[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
H.R. 2635, THE CARBON-NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2635
TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING
THROUGH MEASURES THAT PROMOTE EFFICIENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
MAY 17, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-853 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania,
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Michael McCarthy, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 17, 2007..................................... 1
Text of H.R. 2635................................................ 4
Statement of:
Figdor, Emily, director, Federal global warming program, U.S.
Public Interest Research Group; Jeffrey Harris, vice
president for programs, Alliance to Save Energy; and
Marshall Purnell, first vice-president/president-elect, the
American Institute of Architects........................... 45
Figdor, Emily............................................ 45
Harris, Jeffrey.......................................... 56
Purnell, Marshall........................................ 70
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Figdor, Emily, director, Federal global warming program, U.S.
Public Interest Research Group, prepared statement of...... 47
Harris, Jeffrey, vice president for programs, Alliance to
Save Energy, prepared statement of......................... 59
Purnell, Marshall, first vice-president/president-elect, the
American Institute of Architects, prepared statement of.... 73
H.R. 2635, THE CARBON-NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management,
Organization, and Procurement,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edolphus Towns
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Towns, Welch, Platts, Duncan,
Issa, Bilbray, Waxman, and Davis of Virginia.
Staff present: Michael McCarthy, staff director; Velvet
Johnson, counsel; Cecelia Morton, clerk; David Marin, minority
staff director; A. Brooke Bennett, minority counsel; Larry
Brady, minority senior investigator and policy advisor; and
Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.
Mr. Towns. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today's hearing is on an important new bill to make the
Federal Government a leader in reducing emissions that could
contribute to global warming. Chairman Henry Waxman is the
author of this bill and has joined us today. I would like to
recognize him first to give an introduction of the bill and
then we will proceed with the rest of the opening statements.
Let me yield now to the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Henry Waxman from California.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
this courtesy that you are extending to me. In the months and
years ahead, we will be asking Americans to make many changes
to combat irreversible climate change. Companies will be asked
to internalize the costs of global warming pollution, to
operate more efficiently, and to innovate and find newer and
cleaner ways to operate. Families will be asked to make their
homes energy efficient and to buy fuel efficient vehicles.
What this bill does is say that the Federal Government
should lead the effort to protect the planet from global
warming.
Over the last few years, the reverse has happened. As
companies have stepped up to act on global warming, the Federal
Government has stepped back.
On January 24, 2007, President Bush issued an Executive
order that actually repealed a previous Executive order calling
for the Government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation we are considering today says that the
Federal Government is no longer going to be doing the least. It
will become the world leader.
This bill aims to freeze and dramatically reduce the
Federal Government's greenhouse gas emissions until we achieve
a carbon-neutral Government in 2050. It also includes specific
requirements for agency actions to help the Government meet
these goals.
The Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in
the United States and probably the world. A carbon-neutral
Government is a symbol that the United States will set the
standard for environmental responsibility.
The Federal Government's actions can also transform the
economy. The Federal Government owns or controls a huge number
of buildings, vehicles, planes, and other equipment, and it
makes hundreds of billions of dollars of purchases every year.
Entire industries have developed solely to meet the
Government's demands for goods and services. Because Government
needs drive technology advances and create markets for new
goods, Federal action can help develop a more vibrant and
cleaner economy.
The Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007 establishes the
goals and the mechanisms to harness this potential. Under the
legislation, Federal agencies must freeze emissions in 2010,
reduce emissions to meet annual targets, and achieve zero net
emissions by 2050.
To help Federal agencies meet these requirements, the bill
contains specific complementary policies to lower emissions
through reducing fuel use and increasing energy efficiency in
Federal operations.
Nearly two thirds of all energy consumed by the Federal
Government in 2005 was for fuel used for mobility--vehicles,
planes, ships, and other equipment. The Carbon-Neutral
Government Act will reduce these emissions from vehicles by
requiring Government vehicles to meet the California standards
for motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill also adopts recommendations by the Defense Science
Board and others to ensure that agencies use the real cost of
fuel when assessing the cost effectiveness of efficiency
improvements in equipment. Fuel priced at $2.50 at the pump can
cost an agency 15 times that or more once it is delivered to
the point of use in a battlefield or remote location.
Considering the real cost will drive agencies to acquire
significantly more efficient equipment and enjoy substantial
operational cost savings.
The Federal Government owns or leases over 500,000
facilities. The electricity and other energy used in these
facilities accounts for nearly 45 percent of the Government's
greenhouse gas emissions. The Carbon-Neutral Government Act
tackles emissions from both new and existing facilities.
For new facilities, the bill sets ambitious but achievable
goals recommended by the American Institute of Architects. For
existing facilities, the bill requires Energy Star benchmarking
and energy audits to identify opportunities for improvements.
The bill also strengthens the requirements for agencies to
procure energy efficient products.
President Kennedy did not know exactly how we would get to
the moon when he set that goal, but once committed to that
goal, the Nation found the way. And in doing so we created new
space age technologies that led the world.
That is the kind of Federal leadership we need to respond
to the threat of global climate change.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for
considering at this hearing opinions from the witnesses on how
we can achieve what we all should want to achieve--a reduction
in energy use and dependance on energy, as well as dealing with
the climate change pollutants that are threatening our planet.
[The text of H.R. 2635 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Chairman Waxman. Of course,
we really appreciate your involvement in this hearing. And, of
course, we would not be here today if it had not been for your
involvement.
At this time, I would like to yield to the ranking member
of the full committee, from the State of Virginia, Congressman
Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Towns.
Today, Mr. Issa, who is one of our ranking members on one
of the subcommittees, and I have asked the Government
Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive review of
greenhouse gas emission offset markets so we can understand
better how these markets operate.
We think it is a timely request as more and more climate
change legislation, including that under consideration today,
relies upon purchasing offsets to reduce net greenhouse gas
emissions.
Climate change is one the most urgent matters we face here
in the Congress, and I think we need to be thoughtful as we
look at legislation and appropriate offsets. Unfortunately, we
have just seen the legislation for the first time last evening.
I hope that we will be able to hear from different Federal
agencies before we mark this up so we can get an appropriate
response from them now that we have a bill that is marked.
I look forward to the testimony from the advocates that are
here today. I know that you have longstanding interest in this.
I am particularly interested in some of the vehicle fleet
requirements and some things we can do at the Federal level to
utilize our purchasing power to try to drive markets.
So it is timely. I am not ready yet to make a decision one
way or the other until we have heard from some of the other
stakeholders on this and have had a chance to digest the
legislation.
But I appreciate the chairman bringing this forward, and I
appreciate you holding this hearing. Once again, I look forward
to our witnesses.
Mr. Towns. Thank you, Tom, very much. Now I yield to
Congressman Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Chairman
Waxman.
The crisis of global warming, as you have said, is real,
urgent, and requires immediate action. I am among those who
believe that by embracing that challenge we can move forward
with a pro-environment, pro-growth, pro-national security
economy.
We can take concrete steps. This is a big bill and all of
us are optimistic that if we accept the challenge that Chairman
Waxman outlined, that we are going to make enormous progress
for this country. But we can take small steps along the way.
My congressional office is now carbon-neutral. We did it by
providing financial support for a couple of Vermont renewable
energy projects. And by doing so I was able to offset the
greenhouse gas emissions related to just the day to day
activities of my office--turning the lights on, flying back and
forth between Washington and Vermont, driving around my
district when I am doing my work as a Member of Congress.
The legislation that we discuss today is a great example of
how to take concrete steps forward. And by moving forward on a
carbon-neutral Federal Government, we will be able to
demonstrate the necessary leadership in action that is required
to solve this problem.
