries to meet their commitments through trading 
of marketable credits under the International Emissions Trading 
System (IET). Kyoto's other ``flexibility mechanisms''--Joint 
Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)--
allow developed countries to meet their emissions targets in 
part through the purchase of tradable offset credits generated 
by emission reduction projects in other countries. Through this 
array of market-based mechanisms, the Kyoto Protocol laid the 
groundwork for what has become known as the global ``carbon 
market.''

Developments leading to Bali

    The annual UNFCCC meeting in Montreal in 2005 was the first 
held after the Kyoto Protocol came into force. It launched the 
efforts to negotiate the next climate agreement that would come 
into effect at the end of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period 
in 2012. At the conclusion of the meeting both the Conference 
of the Parties--those countries including the United States who 
have ratified the UNFCCC--and the Members of the Kyoto Protocol 
had agreed to further dialogues toward a post-2012 framework.
    The 2006 UNFCCC meeting in Nairobi did not make much 
progress on the negotiations for a post-2012 agreement, 
increasing the pressure to make significant progress at the 
2007 UNFCCC meeting in Bali, Indonesia. In order to be ready to 
implement a new climate agreement in 2012, negotiations need to 
be concluded by the end of 2009. Therefore, countries were 
under pressure at Bali to agree to a negotiating mandate, such 
as the Berlin Mandate which guided the Kyoto Protocol 
negotiations, in order to bring negotiations to a successful 
conclusion in 2009.
    Given the importance of moving the UNFCCC negotiations 
forward, Secretary-General Ban appointed three Special Envoys 
on Climate Change and convened a High-Level Event on Climate 
Change in New York on September 24, 2007. Approximately 160 
countries, including 80 heads of State or Government, 
participated in the daylong discussion of the climate 
challenge. In preparation for Bali, attention was focused on 
global actions relating to mitigation, adaptation and 
investment in technology development and deployment, along with 
discussion of financial flows to facilitate such action. On 
September 26, 2007, the Select Committee hosted a briefing at 
which the three UN Special Envoys, together with Sigmar 
Gabriel, the German Federal Minister for the Environment, 
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, discussed the state of 
play and prospects for international action on climate change.

United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia

    From December 3-15, 2007, representatives from more than 
180 countries met in Bali, Indonesia for the United Nations 
Climate Change Conference--also known as COP 13 (the thirteenth 
conference of the parties to the UNFCCC). The principal item on 
the agenda was the development of a ``roadmap'' for the 
negotiation of a new global climate change agreement governing 
the period after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol's commitment 
period ends. The Select Committee sent a staff delegation to 
the negotiations, and Chairman Markey delivered the first 
international address on climate to the meeting using virtual 
world (``Second Life'') technology. On December 19, 2007, the 
Select Committee held a hearing entitled ``After Bali--the UN 
Conference and its Impact on International Climate Change 
Policy'' at which Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican 
representatives at the Bali conference, and several other 
leading experts on the international negotiations testified.
    The Bali Action Plan--the ``roadmap'' agreement reached at 
the conference--calls upon the parties to negotiate a new 
agreement to be adopted at the Fifteenth Conference of the 
Parties, to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 
2009.\421\ The roadmap recognizes the findings of the IPCC's 
2007 Fourth Assessment Report that global warming is 
unequivocal and that delay in reducing emissions increases the 
risk of severe climate change impacts and decreases the 
opportunity to achieve lower stabilization levels of greenhouse 
gases. The agreement further recognizes that ``deep cuts in 
global emissions will be required'' to avoid dangerous impacts 
from climate change and emphasizes the IPCC's findings 
regarding the ``urgency to address climate change''--referring 
in a footnote to the IPCC's conclusions regarding the range of 
emission reductions required to meet certain atmospheric 
greenhouse gas stabilization targets. The draft roadmap 
agreement had originally included language, advocated by the EU 
and others, recognizing the need for emissions to peak within 
the next 10-15 years, for global emissions to be reduced by 
over 50 percent by 2050, and for developed countries to reduce 
emissions by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This 
language was dropped in the face of strong opposition from the 
United States, Russia, and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \421\Decision 1/CP.13, ``Bali Action Plan,'' available at http://
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The roadmap identifies four major pillars of climate policy 
as the basis for future negotiations: mitigation, adaptation, 
technology development and transfer, and financial resources 
and investment. With regard to mitigation, the agreement calls 
for consideration of actions by both developed and developing 
countries. For developed countries, the roadmap calls for 
consideration of ``measurable, reportable, and verifiable 
nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, 
including quantified emission limitation and reduction 
objectives.'' This ambiguous language encompasses, but does not 
appear to require, absolute emissions caps for all developed 
country parties.
    Perhaps most importantly, as several of the witnesses at 
the December 19, 2007 Select Committee hearing emphasized, the 
roadmap also included developing countries in the mitigation 
agreement for the first time. Developing nations agreed to 
consider ``nationally appropriate mitigation actions'' that are 
``measurable, reportable and verifiable'' so long as they are 
supported by ``measurable, reportable and verifiable'' support 
in the form of technology transfer, financing, and capacity-
building. In addition, the roadmap calls, among other things, 
for consideration of enhanced action on adaptation to climate 
change, technology transfer to developing countries, and 
financial support for mitigation and adaptation activities in 
developing countries.
    In keeping with the Bali Conference's heightened focus on 
adaptation, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol established an 
Adaptation Fund Board to oversee the implementation of the 
Adaptation Fund established under the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund 
is financed through a 2 percent levy on CDM transactions and 
will be used to assist the developing country parties to Kyoto 
that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of 
climate change.
    Delegates to the Bali Conference also considered policies 
to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation 
in developing countries (referred to as ``REDD''). Although 
deforestation and forest degradation account for roughly 20 
percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, this area of 
climate change policy had never before been brought into the 
agreement. As a first step in this sphere, the Conference 
delegates agreed to ``explore a range of actions, identify 
options and undertake efforts, including demonstration 
activities'' to achieve ``demonstrable, transparent, and 
verifiable'' emissions reductions from deforestation and forest 
degradation.

Other international negotiations

    In addition to the UN process outlined above, there have 
been a number of parallel international negotiation processes 
addressing climate change in recent years. Climate change was a 
major focus of the annual G8 summit held from June 6-8, 2007, 
in Heiligendamm, Germany. At the summit, the European Union, 
Canada and Japan agreed to ``at least halve carbon dioxide 
emissions by 2050,''\422\ but the United States declined to 
join in this agreement. All eight nations instead agreed that, 
in working to set a long-term global goal for emissions 
reductions, they would ``consider seriously'' the 50 percent 
reduction by 2050 commitment.\423\ Participating parties agreed 
that ``the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for 
negotiating future global action on climate change'' and 
reiterated ``the need to engage major emitting economies on how 
best to address the challenge of climate change.''\424\ The 
Joint Statement by the German G8 Presidency and the Heads of 
States of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, stated 
that these developing countries ``remain committed to 
contribute our fair share to tackle climate change in order to 
stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would 
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate 
system.''\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \422\G8 Summit 2007, Heiligendamm, Chair's Summary (June 8, 2007), 
available at http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/_g8-summit/anlagen/
chairs-summary,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/chairs-
summary.
    \423\Id.; see also G8 Summit 2007, Heiligendamm, Summit 
Declaration: Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy at 16 (June 
7, 2007), available at http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/_g8-summit/
anlagen/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-
eng,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/2007-06-07-
gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng.
    \424\Id.
    \425\G8 Summit 2007, Heiligendamm, Joint Statement by the German G8 
Presidency and the Heads of State and/or Government of Brazil, China, 
India, Mexico and South Africa on the occasion of the G8 Summit in 
Heiligendamm, Germany, at 2 (June 8 2007), available at http://www.g-
8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/_g8-summit/anlagen/o5-erklaerung-
en,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/o5-erklaerung-en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The week prior to the Heiligendamm summit, President Bush 
announced his support for a negotiation process involving the 
``major emitter'' countries--both developed and developing--to 
establish a post-2012 framework for action on international 
climate change. In September 2007, President Bush hosted a 
meeting of 17 major economies on energy security and climate 
change in Washington, DC. The White House billed this ``Major 
Economies'' meeting as complementary to the United Nations 
climate change negotiation process. At the meeting, the White 
House advocated advancing clean energy technologies, setting 
long-term ``aspirational'' goals for global greenhouse gas 
emission reductions, and allowing each nation to set its own 
strategy for emissions reductions rather than agreeing to 
internationally binding obligations. Two more Major Economies 
meetings were held--one on January 30-31, 2008, in Honolulu, 
Hawaii, and one on April 17-18, 2008, in Paris France.
    In July 2008, the G8 met in Hokkaido, Japan. A leaders' 
meeting of the Major Economies process was held in conjunction 
with the G8 summit. Despite hopes that the leaders might 
announce a long-term global goal for emissions reductions, no 
such agreement was reached. Instead, the G8 opted only to 
``seek to share with all Parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, 
and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC 
negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of 
global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this global 
challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, 
by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with 
the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and 
respective capabilities.''\426\ The Major Economies leaders, 
for their part, ``recognize[d] that deep cuts in global 
emissions will be necessary to achieve the [UN Framework] 
Convention's ultimate objective,'' called for the setting of a 
long-term global goal through the UN negotiation process, and 
called upon developed countries to ``implement, consistent with 
international obligations, economy-wide mid-term goals and take 
corresponding actions in order to achieve absolute emission 
reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of 
emissions as soon as possible,'' and, finally, called upon 
developing countries to ``pursue, in the context of sustainable 
development, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, 
supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-
building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as 
usual emissions.''\427\ In short, no firm emission reduction 
commitments were made by any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \426\G8 Summit 2008, Hokkaido, Chair's Summary (July 9, 2008), 
available at http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080709_09_en.html.
    \427\G8 Summit 2008, Hokkaido, Declaration of Leaders Meeting of 
Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change, available at 
http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080709_10_en.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Road to Copenhagen

