Environmentalists React to EPW Action

Although the fate of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill has been made more uncertain by the apparent defection of one of its main sponsors, environmentalists reacted with approval to its passage this morning by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. NRDC crafted this message for its President, Frances Beinecke:

Chairman Boxer and her colleagues took an important step forward with today's action. They have worked under difficult circumstances to craft S. 1733 and sought to have full consideration of this important legislation in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

We welcome the announcement yesterday by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman that they are committed to working together to combine the best of S. 1733 with additional provisions to produce a bi-partisan bill that the Senate will pass.

The Sierra Club put this similar message together for its executive director, Carl Pope:

The Sierra Club is pleased that Chairwoman Boxer and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act today. . . . We are distressed that the Republican Senators on the committee were unwilling to even sit down and discuss this important plan for less pollution, more jobs and greater security. Polluters like Oil and Coal are spending tens of millions of dollars to stand in the way of progress. It appears that the Senators who boycotted these meetings have sided with those special interests. Fortunately a bipartisan group of Senators led by John Kerry and Lindsey Graham are working together to find constructive ways to keep this effort moving forward. We look forward to working with that group to finish a bill that will build our clean energy economy. . .

So a little less politic re the GOP boycott in Boxer's committee, but perhaps purposefully obtuse about the emphasis on "clean coal" and provisions for offshore drilling that Graham seeks to include in any bill.

EarthJustice did not join the others in applauding the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman effort. Instead, in this careful message crafted for its president Trip Van Oppen, it (1) concentrates on the symbolism of having a climate bill move forward in the Senate, (2) applauds the fact that Kerry-Boxer does not preempt Clean Air Act applicability to GHG emissions, and (3) signals disapproval (perhaps?) of further incursions by special interests:

Momentum is building toward a transformational shift to a clean energy economy that doesn't rely on burning fossil fuels that are primarily responsible for global warming. . . . We applaud the Environment and Public Works Committee and chairman Boxer for approving legislation that builds upon the Clean Air Act, which has a proven track record of reducing pollution from the dirtiest sources. The Clean Air Act has successfully protected the public and the environment from mercury poisoning and acid rain, and is currently poised to reduce climate pollution from mobile sources that account for up to four percent of U.S. emissions. Coal companies and other special interests are attempting to derail or delay this legislation -- and keep us hooked on fossil fuels as our main source of energy. We are encouraged to see those who are interested in making the U.S. a clean energy leader prevail.

Let's hope that the off-the-record negotiations Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are undertaking don't result in something drastically different than this vision. Because the last thing we can afford is a climate bill in name only.

No More Mrs. Nice Guy

Boxer passed bill out of committee without Republicans

Despite the Republican boycott of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meetings this week designed to prevent the Kerry-Boxer bill from passing out of committee, Senator Boxer (D, CA) and other committee democrats passed the bill today. The Houston Chronicle reports on the move here, the Wall Street Journal here, and Bloomberg here. Politico explains the parliamentary maneuver Boxer used, here.

GAO Reports on What Happens to All the Coal We Burn

And its not a pretty picture

In the flurry of Senate news, I overlooked the fact that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report last Friday on coal ash storage and disposal in the U.S. as requested by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the wake of last Christmas's devastating spill at a TVA facility in Kingston, Tennessee.

This earlier post on some testing EPA has ordered at an AEP coal ash storage facility on the West Virginia-Ohio border lays out part of the story. But the GAO's own summary does an admirable job of succinctly stating the bare facts:

(1) The exact number of surface impoundments at utility coal fired power plants is not known. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently undertaking an effort to identify the number and location of all surface impoundments in the United States and, as of September 14, 2009, had identified over 580 surface impoundments nationwide.

