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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regard to appliance efficiency standards, there does not seem to have been as much controversy about that, so I will pass over that, except to say that when we adopted a scenario of aggressive appliance efficiency standards, that we did find a saving of 5.4 million metric tons in the year 2010.

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:]

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 Department or the Administration. ELA's baseline projections on energy trends, however, are widely used by government 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.

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 $4 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 (CCTI). 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 research, development, and deployment for energy-efficient and renewable technologies and