able to take care of volcanic eruptions, and that is another indication that they might be able to take care of some of the things we are talking about with a little less drastic amelioration on our side. Things for us to think and talk about, and I am sure they will come up continually as long as we are in our respective positions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me leave you with one final word. Much of that which could be done is more or less off the table. Taxes have failed, at least in the Senate, and I would guess even if these taxes had been implemented, the Btu tax, a 2 percent conservation effect is within the margin of error, and I think it is debatable because that would have been produced. In any event, at least in the Senate, those seem to be off the table. Emission trading seems to be off the table at the present time. Nuclear power seems to be off the table at least at the present time for this administration. We did as much efficiency and conservation as we knew how to do and to achieve in the Energy Policy Act. It is not fully implemented yet. When it is, I understand it will produce some 20 million to 40 million tons a year, a substantial amount, but that is done, and that is more or less in the cash register. At least I hope upon implementation it will be. That leaves us really with-most of what is left would be joint implementation which I think is where the biggest payoff will be unless you are willing to reconsider some of the other measures. The thing that concerns me is that the goal has been adopted, and while it is true you adopt the goal first and then seek to implement it, it is fairly late in the day in terms of what is the date on which we are supposed to achieve that? August? We ought to be in at least sort of final draft stage now and we are not. It seems to me that we ought to have a little more rigorous examination of these options than we have. It is going to take getting the economic people involved. I am glad Karl Hausker is here. He used to be at least our economic person and a damn good one, but we need that. We need to think not just in terms of that which is desirable. I signed onto this global warming phenomenon. I think it is serious, and it takes some really serious, rigorous, disciplined, scientific thought to solve the problem not-sort of not that which people would like in their own agendas, but some really tough, rigorous thought and consideration of options. We have seen what happens with taxes. Now, taxes are, unfortunately, not very popular with the American public. I say unfortunately because most recognize that a big tax, a carbon tax for example, would have been the environmental way to go, but the administration rejected that early on and for probably very good reasons. You could not pass that. Then you have a Btu tax and that was a small one. That could not pass either. So, we are going to have to go back to consider real actions that produce real results, and I hope we will get that done and with, as I say, the rigorous and disciplined thought with a heavy dose of economic reality brought in. With that, let me thank our witnesses today. You have been very good and very helpful to the committee. [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] APPENDIXES APPENDIX I Responses To Additional Questions DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CONGRESSIONAL, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On June 29, 1993, Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, testified before your Committee on Energy and Natural Resources regarding global climate change. Enclosed are the answers to 28 of the 51 questions submitted by you and Senators Wallop and Mathews. The remaining answers will be forwarded to you as expeditiously as possible. If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Barbara Campbell, on (202) 586-8238. Sincerely, [Enclosure.] WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, III, Assistant Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CONGRESSIONAL, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On June 29, 1993, Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, testified before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources regarding global climate change. Enclosed are the answers to the 23 remaining questions submitted by you and Senators Wallop and Mathews to complete the record. If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Barbara Campbell, on (202) 586-8238. Sincerely, WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, III, [Enclosure.] RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHNSTON Question 1. President Clinton has chosen to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Why was 1990 chosen as the baseline for greenhouse gas stabilization? Does the President intend for the 1990 level to be a cap for future years' emissions? Answer. The year 1990 was chosen as the baseline because this is the baseline specified in Article 4, paragraph 2(b), of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The President did not commit to a permanent cap at 1990 levels but did call for a mitigation plan that would continue the trend of reduced emissions in the years beyond 2000. Question 2. Can you outline in detail the economic assumptions-growth rates, energy prices, investment levels-that went into the Administration's calculation for the greenhouse gas stabilization target? Which agencies have been involved in making these calculations? Answer. The assumptions and baseline projections on energy demand and supply reported in the Annual Energy Outlook 1993 (AEO93) are the starting point for the analysis of energy-related options: However, as noted at the White House Global Climate change Conference, the baseline used for the analysis modifies the assumptions used in the AEO93 to reflect more up-to-date considerations on economic growth rate, Energy Policy Act R&D programs, electric technology, and growth in commercial floor space. Differences in assumptions between the AE093 and the Administration's baseline used for the climate change analysis are summarized below: Economic assumptions (Annual Growth Rates 1990-2010) Natural gas price 1.6% 1.6% Coal minemouth price Electric supply technology assumptions Assumes additional scrubbers per EPA compliance plan. Assumes lower cost for wind technologies based on recent project completions. Residential and commercial sectors Assumes additional funding of low-income weatherization programs included in the Administration budget proposal. Includes the advanced building program and advanced heat pumps included in the Administration budget proposal. Increased energy savings from Federal building efficiency improvements included in the Administration budget