(2) Problems that have been identified with the storage of coal ash include potential structural defects and other risks of collapse of the surface impoundment, such as at TVA Kingston Facility; health and environmental risks from [coal combustion residue] CCR storage due to potential leaching of contaminants into surface or groundwater from unlined or failed liners at surface impoundments, landfills, or sand and gravel pits; and potential risks from the discharge of wastewater containing CCR into surface waters from surface impoundments. EPA is currently analyzing the structural hazards and environmental risks associated with surface impoundments.

(3) EPA does not directly regulate CCR disposal in surface impoundments or landfills to prevent releases or a catastrophic spill, and states have a variety of regulatory controls on surface impoundments. EPA is developing proposed regulations but, as part of this effort, needs to address issues of federal and state roles for control and enforcement.

The full report, issued last Friday October 30th, can be read here. And an excellent overview of the findings from Facing South, here.

Still Trying to Work

Senator Boxer and the Dems showed up again this morning, but the Republicans played hooky.

This morning, Senator Boxer reconvened a full business meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, so that the Republicans who boycotted yesterday's meeting would have an opportunity to participate in the committee mark up. But the Republicans still didn't show.

Senate Climate Bill Now at Least Seven Weeks Away

Harry Reid committed to five-week analysis period after bill gets through all committees to mollify Republicans

According to this Houston Chronicle article, Harry Reid (D, NV), told Barbara Boxer (D, CA), head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he will hold any climate bill to emerge out of her and other Senate committees for a five-week period so its economic costs can be fully analyzed. This should help Boxer possibly get the bill through committee today. (Though there was a near-total Republican boycott this morning, with only Senator Voinovich (R, OH) attending from the GOP to deliver this message, yesterday she promised that there would be opportunity to work on the bill through COB today.) It also answers the letter written by ranking Senate Republicans yesterday demanding further cost analysis. And it should temper concerns that Boxer's partisanism might sink the climate bill, as some say it did last year. (Politico ran a piece early this morning, warning what might happen if she rammed it through committee without GOP support, and minority members of EPW pointed that and six other pieces of analysis to that effect out here.)

Letters Flying at Senate EPW over Kerry-Boxer

Tomorrow, Dirksen 406, Squirt Guns

Ranking Republican Senators "of the committees with jurisdiction over portions of the [Kerry-Boxer climate change] bill" issued a letter today to Chairman Boxer (D, CA), urging further analysis of the economic impact of the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. These include Senator Inhofe (R, OK) of EPW, Lisa Murkowski (R, AK), from Senate Environment and Natural Resources, Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) (agriculture), Chuck Grassley (R, IA) (finance), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, TX) (commerce and transportation).

The full letter can be read here, and the press release here. An AP analysis of the letter can be read here.

Meanwhile, Chairman Boxer has responded to Senator Inhofe's threatened Republican boycott of the EPW committee meeting (mentioned in earlier posts here and here), with a letter of her own, on behalf of majority members of the committee, which says: "We urge Ranking Member Inhofe, with the utmost respect, to bring the Committee Republicans back to work on this issue. . . . We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this Committee."

According to Talking Points Memo, Senator Boxer "Boxer will begin the markup as planned Tuesday, but will extend the deadline for amendments until [COB], allowing Republicans who have boycotted the process to participate past the original deadline." TPM and Politico are also reporting that Boxer has offered to pause the markup process tomorrow afternoon so that another EPA official can answer any additional questions from the Republicans.

Senator Lautenberg (D, NJ), who made a lot of statements at last week's hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill to the effect of "Come on, people, wake up!", told reporters that "[i]t's almost like school children over there" among EPW Republicans.

We should all look forward to what happens tomorrow. The committee meeting is scheduled for 9am in Dirksen 406.

Predictions on Boxer and the Kerry-Boxer Bill

The Washington Post is reporting this morning that, to hedge her bets against Blue Dog Democrats who might sink the climate bill when it emerges from committee, Boxer made concessions on nuclear power in the Kerry-Boxer bill, here. The move, the article says, is meant to attract possible votes from moderate Republicans. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal confirms, here, that indeed, the Republicans are planning on boycotting tomorrow's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Meeting, to try and keep Kerry-Boxer from emerging from committee at all. And, as Politico reports here, Boxer has a plan up her sleeve to push the bill out of committee, anyway.

