Page Potential Climate Change Benefits of DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Arthur D. Little, Inc., April 1999 Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research Program-FY Overview Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Technology Implications for the U.S. of the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emis- Appendix 2: Additional Materials for the Record Charter for Hearing on Fiscal Year 2000 Climate Change Budget Author- Annual Energy Outlook 1999, Energy Information Administration, DOE/ International Energy Outlook 1999, Energy Information Administration, 229 236 339 612 680 682 696 697 723 963 1187 Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, Energy Information Administration, SR/OIAF/98-03, (Washington, DC, October 1998) 1210 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Chairman CALVERT [presiding]. The hearing will come to order. Before we have our regular order of business and my opening statement and the gentleman from Illinois' opening statement, would like to recognize the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for some remarks. Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair man. Let me say that I think the Administration's elaborately tuned lobbying for their Global Warming Treaty that will end up selling out American consumers and American jobs is beginning to unravel. We've heard time and time again of all of the prophets of doom and gloom, that the planet is about ready to be fried. And yet, in October 1998, Dr. James Hanson, who is the same NASA scientist who brought forth claims that global warming would bring catastrophic temperature increases declared in the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible with today's science. Specifically, he said that, "The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy significant to define future climate change." Now here is NASA's chief scientist who has gone back on previous statements relative to the effects of global climate change that the Kyoto Protocol is supposed to do away with, with a magic wand. Finally, I want to briefly address one other issue relative to today's hearing that I find troubling and that is the lack of timely access to the information and schedules from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which is also used extensively by supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. I raised the IPCC issue with Dr. Lane, whom I am glad to see . here today, in early January. And last week, he responded that he had forwarded this concern to the Chairman of the IPCC and urged him to take better advantage of the Internet to make IPCC documents and information more easily accessible and available. It took (1) almost 3 months to get that response, which really is nothing but an urging. I would simply note that it has been 3 months since I raised the issue, and the Chairman of the IPCC has taken no action. I don't know why they want to play "I've got a secret,” but this is unacceptable and raises a number of questions about the objectivity of the entire IPCC process, a process that I expect the Subcommittee will examine in detail at a future hearing. And I thank the gentleman from California for giving me this time to make these few constructive words to start this hearing out. Chairman CALVERT. I thank the Chairman. Today, the Subcommittee will consider the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for climate change. The Administration is asking for more than $4.14 billion for a variety of spending as well as tax incentive and grant programs across several federal departments and agencies. This includes: $200 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Partnership Fund; nearly $1.4 billion for Climate Change Technology Initiative spending programs, mostly funded by the Department of Energy and EPA; almost $400 million for CCTI tax incentives; $400 million in other DOE-funded climate-related programs, including coal and natural gas R&D and weatherization and state energy grants; and, lastly, $1.8 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Last year, the Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, but has yet to submit it to the United States Senate for ratification. In the meantime, the Congress has forbidden the use of any funds that implement the protocol. Today, I want to examine whether or not any of these funds are intended to pursue activities, either explicitly or implicitly, prohibited by the United States Congress. Gentlemen, as much as I enjoy your company, I am sad to say that I cannot find anything in this budget proposal that is much different from the request that Congress, in large part, rejected last year-with the exception being the U.S. Global Change Research Program. However, the size and scope of this request still concerns me as do the statements presented by DOE and EPA, which were not only late in being submitted, but also devote nearly as much space to attacking the Energy Information Administration as they do in justifying their own budgets. Since the Administration is barred from implementing or preparing for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol before it is ratified, how can these funds be spent without violating the will of Congress? What goals are to be achieved? And is this proposal anything but a backdoor attempt to implement Kyoto? I also think it is important to consider what other countries are spending on climate change. Last Friday, Vice President Gore announced that the Administration was giving $100 million to the People's Republic of China to allow them to buy U.S.