And this Congress must be the Congress to finally,
squarely, and aggressively address the significant threat that
global warming is to our world. We started in January, we
continue today, and we all have the obligation, working
together, to be successful for the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. I now yield to a person who
has the same birthday that I have. I knew he was special. Of
course, Congressman Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, and you know of
my great admiration and respect for you.
Let me just say that I appreciate your calling this
hearing. It is a very important topic, a very important
subject. And in fact, I am not going to stay for much of this
hearing because I sat through several hours of the hearing on
this same topic yesterday in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
This may be good legislation, but it does need to be
thoroughly discussed and debated. Most of us on our side
certainly have no objection to the debate; we think it should
be carried out.
We do have some concerns, though, about the tenor of the
debate. To show you what I mean, I will read something that
Richard Lindzen, who is a professor of atmospheric science at
MIT, wrote a few months ago about what he called the alarmism
and feeding frenzy surrounding the climate change global
warming debate.
He said, ``But there is a more sinister side to this
feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have
seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and
themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or
worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence,
even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly
is their basis.''
Professor David Deming, a geophysicist, wrote, ``The media
hysteria on global warming has been generated by journalists
who don't understand the provisional and uncertain nature of
scientific knowledge. Science changes.''
And Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy
Research wrote that, ``The emotional politicized debate over
global warming has produced a fire, ready, aim mentality
despite great and still growing scientific uncertainty about
the problem.'' And he went on to say, ``Still climate alarmists
demand a multitude of do-somethings to address the problem they
are sure exists and is solvable. They pronounce the debate over
in their favor and call their critics names such as deniers, as
in Holocaust-deniers. This has created a bad climate for
scientific research and policymaking. In fact the debate is
more than unsettled.''
The reason I read those quotes is this: yesterday in our
hearing, we were told by many, many witnesses from business and
industry, trade associations, and environmental groups of all
the great things that are being done to combat this problem at
this time.
The witness from the American Association of Railroads, for
instance, said that while all the trains in the United States
use 4.6 billion gallons of fuel a year, that is 3.3 billion
less than they would have without those improvements.
The witness from GE talked about dynamic braking, and how
in train cars, buses, and cars, they are getting energy from
braking systems now.
They are doing marvelous and miraculous things that could
not have been done just a few years ago. We will have
tremendous progress toward solving this problem if we do not
over-regulate and socialize our economy. If we leave it up to
the free enterprise, free market system we will make great
progress.
The worst polluters in the world are the socialist and
communist countries because their systems do not generate the
excess funds that are needed to do the good things for the
environment that all of us want done.
So with those few points, I thank you for calling this very
important hearing.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. At this time I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa,
participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
With that in mind, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Issa. I thank the chairman. I thank you very much for
allowing me to participate today.
Through the work on my subcommittee of this full committee
and also my time in Energy and Commerce, I have certainly have
continued to have a keen interest in how we are going to lower
emissions. And as somebody who believes that we do have to deal
with CO2, I regrettably come here today with a few
maybe disconcerting remarks.
Most importantly net carbon emissions are going to be
reduced through carbon offsets. These offsets are going to be
purchased by households and by airline passengers and are being
proposed for purchase by the Federal Government.
I am concerned about this legislation under consideration
today and the process that has gotten us to this point because,
as far as I am aware, the majority did not ask anyone from the
Federal Government to testify. I do not see any administration
witnesses before me. So how is the committee to make an
informed decision on this legislation without hearing from the
one entity that will be affected most?
On Monday afternoon we got the highlights of this bill. On
Tuesday afternoon we got a draft of the bill which included the
finding that individuals will suffer from global warming harms.
And on Wednesday afternoon, we got another draft of the bill
that includes an interesting section on judicial review.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I just stepped
out to come into here, let me tell you what the judicial review
provision will be: Step one, say that you have been harmed by
global warming, perhaps a sunburn; step two, find a Federal
agency that has not complied with the terms of the act; step
three, hire a lawyer; step four, file a suit in any district
court in the United States. My vote would of course be
Berkeley, CA; step five, win your case and get $100,000 plus
your attorney's fees and of course your expert witnesses; step
six, repeat steps one through five.
This looks to me like full employment for the trial lawyers
in the class action lawsuits. Perhaps John Edwards should
reconsider his Presidential run.
Let me make it clear, I am not a global climate warming
denier. Just the opposite. I recognize that we are going to
have to work on a bipartisan basis to craft legislation that
preserves our economy and our ability to be, in fact, a global
leader in cleaning up the environment while maintaining a
lifestyle that Americans have earned and come to expect.
I look forward to us including those not included today so
that we can, in fact, come up with a system. If it includes cap
and trade, then, in fact, we will work for all of that.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to thank you for giving me
the opportunity to sit on the panel. I look forward to the
witnesses. I yield back.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments,
but I want to assure you that we will be hearing from others as
we move forward. And I am certain that is the reason why we
have these hearings. To get the experts to come in and share
with us, and then after that we will be able to move forward.
This bill is not a bill that cannot be improved, or cannot
be amended. I think what we need is to start somewhere. And
that is the first step.
Mr. Issa. I thank the chairman, and I will note that I no
more than made my statement and suddenly the Government was
here. I am going to take credit for that Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Towns. Thank you. At this time I yield to a gentleman
whom I have had the opportunity to work with now for many, many
years. You know he was the Chair of the subcommittee, and of
course, I had the opportunity to work with him. As always, it
is a delight to see him, and now I would like to yield to him.
Congressman Platts from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding a hearing, and I apologize for coming in late and, as
typical, not being able to stay.
I am not sure, I will throw out a question in the way the
legislation is written, if it addresses the Federal
Government's efforts in how we can reduce our impact on global
warming, specifically on the fuel consumption of the Federal
Government's fleet.
I am a strong supporter of increasing fuel efficiency and,
in fact, I am the lead Republican, with Ed Markey as our lead
sponsor, of the fuel efficiency legislation that would take us
up to 35 miles per gallon for all passenger vehicles in 10
years, roughly. Is there an estimate, if we were able to do
that in the Federal Government fleet, of what that alone would
do? Are any of the witnesses aware of those numbers? Any
guesstimates? Or is this too broad a question?
Mr. Towns. Let me make a note of it and you can probably
respond.
Mr. Platts. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I thought you already
had gone through the witness statements.
Mr. Towns. No, they have not been sworn in yet.
Mr. Platts. I was wondering why Mr. Issa was doing such a
long statement on a question. I thought you started before the
votes and I was catching up in the question period.
Mr. Towns. No, no, no, they have not been sworn in yet.
After that, then you can ask the question.
Mr. Platts. After that? OK, I will think about that
question. And we are going to come back to it.
My opening statement is thank you for allowing me to be
here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Towns. I am sure that they made notes of your comments,
and I am certain that they will be responding in their answers.
I have always said that to solve our energy and
environmental problems, we cannot look for one silver bullet.
We have to combine several approaches to tackle such a big
issue.
That is why I like this bill. It does not pick one thing
and say it is the answer to all of our problems. It sets out
long term goals and short term steps to get there. And it
recognizes that we should look at efficiency, new technology,
buildings, and transportation all together. We must look at all
of this.
Our environment and our use of energy are some of the most
important issues for the Federal Government. I am glad to be
Chairing the hearing today where we will get information coming
from the witnesses and be able to use this information to put
together the kind of legislation that we know will benefit not
only the Nation, but also the world, from what we might decide
to do here.