    With the negotiation of the Bali Action Plan and with 
President Bush's tenure nearing its completion, international 
attention has now turned to the process of negotiating a new 
post-2012 international climate agreement--slated to be 
completed by the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the 
UNFCCC, to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009. 
Successful negotiation of a new agreement in that time frame 
will require the incoming U.S. administration to move with 
alacrity, as less than a year will remain between the 
inauguration of the 44th President of the United States and the 
Copenhagen meeting and it will take time for the new 
administration to put its team in place. It will be imperative 
that the 111th Congress work in concert with the new 
Administration in support of the negotiating process, as 
legislative actions will undoubtedly be necessary to support 
and help shape the Administration's negotiating positions on 
greenhouse gas emission reductions, clean technology financing, 
and international adaptation to climate change impacts.

             B. SELECT COMMITTEE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS

    Even as climate negotiations have progressed, the Select 
Committee has actively pursued international dialogue and 
cooperation on climate and energy solutions--most notably 
through three Congressional delegations to Greenland, the 
European Union, Brazil, and India, respectively. Two of these--
the Greenland/EU and India delegations--were led by Speaker 
Pelosi.

Greenland and the European Union--May 2008

    In late May 2008, Chairman Markey and other members of the 
Select Committee joined Speaker Pelosi on a fact-finding 
Congressional delegation to Greenland, Germany, the United 
Kingdom, and Belgium. The trip explored both the severe impacts 
of global warming and the solutions many EU nations are taking 
to cut heat-trapping global warming emissions.
    In Greenland, the delegation witnessed first-hand the 
effects of rising temperatures. Global warming is already 
having negative impacts on the livelihoods of Greenland's 
indigenous Inuit population of roughly 45,000. The loss of 
stable, year-round sea ice is disrupting traditional seal-
hunting and fishing practices on which Inuit livelihoods 
depend. The melting of permafrost is causing extensive damage 
to homes and other infrastructure in Inuit villages. The 
Greenland Premier Hans Enoksen, national and local leaders, and 
residents all emphasized that changes to their environment are 
rapid and have far reaching economic and cultural impacts.
    During a visit to Dr. Konrad Steffen's research station on 
the Greenland ice sheet, Select Committee members learned about 
the mounting scientific evidence that global warming is causing 
an alarming acceleration in the rate of melting of the 
Greenland ice sheet. Average temperatures in southern Greenland 
have increased by over 4 +F in the past two decades, and the 
area of Greenland's ice sheet that melts each summer has 
increased by 16 percent from 1979 to 2002. Several of 
Greenland's largest glaciers are now flowing towards the sea at 
nearly 8 miles per year, twice as fast as they did just 5 years 
ago. The ice sheet now dumps nearly three times as much ice 
into the sea as it did 10 years ago--enough every 2 to 3 days 
during the melting season to supply New York City with fresh 
water for an entire year. Scientists have also observed an 
alarming increase in ``ice quakes'' due to glacial movement--
measuring up to 5.0 on the Richter scale--raising questions 
about the ice sheet's stability. These trends indicate that the 
accelerating melting of Greenland's ice sheet increases the 
risk that dangerous sea-level rise will occur sooner than 
previously predicted.
    After witnessing the tangible impacts of global warming on 
Greenland, the delegation then traveled to Europe to discuss 
policy and technology solutions to effectively reduce carbon 
emissions. In Germany the delegation met with Chancellor Angela 
Merkel, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and 
Environmental Minister Sigmar Gabriel. They outlined Germany's 
three-pronged approach to reducing global warming pollution by 
increasing energy efficiency, expanding renewable energy use, 
and developing climate-friendly fossil fuel technology. Germany 
has committed to increasing energy efficiency by 20 percent and 
using 30 percent renewable energy by 2020. To achieve these 
objectives, it has instituted innovative policies. For example, 
national building standards are raised periodically to ensure 
continual efficiency improvements in buildings, and Germany has 
created a national fund that provides low-interest loans for 
efficiency improvements. Their feed-in tariff law, which pays 
set amounts for electricity generated from renewable sources, 
has helped increase renewable electricity use from 1 percent in 
2000 to 11 percent in 2006.
    The development of climate-friendly energy technology is 
key to Germany's economic development strategy. Currently, 
Germany holds an impressive 20 percent share of the global 
energy technology market. The existing $100 billion market for 
environmentally friendly energy technology will double in the 
next 10 to 15 years, and a central economic question is who 
will supply this new technology developed in response to 
domestic policies.
    Despite their successful domestic policies, the German 
leaders underscored the importance of an international climate 
agreement that commits all countries to equitable actions to 
reduce global warming pollution. The delegation was visiting 
Germany two weeks before the G8 summit hosted by Germany in 
Heiligendamm, discussed above, at which Chancellor Merkel made 
climate change a priority issue.
    While in the United Kingdom, the delegation met with a 
number of Members of Parliament from the Labour, Conservative, 
and Liberal Democratic parties, and with the Secretary for the 
Environment, David Miliband. At that time, the Labour 
government had recently introduced its draft climate bill and 
Parliament was preparing to move the legislation. The draft 
legislation set a minimum target of reducing UK emissions by 60 
percent by 2050. (That target has since been increased to 80 
percent below 1990 levels by 2050.) Central to the bill is the 
creation of a five-year carbon dioxide budget with three 
consecutive budgets in law at all times to provide balance 
between predictability and flexibility. According to Secretary 
Miliband, the carbon budgeting process will become fundamental 
to the British economy, and the ``Chancellor of the Exchequer 
will have to count carbon as well as pounds.'' The legislation 
would also create a Committee on Climate Change as an 
independent, expert body to advise the government on setting 
and achieving emission reduction targets and creating the 
carbon budgets.
    Across political parties, there was agreement that reducing 
global warming pollution was a top priority and that this 
global problem will not be solved without leadership from the 
United States. However, there was some disagreement on the 
domestic policies needed to achieve reductions. Cap-and-trade 
was seen as a priority, but some also viewed complementary 
green tax shifts as important. For example, the 2001 climate 
levy created a fiscally neutral tax on global warming pollution 
that supported pension reform and was supported by labor and 
businesses alike. Some also saw complementary policies as 
necessary in other sectors. In the building sector, zero-carbon 
houses currently receive a tax break and by 2016 new 
residential buildings are required to be carbon-neutral.
    While in the United Kingdom, the delegation also met with 
Sir Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank economist and author 
of The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. In his 
opinion, climate change reflects the greatest market failure in 
history and policymakers must approach it as a risk management 
issue, taking action now to prevent costly consequences later. 
He recommended auctioning allowances as much as possible in 
climate legislation and felt that strong targets and carbon 
trading in developed countries would bring China and India 
along in the international agreements. Sir Stern encouraged the 
delegation to act regardless of other countries' actions with 
the admonition that ``saying we are not going to do anything 
until others do is a recipe for doing nothing.''
    The trip concluded in Brussels where the delegation met 
with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, 
European Commission Energy Minister Andris Piebalgs, and the 
Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. They discussed the 
recently agreed EU Climate and Energy Strategy which commits 
the EU to reduce global warming pollution by 20 percent below 
1990 levels, increase energy efficiency by 20 percent, and use 
20 percent renewable energy by 2020. To help facilitate the 
next international climate agreement, they also stated their 
willingness to reduce their emissions as much as 30 percent if 
other developed countries and the more economically advanced 
developed countries take on equitable commitments. The 
delegation also discussed lessons learned by the Europeans in 
the transportation sector. The EU has relied on voluntary fuel 
economy standards for vehicles and the use of extraordinarily 
high gasoline taxes in member countries. Carbon emissions from 
vehicles were increasing in spite of these policies, leading to 
a decision that mandatory fuel economy standards are now 
necessary. During the delegation's visit, the European 
Commission was beginning a process to require the new car fleet 
sold in the EU to meet the equivalent of a 47 miles per gallon 
standard by 2012. While the EU is pursuing a sustainable 
biofuels target, it has ruled out supporting development of 
coal-to-liquid fuels because they increase carbon emissions 
compared to gasoline.

