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






  SAVING ENERGY: LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND STORAGE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 12, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-101






    [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 
                 
51-562 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 

                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        

                    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 Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    Chair                            PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               BILL FLORES, Texas
    Massachusetts                    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, prepared statement.....................................   117

                               Witnesses

Mark W. Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy.......................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   180
Kelly Speakes-Backman, Chief Executive Officer, Energy Storage 
  Association....................................................    44
    Prepared statement...........................................    47
Julie Hiromoto, LEED AP, American Institute Of Architects........    52
    Prepared statement...........................................    54
Arn McIntyre, President, McIntyre Builders, National Association 
  of Home Builders...............................................    61
    Prepared statement...........................................    63
Lowell W. Ungar, Ph.D., Senior Policy Advisor, American Council 
  for an Energy-Efficient Economy................................    73
    Prepared statement...........................................    75
Jennifer Schafer-Soderman, Executive Director, Federal 
  Performance Contracting Coalition..............................    85
    Prepared statement...........................................    87
Bryan Howard, Legislative Director, U.S. Green Building Council..    93
    Prepared statement...........................................    95

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 1744 Storage Technology for Operational Readiness and 
  Generating Energy Act..........................................   119
H.R. 2909 Promoting Grid Storage Act of 2019.....................   123
H.R. 3962 Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 
  2019\1\
H.R. 4447 Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act of 2019.....   138
H.R. 5650 Federal Energy and Water Management Performance Act of 
  2020...........................................................   146
H.R. 5758 Ceiling Fan Improvement Act of 2020....................   162

----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
  20200212/110516/BILLS-1163962ih.pdf.
Letter of February 12, 2020, to Mr Rush and Mr. Upton, from 
  American Public Gas Association, submitted by Mr. Rush             16
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, from 
  Coalition of Advocates, submitted by Mr. Rush..................   168
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Mr. McConnell, et al., from 
  Coalition of ESIC , submitted by Mr. Rush......................   169
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, by Mr. 
  Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Technology 
  Association, submitted by Mr. Rush\2\
Chart DOE R&D Investments FY 2017-2019, submitted by Mr. Rush....   172
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, by Dave 
  Lock, CEO, Grand Canyon State Electric, Cooperative 
  Association, Inc., submitted by Mr. Rush.......................   174
Letter of February 12, 2020, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, by Louis 
  Finkel, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, National 
  Rural Electric Cooperative Association, NRECA, submitted by Mr. 
  Rush...........................................................   175
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Mr. Pallone at al., by Jeffrey D 
  DeBoer, President and CEO, Real Estate Roundtable, submitted by 
  Mr. Rush.......................................................   177
Letter of February 12, 2020, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, by John 
  Coequyt, Director, Federal and International Climate Campaign, 
  Sierra Club, submitted by Mr. Rush.............................   179

----------
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
  20200212/110516/HHRG-116-IF03-20200212-SD8147.pdf.

 
  SAVING ENERGY: LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND STORAGE

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in 
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Butterfield, Schrader, Kennedy, 
Kuster, Kelly, Barragan, O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Pallone 
(ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, 
McKinley, Griffith, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, and Duncan.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Jean 
Fruci, Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Tiffany 
Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Omar Guzman-Toro, Policy 
Analyst; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Directory, 
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; 
Jourdan Lewis, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, Press 
Secretary; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Medha Surampudy, 
Professional Staff Member; Rebecca Tomilchik, Staff Assistant; 
Tuley Wright, Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Jordan 
Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Mary 
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and 
Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; and Peter 
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment 
and Climate Change.
    Mr. Rush. [presiding]. Good morning.
    The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order.
    Today, we will hear from a number of witnesses on the 
saving energy legislation to improve energy efficiency and 
storage.
    The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Today, the subcommittee convenes for a hearing focused on 
legislative proposals to bolster energy efficiency and energy 
storage. Through the implementation of these policies, the 
committee will boost consumer cost savings, offset energy 
supply-demand, reduce air pollution, and advance job creation.
    The flexibility and reliability of our nation's grid is 
enhanced by any new storage capability. Energy producers use a 
variety of these economically-and environmentally-beneficial 
technologies to store excess energy from power sources. Energy 
producers later release this stored energy in response to 
energy generation demand, service disruption, or non-dispatched 
energy generation. Bills up for discussion today, which 
includes H.R. 1714, H.R. 2909, and H.R. 4447, will amplify the 
deployment of this strategy.
    Energy efficiency is an equally important tool that 
harnesses technology to meet our energy needs through smart 
energy use. According to a recent American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy report, enhancing economywide 
efficiency standards could cut both energy use and greenhouse 
gas emissions in half by the year 2050. This is why I am 
pleased to discuss H.R. 3962, H.R. 5650, and H.R. 5758 at 
today's hearing.
    The extensive efficiency of residential appliances, 
lighting systems, and buildings alone will curtail 550 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This amounts to the 
emissions from burning 606 million tons of coal.
    The intensity of energy use is contingent upon geographic 
location. Case in point, Chicago heat waves and winters. 
However, a typical household may save up to 25 percent on their 
utility expenses through energy efficiency measures.
    In light of this, I remain deeply disturbed by the 
Department's failure to meet legal obligations for a new 
efficiency standard, and I am puzzled by this administration's 
continuing requests to slash funding for related programs.
    Therefore, I look forward to today's discussion on these 
policies that require active participation from the Department 
of Energy, from states, and from industry to implement these 
mechanisms to the benefit of ratepayers and consumers.
    I want to thank my colleagues, both on the committee and 
off the committee, for their contributions to today's 
legislative hearing.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby Rush

    Today the Subcommittee convenes for a hearing focused on 
legislative proposals to bolster energy efficiency and energy 
storage. Through the implementation of these policies, the 
Committee will boost consumer cost savings, offset energy 
supply demand, reduce air pollution, and advance job creation.
    The flexibility and reliability of our nation's grid is 
enhanced by energy storage capabilities. Energy producers use a 
variety of these economically and environmentally beneficial 
technologies to store excess energy from power sources. Energy 
producers later release this stored energy in response to 
energy generation demand, service disruptions, or non-
dispatchable energy generation. Bills up for discussion today, 
for example H.R. 1744, H.R. 2909, and H.R. 4447, will amplify 
the deployment of this strategy.
    Energy efficiency is an equally important tool that 
harnesses technology to meet our energy needs through smarter 
energy use. According to a recent American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy report, enhancing economy-wide 
efficiency standards could cut both energy use and greenhouse 
gas emissions in half by 2050. This is why I'm pleased to 
discuss H.R. 3962, H.R. 5650, and H.R. 5758 at today's hearing.
    Extensive efficiency of residential appliances, lighting 
systems, and buildings alone would curtail 550 million metric 
tons of carbon dioxide per year. This amounts to the emissions 
from burning 606 billion pounds of coal. The intensity of 
energy use is contingent upon geographic location--case in 
point: Chicago heat waves and winters. However, a typical 
household may save up to 25 percent on their utility expenses 
through energy efficiency measures.
    In light of this, I remain deeply disturbed by the 
Department's failure to meet legal obligations for new 
efficiency standards and puzzled by this Administration's 
continued requests to slash funding for related programs. 
Therefore, I look forward to today's discussion on these 
policies that require active participation from the Department 
of Energy, states, and industry to implement these mechanisms 
to the benefit of ratepayers and consumers.
    I thank my colleagues, both on and off the Committee for 
their contributions to today's legislative hearing. With that, 
I recognize my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan, Ranking Member Upton, for 5 minutes.

    The Chair am now honored to recognize my friend my 
colleague, the great gentleman from the great State of 
Michigan, the great ranking member, Fred ``Great'' Upton, for 5 
minutes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr.  Upton. We are going to have to get you a MAGA hat with 
``Fred'' on it.
    [Laughter.]

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Thank you, my friend, indeed, my friend, and chairman of 
this great subcommittee for sure.
    This is going to be a good hearing. And today's legislative 
hearing is going to focus on six energy bills focused on energy 
efficiency and grid storage. I am pleased that most of these 
bills are, indeed, bipartisan and reflect close cooperation and 
compromise among our many members.
    I also want to welcome back Under Secretary Menezes, Mark, 
back to the committee to provide testimony on this first panel. 
Under his leadership, he served as chief counsel to the 
committee and helped us enact the Energy Policy Act of '05.
    And on the second panel, we have a range of witnesses 
representing and energy efficiency--advocates, architects, home 
builders, energy service companies that retrofit federal 
buildings. I look forward to gathering their views and 
suggestions to perform these bills.
    And as we lay the framework for a modern electricity 
system, we know that advances in energy storage and energy 
efficiency, indeed, will be critical. Not only will they have 
the potential to provide substantial benefits to consumers in 
the form of lower electricity bills, which we all want, but 
they are also going to help us balance the power grid and use 
less energy, which will, obviously, reduce emissions.
    DOE is dedicating substantial resources, cutting across 
multiple program offices and the National Labs, to accelerate 
the development, commercialization, and utilization of next-
generation energy storage and energy efficiency technologies. I 
look forward to receiving an update from DOE on the programs 
already in place and the Department's plan for the future.
    And as we work to modernize the electric grid, one of our 
top priorities is certainly going to be to make sure that new 
technologies being developed and commercialized are resilient 
to cyber threats. While it doesn't appear that these bills 
address cyber, today I would like to explore opportunities to 
address this critical need as well.
    With that, I want to turn to the bills to make a few 
remarks.
    I am pleased to support H.R. 4447, the Expanding Access to 
Sustainable Energy Act, introduced by Mr. O'Halleran and Mr. 
Mullin, a targeted bill to provide energy storage and microgrid 
assistance in rural areas.
    I also certainly support H.R. 5650, the Federal Energy and 
Water Management Performance Act, introduced by Mr. Welch and 
Mr. Kinzinger to codify DOE's existing Federal Emergency 
Management Program, which helps federal agencies meet energy-
related goals and facilitates public-private partnerships. It 
is a good program. It has been in existence for a good number 
of years, and it should be authorized.
    We also have H.R. 5758, the Ceiling Fan Improvement Act of 
2020, introduced by Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Schakowsky, to make 
technical corrections to the energy conservation standards for 
ceiling fans, a narrow fix for a specific type of ceiling fan. 
And it should be a no-brainer for us to support this bill as 
well.
    The other three bills before us may require additional work 
before moving through the full committee.
    H.R. 2909, the Promoting Grid Storage Act of 2019, 
implements a new government spending program that could be 
duplicative of existing programs and may not serve the 
interests of taxpayers or consumers.
    H.R. 1744, the S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act, which does impose a new 
regulatory mandate on states to consider technologies that may 
be infeasible or too costly, and H.R. 3962, the Energy Savings 
and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which is the ``kitchen 
sink'' of energy efficiency provisions, this bill has been 
around for a number of Congresses and some of the provisions, 
especially the Energy Codes, have been the subject of 
disagreement among stakeholders.
    With that, I look forward to our witnesses today, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's legislative 
hearing to examine six energy bills focused on energy 
efficiency and grid storage. I am pleased that some of these 
bills are indeed bi-partisan and reflect close cooperation and 
compromise among our members.
    I would also like to welcome Under Secretary Mark Menezes 
back to the Committee to provide testimony on the first panel. 
Under Secretary Menezes served as a chief counsel to the 
Committee and helped us enact the Energy Policy Act of 2005. On 
the second panel, we have a range of witnesses representing 
energy efficiency advocates, architects, home builders, and 
energy service companies that retrofit federal buildings. I 
look forward to gathering their views and suggestions to 
perfect these bills.
    As we lay the framework for a modern electricity system, we 
know that advances in energy storage and energy efficiency will 
be critical. Not only will they have the potential to provide 
substantial benefits to consumers in the form of lower 
electricity bills, they will help us balance the power grid, 
and use less energy--which will reduce emissions.
    The Department of Energy is dedicating substantial 
resources, cutting across multiple program offices and the 
National Laboratories, to accelerate the development, 
commercialization, and utilization of next-generation energy 
storage and energy efficiency technologies. I look forward to 
receiving an update from DOE on the programs already in place 
today, and the Department's plans for the future.
    As we work to modernize the electric grid, one of my top 
priorities will be to make sure the new technologies being 
developed and commercialized are resilient to cyber-threats. 
While it doesn't appear that these bills address cyber, I would 
like to explore opportunities to address this critical need as 
well.
    With that, I would like to turn to the bills to make a few 
remarks. I am pleased to support H.R. 4447, the ``Expanding 
Access to Sustainable Energy Act,'' introduced by Mr. 
O'Halleran and Mr. Mullin. This is a targeted bill to provide 
energy storage and microgrid assistance in rural areas.
    I am also supporting H.R. 5650, the ``Federal Energy and 
Water Management Performance Act,'' introduced by Mr. Welch and 
Mr. Kinzinger to codify DOE's existing Federal Energy 
Management Program, which helps Federal agencies to meet 
energy-related goals and facilitate public-private 
partnerships. This is a good program--it's been in existence 
for many years already--and it should be authorized.
    We also have H.R. 5758, the ``Ceiling Fan Improvement Act 
of 2020,'' introduced by Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Schakowsky to make 
technical corrections to the energy conservation standards for 
ceiling fans. This is a very narrow fix for a specific type of 
ceiling fan, and I support this bill.
    The other three bills before us today may require 
additional work before moving through Committee. H.R. 2909, 
``Promoting Grid Storage Act of 2019,'' implements a new 
government spending program that could be duplicative of 
existing programs and may not serve the interest of taxpayers 
or consumers. H.R. 1744, the ``STORAGE Act,'' imposes a new 
regulatory mandate on States to consider technologies that may 
infeasible and too costly. H.R. 3962, the ``Energy Savings and 
Industrial Competitiveness Act,'' is the ``kitchen sink'' of 
energy efficiency provisions. This bill has been around for 
multiple congresses and some of the provisions--especially the 
energy codes--have been the subject of disagreement among 
stakeholders.
    With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and 
gathering their suggestions. I plan to keep an open mind and 
encourage my colleagues to do the same. Let's reach across the 
aisle and get to work.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Pallone, the chairman 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, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to begin by welcoming back to the committee the 
Under Secretary, who served as a key staffer on the committee 
on energy matters for many years.
    Today, this subcommittee will review six bipartisan bills 
that continue our work to combat the climate crisis by 
improving energy efficiency and investing in battery storage 
infrastructure.
    Energy efficiency is a critical tool in our efforts to 
address climate change while also saving consumers money on 
their electric bills. Residential and commercial buildings 
contribute nearly 40 percent to our nation's carbon pollution, 
and today we are considering several bills that support the use 
of energy efficiency technologies in residential, commercial, 
and industrial sectors.
    Representatives Welch and McKinley have introduced H.R. 
3962, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, 
which includes a suite of measures to make buildings, 
manufacturers, and the federal government more energy 
efficient. The bill strengthens national building codes to 
ensure new homes and buildings are more energy efficient, and 
it helps manufacturers and the Federal Government transition to 
technologies that will reduce energy consumption.
    While there are many important provisions in this bill, 
there are a few provisions that concern me. The bill repeals 
Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007, which phases out the use of fossil fuel energy in federal 
buildings by 2030. To achieve a 100 percent clean economy, the 
Federal Government must lead by reducing its energy consumption 
and carbon pollution, and I can't support walking away from 
this strong standard.
    I am also uncomfortable allowing companies to self-certify 
that their products meet Energy Star standards. Consumers must 
have certainty that an Energy Star product they buy will 
actually save the amount of energy accompanying claims that it 
will.
    The subcommittee will also review H.R. 5650, the Federal 
Energy and Water Management Performance Act, introduced by 
Representatives Welch and Kinzinger. The Federal Government is 
the nation's largest energy buyer and consumer. The bill will 
drive major energy and water use reductions in federal 
buildings over the next decade.
    We are also considering H.R. 5758, the Ceiling Fan 
Improvement Act of 2020, which was introduced by 
Representatives Guthrie and Schakowsky. And this bill provides 
a technical fix for large-diameter ceiling fan efficiency 
standards.
    The subcommittee also has three energy storage bills to 
consider. They speed up adoption of this important technology. 
Building new energy storage infrastructure is critical to 
expanding renewable energy technology use. As the U.S. brings 
online more wind, solar, and other renewable energy, storage is 
key to providing reliable electric service.
    And today, we will be reviewing Representative Casten's 
H.R. 2909, the Promoting Grid Storage Act. This bill 
establishes programs and grants for energy storage research, 
technical assistance, and storage system pilot projects.
    H.R. 1744, the S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act, introduced by 
Representative Takano, amends the Public Utility Regulatory 
Policies Act of 1978, or PURPA, to require states to consider 
energy storage when developing energy plans.
    And H.R. 4447, the EASE Act, introduced by Representatives 
O'Halleran and Mullin sets up a grant program to assist Rural 
Electric Cooperatives with energy storage and microgrid 
projects.
    So, this committee will continue to work in a bipartisan 
fashion to boost energy efficiency, cut carbon pollution, and 
reduce consumers' bill. But, unfortunately, the Trump 
administration is moving in the opposite direction with the 
budget it released this week. The Trump budget cuts clean 
energy research, guts funding for the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy by an appalling 75 percent, and 
zeroes out weatherization assistance for low-income homeowners. 
These are all devastating cuts that would seriously undermine 
our ability to combat the climate crisis. Despite this 
administration's ongoing denial of the climate crisis, this 
committee will continue its work to modernize energy 
infrastructure, reduce carbon pollution, and make homes, 
businesses, and federal buildings more energy efficient.
    And we have six bipartisan bills before us that accomplish 
all these goals, and I commend the sponsors for their hard 
work, and yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    I would like to begin by welcoming back to the Committee 
Undersecretary Menezes who served as a key staffer on the 
Committee on energy matters for many years.
    Today the Subcommittee will review six bipartisan bills 
that continue our work to combat the climate crisis by 
improving energy efficiency and investing in battery storage 
infrastructure.
    Energy efficiency is a critical tool in our effort to 
address climate change, while also saving consumers money on 
their electric bills. Residential and commercial buildings 
contribute nearly 40 percent to our nation's carbon pollution. 
Today we are considering several bills that support the use of 
energy efficiency technologies in residential, commercial and 
industrial sectors.
    Representatives Welch and McKinley have introduced H.R. 
3962, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, 
which includes a suite of measures to make buildings, 
manufacturers and the federal government more energy efficient. 
The bill strengthens national building codes to ensure new 
homes and buildings are more energy efficient, and it helps 
manufacturers and the federal government transition to 
technologies that will reduce energy consumption.
    While there are many important provisions in this bill, 
there are a few provisions that concern me. The bill repeals 
section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007, which phases out the use of fossil fuel energy in federal 
buildings by 2030. To achieve a 100 percent clean economy, the 
Federal Government must lead by reducing its energy consumption 
and carbon pollution, and I cannot support walking away from 
this strong standard. I am also uncomfortable allowing 
companies to self-certify that their products meet ENERGY STAR 
standards. Consumers must have certainty that an ENERGY STAR 
product they buy will actually save the amount of energy a 
company claims it will.
    The Subcommittee will also review H.R. 5650, the Federal 
Energy and Water Management Performance Act, introduced by 
Representatives Welch and Kinzinger. The Federal Government is 
the nation's largest energy buyer and consumer. This bill will 
drive major energy and water use reductions in federal 
buildings over the next decade.
    We are also considering H.R. 5758, the Ceiling Fan 
Improvement Act of 2020, which was introduced by 
Representatives Guthrie and Schakowsky. This legislation 
provides a technical fix for large-diameter ceiling fan 
efficiency standards.
    The Subcommittee will also review three energy storage 
bills to speed up adoption of this important technology. 
Building new energy storage infrastructure is critical to 
expanding renewable energy technology use. As the United States 
brings online more wind, solar and other renewables, energy 
storage is key to providing reliable electric service.
    Today we will be reviewing Representative Casten's H.R. 
2909, the Promoting Grid Storage Act. This bill establishes 
programs and grants for energy storage research, technical 
assistance, and storage system pilot projects. H.R. 1744, the 
STORAGE Act, introduced by Representative Takano, amends the 
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to 
require states to consider energy storage when developing 
energy plans. And H.R. 4447, the EASE Act, introduced by 
Representatives O'Halleran and Mullin which sets up a grant 
program to assist rural electric cooperatives with energy 
storage and microgrid projects.
    This Committee will continue to work in a bipartisan 
fashion to boost energy efficiency, cut carbon pollution and 
reduce consumer's bills, but unfortunately the Trump 
Administration is moving in the opposite direction with the 
budget it released this week. The Trump budget cuts clean 
energy research, guts funding for the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy by an appalling 75 percent, and 
zeroes out weatherization assistance for low-income homeowners. 
These are all devastating cuts that would seriously undermine 
our ability to combat the climate crisis.
    Despite this Administration's ongoing denial of the climate 
crisis, this Committee will continue its work to modernize 
energy infrastructure, reduce carbon pollution and make homes, 
businesses and federal buildings more energy efficient. We have 
six bipartisan bills before us that accomplish all these goals, 
and I commend the bill sponsors for their hard work.

