United States. Congress. House. Committee on Energ.

Global warming : hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session (Volume Pt. 3) online

. (page 1 of 14)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on EnergGlobal warming : hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session (Volume Pt. 3) → online text (page 1 of 14)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


GLOBAL WARMING (Part 3)

Y 4. EN 2/3: 103-167

Global Warning (Part 3), Serial Ko

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE OX ENERGY AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION



OCTOBER 6, 1994



Serial No. 103-167



Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce







U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE



WASHINGTON : 1995



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046840-X



V



V

GLOBAL WARMING (Part 3)



Y 4. EN 2/3: 103-167

Global Warning (Part 3), Serial No

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE OX ENERGY AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION



OCTOBER 6, 1994



Serial No. 103-167



Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce







" p <? M



1995



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-466CC WASHINGTON : 1995



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046840-X



COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE



JOHN D. DINGELL,
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
AL SWIFT, Washington
CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma
W.J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana
RON WYDEN, Oregon
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
JIM SLATTERY, Kansas
JOHN BRYANT, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia
THOMAS J. MANTON, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CRAIG A WASHINGTON, Texas
LYNN SCHENK, California
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
MIKE KREIDLER, Washington
MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY,

Pennsylvania
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas

Alan J. Roth, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Deputy Staff Director

Margaret A. Durbin, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director



Michigan, Chairman

CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia

JACK FIELDS, Texas

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado

JOE BARTON, Texas

ALEX MCMILLAN, North Carolina

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

BILL PAXON, New York

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

SCOTT KLUG, Wisconsin

GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho



Subcommittee on Energy and Power

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana, Chairman



EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas
MIKE KREIDLER, Washington
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas
AL SWIFT, Washington
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma
W.J. "BILLY' TAUZIN, Louisiana
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
(Ex Officio)



MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
SCOTT KLUG, Wisconsin
GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
(Ex Officio)



Shelley N. Fidler, Staff Director

Judi Greenwald, Professional Staff Member

Sue D. Sheridan, Counsel



(ID



CONTENTS

Page

Testimony of:

Earl, Gov. Tony, Chair, Center for Clean Air Policy 101

Hausker, Karl A., Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy Plan-
ning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency 55

Hemphill, John, Executive Director, Business Council for a Sustainable

Energy Future 110

Heydlauff, Dale E., on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute 89

Lashoff, Daniel A., Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council .. 68

O'Leary, Hon. Hazel R., Secretary, Department of Energy 3

Pomerance, Rafe, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Depart-
ment of State 48

Watson, Robert T., Associate Director for Environment, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President 36

(HI)



GLOBAL WARMING



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1994

House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room
2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Philip R. Sharp (chair-
man) presiding.

Mr. Sharp. The subcommittee will please come to order.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to hear from
several administration officials, particularly Secretary O'Leary on
recent developments in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions.

In terms of fulfilling the letter and the spirit of the Rio agree-
ment, the U.S. Government is clearly a leader. Along with the
other developed countries, the United States has agreed to reduce
its emissions of greenhouse gasses to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Moreover, with its announcement last October of the President's
National Action Plan, the United States took the lead in identifying
and committing to concrete actions to reduce global emissions of
greenhouse gasses.

This plan marshals the forces of the Departments of Energy and
State as well as the Environmental Protection Agency to find the
most cost-effective, flexible, voluntary approaches to reducing emis-
sions. Among the 50 or so programs undertaken in the action plan,
one of the potentially most significant is the climate challenge.

Earlier this year, the Department of Energy, under the leader-
ship of Secretary O'Leary, signed an agreement under which more
than 80 independently owned electric utilities, as well as hundreds
more of the publics and cooperative utilities pledged to reduce their
emissions on a voluntary basis. I applaud both the industry and
the Department for their joint efforts, and I believe this sort of vol-
untary cooperative approach to solving this serious environmental
problem is preferable to the command and control tradition.

As everyone in this room knows, mandatory legislative controls
take years for Congress to adopt, often arrive late to the real world,
and force parties to confront each other instead of working coopera-
tively to solve the problem. We cannot afford to condemn resolution
of the climate change issue to this unpredictable, divisive, and cost-
ly process without first making a serious effort to work together.
Since that time, the United States has also kicked off a domestic
joint implementation pilot program to demonstrate the advantages

(l)



of cooperative efforts between governments and industry which can
produce win-win benefits for all participants.