Let me turn now to our witnesses. Let me say that it is
committee policy that witnesses are always sworn in. So will
you please stand and raise your right hands?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Towns. Let it be known that they all answered in the
affirmative. You may be seated. Let me introduce our witnesses
as we move forward here.
Emily Figdor is Director of the Federal Global Warming
Program at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. We are
delighted to have you here today. She is the author of numerous
reports on global warming and the role of energy efficiency
technology in reducing human impacts on the climate.
Jeffrey Harris is vice president of programs at the
Alliance to Save Energy. He worked for more than 25 years at
the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and has extensive
experience in Government energy management and energy
efficiency procurement practices. Welcome. We are delighted to
have you here.
And we also have with us Marshal Purnell, who is the
president-elect of the American Institute of Architects. Mr.
Purnell has worked on such notable projects as the Washington,
DC, Convention Center, the MCI Arena, and projects of the
Department of State, U.S. Navy, and the Army Corps of
Engineers. Welcome.
Let me just say up front, your entire statement will be
included in the record. I would like to ask each witness to
take 5 minutes, and, of course, after that be prepared for
questions.
So why don't we begin with you, Ms. Figdor.
STATEMENTS OF EMILY FIGDOR, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GLOBAL WARMING
PROGRAM, U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP; JEFFREY HARRIS,
VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY; AND
MARSHALL PURNELL, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT-ELECT, THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
STATEMENT OF EMILY FIGDOR
Ms. Figdor. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views
regarding Chairman Waxman's Carbon-Neutral Government Act.
My name is Emily Figdor and I am the director of the
Federal Global Warming Program at U.S. Public Interest Research
Group. USPIRG is the federation of State PIRGs and affiliated
State environment groups, with a combined membership of nearly
1.3 million people nationwide.
I applaud the chairman for writing this important piece of
legislation. This bill would catapult the U.S. Government, for
too long a laggard in solving global warming, to being a leader
and setting the example. My testimony will focus on the need
for large, overall reductions in global warming emissions to
avoid dangerous global warming and the role of this legislation
in beginning to achieve those reductions.
Science is clear that the world faces dramatic consequences
if we fail to rein in global warming emissions from the burning
of fossil fuels. Yet science is also clear that what we do now
can make a real difference and enable us to avoid the worst
consequences of a warming world.
To prevent large-scale dangerous impacts of global warming,
such as setting in motion the complete melting of the Greenland
ice sheet and mass species extinctions, the United States must
stabilize its emissions this decade, and then reduce them by at
least 15 to 20 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by
2050.
While preventing dangerous global warming is a daunting
challenge, we already have the energy efficiency and renewable
energy technologies needed to achieve the required short and
medium-term reductions. But time is of the essence, which
brings me to the Carbon-Neutral Government Act.
The bill, as we heard earlier, would freeze global warming
emissions from the Federal Government at 2010 levels and then
reduce them steadily each year through 2050, at which point the
Federal Government would be carbon-neutral. This level of
reduction in emissions is consistent with the pace and
magnitude of the reductions demanded by the science.
The bill backs up its commitment to carbon-neutrality with
a series of sound policy steps, including strong safeguards to
ensure the integrity of any emission offsets used to meet the
requirements of the bill, global warming emissions standards
for Federal vehicle fleets, and other measures that would
improve the energy efficiency of Federal operations.
The bill would have four major impacts. First, it would
achieve significant reductions in U.S. global warming
emissions. The Federal Government is the single largest energy
consumer in the United States and the leading contributor to
global warming emissions. By making the Federal Government
carbon-neutral by 2050, the bill would zero out these
emissions.
Second, because the Federal Government is a major purchaser
of goods and services, the bill would spur markets for the
development of clean energy technologies that we will need in
order to effectively address global warming.
Third, it would demonstrate the Federal Government's
willingness to lead by example. A serious national effort to
reduce emissions to stave off dangerous global warming will
require effort on the part of all Americans in all sectors of
the economy.
And fourth, the bill would show the international community
that the United States is committed to taking the threat posed
by global warming seriously. It would be a first step toward
the kind of meaningful domestic action that can reestablish
American leadership in the fight against global warming.
Because global warming emissions from cars and SUVs are
rising very rapidly nationwide, I would like to spend a minute
on the Federal fleet standards in the bill. The bill would put
the purchasing muscle of the Federal Government behind the
drive for cleaner cars. It would send a clear message to
automakers that a significant market will exist for clean,
energy efficient vehicles. Low emission vehicles also would
reduce oil consumption, thereby enhancing America's energy
security and protecting the interests of taxpayers.
In closing, global warming is a challenge of historic
scale. A Federal commitment to carbon-neutrality would be an
important first step in rising to the challenge. The next step
is to pass Chairman Waxman's Safe Climate Act, which would
limit total U.S. global warming emissions to the levels needed
to prevent dangerous global warming.
The bottom line is that if we get started now, the United
States can help stave off the biggest environmental threat of
the 21st century. At the same time we can break our dependance
on oil, enhance our long-term economic and national security,
and once again lead the world as a positive force for change.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Figdor follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Ms. Figdor, for your
comments. And, of course, we look forward to questions later
on.
Mr. Harris, will you proceed?
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HARRIS
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify today and for the chance to work with the
subcommittee's excellent staff to explore ideas and solutions
to this important problem.
My name is Jeffrey Harris. I am the vice president of
programs at the Alliance to Save Energy. The Alliance is a
bipartisan, non-profit coalition of more than 120 business,
Government, environment, and consumer leaders. Our mission is
to promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier
economy.
We are currently enjoying our 30th anniversary, having been
founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey.
We currently enjoy the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor as our
Chair, with congressional Vice Chairs Congressman Ed Markey,
Zach Wamp, and Ralph Hall, along with Senators Jeff Bingaman,
Susan Collins, Larry Craig, and Byron Dorgan.
This year the Alliance Board of Directors formed a new
committee, the Government Energy Leadership Action Team, to
address the many important opportunities for Federal sector
energy savings and, as several people have commented, Federal
leadership.
I would like to begin with a few comments on the need and
importance for energy efficiency and reduced energy waste in
the Federal Government, and then turn to some specific
provisions of Chairman Waxman's proposed Carbon-Neutral
Government Act of 2007. As you have heard repeatedly, the U.S.
Government is the world's single largest user of energy and
also the largest waster of energy.
In 2005, Federal agencies accounted for about 2 percent of
the country's total energy use, and this cost U.S. taxpayers
about $14.5 billion. Of this total, about $5 billion goes to
heat, cool, and power the 500,000 Federal buildings in the
country. But the majority of the energy is used for mobility
purposes. This includes light and heavy duty vehicles, military
aircraft and ships, and a large variety of mobile systems that
must be deployed and fueled wherever they are needed, whether
for defense, disaster relief and recovery, scientific research,
or a host of other Federal purposes.
Thanks to efforts by the Congress and by Federal agency
leaders, Government as a whole has reduced its primary energy
use 13 percent in the past 10 years, and reduced its energy
bill 25 percent in real dollars. But there is a potential for
greater savings, and far more to do, especially in mobility
energy.
There are a number of existing targets, standards, and
requirements that aim at reducing Federal energy use. Most of
them currently deal with Federal buildings. And a number of
them were put in place within the last 2 years, so achieving
them fully remains a challenge and will require active
involvement of Congress in three areas.
One particularly relevant to this subcommittee is
oversight. A second is assuring adequate funding and, in a few
cases, supplementing or strengthening existing laws, as we have
seen with the proposed legislation that we are discussing
today.