    Oh, I can yield to--where is the gentleman from California, 
Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman for yielding.
    I want to speak up briefly in favor of the Welch-McKinley 
H.R. 3962. Welch-McKinley strengthens national building codes 
to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy 
efficient and the code-writing process more transparent. It 
will deliver significant cost and energy savings for families 
without imposing any new mandates or increasing the deficit.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. It is my understanding 
that the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Walden, 
yields his allotted time, 5 minutes, to the gentleman, Mr. 
Latta. Mr. Latta is recognized for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you very much for holding this legislative hearing today.
    And I thank all of our witnesses for agreeing to testify 
today.
    Before we discuss the bills that are before us, I want to 
express my disappointment that we are not also discussing 
legislation I introduced, H.R. 2101, the Energy Star Program 
Integrity Act. No energy efficiency program has been as popular 
or effective as the Energy Star Program. This voluntary program 
allows manufacturers to obtain Energy Star labeling for 
products if specific energy-savings guidelines are met, 
benefitting consumers that are looking to purchase energy-
efficient products. Technologies that have complied with these 
guidelines have resulted in tens of billions of dollars in 
energy savings for families and businesses and a dramatic 
reduction in emissions.
    It is my hope that the majority will work with us to move 
H.R. 2101, which will improve and strengthen this great 
program.
    And before yielding back, I will ask if any other members 
on our side would like the balance of my time. And seeing none, 
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding today's hearing, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. It is my understanding 
that in the President's budget he cut the Energy Star Program 
out of the budget.
    Mr. Latta. Well, Mr. Chairman, again, if we could move 
forward with the bill, I would really appreciate working with 
the majority. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. All right.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all the members' written opening statements 
shall be made part of the record.
    Now I would like to welcome our first witness for today's 
hearing, the honorable Mark Menezes, the Under Secretary of 
Energy. And I certainly want to welcome you here, Mr. 
Secretary, and I want to thank you for joining us today. And we 
all are sitting on the edge of our seats awaiting your 
testimony.
    Before we begin, though, I would like to explain--and you 
are fully aware of it, but it is on the script here that I have 
to read, so bear with me--I would like to explain the lighting 
system. In front of you is a series of lights, as if you hadn't 
noticed. 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.
    Mr. Under Secretary, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MARK W. MENEZES, UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Mr. Menezes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Pallone, 
Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, indeed, it is an honor and 
a privilege to be back before this committee. I look forward to 
this hearing.
    Indeed, on the way over here, I was excited to hear that 
over in the other body Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member 
Manchin have announced that they are going to introduce a 
comprehensive energy bill later this month. And so, the work 
that we are doing here today is going to be very meaningful, 
and it is hoped that your committee can get together with the 
full committee and put some bills together. And perhaps we can 
help get bills considered in conference, much like we did back 
some many years ago now; sadly, when we last did a 
comprehensive energy bill, which was bipartisan and had full 
support, and embraced a lot of the policies.
    Today, I am privileged enough to be Under Secretary of 
Energy over at the Department of Energy, and I am actually 
implementing some of those very same provisions. Typically, on 
any day, walking down the hall, I am either praised for some of 
the foresight that Congress had seen in giving the Department 
of Energy authorities to do things, but on other days I am also 
blamed for some of the things that we put in that bill that 
perhaps can be improved upon. So, really, it is an honor to be 
here, and I look forward to our discussion today.
    I am going to touch on the six bills that we have. And I 
just want to remind everybody that the administration has not 
taken a formal position yet on these bills. We have provided 
some technical assistance in the drafting of these bills, 
particularly the Ceiling Fan Act, which I think has been 
touched on by members. And so, I won't go into that. But we did 
provide the technical assistance, and we believe that the bill 
is now technically drafted in a way that it can go forward.
    Regarding the Promoting Grid Storage Act, H.R. 2909, this 
requires the Secretary to establish a cross-cutting national 
program for research in the energy storage systems, components, 
and materials. It will require DOE to provide technical 
assistance and grant programs. Of course, the Department 
recognizes the critical importance for providing the technical 
assistance to state, local, and relevant stakeholders, but, 
indeed, we recognize the importance of storage generally. This 
is the true breakthrough technology that we have to achieve; 
that as we make our grid more flexible and we are bringing more 
renewables on, we need to be able to develop storage 
technologies of all types to be able to address the demands and 
the needs of the future on a more flexible grid.
    Indeed, the Department has recently announced the Energy 
Storage Grand Challenge. This builds on the President's fiscal 
year 2020 budget for promoting the Advanced Storage Initiative, 
which began at about $158 million, and we are now building on 
that to expand it to over $282 million. This is going to be an 
integrated Department R&D strategy to focus across the 
Department and drive American leadership in energy storage.
    Our Department's Grand Challenge takes a comprehensive 
approach to energy storage, recognizing the value of different 
technology pathways in providing the full range of services, as 
I mentioned, required by the grid and transportation 
infrastructure, to ensure that our system is reliable, 
resilient, and safe. Our Challenge includes traditional 
bidirectional electricity storage. That would be batteries, 
flywheels, pumped-storage, hydropower, and compressed air 
energy storage, thermal and chemical storage, and technologies 
that increase the flexibility of electricity generation and 
demand.
    Now this is a cross-cutting challenge. So, we draw on many 
offices and agencies within our Department. It is a 
collaborative effort leveraging our efforts by the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, our Office of 
Electricity, our Offices of Science, Fossil Energy, and 
Nuclear, as well as our Loan Programs Office, and ARPA-E.
    Existing technologies include the batteries, the pumped-
storage, controllable loads, distributed energy, resource 
management, microgrids, power system planning and operations, 
hybrid systems, power plant dispatchability, and, more 
importantly, cybersecurity. And it is on this foundation that 
the Energy Storage Grand Challenge will develop an R&D roadmap 
over the course of fiscal year 2020 to guide future Department 
efforts.
    I will say that, when you look at the legislation, to the 
extent, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Upton had said, if we can 
look at considering adding the cybersecurity component of this, 
because, again, we make things more flexible. We do not want to 
make them more vulnerable.
    H.R. 4447 that members have mentioned, this appears to be 
expanding a lot of what is in H.R. 2909 to the co-ops, and that 
it is also modeled after the SUNDA Project. This was a project 
that led to co-ops' solar capacity increasing tenfold in five 
years, and it has been a tremendous market success for solar 
technologies really without any federal mandates. So, that bill 
is for your consideration.
    H.R. 1744, this would add the energy storage systems to the 
list of strategies that states should consider. This is your 
classic 111(d). So, this is the national standards that would 
require the states to look at this.
    A couple of things on PURPA 111(d) for your consideration. 
One, consider that the world has changed. Back in the day when 
PURPA was passed, where you may have had only one or two 
companies within a state, remember today, because of now our 
integrated electricity markets, you may have multiple 
stakeholders in different states. And so, when you put this on 
the states, there may be companies that have to deal with 11 or 
20 or more states. So, each state will have to do it. So, just 
keep that in mind when you put this in PURPA 111(d).
    It is a good thing, also, to consider to give credit to 
states that might have already considered this, so you wouldn't 
have to have them redo it again. And we found that it was 
important to consider not only prior actions but a timetable. 
So, you want to incent them to take timely action, but you may 
consider sunsetting it just to make sure that you send the 
right message to the states.
     On H.R. 3962, this is a very comprehensive bill and quite 
creative in many respects. You all have heard what the bill 
does. Because I know I am already short on time, I just want to 
comment on a couple of things.
    One, the bill----
    Mr. Rush. Well, continue.
    Mr. Menezes. Do you mind if I just roll this quickly up?
    Mr. Rush. Yes, please. Please continue.
    Mr. Menezes. I know you all are tight on time as well.
    Mr. Rush. Yes. Please continue.
    Mr. Menezes. Congressman McNerney made the point about 
being voluntary. And indeed, certainly, it appears that way. 
There are some provisions in there that talk about how DOE 
shall update the milestones and shall provide technical 
assistance. So, the art will be in the draft, and we want to 
make sure that the Department can work in a way to make sure 
that the goals of the bill are accomplished, should it become 
law.
    We don't do everything that is in the bill there. We are 
not necessarily codifying things there. But, on some of the 
creative things, for example, on the rebate programs, there is 
a rebate program for motors; there is a rebate program for 
transformers. We don't do that now. So, there are some new 
things in that comprehensive bill.
    It is significantly broad that we are continuing to look at 
that bill. But I will say, from personal experience, that is 
the kind of bill that would fit in well with a comprehensive 
view as you are looking at these issues and if you begin to 
work with the other body toward a comprehensive solution to 
some of these problems.
    Finally, H.R. 5650, the Federal Energy and Water Management 
Performance Act, I will just say our comment here is that it 
does codify the FEMP program. It does create a FEMP Director 
that would make it a career SES. That is a little bit 
different. Right now, the Secretary has that authority. It is 
delegated to the FEMP Director.
    In addition to the current law that it codifies, it does 
add water performance requirements for the federal agencies. It 
creates a new metric and a new baseline, and it changes the 
baseline from an earlier date to 2018. It also provides 
different metrics to the current baseline. So, there will have 
to be a transition if you want to see a comparison of what we 
have been doing since 2003.
    With that, I think I have hit on all of my points. I know I 
have exceeded my time. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 
today, and I am ready to answer any questions that you might 
have for me.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time. We will conclude the opening statement, and we will move 
now to member questions. Each member will have 5 minutes to ask 
questions of our witnesses, and I will begin by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Before, I start my questioning, in my opening statement I 
mentioned H.R. 1714, but I want to correct that. It is H.R. 
1744, Mr. Takano's bill, the S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act. So, I want to 
clarify the record.
    Under Secretary Menezes, I want to again thank you for 
appearing before the subcommittee today, and though I 
appreciate your attendance, I remain dissatisfied with DOE's 
inaction on efficiency standards under the Trump 
administration. It is my intent to use the balance of my time 
to address these longstanding concerns.
    The President's most recent budget address has this quote, 
and I quote, ``Burdensome energy efficiency regulations,'' end 
of quote, to create, a new quote, ``a more effective 
implementation of the energy efficiency standards program.'' 
Secretary Menezes, how are delaying efficiency standards and 
proposed funding cuts to the energy efficiency program 
contributing to, again, ``a more effective implementation of 
the energy standards program?''
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you for the question, Chairman Rush.
    As all of you have heard me testify before, we have a full 
endorsement of catching up getting out these appliance 
standards. From administration to administration, it has always 
been a category of failure to meet the statutory deadlines 
category on appliance standards. We inherited it, and we are 
trying to reduce it. I pledge that we will strive in every way 
to meet the statutory deadlines. So, we are committed to 
meeting our legal obligations, including all the deadlines.
    I am happy to report that, just since last year, we have 
issued 26 notices relating to energy conservation standards and 
14 notices relating to test procedures, including seven final 
rules. I will say that, under our leadership, we have heard 
from you, and we have been doing our best to get these 
appliance standards out. It is a complicated process. It is not 
a simple thing. But we are doing our best, and we are proud as 
to what we have accomplished certainly since I have been over 
there.
    Mr. Rush. I am really concerned because we need, and the 
Department does not have the discretion to choose when or if it 
must follow congressionally-mandated laws or obligations. Do 
you agree with that?
    Mr. Menezes. No, sir, I mean, we have full intention of 
following all of our legal obligations. In fact, as I just 
mentioned, it is a high priority of ours, and we work with the 
office regularly to try to meet these demands. It is not a 
simple thing to simply go there. There is testing, and there is 
evaluation, and there is quite a stakeholder process involved. 
But you can compare our record against any prior administration 
on following the law and trying to get these appliance 
standards out.
    We have also taken the initiative to issue some new 
categories for appliance standards. Because one thing, as you 
know, it is important to meet consumer satisfaction and 
performance. We buy appliances so that they perform the job 
that we expect them to do. Energy efficiency for the sake of 
energy efficiency sometimes erodes performance standards. So, 
it is important that, as we get these appliance standards out, 
that it actually does the job that the customers buy the 
appliance for. So, for us, it is important to make sure that we 
get customer choice, consumer satisfaction, and performance 
standards while reducing energy efficiency--I mean increasing 
energy efficiency.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back. Now I recognize the 
ranking member, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I just want to say we appreciate the work that you have 
done on the new standards because it ought to be a focus of the 
Department. And we have had hearings in past years, and I think 
all of us on both sides of aisle have been somewhat frustrated, 
and appreciate the work in that regard.
    I would like to focus my attention really this morning on 
H.R. 3962, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 
Act. It is supported by a number of businesses and product 
manufacturers, but there are provisions--there is controversy; 
I guess you would say--as it relates to the building codes that 
are opposed by some groups, such as the home builders, who are 
going to be on the next panel after you depart.
    So, two things. What is DOE doing in the building code 
space today? And how would this bill, legislation, change that 
status quo?
    And Second, as it relates to this, there always seems to be 
a concern as relates to the payback period for the new code 
requirements and the increased costs that consumers are going 
to be forced to pay. Of course, from the home builders' 
perspective, it is always the homebuyer is going to spend--they 
know what their ``X'' amount is that they are going to spend on 
the house. And so, the home builder is trying to get as many 
things as they can within that ``X'' amount. But what is DOE 
doing to ensure that the model building codes are both energy-
efficient as well as cost-effective as it relates to these 
provisions? It is something that continues to haunt us as we 
try to get a bill through the committee and through the 
legislative process.
    Mr. Menezes. Right. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Upton, 
for the question. As I had mentioned, this is quite a 
comprehensive bill in many areas.
    Regarding the manufacturing, we support research 
technologies on federal buildings. We set the standards for 
green building certification, system requirements for new 
federal buildings, the major renovations, and revising 
performance standards for construction of new federal buildings 
and major renovations. We had mentioned our FEMP office.
    We establish standards for the federal green buildings, the 
third-party certification that we have going on now. We strive 
right now to set and certify the energy and water performance 
requirements for federal buildings. This is also with GSA that 
we work with. And we maintain a catalog of the products that 
have been designed, and we work with GSA to make sure that 
these standards are met and that federal buildings are 
contained in that.
    So, we have a fairly comprehensive approach today on this. 
Indeed, it is important because a significant amount of our 
energy that is being used today is in buildings. So, it is 
important that we get goals out there that industry can hit and 
meet.
    There are some technical probably details in that bill that 
I would probably need to get with staff as we review how the 
language is written regarding our role in setting these 
standards and increasing the standards, and getting them out. 
So, I am happy to work with your staff in looking at----
    Mr. Upton. If you can do that, I mean, I am not quite sure 
what the timeframe will be. This is a legislative hearing, and 
I presume that at some point in the near future, we will have a 
markup in the subcommittee and move forward. But if you can 
help us as we try to reach a consensus, the goal being that 
most of us here will be in support of the bill--it is sort of 
hard to be opposed to energy efficiencies in general 
buildings--so, if you can help us to really make sure that the 
bill is the best that it can be, and to bring us together, that 
would be useful. And I would encourage the Department to do 
that.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Peters for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for being here.
    In your testimony, you mentioned using ARPA-E as a tool for 
developing new technologies of storage. I am sure you are aware 
that the administration budget proposal zeroes that out. Do you 
have a comment on that? I assume you think that is a bad idea.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, we are committed to following 
congressional appropriations and direction. Our proposal 
focuses on ways that we think we can really target basic R&D. 
That is an important distinction to keep in mind. ARPA-E tends 
to focus on more of the applied, so our applications of 
technologies that have been developed.
    We look at focusing primarily on breakthrough technologies. 
We talked about storage.
    Mr. Peters. What would be the vehicle for that outside of 
ARPA-E?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, the way the Department currently is 
working. So, we issue funding opportunity announcements now. 
Much like the bill that we talked about on storage, it would be 
that Congress would appropriate monies. It might have some 
directive language in it. But we would put together a cross-
cutting plan to issue a funding opportunity where applicants 
can come in--industry, universities, not-for-profits--they come 
in; there is a cost-share requirement. But we push this out.
    And we have, under this administration at the Department, 
we have actually established an Office of Technology Transfer 
for the first time. So, it is important to try to kind of cross 
that valley of death, so to speak, so that when you come up 
with a good idea, and it works, maybe in the laboratory or 
maybe a pilot project, then you can push it out into the 
commercial area.
    So, ARPA-E has a separate budget from the Department 
generally, is an interesting creation of it. So, it has its 
separate budget. So, just keep that in mind when you look at 
the budget proposal.
    Mr. Peters. And the vehicle for what you just talked about 
was? Was it Office of Technology Transfer?
    Mr. Menezes. That is one of the offices there, but it 
would----
    Mr. Peters. How much funding does that get currently?
    Mr. Menezes. I am not sure of the funding. But it serves 
more of a function. It is a function to work with our program 
offices that issue the funding opportunities. So that when 
there are technologies that are pushed out----
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Menezes [continue]. At the Department, it goes 
through--what that office does is it pushes it out into the 
commercial sector.
    Mr. Peters. So, there is a cost associated with that, too? 
There is an appropriation associated with that, is there not?
    Mr. Menezes. I honestly would have to check. I am not sure 
if it is in the administration budget of the Department or if 
it is a special line item. I just don't know the answer to it.
    Mr. Peters. We would be interested in knowing--and maybe 
you could answer this for the record--what the funding 
requirements for that would be to achieve the goals you talked 
about. Because you referenced ARPA-E in your initial statement. 
So, that is why I asked about it.
    Mr. Menezes. I did.
    Mr. Peters. OK.
    You expressed some interest in amending or a different 
approach to H.R. 1744, the S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act, with respect to 
PURPA. Does the administration have a view on what we should do 
with PURPA? I will sort of give you the open-ended opportunity 
to address it without referencing----
    Mr. Menezes. The administration?
    Mr. Peters. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. I am not aware of a formal policy on PURPA of 
the administration, but I can check. I will say that FERC, 
which is an agency within DOE, has issued some modernization 
proposals on PURPA, on issues within its jurisdiction.
    Mr. Peters. Do you have an opinion on those, whether those 
are good improvements?
    Mr. Menezes. Well I believe, I think like most Members in 
the congressional branch, that it is always a good idea to 
modernize acts that might have been passed at a time----
    Mr. Peters. Sure.
    Mr. Menezes. I mean, PURPA was passed in 1978. I think it 
would be reasonable, whether you are an agency or whether you 
are a Member of Congress, to consider updating PURPA.
    Today's PURPA provision, though, it is 111(d). It is 
separate from the mandatory purchase obligations----
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Menezes [continue]. That FERC is looking at.
    Mr. Peters. Just while we have you, do you have any 
independent thoughts, while you are here, about what we should 
do with PURPA in general?
    Mr. Menezes. I think it is important to modernize it. I 
think you can look at it.
    Mr. Peters. Sure. Of course, we would all agree on 
modernizing it.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes.
    Mr. Peters. But do you have specific steps you would like 
to see within this term of ``modernization''?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, and these are my opinions only, based on 
probably my prior role----
    Mr. Peters. That's good.
    Mr. Menezes [continue]. Which I was actually looking in the 
opposite direction at the witness.
    And that would be, I think that it is fair that you look at 
avoided costs definition on states, because today our 
electricity markets have changed considerably. Back in 1978, we 
had vertically-integrated utilities. We had vertical markets. 
