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




 
 BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: SOLUTIONS FOR ECONOMY-WIDE DEEP 
                            DECARBONIZATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 5, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-82
                           
                           
                           
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        






      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                        
                        
                            ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
44-432 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2021                         
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
    
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Daniel C. Esty, Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law & Policy 
  and Director, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale 
  Law School and Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    99
Noah Kaufman, Ph.D., Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy 
  Policy, Columbia University School of International and Public 
  Affairs........................................................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   103
David Gattie, Ph.D., Associate Professor, College of Engineering, 
  and Resident Fellow, Center for International Trade and 
  Security, University of Georgia................................    37
    Prepared statement \1\
Timothy H. Profeta, Director, Nicholas Institute for 
  Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University................    38
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Answers to submitted questions \2\...........................   107

                           Submitted Material

Letter of December 4, 2019, from Julia Olson, Executive Director, 
  Our Children's Trust, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted 
  by Mr. Tonko \3\
Letter of December 4, 2019, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice 
  President, Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association, to 
  Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko..............    76

----------

\1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Gattie has been retained in committee 
files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20191205/110295/HHRG-116-IF18-Wstate-GattieD-20191205.pdf.
\2\ Mr. Profeta did not answer submitted questions for the record by 
the time of printing.
\3\ The letter has been retained in committee files and also is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20191205/110295/
HHRG-116-IF18-20191205-SD003.pdf.
Letter of December 4, 2019, from Michael Gerrard and John C. 
  Dernbach, coeditors, ``Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization 
  in the United States,'' to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted 
  by Mr. Tonko...................................................    79
Letter of December 5, 2019, from Nathaniel Keohane, Senior Vice 
  President, Climate, Environmental Defense Fund, to Mr. Tonko 
  and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................    83
Letter of June 21, 2018, from Food & Water Watch, et al., to Hon. 
  Raul M. Grijalva and Hon. Mark Pocan, cochairs, Congressional 
  Progressive Caucus, submitted by Ms. Barragan..................    89
Letter of November 22, 2019, from Advocates for Springfield, et 
  al., to Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of 
  Representatives, and Hon. Kathy Castor, Chair, House Select 
  Committee on the Climate Crisis, submitted by Ms. Barragan.....    92


 BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: SOLUTIONS FOR ECONOMY-WIDE DEEP 
                            DECARBONIZATION

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, 
Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Schakowsky, 
Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus 
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, 
Long, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, 
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Omar Guzman-Toro, Policy 
Analyst; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff Member; Rick 
Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 
Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Mel Peffers, 
Environment Fellow; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Peter 
Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Energy, and Environment and Climate Change; Brandon 
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, 
Minority Legislative Clerk; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior 
Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on 
Environment and Climate Change will now come to order.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an 
opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    For the past several months, the committee has held a 
series of hearings and stakeholder meetings examining how our 
Nation can achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-
century.
    Our past hearings have focused on sector-specific issues 
and solutions. We have examined the industrial, electricity, 
transportation, and building sectors. Today, we will turn our 
attention to economy-wide solutions, a category of policies 
that can result in emissions reductions from across multiple 
sectors.
    We know, to achieve ambitious climate targets, innovations 
are needed in technology and policy and in finance to 
accelerate the clean-energy transition and reduce the cost of 
economy-wide decarbonization.
    These crosscutting policies take many different forms. It 
can include how the data revolution can promote greater 
efficiency through digitization. It also covers how access to 
capital and financing opportunities can support deployment of 
new and needed technologies and infrastructure.
    Low-emission solutions, ranging from energy-efficient 
appliances to electric buses, are commercially available and 
pay for themselves over time, but the upfront cost can be a 
barrier. Having financing options available can accelerate 
widespread adoption of these solutions.
    Another potentially powerful policy is carbon pricing, 
which remains a proven, economically efficient method to put us 
on the lowest-cost pathway to achieving major emissions 
reductions.
    Today, the costs of climate pollution are not borne by 
polluters. In my opinion, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong.
    Carbon pricing connects--or corrects, rather--a market 
failure and establishes a long-term price signal to allow each 
firm to determine how to best manage its assets. While we know 
market-based policies, like carbon pricing, can be effective, 
the policy design really matters. We have seen bad programs 
fail and good ones succeed. And the last decade of experiences 
from State and foreign governments provides many, many examples 
of best practices and lessons learned.
    Today, millions of Americans are already living under a 
carbon price in California and the RGGI states. The sky has not 
fallen, and industry has not crumbled. In fact, those residents 
are experiencing benefits in terms of public health and new 
revenue for investments in efficiency and infrastructure 
programs.
    Pricing programs can and should be designed to minimize 
impacts to consumers, protect low-income households, and 
preserve the global competitiveness of U.S. energy-intensive, 
trade-exposed industries.
    They should also provide flexibility for regulated entities 
to the extent that it does not undermine the integrity of the 
program or result in harmful, inequitable outcomes.
    We know that multidecade climate targets require policy 
certainty. Congressional action can create predictability and 
credibility while sending the signals that will be necessary to 
impact long-term planning and investment decisions.
    Despite some of the strengths of these types of policies, 
we must keep in mind that there is no silver bullet to 
achieving deep decarbonization. We must embrace a broad 
portfolio of solutions and commit to reinvesting revenues from 
a pricing program to support complementary policies.
    Complementary policies that promote R&D, infrastructure 
deployment, workforce development, community and worker 
programs, environmental justice and restoration, resilience, 
and energy efficiency must be part of our efforts. These types 
of investments will ensure emissions reductions occur quickly, 
cheaply, and fairly, with the benefits of a cleaner economy 
reaching every community.
    We will also hear about another potential model based on 
existing environmental statutes that gives State governments 
greater responsibility and flexibility to direct their climate 
mitigation efforts and achieve nationally determined goals.
    We know States and regions face unique climate challenges. 
I look forward to exploring how we might be able to translate 
the cooperative federalism model that has resulted in such 
significant air, water, and soil pollution reductions over the 
past four decades into the climate context.
    I truly believe many of us share a common goal of putting 
forward cost-effective solutions that protect low-income 
consumers, promote U.S. competitiveness and invest in energy 
innovation and infrastructure while ensuring meaningful 
emissions reductions.
    Designing economy-wide solutions that fit with effective 
sector-specific policies will be key to assembling a meaningful 
comprehensive climate package.
    I thank our witnesses for joining us today. We look forward 
to your input and your perspective and providing the sort of 
information that we find very important to these discussions. I 
look forward to your testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change will now 
come to order. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.
    For the past several months, the committee has held a 
series of hearings and stakeholder meetings examining how our 
Nation can achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-
century.
    Our past hearings have focused on sector-specific issues 
and solutions. We have examined the industrial, electricity, 
transportation, and building sectors.
    Today, we will turn our attention to economy-wide 
solutions, a category of policies that can result in emissions 
reductions from across multiple sectors.
    We know to achieve ambitious climate targets, innovations 
are needed in technology, policy, and finance to accelerate the 
clean energy transition and reduce the costs of economy-wide 
decarbonization.
    These cross-cutting policies take many different forms.
    It can include how the data revolution can promote greater 
efficiency through digitization.
    It also covers how access to capital and financing 
opportunities can support deployment of new and needed 
technologies and infrastructure.
    Low-emissions solutions, ranging from energy-efficient 
appliances to electric buses, are commercially available and 
pay for themselves over time, but the upfront costs can be a 
barrier. Having financing options available can accelerate 
widespread adoption of these solutions.
    Another potentially powerful policy is carbon pricing, 
which remains a proven, economically efficient method to put us 
on the lowest-cost pathway to achieving major emissions 
reductions.
    Today the costs of climate pollution are not borne by 
polluters. In my opinion, that is wrong.
    Carbon pricing corrects a market failure and establishes a 
long-term price signal to allow each firm to determine how to 
best manage their assets.
    While we know market-based policies, like carbon pricing, 
can be effective, the policy design really matters.
    We have seen bad programs fail and good ones succeed, and 
the last decade of experiences from State and foreign 
governments provide many examples of best practices and lessons 
learned.
    Today, millions of Americans are already living under a 
carbon price in California and the RGGI States. The sky has not 
fallen, and industry has not crumbled.
    In fact, those residents are experiencing benefits in terms 
of public health and new revenue for investments in efficiency 
and infrastructure programs.
    Pricing programs can, and should, be designed to minimize 
impacts to consumers, protect low-income households, and 
preserve the global competitiveness of U.S. energy-intensive, 
trade-exposed industries.
    They should also provide flexibility for regulated entities 
to the extent that it does not undermine the integrity of the 
program or result in harmful, inequitable outcomes.
    We know that multidecade climate targets require policy 
certainty. Congressional action can create predictability and 
credibility, while sending the signals that will be necessary 
to impact long-term planning and investment decisions.
    Despite some of the strengths of these types of policies, 
we must keep in mind there is no silver bullet to achieving 
deep decarbonization. We must embrace a broad portfolio of 
solutions and commit to reinvesting revenues from a pricing 
program to support complementary policies.
    Complementary policies that promote R&D, infrastructure 
deployment, workforce development, community and worker 
programs, environmental justice and restoration, resilience, 
and energy efficiency must be part of our efforts.
    These types of investments will ensure emissions reductions 
occur quicker, cheaper, and fairer with the benefits of a 
cleaner economy reaching every community.
    We will also hear about another potential model, based on 
existing environmental statutes, that gives State governments 
greater responsibility and flexibility to direct their climate 
mitigation efforts and achieve nationally determined goals.
    We know States and regions faces unique climate challenges.
    I look forward to exploring how we might be able to 
translate the cooperative federalism model that has resulted in 
such significant air, water, and soil pollution reductions over 
the past four decades into the climate context.
    I truly believe many of us share a common goal of putting 
forward cost-effective solutions that protect low-income 
consumers, promote U.S. competitiveness, and invest in energy 
innovation and infrastructure while ensuring meaningful 
emissions reductions.
    Designing economy-wide solutions that fit with effective 
sector-specific policies will be key to assembling a 
meaningful, comprehensive climate package.
    I thank our witnesses for joining us and providing input 
into this important discussion. I look forward to your 
testimony.