The Alliance believes, though, that the most important
first step in reducing Federal energy use is to make sure that
the policies already in place are fully implemented. These
include energy efficiency standards for new buildings, energy
metering and savings targets for existing buildings,
performance contracting for third party financing to improve
efficiency in those buildings, energy efficient Government
purchasing, and the use of life-cycle costs as the basis for
investment decisions. Congress's first role here is to conduct
thorough and sustained oversight to help focus the attention of
Government officials on meeting their obligations and achieving
their energy savings targets cost effectively.
Second, though, Congress has to assure adequate funding for
energy efficiency improvements that will generate and sustain
long-term savings. Billions of dollars of investments are
needed and warranted to meet these energy targets. However, in
recent years, actual appropriations for Federal agencies have
fallen well short of these needs, ranging from about $100
million to $300 million a year. These appropriations need to be
increased, but, at the same time, Congress can take steps to
encourage Federal agencies to make much more aggressive use of
the innovative financing tools that are available to them--
energy savings performance contracts, or ESPCs, and utility
energy service contracts, UESCs. I am sure you will hear more
about this as you call on Federal agency representatives.
A third and equally critical role, though, for Congress is
to consider new legislation that expands the scope and impact
of Federal energy management. The Alliance supports a number of
important energy efficient provisions in the Carbon-Neutral
Government Act of 2007. First is the overall emissions
inventory and reductions targets for greenhouse gases within
the Federal sector. And it is very important that these cover
both mobility energy use and fixed facilities.
Second, the requirements that we just spoke about that
Federal agencies acquire more energy efficient and lower
emitting fleet vehicles. Third, and another very important new
provision, is that agencies use the fully burdened cost of fuel
when planning and acquiring these mobile systems that will be
deployed for defense and other purposes. And as was noted
earlier by Chairman Waxman, this recommendation comes from the
Department of Defense Science Board's path-breaking 2001 study.
A fourth provision that is very important is to increase
the stringency of energy standards for new Federal buildings so
that they match the goals of the AIA's Vision 2030 that you
will hear about from Mr. Purnell, and also incorporate
provisions of the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design [LEED], rating system.
There are a number of other provisions that are important.
In the interest of time let me skip over those. They are
covered in our testimony. But let me note in closing two other
provisions that we think are very important. One is that we
believe that agencies should be directed by statute to conduct
regular energy savings evaluations for energy and water
efficiency measures in their facilities and to implement all
measures that have paybacks of 15 years or less.
And a second one that we think would be an important
addition to the provisions in the proposed law are to apply
principles of smart growth in siting new Federal facilities so
that these facilities are accessible to public transit, to
bicyclists, to pedestrians, alternatives to single occupancy
vehicles.
And with that, let me conclude my comments and I will be
glad to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Now, Mr.
Purnell.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL PURNELL
Mr. Purnell. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
good afternoon. My name is Marshall Purnell. I am president-
elect of the American Institute of Architects. On behalf of our
81,000 members and the 281,000 Americans who work for
architectural firms nationwide, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to appear here today.
I would like to share the thoughts of our Nation's
architects on energy consumption and how it relates to the most
overlooked sector in the greenhouse gas debate--buildings, the
buildings in which our people live, work, and play. I have
submitted written testimony to the subcommittee, but I would
like to stress those points the AIA feels are important.
I commend you for holding this hearing to examine
strategies that would reduce the amount of fossil fuel
generated energy consumed by the Federal Government.
Furthermore, I would like to convey the AIA's strong support
for the legislation being discussed here today. The Carbon-
Neutral Government Act of 2007 makes major strides toward
reducing the amount of fossil fuel-generated energy our
Government consumes. This bill will improve the Federal
Government's energy efficiency, as well as decrease the amount
of greenhouse gas we produce.
In particular, the AIA strongly supports Section 204, which
establishes energy performance standards for new Federal
buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations. This
section builds upon an AIA policy position which calls for
carbon-neutral buildings by 2030. We are extremely pleased to
see that the committee has included our 2030 goals in this
bill, and our timetable.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, buildings and
their construction are responsible for nearly half of all
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States every year. The
building sector alone accounts for nearly 39 percent of the
total U.S. energy consumption, more than either the
transportation or the industry sectors. Buildings consume 71
percent of U.S. electricity production, and buildings in the
United States account for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide
emissions worldwide. Put another way, U.S. buildings account
for nearly the same amount of carbon emissions as the entire
economies of Japan, France, and the United Kingdoms, combined.
If we want to be serious about energy use reductions,
buildings must become a significant part of the discussion. And
by including energy reduction targets for new Federal buildings
in this bill, it is clear this committee understands this. The
AIA believes that architects must advocate for the sustainable
use of our Earth's resources. We have adopted an official
position establishing energy reduction targets in buildings.
Architects across the country have embraced this position and
are expanding the use of design practices that enhance design
quality as they increase the environmental performance of
buildings.
Federal building energy efficiency. The AIA is pleased to
see that Section 204 closely mirrors our recommendations to
require Federal agencies to immediately ensure that new
buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations consume no
more than half the fossil fuel energy that a similar Federal
building consumed in the year 2003.
Beginning in 2010, agencies should be required to meet a
declining cap on energy consumption, such that they meet
minimum energy reductions compared to the 2003 baseline. We
propose that by 2010, new and significantly renovated Federal
buildings be required to reduce fossil fuel generated energy by
60 percent. By 2015, the cap should be lowered to a 70 percent
reduction, continuing until 2030 when we should achieve a 100
percent reduction in fossil fuel generated energy in all
Federal buildings.
These energy reduction targets are included in this bill
and we applaud the committee for their leadership on this
issue. Setting declining caps on energy usage is not a new
idea. In the past, Congress has passed similar legislation. And
recently several States have adopted energy reduction targets.
These are important first steps. Energy reduction requirements
have shown a record of success, as referenced in my written
testimony. It demonstrates that the energy reduction targets
within this legislation are readily achievable.
Furthermore, the technology needed to design carbon-neutral
buildings exists. Architects across the country are designing
high performance green buildings that are environmentally
responsible, healthy, and productive places to work. My written
testimony provides many details on sustainable design
techniques, and I am happy to answer any questions from the
subcommittee on this subject.
The AIA also supports the development of green building
rating systems and standards. They often promote energy
efficiency and conservation. While we do not endorse any
specific rating system or product, green rating systems and
standards are often the easiest and most cost-effective way to
achieve energy efficiency in buildings. The ratings serve as a
checklist to ensure that a building or project actually meets
energy reduction and environmental protection goals.
The cost of building green. In my experience, the primary
concern I hear from clients about building green is first cost.
It is true that some energy efficient building systems may cost
slightly more than their traditional counterparts. However,
once the building is in operation, the savings in energy
expenditures alone often far outweigh the initial cost of
installing green systems, especially to long-term owners.
There is increasing evidence confirming this, and the AIA
is currently working with economists to research the economic
benefits of energy efficient Federal buildings. This study will
analyze the estimated energy and dollar savings the Federal
Government will realize by implementing our energy reduction
goals for Federal buildings over their lifespan. We expect to
complete the study by this summer and would be happy to submit
it for the record.
America is ready. Polls show that the American public
believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the
risk of climate change. They increasingly believe it is in the
best interest of our Nation and the planet to reduce our
reliance on fossil fuel-generated energy and move toward a
sustainable future. Reducing energy use in Federal buildings
would be a major step in redesigning the future.