We had essentially natural monopolies in place. And all of that 
has changed.
    We also have quite a few other incentives for the building 
of renewables. I do think you ought to look at definitions--and 
we did this in 2005; we tried to modernize it as well. Back 
then, we looked at the cogen units, and I think it is fair to 
look at the small power production facilities as well.
    Mr. Peters. Thanks. My time has expired.
    Mr. Menezes. OK.
    Mr. Peters. I appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Menezes. And maybe you might want to look at 111(d) as 
well.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Under Secretary, thanks very much for being with 
us today. I really appreciate your testimony.
    Given your position and experience, I know that you have 
worked with the private sector to advance new technologies and 
solutions that would improve energy efficiency. Would you offer 
your perspective on the Energy Star Program and how important 
it has been to driving innovation in energy efficiency?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for that question.
    You can go back to the early days of the efficiency program 
and other efforts through 2005 on the Energy Star Program. This 
was a voluntary program where the Department would establish 
standards and, together with EPA, would essentially market 
appliances that would meet certain energy-efficient standards. 
I think that, generally, it has worked well with respect to the 
marketing of it.
    Regarding expertise within each Department, I think we 
might want to look at that and see if, in fact, we can make any 
improvements there.
    But, by all measures, the Energy Star Program is a good 
indication to consumers right away that it meets certain 
standards and that they can rest assured, knowing that the 
appliance that they purchase will have gone through a fairly 
rigorous process.
    Mr. Latta. Since there have been efforts to establish 
building codes to reduce emissions, could you talk about the 
instances of buildings utilizing Energy-Star-certified 
technologies for emissions reduction?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I think what you see is, on Energy Star 
on buildings, it is typically buildings and the builders of 
buildings like to include these Energy Star appliances in all 
buildings. I know I just recently had a chance to move closer 
to the Department, and it was a brand-new building. And 
throughout the entire building was all Energy Star products. In 
fact, it was a selling point.
    Together with the building codes that they meet today--it 
was not a LEED Building. You know, there are times when we do 
put the leading environmental and engineering design on there. 
That is another way that buildings can inform the public that 
they have made investments to meet performance standards and 
energy efficiency standards in the building. And the Department 
supports all these things.
    But I think it is working well. I think it is good to 
inform the consumers and anything that I think we can do to 
build on it would be positive. Again, I will say that I think 
it is fair to look at the relationship between DOE and EPA as 
we go forward.
    Mr. Latta. All right. Thank you.
    On the subject of storage, I have heard from electric 
utilities and rural co-ops--and just by coincidence, I have the 
largest number of rural co-ops in the State of Ohio in my 
district about the need for additional research and development 
into storage technologies. At the same time, since my district 
is home to 60,000 manufacturing jobs, I understand the need for 
reliable baseload capacity to meet these industrial needs. 
Would you discuss what DOE is doing to foster storage 
technologies while also keeping in mind the great demand for 
baseload capacity?
    Mr. Menezes. No, I appreciate the question. And in my 
opening remarks, I did go into great detail about what we are 
doing in the energy storage. It is important that it is a 
comprehensive approach, and we need to keep in mind that it 
includes just more than batteries. And we need to keep in mind 
that a stationary storage battery would be different from 
transportation batteries. So now, while we have made great 
advances in transportation batteries, when we look at grid-
scale storage, it might be different technologies.
    We also need to look at the critical minerals and materials 
that go into these batteries today. Today, we are overly 
dependent on China and other countries for some of the critical 
minerals and materials that go into these batteries. So, our 
effort is to try to look at new materials that can go into 
these batteries.
    Storage, as I had mentioned, is, indeed, truly, quote, 
``the holy grail,'' if you will, of really improving and 
integrating our grid of tomorrow. And that is going to be very 
flexible. It is going to include a lot of renewables. We are 
going to be driving down emissions. Indeed, EIA released its 
outlook the other day. For 2020, all new electricity 
generation, with the exception of the Vogtle Plant in Georgia, 
which is a nuclear facility using the AP1000, all new 
generation in the United States will be renewables and natural 
gas, both for 2020 and 2021. In 2020, 75 percent of the new 
generation will be renewables; 25 will be natural gas. And in 
2021, it is expected to be about 50/50. So, to accommodate 
that, battery storage will be important because it helps to be 
able to bring in these new sources of energy.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time 
has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Doyle is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding this hearing. The bills we are discussing 
today are important because reducing our energy consumption and 
building out new energy systems will be critical to reaching 
our goal of becoming a net-zero carbon emitter.
    Energy efficiency is a really effective tool because it not 
only reduces the need for energy infrastructure, reduces 
emissions, and provides thousands of jobs, but it lowers energy 
bills, leaving consumers with more money in their pockets. In 
fact, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy, by expanding energy efficiency programs through 
efforts such as improving industrial efficiency, retrofitting 
buildings, and improving appliance standards, energy efficiency 
has the potential to cut U.S. energy use and greenhouse gas 
emissions by 50 percent while delivering energy savings worth 
more than $700 billion by 2050.
    Energy storage is also a key component to a cleaner energy 
future because it is a multidimensional resource, that its 
applications are almost limitless. Importantly, it has the 
ability to truly unlock the full potential of renewables by 
smoothing out the intermittency of the energy they produce. We 
have already seen that by making renewables function more like 
baseload power, renewables plus storage are already able to 
replace some fossil fuel power plants.
    But storage is not just limited to helping renewables. It 
is also a key component of making the grid more resilient. It 
can be used in a microgrid to ensure that vital services have 
power during a disaster, and it can help delay or negate costly 
upgrades of transmission infrastructure by storing locally-
produced energy near customers.
    It is clear to me that we must expand the use of energy 
storage and energy efficiency to reach our climate goals and to 
continue reducing consumer bills while growing a clean energy 
workforce.
    Mr. Secretary, in your written testimony, you said that the 
Department is committed to creating and sustaining American 
global leadership in energy storage through the Energy Storage 
Grand Challenge. What is the Grand Challenge currently doing to 
advance energy storage research and development?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you, Congressman Doyle, for the 
question.
    And as I had outlined in my opening remarks, it includes 
many of the things that you mentioned in your statement. It is 
a comprehensive approach that will look at all types of 
different storage. It is not limited to one type or the other. 
It is hybrid system. It is to make sure that the systems can 
discharge electricity on demand over time--over time. It is 
just not simply a battery.
    Mr. Doyle. I understand what the goals of the program are, 
but what are you currently doing in this program, this Grand 
Challenge? What is currently going on that is advancing 
research and development?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. So, it is cross-cutting. We use a lot 
of different offices within the Department. We include EERE, as 
you had mentioned, Office of Electricity. That covers the grid. 
It includes the Offices of Science, batteries, pumped-storage, 
controllable loads, Distributed Energy Resource Management, and 
microgrids.
    Mr. Doyle. But are there any projects or programs? I mean, 
it is a Grand Challenge to advance the R&D. Is there anything 
going on right now?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. Yes. So, we have the Advanced Storage 
Initiative. We have a program that is in Colorado right now 
that has an integrated grid. It is over at NREL, which is our 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is an integrated 
grid in real time. So, it has the wires; it has component parts 
in real operation.
    We also have announced at PNNL--now this is in Washington 
at our lab. We have the grid storage launchpad. This, too, will 
involve setting up the technologies that will serve as storage 
in real time.
    Mr. Doyle. OK.
    Mr. Menezes. We are building a facility out there.
    Mr. Doyle. I want to ask you a couple more questions, and I 
see my time is going down.
    One of the challenges we have with energy storage is that 
most of the commercial batteries can't provide energy for more 
than four hours. I am curious, what is the Department doing to 
advance research on longer-term storage solutions?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, that is a key factor. Our Program Office 
of Fossil Energy, in particular, and elsewhere, we are driving 
to expand the time that it takes to store, fast-charge, the 
length of time that you can keep a charge, the dispatchability 
over time, the number of times that you can call on it to 
discharge. It has to act like a baseload.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. All right? So, you have to have it when you 
need it, but it has to be able to discharge it. And it has to 
do it repetitively on demand. These are enormous challenges.
    Mr. Doyle. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes. But the key is that there is a difference 
between these stationary storage technologies and the 
transportation storage technologies. So, if you have a battery 
in a car, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can have a 
battery that can withstand those rigors that we need to 
address.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. McMorris 
Rodgers for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Storage and efficiency are two crucial components to any 
sustainable energy strategy. Eastern Washington is on the 
cutting edge in innovating to help America lead on both fronts. 
For instance, hydropower, pumped-storage, is a great solution 
for increasing grid flexibility with the ability to store and 
produce electricity when demand is high.
    On energy efficiency, Avista in Spokane, Washington, is 
currently working with a group of companies on a first-of-its-
kind energy-sharing ecodistrict. It is about five blocks in 
Spokane and creating one of the most sustainable building 
complexes in the world. This ecodistrict will be centered on 
zero emission, zero carbon, catalyst building, and a central 
clean energy plant that will enable the district to operate in 
its own self-contained green grid using thousands of state-of-
the-art IOT sensor devices, solar panels, thermal and battery 
storage, and sustainable building materials like cross-
laminated timber.
    These types of innovative projects are going to help 
America lead the world in a clean energy future. And I am proud 
that much of this innovation is happening in eastern 
Washington.
    I am interested in learning today how the federal 
government can complement what the private sector is already 
doing. So, the question is, the Pacific Northwest National Lab, 
PNNL, just mentioned, coordinates much of the energy storage 
work that DOE performs on batteries, specifically large-scale 
batteries for the grid and relatively small batteries for 
electric vehicles. As they say, better batteries drive better 
technology. Can you talk about the work being done at PNNL on 
materials, manufacturing, and the design of batteries?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question.
    And indeed, after much deliberation, we chose to site the 
grid storage launchpad at PNNL, in part because of many of its 
expertises. Our job is to help educate folks as to what goes on 
at these labs because a lot of our labs were created for 
reasons that we couldn't go into initially, but now it is time 
to educate the population.
    PNNL is a great example. It is a chemistry lab and it is a 
cybersecurity lab, among other of its many things, its 
expertise. And the importance of chemistry in these batteries 
is very important, grid-scale. So, we chose PNNL. We are making 
investments there.
    What we hope to do is not only to find new chemistries and 
new materials necessary to be the world leader on this, but we 
also want to make sure that the complexities in integrating 
into the grid are also met. And so, that is what we hope to do 
there.
    We have to factor in cybersecurity. It was another great 
location there because, as you know, PNNL has been a leader in 
developing some of the diagnostics that, frankly, our 
intelligence communities are using to help make sure that our 
energy systems are secure and safe.
    Combined with the research that we are doing there, we 
will, then, develop the public-private partnerships because we 
do think that that is the best way to be able to drive these 
technologies out, so that utilities, companies, and communities 
can take what we are developing there and help develop these 
kinds of microgrids, the integrated microgrids, et cetera, that 
you describe.
    We also have several of those around the country where DOE 
has helped support, and tried to bring communities together and 
all the stakeholders together to describe what you just 
described, the many different ways to go about it to be able to 
get an integrated, modern grid using right now the best 
technologies that we have.
    But we need to do better, and that is what the Department--
and the Department should be doing that, right? I mean, private 
industry is going to be doing a lot. You can see announcements 
every day that customers want, many of them want 100 percent 
renewable. Many utilities are looking at ways to bring in 
battery storage and storage on their systems.
    In the Pacific Northwest, we have had energy storage for 
years; we still do.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. It is great. It is storage, right?
    Mrs. Rodgers. Natural, yes.
    Mr. Menezes. It works well, and complements renewables. It 
is great. Not all places in America have that.
    Mrs. Rodgers. There is lots of potentials, though.
    Mr. Menezes. There is plenty of potentials.
    Mrs. Rodgers. The largest natural battery is behind a lot 
of dams across the country.
    I will have one last question. PNNL estimates the energy 
storage market could be more than 3 billion by 2022. What is 
DOE doing to help America stay on the forefront and customers 
reap the benefits?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. So, the thing here, when you look at 
what the Department can do with our labs, breakthrough 
technologies really do not occur in the labs, as you would have 
expected in the old days where it is experiment after 
experiment after experiment, and you learn through the 
scientific method then. Today, it is modeling. It is modeling 
and remodeling, and it is a development of new materials.
    I mean, just think about that for a minute. These are 
materials that do not exist, that through the modeling, you are 
going to create. And when you layer over the artificial 
intelligence, so that we can look at all the data that we are 
getting, we are going to be able to drive to get to those new 
materials that are going to be necessary. So that they can 
withstand the demands that we are going to put on them to have 
the modern grid of the future.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentle lady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    Mr. Secretary, as far as I can see, DOE hasn't completed a 
single new or revised appliance standard developed during the 
Trump administration. Rather, it has missed one legal deadline 
after another for updating standards. Chairman Rush touched on 
this issue, but I wanted to get into a bit more detail.
    And it is not the first time I have asked you about these 
missed statutory deadlines. In January 2018, you testified 
before this committee and gave, I quote, ``full-throated 
support to meeting statutory deadlines''. You said, and I 
quote, ``The Department is committed to following the law, to 
having these changes in place according to the deadlines that 
are set in statute.'' You specifically gave the committee 
assurances that DOE wouldn't slow-walk or stall efficiency 
rules.
    Now, from your time on this committee, I think you are a 
person who doesn't give his word lightly, and I think you meant 
what you said. But two years have passed since those statements 
and the Department has only fallen further behind and the 
number of missed deadlines has only increased. In January 2018, 
DOE had missed eight statutory deadlines for new standards. The 
total missed deadline count now stands at 21. And the 
Department has yet to complete a single updated standard.
    So, let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, you just told Chairman 
Rush that DOE has published seven final rules in the last year. 
How many of these seven final rules were published as a result 
of a court order only after DOE held the rules for three years 
of the seven?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question.
    I am not sure I can answer that question precisely. So, 
allow me to get with my Department and find out.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. I mean, please get back to us. My 
understanding is it is about four.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, that is over half.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, four that were only by court order, is 
what I am pointing out. But, again, you have to get back to me. 
I don't want to answer the question. I want you to answer it.
    How many of these seven final rules are related to light 
bulbs? Can you answer that?
    Mr. Menezes. Again, I will have to get back.
    Mr. Pallone. All right.
    Mr. Menezes. You are talking about a final rule. I will 
have to get back to you.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Has the DOE issued any final rules fully developed under 
this administration that advance efficiency? In other words, 
that were actually developed by the Trump administration, have 
there been any that were fully developed under the Trump 
administration that advanced efficiency, yes or no?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, again, these are rules--you know, you 
inherit a process. Each administration doesn't come in and 
start from scratch.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I understand, but I think the answer you 
don't want to give me, but I think it is no because----
    Mr. Menezes. No, but the answer I want to give you is that 
in the last year--you are quoting 2018 numbers. I respect 
that,but----
    Mr. Pallone. But, Mr. Secretary, look----
    Mr. Menezes. But my point is that over the last year, we 
have been making tremendous progress.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, I don't agree with that because you 
can't answer--you say seven final rules, but it seems like----
    Mr. Menezes. Well, you are asking me very specific 
questions, and I am happy to----
    Mr. Pallone. I mean, you can't tell me whether or not you 
developed--look; my point is, it is very nice to say you have 
seven final rules. But if you were forced into them by court 
order, OK, or if they were actually done to try to make things 
less efficient, that doesn't count, in my opinion. They have to 
be final rules that were done by this administration because 
they were actually trying to advance efficiency, and it seems 
to me there aren't any in that category----
    Mr. Menezes. Let me respond.
    Mr. Pallone [continue]. Unless you can give me one.
    Mr. Menezes. Let me respond to that. One thing that we have 
proposed is the Process Rule, because when you look at the 
efficiency standards----
    Mr. Pallone. I understand. Look, it is three years. I only 
have a minute----
    Mr. Menezes. But just allow me to answer it. Just allow 
me----
    Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to know if there was anything 
that you developed that actually advanced efficiency that you 
did on your own without the court telling you that you had to 
do it. And you can't answer it. So, I think the answer is no, 
or you certainly are hinting that there is nothing like that. I 
just want to see action from the Department to update and 
finalize efficiency standards that will actually save consumers 
money and that you are actually doing as opposed to just, you 
know, responding to some court order. That is all I am asking 
for, and not things that are making things worse and not 
advancing efficiency, but are making things less efficient. 
That is where it seems to be going.
    In fact, many times the Department or the President almost 
imply that they don't want to do things that advance 
efficiency; they want to make things less efficient. And to be 
perfectly honest, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, we 
are all in favor of energy efficiency. This isn't a partisan 
issue. But unless you can point out some case where you are 
actually doing this because you want to, I have doubts about 
it. Go ahead.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, just give me a couple of seconds to 
respond.
    Mr. Pallone. You have got, sure, 20 seconds. Sure.
    Mr. Menezes. Because I stand by the fact that we are 
absolutely committed to try to meet these statutory deadlines. 
Now, interestingly, when you get there, the first report you 
get is a category of status on appliance standards, and there 
is a category that says, ``Failure to meet statutory 
deadlines.'' We inherited that category. That is a category. In 
fact, I asked my general counsel, ``Is this a new category?'' 
He says, ``No, no, no, this has been in existence for some 
time.''
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Menezes. Just please allow me to finish. One thing that 
we did is the Process Rule. So, we have all these appliance 
standards and they are all statutory. You know, they are not 
prioritized by statute, right? They are all treated equally.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. But when you look at how much time the 
Department has to implement all these appliance standards, what 
you find----
    The Chairman. But these are just excuses, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Menezes. Just allow me to finish, please.
    TheChairman. But you are not answering the question.
    Mr. Menezes. But just let me tell you what we are doing.
    TheChairman. The question is, are you actually doing 
anything to promote efficiency? And you are giving me all 
bureaucratic answers about the process. But whatever, it is 
hopeless, Mr. Chairman.
     Mr. Menezes. So, what we have discovered is that we are 
spending 40 percent of our time on efficiency standards that 
will essentially save only four percent energy off of a 
baseline. Forty percent of our time is chasing four percent on 
energy savings. OK? Sixty percent of our time is on energy 
efficiency standards that result in 96 percent efficiency 
gains. So, all we are saying is let us prioritize those and let 
us go forward on that.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Flores for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Under Secretary Menezes, thank you for being here 
today.
    You were talking in the last set of questions/responses 
about new materials and new technologies for grid-scale 
storage. One of the things I am very concerned about is the 
environmental impact and the impact of certain societies on 
lithium-ion batteries. Why don't you talk a little bit about 
the greatest challenges to advancing grid-scale storage that is 
both environmentally-friendly and doesn't cause slave labor or 
human trafficking issues in other countries?
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you for the question.
    Two important points on that. One, on the recycling of 
lithium, for example, lithium batteries. So, today, we 
recycle--many of you remember the lead-acid batteries. I grew 
up with lead-acid batteries. Recycling was an issue. Today, we 
