Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 21, 2001, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 8040 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE environment & public works
SUBCOMMITTEE: clean air, wetlands, private property,
and nuclear safety
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY CLEAN AIR ACT
AND ENERGY POLICY
TESTIMONY-BY: DAVID M. NEMTZOW ,
PRESIDENT
AFFILIATION: ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY
BODY: MARCH 21, 2001 TESTIMONY OF DAVID M. NEMTZOW,
PRESIDENT ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY BEFORE THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND NUCLEAR
SAFETY HEARING ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today about how
we can meet the nation's future energy needs while limiting, even lessening,
environmental impacts. My name is David Nemtzow. I am President of the Alliance
to Save Energy, a bi-partisan, non-profit coalition of business, government,
environmental, and consumer leaders dedicated to improving the efficiency with
which our economy uses energy. Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey
founded the Alliance in 1977; it is currently chaired by Senators Jeff Bingaman
and James Jeffords as well as Representative Ed Markey. Over seventy companies
and organizations currently belong to the Alliance to Save Energy. If it pleases
the Chairman I would like to include for the record a complete list of the
Alliance's Board of Directors and Associate members, which includes many of the
nation's leading energy efficiency firms, electric and gas utilities, and other
companies providing cost savings and pollution reduction to the marketplace. The
Alliance has a long history of researching and evaluating federal energy
efficiency efforts. We also have a long history of supporting and participating
in efforts to promote energy efficiency that rely not on mandatory federal
regulations, but on partnerships between government and business and between the
federal and State governments. Federal energy efficiency programs at the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other
agencies are largely voluntary programs that further the national goals of
environmental protection, as well as broad-based economic growth, national
security and economic competitiveness. I. INTRODUCTION Energy-Efficiency: A
Bipartisan Tradition From the days of our first national nightmare of gas lines
and soaring fuel prices, energy efficiency has had champions in Congress from
both sides of the aisle. Sen. Charles Percy, who founded the Alliance to Save
Energy in 1977, recognized the need to promote energy efficiency to address a
glaring hole in our nation's economic security. He knew that a partnership
between business, government, environmentalists, and consumer advocates would
not only result in benefits for each sector, it would help avoid the need for
coercive regulation when our problems reach crisis level. That maxim is no less
true today, even though oil supplies and prices have eased. Our fossil fuel
economy is now believed by many to have put new stresses on our environment.
Energy efficiency has been repeatedly cited as a key solution to slow the
loading of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Fortunately,
we now have a quarter-century track record of showing how energy efficiency
reduces air pollutants - including SO2, NOx, mercury, carbon dioxide,
particulates, and others. Support of action by the federal government to promote
energy efficiency has also been historically bipartisan. Though the
establishment of the Department of Energy and energy efficiency programs is most
often associated with the Carter Administration, key advancements in federal
efforts were made under the Reagan and Bush Administrations. While funding was
cut severely from Carter-era levels, President Ronald Reagan signed the National
Appliance Efficiency and Conservation Act (NAECA) the law requiring DOE to set
energy efficiency standards for appliances and other equipment. That program has
led to tens of billions of dollars in savings for the American people and
significant carbon emissions reductions. The first Bush Administration, in the
context of its support for the Rio Treaty, began to significantly expand funding
for DOE energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts and created the Green
Lights and Energy Star programs at EPA. In addition, former President Bush
signed the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which expanded the scope and magnitude of
energy efficiency efforts. The House and Senate caucuses devoted to promoting
renewable energy and energy efficiency continue that tradition of
