    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

              CLIMATE CHANGE: PREPARING FOR THE ENERGY TRANSITION

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                               MINERAL RESOURCES

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           Tuesday, February 12, 2019

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 116-3

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    35-198 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
    gpo@custhelp.com.

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                        DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                   ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
    Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
        CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Paul Cook, CA
    TJ Cox, CA                           Bruce Westerman, AR
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Garret Graves, LA
    Mike Levin, CA                       Jody B. Hice, GA
    Debra A. Haaland, NM                 Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Jefferson Van Drew, NJ               Daniel Webster, FL
    Joe Cunningham, SC                   Liz Cheney, WY
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Mike Johnson, LA
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Wm. Lacy Clay, MO                    John R. Curtis, UT
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Kevin Hern, OK
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Russ Fulcher, ID
    A. Donald McEachin, VA
    Darren Soto, FL
    Ed Case, HI
    Steven Horsford, NV
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
    Vacancy
    Vacancy
    Vacancy

                         David Watkins, Chief of Staff
                            Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
                    Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                          ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Chair
                  PAUL A. GOSAR, AZ, Ranking Republican Member

    Mike Levin, CA                       Doug Lamborn, CO
    Joe Cunningham, SC                   Bruce Westerman, AR
    A. Donald McEachin, VA               Garret Graves, LA
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Liz Cheney, WY
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Kevin Hern, OK
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
    Vacancy
    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                  ----------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, February 12, 2019.......................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Cunningham, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of South Carolina, prepared statement of.............    74
        Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     5
        Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Bissett, Bill, President and CEO, Huntington Regional Chamber
          of Commerce, Huntington, West Virginia.....................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Dennison, Brandon, Founder and CEO, Coalfield Development,
          Huntington, West Virginia..................................    31
            Prepared statement of....................................    32
        Farley, Chandra, Director, Just Energy, Partnership for
          Southern Equity, Atlanta, Georgia..........................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Hille, Peter, President, MACED, The Mountain Association for
          Community Economic Development, Berea, Kentucky............    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Mason, Joseph, Professor, Department of Finance, Louisiana
          State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana...................    38
            Prepared statement of....................................    40
        Shrader, Sarah, Owner and Co-Founder, Bonsai Design;
          President, Outdoor Recreation Coalition of the Grand
          Valley, Grand Junction, Colorado...........................    14
            Prepared statement of....................................    15

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    83

        Submission for the Record by Rep. Cheney

            Overview and FAQs, Green New Deal........................    62

        Submissions for the Record by Mr. Dennison

            Forbes article, ``Solar Employs More People In U.S.
              Electricity Generation Than Oil and Gas Combined,'' by
              Niall McCarthy, January 25, 2017.......................    82

            Statement in Response to Dr. Mason.......................    83

        Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar

            Financial Times article, ``China's demand for electric
              vehicles charges copper,'' February 12, 2019...........    75

            Financial Times article, ``Australia hopes to cash in on
              new cobalt rush,'' February 12, 2019...................    76

        Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves

            January 2019 Electricity Prices by State.................    58

        Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal

            Energy Jobs--Current Employment Statistics from the
              Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 13, 2019..........    80

         OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE: PREPARING FOR THE ENERGY
                                   TRANSITION

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, February 12, 2019

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alan S.
    Lowenthal, [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lowenthal, Levin, Cunningham,
    Brown, Huffman, Gosar, Lamborn, Westerman, Graves, Cheney, and
    Hern.
        Also present: Representatives Case and Neguse.

        Dr. Lowenthal. Welcome, everybody. We are now in the first
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee in the 116th
    Congress. I want to welcome everyone. I am really looking
    forward to all of us working together.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
    climate change and preparing for the transition to a clean
    energy economy. This is where we are starting from today.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to myself as the Chairperson and the
    Ranking Minority Member, or my dear friend, Mr. Gosar.
        I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' opening
    statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
    submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Dr. Lowenthal.  To begin with, I would like to thank my
    partner and congratulate Ranking Member Gosar on his
    Subcommittee leadership position. We have developed a good
    relationship. I served as the Ranking Member with Mr. Gosar
    previously, and I found it very positive. I think we work very
    well together--not always agreeing on things, but we work
    together well on things. We also have mutual likes--tamales,
    coffee--as I just took some, as well as opportunities to work
    together on this Subcommittee. I look forward to sharing with
    the members of this Committee ways on how we can work together.
    I am going to mention one of those things in the statement.
        I think--I haven't checked with anyone in the Capitol, the
    historians, but I think this is the only Subcommittee with both
    the Chair and the Ranking Member who are doctorates but don't
    have a doctorate in juris prudence. You know, we are a
    psychologist and a dentist. Exactly what the Congress needs at
    this moment is a psychologist.
        Before I turn to the topic of today's hearing, I want to
    emphasize that, even though we are not going to have any
    shortage of policy disagreements on this Subcommittee, it is my
    intention to run it in ways that keep discussions thoughtful
    and respectful, based upon facts, not putting people down, and
    with an eye to wherever we can find agreement, let's go for it.
    If we can't find agreement, let's respect each other and
    understand that.
        This Subcommittee is going to have a tremendously important
    role in our country's debate over energy and climate. I know it
    is doubted by some of my colleagues. I think that is their
    position where they are starting, not all, who say we have no
    jurisdiction over climate change and no reason to discuss it.
    Well, I totally disagree with that point of view, and I think
    that is just not right.
        In addition to the tremendous impacts from climate change
    that are affecting our public lands, these lands are
    responsible for nearly one-quarter of the Nation's greenhouse
    gas emissions, which we have jurisdiction over. They are also
    home to some of the best renewable resources in the country, if
    not on this planet, which we have jurisdiction over. We are
    talking about geothermal. We are talking about large-scale
    solar. We are talking about major offshore wind which is
    beginning to become a reality.
        Managing our Nation's vast energy resources, addressing the
    health and the environmental impacts of energy production, and
    understanding the role of public lands in mitigating climate
    change are just some of the issues we will discuss.
        I want this Subcommittee to be a forum where we can discuss
    these issues and develop solutions that have the buy-in from
    the communities across the country, because we are really
    talking about beginning to embark on an adventure where we will
    not solve it all here. We have to have buy-in from our
    communities.
        In the coming weeks, I look forward to meeting with
    individuals on this Subcommittee to get to know them, to
    discuss your goals and priorities. But I have also talked to my
    Ranking Member about maybe periodic--maybe once a quarter--
    having an off-the-record, informal, no press, no public
    prepared statements way of getting to know each other, whether
    they are round tables we could find someplace, where we can
    really hear each other's story. What are you passionate about?
    What do you want to do? Why are you here?
        The more you know each other's story, the more difficult it
    is to dehumanize in this situation. We have enough differences
    that we don't need to dehumanize each other in that process. We
    need to hear and respect where people are coming from. Plus, it
    makes it the most enjoyable parts of a committee if we kind of
    know the other members and why they are here and what they--it
    makes the formal aspects, which we will be focusing on, more
    interesting to do and more fun.
        So, when I meet with you individually, I want to ask about
    some--we are not going to do a lot of them. We are going to do
    some where it is off the record, folks. You come when you want
    to come. You don't prepare anything. You want to share who you
    are and who you are in relationship to some of these issues
    that are important to you and your community, not to the
    committee or to anybody else.
        I really look forward to that. And plus, Paul said he is
    going to help us with making sure we have the tamales and
    coffee. So, we are going to work on that.
        I would also like to give a warm welcome to our witnesses
    and thank them for testifying this morning. This month, in the
    entire Natural Resources Committee, we are discussing the
    impacts of climate change, whether it is tribes we are talking
    about, oceans, national parks, forests, wildlife. All of these
    are seeing huge consequences, and I think from most people's
    perspective, the worst is yet to come.
        There must be changes in how we produce and use energy in
    this country. And there is no doubt that a transition away from
    fossil fuels to zero-emission energy sources is essential if we
    are to leave a recognizable world for our grandchildren and
    great-grandchildren. They are usually not at the table. But
    these are issues that they have to be considered at the table
    from now on, that anything that we do has to understand how it
    is going to have that impact.
        I think this transition has to happen quickly. My
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not feel the same
    urgency. That is why we have different--not that they are any
    different, but they may not feel the same urgency. They may not
    worry or they may have different concerns about the disruption
    of jobs and what this means for the economy or that their local
    economies will be greatly affected or it doesn't really impact
    them as much.
        I hope in using science and listening to each other, that
    we grow more, that we come closer in looking at we don't have a
    lot of time. Time is not on our side, and we need to figure out
    what we can work together on and how we can move forward.
        One of the things I think we all are going to agree upon is
    the need to help the people that are most impacted by that
    transition, that there are different parts of the country that
    are going to be impacted the most. And we don't want to leave
    people out of that transition, and what is happening is not
    new. We have already gone through--in 1943, we had over half a
    million coal miners in the country; 130,000 in West Virginia
    alone. And for decades, Appalachia and workers and families
    that call this region home supplied the United States with coal
    that kept the lights on, powered the world's largest economy,
    and were instrumental in winning World War II and protecting
    democracy. So, we are talking about something that is part of
    the Nation's fabric.
        But today, there are barely one-tenth as many coal mining
    jobs. It has not been due to government policies. It is because
    of the sense of the economics that is going on, automation that
    is going on and other alternatives. But the cause of it is
    irrelevant. What is really relevant, I think right now, not
    that it is all irrelevant in the causes because it is not. But
    the real thing is the effect that there are out-of-work coal
    miners. Their families are unsure of what they are going to do
    for a living. Whole communities are practically vanishing, and
    if we use as the mantra the solution is to provide false hope
    that there is going to be a resurrection of coal, we are not
    doing our responsibility. We are not acting responsibly.
        The solution is going to be to provide new opportunities
    for these workers and new options for towns to grow and thrive.
    As we move toward clean energy, other regions of the country
    are going to be impacted in a different way, and we are going
    to have to understand how we are going to deal with that. Some
    areas are already preparing for this.
        Wyoming, a major coal-producing state in the Nation, just
    recently released an ambitious 20-year plan to diversify their
    economy and to reduce the state's over-reliance on coal. We do
    have doubters and those that think we should be doubling down
    now on fossil fuel. I think personally that is a recipe for
    even more hardship if we double down, whether it is because of
    climate change, resource depletion, or normal boom-or-bust
    cycles of fuel prices. Putting all your chips on fossil fuels I
    think now is a bad bet, and we need to at least address those
    issues. We need to support American communities and workers
    with the same effort and urgencies that we need to confront
    climate change. And I think that there is one sense that we are
    hearing is there is an urgency to what we do, and we have to
    deal with that.
        Thank you. And I will assure you in the future I will not
    talk this long.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal follows:]
          Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, Chairman,
                  Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
        The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will come to
    order. Good morning, and welcome to the first Energy and Mineral
    Resources Subcommittee hearing in the 116th Congress.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on climate
    change and preparing for the transition to a clean-energy economy.
        To begin, I'd like to congratulate Ranking Member Gosar on his
    Subcommittee leadership position. We've developed a good working
    relationship over the past few years, in Congress and on this
    Subcommittee. We have already sat down together to discuss our mutual
    love for tamales, coffee, as well as opportunities to work together on
    this Committee. I look forward to talking to you more on our shared
    priorities and ways we can work together moving forward.
        I haven't actually checked this, but I believe this is the only
    committee or subcommittee in the House with a Chair and Ranking Member
    with Doctorates other than a JD. I don't know about you, but I think
    what the country needs now is a psychologist and a dentist.
        Before I turn to the topic of today's hearing, I want to emphasize
    that even though we will have no shortage of policy disagreements on
    this Subcommittee, it's my intention as Chairman to run this
    Subcommittee in a way that keeps the discussion thoughtful and
    respectful, based on facts, and with an eye toward finding agreement
    whenever possible.
        We have moved a number of bills through this Subcommittee on a
    bipartisan basis in the last two Congresses, and I want to thank
    Ranking Member Gosar for working with our side on many of those bills,
    and I intend to continue and build on that cooperation in this
    Congress.
        This Subcommittee has a tremendously important role in our
    country's debate over energy and climate. I know this is doubted by
    some of my colleagues on the other side, who say we have no
    jurisdiction over climate change and no reason to discuss it. That is
    flat-out wrong.
        In addition to the tremendous impacts from climate change that are
    affecting our public lands, those lands are responsible for nearly one-
    quarter of this country's greenhouse gas emissions. They also are home
    to some of the best renewable resources in this country, from
    geothermal to large-scale solar to offshore wind.
        Managing our Nation's vast energy resources, addressing the health
    and environmental impacts of energy production, and understanding the
    role of public lands in mitigating climate change are just a few of the
    critical issues we will discuss.
        I want this Subcommittee to be a forum where we discuss these
    issues and develop legislative solutions that have the buy-in from
    communities across the country.
        In the coming weeks I look forward to sitting down individually
    with each member of this Subcommittee, from both parties, to get to
    know them and discuss their own goals and priorities in Congress and in
    this Subcommittee.
        I would also like to hold periodical, off-the-record, roundtables
    with the members of the Subcommittee to help foster frank and honest
    conversation to help all of us understand each other's approach,
    interest, and, priorities.
        Finally, I want to give a warm welcome to our witnesses and thank
    them for testifying this morning.
        This month in the Natural Resources Committee we are discussing the
    impacts of climate change. Tribes, oceans, national parks, forests, and
    wildlife are already seeing huge consequences, and unfortunately worse
    is yet to come.
        There must also be changes in how we produce and use energy in this
    country.
        There is no doubt that a transition away from fossil fuels to zero-
    emission energy sources is essential if we are to leave a recognizable
    world for our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and beyond.
        I believe this transition must happen quickly. My colleagues on the
    other side may not feel the same urgency. Whether this is because of
    the worries over disruption of jobs and their local economies or
    something else entirely, I hope the scientists, and storms, and floods,
    and climate refugees convince them there is no time to waste. I assure
    you--we can push for a zero-carbon energy future and have economic
    growth.
        One thing we certainly agree on is the need to help people who may
    be left behind or left out as this transition occurs.
        This is not new. In 1941, there were nearly 550,000 coal miners in
    this country, with roughly 130,000 in West Virginia alone.
        For decades, Appalachia and the workers and families that call this
    region home supplied the United States with the coal that kept the
    lights on and powered the world's largest economy. Appalachian coal
    miners were instrumental in winning World War II.
        Today, there are barely one-tenth as many coal mining jobs. This
    hasn't been due to any government policy. It was because of economics
    and automation. But the cause is irrelevant. The effect is thousands of
    out-of-work coal miners, families unsure what their children will do
    for a living, and whole communities practically vanishing.
        The solution to this is not to provide false hope that there will
    be a resurrection of coal. The solution is to provide new opportunities
    for workers and new options for towns to grow and thrive.
        As we make the necessary transition to clean energy, other regions
    and other workers will face some of the same challenges. We cannot
    simply sit back and watch. We must take actions to help those who may
    be hurt.
        Some areas are already preparing. Wyoming recently released an
    ambitious 20-year plan to diversify their economy and reduce the
    state's over-reliance on coal.
        Some, however, believe they should double down on fossil fuels and
    hope for the best. This is a recipe for even more hardship. Whether
    it's because of climate change, resource depletion, or just the normal
    boom-and-bust cycle of fuel prices, putting all your chips on black
    gold is a losing bet.
        We need to support American communities and workers with the same
    effort and urgency that we need to confront climate change.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. I now recognize Mr. Gosar for his opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
        And, yes, my good friend Dr. Lowenthal brings a smile every
    morning. And as a recovering dentist, I will tell you: A smile
    tells me everything I need to know. A smile tells me you are
    happy with yourself; you are willing to engage. If you are
    willing to engage, you are willing to communicate. If you are
    willing to communicate, you can solve a problem. So, if you
    want to solve a problem, smile.
        So, thank you again, and thank the witnesses for being
    here.
        Before I get into my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I
    would like to reflect on the Majority's non-compliance with
    Committee Rule 4(c) by failing to provide a public memo on the
    scope of today's hearing. Without a memo, the public is kept in
    the dark and members of this Committee are unable to prepare
    for an informed debate. I ask my Democratic colleagues to
    please return to a transparent process so that we can do the
    deliberative work of this body in a more effective manner.
        I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would
    agree that legislating shouldn't be done in the dark.
        Now, for the matter at hand. The title of this hearing,
    ``Climate Change: Preparing for the Energy Transition,''
    implies our country is on the cusp of a sweeping transformation
    into a green economy and that communities with vibrant energy
    economies today should be planning accordingly. This
    implication is manifested by the dramatic socialist resolution
    that was introduced last week, the Green New Deal. This
    proposal calls for net-zero emissions in the next 10 years
    through Federal mandates, 100 percent clean and renewable
    energy, a phaseout of plane travel. And according to the bills
    accidentally uploaded frequently asked questions, guaranteed
    economic security for all those unable or unwilling to work.
        This is just what it sounds like: a socialist fairytale
    right up there with ``if you like your healthcare plan, you can
    keep it.''
        Let me be clear. Though the Green New Deal may not be our
    primary topic today, the Majority will see this hearing to
    bolster the case for why and how we can replace 6-figure energy
    jobs with bioenergetic hemp farms and wind-powered coffee shops
    through a Federal takeover of the country.
        Indeed, many members of this Committee have co-sponsored
    this radical resolution, including the Chairman of the
    Committee, Mr. Grijalva, as well as my friend and Chairman of
    this Subcommittee, Mr. Lowenthal, and fellow Subcommittee
    members, Mr. Huffman and Mr. Neguse.
        We will hear testimony today from several witnesses
    regarding their efforts to create jobs in the Appalachia and
    the Mountain West outside of the fossil fuel industry. I
    appreciate their efforts and their commitment to getting
    Americans back to work, particularly after so many Americans
    were laid off from their high-paying energy jobs after the
    regulatory assault of the previous administration.
        I do believe there are wonderful opportunities that can
    help regions that are dependent on traditional sources to
    diversify their economies and to prevent devastation afflicting
    regions like Appalachia due to failed Federal mandates.
        Despite what the Majority's intent with this hearing, I
    want to assure the American people about our energy economy and
    its importance for the foreseeable future. From the 10.3
    million jobs in the United States supported by the oil and gas
    economy to the geopolitical certainty we can provide our
    European, Asian, and other allies, and to continued domestic
    investments, such as ExxonMobil's announcement last week of a
    $10 billion LNG export facility in Texas, conventional energy
    sources have played an overwhelmingly positive role in defining
    our country. Innovation in these fields has reduced emissions.
    At the same time, production has increased. Moreover, energy
    demand in the United States and around the world is strong. The
    void left by America would be filled by opportunistic countries
    with far worse environmental standards if the United States
    exited the conventional energy market. Even saying that, these
    words feel ridiculous, but these are strange times.
        Let's take a moment to talk about what a green economy
    really means. If I may borrow a term, an inconvenient truth
    about renewable energy is a need for vast amounts of critical
    minerals and rare earth elements to make them work. For
    example, wind power requires neodymium and dysprosium, and
    demand for these minerals is expected to go up by 700 percent
    to 2,600 percent, while solar panels rely almost solely on
    minerals the United States currently imports from countries
    like China, despite being a Nation blessed with many of the
    resources that can be mined here.
        In the last several years, America has experienced an
    energy renaissance. U.S. natural gas, oil production and
    exports are at record levels. In 2017, the United States also
    led the world in carbon emissions reductions. This occurred
    because of American ingenuity and in spite of anti-energy
    policies of the previous administration and seemingly the
    agenda of the new House Majority.
        Delusional Federal mandates proposed in the Green New Deal
    will only topple America's dominance in the energy economy,
    creating unemployment, high energy costs, and weakening our
    position globally. It would be a mass tax and a mass
    displacement of the poorest among us.
        My Democratic colleagues in the past have claimed to
    support an all-the-above energy strategy. It turns out this was
    just an election year talking point as many now wage war on
    nuclear energy, natural gas, and even hydropower.
        The irony with the Green New Deal's facts page proposing an
    end to the use of nuclear energy is nuclear energy is one of
    the cleanest and most reliable sources in America.
        I am glad we are able to highlight the good work our
    witnesses are doing back in Appalachia and across the country.
    But we should be discussing ways to remove red tape, empower
    job creators, pursue innovative technologies that bolster our
    strong status as the leader in emissions reductions. If the
    Majority has their way and the policies of the green dream
    somehow are magically enacted, then the economic plight of
    Appalachia will be a microcosm of the rest of our great Nation.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I take it you won't be a co-
    sponsor.
        Dr. Gosar. No, I don't think so. You can probably take that
    to the bank.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Paul.
        Now, I would like to introduce today's witnesses.
        But first I would like to ask unanimous consent for
    Congressman Case and Congressman Neguse to sit on the dais and
    participate in this morning's hearing.
        Hearing no objections, so ordered.
        I am going to introduce our first witness. First, we have
    Chandra Farley. Ms. Farley is the director of Just Energy, the
    Just Energy program for the Partnership for Southern Equity.
        Our second panelist is Sarah Shrader. Ms. Shrader is the
    owner and co-founder of Bonsai Design and the president of the
    Outdoor Recreation Coalition of the Grand Valley.
        Next, we have Dr. Bill Bissett. Dr. Bissett is the
    president and the CEO of the Huntington Regional Chamber of
    Commerce.
        Our fourth witness is Peter Hille. Mr. Hille is the
    president of the Mountain Association for Community Economic
    Development.
        Our fifth witness is Brandon Dennison. Mr. Dennison is the
    founder and the CEO of Coalfield Development Corporation.
        And, finally, we have Dr. Joseph Mason. Dr. Mason is a
    professor in the Department of Finance at the Louisiana State
    University.
        Let me remind our witnesses that, under our Committee
    Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes but
    that their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    When you begin, the lights on the witness table in front will
    turn green. And then, after 4 minutes, the yellow light will
    come on. Your time will then have expired after 1 more minute
    when the red light comes on, and I will ask you to please
    complete your statement.
        I am also going to allow the entire panel to testify before
    Members up here on the dais begin questioning.
        I will now recognize Ms. Farley to testify. Welcome.

    STATEMENT OF CHANDRA FARLEY, DIRECTOR, JUST ENERGY, PARTNERSHIP
                 FOR SOUTHERN EQUITY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

        Ms. Farley. Thank you.
        Honorable Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and
    members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
    Resources, thank you for inviting me here today.
        My name is Chandra Farley, and I am the Just Energy
    director at the Partnership for Southern Equity based in
    Atlanta, Georgia. I am honored to provide this testimony in
    support of a just and equitable transition to the clean energy
    economy.
        We know with data-informed certainty that systematically
    disenfranchised under-resourced communities and communities of
    color in the South bear a disproportion burden of the negative
    impacts of the changing climate and carbon-based energy
    production. Three of the top five biggest carbon polluters are
    in the South. This is compounded by the fact that four southern
    cities, Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, and New Orleans, hold the
    greatest energy burdens for low-income households but face the
    greatest barriers to weatherization assistance and energy
    efficiency programs that can reduce these high burdens.
        Also, the Southeast region serves as home to 84 percent of
    all U.S. counties that experience persistent poverty. This is
    defined as a county in which at least 20 percent of the
    population experiences poverty for three decades or more. Pile
    on the fact that the South experiences a higher frequency of
    billion dollar weather and climate disaster events than any
    other region, we can begin to contextualize the constant
    struggle and mounting barriers that historically marginalized
    communities face in this era of changing climate and rapid
    energy transition.
        Despite bearing an inequitable portion of negative impacts
    due to climate change and carbon-based energy production,
    disenfranchised communities are virtually unrepresented in the
    energy planning and decision-making processes that drive
    inequitable outcomes in energy regulation, distribution, and
    policy.
        While unfamiliar to many citizens, these policies
    significantly impact household economic stability and impinge
    upon the overall quality of our air, water, and other natural
    resources that affect our health and well-being.
        Directly related to the health and well-being stressors of
    carbon-based energy production is the rising cost of energy.
    The resulting energy burden or percentage of household income
    spent on energy bills is a crippling financial burden for
    working families. According to the American Council for Energy-
    Efficient Economy, the energy burden on African American and
    Latino households with lower incomes is up to three times as
    high as others.
        When you consider that the median energy burden in the
    ACEEE sample was 3.5 percent, we can see the paralyzing effects
    of increasing energy costs on many families' ability to thrive.
    With eliminated funding for weatherization assistance programs
    and financial barriers to cost-saving energy efficiency
    upgrades, the mounting cost of energy bills translate to
    unimaginable choices for our working families and senior
    citizens. Do you pay the light bill and go without your
    medicine, or do you buy groceries or heat your home?
        Collectively, these conditions stem from the underlying
    forces of structural and institutional racism that are embedded
    in our land use policies and energy systems. From the siting of
    carbon-based energy production facilities and the resulting
    negative health impacts to the disproportionate burden of
    rising energy costs on low-wealth communities, these societal
    barriers have hampered the opportunity for marginalized
    communities to lend their perspective to the shaping of their
    clean energy future and fully benefit from rapidly expanding
    clean energy markets. For instance, only 7 percent of solar
    workers in 2017 were African American while the percentage of
    solar workers in the United States grew 168 percent since 2010
    according to The Solar Foundation.
        Against the backdrop of global climate change, these
    disparities have driven equity and justice to the forefront of
    the energy transition conversation and made Just Energy a top
    priority. When utilized as a framework for mobilizing advocacy
    around energy equity issues, Just Energy represents an equity
    ecosystem of frontline communities, subject-matter experts,
    houses of worship, youth movements, and academia organizing
    together to ensure that the benefits of a clean energy economy
    include fair prices, freedom from negative health impacts, and
    access to thriving wage employment. We believe that this
    approach is central to the energy equity movement and that the
    future of our communities is dependent upon collective action
    toward an equitable inclusive just energy future for all.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Farley follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Chandra Farley, Just Energy Director, Partnership
                              for Southern Equity

        We know with data-informed certainty that systematically
    disenfranchised, under-resourced communities and communities of color
    in the South bear a disproportionate burden of the negative impacts of
    the changing climate and carbon-based energy production. Three of the
    top five biggest carbon polluters in the power sector are in the South
    where investments in consumer-directed clean energy continue to lag.
    This is compounded by the fact that four southern cities--Memphis,
    Birmingham, Atlanta and New Orleans, hold the greatest energy burdens
    for low-income households but face many barriers to the energy
    efficiency programs that can reduce these high burdens. Also, the
    Southeast regions serve as home to 84 percent of all U.S. counties that
    experience persistent poverty (defined as a county in which at least 20
    percent of the population experiences poverty for three decades or
    more). Pile on the fact that the South experiences a higher frequency
    of billion-dollar weather and climate disaster events than any other
    region, we begin to contextualize the constant struggle and mounting
    barriers that historically under-resourced and marginalized communities
    face in this era of changing climate and energy transition.