    Mr. Tonko. With that, I will now recognize Mr. Shimkus, 
Representative Shimkus, being the ranking member of our 
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, for 5 minutes 
for his opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And to my friends, a word of warning. When I was going over 
the testimony and what we have gone--you know, the Congress and 
where we are at today, it was only 8 years ago that we were 
trying to move to a cap-and-trade program, and we were moving 
to national healthcare under Obamacare. Done poorly, the 
results were politically a change in Congress. So it is just 
the facts that that is what occurred.
    So I think for anyone to not focus on the cost of 
transition, you are going down a dangerous path. As we see what 
is going on in France with the yellow vests based upon gas 
prices, what we have just seen in Iran, based upon an increase 
in gas prices, for anyone to think that consumers are not going 
to be price conscious in this debate, I would just say a word 
of warning.
    I am particularly touched by Dr. Gattie's testimony, and I 
would encourage my colleagues to look at the charts in his 
testimony, which highlight really a flat-line growth on fossil 
use and fossil emissions in the developed world and an 
astronomical increase in the developing countries, especially 
the Asian-Pacific region.
    So a cost burden on us with no international constraint--
the recent announcement by China just yesterday--will indicate 
that we will do this for nothing. So that is where--you know, 
Ranking Member Walden talks about those issues of resiliency 
and efficiency and technology and being able to mitigate the 
changes that are going to occur, whether we are engaged or not.
    So we have had a great series of hearings. As I talked to 
the panel, as I was able to a few minutes beforehand, which, as 
the chairman has noted, is going to--been addressing across the 
spectrum of our energy use, whether it is in the transportation 
sector, the manufacturing, the generation, and I applaud him 
for that, because it is really that holistic approach of 
looking at the entire economy.
    But we should not not look at what is going on in the rest 
of the world when it impinges upon the fact of derailing a 
properly developed policy that--I think I even heard in the 
opening statement that--that costs will be increased, and the 
industries that will be charged will pass that along. That is 
just an economic fact and reality.
    So I look forward to the hearing. I know they are all noted 
panelists, great testimony. We appreciate your time and your 
effort.
    This is a tough issue. The majority has decided to wrap its 
arms around it and try to address it, and we are trying to not 
be in their way as we try to get to a point where there can be 
growth and development while we address the emission debate, 
not only in this country but across the country--across the 
world, actually.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit my 
statement for the record. This is just off the heart, as you 
could tell.
    And I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    When the majority initiated this series of hearings in 
July, it made clear that its legislative goals would be bold 
and sweeping--and would touch pretty much every part of 
people's lives.
    Transforming the American economy to produce net zero 
carbon dioxide emissions in 30 years, as the majority has 
proposed, requires forcing dramatic change on a scale that is 
hard for most people to comprehend. And the hearing record 
developed so far has just touched the surface of what any zero-
emissions transformation in the United States would truly 
entail.
    Over the course of the past 5 months, we've heard testimony 
on the industrial sector, the transportation sector, the power 
sector and discussed the practical, technological, and economic 
barriers to eliminating most of the emissions in those sectors.
    Today's hearing rounds out the series with a look at 
``economy-wide deep decarbonization'' measures--basically the 
regulatory approaches that the majority believes are necessary 
to cap and to tax and to otherwise restrict carbon dioxide 
emissions across the U.S. economy.
    From the various proposals circulating in Congress, it 
appears that many proponents of deep decarbonization--
regardless of the state of technology--aim to increase the cost 
of generating and transmitting electrical power, fueling 
vehicles, growing food, and making the products of modern 
infrastructure, manufacturing, and industry.
    What is not often discussed is whether this drive to change 
our domestic energy and economic system is really the most 
appropriate and effective approach as a matter of U.S. policy 
to address climate risks.
    From the beginning of this Congress, I have urged that we 
step back and keep our sights on the problems we are trying to 
solve. It is useful to revisit some core lessons of this year's 
climate hearings.
    First, domestic decarbonization goals are not possible to 
achieve with current technology, regardless of the proposed 
regulatory programs. If we do not have the technology, no new 
regulation, standard, or international agreement is going to 
preserve affordable energy and the goods and services people 
rely upon in their daily lives. Raise the costs on this energy 
or goods and services and you lose public support. That will be 
true in the United States, and any other place in the world.
    Second, the carbon dioxide emissions problem is a global 
issue and domestic policies must be considered against this 
persistent fact.
    Recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
show some leveling of growth in global carbon dioxide 
emissions, but emissions will continue to rise as nations 
continue to seek the benefits of energy, power, transportation, 
and industrial development in their societies. This is 
particularly true for China, India and the rest of the 
developing world.
    Third, climate policy exists under a broader umbrella of 
U.S. national interests relating to national and economic 
security.
    You only need to review the latest natural gas arrangements 
relating to China and Russia or observe the tremendous benefits 
our shale revolution has brought to the security of our Eastern 
European allies to see that energy diplomacy is vital to our 
strategic interests and cannot be subordinated to anti-oil 
sentiments. And the same applies to our development and 
deployment of nuclear technology, which we'll talk about today.
    As I've noted in previous hearings, focusing on global 
energy and economic realities will help us focus on where the 
real gains can be achieved in reducing future emissions and 
maintaining the prosperity necessary for addressing future 
climate risks. These gains will not come from radically and 
expensively transforming a mature, 20-trillion-dollar U.S. 
economy but from providing the modern, clean and low-emissions 
technologies to nations still putting their modern economies in 
place.
    With this in mind, we should widen our focus and look at 
domestic climate policies through the lens of broader U.S. 
national security interests. For this reason, I would like to 
welcome our witness from the University of Georgia, David 
Gattie. His testimony, which focuses on the national security 
and climate benefits of nuclear technology, helps to reframe 
how we should think about our domestic climate policies.
    Reorienting our climate policy into a policy of U.S. 
innovation leadership, much like the Nation pursued with its 
initial Atoms for Peace program or even our recent work to 
support our European allies with energy exports, represents a 
sound, positive approach to these global issues. The more we 
focus on this, and the innovation to make it happen, the 
better.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    And the Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone, 
Chairman Pallone of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his 
opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Today's hearing is the seventh hearing in the committee's 
work to achieve a 100 percent clean economy by 2050. So far, we 
have examined ways to decarbonize specific sectors of the U.S. 
economy, including the electricity sector, buildings, 
transportation, and heavy industry. And we also discussed the 
impact of climate change on frontline communities.
    Throughout these hearings, witnesses told us that we need 
sector-specific solutions for climate action, especially in 
sectors that are more difficult to decarbonize. But they also 
repeatedly pointed to the need for economy-wide measures to 
ensure we cut pollution across all sectors. So, today, we will 
explore those crosscutting mechanisms and the role they should 
play in addressing the climate crisis.
    This hearing couldn't come at a more important time. As we 
speak, world leaders are meeting in Madrid for the 25th 
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, or COP25. President Trump is 
noticeably absent from the summit. This is the same President 
who just 1 month ago started the formal process of withdrawing 
the United States from the Paris Agreement. And if President 
Trump gets his way, we will be the only country to oppose and 
abandon the Paris Agreement.
    And I had the privilege to travel to COP25 in Madrid with a 
bicameral congressional delegation, which included 
Representatives Castor, Peters, and Dingell from our committee. 
And on our visit, we reminded world leaders and activists that, 
despite President Trump's retreat from this global crisis, that 
we are still in. And they made it clear they were grateful that 
someone was there to represent the United States, because our 
leadership is so important.
    Our continued commitment to the Paris Agreement is more 
important than ever. New information comes out each week 
stressing the urgent need for climate action. Just last week, 
for instance, the United Nations released its annual Emissions 
Gap Report showing the divergence between current emissions 
projections and the reductions needed to avoid catastrophic 
climate change. The report warned that we are on track to miss 
those targets--and not just by an inch, but by a mile.
    The Paris Agreement adopted the science-based target of 
limited warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. The U.N. 
report, however, warned that we are heading towards 3.9 degrees 
of warming by the end of the century. So think about that for a 
moment, that that's almost double the limit needed to avoid the 
most damaging consequences of climate change.
    Not meeting these targets would have devastating 
consequences. It would lead to increasingly frequent extreme 
weather events, more damaging wildfires, rapid sea level rise, 
more persistent flooding and droughts, threats to entire 
ecosystems and food supplies, and countless other hazards.
    Meanwhile, there was a report by the Global Carbon Project 
released just yesterday that showed that carbon dioxide 
emissions would hit an all-time high this year. And on Tuesday, 
the World Meteorological Organization reported that 2019 will 
be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded.
    And these are startling trends. But if there is one thing I 
learned in Madrid, it is that this is not a time for despair. 
It is time for bold leadership and ambitious action. One of the 
key reasons that the rest of the world is not meeting these 
targets is because of a lack of leadership they are seeing 
right now from the Trump administration. And we heard over and 
over again that, if the United States withdraws and doesn't 
participate in the future, the other countries are not likely 
to go along, because U.S. leadership is what most countries 
look at. And that is why we have to continue to exercise that 
leadership. And it is also why this committee is hard at 
working and developing our proposal to reach net zero emissions 
by 2050. I think this is the consensus from the scientific 
community on what we have to do to avoid the worst impacts of 
climate change.
    So, today, we are going to hear about options for robust 
comprehensive and economy-wide policy solutions to hit that 
target. We hear about the essential role the Federal Government 
can play. And, again, if I can go back to the weekend 
conference, I think that everyone knows that the State and the 
local governments continue to play a major role and can do a 
lot of the things that we need to do to reach the target of 
2050, but it is not enough. The Federal Government has to get 
involved.
    So, finally, we are going be to hear about how economy-wide 
climate action will not only reduce emissions but will also 
stimulate the economy. By investing in the low- and zero-carbon 
technologies of the future, the U.S. can become a world leader 
in clean energy innovation, and I look forward to hearing from 
our witnesses about that.
    And thank you again, Chairman Tonko, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today's hearing is the seventh hearing in the committee's 
work to achieve a 100 percent clean economy by 2050. So far, we 
have examined ways to decarbonize specific sectors of the U.S. 
economy--including the electricity sector, buildings, 
transportation, and heavy industry. We also discussed the 
impact of climate change on frontline communities.
    Throughout these hearings, witnesses told us that we need 
sector-specific solutions for climate action, especially in 
sectors that are more difficult to decarbonize. But they also 
repeatedly pointed to the need for economy-wide measures to 
ensure we cut pollution across all sectors. Today, we'll 
explore these crosscutting mechanisms and the role they should 
play in addressing the climate crisis.
    This hearing couldn't come at a more important time. As we 
speak, world leaders are meeting in Madrid for the 25th 
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, or COP 25. President Trump is 
noticeably absent from the summit. This is the same President 
who, just 1 month ago, started the formal process of 
withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement. If 
President Trump gets his way, we will be the only country to 
oppose and abandon the Agreement.
    I had the privilege to travel to COP 25 with a bicameral 
Congressional delegation, which included Reps. Castor, Peters 
and Dingell. On our visit, we reminded world leaders and 
activists that, despite the President's retreat from this 
global crisis, we are still in. And, they made clear that they 
were grateful that someone was there to represent the United 
States because our leadership is so important.
    Our continued commitment to the Paris Agreement is more 
important than ever. New information comes out each week 
stressing the urgent need for climate action. Just last week, 
for instance, the United Nations released its annual Emissions 
Gap report, showing the divergence between current emissions 
projections and the reductions needed to avoid catastrophic 
climate change. The report warned that we're on track to miss 
those targets. And not just by an inch, but by a mile.
    The Paris Agreement adopted the science-based target of 
limiting warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. The U.N. 
report, however, warned that we're heading toward 3.9 degrees 
of warming by the end of the century. Think about that for a 
moment--that's almost double the limit needed to avoid the most 
damaging consequences of climate change.
    Not meeting these targets would have devastating 
consequences. It would lead to increasingly frequent extreme 
weather events, more damaging wildfires, rapid sea level rise, 
more persistent flooding and droughts, threats to entire 
ecosystems and food supplies, and countless other hazards.
    Meanwhile, a report by the Global Carbon Project, released 
just yesterday, showed that carbon dioxide emissions will hit 
an all-time high this year. And on Tuesday, the World 
Meteorological Organization reported that 2019 will be the 
second or third hottest year ever recorded.
    These are startling trends. But if there's one thing I 
learned in Spain, it's that this is not a time for despair. 
It's a time for bold leadership and ambitious action. One of 
the key reasons that the rest of the world is not meeting these 
targets is because of the lack of leadership they are seeing 
right now from the Trump administration.
    That is why this committee is hard at work developing our 
proposal to reach net zero emissions by 2050. This is the 
consensus from the scientific community on what we must do to 
avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
    Today we will hear about options for robust, comprehensive, 
and economy-wide policy solutions to hit that target. We will 
also hear about the essential role the Federal Government must 
play.
    And finally, we will hear about how economy-wide climate 
action will not only reduce emissions, but will also stimulate 
the economy. By investing in the low- and zero-carbon 
technologies of the future, the United States can become a 
world leader in clean energy innovation. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and I 
yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Walden, the ranking 
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement, please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and to our 
witnesses, thank you for being here.
    I appreciate the work these hearings have been doing to 
inform our--your plans for decarbonizing the Nation by 2050. 
The hearings have provided useful information and necessary 
context to your plans, and that is helpful. I still hope we 
will have a hearing on the Green New Deal sometime, since it is 
talked about by a lot of leaders of the Democratic Party, and 
we haven't had that hearing in this context, and we should.
    We have heard testimony that underscores the essential role 
of technological innovation and addressing the demand for 
cleaner energy, transportation, and industrial systems. This 
echoes the need for bipartisan work to find practical solutions 
so we can continue to lower emissions and unleash American 
innovation.
    Republicans support realistic steps to reduce emissions and 
address current and future climate risks. This requires we 
examine the cost, effectiveness, and economic impacts of 
solutions proposed to address these risks and that we do not 
undermine the economic priorities of communities and States 
around the Nation. We can have a cleaner environment and a 
strong American economy.
    Over the past year, we have pointed out that restructuring 
old top-down--excuse me--resurrecting old top-down policies, 
that will hurt American consumers and workers. We have invited 
our colleagues to work instead on bipartisan policies focused 
on the bottom-up benefits from incentivizing and deploying 
innovation that we can move into law.
    In fact, we have a dozen bipartisan measures that we could 
turn into law that could help reduce emissions and spur jobs 
and innovations. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we will get to work 
on passing some of those measures soon.
    Today's hearing offers two approaches to climate policy. 
One reflects the majority's preferred approach to impose what 
we would call costly carbon taxes and old cap-and-trade 
regulations and schemes. These are some of the top-down 
regulatory policies that some of us have been warning about. 
Not only do these policies severely disrupt the American 
consumers, but they have no chance of becoming law.
    Just read the papers around the world: Top-down energy 
policies are not working. From the Paris yellow vests protest 
last year to the riots across Chile, poor and middle class, 
fueled no doubt by some other resentments too, rejected 
increasing transportation costs in violent protests.
    Ironically, the Chilean riots caused the International 
Climate Conference to have to move to Madrid. One can only 
imagine what will happen if the decarbonization schemes 
throughout Europe really begin to turn the regulatory screws on 
consumers as European bureaucrats seek to meet proposed 
emissions targets in 10 years. And by the way, their record 
under the Paris accords is not very sterling.
    This is not the way to address global emissions. The more 
realistic approach is to focus on the advanced technologies, 
mainly developed in the United States, that can meaningfully 
address emissions where they are increasing the fastest, which 
are in poorer nations striving for the benefits of advanced 
energy and industrial system. They actually want electricity. 
Who knew, right? So let's do it in a more efficient way.
    Recent Energy Information Administration data show that 
fossil energy, even with the tremendous growth of renewables, 
will remain a dominant form of energy in developing nations 
through 2050. This is where the United States can make a 
difference, providing the innovative fossil and other advanced 
cleaner technologies to meet this growing demand.
    Tackling the emissions where they are growing the fastest 
represents the broader approach to climate policy that 
Professor Gattie can speak about this morning.
    The deployment of our new nuclear technology to address 
climate change and to preserve our national security interests 
is an essential element in any real serious climate policy. 
This is not only a sensible way to address emissions; it is in 
keeping with our goals to resurrect our technological 
leadership in nuclear energy around the world for broader 
national energy security reasons, much as unleashing the U.S. 
LNG from our shale revolution restored our ability to counter 
Russia in energy markets while also driving cleaner technology 
and fuel switching that has resulted in carbon emissions 
reduction.
    For our part on the Energy and Commerce Committee, we can 
work together, as we have in the past, to reduce barriers to 
innovation, to enable the United States to deploy new 
technologies.
    So let's reject taxation and regulation that leads to 
economic stagnation and pursue practical policies of 
innovation, conservation, and preparation that can actually 
drive our economic engines and make realistic headway in 
curbing emissions from advanced carbon capture to nuclear 
technology to innovative hydropower.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your work in these 
hearings to inform your plans for ``decarbonizing'' the Nation 
by 2050. The hearings have provided useful information and 
necessary context to your plans.
    We have heard testimony that underscores the essential role 
of technological innovation in addressing the demand for 
cleaner energy, transportation, and industrial systems. This 
echoes the central message Republicans have for the majority: 
Work with us. Work with us on practical solutions so we can 
continue to lower emissions and unleash American innovation.
    Republicans support realistic steps to reduce emissions and 
address current and future climate risks. This requires we 
examine the costs, effectiveness, and economic impacts of 
solutions proposed to address the risks--and that we do not 
undermine the economic priorities of communities and States 
around the Nation. We can have a cleaner environment and a 
strong American economy.
    Over the past year we have pointed out that resurrecting 
old, top-down policies that will hurt American consumers and 
workers. We've invited our colleagues to work instead with 
Republicans on the bipartisan policies--focused on the bottom-
up benefits from incentivizing and deploying innovation--that 
we can move into law. In fact, we have a dozen, bipartisan 
measures that we could turn into law that would help reduce 
emissions and spur jobs and innovation. Hopefully, Mr. 
Chairman, we'll get to work on passing those measures.
    Today's hearing offers two approaches to climate policy. 
One reflects the majority's preferred approach to impose 
costly, carbon taxes and old, cap-and-trade regulations and 
schemes. These are some of the top-down regulatory policies we 
have been warning about. Not only do these policies severely 
disrupt the American consumer, but they have no chance of 
becoming law.
    Just read the newspapers. Around the world, top-down energy 
policies are not working, from the Paris yellow vests protests 
last year, to the riots across Chile, the poor and middle 
class, fueled no doubt by other resentments, rejected 
increasing transportation costs in violent protests. 
Ironically, the Chilean riots caused the international climate 
conference to relocate to Madrid. One can only imagine what 
will happen if the decarbonization schemes throughout Europe 
really begin to turn the regulatory screws on consumers as 
European bureaucrats seek to meet proposed emissions targets in 
10 years.
    This is not the way to address global emissions. The more 
realistic approach is to focus on the advanced technologies--
developed in the United States--that can meaningfully address 
emissions where they are increasing the fastest, which are in 
poorer nations striving for the benefits of advanced energy and 
industrial systems.
    Recent Energy Information Administration data shows that 
fossil energy, even with the tremendous growth of renewables, 
will remain a dominant form of energy in developing nations 
through 2050. This is where the U.S. can make a difference: 
providing the innovative fossil and other advanced, cleaner 
technologies to meet this growing demand.
    Tackling the emissions where they are growing the fastest 
represents the broader approach to climate policy that 
Professor Gattie can speak about this morning. The deployment 
of our new nuclear technology to address climate change and to 
preserve our national security interests is an essential 
element in serious climate policy.
    This is not only a sensible way to address emissions, it is 
in keeping with our goals to resurrect our technological 
leadership in nuclear technology around the world for broader 
national and energy security reasons--much as unleashing U.S. 
LNG from our shale revolution restored our ability to counter 
Russia in energy markets, while also driving cleaner 
technology.
    For our part on Energy and Commerce, let's continue the 
work we have been doing in the past few Congresses that will 
reduce the barriers to innovation and enable the United States 
to deploy new technologies. Let's reject taxation and 
regulation that leads to economic stagnation and pursue 
practical policies of innovation, conservation, and preparation 
to drive our economic engines and make realistic headway in 
curbing emissions, from advanced carbon capture to nuclear 
technology to innovative hydropower.

