Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Chairman Ken Calvert "General Agreement" That Societal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Responsible For At Least Part of the Earth Surface Reliance on the National Research Council for Outside Input Recommendation of Recent National Research Council Reports U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Participation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Page Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) Request for Parties to Provide Submissions by 1 August 2000 on Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol IPCC Report on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Man- agement in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories The Honorable Dan W. Reicher, Assistant Secretary for Energy Effi- ciency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy International Clean Energy Program Goals Effectiveness of EPA's Programs Versus Those of DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) Analysis of the Fis- Mr. Paul M. Stolpman, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Paul M. Stolpman, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- State and Local Climate Change Program International Capacity Building Effectiveness of EPA's Programs Versus Those of DOE February 17, 2000 Federal Register Notice (65 F.R. 8097- 8103) of EPA Proposal to Approve Revisions to the Air Pollu- tion Control State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submitted by October 29, 1999 ICF Consulting Press Release Announcing Comparison of Global Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Part- nership With Other EPA Partnerships APPENDIX 2: Additional Materials for the Record Our Changing Planet: The FY 2001 U.S. Global Change Research Pro- Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative: Fiscal Year 2001, Energy Information Administration, SR/OIAF/2000-01, (Washington, "Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee Regarding EPA's Cli- "Environmental Protection Agency FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan "Driving Investment in Energy Efficiency: Energy Star and Other Vol- "Research Strategy: Global Change Research Program, Peer Review Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature, Panel on Reconciling "A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan," A report of the Carbon and Climate "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1999, Energy Infor- Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1998, 1720 1889 1952 1988 2031 2087 2177 2254 2275 2377 U.S. Methane Emissions 1990-2020: Inventories, Projections, and Oppor- 2589 HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2001 CLIMATE CHANGE BUDGET AUTHORIZATION REQUEST THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Chairman CALVERT. We will now convene the hearing. The hearing will come to order. Today the Subcommittee will consider the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for climate change. The Administration is asking for nearly $4,130,000,000 for a variety of spending, as well as a tax incentive and grant programs across the Federal departments and agencies. This request is a $760,000,000 increase, or 22.6 percent over the current year, and includes $201,000,000 for an International Clean Energy Initiative (CCTI), $289,000,000 for a Biofuels and Bioproducts Initiative, $85,000,000 for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Clean Air Partnership Fund, more than $1,400,000,000 for Climate Change Technology Initiative, mostly funded by the Department of Energy and EPA, $201,000,000 for CCTI tax incentives, nearly $180,000,000 in other DOE-funded climate related programs, including coal, natural gas R&D, weatherization and State energy grants. And finally, more than $1,700,000,000 for the U.S. global change research program. In December of 1997, the Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, which commits the United States to a net reduction in average greenhouse gas emissions of 7 percent below the 1990 levels, in a 2008-2012 time frame. The commitment amounts to a reduction of more than 30 percent from the U.S. projected emission levels in 2010. The Administration has neither submitted this U.N. treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, nor apparently has any plans to do so in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Administration has yet to provide a detailed road map of how the U.S. is to meet this commitment and, in fact, has yet to submit the detailed account of fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 Federal climate change program obligations and expenditures required by Section 568 of the fiscal year 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations Conference Report. (1) This Committee, in particular, has been very generous in its support of energy R&D and related technology development, as well as global change research. We know that advances in research and technology can provide us with a better, cleaner and more prosperous world for future generations. However, we also know that advances in technology cannot and will not work to a U.N. timetable. And also, we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the 1970s by throwing large amounts of money at dubious programs that don't get results. I have several concerns with the CCTI program. My first concern is that the research and technology portion is light on funding for research and generic technology development and heavy on funding for commercialization activities that are more appropriately the business of the private sector. My second concern is that the CCTI tax package, largely a repeat of last year's proposal, not only further complicates an already unmanageably complex tax code, but will have virtually no impact as shown by the Energy Information Administration analysis. The witnesses before us today are: Dr. D. James Baker, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; the Honorable Dan W. Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; and Mr. Paul M. Stolpman-is that pronounced correctly?-Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, EPA Office of Air and Radiation. I understand that Dr. Baker, who also serves as Chair of the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Global Change Research, will be testifying on behalf of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Finally, I want to make a few comments on the Clinton-Gore Administration's energy policy. Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu recently characterized this Administration's energy policy as "no nuclear, no oil, no gas, no coal and no hydropower". But yet still expecting energy prices to be low and stable. "The American people know better", she said, and I agree. The Administration's energy policy has already led to astronomical increases in home heating oil in the Northeast and record high gasoline and diesel prices around the Nation. This is particularly true in my home State of California, where yesterday's edition of the Los Angeles Times reported the price of a gallon of self-serve regular unleaded gasoline hit $1.63 a gallon. And there is no end in sight. Many experts, as we read in the newspaper, expect that parts of the Nation will be facing $2.00 to $2.50 a gallon gasoline this summer. Over the past seven years, we've seen domestic oil production decline by more than 16 percent, while oil consumption has risen by some 14 percent, and oil imports by more than 20 percent. In addition, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of domestic refineries, oil rigs and oil industry jobs. Year after year, the Administration has proposed an increased tax on the oil and gas industry starting with its infamous 1993 BTU tax, and even today, including more than $2,500,000,000 in taxes in its fiscal year 2001 budget request. |