recycle almost 99, almost 100 percent of lead-acid batteries. 
We recycle much, much less, maybe five to ten percent of 
lithium batteries today.
    So, we put in place a battery recycling beyond lithium. We 
want to recycle that. We want to reuse the lithium. We want to 
reclaim the lithium. And so, that is just good housekeeping.
    Mr. Flores. But beyond lithium--I mean lithium still has 
environmental challenges that are huge so, where do we go 
beyond lithium?
    Mr. Menezes. Right.
    Mr. Flores. What is it that is used to get to the next 
battery storage solution?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, that is our breakthrough technology 
efforts. So, we have the Beyond Lithium Program, and that is 
the research and development that I have been talking about 
before. That looks at new chemicals, new technologies, solid 
state, any number of different ways. And many of our labs are 
investigating these new materials.
    I want to say that, with respect to lithium, this goes to 
the earlier point, right? While we have lithium available, we 
have to find ways that we can process it here in the United 
States so that we can lessen our reliance on other countries 
that provide us the critical mineral.
    Mr. Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. So, that is a hallmark of what we do. In fact, 
we have an initiative at the Department on critical minerals.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Let's move to a different subject. As we 
know, our electricity grid has been probed by bad actors 
overseas and maybe a few domestically as well. And that is our 
current legacy system, transmission, generation, distribution, 
and so forth. If we incorporate a new technology, and that is 
grid-scale storage, it seems to me like we ought to be building 
cybersecurity mitigation and defense into that from the outset. 
How is the DOE proposing to do that?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, what we did when we got over there, 
Secretary Perry and Under Secretary Brouillette, or Deputy 
Secretary Brouillette, we set up an Office of Cybersecurity, 
Energy Security, and Emergency Response. It goes by CESER. We 
have put the resources in to address the threats that you 
mentioned.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Moving to the next step, one of the bills 
we are looking at is the S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act. Is there any 
additional language that ought to be included to address 
cybersecurity?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. We talked about that earlier. Indeed, I 
think that it would be very helpful if we could put some 
provisions in there on cybersecurity for several reasons. One, 
it shows the congressional intent to make sure that we put 
resources there. It sends the message to our appropriators. And 
so, it certainly helps, because we have limited resources 
there.
    Mr. Flores. In that regard, one of the things we have 
noticed over in the telecommunications space is that we have 
bad actors like Huawei that have known security vulnerabilities 
for anybody that uses Huawei equipment. There may be challenges 
from Chinese supply chains or the impact of Chinese supply 
chains on components for our electrical grid, including 
storage. What should we be doing about that?
    Mr. Menezes. Excellent question. And we are doing what we 
can. In addition to creating the CESER office, what we are 
working on is, certainly, working with our intel communities--
and I can't get into it in a public setting--but we are 
identifying these actors. We are identifying the potential 
threats.
    We are also working with the supply chain providers to make 
sure that those that make the new devices that we are putting 
on our grid to make them more flexible, and more modern--you 
know, the sensors, the phasers, the industrial operating 
systems that we need to make it more flexible and to modernize 
it--we need to make sure that they are protected as well.
    Mr. Flores. OK.
    Mr. Menezes. So, we are working with our labs. We are 
working with industry. We are working with the intel 
communities to ensure that we can identify the makers of these 
systems that we use, and we are making sure that they are as 
secure as they can be in the new cyber world.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. Mr. McNerney is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the chairman.
    And I thank you, Mr. Under Secretary, for your service and 
for your testimony this morning.
    I am going to stray a little bit from the topic of energy 
storage to the topic of storage of nuclear waste, if you don't 
mind too much. I am the lead sponsor of H.R. 2699, the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Amendment Act of 2019, along with my good friend 
and colleague, Mr. Shimkus. This bipartisan bill came out of 
committee on a voice vote highlighting the desire of our 
members to break the logjam and address the pressing issue of 
nuclear waste storage.
    In a reversal from previous budgets proposed by the Trump 
administration, the recently-released fiscal year 2021 request 
omits any money for the licensing of the stalled Yucca Mountain 
Nuclear Waste Repository. Instead, the President has been 
quoted as saying that his administration will be, quote, 
``exploring innovative approaches for long-term storage of 
nuclear waste''. Can you, Mr. Under Secretary, elaborate on 
what types of innovative approaches are under consideration?
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you for the question.
    Indeed, the President recognized the importance of us doing 
something with the nuclear waste that we have stored across our 
country at the nuclear facilities. He also recognizes that the 
law of the land is, indeed, permanent repository at Yucca 
Mountain. He is, as everybody that cares about this issue, 
frustrated in the fact that, still, we have not been able to 
get the resources or the authorization that we need to be able 
to license Yucca.
    So, what he has called on is going to be an interagency 
process with states, with the stakeholders, so that we can get 
together and we can try to figure out a way forward on this. It 
has been, as you expressed, the urgency to address this, it is 
costing us $2 million a day as we continue to delay the 
permanent storage, and we are trying to find a path forward to 
build on some of the ideas. But that is the goal here.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, how does the administration envision 
getting the approval of the states that would be involved in 
the storage?
    Mr. Menezes. It will be a process and that is important. 
What we are trying to do is to put together a process that will 
give us a path to permanent storage at Yucca. So, it will be a 
difficult way to go. But, rather than just simply pointing a 
finger at one another or at Congress or at other agencies of 
not going, we are going to get everybody together----
    Mr. McNerney. I see your frustration, but I did ask what 
innovative approaches are being considered, and I haven't heard 
anything about that yet.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, it is going to be some of the things 
that you have in your bill. For example, I mean, it is interim, 
potentially the interim storage, whether it is private, whether 
it is public, the location, who might help pay for some of the 
cost. It is going to be a comprehensive view of that, so that, 
ultimately, we can find the ways to a permanent repository. 
Unless Congress decides to change the law and name another 
place for a permanent repository than Yucca--and Congress can 
do that; that is the law--we have got to figure out how to get 
there.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, we are going to have to cooperate to 
get something done; that is for sure. The current law only 
allows you to do one thing with regard to addressing the issue 
of nuclear waste, as you just mentioned. What do you think 
legislation would be necessary to change that?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. Well, again, the administration hasn't 
taken a position, please. But the Shimkus bill, your bill on 
interim storage, Congress needs to direct us to focus on 
interim storage. Otherwise, right now, the permanent storage is 
the repository at Yucca Mountain. So, Congress can actually 
help.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you for giving us that power.
    Mr. Menezes. You have the power. We hope that you use it to 
help us.
    Mr. McNerney. The Interim Storage Program would be subject 
to the approval of the states under consideration or Indian 
tribal land----
    Mr. Menezes. In your----
    Mr. McNerney [continue]. In our bill.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, right.
    Mr. McNerney. So, considering the President stated that his 
fiscal year 2021 budget requests support for, quote, ``the 
implementation of a robust interim storage plan,'' do you 
envision the DOE increasing research into storage programs, in 
the different innovative programs?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I hope it complements the process that 
we have established to go through. So, I would like to work 
with you and your staff to make sure that our process 
complements perhaps the goals in your bill. I think that is----
    Mr. McNerney. I mean, there are different approaches that 
are being recommended. So, we need research into deciding if 
those are viable or not.
    Mr. Menezes. We have definitely learned that lesson with 
Yucca. You are going to need the science. You are going to need 
the research. You are going to need everything it takes to 
address this very difficult issue.
    Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thanks to the Under Secretary for being here.
    H.R. 1744 calls for making changes to PURPA, requiring that 
state electricity regulators must consider investments in 
energy storage when doing resource planning. I have been a 
leading advocate on this committee and in Congress for 
modernizing PURPA. As you may know I am sure, late last year, 
FERC announced plans to update regulations related to PURPA. 
Many of those changes in their regulatory reform mirror changes 
in PURPA that I have called for in my bill, H.R. 1502, the 
PURPA Modernization Act. Things like stopping the gaming, 
implementing innovation, and the like, those things are 
important.
    The changes, and these regulatory revisions are long 
overdue--I think you identified that already--significantly 
long overdue. PURPA worked. It moved us forward in looking at 
the means by which we could have renewables and other energy 
issues dealt with. These changes should provide state 
regulatory authorities much-needed flexibility to ensure that 
consumers continue to benefit from lower energy prices, and 
specifically, results from shale innovation and the revolution 
there.
    Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, does H.R. 1744, the 
S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act--and we have been talking about storage 
here--but does it address any of the real reforms necessary to 
reflect today's new technologies, abundance of competitively-
priced energy supplies, or last but not least, the needs of 
consumers?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you very much for the question and 
thank you very much for your leadership on the PURPA issues. 
You know, it is sort of an arcane law in many respects. But 
your leadership on this, and your willingness to get down and 
look at some of the----
    Mr. Walberg. Arcane is an understatement at this point.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Menezes. Yes. Regarding the bill before us, it clearly 
amends 111(d). And so, in the PURPA world, we know that is 
separate from a lot of what FERC is working on. FERC is sort of 
working on the mandatory purchase obligations; 210(m) I think 
it is. And you know, we tried to address to a lot of that in 
2005 on the cogen units. Today's small power production 
facilities may be a problem, but FERC is looking at that.
    Today's bill is 111(d), and 111(d) really doesn't go to any 
of the things that you had mentioned with respect to needing to 
reform PURPA. This bill adds to--I think we are up to over 20 
of the national standards where it looks at storage. And it 
puts the burden on states to open up a docketed proceeding, 
have stakeholders come in, get comments, and within each 
state--and each state is different, right? Some states are in 
PJM. Some states are in regulated markets. Some are in bid-
based markets. Each state is potentially unique in coming into 
compliance on this 111(d).
    As I had mentioned, this is not a small undertaking. States 
do take the 111(d) seriously because it is a federal mandate to 
do it. And if you have them do it within a certain time period, 
this is going to take quite a bit of resource.
    And as I had mentioned earlier, today, our energy has 
gotten, our energy system has gotten to be that many 
stakeholders operate in multiple states. And so, today's bill--
and again, the administration has not taken a position pro or 
against, but just in my own personal experience, you have to 
cover a lot of states, all dealing with this. And just keep in 
mind that it just takes resources from the states as well as 
the individuals.
    However, it does set forth a national standard. And in the 
absence of a mandate, a 111(d) PURPA, you know, does serve a 
purpose. So, after the time period, we can get all the data 
together and we can see. Some states will choose to go forward; 
some states will not.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I think the benefit of today, though, 
here in Congress, is that this has support from Members of both 
sides of the aisle----
    Mr. Menezes. Yes.
    Mr. Walberg. [continue]. In doing something, in 
modernizing, in dealing with storage, et cetera. Can a case be 
made that it might be harder to fully measure the benefits of 
storage technology if PURPA is not modernized from its current 
outdated regulations?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I know PURPA needs to be updated. That 
is an interesting question. Really, I guess I----
    Mr. Walberg. I guess what I am getting at is, with the 
benefit of having support from both sides of the aisle, in 
dealing with PURPA, we would love to have the administration 
jump in with us and push as hard as possible to move to the 
modernization, to deal with the storage issues as well.
    I see my time is over, but I did want to get that point in, 
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Menezes. We look forward to working with the committee.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kennedy. Sir, thanks for being here. Thanks for your 
testimony.
    And, Chair, thank you for having this important hearing.
    Mr. Secretary, as a part of the 2021 budget request 
released by the Trump administration on Monday, DOE would set 
aside $97 million for the Energy Storage Grant Challenge 
Program and $40 million for the grid storage launchpad. Can you 
discuss in a little bit of detail the specific goals that DOE 
would like to achieve with the Grand Challenge?
    Mr. Menezes. Right, and thank you for the question.
    And I have articulated this. This is going to be a 
comprehensive approach using many of the offices within the 
Department. So, it is both comprehensive in technology and in 
use. It is also comprehensive in us drawing in all the 
expertise within the Department. So, we will include the 
applied offices, but we will also go to the Office of Science, 
where we get their best work there. We had mentioned ARPA-E 
before. We have ARPA-E and some of their projects. And so, we 
are pulling together all of the efforts across the Department 
and its labs to be able to focus on pulling together all the 
expertise, so that we can help design not only the products, 
but the way that they would be applied.
    And then, we also have set up the Office of Artificial 
Intelligence and Technology office. And so, to the extent that 
we create data as a result of this, we will be able to use that 
to further make advancements on materials and applications.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
    And can you explain if the goals of the grid storage 
launchpad have changed at all since it was first proposed in 
2020?
    Mr. Menezes. Our goals?
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes, have the goals changed since 2020 to 
today?
    Mr. Menezes. We have added on the initial goals. So, 
initially, it was sort of a physical location to where we were 
actually going to build things and put in place, which is a key 
part. But we have now expanded it. It is important to know that 
we have expanded it to bring in basic R&D to help develop new 
products, materials, et cetera, that can be used in it to help 
further the expansion of the actual grid storage. So, together 
with modeling and new materials, we will be able to add to what 
we are doing.
    Mr. Kennedy. And you mentioned ARPA-E. Do you think they 
would have something to add in the development of those two 
programs as well?
    Mr. Menezes. Sure. So, it is cross-cutting. We draw on all 
of the offices that are involved in storage in any way. So, 
ARPA-E tends to be the applied side, but its tremendous results 
there could be used in further development of basic R&D.
    Mr. Kennedy. So, thank you.
    Both the programs, as I understand it, Mr. Secretary, seek 
to entice innovation in storage technologies, which is great. 
You can probably see where this is going. Once again, DOE is 
proposing to eliminate the Office of ARPA-E, which is, 
arguably, the office most poised to make significant advances 
on breakthrough energy technologies, especially on the storage 
front. And you just described some of the results there as 
``tremendous''. So, if ARPA-E has been important on such 
research and development innovation, why does DOE continue to 
call for its elimination?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thanks for the question.
    ARPA-E focuses more on applied science, and applied 
technologies. That is, it is no longer basic R&D, right? You 
can force it out to commercialize it. OK, and we think that 
public-private partnerships can do that.
    For the role of the government, it is important that the 
government spend its limited resources--we only have so much 
resources--on basic R&D, because this is what the private 
sector is not doing. The energy sector is so competitive today, 
that gone are the days when companies can have the luxury of 
having like Bell Labs, right, and have their own huge R&D. I 
mean, some companies do, but, generally, the times have 
changed.
    The government plays the role in looking at the 
technologies that don't exist, the new materials that don't 
exist. And you can use the taxpayer resources to really drive 
that. ARPA-E is set up to take what has been developed and to 
push it out commercially. Okay? And to complement ARPA-E on 
that, we have established the Office of Technology Transfer. 
Okay, and that is where we are setting up these public-private 
partnerships.
    Mr. Kennedy. Understood, and I guess the only thing I would 
highlight, and we can move on, but given that you have 
described the success as ``tremendous,'' given the fact that 
you have said that there is an important for it to play, I do 
think it is interesting that the administration continues to 
call for the elimination of the office. That is it.
    Mr. Menezes. Right, but we do have the obligation to make 
sure that appropriated monies are spent. And so, we have that 
commitment. So, we do follow the law over there. This is the 
President's proposal. And like I said, the reason why the 
President's proposal makes sense, this is to distinguish the 
important role of the government to really focus on basic R&D. 
That is where taxpayer dollars, in our view, should really be 
spent.
    Mr. Kennedy. Fair enough, sir.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to align myself with Mr. McNerney's 
comments about Yucca Mountain. I think he is spot-on. But, as a 
fiscal conservative, I don't see the nation spending more money 
for an interim storage site when we have already spent so much 
ratepayer money and tax dollars on Yucca Mountain to get it to 
the point that it was. That is throwing good money after bad.
    And we have interim storage right now, and that is 
currently where the nuclear waste is sitting. That's onsite at 
the commercial reactors around the country, 38 states and 122 
sites. The permanent solution, the national solution, the 
national problem is Yucca Mountain. We need to get behind the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. We need to get Yucca 
Mountain back on track. And I appreciated your comments there.
    Shifting gears to the topic of the hearing today, there are 
direct costs to the consumer for more stringent building codes. 
And Mr. McIntyre, the president of the National Association of 
Home Builders, who is going to testify, I think, in a little 
while, but he testified in front of this subcommittee last 
September that each $1,000 of regulatory cost displaces about 
127,000 households from the market. We all support saving 
energy and there is a natural incentive to do so because it 
saves money, but in your opinion, what role should the federal 
government play in energy-efficient efforts?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, we have a role to play, as you just 
heard me talk about, in doing basic R&D to make sure that we 
can make new materials and that the public-private partnerships 
can take it out and implement it. One thing that this 
administration stands for--and I think that it is evident in 
the results of the economy today--is we have stood for 
deregulation. OK. We have found that, if you lessen the 
regulations on people, they will be creative and innovative, 
and they will be able to do the things that their consumers 
need, and they will be able to do it in a most efficient 
manner. We reformed the tax code, and you can see the evidence, 
again, in the economy today.
    So, we believe that, without the mandates, and you provide 
incentives for people, that that is the way to encourage 
behavior. And it is the same thing, whether it is building 
codes or anything else, that usually gets the best results, and 
we see that.
    We are leading the world in energy, in greenhouse gas 
emissions, not because it has been mandated on us. It is 
because we are making choices that result in that.
    Mr. McNerney. I think, given a choice, a consumer is going 
to pick the most energy-efficient appliances readily available, 
as long as there is not a huge price-point difference. But when 
we see policies like what Berkeley County, California, has done 
with banning natural gas, so the consumer doesn't have a choice 
in choosing a very efficient natural gas appliance. Now they 
are forced into an electrical appliance that may not be as 
efficient, but it is based on the desire to end the fossil fuel 
usage. So, shouldn't builders and consumers be able to choose 
if natural gas appliances make more economic sense, depending 
on where they live, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach of 
stretch codes in H.R. 3962? Wouldn't you agree with that?
    Mr. Menezes. I would.
    Mr. Duncan. You have answered a lot of questions. I am 
toward the end here. Let me just finish with this. I want to 
revert back to the Yucca Mountain for just a second, and remind 
members of this committee, and remind people watching this 
hearing, that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that set up Yucca 
Mountain imposed a fee on ratepayers in this country for the 
construction and operation of Yucca Mountain, ratepayers as a 
portion of the utility bill, pennies at a time, but the 
consumer didn't have any choice of whether they wanted to pay 
that or not.
    As small as South Carolina is, South Carolina ratepayers 
have paid upwards of $3 billion for Yucca Mountain. That is 
just in South Carolina. In thirty-eight other states, 
ratepayers paid that as well. That is on top of the tax dollars 
that we are paying now every year. So, South Carolina has 
gotten nothing for that $3 billion investment, money that was 
confiscated in every utility bill that South Carolinian 
ratepayers paid for a long period of time. It is time to get 
the Yucca Mountain back on track.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes thegentle lady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Under Secretary, the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, did it spend all of the money that Congress 
allocated last year?
    Mr. Menezes. Oh, thank you for asking me that question. I 
have some good news.
    Ms. Barragan. It is a yes or no. Did they or not? Did they 
spend all the money that Congress allocated?
    Mr. Menezes. For fiscal year?
    Ms. Barragan. For last year.
    Mr. Menezes. For fiscal year 2019?
    Ms. Barragan. Correct.
    Mr. Menezes. Right? So, for fiscal year 2019, we have 
completed selections on all but one of the FOAs, and we have 
been consistent or ahead of schedule when compared to the past 
five years.
