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

               SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: RAMPING UP RENEWABLES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
                                 CLIMATE CRISIS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD
                                 JUNE 13, 2019

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 116-5

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                www.govinfo.gov
       Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                   __________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     37-432                      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, po@custhelp.com.

                     SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
                         One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                          KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon               Ranking Member
    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            GARY PALMER, Alabama
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
    MIKE LEVIN, California               CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado

                                  ----------

                    Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
                      Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
                            climateacrisishouse.gov

                                C O N T E N T S

                       STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

                                                                       Page
    Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
      Opening Statement..............................................     1
      Prepared Statement.............................................     3
    Hon. Garrett Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
      Climate Crisis:
      Opening Statement..............................................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Abigail Ross Hopper, Esq., President and CEO, Solar Energy
      Industries Association
      Oral Statement.................................................     5
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7
    Tom Kiernan, President and CEO, American Wind Energy Association
      Oral Statement.................................................    14
      Prepared Statement.............................................    16
    Christine Tezak, Managing Director, ClearView Energy Partners,
      LLC
      Oral Statement.................................................    19
      Prepared Statement.............................................    21
    Katherine Hamilton, Chair, 38 North Solutions
      Oral Statement.................................................    30
      Prepared Statement.............................................    32

                                    APPENDIX

    Question for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Christine
      Tezak..........................................................    56
    Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Katherine
      Hamilton.......................................................    58

               SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: RAMPING UP RENEWABLES

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2019

                         U.S. House of Representatives,
                        Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
    2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
    [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley,
    McEachin, Levin, Casten, Graves, Griffith, Palmer, Carter,
    Miller, and Armstrong.
        Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any time. Today we will discuss the
    linchpin of any serious plan to address the climate crisis,
    ramping up renewable energy in the electric power sector.
        Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our outstanding
    witnesses who are here with us this morning.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening
    statement.
        I am excited to talk about renewable energy this morning.
    But before I start, I want to acknowledge what has been
    happening with the climate crisis just since our last meeting.
        The headline of my local newspaper back in Florida last
    week read ``Florida Got Hot in May, like Record-Breaking Hot.''
        According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, the State of Florida experienced its hottest
    May in more than a century. And it wasn't just a little hotter.
    The new record is nearly four degrees hotter than the previous
    record. And while Florida was the only State to break the May
    temperature record, Virginia had its third hottest May on
    record, while North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia all
    had their second hottest May ever.
        Record-breaking heat in the Arctic also pushed temperatures
    in Finland to levels never recorded before. In America's
    Arctic, the abnormal heat has led to fatal accidents in
    Alaska's rural villages. San Francisco, on Monday, hit 100
    degrees. Yes.
        In India, heat waves have driven temperatures higher than
    120 degrees. And when it is hot, people can't go outside. When
    it is that hot, they can't go outside anyway. They can't get to
    work, they can't go to school, they can't go shopping or buy
    food for their family.
        Last week also saw the release of a new scientific study
    examining the epidemic heat waves in 2018. The scientists
    concluded that these heat waves would not have occurred without
    human-induced climate change. They warn that we have entered a
    new climate regime, featuring heat waves of a scope and
    intensity not seen before.
        And of course deadly heat isn't the only danger. Right now,
    America's Midwest is still struggling with flooding, and
    wildfires are burning in Northern California despite a wet
    winter.
        Scientists say that we can expect more extreme events. And
    insurers say plan for greater risks. And as policymakers, we
    know with greater risk comes greater costs for families we
    represent back home. These are the stakes of the climate
    crisis.
        So I am glad we finally passed a disaster relief package
    with climate resilience included last week. But we can't adapt
    our way out of this crisis. We have to cut carbon pollution.
    Carbon pollution is what is causing this problem in the first
    place.
        So today we are focusing on renewable energy because it is
    such a big part of the puzzle. Renewables used to provide just
    a fraction of our electricity, but now they are up to 17
    percent and growing.
        In the past 10 years, wind power has quadrupled and costs
    have fallen by nearly 70 percent. Utility-scale solar has
    increased 30 times over, and costs have fallen by 88 percent.
    Now more than 350,000 people are working in the wind and solar
    industries.
        Renewable energy has flourished because we finally started
    giving wind and solar some of the same support that the fossil
    fuel industry has enjoyed for over a century.
        States have also led with renewable energy standards.
    California, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada, and New Mexico have
    committed to an energy grid powered by 100 percent clean
    energy. The new Governors of New Jersey, Minnesota, and
    Illinois have called for similar levels of ambition.
        South Carolina also passed the South Carolina Energy
    Freedom Act to promote solar energy just a couple months ago.
    It was bipartisan and unanimous and a pro-jobs and pro-economic
    growth bill.
        States have been in the lead, but we know here in the
    Congress we need to do more. The time is now.
        And we heard in our second hearing, we need to achieve net-
    zero carbon pollution across our entire economy by the year
    2050. We have to do that to avoid catastrophic harm from the
    climate crisis.
        When scientists do the math, it is clear that the United
    States will have to generate much of its electricity from
    renewables to get there. Many experts see a continued role for
    nuclear power and fossil fuel plants with carbon capture, but
    renewable sources are crucial. Clean, renewable energy is the
    linchpin for solving the climate crisis.
        We need to move more quickly, to put more wind, solar and
    other renewables online. That means making sure that everyone
    has access to clean energy in their communities, whether they
    own a rooftop or not. And it means making sure that more jobs
    in clean energy are good, family-sustaining jobs, and it means
    providing good careers for young people who want to solve the
    climate crisis.
        This crisis is daunting. But the opportunities we have in
    front of us for good jobs, clean air, and a just future are
    boundless. So it is time for resolve, and it is a time for
    hope. We have the tools and the technology we need to succeed.
    We just need to decide to do it.
        With that, I will recognize the ranking member for 5
    minutes.
        [The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
                                   __________

    Opening Statement (As Prepared for Delivery), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL),
               U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

        Solving the Climate Crisis: Ramping Up Renewables, June 13, 2019

        I'm excited to talk about renewable energy today, but before we
    start, I want to acknowledge what's been happening with the climate
    crisis since our last hearing.
        The headline of my local newspaper last week read: ``Florida Got
    Hot in May--Like Record-Breaking Hot.'' According the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, the State of Florida experienced its
    hottest May in more than a century. And it wasn't just a little hotter.
    The new record is nearly four degrees hotter than the previous record.
    While Florida was the only state to break its May temperature record,
    Virginia had its third-hottest May on record, while North Carolina,
    South Carolina and Georgia all had their second hottest May ever.
        Record-breaking heat in the Arctic also pushed temperatures in
    Finland to levels never recorded before. In America's Arctic, the
    abnormal heat has led to fatal accidents in Alaska's rural villages.
    And San Francisco hit a record-breaking 100 degrees on Monday.
        In India, heat waves have driven temperatures higher than 120
    degrees. When it's that hot, people can't go outside. They can't get to
    work. They can't go to school. They can't go shopping and buy food for
    their family.
        Last week also saw the release of a new scientific study examining
    the epidemic of heat waves in 2018. The scientists concluded that these
    heat waves ``would not have occurred without human-induced climate
    change.'' They warned that we've entered a ``new climate regime''
    featuring heat waves of a scope and intensity not seen before.
        And of course deadly heat isn't the only danger. Right now,
    America's Midwest is still struggling with flooding, and wildfires are
    burning in Northern California despite a wet winter. Scientists say we
    can expect more extreme events. Insurers say plan for greater risk. As
    policymakers, we know greater risk comes with greater costs for
    families we represent back home. These are the stakes of the climate
    crisis.
        So I'm glad we finally passed disaster relief with climate
    resilience last week. But we can't just adapt our way out of this
    crisis. We have to cut the carbon pollution that is causing the problem
    in the first place.
        Today we're focusing on renewable energy because it is such a big
    part of the puzzle. Renewables used to provide just a fraction of our
    electricity. But now they're up to 17 percent and growing. In the past
    ten years, wind power has quadrupled and costs have fallen by nearly 70
    percent. Utility-scale solar has increased 30 times over and costs have
    fallen by 88 percent. Now more than 350,000 people are working in the
    wind and solar industries.
        Renewable energy has flourished because we finally started giving
    wind and solar some of the same support the fossil fuel industry has
    enjoyed for more than a century. States have also led with renewable
    energy standards. California, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada, and New
    Mexico have committed to an electricity grid powered by 100 percent
    clean energy. The new governors of New Jersey, Minnesota and Illinois
    have called for similar levels of ambition. South Carolina also passed
    the South Carolina Energy Freedom Act to promote solar energy. It was
    bipartisan and unanimous and a pro-jobs and economic growth bill.
        States have been in the lead. But we know here in Congress we need
    to do more. As we heard in our second hearing, we need to achieve net-
    zero carbon pollution across our entire economy by at least 2050 to
    avoid catastrophic harm from the climate crisis. When scientists do the
    math, it's clear that the United States will have to generate much of
    its electricity from renewables to get there. Many experts see a
    continued role for nuclear power and fossil-fuel plants with carbon
    capture, but renewable sources are crucial. Clean renewable energy is
    the linchpin for solving the climate crisis.
        We need to move quickly to put more wind, solar and other
    renewables online. That means making sure everyone has access to clean
    energy in their communities, whether they own a rooftop or not. And it
    means making sure that more of the jobs in clean energy are good,
    family-sustaining jobs. And it means providing good careers for young
    people who want to solve the climate crisis.
        The climate crisis is daunting. But the opportunities we have in
    front of us for good jobs, clean air and a just future are boundless.
    So, it is a time for resolve and it is a time for hope. We have the
    tools and technology we need to succeed. We just need to decide to do
    it.

        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you
    for your statement.
        I think it is important for us to point out that certainly
    the climate change and the temperature changes are very
    concerning. And it is exciting to look back at the United
    States' record of being the Nation that has had the greatest
    reduction in emissions of any country in the world.
        And it is also important, as we continue to move forward to
    address this challenge, important to recognize that during that
    same period of time, that China has increased their emissions
    by 4 billion tons, so quadrupling the reduction in emissions
    that we have reduced. And so we must continue to look at this
    as the global challenge that it is.
        Madam Chair, there is no question that renewable energy
    sources are--have and will continue to play a very important
    role in our energy future. It is important for us to recognize
    that there are challenges with achieving this energy future
    that many of us do envision, challenges associated with the
    regulatory structure, the challenge associated with updating
    our grid system in order to facilitate this expansion of clean
    energy solutions.
        And many of the witnesses here today have--have run into
    these challenges of trying to get through this regulatory
    process, to bolster or to increase the role that renewables
    play. Making sure that we fully understand what role energy
    storage technology plays in an objective to expand the
    utilization of energy--renewable energy technologies. Some of
    the challenges associated there--certainly we have seen some of
    the rare earth news stories in recent weeks and what challenges
    those pose, some of the limits of battery storage technology
    and the role--the complementary role that natural gas and other
    energy streams will play and recognizing that solar energy
    isn't an option perhaps at night, Ms. Hopper, as we can talk
    about a bit more.
        And understanding how these interplay, understanding some
    of the challenges associated with a renewable energy strategy
    that has been pushed in the Northeast that actually resulted in
    dependence upon Russian energy being imported to address some
    of the issues there.
        We need to ensure that as we move forward with this--this
    all-of-the-above energy strategy, as we move forward in
    improving the role that renewable energies play, that we are
    looking to ensure that we can balance all of these resources
    properly, that we don't just have energy available to us when
    the wind blows, when the sun is out, and that we are ensuring
    that the investments we are making in science and technology
    are truly complementary to the assets and the opportunities and
    the innovation in the United States.
        My home State of Louisiana, it has been fascinating, we
    have one of greatest coastal land-loss challenges in the
    Nation. We have lost about 2,000 square miles of our coast. We
    have a very aggressive plan to come in and restore our coastal
    wetlands. One of the biggest impediments to that plan, believe
    it or not--it is not the money, it is not the sediment, it is
    not the fresh water--it is the regulatory process. The very
    process that is designed to protect our environment is actually
    impeding our efforts to restore the environment.
        And I think that we are seeing similar challenges here with
    some of efforts that you are working on, some of the efforts to
    continue to build upon our emissions reduction successes by
    increasing the transition to natural gas in some areas, and our
    ability to transport the natural gas and ability to relay the
    electricity from renewable sources to the areas where it is
    needed.
        So looking forward to having this discussion today, looking
    forward to future discussions on nuclear power, on energy
    storage, on carbon capture storage and utilization and other
    tools that I think are going to be a really important part of
    our overall recommendations from this committee.
        So with that, I will yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Good, and I thank my friend for his statement.
        Without objection, members who wish to enter opening
    statements into the record have 5 business days to do so.
        At this time I would like to introduce our outstanding
    witnesses who are with us today.
        Abigail Ross Hopper is president and CEO of the Solar
    Energy Industries Association. Before joining SEIA, Ms. Ross
    Hopper was the director of the Department of the Interior's
    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, where she led the agency
    that oversaw the leasing and development of all offshore
    energy, including wind. She served formerly as the director of
    the Maryland Energy Administration.
        Tom Kiernan, president and CEO of the American Wind Energy
    Association. Prior to joining AWEA, Mr. Kiernan was president
    of the National Parks Conservation Association for 15 years.
        Christine Tezak is managing director at ClearView Energy
    Partners. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Tezak was a senior
    research analyst at Robert W. Baird and Company and a senior
    vice president with the Washington Research Group.
        Katherine Hamilton is chair of 38 North Solutions, a
    consulting firm. Ms. Hamilton is co-chair of the World Economic
    Forum's Future Advanced Energy Technology Global Future Council
    and immediate past president of GRID Alternatives Mid-Atlantic.
        Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will
    be made part of the record.
        And with that, Ms. Ross Harper, you are now recognized to
    give a 5-minute statement.

      STATEMENTS OF ABIGAIL ROSS HOPPER, ESQ., PRESIDENT AND CEO,
    SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION; TOM KIERNAN, PRESIDENT AND
        CEO, AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION; CHRISTINE TEZAK,
        MANAGING DIRECTOR, CLEARVIEW ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC; AND
             KATHERINE HAMILTON, CHAIR, 38 NORTH SOLUTIONS

                 STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL ROSS HOPPER, ESQ.

        Ms. Ross Hopper. Great. Thank you very much. Good morning.
        Thank you, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and
    all of the other members of the committee.
        I am so happy to be here. Thank you for inviting me, thank
    you for your interest in solar energy, and most importantly,
    thank you for your interest in addressing the climate crisis
    that we face.
        As you just heard, I am Abigail Ross Hopper, the president
    and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA. We
    really like acronyms in the energy world.
        Before I begin to talk about solar, I just want to sort of
    address one thing that Ranking Member Graves said. I think we
    all are committed to clean, reliable, and affordable energy
    system, right? That is what consumers want, that is what they
    demand, that is what they expect, and I think what you will
    hear today is that is what we can deliver.
        So I am so proud to represent the solar industry. We
    represent about 250,000 Americans who work in the solar energy
    industry, about $17 billion that we invest in this Nation.
        We recently celebrated the two millionth U.S. solar
    installation in May. And while that is all exciting, I would
    invite you to buckle up, because we are about to enter the
    Solar + Decade. Solar generation currently provides about 2.3
    percent of the Nation's electricity generation, but by 2030, we
    think that will be 20 percent. And while that is certainly an
    aggressive goal, I think it is certainly doable, and we
    certainly cannot afford to wait.
        Today the solar industry reduces carbon emissions by 73.3
    million metric tons per year, which is equivalent to taking
    15.6 million vehicles off the road.
        So if we achieve this 20 percent in the next decade, we
    will add more than $345 billion to our economy and 350,000
    additional solar jobs, proving that a clean economy is a strong
    economy.
        So what makes me so confident about our ability to do this?
    Well, it is based partly on what we have accomplished to date.
    At the Federal level, I am going to talk a little bit about
    what has worked.
        The investment tax credit has created hundreds of thousands
    of jobs literally and spurred billions of dollars in economic
    growth. As 2019 ends, the ITC--again another acronym that we
    like--the ITC will begin an annual stepdown that will lead to
    an eventual phase-out of the credit for residential solar and a
    much-reduced credit for commercial and industrial and utility-
    scale solar.
        So until Congress passes a carbon tax or comes to some
    consensus on how we address climate change, the ITC is
    literally the most effective policy to deploy clean energy and
    solar energy. So it is not just a pro-solar policy, but it is
    literally a pro-planet policy, and we think it should be
    extended.
        Solar has benefitted from other Federal policies as well,
    including the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA,
    which encourages the deployment of small-scale renewable and
    cogen. And in addition, Federal solar research plays an
    important role in solar development and continued deployment.
        So at the State level, as the Chairwoman said, there are
    lots of examples. I would point you to my written testimony.
    But I would--I just can't help but also highlight South
    Carolina, because I think it is so illustrative of the
    bipartisan nature of solar energy and renewables in general.
    But just in May, Governor McMaster signed the law that clears
    obstacles, clears away some of the red tape that we have talked
    about, to greater adoption of rooftop solar and also allows
    more large-scale solar. We think it will create jobs and
    encourage investments for all South Carolinians.
        So what are some of the things I would ask you to take a
    look at to help further the deployment? I am going to name
    four, but there is clearly more in my written testimony.
        One, as I said, extend the investment tax credit as we seek
    consensus on a larger carbon policy. We think that is one clear
    thing that Congress can do. Two, I would echo the interest in
    energy storage. That is such a transformative part of this
    transformation to a clean energy economy. And so we think that
    passing support for storage is a critical act that Congress can
    do.
        Third, I would suggest that we invest additionally in our
    electric infrastructure. Our Nation's grid is in dire need of
    upgrade, specifically around transmission and so we can make
    sure we can get the electrons to the folks that need it, and
    then as we think about distributed generation and ensuring that
    our grid is equipped to handle that two-way traffic.
        And then fourth, I would suggest that we need to invest in
    workforce development. Solar does provide well-paying careers,
    and we are going to literally need hundreds of thousands of
    workers in the next decade. We must work deliberatively to
    build an industry that is diverse and inclusive, reaching into
    communities that have not yet benefitted from renewable energy.
    We must ensure that every American has the opportunity to enter
    this sector. And we also support programs that allow veterans
    to transition from military service into solar jobs.
        So I would suggest that the benefits of deploying renewable
    energy and solar specifically are enormous. And as we create
    this clean energy vision, this solar plus vision, solar plus
    wind, solar plus storage, solar plus grid modernization, that
    it will lead to investment, jobs and opportunities.
        So thank you very much for asking me to be here.
        [The statement of Ms. Ross Hopper follows:]
                                  ----------

       Testimony of Abigail Ross Hopper, Esquire, President & CEO, Solar
                         Energy Industries Association

     U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
                                 June 13, 2019