EPA Orders AEP to Test Stability of Ash Piles

The EPA announced yesterday that it is requiring American Electric Power (AEP) to come up with a plan for safety testing of dams holding back coal ash slurry ponds at a disposal site on the Ohio River in West Virginia. The order is part of a nationwide review of the integrity of such dams, which hold back piles of coal ash collected from coal being burned for power at sites throughout the country. According to EPA's press release, EPA officials will oversee the entire safety testing process.

The AEP dam is similar to the one that collapsed at a TVA site in Kingston TN last Christmas, causing massive devastation to the adjacent river and surrounding farmland, and prompting hearings on the issue before Senator Boxer's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

As the New York Times reported earlier this month (and activists and those unfortunate enough to live in the shadows of coal plants have known for years), all the pollutants that are prevented from going out the top of smoke stacks get collected in the coal ash. As time goes on, and the technology-forcing provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) operate to require stricter controls on new coal-fired power plants, the coal ash gets more and more toxic. (This is why there's no such thing as "clean coal.") Yet, due to lacunae in the CAA and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq, along with EPA's 2000 decision not to treat coal and other fly ash as hazardous waste--all of which can be traced to industry pressure--we treat it the same way as we do ordinary municipal waste. As a result, it is regulated at the federal level only under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. EPA never issued regulations it promised in 2000 governing the disposal of coal ash under RCRA, so, functionally, we rely on state regulations (and regulators) to control how the ash is disposed. In most states--especially those where coal and power-company interests predominate state politics--there are few controls if any, allowing power companies to dispose of the ash in clay-lined slurry ponds without as much as a plastic liner. (You can read about an attempt to tighten regulations in one such state, North Carolina, here.) As the folks in Kingston experienced last year, that clay can give way all too easily, causing devastation as the toxic sludge spills into the landscape.

After Senator Boxer pushed, the EPA released a list of 44 highly hazardous coal ash disposal sites last June. (The press release from Senator Boxer's office can be seen here, and a McClatchy news article including a map of the sites here.) The order to AEP is the next step in EPA's plan, announced at that time, to review the coal-ash sites and order cleanup and repairs as needed. EPA has also promised to finally issue those regulations governing coal-ash disposal under RCRA by the end of the year.

While this is a welcome development, much more remains to be done from a legal standpoint. In an ideal world, TSCA would be amended so that there will be no question that we must treat coal ash as the toxic waste that it is. But industry lobbyists continue to push hard to prevent that, terrified of the costs of proper disposal. (You can read a recent release, in which they call for "federal non-hazardous waste regulation of coal-combustion byproducts implemented by the states," here.) Meanwhile, water leaking from the ponds is getting into ground- and drinking water, and power companies are getting away with creative (and terrifying) disposal methods like using coal ash to create golf courses and fill wallboard used in construction. As one expert quoted in this excellent overview of the issue by the New York Time's Shaila Dawan, “[y]our household garbage is managed much more consistently” than coal ash, because we have this major "loophole in the country’s waste management strategy.”

Republicans Spoiling for a Boycott on Kerry-Boxer

The New York Times is reporting that Senator Inhofe (R, OK) has signaled, himself, that "he has unanimous support among the panel's minority members to boycott the session until they get more data on the legislation from U.S. EPA and the Congressional Budget Office." The full article can be read here. The article further reports that Boxer continued to dismay committee Republicans by calling them out each time she thought they were distorting the truth (as I observed in an earlier post, here.) According to the article, "Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) complain[ed] yesterday that Boxer had been unfairly chiming in after any remarks that did not square with her point of view."