    Ms. Barragan. So, have you guys spent all of the money, yes 
or no, other than this one little program you are telling me 
about?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, we have a good record on that. I can get 
you the specific numbers, but----
    Ms. Barragan. So, there is an article that says a third of 
the budget was unspent. Is that not accurate?
    Mr. Menezes. So, this is going to get into a little 
arcaneness here. So, monies, we issue FOAs. All right. And 
then, we----
    Ms. Barragan. OK. So, let me ask you a simple question.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes.
    Ms. Barragan. Are you spending 100 percent of the money 
that Congress is allocating on the programs for energy 
efficiency?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, so we are complying with the law.
    Ms. Barragan. Yes?
    Mr. Menezes. And we are spending it as rapidly as we can.
    Ms. Barragan. OK.
    Mr. Menezes. There are some of these----
    Ms. Barragan. But you haven't yet----
    Mr. Menezes. There are some of these obligated, but unspent 
monies that will be spent. But when you just do the 
bookkeeping, you will see that there is a carryover amount, but 
they are obligated and they will be spent over the life of the 
project.
    Ms. Barragan. OK.
    Mr. Menezes. So, it is not like you spend all your money in 
one year. It is physically impossible because these are very 
technical challenges and they are negotiated.
    Ms. Barragan. OK.
    Mr. Menezes. And we expect to pay over the years.
    Ms. Barragan. Mr. Under Secretary, I reclaim my time. I 
have another question I want to get to.
    Mr. Menezes. OK.
    Ms. Barragan. I am asking you because I read an article 
that indicated that the Office of Energy Efficiency cancelled 
$46 million in grants for solar research and development before 
they could be awarded. Is that true or not true?
    Mr. Menezes. No, that is a false statement.
    Ms. Barragan. It is a false statement?
    Mr. Menezes. It is a false statement.
    Ms. Barragan. You guys haven't cancelled any dollars for 
solar research and development before they could be awarded?
    Mr. Menezes. No. If we reissued a FOA, that is something 
completely different. The process was not finished. And we 
reissued the FOA and the monies went out. So, it is a false 
statement. I am not sure who read that. I don't know why you 
would believe everything you----
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, that is why I am asking you, Mr. 
Under Secretary, because I want to make sure to get the 
answers.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, that is a false statement.
    Ms. Barragan. And we will follow up with you with that 
article.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes.
    Ms. Barragan. So that we can make sure to expect 
disparity----
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, if that is what they said, and, you know, 
the context may make it different, but that is false.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Are you aware that on the website for the 
Energy Department, it says, ``On the Energy Star''--rather, on 
the Energy Star Program's website, it says, ``Energy Star 
products saved American families and businesses $30 billion in 
2017.'' Do you agree with that? Do you agree that the Energy 
Star Program saved American families some $30 billion in 2017?
    Mr. Menezes. I don't dispute that figure, although I don't 
know what the exact figure is.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. And according to your Department, nearly 
600,000 Americans are employed in manufacturing or installing 
Energy-Star-certified appliances. Do you believe that is 
accurate?
    Mr. Menezes. Again, I don't know the specific numbers. I am 
not disputing it. I just don't know if the numbers----
    Ms. Barragan. Well, it is by your own Department. So, we 
will just say yes.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I--OK.
    Ms. Barragan. So, does the Trump administration's proposed 
budget--have you seen the proposed budget? Let's start there.
    Mr. Menezes. I have.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Do you stand by the Trump budget?
    Mr. Menezes. Of course.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. I am just checking.
    Mr. Menezes. I am a Trump official.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, you know, we have had people come in 
here that don't exactly, you know, aren't on point and they may 
vary a little bit different. So, I just wanted to make sure.
    When you looked at the budget, does the Trump budget 
eliminate money for the Energy Star Program?
    Mr. Menezes. It might. I am not sure I know all the 
specifics.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, let me tell you that it does.
    Mr. Menezes. Why don't you tell me what you have read?
    Ms. Barragan. It does cut money for the Energy Star 
Program. And I just don't understand why. Because if the Energy 
Star Program is saving Americans billions of dollars, if it is 
creating and employing hundreds of thousands of people, it 
doesn't make sense to me why we would be cutting opportunities 
to save American dollars when it comes to energy efficiency and 
jobs and energy efficiency.
    And so, maybe what I will do----
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I will tell you why. I will tell you 
why.
    Ms. Barragan. Maybe what I will do is I will just follow up 
with you----
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, please do.
    Ms. Barragan [continue]. About that.
    I want to----
    Mr. Menezes. Can I just say something positive about this, 
right? So, you hit the nail on the head. In EERE, in 
particular, they have been very good about establishing 
milestones. When you see the congressional justification for 
it, across all the offices, whether it is levelized cost of 
energy, whether it is performance, cost per kilowatt hour, they 
have been measuring their success going back years. And we have 
continued that today.
    And what you see is we have driven down these prices. We 
have driven down these efficiencies such that it is fair to ask 
the question, do we need to continue to spend money to drive it 
down even more? We have historic low natural gas prices. Our 
prices for renewables are really driven down. I mean, it is 
hard to complain about it. With limited resources, were you to 
spend additional monies for breakthrough technologies, to maybe 
get off of photovoltaics, for example--photovoltaics in a lot 
of ways is horse and buggy. OK. We have liquid crystalline 
perovskite that is the solar device of the future. And yet, we 
still seem to be overly focused on driving down the cost of 
photovoltaics, which really is not the way of the future. The 
government should be doing that, not so much the private 
sector, but it is fair to say that the government should be 
spending money to look at that.
    Mr. Rush. The gentle lady yields. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. McKinley for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
having this important meeting.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to focus back on the issue of the 
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, the 
sensitive building code sections. Now I spent most of my 
career, probably I hate admitting it, but like 55 years in the 
construction business dealing with building codes. But one 
thing we have learned in our practice with the firm I used to 
have was how to work with the code and how to work in energy 
efficiency. My former firm was probably, well, it was the first 
firm in West Virginia to get LEED certification for a school 
building, and we are very proud of the fact that we understand 
energy efficiency. We understand how we can make those changes 
with it.
    So, when I came to Washington, one of the first things we 
did was to try to be an extension of what we have already 
learned, put in practice the things we learned in the private 
sector to help out other people with that. So, we have worked 
with numbers of Democrats in a bipartisan way and more recently 
with Peter Welch. Peter is, unfortunately, not able to be here 
today, but we are talking about the McKinley-Welch and the 
Shaheen-Portman legislation that has passed the Senate now 
twice. So, we want to deal with this. We want to get this. But 
I am sorry that Peter can't be here on this.
     But the concern I am hearing is involving DOE. I want some 
assurance from you, if you could, on that, knowing how the 
codes work and how the modifications would be; we don't have 
that DOE steps in here and doesn't use a heavy hand. I 
understand in our legislation it is not mandatory for states 
and municipalities to adopt the new code or the changes that 
are made, but I want to make sure--I want them to adopt it. So, 
the concern is, how heavy? I think you answered part of it a 
little bit with the gentleman from Michigan, something about 
being cooperative with it, how things have worked out. So, tell 
me a little bit about how you are not going to use a heavy hand 
when it comes to recommending or implementing changes to the 
National Building Code or the International Building Code. Can 
you share some of that with me?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question.
    And I don't want to give the impression of using a heavy 
hand. I do look forward to working with experts like you to 
fully understand the provisions of the Act. And just really, my 
only observations were, in reading the Act, the part with the 
building codes, my understanding--that is Chapter 1, right?
    So, it is similar to the Portman bill in that it comes out 
and it says that it is voluntary.
    Mr. McKinley. It is voluntary.
    Mr. Menezes. And then, when you go through it, then you see 
a series of ``shalls,'' which we know are mandatory. And I am 
not arguing or complaining one way or the other. I am just 
saying that the voluntary program, it may be a voluntary 
program overall, but DOE will have obligations in a voluntary 
program that seem to say that we will need to develop new 
standards--again, I am just making observations, making sure 
that is the intent--and that we will have to grade how these 
states, tribes, and others are either implementing or not. And 
we kind of have to do a grading of them. We also have to make 
sure that we provide technical assistance. And as long as 
monies are appropriated for that, that is fine, but----
    Mr. McKinley. But the premise of it, Mr. Secretary, is----
    Mr. Menezes. I want to make sure we are not talking past 
one another.
    Mr. McKinley. Yes, Mr. Secretary, I want to make sure that 
the standards that are set, I want municipalities to accept the 
code. I just want to hear some assurance that DOE will not be 
using a heavy hand on this; that they are going to be 
cooperative; they are going to work together. Because what we 
don't want to have in our housing stock is causing standards to 
be so that it raises the cost of housing. Therefore, when we 
have an issue of affordability, we are not exacerbating that 
problem. So, as long as I can get some comfort from the DOE 
that they are going to be more cooperative----
    Mr. Menezes. Well, let me give you that assurance. And 
please do not misinterpret my comments on a legal reading of it 
in any way----
    Mr. McKinley. OK.
    Mr. Menezes [continue]. To speak for the experts in our 
Department that have been working with industry to try to make 
standards that are affordable to everyone. We do not accomplish 
anything if, as you say, we are too heavy-handed and we set 
standards either no one can meet and they are never implemented 
or they are too costly, and they never are used. So, you have 
my complete assurance.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
    Mr. Menezes. And please do not misinterpret my remarks.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I yield back my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary, welcome.
    The Department of Energy deserves a lot of credit for the 
past decade in supporting the technological developments and 
cost reductions we have witnessed in energy storage, but there 
are still big challenges. And I know that Mr. Doyle covered 
this area a bit when he talked about long-term seasonal 
storage. But can you give us a sense of what the Department is 
doing in terms of long-duration and seasonal storage, and how 
those technologies will likely be needed to realize very high 
levels of renewable resources on the grid?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. And, you know, we talked, we have 
touched on that, right? To start, for example, you can make a 
distinction between efficient batteries used in transportation. 
We think it is ubiquitous now in electrical vehicles and 
lithium-ion, for example. But when you go to grid scale, you 
have to look not only at size, but, as we talked about, it is 
seasonal. It may make a difference in technologies on location, 
right?
    So, not every battery grid storage that you might make can 
withstand the harsh environments of New England, the Pacific 
Northwest, or the arid Southwest. So, these are technical basic 
research and development you need in chemistry and materials 
and in modeling that is going to help us do that. And that is 
what we are bringing all together.
    So, when we talk about storage, it is just not one-size-
fits-all and it is not that you can just go take a bunch of 
lithium-ion batteries and throw them up and expect to have a 
resilient and a safe storage system that can make our grid 
modern in an economy----
    Mr. Tonko. Or storing energy in soil or what----
    Mr. Menezes. Well, we are looking at all aspects. We are 
not limited to batteries. We are having a conversation about 
batteries, but, as we talked about earlier--and you might have 
come in a little bit after that--but, I mean, it is pump hydro 
where we can do it, right? It may be compressed air. It can be 
all media, is what we look at.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Turning to lithium-ion batteries, we know we 
are going to see a lot more deployed in EVs and on the grid.
    Mr. Menezes. Right.
    Mr. Tonko. DOE launched the Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling 
Prize to identify innovative solutions for collecting, sorting, 
storing, and transporting spent and discarded lithium-ion 
batteries for eventual recycling and materials recovery. These 
batteries rely upon critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and 
nickel. Can developing a domestic industry for recycling and 
reuse of these materials help reduce our reliance on foreign 
sources?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir. And, indeed, that is one of the aims 
that we had of announcing that challenge. As I had mentioned 
before, we might recycle maybe five to ten lithium-ion 
batteries now and we are overly dependent on other countries to 
provide us with these necessary elements. So, we are looking 
for material changes. So, if you go to our labs today, and if 
you go through our offices today, you will see us really trying 
to develop new materials to take the place of the lithium and 
the cobalt.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, it is my understanding that Europe is 
currently recovering about 60 percent of its lithium in the 
economy. So, it can be done.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. And the U.S. is dreadfully behind that at around 
5 percent.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. Do you believe additional DOE support can help 
bolster domestic recycling and recovery of critical minerals?
    Mr. Menezes. I do. I mean, it is part of the educational 
process, right? And just look at the educational process on 
lead-acid batteries, right? We are almost 100 percent right now 
today on the acid batteries. It can be the same thing with 
lithium. We just need to make the public aware. They will start 
treating all the devices that they have probably more as a 
recyclable item. And it is important that those that, frankly, 
make the product and sell these products have the obligation.
    One thing at the Department that you should be aware of, we 
are now calling on all the developers of new materials, whether 
they are in our labs or in the private sector, that if you make 
a new material, you should not leave any environmental legacy 
to our children or grandchildren. Those days should be over. 
So, when we make new materials, it has to be a complete 
circular economy, if you will. If you make a product, it needs 
to be recycled and reused.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. And some of these batteries could have a 
second life.
    Mr. Menezes. Correct.
    Mr. Tonko. Has DOE looked at how to help encourage reuse of 
EV batteries for grid applications?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes. I mean, that is part of the grid storage 
challenge that we have. So, we take existing materials, and if 
we can make improvements on them, we can find out we can make 
greater use; we can recycle them and upcycle them, if you will, 
to increase their efficacy.
    Mr. Tonko. And it is also a priority to ensure that we are 
avoiding environmental and safety risks----
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tonko [continue]. From disposal. Can the recycling of 
used batteries also help facilitate safer disposal?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is part of our 
recycling Grand Challenge.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, I appreciate your responses.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate it.
    It is nice to see you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Menezes. It is nice to see you.
    Mr. Griffith. It is my understanding that the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Water Power 
Technologies Office is investing in closed-loop pumped hydro 
storage technologies and designs. Last Congress, my legislation 
that streamlined the FERC process for these projects with a 
two-year permitting goal was enacted into law. What role do you 
see for pump storage in meeting our grid-scale energy storage 
needs?
    Mr. Menezes. As we mentioned today, it plays a significant 
role. Right now, it is playing a key role in the Pacific 
Northwest and in your district as well, Smith Mountain Lake, I 
believe, and it has been a great asset to have. Indeed, 
others----
    Mr. Griffith. Just so my constituents don't think I am 
lost, Smith Mountain is just outside of my district.
    Mr. Menezes. Oh, just outside?
    Mr. Griffith. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. OK. All right.
    Mr. Griffith. But that is OK. A lot of my constituents go 
there and we get power from there.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I think it is on my way to your 
district.
    Mr. Griffith. It is, absolutely.
    Mr. Menezes. Smith Mountain Lake. Sorry about that.
    Mr. Griffith. That is all right.
    Mr. Menezes. But, again, it is an example----
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Menezes [continue]. Of what you are talking about. And 
I think that we have other opportunities across America. We 
have a lot of hydro out there. To the extent that we can begin 
to integrate some of the hydropower, that is a clean, 
renewable, available resource. The technology is tried and 
true.
    Mr. Griffith. Now in the closed-loop pump storage that, we 
got some language changed on, because the water comes--it is 
not native water; it comes from outside. What we were hoping to 
do is stimulate some use in the mines of central Appalachia. We 
have got the permitting process under control. Are there other 
challenges that you know of to advancing this pump storage 
closed-loop technology?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. I mean, permitting is always going to 
be a challenge. It is a hallmark of this administration that we 
try to streamline, not eliminate----
    Mr. Griffith. Right.
    Mr. Menezes [continue]. But we streamline the process. And 
so, to the extent that we can help with other agencies, we are 
happy to do so. We provide technical assistance to help in the 
permitting process and to try to get it done timely.
    Mr. Griffith. Now I am going to switch gears just a little 
bit, and I know I am a little off-topic from the discussion 
that is on the marquee today.
    Mr. Menezes. It won't be the first question that has been 
raised today.
    Mr. Griffith. That has been done? Yes. But you and I and a 
number of other Members in a bipartisan group went to Puerto 
Rico a couple of years ago. One of the things I was struck by, 
we were in a town up in the mountains, and there was an 
abandoned hydro project, a smaller project. It struck me that, 
even if we had that operational, even if it was just going to 
supply the local hospital or the high school as a shelter with 
electricity, it was worth having those types of facilities out 
there. I think we should use Puerto Rico as a testing ground 
for some microgrids because I think it could be helpful in 
other areas like my district in central Appalachia in times of 
disaster. But you can't just suddenly say we are going to do it 
overnight. So, what is the Department of Energy doing on 
microgrids that might be helpful in times of disaster to have 
something already there and small hydro?
    Mr. Menezes. You might be aware that the Department has 
been working with groups in Puerto Rico to help identify areas 
where you can establish the microgrids, right? And so, it is a 
combination of locations. I am not sure if one of them actually 
involves that, but it could very well be. But the concept is a 
good one, right? It is you have got available natural 
resources. You have infrastructure in place. It might need to 
be modernized. But, at the end of the day, you can have an 
integrated microgrid that can go both ways. So, it can help the 
provide necessary power in Puerto Rico to help stabilize the 
grid or, if the system shuts down, it can continue to provide 
its electricity to those that are connected to the microgrid.
    Mr. Griffith. Right. And certainly, with the various 
disasters we have seen in Puerto Rico, they could use something 
like that.
    Now I don't know if I am the last questioner or not, but we 
are getting near the end of your questions. Is there anything 
that you wanted to talk about today that you have not had an 
opportunity to address?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you very much.
    No, I do think that there is an opportunity here to have 
the committee work with your full committee and pass some 
bills, right? Again, the administration doesn't take a 
position, but the Department stands by, ready to work with the 
House and your colleagues in the other body, that if they see 
fit to begin to pass energy legislation, it will be an 
opportunity for us to bring our technical expertise, and we 
look forward to working with you throughout the process.
    Some of us in this room have been through this before. We 
know it can be done. It is timely. Things need to be 
modernized. We would look forward to doing that.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, you are always good to work with, and 
even when we might disagree occasionally, you are always glad 
to get us the facts. And we appreciate that.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And I am not going to 
make a commentary.
    That concludes our first panel. I want to thank you, Mr. 
Under Secretary, for joining us today to testify on these 
hearings.
    And The Chair now asks the staff to prepare the witness 
table, so we can begin our second panel.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Under Secretary, for your testimony.
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you very much.
    And I will say that your members continue to ask as hard of 
questions as they asked when I was Chief Counsel. So, thank you 
very much----
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    Mr. Menezes [continue]. For the opportunity to be here.
    Mr. Rush. All right.
    Will the second panel please join us at the witness table?
    We will now hear from our second panel of witnesses. And I 
want to welcome this panel of witnesses and I want to thank you 
for your patience as we concluded the first panel.
    Our second panel of witnesses includes:
    Ms. Kelly Speakes-Backman who is on my right. She is the 
chief executive officer of the Energy Storage Association.
    Ms. Julie Hiromoto, the principal of HKS, Incorporated, on 
behalf of the American Institute of Architects.
    Mr. Arn McIntyre, the president of McIntyre Builders, on 
behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.
    Mr. Lowell Ungar, the senior policy advisor for the 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
    Ms. Jennifer Schafer, who is the executive director of the 
Federal Performance Contracting Coalition.
    And Mr. Bryan Howard, who is the legislative director of 
the U.S. Green Building Council.
    Again, I want to thank each and every one of you for 
joining us today, and we look forward to your testimony.
    At this time, The Chair will recognize Ms. Speakes-Backman 
for 5 minutes to provide your opening statement.