Brazil--February 2008

    In February 2008, Chairman Markey led a Congressional 
delegation to Brazil including Representatives Tom Davis, Lois 
Capps, Barbara Cubin, Mike Ferguson, and Jeff Flake. The 
delegation met with federal and state officials and business 
and scientific leaders to investigate Brazil's efforts to 
combat deforestation and climate change and to promote energy 
independence.
    The delegation began with a visit to the city of Manaus, 
the capital of the State of Amazonas. There, participants 
attended briefings with scientists from the National Institute 
for Amazon Research (IPNA), Amazonas Minister for Planning and 
Economic Development Denis Minev, Amazonas Minister for 
Environment Virgilio Viana, and the Ariau Towers naturalist, 
Michael Cartwright. The hosts spoke of the importance of the 
Amazon rainforest to Brazil and the rest of the world. As 
Minister Viana noted, ``the Amazon is a Brazilian resource that 
provides a global service.'' Deforestation and forest 
degradation are now threatening this important global carbon 
sink, oxygen generator, and hydrological cycle regulator. In 
the Amazon, half of the dry weight of trees is carbon, and in 
2004--the peak year for deforestation--466 million tons of 
carbon dioxide was released from deforestation. This is over 
five times the emissions Brazil generates annually from burning 
fossil fuels. Deforestation has also devastated species 
biodiversity. Twenty-five percent of the world's species depend 
on the 2.7 million square miles of the Amazon rainforest. The 
loss of biodiversity affects the sustainability of local and 
global production of goods like latex, cork, fruit, nuts, 
timber, fibers, spices, natural oils, and medicine.
    The Amazonas state ministers discussed the policies they 
were developing to increase the value of standing forests and 
reduce deforestation. Goods produced in a sustainable manner 
from the forests are exempt from state taxes, and the ministers 
suggested that removing the international tariffs on these 
goods would further encourage sustainable development in their 
state. They were also developing a forest fund with the support 
of a large Brazilian bank and other international partners to 
provide subsistence payments to forest inhabitants that 
preserve their lands. They suggested that developed world 
countries should consider dedicating some pollution allowances 
in cap-and-trade legislation for avoided deforestation and hope 
that their forest fund will provide a model for partnerships 
with the developed world to protect forests.
    The next stop for the delegation was Rio de Janiero, where 
Members focused on the potential of biofuels to increase energy 
independence and reduce global warming pollution. Marcos Jank, 
the CEO of Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union (UNICA), 
briefed the delegation on the successes and potential of 
sugarcane ethanol. Brazil is currently the world's leading 
producer of sugarcane ethanol fuel, which provides 50 percent 
of the country's transportation fuel. Eighty percent of the 
vehicles in Brazil have ``flex fuel'' capacity and can run on 
ethanol. Using the waste biomass from ethanol production, 
Brazil is currently able to supply 3 percent of its energy 
through sugarcane electricity. This is expected to rise to 15 
percent by 2020. Mauricio Tolmasquim, the President of Energy 
Planning Office (EPE), attributed the success of Brazilian 
ethanol to the increase of flex fuel vehicle availability, low 
production costs, and an increase in global exports. Eduardo 
Feijo, the Brazilian National Association of Automakers 
(ANFAVEA) liaison, also noted the infrastructure support for 
ethanol; 94 percent of the Brazilian fuel stations offer a high 
percentage ethanol fuel whereas in the United States, only 7 
percent offer E85 blends.
    To learn more about the sustainability of ethanol, the 
delegation visited the Petrobras CENPES research facility 
operated by Brazil's nationalized Petrobras energy company. In 
a tour of the facility, Executive Director Carlos Taden Fraga, 
and Ricardo Castello Branco, Director of Petrobras' Renewable 
Energy Program, showed the delegation their work developing 
cellulosic ethanol from a sugarcane waste product (bagasse) and 
working to reduce traditional pollution emissions from 
vehicles.
    The delegation's final stop was the capital city of 
Brasilia, where Members served as the U.S. delegation to the 
Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment 
(GLOBE) Forum. At the Forum, they joined with fellow 
legislators from the G8 countries and five developing countries 
(Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa) in high level 
talks regarding the post-2012 international framework to 
address climate change. Working in the High Level Session and 
the Energy working group, the Congressional delegation 
discussed issues of global warming and ultimately produced a 
Climate Change Framework recommendation paper for the July 2008 
G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan.
    The delegation ended the Brazil tour with official meetings 
with Tasso Azevedo, head of the recently created Brazilian 
Forest Service, Brazil State Secretary Everton Vargas, 
Environment Minister Marina da Silva, State Secretary Thelma 
King, and the President of Brazil's Chamber of Deputies 
(counterpart of the U.S. Speaker of the House) Arlindo 
Chinaglia. The Members and officials discussed how the United 
States and Brazil can work together towards the shared goals of 
preserving the Amazon and expanding the development of 
biofuels. Increased cooperation on sharing of satellite images 
and other monitoring technology to identify and prevent illegal 
logging was suggested as a specific partnership that could have 
immediate impact.
    The delegation ended the trip with a briefing on the latest 
sustainable agriculture research and practice in Brazil by John 
Carter, rancher and founder of Alianada Terra, Dr. Paulo 
Moutinho of the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia, 
Dr. Daniel Zarin, professor with the University of Florida, and 
Dr. Daniel Nepstad of the Woods Hole Research Center. The group 
is attempting to bring ranchers and environmentalists together 
in support of certifications and sustainability standards for 
agricultural products produced in Brazil.