Evening News Roundup: Day Three of Senate EPW Climate Bill Hearings

The big news out of today's hearings seems to be Boxer's determination to press ahead with her plan to get the bill out of committee on November 3--this coming Tuesday. The objections, presaged in Republican questioning of Tuesday's cabinet-level panelists, as described here, are that the Congressional Budget Office has not done a full analysis, and neither has the EPA. Boxer apparently replied that neither of these pass the "smell test," since CBO analyses usually don't occur until after a bill is out of committee, and since Kerry-Boxer borrows so heavily from Waxman-Markey, the EPA analysis of the differences between the two bills was sufficient. Politico reports on this here, the Washington Post here, and Dow Jones here. In response, Reuters reports in this article, committee Republicans are dangling the possibility of boycotting next week's committee work sessions to prevent a vote from happening at all (since they don't have the votes to keep it in committee if they do meet.)

Meanwhile, this Greenwire article reports that Senator Specter (D, PA) is now officially pushing to get a Clean Air Act preemption clause in the bill, and that Senator Baucus (D, WY) has told reporters that he has not made up his mind on the bill. Senator Boxer can do without their votes in committee, but will need them later on in the process, as explained in this earlier post.

Morning News Roundup on Kerry-Boxer Bill: Day Three

This morning, Politico is describing the tough path ahead for the Senate climate bill, given the doubts expressed by Senator Baucus (D, WY), but also reports that Senator Boxer (D, CA) is determined to get the bill out of committee even without Baucus, given negotiations she conducted with Senator Carper (D, DE) "who played a major role in negotiating a deal with coal-state members and is expected to back the legislation." (It looks, given the grumvblings reported in the article, like Senator Boxer knew that she had to overshoot Waxman-Markey's 17% GHG reduction goal initially in order to hold firm on it in the end, because a lot of folks are taking aim at the 20% figure.)

ClimateWire is reporting that the generosity initially seen in Kerry-Boxer in allocating more allowances to pro-climate moves like sustainable transportation and energy efficiency (as an earlier post discusses here) may not really improve on the House bill, given required deficit-reduction measures, in "Reality Sets In; Senate Allocation Pie Smaller Than House Climate Bill's."

And NPR reports on the "Battle of [the] Statistics" at yesterday's hearings, in which Senator Boxer announced to the assembled Republicans "Since you held up a chart [on Tuesday] we're going to have our little chart wars today — you hold up one and we hold up one; it's kind of equal time." (Its nice to see Boxer tackling the naysayers head-on: On Tuesday, she responded to statistical pronouncements and descriptions of research papers that she felt were distorted immediately, prompting Republicans to complain that she might drag the proceedings into a tit for tat.) According to NPR, Boxer's tough tone didn't stop (fossil fuels) industry executives from trying to invoke scary job-loss numbers, however. The full article can be seen here.

Does Kerry-Boxer Improve on Waxman-Markey?

Plus, NGO reactions to the bill and hearings

The Chairman's Mark of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill is huge--923 pages. But the good news for those following the debate is that almost all of the material is derived from the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last June, with a few changes. The most important differences between the Senate bill and Waxman-Markey are that the Senate bill:

• improves on the GHG emissions reduction goal, from 17% by 2020 to 20% by 2020
• places more emphasis on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which is needed to attract support from coal states.
• specifically allocates allowances to transportation-sector improvements that will reduce GHG emissions.
• increases allowance allocations to utility-scale renewable energy projects
• specifically allocates allowances to energy efficiency programs, including a requirement that allowances going to the states be dedicated to the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program implemented by State Energy Offices.
• sets floors and ceilings on the price of emissions permits.

Reactions are beginning to come in from the NGO community. Francis Beinecke, president of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), posted her reaction on the NRDC website today, saying she was encouraged by the draft, but that she would still like to see the bioenergy loophole (which treats all use of biomass for fuel as carbon neutral, whether mature trees or crop waste) closed, and would like to see strengthened energy efficiency provisions. (Recall, the original version of Waxman-Markey contained a separate energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) alongside the renewable energy portfolio standard (REPS). Once Dingell (D, MI) and Boucher (D, VA) were done with it, the EERS was folded into the REPS, and made no separate requirements.) Her comments can be viewed here.