 STATEMENTS OF KELLY SPEAKES-BACKMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
  ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION; JULIE HIROMOTO, PRINCIPAL, HKS, 
     INCORPORATED, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF 
  ARCHITECTS; ARN MCINTYRE, PRESIDENT, MCINTYRE BUILDERS, ON 
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; LOWELL W. 
 UNGAR, Ph.D., SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN 
ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY; JENNIFER SCHAFER-SODERMAN, EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING COALITION, AND BRYAN 
   HOWARD, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL

               STATEMENT OF KELLY SPEAKES-BACKMAN

    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation 
to speak today on the legislation proposed to promote 
innovation and modernization of the grid with energy storage.
    ESA is the national trade association working toward a more 
resilient, efficient, sustainable, and affordable electricity 
grid enabled by energy storage technologies. With 190 member 
companies, ESA represents a diverse group of stakeholders, 
including manufacturers; implementers; system operators, 
including municipal and cooperating utilities, and other 
services, all involved in deploying energy storage. We 
represent a broad technology base that includes 
electrochemical, thermal, mechanical, process, chemical, and 
pumped hydro storage.
    Energy storage enables electricity to be supplied from any 
source to be saved for use later, exactly when, where, and in 
whatever form it is needed. Essentially, it decouples the 
elements of time from when it is generated and used, enabling 
vast amounts of capabilities, be it backup power, peak demand 
reduction, alleviating stress to grid infrastructure, firming 
variable generation sources like solar and wind, or maintaining 
optimal function of inflexible generation sources like nuclear. 
I provided testimony speaking to the nature of energy storage, 
the many applications it can provide, some data on the prolific 
market growth and cost declines, and a few examples of the 
types of end-users.
    Today, approximately 2500 megawatts of battery storage are 
installed or under development in the U.S., with megawatt-scale 
installations planned or operating in 29 states. Battery 
storage specifically, their deployments are forecast to triple 
this year, representing over $3 billion of investment by 2021. 
These statistics are staggering.
    For the purpose of today's hearing, though, the remainder 
of my remarks will focus on the three pieces of legislation 
under consideration by this committee.
    First of all, we applaud the subcommittee for considering 
the Promoting Grid Storage Act, H.R. 2909, which we have 
endorsed, as have the American Public Power Association and the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. This bill 
would create a competitive grant program at DOE for state and 
local governments, utilities, public power authorities, and 
rural co-ops, to incorporate storage into long-term planning 
and grid operations. We particularly appreciate that in this 
bill the local entities would be empowered to identify the 
modeling support and the locations that will best serve their 
systems and share the investment responsibility and construct a 
competitive proposal for cost-share.
    We are pleased to see H.R. 2909 has bipartisan, bicameral 
support. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has 
incorporated the major provisions of this bill into an amended 
version of the BEST Act, Senate bill 1602, which it reported 
favorably last fall. The House Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee is also advancing components of the BEST Act falling 
under its jurisdiction in H.R. 2986. We encourage this 
subcommittee to advance the Promoting Grid Storage Act in 
parallel with these efforts.
    We believe that, by creating public-private partnerships, 
the widest range of private partners can also be eligible to 
advance those demonstrations. Therefore, ESA asks the 
subcommittee to ensure that program eligibility, as specified 
in Section 6(a)(2)(F) is available to private sector entities 
as well, similar to the Senate Energy and the House Science 
bills. ESA also recommends that the subcommittee harmonize the 
technology definitions in Section 1, the listed priorities in 
Section 4, and the listed objectives in Section 6 with those 
from the BEST Act bills in those committees.
    The EASE Act, H.R. 4447, would create a new program of 
technical assistance to Rural Electric Cooperatives to 
undertake planning for energy storage and microgrid projects. 
ESA believes the Promoting Grids Storage Act actually may 
already accomplish the aims of the EASE Act, but we commend the 
focused assistance to cooperatives that the EASE Act provides.
    The S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act, or H.R. 1744, would amend Section 
111(d), as you heard in the panel before, of PURPA to direct 
states to consider energy storage in utility resources planning 
for supply purposes. There has been remarkable progress in 
utility planning for storage over the past several years. In 
just the past four years, utilities in more than 20 states have 
selected energy storage for their long-term resource plans.
    We emphasize, though, that energy storage can perform the 
services of transmission and distribution assets as well as 
generation assets. It is critical that storage be considered in 
infrastructure planning, not just supply planning. We welcome 
the opportunity to discuss how regulations as proposed in the 
S.T.O.R.A.G.E. Act can complement these programs.
    In conclusion, I just want to thank you for the opportunity 
to be here today. It is a privilege and an honor to sit on the 
panel with such esteemed colleagues.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Speakes-Backman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. [Presiding] Thank you.
    We will ask the witnesses, when it is your turn, make sure 
your microphone is on and pull it close to you, so that we can 
hear you.
    Ms. Hiromoto, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JULIE HIROMOTO

    Ms. Hiromoto. Thank you.
    Good afternoon, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and 
members of the committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the 
legislation before you today. Building sector energy use is a 
deeply important issue to me and my profession.
    I am a licensed architect with the firm HKS, based in our 
Dallas headquarters office. I am also a member of the American 
Institute of Architects, a professional association of 95,000 
architects and allied professionals who work to advance our 
nation's quality of life through design. Since 1857, the AIA 
has fought to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. 
I am also The Chair of the AIA's Committee on Environment, 
COTE.
    I applaud the House Energy and Commerce Committee for their 
serious work to consider how the built environment is 
contributing to our nation's climate crisis and how it may 
become part of the solution. The building sector alone accounts 
for almost 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, GHG. Roughly 
11 percent come from embodied carbon, meaning the greenhouse 
gas emissions produced by the creation of building materials 
and construction. Building operations contribute roughly 28 
percent. To get that down to zero, we must end building's 
dependence on fossil fuels.
    To that end, in 2009, the AIA established the 2030 
Commitment to help architectural firms reduce energy 
consumption in all new buildings and retrofits to 70 percent 
below the regional average for that building type and to reduce 
fossil fuel use to zero by 2030. These goals align with the 
policy put forth in the Energy Independence and Security Act, 
EISA, of 2007, which sets targets for federal buildings to 
decrease overall energy use and to phase out the use of fossil 
fuels. The AIA was a firm supporter of that bipartisan policy, 
signed into law by President George W. Bush.
    I want to thank the lead cosponsors of H.R. 3962, the 
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, Congressman 
Welch and Congressman McKinley, for their work to promote 
building energy efficiency. By establishing Building Training 
and Assessment Centers, the bill provides beneficial support to 
architects and other professions in the building industry to 
learn new energy-efficient design and best practices. It 
requires the Secretary of Energy to encourage and support the 
adoption of building codes by states and municipalities. Most 
importantly, the bill reestablishes the energy efficiency 
targets of ECPA with an updated baseline year.
    Despite the positive provisions, the AIA is deeply 
concerned that the bill also includes the repeal of Section 
433, the current policy that requires the phaseout of fossil 
fuel use in federal buildings. As we have in the past, the AIA 
strongly opposes this repeal and cannot support the bill with 
the inclusion of that provision. We urge the committee to 
strike that provision and move forward with the other important 
updates in this bill.
    Energy efficiency and energy sourcing are not a replacement 
for one another. We must urgently address both. This is a 
mathematical necessity if this committee is going to achieve 
its announced goal of a zero carbon economy by 2050.
    In our profession, the reduction of energy use and the 
decision of where energy should come from are two parts of the 
same conversation. We start with reducing energy demand, then, 
absorption and conservation strategies. And finally, the 
generation of renewable energy is the last piece to offset the 
nominal remaining energy demand. Please see my written 
testimony for more specific examples.
    Some have argued that the move to entirely renewable energy 
sources is not yet possible in all places, and therefore, the 
government should back away from this policy. But this 
misunderstands the way industry responds to market challenges. 
Large-volume and iconic projects must lead the way, as they 
have the unique ability to capture the public's imagination. 
The federal government building portfolio, under the GSA, is 
both large and iconic. And as the client, the U.S. Federal 
Government should demand that it meets its own goal. The GSA 
has done impressive work in achieving the targets set out in 
energy use reduction and energy sourcing. Their hardest work 
should be supported by this Congress and not undermined by 
repealing Section 433.
    Finally, I urge the committee to consider America's role as 
a leader in reducing global reliance on fossil fuels. This is 
what the climate crisis demands.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hiromoto follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
    Mr. McIntyre, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF ARN MCINTYRE

    Mr. McIntyre. I am not sure who to address. The face has 
changed up there.
    But, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and members of 
the committee, I am pleased to appear before you today on 
behalf of the more than 140,000 members of the National 
Association of Home Builders and to testify in opposition of 
Subtitle A of H.R. 3962, the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act of 2019.
    My name is Arn McIntyre. I am a home builder from Grand 
Rapids, Michigan. As a home builder, I deal with energy codes 
every day and I understand how different energy-efficient 
features impact the performance of homes and the experience of 
their residents.
    As long-time leaders in the drive to make new and existing 
homes more efficient, while ensuring housing remains 
affordable, my fellow builders and I are uniquely positioned to 
evaluate the impact this legislation will have in the 
homebuilding, remodeling, and rental housing industry.
    Earlier versions of energy codes have focused on consumers, 
helping them reduce their utility bills with affordable 
improvements to their homes. Subtitle A, however, will 
dramatically change this focus by giving the Department of 
Energy a heavy-handed role in the code development process, in 
allowing it to pay little attention to costs associated with 
efficiency improvements, all at the expense of the would-be 
homeowners. Although DOE currently plays a key role in research 
and validating energy efficiency technology, the bill will 
direct it to advocate for/against certain proposals, 
technologies, classes of products, and essentially pick winners 
and losers and impose unreasonable and costly requirements.
    Subtitle A also undermines the ICC code-setting process by 
requiring DOE to set aggressive energy-savings targets and 
allowing it to submit code change proposals without being 
required to obtain stakeholder input. It will also 
significantly limit the ability of states and local governments 
to adopt cost-effective and local appropriate building codes.
    The code development process has proven effective at 
maintaining the balance between advancing energy efficiency and 
maintaining the safety, durability, and disaster resistance of 
buildings. The current consensus process has increased the 
efficiency of new residential buildings by 40 percent over the 
last 12 years, and new homes now far outperform existing homes. 
Instead of focusing on new construction, Congress should target 
initiatives and programs that foster solutions and offer 
incentives for upgrading the existing older buildings, which 
constitute more than 80 percent of the U.S. housing stock or 
building stock.
    Equally problematic, Subtitle A fails to ensure that the 
full array of costs and their economic implications are 
considered when making further energy use reductions. We know 
how valuable energy savings can be to consumers, but, even with 
these savings, significant upfront investments must be made for 
these savings to occur. The 2012 edition of the Residential 
Energy Code has such significant increases over the 2009 code 
that it would take the average American family 13.3 years to 
recoup the cost through utility savings. In some part of the 
country, including areas in Kentucky and Illinois, payback 
periods were in excess of 17 years.
    If the efforts to rachet up the Energy Code continue, more 
consumers will end up paying more for the new requirements than 
they recoup from energy savings. As a result, the overall cost 
of homeownership will continue to rise and housing 
affordability will suffer. For every $1,000 increase in the 
price of a new home, over 158,000 U.S. households will be 
priced out of qualifying for a mortgage.
    To partially address this, NAHB believes that the SAVE Act, 
which is encompassed in H.R. 3962, is an essential component. 
The SAVE Act provides guidance to the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to ensure that underwriting and appraisal 
guidelines more accurately reflect economic benefits of high-
performance features. NAHB supports this voluntary program 
because it will not only ensure more accurate valuations, but 
it will have a transformative effect in encouraging energy 
efficiency across the residential sector.
    In summary, I urge the subcommittee, when considering 
options to improve energy efficiency, to:
    One, ensure upgrades are cost-effective, defined as simple 
payback of ten years or less, and their value is accurately 
reflected in mortgage instruments, appraisals, and other 
related documents.
    Two, maintain the Department of Energy's primary role as a 
technical advisor, as we heard this morning.
    Three, focus on highest-impact, lowest-cost reduction 
strategies, strategies that deliver true value to the consumer, 
including retrofitting the existing housing stock.
    And, No. 4, provide consistent incentives and market 
support to continue the development of a high-performance 
building industry.
    I thank you for this opportunity and welcome any questions 
when we get to that.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]  
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. [presiding] I want to thank you.
    Mr. Ungar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF LOWELL UNGAR

    Mr. Ungar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Having spent many hours in the chairs against the back wall 
behind this subcommittee, it is my pleasure today to speak 
before you.
    Today, I want to encourage you to send a Valentine to 
consumers and workers, to businesses, and to the environment in 
the form of energy efficiency, and specifically, the three 
efficiency bills that are before you. We love energy efficiency 
policies because they help us all. They save consumers money, 
make businesses more competitive, create jobs, cut air 
pollution and global warming, improve our health and comfort, 
and strengthen resilience.
    I don't have time to talk about each of those, but the 
benefits are surprisingly large. We estimate that efficiency 
improvements since 1980 save almost $800 billion worth of 
energy each year. And as the chairman and Mr. Doyle have 
already said, the biggest energy savings are still ahead. We 
can cut our total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in 
half.
    The bills before us today are not just sending flowers. The 
biggest gift is the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act. Congressmen Welch and McKinley, along with 
their Senate colleagues, have worked hard over several years to 
bring dozens of stakeholders together and refine the bill to 
achieve its broad support.
    Yesterday, ACEEE released an updated analysis of key 
provisions in the bill. We project it would over a few decades 
save over $50 billion--that is net savings after investments--
cut energy waste by as much energy as all U.S. industry uses in 
a year, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the amount 
released from all U.S. cars and light trucks in a year. That is 
sweet.
    Most of those savings would come from building energy 
codes. While codes may not set the heart aflutter, they are one 
of the most important energy efficiency policies. They limit 
energy waste in new homes and commercial buildings when it is 
cheapest to do so and they make homes more affordable. And they 
are flexible and based on performance.
    Codes are mostly developed in stakeholder processes adopted 
into law or regulation by states and enforced by local code 
officials. The Department of Energy helps where it can, but too 
many new homes and buildings still leak air, have poor quality 
windows, and not enough insulation.
    The codes provisions in this bill, the first version of 
which was actually introduced by the late chairman of this 
committee, John Dingell, would keep the current codes process, 
but direct DOE to provide more guidance and assistance to 
increase savings. DOE would set energy-savings targets and, 
then, would work with code developers, states, and local 
governments to achieve the targets through better codes, faster 
adoption, and more effective compliance. But the bill would not 
force states or local governments to do anything. They would 
still decide what codes to adopt. The codes provision will be 
easier to implement with its partner, the SAVE Act, which is 
also in the Welch-McKinley bill.
    Homeowners with lower energy bills can afford a higher 
mortgage payment, and homebuyers are willing to pay for an 
efficient home, but they generally can't get a larger mortgage. 
This provision would direct federal agencies and enterprises to 
require their lenders to consider these important factors in 
underwriting mortgages if the borrower asks for it. SAVE will, 
thus, make it easier to finance energy efficiency improvements.
    One more important provision in the bill would expand 
Industrial Assessment Centers. This program is a perfect 
marriage between workforce development and aid to small 
manufacturers. It trains students to help small and medium-
sized plants reduce energy waste.
    With my little time remaining, I would like to recommend 
the other two efficiency bills as well. The Federal Energy and 
Water Management Performance Act would reinstate energy and 
water savings targets for federal buildings, and it would 
authorize DOE's important Federal Energy Management Program. 
The Ceiling Fan Improvement Act would use a new metric to 
improve the recent efficiency standard for large commercial 
ceiling fans.
    These three bills unite businesses, consumers, states, and 
environmentalists, and Democrats and Republicans. They are an 
important down payment on the tremendous potential of 
efficiency. We urge you to swipe right for them all.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ungar follows:]
    
    
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
         
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Schafer for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF JENNIFER SCHAFER