I appreciate that there is controversy surrounding joint imple-
mentation policies, both here in the United States environmental
community and in the international negotiations. However, I con-
tinue to strongly support joint implementation and am pleased the
administration has chosen to attempt pilot projects in this area. I
want to urge the administration to maintain its effort to persuade
the international negotiating committee to launch an international
pilot program as soon as possible.

At this point, let me recognize my distinguished colleague from
California, Mr. Moorhead.

Mr. Moorhead. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing on the topic of global climate change. This is
a topic which has consumed a lot of our time this Congress and
which will continue to be an important issue for a number of years.

I am pleased that today we will have the opportunity to hear
from and question a variety of witnesses from the administration
and industry about the climate change debate. Today I am inter-
ested in learning several things:

First, I would like to know about the status of our domestic cli-
mate change action plan. I hope utilities and industry are cooperat-
ing fully with the administration to make sure that this program
is a success.

Second, I would like to know what are the administration's goals
in the international arena. I am disturbed about how the debates
regarding the adequacy of the commitments fade under the real
treaty and the joint implementation are shaping up.

I would hope that we would not assume any additional inter-
national commitments until we first find out if our current commit-
ments can be achieved. I also believe we shouldn't make further
commitments until we see if other developed countries are truly
trying to meet their own commitments or until some of their devel-
oping countries are willing to make some additional commitments
themselves.

Mr. Chairman, as this is our last hearing of the year, I thank
you again for your leadership on this subcommittee. I look forward
to the testimony of the witnesses.

You know, we have worked together for a long, long time, Phil,
and we worked on energy issues because I was the ranking mem-
ber of this subcommittee for many, many years. I think we have
gotten out a lot of good legislation.

Mr. Sharp. Especially during IPCC, you were absolutely essen-
tial on that.

Mr. Moorhead. But we have worked together in a nonpartisan
basis much of the time, and certainly your contribution to this com-
mittee will long be remembered.

Mr. Sharp. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Madam Secretary, we are ready to hear from you, certainly ap-
preciate your changing your schedule and being with us this morn-
ing for this hearing.

I might indicate to our audience, as they may know, because we
have a very important joint session to hear from President
Mandela at 11 a.m., the Secretary, as a Cabinet officer, will be in



attendance at that as well as Members of the House, so we will
take her testimony this morning and then recess until 1 p.m. to get
our other panelists.
Madam Secretary, excuse me for interrupting.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAZEL R. O'LEARY, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Secretary O'Leary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Moor-
head.

I am delighted to be here today to report progress on the Depart-
ment of Energy, and most importantly, our administration's actions
to implement the global climate change plan.

Before I begin, much in the vein that Mr. Moorhead has started,
I would like to compliment this committee for the work done in
crafting the Energy Policy Act passed in 1992, and to this chair-
man especially, who in his final hearing has to suffer a bit of
praise, and I want certainly

Mr. Sharp. Suffer, suffer.

Secretary O'Leary. Well, I know that you are not comfortable
with that, Mr. Chairman.

I want on behalf of our colleagues in government and industry,
to thank you for the grace and the good humor with which you
have led this committee, thank you for the intellectual prowess.
Often working with Mr. Moorhead, as he has just indicated, to find
that nonpartisan balance that gives us the opportunity to move for-
ward with a series of challenges and initiatives that sometimes
look so tough and intractable that people have thought we could
not go forward.

Many have said, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot imagine how we
will function without you. I am clear that we will function with you
in different roles, and I very much look forward to it. But I need
to say on a very personal basis how much I have enjoyed working
with you for practically 17 years. My colleagues from the Depart-
ment of Energy join me with others in the industry who I know all
day today will be thanking you for your leadership.

And at the same time, we want to thank Mr. Moorhead, because
it does not happen without a bipartisan effort. You have evinced
that spirit to help this chairman be very successful, so I thank you
both.

We should also be thanking you for the flexibility within the En-
ergy Policy Act, that really has permitted us to design and craft a
global climate action initiative which is both flexible, cost-effective,
and I believe can get the job done. Early last year when we were
testifying on the plan, it was difficult for some to understand that
the basis of the plan is in fact the Energy Policy Act.

My colleagues, with a great deal of pride, want me to present
and share with the public today our administration's United States
of America's Global Climate Action report filed on time in Geneva.
It is a very spiffy report that outlines the very flexible initiatives
that will be used to meet the climate goals to which we committed.

I want very quickly to answer the questions that you have asked
and give you an opportunity to ask questions of me.



First of all, I want to say that the good news in my mind is that
we are off the paper and at the point where we are designing fea-
sibility or assessments internationally and moving this plan.

