Hill Heat

Sanders and Barrasso introduced several other amendments which were not adopted. Here are some:

• Amendment 1 would have designated most of the funds in the zero/low-carbon emissions fund for solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Sanders pointed out that the bill has explicit funding for coal, cellulosic ethanol, and the auto industry but none for renewables.
• Amendment 2 would have replaced the advanced tech auto funding with funding for local and state energy efficiency grants. Sanders argued that the auto language was too weak to ensure any benefits, saying “If we do not act aggressively Detroit will be shutting down and moving to China.”
• Amendment 4 would give EPA authority to revise targets. Withdrawn after suggestion to work on issue by Lautenberg to have EPA action with Congressional veto
• Amendment 5 would have moved to full auction of allowances by 2026
• Amendment 6 would have put a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester at least 85% of their emissions.
• Amendment 8 would have replaced the 15% offset allowance for companies with a system-wide cap on total offsets purchased. The amendment was supported by U.S. PIRG, UCS, and NRDC.
• Amendment 9 would have required economy-wide cuts by 15% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Lieberman voted no, arguing that the 63% cuts would keep concentrations below 550 PPM by 2100 and saying “Your amendment would break the coalition and have possible other negative impacts.”

• Amendment 1 would have set up the Rocky Mountain Center of Coal Studies at the University of Wyoming.
• Amendment 2 would have supported high-altitude Western state (Wyoming) coal gasification demonstration projects.
• Amendment 5 would have pushed back coal capture and sequestration targets.
• Amendment 8 would have sunset the bill in five years. Barrasso said that China and India need to implement cap-and-trade programs in that time period.

9:24 Baucus I look forward as all of us do to make this a better bill. Specifically, spurring our international partners to take greater action. Global problems require global solutions. This bill puts the US back on track to be the global leader on renewable energy and clean coal solutions.

9:26 Lautenberg You have produced a bill we can be proud of. The obstacles to moving on this are obvious. We are living in the most densely populated state in the country, New Jersey. We love the outdoors, we rush to the outdoors. The question that I think arises is not whether or not it’s going to cost more. But what’s the cost in life? We’re talking about everybody’s grandchildren in this country. What’s the cost of a decaying infrastructure because we’re beset by pollution? We will never achieve perfection. We permit states to set higher target reductions. I’ll try to keep within the time. The chairman gave us fifty percent more speaking time.

Lieberman I’ll be holding an auction.

Baucus It’ll be held to an emissions cap.

9:30 Sanders I want to thank all who have put together what is in fact a strong bill. It may well be that this issue of trying to reverse global warming is the most important for the world. I want to thank Barbara Boxer who has reversed what we were doing. What is the scientific community saying we have to do? I’m a big fan of bipartisanship, loving each other. But we have to go to the scientists. What they are telling us is the projections they have made were wrong. They underestimated the problem. If anything, the Sanders-Boxer legislation may be too conservative. The problem I have to start with this legislation is it calls for a 63% reduction by 2050. It simply does not go far enough. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that if Congress gets its act together, and gets aggressive about moving to all the new technologies we can solve this problem. We can create millions of well-paying jobs. I will be offering a number of amendments this morning. These amendments come from the scientific community.

9:34 Lieberman I will offer a substitute amendment on behalf of Warner, Lautenberg, Baucus, and myself. The substitute amendment, substantial, will be pending under consideration of other amendments. The pending amendment is amendable. Sen. Sanders and Barrasso each have several they have filed.

9:35 Sanders Amendment 1: There is such huge potential in renewable resources. If you look at where the money goes – we will be playing with more than three trillion dollars and it is important for the American people to know where the money is going. The bill didn’t have one word for solar or wind energy. This amendment carves out from the zero- and low-emissions technologies fund an equal amount for solar, wind, and geothermal as it does for carbon sequestration. It doesn’t add any more money.

