Page images

U.S. Carbon Emissions in Three Cases, 1995-2020

(million metric tons)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

And I can illustrate this point with this graphic which sh that if you look at the top line that is if you freeze technology just have the technology you have today, which makes the p that in the middle line which is our most likely projection, te is a lot of technological advance going on.

Let me reflect on Mr. Reicher's reference to the A.D. Little sti We have a lot of respect for the A.D. Little firm, and we are pleased that their work is being used. But let me explain wha actually means. The A.D. Little study projects a 112 million me ton savings, but those are for separate programs. When you them as an integrated run, you go down to a 75 million metric t saving. Of the 75 million metric tons, 67 are already in our n baseline case. So the difference between us and A.D. Little is 120-or 112 million metric tons-it is 8 million metric tons, most of those efforts are already in the baseline that do produce cuts from the expected 33 percent growth. And I think 8 million metric ton difference is a reasonable difference among perts like you would find at A.D. Little and experts like you f at ELA.

Expanded R&D will produce greater savings, however, it is i portant to remember that many technology advances that get pr coverage never achieve commercial success. And even when th do, there is usually an extended period between the availability the technology and market impact.

Voluntary programs can move technology into the market me quickly. In some cases, these programs encourage behaviors ti would not likely have occurred without the program. Stand power that EPA has talked about is a good example of that ki of program. I would like to congratulate them on the announ ment of their program on sulfur hexachloride last week. TH seems to have a good potential for producing new results.

In some cases, however, voluntary programs document actio that would likely have occurred without the program. In the cases, savings cannot be subtracted from the EIA baseline, a care must be taken to avoid double counting.

For a variety of reasons, it is difficult to quantify the links b tween carbon savings and programs for research, development, a deployment. This doesn't mean, however, that the impacts are i substantial.

There has been some comment that we have not taken into a count the synergies between R&D and tax credits. In fact, we ha looked carefully at the potential synergies. However, because of t1 short timeframe of the credits and the longer timeframes of R& there are only limited opportunities for such potential synergies actually occur.

Some reference has been made to combined heat and power the written testimonies, and I hope that we will get a chance compare notes on that later on and see why we differ.

With regard to appliance efficiency standards, there does no seem to have been as much controversy about that, so I will pas over that, except to say that when we adopted a scenario of aggres sive appliance efficiency standards, that we did find a saving of 5. million metric tons in the year 2010.

[blocks in formation]

All of our work has used well-developed statistical models that are well documented, fully transparent, and widely reviewed. Our testimony in recent years on issues ranging from electric restructuring, to the introduction of new types of gasoline, to the impacts of proposals to reduce carbon emissions, I think has stood up well over time to close scrutiny. And I believe this current study is in that tradition.

(The statement and biography of Dr. Hakes follow:)

work has used well-developed statistical models the cumented, fully transparent, and widely reviewed

. Our 2 recent years on issues ranging from electric restrue le introduction of new types of gasoline, to the impact to reduce carbon emissions, I think has stood up wel

close scrutiny. And I believe this current study is in n. nent and biography of Dr. Hakes follow:)





before the




APRIL 14, 1999

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Energy Information Administration's (ELA) analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative. This analysis was requested by the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.

ELA is an autonomous statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. We are
charged with providing objective, timely, and relevant data, analysis, and projections for the use
of the Energy Department, other agencies, the Congress, and the public. We do not take positions
on policy issues, but we do produce data and analysis reports that are meant to help policy
makers decide energy policy. Because we have an element of statutory independence with respect
to the analyses that we publish, our views are strictly those of EIA. We do not speak for the
Department, nor for any particular point of view with respect to energy policy, and our views
should not be construed as representing those of the Deparment or the Administration. ELA's
baseline projections on energy trends, however, are widely used by govemment agencies, the
private sector, and academia for their own energy analyses. Each year ELA publishes the Annual
Energy Outlook, which provides projections and analysis of domestic energy consumption,
supply, prices, and carbon emissions. These projections are not meant to be exact predictions of
the future but represent a likely future, assuming known trends in demographics and technology
improvements and also assuming no change in current law, regulation, and policy.

[ocr errors]

Climate Change Technology Initiative

In February 1999, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 (FY2000) budget request was sent to the U.S. Congress, which includes more than SA billion in programs related to climate change. Nearly $1.8 billion of the funding is tax incentives, research, development, deployment, and other spending for the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTT). CCTI includes tax credits to serve as incentives for deploying energy efficiency improvements and renewable technologies for buildings, light-duty vehicles, industry, and electricity generation. Other funding covers

« PreviousContinue »