binding obligations until developing countries agreed to “meaningful participation". The Administration has been quite candid in stating that it did not achieve those goals in Kyoto, and consequently has decided to delay sending the protocol to the Senate for ratification pending further negotiations. Those of us who attended the Kyoto conference know that those negotiations will remain difficult. But it is premature to say that no satisfactory agreement can be reached. While it makes some sense to suspend judgment about the Kyoto agreement until some of these critical details can be resolved, we do not need to wait to pursue aggressive energy efficiency and alternative energy technology policies. We know, from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration reports, that without further policy changes, our use of fossil fuel will continue to skyrocket. Whatever one may think about the seriousness of climate change or the wisdom of the Kyoto protocol, there are other compelling policy justifications for increasing our energy efficiency and developing alternative energy technologies. Many studies have demonstrated the numerous benefits of reducing fossil fuel use through increased energy efficiency and greater use of alternative energy sources. We know that fossil fuel combustion is the primary source of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates that cause air pollution. Reducing fossil fuel emissions helps to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act which protect our public health. Reducing fossil fuel emissions saves lives. Increased energy efficiency and greater use of alternative energy can help us reduce our dependence on imported foreign oil, which is greater today than in the 1970's. We are probably less vulnerable to oil price shocks today, but this dependence still has important ramifications. For example, in 1996, oil imports cost us $60 billion -- over one-third of our trade deficit. And anyone who doubts the relevance of our dependence on imported oil need only look to the costs of our foreign and military policies which still revolve around maintaining open access to the oilfields of the Middle East. Making our industry more energy-efficient is also a way to cut costs and maintain global competitiveness. The U.S. private sector can also lead the world in the development of energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies that we can export to the world. By taking steps to promote energy efficiency and greater use of alternative fuels, we can enhance our energy security, protect our public health, and create new jobs and profitable new export products. And, at the same time, we take out an insurance policy on climate change. This is sound public policy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we examine the President's climate change budget proposals in the coming weeks. I would now like to yield such time as I may have left to the Ranking Democratic Member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana, Tim Roemer. OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOYLE (PA-18) Hearing on the Kyoto Accord Committee on Science Subcommittee on Energy & Environment Today we begin the process of trying to assess the implications of the agreement negotiated in Kyoto last December. In the hearings held in this Committee last year, members of both parties were left with the impression that our many questions about the nature of a climate change agreement would be answered through the negotiations in Kyoto. However, from what I have read so far about the agreement, we may now have more questions about this process and the agreement itself than we had before. My greatest area of concern continues to be the agreement's unequal application, as the developing nations of the world are not going to be subject to the same binding emissions targets. Instead, we have a pledge that we will develop a system of emissions trading and joint implementation strategies. I cannot muster a great deal of enthusiasm for those provisions as, first of all, they are based upon vague language in the agreement and, secondly, I am not confident that they can be structured in a way which will not lead to serious economic harm. Let's take a practical look at how emissions trading will work. How does the U.S. economy benefit when the choice you are presenting to industry is to realize emissionsreduction credits either through greatly increasing operating costs at existing domestic plants, or by relying on a joint implementation which leads to locating cleaner, more competitive, state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities overseas? I am also quite concerned over how the implementation of the Kyoto Accord will impact domestic energy production. Of course, it is difficult to make any definitive statements at this point, because it is totally unclear how we will go about distributing the emissionsreduction burden among various economic sectors or individual industries. However, I think it is safe to say that there will be controls placed on coal-fired power plants. Coalfired power generation is definitely an area where we can reduce emissions, but there is a danger to our overall energy security if we rely solely on regulatory solutions or a carbon Given the limitations on emissions, it will be necessary for almost all coal-fired plants to undergo extensive retrofitting, which will necessitate electric utilities in the U.S. that own and operate coal-fired plants to take significant charges against earnings. Instead, given the increased deregulation in the electric utility industry, it will not be cost-effective to continue to operate these plants. It will make more sense for these utilities to act primarily as transmission companies, abandoning the heavily-regulated less-profitable generation activities. The reality that our current coal-fired power plants cannot survive into the next century leads to one of two eventualities: either we find alternative sources of electricity or develop a new generation of clean and efficient coal-burning plants. In the first scenario, taking away the contribution of coal, accepting the optimistic assumptions that nuclear generation remains static and that the contributions of solar and renewables increase well beyond current projections, we will be relying on natural gas for over 50% of our electricity. While natural gas has a significant role to play in our nation's energy future, and I am an ardent supporter of expanded use of natural gas, it is difficult to imagine that we will be able to develop the infrastructure needed to the extent necessary for natural gas to fulfill this role. The second scenario is one where we make a commitment to developing a new generation of technologies that will secure an abundant and affordable energy supply throughout the next century. I believe that this second option is the smart choice, as a cheap and abundant supply of energy is essential to maintaining our economic well-being. While there is much in the Administration's climate change R&D initiative that I endorse, I must point out that it is woefully lacking in this area. In conclusion, while I am not presumptively dismissing the Kyoto Accord, I think the majority of the people I represent would not endorse moving forward with this much uncertainty about what we are getting ourselves into. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Statement Full Committee Hearing- Kyoto Part I Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and granting me the opportunity to share with my fellow colleagues my views on the importance and necessity of clean air. The talks in Kyoto were crucial because now the U.S. will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to give tax credits for consumers buying advanced technology, highly fuel efficient cars, rooftop solar electricity and hot water systems. These requirements will help all Americans comply to making our air cleaner. In order for us to solve the world's pollution problem, every one is responsible to implementing solutions in their own backyard. As a result, last week the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission announced a new Clean Air Strategy for Texas. This set of options will be considered to control ground-level ozone pollution for many areas including the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. This plan is designed to be used as a new air pollution |