Lieberman I’m going to respectfully oppose this amendment. We estimate that the auctioning of these credits will raise a very substantial amount of money which will be reinvested to help the sources of greenhouse gases meet their declining cap and will constitute the most significant national investment our country has made in alternative, clean, renewable technologies. People have said we need a Manhattan Project to make us energy independent. This is it! 45% of the 50% of the auction proceeds goes to zero or low-carbon technologies. It includes solar, wind, it might include nuclear, it includes high-efficiency consumer products. So in the case of this amendment which would say that 28% would only go to renewable energy sources. I’m very sympathetic to renewable energy sources. I think to mandate that significant portion to those sources would be a mistake. As we worked to fashion a compromise there are very different opinions. Some members don’t want us to mention nuclear. One member on the committee is opposed to putting money into wind. It was our judgment not to define which technologies get the money.

Lautenberg I support the Senator’s amendment. I think focusing on those sources that can produce energy without those carbon emissions we worry about. New Jersey is the second largest installer of solar panels due to a state requirement. We have a tariff of over 50 cents of gallon on imported ethanol. We shoot ourselves in our foot. Sen. Sanders is on the right track.

Barrasso I have reservations about this amendment. It diverts money into renewables. I want to direct investment into coal.

Sanders If we put all the money into zero and low-carbon technologies, that would be okay. But we’re putting $324 billion into clean coal. Billions into cellulosic ethanol. Billions to the automakers. It says we’ll put zero to solar. We have more unlimited supplies of solar, wind. It is a disgrace that the large solar plant being built in California is an Israeli company. Where are the American companies? We have not supported that industry.

Lieberman Those numbers are not committee numbers, they’re estimates. If you take that sheet of paper who tried to put a dollar number on the percentages, $522 billion in the zero and low-carbon fund. It can be world-changing. Because of the balance we’ve worked out at this point I think it would be a mistake to carve out for one technology as opposed to the others.

Baucus I think it’s a wiser choice not to adopt this amendment. There are a lot of incentives in other legislation, like the RPS in the energy bill. Second, in the tax portion, a tax credit for renewables. I have to say this Congress is doing enough for renewables. I think it’s better not to pass this amendment.

9:52: Rollcall Failed.

9:53: Barrasso Amendment 2: Support for high-altitude Western state coal gasification demonstration projects.

Lieberman I don’t understand this well enough.

Baucus We have coal in Montana, and we’re a high-altitude state. Maybe we can work something along those lines. We have to make some changes to the language.

Amendment tabled.

9:56 Sanders Amendment 3. I’d like to talk about the carve-outs in this bill. This bill proposes that $232 billion goes to advanced technology vehicles, the automobile industry. The auto industry has led the effort against higher CAFE standards. They produce cars in Europe and Asia that are of far higher efficiency than in the US. The language in the bill is very weak. What are we getting in return for our money? Cars that get 20 MPG. We should be getting 50, 70 MPG. This amendment gives cities and towns money for increasing energy efficiency. I have a 100% lifetime voting record for the AFL-CIO. If we do not act aggressively Detroit will be shutting down and moving to China. What is very clear is that the auto industry is moving to China. GM is opening another research center in China. We need to deal with that in another bill.

Lieberman In my opinion the advanced technology vehicles investment is what we’ve been calling for for a long time. A serious national investment. What’s intended by this very significant amount of money is to create that kind of revolution equal in some ways to the combustion engine so that we can be energy independent. Almost 2/3 of the oil we use in this country is in the transportation sector. Sanders fears this is just a giveaway. It is the goal of the sponsors that the Climate Change Credit Corporation will demand very high standards. It may be that we may want to add express legislative standards on how that money will be spent. I intend to support one of Sanders’ future amendments to that end. This amendment will remove all vehicular funding.

Sanders You talk about the need for revolutionary change in the auto industry. Unfortunately the language in the bill does not do that. It allows the auto industry to produce cars that get 20 MPG.

10:05: Rollcall. Amendment fails.

-

10:36 Lautenberg This is not unlike a patient with a sickness, for our world. Do we take our medicine earlier than we’d like, or do we just let it hang out there as far as we can. I salute Sen. Sanders’ work here and I’m going to support it. UCS and NRDC are in favor of moving this date up. I think it’s a good idea to have an earlier target.

10:39 Rollcall: The amendment is adopted. Excuse me, the amendment is not adopted.

10:39 Barrasso Amendment #5. Amendment would push back sequestration targets. Technologies do not exist to reach 85% reductions.

Lieberman This amendment has merit but I’m not prepared to support it now. I request you withdraw it and we can work on it.