                                  introduction
        Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Select
    Committee, thank you for inviting me here today and for your interest
    in solar energy.
        I am Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy
    Industries Association (SEIA). SEIA is the national trade group for
    America's solar energy industry with 1,000 member companies.
    Approximately 250,000 Americans work in the $17 billion solar industry.
    We recently celebrated the two millionth U.S. solar installation in
    May. It took us 40 years to reach the first million installations in
    2016 and only three years to double that number. And buckle up because
    we are about to enter the Solar+ Decade. What do I mean by that? Solar
    generation currently provides 2.3% of our electricity in the United
    States; by 2030, we aim for solar energy to be 20% of the electricity
    generation mix. To get there, SEIA has designated the 2020s the Solar+
    Decade, recognizing the fact that the industry will need to both
    aggressively pursue policies to facilitate solar deployment while also
    collaborating with other technologies to make it happen.
        Our target is aggressive, but we cannot afford to wait to address
    the climate crisis. That 20%, or something close to it, is what we as
    an industry need to achieve if we are to meaningfully address climate
    change and fulfill our role in keeping global temperature rise below 2
    degrees Celsius. Climate scientists are clear that electricity
    generation plays a large part in carbon emissions. Solar deployment can
    help reduce emissions, support local economies and good jobs, reduce
    air pollution, and provide low-cost energy to American families and
    businesses. The solar industry today, at just 2.3 percent of our
    nation's electricity production, reduces carbon emissions by 73.3
    million metric tons per year. That is the equivalent of taking 15.6
    million vehicles off the road or planting 1.2 billion trees. The carbon
    reduction attributes of solar are significant.
        To reach our aggressive 20% by 2030, we will need to install an
    average of 39 gigawatts (GW) each year through the 2020s. That's up
    from 10.6 GW last year. We'll need an average annual growth rate of 18%
    and cost reductions across all market segments of nearly 50%.
        If we achieve this goal, we will create 350,000 additional jobs and
    build more systems annually than we have installed to date. That means
    there will be a total of 600,000 solar jobs in 2030. That's more
    workers than every single U.S. company except for Walmart, more than
    the utility industry, and more than the mining and oil and gas
    extraction industries combined. And when we grow this workforce, it
    will be with an eye toward diversity and inclusion.
        In this scenario, our industry will add more than $345 billion into
    the U.S. economy over the next ten years, reaching $53 billion
    annually. Our success will prove that climate solutions don't hurt the
    economy, but instead, are some of the strongest economic growth engines
    we've seen in decades.
        Your Committee is charged with a special task--to advise Congress
    on opportunities and policies that exist to help address the climate
    crisis. That's why I'm pleased to be here today representing this
    vibrant industry. Solar offers Americans options and answers on climate
    change, as well as tremendous opportunity for economic growth and job
    creation across the country.
                                what has worked
        How has solar grown so rapidly and successfully? What makes me so
    confident about the Solar+ Decade? Let me share with you a few examples
    of policies that have made a real difference, at both the federal and
    state levels.
    Federal
        At the federal level, the leading policy that has led to the
    deployment of solar nationwide is the Investment Tax Credit. To put it
    simply, the ITC has worked and worked well. The ITC has helped to
    create hundreds of thousands of jobs and spurred billions of dollars in
    economic growth. As we come to the end of 2019, we approach an annual
    step-down in the ITC which will lead to an eventual phaseout of the
    credit for residential and a much-reduced credit for commercial and
    utility-scale solar.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The ITC for both commercial and residential is 30% until Dec.
    31, 2019. Thereafter it steps down to 26 percent in 2020 and 22 percent
    in 2021. After 2021, the residential credit will drop to zero while the
    commercial and utility credit will drop to a permanent 10 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With the solar industry facing cost increases from tariffs and the
    most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report indicating
    that rapid decarbonization is necessary to mitigate some of the worst
    effects of climate change, the timing is not right for a stepdown or
    phaseout of this extremely valuable tax credit that spurs increased
    development of renewable energy. Until Congress passes a carbon tax or
    other comprehensive legislation that addresses climate change, the ITC
    is the most effective policy we have to deploy clean energy. In short,
    the ITC is more than just a pro solar policy. It is a pro planet
    policy.
        Solar has also benefitted from other federal policies, including
    the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, which encourages the
    development of small-scale renewable and cogeneration facilities.
    Additionally, federal investments in energy research through the
    Department of Energy have long paved the way for commercialization of
    technologies. Federal solar research has made the United States a
    global leader in solar technology development. This includes research
    on battery storage, which is absolutely part of the future of
    additional renewable deployment.
    State
        At the state level, there are numerous examples of state policy
    that has accelerated the deployment of solar energy. States like
    Arizona, Texas, Nevada, California, North Carolina, New Jersey and
    Massachusetts have had enormous growth in solar energy deployment,
    largely because of policy incentives and programs that support the new
    development of solar projects.
        One example of effective state policy is renewable portfolio
    standards. In Maryland, for example, the Clean Energy Jobs Act passed
    in 2017, enacting a 25% renewable electricity standard by 2020. This
    legislation was a broad success, prompting the creation of thousands of
    solar jobs. Earlier this year, Maryland doubled down on its commitment,
    raising Maryland's requirement for renewable energy to 50% by 2030,
    including a 14.5% requirement for in-state solar by 2030. This
    legislation had bipartisan support and will continue to catalyze job
    growth and solar development across the state.
        In South Carolina, Governor McMaster signed legislation in May that
    lifted caps on the amount of rooftop solar allowed in certain areas and
    eliminated restrictions on solar-leasing programs. The Energy Freedom
    Act, passed unanimously by the Republican-led South Carolina House and
    Senate, also improves opportunities for utility-scale solar developers,
    including provisions to require the Public Service Commission to review
    and approve rates and terms provided to utility-scale solar facilities
    which will ensure contract terms are reasonable for such projects. In
    addition, the new law will allow large energy customers to negotiate
    directly with renewable energy suppliers and provide for more
    transparency and competition in long-term utility-generation planning.
        In the Midwest, Illinois passed the Future Energy Jobs Act (FEJA)
    in 2016 which aimed to grow the solar workforce in the state. FEJA
    authorized a total of $30 million to develop three clean energy job
    training programs. The Act established a solar installation training
    pipeline. Despite a national trend of contracted solar job growth in
    2018 due in part to solar tariffs, Illinois added over 1,300 solar jobs
    in 2018, and is projected to continue growing.
        California also made headlines last year with its enactment of a
    requirement for newly constructed homes to either have solar panels on
    the home or be connected to a shared solar system that serves multiple
    homes. This code will allow homeowners to experience lower energy bills
    and a projected overall savings when factoring in the cost of the solar
    array. This standard was groundbreaking and will provide immense
    benefits to California and its residents when it goes into effect next
    year.
        Two other policies that have supported residential and small
    commercial solar are net metering and rate design. Net metering, which
    provides a credit to a system owner for power sent to her neighbors,
    has been critical in fostering rooftop markets in many states.
    Similarly, rate design that does not unfairly burden solar owners with
    unwarranted fees and charges simply because they installed solar, will
    be critical to this sector as the industry moves forward. Although
    states with high levels of rooftop solar are rightly beginning to
    explore successors to net metering, we have unfortunately seen actions
    in states with very small rooftop markets that attempt to use rate
    design to stymie a growing industry before it takes hold.
      challenges to faster deployment of solar and policies that can help
        Despite these shining examples of federal and state policies, we
    must acknowledge that our industry still faces major challenges as we
    drive towards 20% of generation. Despite the solar industry's growth,
    future deployment still faces challenges. While the cost of solar has
    dropped dramatically in recent years, added costs from tariffs,
    extended and unpredictable timelines for permitting and
    interconnection, uncertainty about the future of tax policy, slower
    than needed deployment of storage resources, the need for
    infrastructure investment, and workforce needs pose potential
    roadblocks to solar growth across the country. There's a lot at stake
    in getting renewable energy deployment right and facilitating it as
    rapidly as possible. As the Committee considers options to include in
    its report, we recommend your attention to the following:
    Extend the ITC as We Seek Consensus on Broader Carbon Policy
        As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, the federal solar ITC has
    been an outstanding success and continues to drive major growth in our
    industry. It has created hundreds of thousands of jobs and, at last
    count, $140 billion dollars of investment. And yet, just as Americans
    demand action on climate change and new markets in areas like the
    Midwest are opening up and growing, the ITC is scheduled to begin to
    step down in its value at the end of 2019, phasing out entirely for
    residential solar by 2022, and falling to just 10 percent for
    commercial and utility-scale solar. This is a challenge for our
    industry and for our climate.
        One thing that Congress can do now that will absolutely help deploy
    renewables faster is to extend the Investment Tax Credit. It's that
    simple. Solar comprises only 2.3% of generation nationwide and we are
    at an inflection point where strong and proven tax policy can make a
    difference in the clean energy economy. In order to get where we need
    to be, and meaningfully cut emissions, the ITC extension is a must.
    Given the focus of Congress on new sources of economic growth and jobs,
    as well as renewed spirit in genuinely addressing climate change, now
    is not the time to diminish support for a core part of U.S. climate
    policy. SEIA is also participating in ongoing conversations in Congress
    about broader climate policies through the tax code--from next
    generation tax credits, such as a technology neutral tax credit, which
    we have endorsed, to thinking critically about a carbon tax that
    appropriately prices the externalities of energy generation. As an
    organization, we are generally supportive of these approaches and think
    they would comprise a wholistic approach to carbon policy.
        However, until there is bipartisan consensus on what comes next to
    tackle our climate challenges, we urge Congress to use the proven tools
    it has available. The stakes are far too grave. Tax credits like the
    solar ITC work and will continue to work if extended. Let's put it in
    perspective--as mentioned earlier, the solar industry today, at just
    2.3 percent of our nation's electricity production, reduces carbon
    emissions by 73.3 million metric tons per year. That is the equivalent
    of taking 15.6 million vehicles off the road or planting 1.2 billion
    trees. Just imagine the impact solar energy can have in the future if
    we reach our goal of 20 percent of electricity generation by 2030.
    Invest in Energy Storage
        Energy storage coupled with solar will be a critical part of
    achieving 20% solar by 2030. Solar + storage is the future of our
    industry and vitally important for getting more solar on the grid.
    Storage can ensure that the solar resource can be optimized and provide
    the reliability required on the grid. Already, solar + storage projects
    are being built across the country in residential, commercial and
    utility-scale contexts. In fact, major corporations like Target and
    Wal-Mart have made significant investments in solar + storage in recent
    years.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Solar Means Business, Solar Energy Industries Association.
    Available at https://www.seia.org/solar-means-business-report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Energy Storage Association forecasts that we will reach 35 GW
    of new storage by 2025.\3\ That has far-reaching implications for solar
    and other renewables. However, energy storage needs support to grow and
    deploy as rapidly as we need.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 35X25: A Vision for Energy Storage, Energy Storage Association.
    Available at http://energystorage.org/vision2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress can help by facilitating energy storage research and
    deployment through research funding, infrastructure, and tax policies,
    like the current bipartisan legislation that will codify storage within
    the Investment Tax Credit. As our nation becomes more energy
    independent, eliminating the 70% cliff for storage under the solar ITC
    or full ITC treatment for storage will help integrate renewable energy
    resources into the larger utility network. Infrastructure legislation
    can incentivize integrating storage on the grid. Federal research
    dollars can also help support the development of the next generation of
    energy storage technology we will need to continue to deploy more
    renewables.
    Foster Trade Policies that Support Renewable Energy
        Americans now pay more for solar panels than the rest of the world.
    Last year, President Trump imposed tariffs on most imported solar
    modules and cells. These tariffs raised prices of panels by 30% in
    2018, and, despite the rate of tariff stepping down annually, will
    remain an added cost of panels and cells for developers of solar
    projects across the United States.
        This policy was a major challenge for SEIA's member companies and
    the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry saw a contraction in
    deployment, investment, and hiring as a result of the price uncertainty
    and increases that the Section 201 trade case imposed over 2017 and
    2018. As a result of the tariffs, solar lost 8,000 jobs as well as
    potentially 10,000 more jobs that were never created. We deployed 2 GW
    fewer than we had expected, and the American economy lost out on
    billions of dollars of potential investment. Trade policies must
    support deployment of clean energy and not create roadblocks.
    Maintain and Expand Competition in Electricity Markets
        Congress and regulatory agencies need to maintain and expand
    opportunities for competition in electricity markets. In places still
    served by vertically integrated utilities, discriminatory
    interconnection practices and other anti-competitive behavior must not
    be tolerated. Congress should maintain the regime established by PURPA,
    under which qualifying facilities bring competitive pressure when they
    can serve load for less than the utility's avoided costs. Attacks on
    PURPA are attacks on competition; any changes made to PURPA should
    enhance competition, not stifle it. The Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC), with strong oversight from Congress, should ensure
    that PURPA is implemented in a transparent and non-discriminatory
    manner, and that adequate enforcement follows any improper action on
    the part of utilities or their state regulators.
        In regions with wholesale electricity markets, competition must
    expand to include storage assets and distributed energy resources to
    bid into and fully participate in those electricity markets. FERC has
    taken some initial steps with Order No. 841, which addresses storage
    assets, but we are still waiting for similar action to establish the
    participation rules by distributed energy resources.
        Overall, we must have wholesale market rules that value all the
    services that solar--whether connected to the transmission or
    distribution grid--can provide, from energy to frequency regulation,
    and that anticipate a future with solar + storage resources. Of note,
    FERC's recently finalized storage rule does not require regional
    transmission organizations (RTOs) to identify how they will
    interconnect and accommodate bids from solar + storage resources. This
    gap must be remedied soon, as the private sector is already deploying
    assets in this configuration. Capacity market rules must fairly account
    for solar and solar + storage assets. FERC and RTOs should resist calls
    to support aging, uneconomic generation resources with out-of-market
    payments. Even the rules that govern who is allowed to participate in
    RTO stakeholder processes merit review. In a recent decision, FERC
    rightly concluded that certain rules for stakeholder participation
    constitute a barrier to entry for generators and small load-serving
    entities, and are therefore unjust and unreasonable and must be
    changed.\4\ Congress and FERC must continue to ensure robust
    competition in all wholesale markets, as we know competition delivers
    lower costs to end-use consumers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See American Wind Energy Association and The Wind Coalition v.
    Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 167 FERC para. 61,033 (April 18, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, there is room for more competition at the retail level,
    too. We see corporate buyers and homeowners choosing more solar every
    year; it is critical that customer demands can be easily met by solar
    generation.
    Invest in Electric Infrastructure
        Our nation's electric grid is in dire need of upgrades, and a push
    to electrify the economy necessitates additional investments in
    generation, transmission, and distribution lines. The United States
    needs massive infrastructure investment to update the grid, improve
    resilience, and expand transmission. We need to modernize the grid to
    allow for distributed energy assets to be better integrated and we need
    to build more transmission infrastructure to allow for more utility-
    scale solar to be delivered. Moving clean electricity from remote areas
    onto the grid is a key component of our ability to deploy more
    renewable energy. One of the primary barriers to solar is the lack of
    transmission capacity serving areas with quality utility-scale solar
    resources which are often located in remote rural areas. As demand for
    electricity grows, transmission will become a more critical issue.
    Leadership is required to create coordinated and cooperative planning
    efforts to ensure transmission capacity for renewable energy generation
    resources like solar. The federal government can also develop guidance
    and information-sharing portals that make it easier for solar to
    connect to the distribution grid and reduce interconnection wait times.
        As the transportation sector is further electrified, federal
    policies should also support using renewable energy to power surface
    transportation infrastructure like the many new charging stations that
    will be required. These stations must be in every community and take
    into consideration existing community assets and accessibility.
    Analyze Renewable Portfolio Standards
        As we have seen in the states, renewable portfolio standards help
    to spur considerable investment in renewable energy. More than half of
    all U.S. states have some type of renewable portfolio standard or goal
    in place. Most state targets are between 10% and 45%, but a growing
    number, including California, New York, and New Jersey, to name just
    three, have requirements of 50% or greater. Several pieces of
    legislation exist to create Renewable Portfolio Standards at the
    federal level. If Congress chooses to consider a federal standard, we
    know solar energy will be an important part of any proposed solution.
    Cut Red Tape
        In some states, installing solar is becoming as common as getting a
    new air conditioner. While installing solar is routine, safe and
    simple, the process of getting permits, inspections and permission to
    interconnect a solar system can often stretch into months. These delays
    drastically increase the cost of solar deployment compared to other
    developed countries such as Australia and Germany.
        We can do better and are working to improve these processes in the
    United States, but it is a big challenge that needs support from the
    federal government. The United States has about 15,000 different
    permitting jurisdictions and about 3,000 electric utilities that all
    have their own processes, leading to a highly fragmented and
    inefficient business environment. To meet our climate goals, we need to
    drastically streamline these permitting processes to cut as much as 40%
    off the cost of rooftop solar energy systems. Congress can assist by
    funding research and initiatives that create voluntary streamlined
    permitting for solar.
    Modernize Policies around Federal Property and Lands Management
        The federal government must also look at policies to improve
    permitting for solar projects on federal lands and make additional
    opportunities available for solar investment in areas that may be
    challenging. One of the great things about solar is that it can be
    installed in a variety of places--rooftops, in fields, and even on
    previously-developed property known as brownfields. EPA has a
    Brownfields Program that provides grants and technical assistance to
    sustainably reuse contaminated property, and several states have
    similar offerings, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York.
        Federal buildings can also benefit from solar and save taxpayers
    money. But additional reform is needed for federal contracting
    practices that often prevent federal buildings from installing solar.
    An unintended consequence of the current federal acquisition law is the
    limited authority of the executive branch to enter into long-term clean
    energy contracts. For example, most federal agencies cannot enter into
    Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) with terms longer than 10 years.
    Unfortunately, this truncated timeline hinders the financial viability
    of projects that could reduce federal energy costs, meet clean energy
    requirements, create jobs and promote energy security for the country's
    most important missions.
    Invest in Workforce Development
        Solar is also limited by the ability to attract, train and retain a
    skilled workforce that can meet the industry's growing demands. In the
    future this issue will become even more dire. For example, rural areas
    have available land needed to develop utility-scale solar projects. But
    these companies have challenges building the robust workforce needed to
    construct a large solar array, making it difficult to expand solar to
    new areas or markets.
        Solar jobs are well-paying careers. In fact, eight states such as
    Florida, California, and New Mexico list solar installer as their
    fastest growing job, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    Construction workers, project managers, electricians, and engineers are
    in high demand and labor requirements for a solar project can vary
    state to state.
        Both solar-specific job training and the workforce itself are
    needed to build the solar needed to reduce emissions from the energy
    sector and spread the economic benefits of solar to communities across
    the country. SEIA is also leading work to make sure that as the solar
    industry grows, we deliberately reach into communities that have not
    benefitted from renewable energy in the past, to train workers, and
    bring jobs, economic investment, and clean solar energy opportunities
    to every zip code. SEIA recently co-published with The Solar Foundation
    the 2019 Solar Industry Diversity Study as well as a companion guide on
    diversity best practices.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The Solar Foundation and SEIA, U.S. Solar Industry Diversity
    Study. Available at: https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/diversity/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress should support policies that make training for renewable
    energy jobs more accessible to a wide range of people and communities.
    SEIA is also working on a diversity initiative through Historically
    Black Colleges and Universities to ensure there's a pipeline of strong
    candidates in a range of disciplines that are ready to join the solar
    workforce. Workforce policies can also build on the skills of veterans,
    many of whom have grown familiar with solar through their service in
    the military. Additional policies and programs, like Solar Ready Vets,
    can help facilitate the transition from military service to clean
    energy jobs.
    Incentivize Solar on New Construction
        Building codes have made new homes and buildings safer, more
    comfortable and efficient. The next step in building evolution is
    solar. Solar can help meet the energy needs of new homes and make home
    ownership more affordable. Including solar on new construction may be
    the most cost-effective way to build residential solar and can cost
    less than a dormer window or granite countertops. Including solar on
    new construction saves homebuyers the extra costs associated with
    retrofitting solar after construction. Unfortunately, the most recent
    model building energy codes penalize the use of solar as a compliance
    measure. This imposes unnecessary costs for homebuyers. Congress can
    explore ways to eliminate barriers and incentivize solar on new
    construction to save energy and costs down the line.
    Support Clean Energy for All Communities
        Too often, renewable energy has not been available to help every
    community, particularly those that are low-income, urban or rural.
    Leadership and investment are necessary to make sure that every
    community is included in the clean energy economy. The benefits in
    terms of cleaner air, jobs, economic investment and resilience will far
    outweigh any initial cost.
        Community anchor institutions, such as schools, community centers,
    libraries, post offices and other public buildings can play an
    important role in meeting renewable energy goals. While some of these
    institutions are already using solar, much more can be done. The
    federal government can provide incentives for additional solar
    installations on these buildings, which not only create an added layer
    of resilience to communities, but also reduce costs to the local
    taxpayer through energy savings.
        We also urge the Committee to recommend support for community solar
    deployment, which makes solar energy available to people who cannot put
    solar on their own homes or who live in multi-unit dwellings. In
    addition to streamlining interconnection processes and upgrading the
    distribution system to allow for more deployment of distributed/
    community solar (both of which are discussed above), the federal
    government can incentivize states to develop their own community solar
    programs by providing technical assistance and funding.
        Low-income energy assistance programs to help families install
    solar will also help ensure that every American has access to clean,
    renewable energy. These programs can be vital for bridging gaps for
    communities to benefit from clean solar energy. Investments that help
    low-income communities benefit from solar help make sure that no
    community is left behind in the clean energy economy. Such programs
    also ensure we remedy the mistakes of the past, when low-income
    communities too often bore the brunt of the environmental costs of more
    traditional energy production and distribution.
        Rural America and our nation's farmers also benefit from solar
    energy. SEIA supports the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)
    within the Department of Agriculture. This program can help farmers
    reduce input cost with a range of renewable energy options, including
    wind and solar. At a time when many agricultural producers are
    struggling, REAP creates additional revenue streams and helps support
    farmer incomes. Some farmers have even begun to co-locate their solar
    investments with other forms of agriculture production, including sheep
    grazing and beekeeping.
        The Committee must also be certain to consider the unique energy
    needs of Native American tribes and people living on tribal lands.
    Policies should be supported that center tribal members in the
    development and execution of renewable energy projects and help tribes
    benefit from the jobs and economic opportunities that come with them.
    This is especially critical in communities that have historically
    focused on fossil fuel extraction and where many jobs are at stake.
    Solar projects already exist on tribal lands to provide solar jobs and
    solar energy. Two such examples include a project Swinerton Renewable
    Energy is working on with the Navajo Nation in Kayenta, Arizona, and
    the work of a company called Native Renewables to both provide clean
    electricity to the Navajo Nation and create sustainable energy
    knowledge among all age groups. With additional support for hard and
    soft costs, microgrid development, job training and technical
    assistance, Congress can help speed deployment on Native lands across
    the United States.
                                   conclusion
        The benefits of deploying additional renewable energy are enormous.
    Together, our technologies will provide options for clean energy, offer
    solutions on climate change, grow the economy, and create hundreds of
    thousands of jobs.
        Over the next 10 years, the Solar+ Decade will be about
    collaboration and building the partnerships and expertise needed to
    overcome systemic challenges preventing the widescale adoption of
    solar. To achieve this goal, solar, wind and storage must work together
    to transform a complex and interrelated world of markets, customers and
    electricity systems.
        It is incumbent upon renewable industries to create a shared clean
    energy vision. It won't be just the Solar Decade, but the Solar+ Decade
    where Solar + Storage, Solar + Grid Modernization, Solar + Wind, and
    Solar + Overwhelming Public Support combine to define our nation's
    clean energy future.
        Renewable energy industries like solar, wind and storage must work
    together to aggressively pursue policies to deploy more renewables on
    the grid and increase access to consumers and businesses looking to
    lower their energy costs across the country. Together, we'll write a
    new story for American energy in the 2020s. We invite Congress to join
    us in sharing this vision. I am confident that together we will provide
    countless benefits to the American economy and the American people
    while also creating a livable climate for future generations.
        I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Select
    Committee on the Climate Crisis. I look forward to answering any
    questions you may have.