Once again, we commend the work of the committee for
producing this bill and I welcome your questions. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Purnell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Purnell, for your
statement. At this time I would like to yield for an opening
statement to the ranking member, Congressman Bilbray from
California. And then, we will go in this order, then I will
come back to the author of the bill and have him to open for
questions. Congressman Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
chance of having this hearing and having the witnesses before
us.
Having tried to retrofit and work on a lot of different
issues myself previous to my life here, I served on the Air
Resources Board of California, which has one of the most
successful environmental programs in the history of the world.
I mean, California today has air that is twice as clean as it
was 30 years ago with twice as many people. And I think that is
an accomplishment.
But some tough, very tough things were done. And a lot of
sacred cows, even environmental sacred cows, were slaughtered
to be able to get to that benefit. And I think that there are
too many people that talk about climate change today, and in
the Science Committee I have raised this issue, that want to
talk about changing lightbulbs but not changing power plants,
that want to talk about requiring insulation of a building but
not mandating that Government allow alternative construction
techniques.
I have seen so often in my 30 years, 40 years, of working
on environmental issues that the greatest barrier to allowing
individuals to do what is environmentally responsible has not
been money, it has been Government regulation. And sadly, we
have stood in the way. And so I look forward to the questions,
especially to the representative of the AIA, specifically to
some issues like how we can do it from the building side of it.
But I think there are some tough decisions that need to be
made and I just ask that we keep an open mind and sort of
abandon our old prejudices that we thought were environmentally
good. I think global climate change is going to make us all
rethink. I think those of us involved in the environmental
community think it is the business community and Government
that have to change their attitudes. There are a lot of us on
the green side that have to change our attitudes, too. And I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Congressman Bilbray. At
this time I yield to the author of the bill, Congressman
Waxman, chairman of the full committee.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As Mr.
Bilbray pointed out, we have to look at a more comprehensive
approach and we have to use our imagination to get to the goals
that we want to achieve. The goal in this bill is a pretty
tough one. It calls for carbon-neutrality by 2050.
Now, some can say that is a long way off and we do not have
to worry about it, we can just take a few steps and then we
will see where we go. But it is a goal. And it is a goal that
is not just a wish, it is a goal that we are going to put in
place to force action.
Is it a realistic goal? I would be interested in the
witnesses' views. Is this a realistic goal, and do you think we
could meet this goal? Where do you think we will face the
biggest challenges? Just go down the line. Ms. Figdor.
Ms. Figdor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think it is a
realistic goal. As you said in your opening statement, when
President Kennedy set the goal of reaching the moon, we did not
know exactly how we were going to get there, but it was
important to set the goal initially.
We do know that we have the technologies today, the
renewable energy and energy efficient technologies to meet the
short-term and medium-term reductions that will be required in
order to avoid dangerous global warming more broadly, and
certainly to meet the reductions required by this legislation.
If we aggressively move forward toward developing and deploying
renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency
technologies, we should be able to achieve the 2050 goals as
well.
Mr. Towns. Thank you. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. I certainly agree with my colleague here that
it is achievable, but a real challenge. Our view is that it is
going to take a lot of effort to do the job that needs doing,
even with the goals that we currently have. And so looking
ahead in the timeframe of this legislation, we need to make
sure that the Federal Government and in fact the whole economy
are investing in technology innovation, to pick up on the
comment a little bit earlier from Congressman Bilbray.
That is certainly a needed component and we believe that
more has to be done with Federal leadership but not exclusively
by the Federal Government. The Alliance to Save Energy, for
example, is working with the AIA, with ASHRAE, with the U.S.
Green Building Council, and with the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development on a new initiative that would address
energy efficiency in commercial buildings of the sort that the
Federal Government has, and create the technology base not just
to get to the 30 percent or 50 percent, but to get all the way
to carbon-neutrality. And that is going to be a major
investment in the pipeline that we know is 10, 15, 20 years
long, to get a new technology introduced and in the marketplace
on a large scale. So I think the first area I would emphasize
is new technology and aggressive efforts to make sure that
technology gets deployed as it is developed.
Mr. Waxman. So we need a long-term, sustained effort by the
Federal Government in order to achieve this goal. But you think
it is achievable?
Mr. Harris. That I do. You asked a second question, and
that is what is the toughest----
Mr. Waxman. I want to hear from Mr. Purnell and then I am
going to have some other questions.
Mr. Purnell. I would tend to agree. It will take a long-
term sustained effort, and it is not just about reduction. It
is about new technology and research to develop that
technology. When the AIA looked at it, we set a goal for
carbon-neutral buildings in 2030, not 2050. We were looking at
2050, hoping that by 2050 not only would the buildings be
carbon-neutral, that we would be putting power back into the
grid for sale. So that is what we think we can accomplish by
2030.
We think we can get to carbon-neutral in the commercial
sector. I would imagine that if anything, the Federal sector
has pretty much always led the commercial sector in terms of
procurement and in building types and innovation. I would hope
that whatever the Federal Government's investment in this is,
that we would look at a goal to get there as soon as possible
and not just to keep looking at 2050. Because it is a long way
off and if we look at let us get there as soon as we can, we
are likely to be successful.
Mr. Waxman. It is interesting, the comment made by Ms.
Figdor, that we already have existing technologies and
strategies that we can put into effect right now to get some of
the early achievements that we want, but we are going to have
to then go to other technologies down the road. But we do not
have to worry about them right now. We need to press forward to
develop them. Is that your feeling?
Mr. Purnell. I think we can realize enormous savings
immediately but as we start reducing more and more and more, it
will take more technology and more time to get to those final
reductions. Once we get past 60, 70 percent, it is going to
take seemingly more time to get that reduced to carbon-
neutrality. We can get to 50, 60 percent with existing
technology within the next 2, 3 years.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. Now I yield to Congressman
Bilbray, the ranking member.
Mr. Bilbray. Ms. Figdor, can we take a look at the
terminology? And let me just tell you something. Maybe I am a
nitpicker but these are important things that we start using
the right terminology. I keep hearing, Mr. Chairman, the term
``renewable.'' Renewable is not necessarily clean. And I think
people are assuming it is renewable.
One of our biggest challenges of air pollution is wood
burning stoves. That is renewable. Can we be careful with the
terminology used? I think I much prefer, personally, ``zero-
emission generators.'' And I know that there are people who get
used to these terms as if somehow they are always
environmentally responsible if you can grow it again and go
into it. But they can be major problems.
Let me sort of back up a second. Let me go over the AIA's
position. In America today, we have a national minimum standard
for building buildings, do we not?
Mr. Purnell. A minimum standard?
Mr. Bilbray. Yes.
Mr. Purnell. ASHRAE standards, yes. But commercially those
are not necessarily achieved.
Mr. Bilbray. Right. Unified building code probably is one
of the most successful government regulations we have ever had.
And it is kind of an interesting thing because it is a code put
together through a consensus of building inspectors who are
kind of unique, Mr. Chairman, in government because they are
people who have actually been out there building. Most building
inspectors do not come from college and go right into
government. Most of them have been in the business, done it.
What is the AIA doing to work with, to change the Unified
Building Code to try to push that more over? Because I will
just tell you personally, I have run into situations where the
Code has stood in the way of using alternative building
techniques and different materials. They literally say it is
unapproved material, even though it is environmentally great,
sorry, you cannot use it because it is easier for us to turn it
down. Is there a real effort to re-engineer the Unified
Building Code and get that consensus from the men and women who
are actually going to make the decisions on what you can build,
and that is the building inspectors?
Mr. Purnell. We are working with Code officials around the
country at the State and local level.
Mr. Bilbray. Right. Mr. Harris, do you have any idea what
will be the cost of this bill to implement?