    Mr. Walden. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the 
ranking--the lead Republican on this.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
    The thing you highlighted and I want to highlight also, 
let's put this in another current technology. Why is Burisma in 
the news? Why is Ukraine in the news? Because a Russian 
pipeline goes through Ukraine. They are afraid of extortion by 
Russia. I do Eastern European issues all the time. This LNG 
debate is critical. And this--international security issues 
cannot be subordinated by anti-oil sentiment for freedom and 
democracy and rule of law in Eastern Europe.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Walden. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. And the gentleman yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    I will now introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. We 
welcome them again and thank them for their input.
    First, we have Mr. Daniel Esty, director the Center for 
Environmental Law and Policy and Hillhouse Professor of 
Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University.
    Welcome Mr. Esty.
    Dr. Noah Kaufman, research scholar, Center on Global Energy 
Policy at Columbia University.
    Welcome, Dr. Kaufman.
    And Mr. David Gattie, associate professor at the College of 
Engineering, University of Georgia.
    We welcome you.
    And then Mr. Tim Profeta, director of the Nicholas 
Institute for Environmental Policies Solutions at Duke 
University.
    And welcome, Mr. Profeta.
    So, before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting 
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will 
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The 
light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. Please 
begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will 
turn red when your time has expired.
    And at this time, the Chair will now recognize Mr. Esty for 
5 minutes to provide his opening statement, please.

     STATEMENTS OF DANIEL C. ESTY, HILLHOUSE PROFESSOR OF 
   ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY AND DIRECTOR, YALE CENTER FOR 
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY, YALE LAW SCHOOL AND YALE SCHOOL OF 
FORESTRY & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES; NOAH KAUFMAN, Ph.D., RESEARCH 
 SCHOLAR, CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
   SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS; DAVID GATTIE, 
    Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, AND 
 RESIDENT FELLOW, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND SECURITY, 
   UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA; AND TIMOTHY H. PROFETA, DIRECTOR, 
  NICHOLAS INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTIONS, DUKE 
                           UNIVERSITY

                  STATEMENT OF DANIEL C. ESTY

    Mr. Esty. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Shimkus. And thank you all for 
being here for what I hope will be a conversation that gets 
into the details of how we take up this critical issue of deep 
decarbonization but how we do it in a way that addresses not 
just climate change but the need for a vibrant American 
economy, for competitiveness, for jobs, and for careful 
attention to the transition that we need to undertake in the 
coming decades.
    I have spent more than 30 years on this issue going back to 
time in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a negotiator for 
climate change on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, more recently as commissioner of Connecticut's 
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
    But I do want to take you back just for a moment to 1992 
when the Framework Convention on Climate Change was finalized. 
And I remember being taken aside by the guy who was the 
secretary general of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
    And he said to me, ``Dan, as you finalize this climate 
change agreement, remember there is only two possible outcomes: 
success and real success.''
    And at the time, I wasn't quite focused on what he was 
saying. But the point was, when you get 120 Prime Ministers and 
Presidents together, success is going to be declared. The real 
test is what occurs over the intervening decades.
    And, frankly, we did not see success in a couple of decades 
after that agreement. And I think the committee, the 
subcommittee here today, now is doing the right thing of 
digging into the details of what is the policy framework that 
can deliver for us a decarbonized future but attentive to these 
other issues of competitiveness, of jobs, of economic security, 
and of a just transition that attends to those whose lives and 
communities will have to evolve as we move forward.
    My own experience suggests four things are critical, four 
issues need to be given careful attention: the incentives for 
changed behavior, the need to drive innovation as the key 
pathway to a low-cost and serious decarbonization strategy, the 
opportunity to bring to bear information technology and a whole 
range of breakthroughs in science and knowledge that have 
occurred since we created our framework of environmental laws 
in the 1970s and 1980s, and, finally, a need to focus on 
investment and finance.
    My own analysis suggests that the greatest weakness of the 
20th century approach to environmental protection was not 
thinking about where the money would come from to do the things 
we need to do.
    So let me quickly highlight what I think we can do and 
should do. Incentives are at the heart of what is required for 
a transition. We have to figure out how to change behavior. And 
innovation, I think, has to come broadly. We need technology 
breakthroughs, renewable power in various ways, but we need 
supporting technologies as well, better batteries and storage, 
smart grids, smart homes, smart appliances. And we really need 
to think about innovation even more broadly: How do we engage 
the public in innovative ways? What are the policies that we 
can do that are innovative, and what kind of partnerships will 
this transition require?
    My own view is that we need to put much more time and 
attention into what I call a 21st century strategy of green 
lights for innovation. The 20th century approach was red 
lights, stop signs, don't do this, don't do that, don't 
pollute. The 21st century has to be signaling to our 
entrepreneurial class, to our innovators, to our creative 
spirits where answers are required and to really spur on the 
changes that we know are needed.
    And I think we know how to do that. We do it in part with 
economy-wide price signals. My own preference would be for a 
slowly rising carbon charge beginning at $5 per ton of carbon 
equivalent and rising $5 per ton per year for 20 years.
    The advantage of that is the early low price is not jarring 
to people that made choices based on prior expectations about 
energy prices and markets, but the final price of $100 a ton 
becomes the signal that people pay attention to for all new 
investments, and it ensures the transition is smooth and can 
accommodate those whose lives are going to change.
    I think second, we have not paid--or third, we have not 
paid attention to the opportunities to bring to bear digital 
advances of the last 20 years. So special effort should be 
given to thinking about how we do that, including the ideas of 
benchmarking performance at the national scale, the State 
scale, the community scale, and the corporate scale, and 
ensuring that we can scorecard performance, identify leaders, 
spur on laggards, and find best practices.
    Finally, think I think we need innovation in investment and 
finance. We need green bonds, green banks, and a whole new set 
of strategies for innovatively steering money to the 
investments that need to be made. And I would be happy to 
answer questions about my own experience helping to set up 
Connecticut's green bank that has done dramatic things in this 
regard. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Esty follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
       
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Esty.
    Now, we will recognize Dr. Kaufman for 5 minutes, please.

                STATEMENT OF NOAH KAUFMAN, Ph.D.

    Dr. Kaufman. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, 
members of the committee, it is an honor to be here. Thank you 
for the invitation.
    To build a clean economy, we need to align the incentives, 
the producers, consumers, and investors across the entire U.S. 
economy with the long-term goal of net zero emissions.
    Any economist will tell you that one critical piece of a 
deep decarbonization strategy is a price on carbon. That is 
because a carbon price encourages emissions reductions wherever 
and however they can be achieved at a low cost without needing 
to know beforehand what those reductions will be. Minimizing 
the cost of decarbonization means less of a burden on all of 
us, which should enable faster decarbonization.
    Research led by the Center on Global Energy Policy at 
Columbia University suggests that any of the eight carbon 
prices proposed to Congress this year would dramatically change 
the future pathway for U.S. emissions from roughly flat to 
rapidly declining, far beyond the U.S. commitments to the Paris 
Agreement.
    So putting a price on carbon should be a no-brainer. But 
how a carbon price is integrated into a broader-struck policy 
strategy will influence its effectiveness and also the public's 
support. Here are four suggestions.
    First, protect those who can't afford to pay more. The 
payments of the carbon price can be returned to Americans as 
carbon dividends. As a general rule of thumb, returning 10 
percent of the revenue to the bottom 20 percent of the income 
distribution can ensure that these households receive more in 
carbon dividends than they pay in higher prices. If you want to 
protect more households, simply use a larger portion of the 
revenue. Under a well-designed carbon price, those who can't 
afford to pay more don't have to.
    Second, keep U.S. businesses on a level playing field with 
foreign competitors. One of many ways to do this is with a 
border carbon adjustment, which requires importers of carbon 
intensive products to pay the carbon price and provides rebates 
to exporters. The United States would be implementing its 
climate policy on the global marketplace.
    Third, improve economic opportunities for communities that 
are dependent on the coal industry, which is the only U.S. 
industry likely to experience immediate, significant harm from 
a well-designed climate policy.
    Over one-third of U.S. coal production comes from one 
county. Nearly 90 percent comes from just 50 counties. These 
communities helped power the American economy for generations, 
often at the expense of their own well-being. They have earned 
the support of their country as it transitions away from coal.
    Fourth, and finally, surround the carbon price with 
policies that enable even faster and cheaper emissions 
reductions, which include efficiency standards that overcome 
barriers to reduced energy use, funding innovations in low-
carbon solutions, and supporting the early stage deployment of 
these solutions that gives them a fair shot at competing 
against incumbents like gasoline vehicles and furnaces.
    Not every policy will enable faster, cheaper emissions 
reductions. We may not need to regulate the same emissions that 
are covered by the carbon price or to subsidize mature 
technologies, especially if the carbon price has been designed 
to be consistent with a desired pathway to net zero emissions.
    I want to conclude by applauding the committee for taking 
on this challenge. A few years ago, I helped to build a deep 
decarbonization strategy for the United States. So I know that 
the scope of this problem can be daunting. You have hundreds of 
decisions to make. You will hear strong and sometimes 
conflicting opinions about every single one of them.
    My advice is don't let this complexity distract you from 
actions that can really move the needle. Let's establish an 
incentive to reduce net emissions across the entire economy. 
Let's support low-carbon solutions so that they can compete on 
a level playing field. Let's protect American families and 
businesses who can't afford price increases, and let's support 
coal communities.
    With that, I look forward to your questions and comments.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Kaufman follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Kaufman.
    And, next, we will move to Dr. Gattie. You are recognized, 
sir, for 5 minutes, please.

                STATEMENT OF DAVID GATTIE, Ph.D.

    Dr. Gattie. Thank you, sir.
    I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and 
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to come before 
you today.
    My testimony aligns with the following points: America is 
facing two national security threats, one around climate change 
and the other around the U.S. nuclear power enterprise.
    Climate change is global in cause and impacts, and as 
carbon emissions increase globally, those impacts won't stop at 
U.S. borders simply because we have an aggressive domestic 
climate policy.
    The U.S. economy and its industrial capacity should be 
leveraged to innovate and deploy low- and zero-carbon 
technologies in developing economies where carbon emissions are 
of greatest concern. Nuclear power should be central to U.S. 
policy, with a strategy to develop advanced reactor 
technologies for domestic and international deployment, and 
America must engage in climate issues globally with national 
security as the overarching objective.
    Globally, energy consumption and carbon emissions are 
increasing, not decreasing. From 2000 to 2018, 90 percent of 
the increase in carbon emissions originated in Asian-Pacific 
countries, predominantly China and India, while emissions in 
the U.S. declined.
    Under the most aggressive carbon policy, eliminating all 
U.S. emissions would reset global emissions to 2006 levels, 
meaning if climate change was a threat in 2006 with U.S. 
emissions, climate change is a threat in 2018 without U.S. 
emissions.
    While exponential growth in nonhydrorenewables is elevating 
hopes that renewables are closing the gap on fossil fuels, that 
gap isn't closing, it is expanding. For the past 10 years, over 
81 percent of global wind and over 82 percent of global solar 
were concentrated in countries with substantial fossil fuels, 
nuclear, and/or hydro built into their economies, meaning 
traditional energy resources have provided the foundation for 
renewables to expand.
    This recommends a global triage approach with resources and 
efforts directed toward regions where the issue is acute or 
emerging. In developing regions, countries are at various 
stages of economic growth. Therefore, it is necessary to 
determine which energy technologies can be deployed effectively 
to sustain low-carbon economic development. One such technology 
is nuclear power.
    Early U.S. nuclear policymakers recognized the strategic 
importance of America's nuclear enterprise. To them, nuclear 
wasn't just another energy commodity, the fate of which should 
be dictated by political calculus, popular opinion, or market 
forces alone. Rather, it was central to America's foreign 
policy. So their approach was principled and strategic, not 
populist and transactional. A key objective was to create the 
world's most advanced nuclear technology base from which 
mutually beneficial global partnerships could be established 
within the emerging liberal international order.
    The 21st century is undergoing geopolitical shifts, and 
China and Russia are leveraging state-owned nuclear enterprises 
as extensions of the state to establish long-term energy and 
technology dependencies. If U.S. policy orients our technology 
trajectory away from nuclear, it will signal to the world that 
America has set aside its commitment to be a reliable partner 
in nuclear development, thus opening the door for China and 
Russia.
    Efforts to decarbonize the U.S. economy will require 
investment. If the return on that investment is only a near-
term reduction in U.S. carbon emissions, the U.S. will remain 
vulnerable to climate change over the long term as global 
emissions increase.
    The U.S. cannot insulate itself from the impacts of global 
climate change through domestic policies targeting only the 
U.S. economy. Therefore, U.S. climate policy must be global and 
strategic, keeping in mind that if the U.S. transitions away 
from current energy interdependencies, those interdependencies 
can develop into vulnerabilities open to exploitation by 
energy-rich and technology-advantaged countries that don't 
share America's values.
    To that end, U.S. policy should focus on developing energy 
and technology relationships within developing regions, 
cultivated as international investment opportunities for U.S. 
industry and coupled to diplomatic efforts of U.S. engagement 
and goodwill.
    Lastly, the national security implications of U.S. nuclear 
power simply cannot be overstated. While nuclear has proven its 
value to America, its contributions remain on the horizon as 
economic development, climate change, and national security 
converge into a perfect storm of 21st century global challenges 
that nuclear is capable of addressing.
    The U.S. cannot be an energy and climate island. America 
must engage globally, and it must do so with national security 
as its overarching objective.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Gattie has been retained in 
committee files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20191205/110295/HHRG-116-IF18-Wstate-GattieD-
20191205.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Gattie.
    And, finally, Mr. Profeta, you are recognized, sir, for 5 
minutes, please.