As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, when we were under the tent
on the mall on the occasion of the signing of the some 800 utilities
to the Global Climate Challenge, which draws the utility industry
into this effort. The flexibility of permitting the private sector to
simply take the mark of a goal and move with it, I think, is what
has made this plan a success.

You have asked for a review of those activities, and I want to do
it within the context of the budget because so many quite correctly
have deep concern that the cuts in the budget for energy efficiency
and renewable energy exacerbate our ability to accomplish the
goals set out in the plan.

You also asked me to address the schedule for section 1605,
which is the reporting baseline that will permit us to measure ac-
complishments, and I will address that. I will also touch very brief-
ly on the science, but I want to address that issue in a very prag-
matic way. I need to start really with a review of the tonnage score
card.

You will remember when we came to town we needed a 212 mil-
lion metric ton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to meet the
mark for the 1990 measure at the beginning of the 21st century.
EPACT straightaway gave us 29 million of those metric tons. The
early actions in our administration gave us another 77 million met-
ric tons, and the remainder needed for the plan designed here was
106. The plan crafted and presented gave us 109. Then we went
into the budget struggle and debate.

You may recall that the administration across the board had
freezes on discretionary programs, and in point of fact, the way
those freezes were scored, the Department of Energy overall took
a 10 percent cut in its budget. Nonetheless, we went forward with
a very vigorous proposal which the Congress reviewed. We pro-
posed an increase of 25 percent in renewables and 45 percent in
energy efficiency, and I came to the Congress very openly and said
the bottom line cut, in my view, was $150 million. We took a bigger
hit than that and went back to figure out how we could deliver on
the program.

The good news, in my mind, and there is good news, was that
that program got nearly a 16 percent increase at a time when the
Department's budget was under tough attack. I think that is a
strong signal.

The other good news is that in planning to take those budget
cuts, we really put our low-priority programs over the side our-
selves, focusing on those programs that could deliver. But the
shortfall, nonetheless, is one with which people ought to be con-
cerned.

I want to turn now to two programs that were not scored in the
plan because we didn't know how to score them, and those were the
voluntary programs that we saw being signed under the tent on
the mall in the early spring.

The Climate Challenge that involves the electric utility industry
will just be scoreable at the end of this month as 1605 guidelines
are completed and ready for people to report to. There will be a



base case to measure emissions saved. I expect to be signing real
plans, not plans for agreements, but actual plans for implementa-
tion at the end of' this month in New Jersey and several other
States.

We have scored, we believe, very conservatively that the global
climate initiative with the electric utilities can give us from 10 to
20 million metric tons. Let's take the most modest of that. That is
10 million metric tons, which gets us nearly halfway to the short-
fall.

I want to move now to Climate Wise. This may be very confusing
to people. It is to me. Climate Wise is the name we use to discuss
another voluntary program with large industrial energy users who
are, quite frankly, the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses.

With only seven companies signed on to that program, they have
pledged 10 million metric tons. These are very large companies,
such as Dupont, Johnson and Johnson, AT&T, companies whose
manufacturing processes are quite energy intensive. So I believe we
can get there on these programs that have been unscored.

What are we doing further to make up the shortfall? Certainly,
not sitting back. What I think we have got are some concepts and
plans now ready for implementation that will permit us to prove
the concept that flexible programs do work and are most cost-effec-
tive. The Climate Wise program will cost us only $2 million in the
Department of Energy because the industry will do the work.

Let me talk for a moment about the 1996 budget, over which peo-
ple have rightly some concern. As you well know, we committed
and sent to OMB our first budget mark, which is now being nego-
tiated. That budget mark generally tends to support again a very
aggressive program for energy efficiency and renewables and cer-
tainly for our global climate initiatives.

I think you will be seeing the play between the agencies and
OMB as we go forward, and you can count on our vigorous pushing
of these programs, especially those that have given us the greatest
measure in terms of our voluntary efforts.

Let me talk now about how we are doing internationally.

Mr. Moorhead, you raised the question, and rightly so, of not
having the United States move ahead aggressively while others lag
and wait to see what will happen. You should know that on the
dates when all of these reports were to be filed, all nations who
had reports due, save two, did file them. And most didn't have, I
believe, the aggressive kind of focus that we had. Another country,
Austria, will be filing shortly, and the others will as well. So that
gives me the indication that there is not only the desire but there
is the commitment to meet these timetables and to implement, not
merely to sign the accord.

I would like to now talk very briefly about joint implementation
pilot programs and, as usual, I brought with me a few toys. I want
to point first of all to the picture of me with the dripping honor
mark on my forehead. The people in that picture are villagers in
a village in India called Danawas. It is a village that is quite re-
markable because it has become a test bed for appropriate tech-
nology and energy efficiency, and is a village community where up
until 2 years ago there was no electrification.