Barrasso I withdraw my amendment.

10:41 Sanders His amendment, with all due respect, would be a disaster. To accelerate that makes no sense from a global warming perspective or a health perspective. Amendment #6 says that no new coal-fired plant can move forward unless 85% of its emissions are captured and sequestered. Just two weeks ago Kansas rejected a coal plant permit. On October 15 the Congreso adopted a call for a moratorium on new coal-fired plants. This amendment would respond to that concern to guide the future production and operation of coal-fired power plants. On one hand we’re putting hundreds of billions of dollars into coal sequestration, but on the other hand we’re allowing dirty coal plants to go forward.

Lieberman I certainly understand your concerns. I’m going to oppose your amendment and let me say why. About half of our electricity is produced by coal. Coal is also the most abundant natural energy resource we have today. By some estimates we have some two centuries worth of coal reserves. As we make this transition we have to figure out how to burn coal in a way that is cleaner, that is clean. This bill will take a lot of the money coming to the corporation to give to the coal industry. Practically speaking wanting to move this bill along this amendment would jeopardize the chances of the bill going forward in the Senate.

10:46 Voice vote: the amendment is defeated.

10:46 Barrasso This amendment would extend covered facilities that limits it to petroleum and natural gas fuels, to extend to biodiesel.

Lieberman I’m going to oppose this because it appears to strike a blow to biodiesel, whose lifecycle carbon emissions are much lower.

10:47 Voice vote: the amendment is defeated.

10:48 Sanders I withdraw amendment #7, and go on to amendment 8, supported by UCS, NRDC, PSR, etc. This limits total offsets. The amendment limits the yearly offset to 420 million metric tons of allowances, a number which comes from USPIRG, UCS, and NRDC. Why am I seeking to change the offset provision? An old, coal-fired plant could buy offsets rather than clean up or shut down. The bill allows companies to achieve 15% of its reductions by offsets. If a company emits 100 units now and has 15% tighter in 2020, the 15% offset means the company could emit 97.5 units in 2020 by using offsets. I understand the bill uses guidelines for offsets. I would prefer to limit the total amount of offsets. Many experts have tried to design good offset programs but without satisfactory results.

Lieberman I respectfully oppose the amendment. Offsets are a way to use the power of the market to drive an overall reduction in greenhouse gases. Maybe an emitter decides it would rather retire an old facility or support a farmer to reduce methane emissions. It’s a different way to achieve the same goal. We’ve had real concern about achieving this with integrity. As to whether it should be 15% or the lowered number is a judgment call, a subjective call. The 2020 cap, the 2050 cap, and this will be under debate. This is a reasonable balance, subject to negotiations. As chairman we need to keep it at 15% to keep this bill moving.

10:54 Voice vote: Amendment is defeated.

10:54 Barrasso Amendment 7 creates Congressional panel that assesses impact to federal and state budgets of the bill if economic impact is greater than 2% before the bill is implemented.

Lieberman I’m going to oppose this because it would delay implementation. The Carbon Market Efficiency Board would have continuing monitoring and surveillance abilities.

10:56 Amendment is defeated by voice vote.

10:56 Sanders Amendment #9 is one of the most important amendments I have offered because it is about the bottom line. I understand what we do is about compromise. This is not what I want, Sen. Isakson, Sen. Lautenberg. What we’re dealing with is the future of the planet, not what I want. If people here think they know more than the scientists, that’s fine. We’ve got to act boldly. It would require cuts by 15% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. I should repeat here and that even these goals according to the IPCC are conservative. These are not some radical wild-eyed ideas. Let me contrast these targets with what is in the bill. I understand that one of the changes in the manager’s amendment includes residential natural gas in the coverage of the bill. This bill would get us reductions 13% by 2020 and 63% by 2050. If we don’t get this act right the results could be cataclysmic.

Lieberman Your presence has made substantial contributions to this bill. We’re trying to do something real here. This is one of those numbers which we will debate. We would take in the substitute to 63% by 2050, you to 80% by 2050. To hold a majority and ultimately 60 votes on the Senate floor. The number one goal with environmental groups was to make the initial goal real, which I think we have done with the 15% goal. I will say also that the USCAP set a goal between 60-80% by 2050, we’re confident we’re in that. The IPCC says we have to keep the level below 500 PPM as we head to the end of this century. Outside scientists say we would do that. Your amendment would break the coalition and have possible other negative impacts.