                    STATEMENT OF TIM PROFETA

    Mr. Profeta. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking 
Member Shimkus. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Tim Profeta, and I direct the Nicholas Institute 
for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.
    Our institute was founded as a nonpartisan resource for 
decisionmakers like yourselves striving to solve the most 
pressing environmental challenges of our time, including 
climate change.
    We do not seek to tell policymakers what do to. Rather, we 
provide economic, scientific, and legal expertise to help 
policymakers most effectively achieve what they wish to 
accomplish.
    Today's hearing seeks to explore the best means by which to 
achieve economy-wide solutions to climate change. The central 
point of my testimony today is that Congress should consider a 
model that has been successfully proven through our Nation's 
history: the Federal/State partnership.
    First, climate change is a challenge like none other. It is 
perhaps the test of our generation and one of the greatest 
collective action challenges in history. In the interest of 
time, I will not discuss the reason for acting in my oral 
testimony, as I believe the committee has declared an intent to 
do so. Instead, let me focus on the options for acting to 
reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are released into 
the atmosphere. Such an effort is the most important step we 
can take to tackle the climate challenge.
    In the absence of Federal actions, many States have been 
rising to that challenge, working aggressively to reduce their 
emissions. But the national emissions picture is less 
encouraging without a Federal climate policy in place. As 
emissions go down in some States and sectors, they are going up 
in others. The net effect: We have made insufficient progress 
towards reductions needed to abate climate change. Nationwide 
carbon emissions, in fact, rose in 2018, the biggest increase 
in 8 years.
    Now, there are many options for economy-wide policies, many 
of which I have worked on over the years. A Federal price on 
carbon, either set through a cap-and-trade program or a carbon 
fee, is an economically effective way to drive investment and 
innovation. If Congress could muster the political will to pass 
such a proposal, it may still be the most effective approach 
for securing nationwide reductions. But those of us that work 
on climate policy, however, have witnessed the political 
resistance noted by the ranking member to such a proposal.
    Today, I am proposing another way to solve this conundrum. 
Congress should consider a model that has been successfully 
proven through our Nation's history, the Federal-State 
partnership. America can adopt a 50-State climate strategy that 
supports the vital role of States in cutting emissions, an 
economy-wide system that allows for the differences between the 
States.
    Instead of attempting to sell all concerns about the 
program's costs and impacts at the Federal level, Congress 
could determine a national level of reductions needed to 
achieve our climate goals and then divvy up the goals to the 
States. State governments would then be empowered to execute 
plans to reach those goals.
    Successful Federal-State partnerships permeate our 
environmental law, as well as many other areas of government 
action. I would like to highlight five benefits, if you would 
take this approach.
    First, a Federal/State partnership approach would involve 
all 50 States in America's pursuit of greenhouse gas 
reductions, ending the current state of fragmentation. By 
aligning all States toward common outcomes, overall U.S. 
emissions could be reduced more quickly and businesses would 
face more consistent framework across State boundaries, 
boosting innovation.
    Second, a Federal/State climate partnership promotes 
regional fairness by tailoring action plans to each State's 
circumstances and strengths.
    Third, if any revenues are raised through climate programs, 
the money would be kept circulating within the State's economy. 
States can determine best how to use the revenue to reduce 
emissions, prepare for climate change, and fairly distribute 
the economic opportunities and costs.
    Fourth, a Federal-State climate partnership may be 
appealing to a wide range of States. States that are already 
leading on climate change can continue on the paths they have 
started. Other States get flexibility and Federal assistance to 
develop and implement their own plans, or they can defer to a 
simple Federal backstop plan.
    Finally, a comprehensive Federal/State climate partnership 
backed by new legislation in Congress can solve some of the 
legal questions that arise without it. Many of our States hope 
to pool their obligations under a plan by creating multi-State 
programs. But it is unclear whether the Clean Air Act 
authorities will allow such efforts. Such linkages could be 
explicitly authorized under new legislation.
    In summary, a comprehensive Federal/State partnership could 
achieve fast and significant greenhouse gas reductions and 
might just be able to overcome political stalemate with 
cooperative solutions.
    My written testimony presents a more detailed description 
of this concept. I thank you for your time today, and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Profeta follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Profeta.
    And I thank, again, our panelists for their input here this 
morning, and thank you for what will be interesting dialogue.
    Dr. Kaufman, I am of the belief that, if we continue to 
invest in research and infrastructure, the cost of emissions 
reductions will decrease significantly. But I see very high-
cost estimates, some over $1,000 per ton in two or three 
decades, to achieve meaningful reductions in the transportation 
sector.
    Do you have any idea of how high a carbon price needs to be 
set?
    Dr. Kaufman. Thank you for the question.
    How high the carbon price needs to be set depends on what 
your goals are in terms of emissions outcomes, it depends on 
what policies you are surrounding the carbon price with, and it 
also depends on, you know, the assumptions you make about the 
evolution of technologies, you know, gas and oil prices, and a 
number of other factors.
    What our research suggests is that, if you want to get on a 
pathway, say, to the Paris commitments of the United States, a 
carbon price alone of $25 to $35 a ton would be sufficient. If 
you doubled those prices, you added in a bunch of complementary 
policies with them, you could get on a much steeper emissions 
reduction curve.
    Some of these estimates that you describe that suggest 
hundreds of dollars a ton, typically they assume that the 
carbon price is doing all the work by itself as opposed to as a 
part of a broader strategy, and they assume very little 
advances in innovation. So harder-to-decarbonize sectors don't 
get any easier over time. I think we can create policies that 
overcome those challenges.
    Mr. Tonko. And I think--and to your point, as we have seen 
over the last 10 years, a lot of dynamics of change have 
occurred, some beyond protected anticipation. So that is 
encouraging.
    What roles do a credible and steady price play to spur 
innovation and ensure emissions reductions occur more cheaply 
and quickly than currently estimated?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, we would expect a carbon price to spur 
innovation in the private sector in a couple different ways.
    So, first of all, by just, you know, encouraging a ton of 
deployment in the near term in low-carbon solutions, we start 
doing more of them, we get better at doing them, right? We have 
seen that time and time again over the years. So that's one 
source of innovation.
    And then it also puts in place this price signal in the 
long term that investors see. So they see if I create this low 
carbon solution, the market share will be there when it is--
when it is created over time.
    So, you know, a carbon price isn't sufficient by itself. 
You still need government role in spurring innovation. But it 
could be transformative.
    Mr. Tonko. And with a goal of 100 percent clean by 2050, I 
want to be sure our price signal is effective toward ultimate 
goals. How should environmental certainty be included as part 
of a carbon pricing program?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, I mean, the carbon--if you use a carbon 
tax, for example, you know, you have control over the prices 
and the cost, and you have less control over the emissions 
outcomes.
    So what you can do and what you see in a lot of the 
proposals in Congress for carbon taxes are mechanisms that make 
the tax rates contingent on the emissions outcomes.
    All right. So, if we are seeing emissions fall the way you 
would like to see them, the tax rate continues as originally 
stipulated in the bill. If you are not seeing the emissions 
directions that you want, the bill says that the tax rate can 
increase even higher to achieve those reductions.
    Mr. Tonko. And you talk about complementary policies. And I 
believe almost everyone now agrees that carbon pricing does 
require complementary policies.
    What makes for a good complementary policy that advances 
the goals of a price?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, you want policies that can lead to even 
faster and cheaper emissions reductions than the carbon price 
would achieve on its own. So I think there are a lot of 
policies that fall into this category. You know, you can think 
about innovation, which, you know, a lot of my friends here 
were talking about. You can think about efficiency standards 
where price signals alone aren't going to be sufficient. You 
can think about infrastructure, especially in the 
transportation sector. And also, if we are talking about 
agriculture and land, you know, these might be areas that the 
carbon price can't feasibly cover. So you absolutely want to 
think about complementary policies in those areas also.
    Mr. Tonko. And Dr. Gattie, DOE's loan program office has 
issued a total of up to $12 billion in loan guarantees to 
support the construction of the Vogel project.
    Do you believe the Federal Government has and should 
continue to play a constructive role in providing financing 
assistance for innovative technology deployment?
    Dr. Gattie. I do.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Professor Esty, from your experience, can the public 
sector help spur innovation in clean energy deployment by 
providing access to capital and financing support?
    Mr. Esty. Absolutely. And I think we have seen that with 
the emergence of green banks. And, frankly, a model that is 
using limited public money to leverage private capital, and I 
think that has got to be part of the package that we put 
forward to address climate change.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    And, again, I appreciate the panel appearing before the 
subcommittee today.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Shimkus, our 
subcommittee ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Profeta, is that your son behind you? Who is that young 
man? What is his name?
    Mr. Profeta. Duncan.
    Mr. Shimkus. Hi, Duncan. Welcome to the hearing. We are 
glad to have you here.
    And this is a great panel. Thank you all. It gives a lot of 
food for thought.
    I am going focus on Dr. Gattie on my questions.
    You state in your testimony that efforts to decarbonize the 
U.S. economy will require investment. If the return on that 
investment is a near-term reduction in U.S. carbon emissions, 
the U.S. will remain vulnerable to climate change over the long 
term as global emissions increase.
    Would you like to expand on that?
    Dr. Gattie. Yes. Thank you for your question, 
Representative Shimkus.
    The U.S. carbon emissions, if--as I pointed out in my 
testimony, if we zeroed those emissions out, there is going to 
be probably a cost associated with that. If the return on that 
investment is only a reduction in U.S. emissions, and yet we 
are still exposed to global carbon emissions--and again, my 
point here is this is global climate change, it is not U.S. 
climate change. As long as the source of the emissions remains 
unchecked, we are still vulnerable to climate change impacts, 
regardless of the domestic policy.
    Mr. Shimkus. And I see some of your panelists shaking their 
heads. And I would refer folks to your testimony and these 
charts. They are just unbelievable, figure 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. 
And the last one, figure 9, it actually goes from 2000 to 2018, 
showing 721 reduction in CO2 emissions per million 
metric tons versus--that is the U.S., which is the greatest 
reduction in CO2, without doing any of this stuff.
    Now, you are a climate change believer, and you want us to 
be engaged, and so I am not trying to spin a story that you are 
in the denier category.
    Dr. Gattie. No. I accept the science on climate change.
    Mr. Shimkus. But your position is, if--we could be doing 
all of this internal gymnastics for naught if we don't address 
the Asian-Pacific region and all of these other ones that you 
have highlighted.
    Dr. Gattie. Correct. If we are disengaged from the global 
community's efforts to reduce carbon, then we are not 
addressing the cause and the source of those carbon emissions.
    Mr. Shimkus. So how can we be engaged? So, accepting the 
premise--we need to do that--how do we get engaged?
    Mr. Soto. Paris.
    Mr. Shimkus. No, Paris failed. So I hear rumblings by my 
colleagues over here, and it is my time, and I appreciate that. 
But you--in testimony today, Paris is not meeting its 
agreements or its levels. So let's address the problem.
    So how would you say we should be engaged?
    Dr. Gattie. So I would start with--again, these emerging 
economies, they want a couple of things, and Representative 
Walden pointed it out. They want electricity. They need 
electricity. They need reliable and affordable electricity. I 
have heard testimony before this subcommittee before that those 
emerging regions will do what is necessary to provide 
electricity to their economies.
    Mr. Shimkus. Regardless of the emissions?
    Dr. Gattie. They will worry about the emissions later.
    Mr. Shimkus. Correct.
    Dr. Gattie. Unless they have a reliable substitute for 
things like coal and natural gas, they are going to build coal 
plants. The projections for coal plants--I think I may have 
included that. We are still building coal plants throughout the 
world.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Gattie. They are not--they are not going down. They are 
increasing.
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me turn to Mr. Profeta, because I see him 
shaking his head on some of these answers, but also I want to 
make sure that his son hears you get grilled in a question. No.
    But you're agreeing to some of this. So can you give me 
your analysis?
    Mr. Profeta. First, I think the analysis is that it is a 
global problem, and there needs to be a global solution. So we 
need do need to be engaged in the international negotiations.
    If Paris is not acceptable to you--it sounds like Paris 
wasn't even aggressive enough to meet those targets. We need to 
find a way that global emissions are going down.
    But U.S. leadership is essential. Every time we have had 
success in these international courts is because the U.S. has 
come to the table and found ways, and the U.S. needs to be part 
of this global solution.
    The U.S. is not increasing at the pace of Asia, but it is 
still about one-sixth of the problem. So we do need to show 
some leadership there as well in our own domestic emissions if 
we are going to be able to inspire our colleagues around the 
world to act as well.
    Mr. Shimkus. And, again, I do appreciate--the testimony has 
been great. Thank you for being here.
    And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Peters for 5 
minutes, please.
    Mr. Peters. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks to all of the witnesses for being here.
    You know, Mr. Tonko is right: There is no silver bullet. I 
was just jotting down all of the things we have to work on: 
decarbonizing electricity, which Mr. Gattie addressed, 
transportation, industry, buildings, agriculture, aviation. We 
have to deal with the effects of wildfires, which Mr. Walden 
has been avid on. We have to deal with short-lived climate 
pollutants: methane, black carbon, hydrofluorocarbons, which 
aren't necessarily going to be responsive to--with cheap gas to 
these price signals by themselves.
    We have to develop negative emissions technology, like 
carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration, and we have to 
deal with carbon price incentives. So this is a welcome 
hearing. We have to deal with all of those things.
    Mr. Shimkus is right, that this is an international 
problem. And I would just say--and I don't mean to be rude, but 
I just got back from Madrid. People meet on this every year. 
And I was honored to go, but I will give my seat up to Mr. 
Shimkus, because we all have to be involved in this. And being 
the only country not there and saying that it is an 
international problem just is too incongruous. We have to show 
up. And this committee has been--this Congress has been 
supportive of engaging in the Paris Agreement. We are the only 
country not in it. So that is obvious to me, and I would love 
to take you next year to----
    Mr. Shimkus. But it wasn't bipartisan. It wasn't 
bipartisan. We weren't invited.
    Mr. Peters. No. Well, that's not true. Actually we----
    Mr. Shimkus. No, we weren't invited.
    Mr. Peters. Well, we can talk about that later, but--you 
should have been invited if you weren't, but I believe you 
were.
    Second, Mr. Shimkus is right, that it should not just be 
one party. And I hope that we will--if we are talking about 
