11. Develop Energy Efficient Technologies for Industry. The Administration should work closely with the private sector to develop key advanced, energy-efficient technologies for industrial use, such as in steel-making and motor systems. Coincident with this effort should he development of a strategy to encourage the rapid deployment of these technologies, by expanding DOE's small but successful technical assistance programs, and by co-funding state low-interest loan programs for efficiency projects in small businesses. DOE should also extend minimum efficiency standards to pumps, fans, compressors, belts, and other widely used industrial technologies. REDOUBLE EFFORTS UNDER EXISTING PROGRAMS AND MANDATES 12. Accelerate Implementation of Efficiency and Renewables Provisions of the Energy Policy Act and Other Laws. The Administration should seek full funding for the Department of Energy to implement all energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and other laws. DOE should use these funds to accelerate its development of relevant rules and standards as required by the Act, including aggressive new efficiency standards for new buildings and appliances. DOE should also promote and support the voluntary adoption of the Federal Model Code by state governments. 13. Target Specific Opportunities For Advanced Technology Commercialization. The U.S. should do far more to promote the development and extensive use of advanced new technologies for lighting, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, motor systems, and residential appliances, all of which promise large potential emissions reductions while saving consumers money. These efforts can build on the existing voluntary "Green Programs" of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as utility demand-side management programs. RECTIFY THE ECONOMICS OF DRIVING 14. Encourage a Switch to Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance. The Administration should provide concrete incentives to state governments to implement "Pay-As-You-Drive" automobile insurance, whereby insurance payments are collected through a surcharge on fuel consumption. This initiative would reduce the initial cost of automobile ownership, help to make the cost of driving more accurately reflect its true social costs, and reduce overall vehicle miles travelled. It would also improve the efficiency of the insurance industry, hy making fees proportional to miles driven, and by reducing injuries and fatalities. This could be accomplished without diminishing accident victims' rights. 15. Levelize Tax Benefits for Commuters. Employer-provided parking receives a massive federal subsidy of $17 billion each year. encouraging millions of Americans to drive alone to work. For the average commute, this subsidy is several times larger than the federal gasoline tax collected for the same trip. This subsidy, which receives unique treatment in the U.S. tax code, should be cashed out, or else reduced to levels comparable with the $60/month tax exemption provided to employer-provided tränsit benefits. REVAMP TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PRIORITIES 16. Implement Existing Federal Mandates With an Eye to Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The EPA should issue new guidance and regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for judging whether or not regional transportation plans (and hence eligibility for federal funds) are in conformity with the CAA. These rules must be more closely tied to the intent of CAA and lead to real annual reductions in emissions of air pollutants as a result of transportation plans and programs themselves, not counting the effects of fleet turnover, enhanced maintenance, fuel changes, or other technology fix strategies. States and municipalities should be required to evaluate alternative scenarios in their long and short range planning, and consider policies which discourage single occupancy vehicle use. 17. Invest in Alternatives to Additional Road Construction. Despite gains made in the 1991 transportation law, the US. still invests far more in road infrastructure than it does in rail and non-motorized alternatives. The Administration should seek full funding for mass transit programs, while avoiding investment in new road capacity. It should also promote non-motorized transport as a genuine alternative to single-occupancy vehicles, by aggressively seeking to integrate bicycle and pedestrian traffic into all new transportation investments. It should also support opening the Airport and Airways Trust Fund for construction of rail access among cities and airports. 18. Champion Land Use/Transportation Planning Reform. As a long-term strategy, the U.S. should seek to revolutionize the way land use is regulated at the local level. Higher-density, mixed-use development clustered around available public transportation modes can reduce the need for motor vehicle travel and the number of miles driven to satisfy basic mobility needs. Land use controls at the urban periphery can discourage the further sprawl of a metropolis, and encourage revitalization of the city's center. 19. Promote Intermodal Freight Shipping. Intermodal freight shipping could provide significant efficiency improvements over longdistance shipping by truck, but shippers must be given incentives and viable options to shift from trucks to less-polluting rail transport. The U.S. should support constructing intermodal terminals and ports, and charging trucks fully for the infrastructure they use. REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 20. Extend Environmental Assessment Requirements to Cover Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The President should direct all federal agencies to include an analysis of relative greenhouse gas emissions as part of their environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as required under the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act. 21. Make the Federal Government a Model of Energy Efficiency. The Federal Government is the largest energy user in the country. All of its facilities and vehicle fleets should adopt state-of-the-art technology to cut emissions, enhance the market for this equipment, and reduce energy costs borne by taxpayers. By aggressively investing in energy efficiency, the Federal Government could cut its energy bill in 2000 by $1 billion per year. Prepared by the following participants in Climate Action