Isakson I respect Sanders’ passion. I don’t discount science. I do think we have to empower the private sector and all the alternatives that are there, which leads me back to the nuclear power issue. If we go through this bill and have not empowered one of the best resources to achieve our goal, then we’ve done a disservice. I want to compliment you for recognizing that the solution lies in private business innovation, which is why I continue have a passion for nuclear energy.

Lieberman I appreciate your words and agree with them.

Lautenberg We’ve repeatedly heard we have to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming. I think the Sanders amendment is in line with the science. I think the analogy of us as doctors is appropriate. We know what kind of medicine is needed. Why would you hold back to administer that medicine? I salute the well-meaning bill, it’s a good bill, but when I see an amendment like Sanders I support it. If it’s too stringent we can change it.

Sanders This isn’t about passion. Nobody wants to see us enter an era of drought, floods. This isn’t about passion. This is about science. What the scientists are telling us is that we have to get to 80% by 2050 to have a 50-50 chance to avert catastrophe. We are beyond old-fashioned politics. This is chemistry, this is physics, this is science.

Lieberman Sen. Lautenberg made some significant contributions. One of which is to include natural gas within the cap. Doing so may well put us in the position of reducing our emissions by 19% by 2020.

11:10 Roll call: Amendment fails.

Barrasso Amendment 8 sunsets the bill in five years. So much rides on China and India following in a cap-and-trade approach.

Lieberman I’m going to oppose the amendment for two or three reasons. We need to create a sense of certainty.

11:13 Amendment is defeated by voice vote.

Barrasso Amendment #1 creates the Rocky Mountain Center of Coal Studies at the University of Wyoming.

Baucus We in Montana have more coal than anywhere else on Earth. More than China. The governor of Montana is interested in developing coal. We’re looking at clean coal technologies. I frankly believe that because we have more coal than anywhere else in the world, that the University of Montana would be a good place for this too. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn and talk with Barrasso about the language.

Barrasso I will withdraw the amendment and work with Sen. Baucus on our commitment to coal.

11:18 Lieberman We’ve done very well, though there’s lots of disagreement, we’ve worked together in an excellent manner. The journey to climate change legislation in the United States will just begin with this step. I rule that the amendments agreed to today are appropriately drafted to the substitute. I move to adopt the substitute by voice vote. I move to report the bill to the full committee.

Barrasso Mr. Chairman I would like specifics to where these ten changes are in the pages.

Sanders I thought this was a constructive markup and want to thank you, Sen. Warner, and especially Sen. Boxer for changing the direction of the Congress. I do think that Congress is way behind the American people. This is a step forward but I regretfully am not prepared to support this bill.

Lieberman It’s really unfortunate Sen. Warner could not be here today.

Baucus Sen. Warner is a good man, and if there were more senators like him, the world would be a better place.

Rollcall: Aye: Lieberman, Warner (proxy), Baucus, Lautenberg No: Sanders, Isakson, Barrasso.

11:23 Lieberman With that the bill as amended is reported favorably to the full committee and the meeting is adjourned.

Need for Legislation

The dwindling supply of water in the United States has created increasing concern at all levels of government. Since 1950, the United States population increased nearly 90 percent. In that same period, public demand for water increased 209 percent. Americans now use an average of 100 gallons of water per person each day. This increased demand has put additional stress on water supplies and distribution systems, threatening both human health and the environment. Approximately 26 billion gallons of water are used every day in the United States and thirty six states are anticipating local, regional, or statewide water shortages by 2013. However, some states are already in the middle of a severe drought. Most of the Southeastern United States, stretching from Tennessee across the Carolinas and into Georgia, is suffering from an exceptional drought, the highest intensity as measured by the U.S. Drought Monitor. The city of Atlanta is bracing as experts argue whether the city water supply will last as few as three months or as many as nine months.