something as--on the scale of World War II or on the scale of 
sending someone to the moon, that can't be a one-party thing.
    So I hope that we will take this seriously. There is no 
dispute about the science here. Everyone understands the target 
is net neutrality by mid-century. I hope that we can count on 
Republicans and Democrats to work together on this issue 
because it really is an existential threat.
    The one thing I would agree with Mr. Shimkus on, though, is 
that there is no benefit economically to us. We know that, if 
we don't do something about climate change, that the world GDP 
will decrease by 30 percent and that the cost to the American 
taxpayers directly will be billions of dollars by the end of 
2020--'30s. That is from GAO.
    So let's get to work on this. And I think that one of the 
things we are--the thing you are talking about today, carbon 
price incentives, is widely understood to be the backbone--the 
backbone strategy for this.
    Carbon tax--according to The Wall Street Journal's 
assessment of 40 of the world's most esteemed economists, 
carbon tax offers the most effective lever to reduce carbon 
emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary.
    I also would just state for my own purposes that you have 
all come out with different views that--suggestions that I 
think--I am open to any of them. I do think that, if it is true 
that there are eight proposals before Congress now, and any of 
them would reduce emissions in a dramatic way, as I think Dr. 
Kaufman said, we should support the one that will pass.
    And I am open to a cap-and-trade. That is what California 
does. I think that we had some difficulties with that last 
time. I am open to the clean-power-plant kind of structure that 
Mr. Profeta was outlining. That wasn't as popular politically 
as I thought it might be. I think, you know, if a carbon tax is 
more directly effective, I think we should support that. And we 
have Republicans who have cosponsored those two.
    So, with the time left, I guess I would ask if maybe, Mr. 
Esty, you might talk a little bit about how a carbon price is--
how fundamental design choices are made in the economy by a 
carbon price. Just can you give us a little bit of explanation 
for people who may not have been studying it as carefully as 
you?
    Mr. Esty. Sure. What a carbon price does is to make sure 
that people are thinking about the fossil-fuel-emitting 
activities they undertake and trying to reduce their emissions. 
And I think it not only encourages every business, but every 
family, every industry, to think hard about what they are doing 
and to try to do things in new and different and better ways 
from a point of view of decarbonization.
    The other thing it does--and it was really central to my 
suggestions to the committee here today--is that it spurs 
innovation. It means that you have got many, many companies 
that are out there thinking not only about how to reduce their 
emissions but, frankly, how to reduce their customers' 
emissions and to bring more low-cost technologies and products 
to the marketplace.
    So you set off a spirit of competition to be the best at 
decarbonizing, and I think it really engages the private 
sector. And I would say one of the great joys of America is how 
good we are at innovation with the right policies to drive that 
process.
    Mr. Peters. Right. And so we talk about the polluter pays. 
I mean, I think one of the things we really fail to understand 
is that all of us are driving to work, all of us are driving 
this--this pollution. We all need an incentive to understand 
what those choices are, and price is the one that makes the 
biggest difference.
    And so I appreciate you being here, I appreciate all of the 
testimony, and I look forward to working to land this plane.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carter from Georgia for 5 
minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 
for being here. This is extremely important, and I appreciate 
it very much.
    Professor Gattie, it is good to see you always. Go, Dawgs. 
I appreciate you being here. But--and I especially appreciate 
your view, because I share the same view. I am not a climate 
denier. I believe in climate change. I believe it is real. And 
I believe we have to address it, and we have to address it on a 
global scale.
    And whenever we talk about that and whenever the panel--or 
whenever the Members here have been asking questions, everybody 
has been nodding yes. Everybody agrees with that. It is a 
global problem. And I am not going to get into the Paris 
Agreement and where we felt like we were having to carry too 
much of the burden. That is not what I want to get into.
    What I do want to get into, though, is that, Dr. Gattie, 
what you said about the Asia-Pacific region, and specifically 
what you said that we needed to triage where the problems are, 
can you kind of elaborate on that for me a little bit?
    Dr. Gattie. Thank you for your question. I tried to invoke 
a medical term here.
    Mr. Carter. And I appreciate that very much.
    Dr. Gattie. Yes. It is a good two-syllable word, and it 
works well. Sounds a little French, so I thought I would put it 
in the----
    Mr. Carter. That is the way we do it in the South.
    Dr. Gattie. We try hard.
    The point here is, if you are in a condition, and there are 
patients, some are acutely sick, some are getting sick, some 
are somewhat healing, where do you focus your efforts and your 
resources? There are several approaches that you take. But you 
certainly have to evaluate where you allocate your resources 
and your efforts to have the maximum impact.
    My point here with this approach does not disengage the 
U.S. from engaging in climate solutions. We have to lean in. We 
are responsible for leaning in. We should reduce our own 
emissions.
    My proposal here is we look at those regions of the world 
where the problem is most acute, that we can deploy--develop 
and deploy U.S. technologies--and we have all mentioned those 
this morning, it is carbon capture and storage, it is advanced 
nuclear reactors, small modulars, and on down the line--to 
these countries that are going to burn fossil fuels with us or 
without us. We need to have a strategy.
    If the Paris Agreement had looked at it that way, as a 
strategic triage effort, rather than a somewhat disaggregated 
``everybody go home and do something individually,'' I think we 
would have had a more ecological outcome than perhaps what we 
are headed towards now, where we are not headed in the 
direction that we need to go.
    Mr. Carter. And I appreciate you saying that, because I 
agree with you. I understand the United States should be the 
leader, and that's why I tell people all the time I am excited 
about the opportunities that exist here. The greatest 
innovators, the greatest scientists in the world are right here 
in the United States of America. We can solve this. I am 
convinced of that, and I believe it can be a boom for our 
economy because, if we can send the innovation overseas, I 
think it would be tremendous for us. So I agree with that.
    Now, I want to jump into it right now because, as everyone 
knows, there are only two nuclear reactors under construction 
right now. And they are Plant Vogtle in Georgia. So I want to 
talk about nuclear energy and the role it plays because, you 
know, when I talk to these groups and we mention nuclear 
energy, they are, ``No, no, no, we can't do that.'' But nuclear 
energy is, what, 55 percent of all of our clean energy right 
now in America?
    Dr. Gattie. Right, of the clean energy.
    Mr. Carter. Right. So tell me about nuclear energy and tell 
me, first of all, where you see that and the role it is playing 
in future.
    Dr. Gattie. So, again, thank you for question about 
nuclear. This is the untapped resource that we are not focusing 
on, in my opinion, at the level that we need to focus on. You 
will see throughout my testimony, I emphasize the national 
security implications of this. Nuclear is one of those rare, 
unique energy resources that is not simply an energy commodity. 
It, if left to market forces alone and the market forces 
nuclear out of the market, that would be a national security 
concern because we would be disengaged from the global nuclear 
fuel cycle, the global nuclear ecosystem. That is not what our 
original designers of nuclear power policy envisioned. We are 
to be engaged and embedded and have other countries essentially 
entangled in our nuclear culture. So it is an energy commodity, 
but it is more nuanced than just the technology.
    Mr. Carter. Great. Well, I am out of time, but, again, 
thank you very much. And go, Dawgs.
    Dr. Gattie. Yes, sir. Go, Dawgs. Let's hope they do.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Barragan, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    It's critical for communities that are experiencing the 
deepest effects of climate change to lead conversations on how 
to mitigate its impacts, not just for one day on a panel, which 
we had in November, but every day we are having this 
conversation. This is important since the first page of our 
briefing memo says that there is a large agreement among 
climate policy experts that a price on carbon is needed to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, I have received 
repeated correspondence from environmental justice groups that 
have real concerns with the carbon tax, absent concrete steps 
to invest in frontline communities and stop the expansion of 
fossil fuel infrastructure and extraction that harms 
communities.
    For my constituents, the climate crisis is also a public 
health crisis. As we move forward, we must ensure all voices 
are at the table as we weigh climate solutions.
    I request unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
letter to the Congressional Progressive Caucus from 33 
environmental justice community civil rights and environmental 
organizations opposing a carbon tax.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Barragan. I also request unanimous consent to enter 
into the record a letter sent to the House Select Committee on 
Climate Crisis by over 250 environmental groups urging the 
committee to reject policies that worsen inequalities and 
prioritize support for communities harmed by the most--by 
climate change and pollution.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Shimkus. Chairman, can we--we are not going to object, 
but we would like to see them, if we may.
    Ms. Barragan. Sure. I will make them available.
    Mr. Profeta, there are as many as 177 natural gas power 
plants planned or under construction. If built, the emissions 
from these plants will be locked in well beyond 2050. Which 
policy would make more--which would be more effective at 
preventing this: a carbon tax or a moratorium or new fossil 
fuel power plants?
    Mr. Profeta. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
    I believe the obvious answer to your question is, if you 
are looking for effectiveness not to have the plant built, to 
ban the plants would be the more effective way to ensure it is 
done rather than use market forces. The appeal of the market 
force approach is that you don't pick or choose the technology. 
You actually let the market find the lowest cost reduction.
    I also would note that the proposal I brought forward on 
sort of Federal/State partnership allows the State governments 
to really look at some of the community affects you are most 
concerned about within their States and design policies that 
make sure they address the concerns of your constituents.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Mr. Esty, it was recently reported by the EIA that U.S. oil 
production reached a record of 12.4 million barrels per day, 
making us the world's largest oil producer. I am fighting urban 
oil drilling in my district that contributes to this total. How 
can the U.S. reconcile being the world's largest oil producer 
and decarbonize by 2050?
    Mr. Esty. I think your question raises the opportunity to 
put a price on the harm causing you have identified, and I 
think that is one of the unifying themes that has come out of 
the panel today, is that by making people pay for the harm they 
cause, in particular by putting a carbon charge in place, you 
begin to steer people towards other options, and I think this 
is a very good solution for the kind of issues you are talking 
about, not only from the point of view of carbon impacts, 
climate change, but, frankly, for the public health issues as 
well.
    Ms. Barragan. Mr. Kaufman, do you--Dr. Kaufman, do you want 
to chime in on this?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, I would agree with you that investing in 
frontline communities is massively important and that there are 
a lot of equity issues that policymakers should consider. I 
would also encourage you not to lose sight of the first- and 
second-order impacts of any strategy that you would put into 
place to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and that is going 
to be massive reduction in not just carbon dioxide emissions 
but local air pollution. So I think there are important issues 
about how these benefits are distributed throughout the 
population, but, you know, there are benefits for all there.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Long for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Gattie, our hearing today is the latest in a 
series on how our committee could enact policies that will 
reduce carbon emissions throughout the economy. We all agree 
that reducing carbon emissions is an important goal to work 
towards. And if anyone's ever visited China and Beijing, in 
particular, and other cities in China where you literally 
cannot see across the street, we know how important it is to 
work towards that goal.
    But I am wary of the potential economic and national 
security impacts that broad-sweeping climate legislation will 
have for everyday Americans. We have seen across the world how 
well-intentioned governments are implementing policies to 
reduce carbon emissions that have faced extreme backlash from 
citizens. It has been mentioned several times here today when 
these actions affect cost of goods and services which harm 
economies and make countries less competitive in the global 
marketplace.
    The policies we work towards in this committee must reflect 
the global nature of the climate change problem. Having 
aggressive domestic climate solutions will not have an impact 
on climate change if the rest of the world continues to 
increase their own carbon emissions. Action this committee 
takes needs to serve as a blueprint for the rest of the world, 
showing how our climate policies that don't hinder economic 
growth and threaten national security are attainable and the 
right way to combat global problems like climate change.
    Dr. Gattie, I am a proponent of nuclear power as a producer 
of clean and consistent carbon-free emissions, and I'd like to 
say that I recently visited Fukushima, and I am cochair of the 
congressional study group on Japan with my buddy, Diana 
DeGette, on the other side of the aisle, and they have gone 
through some times with that, of course, and with trying to get 
back to nuclear energy, which, you know, with their locale 
where they are located, it is pretty much mandatory.
    And it is disheartening that the rhetoric from some of the 
Presidential candidates running right now shows a desire to 
eliminate our most reliable clean energy source. Nuclear power 
can and should be further utilized in America, but the 
potential for exporting nuclear technology in developing 
countries can produce a path forward to significant carbon 
reductions.
    Can you expand on the importance of building durable energy 
technology relationships and how exporting nuclear technology 
can help the United States accomplish larger goals of combating 
climate change?
    Dr. Gattie. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question.
    Energy is essentially the language of geopolitics. Energy 
relationships are what underpin much of our 21st century, just, 
economic flows. Those relationships are going to occur 
globally. Right now, countries such as Russia and China are 
building out those infrastructures. China is using their Belt 
and Road Initiative. And, of course, Russia is looking to build 
gas pipelines. They just, I think, connected one. It's the 
Power of Siberia to China.
    Those are anchors for long-term geopolitical relationships. 
When it comes to nuclear, in particular nuclear, that is an 80-
year relationship. Whoever is the country developing the 
technology in those developing regions will be there for 80 
years or longer. They have the opportunity to then impress upon 
that region their own cultural norms and standards. They don't 
necessarily share our American values. If they are 
authoritarian countries, they are not in it for only the long-
term relation. They are in it for dominance. They are in it for 
the influence. They have a plan. Russia and China, in 
particular, with their nuclear and Russia with its gas, they 
have a strategy, and it is a long-term strategy, and energy 
underpins that.
    We should be responding to give those countries options, 
the options that our early policymakers directed nuclear policy 
for the very intention of the U.S. being that provider of that 
nuclear power. The national security aspects are the 
overarching objectives for all the things you just mentioned, 
Representative Long. Climate change is embedded in that. It 
just happens to be one of the benefits of nuclear, but still 
the national security part is the overarching objective.
    Mr. Long. You covered several of the things I was going to 
point out as which is China's hundred projects that are either 
planned or proposed or everything. So I am out of time. So I 
appreciate all of you being here today.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, 