bipartisanship. Currently, the House Renewable Energy and Energy- Efficiency
Caucus features 173 members from both parties, while the newer Senate version
counts 32 of your colleagues as its members. Such support from all parts of the
political spectrum is what has made clean energy a driving force in the American
economy. Today's Testimony I am here today to testify on the relationship of
energy policy and environmental policy. At today's hearing I know you will
receive testimony indicating that certain environmental policies make it more
difficult to produce energy in this country, and other testimony that certain
energy policies are lessening our nation's environmental quality. That is small
wonder, after all energy and environmental decisions are inexorably linked since
so many of our environmental challenges result from the production,
transportation and/or consumption of energy resources. Most notably, 80-90
percent of our air pollution comes from energy use, as does an even larger
percentage of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas. Unfortunately, the
list doesn't end there: energy use contributes significantly to other
environmental problems, including water pollution, land use disruptions, toxic
and nuclear wastes, etc. So we must accept that energy and environmental
decisions are intertwined, and the policies designed to aid in one area will
often have impacts - often negative - in the other. That is why cutting energy
waste and using energy efficiently is so critical. Energy efficiency means
providing the services that our modern, in fact future, economy and lifestyles
demand - lighting, heating, cooling, transportation, IT, and much more - but
doing so with less energy input. Energy efficiency means relying on technologies
-many of which are familiar, while others are still innovative or still in the
laboratory, perhaps at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the Chairman's home
state or at the United Technologies company in the Ranking Member's home state -
that can provide the same or superior services, productivity and comfort while
using less energy input. And lessening energy input means reducing the numerous
pollutants and environmental stresses that result from our currently wasteful
energy practices. II. ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION Proven
Performer Increasing energy-efficiency has been reducing air pollution in the
United States for at least 25 years. Alliance research shows that the gains made
in energy efficiency alone during the past 25 years have resulted in 18 percent
less air pollution today. This massive assistance to our environmental health is
in addition to improvements made through the Clean Air Act and other air
regulations. The most polluting activity on earth is the production,
transportation, and use of energy. Electricity generation, vehicle exhaust, oil
spills, the heating and cooling of buildings, industrial processes, and myriad
other uses of energy account for what is estimated to be 80-90 percent of
environmental pollution in this country. As our population and economic activity
increases into the 21st Century, environmental stresses on our air, water, and
land will be heightened. We can bring these large figures down to some
snapshots. In March, 2000, the Rand Corporation completed a study of the
economic and environmental impacts of utility energy-efficiency programs in
California. Rand's analysis found that the reduction in demand for electricity
achieved by these programs prevented a 40 percent increase in stationary source
air pollution in California. In addition to these findings, it is important to
note that Rand documented a return of roughly $1000 for every dollar spent on
commercial and industrial energy efficiency by utilities between 1977 and 1995,
and asserted that 3 percent of the 1995 California state gross state product can
be attributed to these investments. While some may now say that we could use
more plants in California now that the current crisis has taken hold, it is
important to note that energy-efficiency efforts by utilities were cut back
drastically in the onset of deregulation in the state. Continued demand
reduction through the end of the 1990s would have put the state in a
significantly more secure position than it finds itself today. NOx, Sox, and
Carbon: EPA Data Alliance to Save Energy analysis of Environmental Protection
Agency pollution data shows that energy-efficiency has been particularly
effective at reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. On
average, since 1977, energy-efficiency measures in the U.S. have reduced
nitrogen oxides by 13 percent over what annual emissions levels would have been.