        Despite bearing an inequitable proportion of negative impacts due
    to climate change and carbon-based energy production, disenfranchised
    communities are virtually unrepresented in the energy planning and
    decision-making processes that drive inequitable outcomes in energy
    regulation, distribution and policy. While unfamiliar to many citizens,
    these policies significantly impact household economic stability and
    impinge upon the overall quality of our air, water and other natural
    resources that affect our health and well-being. This is evidenced by a
    report from the NAACP noting that 68 percent of African-Americans live
    within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. In addition to lower
    property values, proximity to these coal plants carries health risks
    such as increased infant death, heart disease, lung disease, asthma
    attacks and asthma associated deaths. Plus, the disproportionate
    impacts reach the healthcare and education sectors as emergency room
    visits, hospitalizations and missed school days (that leads to missed
    work and job insecurity for parents) all increase due to these harmful,
    life-threatening emissions.

        Adding to the worsening impacts of climate change is carbon-based
    energy production. Climate change pressures on the energy system result
    in increased demand for electricity as heatwaves worsen, power failures
    caused by storms and flooding increase and system failures and
    inefficiencies caused by extreme heat mount. These shocks and stressors
    are exacerbated by the destruction of local economies due to short-
    sighted, extractive practices by the coal, oil and gas industries. With
    fossil fuels still supplying nearly two-thirds of the United States'
    electricity, the increased demand will increase the carbon emissions
    that disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

        Directly related to the health and well-being stressors of carbon-
    based energy production is the rising cost of energy. The resulting
    ``energy burden,'' or percentage of household income spent on energy
    bills, is a crippling financial burden for families with lower incomes.
    According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
    (ACEEE), the energy burden on African-American and Latino households
    with lower incomes is up to three times as high as other homes. In my
    home state of Georgia, nearly 300,000 households with incomes of below
    50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level pay 41 percent of their annual
    income for their home energy costs. When you consider that the median
    U.S. energy burden across the cities in the ACEEE sample was 3.5
    percent, we can see the paralyzing effects of increasing energy costs
    on family's ability to thrive. With limited funding for weatherization
    assistance programs and financial barriers to cost-saving energy
    efficiency upgrades, the mounting costs of energy bills translate to
    unimaginable choices for working families and senior citizens. Do you
    pay the light bill and go without your medicine? Do you buy groceries
    or heat your home?

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Figure 1: City of Atlanta energy burden. Source: Farley, C.,
     Garret, C., & O'Neil, M. (2018). Atlanta: Equity and Policy Overview.
                       Presentation, New York, New York.

        Collectively, these conditions stem from the underlying forces of
    structural and institutional racism that are embedded in our land-use
    policies and energy systems--from the siting of carbon-based energy
    production and the resulting negative health impacts, to the
    disproportionate burden of rising energy costs on under-resourced
    communities and communities of color. Against the backdrop of global
    climate change, a reckoning with the South's history of racial
    inequality is driving equity and justice to the forefront of the energy
    transition narrative.
        In order to frame the intersection of race and energy and act on
    the resulting inequitable impacts, the Partnership for Southern Equity
    (PSE) created the Just Energy Initiative to focus on energy equity.
    Founded in 2008, PSE was established to advance policies and
    institutional actions that promote racial equity and shared prosperity
    for all in the growth of metropolitan Atlanta and the American South--a
    region riven by racial, economic and class disparities. While equal
    rights under the law, or equality, have afforded many opportunities to
    those previously denied ``certain unalienable rights,'' an equity
    agenda works to combat these disparities and advance just and equitable
    outcomes that are sensitive to the needs and circumstances of
    disenfranchised populations. As one of four strategic focus areas
    including equitable development, economic inclusion and health, PSE
    defines ``energy equity,'' or Just Energy, as the fair distribution of
    the benefits and burdens from energy production and consumption.
    Utilized as a framework for mobilizing advocacy around energy equity
    issues, individuals, businesses and organizations representing
    frontline communities, subject-matter experts, houses of worship, youth
    movements and academia are working together and organizing to forge
    collective action toward a more equitable, inclusive, clean energy
    future for all.
        Certainly, advocacy for energy equity and climate justice issues
    focused on the South are gaining an increasing amount of attention in
    the public, private and philanthropic sectors. However, our frontline
    communities must quickly learn to advocate on their own behalf as many
    traditional environmental conservation institutions struggle to make
    inroads because they often lack the cultural competency to
    authentically confront the South's history of racial supremacy and
    exploitation. Centuries of oppressive power structures have stifled
    even modest attempts by communities of color to organize, generating an
    inherent mistrust of anyone seeking to do so even within communities
    much in need of advocacy. These societal barriers have hampered the
    opportunity for marginalized communities to lend their perspective to
    the shaping of their clean energy future and fully benefit from rapidly
    expanding clean energy markets. For instance, only 7 percent of solar
    workers in 2017 were African-American while the percentage of solar
    workers in the United States grew 168 percent since 2010 according to
    The Solar Foundation. On the deployment of solar technology itself, a
    report published in the Nature Sustainability journal found that census
    areas with over 50 percent African-American or Hispanic populations
    have close to 40 percent less solar panel installations than white-
    majority census tracts, even when controlling for household income.
    These examples further demonstrate the impact of societal barriers on
    the ability of marginalized Americans to access clean energy benefits
    such as lower bills, more jobs and cleaner air.
        By highlighting the inequities present across the energy sector and
    connecting the dots between energy, racial injustice, economic
    disinvestment, health disparities and other associated equity
    challenges, PSE has been able to organize with community to channel
    their civic power for energy equity advocacy. Strengthened by the deep
    relationships resulting from the organizing as well as education and
    engagement, coalition building and leadership development offerings,
    PSE is building a ``Southern Equity Ecosystem'' positioned to connect,
    educate, and build power with all who support a just and equitable
    transformation of the energy sector. A sector that no longer depends on
    the extreme extraction of human, natural and economic resources from
    distressed communities, but one that supports a regenerative, clean
    energy economy rooted in shared principles of social, environmental,
    economic and racial justice.
        To advance this reality, the Just Energy Circle (JEC) anchored by
    PSE was created in 2013. The mission of the JEC is to build power with
    communities and encourage participation in developing clean energy
    solutions that benefit everyone. The JEC also seeks to inspire new,
    diverse, authentic leadership that is recognized in prominent decision-
    making positions in both civic and private sectors. We aim to establish
    structures that ensure clean energy opportunities are available to all,
    including low-income protections, fair prices, freedom from negative
    health impacts and access to thriving wage employment. We represent an
    equity ecosystem of diverse business, political, and community
    representation and interests. We believe that this approach is central
    to the energy equity movement and that the future of our communities is
    dependent upon ``Just Energy'' for all.

        Building upon this vision, the JEC is guided by the following
    principles:

         We believe that community partnerships are vital for the
                equitable progression toward self-sufficient people and
                neighborhoods.

         We believe in access to high-quality energy at a fair
                price for all.

         We believe in transformational relationships and
                sustainable solutions for ever-pressing issues in the
                American South.

         We believe in transparency and accountability for energy
                providers and policy makers.

         We believe that equity is the superior growth model for
                the American South.

         We believe in honoring the idea that all people must have
                a part to play in our emerging clean energy economy.

         We believe in utilizing and leveraging a combination of
                the best field and scientific research to find the best
                energy solutions.

        Amplifying the knowledge shared amongst our partners, we work
    collaboratively to build political and community capital to champion
    the racial, social, environmental and economic benefits that clean
    energy investments can produce when centered in equity. Many
    organizations committed to advancing more equitable outcomes have
    fought hard for national, state and local level climate and energy
    policies designed to lower energy costs, strengthen local economies and
    build healthier, more resilient communities. However, first and most
    impacted communities remain the least likely to benefit from the clean
    energy advancements and energy efficiency policies and programs that
    can reduce the burden of rising energy costs and offset the harmful
    effects of climate change and carbon-based energy production.
        As demonstrated by the generational consequences and
    disproportionate burdens of energy policy decisions, the South is
    undoubtedly on the frontlines of struggles for climate justice,
    economic justice, racial justice, and inclusive democratic
    participation. Nevertheless, communities spanning from the Gulf Coast
    to Appalachia continue to advance equity and opportunity through
    education and engagement on energy, climate and environmental justice.
    As the subject-matter knowledge base grows across the region, so does
    the number of well-informed, first-person advocates prepared to
    mobilize for expanded investment in clean energy, energy efficiency and
    other renewable energy strategies that support economic development for
    low-wealth communities.
        Without a doubt, preparing for the energy transition must also
    address the harmful, disproportionate impacts of climate change and
    carbon-based energy production. Especially in the Southeast, which is
    at significant risk to four particular climate change-related hazards:
    drought, flooding, hurricane force winds, and sea-level rise. But what
    about the energy system itself? How will we truly be able to confront
    the systemic disenfranchisement and under-resourcing of communities of
    color without addressing the underpinnings of the energy system as a
    whole?
        Any equity-centered climate solutions strategy must include the
    democratization of our energy systems. Energy democracy is a
    foundational component of a just and equitable transition from a
    carbon-based energy economy to a regenerative, clean energy economy
    grounded in racial, economic and social justice. Energy Democracy is
    centered on the premise that you can't build a new energy economy on an
    old energy model. As discussed in the book, Energy Democracy: Advancing
    Equity for Clean Energy Solutions, we must not only champion the
    technological strategies that will decarbonize the energy system, but
    we must also transform the system itself. Nathaniel Smith, the founder
    and Chief Equity of Officer of PSE defines true equity as a way, not a
    what. In this vein, we understand that clean energy for all is but one
    step on the journey toward a decentralized energy system built upon the
    principals of cooperative economics and community-based decision making
    for resource allocation. Ultimately, this community-determined, energy
    equity ecosystem will strengthen household economic stability and build
    healthier, wealthier communities.
        Now more than ever, it is time for an intentional expansion of the
    South's civic engagement infrastructure to ensure authentic inclusion
    at all points of the energy transition. Historically disenfranchised,
    under-resourced communities and communities of color are increasingly
    hungry to speak and act; not only for transition, but transformation of
    the energy system. We stand ready to wield our civic power in demand of
    equitable access to the benefits of the clean energy economy. The
    future of our communities is dependent upon ``Just Energy'' for all.
                                   resources
    2017 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Large Facilities. Retrieved
    from https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do.

    ACEEE. (2016). Data Gauge Impact of Energy Costs on Low-Income,
    African-American, Latino, and Renter Residents; Low-Income Households
    in Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, Providence, Pittsburgh,
    Dallas, Philadelphia, Kansas City, and Cleveland Suffer Heaviest
    ``Energy Burden''. Retrieved from https://aceee.org/press/2016/04/
    report-energy-burden-low-income.

    Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Mapping. Retrieved from
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/mapping.

    Drehobl, A., & Ross, L. (2016). Lifting the High Energy Burden in
    America's Largest Cities: How Energy Efficiency Can Improve Low Income
    and Underserved Communities. Retrieved from https://aceee.org/sites/
    default/files/publications/researchreports/u1602.pdf.

    Fairchild, D., & Weinrub, A. (2017). Energy Democracy: Advancing Equity
    in Clean Energy Solutions. Island Press.

    FSC's HEAG--Affordability Gap Data. (2017). Retrieved from http://
    www.homeenergyaffordabilitygap.com/03a_affordabilityData.html.

    National Solar Jobs Census--The Solar Foundation. Retrieved from
    https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national.

    Sunter, D., Castellanos, S., & Kammen, D. (2019). Disparities in
    rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and
    ethnicity. Nature Sustainability, 2(1). doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0204-z.

    Oxfam America. (2009). Exposed social vulnerability and climate change
    in the US Southeast. Retrieved from https://policy-
    practice.oxfamamerica.org/static/oa3/files/Exposed-Social-
    Vulnerability-and-Climate-Change-in-the-US-Southeast.pdf.

    What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?--FAQ--U.S. Energy
    Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/
    tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.

    Wilson, A. (2012). Coal Blooded Putting Profits Before People.
    Retrieved from http://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/
    CoalBlooded.pdf.

    Zach, E. (2018). How Persistent Poverty Masks the Reality of Many Rural
    Poor. Retrieved from https://caseygrants.org/evn/how-persistent-
    poverty-masks-reality-of-many-rural-poor/.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you very much.
        Our second panelist is, as I mentioned, Sarah Shrader. Ms.
    Shrader is the owner and co-founder of Bonsai Design and the
    President of the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of the Grand
    Valley.
        Welcome to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF SARAH SHRADER, OWNER AND CO-FOUNDER, BONSAI
     DESIGN; PRESIDENT, OUTDOOR RECREATION COALITION OF THE GRAND
                    VALLEY, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO

        Ms. Shrader. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and
    distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you so much
    for the opportunity to discuss rural economic change in western
    Colorado today.
        I live in a town called Grand Junction on the western slope
    of the Rocky Mountains. Our community is 74 percent public
    lands and is named after the junction of two mighty rivers, the
    Gunnison and the Colorado, that flow through the center of our
    town. Our valley has been on the leading edge of change that is
    playing out in rural communities across the United States.
        Like many other rural communities in America, our area has
    had a volatile economic history driven largely by the fossil
    fuels industry, oil, gas, coal, shale, and uranium. Each wave
    of extraction has provided jobs and prosperity only to be
    followed by the inevitable bust when commodity prices fall or
    policies change.
        This boom-and-bust cycle of extraction takes a toll on the
    economy and the psyche of our community. It creates a sense of
    hopelessness that persists even into new boom cycles because we
    are trained to believe that economic prosperity is fleeting and
    temporary.
        The results over time have been devastating. Our county's
    medium household income is $13,000 below the state average and
    56 percent of jobs where I live pay less than $17.50 an hour. A
    full 22 percent of children live in poverty compared to 15
    percent in the state.
        An extraction-based economy also inadvertently diminishes
    the importance of a college education. The number of kids
    graduating high school who obtain any kind of post-secondary
    education is 20 percent below the national average. At a time
    when companies chase skilled and educated work force, we are at
    a significant competitive disadvantage. Yet, the economic
    reliance on extraction industries has been changing in Grand
    Junction in the past few years. A new trend is emerging as our
    community shifts toward diversified employment, an outdoor-
    centric identity, a growing university, and an economy that has
    the potential to break this insidious cycle of poverty.
        In 2004, my family relocated to Grand Junction, and shortly
    after, we started our company, Bonsai Design, out of our
    basement deploying a small crew to build aerial adventures from
    ziplines to challenge courses, aerial playgrounds, and canopy
    tours all over North America. Now we are a turnkey operation
    with over 50 employees that provides everything from concept
    design to engineering, installation, training, inspections and
    maintenance, and we even manufacture our own components.
        Like many other outdoor rec manufacturers in our community,
    we are proud to work with local fabricators, machinists, and
    employees that have historically worked for the oil and gas
    industry. Our employees and subcontractors have grit, tenacity,
    and a strong work ethic, and they love creating outdoor
    adventure experiences for people to enjoy for years to come.
        Bonsai also works in similar communities which, like ours,
    have been long dependent on extraction and are now
    diversifying. Our clients are, for example, the Boy Scouts of
    America jamboree site in Mount Hope, West Virginia, where we
    built 26 Bonsai courses between 2011 and 2013. Our company is
    currently working with several municipalities, including the
    city of Rocklin, California, in an old quarry, and the city of
    Farmington, New Mexico, as well as Pipestem State Park in West
    Virginia. These communities are rebranding themselves as
    outdoor adventure hubs.
        The outdoor recreation industry is a powerhouse economic
    force in America at almost 3 percent of the GDP. In Colorado,
    it is a $62.5 billion industry employing over 500,000
    Coloradans. In our community alone, the outdoor rec industry
    contributes over $300 million annually and thousands of jobs.
    And rural communities all over the country are realizing the
    important role that the outdoor recreation industry could play
    in helping their economies thrive.
        In addition to providing jobs, the outdoor recreation
    industry in Grand Junction is leading efforts to redevelop and
    ignite our riverfront on the Colorado River.
        Long neglected, the riverfront was populated with
    junkyards, old tires and appliances, and an old uranium mill.
    We are turning a barren stretch of land into a business park
    surrounded by green space, a river recreation area, and an
    amphitheater with miles of trails around, a place where
    businesses can thrive and residents and visitors can enjoy the
    outdoors right in the heart of town.
        The irony in a community like ours is that we have focused
    below the surface of the land to find economic prosperity, yet
    the absolute best part of western Colorado is the access to
    public lands and wild spaces for recreation on the surface. In
    our community, you can hunt, fish, paddle the rivers, mountain
    bike, ski, rock climb and hike within minutes of your front
    door. Our community is now looking at outdoor recreation, a
    sustainable use for our lands, to drive the economy. The
    outdoor recreation industry brings pride and opportunities back
    to a community that has struggled for decades.
        Essential to this transition is that we protect our public
    lands and act swiftly to combat climate change as the economy
    in these areas depends on it.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Shrader follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Sarah Shrader, Owner and Co-Founder, Bonsai
      Design; President, Outdoor Recreation Coalition of the Grand Valley
        Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and distinguished members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    to discuss rural economic change in western Colorado. I live in Grand
    Junction, which is the largest community between Denver and Salt Lake
    City. This ``Grand Valley,'' in Mesa County, Colorado--with Palisade to
    the east and Fruita to the west--is defined by vast red rocks and high
    desert vistas, an 11,000-foot snow-capped mesa home to 300 natural
    lakes, with the mighty Colorado and Gunnison Rivers flowing through its
    heart. The Grand Valley has been on the leading edge of a change that
    is playing out in rural communities across the western United States.
                     economic history on the western slope
        Like many other western communities, our area has had an unsteady
    economic history throughout the 20th century, driven largely by the
    extractive fossil fuels industry. Historically, this industry has been
    the core economic driver in our community. This sector of economic
    activity has included oil, gas, shale development, coal mining, and the
    mining and milling of uranium and vanadium. Each of these waves of
    extractive development has provided jobs and prosperity when commodity
    prices have been high. Each period of prosperity has been followed by
    the inevitable bust when commodity prices fall or policies change. The
    damage in lost jobs, income, and associated social problems puts a
    tremendous strain on the community. This boom-and-bust cycle of
    extraction has taken a toll on not only the economy, but also the
    psychology of our community. Bust cycles create a sense of hopelessness
    that persists even into boom cycles, because it trains us to believe
    that economic prosperity is temporary. Furthermore, the pollution and
    other impacts to public land from the extraction industry threaten the
    quality of life and environmental attributes that are so closely
    connected to our region's emerging economic success as a center for
    outdoor recreation and magnet for new industries such as tech or
    advanced manufacturing.
        The results over time have been devastating. Mesa County's median
    household income is $13,000 below the state average. Fifty-six percent
    of jobs here pay less than $17.50 per hour. A full 22 percent of
    children here live in poverty, compared to 15 percent for the state.
    And the cycle is very hard to break. Without quality work force, it's
    hard to grow the economy, which makes it hard to improve schools, which
    makes it harder to improve the work force. Furthermore, an inadvertent
    consequence of dependence on an extraction economy is that it
    temporarily diminishes the importance of diverse skill sets and a post-
    secondary education. Over time, communities like these end up with
    significantly less of the work force having a higher education.
    Locally, the number of kids graduating high school who obtain any kind
    of post-secondary education is 20 percent below the national average.
    In a time when companies chase a skilled and educated work force, we
    are at a significant competitive disadvantage.
        Like many states in the United States, Colorado's rural areas are
    struggling. Rural economies often depend on one industry. If that
    industry suffers economically, the entire community is left without a
    contingency plan. Sustainable economic success comes from a diversified
    economy, and many rural communities across the United States have not
    had these opportunities. Businesses are incentivized to grow and
    relocate to urban and suburban areas where there is a better work force
    and more infrastructure and commerce. But this has left large swathes
    of our country, mostly in rural areas, behind.
        The economic reliance on extraction industries--and the inevitable
    boom-and-bust cycle accompanying it--has been changing here in the past
    few years. A new trend is emerging as the Grand Valley shifts toward an
    outdoor-centric identity and economy that has potential to break the
    insidious cycle of poverty described above.
                                 bonsai design
        In 2004, my family relocated to Grand Junction when my husband was
    offered a job as an airline captain with a regional airline. Shortly
    after, we started Bonsai out of our basement, deploying a small crew in
    the field to build aerial adventures, from ziplines to challenge
    courses, playgrounds, and canopy tours all over North America. To date,
    we've installed more than 500 ziplines, drawing tens of thousands of
    adventure seekers each year. We are a turnkey operation, providing
    everything from concept design to engineering, installation, training,
    inspections and maintenance, and component manufacturing.
        As our company grew and the North American aerial adventure
    industry flourished, we began innovating, testing, and manufacturing
    our own components like braking systems, trolleys, and other equipment.
    We also have been a part of developing and creating regulations for
    safety and participant experiences in the United States. Our company
    continues to grow, designing and constructing projects across the
    country, and becoming a leader in creating standards and efficiencies
    within the industry. Our notable projects include the Boy Scouts of
    America Jamboree site at the Summit Bechtel Reserve in Mt. Hope, West
    Virginia, where we built 26 courses between 2011-2013. To this day,
    that property has the most ziplines in one place in the world. We also
    have built our courses in ski areas all over the country. Currently, we
    are working with several municipalities, including the city of Rocklin,
    California and the city of Farmington, New Mexico, as they work to
    rebrand their communities as outdoor adventure hubs in their regions.
    These communities, too, have long been dependent on extraction and are
    now diversifying.
        Bonsai currently has over 50 people on the payroll, with 24 based
    at our headquarters in Grand Junction. Most of our employees are hired
    locally, with a talent pool emerging from outdoor enthusiasts as well
    as energy and construction workers. We are also proud to work with
    local fabricators, machinists, and engineers to create inspiring
    adventures for participants. Many highly skilled vendors,
    subcontractors, and workers who have historically worked for the oil
    and gas industry are now working with Bonsai.
        And we are not alone in building an emerging growth company in the
    Grand Valley. From manufacturers like Leitner-Poma and MRP, to
    agritourism businesses like Rooted Gypsy Farms and Carlson Vineyards,
    to service providers like Powderhorn Mountain Resort--the outdoor
    recreation industry is a growing force in western Colorado. In the
    Grand Valley alone, the outdoor industry contributes more than $300
    million annually to the local economy, providing thousands of jobs.
                  the outdoor recreation industry in colorado
        The outdoor recreation industry is a $62.5 billion dollar industry
    in Colorado alone, employing about 511,000 Coloradoans.\1\ Meanwhile,
    the entire energy sector generates about $14.9 billion and creates jobs
    for about 274,000 people.\2\ In Mesa County, the oil, gas, and mining
    sector currently accounts for only about 3 to 4 percent of local
    employment.\3\ There has been a statewide effort to develop our outdoor
    recreation economy, and Colorado was one of the first states in the
    Nation to establish an Office of Outdoor Recreation to nurture the
    industry. Now there are over 10 similar offices in other states, and
    they are working together nationally to develop best practices in
    helping states and communities diversify their economies with outdoor
    recreation. Parks and protected public lands form a critical
    infrastructure for this emergent sector.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/
    SCORP-AppendixF-Economic Contributions.pdf.
        \2\ https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/energyoffice/energy-colorado.
        \3\ https://www.coloradomesa.edu/business/documents/mesa-county-
    economic-newsletter-q4-2018.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In cooperation with and complementary to these statewide efforts,
    we developed a local Outdoor Recreation Coalition (ORC) to encourage
    and educate local elected leadership to the important role that the
    outdoor recreation industry could play in diversifying our economy and
    improving health and wellness. The ORC is a grassroots organization
    that represents a voice for not only outdoor recreation manufacturers,
    service and event providers, and retailers, but also for those who
    envision our valley developing into a thriving and vibrant economy for
    young families and growing businesses to relocate. Our mission is to
    expand and enhance the economy of the Grand Valley through
    collaborative support and promotion of outdoor recreation businesses
    and resources.
        During the ORC's first year, we worked on recreational development
    along the Colorado River and efforts to increase world-class mountain
    bike trails, as well as the recruitment of new businesses into the
    area. We were the first coalition of this kind in the state, and almost
    immediately accrued statewide recognition. When we connected with Luis
    Benitez, Director of Colorado's Outdoor Recreation Industry Office, the
    ORC became an example of what we could do across the state in rural
    communities to promote the outdoor recreation industry and help rural
    economies grow and thrive. We have built relationships with then-
    Governor John Hickenlooper, Senators Michael Bennet and Cory Gardner,
    and current Governor Jared Polis, who have encouraged the promotion of
    the outdoor recreation industry and rural economic development.
        A business climate analysis in 2015 \4\ found that Mesa County
    possesses qualities unique to its location that are hard to duplicate
    and highly valued by local businesses. These include a strong sense of
    place; unique physical region; and outdoor activities such as river
    sports, skiing, climbing, hiking, camping, road biking, and mountain
    biking. Further, 74 percent of the county is public land. The nearby
    opportunities for outdoor activities not only bring people and
    companies to the area, but also make Mesa County a unique place to
    live. Our public lands have fueled growth in the outdoor recreation
    sector, and the access that we enjoy to the outdoors will continue to
    make our area a desirable place to live.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.gjcity.org/contentassets/
    b29a975bdf804d5aa8ad258be6eb5b36/northstarreport. pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Outdoor recreation is not only a robust sector, but a growing one.
    Since 2014, total economic output and tax revenue from outdoor
    recreation in Colorado nearly doubled, and jobs increased by almost
    200,000. Outdoor recreation is ingrained in Colorado's culture,
    landscape, and quality of life, as well as its economic stability.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/
    SCORP-Executive-Summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The irony in Grand Junction is that we have focused below the
    surface of the land to find economic prosperity. It has given some,
    yes; but as we have learned, it was a Faustian bargain. With a pivot to
    outdoor recreation, we are now looking at a sustainable use of our
    lands to drive the economy--without the punishing boom-and-bust
    vagaries of an extraction economy.
        Parks and protected public lands form a critical infrastructure for
    this emergent sector. And the threat of climate change poses an
    existential risk to the outdoor recreation industry, with our winter
    recreation sports already significantly impacted, losing an estimated
    $154 million in lost revenue and 1,900 fewer jobs statewide in low
    snowfall years.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://protectourwinters.org/take-action/pow-colorado/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This growth in the local outdoor recreation industry occurred in
    tandem with development in our local higher education opportunities.
    Our community is home to one of the Nation's fastest growing
    institutions of higher learning, Colorado Mesa University, which now
    serves over 11,000 students each year. Naturally, a thriving university
    plays a critical role in diversifying our economy, enhancing the
    vibrancy of our town, and helping employers like Bonsai have access to
    top-notch talent across a variety of academic programs. It's not a
    coincidence that students from all over the country choose CMU so they
    can paddle the river and bike our trails. Recreation has become
    increasingly important to such students, and our incoming work force in
    general. Doctors, executives, software developers, and business owners
    are now choosing communities with wild spaces ripe for recreation over
    higher paying jobs in urban areas. The quality of life an outdoor-
    centric community provides is compelling for the emerging work force.
                    a different path: riverfront development
        In addition to providing local jobs, the outdoor recreation
    industry is leading efforts to redevelop and ignite Grand Junction's
    riverfront on the Colorado River. Long neglected and blighted, the
    riverfront was populated with junkyards, abandoned equipment, and an
    old uranium mill and Superfund Site. The community has worked hard to
    redevelop the riverfront, establishing a Riverfront Trail and
    encouraging parks and redevelopment.
        A central piece of the transition for our river has been the
    Riverfront at Las Colonias Business Park. With the city of Grand
    Junction, Bonsai is working to turn a barren stretch of land that was
    once home to literally tons of uranium mill tailings into a 15-acre
    business park featuring outdoor industry businesses like Bonsai Design,
    along with an amphitheater, green space, river recreation area, and
    boat ramp. Soon, it will also have a zipline over the Colorado River.
    This public-private partnership will attract other outdoor businesses
    and provide a space for residents and visitors alike to come together
    and enjoy the outdoors right in the heart of town.
                                    summary
        Our community understands that the key to wealth is diversifying
    our economic base. Energy, tech, health care, and manufacturing jobs
    are crucial to economic vibrancy on the Western Slope. And these
    industries have a work force that demands access to recreation and the
    outdoors--both of which the Grand Valley has in abundance. We will
    continue building connections to our outdoor amenities and protecting
    the public lands that surround us in order to invest in our economy and
    the next generation. The outdoor recreation industry brings pride and
    opportunities back to a community that has struggled for decades. Even
    at a time when legacy industries, such as coal, are in decline, we are
    optimistic about what our future will look like.