Representative Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for your continued leadership in building a 
100 percent clean economy. I also would like to thank Mr. 
Shimkus, our ranking member, and to the witnesses.
    One of the things--if anybody is watching this hearing, I 
hope the big takeaway that they have is something that my 
colleague, Mr. Carter, talked about, which is the agreement 
that we have that, number one, climate change is real, that we 
must address it on a global level, and that the United States 
must be a leader. If you leave with nothing else, there is 
agreement on that. And ultimately, we do this for our health. 
We do this for our security. We do this for our economy, and 
the goal is to do it in a just way. So be encouraged by that.
    Part of the process here is to come up with solutions, and 
this is a solution, some solutions, and I wanted to just share 
that, before coming to Congress, I had the opportunity to serve 
in State government in Delaware. And at the State level, 
partnerships were pivotal. It was just pivotal. So I am really 
interested in the State/Federal partnership idea to address the 
climate crisis. And, particularly with Delaware being a leader 
in fighting climate change, I am proud to say that Delaware is 
a member of both the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, also 
known as RGGI, and the U.S. Climate Alliance, and this year in 
particular we have seen unprecedented climate action at the 
State level. I want to make sure that we protect and build on 
that great work that is being done.
    So my question is to you, Mr. Profeta. How can we ensure 
that a State/Federal partnership builds on the successes of 
programs like RGGI, rather than duplicating or undermining 
them?
    Mr. Profeta. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the questions.
    I think that is the beauty of the idea, is that there is so 
much activity on the State level. The States have developed 
such leadership on the issue. There is no reason to halt that 
but actually use that momentum and keep it going forward with 
sort of a Federal/State partnership. So what the Federal role 
would be, would be to create a 50-State solution to make sure 
all States have objectives and goals set by the Federal 
Government so there is no patchwork between them.
    And States like Delaware, States like the RGGI States, 
could continue their program and be--the one key would be to 
look at what the leadership States have done, or all the States 
have done, what has been working, and make sure your 
legislation authorizes that to continue and accelerate.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you.
    And, thanks to programs like RGGI, emissions are decreasing 
in the Northeast. But at the same time, they are increasing in 
other parts of the country, possibly even offsetting other 
regions' gains. Can you explain why States' emissions are going 
in such directions and how a State/Federal partnership can 
counteract that?
    Mr. Profeta. Well, it is kind of like a balloon. You push 
down one place, it may come up another place. The emissions can 
leak to other regions of the country. And this is tradition 
across a lot of our statutes, but what the Federal Government 
can do is set objectives that kind of create a level playing 
field and make sure everybody is moving in the right direction 
but allow the States to design plans that work for their 
constituencies, their needs and transitions. So, you know, the 
Federal Government will create the standards to make sure 
everybody is going the right direction, but the States will 
have the discretion to take it there.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And then I just want to close by 
piggybacking on Ms. Barragan's questions that we know 
communities of color, as well as low-income communities, are 
disproportionately burdened with pollution. And at the same 
time, these communities tend to spend more of their income for 
power and heat their homes, while lacking the resources and 
information to take advantage of solutions like energy 
efficiency and solar. Some of the traditional ideas for how to 
decarbonize fail to account for these inequities, and for that 
reason a comprehensive climate strategy with economy-wide 
solutions must ensure that these frontline communities are 
heard, protected, and prioritized.
    In the time that we have, maybe Dr. Kaufman and Mr. Esty, 
if you can each discuss how we can go about protecting low-
income households and other impacted communities and how smart 
policy design can ensure these protections.
    And we only have 30 seconds.
    Mr. Esty. I will start for 10, and then we will let--I 
think what you have is the opportunity to spend the revenue 
that comes from a carbon charge in ways that address the 
inequities, and I think attending to the communities that are 
disadvantaged is a starting point, but I would also look at the 
communities most affected by the transition. So I think a smart 
transition is critical.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Kaufman, 10 seconds.
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, let me just agree and say I mentioned in 
my testimony making sure those who can't afford higher prices 
don't have to pay them. Making sure that coal communities, in 
particular, who would be adversely affected by the policy would 
be very smart uses of revenue. I think the frontline 
communities issue is potentially a separate policy objective 
but no less important.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I know my time has run out, but I 
think that is also an area where we can find common ground, 
that we also have to take care of vulnerable communities that 
also are impacted by what we do here. So thank you so much.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Duncan, please, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
    Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
    I want to begin by commending the Trump administration and 
the energy sector for the robust domestic energy production we 
are seeing now. There is no doubt that energy--American energy 
renaissance has strengthened our leadership on the world stage. 
The failure to seize the abundance of our resources has 
international implications. In fact, a couple of weeks ago 
Fiona Hill testified in front of the House Intelligence 
Committee that Vladimir Putin saw American fracking as a great 
threat to Russian interests and that a fracking ban would play 
into strengthening Putin's hands.
    Energy is used as a political weapon by many of our 
adversaries. We have the opportunity and arguably the moral 
obligation to export U.S. energy to energy-poor countries 
around the world to help them reduce their dependence on 
corrupt state-owned regimes like Vladimir Putin. We have the 
ability to increase the quality of life for so many people 
around the world.
    If we truly care about the lives of people around the world 
and impoverished regions, American energy export can help 
improve their lives by providing electricity to areas that 
don't have that so they no longer have to cook over wood or 
coal or dung or whatever substance they use to heat in their 
homes, cook over, they have the ability with electricity to 
keep food fresh for longer periods of time, the air quality is 
much better, the possibility of air conditioning, the 
possibility of reading to their children at night. But yet the 
policies I hear put forth and the ideas put forth today would 
increase electricity costs for American citizens.
    And who is hit worse by those costs? And that is the poor 
folks in our economy because higher electricity fees would eat 
up more of their already limited income, but yet you want to 
tax the energy production. You want to tax the manufacturing in 
this country and redistribute that wealth to help--I think Mr. 
Kaufman said--help those so they don't have to pay the 
electricity costs, the higher costs. That is just 
redistribution theology, and it doesn't work.
    One added benefit, that our export LNG may be cleaner than 
that that those nations would use otherwise. So climate 
benefits are connected directly to the energy diplomacy 
efforts. But what would we do this in this country? We are 
pushed to sign on to a Paris climate accord. But we're not 
holding India, China, and Russia accountable for their air 
quality emissions.
    How about this? Instead of stopping pipelines and LNG 
export terminals on the West Coast, why not support those so 
that cleaner-burning, affordable, American-produced natural gas 
can be exported to areas like India or Southeast Asia or 
possibly China to help them lower their air-quality emission 
while supporting a robust American energy economy?
    A carbon tax, as you have proposed in your testimony, of a 
more drastic--a ban on fracking that some have proposed would 
completely reverse the trajectory of American energy 
renaissance. American companies would be less inclined to 
innovate. Costs would undoubtedly go up for consumers across 
the economy.
    So, Dr. Gattie, we talked a lot about the role of natural 
gas and our changing generation mix, but we always don't give 
credit where it is due. Do you agree that our emissions 
reductions are made possible by hydraulic fracturing and 
advances in the technology?
    Dr. Gattie. In the power sector, yes, sir.
    Mr. Duncan. Can you talk a little bit about nuclear power 
and how that figures into the energy matrix and lowering our 
carbon footprint?
    Because, Mr. Esty, you are from Connecticut? Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Esty. [Nonverbal response.]
    Mr. Duncan. Your Governor just decided not to decommission 
reactors and keep them online. Why? His own words were, ``We 
can meet our attainment levels. We can meet our lower carbon 
footprint by keeping nuclear in the mix.'' There is a byproduct 
on nuclear power, and that is nuclear waste that needs to go to 
a long-term stable storage facility. This committee has talked 
about Yucca Mountain. I am not going to go there today, but I 
support that as a long-term storage facility.
    Dr. Gattie, can you talk about nuclear power and how it 
plays into that, into the lowering-carbon-footprint matrix?
    Dr. Gattie. The way I look at nuclear, it is a long-term 
investment. It is a long game. It is very different than the 
way a lot of the markets work now, where markets are trending 
towards short-term, marginal profits, looking at natural gas, 
which I am a natural gas supporter. It has gotten us to where 
we are in the power sector.
    I agree with your point that I would like to see us 
exporting that LNG to countries where other countries are 
building pipelines to connect them with their countries, but 
the nuclear is the long game. We are looking at long-term 
carbon hedging here for eventually if there is a carbon 
processor or anything. This is a long game.
    Mr. Duncan. I am out of time.
    But would you agree that Russia and China and India--Russia 
and China primarily--are exceeding the United States in nuclear 
technology and development at this point?
    Dr. Gattie. Russia and China are. I wouldn't necessarily 
say India is, but they are on--they have strategies that we 
currently lack.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Soto, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, we define American excellence and leadership in 
climate here in Congress, not by the terrible energy policies 
of China and India. So I for one won't be using them as a 
benchmark, but the fact that we need to lead. And we are here 
because we have our 100 Percent Clean Economy Act to get us to 
net-neutral carbon output by 2050, and it is an all-of-the-
above strategy that includes wind and solar but also includes 
nuclear and potentially carbon capture.
    But I want to focus not on just the cost of action, which 
we will go into in a little bit, but the cost of inaction. 
Through 2014 to 2018, we spent $13 billion a year annually on 
disaster relief, including in my home State of Florida. Three 
of the past 6 years, we set records in disaster relief 
spending, and that is not even getting into the health costs 
that are facing so many communities of color like where I 
represent, and then I am forced to go back to a State where we 
see headlines in Florida today: ``Climate Change Once Flooded 
Florida--And It Could Again,'' WLRN.org; ``Florida Keys Deliver 
a Hard Message. As Seas Rise, Some Places Can't Be Saved,'' New 
York Times just today.
    But, if saving the planet for our children and our 
grandchildren isn't enough, how about 21st century economic 
dominance? If we have the clean energy revolution here with our 
partners in Europe, we will dominate the 21st Century economy.
    I just want to ask a basic question to Mr. Kaufman. If we 
developed advanced clean energy technology, do you think China, 
India, and Russia would buy it?
    Dr. Kaufman. If the technology is good, I think they would 
buy it. I think what my sense is that we have been innovating 
in energy, you know, for decades, for centuries, and what we 
have seen is that innovation is important, but it doesn't in 
itself cause us to use less of anything, right? We use more 
biomass now than we used to. We use more coal than we used to, 
even though we are developing these new technologies. So I 
certainly appreciate the points that we need to develop new 
technologies. But I think, if we think that will lead to 
reduced emissions by itself, then I think we are kidding 
ourselves.
    Mr. Soto. Certainly, which is why we have an all-of-the-
above strategy, and thank you for that comment.
    You know, this comes down to basic property law. You learn 
it in Property 101: tragedy of the commons. Those of you who 
are lawyers in the room know that wonderful story. It started 
back in England and beforehand where people would pollute the 
commons. It would get worse and worse. There would be health 
problems. You would have economic collapse unless you regulate 
the commons. And now we are dealing with the whole world, 
because every ton of carbon that is put in the air is polluting 
and destroying our planet.
    And so, you know, I would like to think that we Democrats 
are the party of free market, much like our colleagues across 
the aisle, which is why we are here today, to discuss free 
market solutions.
    I would like to get a show of hands. How many of you would 
support a cap-and-trade regime to help lower carbon emissions? 
Raise your hand.
    Mr. Esty. Can we ask whether that is our choice?
    Mr. Soto. I am going to go into other things. I am going to 
go into carbon tax next. So we have one, two, three.
    How many of you would support a carbon tax as a regime to 
lower energy costs? OK. Let's focus on carbon tax because it 
seems like one that most of you have pushed more than others. 
It would be great to hear from all three of you who raised your 
hands. What do you believe the cost of carbon should be set at 
per ton?
    Mr. Esty.
    Mr. Esty. I would start with $5 per ton and escalate by $5 
per ton per year for 20 years for a $100-a-ton end price.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you.
    Dr. Kaufman, what is the price of carbon per ton to our 
planet?
    Dr. Kaufman. I think if we are in the realm of starting 
above, you know, the $20, $30 a ton, it is whatever bill that 
you can pass in Congress.
    Mr. Soto. Mr. Profeta, what do you think it should be?
    Mr. Profeta. I raised my hand for other things. So I think 
you do whatever you can to get expeditious reductions in 
greenhouse gases.
    I would second Noah's standpoint. What is politically 
feasible in that range that would make--move the needle?
    Mr. Soto. OK. Thank you.
    And, lastly, you know, we are cognizant of the fact there 
are energy-producing States that would suffer economically as 
these things happen and that this funding should also be used 
to help invest into new industries like transitioning to 
renewable energy equipment manufacturing, building nuclear 
power plants in some of these areas that will be producing less 
coal or oil or gas and even establishing wind where 
appropriate.
    I wanted to ask a basic question to Mr. Esty. Do you think 
we have the ability to transition those economies over to these 
more renewable energy and nuclear energy opportunities?
    Mr. Esty. Absolutely. I think there is a clear possibility 
of reinvesting some of the revenue generated by an economy-wide 
carbon charge and put that into the communities that need to 
transition.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Johnson, Representative Johnson. You have 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Professor Gattie, you know, last Congress this 
committee discussed the important role that Part 810 plays in 
U.S. civil nuclear providers' ability to engage with our 
international allies. During this debate, we heard some 
concerns that went along the lines of, you know, it is too 
dangerous for the U.S. to engage in these international 
markets, therefore Russia, China, and others should take the 
lead in that engagement while we sit on the sidelines. For 
crying out loud--and I have heard Secretary Perry even talk 
about this--we cannot sit on the sidelines on the commercial 
nuclear arena because, once China and Russia get their foot in 
the door with developing countries in putting in commercial 
nuclear programs, they are in there for, like, a hundred years. 
I mean, it is a big influence that they wield.
    So, in your testimony, you discuss how early U.S. nuclear 
policymakers recognized the strategic importance of America's 
nuclear enterprise. So here is my question: What steps can 
Congress and those within the nuclear industry take to stress 
the importance of America's international engagement today?
    Dr. Gattie. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
    I will propose two general high-altitude--the first one is 
political, and that is I would encourage the committee to maybe 
