A: KEINSTED. Ais, the P54 Green Licht Dramom học pramat mp am omare of that, bn, WE DES Drovide intermsban on that progran Tine mormation, referred to fallows Greet Lights will produce muitinie nationa' benefits by addspeeing crition' fecras c: energy-efficient paulic prevention, and economic competitivanes, Corpore tions which make the commitment to Green laghts wil prášis by lowesins. thaielectricit Di... improving neng quality and incressing worker productivity They w... Bis reduce the E pollution caused by electricity generation which in cludes carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Lenting accounts for 2 to 25 percent of the electricity need annually in the United States. Lagnuing for industry. stores offices and warehouses rensesents from Bt to tu percent or total nighting electricha, us: I: energy-efficient ghung were user everywhere it ware profitable, the electricity required for gnung would be cut my 50 percent and aggregate nations' plaetroity demand would be reduced by It percen... This reduction would free S. 6 milhor from ratengver bills for neofy' invest ment and reduce annua, carbon dioxide emissions by 262 million tons (4 pendent of the nationa. total, the ecurvatent of 42 milhor car. It would also radnoć sulfu, di oxide emissions DV minnon tons. or percent of the national total; and nitrogen oxide emissions pv 900.000 tons, or 4 percent of the national total Other forms of pollution-boiter ast.. scrubber waste acidic drainage and waste from coal mining radioactive waste, and natura, gas leakage would also be re auced EPA has established a national lighting product information program in conjune tion with utilities and other organizations. This program will provide brand name information sc that purchasers will be able to choose products with confidence. In addition, it will allow innovative products to be rapidly qualified, removing a signifi cant barrier for new technologies As part of the support program. EPA has developed a project to identify and en hance financing resources for energy-efficient lighting Green Lights Partners will be given rosters of financing sources such as utility programs, energy service compa nies, government grants and low-interest loans banks, and leasing companies A computerized database of all utility financing programs for lighting is the first prod uct of this project. EPA nas established a project to ensure that demand for energy efficient lighting products will not outrun supply. Promoters of energy-efficient lighting products will not outrun supply. Promoters of energy-efficient lighting and product manufactur ers will be brought together to ensure the transition to energy-efficient lighting in an smooth as possible. EPA has also developed Green Lights Ally programs for lighting manufacturera, service providers, and utilities to promote the environmental, economie, and quality benefits of energy-efficient lighting. Allies commit to undertake the same rbolita that Green Lights Partners do and will assist EPA in developing the technical sup port program. EPA does not promote or endorse any Ally or its producte my neyyben If you have questions about the Ally programs, or about the Ally status of any par ticular company, please call the number below. EPA is collecting case studies of economically successful investments which will be available to Green Lights corporations and other corporate decinjón mabiog When a corporation joins the Green Lights program, it signa a Menon andum oË Understanding with EPA. This agreement commits the corporation to an vey all of its facilities and install new lighting systems that maximize energy envinge to fla extent that they are profitable and do not compromise lighting quality There are no technology prescription. The corporation spices to comed upgrades within five years and to document the improvemente it make company joins the program, it commits to build new facilities using the most current building energy guidelines. Typically, a corporation will implement the Green Lights process through four phases: 1. Survey: Green Lights corporations will survey their facilities to determine where lighting can be upgraded. 2. Options analyses: The corporation will identify the most favorable upgrades for each area covered by the lighting survey. 3. Trial installation: Green lights recommends a trial installation of the new technology and a gathering of feedback from employees. 4. Final upgrade: After Green Lights corporations make the final installation of new technologies, they will begin to realize large savings on electricity bills, significant pollution prevention, and public recognition of environmental leadership. EPA commits to help Green Lights participants with technical support project which benefit Green Lights Partners, help strengthen the infrastructure of the energy-efficient lighting industry, and lower the barriers to energy-efficient lighting. A computerized decision support system developed by EPA will allow Green Lights corporations to rapidly survey the lighting systems in their facilities, assess their retrofit options, and select the best energy-efficient lighting upgrades. The decision support software produces reports suitable for use by facility managers, corporate financial staff and senior management. Senator BAUCUs. Second is energy-efficient buildings. OTA believes that if all new buildings are required to be energy efficient, CO2 emissions will be put from roughly four to six percent annually, and we could save as much as $53 billion. I wonder if you are familiar with that? Mr. REINSTEIN. That is an area that has also been identified by the Administration as having significant potential savings, which we would support. There is a question of how you would go about achieving that at the Federal level, but it is an area that we agree has significant potential. Senator BAUCUS. Increased vehicle efficiency-OTA reports that this could lower CO2 emissions by nearly 10 percent. The National Academy of Sciences reports the cost to be a net benefit. Mr. REINSTEIN. There are also, obviously, potential savings in this area, and the Administration agrees with that. There are sections of the National Energy Strategy that address that area. Senator BAUCUS. Do you support the CAFE standards, the Bryan Bill? Mr. REINSTEIN. I don't believe that is a current Administration position. The State Department is not involved in the domestic energy policy debate directly. Senator BAUCUS. Which of those that we have just discussed: lighting, energy-efficient buildings, and increased vehicle efficiency are just suggestions by the Administration and which, in the Administrations' energy program, would be mandatory actions? Mr. REINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I have not been directly involved in the development of the National Energy Strategy and the legislation which would implement it, so I would have to ask to provide some follow-up on that. It is not the State Department's area of responsibility, but I would point out that there are a large number of areas where the Administration sees potential savings, reductions of CO2 emissions, and has made proposals to carry them out. The manner in which those proposals would be carried out, I think, is something that is under debate in other committees of this Congress. Senator BAUCUS. You're right. It is not the State Department's responsibility to develop these, but it is the State Department's responsibility to negotiate the climate change agreement. I would assume, therefore, that that assumes knowledge of the U.S.' actual efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. So it very much is an integral part of the development of the U.S. position so that the United States Government can state its position authoritatively at those negotiations. Mr. REINSTEIN. The question of how this would be carried outmandatory or voluntary, using economic incentives and market incentives rather than command and control and so on-is not a State Department function. We do agree with the general Administration position to use market incentives as opposed to command and control. Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. I don't want to drag this out any farther unless Senator Lieberman has more. Senator LIEBERMAN. Just a final question, if you will submit a response in writing. That is: we have talked around the question of the understandable economic impact of some of the CO2 emission reduction programs. If you have any more detailed analysis of that, of the economic impact of some of these CO2 reduction programs, I would be interested in seeing that. Mr. REINSTEIN. We would be happy to share it with you. [The following material was submitted and has been retained in committee files: "Carbon Charges as a Response to Global Warming: The Effects of Taxing Fossil Fuels," Congressional Budget Office Study, August, 1990; "The Economics of Long-Term Global Climate Change: A Preliminary Assessment," Department of Energy, September, 1990; "To Slow Or Not To Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect," William D. Nordhaus, November, 1990; "The Cost of Slowing Climate Change: A Survey," William D. Nordhaus, October 31, 1990; "Estimating the Marginal Cost of Reducing Global Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, August 1, 1990; and "A Least Cost Energy Analysis of U.S. CO2 Reduction Options," Brookhaven National Laboratory, March, 1990.] Senator BAUCUs. Along the same lines, I think that there are probably-I guess the main point is that the United States Government, with a little bit more aggressive action, could find ways to significantly reduce CO2 emissions in a way that does not cause economic havoc. For example, coal production in this country. There are lots of new technologies that are being developed to burn coal much more efficiently. What we're really getting at is all the fuel efficiency provisions, building efficiency provisions, lighting provisions-there are a whole host of efforts that can be taken with a little more energy or enthusiasm-by the Administration, I might add-so that we could address the problem in a way that is implied and actually expressly stated by the Senator's point. That is in a way that does not cause economic harm to this country. In fact, in many cases, according to National Academy of Sciences and OTA that would provide net economic benefit to this country. I just think that there is a perception of the United States as being a little slow in this area, not working as hard as it should, and we're dragging our feet. So I just urge you. Mr. Reinstein, to take the message back to the State Department, or more particularly, all the way up to the President, that there is at least one subcommittee here that would like to see the Administration be much more aggressive than it has thus far. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. "Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] Statements submitted for the record follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF EILEEN CLAUSSEN It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning to present an update of our activities related to stratospheric ozone protection. This issue continues to evolve rapidly on many fronts. This morning I would like to focus on the results of the recent Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montrea Protocol our progress to date or implementing Title VI of the Clean Air Act, and questions concerning funding for Agency efforts related to substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. REPORT OF THE THIRD MEETING OF THE PARTIES The Third Meeting of the Protocol Parties took place in Nairobi from June 19 through June 21. The most significant development at the meeting was the announcement by China that it was acceding to the amended Protocol. In addition, statements were also made by Taiwan announcing its intent to comply with the Protocol's requirements and by Korea that it too would soon become a Party. Thus, India is the only remaining significant consumer of ozone-depleting substances that has not announced that it soon will become a Party. We remain hopeful that it will fulfill the commitment it made in London in June 1990 and join the Protocol. The actual business of the meeting focused first, on reviewing progress on actions adopted at the last meeting of the Parties and second, on guiding future actions to review the control measures of the Protocol at the next meeting of the Parties. The Parties received a progress report on the initial months of activities imple menting the Interim Multilateral Fund which had been adopted by decision at the June 1990 meeting. The United States sits on the Executive Committee that oversees the operations of the Fund. We have worked hard to address many questions that have arisen during these initial months and believe that the Fund is now in a position to begin implementing projects that reduce the use of ozone-depleting substances in developing countries. During its first nine months of operations, the Executive Committee has decided that the Fund Secretariat would be located in Montreal, approved operating guidelines which set forth general principles to guide the Fund's activities, and approved work programmes and budgets for each of the three implementing agencies (ie, the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme, and United Nations Environment Programme). While substantial progress has been made in the start-up of the Fund, more remains to be done for it to successfully fulfill its objectives. Many developed nations have not yet paid in their first year's contributions. Many developing nations have been slow to organize in order to utilize the resources of the Fund. The implementing agencies need to coordinate their activities better and maximize the delivery of projects to the developing countries in the shortest possible time period. We should be in a good position to help make certain these concerns are addressed because the United States was nominated to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee of the Fund for the coming year. The other major focus of the meeting involved reviewing the mandate of the assessment panels and working groups to ensure that the next meeting of the Parties would be in a position to address questions concerning the possible need for additional measures to protect the ozone layer. The Parties agreed to ask the assessment panels to look at issues related to an earlier phaseout of controlled substances and to identify those uses where HCFCs (termed transitional substances) may be needed. The results of these assessments should provide the Parties with a strong analytical basis for deciding on issues concerning an earlier phaseout of controlled substances and on limits to HCFCs at their next meeting which was scheduled for September or October of 1992. |