proposal. Includes high intensity discharge lamp standards and Green Lights at levels in the Administration budget proposal. Includes some savings from the electric motor standard. Industrial sector Assumes lower savings from motor standard Includes additional savings from various DOE Programs in the Administration proposal (grant and audits, waste reduction R&D, pulp and paper R&D, electric drives R&D). The U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, The U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are involved in making these calculations. Methane and Other Gases: Development of baselines for methane and other gases was led by EPA, with input from other agencies and industry. For methane, the recent EPA report to Congress Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United States: Emissions for 1990, was a key source document. This report, which addresses emissions from landfills and agriculture activities as well as those from the energy sector, was reviewed by DOE staff both as work in progress and as a final report. Question 3. Regarding the topic of joint implementation, you state in your oral testimony that "... I want to make it clear that my personal view is that joint implementation ought to be examined, but under no circumstances should that examination lead people to conclude that this Secretary of Energy is desirous of having credits for joint implementation credited to U.S. logs before the year 2000. I believe we have made a commitment as an Administration to achieve the goal using U.S. activity, and I am not certain at this point that I would like to commit beyond that." However, several weeks earlier in testimony before the Appropriations Committee you stated that you were a "very strong proponent of joint implementation" and went on to say that you would recommend that "clean coal technologies be included as part of the joint implementation requirements of the revised National Action.. " Has your position on this issue changed? Will joint implementation be addressed in the August Plan? Answer. Actions the Administration is examining for inclusion in the mitigation plan will be sufficient to meet the President's commitment domestically. However, I continue to support the view that the joint implementation criteria developed by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee and subsequently adopted by the Parties to the Convention should promote a diverse and extensive set of projects that are jointly implemented. I believe that the set of projects should include application of improved energy technologies in areas of energy efficiency, clean coal technologies, renewable sources and other areas as long as other environmental and safety concerns are adequately addressed. If the international negotiations result in processes to adequately identify methods for assignment of credits for joint implementation projects that result in global emission reductions prior to year 2000, I would support joint implementation credits prior to year 2000. The Administration's mitigation plan has not been completed. Therefore, we cannot yet be specific as to how joint implementation will be addressed in the plan. Question 4. President Clinton's Earth Day speech has focused the Nation's attention on stabilizing emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000. However, the President's statement left unclear the Administration's policy regarding greenhouse gas emissions after the year 2000. During your testimony before the Committee you stated that "clearly the cap has to be held. There are those of us who would like to see reductions further, but let me commit personally to, at a minimum, to holding the cap”. Does your statement at the hearing represent a shift in the Administration's view on post-2000 emissions and if so, will the August Plan include policies for achieving emission reductions beyond the year 2000? Answer. No. These are my personal views. Of course, many of the actions identified in the mitigation plan will continue to cause emission reductions to be below the annual levels that would have been anticipated for years after year 2000. However, the set of actions that would be required to continue the annual emissions levels post 2000 to be no higher than the year 1990 levels will not necessarily be fully defined in the mitigation plan. More detailed greenhouse gas emission reduction options post year 2000 are expected to be discussed in subsequent National Action plans. Question 5. The Committee understands that the Environmental Protection Agency has just completed work on a report entitled Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks for the United States: 1990, which covers all greenhouse gases and provides a sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions. Will this document form the basis for calculation of the baseline under section 1605 of the Energy Policy Act? What role did the Department of Energy play in the compilation of this report? Does the Department of Energy have similar efforts underway to calculate greenhouse gas emissions? When will the regulations be issued for section 1605 of EPAct? Answer. The methods used in the inventory that were applied in the Environmental Protection Agency report are being considered by the Energy Information Administration as they determine the methods and data that will be used for developing the baseline inventory for the period of 1987 through 1990, as required under section 1605. The EPA greenhouse gas inventory was developed for two main purposes: (1) to allow EPA to meet its statutory requirement to develop a national climate change policy as instructed to do by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; and (2) to meet a U.S. commitment to report comprehensive estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks for the Framework Convention on Climate Change. In the context of this second purpose, EPA had previously released an inventory in 1991, reviewed by other agencies, and delivered as a U.S. Government report, to meet a specific request by the IPCC. That international project was begun in 1990 to develop methods to estimate national emissions that could be used effectively by all countries. The Department of Energy reviewed drafts of the Environmental Protection Agency report prior to its distribution for public comments by the Environmental Protection Agency. EIA and EPA have shared inventories and methods several times in mid-1993 in order to resolve discrepancies in date and methods. As required under section 1605, the Energy Information Administration is developing an emissions inventory for greenhouse gases and in doing this, is considering the EPA report, information sources and methods. A coordination process is being set up. |