        Thank you for your time today.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bissett.

       STATEMENT OF BILL BISSETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUNTINGTON
        REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA

        Dr. Bissett. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Gosar, members of
    the Committee, my name is Dr. Bill Bissett. I am the president
    and CEO of the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce. Please
    know that my chamber represents more than 550 businesses and
    more than 30,000 employees in our region.
        It is also important to remember that West Virginia is the
    only state completely contained within Appalachia. And as an
    Appalachian, we like to think that where I am from is a gateway
    to a wonderful place that we call Appalachia.
        Economically, I bring you good news today from West
    Virginia. Since my return home to my home state more than 2
    years ago, we have gone from catastrophic job losses and
    declining state revenues to job growth in a state that is now
    stable and growing financially. Much of this previous economic
    downturn related to a severe decrease in the production of
    fossil fuels. But we are now witnessing a rebirth in both coal
    and natural gas production.
        With coal, we continue to be concerned with our Nation's
    inability to build new coal-fired power plants. Until this fact
    changes, the domestic market for steam coal, coal used to
    create electricity, will continue to decrease as coal plants
    are retired.
        However, the story is not often told that, in the southern
    coal fields of West Virginia, the economy is doing well due to
    metallurgical coal, or coal that makes steel, which is also
    known as met coal. This coal, which sells at a higher price and
    burns much hotter, is in great demand both in the United States
    and around the world.
        As we Americans discuss not only new infrastructure but
    also the maintenance of roads, bridges, and other large
    structures, large amounts steel will be needed, and I would
    hope that that steel would be made in the United States. And to
    make that steel, I would want us to use met coal from West
    Virginia.
        To the north in West Virginia, we see an expansion of
    natural gas production and tremendous investments in our
    state's future. From new wells to new pipelines, the jobs
    revenue and additional economic development related to this
    production of natural gas has spiked optimism and opportunity
    in our state.
        While I bring you good news economically from West
    Virginia, it comes with a caveat. As I talk to business leaders
    and job providers back home, many of them are thrilled to see
    this uptick, but they also find it fragile. In West Virginia,
    in the heart of Appalachia, we worry that, as a global issue
    like climate change is addressed, we worry that it will damage
    our economy in West Virginia far greater than any other state.
        My chamber is located outside the coal fields in West
    Virginia, but we are all too familiar what a downturn to coal
    production does to our regional. At a time when our country and
    the world needs steel and electric, met and steam coal
    production provides high-paying jobs not just for coal miners
    but engineers, lawyers, accountants, machinery workers, and
    numerous other service jobs that are dependent on the mining of
    coal for their existence.
        While we have witnessed the last downturn, we worry that
    actions here in Washington will damage West Virginia's
    rebounding economy, job growth, and long-term economic
    development.
        I believe and would suggest that many of my fellow West
    Virginians believe that we can produce coal and natural gas
    while also creating new economic opportunities for our
    citizens. We simply do not have to sacrifice one industry to
    create new opportunities.
        Some final thoughts. As a person fascinated with how we
    electrify this country every day in a reliable, low-cost way, I
    would suggest to you that what works for one state might not
    work well for other states. What works for Arizona and its
    economy probably doesn't work well for West Virginia. We are
    very different places.
        When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, we
    still need to power our homes and businesses, and fossil fuels,
    especially through combine cycle plants using both coal and
    natural gas, can provide this critical backbone of that
    electricity production.
        In my opinion, we need all forms of energy production. To
    make windmills and solar panels, you are going to need a lot of
    materials that come from underground, and that involves
    extraction of minerals and the use of land. As a senior
    engineer told me early in my career, every form of energy
    production has an economic and environmental cost to it.
        I think everyone in this room and on this panel would agree
    that no one wants to create poverty and hopelessness by their
    actions. As many of us Appalachians try to tell our stories
    beyond our borders, we worry that the future of our region and
    how impediments to our ability to produce natural resources
    will return us to what was a very dark period in my home state
    and in Appalachia.
        As climate change is a global issue, we must consider its
    impact in a global way and with a global solution. Sacrificing
    the economic future of West Virginia and Appalachia will have
    little impact on global man-made carbon, but you will succeed
    in creating more poverty, more hopelessness, and an uncertain
    future for those of us lucky enough to call West Virginia home.
        Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts with
    you today. It has been an honor.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Bissett follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Dr. Bill Bissett, President & CEO, Huntington
                          Regional Chamber of Commerce
        Mr. Chairman, members of the House Natural Resources Committee--my
    name is Doctor Bill Bissett and I am the President and C.E.O. of the
    Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce in my hometown of Huntington,
    West Virginia.
        Please know that my Chamber represents more than 550 businesses and
    30 thousand employees in our region. It is also important to remember
    that West Virginia is the only state completely contained within
    Appalachia, and, as an Appalachian, we like to think that where I'm
    from is the gateway to this wonderful place we call Appalachia.
        Economically, I bring you good news from West Virginia. Since my
    return to my home state more than 2 years ago, we have gone from
    catastrophic job loses and declining state revenues to job growth and a
    state that is now stable and growing financially. Much of this previous
    economic downturn related to a severe decrease in the production of
    fossil fuels, but we are now witnessing a rebirth in both coal and
    natural gas production.
        With coal, we continue to be concerned with our Nation's inability
    to build new coal-fired power plants. Until this fact changes, the
    domestic market for steam coal--coal used to create electricity--will
    continue to decrease as coal plants are retired. However, the story
    that is not often told is that, in the southern coalfields of West
    Virginia, the economy is doing well due to metallurgical coal, or coal
    that makes steel, which is also known as met coal. This coal, which
    sells at a higher price and burns much hotter, is in great demand both
    in the United States and around the world. As we Americans discuss not
    only new infrastructure but also the maintenance of roads, bridges and
    other large structures, large amounts of steel will be needed, and I
    would hope that we would use steel made in the United States. And to
    make that steel, I would want us to use met coal from West Virginia.
        To the north in West Virginia, we see the expansion of natural gas
    production and tremendous investments in our state's future. From new
    wells to new pipelines, the jobs, revenue and additional economic
    development related to the production of natural gas have spiked
    optimism and opportunity in our state. While I bring good news to you
    economically from West Virginia, it comes with a caveat. As I talk to
    business leaders and job providers back home, many of them are thrilled
    to see this uptick, but they also find it fragile. In West Virginia, in
    the heart of Appalachia, we worry that, as a global issue like Climate
    Change is addressed, it will damage the economy of West Virginia far
    greater than any other state.
        My Chamber is located outside of the coalfields in West Virginia,
    but we are all too familiar with what a downturn in coal production
    does to our region. At a time when our country and the world needs
    steel and electricity, met and steam coal production provides high-
    paying jobs, not just for coal miners, but engineers, lawyers,
    accountants, machinery workers, and numerous other service jobs that
    are dependent on the mining of coal for their existence. While we have
    withstood the last downturn, we worry that actions here in Washington
    will damage West Virginia's rebounding economy, job growth, and long-
    term economic development.
        I believe, and would suggest that many of my fellow West Virginians
    believe, that we can produce coal and natural gas while also creating
    new economic opportunities for our citizens. We simply do not have to
    sacrifice one industry to create new opportunities.

        Some final thoughts.

         As a person fascinated with how we electrify this country
                every day in a reliable and low-cost way, I would suggest
                to you that what works for one state might not work for
                other states. What works for Arizona and its economy
                probably doesn't work well for West Virginia. We are very
                different places. When the wind doesn't blow and sun
                doesn't shine, we still need to power our homes and
                businesses, and fossil fuels, especially through combined
                cycle plants using both coal and natural gas, can provide
                this critical backbone of electricity production.

         In my opinion, we need all forms of energy production. To
                make windmills and solar panels, you're going to need a lot
                of materials that come from underground. And that involves
                the extraction of minerals and the use of land. As a senior
                engineer told me early in my career, every form of energy
                production has an economic and environmental cost to it.

         I think everyone in this room and on this panel can agree
                that no one wants to create poverty and hopelessness by
                their actions. As many of us Appalachians try to tell our
                story beyond our borders, we worry about the future of our
                region and how impediments to our ability to produce
                natural resources will return us to what was a very dark
                time in my home state and in Appalachia. As Climate Change
                is a global issue, we must consider its impact in a global
                way, and with a global solution. Sacrificing the economic
                future of West Virginia and Appalachia will have little
                impact on global man-made carbon, but you will succeed in
                creating more poverty, more hopelessness, and an uncertain
                future for those of us lucky enough to call West Virginia
                home.

        Thanks you again for allowing me to share my thoughts with you
    today. It has been an honor.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hille.

       STATEMENT OF PETER HILLE, PRESIDENT, MACED, THE MOUNTAIN
    ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BEREA, KENTUCKY

        Mr. Hille. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the
    Subcommittee, my name is Peter Hille. I am the president of
    MACED, and I am glad to be talking with you today about a just
    transition to a new economy for coal-impacted communities.
        This is a map of Appalachia showing the economically
    distressed counties in red. They fall into the bottom 10
    percent of all the counties in the Nation. And this map has
    remained largely unchanged for decades. The long history of
    coal mining in Appalachia did not create prosperous communities
    because, in the early days, these were not jobs that paid well.
    You load 16 tons, and what do you get? Another day older and
    deeper in debt. That is why Lyndon Johnson declared war on
    poverty from a front porch in eastern Kentucky.
        By the end of World War II, we had 75,000 coal mining jobs
    in Kentucky. But in the 1950s, the jobs began to be mechanized.
    Over the next several decades, coal production went up and
    down, and mostly up. But as the jobs became more technical,
    they paid better. But with bigger machines, more coal could be
    produced with fewer workers.
        On this chart, the upper line shows production. The lower
    line shows jobs declining. Then, in 2012, something
    unprecedented happened. For the first time, natural gas per BTU
    became cheaper than coal. When these lines crossed, the coal
    industry collapsed. Suddenly we lost 10,000 jobs, half the
    remaining jobs of mining in our state. This has been a very
    real tragedy for the miners, their families, their communities,
    and all the other businesses that relied on those earnings.
        But this is a tragedy that sits on top of a disaster. The
    disaster is the fact that, even before we lost those 10,000
    jobs, this region had been economically distressed for
    generations.
        So, the question is not how do we replace those 10,000
    mining jobs and get back to where we were; the question is, how
    do we go forward? How do we build a new economy for Appalachia,
    an economy that is more diverse, resilient, sustainable, and
    equitable, because the old economy was none of those things.
        We call this just transition. And the justice we call for
    in this transition is based on the reality that these
    communities and communities like ours literally fueled the
    growth of this great Nation. And they sacrificed lives,
    families, health, water, prosperity, even as they gave us the
    timber that built our towns, the coal that fired our
    industries, and the steel that made our cars.
        They are owed a debt, and we can repay that debt with the
    new investments that are needed to grow the new economy. We
    must reinvest in our communities, many of which have lost more
    than half of their population to out-migration. We must make
    them places where the young people growing up there want to
    stay, where those who went off to college or their first job
    want to come back, where people who left to find work and had
    successful careers somewhere else might come back to retire,
    and where the tourist who comes to visit decides they would
    like to stay.
        All of the amenities and resources needed to revitalize
    these communities are themselves economic drivers, creating
    jobs and livelihoods: the local food restaurant, the coffee
    shop, the farmers market, the craft brewery, housing, health
    care, and the quality of life that many people are looking for
    today.
        So, we envision an economic transition driven by
    entrepreneurs whose businesses create goods and services to
    drive diverse local economies and focus on sectors that not
    only generate economic activity but also generate benefits for
    the community.
        For example, at the nexus of food and energy, Gwen Christon
    owns a grocery store at a crossroads in Letcher County,
    Kentucky. She invested half a million dollars in energy
    efficiency and now saves $40,000 a year in utility costs. The
    store looks so much better that her sales are up 7 percent, and
    she has hired two more full-time workers.
        Here is Scott Shoupe. Scott is a fourth-generation coal
    miner. But after 22 years in the mines, he is now participating
    in our new energy interns program, which is funded by an ARC
    power grant. Scott is learning to do energy audits and
    retrofits and plans to start his own energy efficiency
    business.
        This is Tim Robinson. He started a drug treatment program
    that now has facilities across eastern Kentucky. We financed
    one of those centers and also implemented energy efficiency
    measures that resulted in enough savings for them to buy a new
    van.
        There are many more examples to share, but the important
    thing is this: There is hope in these communities, and there
    are people who are digging in hard to create a brighter future.
    Investments like the Appalachian Regional Commission's power
    grants, the AML pilot program, and the proposed RECLAIM Act
    represent important investments that can support these
    grassroots efforts.
        And as we build this new economy, we need to ensure that it
    creates a future with opportunities for all, meeting diversity
    with equity, and that we attend to the sustainability that is
    needed for our children and our grandchildren to thrive and for
    our planet to survive.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hille follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Peter Hille, President, MACED, The Mountain
        Association for Community Economic Development, Berea, Kentucky
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony about our work
    and the conditions in coal impacted communities. MACED is a Community
    Development Financial Institution certified by the CDFI Fund of the
    U.S. Treasury. We manage a loan portfolio of nearly $20 million
    invested in small business across Appalachian Kentucky. We are deeply
    engaged in a range of initiatives to advance a Just Transition to a new
    economy for coal impacted communities in Appalachia and beyond.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        This is a map of Appalachia showing the economically distressed
    counties in red. They fall into the bottom 10 percent of all the
    counties in the Nation as measured by per capita income, poverty rate
    and 3-year average unemployment. Despite this map has remained largely
    unchanged for decades. That doesn't negate the value of vast
    investments that have been made--there have been many improvements and
    much work has been done. The Appalachian Regional Commission has been a
    key player ever since it was created and recent increases to its budget
    through the POWER Initiative have helped a lot. But we still have a
    long way to go.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The long history of coal mining in Appalachia did not create
    prosperous communities partly because in the early days these were not
    jobs that paid well--``You load 16 tons and what do you get, another
    day older and deeper in debt.'' That's why Lyndon Johnson launched the
    War on Poverty from a front porch in eastern Kentucky.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        At the end of WWII, we had 75,000 coal mining jobs in Kentucky.
    But in the 1950s the UMWA signed an agreement with the mine operators
    for the mines to be mechanized. Over the next several decades coal
    production went up and down, overall increasing significantly until
    recent years (blue line above). And as the jobs became more technical,
    they paid better, a high school graduate could make $60,000 to $80,000
    per year, making these some of the best-paying jobs in the region. But
    with long-wall mining machines underground, then the advent of strip
    mining and finally mountaintop removal mining, more coal could be
    produced with fewer workers. On the chart above, lower line shows how
    jobs continued to drop relative to production. By 2011 we were down to
    fewer than 20,000 jobs.

        Meanwhile, the dominance of coal largely displaced other large
    scale approaches to economic development that would have created a more
    diverse and resilient economy. Through decades of boom and bust in the
    coal industry, it was too easy to believe, with each downturn, that
    coal would come back. There was little effort put into developing other
    sectors of the economy, not enough major investment in education,
    health care, child care, housing and civic infrastructure. To the
    extent we did see progress, it was often the result of relatively small
    local efforts or the work of regional non-profits supported largely by
    private philanthropy.

        We also saw significant retrenchment on the part of both private
    philanthropy and the Federal Government in rural America in general and
    Appalachia in particular as attention and resources were redirected to
    pressing problems in urban areas. Disparities in essential new economy
    assets like broadband and cell service compounded the other problems
    cited above. All these factors contributed to a growing sense among
    rural people that they were being left behind.

        Almost 20 years ago, then-Governor Paul Patton, himself a former
    coal operator, made this observation: ``As much as coal has meant to
    us, it still has not built for us a self-sustaining economy. It's got
    to be more varied--got to be more broad. In the early 1970s we had an
    economic developer's dream come true. We had more high tech jobs than
    we could ever imagine in the coal industry, and it still didn't solve
    the chronic problems of the region. So we have to build that basic
    economic foundation.'' But we didn't do that, and it set the scene for
    what came next.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In 2012, something unprecedented happened. For the first time,
    natural gas, became cheaper than coal as a result of the boom in
    fracking. The graph above shows the prices for coal and natural gas in
    MMBTUs. When these lines crossed, the coal industry collapsed. Suddenly
    we lost 10,000 jobs, half of the remaining coal mining jobs in our
    state. Bankruptcies of several major coal companies followed as natural
    gas took on an increasing share of electrical generation.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The collapse of the coal industry has been a very real tragedy
    for the miners, their families, their communities and all the other
    businesses that relied on those earnings, from grocery stores to car
    dealers to home builders. It has also devastated local government
    budgets, as they saw reduced local tax revenues compounded by a sharp
    decline in coal severance taxes which they had come to rely upon as a
    significant source of revenue for local services.
        The collapse of the coal industry is a tragedy, but it is a tragedy
    that sits on top of a disaster. That disaster is the fact that even
    before we lost those 10,000 jobs, this region had been economically
    distressed for generations. These economic realities have predictable
    correlates in other areas as well--low educational attainment, among
    the worst health statistics in the Nation, and demographic shifts due
    to outmigration because of a lack of good paying jobs, resulting in a
    population that is disproportionately made up of the very old, the very
    young, and many who are unable to participate in the labor force. We
    also face the same opioid epidemic that plagues many other rural areas.
    All of that was true before the collapse of the coal industry.
        So the question is not how do we replace those 10,000 or more jobs,
    and get back to where we were. The question is how do we go forward,
    how do we build a new economy for Appalachia and for other coal
    impacted communities--an economy that is more diverse, resilient,
    sustainable and equitable. Because the old economy was none of those
    things.

        A diverse economy will rely on many small businesses in different
    sectors. These provide the goods and services needed in the community
    and keep more money circulating in the local economy.

        A resilient economy will be less reliant on a large single industry
    so we are not vulnerable to sudden shifts in that sector as we have
    been in the past.

        A sustainable economy will be built on balance rather than
    unchecked growth, respecting the natural ecologies of place--air, land,
    water, people and culture.

        An equitable economy will provide opportunities for all and,
    perhaps even more importantly, the benefits of the economy will be more
    widely shared. We need to address all the ways that people have been
    marginalized, including race, age, gender and gender identity,
    ethnicity and socio-economic status.

        We call this Just Transition. And the justice we call for in this
    transition is based on the reality that our communities, and
    communities like ours, literally fueled the growth of this great
    Nation. And they sacrificed--lives, families, health, water,
    prosperity--even as they gave us the timber that built our towns, the
    coal that fired our industries, the steel that made our cars.
        These communities are now bearing the brunt of global changes in
    the energy economy. They are owed a debt for the sacrifices they have
    made, and we can repay that debt with the new investments that are
    needed to grow the new economy. We must reinvest in our communities,
    many of which have lost more than half of their population to
    outmigration. We must make them places where the young people growing
    up want to stay; where those who went off to college or their first job
    want to come back; where people who left to find work and had
    successful careers elsewhere might come back to retire; and where the
    tourist who comes to visit decides they'd like to stay.
        All of the amenities and resources needed to revitalize these
    communities and make them attractive and livable places are themselves
    economic drivers creating jobs and livelihoods--the farmers market, the
    local foods restaurant, the coffee shop, the music venue, the craft
    brewery, the retirement community, housing, healthcare, and recreation
    all contribute to a quality of life that many people are looking for
    today.
        So we envision an economic transition driven by entrepreneurs whose
    businesses create goods and services to drive diverse local economies,
    and focus on sectors that not only generate economic activity but also
    generate benefits for the community.
        The dynamic relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems,
    enterprises, market sectors and community benefits are captured in
    MACED's Economic Transition Model (following page). This model
    recognizes that investment in key sectors cannot only generate economic
    activity but also results in additional benefits to the community and
    the people who live there. For example, local healthcare facilities
    provide jobs, but also make care more accessible if residents don't
    have to travel to get the care they need--and the dollars spent on
    health care remain in the community. Similarly, retrofits to increase
    energy efficiency create jobs for the installers while also making
    homes healthier, safer and more comfortable and make businesses more
    profitable. The reduction in carbon output benefits all of us. Similar
    multiple benefits apply to the other market sectors identified in the
    model.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The five gears in this model represent the dynamic relationship
    between the entrepreneurial ecosystem, enterprises and markets. The
    entrepreneurial ecosystem supports new entrepreneurs, who in turn
    create enterprises that produce goods and services, which feed into
    markets.
        The small arrows pushing the gears represent active measures that
    can be implemented to accelerate the process and magnify the impacts.
    At the right-hand side of the model are promising market sectors that
    MACED has identified and the additional community.
        A functioning entrepreneurial ecosystem generates new entrepreneurs
    and also builds models for success in communities, which raises local
    capacity. Enterprises create goods and services that feed into markets,
    but also produce jobs and local spending power that help support local
    markets.
        The five arrows at the bottom (increased community capacity,
    livelihoods for families, sustainable local economies, diverse regional
    economy and stronger communities) are all results of the various
    Examples
        There are many examples of exemplary work that illustrate the
    potential to grow a new economy:

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        At the nexus of local food and energy, Gwen Christon owns a
    grocery store at a rural crossroads in Letcher County, Kentucky. She
    invested half a million dollars in energy efficiency and now saves
    $40,000 a year in utility costs. The upgrade was financed with a
    $100,000 USDA REAP grant and $400,000 in financing from MACED. The
    energy savings cover the debt service. The store looks so much better
    that her sales are up 7 percent and she has hired two more full-time
    workers.
        The energy savings have also helped her cut some of her prices
    which also contributes to the increased sales. The next nearest grocery
    store is 10 miles away, so without this store the surrounding area
    would be a food desert. By including more local produce in her store,
    Gwen is also helping to support local growers, keeping more money
    circulating in the local economy.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Scott Shoupe is a fourth generation coal miner. After 22 years
    in the mines he is now participating in MACED's New Energy Interns
    program, funded by a 2016 ARC POWER grant. Scott is learning to do
    energy audits and retrofits, and plans to start his own energy
    efficiency business. Commercial energy retrofits can pay for
    themselves, often rapidly, by reducing both the energy usage and the
    demand charges on the utility bills. One grocery warehouse in Kentucky
    is now saving $100,000 per year after investing $200,000 in a lighting
    retrofit.