Energy-efficiency has reduced sulfur dioxide by an average of 3 percent per
year. (See enclosed tables.) Energy-Efficiency and SIPs: A New Tool for States
More than ever, states are looking for innovative ways to meet their obligations
under the Clean Air Act to develop and issue State Implementation Plans. A
growing acknowledgement that energy-efficiency is an effective tool to reduce
criteria air pollutants and carbon is fueling a new look at energy-efficiency
set-asides and other measures. We strongly support this move to look at energy
and environment as two parts of the same equation. Their separation in the
public consciousness - and Mr. Chairman, often times in committee jurisdiction -
is the single biggest obstacle we have to solving our energy crises and
environmental problems. If energy and environmental policy is moved in concert
then better programs will be developed. With the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
decisions regarding the State Implementation Plans for NOx and the eight hour
rule for ozone, this effort should have new immediacy. Climate Change and the
Alliance to Save Energy Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by stating that the Alliance
to Save Energy currently has no official policy on climate change. We are not on
record regarding targets or timetables, the Kyoto treaty, nor any other proposed
form of regulation to address the problem. However, we are very cognizant of
both the science and politics surrounding the issue, and even more acutely, the
potential for energy efficiency to be a large part of the solution to global
climate change. But we must look at where our carbon emissions would be without
the investments that have been made in this country since 1977. (See enclosed
table.) Mr. Chairman, our nation's emission of carbon would be a full one-third
(33 percent) greater without the progress that has been made in the past quarter
century. Mr. Chairman, the Alliance is not surprised that energy efficiency
stands to be a key component of nearly any climate change strategy. And slowing
or stemming climate change should rightly take its place with economic growth,
reduction of other environmental pollutants, increased national security, and
promoting American competitiveness abroad, as a reason to move full speed ahead
with research, development, and deployment of energy-efficient technology
throughout the economy. We are such believers in the positive effects of energy
efficiency that if you told us it cured the common cold, we might not be
surprised. However, energy efficiency becomes an even more crucial component for
our nation's near-term future when we think of the fact that a huge amount of
our nation's capital stock will turn over in the next 10 years. EPA estimates
that fully 60 percent of our carbon emissions in 2010 will come from equipment
not yet purchased. Decisions about how we develop and deploy technology will
have a profound effect on whether the nation is even able to sufficiently reduce
emissions if a political consensus on action to stem climate change should
develop. In this context, energy efficiency becomes an insurance policy that the
nation can ill- afford to pass up, and one that should be pursued with no
regret. Five of our most prestigious national laboratories recently came out
with a study titled, "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future." The conclusion of
that study was that targeted investment in a selection of energy-efficiency
measures could get us more than one half of the way to 1990 levels of carbon
emissions. Furthermore, by 2020, these targeted efficiency measures would pay
for themselves. Let me state that again Mr. Chairman. Five of our national
laboratories believe that targeted investments in energy-efficiency can get our
nation at least half way to the targets of the Kyoto treaty FOR FREE. In no
place have I seen these findings refuted or substantially questioned. Yet few
policy makers are seriously considering implementing these investments. Frankly,
Mr. Chairman, we should stop carrying on an increasingly surreal debate over how
much evidence we need for a conclusive finding that climate change exists, and
start putting in place an insurance policy that will benefit the country
economically and environmentally no matter what happens - and mitigate potential
impacts of global warming. III. FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY EFFORTS Energy
efficiency Research, Development, and Deployment: Why the Federal Government?
Back in 1995, when some in Congress were contemplating the dissolution of the
Department of Energy, two major reports were released that came to the same
conclusion: If we forego federal research and development in energy
technologies, it will not be replaced in kind by the private sector. Both the
Galvin Commission studying the national laboratories and DOE's Yergin Task Force
looked at energy research and development and arrived at this conclusion. Among
the reasons they cited as barriers to corporate efforts are high R&D costs,
internal cost-cutting which has resulted in widespread downsizing of companies,
uncertainty of property rights and the ability to capture all the benefits of
R&D, and high initial investment in R&D capability. In the early 1990s,
federal energy research efforts were criticized for producing technology and
innovation in a vacuum. While research accomplishments were substantial, many
business leaders believed that these efforts were not relevant to markets for
lighting, building materials, automobiles and other products. This decade has
seen an exponential rise in cooperation, planning, and cost-sharing with the
private sector to assure that federal research and deployment really do create
the maximum value added. These process gains are exemplified by EPA's Green
Lights and Energy Star as well as DOE's Industries of the Future and Buildings
Roadmap programs. Technology Deployment is Integral to a Successful Research
Agenda Some critics of DOE and EPA energy efficiency efforts have argued that
while basic research is an acceptable activity of the federal government,
deployment and market transformation are not. The need for having deployment in
the toolbox of DOE is illustrated by the story of the flame retention oil
burner. DOE did not develop this technology. However, in response to the oil
price shocks of the 1970s, DOE worked with the oil heat industry to field test
and promote the technology as a substantial energy- saver. The key was a program
to train fuel oil technicians how to install these advanced burners to yield the
most savings for homeowners. The subsequent realization by the oil heat industry
of its attributes created demand, and adoption of the flame retention head oil
burner increased about ten-fold between 1979 and 1983. As of 1996, the
technology was in use in about 7.3 million households, over half of oil-heated
homes. The burner provides an 11-22 percent energy saving, Mr. Chairman, and, as
of 1999, a conservative energy savings estimate of over $14 billion billion for
consumers from a simple, existing technology -- in large part due to deployment
efforts by DOE. DOE's responsibility for this benefit can be traced to
addressing barriers that were inhibiting wide use of the technology, and
accelerating market penetration. Federal Programs: Have They Returned Our
Investment? In 1996, Mr. Chairman, the General Accounting Office did a study of
a variety of success stories which DOE had published in 1994. Unfortunately, the
purpose of the study appeared to be political, and it attempted to discredit
energy efficiency programs by attacking DOE's methodology for preparing the
success stories. But rather than achieving this goal, it ended up validating
billions in energy savings for a few key technologies which far outstrip out
entire national investment in energy efficiency over the past 20 years. Mr.