[Update: Defenders of Wildlife is choosing to wear rose-colored glasses, announcing that "Sens. Bingaman, Baucus, Whitehouse and Udall champion legislation," here. And EarthJustice makes a statement here.]

The Breakthrough Institute, which put together a spreadsheet of how allowances are distributed in both Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey over the weekend, is unhappy that: "[l]ike its House sibling, the . . . Kerry-Boxer climate bill allocates the vast majority (64%) of the tens of billions annually in emissions allowances created by the bill's cap and trade program to shield energy consumers and industry from the impacts of carbon prices. Just 13% of the value of allowances . . . are invested in clean energy technologies." (The spreadsheet can be downloaded here, and a pie chart of the allowances here.)

ACEEE issued a report, timed to coincide with the start of committee hearings, urging that the place of energy efficiency be elevated in any bill to come out of the Senate.

Unfortunately, its not clear when any such amendments can be made. The bill will move quickly through EPW: Senator Boxer said this morning that she wants the bill to be out of the Environment and Public Works Committee by November 3. If Waxman-Markey is instructive, the bill will get watered down, not strengthened, as it goes through other committees in the Senate (although I would love to be corrected on this). And Senator Inhofe was intoning darkly this morning about what will happen when the bill gets to the floor.

Senate EPW Committee Questions Chu, Salazar, LaHood, Jackson, and Wellinghoff on Climate Bill

As it happened:

Senator Boxer (D, CA) opens the Q & A session with a request to Secretary Salazar to discuss the urgency of the bill. Secretary Salazar responds with anecdotes on the effect on public lands and national parks, including the almost certain prospect that there will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park by 2020. Turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Boxer asks about whether cap and trade is new. Catching the softball, Administrator Jackson describes the salutary effects of the cap and trade method of decreasing SO2 in prior programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Boxer then asks Secretary Chu about how important the certainty of incentives is to ensuring investments in renewable energy. Secretary Chu responds that, given the long-term investments required in the energy industry in any technology, the decision makers need to know that their investments will reap rewards for five or six decades into the future.

Senator Inhofe (R, OK), the very grumpy former chairman of the committee, starts by referring to the outrage of the teabaggers. (!) That they are worried about health care, and this "energy tax." He uses his questioning time to, instead of asking questions, refute points in Senator Kerry's presentation made at the beginning of the hearings--including refuting the science behind climate change. "The science is not settled," he says. "Everyone knows its not settled."

Finally turning to Administrator Jackson, he asks unspecified questions about acid rain, the endangerment finding for polar bears, and presumably its consequences. He then asks that each of the presenters address his assertion that the United States gas, oil and coal reserves are now the largest in the world, and what they plan to do to exploit that. He asks that the questions be answered in writing, however, and Senator Boxer asks the presenters that they make those available by COB tomorrow.

Senator Klobuchar (D, MN) takes the mic, asking Secretary Chu to talk about the signal that the bill will send to the private sector for energy investment--which is clearly the overwhelming point Secretary Chu is here to make. He talks about opportunities lost--that Germany has had more success than we have with wind turbines, because they provided sustained funding for the industry. And he talks about "brilliant ideas" popping up in various pilot programs, and Senator Klobuchar finishes his thought for him, that if we don't provided sustained signals for these entrepreneurs, then we will lose their poitential.

Senator Klobuchar also presses Secretary Chu for details on nuclear incentives. Secretary Chu describes this as "the beginning of the start of a new nuclear industry." As for the timeframe for getting a new nuclear power plant up and running, Secretary Chu can only answer "that depends," averting to the role of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). "Ideally," he says, "it could be between five and ten years."