Network-US.: Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an EnergyEfficiens Economy, Center for International Environmental Law, Environmental Action, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, US. Public Interest Research Group, and World Wildlife Fund. Annual spending is given in millions of constant 1990$ (M$/yr). United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 AUG 2 1993 JUL 30 1993 Dear Mr. Stearns: Thank you for your letter of May 26 to Counselor Timothy Wirth. He appreciated having the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power in May and is glad to have this opportunity to further expand on the Administration's view on the critical issue of global warming. The Administration takes the issue of climate change extremely seriously. Many of your constituents may have already voiced their concern about sea level rise and other projected coastal impacts of global warming issues and concerns which we are addressing. We are working to develop a policy which at the same time will be environmentally sound and economically cost-effective. In order to assure ourselves that the policy fully recognizes the complexity of climate change, the Administration has created six interagency working groups to examine these issues in detail (including groups on energy supply, energy demand, transportation, methane and other greenhouse gases, sinks of greenhouse gases, and joint implementation). In addition, we have established an interagency analysis team to provide numerical analyses and to help synthesize the work of the other groups. We expect that through the joint efforts of these groups, and with the additional input derived from the private sector (including the business community and environmental and academic organizations), we will be able to meet the President's commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. It is clear, however, that the task will be difficult. As you note in your letter, many questions arise with respect to the development and interpretation of baselines of greenhouse gas emissions, of the specific emissions reductions that can be credited to particular actions, and of the potential need for new regulation or legislation to meet the goals. Let me try to address these concerns in order. The Honorable Cliff Stearns, House of Representatives. -2 Reduction versus Stabilization As you know, President Clinton made specific reference to this issue in his Earth Day speech, when he said: "Today, I reaffirm my personal, and announce our nation's The President's statement is a clear announcement of our intentions: to move forward, to the best of our national ability, to reduce our current emissions -- and to take steps to continue these reductions in the future. The exact measures, policies, and programs that will lead us to meeting the President's commitment are the expected outcome of the development of our national plan. We are confident that American ingenuity and technological creativity will enable us to fulfill this commitment. U.S. Analyses Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Tierney provided an extremely clear statement of our present level of understanding of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions levels in her testimony before your Subcommittee at the May 26 hearing. In her statement, she noted that 1990 emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (the three most significant of the human influenced GHGs) totalled between 1520 and 1617 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE), and that by the year 2000, emissions of these three GHGs are projected to grow to between 1716 and 1830 MMTCE. Emissions are reported in a common unit of MMTCE so that the global warming potentials of the various GHGs can be compared. This projection assumed that the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and President Clinton's economic policy proposals had not been enacted. Let me note that these projections are regularly and continually updated as new data become available. However, full implementation of the Energy Policy Act is expected to reduce emissions by about 40 MMTCE from the projected year 2000 level. These reductions will be achieved through increased efficiency standards, energy market reform, and increased research and development on clean and efficient energy supply and end-use technologies. The Btu tax (at the levels originally proposed by the Administration) was projected to further reduce GHG emissions by 25 MMTCE from the 2000 level. -3 Possibilities for New Legislation or Regulation As mentioned above, many interagency groups are currently working to develop an effective, efficient, and equitable plan to meet the President's commitment. After careful review and fully considering the wide-ranging effects of any activities on the domestic economy, the interagency groups will present a range of options and their recommendations to the President. such as Whether additional legislation will be required is dependent on the components of the Administration's recommended programs and measures. We certainly expect that many of the results can be obtained through current legislation the Energy Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and its 1990 amendments, and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991. Other reductions are likely to result from voluntary actions taken within the private sector. It is possible, of course, that still other options may require either legislation or regulatory action -- but until we have developed the set of proposals, we will not be able to determine this. Enclosed is a copy of the charts and tables that were developed by the White House for the Conference held in mid-June and provide technical information on emissions and projections for future emissions. If you need additional information about these data and the assumptions inherent in them, I urge that you contact the White House Office of Environmental Policy. I hope I have answered some of your questions, and I would be happy to assist you further in any way possible. By his commitment to reduce GHG emissions, President Clinton has launched this nation on a truly historic endeavor. By developing a cost-effective plan to fulfill this commitment, the United States will demonstrate strong international leadership in addressing the critical global problem of climate change. Sincerely, Licendyll. Sher main Wendy R. Sherman Enclosure As stated. |