India--March 2008

    In March 2008, Chairman Edward Markey and Ranking Member 
James Sensenbrenner accompanied Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other 
Members of Congress on a fact-finding congressional visit to 
India. The delegation explored the opportunities for the United 
States and India to strengthen efforts to reduce global warming 
pollution and invest in clean energy research, development, and 
deployment.
    They began their visit in New Delhi hosted by Dr. Rajendra 
Pachauri, Chairman of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change, at the eco-friendly conference center 
of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Dr. Pachauri and 
other members of the institute made presentations and answered 
the delegation's questions about climate change, its impact on 
India, and potential solutions. Stopping deforestation and 
providing incentives for reforestation were seen as important 
ways of reducing global warming pollution in the near term, 
providing a cushion for the deployment of other technologies. 
Addressing energy consumption in buildings was also singled out 
as important.
    Dr. Pachauri and his colleagues were also optimistic about 
the potential of renewable energy in India and around the 
world. Just one percent of India's solar resources could meet 
the current power needs of the country, and China is already 
the largest solar market in the world. One of TERI's newest 
programs is the ``Lighting a Billion Lives'' initiative which 
is distributing solar-powered flashlights and lanterns in 
villages around the world where there is no electricity. The 
group was encouraged by Indian businesses' interest in 
renewables and efficiency technology. They pointed to the 300 
Indian companies are already involved in the clean energy 
market generating at least $1 billion in revenues. The need to 
foster research and development and collaboration with 
developed world companies is clear, but intellectual property 
issues are currently hindering development. Finding a workable 
solution for all should be a high priority.
    While in New Delhi, the delegation met with Prime Minister 
Manmohan Singh, Minister of External Affairs Shri Pranab 
Mukherjee, the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Climate 
Change Shyam Saran, and a group of parliamentarians from 
various Indian political parties. They outlined India's 
domestic and international efforts to combat global warming and 
discussed areas of potential cooperation between India and the 
United States.
    The Indian government views climate change as a threat to 
security. Global warming impacts have major economic and social 
consequences for India, including an increase in weather-
related disasters and diseases and a decline in food production 
and freshwater availability. The government is preparing a 
national climate action plan and will release it in the summer. 
The Prime Minister has already committed to keeping India's 
per-capita emissions below the average of the developed world. 
Continued cooperation with the United States on energy 
efficiency, renewable energy, and clean coal technology will be 
important to helping India meet this goal as it works to move 
hundred of millions of its citizens out of poverty.
    The Indian government's view is that all multilateral 
climate agreements should be under the auspices of the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. India was part 
of the global agreements reached in Rio and Kyoto and is 
supportive of the roadmap for the next international climate 
agreement developed in Bali. The Indian government's position 
is that climate change is a global challenge that requires a 
global response, but the agreement must be equitable. Developed 
countries that are most responsible for the current problem 
must commit to reducing their emissions, and developing 
countries must commit to developing in a sustainable manner 
provided they receive technology and financial assistance.
    The delegation next traveled to Dharamsala to meet with the 
Dalai Lama and to discuss with him a wide range of issues, 
including the environmental challenges in Tibet and his views 
on climate change. He expressed concern that the growing 
population was threatening the delicate Tibetan plateau 
ecosystems at the same time that global warming was causing 
rapid change. The rapid melting of the glaciers is a serious 
threat to water resources in Tibet, India, and China. He is 
encouraged by the recent progress being made by countries to 
cooperate on solutions to this and other global environmental 
challenges. Protecting the planet should be a priority because, 
as he noted, ``its life is our life, its future our future.''
    The final stop was in Mumbai, where the delegation began 
with a briefing on India's nuclear power industry by Dr. S. K. 
Jain, Chairman of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India 
(NPCIL). Nuclear power currently provides 4,000 megawatts of 
power and is projected to increase 63,000 megawatts by 2030. In 
comparison, coal and natural gas provide 90,000 megawatts now, 
increasing to 390,000 megawatts in 2030 and renewables provide 
almost 11,000 megawatts now, increasing to 97,000 megawatts in 
2030. The size of nuclear plants is limited by India's 
transmission grid which cannot accommodate plants over 500 
megawatts. Five light water reactors and one fast breeder 
reactor are currently under construction, and the government 
has cleared two coastal sites for new plant construction.
    The delegation also met with key Indian business leaders, 
including Mukesh Ambani and Jamshyd Godrej, to discuss India's 
rapidly growing energy needs and areas of potential cooperation 
to expand the deployment of renewable energy and energy 
efficient technologies. Mr. Ambani was enthusiastic about the 
ability of solar power to do for electricity what mobile 
telephones did for telecommunications. His solar company 
electrified 84 villages in just 3 months. Many of India's 
villages rely on diesel generators for electricity, and have 
been adversely affected by the high price of oil. Many villages 
can afford the 15 cents per kilowatt hour costs of the solar 
set up, but the goal is to drop the price to 10 cents, making 
electricity affordable to almost all villages. Green buildings 
are also taking off in India. In 2008, one million square feet 
of LEED-certified space will be built, adding to the already 
existing 9 million square feet. Green buildings are being built 
even without government subsidies because they make economic 
sense given the cost of energy in India.
    Indian companies are already participating in the global 
carbon market through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). 
For example, the Essar group has developed a variety of CDM 
projects including decreasing industrial emissions by switching 
to natural gas, heat recovery from steel plants, and wind 
projects in Tamil Nandu and Gujarat states. They are also 
exploring the development of solar power sites in Rajasthan 
state. The delegation discussed the inclusion of sectoral 
agreements in future international climate agreements. The 
Indian business leaders felt this could be a promising way to 
achieve emission reductions in energy intensive sectors in 
developing countries and to support sustainable development.
    Technology development was also a key issue for the 
businessmen. India is going through a transformation. In the 
past, there was comparatively little investment in domestic 
technology development, which was seen as too risky. Indian 
businesses would instead gain access to technology through 
licensing agreements. Now as the country is becoming richer, 
there is more focus on technology and human resource 
development. Almost all the companies represented were 
partnering with companies in the United States and Europe to 
develop and patent new energy technologies. Continued 
technology cooperation between the two countries, coupled with 
reform to financial institutions to incorporate environmental 
costs and benefits in financing decisions, was seen by the 
group as critical to helping India's development, enhancing 
both countries' national security and reducing global warming 
pollution.

             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LARSON

    Representative John Larson has enjoyed hearing the views of 
his fellow committee members on issues of carbon pricing 
legislation. However, he feels that carbon tax legislation is 
the most transparent and effective tool to reduce carbon 
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and increase U.S. 
energy security. Rep. Larson has introduced H.R. 3416: 
America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act, which is detailed 
below.

          H.R. 3416: AMERICA'S ENERGY SECURITY TRUST FUND ACT

    In 2005, the United States emitted over 6 billion metric 
tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), an increase of 25 
million tons over the previous year. The scientific community 
agrees that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions 
from human activities are influencing changes in the earth's 
climate. Global warming is already having an impact, and future 
changes in the climate will have significant economic and 
environmental implications for coastal communities, public 
health, agricultural productivity, ecosystems and life as we 
know it.
    One way to ensure that dangerous greenhouse gas emissions 
are reduced--a necessary priority for the next Congress--is 
through a carbon tax system. Such a system has been promoted by 
everyone from former Vice President Al Gore to N. Gregory 
Mankiw, former Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic 
Advisers. H.R. 3416, America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act, 
is a carbon tax bill sponsored by Representative John B. 
Larson, a member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence 
and Global Warming. The bill is also cosponsored by twelve 
members of the House of Representatives, including one other 
member of the Select Committee.
    Currently, polluters have no incentive to change their 
behavior and stop contributing to global warming--the America's 
Energy Security Trust Fund Act gives them one. Those who reduce 
polluting behaviors by cutting back on activities that lead to 
greenhouse gas emissions could actually come out ahead by 
receiving a bigger payroll tax rebate than they contribute to 
the fund: they would be rewarded for changing their behavior.
    The America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act would reduce 
taxes on workers, set a price for CO2 emissions, and 
create an incentive to use alternative energy. Specifically, 
the bill would:
     Provide Tax Credits for Research and Development 
of Alternative Energy Technologies like wind, hydrogen, fuel 
cells, solar and other zero emissions technologies. The first 
$10 billion or 1/6 of revenue in the trust fund, whichever is 
less, would be spent each year to finance tax credits for 
research and development in alternative energy.
     Provide Transition Assistance for Affected 
Industries: 1/12 of the fund's revenues would be dedicated to 
assistance for employees of industries negatively affected by 
the resulting shift to clean energy technologies. This would be 
phased out over 10 years.
     Reduce the burden of payroll taxes on working 
households. The remaining funds would be divided equally among 
all individuals subject to the payroll tax to provide a payroll 
tax rebate. Seniors and individuals with disabilities, defined 
based on eligibility for Social Security, would receive the 
same amount. Because $727 billion of payroll taxes were 
collected in 2005, a tax at a rate of $15 per ton of 
CO2 could lower payroll tax burdens by over 10 
percent on average.
    For nearly three quarters of all households, payroll taxes 
are the single largest tax to the federal government. Because 
the payroll tax is a flat-rate tax up to a payroll limit of 
$97,500, it is generally acknowledged to be a regressive tax. 
Currently, those in the top 1 percent of the income scale pay 
only 2 percent of their income in payroll taxes, while those in 
the bottom 20 percent contribute 7.3 percent of income in 
payroll taxes. Revenues from a carbon tax could be used to 
reduce the tax burden on working households, and could have a 
profound effect on those households with earnings below the 
median income level. This rebate would benefit workers in the 
lower-end of the income scale the most.

