barriers in the marketplace so that businesses, households, governments, and industries can develop and deploy clean technologies much faster than they would in a business-as-usual environment.

Let me emphasize some important aspects of EPA's programs. First, they are completely voluntary; each of our 7,000 partners in private businesses, non-profit organizations, and state and local governments has chosen to participate. Second, our programs impose no regulatory costs on the private sector; on the contrary, they help our partners save money, thus making them more profitable and competitive. Third, our programs provide no financial subsidies; rather, they elicit the involvement of our partners simply because they make economic and environmental sense.

Furthermore, our programs foster earlier market penetration of costeffective, environmentally-protective technologies. By doing so, they increase the likelihood that these technologies will be adopted by non-participating companies, universities, hospitals, and state and local governments as well. Indeed, some of the technologies our programs have leveraged -- e.g., energyefficient computers -- are now the standard norm around the world, even in some developing countries. The broadest possible use of these technologies generates an additional economic benefit for the United States, because in many cases the technologies are developed and sold by American companies. In addition, because these technologies usually reduce emissions of many air pollutants besides greenhouse gases, they help us achieve a number of our long-term health goals.

Perhaps the most important quality of these programs is that their benefits are immediate. When an investment is made today in energy-efficient technology, energy use drops immediately. Money is saved immediately. Air pollutants, including greenhouse gases, are reduced immediately. All those savings resulting from new technology deployment continue to accrue for decades to come, resulting in enormous aggregate benefits.

If, on the other hand, we invest today in inefficient and out-of-date technologies, we will miss out on a huge opportunity to change our environmental and economic future for the better. Just as one example, 60 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2010 will be generated by manufacturing plants, equipment, and products that will be purchased between now and then. In other words, if we are concerned about air quality in 2010 and beyond, if we are concerned about the effects of global warming in the year 2010 and beyond, we can address those concerns today in the decisions we make to purchase new capital stock.

EPA's CCTI programs already funded by Congress are helping American businesses, communities, and consumers make better investment and purchasing decisions, and those decisions are already boosting profits, improving worker productivity, and cleaning up the air. Let me give you just a few examples.

Schools nationwide that have joined EPA's ENERGY STAR Buildings and
Green Lights programs have increased the quality of their classroom
lighting while achieving large reductions in their energy bills. Since 1995,
EPA's programs have helped schools and universities save more than
$200 million, enough money to buy 4 million books or hire 4,000 new
teachers.

Home builders have built more than 5,000 new ENERGY STAR Homes
that use 30 percent less energy than conventional structures, saving each
homeowner $400 per year on energy costs.

Hundreds of businesses, large and small, are protecting the environment
while saving money through their participation in CCTI programs. For
example, in the Wisconsin headquarters building of West Bend Mutual
Insurance, efficient building design is credited with saving about $125,000
per year on utility bills while improving employee productivity by about
$260,000 per year.

Climate Wise Partner Anheuser-Busch has developed a "bio-energy" recovery system that turns solid waste into a renewable source of energy that provides 15 percent of the brewery's fuel supply. By 2000, eight facilities are expected to save more than $40 million a year by using that technology.

Climate Wise Partner Allergan of Irvine, California has installed energyefficient technologies including improved lighting, motion detectors, highefficiency motors, variable-speed drives, and upgraded cooling systems. Allergan reduced annual carbon dioxide emissions by almost seven million pounds in 1997, and by 2000 the company projects annual CO2 reductions of almost 20 million pounds. The associated cost savings are estimated at $300,000 in 1997 and $1.8 million in 2000.

RMC Lonestar, a Portland cement company in Davenport, California is improving its air compressor system, installing variable speed motors, and modernizing its raw mill delivery system, among other improvements. By next year, these energy-efficient upgrades will save the company about a million dollars while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 3.3 million pounds per year.

Jockey International of Kenosha, Wisconsin has pledged to reduce its energy use 10 percent below 1995 levels by the year 2000 by installing modular hot water boilers, central chillers, and energy-efficient lighting. By next year, the company expects to save $20,000 a year in energy costs while reducing annual CO2 emissions by 600,000 pounds. Taken in the aggregate, EPA-sponsored technology deployment programs have helped American businesses and communities generate huge energy savings while making sizable reductions in a number of different pollutants. EPA's year 2000 goals for these programs, which serve all major sectors of the American economy, are to:

Reduce greenhouse gases by 58 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (213 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent), about as much as is emitted by 15 percent of our motor vehicle fleet.

Reduce other forms of air pollution such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and mercury through better energy efficiency, and reduce water pollution through better fertilizer management. NOx emissions alone will be reduced by more than 152,000 tons in 2000. Reduce U.S. energy consumption by more than 59 billion kilowatt hours. Provide up to $8 billion in energy savings to U.S. consumers and

businesses that use energy efficient products for the year.

Clearly, EPA's CCTI programs have been successful in the past. Through the hard work and innovative thinking of our corporate and community partners, we have consistently surpassed our annual programmatic goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions. We have demonstrated beyond any doubt that these voluntary partnership programs are win-win situations for the American economy and the quality of our environment. We estimate that every federal dollar spent on these programs drives 20 dollars of private investment, which in turn saves more than 70 dollars in energy costs while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by more than two tons.

These programs are working. But we think they can do even more, which is why the Administration is requesting a $107 million increase over this year's funding for EPA's CCTI programs. We want to target other cost-effective, environment-protecting opportunities. If the proven results of current programs continue into the future, our goals for the year 2010 are:

A reduction of 354 million metric tons carbon equivalent (1.3 billion metric tons carbon dioxide), in addition to 850,000 tons of NOx reductions; and $35 billion in energy savings for American families and businesses. What's more, we expect overall program effectiveness to improve as EPA's programs mature and more energy-efficient technologies become available. As Jay Hakes notes in his testimony this morning, the early market penetration of

energy-efficient technologies, the kind of early penetration accelerated by EPA's and DOE's CCTI programs, may reduce future costs [and I quote] "through learning, establishing the infrastructure, and increasing familiarity with new technologies."

I mention Mr. Hakes' testimony because there are two areas of his analysis with which I disagree. First, while he recognizes some of the positive aspects of the EPA and DOE programs, his analysis focuses on only one portion of the President's CCTI -- the tax incentives -- and thus misses the bigger picture. Tax incentives do not operate independently within the President's climate change initiative. They are simply one of the tools used in combination with several others to speed up the introduction and market penetration of new, energy-efficient technologies. All of these tools work more effectively together than when looked at in isolation. Second, the EIA analysis appears to mischaracterize certain key technologies and their economic and environmental benefits. Let me give you two examples, one in the transportation sector and one in the industrial sector.

In the transportation sector, the CCTI's R&D and tax proposals go hand in hand. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is an exemplary R&D effort aimed at enhancing our global leadership in automotive technology. PNGV is on schedule -- within five years it will generate production prototypes of mid-sized family cars that will be up to three times more fuel efficient than today's counterparts, while maintaining the cost, safety, performance, and utility that consumers demand.

Federal government support of this kind of R&D effort is critical. In its fourth regular report on the PNGV program, the National Research Council said, "The government should significantly expand its support for the development of long-term PNGV technologies that have the potential to improve fuel economy, lower emissions, and be commercially viable." Mindful of this recommendation, the President proposed an increase of $24 million over this year's funding level