You should know now that the electrification is provided gen-
erally by appropriate technology. In that village, the agriculture is
supported by a pump that irrigates fields, and that pump uses
biogas, but more importantly, irrigation of those fields now permits
this village to earn money outside of its own needs so that the vil-
lage itself is not only empowered but it is able to plan for its fu-
ture.

I had the occasion when I was there to present to that village,
which now has its thoroughfares and its temple lighted, 50 solar
lanterns exactly like the one you see here. The interesting piece —
you can't see this lit, but it is lit. If it were dark, I could do this
for you.

The interesting piece about this solar lantern is that when we
went off to India we thought that the market penetration in India
under a joint implementation pilot program might be for $1 million
worth of such lanterns in villages. It would make dramatic dif-
ference in the lives of the people there because, as one example, it
lights up a home at night and permits a student who might be
learning and reading for the first time after a full day's work, to
now be empowered to learn and to read.

One deal was signed there for $1 million worth of lamps to be
introduced into villages like the village in Danawas. After we left,
we were told that the market penetration for 1 year is expanded
now to $10 million for such lamps.

This is simply one example of a program that really is in action,
because these lamps are now being deployed in villages in India.
Let's take it a step further. It is good for U.S. industry, it is good
for the economy, it is, of course, excellent for the environment.

This is a very simple system which will permit villagers to be
trained to understand and know how quickly to repair a system
that with 8 hours of the solar collector in the sunshine — and trust
me, there is ample sunshine in India — provides 8 hours of lamp
light at home and provides work for Indians as well. That is just
one example of a joint implementation pilot program already
signed and up and running in India.

I have another one. This is a steam trap. For those of you who
know about industrial processes, this strange little gizmo here, in
the center of what really looks like a valve or a fitting around a
pipe, simply maintains and holds the steam in a long pipeline and
keeps it at steady pressure. Without this steam trap, what you get
is the leakage of steam, the reduction of power, and you also get
a very unsafe condition, as many of us who have worked in manu-
facturing processes know.

This is a very simple device, which if attached to equipment in
a place, say, like a textile plant in India or Pakistan, can reduce
the energy consumption dramatically, improve safety, and also help
us on our Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Project. This is a
joint program entered into by a manufacturing company out of
Michigan, with a contract signed in Bombay while I was there, and
gets the work done. It qualifies under the rubric that we are now
establishing for review of joint implementation pilot programs. This
is jobs in America, this is jobs in India, and will work in any other
industrial process. Pretty simple stuff as well.



Finally, I want to talk about one other assessment program now
ongoing which platforms another pilot program. In districts in
China, the issues there are leakage in the gas pipeline; old gas
pipeline designed to take wet gas in decades before whose cou-
plings are done with hemp and other natural fibers. The issue
there is the loss in the gas pipeline amounts to about 25 percent,
which is a tremendous greenhouse gas emitter.

This is a collaborative program, speaking of collaboration, coming
out of the State of Illinois, with Illinois Power and in conjunction
with the State Energy and Natural Resources Office there. This is
a proposal under one of the plans submitted by one of our utilities,
but the dramatic piece here is that by simply bringing in pretty low
technology, USA couplings, we can reduce that loss in that pipeline
at no cost because, in point of fact, there is an energy savings. The
annual reduction in emissions is 68,000 metric tons, simply in one
province in China. These are activities, this is not stuff written
down, we are ready to go with these programs and these projects.

I would simply end this discussion by saying that on the two sus-
tainable energy development presidential missions we have done,
in furtherance of these goals and in furtherance of economic expan-
sion of the United States and of the countries in which we visit,
and with a clear eye on what is happening in developing coun-
tries — as their per capita income increases, so do their energy uses
per capita increase more dramatically than OECD countries — that
we have interest so high, that on the first mission to India we had
40 people.

When we arrived in Pakistan, there were 80 individuals on the
mission. And the wonderful thing about this mission is not your
typical, simply large energy development projects, but high-tech,
low-tech, appropriate technology, a mix, and more importantly, en-
riched by the addition of our nongovernmental organizations seek-
ing to meet with the nongovernmental organizations, generally.

If I had brought another picture, it would be of the Secretary of
Energy with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, whose country began,
as we arrived on a 5-day mission, very much focused on large
megawatt deals. In the 5 days that we worked there, we began to
show the prime minister and her energy and economic team the
value of ensuring that energy efficiency and small projects were ac-
corded the same respect and public play.


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on EnergGlobal warming : hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session (Volume Pt. 3) → online text (page 1 of 14)