        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Kiernan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF TOM KIERNAN

        Mr. Kiernan. Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves,
    members of the committee, thank you very much for the
    opportunity to testify.
        Again, Tom Kiernan, CEO of AWEA, pleased to represent our
    roughly 1,000 members in the full spectrum of the supply chain
    of the wind industry.
        In summary, wind energy is an American success story. We
    have grown now to 114,000 jobs, and the wind turbine technician
    is either number one or number two fastest growing profession
    over the last three years. We are kind of dueling it with the
    solar technician. So we are thrilled with the career growth
    opportunities in our industries.
        We are also pleased that we are helping to lower the cost
    of electricity for consumers. Per Lazard, wind energy is the
    cheapest source of new electricity, and in many parts of the
    country, actually new wind is cheaper than the marginal cost of
    existing generation.
        We are also in all 50 States and in 70 percent of all of
    the congressional districts, whether it is one of our 500
    manufacturing facilities or one of our 54,000 turbines
    throughout the country.
        And lastly, as far as this American success story, we are
    thrilled that we are reliably on the grid. There are six States
    that have currently have over 20 percent of all of their
    electricity provided by wind energy. SPP, one of the larger
    regions, recently reported that last year 24 percent of all
    their electricity was wind energy, and there are times of day
    this last year where 50, 60, or 65 percent of all the
    electricity in some States or regions was provided reliably by
    wind energy.
        What I want to do this morning is first share a couple of
    the policies that have led to this American success story and
    then share a couple of policies that we would suggest to add to
    that list.
        First policies that have succeeded, the production tax
    credit. The PTC has been and is an important mechanism for the
    wind industry to access capital. I am sure you well remember
    the December 2015 5-year agreement, bipartisan agreement, to
    phase down the PTC. And that 5-year, multi-year clarity and
    certainty of policy is one of the key reasons that we have more
    wind under construction now than we have ever had before,
    because of that clarity in policy and certainty. So the PTC
    first.
        Second, renewable portfolio standards. There are currently
    in 29 States and DC RPS policies, and eight additional States
    have renewable energy goals. And both of those are important
    drivers for our industry.
        It is also important to note that an RPS does not handpick
    a technology. Rather, all renewables are able to compete to
    incentivize cost reductions and efficiency gains in homegrown
    electric sources.
        The third policy I want to point out that has been so
    helpful, in addition to PTC and RPS, State procurement for
    offshore wind. We have got world class wind resources onshore
    and offshore, especially off the East Coast and very much
    though in the Great Lakes and off the West Coast.
        States like Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
    Rhode Island, and others have set procurement requirements, and
    these are vital drivers for our blossoming offshore wind
    industry.
        Now, with those three, let me talk about some of the
    barriers we have going forward and some of the policies that we
    need to add to those first three.
        First, we have an old and inadequate transmission system.
    Electricity is the lifeblood of a modern U.S. economy, yet our
    grid is old and in need of investment. Three quick datapoints
    on that. Consumers currently are paying $6 billion every year
    in, in essence, congestion costs, because they are not able to
    get the inexpensive, affordable clean wind energy from where it
    is generated to load, because we don't have sufficient
    transmission. That is point one.
        Point two, American Society of Civil Engineers gave our
    grid a D-plus. That is not the grid you want to build the
    future modern economy on a D-plus grid.
        Lastly, SPP and MISO have both found that the benefits of
    transmission are three times greater than the cost of those
    upgrades.
        So a solution for Congress is to direct FERC to create
    workable policies in what we have referred to as the three Ps
    of transmission: How to plan for it, how to pay for it, and the
    permitting of transmission.
        The second policy I want to talk about that we need to
    address is creating an implicit or explicit price on carbon.
    Currently different energy technologies receive varying levels
    of support across different time periods without any unifying
    policy rationale. A simple way to fix this barrier is for
    Congress to put a price on carbon, whether explicitly or
    implicitly, so that carbon is appropriately valued and so
    electric generators have a level playing field to compete. And
    one such example is a technology-neutral tax incentive, among
    many ways of getting at that.
        So to summarize, policies that have been beneficial, the
    PTC, renewable portfolio standards, and procurement policies
    for offshore wind. And we would add to that list, to address
    these barriers, transmission policies and a price on carbon.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement of Tom Kiernan follows:]
                                  ----------

       House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Solving the Climate
                  Crisis: Ramping Up Renewables, June 13, 2019

      Testimony from Tom Kiernan, President and CEO, American Wind Energy
                                  Association

        Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, Members of the Select
    Committee, good morning. It is my privilege to be here today on behalf
    of the 114,000 men and women working in the U.S. wind industry. I look
    forward to discussing the tremendous contributions American wind power
    is making, and how we can continue growing as part of the solution to
    the climate crisis. As the President and CEO of the American Wind
    Energy Association, I am proud to represent our 1,000+ member companies
    with a common interest in encouraging the expansion of wind energy in
    the United States. Our members include wind turbine manufacturers,
    component suppliers, project developers, project owners and operators,
    financiers, researchers, utilities, marketers, customers, and their
    advocates. Today wind energy is lowering the cost of electricity for
    American families and businesses, enhancing rural economies, and
    actively reducing U.S. emissions. Wind energy is an American success
    story, providing jobs, investment, manufacturing and economic and
    environmental benefits across the country. A few highlights:
               Today a record 114,000 Americans spread across all
            50 states have jobs supporting the wind industry.
               Over 500 American factories in 42 states build many
            of the 8,000 parts found in a modern wind turbine.
               The industry is proud to hire America's veterans at
            a rate 67 percent higher than the national average.
               At least 69 percent of U.S. congressional districts
            have either an operating wind farm or wind-related factory, or
            both.
               The U.S. now has 97,223 MW of installed wind
            capacity, enough to power over 30 million homes. Wind supplied
            6.5 percent of the country's electricity in 2018.
               At the state level, six states now generate at least
            20 percent of their electricity using wind.
               In 2018, the U.S. wind industry invested $12 billion
            in new projects and paid over $1 billion in state and local
            taxes and landowners lease payments.
               As wind technology advances we're experiencing
            previously unseen levels of productivity. Wind farms built over
            the last five years have seen average annual capacity factors
            of 40 percent, with some individual projects in more recent
            years achieving over 50 percent, on par with certain types of
            conventional power plants.
               The U.S. offshore wind industry is primed to scale
            up. At the end of 2018, the U.S. had a potential offshore wind
            pipeline of over 25,700 MW spanning 10 states in the Northeast,
            Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes regions.
                  policies that have helped deploy renewables
        Federal and state policies--such as the production tax credit
    (PTC), state renewables portfolio standards, state procurements for
    offshore wind, and funding for Department of energy R&D--have helped to
    spur wind energy development.
                             production tax credit
        Just as tax treatment for other energy sources has enabled growth
    and development, the PTC is an incentive that helped wind developers
    access the capital needed to build new wind projects. This incentive is
    phasing out this year. The PTC helped launch the wind industry as we
    know it. However, at times a lack of policy certainty around the PTC
    hampered the growth of American wind power. For many years, Congress
    cycled through the tax credit in one or two-year stints and allowed it
    to expire multiple times. This cyclical pattern resulted in boom-bust
    cycles of development. In December 2015, with strong bipartisan
    support, Congress agreed to an orderly phaseout of the PTC. This multi-
    year policy certainty created a business environment primed for growth,
    where investments in people, infrastructure, and manufacturing took
    hold.
                      state renewable portfolio standards
        State renewable portfolio standards (RPS), policies that require
    electric utilities to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy
    that they deliver to their customers, have also helped spur the
    development of this robust industry. By design, an RPS does not hand
    pick a technology; rather all renewables are able to compete,
    incentivizing cost reductions and efficiency gains. As a result, RPS
    policies encourage the growth of additional homegrown electricity
    sources that diversify our energy portfolios, spur local economic
    development and job creation, reduce pollution, cut water consumption,
    and save consumers money.
        Today, 29 states plus the District of Columbia have RPS policies in
    place, while another eight states have non-binding renewable energy
    goals. State RPS targets range widely from 10 percent to 100 percent
    renewable energy. Many states have been expanding their targets in
    recent years and several others are considering future increases,
    showing the success of RPS programs to date. Historically, wind energy
    has been the top renewable energy technology of choice to meet RPS
    targets, accounting for 64 percent of all RPS-related renewable
    capacity additions to date.
        Most importantly, the impact of RPS policies on consumers has been
    minimal, with many actually seeing lower electric bills because of
    them. Because wind's costs have fallen by 69 percent since 2009, it's
    the cheapest source of new electric generating capacity in many parts
    of the country.
                      state procurement for offshore wind
        The U.S. has a vast offshore wind energy resource, possessing a
    power potential of more than 2,000 gigawatts (GW), nearly double the
    nation's current electricity use. This potential presents an enormous
    opportunity to deliver large amounts of clean and reliable electricity
    to the country's largest population centers, where it's needed most.
        With world-class wind resources on the East and West Coasts and in
    the Great Lakes, infrastructure, and offshore energy expertise, the
    U.S. is primed to scale up offshore wind power. The U.S. Department of
    the Interior is charting a path forward for additional offshore wind
    lease areas. That will transform offshore wind's enormous potential
    into a concrete pillar of American energy dominance while spurring new
    manufacturing and shipbuilding.
        State policies that require the purchase of offshore wind in
    Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and others
    are vital drivers for the offshore wind industry. These policies will
    help achieve scale and develop an American supply chain. With stable
    policy in place, the Department of Energy found that the U.S. could
    install a total of 22,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind projects by
    2030 and 86,000 MW by 2050, creating thousands of well-paying jobs in
    coastal communities. A recent study by the University of Delaware's
    Special Initiative on Offshore Wind projects America's growing offshore
    wind industry represents a $70 billion capital expenditure revenue
    opportunity for businesses in the offshore wind power supply chain over
    the course of the next decade. And according to a study from the
    Workforce Development Institute, 74 different occupations are needed to
    build, operate and maintain an offshore wind farm.
                 impediments to growth in wind energy industry
        The difficulty in building transmission, the lack of a level
    playing field for all renewables, and the introduction of tariffs on
    the wind energy industry are impediments to the continuation of a
    robust industry.
                                  transmission
        Electricity is the lifeblood of the modern U.S. economy. The
    ability to get electrons from where they are generated to where they
    are consumed is essential to virtually everything Americans do. Yet,
    our electricity grid is aging and needs sustained attention and
    investment in order to provide reliable, affordable service to families
    and businesses. Consumers currently pay approximately $6 billion in
    annual transmission congestion costs. In fact, the American Society of
    Civil Engineers rates the country's electric grid an unacceptable D+.
        Transmission provides dozens of quantifiable benefits, such as
    facilitating access to lower-cost electricity generation, reducing the
    need to build additional generation to hold in reserve, facilitating
    robust electricity markets, providing economic development and jobs,
    and helping meet public policy requirements, among other benefits. In
    short, expanding transmission access provides consumers with lower cost
    electricity while enhancing the reliability and resiliency of our power
    system.
        Fortunately, dozens of studies from across the country show that
    transmission line investments pay for themselves many times over by
    reducing electric bills, and real-world examples bear this out:
               SPP found that the transmission upgrades it
            installed between 2012 and 2014 created over $16 billion in
            gross savings--3.5 times greater than the cost of the
            transmission upgrades.
               MISO found that recent transmission investments will
            provide $12 to $53 billion in net benefits over the next 20 to
            40 years, or between $250 and $1,000 for each person currently
            served by MISO--2.2 to 3.4 times greater than the cost of the
            transmission.
        Wind energy continues to be the lowest-cost source of new
    generation in many parts of the country, even compared to rooftop
    solar. Wind is also one of the most cost-effective means to reduce
    carbon emissions, and cut 43 million cars' worth of carbon emissions in
    2018 alone. Transmission is critical to accessing this reliable, low-
    cost, location-constrained zero-carbon resource. When congestion occurs
    on the transmission system, wind generators are sometimes curtailed,
    which means that more expensive and dirtier generation is dispatched to
    meet customers' demand. With a robust transmission grid, regional grid
    operators can cost-efficiently and reliably balance variable resources
    across diverse geographic areas, allowing carbon reduction to be more
    cost-effective.
        The key to expanding and upgrading the transmission grid is
    workable policies for how transmission is planned, paid for, and
    permitted. In 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
    took an important step in the right direction with Order No. 1000,
    which established further requirements and principles related to how
    transmission is planned and paid for on a regional and interregional
    basis. While Order No. 1000 made some strides, more must be done to
    ensure efficient and cost-effective transmission solutions are
    available. Congress should encourage FERC to take steps to better
    deliver on Order 1000's promise and ensure a regulatory environment
    that incents transmission infrastructure, aligning it with the future
    needs of the grid, such as meeting climate goals.
            the cost of carbon emissions is not reflected in markets
        The societal cost of emitting carbon is not currently captured in
    today's markets. Pricing carbon dioxide, especially on the national
    level, would remedy this market failure. Society faces a dual energy
    challenge: we need to expand energy supplies to support economic growth
    and improve living standards, and we must do so in a way that addresses
    the clear risk posed by carbon emissions contributing to climate
    change. Fortunately, these goals are not mutually exclusive because of
    the rapid decline in zero-emitting technology's costs, in particular
    renewable energy.
        Strong and consistent policy signals at the national, regional and
    state levels that internalize the cost posed by carbon emissions can
    promote a smooth and affordable transition to a cleaner, more
    sustainable, economy.
                             unlevel playing field
        In absence of broad federal policy, the U.S. tax code has been a de
    facto source of energy policy for the last century, but the numerous
    energy-related incentives in the tax code have made the energy tax
    landscape unnecessarily complex. Different energy technologies still
    receive varying levels of support across divergent time periods without
    a unifying public policy rationale and fairness across the
    technologies. Congress should further simplify energy tax policy and
    create a level playing field by providing a widely applicable,
    transferable technology neutral tax incentive, based on carbon
    emissions, that thereby puts an implicit or explicit price on carbon to
    build our economy and lower prices for consumers. There are multiple
    legal and regulatory approaches that can accomplish this goal. This
    approach would create a more level playing field among energy
    generation technologies. Further, the clear goal of greenhouse gas
    reductions forming the basis of the credit would provide a stable
    incentive that increases business certainty.
                                    tariffs
        The U.S. wind industry supports 114,000 high-paying jobs spread
    across all 50 states, many at more than 500 factories that build wind-
    related parts. While AWEA appreciates the administration's actions to
    remedy unfair trade practices and increase American competitiveness,
    the enacted high and sweeping tariffs on products and component parts
    used in wind energy development will substantially increase the cost of
    doing business for U.S. wind energy developers. This hurts U.S.
    manufacturers and makes energy less affordable for the millions of
    Americans who rely on wind power to provide affordable energy. It also
    hampers the administration's progress on goals concerning U.S. economic
    development, energy dominance, infrastructure improvements, job
    creation, and support for rural communities. The potential increase in
    wind energy's costs and, in turn, the potential reduction of future
    wind deployment, if the Section 301 and Section 232 steel and aluminum
    tariffs are not soon lifted, will:
        1. Eliminate thousands of American jobs, mostly in rural America
    where these jobs are desperately needed; including the loss of domestic
    manufacturing jobs as the wind industry reduces U.S. manufacturing of
    wind components in states like Colorado, Texas, and Ohio; and
        2. Devastate already struggling farming and ranching families in
    states like Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and South Dakota, who
    count on turbine land-lease payments as a drought-resistant cash crop.
        I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the conversation on
    how to continue the growth of wind energy and contribute to addressing
    the climate crisis.