    MACED'S New Energy Interns were recently featured in a video by Fortune
    Magazine:

        https://maced.org/energy/new-economy-work-featured-by-fortune-
    magazine/

    New Energy Interns in Yes! Magazine:

        https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/energy-conservation-jobs-come-
    to-coal-country -20181005

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        This is Tim Robinson, pictured here with Congressman Hal
    Rogers. Tim started a drug treatment program that now has facilities
    across eastern Kentucky. MACED financed one of those centers and also
    implemented energy efficiency measures that resulted in enough savings
    for them to buy a new van.

        https://www.arccenters.com/

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkiWwO3TFFY

    MACED Program Innovations
        How$martKY is a MACED program that provides residential on-bill
    financing for energy efficiency retrofits. The customer pays nothing
    upfront, the utility pays the contractor, and places a charge on the
    customer's bill to recover the investment, plus interest. The annual
    savings are greater than the charge on the bill, so the customer comes
    out ahead and the utility benefits from the demand reduction.
    Contractors get jobs and the customer gets a healthier and more
    comfortable home. Everybody wins.

        Energy Efficient Enterprises (E3) provides energy efficiency for
    commercial enterprises as well as the financing needed to implement the
    measures. Payback for commercial efficiency is often much faster than
    residential retrofits due to reduction in demand charges alongside of
    the reduction in kWh usage. Currently MACED is developing a new
    financing tool to support solar installations for small commercial
    enterprises. Rising electric rates are increasing the interest in solar
    for these businesses in our region.

        Creative application of capital is needed to support economic
    transition in economically distressed regions. MACED has been
    pioneering several tools designed to allow us to finance start-ups and
    business. We have created a Venture Capital Loan Fund that can make
    higher risk investments and offer flexible repayments so as not to
    cash-starve the enterprise in the early stages. We have also created a
    collateral support fund as a donor-advised fund at a regional community
    foundation. Another innovation is our crowd-match loan through which we
    can match crowd-sourced capital (from platforms like Kiva or
    Kickstarter) one-to-one up to $10,000 with a loan that doesn't require
    credit score or collateral. We use the ability to crowd source the
    other funds as a proxy for the credit-worthiness of the enterprise. The
    CDFI Fund and the ARC POWER fund have provided important support for
    these innovations.
    New Federal Investment
        The Appalachian Regional Commission's POWER Initiative, the AML
    Pilot Grants and the proposed RECLAIM Act are important examples of how
    new Federal investment can support work on the ground in these
    communities. POWER has added capacity to organizations large and small
    across the coalfields of Appalachia and spurred new and expanded
    programs to support entrepreneurship and a range of innovative
    approaches to economic transition. A recently announced AML Pilot Grant
    for the town of Benham in Harlan County will upgrade and expand
    facilities there related to coal heritage tourism. We appreciate the
    fact that programs like this have gotten, and continue to get, support
    from both sides of the aisle.

        There are many more examples to share, but the important thing is
    this--there is hope in these communities, and there are people who are
    digging in hard to create a brighter future.
        Investments like the ARC POWER grants, the AML Pilot Program and
    the RECLAIM Act represent important investment that can support these
    grassroots efforts. And as we build this new economy, we need to ensure
    that it creates a future with opportunities for all, meeting diversity
    with equity, and that we attend to the sustainability that is needed
    for our children and grandchildren to thrive, and for our planet to
    survive.
    Links for more information
    Information about MACED programs

         https://maced.org/

         ACED Five-year Impact Report:

          https://maced.org/wp-content/uploads/MACED-
                ImpactReport_Nov2018_final_ sm.pdf

         Fortune Magazine video featuring MACED's New Energy
                Interns:

          https://maced.org/energy/new-economy-work-featured-by-fortune-
                magazine/

         Strategies for Just Transition:

          https://maced.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/
                MACED_strategy_briefs_ web.pdf

    Appalachian Regional Commission reports
         Distressed Counties maps FY2002-FY2019:

          https://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp

         Appalachian Coal Industry Ecosystem:

          https://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/CIESummary-
                AppalachianCoal IndustryEcosystemAnalysis.pdf

         Entrepreneurial Ecosystems:

          https://www.arc.gov/research/
                researchreportdetails.asp?REPORT_ID=147

         Additional reports:

          https://www.arc.gov/research/ResearchReports.asp

    Appalachia Funders Network
         https://www.appalachiafunders.org/

    Kentucky Coal Data from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet
         http://energy.ky.gov/Pages/CoalFacts.aspx

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thanks.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dennison to testify.

       STATEMENT OF BRANDON DENNISON, FOUNDER AND CEO, COALFIELD
                 DEVELOPMENT, HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA

        Mr. Dennison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
    Committee members.
        Investing in the economic revitalization of the communities
    that have been extraction-based, that have sacrificed the most
    to fuel, this country must be front and center in the shaping
    of policy addressing climate change. Doing so cannot be an
    afterthought.
        As I think about this issue, I think about Wilburn. Wilburn
    is an on-the-job trainee with Coalfield Development. He was a
    miner for 17 years in Mingo County, West Virginia. And like so
    many other miners, in 2015, he was laid off when his mine shut
    down. He had to go on public assistance, something he would
    tell you he hated to do but had to do to feed his family.
        Coalfield Development was able to put Wilburn back to work
    through a sustainable agriculture business that we incubated.
    This business converted a former mountaintop removal mine site
    into a sustainable farm where we sell fresh food products
    throughout the region.
        Wilburn and his fellow crew members work by what we call
    our 33-6-3 model: 33 hours a week of paid work, just like you
    would for any other business; but 6 hours a week of higher
    education classroom time working toward an associate's degree;
    and 3 hours a week of personal life skill development.
        At the end of their 2.5 year contract, crew members
    transition from being unemployed and in need of public
    assistance to being trained workers with an associate's degree.
    We have started new businesses in biobased manufacturing,
    solar, construction, arts and culture in retail sectors. We
    have helped start over 50 new businesses and retrained over 800
    formerly unemployed people.
        The farm where Wilburn works sits next to an active
    mountaintop removal site. And one morning, without trying to be
    profound, Wilburn was feeding the hens and the hogs. And you
    could see the active mountaintop removal happening just a
    couple acres away. And this is a process of huge equipment,
    equipment the size of a building moving just massive amounts of
    earth, what is called overburden. And the overburden tumbles
    down these steep ledges, and massive dust clouds go up.
        And Wilburn looked up and watched this happening. And he
    said: Well, I reckon that there is the past, and this here is
    the future.
        The coal industry will never again be the dominant industry
    it once was. And this fact creates deep pain for those of us
    living in Appalachia, especially our miners. The transition
    away from coal, which is already underway, by the way, isn't
    just creating an economic crisis. It is a social crisis
    directly related to the opioid epidemic. And it is an
    environmental crisis leaving massive scars on our landscape
    that have to be dealt with.
        But the fact that coal isn't coming back doesn't mean that
    Appalachia has no future. The void left by coal's collapse is
    actually making room for new entrepreneurial spurts to grow up.
    And Appalachia can be a vital contributor in the fight against
    climate change. And Appalachia is no more guilty of
    contributing to climate change than most people in this country
    who have had to flip on their lights at night.
        With smart Federal policy and investment, our country can
    accelerate these new sprouts of entrepreneurship. We need a
    national just transition task force to give focus. We need to
    create a national program to support coal communities in
    transition. The power program is a great start. We can grow
    from there. And we need to pass Federal legislation, exactly
    what Peter mentioned, that improves conditions for former coal
    workers and distressed Appalachian communities especially
    relating to the black lung crisis.
        If we don't pay attention to the economic hurt of
    extraction communities and invest in solutions that show there
    is a viable path forward, we will only deepen the division in
    our country. We in Appalachia need to know we are valued, and
    the country needs to know we have more to offer than just coal.
    Too often, when discussing economic transitions, policy makers
    announce: ``Well, we can just retrain those people.''
        And I do need to say that that is always way easier said
    than done.
        There are thousands of laid-off miners who have
    participated in Federal training programs. They got a new
    certificate. But it doesn't matter because there aren't
    businesses left to take that certificate and get employed in.
        So, at Coalfield Development, we have had to be much more
    holistic. We have to create new businesses at the same time as
    training new employees to staff those businesses and have a
    modern work force. We need maximum flexibility at the ground
    level to pull this off.
        Wilburn is one of thousands of miners whose life was rocked
    by the shutdown of his mine. But at age 45, he is about to
    become a college graduate. He has helped us start an entire new
    business that sells food products throughout the region.
    Wilburn has transformed a moment of crisis into a
    transformational opportunity for himself and his family. With
    your support, an entire region can do the same.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dennison follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Brandon Dennison, CEO, Coalfield Development
                                  Corporation
        Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today.
        My name is Brandon Dennison. I am the founder and CEO of Coalfield
    Development Corporation, As a non-profit, Coalfield serves as an
    umbrella for a family of social enterprises in southern West Virginia.
    Coalfield is working to rebuild the Appalachian economy from the ground
    up, trying to show what a healthier and more diversified economy can
    look like in a place long, long dominated by the coal industry.
        The transition from coal is happening. And it has to happen. For
    economic, environmental, and social reasons, our communities must make
    this transition. But while there's lots of talk about ``greening our
    economy'' and ``transitioning off coal,'' there's much less
    understanding about how hard this really is. Today, I want to provide
    concrete examples of what a just transition can and should look like.
                            the view from appalachia

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Wilburn is an on-the-job trainee, a crew member with Coalfield
    Development. Wilburn worked for 17 years as a coal miner in Mingo
    County, West Virginia. Like so many other coal miners, Wilburn was laid
    off in 2015 and had to be placed on public assistance.
        Coalfield was able to put Wilburn back to work on a sustainable
    agriculture project, which converted a former mountaintop removal mine
    into an active farm. Today, local farmers sell fresh and healthy food
    products from this site throughout West Virginia. Wilburn and his
    fellow crew members work by our 33-6-3 model each week: 33 hours of
    paid work, 6 hours of higher education, and 3 hours of life-skills
    development.
        At the end of their 2.5 year contract, crew members transition from
    being unemployed and in need of public assistance, to trained workers
    with an Associate's Degree. Many have even developed business plans for
    new start-ups. This model has been proven to work. It's been used to
    start new businesses in the bio-based manufacturing, solar,
    construction, arts and culture, and retail sectors. Coalfield
    Development has helped start over 50 new businesses and created 190 new
    jobs. We've retrained over 800 formerly unemployed people.
        The farm where Wilburn worked sits next to an active mountaintop
    removal mine. As we fed hogs and chickens each morning, equipment the
    size of buildings moved massive amounts of dirt (called over-burden)
    off of high, steep ledges, as dust clouds ballooned up into the sky.
    One morning as he worked, without meaning to be profound, Wilburn
    watched as this over-burden tumbled down. He then looked over at new
    crops growing up on our site and said, ``I reckon that there is the
    past, and this here is the future.''
                              the decline of coal
        I'm here today as a young man born and raised in West Virginia. My
    wife and I are raising our 2-year-old son in West Virginia, and we're
    expecting another boy in a matter of weeks. Coalfield Development was
    born out of much love by West Virginians for West Virginians. And my
    view from the ground--deep in coal country--is this: Coal is not coming
    back.
        The coal industry will never be the dominant industry in Appalachia
    that it was for generations. This fact creates deep pain for those of
    us living in Appalachia, especially for our miners. The transition away
    from coal is creating an economic crisis, causing high unemployment and
    low labor participation. It's creating a social crisis, leading to an
    addiction epidemic. And it's creating an environmental crisis, as
    closed coal mines leave scarred and polluted landscapes in their wake.

        We know the coal industry is shrinking, and institutions from the
    government's own Energy Information Administration to Standard and
    Poors--and more--all agree:

      1.  The U.S. coal-mining industry is in a permanent structural
                decline. The industry is facing a new market order, and it
                can't compete with less expensive and more flexible rival
                fuel sources. For these reasons, it won't likely regain its
                once-predominant market position. This shift in markets is
                occurring because the economics of coal-fired generation no
                longer make the same sense they once did. A decade and a
                half ago, coal provided more than 50 percent of all fuel
                for U.S. power generation. Today that share is less than 30
                percent. Renewables have taken a bite out of coal's
                traditional hold on power markets. In an outlook published
                just last month,\1\ the Energy Information Administration
                sees 24 gigawatts of new, renewable generation capacity
                coming on-line this year, 46 percent from wind, 18 percent
                from solar, the rest from natural gas--and none from coal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://platform.mi.spglobal.com/web/client?auth=inherit#news/
    article?id=49528076&key productlinktype=2.

      2.  Initiatives to reverse coal's decline are unlikely to succeed.
                The structural changes in the U.S. domestic coal market
                have caused the industry to scramble to regain its footing
                by promoting expansion of exports and by embracing the
                potential of ``clean coal,'' or carbon capture and
                sequestration (CCS) projects. Neither the export nor the
                CCS initiatives have a very good chance of succeeding. In
                addition, hoped-for regulatory relief in the guise of
                Federal policy reversals has been realized only
                theoretically. While the Trump administration has moved to
                ease emissions restrictions on power plants and
                environmental rules on mining, neither activity has slowed
                the decline of coal. There are still far fewer coal-mining
                jobs today than there used to be--the overall trend is
                toward fewer and fewer--and coal-fired power generation is
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                less competitive than it was 2 years ago.

      3.  More plants and mines will close as the economics of coal-fired
                power generation no longer make sense. According to
                research from the Institute for Energy Economics and
                Financial Analysis, a leading energy markets think tank, at
                least 36.7GW of coal-fired capacity stand to be retired
                from 2018 through 2024--117 units in total--and that is a
                highly conservative estimate.\2\ Announced retirements will
                cut coal-fired capacity by at least 15 percent through
                2024, a figure that very likely understates the trend.
                Fully two-thirds of 2018's retirements were only announced
                in 2017, a clear indication that utilities have shortened
                their lead time on closures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ http://ieefa.org/ieefa-report-u-s-likely to-end-2018-with-
    record-decline-in-coal-fired-capacity/.

      4.  A resurgence in coal mining is unlikely. Further restructuring of
                the coal mining industry appears inevitable in the face of
                a shrinking customer base, fleet overcapacity, and intense
                competition--mainly from natural gas and renewables. The
                structural decline of the coal industry will drive more
                coal-fired power plants out of business. A resurgence in
                coal production--regionally or nationally--is unlikely.
                Domestic demand for coal will continue to drop, export
                strategies will not save producers, carbon capture and
                storage schemes meant to sustain the industry are not
                viable, and regulatory relief will continue to prove
                ineffective. Without a robust customer base of the type it
                has historically had, the U.S. coal industry will continue
                to contract and consolidate. As demand for coal continues
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                to shrink, so too will production.

                         an action agenda for congress
        But hidden in the pain and fear is opportunity and renewal. Like
    Wilburn converting a former surface mine into a sustainable farm, we
    can find the solutions to our problems within these very problems
    themselves. The national attention on Appalachia--and the plight of
    former coal workers and the economic hurt of coal communities--presents
    an opportunity. Congress should immediately act to:

      1.  Create a national just transition task force. A smart, just, and
                fair transition away from coal will be difficult, and the
                transition will affect the entire country, in places where
                coal mining and coal plants are closing. While Appalachia
                has been first and hardest hit, other regions aren't far
                behind. We could and should learn from other countries,
                like Canada and Germany, and create a national just
                transition task force, which could comprehensively assess
                this energy and economic transition, and work with leading
                public and private sector partners to identify relevant
                regional solutions. This effort should put grassroots
                organizations and for-profit innovators in leadership
                positions.

      2.  Create a national program to support coal communities in
                transition. In 2015, President Obama introduced his POWER +
                program, a portion of which made economic and work force
                development grants available to help support coal
                communities in transition. POWER focused on economic
                development and diversification; the effort wasn't just
                about creating new jobs, but it focused on diversifying and
                strengthening local economies, so they could more
                resilient. While pieces of this original program still
                exist, total funding allocations are small. Congress could
                immediately put resources to work, and build off of the
                excellent work of the Appalachian Regional Commission,
                which has awarded more than $120M since 2015 to innovative
                strategies, like Coalfield, that have the potential to
                scale and be replicated.

            The Appalachian Regional Commission is a particularly effective
                Federal agency and represents the kind of ``place-based''
                policies that can have an out-sized impact.\3\ Regional
                entities such as Appalachian Regional Commission are more
                in touch with the on-the-ground complexities and nuances in
                ways national agencies just can't be.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/saving-the-heartland-
    place-based-policies-in-21st-century-america/.

            POWER funding created opportunities that allowed people to
                stay--being Appalachian is our culture and our identity. We
                just have to make sure that jobs exist for the miners and
                affected community members that have been trained. That's
                why Coalfield Development has worked closely with a solar
                company, Solar Holler, which has recently hired eight of
                the workers we've trained. These programs work if the
                private sector (and other potential job creators) are
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                engaged from the beginning.

            In places like West Virginia, we put all our eggs into one
                basket--ironically made of coal. When the bottom fell out,
                we were stuck in black slurry. Now, many ask, ``What's the
                next big thing? What can replace coal?'' But I believe this
                is the wrong question. Relying too heavily on one industry
                is how we ended up with some of the highest poverty rates
                in the country. The right solution isn't to find one new
                industry, but to support entrepreneurs and new businesses
                in a diversified number of financially, environmentally,
                and socially sustainable fields. At Coalfield Development,
                we're pioneering what these diversified sectors can look
                like. Federal investment in solutions and communities like
                ours can help us scale create solutions to our economic
                challenges.

      3.  Pass Federal legislation that improves the conditions of former
                coal workers and distressed Appalachian communities. The
                most important efforts focus on helping miners suffering
                from black lung disease, promoting reclamation by
                stimulating economic development, and connecting rural and
                urban areas by improving broadband access.

    Black Lung
        There is another issue related to addressing the legacy cost of
    coal mining as we work through this economic transition. Rates of black
    lung disease have hit a 25 year high in Appalachian coal mining
    states.\4\ One in five veteran working coal miners in Central
    Appalachia now has this fatal and incurable disease. Since 2000, the
    rate of black lung disease has doubled across the United States. The
    Black Lung Disability Trust Fund pays for benefits to coal miners
    disabled by black lung and their surviving spouses in cases where the
    miners' employer has gone bankrupt or not been found responsible. But
    because of congressional inaction, this Trust Fund is in jeopardy. The
    Trust Fund is supported by a small excise tax paid on coal sold
    domestically, at a rate that was unchanged for more than three decades.
    But Congress failed to extend the tax rate before the end of 2018, and
    it has now been cut by more than half. This will create a long-term
    financial crisis for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund unless it's
    corrected. A May 2018 Government Accountability Office report projected
    that, if the tax rate were to be slashed, the Trust Fund's revenue
    would be unable to cover beneficiary payments and administrative costs
    as soon as 2020 and Trust Fund debt would balloon to over $15 billion
    by 2050.\5\ I urge members of this Committee to work toward extending
    the black lung excise tax immediately.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630470150/black-lung-rate-hits-
    25-year-high-in-appalachian-coal-mining-states.
        \5\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-351.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The RECLAIM Act
        We must restore the lands degraded and polluted by the coal mining
    industry. As we've found at Coalfield, there's economic opportunity in
    reclamation. The RECLAIM Act, which would open up $1B for reclamation,
    has the potential to create thousands of new jobs, and stimulate
    millions more in local economic development activity across the
    country. According to the Department of the Interior's Office of
    Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the RECLAIM Act could
    create 4,600 direct jobs in areas hard hit by losses in the coal
    industry. Reclamation of abandoned mine lands generate thousands of
    other jobs in agriculture, recreation, tourism, renewable energy, and
    retail. The RECLAIM Act doesn't use a cent of taxpayer money. It
    imposes no new fees or taxes.
        Miners can be put back to work restoring the land they love. As
    Wilburn's fellow crew member, himself a former surface miner, remarked
    one day: ``I just blow the mountains up, and now I'm putting them back
    together.'' And importantly, these sites, if properly restored, can
    help mitigate climate change by capturing carbon and connecting diverse
    ecosystems. Indeed, over 1,200 miles of streambed have been permanently
    destroyed by mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia alone. More than
    1 million acres of mountaintop have been blown up. Enough mountaintop
    has been removed in West Virginia alone to bury all of Manhattan.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b04532.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The RECLAIM Act uses existing funds to create jobs and clean up
    dangerous mines. The RECLAIM Act was originally introduced in February
    2016, then again introduced last Congress as H.R. 1731 and reported out
    of the House Natural Resources Committee in October 2017. Still,
    largely because of industry opposition, it has not progressed despite
    its bipartisan support in both chambers. The AML Fund has an explicit
    purpose to clean up dangerous and polluting mines that were left behind
    by coal operators over 40 years ago and continue to burden surrounding
    communities. The RECLAIM Act simply releases these funds so that long
    overdue cleanup can happen now.
        I'd like to extend my thanks to the House Natural Resources
    Committee for passing the bipartisan RECLAIM Act in the 115th Congress.
    Chairman Lowenthal, I know you were a co-sponsor of that legislation,
    as were a number of other members of this Subcommittee. RECLAIM would
    also catalyze longer term economic growth in coal communities by
    helping to lay a foundation for the building new industries in parts of
    the country that badly need a broader economic base.
    AML Pilot Program
        The flexibility and innovation aspired to by RECLAIM has been tried
    out through the AML Pilot program, launched in 2015. This program chose
    six states in which AML funds were allowed to be used on projects
    having a ``nexus'' between mine-cleanup and economic development. For
    example, in West Virginia we've been able to kick-start an aquaponics
    facility, solar installations, and quality housing development on
    former minelands.
        Coalfield Development recently worked with partners throughout
    Central Appalachia to identify and develop 20 development projects in
    communities plagued by abandoned mine lands.\7\ Projects would cost
    over $38 million; however, if these projects were funded, total
    economic output from project spending would be valued at nearly $84
    million. These projects would provide over $22 million in wages to
    employees, support nearly 543 full- and part-time jobs across the
    region, and improve regional GDP (value-added) by over $44 million.
    Further, most projects plan for direct/on-site employment after
    construction/development. See the Reclaiming Appalachia report for more
    info.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ http://appvoices.org/resources/AML-RAC/
    AML_RAC_report_Many_Voices_Many_Solutions-11-13-18-lo-res.pdf.

        These proposals (as well as projects that have already been funded)
    demonstrate the potential for jobs and broader community benefits
    through innovative mine reclamation. Importantly, restoring these lands
    can contribute significantly to reductions in greenhouse gases. The
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nature Conservancy reports:

            A study by The Nature Conservancy and others showed that
            ``natural climate solutions''--such as growing taller trees,
            improving soil health, protecting grasslands and restoring
            coastal wetlands--can amount to 37 percent of the removal of
            carbon dioxide from the atmosphere needed in the next few
            decades.

            In West Virginia, the third most forested state in the United
            States, there is massive potential to contribute to these
            natural climate solutions. And the Central Appalachians is one
            of the most critical landscapes in the country for this
            important work.

            In 2012, The Nature Conservancy completed a study of all the
            forests on the East Coast, identifying the areas predicted to
            withstand the growing impacts of climate change and help ensure
            nature's survival. Among the most resilient landscapes were
            highland forests in West Virginia.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-
    states/west-virginia/stories-in-west_virginia/natural-climate-
    solutions-in-west-virginia/.