In California, catastrophic fires burned across areas of the southern part of the state this October. Extreme drought conditions over the past two years have played a large role in creating the conditions that made such a disaster possible. More than 500,000 people were evacuated from their homes at height of fires, the largest number in California history. Over 2,000 homes and at least 180 commercial buildings were destroyed or damaged. The drought gripping the West is considered by some experts to be the worst in 500 years, with effects in the Colorado River basin that have been considerably more damaging than during the Dust Bowl years, according to scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey. Compounding the problem, the Colorado River had its highest flow of the 20th century from 1905 to 1922, the years used as the basis for allocating the River’s water between the Upper and Lower Colorado Basin states under the Colorado River Compact.

Climate change related effects are expected to exacerbate already scarce water resources in many areas of the country. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 assessment states that water stored in glaciers and snow cover is projected to decline, reducing water availability to one-sixth of the world’s population that relies upon melt water from major mountain ranges. The IPCC also predicts droughts will become more severe and longer lasting in a number of regions. Although some water efficiency strategies require an initial capital investment, in the long run, conserving water provides significant cost savings for water and wastewater systems. Water efficiency and re-use programs help systems avoid, downsize, and postpone expensive infrastructure projects, by developing new water supplies.

Introduced by Representative Jim Matheson, H.R. 3957 would establish a research and development program within the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to promote water efficiency and conservation. The program would collect and disseminate information on water conservation practices. Through this program, EPA will be able to encourage the adoption of technologies and processes that will achieve greater wateruse efficiency thereby helping to address the water supply shortages in the United States.

H.R. 3957 would expand EPA’s scope and involvement solving the nation’s water crisis by researching innovations in water storage and distribution systems, as well as, behavioral, social, and economic barriers to achieving greater water efficiency. In addition, the program will research technologies and processes that enable the collection, treatment, and reuse of rainwater and grey water, waste water from sinks, baths and kitchen appliances.

Background on EPA’s Current Water Research and Outreach Programs

EPA currently has no research and development effort that addresses water supply issues. In conjunction with its statutory responsibilities to ensure water quality under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has a program of research and development on water treatment technologies, health effects of water pollutants, security from deliberate contamination, and watershed protection. Current annual funding for these activities is approximately $50 million. EPA does not have a research and development program to address water-use efficiency or conservation.

In June of 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency created a voluntary program entitled WaterSense, which focuses on educating consumers about available choices to save money and conserve water. Similar to Energy Star ratings, the WaterSense label indicates the performance of an appliance or product with respect to its water-use efficiency. Products displaying a WaterSense label must achieve water use reductions of at least 20 percent over similar appliances and products. In FY 07, EPA obligated $2.4 million in funding for the WaterSense program.

Under the program’s structure, manufacturers certify that products with the WaterSense label met EPA criteria for water efficiency and performance. Currently, the program has reviewed High-Efficiency Toilets, and plans on expanding its scope to include bathroom faucets, weatherbased irrigation controllers, commercial toilets and faucets, and autoclave water valves. EPA estimates that if all U.S. households installed water-efficient appliances, the country would save more than 3 trillion gallons of water and more than $17 billion dollars per year. In addition, the average American household could save 20,000 gallons of water per year if it installed an inexpensive low-flow showerhead. A low-flush toilet could reduce their water use by an additional 34 percent.

At present, there is a lack of significant federal research and development aimed at addressing water-use efficiency and conservation, especially focused on residential and commercial uses. Because of the agency’s complementary work on water quality, the EPA is the logical federal entity to complete this research due to the important relationship between water supply and water quality.

Current State Initiatives on Water Efficiency

Many states and local governments are taking action to promote greater water-use efficiency and conservation including metering and sub-metering, offering rebates for purchase of water efficient products, promoting processed water use, promoting greater grey water and rainwater utilization, correcting leaks, and promoting use of drought tolerant landscaping. Because water supplies are controlled by local, regional and state government, a variety of approaches are being tested and implemented. While there are many benefits to having a diversity of creative efforts, the establishment of a central repository for information on the approaches and their costs and benefits is lacking. H.R. 3957 directs EPA to gather this information and provide a central location for distributing information about successful projects that have been implemented by communities across the country to achieve greater adoption of technologies and policies on water conservation.

Listed below are some examples of such efforts.