Chairman, the accumulated success of these programs at saving money for American
consumers and taxpayers is remarkable. The GAO study validated DOE's assertion
that just five technologies* developed or assisted by the DOE buildings program
resulted in $28 billion in energy savings over the past 20 years for an
approximate $8 billion in investment in all energy-efficiency programs as of
1994. DOE has updated results for those programs that credits these technologies
with returning $50.9 billion to the U.S. economy through 1999. Add gains from
the low-income Weatherization Assistance Program, state energy programs, and
building and appliance standards work, and returns total $89.6 billion. Add FEMP
gains and it moves to $101 billion. Add the hundreds of other technologies to
come out of the business, industrial, and transportation programs and the
additional accrued energy savings of the past 5 years and you get a portrait of
an overwhelmingly cost-effective effort which has contributed significantly and
directly to the quality of life of Americans. Mr. Chairman, I have yet to know
of another federal program that has returned more than $100 billion to the
economy for such a relatively small investment of $12.0 billion through 1999.
(*The technologies are: low-emissivity windows, electronic ballasts, advanced
refrigerator compressors, the flame retention head oil burner, and DOE-II
building design software.) By the same token, the EPA Energy Star and Green
Lights programs, as well as other EPA climate programs, have already returned
more than $40 billion in energy savings to to the economy from less than $750
million in federal investment through 1999. In addition, these federal
partnerships with businesses, state and local governments, school districts,
non-profits, and other organizations have yielded reductions of more than 300
million metric tons of carbon equivalent pollution. It must be noted, Mr.
Chairman, that these dollar returns are from just lower fuel and energy bills -
they do not include the economic value of reductions in pollution, increases in
productivity and comfort of employees and consumers, or national security
benefits of oil imports. A More Comprehensive Audit Must be Performed Mr.
Chairman, I believe we need an even more comprehensive review of the
accomplishments of energy efficiency programs in the federal government that
spans the work of DOE, EPA, the Agency for International Development, and other
agencies. Until we get a clearer picture of the size and scope of the
accomplishment of federal energy efficiency efforts, we cannot fully assess
their value in a climate change context. Tax Credits Numerous leading Senators
and Representatives of both parties have introduced legislation to promote
energy-efficient technologies. Rep. Bill Thomas of California has been a leader
in promoting tax credits for energy-efficient new homes and for upgrading
existing homes; Sen. Charles Grassley has done the same for highly efficient
appliances; and Sen. Bob Smith has introduced legislation that covers homes,
commercial buidlings and other equipment. And perhaps most significantly,
Senators Murkowski, Lott and others included tax credits for energy efficiency
in S. 388/S. 389, the Republican comprehensive energy package, and Senator
Bingaman is expected to do so in his comprehensive bill. These actions are a
powerful bi-partisan endorsement of efficiency as an environmentally-responsive
energy policy. The Alliance strongly supports such efforts. Pubic Benefits Fund
We are all familiar by now, Mr. Chairman, with the ongoing electricity troubles
in California. These ills are now spreading to other states in the west, and
Chicago, New York, and other eastern cities expect to experience shortages of
electricity this summer. A reliable, affordable source of electricity is
extremely important to Americans. Public benefits spending, such as that which
was assessed by the Rand Corporation for California has been immensely
successful at delivering electric capacity cheaply, quickly, and cleanly. In
fact, Mr. Chairman, we assert that the delivery of energy- efficiency measures
is a cleaner, cheaper, and quicker strategy for assuring electricity supply in
our cities than building new generation and upgrading transmission. The bill