go back and look at the 1956 platforms for both Democrats and 
Republicans. Both were competing to be the champion for the 
U.S. Nuclear Enterprise to be the world's premier nuclear base. 
I would like to see that brought down to the public's purview 
for the general public to understand that we have managed this 
for 70 years and can continue.
    Now moving forward, on the broader policy side, a 
suggestion as to how do we develop a strategy long term. To the 
point you made, Congressman, China and Russia have strategies. 
They are state-owned enterprises, serve as extensions of the 
state. One analog here is the way DoD kind of looks at its 
supply chain and manufacturing supply chain. Every few years, 
they do an industrial-based review. They look at what we need 
to do to ensure that our defense base and our manufacturing 
base for the defense is where it needs to be.
    I think a similar approach could be taken for our nuclear 
sector. It is a critical industry. It is a national security 
industry. I think we should at least, to get our brains wrapped 
around what our gut is telling us about this national security 
thing, we really need to do an evaluation or assessment similar 
to that to look at our manufacturing supply chain and our 
current status for U.S. nuclear enterprise. I think that is 
something this committee and Congress can engage in and get 
multiple Federal authorities engaged. It would be the 
intelligence community, the State Department, the Commerce 
Department to do a thorough review of where we are, where we 
are compared with other countries, and what is the strategy for 
moving forward.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I think it is really important. And I 
agree with you. We have got to get it into the purview of the 
American people. It has got to be a conversation on the street. 
And the reason why is because, in countries like China and 
Russia, public opinion doesn't mean anything to the 
decisionmakers in those countries. They don't have the system 
that we have that demands input from the American people and we 
lawmakers that have to take into consideration the concerns of 
our people, the people that sent us here to represent them. It 
puts us at a disadvantage in terms of tactical moves in that 
sphere. So I agree with you.
    How can we ensure that we are appropriately balancing 
safety and security within our nuclear export policies while 
ensuring our domestic industry can successfully compete in 
these international markets?
    Dr. Gattie. So, again, there, Congressman, I would go back 
to my earlier point about doing a base-level industrial review 
of our entire nuclear sector. Where do we stand on the supply 
chain? Where do we stand on our fuel purchases? Where are the 
bottlenecks and constraints currently where we can and cannot 
purchase fuels? Are we constrained at any point in that supply 
chain? I am not sure that we comprehensively understand exactly 
where we are. I think that is something that should be driven 
by some congressional----
    Mr. Johnson. Do we have the right balance between 
engagement and security? Do you think that--because, I mean, I 
don't. Obviously, I don't.
    Dr. Gattie. No, sir. No, sir.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, 
Representative DeGette, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have been a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
for many, many years. And I actually sat in on the hearings 
where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, despite 
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, denied that climate 
change existed. So I am actually really pleased to see that we 
have moved now into the realm where everybody agrees that 
climate change exists and that we need to have a solution, but 
I am, frankly, very concerned by this implication that, since 
it is an international problem and since China, India, and 
other countries--Russia--are not complying, that we should 
somehow just sit around because I don't know of any time in our 
Nation's history where we actually sat around waiting for 
China, India, and Russia to do something.
    And so that is why I have been developing legislation. I 
have been trying to find a bipartisan cosponsor of this 
legislation that would be a market-based solution, that would 
help U.S. interests, that would get us to the standards of zero 
percent carbon emissions by 2050, and that would be an all-of-
the-above solutions, so long as they met those standards.
    So I want to ask some questions about how a bill like 
that--which would basically decarbonize electricity and then 
move towards electrification of everything--how that would help 
us with this international issue and with the U.S. standards in 
the international community. Rather than sitting back and 
waiting for them to do something, let's be the leader and let's 
benefit economically from it.
    So, Dr. Kaufman, I want to start with you. If we put a 
price on carbon pollution, can that drive innovation in 
technologies that don't emit carbon?
    Dr. Kaufman. It will, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. And do you know exactly what technologies 
can get us to zero emissions, or do you think we are going have 
to have innovations along the way in the next 30 years?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, innovation will enable decarbonization 
to proceed more cost effectively, faster. It is----
    Ms. DeGette. Right. But we don't know exactly what that 
technology is right now, do we?
    Mr. Esty, you are shaking your head no.
    Mr. Esty. I agree with you. What we really want to do is 
incentivize technology breakthroughs across the board.
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Mr. Esty. And so that is where the carbon price allows you 
to get all of those different players, because we don't know 
whether it would be wind----
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Mr. Esty [continuing]. Or solar or biofuels or tidal power 
or wave power or anything perhaps not even known.
    Ms. DeGette. Right. I mean, you know, my provider, Xcel 
Energy, they set a zero percent goal by 2050, and they told me, 
``Frankly, we don't know how we are going get there, but we are 
going innovate, and we are going to get there.''
    So I want to ask the two of you, Mr. Esty and Dr. Kaufman, 
if we do develop those technologies--Mr. Soto asked a little 
bit about this--is that going to help us be able to then export 
our technologies around the world and help them also reduce 
their carbon imprint?
    Mr. Esty. Well, I would argue that the U.S. has always been 
very good at innovation and that has been the key to our 
competitiveness over time, and it is quite clear the world is 
pivoted towards a decarbonized future, and I think we would 
want to be out front in helping to deliver those solutions not 
only domestically but internationally.
    Ms. DeGette. And it would help our economy, right?
    Mr. Esty. Absolutely.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, Mr. Profeta, I want to ask you quickly. 
You talk about building a program State by State, and I really 
agree with that. I think every State has their own history in 
advancing clean industry. In Colorado, I talked about Xcel and 
what they did. And everybody has their own unique starting 
points.
    So, if I understand correctly, your overarching principles 
are: The pace of progress needs to be proportional to the scale 
of the problem so that the goals are going to be ambitious; the 
policy approach needs to be doable, by which you mean 
bipartisan; and we need to respect the different starting 
points around the country across different sectors and even 
within different sectors.
    Is that an accurate summary of your views?
    Mr. Profeta. That is really well-boiled-down stated 
principles, yes.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, as we create an economy-wide program 
step by step--which, as you say, can be done in a number of 
ways--how do we avoid doing that in a patchwork way? How do we 
have an overall arching solution?
    Mr. Profeta. There are two versions of patchwork. One is 
you have some who are acting, some who don't. So you have sort 
of leakage into the nonacting State. A 50-State strategy solves 
that. The second is you have different regulatory regimes in 
different States, and you may evolve some differences as the 
State laboratories work, but you can write your legislation to 
incentivize States to work together, to have all the 
authorities they need to merge sectors, merge programs, where 
it's efficient for them to do so.
    Ms. DeGette. You mentioned other laws: the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, Clean Air Act. A lot of laws we have done that way. 
Is that right?
    Mr. Profeta. Exactly. If you look at the Clean Air Act and 
what we did on the interstate pollution across the Northeast 
and Midwest, we wrote model rules in programs that would allow 
the States to work collectively together.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you very much to all of you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of 
Washington, Representative Rodgers for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. All right. Very good. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    And today we are considering policies to achieve economy-
wide deep decarbonization. Judging from the majority's memo, 
their proposals seem limited to policies that tax our economy 
and industrial sectors out of existence and destroy America's 
global competitiveness and leadership.
    In Washington State, people have resoundingly rejected two 
separate carbon tax initiatives because a tax would put us at a 
competitive disadvantage. A Federal carbon tax or cap-and-trade 
would do the same to America on the global level without 
allowing to us continue to lead in reducing carbon emissions.
    Climate change is a global issue, not just an American 
issue. It requires a global solution centered around 
innovation, which has made the United States so successful at 
reducing emissions. As we look to decrease emissions without 
destroying our economy, it is crucial that we expand our 
nuclear energy portfolio. American companies like TerraPower in 
Bellevue, Washington, have led the world in nuclear technology 
and innovation, but regulatory restrictions have hurt their 
ability to deploy new reactors both at home and abroad.
    Right now, China and Russia are developing and exporting 
small modular reactors to underdeveloped countries, expanding 
their global influence. For America to win the future, we 
cannot afford to sit and allow this to continue.
    Professor Gattie, in your testimony, you mention early 
efforts by American policymakers to use America's nuclear 
energy enterprise strategically around the world. In your 
opinion, what caused the move away from these policies, and how 
has that affected our national security and global 
competitiveness with China and Russia?
    Dr. Gattie. Thank you for the question.
    I think over time there were a few things that contributed 
to it. I think we got complacent, for one thing. I think we 
just simply--back in the eighties and nineties, we got 
complacent in the power sector. I think recently maybe we have 
gotten a little overconfident in our natural gas market. We are 
very--lots of confidence right now that we have got an abundant 
supply of natural gas. Of course, what we know is those are--
those have end games to them.
    I think there is also a good bit of, we have had market 
deregulation throughout the country. I think that has 
contributed to some of the current nuclear fleet being 
threatened for early closure. There is also just a general fear 
of waste and proliferation, things that we have always been 
able to manage here in the U.S. and globally for decades. But 
maybe one of the underlying reasons, Congresswoman, is that I 
really believe that we have got a general disconnect--and I am 
saying this in reflection of students that I teach. There is a 
general disconnect of where we are globally right now, what the 
21st century is actually like, what our competitors are now 
compared to what they were in the 20th century.
    Russia looks ham-fisted, the USSR does, compared with what 
China is now. They have a long-game strategy. And nuclear is 
dead center in that, a long-game strategy to develop advanced 
reactors, close the nuclear fuel cycle, and implant their 
nuclear culture in other countries.
    President Xi Jinping, he makes no bones about it that it is 
socialism with Chinese characteristics. And if the U.S. does 
not step up and respond, it is going to give the world the 
impression that socialism with Chinese characteristics is 
succeeding where capitalism with American characteristics is 
failing.
    This is something--it is a sad state of affairs when 
President Eisenhower's ``Atoms for Peace'' vision is being 
forwarded by China and Russia and not us. That is--he would 
roll over in his grave.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    So let's talk about, how do we make up the ground? So, in 
terms of policies to reduce emissions, how would we benefit 
from Federal policies to demonstrate technologies like advanced 
nuclear? Is it a problem that the Department of Energy does not 
currently have a demonstration project for a nuclear technology 
such as been proposed in the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act?
    Dr. Gattie. I think things like NELA, the Nuclear Energy 
Leadership Act, are good touchstones. I think the overarching 
concern here is we don't have a strategy for those things to 
map into. We don't have a long-game purview and vision of what 
we want our nuclear enterprise to be in the 21st century for 
30, 40, and 50 years.
    I wish we would stop rejoicing too much in small victories 
and look at the big picture and setting ourselves up again to 
be the world's dominant--not a level playing field with China--
the dominant nuclear provider in the world.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you for being here.
    And I will yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Stanville, 
Illinois, Representative Schakowsky, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Schakowsky. We are in the midst of an existential 
crisis right now. Last month, over 11,000 scientists from 
across the globe issued a warning of, quote, ``untold 
suffering,'' unquote--quote/unquote--that will be caused by 
climate change. The warning stated that, quote, ``scientists 
have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any 
catastrophe, catastrophic threat, and to tell it like it is. We 
declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a 
climate emergency,'' end of quote.
    While the President ignores the emergency, my State of 
Illinois--you have talked somewhat about States--is leading the 
way on climate solutions thanks to the work of Governor 
Pritzker and our House and Senate. During his first week in 
office, the Governor signed an executive order to join the U.S. 
Climate Alliance. And since then, the Governor has signed bills 
that will boost wind energy development in the State and 
protect communities from coal ash and other pollutants and 
champion a plan that invests $140 million for renewable energy 
projects across Illinois.
    So, Mr. Profeta, what can--or maybe the question should be, 
can the Federal Government right now learn from States like 
Illinois?
    Mr. Profeta. Yes. In fact, we do work with the State of 
Illinois and some of the projects we worked at Duke University, 
and I have been very happy to be engaged with the efforts 
there.
    Illinois is a good example. It is part of--Chicago is part 
of the PNJ region, too, which is the electricity grid region, 
and so it is looking to both take its own actions and figure 
out how in the electricity market it can make sure that its 
emissions are not only--reductions are not only secured in 
Illinois but across the region, and that is where the Federal 
Government could help by giving all the States goals and 
objectives so that they are sort of holding each other to the 
same standard.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Esty, your statement describes the 
importance of innovation including the need for, quote, 
``innovation in policy design.'' Some of my colleagues like to 
say that, quote, ``innovation is the key to addressing climate 
change,'' but they stop short of calling for policies to 
actually spur innovation.
    So, Mr. Esty and maybe Mr. Profeta as well, or Dr. Kaufman, 
talking about if you would agree that innovation doesn't just 
happen on its own and that it requires strong policy signals to 
set the Federal level.
    Mr. Esty. So I would just say--and I think it has been a 
consensus today--that you want a portfolio of policies to drive 
clean energy and to create incentives for the innovation that 
we all are counting upon.
    Mr. Profeta. Yes, I would like to say, yes, you know, the 
United States is probably one of the greatest engines of 
innovation in the history of the world. And our capitalist 
system has really driven people. When they can make money 
innovating, they tend to do it. So, if we can create policies, 
however we do it, that drive the innovative engine, this 
Nation, towards those things, we will end up driving the 
world's transition in the energy system, and that would be 
across the whole portfolio.
    The one thing that is really distinctive, I think, on this 
panel that I want to make sure and note is every one of the 
four of us thinks that nuclear power is probably part of the 
solution set. So it is not something that where I think any of 
us think that nuclear isn't a significant part of the solution. 
A good----
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me confirm that. Is that the case? OK. 
I know that----
    Mr. Profeta. I mean, the chairman said at the outset there 
is no silver bullet for climate change. It is really silver 
buckshot. You just have to, like, spray the incentive across 