        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Ms. Tezak, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE TEZAK

        Ms. Tezak. Thank you, Chairman Castor, Ranking Member
    Graves, and distinguished members of the committee.
        My name is Christine Tezak, and I lead the power,
    pipelines, and environmental policy practice at ClearView
    Energy Partners, LLC. We are an independent research firm here
    in Washington that serves institutional investors and corporate
    strategists.
        Thank you for inviting me here to contribute to your
    important discussion regarding the growth of renewables in the
    U.S. power portfolio. I am grateful for your diligent
    consideration of climate issues on behalf the Nation's
    citizens, corporations and stakeholders.
        As mentioned earlier by Ranking Member Graves, USEIA
    calculates that U.S. electric power sector carbon dioxide
    emissions declined 28 percent since 2005 due to a slower
    electricity demand and changes in the mix of fuels used to
    generate power. This occurred for a variety of reasons.
        Our resource base has limited nuclear and hydropower
    capability relative to the other G20 nations, as we showed in
    figure 1. So building renewable capability that nature didn't
    provide can help us make further improvement.
        Second, as mentioned already, State renewable portfolio
    standards support and accelerate renewable deployment.
    Individual States establish targets and mandates directing
    their utilities to procure renewable energy resources based on
    a percentage of energy delivered over the course of a year.
        We summarize these programs in figure 2. Structuring these
    programs as targets to meet overall needs is important, as
    power requirements often differ on an hourly, daily, and
    seasonal basis.
        Third, solar contributed 14 percent of California's needs
    in 2018, leading the Nation's organized markets as we showed in
    figure 3. But natural gas has been important in balancing
    renewable power variations. Non-hydro renewables provided 26.6
    percent of the gigawatt hours consumed in the Golden State last
    year. However, the top 50 demand hours, California continued to
    rely heavily on in-State natural gas resources, even as
    renewable resources shouldered a larger share of demand at peak
    times.
        In 2018, 48 percent of California's top 50 peak hour needs
    were met by in-State gas plants. That is down from the 53
    percent average over 2015 to 2017, yet natural gas is still
    needed to keep the lights on, as we illustrated in figure 4.
        So far in 2019, wind is up to 25 percent of daily power
    needs in SPP. Wind output over the last 12 months is--moves
    over a range, though, from a low of 148 megawatts to a high of
    16-and-a-half gigawatts. The maximum one-hour ramp observed to
    date is 3.7 gigawatts, and the largest swing in production was
    a drop of 14.8 gigawatts over 18 hours. Natural gas and coal
    resources ramped up and down to meet the shifts in wind
    production. Both markets have a significant number of new
    renewable projects planned.
        To meet State level climate objectives, we expect electric
    storage technologies to help provide the balancing needs that
    natural gas plants currently provide. Natural gas sector
    participants continue to explore carbon capture and
    sequestration or beneficial reuse technologies. Currently,
    storage alternatives are more expensive than installed and new
    natural gas units but are growing swiftly off a small base.
        Last week, former Mayor Bloomberg called for closure of the
    Nation's remaining coal plants by 2030 and opposes construction
    of new natural gas plants in an effort to address climate
    change on an even shorter timeline envisioned by the State
    programs that Chairman Castor already mentioned.
        We built a cursory estimate of generation plant costs alone
    required to replace the 1.15 terawatt hours of electricity
    provided by coal facilities in 2018. Our assumptions are
    detailed in my testimony.
        But assuming equal shares of wind, solar, and biomass, with
    storage to complement wind and solar only, our rough estimate
    implies as much as a $941 billion in plant-related CapEx alone
    to meet this objective at today's prices.
        To fund such a broad societal goal, we looked at the
    potential impact of increasing electricity rates through the
    addition of a one cent per kilowatt hour surcharge. This
    approach could provide a modest level of funding but would have
    disparate rate impacts. That means bill increases of 3 to 11
    percent, given differences in underlying costs of power in each
    State and differences in average consumption, as we show in
    figure 6. Therefore, reducing the cost of the transition
    appears very worthy of policymaker consideration.
        Continued use of natural gas and progress on current State-
    identified timelines could meet power needs while delivering
    substantial emissions improvements, potentially at a lower
    cost.
        Our firm sometimes frames energy security in three
    dimensions: Adequacy, attributes, and affordability. Our
    experience is that affordability can be a real-world constraint
    when it comes to policy formation. Put it another way, focusing
    on attributes to the exclusion of affordability can undermine
    security and program durability. We suggest that natural gas
    may still have a key role to play as the Nation deploys an
    increasing number of low-emitting resources to our portfolio.
        I have also put in our testimony a 10-year analysis of the
    fuel mixes in each State for the members of the committee.
        Madam Chair, this concludes my summary, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Tezak follows:]
                                  ----------

     Testimony of Christine L. Tezak, Managing Director, ClearView Energy
        Partners, LLC, Before the U.S. House of Representatives Select
                        Committee on the Climate Crisis

        Good morning, Chairman Castor, Ranking Member Graves and
    distinguished Members of this Committee. My name is Christine Tezak,
    and I lead the power, pipelines and environmental policy practice at
    ClearView Energy Partners, LLC. ClearView is an independent research
    firm here in Washington, D.C. that serves institutional investors and
    corporate strategists. Thank you for inviting me today to contribute to
    your important discussion regarding the growth of renewables in the
    U.S. power portfolio. I am grateful for your diligent deliberation of
    climate issues on behalf of the nation's citizens, corporations and
    stakeholders.
        My testimony today makes three points, which I will detail in the
    paragraphs that follow. First, the nation's electric generation fleet
    has seen a significant drop in its emissions intensity since 2005 as
    new generation resources entered and older units retired. Second,
    renewable energy resources are growing quickly, if unevenly, throughout
    the U.S., thanks in large part to state initiatives. Third, I discuss
    how the highly flexible operating characteristics of natural gas plants
    have complemented renewables' growth by playing a balancing role.
    Specifically, they have done so by ramping up and down to accommodate
    the variation in renewable resource production, whether hourly,
    seasonally or annually. Finally, I offer a few thoughts on natural gas'
    potential to economically facilitate the shift to a lower-emitting
    national power portfolio.
        The U.S. Energy Information Administration explains that U.S.
    electric power sector carbon dioxide emissions (CO2)
    declined 28% since 2005 because of slower electricity demand growth and
    changes in the mix of fuels used to generate electricity. In 2017, EIA
    calculated that CO2 emissions from the electric power sector
    totaled 1,744 million metric tons (MM MtCO2) in 2017, the
    lowest level since 1987. In 2018, they rose slightly to 1,762 MM
    MtCO2.
        In CY 2017, the world's ten cleanest power mixes accounted for 9.5%
    of power generation and averaged 84.3% emissions-free on a generation-
    weighted basis. On the same basis, however, they averaged 25.6%
    nuclear-powered and 48.1% hydro powered, and only 10.6% non-hydro
    renewable powered (the U.S. was 10.1% in CY 2018, according to our
    Firm's analysis of EIA data). In other words, most of the ``green''
    power is blue. We're not all fortunate enough to have volcanoes and
    glaciers, so many nations--including the United States--find themselves
    installing the renewables that nature didn't provide.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            mid-century ``max-outs''
        Under the Federal Power Act, states have the authority over
    electric generation adequacy within their borders. This means that
    siting and fuel mix decisions are under state authority. The federal
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets emissions standards for
    plants of different fuel types and all plants are required to meet
    them. Emissions standards have been put in place since the 1970s. EPA
    plans to finalize its Affordable Clean Energy program to address power
    sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions this month.
        Individual states, at their discretion, have established targets or
    mandates directing their utilities to procure renewable energy
    resources based on the percentage of energy delivered over the course
    of a year. These programs differ significantly, some states are very
    ambitious; others do not have any program in place at all. We summarize
    these programs below in Figure 2.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The details of these state-led programs differ, both in scope and
    in stringency. Washington, D.C. and Hawaii have requirements for their
    utilities to deliver 100% renewable energy by 2032 and 2045,
    respectively. The state of Washington and New Mexico also have binding
    requirements, but these programs require 100% ``zero carbon''
    generation by 2045 and 2050, respectively. California and Nevada have
    established non-binding goals to procure 100% of electric power needs
    from zero carbon resources by 2050.
               complex market dynamics and operational challenges
        In many areas of the country, renewable energy growth has been
    modest, and it has not presented significant challenges to the regional
    transmission operators (RTOs) that manage multi-state markets. However,
    some markets are seeing significant operational impacts and growing
    queues of new projects seeking interconnection.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        We offer two examples. California and the Southwest Power Pool. The
    first has a high penetration of solar, the latter, of wind. California
    has seen significant changes in its market, as both its behind-the-
    meter (a.k.a., distributed, or ``rooftop'') and utility-scale solar
    deployments have grown. Solar power production has contributed to a
    ``duck curve'' phenomenon,\1\ where net load (demand) in this market
    falls in the middle of the day, only to ramp up strongly in the late
    afternoon and evening. This differs from the prior load curve, which
    reflected a ramp up in the morning, fairly stable daytime demand, an
    incremental evening ramp and then a tapering off as most folks retired
    for the evening. Solar has been making strong contributions to
    California's electricity needs over the last several years, meeting 14%
    of annual demand needs in 2018. Even though renewables contributed
    26.6% of the gigawatt hours (GWh) needed to serve California over the
    course of last year, the provision of peak service still relies heavily
    on natural gas facilities (see Figure 4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For further information on the ``duck curve,'' see https://
    www.nrel.gov/news/program/2018/10-years-duck-curve.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        California's natural gas fleet is becoming smaller, in part through
    retirements associated with age and a state-level regulation governing
    once-through cooling systems. We expect natural gas facilities to
    continue to play a key role going forward in the California market,
    even as the Golden State closes in on its 60%/2030 RPS goal. Modest
    natural gas prices, efficient production and flexible response time
    remain key operational characteristics relied on by the grid operator.
    During its top 50 demand hours, California continues to rely heavily on
    in-state natural gas resources, even as renewable resources shoulder a
    larger share of demand at peak times, as Figure 4 illustrates.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Over time, we expect electric storage technologies--including
    batteries and pumped storage--to seek to fill the balancing role that
    natural gas currently plays in markets such as California. Natural gas
    sector participants also continue to explore carbon capture and
    sequestration or beneficial reuse technologies. Batteries offer great
    promise in terms of meeting predictable system shifts (such as the
    increase in demand in the morning and evenings (morning and evening
    ramp), as the four-hour duration of many batteries could complement
    this need well.
        Six states have storage adoption targets in place, and the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the regional wholesale market
    operators are implementing a 2018 rule to facilitate the participation
    of storage resources in the wholesale markets that it oversees.
    Nationally, battery costs remain high relative to the operating profile
    of installed and new natural gas units. Rare earth mining for the key
    elements of battery technologies has environmental consequences of its
    own. It is also an industry that currently relies on foreign supply
    chains and could be unsettled during periods of trade tensions.
        Longer-duration storage (around eight hours) such as pumped hydro,
    has also been eying this balancing role. The FERC has seen an uptick in
    preliminary permit applications for pumped hydro storage projects.
    However, like other large-scale industrial efforts, stakeholders have
    concerns about potential adverse environmental consequences and local
    community impacts. Such projects also require significant upfront
    capital investment. While the new applications are promising, it's not
    yet clear how quickly new projects will come online given that they are
    all still in the preliminary permitting stage. Eleven preliminary
    applications, representing nearly 11 GW of installed capability, have
    been filed at FERC in calendar 2019.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Natural gas assets can also fill in long-term supply gaps such as
    supporting hydropower-dependent areas particularly in the event of
    multi-year drought. Many hydropower resources lack pumped storage
    capability and are dependent on winter precipitation to refill their
    reservoirs.
        Wind energy growth has challenged system operators in the Midwest
    in a different way. For example, wind production meets an average of
    25% of daily power needs in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP). Wind served
    48% of load on the morning of December 20, 2018. Twenty-four hours
    later, wind's contribution at the same time of day had eased to 17% of
    load, and the difference was accommodated with a doubling of natural
    gas generation and a 60% increase in coal-fired dispatch. Minimum wind
    output over the last 12 months in the SPP territory clocks in at 148 MW
    (August 2018) compared to a high of 16.5 GW on May 19. The maximum one-
    hour ramp (increase) observed to date is 3.7 GW, and the largest swing
    in production was a drop of 14.8 GW over 18 hours).
        SPP has a significant number of new wind projects in its queue.
    These high penetration regions illustrate that operational challenges
    are likely to remain as renewables expand their participation in the
    organized regional markets. Balancing significant changes to wind loads
    currently is met by dispatchable natural gas (and other resources,
    including coal) while other options are developed and become more
    affordable.
                           considering affordability
        Last week, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a
    $500 MM commitment to advocate for the closure of the nation's
    remaining coal plants by 2030 and to work to prevent construction of
    new natural gas plants in an effort to address climate change on a
    shorter timeline envisioned by most existing state programs (and the
    judicially stayed Clean Power Plan).
        We built a cursory estimate of hardware costs required to replace
    1.15 TWh of electricity provided by coal facilities in 2018. This
    simplified pro forma estimate considered only power plant substitution
    (i.e., exclusive of financing, transmission interconnection, etc., but
    inclusive of storage capability for solar and wind). We also did not
    account for residual asset values assigned to retired fleet. Assuming
    equal-shares of wind, solar, and biomass, with storage to complement
    wind and solar (but not biomass) at 4Wh/W, our back-of-the-envelope
    estimate implies that plant facilities alone--at today's prices--could
    require as much as $941 B in capital expenditures.
        Policymakers here at the federal level and in the states are
    cognizant of the impact higher electricity rates can have on consumers,
    whether individuals or businesses. In our analytical work, our Firm
    sometimes frames energy security in three dimensions: adequacy,
    attributes and affordability. Our experience is that affordability can
    be a real-world constraint when it comes to policy formulation. Put
    another way, focusing on attributes to the exclusion of affordability
    can undermine security. Natural gas may still have a key role to play
    as the nation deploys an increasing number of low-emitting resources in
    our portfolio.
        Our annual Energy Policy by the Numbers report, due to be released
    this month, estimates state-level, average gasoline, home heating and
    electricity expenses as a percentage of per capita disposable personal
    income (DPI), a proprietary statistic we call ``consumer energy
    leverage'' (CEL). In preparing our CEL estimates, we rely on EIA's
    state-level, residential retail electricity rate data.
        Applying those data to this discussion, we looked at the potential
    impact of increasing electricity rates through the addition of a $0.01/
    kilowatt hour (kWh) surcharge on our estimated average residential bill
    for each state. A surcharge of this sort might notionally be used to
    fund the replacement of existing generation assets such as the plan
    proposed by former Mayor Bloomberg. Our analysis shows that this
    uniform charge has disparate rate impacts (bill increases of 3-11%),
    given differences in the underlying cost of power in each state and
    differences in average consumption, as we illustrate in Figure 6. In
    other words, a uniform surcharge could exert disparate economic impacts
    on different regions.
        Taking advantage of the geographic diversity here on this
    Committee, I also included data summarizing the resources and
    technologies that comprise the power generation mixes in each of your
    home states (Figures 7-17).
        Madam Chair, this concludes my written testimony. I look forward to
    any questions you or your colleagues might have at the appropriate
    time.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Hamilton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF KATHERINE HAMILTON

        Ms. Hamilton. Good morning. My name is Katherine Hamilton,
    and I am the chair of the firm 38 North Solutions and the
    nonprofit Project on Clean Energy and Innovation.
        Thank you to Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and
    the entire Select Committee for inviting me to testify before
    you today.
        You have heard from the solar and wind industries, and I
    would offer that other renewable resources--hydropower,
    geothermal, ocean and tidal, and biomass--should also be
    considered part of the equation to provide clean energy.
        Today I am here to talk to you about the flexible
    technologies and applications that will connect all of these
    resources, getting more value out of every kilowatt hour we
    generate, while allowing us to fully reach 100 percent clean
    energy deployment and enabling all Americans to benefit from
    this energy transition.
        I started my career designing grids for a utility, an
    experience that taught me how our grid works and that more than
    generation and wires are needed to make it function at its full
    capacity.
        In the decades since that time, innovation that has
    originally been limited to the utility has been democratized
    such that entrepreneurs throughout this country have developed
    technologies that change the way we participate in the electric
    grid. We now need all of these technologies to work together to
    mitigate climate change. And the good news is that we have most
    of those today.
        On the transmission side, flexible grid technologies, such
    as phaser measurement units, dynamic line ratings, capacitor
    banks, and volt/VAR optimization, allow for more efficient and
    effective sensing control and management of the power flowing
    through our transmission lines. Even broadband, to which many
    of our rural communities still do not have access, can serve as
    an enabler for renewable energy and energy efficiency
    technologies.
        Grid scale storage, from batteries to flywheels to pumped
    hydro, enable renewable energy to be stored preventing
    overbuilding of these resources and allowing them to function
    as baseload generation.
        Within the decade, we will see long-duration chemical
    storage plants able to drop into the footprint of and replace
    coal and gas fleets with inexpensive, nontoxic, and nonemitting
    grid scale solutions.
        On the customer side, consumers from industrial plants to
    commercial businesses to homeowners can choose what kind of
    energy they consume while controlling their costs. Flexible
    distributed energy resources such as demand response, energy
    efficiencies, smart inverters, batteries, thermal storage, fuel
    cells, combined heat and power, microgrids, electric vehicles,
    and geothermal heat pumps, there are a lot of them, can all
    contribute to the customer not just being a load on the system
    but becoming part of resource, allowing the supply and demand
    sides to become interchangeable.
        In other words, while we think of grid-side resources as
    being the only source of generation, customer resources can
    also provide electricity to themselves, to each other, and to
    the greater grid.
        In addition to integrating renewables and providing more
    choices, these technologies save customers on their bills and
    enable a more resilient system.
        But turning now to the policies that will allow these
    flexible resources to do their job and make the grid 100
    percent clean.
        Abby and Tom talked about tax credits, and it is extremely
    important that we enable energy storage to take advantage of a
    tax credit separate and apart from other generation sources.
    Financial instruments, like bonds or a green bank, will be
    important for directing capital toward clean energy investment,
    funding low carbon infrastructure projects, supporting
    community development, and providing a path like securitization
    to retire coal plants.
        For lower-income communities, grants in lieu of tax credits
    and raising the cap on weatherization funds to install solar
    and other distributed resources could provide a financial means
    for these customers to access clean energy.
        A Federal clean energy standard that allows flexible
    resources to participate and receive credit for integrating
    renewables would not only allow for full implementation of
    renewables but also would create economic benefits, enabling
    participation by customers of all types.
        Research and development continues to be important, not
    only to test and demonstrate new technologies, but also to
    support modelling, analysis, planning, and technical assistance
    to regulators, utilities, customers, and solutions providers.
        It is crucial that our Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    issue a final rule on the distributed energy resource
    rulemaking to give these resources access to competitive
    markets.
        Federal policy does not have to conflict with State goals,
    and in many cases distributed energy resources can provide
    services to both the utility on a local level while also
    delivering valuable services to the wholesale market.
        Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to be
    thoughtful in designing our energy transition, ensuring that
    workers and the communities in which they live, and on whose
    shoulders our industrialized Nation was built, are taken into
    consideration.
        My purpose here has not been to debate whether we can or
    cannot get to 100 percent, but instead to raise the possibility
    that we have the tools to do so and that by deploying flexible
    resources throughout the grid, we can fully integrate renewable
    energy.
        Whether we combine demand response with wind turbines or
    energy storage with solar power, or whether we give consumers
    the ability to manage and use their electricity as they see
    fit, it is all part of the electricity system that can and
    should be 100 percent emission free.
        Thank you for your interest in climate change solutions and
    the opportunity to present this testimony.
        [The statement of Ms. Hamilton follows:]
                                  ----------

      Testimony of Katherine Hamilton before the House of Representatives
             Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, June 13, 2019