that Sen. Bingaman is expected to introduce today will include a non-bypassable
wires charge for electricity consumers that will go directly toward insuring
reliability in the power supply, as well as helping low-income Americans meet
rising costs, and assisting states in their efforts to bring greater renewable
energy resources on line. We strongly support this public benefits fund for use
to shore up huge gaps in public interest programs that deregulation has left by
the wayside. IV. ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THE ECONOMY Energy efficiency makes money
and puts people to work. The economic gains from energy efficiency come in two
forms. The greatest benefit comes from displaced costs -- money that households
and businesses can spend elsewhere because they no longer have to spend it on
energy. That spending includes additional investment and hiring additional
workers. Direct economic benefits come from growth in industries that generate
energy-efficient products and services. Companies that sell insulation or
efficient windows domestically and/or for export employ Americans in high-skill
service and manufacturing jobs. Secondary economic benefits come from businesses
and consumers re- spending these newfound energy savings in sectors of the
economy which are more labor-intensive than energy supply. Energy efficiency
Must Be Measured as an Energy Source Our energy system operates against the
backdrop of a U.S. economy that has become significantly more energy-efficient
over the past quarter- century. But we often fail to realize the actual
contribution of energy efficiency to our GDP and national well being. Mr.
Chairman, it isn't easy to compare the contribution of energy efficiency to the
environment and the economy with more traditional energy sources such as oil and
coal. It requires the observer to regard saved or unused energy as created
energy in the same way that oil comes out of the well and coal comes out of the
mine. In addition, I think that any economist would tell you that energy
efficiency measures have increased the supply of energy and thus helped to lower
the price. Energy not used is just as salable and usable when conserved as when
produced. Upgrades in energy efficiency made to home appliances, industrial
equipment, building systems, or car and truck fleets serve as an energy source
that increases our overall supply of electricity, coal, oil, and natural gas.
Energy-Efficiency, our Number 2 Energy Source in 1999 Alliance research shows
that, for 1999, the most recent year for which we have complete data, energy
efficiency was the second leading source of energy for U.S. consumption, and if
we consider only domestic energy sources, it's number one. I might add, Mr.
Chairman, this is an extremely conservative estimate, staying well within the
tight parameters of Department of Energy modeling. Mr. Chairman, it would have
been number-one if we declined to count oil imports, now more than half of this
nation's oil consumption. Our analysis of 1999 energy consumption shows that
energy efficiency provided the nation with 27 quadrillion Btus (quads), nearly
25 percent of U.S. energy consumption. While energy efficiency trails our
mammoth oil consumption (38 quads), it significantly outstrips the contribution
of natural gas (22 quads), coal (22 quads), nuclear (8 quads) and hydro (4
quads). (See attached chart.) Mr. Chairman, the contribution of energy
efficiency to our nation's overall supply is now so great that we cannot regard
as an esoteric externality anymore. We must promote and support it in the same
way we do the coal belt and the oil patch, which enjoy a variety of tax breaks
and subsidies based on their use of fuel. These figures show energy efficiency
for what it is - an unparalleled driver of environmentally sound economic
growth. Mr. Chairman these economic snapshots of efficiency show an energy
industry that spans the economy and the populace. But it is not an energy
industry that looks like what we have known in the past. However, all the
functions of traditional energy industries are represented. But with
energy-efficiency, the miners are businesses trying to cut their costs. The
roughnecks are homeowners trying to keep their families warmer in the winter.