        While AML Pilot and other Federal programs have been helpful, there
    is a need for improvement in execution. In many places, implementation
    of the program should increase public awareness and outreach, increase
    transparency in application criteria, review, and decision making, and
    increase emphasis on projects including a mine reclamation component.
    It's important that Federal dollars not be allowed to go to
    politician's pet projects, but rather engage community members and
    advance truly worthy projects that actually have that key ``nexus''
    mentioned above.
    National Rural Broadband
        Finally, we must connect our communities. Integral to stimulating
    economic development, particularly in rural places, is access to
    broadband. While the F.C.C. and Rural Utilities Service provide
    broadband subsidies, and private sector companies like Microsoft are
    rolling out programs, a coordinated, national broadband plan could go a
    long way in helping creating new opportunities in economically
    distressed areas like Appalachia.
        A group in West Virginia called Generation West Virginia has
    launched an important new program called NewForce. NewForce is a
    tuition-free, in-person, team-based intensive tech training program in
    Huntington, West Virginia.\9\ It was created by employers, community
    colleges, and non-profits to ensure West Virginians have the right tech
    skills for companies who are ready to hire in the Mountain State.
    Through the intensive 6-month curriculum, NewForce students work
    together, receive mentorship, and graduate with in-demand software
    development skills and direct connections to jobs. The program finishes
    with a Job Interview Day where the program's employer partners
    interview NewForce graduates for open positions. But a robust broadband
    infrastructure is needed for this to really take off. A coordinated,
    national broadband initiative targeted at rural areas could jump start
    economic development. Congress can make that happen.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/10/16/1622190/0/en/
    Generation-West-Virginia-Mountwest-Jobcase-Partners-Launch-Training-
    Program-to-Build-Tech-Talent-Pipeline.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              the need for a new way of doing economic development
        You must understand just how deep and real the pain and hardship is
    that has been caused by the coal industry's decline. Usually, when
    discussing economic transitions, policy makers announce: ``Well, we can
    just retrain those people.'' The reality is this is so much easier said
    than done. There are hundreds of laid-off miners who got certified in
    new trades, but it doesn't matter because there are not many businesses
    outside the coal industry and therefore not many jobs to be entered
    with that new certification. Some ask, ``Why can't those people just
    move away?'' Well, for one that questions totally ignores that value of
    community and culture and identity. But that question also ignores the
    economic realities of ``land-poor'' homeowners and the unaffordability
    of relocating to high-cost urban areas.
        The right question isn't, ``How do we retrain those people?'' The
    right question is, ``How we strengthen these places which have given
    our country so much and have so much more to give?'' There are smart
    and much-needed government investments that we'll need to answer this
    question, but we aren't asking for handouts. Ultimately, we need
    market-driven solutions that are financially sustainable. We haven't
    lost sight of this, and it's why creating new businesses is central to
    our strategy.
        A question that drives me crazy is, ``Why do those people vote
    against their own interests?'' By ``own interests'' the questioner
    usually means government programs. Well, we don't want to have to
    depend on government programs to feed our families. We are proud to
    have powered this country's development for generations, and we want to
    keep doing so.
        The problem has never been our work ethic. The problem is that we
    put all our eggs in to one basket made of coal, and when the bottom of
    that basket fell out we found ourselves stuck. Now, many ask, ``What's
    the next big thing? What can replace coal?'' This is the wrong
    question. Relying on one industry too heavily is how we got some of the
    highest poverty rates in the country. So, the solution is not to find
    one new industry, but to support entrepreneurs and new businesses in a
    diversified array of sustainable fields. By sustainable, I mean
    financially sustainable, environmentally sustainable, and social
    sustainable. At Coalfield Development, we're pioneering what these
    diversified sectors can look like. We and our partner organizations are
    not asking for charity. We're pitching an investment opportunity.
        Poverty in our region is complex. Even when coal was booming, we
    were still one of the poorest regions in North America.\10\ Such socio-
    economic challenges are wrapped up in issues of power, equity, and
    fairness. For example, huge swaths of West Virginia land is owned by
    corporate land holding companies.\11\ It's very difficult for fresh
    investment and redevelopment to occur when this is the case. Strategies
    for our region can't just be about one industry at one point in time.
    Strategies for our region have to be about justice and opportunity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ For a thorough analysis poverty in Appalachia and the Federal
    Government's role in it, read Uneven Ground: Appalachia Since 1945 by
    Ronald D. Eller (2008) University of Kentucky Press.
        \11\ https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/special_reports/w-va-still-
    owned-by-absentee-companies-report_says/article_f3dd4a64-19a1-59b7-
    bc6d-ee2b49d6bd9b.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Simply using government dollars to ``retrain'' people is not
    enough. There has to be a broader place-based strategy which
    simultaneously creates new businesses and provides the wrap-around
    support needed by workers to overcome poverty.
        In developing such programs, much flexibility will be needed for
    local innovation to flourish. By local I do not mean state governments,
    I mean place-based, grassroots organizations. Program income
    requirements should be loosened. More general operating funds should be
    granted to organizations trying to survive in extremely distressed
    economic environments. Public/private partnerships should be
    encouraged, not discouraged. In many ways, this work is more like early
    phase, basic research and development. This is economic research and
    development to test what is possible and what isn't in this complex
    places. Put more directly, those of on the ground trying to improve
    conditions for our place need to be allowed to be as innovative and
    entrepreneurial as is necessary for real opportunity to flourish.
                                    summary
        While I'm here to say that coal is not coming back, I'm also here
    to say that doesn't mean Appalachia has no future. In fact, the void
    left by coal's collapse has made room for new sprouts of
    entrepreneurship and innovation. While the short-term prognosis is a
    painful transition off coal, if we can approach this transition smartly
    and fairly, the long-term outlook is really bright.
        Appalachia has important assets the rest of the country needs:
    large swaths of forests that are carbon sinks, a dedicated and creative
    work force, a unique and distinctive culture, and a good quality of
    life within driving distance of a significant portion of the country's
    population. We can realize our bright future, albeit with a little help
    and outside investment. But our leaders hold us back from realizing our
    bright future when they promise coal will return. This only dampens the
    latent entrepreneurial spirit that lies dormant among our hills and
    hollers. But that spirit is there.
        Wilburn is one of thousands of former miners whose life was rocked
    by the shut down of his mine. But at age 45 he's about to become a
    college graduate. He's helping us start a sustainable business called
    Refresh Appalachia, which is selling fresh, healthy produce throughout
    the region. Wilburn has transformed a moment of crisis in his life into
    a transformational opportunity.
        Now you have the opportunity to do the same.
        Please don't ignore the economic hurt in Appalachia--or in any
    other coal communities across the country. To ignore us would only mean
    deepening the fissures that are breaking our country apart.
        I hope you'll consider Wilburn, as you consider my suggestions.
    Thank you for your time.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        And now the Chair recognizes Dr. Mason to testify.

     STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MASON, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
           LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

        Dr. Mason. Good morning.
        Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and
    members of the Committee for holding this hearing to discuss
    this very crucial transition.
        The Green New Deal resolution seeks, among other things, to
    achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and
    just transition for all communities and workers while ensuring
    clean air and water, a sustainable environment, and justice and
    equity. While laudable, those objectives conflict in dimensions
    that just can't be reconciled.
        In recent years, wind turbine and transmission line sites
    located far from population centers have largely been
    developed. Further development will require working with
    communities and citizens to ensure a fair and just balance of
    access and resource generation closer to cities and homes.
        Such a process takes time, and jobs will not be created
    until that process comes to a conclusion. A fair and just
    process will take many years. There will be jobs dealing with
    batteries and generation technology, but those will be
    environmentally dirty in different ways. Rechargeable
    batteries, including lead acid, nickel, metal hydride, nickel
    cadmium and lithium ion batteries, all contain toxic materials
    that are hazardous to human health and the environment if
    disposed of inappropriately.
        Wind turbines use considerable amounts of rare earth
    elements to build permanent magnets and electric generators;
    solar photovoltaic installations use similar ingredients. All
    of those are either valuable, in short supply, or both.
        Rather than mining those from conflict areas of the world
    like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, they can be obtained
    through recycling. But jobs and industries related to that
    recycling will require handling concentrated quantities of
    heavy metals and other carcinogenic and mutagenic materials
    risking humans lives as well as soil and groundwater
    contamination.
        Without occupational safety rules, we risk exposing workers
    in those new jobs to both new and known safety hazards like we
    did when exposing miners to black lung disease, construction
    workers to asbestos exposure, and workers and residents of
    nearby neighborhoods to birth defects and cancer arising from
    chemical and heavy metals.
        Residential solar contracts already involve terms similar
    to those that caused the recent real estate bubble, bust, and
    recession. Without consumer protection from rampant
    development, mandating green energy without protecting
    consumers violates the notion of a just and fair transition.
        While the green bond sector is booming, there is no
    assurance that investments funded in the sector are really
    green in any meaningful sense. Bonds and funds selling on the
    popularity of the green moniker usually underperform their
    benchmarks and charge high investor fees. Like the tech bubble
    glamour stocks in the 1990s, a green investment bubble could
    arise that, when popped, could devastate the sector and
    forestall needed development, hurting both jobs and the
    environment.
        If the proposed mandate of carbon neutrality cannot be met
    with production cuts, then achieving that goal will have to
    rely upon offsets. But offsets aren't locally green and
    sometimes arise from poor policy making and fraud. It is not
    clear that the United States should accept other countries'
    offsets, but there is currently no mechanism by which to accept
    or reject their fiat permits. Diplomacy will be necessary to
    establish eligibility requirement, and that will take time.
        The proposed mandate will alter international patterns of
    trade and strategic resources and disrupt global supply chains.
    As markets adapt to the new patterns of energy resource trade,
    market failures will occur. Because energy affects every
    consumer and business in the Nation, such failures may be even
    more disruptive than the recent credit crisis. Even without
    market failures, the mandate will impose widely varying effects
    upon states and their citizens as some states pay more of the
    price for the adjustment than others.
        Because those costs are a complex function of existing
    fossil fuel use as well as energy imports from other states,
    the sponsors of this resolution cannot today say which states
    will suffer worse losses and which others will not. And they
    cannot, therefore, guarantee the social or distributional
    justice that they claim, or even the basis by which such
    justice will be meted out.
        The New Deal created jobs in an economy with more than 20
    percent unemployment. We don't have 20 percent unemployment.
    According to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell,
    unemployment is low, and prices are near 2 percent inflation.
    We are in a good place.
        The proposed resolution is not a New Deal, nor do we
    necessarily need a New Deal. A better historical roadmap might
    be the National Monetary Commission. Following the financial
    panic of 1907, Congress convened the Commission to study in
    depth best central banking practices around the world in order
    to make recommendations for meaningful reform. The result of
    that investigation, the Federal Reserve System, still stands as
    a major innovation that is one of the leading central banks in
    the world in terms of both effectiveness and stability. Our
    environment deserves the same thought and consideration.
        In closing, I would like to note I was first included in
    the congressional greenhouse gas debate almost 10 years ago
    now. I agree that the issue is more important 10 years on,
    absolutely. I applaud Chairman Lowenthal's remarks about the
    need to begin a meaningful discussion here to lead this process
    forward.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Mason follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph R. Mason, Louisiana State University
                       and the University of Pennsylvania
        Economics is built upon comparative statics. Statics is the
    comparison of one economic equilibrium with another. While it is easy
    to say that one equilibrium is better than another, the question of how
    we make the transition is important. Thus, I want to acknowledge that
    this hearing is crucial to the Nation's economic well-being.

        According to the proposed resolution, the Green New Deal seeks:

      (A)  to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and
                just transition for all communities and workers;

      (B)  to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity
                and economic security for all people of the United States;

      (C)  to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United
                States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st
                century;

      (D)  to secure for all people of the United States for generations to
                come----

              (i)  clean air and water;

              (ii)  climate and community resiliency;

              (iii)  healthy food;

              (iv)  access to nature; and

              (v)  a sustainable environment; and

      (E)  to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing
                future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous
                communities, communities of color, migrant communities,
                deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural
                communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the
                elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth
                (referred to in this resolution as ``frontline and
                vulnerable communities'')

        Mandating ``net-zero greenhouse gas emissions'' over a 10-year
    period alone, however, will not ensure a smooth transition. Mandates
    will not curtail CO2 emissions and encourage the push to
    renewables. Often, in fact, mandates instead produce perverse
    incentives.
        The proposed mandate also runs counter to the other resolution
    goals regarding fairness and equality. The tension arises because the
    only way to achieve the mandate in such a short period of time will be
    to take rights and property from some citizens and reallocate that to
    others.

    I. Green Jobs Will Take a Long Time to Develop and Will Involve
            Handling Toxic Metals That Are the Dirty Foundation of Green
            Energy

    A. Rapid Development and Planning for Wind Turbines, Solar Farms, and
            High-Voltage Lines Will Alienate Local Citizens and Violate
            Distributional Justice

        Jobs related to green technologies will take a long time to
    develop. For instance, jobs related to wind turbine installations and
    high-voltage electrical infrastructure can only be made available after
    a long planning process.
        A 30-year old research agenda regarding opposition to wind projects
    by local citizens yields interesting insights into citizens' thinking.
    A recent academic paper summarizing such research suggests that while,
    ``North American support for wind has been consistently high,'' the
    strict interpretation of opposition cannot be tied solely to NIMBY
    behavior by local residents or lack of concern for the environment.\1\
    Distance from turbines obviously matters, but its effect is unclear,
    and sound and visual impacts are tied to annoyance and opposition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Rand, Joseph and Hoen, Ben. ``Thirty years of North American
    wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?'' Energy
    Research & Social Science 29 (2017), 135-148.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Less obvious, however, are conclusions that suggest that the
    strongest influences on successful placements relate to the process by
    which wind turbine sites are selected. Sound and visual impacts can be
    overcome if those aspects are not ignored, but are acknowledged.
    ``Issues of fairness, participation, and trust during the development
    process influence acceptance,'' and ``[v]iewing opposition as something
    to be overcome prevents meaningful understandings and implementation of
    best practices.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All that said, however, the authors note that ``[i]mplementation of
    research findings into practice has been limited.'' \3\ Similar
    research finds nearly identical intricacies to citing high-voltage
    transmission lines required for green energy installations.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Id.
        \4\ Cain, Nicholas L. and Nelson, Hal T. ``What drives opposition
    to high-voltage transmission lines?'' Land Use Policy 33 (2013), 204-
    213.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Those points are important because, ``the `low hanging fruit' wind
    sites (those that have good wind resources and are close to loads and
    transmission, yet far from communities) have largely been developed,
    implying that future wind development likely will happen increasingly
    near communities.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Rand and Hoen (2017). For a more complete review of constraints
    to wind power development, see the U.S. Department of Energy, Wind
    Vision: A new era for wind power in the United States. 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Up to now, considerations regarding reactions of local citizens to
    wind turbine placements and high-voltage infrastructure have not been a
    significant concern. The Green New Deal 10-year mandate, therefore,
    means that wind turbine installations and needed transmission towers
    will be coming to residents' neighborhoods soon, regardless of local
    concerns. The proposed policy is almost designed to alienate local
    citizens in the name of unfunded federalism. The costs of such
    policies--like those incurred by locals in the Camp Fire--will be borne
    by locals while the benefits will be enjoyed elsewhere. Such dispersion
    violates concerns of distributional justice and fairness, counter to
    the bill's own stated goals.

    B. Green Energy Curtails CO2 , but Increases Concentrations
            of Other Pollutants That Damage Soil and Water

        While it is obvious that wind turbines don't produce when the wind
    doesn't blow and solar doesn't produce when the sun doesn't shine and
    many have suggested batteries as a solution, few have thought about
    where the batteries come from or the batteries' own impact on the
    environment.
        Batteries pollute. Rechargeable batteries, including lead-acid,
    nickel-metal hydride, nickel-cadmium, and lithium-ion batteries, all
    contain toxic materials. ``Spent rechargeable batteries contain heavy
    metal elements, including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and [lead] Pb,
    which are hazardous to human health and the environment if disposed of
    inappropriately. . . . Ni, Co, and Pb are all classified as
    carcinogenic and mutagenic materials. In addition to heavy metals, the
    organic and strong acid/alkaline electrolytes of rechargeable batteries
    are also polluting.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Renjie Chen et al. ``Toward sustainable and systematic
    recycling of spent rechargeable batteries.'' Chemical Society Reviews,
    47 (2018), 7239-7302.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So, while the Green New Deal promises clean air, little attention
    is being paid to increased concentration of other pollutants in the
    quest to decrease CO2.

    C. Resources Needed for Green Energy Will Require Transportation and
            Handling of Toxic Materials in High Concentrations in Trade
            With Conflict Nations Worldwide

        Large-scale battery production also consumes other scarce
    resources. Among the above-mentioned elements, ``Co is considered
    strategically important because it is widely used in industry and by
    the military.'' \7\ Yet, Co, in particular, is in short supply and some
    two-thirds of that comes from one of the poorest countries in the
    world, the Democratic Republic of Congo, under contract to Glencore.
    Illustrating the Democratic Republic of Congo's global influence, the
    Financial Times reported last week that Co prices ``hit their lowest
    level in 2 years after a supply surge from the Democratic Republic of
    Congo,'' after falling some 40 percent since November 2018.\8\ The
    Democratic Republic of Congo's uncertain political environment,
    demanding increased royalties and taxes on international mining
    companies, has led mining companies such as Glencore to reduce their
    exposure to the sector.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Id.
        \8\ Sanderson, Henry. ``Cobalt hits 2-year low as DRC ramps up
    supply.'' Financial Times, February 5, 2019.
        \9\ Sanderson, Henry and Hume, Neil. ``Glencore to cut workers at
    key DR Congo copper and cobalt mine.'' Financial Times, February 8,
    2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Resource pressures have led to increased concerns about materials
    recycling. Yet U.S. battery recycling programs are lax in comparison
    with those in the EU and China.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Renjie Chen et al. (2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to recognize further that such recycling concerns
    are not only about the environment. The needs span all manner of green
    technologies not just batteries. ``Wind power demands important amounts
    of rare earth elements (REE) like neodymium and dysprosium to build
    permanent magnets for electric generators and some studies have shown
    that demand of both elements might increase by 700 percent and 2600
    percent, respectively, in the next decades. Additionally, solar
    photovoltaic demands high quantities of silver for electrical
    connections, and other materials like cadmium, tellurium, or indium are
    used for manufacturing p-n junctions in solar thin film technologies
    like CIGS or CdTe. Solar thermal power (STP) also requires silver for
    manufacturing reflectors or nickel and molybdenum for manufacturing
    high strength steel alloys needed in structures.'' \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Valeroa, Alicia; Valerob, Antonio; Calvob, Guiomar; and
    Ortegoa, Abel. ``Material bottlenecks in the future development of
    green technologies.'' Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93
    (2018), 178-200. (Citations omitted.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All of those are in short supply, but little of those are recycled.
    ``[C]urrent recycling rates of some of these materials are almost
    negligible because more often than not the specific required recycling
    processes do not pay off. [Even where recycling is profitable], current
    recycling rates are still very low. For instance, less than 3 percent
    of the lithium contained in a battery is currently recycled. . . .
    [Still] only 42 percent of the total battery waste mass can be recycled
    with current available technology. . . . As a result, the concern
    regarding the impact of green technologies on raw material availability
    is becoming an important issue for countries aiming at guaranteeing
    their sustainability and for the development of green technologies.''
    \12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Valeroa et al. (2018). (Citations omitted.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There will be jobs. But these will be no better (and arguably,
    worse) than those in the existing fossil fuels sector. Those jobs will
    deal with the new pollutants from green energy sources. Even recycling
    programs--to the extent that those are mandated--will require handling
    concentrated quantities of heavy metals and other carcinogenic and
    mutagenic materials, risking human lives and soil and groundwater
    contamination. It would only make sense to put in place occupational
    safety rules to deal with new environmental hazards before mandating
    energy goals. Otherwise, we may repeat prior problems like those
    arising from black lung disease, asbestos exposure, birth defects and
    cancer arising from chemical and heavy metals disposal, and the failed
    remediation efforts of the EPA's Superfund, all in the name of
    CO2 reduction.

    II. The Green Brand Is Already Being Co-Opted

        The Green New Deal sets as a goal ``net-zero greenhouse gas
    emissions,'' but does not define what that means. Green is already a
    marketing tool in many sectors and even where the term is defined, it
    leads people to charge high fees and do bad things in the name of
    ``green.''

    A. Solar Installations Face a Complex Web of Laws and Regulations That
            Are Not Being Taken Into Account in the Mandate

        Take, for instance, the residential solar industry. Many homes have
    installed solar panels. But a large number of those have been bad deals
    for consumers and investors alike.
        Solar contracts are causing a variety of frictions in the real
    estate industry, some of which may turn out to be systemic. For
    instance, the contractual arrangements surrounding the installations--
    often in the form of loans or leases and contracts to provide energy to
    the grid via net metering arrangements--may not transfer with the home
    because they are technically independent of the property upon sale.
    Ancillary negotiations can be necessary to effectuate such transfer,
    but those negotiations can delay closing and raise the costs of real
    estate transactions.
        Consumer and business solar installation contracts are sold and
    securitized just like subprime mortgages, with the cash-flows ``sliced
    and diced'' and sold to investors so that the company can sell more
    solar installations. In 2017, solar securitizations topped $1.5 billion
    and in 2018, they topped $2 billion.\13\ The sector continues to grow
    rapidly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Mendelsohn, Mike. ``Raising capital in very large chunks: The
    rise of solar securitization.'' PV Magazine, November 16, 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In January 2019, Mosaic--which has over $1 billion in
    securitizations outstanding--completed its largest solar securitization
    to date. Mosaic's consumer loans are regulated by, ``CFPB, FTC and
    various state agencies. Loans originated by Mosaic must comply with
    applicable Federal and State law including (but not limited to): Truth
    in Lending Act (``TILA''); Truth in Advertising; Fair Credit Reporting
    Act (``FCRA''); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (``FDCPA''); Equal
    Credit Opportunity; [and] Privacy and Data Security Laws.'' \14\ While
    securitization is not in and of itself bad, one of the key risk factors
    noted in Mosaic's securitization is that the loans and leases can
    contain unique features like payments that rise over time, which ``may
    potentially invite the scrutiny of consumer protection regulators.''
    \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ ABS New Issue Report, ``Mosaic Solar Loan Trust 2019-1,''
    Kroll Bond Rating Agency, February 6, 2019.
        \15\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Green energy installations, therefore, intertwine with consumer
    protections and energy transmission regulations in a web of Federal and
    state combinations whose interaction will be affected by the proposed
    mandate. Mandating green energy without protecting consumers in those
    sectors, therefore, violates the notion of a ``just and fair
    transition.''
    B. Green Bond Funds Sell at a Premium and Charge High Fees for the
            Brand
        Although there is no established formal criteria for the
    qualification of a green bond, the development of the International
    Capital Market Association ``green bond principles'' has promoted a
    modicum of agreement in the sector.\16\ Those principles, while
    voluntary, have formed a process around transparency and disclosure
    with four specific components, namely Use of Proceeds, Process for
    Project Evaluation and Selection, Management of Proceeds, and
    Reporting.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ https://www.icmagroup.org/green-social-and-sustainability-
    bonds/green-bond-principles-gbp/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While green investment funds have proved popular with special
    interests they ignore simple marketing realities: when something is
    more popular it can be sold for a higher price. Existing fossil-free
    funds' demonstrated performance history shows that the funds usually
    underperform even their own chosen benchmarks and charge high fees to
    investors. Like the tech bubble ``glamour stocks'' in the 1990s, a
    green investment bubble could arise that--when popped--could devastate
    the sector and forestall needed development of green technologies.
        Despite such concerns, green bond issuance is growing rapidly. The
    World Bank reported that green bond issuance grew from almost nothing
    in 2012 to over $150 billion in 2017.\17\ After being initially led by
    supra-nationals like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund,
    volumes have shifted to ``a wide range of issuers including corporates,
    banks and local authorities. While 50 percent of supply has come in
    Euro-denominated format, other bonds have been issued in USD, GBP, SEK,
    CAD, AUD and others including PEN'' (Malaysia).\18\ Issue currency is
    dominated in some regions by USD because the United States is the
    largest investor country worldwide. For instance, over 85 percent of
    Latin American green bonds issued since the inception of the green bond
    market were denominated in USD.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ The World Bank at https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/
    news_ext_content/ifc_external_ corporate_site/news+and+events/news/
    perspectives/perspectives-i1c2.
        \18\ Reichelt, Heike and Keenan, Colleen. The Green Bond Market: 10
    years later and looking ahead. Washington, DC: The World Bank, December
    2017.
        \19\ Mullin, Keith. `` LatAm green bonds--Building Momentum.''
    Environmental Finance (supported by the World Bank and the Swiss
    Federation).

    C. Green Power Isn't Always Green: Offsets Cannot be Relied Upon to
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Decrease Global CO2 Emissions

        The troubling aspect of the USD concentration is that the United
    States is the key market for many of the green products produced by
    some nations. One of those products is CO2 offsets.
        If the proposed mandate of carbon neutrality cannot be met with
    production cuts, then achieving that goal will have to rely upon
    offsets. But offsets, at best, aren't locally green (merely reflecting
    somebody else's green achievements) and, at worst, merely reflect
    unjust enrichment and outright fraud.
        For instance, in February 2016, the New York State Public Service
    Commission issued its ``Order Resetting Retail Energy Markets and
    Establishing Further Process,'' which, in part, required that companies
    selling renewable energy packages to consumers actually obtain such
    energy from such sources rather than just using offsets purchased from
    the market.\20\ While the issue remains unsettled, the point is that
    green energy should actually come from green energy sources, not just
    offsets purchased from somewhere else.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Giannasca, N. ``New York Public Service Commission's ESCO
    order set for preliminary injunction hearing.'' Energy and
    Environmental Law Blog. May 4, 2016. ``. . .to ensure that these
    products contribute to greater renewable energy achievement . . .
    energy labels are based on the environmental attributes of the energy
    purchased by the load serving entity and are not affected by the
    separate purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (``RECs'').
    Currently, to meet this requirement the ESCO must guarantee that at
    least 30 percent of the energy provided to the customer will be
    generated by deliverable renewable energy resources, including biomass,
    biogas, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy, and will include
    renewable attributes.'' [Emphasis added.]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The reasoning behind the requirement is sound, because it is often
    not clear where the offsets come from or whether they are meaningful.
    For instance, EU Clean Development Mechanism (``CDM'') projects are
    granted carbon credits based on the extent to which the project is
    expected to result in fewer emissions than would otherwise have
    occurred. ``Companies, therefore, have an incentive to either inflate
    the estimate of emissions that would have occurred without the project
    or claim that the project will reduce emissions by more than it
    actually does.'' \21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Mason, Joseph R. ``Financial regulation and fraud in CO2
    markets.'' Research Handbook of Investing in the Triple Bottom Line,
    Sabri Boubaker, Douglas Cummings and Doc Nguyen, eds., Cheltenham:
    Edward Elgar, 2018, 9-28.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to Mason (2018):

            In order to constrain firms from mischaracterizing their
            projects, the CDM mechanism requires third-party validation and
            verification before a project receives carbon credits. Third-
            party verification is carried out by Designated Operation
            Entities (``DOEs'') certified by the CDM Executive Board. Even
            independent third-party auditors, however, may be susceptible
            to bribes or collusion to manipulate the results.

            In 2008 and 2009, respectively, the U.N. temporarily suspended
            two independent organizations--Norwegian company Det Norske
            Veritas and Swiss firm SGS--after `spot checks found flaws in
            their methodologies'. At the time, these two companies were
            dominating the validation/verification market (see Szabo,
            2008). Investigations showed that both companies had approved
            projects without sufficient review.

            The U.N. inspection found one company had a flawed review
            process, inadequate preparation and training of their auditing
            staff, and an overall failure to assign auditors with the
            proper technical skills. The other was suspended after an
            inspection raised concerns about staff qualifications and the
            quality of its internal reviews.

            In a follow-up review in 2009, the five largest DOEs'
            validation processes were scored on an A-to-F scale. None
            received a score higher than a D. \22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Id. (Citations omitted.)