        Good morning. My name is Katherine Hamilton. I am the Chair of the
    firm 38 North Solutions and the non-profit Project on Clean Energy and
    Innovation. Thank you to the Chair, Ranking Member, and the entire
    Select Committee for inviting me to testify before you today regarding
    the deployment of renewable energy in the United States.
        Whether your goal is to mitigate climate change, increase
    resilience, improve the economy, or lower consumer costs, clean and
    renewable energy resources provide those solutions. You have heard from
    the solar and wind industries and I would note that other renewable
    resources--hydropower, geothermal, ocean and tidal, and biomass--should
    also be considered part of the equation to provide clean generation
    sources.
        Today I am here to talk about the flexible technologies and
    applications that will connect all of these resources, getting more
    value out of every kilowatt-hour we generate, while allowing us to
    fully reach 100% clean energy deployment and enabling all Americans to
    benefit from this energy transition. I started my career with a decade
    designing grids for a utility, was a Certified Energy Manager and
    directed energy and water efficiency programs at the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory, and later ran the GridWise Alliance, focused on
    deploying smart grid technologies. Those experiences taught me how our
    grid works and that more than generation sources and wires are needed
    to make it function at its full capacity. During those same decades,
    innovation that had originally been limited to the utility has been
    democratized such that entrepreneurs throughout this country have
    developed new technologies and applications that can change the way we
    participate in the electric grid. We now need all of these technologies
    to work together to mitigate climate change, and the good news is that
    we have most of those technologies today.
        Let us look first on the grid side of the system. Flexible grid
    technologies such as phaser measurement units, dynamic line ratings,
    capacitor banks, and Volt/VAR Optimization allow for more efficient and
    effective sensing, control, and management of the power flowing through
    our transmission lines. Even broadband, to which many of our rural
    communities still do not have access, can serve as an enabler for
    renewable energy and other energy technologies. Grid scale energy
    storage--from batteries of all chemistries, to flywheels, to flow
    batteries and longer duration pumped hydro and chemical storage--will
    enable the storage of vast quantities of renewable energy generation,
    preventing overbuilding these resources and essentially allowing them
    to function as what we think of as ``baseload'' generation. Already,
    energy storage batteries have been installed to replace natural gas
    peaker plants in California,\1\ proving the cost-effectiveness of a
    technology that produces no greenhouse gases. Within the decade we will
    see long duration chemical storage plants able to drop into the
    footprint of and replace entire coal and gas fleets with inexpensive,
    non-toxic, and non-emitting grid scale solutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Article on peaker plant replacement projects can be found here:
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/storage-will-replace-3-california-gas-
    plants-as-pge-nabs-approval-for-worl/541870/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the customer side of the meter, consumers--from industrial
    plants to commercial businesses to homeowners--can choose the type of
    energy they consume while controlling their costs. Flexible distributed
    energy resources such as demand response, energy efficiency, smart
    inverters, batteries, thermal storage (from hot water heaters, for
    example), fuel cells, combined heat and power, microgrids, electric
    vehicles, and geothermal heat pumps can all contribute to the customer
    not just being a load on the system, but actually becoming part of the
    resource, allowing the supply and demand sides to become
    interchangeable. In other words, while we think of grid side resources
    as being the only source of generation, customer resources--whether by
    reducing demand or by actually generating energy--can also provide
    electricity to themselves, each other, and the greater grid.
        These flexible resources on both the grid side and the consumer
    side of the system can be seen as ``Non-Wires Alternatives,'' meaning
    that they can be installed to defer capital outlay of new lines and
    substations, saving utility investment and in turn customers money on
    their bills.\2\ For example, in the Brooklyn-Queens Demand Management
    project, the utility, ConEdison avoided a $1.2 B substation upgrade by
    deploying demand response, energy efficiency, and distributed
    resources.\3\ On the transmission side, under FERC Order 1000, in the
    transmission planning process, flexible technologies that can avoid
    build-out of transmission should be considered.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A collection of case studies of Non-Wires Alternatives projects
    can be found here: https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/
    2018 Non-Wires-Alternatives-Report_FINAL.pdf.
        \3\ Article about BQDM program can be found here: https://
    www.utilitydive.com/news/despite-failures-coned-targets-more-energy-
    savings-from-non-wires-pioneer/547725/.
        \4\ Summary of Order 100 can be found here: https://www.ferc.gov/
    industries/electric/indus-act/trans-plan.asp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Customers have seen tremendous economic benefits from flexible
    demand-side resources. On the PJM grid in the mid-Atlantic, customers
    collectively saved $11.8 billion in one year alone through demand
    response.\5\ In another example, in its Distributed Energy Resource
    Roadmap, the New York Independent System Operator stated it ``believes
    that providing resources with the flexibility to meet wholesale and
    distribution system needs will deliver the maximum benefit to New York
    electricity consumers.'' \6\ Baltimore Gas and Electric's SmartEnergy
    Rewards program, in which Maryland customers lowered their energy usage
    in response to signals from the utility, is estimated to have avoided
    $93 million in transmission capital expenditures and $72 million in
    distribution capital expenditures--savings that are then passed along
    to the customers.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Link to PJM Market Monitor report can be found here: https://
    aem-alliance.org/aema-reacts-strongly-market-monitor-report/.
        \6\ ``DER Energy Market Design: Dual Participation''. New York
    Independent System Operator, Feb 2018, 2019. https://www.nyiso.com/
    documents/20142/5256593/DER%20Energy%20Market
    %20Design%20Dual%20Participation%20022819.pdf/cfaf3647-4b77-a706-b86d-
    24129d460ecf.
        \7\ Report on this program can be found here: https://
    www.utilitydive.com/news/behavioral-demand-response-gives-baltimore-
    gas-and-electric-a-business-reas/546895/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Resilience is a key component of a flexible clean energy future.
    The ability to fail fast, and then recover fast, is particularly suited
    to distributed energy resources. As far back as Hurricane Sandy,
    microgrids in New York and New Jersey enabled university campus
    facilities to continue operation in the face of massive power
    outages.\8\ When hurricanes hit Texas, Florida and North Carolina,
    distributed solar and demand response were able to stabilize the grid
    and prevent surges when power was restored. During heat waves in
    California, hundreds of energy storage facilities at office buildings
    in San Francisco were called to operate collectively as a ``virtual
    power plant,'' reducing demand on an over-taxed grid. During the solar
    eclipse in 2017, over 750,000 programmable thermostats were lowered by
    their consumers to reduce demand by 700 MW as solar systems across the
    country were displaced in the temporary darkness.\9\ Those thermostats
    alone provided as much grid service as seven gas peaker plants, often
    the most inefficient and emitting resources. Given the start of
    wildfire season in California and the calling of public safety outages,
    microgrids and other distributed resources will only become more
    important. Flexible distributed energy resources have proven to provide
    resilience when the grid needs it the most.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Article on Princeton's microgrid can be found here: https://
    www.princeton.edu/news/2014/10/23/two-years-after-hurricane-sandy-
    recognition-princetons-microgrid-still-surges.
        \9\ See blog from Nest thermostats: https://nest.com/blog/2017/08/
    10/solar-eclipse-meet-the-nest-thermostat/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now the question becomes, what can Congress do to support these
    flexible technologies? We know from experience that tax policies like
    the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax credit have been
    instrumental in deploying solar and wind energy, bringing down costs
    through scale and allowing more consumers to have access to these
    resources. In the same manner, clarifying the tax code such that energy
    storage can have access to the Investment Tax Credit will be important
    to driving down the cost of energy storage of all types, opening up new
    markets in dozens of states and offsetting the cost of deployment in
    states like California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey that
    already have energy storage targets in place.
        In addition to tax policy, financial instruments will be important
    to providing certainty and driving investment in U.S. grid innovation.
    Those tools could include a federally-managed financial institution
    like a Green Bank to provide capital for low carbon infrastructure
    projects, supporting community development and providing a path like
    securitization to retire coal plants.\10\ Public-private partnerships
    and cost-sharing, originally required with the Recovery Act grants,
    defrayed the cost of advanced metering and other smart grid
    technologies to utilities and their consumers. Grants in lieu of tax
    credits and raising the cap on Weatherization funds to install solar
    and other distributed resources, could provide financial means for
    lower income customers to access clean energy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ In Colorado, a bill was introduced in the state legislature to
    securitize the closure of coal plants with a bond mechanism: https://
    leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1037.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Goals for deployment of clean energy, such as with Renewable
    Portfolio Standards and Clean Energy Standards, have been implemented
    in 29 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia and have
    spurred development of renewable energy.\11\ States like New Mexico,
    Nevada, California, and Washington; mayors of 216 cities as diverse as
    Madison, Wisconsin, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Orlando, Florida;
    utilities like Xcel, Idaho Power and Green Mountain Power; and
    corporations \12\ like Bank of America, Anhueser-Busch, and Walmart,
    have all made commitments to transition to 100% clean energy. Based on
    the Sierra Club's Ready for 100 campaign, one in five Americans lives
    in a community that has committed to 100% clean energy.\13\ Targets for
    energy storage in states like California have created tangible economic
    opportunities--over 200 companies doing business in the state--
    supporting good union jobs while lowering consumer bills from demand
    charges. A federal clean energy standard that allows flexible
    resources, such as energy storage and demand response, to participate
    and receive credit for integrating renewables, will not only allow for
    full implementation of renewables, but also will create economic
    benefits and enable participation by customers of all types.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Map of states with RPS goals can be found here: http://
    ncsolarcen-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Renewable-
    Portfolio-Standards-2018.pdf.
        \12\ Corporations with 100% renewable energy commitments can be
    found here: http://there100.org/companies.
        \13\ Ready for 100 website with list of mayors can be found here:
    https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Research and development programs at the Department of Energy
    (``DOE'') and other federal agencies have been crucial to developing
    renewable energy technologies. In my seven years at the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory, I worked with scientists and engineers
    developing new chemistries and technologies, and then testing them in
    partnership with innovators in the private sector. Programs like ARPA-E
    have asked questions about big problems and supported start-ups with
    solutions to these problems.\14\ The DOE Offices of Electricity and
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the national laboratories
    still play an important role in testing and demonstrating new flexible
    grid technologies. In addition to basic research and development, our
    federal government has a role in programs that are cross-cutting and
    that support modeling, analysis, planning, and technical assistance to
    regulators, utilities, and solutions providers. ``Soft'' costs like
    interconnection and permitting continue to be barriers and increase the
    cost of integrating clean energy resources; the DOE can be instrumental
    in providing assistance in those areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Testimony before Congress on success of ARPA-E can be found
    here: https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
    Testimony%20to%20Subcommittee%20on%20Energy_Williams. pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The federal government is the nation's largest landlord and should
    be positioned to lead by example in the energy transition. Ensuring
    that the government's own facilities are deploying flexible resources
    will increase their resilience to both natural disaster and physical
    threat. The Federal Energy Management Program at DOE serves an
    important role in developing best practices for federal buildings and
    partnering with agencies, utilities, and the private sector to deploy
    clean energy projects. The Department of Defense has several
    initiatives, including the Strategic Environmental Research and
    Development Program (SERDP) and Environmental Security Technology
    Certification Program (ESTCP),\15\ that test technologies that will
    allow their permanent bases as well as those in the field to become
    more efficient, secure, and clean. All of these programs should be
    supported to increase clean energy penetration while reducing emissions
    at sites.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ For more on these programs, see: https://www.serdp-estcp.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The electric grid--whether from the transmission level or on the
    customer side--is part of our nation's physical and economic
    infrastructure. Access to electricity is considered a right of the
    citizens of the U.S. and it should be considered of national interest
    to implement policies supporting the efficient, cost-effective, safe,
    equitable, and clean build-out and use of the electric grid. Broadband
    for all consumers should be a priority; Internet access allows
    consumers to fully participate in renewable and all of these flexible
    distributed resources. In addition to consumers needing information to
    understand and control basic energy use, solar installers also prefer
    to monitor systems via internet and automatic demand response cannot
    operate without an on-line connection. Standards and codes are also
    critical to moving industry forward, providing a baseline of certainty
    and best practices for innovative and efficient products and solutions,
    while lowering the cost of those products for consumers.
        It is crucial that our Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    (``FERC'') issue a final rule on the Distributed Energy Resource
    rulemaking to give flexible resources access to competitive markets.
    Over the past decade, Orders on demand response (Order 745) and energy
    storage (Orders 755, 784 and 841) have allowed resources that provide
    specific services to the grid to be paid for those services. In the
    case of demand response, states like Pennsylvania and Maryland have
    been able to aggregate consumer load, offsetting the cost of peak power
    while allowing consumers to directly benefit from lower prices. These
    state-based programs do not have to conflict with federal policy; in
    many cases distributed energy resources can provide services to both
    the utility on a local level, while also delivering other or similar
    services to the wholesale market. All of those flexible services should
    receive appropriate compensation, no matter what part of the grid they
    serve.
        Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will need to be
    thoughtful in designing our energy transition, ensuring that workers
    and the communities in which they live that were built around mines and
    other fossil fuel facilities--and on whose shoulders our industrialized
    nation was built--are taken into consideration. These talented and
    motivated people of all ages and skill sets should be brought into the
    future of our electricity grid with training programs and access to
    these technologies.
        For nearly a decade, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has
    been working collaboratively with other laboratories, universities,
    industry, and non-governmental entities on the Renewable Electricity
    Future Study to analyze high penetration of renewable energy on the
    U.S. electric grid.\16\ In those publications, flexible resources such
    as those I have been discussing are seen as key to getting close to
    100% renewables. My purpose here has not been to debate whether we can
    or cannot get to 100%, but to instead raise the possibility that we
    have the tools to do so and that by deploying those flexible resources
    throughout the grid, we can fully integrate renewable energy. Whether
    we combine demand response with wind turbines or energy storage with
    solar power, or whether we give consumers the ability to manage and use
    their electricity as they see fit--it is all part of the electricity
    system that can and should be 100% emission free.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See more on the RE Futures Study and subsequent papers here:
    https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re-futures.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As my friend and colleague Jigar Shah wrote in his book, Creating
    Climate Wealth, climate change solutions pose the greatest wealth
    creation opportunity of our time.\17\ By setting public policies that
    incentivize both renewables as well as all the flexible resources that
    connect those resources throughout the grid, we will be able to use
    U.S. innovation to become 100% clean, manage our costs, allow for
    consumer choice, increase resilience in the face of natural disaster--
    all while providing certainty and stimulating economic growth for all.
    I am an eternal optimist, but I fully believe that with smart policy
    and political will, our nation has the ingenuity to make that
    transition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Shah, Jigar, Creating Climate Wealth: Unlocking the Impact
    Economy, ICOSA Publishing, 2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for your interest in climate change solutions and in the
    opportunity to present this testimony. I look forward to your
    questions.