Mr. Harris. We have not analyzed that cost, Mr. Bilbray.
But I think as a matter of principle, and it is a longstanding
principle, that all the measures that are put in place for
energy efficiency at least need to be cost-effective. Now, my
personal view is that cost-effectiveness needs to take into
account the full cost and the full value of saving energy. And
that is what one of the important provisions in this bill would
do.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, that is one of the concerns I have with
the short-term time lines. One of the things that, as Mr.
Waxman knows, really made us successful in California is we not
only allow looking at cost-effectiveness, we mandate it. So you
give priority to the most cost-effective because for a dollar
saved on one project as you go into time, all at once things
change and you can actually get the biggest bang for the buck.
Let us just say that. And always understanding that, like it or
not, we are always going to be deficient so we need to give
that priority and from the environmental point of view.
My question is that when we talk about zero, how do we get
to zero as long as we are buying dirty coal-fired electricity?
Well, I do not understand how you get to zero on that unless
you are talking about buying off somebody else's reduction as a
way to buy indulgences, something that even the Catholic Church
does not do any more. How do we get to zero?
Mr. Harris. Well, I do not have a detailed blueprint of
that for you, but I would say in concept the first and most
important thing to do, as you were suggesting a moment ago, is
to invest in the energy saving measures that are cost-
effective. And we believe that over time, given the time to
both fully deploy today's technology and to develop the new
generations of technology that we were talking about, we can
get down to at least 75 percent, maybe 80 percent reduction in
energy use in a typical building today.
That remaining 20 percent will have to come from a non-
polluting source, as you were suggesting, and there are several
options available. One is renewable resources that are
available onsite. Solar is the most obvious. Second is
renewable energy that is available offsite. And the third, of
course, would be to purchase offsets from action in other
areas.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, and see, the offset issue is where I have
a real problem. I can see that out in the open market, but I
think for us to be buying up the offsets is then taking that
out of the pool that may be able to be used by the private
sector. And I think that we have an added burden as a public
agency go onto it.
I just do not see why we are not negotiating right now,
looking at not buying any more coal, not buying any more dirty
electricity, and instead of talking 5 percent reduction we talk
100 percent reduction because we do not buy from people that
are putting out greenhouse gases. And I know that sounds like a
tough one to toe but, as you know, you would go to prison in
California for generating electricity the way it is generated
in this town if you tried that in California. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. I yield to Congressman
Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Figdor, thank you
for testifying today. I want to ask you about legislation that
I have recently proposed, and I understand you have had a
chance to review. I launched an initiative, and this is small
compared to what Chairman Waxman has initiated but something
that as a Member of Congress I could do, and that was to make
my office carbon-neutral. I did it by working to first reduce
my office's energy use and then by offsetting the remaining
carbon emissions.
And I am offsetting the greenhouse gas emissions related to
my office activities by providing some financial support to two
Vermont renewable energy projects, and the end result making my
office carbon-neutral. Because of the existing law that applies
to congressional budgets, I used my own personal funds to do
this and was glad to do it. But it seems to me we may get
broader participation from other offices if we give flexibility
so that offices can use their existing funds, not new money,
but existing funds to do this. So my question is are you
familiar with my bill?
Ms. Figdor. Yes, I am.
Mr. Welch. Has the environmental community, of which you
are a part, had the opportunity to review it?
Ms. Figdor. Yes.
Mr. Welch. Do you have a view about whether this
legislation would provide a meaningful contribution to our
efforts? Meaningful but limited, I understand that. But a
meaningful contribution to our efforts to address global
climate change if we would add language that addressed the
issue that some of my friends in the environmental community on
the other side are raising, that would guarantee that the
credits do have long-term integrity? Language that would ensure
that the offsets are real, that they are additional energy that
is renewable, that they are verifiable, that they are
enforceable, and that they are permanent? Do you have an
opinion on that?
Ms. Figdor. Yes. In the short-term before a mandatory
national cap and trade program is up and running, a limited
offsets program definitely has a role to play. It could provide
a positive contribution by reducing the Federal Government's
carbon footprint and also providing the EPA much needed
experience in figuring out how to develop and implement a sound
offsets program.
As you stated, there are critical safeguards that we need
to include in any such legislation to ensure the long-term
integrity of the offsets. In addition to criteria you
mentioned, we would also need to ensure that there is surplus,
that credit would not be given for actions that would have been
taken anyway. And then also ensuring that EPA is the agency
that is developing and implementing the program.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. So the EPA would be the right agency
to be doing this?
Ms. Figdor. Absolutely. They are the appropriate agency to
implement this.
Mr. Welch. OK, and with the addition of those criteria we
would have the confidence that the offsets and credits were
actually providing a lasting benefit to the environment, ensure
that taxpayer money was well spent, not being wasted, and
provide us with experience going forward to achieve some of
these goals in the chairman's bill? If we put those changes in
that you have suggested and I have discussed, then would that
be legislation that your organization could support?
Ms. Figdor. Yes, we would be pleased to support that
legislation and work with you on it.
Mr. Welch. OK, thank you. Mr. Harris, although the GSA and
Defense Logistics Agency are required to provide only energy
efficient products in catalogs in which they are readily
available, the system apparently is not working. In some cases
it can be hard to find Energy Star or other efficient products
in catalogs where they should be available. In some other cases
the catalogues claim that products are Energy Star certified
even though the Energy Star program does not even apply to
those types of products. Can you help us understand this
situation? Why is it so easy for products to be falsely
identified as Energy Star compliant in the government
procurement schedules and why are these schedules still
prominently listing inefficient products?
Mr. Harris. Let me give you an introduction to that topic.
I think it is also important that the subcommittee hear
directly from GAS and DLA on that part of your oversight
function. There is a tremendously complex system of Federal
procurement, and you have mentioned the two largest Federal
supply agencies, the General Services Administration and the
Defense Logistics Agency. They supply literally tens of
thousands of different products. Since this provision was put
in law, and even prior to that, similar provisions have been
part of executive orders for a number of years.
I would say that both agencies have made limited efforts to
transform their systems, but there is a lot more to be done.
The Defense Logistics Agency, in particular, has been forward
thinking and more aggressive in changing the way that they code
these thousands and thousands of products in their data bases
so that you can easily identify the efficient from the less
efficient ones. In the case of GSA, there is a somewhat
different system that applies to most of the energy using
products that they provide. And that is a system where they do
not directly purchase wholesale and sell retail to agencies,
but they arrange contract price and conditions. That is the GSA
schedules. And the GSA position, as I understand it, has been
that they really do not control the quality of the data that
describe those products. That is the vendor's responsibility.
They simply set up a marketplace and set up the terms of
exchange and it is up to the buyer to watch out for him or
herself.
I think personally that more can be done. This is a world
of highly automated systems online. It should be possible, with
some effort, to design checks and controls into the online
systems that are increasingly used so that it is easier for a
Federal buyer to know which product is efficient and which is
not, to know which ones meet the law and which do not. So there
is a lot more to be done and I think that is something the
subcommittee should address directly to the GSA.
Mr. Welch. OK, thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. I now yield to Congressman
Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a really good
hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to sit in. It is kind of
interesting, I did not mention in my opening remarks but I am
in the Cannon Office Building. And although I respect the
Member's statement that he is carbon-neutral, I have never been
in a less environmentally friendly building. You can imagine,
it has a 1939 air conditioning add-on that does not work right,
windows are open everywhere, they are single pane and they are
historic, meaning they leak. One of my first questions, and it
is not that I am complaining, Mr. Chairman, you are here in
Rayburn, are you not?