the economy and harvest every solution you can possibly have 
that doesn't make greenhouse gases.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So I want to get do this question of 
urgency. I spent a lot of time with constituents, especially 
young constituents who are walking out of classrooms on Friday, 
trying to come here and create this sense of urgency. Thousands 
of experts are warning that climate change could mark actually 
kind of a dead end for humanity.
    I am just trying to get from--well, I guess we are done. I 
have said my sense of urgency, but I really think that that has 
to be such a big part of the conversation here, that we have to 
move and we have to move now and the kids that come to me say, 
``Don't talk to me about my bright future. I might not have a 
future if you don't act.''
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Matsui, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will thank the panel 
for being with us today.
    Over the past 6 months this committee has been focusing on 
a number of hearings to examine what it will take to achieve 
100 percent net zero emissions by 2050, a necessary goal if we 
are to safeguard our planet and future generations from the 
devastating effects of climate change.
    A central policy to this goal is the idea of some sort of 
economy-wide price on carbon. This has already taken place in 
the EU and parts of Canada and here at home in my home State of 
California, as well as grouping of nine Northeastern and mid-
Atlantic States, signifying clear support for such initiative.
    California's cap-and-trade program, which has been in place 
since 2014, has demonstrated dual benefits of reducing 
emissions through its mandated caps but also by raising revenue 
through the quarterly allocation auctions, which can fund 
additional emissions reduction and climate mitigation efforts.
    Mr. Profeta, you mentioned in your testimony this idea of a 
Federal/State climate partnership in which the Federal 
Government sets a national level of reductions and States 
implement unique plans to achieve this.
    Additionally, Canada established a Federal carbon pricing 
mechanism that allows provinces and territories the flexibility 
to develop their own carbon pricing system. The policy allows 
provinces whose carbon prices meet the Federal standards to 
maintain their existing mechanisms.
    Mr. Profeta, do you think a U.S. carbon pricing system 
should be structured in a way that provides States the 
authority and flexibility to develop their own market-based 
carbon pricing strategies and allows States that have already 
established carbon pricing mechanisms, like my home State of 
California, to maintain their existing programs?
    Mr. Profeta. Yes, I think the concept that we have been 
discussing developing would allow the States to determine 
whatever approach they want to meet the carbon goals, including 
the preexisting programs.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. As I mentioned, California's cap-and-trade 
policy has delivered the additional benefit of bringing in 
millions of dollars of revenue that can go towards additional 
efforts such as investments in cleaner transportation, energy 
efficiency upgrades, and reducing air toxics and criteria 
pollutants. The first year of auctions alone generated more 
than $525 million in revenue for the State, and to date 11.8 
billion has been generated and deposited into a fund that is 
used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, my district of 
Sacramento has benefited from these dollars through programs 
like low-carbon transportation projects and the Community Air 
Protection Program, which prioritizes air quality in frontline 
communities.
    Dr. Kaufman, there seems to be a misconception that carbon 
prices must be incredibly high to be effective. Based on 
experience in California and other jurisdictions at home and 
abroad, how would you respond to that misconception?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, I think what you want to do is exactly 
what the committee is doing, which is set your long-term 
target--and net zero makes a heck of a lot of sense because at 
the global level climate change will continue until we get to 
net zero carbon dioxide emissions--and then you want to work 
backwards from there and say, what do you want to achieve in 
the near term to get on that pathway?
    And what our research suggests is that, you know, 
particularly if you, you know, surround a carbon price with a 
set of complementary policies, a price that is in the $30-, 
$40-, $50-per-ton range could be incredibly effective at 
reducing emissions and getting you on that net zero pathway.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. We have made significant strides in 
deploying renewable energy and increasing efficiency measures. 
It is clear that our country has a long way to go in 
transitioning into a clean energy economy.
    Dr. Kaufman, given this, do you think it is necessary that 
a carbon price include a requirement that at least a portion of 
that money be spent on things like renewable energy, additional 
emissions reduction efforts, and research and development?
    Dr. Kaufman. I would say it depends on what your policy 
objectives are and what the details of the carbon price itself 
are. I certainly think that investments are going to be needed. 
You know, we need--you know, think about the transportation 
sector, and if we are going to, you know, over the next few 
decades switch away from gasoline and diesel vehicles, we need 
to facilitate this shift so drivers are comfortable doing that. 
So we need to get that money from somewhere.
    That said, I think, you know, the carbon pricing revenue is 
just government revenue, right? So I think policymakers need to 
come to a consensus on the best way to use that revenue. It is 
the price signal itself that is going to do the most at 
reducing emissions.
    Ms. Matsui. Right. Absolutely.
    OK. I am already running out of time.
    So thank you very much.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Represent Ruiz, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to all the witnesses here today to discuss 
the importance of decarbonization. I want to talk about one of 
the primary options to reduce carbon emissions that we have 
been talking today, which is putting a price on carbon and how 
the revenue produced by such a price will be utilized.
    Leading into that, I want to help you understand the 
situation in my district, California's 36th--Eastern Riverside 
County in the Coachella Valley, San Jacinto Valley, Southern 
California area--and present to you the specific challenges 
faced by my constituents when it comes to carbon pollution. 
Separating the Coachella Valley from the Los Angeles Basin is a 
stretch of mountains. The only break in those mountains is the 
San Gorgonio Pass. The pass is a gateway for millions of cars 
and truck traveling on Interstate 10, usually from the ports to 
Arizona. But it also acts at a wind tunnel, bringing regular 
intense wind into our community. You might have seen the shots 
of the windmills in the movies there in Palm Springs. This air 
often includes high levels of pollutants and carbon emissions 
that weren't produced in my district.
    According to an analysis done by Northern Arizona 
University, the Los Angeles County produces 55 percent of all 
the emissions from the five surrounding counties, including San 
Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura Counties. In fact, 
the carbon pollution from the ports alone matches the total 
residential and commercial output from all of Riverside County. 
Just think about that. And as you know, carbon pollution is 
rarely emitted alone. It is often emitted alongside other 
harmful elements, such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur.
    So, for the majority of the year, these pollutants blow 
east towards my constituents, and these increased levels of 
greenhouse gases worsen ozone pollution for which the Coachella 
Valley has been in nonattainment with the Clean Air Act since 
1997. And, as an emergency physician, I know all too well what 
this looks like. It is children with increasing rates of 
asthma. It is more frequent heat stress among the elderly. It 
is exacerbated respiratory diseases among those who already 
struggle with respiratory ailments, and the list goes on and on 
and on.
    It is important to note that, even though my district does 
not produce the large volumes of carbon pollution, we have 
taken enormous initiatives when it comes to decarbonization and 
renewable energy. In fact, my district produces the most 
renewable energy on Federal land compared to other districts in 
the entire United States.
    The point is that air quality in my district is poor. The 
majority of air pollution is not created in my district. Yet 
the people I represent and the people I cared for in the 
emergency department bear the health burdens. Furthermore, it 
is the rural, underserved, resource-poor communities in my 
district and throughout the Nation that are disproportionately 
most affected.
    So how do we address equity in any cost to carbon emissions 
so that those who don't produce the pollution, don't live in a 
big city, but are impacted by the pollution caused there get 
their fair share of revenues to address the public's health? In 
my home State of California, the State's cap-and-trade program 
has provided an important source of revenue for communities 
struggling with air pollution. In 2018, 39 percent of 
investments from program venues went to disadvantaged 
communities. So these are the same communities that are more at 
risk of being exposed and having the public health risks.
    So, Dr. Kaufman, can you speak to how revenues from a 
national carbon pricing program could help improve air quality 
at the local level, especially in communities where investment 
is needed most?
    Dr. Kaufman. Right. Well, thank you for the question.
    So, again, the revenue from a carbon pricing program, that 
is just government revenue, and it can be used to achieve many 
different important priorities. And I think you are listing one 
critical priority.
    You know, I would point out that, as you correctly noted, 
it is not the carbon pollution that is causing, you know, the 
health issues. It is the other pollutants. So we also, you 
know, should push on the Clean Air Act and other legislation, 
if needed, to directly address those sources of pollution.
    Mr. Ruiz. So what about the concept of a carbon price 
dividend that is targeted at frontline communities? How do we 
ensure that those dividends reach the right populations?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, fortunate----
    Mr. Ruiz. Suggestions?
    Dr. Kaufman. I am sorry? What----
    Mr. Ruiz. Any suggestions?
    Dr. Kaufman. Just that the carbon price would provide 
hundreds of billions of dollars a year, if we are talking about 
sort of a reasonably priced, you know, program. So you would 
have a lot of money at your disposal to invest into communities 
like those, to deal with this issue.
    Mr. Ruiz. So we just have to make sure at the back end, 
once there is the revenue, that the equation focuses on carbon 
cost equity for the communities that need them the most because 
they suffer the ailments the most.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McNerney, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman and ranking member. I 
thank the witnesses this morning.
    Mr. Esty, before coming to Congress, I spent my career 
developing wind energy technology, and that gave me an 
appreciation for how hard it is to get funding and financing 
and so on for that technology.
    Can you elaborate on how policy can create incentives for 
capital to flow into developing renewable energy technology?
    Mr. Esty. Sure. I think we have talked today about the 
importance of a price signal attracting both research and 
development money and also deployment money. And I think we 
have also mentioned that we want, beyond an economy-wide price 
signal, the benefit of some more targeted efforts. And in 
Connecticut, we created a green bank, and that green bank has 
allowed us to ramp up dramatically the flow of capital into 
wind energy, solar power, energy efficiency. And I think there 
is a real opportunity to replicate that at the national level.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. That includes storage, right?
    Mr. Esty. Includes storage, includes anything that helps 
you move towards a decarbonized future. And I think what you 
get with a green bank is the ability to use limited public 
money to leverage private capital. And in Connecticut, we are 
seeing something approaching $7 of private capital now for 
every dollar of government money.
    Mr. McNerney. Thumbs up.
    Mr. Esty. The solar world loves it. The wind world loves 
it, and the energy efficiency guys benefit as well.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Gattie, is there a dangerous synergy between climate 
change and the loss of biological diversity?
    Dr. Gattie. Yes, sir, there is.
    Mr. McNerney. Is there any--I mean, I think they both feed 
on each other and aggravate each other's growing concern.
    Dr. Gattie. Yes, sir. I agree.
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Kaufman, do you agree?
    Dr. Kaufman. I do.
    Mr. McNerney. Is there any policy approach that would help 
decouple those or would help reduce the biological diversity 
amplification of this problem?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, I think the committee is doing exactly 
the right thing. What we need to do is sort of halt climate 
change as quickly as we can. And I think net zero by 2050 is a 
perfectly reasonable goal because, the more temperatures rise, 
the more those risks and others will build.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, do you believe that reducing carbon 
emissions alone, Dr. Kaufman, will be sufficient to prevent 
climate catastrophe?
    And the reason I ask that is because there is a significant 
and undefined latency between the time carbon is emitted into 
the atmosphere and the time that we are starting to see these 
effects. So we could be seeing the effects of carbon emitted 10 
years ago, we still have 10 years of carbon buildup since then 
that are going to continue to throttle the climate change.
    Dr. Kaufman. That is exactly right. So, you know, at this 
point, it is not about--you know, it is not about making sure 
climate change doesn't exist. It exists already. It is with 
us--every tenth of a degree of temperature that it goes up 
further will make it worse. So it is just a matter of, you 
know, stabilizing temperatures to minimize those risks.
    Mr. McNerney. So, I mean, just reducing carbon emissions 
alone--how about if we add in taking carbon out of the 
atmosphere and sequestering it? With carbon emission reduction, 
is that going to be enough to prevent catastrophe, in your 
opinion?
    Dr. Kaufman. Well, I think we need to get to net zero 
emissions. So carbon dioxide emissions--the sources of 
emissions as well and, you know, balanced with the sinks, and 
that is trees, forests, as well as technological options, like 
direct air capture and storage underground. We need to balance 
the sources with the sinks, and that is what is going to 
stabilize temperatures over time.
    Mr. McNerney. Do you think we need to move toward climate 
engineering?
    Dr. Kaufman. I think it is worth studying.
    Mr. McNerney. The science--Dr. Gattie?
    Dr. Gattie. I wouldn't jump out and say yes, absolutely. 
That is a--that connects a lot of issues across States and 
continents. So are is some unintended consequences that could 
come out of that that we would really need to----
    Mr. McNerney. Well, there are unintended consequences of 
adding carbon to the atmosphere for the last hundred years.
    Dr. Gattie. And I agree with us doing everything we can to 
reduce that. What I wouldn't want to do is anything that may 
compound that, just unwittingly compound that.
    Mr. McNerney. But the science would be--it would be good to 
develop the science?
    Dr. Gattie. I think we should be looking at it, yes, sir.
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Profeta?
    Mr. Profeta. Yes, we should develop the science. We should 
be looking at everything we can do to minimize the risk.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
    I am the last guy?
    Mr. Tonko. You just may be, I believe, looking around.
    I believe the list of Members that chose to question our 
panel has been completed.
    And before we adjourn, I request unanimous consent to enter 
the following into the record. We have a letter from Our 
Children's Trust, a letter from the Portland Cement 
Association, a letter from Michael Gerard of Columbia Law 
School and John C. Dernbach of Widener University Commonwealth 
Law School, a letter from the Environmental Defense Fund, and 
then two letters that earlier were referenced that were entered 
into the record by Representative Barragan.
    So, without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.]\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The letter from Our Children's Trust has been retained in 
committee files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20191205/110295/HHRG-116-IF18-20191205-SD003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, again, we thank our witnesses for sharing all of the 
information that they have shared here this morning. It is very 
important and helpful to the goals that we have established as 
a subcommittee.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. So I would ask 
each witness to please respond promptly to any of such 
questions. And you may, you know, receive them from our 
colleagues.
    So, at this time, the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you 
again.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]