    Ms. Schafer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 
subcommittee.
    I am Jennifer Schafer with the Federal Performance 
Contracting Coalition. I am pleased to testify today on behalf 
of the federal energy provisions in the suite of bills that you 
are discussing today.
    Our coalition is a national coalition of energy service 
companies that use private sector funding and expertise to 
improve our federal buildings. Our members, which are listed in 
our written testimony, are responsible for approximately 95 
percent of all federal energy savings performance contracts, or 
ESPCs.
    That is significant. The ESPCs right now are responsible 
for more than half of the government's intentional expenditures 
on energy efficiency upgrades. In fact, between 2016 and 2019, 
almost $7 billion of private sector investment through 
performance contracting was invested in the federal government 
to make them more efficient and pay back all over time with 
energy savings.
    In the ESPC, as many of you are well familiar, an energy 
service company finances the energy efficiency upgrades, 
installs them at no upfront cost to the federal government, and 
then, they also measure and verify, and guarantee that the 
savings accrue. If the savings do not accrue, the energy 
service company pays the difference. For that reason, ESPCs 
mostly also include operations and maintenance. We can make 
sure that the savings accrue to the Federal Government.
    ESPCs with the federal government are trending larger and 
more comprehensive. In large measure, that is because we are 
also doing a number of underfunded or unfunded priorities of 
the Federal Government, including cybersecurity and resiliency 
measures.
    We have a history of bipartisan support. We have a fabulous 
caucus, chaired by Representatives Kinzinger, Welch, Moulton, 
and Hudson. This committee passed a bipartisan bill last year, 
H.R. 3079, a barrier reduction bill for performance 
contracting. We hope that that and the bills today can become 
law fairly quickly.
    Our coalition strongly supports H.R. 5650. That is the 
Federal Energy and Water Management Performance Act. It 
authorizes the Federal Energy Management Program, FEMP. FEMP is 
the go-to resource to assist agencies to become more resilient, 
efficient, and secure. The bill also directs new energy 
intensity reduction targets by the Federal Government. Our 
members are clear, goals move performance. Without goals, we 
don't get performance. We haven't had goals since those 
developed under the Bush administration and authorized in EPAct 
2005 expired about five years ago. We would certainly like to 
see those goals.
    We also support the water goals within that bill. Water is 
a bill-payer of sorts for performance contracting. It is still 
very achievable, very inexpensive, and very necessary in our 
federal buildings.
    The FPCC also supports H.R. 3962, the Energy Savings and 
Industrial Competitiveness Act. And we are going to talk today 
about mostly the provisions in Title 4, which are the federal 
energy provisions. The goals for water and energy efficiency 
are in that bill as well, as in the bill I just discussed.
    But, importantly, Title 4 also includes the requirement 
that agency audits, already mandated under EISA 432, lead to 
actual energy projects if they are cost-effective. For 13 
years, the government has been required to audit their federal 
buildings for energy savings, but doesn't have to act and 
actually save energy and money for the Federal Government.
    According to performance.gov, 65,000 unimplemented, yet 
cost-effective, energy conservation measures, worth at least $9 
billion, are sort of sitting on the shelf in these audits. That 
is with only half of the buildings audited. So, we encourage 
that anything cost-effective should have to be implemented. It 
is a huge upside for my members, of course. It is a business 
proposition for us, but there is a huge upside for the federal 
government and the American taxpayer reducing energy use with 
no upfront cost.
    The FPCC also supports the rest of Title 4, including the 
retro-commissioning provision. This entire section aims to 
strengthen federal energy efficiency and to replace the fossil 
fuel reduction mandate in EISA 433, which has been 
unimplementable as drafted.
    We additionally support Sections 301 and 302 of the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. Those are the 
Energy Efficient Government Technology Act and the Federal Data 
Center bill.
     In conclusion, we strongly encourage the committee to move 
these bills quickly as a way to address energy resilience and 
climate in a cost-effective and bipartisan manner. And I would 
be happy to answer questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Schafer follows:]
    
    
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
         
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Howard for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF BRYAN HOWARD

    Mr. Howard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Rush, Ranking 
Member Upton, and subcommittee members, I am greatly honored to 
project the microphone better into my mouth, and then, also 
continue speaking.
    I am greatly honored to join you and thank you on behalf of 
the U.S. Green Building Council. We commend the subcommittee 
for holding this hearing and calling attention to ways Congress 
can help accelerate progress on efficiency, clean energy, and 
building performance. With the available time, I wanted to 
summarize our perspective on the legislation before the 
subcommittee today.
    USGBC supports H.R. 5650, the Federal Energy and Water 
Management Performance Act of 2020. We commend Congressman 
Welch, Congressman Kinzinger, and their staffs for crafting a 
bipartisan approach to advance the performance of the federal 
footprint and providing formal authorization for the Federal 
Energy Management Program, or FEMP.
    The Federal Government has generally been a leader in 
reducing energy and water consumption of its own buildings with 
high-performance new construction as well as energy performance 
contracts in existing buildings. In fact, in 2015, the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration attributed the reduction in 
building energy use as a contributing factor for energy 
consumption in the Federal Government Being At Its Lowest 
Levels Since 1975. Efforts To Reduce Potable Water And Outdoor 
Water Use Have Also Been Impressive.
    Up until last year, the federal government had forward-
looking targets for energy and water performance. 
Unfortunately, there is a gap in federal leadership, which is 
why this legislation is so critical. To that end, we support 
the provisions of the bill that would reinstate the building 
energy intensity reduction targets for federal buildings and 
would set reduction targets for potable water and outdoor water 
use. These provisions should be included in any comprehensive 
energy legislation being advanced by the committee.
    Provisions of the bill to assist the federal government 
with better infrastructure and storm water management would 
bolster the storm water runoff requirements in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007. These approaches can 
increase the resilience of the federal property while reducing 
the strain on local waterways, storm drains, and wastewater 
systems.
    We also want to appreciate the bill's explicit 
authorization for FEMP. This small, but impact program at DOE 
is critical in helping all agencies of the federal government 
use energy-related resources more wisely. While USGBC supports 
the bill, I would note that the authorization is shorter than 
the bipartisan-centered counterpart. Given the variance of 
reauthorizations for DOE, we would recommend the authorization 
be extended to ten years.
    Turning our attention to H.R. 3962, the Energy Savings and 
Industrial Competitiveness Act, I wanted to highlight important 
provisions of the bill and one that could benefit from changes. 
The USGBC supports the code provisions in the Energy Savings 
and Industrial Competitiveness Act. This section of the 
legislation is supported by real estate interests, 
manufacturers, consumers, and environmental groups. The role of 
DOE in the code activity is limited, but it is critical in 
providing technical assistance and accurate information to 
states and localities as they consider adoption.
    And I would note that efficient housing is important and 
critical to all segments of our communities. A study of 
efficient green-certified apartments in Virginia found that 
residents saved an average of $54 a month, or almost $650 
annually, on their electricity bills. This represents 3 percent 
of their household income. Energy efficiency helps those people 
save that money and, typically, that goes right back into the 
local economies. So, to put a real-life example on it, I think 
that is important to note.
     We also believe that the training and implementation 
provisions of the bill to assist in education and enforcement 
of codes is a critical piece of the equation.
    I also wanted to highlight our support for a provision of 
the bill related to appraisal and underwriting, which has 
already been spoken of. We support the voluntary approach to 
improving the accuracy of mortgage underwriting with regards to 
energy efficiency. The cost and value of efficiency must be 
better captured in the process if we want to see broader 
deployment of efficiency in existing homes and new 
construction.
    Finally, I did want to suggest a change to the bill. The 
provisions related to fossil-fuel-neutral buildings should not 
be eliminated, but updated. We would recommend modifying the 
goals to zero-energy buildings or a net-zero energy portfolio. 
This would allow a greater flexibility for agencies in 
accomplishing their mission while being consistent with the 
committee's goals of emissions reductions in the building 
sector. Since the law has never been regulated, we also support 
changing the compliance dates.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It is truly 
an honor. I look forward to answering questions that you may 
have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]
    