Mr. Towns. I must admit, I am.
Mr. Issa. Specifically, one of the things not mentioned in
the bill but I would like to bring up, do you believe that this
committee should first of all hold the House of Representatives
to the highest standards at the earliest date and if so should
we include either in this or in companion legislation bringing
the House of Representatives at least up to, Mr. Purnell, what
one might call today's standards?
Mr. Purnell. Well, I will speak for the AIA because we
looked at ourselves and we are in the process right now of
greening our headquarters building at 1735 New York Avenue and
bringing it up to today's standards. The building was completed
in 1974, not quite 1939, and although it appears----
Mr. Issa. No, no, we were 1907. They put in the air
conditioning in 1939 which is when we stopped being closer to
carbon-neutral.
Mr. Purnell. Well, we are sort of getting our own house in
order so that we can walk the walk and talk the talk with some
certainty and say this is how you do it with an existing
building. It does take an investment of both time and
resources. And our members have suggested that this is what
they would like to see and our Board has made that commitment.
So to your question, yes, I think you should.
Mr. Issa. Do you think we should amend the historic
preservation portions to allow for further modernization than
presently is allowed for many buildings, including the ones
that we are in?
Mr. Purnell. I do not know without looking at the building
from a design standpoint which preservations you would need to
be relieved from.
Mr. Issa. Well, for example, the Architect of Capitol does
not allow the windows to be changed either on the Capitol or on
the Cannon House Office Building, which by definition means
they leak even when painted shut.
Mr. Purnell. As far as I know, in the Department of the
Interior regulations, there is nothing that says you cannot
change the windows. You cannot change the profile of the
windows or the material of the windows, but you certainly can
make them leak-free and thermal pane. It will cost more, but
you can do that. And you can do it in such a way that you will
not know that the windows now are thermal pane.
Mr. Issa. Thank you for making the record complete on that.
I will use it. I think probably the biggest question I have,
and it is following up on the earlier questions, is the
business of distorting the market. Would I be correct in saying
that in our legislation we should ensure that 100 percent of
any offsets we buy are new production? That we not simply go
out and buy nuclear energy or go out and buy wind energy that
is already there and thus deny the private sector and meet our
goals by, if you will, cherry-picking the market? Only the
disagreers need respond.
[No response.]
Mr. Issa. The case of the automobile fleet, I would be the
first to say that we have way too many Suburbans hanging around
Washington, DC, even the unarmored one. But does anyone know
how much improvement we could make today if we simply went to
the most energy efficient automobiles available within, let us
say, reasonable use? I mean, you cannot use a Chevy sedan to do
big truck lifting, but how wasteful are we today? In other
words, how many quick gains, Ms. Figdor?
Ms. Figdor. I do not know the answer precisely off the top
of my head, but there is about one third of the vehicle market
that currently meets the California emissions standards, the
greenhouse gas standards that would be required for the Federal
fleet in this bill. And that requires an overall reduction of
about 30 percent by 2016.
Mr. Issa. And following up, do you support nuclear as part
of reaching this goal?
Ms. Figdor. No, we do not support the use of nuclear power.
Mr. Issa. Do you support carbon sequestration or what we
often call clean coal?
Ms. Figdor. We think it is important to continue the
research into carbon sequestration and see if it is a viable
technology that can be part of our strategy to address global
warming.
Mr. Issa. Great. I am sure we will continue this for many
days to come. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much for your questions. Let me
begin with you, Ms. Figdor. You say the time to act is now.
What will happen if we wait a few years? And let me put the
flip side to it, how would we be in better position if we had
started doing things say 5, 7 years ago?
Ms. Figdor. We would be in a much better position if we had
started 5, 7 years ago. About a fourth of all carbon dioxide
emissions remain in the atmosphere essentially forever, for at
least 500 years. So our actions and any delay that we take in
starting to reduce our emissions has enormous consequences for
future generations in terms of the actions that they will need
to take in order to avoid the worst consequences of global
warming.
Mr. Towns. Thank you. Let me just say to my colleagues that
I do have some good news. In response to a call from Speaker
Pelosi, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House has
issued a preliminary report on greening the Capitol. So I just
wanted to let you know there is some thinking about it.
Mr. Bilbray. I have read it.
Mr. Towns. Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Harris, you say
that even before we start following new requirements, Federal
agencies need to follow the laws already on the books. What can
Members of the U.S. Congress do to have these agencies follow
the law?
Mr. Harris. Well, as I was mentioning earlier, Mr.
Chairman, there are two critical areas. One is oversight and
there are new provisions in the proposed legislation by
Chairman Waxman that would create a flow of information through
the Office of Management and Budget to the Congress in addition
to the information that already comes in the annual report to
Congress that is prepared by the Department of Energy's Federal
Energy Management Program. So frankly I think that looking at
those reports, asking questions, holding hearings, getting the
Federal representatives in, asking them what is important to
help them solve the problem is critical.
The second area is assuring adequate appropriations and
stability of appropriations so that agencies are not facing ups
and downs in their budget every year. And it is true, they do
have alternative sources of financing as I mentioned in my
comments and in our written testimony, but that baseline of
annual appropriations to hire staff, to get staff trained and
experienced, and to make sure there is long-term management for
these programs and some continuity are absolutely essential to
carrying out any of these provisions.
Mr. Towns. Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Let me
move to you, Mr. Purnell. In the past we have heard a lot of
comments about aesthetics in terms of people, in terms of the
general feel of green buildings. We have heard these comments
down through the years. I was hoping you would sort of set the
record straight today. Could you describe how a typical green
building differs from a standard building we would be more
accustomed to? And how would working in a green building be
different for the average person than a standard building?
Mr. Purnell. Well, to answer the last part of that, it
would probably be healthier to be in a green building because
of the emissions that would not be generated from using certain
types of carpets or paint or fabrics in a building that is not
a green building.
And let me say that green does not have to imply that it is
an ugly building aesthetically. I mean, we heard the same
arguments when the Americans with Disabilities Act was being
implemented, that the ADA is that we are going to have all of
these ugly ramps and these ugly door pulls and the poles in the
bathrooms are going to be looking crazy. And I would suggest
today in a modern building that meets all of the ADA standards
there is nothing that is apparently ugly or unattractive about
it in that it does meet all of the requirements. As a matter of
fact it is pretty much transparent to the average user that the
building is handicapped accessible.
That would be the same with probably a green building in
time. You may have a green roof that appears to be sort of
unique when a person goes out there but in time, after other
buildings are implementing the same sorts of strategies, things
that are obvious today in a couple years will be normal and in
use. I mean, look at what we have done with the automobile
industry in alternate fuel cars. They are integrating that same
technology in body styles that now look just like every other
car on the street. So, I do not see that there will be an
impact, or a negative impact, with aesthetics.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. If this bill becomes law,
Federal agencies will have a couple of years to prepare to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Let me begin with you,
Mr. Harris. I am wondering what discrete measures you would
advise Federal facility managers to consider to reduce the
emissions associated with their facilities. What can they do
right now, what would be the impact on our energy bottom line?
Mr. Harris. Well, let me focus on the energy saving
activities. There are some other provisions that might help to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps choosing different
fuel sources, but that often involves a more significant
capital investment. I think that if you look at energy
efficiency in existing facilities, there are study after study
and case after case that show that in almost any Federal
facility, just like non-Federal facilities, commercial
buildings, you can typically find 15 maybe 20 percent savings
out of relatively low cost, simple things just making sure that
the buildings and their systems are operating right.