        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you all very much. Your testimony
    was compelling. So I know the committee is going to have a lot
    of terrific questions for you.
        So I will recognize myself for 5 minutes to start the
    questioning.
        Modernizing and cleaning up the electricity grid by
    deploying more renewables is important for a whole host of
    reasons. The top two that come to mind first, the energy
    sector, the electricity sector, even though emissions have
    fallen somewhat, remains a significant part of the U.S. carbon
    pollution problem.
        And then when you turn to the transportation sector,
    industrial sector, we are going to have to electrify those
    industries that currently rely on burning fossil fuels.
    Electrification will be a more potent climate solution with a
    cleaner, more efficient grid.
        Ms. Hamilton, in your testimony you just shared with us,
    you described the potential benefits of flexible grid
    technologies and distributed energy sources. How can these
    flexible technologies lead to potential benefits for all of us
    in the United States? How can we achieve our renewable goals on
    a faster timeline?
        Ms. Hamilton. Thank you for the question.
        It is a really important question, because part of this is
    about how do we really engage consumers in part of the solution
    and give them a path forward on that. And I think that is all
    part of the equation.
        And as I said before, this is about allowing the supply and
    demand side to work together and independently. That is going
    to require a lot of planning. It is going to require tools that
    allow us to manage these systems. But what it will do for
    customers, it will lower their costs and it will allow for
    greater resilience, because it will allow for technologies that
    will, while failing fast, will also be able to recover fast.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Kiernan, I think I saw you nodding your
    head when--when Ms. Hamilton said that the ITC has to include
    energy storage. So talk to us about that. You agree with that?
    And explain your position.
        Mr. Kiernan. Yes, we do agree with that. There is a bill, I
    believe in both chambers, the House and the Senate, supporting
    a storage ITC. AWEA is supportive of that. We do believe that
    wind, solar, and storage and natural gas can work very, very
    effectively together. We do think storage costs have come down
    dramatically. But it would benefit by a tax credit that would
    further stimulate cost reductions and deployment of storage,
    whether on the grid or with particular projects, particular
    solar or wind projects or all of the above. But storage is very
    much part of the solution, and ITC would help deploy it.
        Ms. Castor. So wind energy is growing by leaps and bounds
    now. But with the storage piece, you could accelerate
    deployment and cleaner electricity across the country?
        Mr. Kiernan. Absolutely. And I would add with transmission.
    Yes, we need to storage on the grid, and we absolutely need
    additional transmission, because it is transmission that allows
    you to get clean wind energy or clean solar from where it is
    generated to load. Storage is part of the answer; transmission
    is the other very big part of the answer.
        As I said earlier, our current grid is a D-plus. We have
    got to get better if we are going to have an economy of the
    future.
        Ms. Castor. So, Ms. Hamilton, battery storage is a big part
    of this as well. Everyone knows that we have got to do better.
        How would you prioritize R&D in battery storage and
    leverage public/private partnerships here?
        Ms. Hamilton. All right so there are a couple of ways. One
    is to continue on basic R&D for new technologies, new
    chemistries. So ARPA-E is looking at long-duration storage, for
    example.
        Another piece is some of the issues around the cost of
    storage are interconnection and permitting. And those are
    costly. They are called soft costs. And being able to have some
    assistance on that from the Department of Energy would be
    incredible. As I had mentioned before, also modeling and
    analysis.
        But I think throughout the system, whether it is from basic
    R&D, all the way to really providing tools to energy storage
    and other developers to lower the costs of permitting an
    interconnection will be really valuable.
        Ms. Castor. And then how do we build in the growing clean
    energy workforce, whether it is training initiatives that
    create good jobs all across the country, but especially in
    parts of the country that will need those good family-
    sustaining jobs?
        Ms. Hamilton. Yeah, absolutely. That is a super important
    question, because there are a lot of parts of this country
    right now that have not been able to take advantage of the
    energy transition. And so we have to think about how to build
    capacity very locally, to ensure that we are all able to
    participate, whether it is in Appalachia, where I am from, or
    whether it is in other parts of the country.
        We have to think--and it doesn't necessarily mean you
    convert everybody to a solar job. That may not be the skill
    set. It may be some other type of job. But I do believe that we
    can do that. We just have to be very purposeful about the way
    we do it.
        Ms. Castor. Okay. Thank you very much.
        I recognize the ranking member now for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I think we are going to go to Mr. Armstrong first.
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I appreciate everybody particularly talking--Ms.
    Hamilton in talking about permitting and how we deal with this.
    And I think that is something that runs industrywide, whether
    dealing with all of those issues and fast-tracking this.
        My question--and I also appreciate the conversation about
    storage. And one of the reasons I think that is important and
    we have to have this conversation.
        So--and I am from North Dakota. We do--we have a tremendous
    wind energy. We actually just permitted our first solar
    panels--I don't know--solar farm? Solar farm. And so we are
    excited about that, too.
        But earlier this year, I had the opportunity to go on the
    USS North Dakota, which is a Virginia-class sub. And Virginia-
    class subs require over about 9,000 pounds of rare-earth
    metals. And as we have this conversation and we are moving
    forward, one of things I think we have to talk about is the
    national security interests that are involved in how we produce
    this energy and the fact that the United States is essentially
    100 percent reliant on importing rare-earth metals. I think at
    this point in time--well, Interior has found that we are 100
    percent net importer of over 20 critical rare-earth metals.
        And rare-earth metals are limited to a few countries. There
    is some--obviously some of the world's biggest polluters are
    where we import this stuff from, not to mention some human
    rights issues. And, I mean, when we are participating in a
    global economy, these are important.
        But, you know, Mountain Pass is, I think, the only place we
    have in the United States right now that does that. And it is
    actually a consortium that is owned particularly by Chinese
    importers, and we actually ship about 50,000 tons of the rare-
    earth concentrate to China each year for processing.
        So when we are having this conversation, we are talking
    about grid, we are talking about batteries, we are talking
    about all of this. Are we also including in that conversation
    seriously talking about creating a situation where we are not
    so dependent on other countries?
        I mean, you mentioned tariffs in your opening testimony,
    about increasing the cost on producing solar. Are we having a
    conversation about making sure that we are, I mean, dealing
    with these issues here? And I mean, how--how are we addressing
    that?
        And I will start over here. Thank you.
        Ms. Ross Hopper. I am going to assume over here means--
    because you are looking at me.
        Well, thank you for the question. I agree with you
    wholeheartedly that it is an important piece of the
    conversation. I would suggest it is not limited, certainly, to
    renewable technologies, but those rare-earths, right, we use
    them in so many of our products.
        Yes, we are having an honest--I think an honest
    conversation as we think about what are the elements that are
    important. And so one of the sort of facts or that--at least in
    solar, in the solar/photovoltaic market, over 90 percent of the
    material is silicon, which is the second most abundant resource
    in the Earth's crust. So we are talking about small amounts.
        I know there is legislation--the last time Tom and I
    testified together, a part of that bill was looking at rare-
    earths and doing an inventory and sort of understanding what
    our assets are here, where we get them from, and other places
    and how do we--how do we sort of increase our thoughtfulness
    about that.
        So that is what I would say.
        Do you have an addition?
        Mr. Kiernan. If I could just add, for the wind industry,
    actually it is a very small percent of wind turbines need rare-
    earths. It is only what are called direct-drive turbines. And
    we can get you the number, but it is probably less than 5
    percent of the deployed wind turbines in the U.S. are direct-
    drive, have magnets, and need a small amount of rare-earths.
    The vast, vast majority are geared and do not use rare-earths.
    So not an issue, essentially, for wind energy.
        Mr. Armstrong. And I am going to let Ms. Hamilton answer,
    too. But I think the problem with all of this is--is that that
    might be true, except whether you are moving towards electric
    cars--I mean, a Tesla needs 7 pounds of lithium. And when we
    are dealing with energy storage on the grid and--I agree our
    grid needs updating, too--batteries are a part of that
    conversation.
        So whether it is a turbine or a battery or a battery in a
    house for a solar panel, rare-earth metals are a part of that
    conversation. And we don't produce them here.
        So, Ms. Hamilton, you have--you wanted to answer.
        Ms. Hamilton. Yeah, thank you so much for this question.
    This is a really, really important issue.
        And it is rare-earths and also critical materials, all of
    those platinum group metals, lithium, cobalt, that is often
    sourced from the Congo that does have terrible practices, human
    rights practices.
        So what we have to do is think holistically. And there is
    an executive order that just came out with a report on critical
    materials for the United States and where they are.
        A big huge piece of this that we have not thought about yet
    is recycling. And it can be done. There are six companies
    around the globe that recycle critical minerals. They recycle
    lithium and cobalt, yet they are not in the U.S. We need to
    figure out how to develop policy both to mine in the U.S. but
    also to develop recycling facilities for rare-earths and
    critical materials.
        Mr. Armstrong. And I just--I think that is a great point,
    and I agree with that. I just don't think that conversation is
    happening as fast as the other one is, and we have to be very,
    very careful not to put ourselves in a situation where--we are
    energy independent as a Nation right now and create a situation
    where we are not, while we try and catch up.
        So thank you-all for your answers.
        Ms. Castor. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Castor and Ranking Member
    Graves. And thank you to the witnesses.
        I represent Northwest Oregon. And certainly back at home,
    but across the country, people are really calling for
    comprehensive action to address the climate crisis. And I thank
    Chair Castor and the committee for really talking about a
    transition to a 100 percent clean energy economy.
        And we know the importance of the investment, especially
    the Federal investments, but the new technologies and the new
    possibilities are there as well.
        Just this week, Representative Deutch from Florida and I
    introduced the Marine Energy Research and Development Act to
    accelerate research and development like the work that is being
    done by Oregon State University in the Pacific Marine Energy
    Center. They are building a wave energy test facility off the
    Oregon coast. It is very exciting. But it is--it is also going
    to rely on--as we have discussed, we need a workforce as well.
    And as someone who serves on the Education and Labor Committee,
    that is something that we need to have this conversation along
    with a transition.
        So in Oregon, we are really leading the way to ramp up
    renewables. Portland General Electric and NextEra Energy just
    announced their efforts to develop the Nation's largest major
    renewable energy facility that is going to be integrating wind
    and solar generation and battery storage in a single location,
    the Wheat Ridge Renewable Energy Facility. It is going to
    create and store safe, low-cost, clean renewable energy to
    power more than 100,000 homes. Kind of a trifecta--wind, solar
    and battery storage--to help balance the load, especially--
    efficiently transfer the energy.
        And I know, Mr. Kiernan, you talked about the congestion
    costs, and I am going to ask you about that.
        But also, Ms. Hopper, you talked about a shared clean
    energy vision in your testimony. So what are the current
    opportunities and challenges of integrating when you have the
    solar with wind or battery storage?
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, we are very aware of that project in Oregon.
    Congratulations.
        Ms. Bonamici. It is exciting.
        Ms. Ross Hopper. I think it is exciting. But it is also--it
    is a proof that the vision is coming to fruition now, right?
    And so this is--this is not just our clean energy future; it is
    our clean energy reality, which I find so exciting.
        What can we do to help accelerate that clean energy vision?
    I think what sort of my fellow panelists have talked about,
    (a), establishing the vision. It can't be understated, the
    planning that Katherine talked about, to make sure that we are
    intentional about what we are doing.
        I think we have highlighted some Federal policy, so around
    tax policy, around carbon policy certainly, around regulatory
    certainty, and predictability that we all share, that challenge
    both at the Federal level but also at the State level. You
    talked a little bit about soft costs. Like permitting these
    projects, whether it is on a roof or in a big field, it is
    challenging. And so getting clarity around there.
        I think for--certainly from the solar perspective, as we
    think about new construction and we think about the fact that
    as we are--you know, as we are building homes and new
    buildings, we should have those equipped for solar already and
    sort of have that just be--just like you get a front door or a
    window, you also have solar on your roof. It will bring down
    the affordability of home ownership if we have that.
        Ms. Bonamici. We actually have in Northwest Oregon a 57-
    unit affordable housing building that was built to passive
    house standards in a multifamily dwelling, which is amazing.
    The costs are very, very low, the energy costs.
        Mr. Kiernan, when you talked about the congestion costs,
    what are the barriers? Is it funding? Do we need more research?
    How do we address that?
        Mr. Kiernan. It is mostly enabling FERC, empowering or
    directing FERC, to take the next steps in facilitating more
    transmission. So I mentioned earlier, one direction that
    Congress can give to FERC is for more interregional planning.
        Right now we have got these different regions--PJM, MISO,
    SPP--and they do planning independently and at different times,
    as opposed to doing it at the same time where they can perhaps
    figure out, oh, actually you have got a resource that can, if
    we connect our grids over the seams, meet what we need over
    here.
        So, for example, a simple direction from Congress to FERC
    to do more interregional planning or to give FERC back----
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
        Mr. Kiernan [continuing]. Those are examples that help----
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Perfect. I am going to try to get
    one more question in to Ms. Hamilton.
        But I have to say, Ms. Tezak, I loved all of the data in
    your testimony. Thank you. Those charts were really helpful.
        There is another project up in the Columbia River Gorge. It
    is a partnership of Federal agencies, industry, academia,
    National Labs--including the Pacific Northwest National
    Laboratory--working on the Wind Forecast Improvement Project to
    improve the caliber of the forecasting, especially in
    challenging terrain, if there are coastlines, mountains,
    canyons.
        So, Ms. Hamilton, how can assessments of this resource
    potential help accelerate the deployment of clean energy? What
    difference would that make to have better forecasting?
        Ms. Hamilton. Forecasting is critical, and it is very
    locational specific. So there are microsystems. They are not
    just--you can't just do it from a broad area. You need to
    really get down to a very localized level. So I think having a
    National Lab involved and doing resource assessment is critical
    to making sure that you know exactly what the resource is, when
    it can be best used and deployed, and then how you are going to
    go about doing it and bringing the private sector----
        Ms. Bonamici. Do we need additional R&D in that area, or do
    we just need funding to do it?
        Ms. Hamilton. I think you can still have a program within
    the Department of Energy, say in the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy or the Office of Electricity
    that could help manage that.
        So, yes, you would still--having funding going to the
    National Labs to help with that is really important. I was at
    the National Renewable Energy Lab, so I am biased that way, but
    I still think that is really important.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I am out of time.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank all of you for being here. A very important
    subject, and we appreciate your participation.
        I want to start with you, Ms. Tezak.
        I am from Georgia. And as we say in Georgia, there are two
    Georgias: There is Atlanta and then there is everywhere else.
    And it is true. And we have a lot of rural areas.
        Now, in your testimony, you told us that--or you stated
    that renewable energy was growing, but you also said that it
    was growing unevenly and that it was growing more in the urban
    areas than it was in the rural areas. And I want to focus on
    the rural areas, because we have got a lot of rural area in
    Georgia, a lot of rural area in my district, in South Georgia,
    in Southeast Georgia.
        And I can tell you, I served in the Georgia State Senate
    for many years. And during my time in the Georgia State Senate,
    I was one of first ones pushing for solar energy. And I am very
    proud of the fact that after having gone up against arguably
    one of the strongest lobbying groups in the State, in Georgia
    Power and Southern Company, that they have embraced it and that
    Georgia is now one of the top 10 States in solar energy in our
    Nation. And I think that is just phenomenal.
        And kudos to Southern Company and Georgia Power for what
    they have done. They have actually not only--not only embraced
    solar power and other renewable energy, but even the CEO now,
    his compensation is tied directly to how much renewable energy
    they are using. And I just think that is a great step on their
    part.
        But I wanted to ask you, what--this uneven growth that you
    talk about in renewable energy, particularly in solar energy,
    is it--is it specific State by State, or is it just rural/
    urban?
        Ms. Tezak. I think it is State by State, and I think in
    part it is because of the natural resources available.
        If you look at the 10-year chart that we put together for
    Georgia, you can see how the generation mix has shifted away
    from coal to increased natural gas and the renewables and hydro
    that have always--hydro, that has always been there, and the
    renewables that are coming on.
        It takes time to make that transition. And one of the
    things that they have in SPP, for example, in the heartland of
    the country, is great wind. And that is not as readily
    available----
        Mr. Carter. Right, right.
        Ms. Tezak [continuing]. In Georgia as it is to----
        Mr. Carter. A lot of hot air down there sometimes, anyway.
        Ms. Tezak. Well, let's not get personal.
        But I think that, you know, it--that is a clear
    illustration of where some of the challenges are. I mean, when
    you speak about wind energy, you know, you can speak in
    gigawatts. And, you know, for residential solar, you are
    talking about kilowatts.
        And so, you know, each technology has a key role to play.
    And when you are talking about distributed load, then
    residential solar, I think, has a great opportunity to make a
    difference, as you pointed out.
        Mr. Carter. Right.
        Ms. Tezak. And it also can help the utility manage growth
    at the ends of the system, and that helps reduce the need for
    massive transmission investments.
        Mr. Carter. Well I want to mention--I don't mean to
    interrupt you, but I want to mention one company in particular
    in our district, Coastal Solar. And they have really found a
    niche here. In fact, they have--they have really--been able to
    really go into the rural areas, and particularly to the chicken
    farmers.
        And they have actually--actually got solar panels where
    they have helped the chicken farmers. And a lot of the farmers
    there in the rural communities are using this and using it to
    great advantage. And it has helped us. They are one of the
    reasons--Coastal Solar is one of the reasons why we are seeing
    more--seeing Georgia as one of the top 10 States in solar
    energy. And not only that, they are creating jobs, renewable
    energy. All of this is just great.
        I want to ask you about something else, and that is that
    Georgia is a number one forestry State in the Nation, biomass.
    This is something that we are producing a lot of in the first
    congressional district as well.
        It is a big market in the European Union but not so much in
    America. And I am just wondering why it hasn't caught on more?
    Because, you know, it essentially is--it is carbon neutral. And
    not only that, but through sustainable forests, we are
    replanting these trees, and this is--and obviously trees are
    helping us in what we are trying to do here.
        Any idea why this is something that the European Union uses
    heavily but we in America don't seem to have adopted it as
    much?
        Ms. Tezak. Well, anecdotally, I think there has been a bit
    of concern about the harvesting of mature trees and the change
    you have from a carbon profile perspective, when you substitute
    older trees for, you know, new trees and saplings.
        And so I think that the----
        Mr. Carter. But you have to do that anyway.
        Ms. Tezak. Right. But I think that there has been an
    evolution in thought that has biomass more agreeable here in
    the U.S. than perhaps it was 10 years ago.
        The wonderful thing about biomass that makes it competitive
    as a renewable technology is that it often doesn't need the
    same level of backup in terms of storage that solar and wind
    would, because it is a more stable power generation resource.
        And so I think that acknowledgment and the carbon
    neutrality of it is becoming more accepted, but I think that
    we--there was such a focus 10 years ago on being better than
    carbon neutral, that I think it took a little while for things
    to catch up. I mean, we have had an experience where, you know,
    plastic bags were better than paper bags, and now we don't like
    plastic bags. So I think that, you know, as we become more
    informed as a society, we get better--you know, we get better
    information.
        Mr. Carter. Right. Well, my time is up. But I just want to
    state for the record, Georgia is doing our part, and I am very
    proud of that.
        Ms. Tezak. Yes sir you are. I can assure you.
        Mr. Carter. Very proud of our State. Thank you.
        Ms. Castor. Yeah, Mr. Carter, Georgia may be outperforming
    the Sunshine State, the State of Florida.
        Mr. Levin, you--speaking of renewables, and exceeding
    everyone's projections, Mr. Levin from California.
        Mr. Levin. I will get to that. I am going to get to that.
        Thank you, Chair Castor. Thank you to our witnesses.
        Before coming to Congress, I cofounded a clean energy
    nonprofit called CleanTech Orange County. Now, it is called
    Sustain Southern California. And we have grown the clean tech
    economy in Southern California tens of thousands of jobs in the
    last decade. And we have put in place a number of policies that
    have enabled that to be the case, many of which I heard
    discussed on this panel.
        I also have to brag about California for a second, Madam
    Chair. And with all deference to Georgia and Florida, I
    encourage everybody to download the Cal ISO app. It is called
    ``ISO Today.''
        And as of right now, 45 percent of the current demand in
    California is being served by renewable energy. And of that,
    54.1 percent is solar. Good job, 29.1 percent is wind. Good
    job. So 45 percent right now, currently, is being served by
    renewables.
        And we are the fifth largest economy in the world. And as
    we have continued to increase the percentage of load being
    served by renewables, our economy has improved. We have created
    incredible clean energy jobs, not hurt the economy.
        So I always try to dispute the false narrative that if you
    protect the environment, if you take steps proactively to
    combat the climate crisis, that somehow you will hurt the
    economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is the
    greatest wealth creation opportunity of our time, if only we
    would lead as a Nation as we do in California. So with that, I
    will turn to questions.
        Ms. Ross Hopper, I would like to see greater deployment of
    distributed energy resources. With my colleague, Representative
    Welch of Vermont, we have written to FERC, Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission, urging it to finalize its rulemaking
    that will set rules for distributed energy resource
    participation in the wholesale energy market--markets.
        Ms. Ross Hopper, how do you expect that a final DER rule
    would help you meet your solar deployment goals?
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Thank you for that question. It is an
    important one.
        And yes, California definitely leads the way. I was
    surprised you didn't talk about the solar mandate on new homes,
    because I think that is one of the other ways in which
    California is really leading. And it goes directly to your
    question, right? Which is----
        Mr. Levin. I only get 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Well, as you think about how do you
    aggregate those distributed resources, right? And if we are
    going to put solar in all new homes in the great State of
    California, how do you use that--sort of to Katherine's point
    earlier, how do you use that as an asset so it is not merely
    benefiting the homeowner but it is benefiting the system?
        And so how do I think the rule will help? I think the rule
    will help because it will allow business models where you can
    aggregate that demand, put it into the wholesale market, get
    revenue back from it, so that customers can benefit but also
    the grid can benefit. And once we have clarity on that, it will
    drive deployment.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you.
        Ms. Hamilton, how do you think such rulemaking would help
    consumers?
        Ms. Hamilton. Well, this goes to the heart of--these are
    all consumer-sided resources. So I will give you an example
    of--15 percent of the spinning reserves in the Midwest ISO are
    from one facility, Alcoa, the smelter, and they are doing
    demand response. That is participating directly in the grid.
        But right now customers with resources that are cited
    behind the meter are not allowed to aggregate those resources
    into the grid, whether it is energy storage or solar and
    storage, whatever those resources are. This will directly
    enable them to benefit financially, because they will be able
    to actually provide resources that are then compensated. And
    that is super important.
        It is also going to be important to the grid. It will be
    important to the utility on a very local level, but it will
    also provide services to the greater grid that will enable more
    penetration of all of these renewables.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you. Yesterday, Chairman Chatterjee said
    that the Commission hasn't finalized the rulemaking because of,
    quote, ``complex legal questions.''
        Ms. Ross Hopper, Ms. Hamilton, how would you respond to
    that assertion?
        Ms. Hamilton. So I am not an attorney, but I think a lot of
    the questions are solvable. The technology questions, I think,
    are solvable, and I think the market questions are solvable,
    too.
        I think you can allow States to have jurisdiction at the
    same time and allow them to go forward with whatever goals they
    have within the State, while allowing their consumers and
    utilities to participate fully in the wholesale market in a
    competitive way.
        Ms. Ross Hopper. I am a lawyer, and I would agree with
    Katherine.
        Mr. Levin. I wanted to also echo my strong support of
    energy storage and that the Federal Government should be doing
    everything possible to get storage deployed across the country.
    I am a cosponsor of Representative Doyle's bill to expand the
    ITC to include storage.
        Ms. Ross Hopper, how is the solar ITC driving storage
    innovation today, and how would expanding the ITC to cover
    storage help innovation in the future?
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Sure. I will answer very quickly. The
    solar ITC--when storage is paired with solar, they can take
    advantage of it. So when we co-locate, that is permissible. And
    it has clearly changed the marketplace, right? Because you
    can--you can deploy these systems together and deal with a lot
    of--sort of the intermittency or reliability--I never called it
    reliability--the intermittency aspect of solar. The sun does
    not shine at night, Representative Graves.
        But if we disaggregate the two so that solar storage can
    stand on its own and be deployed in ways that are separate from
    a specific generation source, it just increases the options
    that we have and increases the flexibility to--to locate
    storage in different parts of our grid.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you. And I am out of time. But I thank
    you, again, for innovating and leading in this critical area.
        Ms. Castor. Mrs. Miller, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Castor, and Ranking
    Member Graves.
        Ms. Tezak, if the government right now mandated that we had
    to shut down all coal plants to move to renewables, how much
    would that cost?
        Ms. Tezak. We haven't actually fully modelled that in its
    entirety. We did take a look at the proposal that Mayor
    Bloomberg had suggested with shutting down the coal plants by
    2030. And on an equipment basis alone, not including
    transmission upgrades, not including financing, just on