        Even when they are valid, offsets are usually issued as part of a
    political process to spur economic development. Using offsets judged as
    a valid tradeoff for development in one country as a basis for
    achieving carbon neutrality in another runs the risk of ``robbing Peter
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    to pay Paul,'' with no net decrease in global emissions.

    III. Energy Is Provided in a Complex International Marketplace

        The point of the above is that setting a mandate before setting the
    rules of the game--or even some of the rules of the game--is a recipe
    for disaster. That disaster will relate to highly complex markets that
    supply inputs to every home and business in America and the world. Such
    a disruption could have far larger effects on economic growth and green
    development than even the recent credit crisis. Sound rules, therefore,
    are more important than a blanket mandate.
        The production and delivery of energy takes place within a complex
    system of three interacting layers: (1) the physical layer consisting
    of the hard assets used for production, transportation, and storage of
    primary energy sources, and for the transformation of one form of
    energy into another; (2) markets for energy that consist of interacting
    spot, forward, option and long-term structured transactions; and, (3)
    the system of national laws, regulations, and international treaties.
    Federal energy policy, market policy, and infrastructure policy,
    therefore, go hand in hand so that policies in one area affect the
    others.

    A. Infrastructure Policy Will Involve Not Just Local, But Global,
            Decisions

        Changes to Federal policy will affect not just local, but global
    energy infrastructure. Energy markets have evolved through history into
    a highly integrated, global system. In any such system, shocks such as
    the proposed energy mandate propagate across different geographic
    locations and specific commodity markets through very complicated and
    constantly evolving channels of transmission.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198.012

        .epsFor instance, the graph above shows global oil and natural gas
    trade routes in 2017. If the United States uses less oil, those trade
    routes will change as other countries use the oil we produce as well as
    that which we choose not to import. Nearly every country views energy
    as a strategic resource. As a result, global treaties and trade
    relationships will affect such flows, necessitating negotiations and
    international diplomacy regarding such changes.

    B. Market Trading Will Require Policy, Too

        Energy products are actively traded, in which the market
    transactions can be financial or physical. Financial transactions are
    settled in cash, while physical contracts are settled in delivery of
    the related commodity. Infrastructure is crucially related to delivery,
    in that delivery cannot occur without scheduling necessary
    infrastructure well in advance. Thus, there exists a fundamental inter-
    relationship between infrastructure and markets.
        In addition, there exist several market layers of derivatives
    products, including futures, options, and swaps that may be combined
    with each other in a wide variety of combinations. Those often trade in
    conjunction with a wide variety of weather derivatives that are
    associated with resource demand.
        Such products are traded on organized markets around the world.
    Many such markets have consolidated in recent years, providing
    financial market efficiency by virtue of centralized trading that can
    more efficiently drive out price anomalies.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Such consolidation, however, does not prevent market failures.
    Electricity markets, for instance, use complex arrays of products to
    trade around probable shortfalls in production and infrastructure.

        Sometimes traders and markets get things wrong. For instance, last
    fall a trader on NASDAQ's Nordpool electricity market left the exchange
    holding over =100 million in trading losses.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Stafford, Philip and Sheppard, David. ``Trader blows =100m
    hole in Nasdaq's Nordic power market,'' Financial Times. September 13,
    2018.

            Nasdaq said the size of his positions blew through several
            layers of safeguards designed to protect the clearing house
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            from hefty losses.

            The catalyst for the trading loss was a series of backfiring
            bets on the price difference between German and Nordic power
            markets, according to multiple sources in the industry. Mr
            Aas's trades were positioned for the gap between the two to
            narrow, but instead it widened sharply to a level 17 times
            larger than normal.

            That move was triggered, in part, by a jump in the price of
            carbon allowances in Europe that have been the best performing
            commodity so far this year and a source of bumper profits for
            hedge funds and investment banks. Rising carbon prices, which
            are trading at a decade high, have dragged up natural gas and
            electricity markets in continental Europe.

            At the same time, a forecast of wetter than previously
            anticipated weather in the Nordic region, where hydropower is a
            big contributor to electricity supplies, pushed prices on the
            so-called Nordpool market far lower. \24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Id.

        There will be high-stakes trading in energy around the transition.
    Policy uncertainties, weather uncertainties, and market risks will
    commingle to create risky conditions in the very energy markets that
    U.S. consumers and businesses rely upon every day for their energy
    needs. A disruption to those markets can devastatingly cripple U.S.
    prosperity and economic security, two of the main goals of the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    resolution.

    C. Different States Will Be Affected Differently

        Disruptions to trade and costs will also be felt differently across
    the United States. The mandate will require states to reduce fossil
    fuel use by 55 percent to 150 percent of their current consumption (see
    below). Such wide differentials will have varying effects upon states
    and their citizens, with states facing costlier transitions paying more
    of the price than others.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The costs imposed upon individual states in the transition are
    a complex function of fossil fuel production, fossil fuel reliance, and
    infrastructure that supports the transition in any chosen geographical
    region. Any one state should not be penalized if sufficient regional
    infrastructure does not exist to support its own transition.
        Because those costs are a complex function of local fossil fuel use
    as well as energy imports from other states, the sponsors of this
    resolution cannot, today, say which states will suffer worse losses
    than others and cannot, therefore, guaranty social or distributional
    justice (or even the basis by which such justice will be meted out).

    IV. Summary and Conclusion

        The New Deal created jobs that left a lasting imprint on American
    infrastructure, such as the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Lincoln
    Tunnel, and the Hoover Dam. Those projects provided jobs in an
    environment of more than 20 percent unemployment, nationally. We don't
    have 20 percent unemployment today. According to Fed Vice Chairman
    Jerome Powell, ``The U.S. economy is now in a good place. At the
    moment, unemployment is low, prices are near 2 percent inflation, so
    we' re in a good place now.'' \25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ Condon, Christopher; Oguh, Chibuike; and Boesler, Matthew.
    ``Fed's Powell Says Economy in `Good Place' With Low Unemployment,''
    Bloomberg, February 6, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While unemployment may be high in some areas, those areas are not
    necessarily where any new jobs will be. Moreover, the skills required
    for any new jobs are not guaranteed to be associated with any skills
    possessed by workers displaced in the transition. Even assuming enough
    new jobs are created to make up for the old jobs, new jobs requiring
    different skills will render workers in the old sectors obsolete and
    leave a ``lost generation'' behind.
        The proposed mandate is no foundation for a New Deal. The funding
    and aid provided in the real New Deal took place in a very different
    institutional environment.
        The RFC--created by President Hoover as the main means of New Deal
    funding--was a flexible mechanism that ultimately allocated more than
    $50 billion in stimulus money (about $900 billion in 2017 dollars using
    a CPI-based inflator, $2.1 trillion using the value of a consumer
    bundle, or $13.2 trillion using the relative share of GDP \26\).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ The change in the value of the dollar is measured from 1935 to
    the most recent year available, 2017. See https://
    www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result.php?year_source
    =1935&amount=1&year_result=2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Such flexibility was crucial for success in a time of economic
    emergency. The flexibility was achieved by making the RFC part of the
    Executive branch of the U.S. Government so that changes in the scale or
    scope of RFC powers could be enacted by Executive Order.
        The ``operation was too large to fund directly out of Federal
    budget allocations, so the RFC was founded as a government-owned
    corporation with an initial appropriation from Congress and the right
    to borrow more money from the public at large.'' \27\ Because it was
    not part of the government, it was not required to adhere to Civil
    Service regulations for hiring and promotion and was not subject to
    congressional General Accounting Office audits.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Id.
        \28\ Mason, Joseph R. ``Reconstruction Finance Corporation
    Assistance to Financial Institutions and Commercial & Industrial
    Enterprise in the U.S. Great Depression, 1932-1937.'' Resolution of
    Financial Distress, Stijn Claessens, Simeon Djankov, and Ashoka Mody,
    eds., Washington: World Bank Press, 2001, 167-204.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        RFC decisions were largely made at local levels. Field office
    managers had authority to approve loans up to $100,000 (about $1.8
    million in 2017 dollars using a CPI-based inflator, $4.3 million using
    the value of a consumer bundle, or $26 million using the relative share
    of GDP \29\). In practice, each field office was almost completely
    independent and only major problems were taken up with Washington.''
    \30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ The change in the value of the dollar is measured from 1935 to
    the most recent year available, 2017. See https://
    www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result.php?year_source
    =1935&amount=1&year_result=2018.
        \30\ Mason (2001).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Like a private equity firm, there were, two guiding principles.
    First, RFC programs only gave credit or other assistance to
    ``reasonably sound institutions.'' \31\ Second, successful RFC programs
    often ``took a measure of control over institutions to calm junior
    creditors and nurse firms to profitability and recovery over the long
    run. . . . If a field office showed a profit, everything was fine; if
    not, someone would be detailed from Washington to see what was the
    matter, and possibly a new field office manager would be appointed.''
    \32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Id.
        \32\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The government didn't just give money away in the New Deal. It made
    money.

        Maybe, if we give the environment the attention that the President
    and Congress gave the New Deal back in the 1930s, we could come to a
    more meaningful solution. The current mandate does not show sufficient
    depth of thought to set a foundation upon which to move forward.
        In order to establish such a foundation, a better historical
    analogy might be the National Monetary Commission. Following the
    Financial Panic of 1907, Congress convened the Commission to study best
    central banking practices around the world in depth in order to make
    recommendations for meaningful reform. The result of that
    investigation, the Federal Reserve System, still stands as a major
    innovation that is one of the leading central banks in the world in
    terms of both effectiveness and stability.
        Our environment deserves the same thought and consideration.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you very much.
        And I want to thank the panel for their testimony. I remind
    the members of the Committee, as a Committee Rule, we impose a
    5-minute limit on questions.
        I am going to now begin to recognize Members for any
    questions they may wish to ask.
        I am going to defer my questions and begin with Congressman
    Levin for the first set of questions.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair Lowenthal. I appreciate you
    holding today's hearing. And I am pleased that our Committee
    continues to discuss the broad impacts of climate change.
        This month so far, we have held hearings highlighting both
    the incredibly important science that underpins our
    understanding of climate change as well as the way our
    communities have been directly affected by the changing
    climate.
        Dealing with climate change in a bold and aggressive way is
    no fairytale. Doing nothing and expecting this problem to take
    care of itself is the real fairytale. Our discussions have
    clarified the urgent need to accelerate the country's clean
    energy production in order to reduce greenhouse gas intensive
    fossil few use. I would also add that the carbon footprint of
    renewables is negligible when compared to fossil fuels. As an
    example, the carbon emissions per unit of PV electricity is
    one-tenth or less of even the most efficient natural gas power
    plant.
        A change to renewables is absolutely essential. However, we
    must account for the way that this change will affect
    communities across the Nation and ensure a just transition.
    Clean energy production is an incredible economic opportunity
    that should be shared by all, especially those that have been
    dependent on fossil fuel production.
        Further, we need to account for communities of color, rural
    communities, and others who haven't historically been afforded
    equal economic opportunities. In California, our economy has
    grown because of the clean energy revolution.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues and friends on
    this Committee to ensure as many communities as possible can
    share these benefits.
        With that, I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Dennison
    and Mr. Hille. And I would be interested to get both of your
    perspective on this.
        Mr. Dennison and Mr. Hille, in his written testimony, Dr.
    Mason says, and I quote, ``Even assuming enough new jobs are
    created to make up for the old jobs, new jobs requiring
    different skills will render workers in the old sectors
    obsolete and leave a `lost generation' behind.''
        Mr. Dennison and Mr. Hille, what is wrong with this
    mentality? Should we, as a society, just write off coal miners
    or oil and gas workers as a ``lost generation''?
        Mr. Dennison. No. The solar energy already employs more
    than the oil industry and the coal industry combined in our
    country. That is a key point. At Coalfield Development, we
    incubated the first solar installation company in southern West
    Virginia. Our first crew chief was a former underground miner
    whose skills parlayed actually quite well. He was already a
    licensed electrician. Because of the nature of the equipment
    that he worked in, it only took 2 months to get him trained up.
    And the work ethic is phenomenal. Work ethic is not our
    problem. And because we can be adaptive and creative and we
    have that gumption and grit, I don't think the current work
    force has to be obsolete, no.
        Mr. Hille. I would add that, because of the technical
    nature of these jobs, as Brandon said, there is a very fast
    adoption curve. There is also a lot of work in addition to the
    work in renewables in energy efficiency, and that can also be
    picked up very quickly.
        The former miners that we have been working with in our new
    energy interns program go through 6 months of training at the
    end of which they are certified by the Business Professionals
    Institute, BPI certified, in order to do this same work. Some
    of them have been placed with housing organizations working on
    some of the deficient housing stock that we have in Appalachia.
    And also, some of them are interested in starting their own new
    businesses, which, as you know, is the path to prosperity and
    the great American Dream.
        I will just mention too that this is an investment that
    pays for itself. When you do energy efficiency, particularly
    commercial energy efficiency, that can pay for itself very
    quickly, because commercial energy meters charge both a demand
    rate and a usage rate. And when you implement efficiency
    measures, you reduce both of those. Often the demand rate is
    half of a commercial energy bill.
        As an example, we helped a grocery warehouse in London,
    Kentucky, do a lighting retrofit. It was a $200,000 investment.
    They are saving $100,000 a year on their utility costs. It paid
    for itself in 2 years, and they are now seeing that as a direct
    add to their bottom line.
        A lot of this new investment can pay for itself.
        Mr. Levin. Mr. Hille and Mr. Dennison, I thank you both
    very much for your work to accelerate our transition to a
    sustainable economy and for your work on a just transition.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield my time.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Gosar, for 5
    minutes.
        Dr. Gosar. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I would like to enter into the record two
    articles from the Financial Times, ironically today, ``China's
    demand for electric vehicles charges copper.'' That is always
    great for my state because we are known as the Copper State,
    one the five C's. And ``Australia hopes to cash in on new
    cobalt rush.''
        I would like to have those entered in the record.
        By the way, for everybody that is wondering why I have this
    up there, anybody want to gather what that is? That is a nodule
    of rare earth that comes from the Mojave Desert in my district.
    It is particularly high in nvidium, by the way. OK.
        Mr. Dennison, you made some comments, that we need to
    correct the record. You said that there were by far more solar
    jobs in the country. That is not correct. The oil and gas
    natural industry supports 10.3 million U.S. jobs and nearly 8
    percent of the U.S. economy. As of 2017, 250,271 American
    workers worked in the solar industry. This is 9,000 jobs fewer
    than in 2016. AWEA has or this wind area has 105,000. So, be
    careful with the facts.
        And, by the way, this is from the Solar Foundation, so
    these are facts from yours.
        And I am really glad that you brought up the overburden
    area because it is very pertinent to these things, these rare
    earths, because overburden has been found to have lots of rare
    earths that are attainable here.
        I mean, repurposing miners for the new advent of that
    mining industry is very, very important to me, particularly
    when we are so dependent on these.
        Dr. Mason, you mentioned in your testimony that renewable
    technology, such as wind farms and solar panels, require
    various critical minerals and rare earth elements to function.
    The Green New Deal calls for the United States to run
    exclusively on clean and renewable energy in 10 years.
        Can you remark how the global market for critical minerals
    may respond to a surge in demand of this magnitude? And, also,
    talk to me about who controls the marketplace for these rare
    earths.
        Dr. Mason. Well, the article in the Financial Times this
    morning was very, very interesting in that regard. It named
    zero American companies involved in the Democratic Republic of
    Congo. If you are familiar with the results of their elections
    that were kind of muscled through last week, you will note they
    are not democratic at all.
        It also focused on the artisanal mining, people just
    digging in the ground to get this valuable cobalt to sell it to
    make more money than they can make from anywhere else. You can
    call that small business if you want and entrepreneurial, but
    it is tremendously dirty. There are no safety regulations. We
    have children working in these artisanal mines, just as we had
    in West Virginia many, many years ago, and tried to regulate
    out the United States and did so ultimately successfully with
    safety regulations.
        These metals are extremely valuable. They are in demand
    throughout the world. China is beating us to the rush, as are
    European mining conglomerates operating in these countries with
    virtually no safety regulations or environmental protections,
    and those need to be calculated in to the overall environmental
    footprint, not just carbon footprint, of these technologies.
        And I would also like to note, even with regard to the
    carbon footprint of solar, that doesn't factor in what is
    called the rejected energy, as long as we keep wasting energy
    and having it go out in the form of unused heat, which is where
    66 percent of energy goes, according to the Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory. We are going to be in the same problem for
    a long time.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, in fact, you bring it up, that we are
    going to be 100 percent dictated. I mean, China has this
    policy, One Belt, One Road, and they are actually extorting
    much of the discipline and oversight and control of these rare
    critical minerals. You bring up the causticness of particularly
    smeltering these rare earths. They are bound, so current
    technology uses high concentrations of sulfuric acid, in which
    China is very lackadaisical. The United States is much more
    disciplined within it.
        In fact, a good friend of mine right now is experimenting
    with high concentrations of citric acid in order to extract it.
    So, we do these better than anybody else in the world, and if
    new technology is so predicated upon it, we ought to be
    investing in this. And overburden is one of those areas, if I
    am not mistaken. Am I not correct, Dr. Mason?
        Dr. Mason. Yes, absolutely. All energy is dirty. We need to
    conserve energy.
        Dr. Gosar. I am running out of time, but I have always been
    one of those that believes in all of the above. In fact, my
    good friend actually has a power company in north Scottsdale
    that runs on solar during the day and gas at night, utilizing
    that baseload principle. Not all energy is the same. You have
    to be able to have a continual output, wattage, along those
    lines, to make sure that everybody--when they flip the switch,
    they can actually have power.
        With that, I will yield back and wait for a second round.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Gosar.
        Before I recognize Mr. Brown, I would like to say, my staff
    has just supplied me--at the risk of just taking it to another
    level, this discussion between Mr. Dennison and Mr. Gosar, in
    terms of exactly the jobs that are impacted--and my
    understanding, if we are talking about direct jobs, that is,
    jobs where people are hired in or by the oil and gas industry,
    versus direct jobs in solar, there are approximately 150,000,
    at this moment, direct jobs where people are hired by the
    industry in oil and gas, and 50,000 direct jobs where they are
    hired by the industry in coal, which is still less than the
    242,000 which are directly hired by solar at this moment.
        But there is a discussion, and I think it is a reasonable
    one, in terms of the impact and those are the direct jobs.
        Dr. Gosar. If the gentleman would yield.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Certainly.
        Dr. Gosar. A lot of those jobs are for the construction of
    solar fields, so they are temporary. They are not long lasting.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I appreciate that. It is important that we
    kind of clarify and we realize how complex these issues really
    are.
        Representative Brown, you have 5 minutes.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of
    Representative Bishop who is not here today, I am not going to
    read my statement, yes, indeed. Although I may make reference
    to it, or refer to it, I should say.
        So, for the record, this hearing is not about the Green New
    Deal. This hearing is about what are some of the things we need
    to do to account for, make adjustments--as the energy sector
    continues a kind of conversion or transition to renewable
    energy sources and whether we are on the same pace that we are
    on or whether we, through legislation and policy changes,
    accelerate that pace. It is important for us to ask and answer
    the questions, what does it mean for the labor force; what does
    it mean for poor and communities of color; and how does
    everyone benefit from this conversion, regardless of the rate
    in which it occurs.
        My question, which I think almost anyone can speak to--but,
    Mr. Dennison, I certainly would like to hear your thoughts; Ms.
    Farley, yours; and Ms. Shrader, yours--what are some specific,
    and, Mr. Dennison, you mentioned the 33-6-3 model. What are
    some specific Federal authorizations or appropriations, whether
    in higher education, work force development, or Federal
    procurement, that can assist the development of that work force
    as we convert from carbon-based to renewable energy sources, or
    that assist the creation of businesses, that might replace a
    coal industry in a particular community? What are some of the
    specific Federal authorizations and appropriations that we
    might consider?
        Thank you.
        Mr. Dennison. I would be happy to answer that. For the
    record, I am quoting a Forbes article from January 25, 2017,
    with my figures. It is specific to electricity generation,
    specific to that process, but also a lot of pipeline jobs, a
    lot of gas jobs----
        Mr. Brown. Mr. Dennison, are you responding to----
        Mr. Dennison. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Brown. Not on my time, please.
        Mr. Dennison. The 33-6-3, the Appalachian Regional
    Commission has been indispensable. It is an example of a place-
    based Federal policy that I think is really important to this
    transition, rather than broad policies that treat every region
    the same. I will also say the RECLAIM Act is a really important
    piece of legislation for our region, and so is the
    reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Lands Program in the
    first place.
        Something that happened a few years back was the AML Pilot
    Program for my lands, which allowed for much more local
    flexibility, to be innovative and to help start some new
    businesses. I think that level of flexibility really is
    critical.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you.
        Ms. Farley. Thank you. I would also offer--we talked a lot
    about energy efficiency today, and just like reduce, reuse, and
    recycle, that first R is reduce. I think when we have
    conversations about the energy transition, we must remember the
    importance of energy efficiency and the role energy efficiency
    plays in reducing our demand and consumption for energy first.
        And there are many opportunities on the national, state,
    and local level to support energy policies, specifically
    focused on increasing energy efficiency programs, as well as
    weatherization assistance programs that have often suffered
    from reduced Federal funding. These programs are specifically
    tied to increased job opportunities in the energy efficiency
    sector. As we have heard a couple of times today from Mr.
    Dennison and Mr. Hille, energy efficiency can reduce high-
    energy burdens on working families, which, in turn, supports
    community wealth-building.
        Energy efficiency improves economic stability by increasing
    entrepreneurship and thriving wage/job opportunities. Energy
    efficiency also increases health by reducing harmful carbon
    emissions that pollute our air. And also again, energy
    efficiency promotes economic development and community wealth-
    building----
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Ms. Farley. I am sorry for
    interrupting, but I do want to hear from Ms. Shrader. These 5
    minutes go real fast.
        Ms. Farley. Sure thing.
        Ms. Shrader. The outdoor recreation economy is really
    important in this piece, because I think a lot of rural
    communities can transition to this outdoor recreation economy
    and then build a diversified economy with manufacturing
    companies and tech companies and health care right in their
    communities, in these rural places. So, one of the things that
    is really important to us is to take a lead on protecting
    public lands.
        The reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund, and the public lands package, and also the CORE Act that
    was just introduced by Congressman Neguse and Senator Bennet,
    is really important in making sure that we have a diversified
    economy that is going to be a great place for families to
    thrive.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And next, Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today.
        As the gentleman said, this isn't about the Green New Deal,
    but obviously everything about energy would play into this idea
    of a Green New Deal. So, I have been trying to look at the
    scope of what we are talking about. If we truly are trying to
    replace all fossil fuels in 10 years, and if we are looking at
    world energy production or world energy use, the data that I
    found shows--and this was 2006 data, so it is a little bit
    old--but the world used 471 quads of energy--a quad is 1 with
    15 zeros after it--a quadrillion BTUs of energy, and the world
    use is projected in 2020 to use 500 quads of energy.
        Of those 471 quads, 408 of it were produced from fossil
    fuels, and only 63 quads of the energy consumed in the world
    came from renewables. So, if you look globally, that is quite a
    challenge to replace 408 quads--actually, more than that now--
    of fossil fuels in a 10-year time frame.
        But if we look at it just here in the United States--in
    2017, the United States used 98 quads of energy. And of that,
    77 percent of it, or 76 quads, came from fossil fuels. And the
    highest rate was from natural gas, about 32 percent; petroleum,
    about 28 percent; and coal, about 18 percent. So, here in the
    United States, we still only have a little over 20 percent of
    our energy that comes from renewables, and that includes
    nuclear.
        And I know a lot of people don't like to include nuclear in
    it. If you take the nuclear out, it is only less than 13
    percent of all of our energy comes from renewables right now.
        So, we are talking about a huge transition to go to 100
    percent renewables, no fossil fuels in 10 years, especially if
    we don't like nuclear, which is a very clean form of energy as
    well.
        But I was interested in what Mr. Dennison said about the
    number of jobs in solar versus coal and petroleum. He contends
    that there are more jobs in solar now than coal and petroleum
    combined, which creates a bit of a conundrum, because we are
    trying to figure out what to do with displaced coal workers.
    And since solar is only a tiny fraction of the renewables that
    are out there now, yet there are more people in that field than
    in coal and petroleum combined, it seems like there would be a
    huge demand and jobs available for these displaced coworkers,
    if you just train them to be in the solar field.
        Can any of our panelists tell me why there is not a huge
    demand for workers in the solar field and why we are having to
    come up with tourism and other forms of employment to help
    these displaced workers?
        Mr. Dennison. There is demand. We just certified 20 of them
    last year, and although renewables still make up a small piece
    of the pie, renewables have been the fastest growing piece of
    the pie. There is lots of innovation and investment in
    renewables.
        Mr. Westerman. Dr. Mason, can you address, from an economic
    standpoint, the manpower per million BTUs it takes to do
    renewable energy versus fossil fuel energy? And would there be
    a lot more workers required in the renewable field?
        Dr. Mason. Now you are getting into math that makes more
    sense. From an economic perspective, it is not just number of
    jobs, it is the value of those jobs, whether denominated in
    dollars or denominated in energy production, as you just did
    with your mathematics.
        The examples quoted here, one required 6 months of
    additional training. It is wonderful that that is provided. I
    come originally from Gary, Indiana, and have faced a severe
    transition in that region of the country through the 1980s and
    1990s. Retraining is absolutely crucial. We can overcome some
    of these humps, but currently, none of the legislation plans
    for that. We have programs in place in small places of the
    country. We do need to expand those to make this a meaningful
    transition.
        Mr. Westerman. If it takes more workers per unit of output,
    won't that drive the price extremely high?
        Dr. Mason. Well, either the price has to be high or the
    payment to workers has to be low, but we are not neutral with
    respect to price.
        Mr. Westerman. I am out of time.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Representative Case, you have 5 minutes.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the
    courtesy of letting me join you today.
        Dr. Bissett--did I say that right?
        Dr. Bissett. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Case. OK. Thank you. My questions to you have two big
    assumptions built into them, that I am asking you to get beyond
    for a little bit. Number 1, climate change is real; Number 2,
    energy transition is inescapable, it is just when and how we do
    it. That is my working assumption. You may not agree with what
    I just put forward, but I want to focus on, if I am correct,
    and if Congress as a result, a majority of Congress, enacts
    policies that are purposely designed to move us to renewable
    energy at the expense of coal, and if there is, therefore, a
    tremendous consequence to the businesses and communities that
    you represent, how do we best transition those communities?
        That is my critical question. I am not asking you whether
    we have to transition or not. I am just asking you, for now,
    how do we do it? How do we best do it?
        And as a prelude, just tell me a little bit more about your
    chamber. You have 550 businesses. How many of those businesses
    are directly or indirectly dependent on coal?
        Dr. Bissett. When I took the job, Congressman, I didn't
    think many were, and I quickly learned I was wrong. Again, my
    chamber is outside of the coalfields and a great many are. And
    again the lawyers, engineers, and accountants like I talked
    about, land holding company, barges, all those things kind of,
    not the coal mining jobs, but the indirect jobs.
        As to your question, my big concern would be that you can't
    just look at those direct jobs that direct impact, you have to
    look beyond that.
        Mr. Case. OK.
        Dr. Bissett. Because when the downturn occurred,
    Congressman, it really affected us there, and we don't really
    mine coal where my chamber is located.
        Mr. Case. I see. So, has your chamber institutionally
    considered the best form of transition for a post-coal energy
    world? Have you actually undertaken the worst-case scenario
    discussion, from your perspective, of how do we best
    transition?
        Mr. Dennison, in his testimony, had three bullets. His
    bullets were: (1) create a national just transition task force;
    (2) create a national program to support coal communities to
    include the POWER Act; and (3) pass Federal legislation to
    improve the conditions of former coal workers in distressed
    communities, to include the RECLAIM Act. Is that a good
    program, from your perspective? Do you think that will get the
    job done? How do we plan for a transition in a way that will
    best assist other communities that will be negatively impacted
    if we don't get ahead of the transition now?
        Dr. Bissett. It is a great question. It will take time to
    do that. Coalfield Development is a dues paying member of my
    chamber. Brandon is a board member of my chamber, and we
    support a lot of his work force development programs and
    recently adopted a resolution in support of it.
        We may disagree on the position we are in, and I am not
    trying to move away from your assumptions, but Appalachia needs
    more educational team and Appalachia needs livelihoods. And
    that goes back to my concern. When we saw the downturn
    previously, we were wondering when it would stop. Seeing it
    return now, our concern again is that there are going to be
    votes made here that will put us back in that jeopardy.
        It is a very tenuous time, a fragile time, like I was
    talking about. But, no, we are supportive of other economic
    development. I think we can do both, Congressman. I think we
    can mine coal, I think we can have a new economy. I think we
    can do it all. Because that new economy will benefit from low-
    cost, reliable electricity generated by natural gas and coal.
        Mr. Case. I am not sure I agree with your assumption over
    the long term. I think you are taking a bit of a short- to mid-
    term view of it. I am looking out not 10, but 20-plus years. If
    you had the time to plan for some kind of a transition where
    coal would be not acceptable anymore in any major scale, how do
    we get ahead of that? That is really my question, how do we
    together plan the best possible transition here? Going back to
    one question, you haven't undertaken that scenario within the
    chamber or anything like that, like, how do we actually move
    beyond this?
        Dr. Bissett. We haven't currently, because right now, there
    has been this expansion, this growth, especially in the
    southern coalfields. Northern coalfields have not been that way
    in West Virginia, but they have had the natural gas----
        Mr. Case. Has anybody in the coal industry done this
    transition thinking and planning in the coal communities? Has
    anybody actually come together for a larger picture, how do we
    transition out of this, if, in fact, we do have to have an
    energy transition away from fossil fuel----
        Dr. Bissett. I am sure as they look at long-term
    investments in their coal mines and wells, I am sure there is
    concern about that. But at the same time, the market is
    currently there and they are feeding that market. If they don't
    feed it in the United States, they are going to feed it
    internationally.
        Mr. Case. No, I understand that. That is currently.
        Dr. Bissett. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Case. And I am trying to think out into the future for
    the most orderly way of doing this as opposed to having
    circumstances thrusted upon you, which is not a very good time
    to do emergency transition planning.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        And now we turn to Representative Graves for your 5 minutes
    of questions.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    holding this hearing, and I appreciate all of your testimony
    and appreciate you being here today.
        Ms. Farley, I represent south Louisiana, and I was looking
    at your testimony where you made mention that Birmingham,
    Atlanta, New Orleans, and Memphis hold the greatest--and I am
    quoting your testimony--hold the greatest energy burdens for
    low-income households.
        I pulled some data that we had used last week in a hearing
    showing the different energy prices per kilowatt hours in the
    states. Alabama, for example, is 12.41 per kilowatt hour;
    Georgia is 12.26; Tennessee is 10.79; and Louisiana, coming in
    at the lowest cost in the Nation, is 9.37. Whereas other
    states--we had the governor of Massachusetts here last week who
    was here advocating for renewable policies. The state of
    Massachusetts is 21.11 cents per kilowatt hour, more than
    double that of Louisiana and nearly double that of the other
    states.
        Other states that are fun to pick on sometimes, Mr. Huffman
    and Mr. Lowenthal, just for fun, 19.9 cents per kilowatt hour.
    So, I guess I am just trying to understand, it seems like lower
    prices would----
        Mr. Huffman. Would the gentleman yield for a correction?
        Mr. Graves. Can I get an answer first?
        Mr. Huffman. On California? Well, we will get back to that.
        Mr. Graves. All right. Does that make sense? It seems like
    lower prices would be helpful versus the higher prices that
    other states have. I just wonder if you could respond to that.
        Ms. Farley. Yes, absolutely. Rates alone do not equal
    bills. When we are talking about energy burden, we are talking
    about the fully burdened cost of a bill to households and
    ratepayers. So, yes, there are some states in the South that do
    boast lower rates, but that does not make a bill.
        Mr. Graves. It doesn't, but so if we had Massachusetts
    rates more than doubled, do you think that would make it easier
    to afford?
        Ms. Farley. I am not familiar with the numbers of
    Massachusetts. I do applaud their efforts in their shift to
    renewable energy and saw that testimony last week. But in the
    South, again, while many states and investor-owned utilities
    boast lower than average national rates, rates alone do not
    equal utility bills. There are many fees and sometimes punitive
    in regards to solar across many states in the South that do
    equal higher bills and, ultimately, higher burdens on lower
    income households.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to submit for the
    record the documents showing the various rates. I am not sure
    that I understand how energy efficiency would be the burden of,
    how actions of a state could prevent an individual from
    pursuing energy efficiency improvements in their own homes, but
    again----