There is a process called commissioning, which means that
you go through a building, you check out its systems, and you
make sure that what was designed into them is what is still
there, that changes have not been made, perhaps inadvertently
over the years. That the dampers that bring in outside air are
not stuck open or stuck closed when you do not want them to be.
So there is a range of activities that are fairly well
established that involve energy analyses or energy audits of
operation and maintenance improvements and the commissioning or
recommissioning of these mechanical systems. So I think that is
an important short-term step.
A second step, though, is to make sure that the occupants
of those buildings understand how the building works and
understand what they can do as occupants in their own way to
make the building work as intended. Not opening the windows at
the wrong time or closing them if they should be open to let in
fresh air. Not fiddling with the thermostats or getting up on
their desks and changing the settings in the air ducts. Turning
off the lights, something as simple as that. Turning off their
office equipment.
So there is a very important educational effort for Federal
employees and there are examples of how this has worked very
well in certain sites and in certain Federal agencies. And for
that matter, I would add it to the agenda for greening the
congressional buildings. Helping the occupants of those
buildings, Members of Congress and the staffs to understand how
to use their buildings and their equipment as efficiently as
possible.
So those are the two things, I think. Short-term measures
operations and maintenance to get that first 15 or 20 percent
and then helping the occupants of the building to make those
measures succeed over the long-term.
Mr. Towns. Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Let me
ask you, Ms. Figdor and also Mr. Purnell, do you have any
suggestions for a Federal facilities manager who is thinking
about how to meet the goals? Do you? Let us start with you, Ms.
Figdor, and then I will come to you, Mr. Purnell.
Ms. Figdor. I think as Mr. Harris alluded to, employing the
technologies that we already have at our fingertips but are not
using. I mean, there really are enormous opportunities that we
are just passing up at this point, and then just being smarter
about the decisions that we are making.
Mr. Purnell. Many of the decisions are sometimes management
and operational decisions, like when the building is cleaned.
In some cases you wait until everyone is out of the building,
therefore you are running the entire system for the building
for heat or air and lights while you have a very skeletal
maintenance crew within a building. You could maybe start that
whole process earlier in the day. You could design it in such a
way, design the building systems in such a way that you do not
have to run the complete systems or run a whole floor for a
skeletal crew that is in there or for an employee who wants to
work late on night. That you are not heating or cooling an
entire floor or third of the building based upon the
temperature controls for that particular building. Those are
things that could be looked at in terms of just operational
things that are happening not only in the Federal Government
but are happening in the commercial sector as well, the private
sector.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. Let me yield now to the
ranking member, Congressman Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, thank you very much. Ms. Figdor, do you
believe, well let me stop a second. Now, I am sort of looking
at this. I appreciate the fact that you have talked about smart
growth and about non-point source emissions that are always
missed out, that the real footprint is missed out. I will tell
you, every time I am in a hearing on greenhouse gases, I look
at the fact that we are having trucks bring our water in to us
and us have an on-source purification. Now, I know that seems
nitpicking, but after spending 18 years looking at deodorants
to try to stop emissions you really do get down to those kind
of nitpicking.
Ms. Figdor, I have a question for you. Do you believe that,
speaking of automobiles and emissions stuff, that corn-based
ethanol is part of the answer to fight greenhouse gases?
Ms. Figdor. I think it can help as a transition fuel, but
we need to move quickly to cellulosic ethanol that will get us
a lot more reductions and be a lot more sustainable overall.
Mr. Bilbray. Do you believe that corn-based ethanol is a
net reduction in greenhouse gases?
Ms. Figdor. If it is sustainably produced and converted
into fuel, yes.
Mr. Bilbray. OK, I just want you to know for over 12 years
we have been asking the Federal Government to stop the mandate
to use it for environmental reasons. And I know that there are
people in this town that defended it. Do you understand that
the first thing that a farmer does when they plant their corn
is put nitrogen into the soil? Do you realize where that
nitrogen comes from? Do you know the source?
Ms. Figdor. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. What is the source?
Ms. Figdor. Sir, I fully agree with you. Like I said----
Mr. Bilbray. It is natural gas.
Ms. Figdor. It does have to be sustainably produced.
Mr. Bilbray. OK, I am just saying not just that, but the
fuel used to produce this stuff, I just wish that some of us
that claim to be environmentalists are willing to stand up and
say the emperor has no clothes. And remember the ethanol and
methanol mandate. I got trashed because I stood up against that
mandate and now the wells are polluted around here and people
who claim to be environmentalist supported that mandate. But if
you cannot even say that Archer Daniels Midland selling, that
corn-based ethanol just does not pencil out, not just
economically but also environmentally. I got a real problem
with your credentials if we cannot even agree on something as
basic as the fact the environmental community made a mistake.
And this is what I meant by business has to change their
attitudes and reassess their values. The environmental
community has to do this, and I am very concerned if you can
still defend corn-based ethanol sitting before this committee.
Ms. Figdor. USPIRG was a strong supporter of California's
waiver of the ethanol requirement, and that was something that
we worked and were very----
Mr. Bilbray. What year did you support it?
Ms. Figdor. A few years back, now.
Mr. Bilbray. A few years back? Well let me tell you. In
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 you attacked the
proposal. It was not until after 2000 and the wells were
polluted that you reversed your position. So if I am bitter
here, it is because I was strung up as being anti-environmental
when I was carrying a bill for the Air Resources Board, which I
think you would agree is not somebody who is in the pocket of
polluters. So I would just ask that we get a concern on that. I
only bring that up because it really concerns me that we
rethink what you have been taught because we have to rethink
everything.
Mr. Harris, I really appreciate your talk about smart
growth because the one thing we have not talked enough about is
the fact that we do not do enough to get government and local
government to take on the special interests and the active
opposition to smart growth. You know my district, it is a very
environmentally sensitive district along the California coast.
They are so environmentally sensitive, Ms. Figdor, they recycle
the Congressmen.
But the same people who claim to be environmentalists will
oppose intensification of development around the train station.
And nobody calls them down on the fact that this, I have not
seen an environmental group stand up and really fight for smart
growth when it means intensification to do all of it. And I
want to thank you very much for bringing that up.
Mr. Harris. Could I suggest that our colleagues at the
Natural Resources Defense Council also feel very strongly about
smart growth strategies.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would really ask that we
have another hearing. I think that is really important because
you have people that have the concept here but I would like to
have the hearing of those who are actually doing procurement,
actually doing the leases, actually out there. And let us have
a dialog with them about the practical barriers. You have the
theoretical approach here. Now we have to get the practical
people in to try to put them together, and I think that can
really make this a possibility. Thank you very much, I
appreciate it.
Ms. Figdor, I appreciated the chance to be able to vent my
frustration. You can imagine standing up for the environment
and having people trash you and say that you are trying to
pollute the air when you have spent most of your life fighting
for that clean air. And I appreciate the ability to work with
you in the future. Thank you.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Congressman Bilbray. Let me
thank the witnesses. I really appreciate you coming and sharing
with us. I think this is the way we really come up with strong,
practical, and important legislation. It was said many, many
years ago that Benjamin Franklin, I am sorry, it was Thomas
Jefferson who read a book on how to swim. And he read it, how
to pull his legs and kick and pull his arms, and he jumped in
the deep water and almost drowned.
I think that we do this here in the Congress quite often,
that we do not get enough input in our legislation before we
jump and we do it. So I want to thank you for coming and
sharing with us. And of course, we hope that as we continue to
talk and dialog that we will be able to get strong legislation
that will move us in the right direction. Because this is a
very important issue and I think this is the way we get it
right. Thank you so much for coming.
And on that note, this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]