      HOW WOULD THE AMERICA'S ENERGY SECURITY TRUST FUND ACT WORK?

    This bill would impose a per-unit tax on the carbon dioxide 
content of fossil fuels beginning at a rate of $15 per metric 
ton of CO2 and increasing by 10 percent each year, 
also accounting for inflation. The rate is consistent with the 
broadly accepted goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The tax would be phased 
in over a ten year period to allow industries to adapt. It 
should be emphasized, however, that the technology for clean 
energy already exists and therefore the rate of tax is 
aggressive.
    The tax would be assessed on the CO2 content of 
these fuels when they enter the economy: at oil refineries, 
coal processing plants and points of import. Therefore it would 
be easy to implement and administer--only about 2,000 entities 
would be taxed.
    Demand for fossil fuels would fall in response to a carbon 
tax. As a result, carbon emissions would fall as well, by an 
estimated 700 million metric tons of CO2 (12.1 
percent). At the same time, demand for alternative sources of 
energy would increase, spurring innovation and competition, and 
would allow producers of alternative energy technologies to 
achieve economies of scale, which will eventually lower prices 
of that technology.
    According to ``A Green Employment Tax Swap: Using a Carbon 
Tax to Finance Payroll Tax Relief,'' a report by Gilbert E. 
Metcalf for the Brookings Institution and World Resources 
Institute, a tax of $15 per metric ton of CO2 would 
nearly double the price of coal, assuming the industry fully 
passes the tax onto the consumer. Petroleum products would 
increase in price by nearly 13 percent and natural gas by 
almost 7 percent. This translates to approximately 13 cents per 
gallon of gasoline--a price increase of less than 7 percent.

                        WHAT ABOUT GOOD ACTORS?

    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an approach to 
mitigating climate change by capturing CO2 from 
large point sources such as power plants and subsequently 
storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the 
atmosphere. We know how to capture and store CO2. 
The AESTF Act will contribute to the development of CCS at the 
national level and encourage other technologies to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    Because we want to encourage zero-emissions technologies, 
the bill would provide a refundable credit on all taxes paid 
for an entity that uses carbon capture and storage technology.

                   WHAT ABOUT OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES?

    The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury in 
consultation with the Secretary of Energy to design and 
implement a tax on other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous 
oxide and other gases known to cause global warming. The goal 
is to ensure that for any entity taxed, a viable alternative to 
emitting these gases must exist in order to ensure that the tax 
will change polluting behaviors without simply being punitive. 
One benefit of including other greenhouse gases in the AESTF 
Act is that it can reduce the cost of reducing greenhouse 
gases. A recent study by researchers at MIT shows that early 
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be more 
inexpensively achieved if these other gases are included in the 
tax base.

                     HOW MUCH MONEY COULD IT RAISE?

    Emissions of carbon dioxide in 2005 were estimated to be 
just over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 according to 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Had a carbon tax of 
$15 per ton of CO2 been in place in 2005, the tax 
would have raised $89.2 billion.

                      WHAT ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES?

    The United States is certainly not the only nation 
contributing to global warming. However, with only 5 percent of 
the world's population, in 2005 the U.S. was responsible for 22 
percent of the CO2 emitted worldwide from burning 
fossil fuels. This bill recognizes that the United States must 
lead the way but that the other major emitting countries must 
follow.
                                                    John B. Larson.

      ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN

    Over the course of the 110th Congress, the Select Committee 
on Energy Independence and Global Warming has made significant 
and valuable contributions to the public debate and to 
Congress' efforts to develop responsible, forward-looking 
public policy regarding critical energy and climate change 
issues facing our nation. I have been very pleased and proud to 
serve with the distinguished members of this Select Committee, 
under the able leadership of Chairman Edward Markey. The 
Committee closely and diligently examined a wide range of 
difficult issues from numerous angles, with input from hundreds 
of experts, including more than 50 hearings.
    I am confident that the Committee's efforts will guide 
future Congresses' work in ensuring that we meet the real and 
serious twin challenges of achieving energy independence and 
halting global warming. What's at stake is nothing less than 
our national security, our economic security, and our way of 
life in every corner of the country.
    As the only member of the Committee who also serves on the 
Agriculture Committee, and the only one who represents a 
predominantly rural state, I have taken seriously my 
responsibility to ensure that issues affecting rural America 
and agriculture are addressed throughout this process. The good 
news is that as we seek to address these changes, rural America 
stands uniquely ready to play a vital role in the new energy 
economy.
    If you look at my state of South Dakota from end-to-end, 
whether it is our vast fields of corn and soybeans in the 
eastern part of the state, the abundant wind resources across 
the state, or the great forests of the Black Hills in the West, 
South Dakota embodies the idea that we need a diversified 
approach to our national energy policy--and in particular we 
need to take advantage of new opportunities for renewable 
energy.
    As we strive to meet our national energy needs, we must 
continue to recognize that rural America has much to offer. 
Rural states should be at the center of the solution as our 
national energy policy shifts and adjusts in ways that enhance 
our national and economic security; that promote both 
innovation and conservation; and that ultimately will ease the 
strain on families' and business owners' budgets.
    With the passage of the original Renewable Fuel Standard in 
2005 and the aggressive increase included in the 2007 energy 
bill, we have already taken initial key steps in the right 
direction, as we seek to take advantage of the contribution 
agricultural producers in rural states can make to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and overall carbon emissions through 
an increase in the production of biofuels, wind, and other 
types of renewable energy. But to be sure, there is more work 
to be done.
    I agree with the scientific consensus that human activity 
has substantially increased the accumulation of greenhouse 
gasses and is contributing to a rise in average global 
temperature. This rise threatens to create a number of dramatic 
and negative impacts--raising sea levels, altering coastlines, 
increased risk of drought and forest fire, and changing weather 
patterns. With much of the country's economy dependent on 
agriculture, which in turn depends on our climate, I recognize 
that global warming could have a profound effect on rural 
agricultural economies and our way of life.
    Though there is no single solution to reducing the 
accumulation of greenhouse gases, I do see a number of positive 
steps we can take in the short-term to reduce global warming. I 
believe the federal government must be aggressive in its 
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, more than just 
creating penalties that reduce emissions, it is important to 
invest in new technologies, create incentives to increase 
efficiencies, and encourage greater reliance on a range of 
domestic energy sources with lower emission impacts--sources 
including increased domestic production of oil and gas, clean 
coal, oil shale, wind, solar, biofuels and more.
    Many of the legislative proposals that have been introduced 
in the House fail to take the kind of comprehensive approach I 
support, and instead rely on mandatory reductions. My 
preference is to support a bill that also includes incentives 
to increase the use of renewable energies and rewards 
individual conservation practices.
    Ultimately, we need a balanced legislative approach to 
these issues. I believe we can address the harmful consequences 
of climate change, while preventing the negative economic 
impacts some proposals could cause based on our nation's 
current reliance on electricity produced by coal, a significant 
source of carbon dioxide. A large part of the world's coal 
reserves are found in the U.S. and I believe we should devote 
the needed research and development resources to clean coal 
technologies, including promising carbon capture and 
sequestration projects.
    Moreover, I believe the people and resources of rural 
America can play an important role in addressing climate 
change. Agricultural lands and forests naturally sequester 
carbon, and therefore can be managed to help reduce harmful 
amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. For example, current 
estimates of U.S. greenhouse gas markets indicate that U.S. 
farms have the potential to mitigate as much as 40 percent of 
our nation's total climate impact with practices such as soil 
carbon sequestration or methane capture. We also must do more 
to facilitate and encourage the use of the woody biomass that 
is already taken from public lands as part of responsible 
forest management plan as a source of cellulosic ethanol with 
significant potential.
    Unfortunately, many recent proposals addressing climate 
change have been developed without fully engaging with 
agricultural experts. To address this oversight, I have been 
proactive in bringing representatives of the agricultural 
sector together to examine how best to craft a carbon 
sequestration offset program to maximize agriculture's 
participation, to look at the potential impact of a mandatory 
program on agricultural inputs, and to evaluate the potential 
benefits of a cap-and-trade system to agriculture. I have also 
engaged with my House colleagues to make sure they understand 
the role that our agricultural producers and forests can play 
as part of the solution to climate change.
    In conclusion, I believe strongly that climate change and 
energy independence present both serious challenges and 
significant opportunities for rural America. I am grateful for 
this opportunity to provide additional views about the path 
forward. While these views do not address or encompass every 
component of the full report, they do identify the key 
principles I continue to embrace as we look to craft effective 
public policy that recognizes the extremely diverse set of 
interests involved. I agree with much of what is expressed in 
the report, but have concerns with some of its provisions, and 
I look forward to continuing to work on these difficult, but 
essential, challenges in the future.
                                         Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
                               APPENDIX A