• The city of Tucson, Arizona has been active in the promotion of xeriscaping: a practice of landscaping which does not require supplemental irrigation. Common plants used in this practice include agave, cactus, lavender, juniper, sedum and thyme. Each year, a xeriscaping conference is held in Tucson, as well as a contest awarding the best xeriscaping project. City policy prevents the use of municipal groundwater supplies for irrigating areas within public rights-of-way unless the landscaping uses plants from a low water-use list.
• The State of New York passed legislation to establish a Green Building Tax Credit, which allows building owners and developers to deduct expenses associated with the design and construction of “green” buildings, which includes a number of water-use efficient practices.
• The city of Austin, Texas has instituted a highly successful appliance replacement rebate plan to encourage consumers to purchase water-use efficient toilets, clothes washers, and irrigation equipment. Austin’s Water Conservation Program has contributed to a substantial reduction in per capita water use. In 2006, the Austin City Council formed the Water Conservation Task Force to find ways to implement a June 2006 directive to implement aggressive water conservation measures. The anticipated recommendations include changes to the plumbing code, a retrofit on resale for inefficient plumbing fixtures, mandatory irrigation analyses for large commercial properties, and stricter summer watering regulations. Together, the measures should result in peak-day water savings of nearly 33 million gallons per day at an average cost of roughly $1.13 per gallon, one-third the cost of building new treatment capacity.
• The Santa Rosa Subregional Reclamation System in Northern California is one of the largest recyclers of water in the world. Last year 6,400 acres of farmlands, vineyards, and public and private urban landscaping was irrigated with recycled water. Of that, 85 percent was used for agricultural purposes. The irrigation system is supported by storage reservoirs that can hold over 1.45 billion gallons of water. The Subregional System serves the cities of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Cotati, the South Park Sanitation District, and some unincorporated parts of Sonoma County. In addition, the Subregional System pipes its treated wastewater to a geothermal energy plant to be used as re-injection fluid, thereby prolonging the life of the reservoir while recycling the treated wastewater. The addition of wastewater produces close to 85 megawatts of electricity a day, enough to supply the residential energy needs of Santa Rosa.
• The Pennsylvania Water Conservation Leak Detection Program is a joint effort of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Pennsylvania Rural Water Association (PRWA). PRWA uses set-aside funds to provide two circuit riders to conduct water audits and perform leak detection for small systems (serving fewer than 10,000 persons). Despite the time-consuming nature of the project, the circuit riders have detected 594 leaks and saved over 1.4 billion gallons of water and $1.36 million annually. From June 2001 to July 2002, 24 systems underwent water audits. A total of 152 leaks were detected, which saved systems over 396 million gallons of water from 36 percent to 9 percent.

Witnesses Dr. Daigger is a Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for CH2M Hill. He received a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Purdue University. He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Kappe and Freese Lectures and the Harrison Prescott Eddy, Morgan, and the Gascoigne Awards from Water Environment Federation. A member of a number of professional societies, Dr. Daigger is also a member of the National Academy of Engineers. Mr. Clerico is a licensed professional engineer and licensed wastewater operator in NY, NJ, and PA and is an accredited LEED professional. He holds a B.S. and M.S. in Bio-Ag Engineering from Rutgers University. He was the founder and president of Applied Water Management, Inc. before holding executive roles with American Water as Technical Development Director and VP Strategy. Presently, he operates his own consulting business, Alliance Environmental, and focuses on initiatives that involve integrated water management, including the Solaire project in New York City. Ms. Little is the director of the Water Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona. In addition, she serves as a Principal Research Specialist at the University of Arizona’s College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. She received her A.B. in Landscape Architecture from the University of California, Berkeley, and her M.A. in Anthropology from the University of Arizona. Mr. Thompson is the District Manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District. He graduated from Brigham Young University in 1971 with a degree in Accounting and received his law degree from the University of Utah in 1974. Mr. Thompson is a past president of the Utah Water Users Association, vice-chairman of the Resolutions Committee for the National Water Resources Association, and vice-chairman of the Resolutions Committee for the Colorado River Water Users. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Utah Water Finance Agency, State of Utah Drinking Water Board, and serves as the Utah representative for the National Water Resources Endangered Species Task Force. Mr. Veil is the manager of the Water Policy Program for Argonne National Laboratory in Washington, DC, where he holds the rank of senior scientist. He analyzes a variety of energy industry water and waste issues for the Department of Energy. Mr. Veil has a B.A. in Earth and Planetary Science from Johns Hopkins University, and two M.S. degrees, in Zoology and Civil Engineering, from the University of Maryland. Before joining Argonne, Mr. Veil managed the Industrial Discharge Program for the State of Maryland government where he had statewide responsibility for industrial water pollution control permitting through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Underground Injection Control (UIC), and oil control programs.