    swapping out all of those coal assets for an even split of
    solar, wind--and to Mr. Carter's interest, biomass--with the
    necessary storage to balance intermittency, we got to $941
    billion.
        Mrs. Miller. Well, I have gotten to over a trillion.
        Ms. Tezak. Yes. By the time you put financing and
    transmission in and potentially residual cost for abandoned
    assets, easily.
        Mrs. Miller. How much do you think it would cost to finance
    it?
        Ms. Tezak. Well, in our theoretical, if you put a 1
    percent--a 1 cent per kilowatt hour surcharge on every kilowatt
    delivered in the U.S. last year, you would raise about $34
    billion towards that.
        Mrs. Miller. Given that the total spending in 2017 for
    electricity in West Virginia, for residential, commercial,
    industrial, and transportation, was only $2 billion, that would
    be a huge cost burden to my constituents. Wouldn't you say?
        Ms. Tezak. I would say that based on the analysis we
    provided in our testimony, it would weigh most heavily on your
    constituents.
        Mrs. Miller. It would.
        Could you elaborate on how transitioning to renewables
    would impose further costs on consumers?
        Ms. Tezak. Well, I think it is a matter of pace and, you
    know, exactly what you want to achieve.
        But more importantly, it is pace. You know, the more
    accelerated the timeline, the more compressed and limited your
    options are.
        So to the extent that it took several years for cost
    declines to materialize in solar and wind, which they did, in
    no small part, because in spite of Federal support, natural gas
    became cheap as well, and so the competitive nature forced the
    cost direction down. That occurred over time.
        And so very quick action can sometimes limit the ability to
    make use of cost declines, you know, that appear over time. For
    example, the R&D that Katherine has mentioned, that is going to
    take a little time to develop. If we find chemical solutions
    that take our reliance off rare-earth minerals so that we have
    something else that is available domestically, that may not be
    available on the same timeline that is foreseen, for example,
    under Mayor Bloomberg's thing.
        So I think that you lose some economic benefit. Plus you
    have to reconcile the fact that you may have assets out there
    that you are still paying for. For example, in PG&E's
    bankruptcy, there is a question about whether or not they can
    reject early-stage--you know, some of the first renewable
    projects that were out there because simply on a cost basis.
        So do you abandon those folks who brought you forward at
    the beginning? It is a very difficult set of equities to
    balance.
        Mrs. Miller. It is a very difficult set.
        In West Virginia, in 2017, coal-fired electric plants
    accounted for 93 percent of my State's electricity. Renewables,
    mostly hydroelectric and wind, accounted for 4.6 percent, and
    natural gas provided the remaining 2.2.
        This isn't just West Virginia. Nationwide, wind, solar,
    geothermal, and hydroelectric power only constituted 6 percent
    of the consumption of energy in 2017.
        Do we need more renewable energy? Absolutely, yes.
        Is it realistic that we will keep our homes, businesses,
    schools, powered reliably without coal and natural gas?
    Absolutely not.
        We need to be focused on innovation, like real carbon
    capture, that can make a real difference in protecting our
    government--our environment. Excuse me.
        Ms. Hamilton, I appreciated your reference to Appalachian
    roots and the term ``thoughtful,'' because thoughtful is very,
    very important. So is supply and demand.
        We need to consider the economic consequences of what this
    committee is considering. I want my colleagues to understand
    that a few years ago my constituents were left with the results
    of bad policy, of mandates which picked winners and losers
    without letting the market decide.
        There is a place for all forms of energy, but it cannot
    come at the expense of jobs and livelihoods and entire
    communities being wiped out.
        Electricity bills skyrocketed, which left many people with
    fixed incomes choosing between food, and medicine, and keeping
    their heat and lights on.
        My State and Mr. Palmer's State of Alabama are amongst the
    top five energy exporters in the United States and have to
    backfill all of the grids in States like California, which is
    the number one energy importer, at nearly 90 million megawatt
    hours per year. My State's total export of energy could power
    every household and business in Orange and San Diego County for
    the entire year.
        Ms. Tezak, we have 50 States in this country with different
    needs and different weather patterns. What is needed in Hawaii
    won't necessarily be needed in Florida or New Hampshire. Can
    you discuss the pitfalls of a top-down approach of applying
    aggressive renewable schemes and mandates across all the 50
    States?
        Ms. Castor. I am sorry. The gentlewoman's time has expired,
    but we are going to encourage you to answer that for the
    record.
        And at this time I will recognize Mr. Casten for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chair Castor. Thank you so much to
    the witnesses.
        I want to respond a little bit to the last comment before I
    start.
        Our job here is to write the laws of the United States.
    That is a pretty awesome job. We are at our best when we
    respect the laws of economics and thermodynamics, because those
    laws you can't really change.
        Coal is dying because it is uneconomic, coal is dying
    because it is not thermodynamic, and coal is dying in spite of
    the fact that we do not charge coal for the full social cost of
    carbon that it imposes on society. The health costs of coal
    vastly exceed the revenue of any coal plant in this country,
    and they are getting that for free right now.
        If you don't believe me, all you have got to do is look
    at--we have fantastic good news. Over the last two decades, we
    have seen coal steadily lose market share to cleaner and
    cheaper alternatives, not because of the laws of this country,
    because of the laws of economics.
        Combined cycle, renewable energy, every one of those plants
    comes on and competes on the margin and is a better investment
    as it comes on. And so we are making that transition. Now, that
    is really good news.
        There is a cost. Over the last--from 2005 to 2018, energy
    related CO2 emissions dropped by 14 percent. The price of
    energy has fallen by about 6 percent. As my friend Mr. Levin
    pointed out, that is an opportunity we should embrace and
    double down on, not run away from.
        But it started going up last year. Last year the emissions
    rose by 1.9 percent. And there was a--there was a February 2019
    report from the EIA that suggests that a big part of the reason
    for that is that we are now increasingly deploying much less
    efficient natural gas power cycles to balance--to balance load
    and deal with the swings, because we have to do something when
    the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, and we don't
    have the transmission that Mr. Kiernan pointed out about or the
    storage capacity that was out there. Now, the only way, and I
    would submit the best way, to deal with that intermittency is
    not inefficient natural gas.
        And so I would like to start with Ms. Hamilton. Can you
    talk about how technologies like storage can change the story
    and ensure that we continue to see the economic and
    environmental gains of clean energy but also have the kind of
    reliability we have come to expect?
        Ms. Hamilton. Yeah, absolutely. And I will just say that
    coal that is inefficient and uneconomic in operating out of
    market is costing consumers a billion dollars a year. So it is
    indeed a price.
        In California, four peaker plants, natural gas peaker
    plants, that were not clean have been replaced with energy
    storage. And it wasn't more expensive. It was cheaper, quicker,
    and cleaner to install energy storage than it was to continue
    operating plants that were not economic. So I think that is one
    of the big solutions.
        Mr. Casten. So are there additional Federal policy support
    so they can accelerate the deployment of energy storage?
        Ms. Hamilton. Yeah. Certainly a tax credit would be really
    helpful, because those were standalone projects that were not
    coupled with any sort of other renewable resource.
        Allowing for flexibility--if you do a Federal clean energy
    standard of some sort, allowing for some credit for resources
    that are flexible like that, that can both serve as load or
    generation.
        And load is important in California. To suck up the belly
    of the duck, you need both load and generation at different
    times. And so I think those two policies would be really
    important.
        Mr. Casten. I love that you and I and maybe a couple of
    people in the room understand the belly of the duck joke. But
    thank you.
        So--so I agree obviously. And I was proud to introduce H.R.
    2909, the Promoting Grid Storage Act of 2019, among other
    things, that would authorize about a billion dollars for new
    cost-cutting energy storage, R&D at DOE, provide technical
    assistance. The effort is bipartisan, bicameral, would
    encourage all of my colleagues to sign on.
        I want to turn to the grid itself, because--and again, Ms.
    Hamilton, in your comment to Mr. Levin, you mentioned allowing
    load-sided resources to participate in FERC markets. You had me
    at load-sided market participation.
        However, one of the things that I think--I think we don't
    talk about it enough, but I would welcome your thoughts on, is
    that there are some ISOs, independent system operators, who
    allow that; there are some that don't.
        Can you just speak to the--the kind of market rules and
    market access in different FERC markets in the country that--
    whether for load-sided participation or other ancillary
    services, where are the best practices that we should look to
    that we can point around the country and rule out?
        Ms. Hamilton. Well, everybody has a little work to do. I
    would say New England ISO has finally allowed solar and storage
    to start participating as a distributed energy resource.
        PJM has been traditionally pretty forward-thinking. A lot
    of the middle-of-the-country utilities and States opted out--
    with Order 719, opted out of aggregation of demand response.
    And what that did was it really--MISO is a tough market anyway,
    because the prices are pretty low. But what it did was it just
    did not enable aggregation of resources of all types.
        But I have found working within States as diverse as
    Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, that working with utilities to
    say let us--let innovators bring resources--all of these
    customer-sided resources to you and then you be able to bid
    those into the market, that that has been a really good
    solution and that utilities are starting to see that because
    they need solutions.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you. I am out of time.
        I would love to continue the conversation, because I think
    a lot of those market access and how--we get what we reward.
    Markets are really powerful. But if we don't send signals to
    people to build the kind of generation we want in the right
    place, we are not going to do it.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Ms. Ross Hopper and Mr. Kiernan, how long have you all been
    in the solar/wind power generation business? How long has
    that----
        Ms. Ross Hopper. I have been generally in the energy work
    since 2000--my son was born in 2007--2008.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. So 11 years.
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kiernan. I have been with AWEA particularly the last
    six years, but involved in energy and environmental policy for
    30.
        Mr. Palmer. For 30. Why is it----
        Mr. Kiernan. Plus or minus.
        Mr. Palmer. Why is it that wind and solar only represent
    about 5 percent of our energy production if we have had that
    industry around so long?
        It is a simple answer.
        Mr. Kiernan. Because of the dramatic, relatively recent
    costs in the last 10 years--dramatic decline in the last 10
    years, we are deploying more wind energy than ever, it is that
    recent cost decline that is a leading to a dramatic increase in
    wind deployment in the U.S.
        Mr. Palmer. But even with the cost decline, the cost is
    still extremely high.
        You mentioned that you need natural gas. What do you need--
    I mean, if you didn't have the subsidies, the market wouldn't
    bear the cost. Why do you need natural gas?
        Mr. Kiernan. If I can address the first, per Lazard, we are
    the cheapest source of electricity unsubsidized.
        We do need and appreciate natural gas. It is a very
    important partner for wind energy. I would point out that the
    cost to back up wind energy is less expensive than the cost to
    back up conventional power plants, say coal or nuclear, because
    they can trip off.
        Mr. Palmer. But why do you need it?
        Mr. Kiernan. Because wind is variable. But a traditional
    power plant can trip off in an instant, and you need spinning
    reserves, which are more expensive----
        Mr. Palmer. No, the reason you need it is because our grid
    is designed for a baseload, and it is not designed for
    variations in that baseload.
        And if you don't have the ability to maintain a baseload,
    you are going to have disruptions in your--your output. That is
    why you need a backup system.
        Mr. Kiernan. The demand for electricity varies throughout
    the day, increases and decreases. And grid operators have
    learned how to manage that.
        Actually the variability for wind energy is less than the
    variability of demand of electricity. So grid operators talk
    about actually wind energy as the new baseload, because our
    variability is less than----
        Mr. Palmer. If you--but, again, you get into the
    engineering part of this, that--and this is from a report from
    the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. If a
    large enough share of the power grid flows through invertors,
    which you have to have when you are using wind and solar, the
    grid itself could collapse. Existing converter technologies
    have faced serious software problems and prompted outages where
    they have been deployed.
        You know, when you talk about going to zero carbon output,
    which, by the way, we had a hearing a couple of months ago, and
    if we completely eliminated our carbon emissions, it wouldn't
    stop climate change. We have got climate change that is
    occurring--it is going to occur no matter what we do on the
    carbon side.
        But when we talk about, you know, completely going to a
    renewable power grid, you are talking trillions and trillions
    of dollars.
        Mr. Kiernan. I will just mention, for wind energy, we are
    currently 6-and-a-half percent of generation throughout the
    entire United States, and we look forward to 10, 20, 30 percent
    or more. There is all kinds of headroom with wind energy
    currently.
        Mr. Palmer. Are you aware of the problems they are having
    in Spain and Germany right now with their renewables?
        Mr. Kiernan. I am not an expert on international energy
    issues.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I think you ought to take a look at it if
    you want to have that as the primary source of power for the
    United States.
        Here is a New York Times article: Renewable Energy in Spain
    is Taking a Beating. It is exorbitantly expensive.
        There was a hearing before the--the House Select Committee
    on Energy Independence and Global Warming back in September of
    2009 where two professors from Spain testified that for every
    one green job financed by the Spanish taxpayer, 2.2 jobs were
    lost as an opportunity cost.
        Here is another from a publication called Blue and Green:
    Has Spain Learned its Renewable Lesson? Der Spiegel had an
    article about the problems in Germany. And the thing is, I am
    all for renewable power. I am fine with that. But there are
    certain engineering realities that--that we are going to have
    to face. And to tell the American public that we are going to
    have a Green New Deal that makes us--puts us at all renewables
    in 10 years, frankly I think is doing the public a great
    disservice.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I want to thank you also for traveling to my district
    over the Memorial Day recess. And I think we saw a lot in the
    district in terms of impacts of the climate change and also
    innovative ways to address it.
        One of the places that we visited was Houwelings Tomatoes,
    which is an innovator in sustainable agriculture. And they grow
    tomatoes year-round in a greenhouse, which uses about a sixth
    of the water, compared to field-grown tomato. They run their
    whole facility from a 5-acre solar photovoltaic field. It is
    quite innovative.
        The CEO of Houwelings certainly pointed out to us in our
    visit that unlike Europe, you know, one of the barriers that he
    saw is there are not enough financial tools available to
    provide capital for low carbon or no carbon projects.
        And I think, Ms. Hamilton, you mentioned a green bank
    concept. We have talked a lot about tax credits today, and I
    think--I believe in tax credits and the incentives to move the
    markets along.
        What about, you know, this concept of a green bank?
        Ms. Hamilton. Yeah, thank you very much for asking that
    question.
        Because there are a lot of projects that traditional
    financing just won't cover and traditional banks won't come to
    the table for, and a lot of those are energy efficiency
    projects that are commercial, and they are projects that make
    sense for customer savings, and yet no one is going to finance
    them.
        So having some kind of institution, whether it is quasi
    Federal or a full Federal institution that really brings that
    capital and does a lot of public/private partnerships--they
    have done this in New York. They have one in Hawaii, Rhode
    Island. There are several--Connecticut was another green bank--
    Montgomery County, Maryland, has a green bank. This brings
    capital and puts it toward projects that would not normally be
    financed but that are still really viable commercially.
        So I think it is a great thing--a concept to think about
    and to think about how we can do something that consumers could
    actually benefit from and also participate in.
        Ms. Brownley. And so some of the green banks that you
    mentioned have--are they--have they gone through full
    lifecycles of investments of sorts?
        Ms. Hamilton. Yes. Yes. So there are definite success
    stories----
        Ms. Brownley. And the returns have been stable?
        Ms. Hamilton. Yeah, been great, absolutely.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you. Thank you for that.
        Ms. Hopper, you talked--you know, in your testimony, you
    talked about an aggressive goal of 20 percent of solar by 2030.
    The breakdown on that is do you see it mainly coming from
    rooftop--you know, residential rooftop solar, or is it, you
    know--what is the breakdown between that and large utility-
    scale deployments?
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Thank you for the question. It is always
    nice when people recognize that there is all different ways to
    deploy solar.
        So we think it--roughly track what the market is now. So
    now it is about 60 percent utility-scale, so big solar farms;
    about 20 percent commercial and industrial. So tops of--tops of
    companies, tops of Walmarts, you know, community solar, and
    then about 20 percent residential.
        Ms. Brownley. And that--and as you said in your testimony,
    in the first 10 years, it was--the growth was slow and then
    very fast.
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Right. It definitely hit an inflexion
    point.
        Ms. Brownley. And then once you hit that inflection point,
    was there a shift in the breakdown of that, or was it because
    of more residential solar?
        Ms. Ross Hopper. That is a good question. I don't know
    historically. I am happy to look back and get that to you.
        Ms. Brownley. Okay. Okay.
        And, Mr. Kiernan, Ms. Hopper talked about an aggressive
    goal of 20 percent by 2030. In terms of wind energy, you talked
    a lot about wind production. Just--if you could, can you put
    what you said in your testimony and make it comparable to what
    it would look like in a 2030 scenario?
        Mr. Kiernan. Yes, I can. And I will harken back to a
    document, a process called wind vision that DOE did under
    President George W. Bush and then updated by Barack Obama. They
    laid out a goal, so both Presidents--10 percent by 2020 and 20
    percent of all electric generation in the U.S. is wind energy
    by 2030, and then onto 35 percent by 2050, I believe, as wind
    energy.
        And I will just observe the head--the manager of operations
    in SPP--a quick quote--he talks about 10 years ago we thought
    hitting even 25 percent wind penetration would be extremely
    challenging. Now we have the ability to reliably manage greater
    than 50 percent penetration. It is not even our ceiling. That
    is the gentleman that manages SPP. Sorry.
        Ms. Brownley. And the technology for wind, how quickly is
    that----
        Ms. Castor. I am sorry. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    We have a vote call, so I am going to recognize the----
        Ms. Brownley. Oh. I apologize.
        Ms. Castor [continuing]. Ranking member for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Graves. I am going to try and go very quickly here so
    we can squeeze a bunch in.
        Ms. Hopper and Mr. Kiernan--and I don't want to put words
    in your mouth, Ms. Hamilton--but I believe there was a lot of
    talk about kind of reimagining the grid or redesigning the grid
    and transmission systems based upon this renewable technology
    evolution that we are going through.
        Is that fair somewhat?
        Ms. Hamilton. Well, and we can use technologies that we
    have today. We don't necessarily have to redesign, but
    reimagine.
        Mr. Graves. Okay. Reimagine.
        The challenges that we are seeing right now in deploying
    the transmission lines, it is--we are running into challenges
    with the Endangered Species Act and 404 and National
    Environmental Policy Act and all of these things. And we are
    running into similar challenges with transmitting or
    transporting natural gas, which is needed for some of the
    balancing of your--of your resources.
        What does this streamlined regulatory process look like
    that helps to facilitate or deploy renewables in your mind?
        What does that look like?
        Mr. Kiernan. I think it is doable and manageable. We were
    talking with Chairman Chatterjee at FERC this week--last week.
    It is better planning, and it is giving FERC some backstop
    authority so that decisions on transmission lines can get made.
    We just need to move it more rapidly, but we have the tools and
    technology with us today.
        Ms. Ross Hopper. I will just add one additional piece of
    that is once we have the transmission lines built--and I concur
    with Tom--then we have to get the projects interconnected. And
    so that is the other half that has to happen. And we have to
    have sort of clear standards and expectations from utilities
    about how quickly they have to plug in these systems.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Quickly, Ms. Tezak, there was a lot of discussion about
    cost competitiveness of renewables. But I also heard in the
    same breath, production tax credit, investment tax credit,
    carbon tax, renewable portfolio standards, procurement
    preferences, and other things that somewhat distort price.
        You also referenced perhaps approaching a trillion-dollar
    investment in order to achieve this objective of Mayor
    Bloomberg.
        Can you talk a little bit just about cost competitiveness
    and what that looks like in terms of taxpayer investment
    quickly, please?
        Ms. Tezak. Sure. And I will describe the universe right
    after that.
        I think the challenge is, is that because natural gas has
    been so modestly priced, it has been extremely competitive on
    the margin. And while, you know, we have seen great advances
    in, you know, for example, in SPP and, you know, wind is
    absolutely kicking proverbial tail there and in Texas, those
    are locational areas. That doesn't help Georgia. It certainly
    doesn't help Georgia in the absence of transmission. It doesn't
    help other parts of the country if it is trapped locally. It is
    a great resource for those who have it.
        So I think when you are--when you are hearing calls for,
    you know, continued expansion of tax programs, there is two
    things to think about. One, that means that the marginal cost
    environment is still very competitive, in part because in many
    places we have oversupply.
        Mr. Graves. Ms. Tezak, just because I am going to try and
    squeeze this in real quick, could I ask you to respond to that
    in writing?
        Ms. Tezak. Sure, absolutely.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you. And I yield to Mr. Griffith.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I am going to try to do
    this, because we have got votes going fairly quickly.
        So let me start with coal, since we were just there. And my
    colleague on the other side of the aisle said that, you know,
    coal was hurt by financial circumstances, and that is true. But
    regs hit our area first, because I have the Virginia section of
    the coal fields that my colleague from West Virginia has on the
    other side of the line.
        And regs came in first to hurt coal and then fracking. And
    what I found so fascinating is, most of the time people on my
    left don't like fracking either. But what has made coal not
    financially marketable for energy production or electric
    production has been the fracking and the gas fields of
    Marcellus and Utica. So you have got to have one or the other.
        So that being said, I would also say that you can't make
    good quality steel without using some of our metallurgical coal
    from the coal fields.
        Now, my friend Mr. Kelly has talked about rare-earth
    earlier. And one of the great breakthroughs is we can actually
    do two things, because apparently there is a greater amount of
    the rare-earths in the area in central Appalachia where the
    coal meets the rock. And if we can learn how to extract that,
    we can do better.
        And as this committee has heard me say before, that is
    technology we can export, because what has--what has happened
    is--is that that technology, although it is not fully refined
    yet, is now being licensed to steel mills in India, because
    they can lower the carbon footprint of the Indian coal. And
    that is where I think we need to go, is with research.
        Yesterday I had a meeting with--along with a number of
    others--with Paul Dabbar, the DOE Under Secretary for Science,
    and he was talking about that they have got a film that they
    believe is just about ready for primetime--not quite, but just
    about ready--that will take carbon dioxide out of our coal-
    fired power plants and our natural gas-fired power plants.
        Technology is going to help us break through. I am all for
    research on renewables, but we need to do research on ways that
    we can make our carbon-based forms of energy more affordable,
    and we also have to make sure we look at hydro.
        With that, I will yield back, because I know that we are
    running out of time.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Griffith.
        Recognize Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    this hearing.
        You know, there is a myth going around that renewable
    energy is bad for low-income communities and communities of
    color. I want to explore that myth for a moment.
        And, Ms. Hopper, you have spoken about what I think you
    called community solar deployment as an option for folks. Can
    you elaborate beyond what you put in your written testimony
    about that?
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Sure. So community solar projects are
    projects where folks sort of buy a share of the--of the output
    of the community solar. So it applies--you know, I live in a
    house that has a lot of trees around it, so I can't put solar
    on my house because there is no sunlight that comes. It is for
    folks that live in multifamily buildings; it is sometimes for
    folks of low and moderate income.
        So it is a model that allows access to folks other than
    simply homeowners. I think that--it is clearly--lots of States
    have chosen to allow the regulatory construct to have that
    happen. I think at the Federal level, there are opportunities
    to help move community solar forward through sort of best
    practices and perhaps some funding opportunities.
        Mr. McEachin. You have also in your written testimony
    outlined the need to build a robust workforce for solar energy,
    and you note that solar installation, in terms of the number of
    jobs, is among the fastest growing industries in the country.
        Could you tell us what Congress should do to make these
    solar jobs available to more people in diverse communities
    around the country?
        Ms. Ross Hopper. Absolutely. Thank you for that question.
        I forget--one of the folks who sat down there talked about
    this being one of the largest wealth-creating opportunities
    available. And I believe that to my core. I think as we think
    about how we are going to literally transform our energy
    system, there is going to be so much opportunity for wealth
    creation, ensuring that communities of all varieties have an
    opportunity at wealth creation and not simply getting a job is
    important.
        What can the Federal Government to do so sort of help that?
    I think there are workforce development--we have heard
    consistently about the need for these workers, and at least in
    the solar industry. Tom can talk about wind.
        It is everything from construction workers to electricians
    to financiers to sort of predict--you know, literally
    forecasting sunlight. And so making sure that our--everything
    from our high schools to our community colleges to our
    universities have clear links to our industry and--so students
    understand opportunities that are available to them is
    important.
        I think having some transparency around sort of where we
    are getting our candidates from. So at SEIA we have developed
    an MLU with historically black colleges and universities to
    ensure that our pipelines are diverse as well for these jobs.
        So I think there is lots of things--as I am sure you know,
    Congressman Rush has a bill on workforce diversity that we are
    fully supportive of.
        Mr. McEachin. Very good. I thank you. I thank the
    witnesses.
        And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. McEachin.
        And thank you to our witnesses today for expert analysis
    and participating in the Climate Crisis Committee and how we
    ramp up renewables to solve the climate crisis.
        Without objection, all members will have 10 business days
    within which to submit additional written questions for the
    witnesses. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as
    you can.
        And I encourage the public to follow the work of the
    committee at climatecrisis.house.gov and on
    Twitter@climatecrisis.
        The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
                                   __________