 Hearings and Briefings of the Select Committee on Energy Independence 
                           and Global Warming

                             APRIL 18, 2007

 Geopolitical Implications of Rising Oil Dependence and Global Warming

    Witness List:
           Ambassador Richard Haass, President, Council 
        on Foreign Relations
           Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.), USN 
        (Ret.), Vice President for Strategic Planning and 
        Business Development
           Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club
           General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), USA 
        (Ret.), President and Chief Operating Officer, 
        Association of the United States Army
           James Woolsey, Vice President, Booz Allen 
        Hamilton

                             APRIL 26, 2007

                        Dangerous Global Warming

    Witness List:
           Dr. James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard 
        Institute for Space Studies
           Dr. Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and 
        Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
           Dr. Kristie Ebi, ESS, LLC and Lead author 
        Human Health chapter, IPCC 4th Assessment, Working 
        Group II
           Dr. Camille Parmesan, Assistant Professor, 
        University of Texas
           Dr. John Helms, Professor Emeritus, 
        University of California, Berkeley and Past President, 
        Society of American Foresters

                              MAY 3, 2007

         Economic Impacts of Global Warming: Part 1--Insurance

    Witness List:
           John B. Stephenson, Director of Natural 
        Resources and Environment, GAO,
           Mike Kreidler, Washington State Insurance 
        Commissioner
           Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance 
        Association of America

                              MAY 9, 2007

     Economics of Dependence on Foreign Oil--Rising Gasoline Prices

    Witness List:
           Sylvia Estes, Pipeline and Industrial Group, 
        Virginia Beach, VA
           Michael Mitternight, Factory Service Agency, 
        Metairie, LA
           Terry Thomas, President and CEO, Community 
        Bus Services Inc., Youngstown, OH
           Donn Teske, Farmer and President, Kansas 
        Farmers Union, McPherson, KS
           John Felmy, Chief Economist, American 
        Petroleum Institute

                              MAY 15, 2007

   Perspectives on Energy and Climate Change: Prime Minister Fredrik 
                          Reinfeldt of Sweden

    Witness List:
           Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt of Sweden

                              MAY 22, 2007

         Economic Impacts of Global Warming: Green-Collar Jobs

    Witness List:
           Jerome Ringo, President, Apollo Alliance
           Van Jones, President and Co-Founder, Ella 
        Baker Center
           Elsa Barboza, Campaign Coordinator for Green 
        Industries at the Strategic Concepts in Organizing and 
        Policy Education (SCOPE)
           Bob Thelen, Chief Training Officer, Capital 
        Area Michigan Works!

                              JUNE 4, 2007

 Global Warming Mountaintop ``Summit'': Economic Impacts on New England

     Field Hearing on Cannon Mountain near Franconia, New Hampshire

    Witness List:
           Timothy Perkins, Ph.D., Director, Proctor 
        Maple Research Center, University of Vermont
           Cameron Wake, Ph.D., Climate Change Research 
        Center, University of New Hampshire
           Alice Chamberlin, Special Assistant for 
        Energy, Environment and Transportation, Governor John 
        Lynch
           Betsy Blaisdell, Manager, Environmental 
        Stewardship Program, Timberland
           Bill Koury, Former President, NH Wildlife 
        Federation and avid New England sportsman

                              JUNE 8, 2007

  Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA: Implications of the Supreme Court Verdict

    Witness List:

                                Panel I

           The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, 
        Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
           The Honorable Nicole Nason, Administrator, 
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                                Panel II

           The Honorable Jerry Brown, Attorney General 
        of California
           The Honorable Martha Coakley, Attorney 
        General of Massachusetts

                             JUNE 19, 2007

  Green Cities: Mayoral Initiatives To Reduce Global Warming Pollution

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Richard Daley, Mayor of 
        Chicago
           The Honorable Tom Potter, Mayor of Portland, 
        OR
           The Honorable Pegeen Hanrahan, Mayor of 
        Gainesville, FL

                             JULY 12, 2007

        Plugging Into Energy Independence With 150 MPG Vehicles

    Witness List:
           Frank Gaffney, President, Center for 
        Security Policy
           Rob Lowe, Actor and Advocate
           David Vieau, President and CEO, A123 Systems
           Fred Hoover, Washington representative for 
        Austin Energy

                             JULY 18, 2007

           Voluntary Carbon Offsets--Getting What You Pay For

    Witness List:
           Derik Broekhoff, Senior Associate, World 
        Resources Institute
           Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for 
        American Progress
           Thomas Boucher, President and Chief 
        Executive Officer, NativeEnergy LLC
           Russ George, President and Chief Executive 
        Officer, Planktos, Inc.
           Erik Blachford, CEO, TerraPass Inc.

                           SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

             The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade

    Witness List:
           David Freudenthal, Governor, Wyoming
           Michael Morris, CEO, American Electric Power
           Carl Bauer, Director, National Energy Tech. 
        Laboratory
           Stuart Dalton, Director, Generation, 
        Electric Power Research Institute
           Robert Sussman, Partner, Latham & Watkins, 
        LLP
           David Hawkins, Director, Climate Center, 
        National Resources Defense Council

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

           Renewable Electricity Standards: Lighting the Way

    Witness List:

                                Panel I

           The Honorable Bill Ritter, Governor of 
        Colorado

                                Panel II

           Nancy Floyd, Nth Power, Founder and Managing 
        Director
           Chris Hobson, Southern Company, Senior Vice 
        President, Research and Environmental Affairs
           Bob Reedy, Florida Solar Research Center
           Mike Sloan, Wind Coalition, Director
           Dave Foster, Blue Green Coalition, United 
        Steelworkers, Executive Director

                           SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

  Briefing: The Melting Arctic: Global Warming's Impacts on the Polar 
                                 Region

    Witness List:
           Stanley Tocktoo, Mayor, Shishmaref, Alaska
           Dr. Robert W. Corell, Program Director, The 
        Heinz Center
           Dr. Sue Haseltine, Associate Director for 
        Biology, USGS
           Dr. Glenn Juday, Professor of Forest 
        Ecology, University of Alaska Fairbanks
           Deborah Williams, Alaska Conservation 
        Solutions

                           SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

      Forging a Global Solution for Global Warming: International 
                              Perspectives

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Gro Harlem Brundtland, UN 
        Special Envoy on Climate Change, former Prime Minister 
        of Norway and former chair of the World Commission of 
        Environment and Development
           The Honorable Ricardo Lagos, UN Special 
        Envoy on Climate Change, former Chilean President
           The Honorable Han Seung-soo, UN Special 
        Envoy on Climate Change, former Minister of Foreign 
        Affairs of the Republic of Korea and former President 
        of the UN General Assembly
           The Honorable Sigmar Gabriel, Federal 
        Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and 
        Nuclear Safety, Germany

                            OCTOBER 10, 2007

        The Business Opportunity in a Low-Carbon Energy Economy

    Witness List:
           Alan Grisay, CEO, F&C Investments, member of 
        the UK and EU Corporate Leaders' Groups on Climate 
        Change
           Neil Carson, CEO, Johnson Matthey plc, 
        member of the UK Corporate Leaders' Group
           Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President and CEO, 
        Public Service Enterprise Groupe Incorporated (PSEG), 
        member of the Clean Energy Group and its Clean Air 
        Policy Initiative
           Johnathan Lash, President, World Resources 
        Institute, member U.S. Climate Action Partnership

                            OCTOBER 18, 2007

     Energy and Global Warming Solutions for Vulnerable Communities

    Witness List:
           Mr. Martin Luther King III, CEO, Realizing 
        the Dream, Inc.
           Mr. Mike Williams, Board Member, National 
        Tribal Environmental Council
           Mr. Amjad Abdulla, Assistant Director 
        General, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Water, 
        Government of the Republic of Maldives
           Dr. Eileen Gauna, Professor, University of 
        New Mexico