Section by Section description of H.R. 3957

Title: Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act 2007

Purpose: To increase research, development, education, and technology transfer activities related to water use efficiency and conservation technologies and practices at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Section 1: Short Title

The Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act.

Section 2: Findings

Section 2 includes the Congressional findings and defines the need for expanding the scope of research and development conducted by the Environmental Protection agency to include wateruse efficiency and conservation to address the problems of increasing water shortages across the country.

Section 3: Research Program

Section 3 directs the Assistant Administrator to establish a research, development, and demonstration program within the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development to promote water-use efficiency and conservation. The bill provides examples of several areas the program should address including water storage and distribution systems; and behavioral, social, and economic barriers to achieving greater water-use efficiency. In addition, the bill states the program should research technologies and processes that enable the collection, treatment, and reuse of rainwater and greywater. The specific projects selected for funding through the program should reflect the needs identified by local and state water managers.

Section 4: Technology Transfer

Section 4 directs the Assistant Administrator to collect and disseminate information on current water-use efficient and conservation technologies and practices to facilitate their adoption. This information should include incentives and impediments to development and commercialization, best practices, and anticipated increases in water-use efficiency resulting from the implementation of these processes.

Section 5: Report

Section 5 directs the Assistant Administrator to report to Congress on the progress being made by the Environmental Protection Agency with regard to the research projects initiated, and the outreach and communication activities conducted through the program.

Section 6: Authorization of Appropriations

Section 6 provides a five year authorization of the program with such sums as necessary to carry out the program.

In order to assure that we get on, and stay on, the necessary emission reduction pathway, NRDC believes the coverage of the bill and the total amount of emissions reductions should be increased. . . . Scientists are telling us that we will need reductions in total U.S emissions on the order of 80% by 2050 in order to do our proportional part in a global program of preventing catastrophic impacts. Our calculations indicate that the bill will result in reducing total U.S. emissions by approximately 51-63 percent by 2050. In order to ensure that overall reductions keep pace with the science, NRDC believes that the bill’s coverage should be increased. The most important source of emissions that is not covered is the commercial and residential use of natural gas.

It is important to distinguish between the abatement cost of a cap and trade system and its distributional implications. The abatement cost will be significant, but far less than the cost of inaction. At the same time, the value of the pollution allowances created by the law will be much higher: some estimates place their value between $30 and $100 billion per year.

The bill should be revised to allow EPA to take all necessary actions to avoid dangerous global warming by requiring additional reductions, including by changing applicable targets or through increasing the coverage of the bill.

The Sanders-Boxer bill contains two complementary performance standards for coal plants and we recommend the Subcommittee and Committee incorporate these concepts into S. 2191.

NRDC believes these pollution allowances are a public trust. They represent permission to use the atmosphere, which belongs to all of us, to dispose of global warming pollution. As such, they are not a private resource owned by historical emitters and such emitters do not have a permanent right to free allowances. The value of the allowances should be used for public purposes including promoting clean energy solutions, protecting the poor and other consumers, ensuring a just transition for workers in affected industries, and preventing human and ecosystem impacts both here and abroad, especially where they can lead to conflicts and threats to security.

The current bill’s allocation to electric power and industrial emitters, however, is still much higher than justified under “hold-harmless” principles and will result in windfall profits to the shareholders of emitters. For example, an economic analysis by Larry Goulder of Stanford University suggests that in an economy-wide upstream cap and trade program, only 13% of the allowances will be needed to cover the costs that fossil-fuel providers would not be able to pass on to their customers. Similar analyses, with similar results, have been conducted by Resources for The Future and the Congressional Budget Office.

As a result, NRDC believes that the bill should be improved substantially by reducing the starting percentage of free allowances to emitters and phasing them out faster – within 10-15 years of enactment.