Senator Voinovich (R, OH) is up, and this should be good, because he earlier decried EPA's lack of thoroughness in its analysis. Brushing past the fact that the Senate and House bills are extremely similar, and EPA analyzed the differences, Senator Voinovich intones that, nonetheless, "[t]he fact is that you have not done a full analysis, is that correct?" Administrator Jackson admits that it is true, and that it would take four to five weeks to run full models on the Senate bill. The Senator also talks about preemption, noting that, on his read, this legislation would not preempt the use of the CAA to regulate GHGs. Administrator Jackson says that she still believes that there would be no preemption--that the CAA can still be used to mitigate the harm of some GHG emissions, but that what is really needed is economy-wide action through a bill like this.

Turning to Secretary Chu, Senator Voinovich states his concern that we will not have the technology in place to meet the cap and trade goals. Seemingly wanting to meet them through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of emissions from coal plants, he notes that it is urgent that we have CCS in place by 2020, especially if we are going to continue to compete with China (which he notes, as many did in the Senators' preliminary statements, is building one or two coal-fired power plants per week.) Senator Chu responds that energy conservation--if "we really think hard about it"--is the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon, that solar and wind power is very promising, and that we need to press hard and act aggressively, but that we can meet the goals.

Next, Senator Specter (D, PA) addresses Administrator Jackson. He notes that a big selling point for people who don't like climate legislation is the idea that the EPA would no longer be able to come in and use the CAA to regulate CO2 or other GHG emissions. Apparently believing that Administrator Jackson is not familiar with basic strategic concepts, he asks whether she would be able to make concessions in this area. Administrator Jackson responds that, despite the benefits of a cap and trade bill, the EPA will still need the authority to, e.g., address localized pollution sinks that may remain (which is a bit confounding, since we are talking about GHGs, which have a global effect.). Senator Specter says, nonetheless, that he would like to see this bill given preemptive force over the CAA in the area of GHG regulation, and that "if there are other things that you want [to see in the bill], let us know about them," because there is a lot of value in certainty. He explains that "we don't want to buy a pig in a poke." Finally, turning to FERC Chairman Wellinghoff, Senator Specter notes that his constituents are very concerned about transmission lines and pipelines, and asks that he come out and hold hearings before making siting decisions.

Senator Sanders (D, VT), averting to Vermont's strides in energy efficiency, asks Secretary Chu about the benefits of a Smart Grid--specifically the cost savings that we can achieve through peak shifting. Secretary Chu responds that *just* peak shifting would achieve $100 billion in savings a year. Senator Sanders then presents a chart to Secretary Chu showing that the most cost-effective way to go forward is through wind and solar--and that nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy. Secretary Chu, seeking good marks but not wanting to just parrot Sanders, responds that energy efficiency is the cheapest way of going about this. Senator Sanders, not satisfied, makes his own point for himself--that wind, solar, and geothermal are the cheapest form of new energy, but complains that everyone on the committee seems only to be talking about nuclear and coal.

Senator Sanders asks Secretary of Transportation LaHood why we don't have the same type of rail systems seen in Europe and Asia. The Secretary responds, promptly and boisterously, that its "lack of investment." That had Truman made the investment in railroads that he did in highways, we would have those rail systems. But "instead we have a state of the art interstate highway system." Then, Senator Sanders rounds out his questioning by playing to his constituency, extracting statements from the Secretary of his intent to invest in transportation links for rural America.

Senator Udall (D, CO) takes the mic, and ask FERC Chairman Wellinghoff about renewable energy. The Chairman replies that it is important that we have a national standard, and that this bill does that. Turning to Secretary Chu, the Senator asks about the importance of natural gas in future energy plans. Secretary Chu notes that they are funding pilot programs for fueling cars with natural gas, and talks about recovering natural gas from shale as a lower carbon option than some of our current fuel sources. (An answer that should dismay environmentalists aware of the devastating effects of oil shale extraction.) Finally, Senator Udall asks about the costs of wind and solar. Secretary Chu says he is optimistic that solar and wind costs are continuing to drop. Finally, he asks Secretary LaHood about the benefits of investing in passenger rail. Secretary LaHood replies, boisterous again, that it would "[t]ake a lot of cars off the road, take a lot of CO2 [out] of the air. .... When someone gets on a train, they're out of their automobile, and the benefits will be enormous." Underscoring his point, he reprises that "I want to be clear on this, we haven't made the investments in America in passenger rail."