                            OCTOBER 24, 2007

               The Gas is Greener: The Future of Biofuels

    Witness List:
           Adam Gardner, Guster and Reverb
           Don Endres, CEO, Vera Sun
           Steve Gatto, CEO, Bioenergy LLC
           Nathanael Greene, Natural Resources Defense 
        Council
           Dr. Susan Leschine, University of 
        Massachusetts--Amherst, and founder of SunEthanol

                            NOVEMBER 1, 2007

            A Spark Neglected: Wildfires and Global Warming

    Witness List:
           Abigail Kimbell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service
           Dr. Steven Running, Professor of Ecology, 
        University of Montana
           Michael Francis, Director of Forest Program 
        and Deputy Vice President, Wilderness Society
           Dr. Michael Medler, Member of Firefigthers 
        United for Safety Ethics and Ecology, Assistant 
        Professor at Huxley College

                            NOVEMBER 2, 2007

  Bright Lights in the Cities: Pathways to an Energy-Efficient Future


                  Field Hearing in Seattle, Washington

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle
           The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of 
        New York City
           The Honorable Manny Diaz, Mayor of Miami
           The Honorable Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor of 
        Trenton
           The Honorable Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of 
        Los Angeles

                            NOVEMBER 5, 2007

         Youth Leadership for Clean Energy and Healthy Climate

    Witness List:
           Billy Parish, Energy Action Coalition
           Brittany R. Cochran, Environmental Justice 
        and Climate Change Initiative
           Cheryl Lockwood, Alaska Youth for 
        Environmental Action
           Katelyn McCormick, Students Promoting 
        Environmental Students
           Mike Reagan, California PIRG

                            NOVEMBER 7, 2007

                    Oil Shock: Potential for Crisis

    Witness List:
           Carol P. Browner, former Administrator of 
        the Environmental Protection Agency and current 
        Principal of the Albright Group
           Admiral Dennis Blair, USN (Ret.), Former 
        Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command

                           NOVEMBER 14, 2007

           State Leadership Toward A Low-Carbon Energy Future

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Governor, The 
        State of New York
           The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor, 
        The State of Arizona

                           DECEMBER 19, 2007

Bali--The UN Conference and Its Impact on International Climate Change 
                                 Policy

    Witness List:
           Ms. Christiana Figueres, Official 
        Negotiator, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change 
        and the Kyoto Protocol, Costa Rica
           Mr. Philip Clapp, Deputy Managing Director, 
        Pew Environment Group
           Mr. Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy and 
        Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists
           Mr. Ned Helme, President, Center for Clean 
        Air Policy
           Mr. Myron Ebell, Director, Energy and Global 
        Warming Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute

                            JANUARY 17, 2008

               On Thin Ice: The Future of the Polar Bear

    Witness List:

                                Panel I

           Mr. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife 
        Service
           Mr. Randall Luthi, Director, Minerals 
        Management Service
           Dr. Steven Amstrup, Polar Bear Team Leader, 
        U.S. Geological Survey

                                Panel II

           Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice 
        President, Defenders of Wildlife
           Ms. Deborah Williams, President, Alaska 
        Conservation Solutions
           Ms. Kassie Siegel, Director, Climate, Air 
        and Energy Program, Center for Biological Diversity

                            JANUARY 23, 2008

 Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon 
                             Cap and Trade

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Ian Bowles, Secretary of 
        Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of 
        Massachusetts
           Peter Zapfel, Coordinator for Carbon Markets 
        and Energy Policy, European Commission--Environment 
        Directorate General
           Dallas Burtraw, Senior Fellow, Resources for 
        the Future
           John Podesta, President and Chief Executive 
        Officer, Center for American Progress
           Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, 
        Center on Budget Policies and Priorities

                            JANUARY 30, 2008

     Learning from a Laureate: Science, Security and Sustainability

    Witness List:
           Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman, 
        Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

                           FEBRUARY 14, 2008

 Fire and Rain: How Destruction of Tropical Forests Is Fueling Climate 
                                 Change

    Witness List:
           Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President, The Heinz 
        Center
           Mr. Stuart Eizenstat, Partner, Covington & 
        Burling, on behalf of Sustainable Forestry Management
           Ms. Stephanie Meeks, Acting President and 
        CEO, The Nature Conservancy

                             MARCH 12, 2008

        Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?

    Witness List:
           Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief 
        Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute
           Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate in the 
        Nonproliferation Program of the Carnegie Endowment for 
        International Peace
           David Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear 
        Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists
           Alex Flint, Senior Vice President, 
        Government Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute

                           FEBRUARY 26, 2008

        Food for Thought: Sustainability from Counter to Compost

    Witness List:
           Dan Beard, Chief Administrative Officer 
        (CAO), House of Representatives
           Carina Wong, Executive Director, Chez 
        Panisse Foundation
           Patricia D. Millner, Ph.D., Research 
        Microbiologist in the Sustainable Agricultural Systems 
        Laboratory and Environmental Microbial Systems 
        Laboratory, USDA
           Tom Kelly, Ph.D., Chief Sustainability 
        Officer, University of New Hampshire Office of 
        Sustainability

                             MARCH 6, 2008

   Blowing in the Wind: Renewable Energy as the Answer to an Economy 
                                 Adrift

    Witness List:
           Bianca Jagger, Chair, World Future Council
           Vic Abate, Vice President, Renewable Energy, 
        General Electric
           Tom Buis, President, National Farmers Union
           Barbara Lockwood, Manager, Renewable Energy, 
        Arizona Public Service Co.
           Blair Sweezey, Senior Director, Solar 
        Markets and Public Policy, Applied Materials
           Bill Unger, Partner Emeritus, Mayfield Fund, 
        representing Environmental Entrepreneurs

                             MARCH 13, 2008

 Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA Part II: Implications of the Supreme Court 
                                Decision

    Witness List:

                                Panel I

           The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, 
        Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

                                Panel II

           The Honorable Roderick Bremby, Secretary, 
        Kansas Department of Health and Environment
           The Honorable Josh Svaty, Member of the 
        Kansas House of Representatives
           Lisa Heinzerling, Professor of Law, 
        Georgetown University Law Center
           David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel, 
        Sierra Club
           Peter S. Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders

                             APRIL 1, 2008

   Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices and the 
                        Pursuit of Alternatives

    Witness List:
           Mr. J. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, 
        Exxon Mobil Corp.
           Mr. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil 
        Company
           Mr. Robert A. Malone, Chairman and 
        President, BP America, Inc.
           Mr. Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman, Chevron
           Mr. John Lowe, Executive Vice President, 
        ConocoPhillips

                             APRIL 2, 2008

   From the Wright Brothers to the Right Solutions: Curbing Soaring 
                           Aviation Emissions

    Witness List:
           Dan Elwell, FAA Assistant Administrator for 
        Aviation Policy, Planning, and Environment
           Bob Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant 
        Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. 
        Environmental Protection Agency
           Tom Windmuller, Senior Vice President, 
        International Air Transport Association
           James May, President and CEO, Air Transport 
        Association
           Deron Lovaas, Natural Resources Defense 
        Council

                             APRIL 9, 2008

    Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Global Warming and Public Health

    Witness List:
           Howard Frumkin, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., Center 
        for Disease Control, Director of National Center for 
        Environmental Health, Agency for Toxic Substances and 
        Disease Registry
           Jonathan Patz, M.D., M.P.H., Professor and 
        Director of Global Environmental Health, University of 
        Wisconsin at Madison
           Georges Benjamin, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.A.C.E.P. 
        (Emeritus), Executive Director, American Public Health 
        Association
           Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., Director, Atmosphere 
        and Energy Program and Professor of Civil and 
        Environmental Engineering at Stanford University
           Dana Best, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.A.P., American 
        Academy of Pediatrics

                             APRIL 16, 2008

        Green Capital: Seeding Innovation and the Future Economy

    Witness List:
           Mr. Dan Braun, Director, Global 
        Environmental Finance
           Mr. David Prend, Co-founder and Managing 
        General Partner, RockPort CapitalPartners
           Mr. Daniel R. Abbasi, Director, MissionPoint 
        Capital Partners

                             APRIL 24, 2008

   Pumping up Prices: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Record Gas 
                                 Prices