        Dr. Lowenthal. That will be accepted without objection.

        [The information follows:]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Trends & Observations from State Data

    From this data, we can see the state with the lowest electric rates is
    Louisiana. On average, homes in Louisiana pay 9.53 cents per kWh.
    Residential customers in Texas, the country's largest deregulated
    market for electricity, pay a relatively low price for electricity as
    well of 11.68 cents per kWh.

    The state that saw the great increase in prices for electricity is
    Rhode Island. Rhode Island customers are paying nearly 20% more for
    electricity in 2018.

                                     ______

        Mr. Graves. Thank you. And secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would
    ask, while I am doing UCs for fun, this is a document, May
    2018, from the National Association of State Energy Officials,
    showing that the jobs from coal, natural gas, oil, as compared
    to solar, aren't even kind of close. As a matter of fact, when
    you add them up quickly, it looks like you are about three
    times more jobs in those fields than in the solar market.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Without objection.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Last, Dr. Mason, I understand you have worked for the
    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve,
    European Union, and other impressive places and, of course,
    also professor at LSU. So, thank you very much for being here.
    I just want to quickly ask you to comment on the Green New Deal
    or other concepts where the United States unilaterally takes
    aggressive actions to reduce emissions, just comparatively
    talking about the low kilowatt hour in Louisiana that largely
    is a natural gas fuel source for electricity generation. What
    happens globally when you squeeze the United States in terms of
    emissions, what happens globally when you do something like
    that?
        Dr. Mason. Well, these are strategic resources recognized
    worldwide, and just socioeconomically, when you start
    redistributing strategic resources around the world, countries
    will fight for strategic resources. They will fight through
    negotiating processes, through international relations
    processes, and sometimes even physically fight for those
    resources.
        So, when we start moving around the distribution of those
    resources, we really put the world at risk in a lot of
    different ways. I am not saying that that should prevent us
    from doing so.
        Mr. Graves. Sure.
        Dr. Mason. I am merely saying that we need to look at this
    problem in a holistic, multi-dimensional way to even try to
    understand the multiple tentacles that reach out.
        I want to point out that the jobs issue, for instance, is
    really not just an energy jobs issue. It is relating to the
    hollowing out of the middle of America, and that hollowing out
    is occurring fundamentally through access to education, which
    isn't equally attainable in the middle of the country right
    now. We need to develop this country overall, and this is a
    much larger problem than energy, although it kind of starts
    with energy, because if we have efficient energy from a variety
    of sources, we can better develop.
        So, these things are what we call endogenous process. There
    are various feedback loops involved with them. It is very
    complex. There are sciences dealing with analyzing these. And I
    think, Chairman Lowenthal, please begin those discussions,
    respectful discussions, so that we can work out some of these
    feedback mechanisms and put in place meaningful policies to not
    just help coalfields, but expand some of these programs
    nationwide to the core of America, and think about how much
    that is going to take, where the money is going to come from,
    and let's get moving.
        Mr. Graves. I yield back. Thank you.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Now, Representative Huffman.
        Mr. Huffman. Thanks.
        And, Mr. Graves, the witness gave part of my correction
    that I wanted to send your way, but we have to look at energy
    bills and not just rates. That is super important when you look
    at a state like California that has invested tremendously in
    energy efficiency. Because of those investments, bills have
    come way down, even though if you look at the unit cost of
    energy in rates, it would appear to be higher. So, I would
    really urge you to take a look at that and then let's see where
    the states compare with each other.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you. And we will also take your moderate
    temperatures.
        Mr. Huffman. Right. We can do all kinds of interesting
    cultural exchanges. I want some of your gumbo.
        I was interested in the discussion that I just caught
    involving Mr. Bissett. And, Mr. Hille, I noticed you shaking
    your head a little bit during some of the testimony regarding
    this coal renaissance that I would argue is kind of a temporary
    thing. The Trump administration has gone out of its way,
    engaged in herculean efforts to breathe life into what I think
    most other objective observers would say is a dying industry,
    coal.
        One of the many indications of this huge effort across the
    aisle to prop up coal against all of the other forces that are
    causing it to be a declining industry involves the zombie coal
    earmark that Mr. McClintock and I even worked on in prior
    years. There was actually this earmark from the height of the
    cold war that required U.S. military bases in Germany to buy a
    specific type of coal from Pennsylvania, and it was not
    efficient. It was absolutely corporate cronyism of the worst
    order, and Mr. McClintock and I worked together to eliminate
    that from the Defense budget.
        It is back in this year. And once again, American military
    bases in Germany are buying Pennsylvania coal because Congress
    says they have to and the Trump administration says they have
    to. So, there is an incredible effort to prop up coal for a
    little while longer. I would argue it is a little bit like
    these warm days in February we have here in Washington. The
    cherry blossoms will kind of start to come out, but it is not
    really spring.
        I want to hear your thoughts, Mr. Hille, because you were
    shaking your head.
        Mr. Hille. I think what is important to understand about
    what has been a fairly small uptick in coal production is that
    it is largely in metallurgical coal. And I think Bill would
    agree with me on that. And it is important to understand,
    metallurgical coal is geologically a different type of coal
    that doesn't exist everywhere. There is some in southern West
    Virginia. There is some in Virginia. There is a very narrow
    band of it in far eastern Kentucky, but most of Kentucky's coal
    is thermal coal or steam coal, which is used to generate
    electricity, and that has simply not come back.
        We had a minor increase in 2017 of about 30 jobs in
    Kentucky, and then in 2018, we lost another 200. So, the
    thermal coal is not coming back in Appalachia. And to the
    extent that it will continue to be a part of our energy mix--
    and it will for some time--it is not going to come from
    Appalachia, because our coal is harder to get. It is more
    expensive to mine. The good accessible seams have been mined
    out, and it is not cost effective to blow off the top of a
    mountain when you can go somewhere else and scoop it off the
    surface of the ground.
        So, Appalachia is not going to be competitive, and that is
    why this work of creating a just transition for these
    communities is critical, and we have the means and the
    processes to do that.
        Mr. Huffman. And to not do that long-term transition
    planning just because there appears to still be a market right
    now, how would you characterize that?
        Mr. Hille. I think short-sighted would be a good way to
    describe it. And, in fact, there are a lot of significant
    efforts going on. Congressman Rogers and then Governor Beshear
    in Kentucky created the SOAR initiative, which has been a large
    planning process, recognizing that thermal coal wasn't going to
    come back, that Kentucky coal wasn't going to come back.
        We have the largest concentration of distressed counties in
    Appalachia, and there is broad recognition that we need to do
    this. And the plan that SOAR has put together is a broad plan
    and it has a strong emphasis on entrepreneurship, as does the
    Appalachian Regional Commission.
        Mr. Huffman. All right, so while I have you, I know you
    have been a huge supporter of solar deployment in Appalachia.
    Do you see a future for broader adoption of solar in the
    region, and can you describe some of the ways the Federal
    Government can help with solar deployment in the region?
        Mr. Hille. We are actually seeing an interesting uptick in
    demand for solar in small commercial enterprises. MACED is a
    CDFI. We are a small business lender. We work with our clients
    to do energy efficiency first because that is the low-hanging
    fruit, but many of them are now coming to us first saying, no,
    I want solar. We say, OK, but if you do the efficiency, you
    don't have to put as much solar on your roof. But they see it
    as part of marketing. They also see it as a way to respond to
    rising energy bills. I think there are probably a lot of things
    the Federal Government could do to support and encourage that.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        I now recognize Ms. Cheney for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    enter a document into the record that is titled, ``Overview and
    Frequently Asked Questions'' that initially appeared on
    Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's website and was submitted to NPR.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]

    LAUNCH: Thursday, February 7, at 8:30 AM.

                                    Overview

    We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts
    and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (important to say so
    someone else can't claim this mantle).

    This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a
    timeline.

                 The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to
            mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen
            since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions
            and create economic prosperity for all. It will:

                        Move America to 100% clean and renewable
                    energy

                        Create millions of family supporting-wage,
                    union jobs

                         Ensure a just transition for all
                    communities and workers to ensure economic security for
                    people and communities that have historically relied on
                    fossil fuel industries

                         Ensure justice and equity for frontline
                    communities by prioritizing investment, training,
                    climate and community resiliency, economic and
                    environmental benefits in these communities

                         Build on FDR's second bill of rights by
                    guaranteeing:

                             A job with a family sustaining wage,
                    family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement
                    security

                             High-quality education, including
                    higher education and trade schools

                            Clean air and water and access to
                    nature

                            Healthy food

                            High-quality health care

                            Safe, affordable, adequate housing

                            Economic environment free of monopolies

                            Economic security for all who are
                    unable or unwilling to work

    There is no time to waste.

                 IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by
            by 40-60% by 2030. US is 20% of total emissions. We must get to
            0 by 2030 and lead the world in a global Green New Deal.

    Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.

                 When JFK said we'd go to the by the end of the
            decade, people said impossible.

                 If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate
            highway system today, people would ask how we'd pay for it.

                 When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes
            to fight World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general
            laughed at him. At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes
            in the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000
            planes. That's what we are capable of if we have real
            leadership.

    This is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure.

                 We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during
            World War 2 and created the greatest middle class the US has
            seen.

                 The interstate highway system has returned more
            than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost.

                 This is massively expanding existing and building
            new industries at a rapid pace--growing our economy.

    The Green New Deal has momentum.

                 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of
            Republicans support the Green New Deal.

                 Nearly every major Democratic Presidential
            contender say they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth
            Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian
            Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and
            Jay Inslee.

                 45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original
            resolution for a select committee.

                 Over 300 local and state politicians have called
            for a federal Green New Deal.

                 New Resolution has 20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups
            (numbers will change by Thursday).

                                      FAQs

    Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you
    saying we won't transition off fossil fuels?

        Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero
    greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell
    this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas
    emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels
    immediately won't build the new economy to replace it--this is the plan
    to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We
    do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy
    economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather
    than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure that we'll be
    able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we
    think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production,
    retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul
    transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our
    ecosystem to get to net-zero.
    Is nuclear a part of this?
        A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy
    production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It's
    unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within
    10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil
    fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan
    together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100 percent
    renewable in 10 years, we will do that.
    Does this include a carbon tax?
        The Green New Deal is a massive investment in the production of
    renewable energy industries and infrastructure. We cannot simply tax
    gas and expect workers to figure out another way to get to work unless
    we've first created a better, more affordable option. So we're not
    ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a
    Green New Deal in the face of the gigantic expansion of our productive
    economy and would have to be preceded by first creating the solutions
    necessary so that workers and working class communities are not
    affected. While a carbon tax may be a part of the Green New Deal, it
    misses the point and would be off the table unless we create the clean,
    affordable options first.
    Does this include cap and trade?
        The Green New Deal is about creating the renewable energy economy
    through a massive investment in our society and economy. Cap and trade
    assumes the existing market will solve this problem for us, and that's
    simply not true. While cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger
    Green New Deal plan to mobilize our economy, any cap and trade
    legislation will pale in comparison to the size of the mobilization and
    must recognize that existing legislation can incentivize companies to
    create toxic hotspots in frontline communities, so anything here must
    ensure that frontline communities are prioritized.
    Does a GND ban all new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear power
            plants?
        The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear
    plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of all our resources
    into renewable energies. It would simply not make sense to build new
    fossil fuel infrastructure because we will be creating a plan to
    reorient our entire economy to work off renewable energy. Simply
    banning fossil fuels and nuclear plants immediately won't build the new
    economy to replace it--this is the plan to build that new economy and
    spells out how to do it technically.
    Are you for CCUS?
        We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and
    restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven
    effective.
    How will you pay for it?
        The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and
    extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World
    War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit
    to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be
    created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to
    take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the
    end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow
    our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how will we pay for it,
    but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.

    Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can't
    we just rely on regulations and taxes and the private sector to invest
    alone such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels?

         The level of investment required is massive. Even if every
                billionaire and company came together and were willing to
                pour all the resources at their disposal into this
                investment, the aggregate value of the investments they
                could make would not be sufficient.

         The speed of investment required will be massive. Even if
                all the billionaires and companies could make the
                investments required, they would not be able to pull
                together a coordinated response in the narrow window of
                time required to jump-start major new projects and major
                new economic sectors. Also, private companies are wary of
                making massive investments in unproven research and
                technologies; the government, however, has the time horizon
                to be able to patiently make investments in new tech and
                R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or
                application in mind at the time the investment is made.
                Major examples of government investments in ``new'' tech
                that subsequently spurred a boom in the private section
                include DARPA-projects, the creation of the internet--and,
                perhaps most recently, the government's investment in
                Tesla.

         Simply put, we don't need to just stop doing some things
                we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we
                also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole
                industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy
                efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront
                investment. In the same way that a company that is trying
                to change how it does business may need to make big upfront
                capital investments today in order to reap future benefits
                (for e.g., building a new factory to increase production or
                buying new hardware and software to totally modernize its
                IT system), a country that is trying to change how its
                economy works will need to make big investments today to
                jump-start and develop new projects and sectors to power
                the new economy.

         Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn't work--e.g.
                the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar
                projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US
                renewables industry but, even with such investment-
                promotion subsidies, the present level of such projects is
                simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas
                neutral economy as quickly as needed.

         Once again, we're not saying that there isn't a role for
                private sector investments; we're just saying that the
                level of investment required will need every actor to pitch
                in and that the government is best placed to be the prime
                driver.

                               Resolution Summary

    Created in consultation with multiple groups from environmental
    community, environmental justice community, and labor community

    5 goals in 10 years:

         Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just
                transition for all communities and workers

         Create millions of high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity
                and economic security for all

         Invest in infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet
                the challenges of the 21st century

         Clean air and water, climate and community resiliency,
                healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable
                environment for all

         Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing
                future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and
                vulnerable communities

    National mobilization our economy through 14 infrastructure and
    industrial projects. Every project strives to remove greenhouse gas
    emissions and pollution from every sector of our economy:

         Build infrastructure to create resiliency against climate
                change-related disasters

         Repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure. ASCE estimates
                this is $4.6 trillion at minimum

         Meet 100% of power demand through clean and renewable
                energy sources

         Build energy-efficient, distributed smart grids and ensure
                affordable access to electricity

         Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-
                art energy efficiency

         Massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel
                factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage
                manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components)
                and remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from
                manufacturing

         Work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable,
                pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures
                universal access to healthy food and expands independent
                family farming

         Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding
                electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations
                everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air
                travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public
                transit available to all, with goal to replace every
                combustion-engine vehicle

         Mitigate long-term health effects of climate change and
                pollution

         Remove greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and pollution
                through afforestation, preservation, and other methods of
                restoring our natural ecosystems

         Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems

         Clean up all the existing hazardous waste sites and
                abandoned sites

         Identify new emission sources and create solutions to
                eliminate those emissions

         Make the US the leader in addressing climate change and
                share our technology, expertise and products with the rest
                of the world to bring about a global Green New Deal

    Social and economic justice and security through 15 requirements:

         Massive federal investments and assistance to
                organizations and businesses participating in the green new
                deal and ensuring the public gets a return on that
                investment

         Ensure the environmental and social costs of emissions are
                taken into account

         Provide job training and education to all

         Invest in R&D of new clean and renewable energy
                technologies

         Doing direct investments in frontline and deindustrialized
                communities that would otherwise be hurt by the transition
                to prioritize economic benefits there

         Use democratic and participatory processes led by
                frontline and vulnerable communities to implement GND
                projects locally

         Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay
                prevailing wages and hire local

         Guarantee a job with family sustaining wages

         Protect right of all workers to unionize and organize

         Strengthen and enforce labor, workplace health and safety,
                antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards

         Enact and enforce trade rules to stop the transfer of jobs
                and pollution overseas and grow domestic manufacturing

         Ensure public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and
                eminent domain is not abused

         Obtain free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous
                peoples

         Ensure an economic environment free of monopolies and
                unfair competition

         Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic
                security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, and
                nature to all