-made environmental technologies. How much of this $100 million is going to be funded by the Administration's climate change budget proposal? And how much is the Chinese government willing to spend on their own? Perhaps China could redirect some of its own funds currently used for spying in the United States to reducing its own carbon emissions. Finally, I note that some of the programs within the climate change budget are voluntary. Programs such as Energy Star and Green Lights have reduced energy consumption and emissions in the United States. However, I question whether coordination of these voluntary programs which subsidize rich private-sector firms-is really a proper role for the Federal Government, especially when they could be doing these things without taxpayer funds, and whether this money could be better spent elsewherelike protecting the Social Security Trust Fund. The witnesses before us are Dr. Neal F. Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; the Honorable Dan W. Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy; the Honorable David M. Gardiner, EPA Assistant Administrator for Policy; and Dr. Jay E. Hakes, Administrator for DOE Energy Information Administration. Gentlemen, I look forward to hearing today's testimony and pursuing these subjects in greater detail. But before I get started, once again, I would like to remind the members of this Subcommittee and our witnesses, that this hearing is being broadcast live on the Internet, so, please, keep that in mind during today's proceedings. Finally, I would ask unanimous consent that all members who wish have their opening statements entered into the record, and without objection, so ordered. With that, I would like to ask my good friend, the ranking distinguished Minority Member, Mr. Costello, for his opening remarks. Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank you for calling this hearing today, reviewing the energy research and technology programs included in the Administration's Climate Change Technology Initiative. I would note that, although the classification of these programs changes over time we are now referring to them as "climate change" programs the goals of these programs have remained the same: to improve energy efficiency and expand energy supplies. Energy continues to play a critical role in our economy and always will. Consequently, I suspect we will be in the business of seeking improvements in energy efficiency and expansion of energy supplies for the foreseeable future. The dimension of this issue that has changed is the fact that we now have an environmental concern that we must deal with. We now consider the environmental impacts of energy exploration, extraction, transportation, and use more carefully and fully than in the past, and this consideration has presented us with significant challenges. We are unlikely to meet these challenges without prudent investments in research and technology programs. These programs help us to better understand the true nature and scope of environmental impacts of energy use and help us to design cost-effective technologies to mitigate them-technologies the rest of the world will be interested in buying for their use in the future. The coal industry is an important industry in my district in southwestern and southern Illinois. My district has lost coal mining jobs and has seen diminished coal production as the coal-fired utilities in the Midwest states have shifted to the use of low-sulfur coal, western coal, in an effort to comply with the Clean Air Act. Given the recent history, the coal industry's opposition to a pursuit of policies to reduce carbon emissions in understandable. I believe that the debate about pursuing policies to reduce carbon emissions has a focus that is too narrow and too simplistic. This is not a question of whether we will use coal or not. We have abundant domestic coal reserves, as do the Chinese and other nations. We are going to use coal, as are other nations; the question is, how will we burn it-inefficiently or efficiently, with high emissions of pollutants or low emissions? I think we should be concentrating our efforts in developing and deploying technologies that enable our Nation and others to utilize this important energy resource as efficiently and cleanly as possible. The same is true for petroleum. I am pleased to have this opportunity to hear about the broad range of programs in the Administration's budget designed to promote cleaner, more efficient energy use. I hope the Committee will evaluate these programs with respect to their potential contribution to multiple national goals of energy security and maintenance of a robust economy and a healthy environment, rather than just from a narrow perspective of carbon emission reduction. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you calling the hearing today, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Chairman CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. Gentlemen, it is our policy to swear in all witnesses. If you will all rise. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Dr. LANE. I do. Mr. REICHER. I do. Mr. GARDINER. I do. Dr. HAKES. I do. Chairman CALVERT. Thank you. You may be seated. Without objection, the full written testimony of all the witnesses will be entered in the record. However, I would ask all of you to please summarize your remarks in 5 minutes so we will have time for questions and answers. So, without any further delay, Dr. Lane, you may begin. TESTIMONY OF DR. NEAL F. LANE, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY Dr. LANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, other members of the Committee; I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Administration's science and technology programs that are relevant to the understanding and mitigation of climate change. I request that my full statement be included in the record, along with two attachments-the Fiscal Year 2000 edition of "Our Changing Planet," which is the annual report of U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the PCAST report, that is the President's Committee of Advisors on Science Technology Chairman CALVERT. Without objection. [The information is contained in Appendix 1.] Dr. LANE [continuing]. On energy R&D. |