    Witness List:
           Dr. Mark Cooper, Director of Research, 
        Consumer Federation of America
           Mr. Dave Berry, Vice President, Swift 
        Transportation Company, Inc., Chairman, Energy and 
        Environment Policy Committee, American Trucking 
        Association
           Mr. Frank Rusco, Acting Director, Natural 
        Resources and Environment, GAO
           Ms. Melanie Kenderdine, Associate Director, 
        Strategic Planning, MIT Energy Initiative
           Mr. Kevin Book, Senior Vice President, 
        Senior Analyst, Energy Policy, Oil & Alternative 
        Energy, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Company, Inc

                             APRIL 29, 2008

  Rising Tides, Rising Temperatures: Global Warming Effects on Oceans

    Witness List:
           Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence, 
        National Geographic Society
           Dr. Vikki Spruill, President and CEO of The 
        Ocean Conservancy
           Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Department of Zoology, 
        Oregon State University
           Dr. Joan Kleypas, National Center for 
        Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

                              MAY 8, 2008

   Negawatts: The Role of Efficiency Policies in Climate Legislation

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Paul DeCotis, Deputy Secretary 
        of Energy, State of New York
           The Honorable Dian Grueneich, Commissioner, 
        California Public Utilities Commission
           Steven Kline, Vice President for Environment 
        and Federal Affairs, Pacific Gas and Electric 
        Corporation
           Richard Cowart, Director, Regulatory 
        Assistance Project
           George Sakellaris, President and CEO, 
        Ameresco, Inc.

                              MAY 14, 2008

   Building Green, Saving Green: Constructing Sustainable and Energy-
                          Efficient Buildings

    Witness List:
           Ed Norton, Actor and Trustee of Enterprise 
        Community Partners
           The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San 
        Francisco
           Kent Peterson, President, American Society 
        of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
        Engineers
           Michelle Moore, Senior Vice President of 
        Policy and Market Development, U.S. Green Building 
        Council
           Tony Stall, Vice President Marketing for 
        Dryvit Systems Inc.

                              MAY 22, 2008

  Oversight of the Bush Administration's Energy Policy with DOE Sec. 
                                 Bodman

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Samuel Bodman, Secretary, U.S. 
        Department of Energy

                             JUNE 11, 2008

   The Future of Oil: Peak Prices, Peak Production, Piqued Consumers

    Witness List:
           Guy Caruso, Administrator, Energy 
        Information Administration
           Adam Sieminski, Chief Energy Economist, 
        Deutsche Bank
           Amy Myers Jaffe, Energy Studies Fellow at 
        the James Baker Institute for Public Policy
           Athan Manuel, Director of Land Protection 
        Programs, Sierra Club
           Karen Harbert, Managing Director and 
        Executive Vice President, Institute for 21st Century 
        Energy U.S. Chamber of Commerce

                             JUNE 18, 2008

   Planning Communities for a Changing Climate--Smart Growth, Public 
                     Demand and Private Opportunity

    Witness List:
           Dr. Sultan Al-Jaber, CEO, Masdar Initiative, 
        Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
           Steve Hewitt, City Administrator, 
        Greensburg, Kansas
           Gregory Cohen, President and CEO, American 
        Highway Users Alliance
           David Goldberg, Director of Communications, 
        Smart Growth America
           Steve Winkleman, Transportation Director, 
        Center for Clean Air Policy

                             JUNE 23, 2008

    Briefing: Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near

    Witness List:
           Dr. James Hansen

                             JUNE 25, 2008

        National Security Implications of Global Climate Change

    Witness List:

                                Panel I

           Dr. Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of 
        National Intelligence for Analysis and Chairman of the 
        National Intelligence Council
           Mr. Rolf Mowatt-Larsen, Director, 
        Intelligence and Counterintelligence, U.S. Department 
        of Energy

                                Panel II

           The Right Honorable Margaret Beckett, Member 
        of Parliament, Former Foreign Minister of the United 
        Kingdom
           VADM Paul Gaffney, President, Monmouth 
        University and Former President, National Defense 
        University
           Dr. Kent Hughes Butts, Professor of 
        Political-Military Strategy, Center for Strategic 
        Leadership, U.S. Army War College
           Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive 
        Enterprise Institute
           Lee Lane, Resident Fellow, American 
        Enterprise Institute

                             JUNE 26, 2008

      $4 Gasoline and Fuel Economy: Auto Industry at a Crossroads

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Tyler Duvall, Assistant 
        Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation
           Mr. Dominique Thormann, Senior Vice 
        President, Nissan North America, Inc.
           Mr. Shai Agassi, Founder and CEO, Project 
        Better Place
           Mr. Torben Holm, Consultant, DONG Energy A/S
           Mr. Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell 
        & Giuliani LLP

                             JULY 10, 2008

               Global Warming Effects on Extreme Weather

    Witness List:
           Jimmy O. Adegoke, Ph.D, Associate Professor, 
        University of Missouri--Kansas City
           Heather Cooley, Senior Research Associate, 
        Pacific Institute
           Jay S. Golden, Ph.D, Director, National 
        Center of Excellence, SMART Innovations for Urban 
        Climate & Energy, Global Institute of Sustainability, 
        Arizona State University
           Angela Licata, Deputy Commissioner, New York 
        City Bureau of Environmental Planning and Analysis
           Dan Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm 
        Alliance

                             JULY 23, 2008

           Deploying Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    Witness List:
           Mr. C. Kyle Simpson, Policy Director, 
        Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck
           Dr. Joe Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for 
        American Progress
           James May, President and CEO, Air Transport 
        Association of America

                             JULY 28, 2008

 The Economics of Global Warming: Shaping How U.S. Companies are Doing 
                                Business


                 Field Hearing in Hartford, Connecticut

    Witness List:
           George David, Chairman, United Technologies 
        Corporation
           Dan Esty, Hillhouse Professor of 
        Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University, 
        Director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and 
        Policy and the Center for Business & Environment
           John Rice, Vice Chairman, General Electric 
        and CEO, General Electric Infrastructure

                             JULY 30, 2008

  What's Cooking with Natural Gas?: Hearing to Examine Fuel's Role in 
                        Global Warming Solutions

    Witness List:
           Aubrey McClendon, CEO, Chesapeake Energy
           Clay Harris, CEO, Suez LNG North America
           David Manning, Executive VP, National Grid
           Rich Wells, Vice President Energy, The Dow 
        Chemical Company
           John German, Manager Environmental and 
        Energy Analysis, American Honda
           Mark Smith, Executive Director, Independent 
        Petroleum Association of Mountain States

                             JULY 31, 2008

      Renewing America's Future: Energy Visions of Tomorrow, Today

    Witness List:
           Ms. Cathy Zoi, Chief Executive Officer, 
        Alliance for Climate Protection
           Dr. Andrew Frank, Professor, Mechanical and 
        Aeronautical Engineering, University of California at 
        Davis
           Gregory Yurek, Ph.D, Founder, Chairman, and 
        CEO, American Superconductor Corporation
           Aristides A. N. Patrinos, Ph.D, President, 
        Synthetic Genomics
           Steven Lockard, CEO, TPI Composites

                           SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

Investing in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet America's Energy and Climate 
                               Challenges

    Witness List:
           Dr. Susan Hockfield, President, 
        Massachusetts Institute of Technology
           Dr. Stephen Forrest, Vice President of 
        Research, University of Michigan
           Dr. Jack Fellows, Vice President, University 
        Corporation on Atmospheric Research
           Dr. Daniel Kammen, Professor, UC-Berkley

                           SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

                  The Green Road to Economic Recovery

    Witness List:
           Mr. Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow, Center 
        for American Progress
           Dr. Robert Pollin, Co-Director, Political 
        Economy Research Institute, University of 
        Massachusetts--Amherst
           Mr. Fred Redmond, Vice President, United 
        Steelworkers
           Mr. Byron Kennard, Executive Director, 
        Center for Small Business and the Environment
           Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President 
        and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital 
        Formation

                           SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

The Future of LIHEAP Funding: Will Families Get the Cold Shoulder This 
                                Winter?

    Witness List:
           The Honorable Deval Patrick, Governor, 
        Commonwealth of Massachusetts
           Mr. Howard Gruenspecht, Acting 
        Administrator, Energy Information Administration
           Mr. Mark Wolfe, Executive Director, National 
        Energy Assistance Directors' Association
           Mr. John Drew, Executive Vice President, 
        Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.

                                  