Senator Lautenberg (D, NJ) seeks another assurance from Secretary Chu on the achievability of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions, asking if it can't be achieved through energy efficiency alone. Secretary Chu replies that it can be achieved, but that it will involve looking in every corner, and counting carbon offsets such as reforestation. Turning to Secretary LaHood, Senator Lautenberg asks for more specifics about the effects of increased train service on CO2 emissions, and Secretary LaHood promises a more detailed answer on the exact effects in writing. Senator Lautenberg averts, in the end, to the "cost of doing nothing."

Senator Merkley (D, OR) takes his turn, again talking about the extraordinary benefits of energy efficiency, referring to a McKinsey report issued last year. He notes that it is the cheapest way of providing for new energy needs by far, and will actually reduce household bills. So he asks, "Are we underinvesting in energy efficiency in this bill? Do we need to be going further, and actually have a separate standard?" (I can hear the cheering from ACEEE from where I sit.) Secretary Chu answers, point blank, "Yes." But "there are some barriers at work here. ... What we call market failures. Many people don't know what to do, its inconvenient, there's inertia, and there are also finance barriers. Energy efficiency, you can't just say make it happen. You have to be very proactive, because of these market barriers." Senator Merkley says that he would like to work further with the Department of Energy to help break down the barriers, saying that he would really like to see us achieve the 20% reduction by 2020 through energy efficiency alone, a technology "that pays us back." Secretary Chu replies that the Department will be trying to pilot programs over the next year to see if it can bring down costs--presumably, including barriers.

Finally Senator Merkley asks if we should really be pushing electric cars as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Secretary LaHood cheers for the GM Volt, but none address whether electric cars would really result in net emissions reductions.

Senator Whitehouse (D, RI) takes over, and notes "the fact that every single one of our Republican colleagues has departed ... shows how difficult" the process is going to be. Turning to a specific issue, he urges that "as you look at the nuclear component of our energy portfolio, that you look aggressively at the nuclear waste" and see about converting it into fuel. "One day, we should be burning this nuclear waste as fuel." Secretary Chu says that the Department has started a detailed look at this. He notes that only 1% of the energy content of the uranium dug out of the ground is actually used.

Senator Whitehouse asks Chairman Wellinghoff about dispatch orders for when power plants are turned on and off. "It is my understanding that these dispatch rules do not take the environmental effects into account whatsoever," and says he would like to work with FERC to make sure that those environmental effects are taken into account in the dispatch rule. Finally, turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Whitehouse states that "the perspective that I have on this is that for many years, corporate polluters have been ducking and dodging on their responsibilities under the CAA" by building smokestacks. "Right now, in Rhode Island, on a bright summer day, the radio today could easily announce that today is a bad air day ... because of what is being rained down on us by these [out-of-state] power plants. . . . As we look at the CAA ... I very strongly believe that it is time that these power plants are held to account ... So I hope that you will stand firm on the CAA."

Senator Cardin (D, MD), bringing up the rear, thanks the panelists for their public service. He seeks to "underscore two points," about energy policy and investment. Transportation represents 30% of our GHGs, and 60-70% of our oil use. He notes that he would like to get public transportation going far beyond passenger rail, and thanks the Chairwoman for doing that with the bill. He then turns to how the panelists use their existing authority--and thanks Administrator Jackson for putting the environment back on the EPA's priority list. Again playing the good cheerleader, he says "We need to get this done. .... [But] be aggressive with the tools that are already available."

A great note on which to end today's hearings.