    United States House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Climate
                                     Crisis

      Hearing on June 13, 2019, ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Ramping Up
                                  Renewables''

                            Questions for the Record

       Christine Tezak, Managing Director, ClearView Energy Partners, LLC

                          the honorable garret graves
        1. There was a lot of discussion about cost competitiveness of
    renewables. But I also heard in the same breath, production tax credit,
    investment tax credit, carbon tax, renewable portfolio standards,
    procurement preferences, and other things that somewhat distort price.
        Can you talk a little bit just about cost competitiveness and what
    that looks like in terms of taxpayer investment quickly, please?
        Thank you for the question, Ranking Member Graves. First, electric
    generation assets (power plants) are dispatched (given orders to
    produce power) most economically when the grid operator or local
    balancing authority/utility can follow ``security constrained economic
    dispatch.'' That technique relies on two inputs, operating
    characteristics and price. Power plants are ``stacked'' according to
    these two attributes and then are given orders to produce power by the
    grid operator based on the amount of demand that needs to be met. This
    is would be dispatch ``in merit order.'' When grid operators deviate
    from this efficient approach customers can face higher and more opaque
    costs in the form of locally higher rates, uplift charges, and a higher
    tax burden that does not necessarily fund power supplies they use.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
    S0960148115300343.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some emissions--such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) \2\ and
    nitrogen oxides (NOX) \3\--have trading and credit markets
    with transparent prices that are readily incorporated into the power
    plant's price. We would argue that these emissions-oriented policies do
    not ``distort'' prices, but integrate those nationally applicable
    policies into generation asset price profiles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acid-rain-program.
        \3\ https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/phase-ii-acid-rain-program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, state-level and regional policies that focus on increasing
    renewable energy deployments or non-price preferences for lower carbon
    resources can ``distort'' prices when they operate outside the
    electricity market algorithms that set dispatch merit order. This has
    led to several iterations of price formation and market reform
    proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to address
    ``out of market'' policies adopted by states who regulate the market
    participants, primarily in New England the PJM Interconnection regions.
        Renewable portfolio standards/procurement practices and production/
    investment tax credits can make it more difficult for the market
    operator to follow security constrained economic dispatch because the
    costs of these policies isn't well reflected in market prices. For
    example, RPS programs and renewable energy tax credits have fostered
    the entry of power generation assets that do not follow dispatch.\4\
    Wind farms produce power when the wind blows and solar when the sun
    shines, not when the grid operator directs them. This means that the
    grid operator often must accommodate those resources first, even though
    they may not be the first to dispatch from an operational
    characteristics basis, and deploys other assets to complement them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-
    renewables-actually-depend-on-tax-breaks/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Depending on the time of day, this accommodation may require that
    the grid operator ask other generators to back down their production by
    charging them to produce power instead of paying them for it (negative
    pricing), or dispatching higher-priced, but more flexible capacity that
    can provide power in small increments until the full capacity of a
    larger (baseload) asset can be accommodated at its lower price. Wind's
    production tax credit, worth as much as $23/MWh for many existing
    facilities, means that these assets have $23/MWh of ``headroom''
    relative to other generators, buffering them from the adverse impacts
    of lower prices. Even as the tax credit has declined ahead of
    expiration, deployments remain robust.5 6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39472.
        \6\ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43453.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To be clear, tax-preferred resources with no fuel costs (such as
    wind/solar) can and do lead to lower wholesale prices in the hours when
    they are plentiful, something that does benefit consumers. However,
    these cost decreases can be offset by increases elsewhere on the
    system. Structurally lower wholesale market prices, in particular for
    baseload energy (often provided by coal and nuclear plants), can lead
    to power plant retirements, and in some areas, may have adverse impact
    on the ability to maintain system stability and power delivery at high
    demand (peak) or emergency periods. Some of those retirements do not
    adversely impact ratepayers financially, however some do. If an asset
    is retired before it is fully recovered in retail rates, customers may
    still be obligated to pay off most, if not all, of the remaining value
    of the asset, if the plant's construction had been approved by
    regulators. These costs could offset the savings from the lower prices
    of the newer market entrants.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\  https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/02/25/wind-and-solar-
    power-are-disrupting-electricity-systems, https://www.forbes.com/sites/
    michaelshellenberger/2019/05/27/we-shouldnt-be-surprised-renewables-
    make-energy-expensive-since-thats-always-been-the-greens-goal/
    #45a506224e6d.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, incremental transmission and distribution system
    investments may be required to handle retirements, shifts in power
    flows. These are occasioned when renewable assets must be located where
    nature provides the best opportunity, and that may not necessarily be
    the most optimal location.\8\ Further, the power grid has been
    substantially constructed to flow power one direction--from generation
    resources to customers.\9\ However, when customers produce more energy
    than they can use they become ``pro-sumers'' and power may flow the
    other direction on the distribution system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2018/03/22/examining-the-
    claim-that-renewable-energy-will-soon-replace-fossil-fuels/.
        \9\ https://pages.bv.com/SDR-SmartUtilities-Download.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Retooling the nation's grid to accommodate this new capability
    won't happen without investment (in other words, money from
    ratepayers). We would argue adoption of incrementally lower greenhouse
    gas emitting resources are not neutral to ratepayers, and in some cases
    may result in rate increases to cover investments ahead of potential
    savings realized over the longer term.
        Incremental investment in both the transmission and distribution
    systems is generally socialized across all grid users, not paid for by
    the owner of the renewable generation resource. We'd agree that these
    investments in ``grid modernization'' do have benefits beyond
    renewables integration, but the cost impact of renewables deployment
    can be opaque to the consumer given that these investments are not
    reflected in the wholesale prices offered by renewable energy assets to
    the wholesale market.
        This ratemaking reality can make the cost of new renewables assets
    more opaque. Further, pro-sumers seek to be paid for ``excess'' energy
    their systems may be able to produce relative to their load. Initial
    rate designs in this area have been so beneficial to these pro-sumers
    that many states have been making incremental reforms to their rate
    design to reduce and eventually eliminate cross-subsidization between
    customer classes.
        In addition, the excess gross supply of power generation assets and
    low market prices have undermined the ability of flexible units to make
    reasonable returns to stay in the market (the experience of natural gas
    plants in California provides an extreme example). This leads to calls
    for incremental charges for reliability must run (RMR) contracts to be
    struck (and paid by customers) or very high, and volatile peak pricing
    schemes to prevent the closure of these power plants, too. These less
    transparent costs can eat into the notional ``cost savings'' of lower
    wholesale market prices, and potentially offset them altogether.
        Therefore, at the end of the day, electricity customers pay for
    power generated and delivered to them over the nation's grid. They pay
    taxes, too. Customers can face higher electricity rates that support
    procurements to preserve reliability arising from local or regional
    needs--whether to retain coal-fired or nuclear baseload plants or
    natural gas mid-merit and peaking facilities--and increased investment
    in the grid to accommodate the renewables capability their taxes also
    support.
        A quick word about carbon taxes or carbon prices. While this policy
    would not be without cost it has the potential to be more transparent
    (much like SO2 and NOX credits) and easier to
    integrate into restructured market algorithms.
        Further, if adopted as part of a holistic, national policy
    decision, Congress would have the opportunity to direct some of the
    revenues raised from a greenhouse gas limitation program to the areas
    of the country facing the largest transition challenges if needed. This
    may be appropriate to reflect two important realities. First, some
    areas of the country have more renewables or low carbon generation
    resources available than others.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\  http://archives.maproomblog.com/2008/03/
    us_atlas_of_renewable_resources.php.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, the nation's environmental, energy and industrial policies
    in place 40-50 years ago differ dramatically from those adopted over
    the last decade and under discussion today. Many regions that are still
    carbon-intensive in power generation are facing other economic
    challenges, including de-industrialization as well as economic reliance
    on the production of the natural resources a national policy that would
    limit GHG emissions could constrain or eliminate altogether over time.
        Policy proposals that reflect these two realities would appear to
    be the most likely to be adopted nationally. Policy proposals that
    advantage one region of the country at the expense of others
    (particularly those that purport to ``reward'' areas that are deemed
    ``first movers'') and do not consider ameliorating the potential
    adverse consequences of a rapid transitions have not succeeded to date,
    and appear unlikely to in future.

                            Questions for the Record

                 Katherine Hamilton, Chair, 38 North Solutions

                           the honorable kathy castor
        1. In some regions of the United States, it may be difficult to use
    renewable energy during extreme weather, such as during extremely cold
    weather in the northern part of the country. How could greater use of
    flexible energy resources help address this challenge?
        Interestingly, based on the evidence, the issue of resources unable
    to operate in extreme weather situations is almost entirely limited to
    traditional generation, not renewables and flexible resources. Several
    examples of resilience provided by flexible resources were cited in my
    testimony. In addition, I would refer the Committee to Hurricane
    Florence news stories that discuss the nuclear and coal plants not only
    having to shut down in preparation for the storm, but also coal ash
    ponds being breached, causing collateral environmental damage to water
    systems in North Carolina. The resources most quickly brought back on
    line were solar farm, and, luckily, the state has many solar systems.
    Another story to point to is natural gas in the Midwest this past
    winter; in many parts of the country, there is a tension between
    natural gas being used for home heating and the supply for generation.
    Wind energy resources are hearty in hurricanes with self-managing
    systems to ensure blades are locked and feathered to prevent damage. As
    I mentioned in my testimony, demand response, microgrids, and
    distributed generation (as long as it is able to disconnect from the
    overarching grid) all prove to be the most resilient resources on the
    system.
        2. Conventional fossil fuels are often more energy dense than newer
    technologies. How should Federal Research and Development (R&D)
    investments be targeted to address this challenge?
        Rather than thinking about energy density as the attribute we need,
    I recommend instead focusing on end-states (parity of cost and
    performance at the system level). Taking electric vehicles as an
    example, rather than comparing the size of the battery to the size of
    the gasoline tank, one would look at the mileage achieved in a similar
    sized vehicle at a particular price--performance and service provided
    rather than one specific measurement that may not translate (or be
    relevant) between technologies. In recent testimony before House
    Science Committee, I discuss this issue of attribute as well. I use the
    example of energy storage to state that ``rather than identifying this
    research as `grid-scale' or prescribing time durations for storage
    technology operations, I recommend instead stating the problems that
    should be solved or the services delivered, and allow new chemistries
    and technologies--individually or as a system--be developed that can
    fit those needs.'' The same should be true for other flexible
    technologies: state the problem that needs solving and build the R&D
    around possible solutions. Comparing fossil fuel to renewable plus
    storage systems, the question might be whether we want leaded or
    unleaded paint; one resource exacerbates climate change while the other
    mitigates it.
        3. Most decarbonization scenarios anticipate electrification of
    transportation and industry and greater use of battery storage.
    However, batteries require the use of precious metals that are mostly
    imported. How should the Federal government drive the development of
    battery recycling?
        Precious metals (Rhodium, Platinum, Gold, Palladium, and Silver)
    are used in electronics and catalytic convertors, but are not used in
    lithium-ion batteries. Rather, metals such as Cobalt, Nickel, Lithium,
    Aluminum, Manganese, and Iron are used in manufacturing those
    batteries. The cathode of the battery is made from a Lithium-Cobalt-
    Nickel oxide mixture on an Aluminum foil while the anode of the battery
    is made from graphite on Copper foil. Recycling end of life lithium-ion
    batteries in the U.S. should encourage processes that return those
    elements to be reused in battery materials. Reuse of the recovered
    elements only makes sense, of course, if there is a robust lithium-ion
    battery manufacturing industry, accompanied by collection, dismantling
    and pre-processing, and refining capability. While the U.S. has
    established collectors and pre-processors, there is no lithium-ion
    refining capacity in the U.S. By establishing federal policies--
    establishing best practices for collection, requiring labeling and
    responsibility from manufacturers, and ensuring the federal government
    leads by example, as just a few ideas--we could create the certainty
    and market scale for refiners to build recycling plants here in the
    U.S.
        4. What should Congress do to ensure that flexible demand-side
    resources are integrated into wholesale power markets?
        With jurisdiction over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
    Congress is able to exert pressure on that agency to make a final rule
    on the Distributed Energy Resource rulemaking. Senators and Members of
    the House (on both sides of the issue) have sent letters urging FERC to
    act on the rulemaking. A more durable solution, of course, would be
    legislation that clarifies flexible demand-side (consumer) resources in
    the Federal Power Act as being able to serve as resources--just as
    generators serve as resources--and have access to a participation model
    in the wholesale market.
        5. During the hearing, the challenges that European countries,
    especially Spain and Germany, faced in the last decade as they have
    increased their use of renewable energy were raised. Overall have Spain
    and Germany succeeded in increasing their use of renewable energy in a
    way that has benefited their economy? Are there any overarching lessons
    that the United States can learn to inform the development of national
    polices from these countries?
        European countries have indeed experimented with renewable energy
    policy and technology and felt some growing pains, although the result
    has been that renewable energy is now the cheapest source of
    electricity in those regions. Spain and Germany, in particular, each
    put into place a Feed-In-Tariff (FIT), which set higher payments for
    renewable energy, thus drawing investment from those industries. Over
    time, this policy kept prices higher as the cost of renewables dropped.
    Subsequently, adjustments have been made to ensure that consumers are
    not paying more than market price for renewable energy. Today, Spain
    and Germany have adjusted down or removed their FIT altogether and have
    seen some of the highest penetration of renewable energy, while also
    enjoying economic and environmental benefits. In fact, a quarter of the
    start-up companies in Germany contribute to the green economy. A FIT
    was also instituted in Ontario, Canada, setting high prices to
    incentivize renewable energy deployment. While this policy worked to
    scale renewables, over time it also kept prices higher than the market.
    The U.S. has not instituted a FIT policy on the federal or state level,
    but instead has used tax incentives, Renewable Portfolio Standards,
    emissions trading schemes, and other procurement policies to scale
    renewable deployment and lower prices for consumers. Today, thanks to
    experimentation by countries in Europe as well as the U.S., solar and
    wind are in many cases the cheapest sources of energy.
                                   references
    Question #1 references
        Hurricane Florence and nuclear:
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy -
    202/2018/09/18/the-energy-202-hurricane -florence-blows-hole-in-trump-
    team-s-case-for-helping-coal-and-nuclear -power-critics-say/
    5ba022621b326b 47ec9596b9/?utm_term=.a25d19c1e4f5.
        Hurricane Florence and coal:
        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/florences-floodwaters-
    breach-defenses-at-power-plant-prompting-shutdown.html
        Hurricane Florence and solar:
        https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20092018/hurricane-florence-
    solar-panel-energy-resilience-extreme-weather-damage-wind-flooding
        Nuclear and cold temperatures:
        https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/below-freezing-temps-shut-
    down-salem-nuclear-reactor/article _X2fb9b5c7-931f-57be-b4a1-
    0db516b7e439.html
        Midwest natural gas story:
        https://www.nepr.net/post/deep-freeze-puts-strain-midwest-gas-and-
    electricity-grids#stream/0
        DOE study on wind energy and natural disaster:
        https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-extreme-weather-
    solutions-hurricane-resiliency
        Advanced Energy Management Comments to California Wildfire Strike
    Force:
        https://aem-alliance.org/aema-urges-consideration-of-der-in-
    wildfire-mitigation/
    Question #2 references
        Link to Science Committee Testimony can be found here:
        https://science.house.gov/hearings/the-future-of-electricity-
    delivery -modernizing-and-securing-our-nations-electricity-grid
    Question #3 references
        See new DOE program on battery recycling: https://
    americanmadechallenges.org/batteryrecycling/
        Umicore, Inc. chart shows where facilities are located: https://
    csm.umicore.com/en/recycling/battery-recycling/e-mobility/
        Recycling in the EU is driven by the WEEE directive, which creates
    certainty for industry: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/
    legis _en.htm https://www.pv-magazine.com /2019/03/25/innovation-
    boosts-lithium -ion-battery-recycling-rate-to-over-80/
    Question #4 references
        Letter to FERC on DER NOPR from House Members in support of DER
    rulemaking: https://mikelevin.house.gov/sites/mikelevin.house.gov /
    files/Letter%20to%20FERC%20re%20DER%20Rulemaking%20021119.pdf
        Letter to FERC on DER NOPR from Senators in support of
    participation model: https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
    2019-02 -11%20FERC%20Letter.pdf
        Letter to FERC on DER NOPR from Senators opposed to DER in
    wholesale market: https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
    2019.05.07%20Hoeven%20
    Letter%20to%20FERC%20on%20DER%20Aggregation%20by%20Third%20 Parties.pdf
    Question #5 references
        See analysis on current solar boom in Spain: https://
    www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/spanish-gold-rush-fuels-new-
    european -solar-boom#gs.tz3kf7
        Solar as engine for economic boom in Spain: https://
    www.renewableenergymagazine.com/pv _solar/solar-power-is-engine-of-
    spain-s-20190410
        Germany has also seen a rise in solar installations as a result of
    cutting back their FIT: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/01/germany-
    installed-2-gw-of-solar-in-six-months/
        Report on start-ups in Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/
    news/quarter-german-start-ups-contribute-green-economy-report
        Blog from NRDC on economic benefit of climate policy to state of
    California: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/ralph-cavanagh/new-report-
    shows-how-climate-action-and-healthy-economy-wo
        New York is taking much of its offshore wind strategy from what
    Europe has learned: https://www.nypa.gov/news/press-releases/ 2019/
    20190807-key-learnings-offshore-wind-transmission-models

                                      [all]