The geologists are mechanical engineers working to get more out of less. Energy
efficiency is highly dispersed throughout the economy. And because of its
diffuse nature, energy efficiency doesn't carry the political clout of the
coal-mining regions, or of the oil and gas-producing regions. There is no
"energy efficiency patch." By the same token there is not a defined energy
efficiency industry. Whirlpool makes highly efficient appliances but they sell
washing machines and refrigerators, not energy efficiency. Honeywell sells
controls that regulate building systems that can save a company millions of
dollars a year, not energy efficiency. Owens-Corning sells fiberglass insulation
which can make a house warmer, more comfortable, and more economical to live in,
but they sell insulation, not energy-efficiency. So when we have to make tough
choices about what we do with federal dollars, we must think about energy
efficiency as what it is - an energy source that is essential for the economic
health of our nation - and one that is paying off like a gusher for the American
people. And yes, Mr. Chairman, that energy is produced cleanly, displacing both
conventional air pollutants as well as ones believed by many to be causing a
warming of the Earth's climate. It enhances our national security, as this year
we again went to war to protect our interests in Mideast oil fields. Energy
efficiency cuts costs for businesses and consumers, and it increases our
international competitiveness -- all the things we have traditionally talked
about. The tough choices on energy and climate must be made with a clear eye on
the contribution to the environment, the economy, national security, and
international competitiveness delivered in the past and promised for the future
by energy-efficiency. V. OTHER BENEFITS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY National Security
As historians consider the reasons for the Persian Gulf War, one must
acknowledge that the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 1991 in large part to defend
our critical oil interests in the region. Within the past year, we have again
gone to war with Iraq to protect those same interests. When considered by
economists, the billions which American taxpayers spent to protect those
interests - never mind the dangers posed to a half a million American soldiers
-- should be added not onto our military or diplomatic budget, but onto our
national expenditure for energy. The U.S. has now crossed the line of being
dependent for more than 55 percent of its oil consumption on foreign sources.
Two- thirds of that habit comes from transportation. Without more aggressive
research and innovation in automobile technology that situation will grow
significantly worse in the coming decades for two reasons. One, U.S. consumption
will continue to grow both in the number of vehicles on the road and the amount
driven by each one. Two, the concentration of remaining global oil reserves will
grow more consolidated in the Persian Gulf region as time goes on, making the
U.S. more and more beholden to a region which demonstrates its volatility nearly
every day. Consequently, U.S. dependence on foreign oil is projected to rise to
nearly 60 percent within 10 years. In the absence of Congressional support for
increasing Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles remains our best bet for the
development of cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars with which to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil supplies. This program has come under some criticism,
and perhaps it is valid to question why the Big Three automakers require
millions of dollars in federal research to develop products that are less
environmentally harmful. However, cleaner, more efficient cars remain a national
priority, and PNGV is making progress. While much of the advancement made thus
far through the program has been kept proprietary, the known advances in fuel
cells and hybrids are getting us closer to clean cars. In fact, Mr. Chairman,
the fact that this information is being kept proprietary is a good sign that
progress is being made and that people are expecting money to be made in the
future. VI. INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY: NOTHING TO LOSE AND EVERYTHING TO
GAIN Mr. Chairman, I have described here how energy efficiency has been a
transforming force in the American economy, and how federal energy efficiency
efforts have played a key role in that expansion. Investments in research,
development, and deployment of energy-efficient technology pay for themselves
many times over in economic, environmental, and national security benefits. In
addition, these are strides forward that would happen much more slowly or even
not at all without federal leadership. Any evaluation of climate change programs
must fully factor in the benefits of energy efficiency gains in any cost-benefit
analysis. In order to do that, we must undertake a more comprehensive accounting
of the benefits of federal energy efficiency programs that began 25 years ago,
and have continued through today. Mr. Chairman, I believe that due to their
contribution to environmental quality energy efficiency efforts at DOE, EPA and
other agencies should be escalated. Accordingly, I am deeply troubled by reports
in the press - that appear to be accurate - that the Bush administration will be
deeply cutting the DOE efficiency programs when it makes its FY 2002 budget
recommendations in early April. I cannot imagine a worse way to face our
nation's multiple energy crises and our environmental demands than by cutting
energy efficiency programs. I have yet to learn of a federal investment that has
yielded such rich rewards so broadly dispersed over the economy. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before your Committees today. I'm happy to address
any questions you might have.
LOAD-DATE: March 22,
2001, Thursday