                                     ______

        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to
    discuss this issue today of how we transition our communities
    to a so-called green economy. My state of Wyoming, as I am sure
    our witnesses know, is the Nation's largest coal-producing
    state, and we also know in Wyoming that coal is going to
    continue to be a crucially important source of baseload power
    for the Nation, that the reliability is something that simply
    cannot be replaced, and it is a national security issue in
    addition to an economic issue.
        My constituents are obviously very concerned about this
    notion that we are somehow going to transition over the course
    of 10 years here to an economy that is entirely run on green
    energy. And certainly, they have concerns about the fossil fuel
    aspect of that, but I have to say, one of the issues that
    people are particularly concerned about is the extent to which
    we are no longer going to have air travel, apparently,
    according to some of the frequently asked question answers we
    have seen.
        So, I guess I would like to start by asking each witness to
    tell me exactly how they arrived in Washington, DC, for this
    hearing. And it is just a one-word answer, and I will start
    with you, Ms. Farley.
        Ms. Farley. On a plane.
        Ms. Shrader. On a plane.
        Dr. Bissett. A big white pick-up truck.
        Mr. Hille. A truck.
        Mr. Dennison. Plane.
        Dr. Mason. Air and Metro.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much. I would assume that each
    of the witnesses who believes that we should, in fact, move
    toward net zero emissions, would say that we ought to do so
    gradually, not suddenly. So, I would ask--and again I will
    start with you, Ms. Farley--if you could describe for me,
    perhaps, exactly how we will do that gradually? I would assume
    we are not just going to wait 10 years and then all of a sudden
    tell people they can't fly, but that we will be in a situation
    where, over the course of 10 years, we would somehow gradually
    work our way out of air travel. And I would also have to guess
    that that would involve some sort of prioritization.
        I assume even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    who support the Green New Deal and perhaps the witnesses who
    support the Green New Deal wouldn't advocate, for example, that
    we cancel things like life flights. They wouldn't advocate that
    we immediately move away from being able to transport people
    who have life-threatening illnesses by plane, but that there
    would be some other prioritization there.
        So, Ms. Farley, could you tell me exactly how the
    government should prioritize air travel and the gradual move
    away from all air travel?
        Ms. Farley. I would depend on the FAA and other Federal
    agencies that focus on air travel to tackle that question. The
    Green New Deal is a sweeping collection of recommendations and
    policies----
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Ms. Farley.
        So, the FAA then, I would assume, I guess we are going to
    set up a situation where the FAA then can tell individual
    citizens which of their air travel is worthy and important and
    which isn't? And it would seem to me, I guess we would then
    have a situation where the FAA could say, for example, you know
    what, vacation travel, that is not essential. We have to make
    sure that we can do the air travel for the people that really
    need it, so no vacation travel.
        Would you say we are going to have some sort of a vacation
    commissar set up in the government to determine what kind of
    air travel makes sense and what kind doesn't? Ms. Shrader,
    maybe I will go to you on that question.
        Ms. Shrader. With all due respect, I came here to talk
    about my community and how we have transitioned----
        Ms. Cheney. So, you don't support the Green New Deal then?
        Ms. Shrader. I haven't, I am not an expert on the Green New
    Deal.
        Ms. Cheney. OK.
        Mr. Huffman. Will the gentlelady yield for a correction on
    how she is badly mischaracterizing the resolution on the Green
    New Deal?
        Ms. Cheney. No, I won't yield, Mr. Huffman. Mr. Huffman,
    you had plenty of time----
        Mr. Huffman. This is fiction. This entire line of
    questioning is fiction.
        Ms. Cheney. I would like to have my time restored, please,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Let me ask you then, are there any other witnesses on the
    panel who do support the Green New Deal?
        Nobody supports the Green New Deal on this panel?
    Interesting.
        Ms. Farley. I support many of the policies and
    recommendations in the Green New Deal, specifically the support
    to make sure that any climate solution strategy is centered in
    equity. I do not see anything about----
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
        Reclaiming my time, I would just say that I think it is
    going to be crucially important for us to recognize and
    understand, when we outlaw plane travel, we outlaw gasoline, we
    outlaw cars, I think actually probably the entire U.S. military
    because of the Green New Deal, that we are able to explain to
    our constituents and to people all across this country what
    that really means. And even when it comes down to something
    like air travel, which the frequently asked questions say they
    want to eliminate within the next 10 years, that means that the
    government is going to be telling people where they can fly to
    and where they can't. And I would assume I guess that means our
    colleagues from California are going to be riding their
    bicycles back home to their constituents.
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I am going to yield the first 1
    minute of my 5 minutes to Representative Huffman.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you. It is not really enough time to
    fully fact check what we just heard, which was an entire line
    of questioning based on absolute hooey. I am co-sponsor of the
    Green New Deal resolution, and you have to read the resolution,
    OK? Not take extrapolations from some unofficial FAQs that
    actually were taken off an individual Congress Member's
    website, because they do not reflect what is actually in the
    resolution. But the notion that any of us who are supporting
    the actual resolution, which you need to read, that we want to
    ban all air travel, that is crazy. That is absolutely crazy.
    None of us want to do that.
        I was just listening as the gentlelady said that we want to
    outlaw cars and get rid of the military. There comes a point
    where this type of questioning is so disingenuous and so
    completely disconnected from anything factual that there ought
    to be a mechanism to strike it from the record.
        So, with that, I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I will resume the rest of my
    time.
        My first question is for Ms. Farley. I am trying to
    understand or for you to help us reconcile some differences. In
    your written testimony, you talked about, and I will just read
    the first sentence: ``We know that with data-informed certainty
    that systemically disenfranchised, under-resourced communities
    and communities of color in the South bear a disproportionate
    burden of the negative impacts of climate change and carbon-
    based energy production.''
        How do you reconcile that statement with a statement that
    we heard in last week's presentation, which you indicated you
    also listened to, where this Committee heard testimony from a
    witness who argued that the increased use of fossil fuels is
    the best way to address high-energy costs in low-income African
    American communities? This is completely at odds. Can you kind
    of help us reconcile that difference?
        Ms. Farley. Yes, absolutely. I agree that is completely at
    odds. And similar to the rates versus bills question, I believe
    that it is imperative that we understand that costs of energy
    are not just about the energy costs. The disproportionate
    burdens that people in the South and communities of color bear
    when located within 30 miles of coal-fired power plants--
    approximately 68 percent, actually, of African Americans live
    within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant--suffer from low
    property values, increased accounts of lung disease, asthma,
    and asthma-associated attacks.
        These asthma-associated attacks also impact the healthcare
    and education sectors as emergency room visits,
    hospitalizations, and missed school days from children lead to
    missed work and job insecurity for their parents. All of these
    things are increased due to the harmful, life-threatening
    emissions of fossil fuel-based energy production.
        So, that is where I would say there is no reconciliation
    between the ability of fossil fuels to provide benefit to
    under-resourced communities or communities of color.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Ms. Shrader, you mentioned in your testimony, how economies
    that are dependent upon commodities such as oil and gas and
    coal are highly vulnerable, repeated cycles of boom or bust.
    Not the image that we hear today, but that has really been what
    the history has been. And then you offer to us another
    alternative--outdoor recreation and others, in terms of
    protection of public lands, how to use public lands. Does
    outdoor recreation have the similar boom-or-bust cycles? Or can
    you talk to us about that? Because you are offering a different
    view of the economy year to year also. If you can explain that
    to us.
        Ms. Shrader. Yes, that is a great question. We have not
    seen a boom-bust cycle on outdoor recreation because it is an
    industry that is so important, engrained in the quality of
    life. So, what we are seeing in a community like Grand Junction
    is that we are attracting manufacturing, aviation, tech
    businesses, to relocate to our community because they want the
    quality of life and the investments we have made in outdoor
    recreation, and so it is sort of this broad scope.
        The other thing that I heard at the beginning was that
    these outdoor recreation jobs are underpaid and we are just
    coffee shop workers. I would tell you that my company pays 130
    percent of the Mesa County average salary, and there are other
    outdoor recreation companies like this, like Leitner-Poma, like
    Mountain Racing Products, I mean, product companies,
    manufacturers, that do the same. So, we are not seeing that
    boom-bust cycle that is so decimating and devastating for a
    community in oil and gas. And this has been happening for 70
    years in Mesa County, so it is really important to transition
    to this sustainable, diversified economy.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Now I ask Representative Kevin Hern from Oklahoma, you have
    5 minutes to ask questions. And thank you for being so patient.
        Mr. Hern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is great.
        Thank you all for your testimony today, and your honesty,
    how you got here, is good.
        As an engineer and a business person, I strongly believe in
    data and budgets, and I wish we all did. At some point in time,
    we have to pay for this. I am also a member of the Budget
    Committee, by request, because I want to know where all the
    money goes. Currently we are at $22 trillion in debt, and it is
    forecast, the next 10 years, if we don't do anything, we are
    going to be at $35 trillion. And U.S. small business people
    appreciate the fact that I am concerned about our national
    debt, which I think is a travesty. We don't have to have much
    science to look at that.
        Bloomberg--since we are talking about New Green Deal,
    Bloomberg estimates it is going to cost roughly a trillion
    dollars a year over the next 10 years, the implementation of
    the New Green Deal. But I am a person, as you all are, that
    believes that in business, nothing operates in a silo onto
    itself. Whatever you do affects other things. It affects our
    ability to take money and help other issues, whether it is our
    needy, our poor.
        So, we have a real opportunity here to try to figure out
    how we are going to pay for this. One of the things that is
    interesting, I also talked to the OMB Director the other day,
    we had a hearing, and asked him how much it cost to pay for
    this. And it would be almost doubling of the income tax on
    every individual in America to pay for the initiatives that my
    friends across the aisle want to implement.
        The other thing is, I don't look at static numbers, and I
    am sure you don't either. You look at trends. And when you look
    at the trends, the population is growing in this country, the
    GDP is growing, and our emissions per GDP and per capita are
    declining, which is the direction we want them to go, in a
    national free market way, which is a great sign that my
    colleagues across the aisle should love that we are going. All
    of our debate is causing free market ideas, and demands for
    renewables is being met with free enterprise, development
    supply without exacerbating our national debt issue.
        So, that should be something that we all like in here and
    we all should be applauding, we all stand up and all just
    leave, that we are all accomplishing our mission.
        Ms. Farley, you did say something, and my colleague from
    California mentioned this a minute ago, which was from my
    colleague, Mr. Graves, about that a bill is more than just a
    cost per kilowatt hour. And we talked about Massachusetts, who
    was pushing renewables, that their costs are going up.
        And, Mr. Huffman, I think you said that there are a lot of
    energy efficient things that are driving up costs. I find that
    a little bit ironic, and I would ask you to quote on this, how
    when we are driving efficiency it is costing the individual
    more. How does that work, how do the American people get
    excited about that?
        Ms. Farley. Thank you. I don't think I understand the
    question.
        Mr. Hern. Well, Mr. Chairman, it goes back to Mr.
    Lowenthal's question of how we reconcile what Mr. Hollie said
    last week, that renewables actually cost Americans more, not
    less. I grew up very poor. When I was young, I grew up with
    food stamps, so you have to make a decision, do I feed my
    family or pay my electric bill.
        So, how do you reconcile when you get more efficient that
    it costs you more to have energy?
        Ms. Farley. I don't believe that the more efficient you are
    that it costs you more. The whole point of efficiency is to
    reduce your utility bills.
        Mr. Hern. Well, I was just mentioning what Mr. Huffman
    said, the more efficient we got----
        Mr. Huffman. Will the gentleman yield for 5 seconds?
        Mr. Hern. Sure.
        Mr. Huffman. It is the difference between unit cost and
    out-of-pocket cost to the consumer on their bill. The unit cost
    may go up, but the bill itself does not go up and in some cases
    can go down.
        Mr. Hern. But somebody is paying for that, correct? I mean,
    it is not free.
        Mr. Mason, can I ask you a question? In your testimony, you
    state the concerns we have is energy curtails CO2,
    it increases the concentration of other pollutants, such as, if
    you have no wind, you can't have wind energy; if you have no
    sun, you have no sun energy, so in those times you have to
    store it by batteries, or issues of that. Would you agree that
    we need to have some analysis on the impact of an environment
    before we just take off down this road?
        Dr. Mason. Absolutely, though analysis will not get us
    there. There are going to be substantial uncertainties with
    regard to the environment and substantial uncertainties with
    regard to the interaction of different energy products with
    regard to that environment.
        A point in case that I made in my written testimony was
    that a trader that posed the electricity exchange in Northern
    Europe with a hundred million euro loss in September 2018,
    because while Europe was experiencing a drought, Northern
    Europe, who is based primarily on hydro, experienced excess
    rainfall.
        So, you can't understand, no matter how much analysis you
    do, a meteorologist won't tell you what the----
        Mr. Hern. Dr. Mason, if you don't mind. We tried to get
    into the rules so that we had not had an analysis of impact--
    economic impact on anything that we did related to the
    transition, and that rule was struck down, was not allowed to
    enter into the rules of this Congress or this Committee.
        I appreciate everyone being here. It has been a long day, a
    lot longer than you thought. Thank you for your witness.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Yes, I would like to kind of bring the
    hearing to a close, but I would like to follow up on something
    that Mr. Gosar, when he was the chair of the Subcommittee and I
    was the Ranking Member, he used to, at the end of the hearing,
    ask all the panelists if there is one question they would have
    liked to have been asked and what their answer would be. Now
    this is very brief. I am not asking for another 5 minutes--just
    what question would you like to have been asked or we should
    have, and how would you quickly and simply answer that
    question.
        Let's begin again across with the first witness, Ms.
    Farley. What would you like to have been asked? And if you
    don't have anything, if you think you have been asked
    everything, Ms. Farley, that is fine too.
        Ms. Farley. I would have liked to have been asked how we
    ensure that the same business model used in the fossil fuel
    industry, which hurts communities, doesn't simply get placed by
    the same system that will be used to run the renewable energy
    industry. And I believe, as many do, and have access to data
    that proves it, that any solution meant to mitigate the impacts
    of climate change on lower income under-resourced communities
    must be centered in equity and must be centered in a reckoning
    with the reasons that these disparities exist.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Ms. Shrader, what question?
        Ms. Shrader. The question I would have liked to have been
    asked is, how can Grand Junction be sort of a template for
    other rural communities in the United States that have
    diversified to outdoor recreation? And I would say that we in
    the Grand Valley, we have built a lot of partnerships. The oil
    and gas industry has supported so much of our trail
    infrastructure. Our government leaders, from the commissioners
    in the county, to the city officials, to our state
    representatives, have really focused on rebuilding and
    rebranding our community. And this has been a community that
    has been really long entrenched in oil and gas, and that
    culture change has created a lot of pride and excitement for
    the community and for the state. And we are becoming sort of
    this template for other communities in Colorado, but also in
    the rural West that have really suffered economically.
        And bringing that kind of prosperity back to a community is
    extremely gratifying, and I hope we can do that across the
    United States.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Dr. Bissett?
        Dr. Bissett. Mr. Chairman, it would be very simple. We talk
    a lot about cost of energy production, but we rarely talk about
    reliability, or more importantly, scope. And I think the
    question of scope has to be in there, because when you look at
    what a hundred coal miners can do, or a hundred people that are
    installing solar panels or windmills, you have to look at that
    energy produced. And I think a lot of times that is the last
    thing we talk about. Thank you.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. Hille?
        Mr. Hille. Mr. Chair, first I need to clarify my response
    to Ms. Cheney's question. I did arrive here by car this
    morning. I flew to DC. I wanted to be transparent about that. I
    wasn't intentionally misleading, but that was going pretty
    fast.
        The question that I wish had been asked is, what is the
    role of the electric utilities in this transition? And the
    electric utilities can play a transformative, positive role as
    they have when we have partnered with them for an on-bill
    financing program for residential energy efficiency so that the
    customer pays nothing upfront. The utility pays for the
    retrofit and recovers that investment, plus interest, from a
    charge on the customer's bill.
        They can also play a negative role when they try to reverse
    statutes that support things like our solar net metering
    statute in Kentucky.
        So, the role of the utilities is really important. They do
    have a monopoly on the service, and they need to be held
    accountable for their role in the transition.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. Dennison?
        Mr. Dennison. I wish there was more time on the how. The
    transition is already happening. We have seen the trend in coal
    employment since the 1970s. We need to be into detailed
    problem-solving and have focus on creating opportunity for
    people in Appalachia and elsewhere. I wish I had time to
    provide other examples.
        There is a honey business that is also helping to pollinate
    reforestation on mine lands, how reforestation of mine lands
    can contribute to climate change mitigation and create
    thousands of jobs.
        And the role of the market, that was a great discussion we
    almost got to there at the end. Fantastic market innovation,
    for-profit entrepreneurs with social and environmental triple
    bottom line really leading the way.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        And, finally, Dr. Mason?
        Dr. Mason. I think the question would be, do we all believe
    that all green is clean? Because the answer is no. There are a
    lot of green albatross players out there. A good example is
    mining young, or cutting down young growth cypress in
    Louisiana, forests that were devastated years ago, in order to
    pelletize it and send it on ships over to Europe to burn it as
    environmentally friendly biofuel over there, encouraged by
    subsidies. That is just wrong. And there are many other
    examples.
        I think if we can drop the notion that all green is clean,
    and we need to define our terms to begin with, we can start
    with that meaningful conversation that you started with today.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. Thank you to all the panelists
    for your valuable testimony, Members for their questions, and
    for the climate that we created. I think people felt like they
    were listened to and at least got their chance. I mean, we are
    just beginning, and I think it was a great beginning.
        If members of this Committee have additional questions for
    the witnesses, we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must submit
    witness questions within 3 business days following the hearing,
    and then the hearing record will be open for 10 business days
    for these responses.
        If there is no further business, without objection, this
    Committee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

      Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joe Cunningham, a Representative in
                   Congress from the State of South Carolina

        Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, for holding this hearing today, to
    discuss an issue that's been on the minds of my constituents and is
    near and dear to my heart.
        South Carolina's 1st District is home to most of the state's nearly
    3,000 miles of serpentine coastline and barrier islands. Having lived
    near the coast, I've witnessed the impacts of rising sea levels
    firsthand. Folks in my district aren't even able to get across town to
    get to work when it's high tide and the city is flooded. So this is
    clearly something that affects the Low Country, which is why on my
    fourth day on the job, I introduced my bipartisan bill--H.R. 291, the
    Coastal Economies Protection Act, which would place a 10-year
    moratorium on oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities
    on the Outer Continental Shelf in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic,
    South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida planning areas and in the
    Eastern Gulf of Mexico. I've made protecting the coast of South
    Carolina from the risk of offshore drilling my highest priority, and I
    intend to continue advocating on behalf of this issue.

        In addition to the environmental impacts (sea level rise, coastal
    erosion, ocean acidification), the energy transition that the country
    needs to make to address climate change will impact certain communities
    that have relied on fossil fuel jobs.

        And with that, I want to turn to some questions.

      1.  Mr. Dennison or Mr. Hille, what advice would you give to leaders
                in coal-reliant communities in western states that are only
                now beginning to confront the recent downturn in coal
                production?

      2.  Ms. Shrader, a lot of people argue that recreation and tourism
                jobs pay a lot less than oil and gas, so they're not nearly
                adequate replacements. How do you respond to that?

      3.  Mr. Dennison and Mr. Hille, we've heard testimony that jobs
                produced by the clean energy transition will be more
                harmful to worker health and the environment than jobs in
                fossil fuel industries. Do you agree with this conclusion?

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar

    China's demand for electric vehicles charges copper,
        Financial Times, February 12, 2019 by Henry Sanderson
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Copper is a very ordinary building material that has become
    entwined in every facet of our lives, from the wires in our homes to
    our smartphones and, critically, electric cars, which use three times
    the amount of the metal as those in a conventional vehicle.

    The start of a long-term demand trend is occurring in China, where
    copper in electric cars is set to offset a sharp fall associated with
    sales of petrol cars this year, according to analysts at Citigroup.

    The number of petrol cars made in China this year is expected to drop
    by 9 per cent, according to Citi, while electric car production is set
    to rise by 53 per cent. That results in net copper demand growth of 0.3
    per cent for the sector.

    ``[For copper] it's an EV story into the 2020s and we're just getting a
    really early taste of that now,'' said Oliver Nugent, of Citi. ``Thanks
    to the higher intensity of copper in EVs we're going to sail through
    that very weak auto demand number this year.''

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Over the longer term, the bank said copper for electric cars would
    make up two-thirds of demand growth for the metal between 2018 and
    2030.

    Copper prices have rallied by 5 per cent this year to trade at $6,139 a
    tonne, suggesting that investors have become less fearful of the impact
    of a slowdown in China, the world's largest consumer.

    Citi expects copper prices to hit $6,700 in 2019 driven by an overall 2
    per cent growth in Chinese demand and a resolution to the trade dispute
    between the US and China.

                                     ______

    Australia hopes to cash in on new cobalt rush,
        Financial Times, February 12, 2019 by Jamie Smyth and Henry
    Sanderson
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    It is one of Australia's oldest mining towns that has built its
    wealth from a huge deposit of silver, lead and zinc. Now, Broken Hill
    is aiming to tap into the fast growing electric vehicle market by
    becoming a vital source of cobalt.

    Mining groups in the outback town, 1,000km from Sydney, are lured by
    forecasts that demand for cobalt--the main power source for mobile
    devices and electric vehicles (EVs)--will quadruple by 2029.

    Supply concerns have further stoked their interest as two-thirds of the
    world's cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a poor
    country that suffers from political instability and corruption and
    which has been criticised for the use of child labour in its artisanal
    mines.

    ``No one can predict politics in the DRC, the country presents
    logistical challenges and there is a question mark over the efficacy of
    the 10 to 15 per cent of cobalt produced there from artisanal
    sources,'' said Joe Kaderavek, chief executive of Cobalt Blue, an ASX-
    listed miner with an operation in Broken Hill.

    ``Increasingly, Asian battery makers are looking for the stability that
    Australian sources of cobalt can offer.''

    Cobalt Blue is one of dozens of small miners in Australia, Canada and
    elsewhere that are rushing to explore cobalt deposits and raise funds
    to develop new mines and processing plants to produce the blue-grey
    metal.

    Last year Kinshasa's dominance over the cobalt supply chain rose above
    70 per cent as Chinese-owned mines in the DRC and new entrant Eurasian
    Resources Group, a Luxembourg-based miner, ramped up production. It is
    expected to hit 75 per cent this year, according to Darton Commodities.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    ``The DRC is to the cobalt world what Saudi Arabia is to oil when
    it comes to availability of supply, there's nowhere else where you can
    get large volumes like you can in the Congo,'' said George Heppel, an
    analyst at consultancy CRU.

    This leaves battery makers, electric vehicle manufacturers and western
    miners exposed to sudden shifts in DRC government policy and consumer
    boycotts focused on child exploitation. Last year a new mining code
    imposed a series of taxes on western miners and Glencore was forced to
    write off $5.6bn in debt to safeguard its joint venture with Gecamines,
    the DRC's state mining company.

    The London-listed miner is embroiled in a separate dispute with the DRC
    government over plans to build a new plant to remove uranium from its
    cobalt ore. This month Katanga Mining, a subsidiary of Glencore which
    owns a large cobalt and copper mine in the DRC, warned it may not be
    able to sell any cobalt until 2020 due to governmental concerns.

    Analysts at Darton Commodities recently warned that increased resource
    nationalism in the DRC continued to present a significant supply risk.

    ``Continued stability in the DRC will therefore be of vital importance,
    ensuring a secure and transparent cobalt supply chain which in turn is
    critical for the global transition to EVs to materialise,'' they added.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Due to these concerns, Asian battery makers are now building
    alliances with miners in Australia.

    Last year LG International, the investment arm of the South Korean
    battery maker, bought a 6 per cent stake in Cobalt Blue. Shanghai
    Pengxin, a Chinese conglomerate, paid A$81m ($57m) for a 16 per cent
    stake in Clean TeQ, an ASX-listed company also aiming to develop a
    nickel-cobalt-scandium mine about 350km west of Sydney.

    ``International NGOs are focused on the issue of child labour in DRC
    and they are likely to single out multinational companies, the battery
    makers and the car companies, to clean up their act,'' said Sam
    Riggall, Clean TeQ's chief executive. ``Australia will play an
    important role in the diversification of the cobalt supply chain,'' he
    said.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    However, there are currently no large new cobalt mines in the
    pipeline outside of the DRC.

    Canadian-listed First Cobalt aims to build a North American supply of
    cobalt by developing a mine in Idaho and processing the metal at a
    refinery it has reopened in Ontario.

    Trent Mell, chief executive of First Cobalt, said the publication by US
    president Donald Trump of a ``critical minerals'' list last year had
    helped the company gain political support for US-based cobalt supply.

    ``With the US putting cobalt on the critical minerals list, we have a
    lot of friends in Washington,'' Mr Mell said. ``If you picture a boxing
    ring, you've got Glencore in one corner and China in the other; it's a
    small market, it's a tight market. I don't think cobalt prices really
    reflect the structural outlook that many of us see.''

    Another country that could be a source of cobalt is Kazakhstan. Kenes
    Rakishev, a Kazakh businessman and entrepreneur, is aiming to mine
    cobalt and nickel in eastern Kazakhstan, using low-cost leaching
    techniques already used to mine uranium in the country. The company,
    KazCobalt, aims to eventually list on the stock market.

    ``If this technology can work for nickel and cobalt, it will be the
    lowest cost in the world,'' Mr Rakishev said. ``You need to just dig--
    that's it.''

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Cobalt is mined alongside copper in the DRC, while outside the
    country it is mostly a byproduct of nickel mining. Brazilian miner Vale
    is spending $2bn on an underground expansion of its mine at Voisey's
    Bay, Canada , which will also produce cobalt.

    ``There will be no shortage of cobalt but we're going to have better
    cobalt and nickel prices to get the mines [outside the DRC] built,''
    said Anthony Milewski, chief executive of Cobalt 27, which has acquired
    the right to buy future cobalt production from the Vale mine.
    FT Archive
    Echoing this view, Gavin Montgomery, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie, said
    companies outside of the DRC would struggle to raise finance in the
    face of falling cobalt prices, which are down more than 40 per cent
    since mid-November.

    Prices are likely to fall further given there was a ``tsunami'' of new
    cobalt supply coming online in the DRC over the next few years, Mr
    Montgomery said.

    ``In the medium-term it is all DRC,'' Mr Montgomery added. ``There's no
    shortage of supply.''

    Outside of the DRC the most promising project is a giant $700m nickel-
    processing project being built in Indonesia by a consortium of
    investors including Chinese stainless steel giant Tsingshan and China
    's largest battery maker CATL.

    As well as nickel, the Indonesian project hopes to produce about 20,000
    tonnes of cobalt sulphate for batteries a year and has already secured
    financing.

    ``We're probably more bullish about Indonesia becoming the new frontier
    for cobalt and nickel supply than Ontario or Zambia or Australia,'' Mr
    Montgomery said.

                                     ______

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal

    Energy Jobs--Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 13, 2019
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Submissions for the Record by Mr. Dennison

    Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal
            And Gas Combined
    Niall McCarthy, Contributor, Data journalist covering technological,
            societal and media topics
    Forbes--January 25, 2017

    In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last
    year than in generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy
    combined. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy,
    solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation
    sector's work force in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for
    just 22 percent. It's a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute
    Donald Trump's assertion that green energy projects are bad news for
    the American economy.

    Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to
    the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a
    work force of slightly more than 187,000. The boom in the country's
    solar work force can be attributed to construction work associated with
    expanding generation capacity. The gulf in employment is growing with
    net generation from coal falling 53 percent over the last decade.
    During the same period, electricity generation from natural gas
    increased 33 percent while solar expanded 5,000 percent.

    Fuel production and electricity generation together directly employed
    1.9 million workers last year, according to the report; with 55%, or
    1.1 million, working with fossil fuels. The DoE identifies another 2.3
    million jobs associated with energy transmission, distribution and
    storage.

    Solar energy added 73,615 new jobs to the U.S. economy over the past
    year while wind added a further 24,650.

    (charted by Statista)
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Statement by Mr. Dennison in Response to Dr. Mason

    I also want to note, responding to Mr. Mason: while the entire country
    is not facing Depression era unemployment, many extraction communities
    are. We have an employment crisis. High unemployment is a problem, say
    in Mingo County, WV, but the even more concerning stats are in labor
    force participation . . . these are people who have permanently left
    the work force and given up looking.

    WVU economists John Deskins has published work on these troubling
    economic stats.

                                     ______

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves

      --U.S. Energy and Employment Report from the National
                Association of State Energy Officials, May 2018

    Submissions for the Record Mr. Dennison

      --The Nature Conservancy Report--Natural Climate Solutions in
                West Virginia

      --``Many Voices, Many Solutions: Innovative Mine Reclamation
                in Central Appalachia''--Report

                                     [all]