    
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
         
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you.
    We now conclude the opening testimony from the witnesses. 
And now, we will move to member questions. And I will begin by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ungar, in your testimony you highlight the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. Specifically, you 
detail its manifest, which includes energy savings for 
consumers, customer energy waste, and improvement to air 
quality. In your view, what is the likely impact of this bill 
on job creation?
    Mr. Ungar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We do not analyze jobs impacts in this time. However, in 
the past we have analyzed jobs impacts for previous versions of 
the bill. We believe that this bill would create net tens of 
thousands of jobs, likely over 100,000 jobs, over a period of 
time.
    This comes both from the actual jobs implementing the 
efficiency measures, and it also comes from the energy savings. 
That money goes back into consumers' pockets. They can, then, 
spend that money, and that creates more jobs throughout the 
economy. In our analyses, we also include the fact that there 
is less money going into the energy sector, but, on net, we 
find that it creates quite a large number of jobs.
    I will also note that others have found that there is 
currently 2.3 million jobs working on energy efficiency. The 
number that was stated for Energy Star is actually low if you 
consider the whole range of jobs that are working on Energy 
Star products.
    Mr. Rush. Each of you has mentioned in a positive sense the 
FEMP program. Mr. Ungar, and any others who want to join in, 
what is your assessment of the FEMP program? What are its 
strengths and what are its weaknesses?
    Mr. Ungar. I will just briefly say, and then defer to 
others, that we think the program is a very good one. The 
Federal Government should be a leader and FEMP provides 
important assistance throughout the government, both on energy 
savings performance contracts and, also, in other ways of 
saving energy, both for new buildings and for existing 
buildings. I believe they have at times gotten behind a little 
bit on the federal standards for new buildings. So, there 
certainly could be improvement, but it is a very important 
program and we certainly support authorizing it.
    Mr. Rush. Anybody else?
    Mr. Howard. Yes. I would just echo some of the comments. 
For us, FEMP bats above their weight in terms of their 
performance versus their budget. I mean, they have an enormous 
role in terms of providing efficiency across the federal 
sphere.
    One of the areas that is not subject to this, but it is 
certainly something that they are precluded from doing because 
of current law, is the longer-term execution of power purchase 
agreements. Those are things that I know Congress has looked at 
in the past that certainly would merit review.
    In terms of some of the advice and some of the additional 
activities, I think where we would sit is, if they had 
additional authorities, some of the work or the discussion that 
Ms. Schafer had discussed around some of the clarity around 
ESPCs could be helpful. The other elements that could also be 
helpful which they are precluded from doing in certain ways is 
how to bake in broader resiliency or other cyber activities in 
relation to performance contracting. There are some things 
that, just because of the nature of what they might be looking 
at, wouldn't be allowed to be baked into some of those 
opportunities, but have enormous potential.
    Mr. Rush. Ms. Schafer, do you have any additional comments?
    Ms. Schafer. Not much more than what these two gentlemen 
have talked about. I will say that they provide help to 
agencies in every way, whether they are federal, whether they 
are military. They do interpretations. They hold the hands of 
individual managers at facilities to make sure they know what 
they are doing and how to do it, make sure they are getting a 
good deal from the private sector contractors, if that is what 
they are doing. So, they have just been incredible.
    They are moving towards doing more resiliency because that 
is a high priority, as is cybersecurity. Almost everything we 
do now includes cyber-secure provisions. They don't pay for 
themselves. Those are the kind of things FEMP is working on 
guidance on how one would incorporate that in a cost-effective 
manner. So, there is just a ton that they do.
    Mr. Rush. So, would anybody oppose the thought that FEMP's 
budget should be increased?
    Ms. Schafer. I think what FEMP would tell you is that--and 
I may be speaking for them; I don't know--I guess what I would 
say is they are doing very well with the budget they have. They 
are short-staffed at the moment. So, just more money probably 
isn't going to be hugely impactful right now, but, yes, there 
are a lot more things they could be doing. Right now, their 
core budget is about $28 million.
    Mr. Rush. All right. That will conclude my time. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was sorry that 
I had to be absent and missed some of the testimony, but I 
appreciated getting copies of it for sure.
    I have a couple of questions. Thanks for bearing with us as 
we have a number of different subcommittees that are meeting 
today. I know they are still meeting downstairs.
    Mr. McIntyre, you are a little bit in the hot seat today, 
in that one of the things that this committee prides itself on 
over the last number of years, both under Chairmen Pallone and 
Walden and when I was chairman, was really trying to build a 
bipartisan consensus on a number of things. I can remember when 
I first took over as chair, I urged my colleagues--I was, then, 
sitting where this guy was--my colleagues to the right to work 
with the colleagues on the left to get things done.
    And that is really what they did on H.R. 3962. Mr. 
McKinley, who is here, a Republican, and Mr. Welch, a good 
Democrat, really worked together on building codes and worked 
very closely with our colleagues in the Senate, Mr. Portman and 
Ms. Shaheen, to do a bill. And the home builders I guess, to 
put it nicely, have not been terribly excited about it, to say 
the least. But do you think that there is a fair compromise 
that many sides would support as it relates to the building 
sector for energy efficiencies in different products that they 
might have?
    Mr. McIntyre. Thanks for the question, Mr. Upton.
    Mr. Upton. Again, I am sorry I wasn't here for your 
testimony. I raced.
    Mr. McIntyre. No, no, that is fine. That is fine.
    First of all, I want to make kind of a quick statement 
because I didn't cover it in my beginning of my perspective 
sitting here at the table. I am a builder. I am also a high-
performance builder. I am a RESNET rater. I am a code 
inspector, a building inspector. I am a Michigan real estate 
broker. So, I have a lot of different perspectives. Most of 
them involve the consumer, the person that is paying for all 
this and getting the value out of it. So, a lot of my answers 
are going to come from that direction.
    When you ask about the compromise, one of the key issues I 
think right now is the cost-effectiveness and how we measure 
that, how we value that, how we equate that to the consumer. 
So, getting over that hurdle is going to be a key piece of it. 
I have heard different interpretations, different revisions, of 
what that cost-effectiveness is, how many years, from DOE's 
current method to what this bill is proposing, how the DOE acts 
to what the consumer wants.
    And I know what the consumer wants. That is what I deal 
with every day. And so, the cost-effectiveness of it and the 
programs that promote cost-effectiveness of this bill are a key 
hurdle. If we can get over that, we can come to some consensus 
there----
    Mr. Upton. What do you think the sweet spot would be in 
terms of the time length for a payback period? Five years, ten 
years?
    Mr. McIntyre. Well, I will tell you how it goes when I sit 
down----
    Mr. Upton. Where do you think most of these folks are?
    Mr. McIntyre [continue]. And I do this all the time with 
consumers. I got one Friday. I got a new homeowner coming in, 
their second meeting. That is going to be part of their 
questions.
    The general consumer is going to be looking for a three-to-
five-year payback. It doesn't come up in the initial meetings, 
but, as we are trying to sell this--and, believe me, we build 
these, folks. We build it. We are an Energy Star builder. We 
are a HERS builder. So, we are promoting this.
    And as that comes up in conversation, they are looking for 
that three-to-five-year payback. I can usually get them to the 
seven-year point. With everything we are talking about here, 
the utilities and all those types of things, we can get them to 
that point. Once you get past that, you pretty much have lost 
them. They are generally not interested in costs that are going 
to be incurred beyond that for a number of reasons.
    Mr. Upton. Ms. Speakes-Backman, again, my apologies that I 
wasn't here for your oral testimony.
    One of the issues with the new technologies and systems for 
energy storage, of course, is the concern about cyber attacks. 
Can you expound a little bit more beyond what you might have 
said before?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. The controls of energy storage devices 
are really the brains behind how this is operated and how makes 
the grid itself more resilient, more efficient, more 
sustainable, and affordable. Cybersecurity is central to that 
interest and that concern that our members have as the 
industry. And so, we have been very supportive of the work that 
DOE has done, especially in opening their new office. And we 
stand ready to be helpful in any way that we can.
    Mr. Upton. OK. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. McNerney--Mr. Doyle. Sorry, Mr. McNerney. Mr. 
Doyle, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I said during the first panel, I think expanding our use 
of energy efficiency and energy storage is going to be critical 
if we are going to reach our climate goals.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman, since energy storage systems of all 
sizes and duration can play an important role in our energy 
systems, do you believe that the technical assistance and grant 
created by the Promoting Grid Storage Act will help expand the 
deployment of innovative storage technologies?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Absolutely.
    Mr. Doyle. And how about if we paired that program, as well 
as more research and development at DOE, with an investment tax 
credit for storage, like my Energy Storage Tax Incentive and 
Deployment Act provides? Would that be helpful to deploying 
more energy storage?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. To be frank, there is no policy that 
is more impactful than the storage ITC for standalone storage 
resources. And I appreciate your leadership in that manner.
    Mr. Doyle. So, you see that this incentive is really 
critical to spur the development of solutions to the challenge 
of developing long-duration storage?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Absolutely. Studies have shown 16 
percent increase in deployment in each and every year because 
of the storage ITC.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Dr. Ungar, I understand there is concern that having too 
many requirements may discourage people from buying homes or 
making them less affordable, but I believe that H.R. 3962 tries 
to address this by incorporating economic and cost 
considerations from the perspective of the building owners and 
tenants as model energy codes are being developed, including 
return on investment analysis. Can you explain why looking at 
the life-cycle cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency 
improvements it the best way to protect and ensure savings for 
homeowners?
    Mr. Ungar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
    Homes don't just last for ten years. They last for decades. 
And it is not just the first homeowner, but the one after that 
and the one after that who are going to be affected by the 
energy-efficiency features of the home. We need to take all of 
that into consideration.
    I would also note that the financial considerations are 
more complicated than just a simple payback. There are some 
provisions and codes for which you can't quantify the payback. 
There may be information or other provisions which are part of 
a larger package that save energy or that make the home safer 
and have better air quality that you couldn't calculate simple 
payback, but which are important to the overall picture.
    And so, we think it is important to look at the broader 
economic considerations. In general, that means the life-cycle 
cost-effectiveness. But we wouldn't say just to use that 
metric. There are multiple metrics you can look at, but it is 
important to take the whole picture into account.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, and just to clarify, the Department of 
Energy can already set energy targets for residential model 
building codes today, right?
    Mr. Ungar. The Department of Energy did, actually. Back in 
the George W. Bush administration, the administration announced 
in codes hearings a goal of achieving 30 percent savings for 
codes. They did that, actually, without a public process and 
careful kind of deliberation that this bill would require. The 
model codes did not achieve it in the next cycle, but, 
ultimately, they did achieve that 30 percent savings.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, I mean, the target--these were non-binding, 
right?
    Mr. Ungar. Right.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Mr. Ungar. The federal government cannot force the 
independent code organizations or the states to do things. In 
this case, they said, this is what we think is needed in order 
to achieve our energy goals, and the processes took that into 
account.
    Mr. Doyle. Right.
    Mr. Ungar. As I said, they did not respond immediately, but 
ultimately. And because there were many others who were also 
looking for those savings, they ultimately responded and the 
codes did improve.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Mr. Howard, while ensuring that new buildings are as 
energy-efficient as possible is important, we already have 
millions of existing buildings in the United States that are 
not going to be torn down anytime soon. So, what policy 
recommendations do you have for how to improve the efficiency 
of existing buildings?
    Mr. Howard. Well, thank you for the question. And again, I 
appreciate all the work that the committee has been doing on 
these subjects.
    Certainly, one of the areas that I would flag that the 
committee has been considering is Congressman Tonko's 
legislation on updating and enhancing the existing 
weatherization program. The capacity for that program is well 
beyond its means in terms of what it can handle in that process 
now. Those are things that are immediately impactful for 
communities all across the country, and especially communities 
who have or people who have significant means in terms of not 
being able to pay for a utility bill. So, that is one obvious 
easy one. There are others that I can follow up with your staff 
about.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
     Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Flores.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I thank the panel for joining us today. I just want to 
let you know I am on the same page that many of you are. I was 
just checking my home energy measurement system, and since 
2013, my net energy usage is down 36 percent and my solar 
panels have moved up from 31 percent, my annual usage, to 44.6 
percent. So, I am on the same page. I have a difference opinion 
maybe on how we get there from time to time.
    So, Mr. McIntyre, let's start with you. What is the one 
thing that the federal government could do from a regulatory 
standpoint, perspective, whatever, that would help--what is one 
technology or measure that would make implementing energy 
efficiency more attractive to your home builders and, also, to 
homeowners?
    Mr. McIntyre. Well, the one thing is going to translate 
into two or three, and that one thing is delivering value to 
the consumer, putting it in a package that the consumer 
realizes and receives value from it. And that is done a number 
of ways or with a number of components.
    No. 1 is cost. First, cost is important. We can all sit 
here and talk about all the payback and everything, and I don't 
disagree with that and we don't disagree against energy 
efficiency. The consumer sees that first, and then, you have 
got to get over that hurdle. So, keeping the cost in check, 
having incentive programs in place, tax incentives, or what 
have you, that are in place that help address that.
    And address it consistently, not here today, gone tomorrow, 
back again the next day, and then, gone the next day and back 
again the next day, like they have been for the last several 
years. Consistent, ongoing, repetitive. So, that is an 
important one.
    Secondly is going to be, as part of that equation, the 
life-cycle cost or the life-cycle payback. The Appraisal 
Institute and appraisals, right now, we do not effectively 
recognize the value of energy features. I am going to call them 
``energy features'' because there are all kinds of them, just 
like a granite countertop or tile floors. It doesn't 
effectively recognize that.
    So now, if we don't have that two-, three-, five-, seven-
year payback--and the average homeowner used to live in their 
home seven years; now it is up to near 13--if they don't 
receive that payback in that first period of time before they 
sell that home and they move, they have lost that and it is 
never regained.
    So, they need to receive it when they sell the home. If 
they get a part of it in utility payback, they get the rest 
when they sell the home, that comes with the appraisals. 
Addressed in the appraisals, getting it recognized, so the 
appraisers have a tool to go to and treat it just like a 
granite countertop or a tile floor. Those are two areas that 
would be key.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you.
    I have another question for you, Mr. McIntyre. And Ms. 
Hiromoto, I would like to ask you to answer this one as well. 
Some jurisdictions are starting to try to ban the delivery of 
natural gas to commercial buildings and also to homes. And some 
folks are concerned that the building code language in H.R. 
3962 would worsen those attempts to reduce consumers' choice of 
energy. So, my question is this: will consumers still be able 
to have natural gas delivered to their homes and businesses, 
should they codes be enacted? Let's start with you, Mr. 
McIntyre.
    Mr. McIntyre. Well, the first thing I would say is 
consumers should have a choice to have natural gas or 
electricity, their choice, first and foremost.
    Mr. Flores. OK.
    Mr. McIntyre. But, secondly, with the stretch codes that 
are in this legislation, that is going to drive more to site-
source-generated utilities, which is going to lead you to 
electric. When you get to electric--and I understand you have 
got panels; I have them also--our utility company doesn't allow 
you to generate more than what you use on average. So, you 
can't make up, if you have natural gas in the home, you can't 
make up for that to get to net zero by generating excess 
electricity. So, in essence, it drives you away from natural 
gas and more toward electricity just out of default in the code 
language.
    Mr. Flores. Ms. Hiromoto, what are your thoughts on that?
    Ms. Hiromoto. I think the variability of energy sources is 
important, but so is the clear goal of a net-zero carbon 
future. And if we are able to define ways where we can get to 
zero, which is a very clear and distinguishable and simple 
goal, then it will require us to move away from fossil fuels 
and to more renewable sources of energy.
    Mr. Flores. Mr. McIntyre, we have got a few seconds left. 
So, I would like to ask you a question. Who is the hardest 
impacted by tight energy standards for new construction?
    Mr. McIntyre. Was that for me?
    Mr. Flores. Yes.
    Mr. McIntyre. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. Flores. What income group is most----
    Mr. McIntyre. I am sorry. I didn't----
    Mr. Flores. OK. What income group is most heavily impacted 
by tight energy efficiency standards on new construction?
    Mr. McIntyre. Low-cost.
    Mr. Flores. Yes.
    Mr. McIntyre. Low-income. Or low-income.
    Mr. Flores. And so, it could have a perverse standard of it 
increases the home price so much that a low-income buyer can't 
get into it. And then, they are stuck where they are in a high-
energy-use situation.
    Mr. McIntyre. Correct.
    Mr. Flores. So, I guess the key point is we need balance, 
is that correct?
    Mr. McIntyre. Correct. Correct.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing 
me.
    I thank the witnesses, too. I appreciate your testimony. 
The varying inputs are important to us in developing good 
legislation.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman, thanks for your testimony.
    You highlighted storage's unique flexibility among all the 
grids' resources with good reason. Can you speak more about how 
this beacon on the electric grid can efficiently ensure that 
supply and demand reliably match?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you for the question. And 
especially thank you for the question now that my microphone 
works. I was feeling a little incompetent there. So, thanks so 
much.
    Yes, so the very exciting thing about energy storage is 
never in the history of the electricity industry have we had a 
time when we can decouple the element, have the element of time 
decoupled from when you are generating it and when you are 
delivering it. And so, because of that, you can make the 
generation sources more efficient. Their capacity factor moves 
up quite a bit because you can store that energy when it is 
generating and you don't need it and bring it out to the grid 
during times of higher demand. Actually, when it comes to the 
carbon impact, during times when often the carbon impact of 
generation is higher with the peaking plants. And so, it helps 
to even out the assets that are already on the grid, but it 
also helps on the transmission and the distribution side in 
terms of making the grid itself more efficient in increasing 
the capacity factor there.
    Mr. McNerney. I think the challenge is the massive amount 
of energy that needs to be stored, depending on when there is 
solar over a period of a couple of days or even week. What is 
the biggest challenge, in your mind, in terms of getting to 
that place where we can rely on storage to fill in that gap for 
a long period of time.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Right now, with the penetration of 
variable resources like wind and solar, we are not really at a 
current crisis period where we need to have these long-duration 
seasonal storage and daily storage, but we will get there, if 
the projections are correct, in more solar and wind on the 
grid. And so, this is why I think bills such as the Promoting 
Grid Storage Act are so important, in that it is going to help 
with the research and development of cost-effective long-term 
storage. And we are very excited about that prospect.
    Mr. McNerney. It sounds good. I hope we get there.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Me, too.
    Mr. McNerney. What about the resilience and reliability 
aspects of storage
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Right. So, at least for the battery 
storage that is on the grid, the micro-interruptions, the 
ability to manage regulation on the grid, the frequency 
regulation, is insurmountable. This is sort of how storage as a 
modern deployment trend became so in PJM territory. So, on 
reliability and resilience for short term, those batteries are 
right there. And for pumped-hydro and for some of the 
mechanical storage technologies that are there for a little bit 
longer term, reliability and resilience for batteries and for 
other technologies to be there on the grid when generation goes 
down is really important, especially in wintertime and up in 
the Northeast.
    Mr. McNerney. I feel guilty, I am not going to be able to 
ask every one of you a question, but I will move forward.
    Dr. Ungar, Mr. McIntyre cites that H.R. 3962 will allow the 
Department of Energy to hijack the building code development 
process. But the legislation is intended to ensure that DOE 
conducts open, public process for setting energy savings 
targets, including publishing its analysis, evaluating a wide 
range of economic impacts such as the return on investment. 
Additionally, the targets themselves are ultimately non-
binding. There is nothing in the legislation that requires the 
code developers to meet those targets. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Ungar. Absolutely.
    Mr. McNerney. Can the Department of Energy right now today 
set targets for residential model building codes?
    Mr. Ungar. As I said, they can do it right now and they 
have.
    Mr. McNerney. So, this legislation doesn't impose anything 
additional?
    Mr. Ungar. It would encourage DOE to set targets and would 
also encourage them to provide more assistance to the code-
setting bodies as well as others. That is not hijacking the 
process. DOE participates in the process already. Their 
technical assistance has been invaluable in that process. And 
so, it is not creating something new. It is encouraging DOE to 
do more effectively what they are already doing.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. All right, Mr. Chairman, I am out of 
time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. McKinley for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. McIntyre, let me just pass on one comment to the 
West Virginia Home Builders Association. Kent Pauley does a 
fabulous job in West Virginia representing the homebuilders. He 
and I have had conversation after conversation about this 
because we want to make sure we are reaching some form of 
compromise on this legislation.
    Mr. McIntyre. Right. We do, too.
    Mr. McKinley. Because we well know--and Kent understands 
it--if it is not bipartisan, it ain't going to happen. And so, 
we have been trying to work in a bipartisan fashion. Otherwise, 
we are going to have the status quo. The status quo has been a 
little bit of a problem in energy consumption and energy 
policy. So, we are trying to work something out.
    So, I appreciate some of the comments that you have raised. 
I have heard a little conditioned love on this H.R. 3962. I 
didn't see anyone really embracing it, as I hoped for, but I am 
a realist on what this is.
    But I would like to go back to Ms. Hiromoto. My firm was an 
engineering firm. We were an EA. Now, for the people here who 
don't know what that means as an EA firm rather than an AE 
firm, it wouldn't be the first time that I would disagree with 
architects. I made a point of disagreeing with architects in 
our firm.
    So, in this case, I want people to understand the Section 
433 that you said, but only if that is out, will you support 
it. That is what I heard. Am I correct? Only if it is out will 
you support this bill? Well, to make sure that people 
understand Section 433, if I can just read this one, it 
established a requirement, 433. We are repealing that, so that 
fossil fuel energy consumption of buildings is reduced to zero 
by the year 2030. That is pretty Draconian. And for people that 
espouse to say, ``I want an all-of-the-energy approach,'' that 
doesn't do that. That says we don't want gas, coal, oil used to 
create energy. So, I am going to fight you on this, okay? And I 
think a lot of folks will on it.
    So, when it is amended, we will find a compromise. Whether 
or not, as Mr. Howard said, we change the date, but look at 
ways, because that is what we want to do, is innovation to be 
able to do that.
    But let's switch back over. So, Mr. Ungar, I think I heard 
Mr. Doyle say it and I just heard Mr. McNerney say the same 
thing. It is, currently, that DOE can set targets for the 
residential building, the model building code. I want to make 
sure this is clear on that. Would this legislation be a 
departure on how codes have been traditionally developed?
    Mr. Ungar. This legislation keeps in place the process by 
which codes are developed and adopted. What it would do is 
encourage DOE to extend what it already does in helping all the 
way through the process.
    Mr. McKinley. The conversation with West Virginia Home 
Builders Association and the National Home Builders has been, 
are we going to do away with--or is it going to go one-size-
fits all? Because what would be appropriate in Washington or 
Texas is different than it would be in West Virginia. So, can 
you give us some assurance, your impression from the IECC 
building code, would it be broken down by code, sections of the 
country as well?
     Mr. Ungar. Oh, absolutely. The codes already are divided 
into eight different climate regions. Those regions, by the 
way, were developed by the Pacific Northwest National Lab on 
behalf of DOE. It is the kind of technical assistance that DOE 
provides. The requirements for a building envelope and for many 
different things vary by region. And then, of course, each 
state can look at those and make sure that it makes sense for 
that state. But, yes, they already are set by climate and----
    Mr. McKinley. And Mr. Pauley also brought the point--and I 
think many people here in this panel have talked about it--the 
additional costs that could be incurred. And that was why I was 
raising that question back--I don't know if you were there when 
I was challenging the Secretary about that, about could it 
exacerbate the problem of affordable housing by that? And you 
heard his testimony that it would not, and they are going to do 
everything they can to make sure that doesn't happen. But would 
this legislation help homebuyers afford the upfront capital 
cost of energy efficiency?
    Mr. Ungar. So, the legislation would both help afford the 
upfront costs, particularly through the SAVE Act provision that 
would account for the energy efficiency in mortgage 
underwriting, so that homebuyers could get a larger mortgage if 
they are buying a home in which they can afford to pay a larger 
mortgage and which the home is more valuable.
    In addition, affordability is not just the upfront cost. It 
is those homebuyers have to be able to afford to pay the 
monthly costs of a home, and that includes a mortgage and it 
includes energy costs. And it would help lower those costs and 
make homes more affordable.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    My point here is I just want to make sure that DOE does not 
use a heavy hand as they set this assistance with it. And I got 
the impression from the Secretary they are not going to do 
that, but I just want to make sure that the panel understands 
we are trying to make sure it is no heavy hand.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    And thank you to our panel.
    We know 40 percent of domestic energy use is associated 
with residential and commercial buildings. These are long-lived 
assets with slow stock turnover. So, it is critical that new 
buildings are energy-efficient, and I believe building codes 
play an important role.
    I certainly appreciate the bipartisan, consensus-based 
approach in Mr. Welch and Mr. McKinley's bill. And I think we 
can even go further, but I do commend them on the efforts they 
have made.
    Dr. Ungar, can you explain DOE's role in developing model 
codes?
    Mr. Ungar. Certainly. Model codes are set through 
stakeholder process. The federal government recognizes the 
International Energy Conservation Code set by the International 
Code Council for residential and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for 
commercial. Their processes are actually quite different, but 
they both involve stakeholders and they both refer to them as 
consensus processes.
    DOE's role in that is primarily to provide technical 
assistance. I mentioned one case where there were more climate 
regions. There was a desire to simplify the codes. And so, DOE 
helped to determine which county should go in which climate 
region, to make the codes as effective as possible.
    DOE also can propose amendments in-house. Those amendments, 
then, are considered in the same process as amendments that 
anyone else, including us, may propose. But DOE will do that, 
and because they have their resources, they can do that 
particularly with very strong technical backing and show why 
they think these amendments are important. They also provide 
technical assistance to states and sometimes financial 
assistance to both the code-setting bodies and the states.
    Mr. Tonko. Yes. The sponsor, Representative Welch, couldn't 
be with us today, but he and I share some concerns, and he 
wanted some questions on the record.
    So, would this legislation mandate that any state, local 
government, or tribe adapt those codes?
    Mr. Ungar. No.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Can you give us a sense of how strengthened 
codes would make new homes more valuable and save homeowners 
energy and money?
    Mr. Ungar. As you have heard already today, homeowners 
recognize that there is value in energy-efficient homes. And 
there is significant evidence that they are willing to pay more 
for homes. Unfortunately, the current appraisal process doesn't 
usually recognize that. I have seen that in my own home with 
the ground-source heat pump where generally that is ascribed no 
value, even though it is keeping my energy bills low. And we 
know from the condos that I live in that people will pay more 
them. They help keep homes affordable by allowing people to pay 
the costs of owning home. That includes the energy costs. And 
when you add in the small added extra cost of the mortgage and 
the much larger energy savings that people get, that makes it 
more affordable, so that they can stay in their homes, which is 
very important.
    Mr. Tonko. So, any upfront cost increases would be made up 
in savings fairly quickly?
    Mr. Ungar. So, PNNL, again, has analyzed codes. If you look 
about the most recent code, we should almost know savings. But, 
previous codes, one of the ways you can look at it that I think 
is effective is to say, how long does it take for a homebuyer 
to come out ahead? There is a little bit more in the down 
payment they have to pay and a little bit in the mortgage, and 
then, they are receiving energy savings. PNNL has analyzed that 
for most states, and usually that time to come out ahead on a 
cash-flow basis is in months, not years, months.
    Mr. Tonko. And how would the bill ensure DOE's process is 
more open and more transparent?
    Mr. Ungar. The bill has multiple provisions to require DOE 
to go through a rulemaking process to receive comments, to 
publish the methodology by which they do the analyses. It is a 
major concern of the bill, both on transparency and for public 
input.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Speakes-Backman, in New York City storage has been 
deployed as a non-wire solution to avoid new T&D 
infrastructure. How can we best ensure storage is given proper 
consideration in planning processes for all of its grid 
benefits?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you very much for the question.
    We have seen a lot of activity from the utilities, the 
investor-owned utilities, as well as municipals and co-ops, but 
not enough yet. What we are suggesting to them is that you 
cross the silos; you take the generation long-term planning; 
you take the transmission or the distribution long-term 
planning, and you look at a single asset across all three of 
those planning processes and coordinate it.
    We heard an example yesterday of Duke Energy actually doing 
exactly that. And because of it, they have saved millions of 
dollars in transmission and distribution upgrades by installing 
energy storage instead.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I believe I am out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
Ms. Barragan for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this 
hearing, and for our panelists for being here today.
    Give me just a moment here. I wanted to take an opportunity 
to mention a bill by my colleague who couldn't be here today, 
Congress Member Peter Welch, who has building codes provisions. 
It is the Welch-McKinley bill. It is H.R. 3962. It is a bill 
that will strengthen national model building codes to make new 
homes and commercial buildings more energy-efficient and code-
writing processes more transparent.
    It is important, I think, that we, as we have a 
conversation about energy efficiency and we have a conversation 
about how do we get to 100 percent clean by 2050, that we take 
into consideration efficiency and we take into consideration 
what we can be doing as a Congress.
    I want to, first, apologize. There is a competing hearing 
downstairs on women's reproductive issues. And so, I have been 
running back and forth, and I have missed a bit of the 
conversation that has been happening here today. So, I 
apologize if some of this is a little redundant.
    Mr. Howard, I am going to go to you, as somebody who is 
with the U.S. Green Building Council. If you could just 
elaborate a little bit if you have any thoughts on any of the 
pending bills, or certainly Mr. Welch's bill, on making sure 
that Congress is considering what we need to for----
    Mr. Howard. Yes, I appreciate that. And certainly, I would 
reiterate from some of my written testimony that the work that 
has been done around comprehensive energy management for 
federal facilities is really important; having strong energy 
and water goals for an extended period of time is really 
important, and that we lack the critical needs of federal 
leadership in those areas.
    In addition, I would say that we have spoken in great 
lengths about codes and the code process within DOE and the 
proposed legislation. I would reiterate that the process of 
advising and providing technical assistance to states and 
localities as they look at this is a voluntary option, and it 
is certainly something that is supported by a broad group of 
stakeholders, whether it is real estate interests, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
others, who look at the code development processes that are in 
the comprehensive energy bill as a win-win for consumers as 
well as efficiency.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
    Dr. Ungar, I understand that your organization has done an 
analysis of the bill H.R. 3962. Is that correct?
    Mr. Ungar. That is correct.
    Ms. Barragan. And that it shows cumulative carbon emissions 
reductions through 2050 of 1.3 billion tons. Where do the vast 
majority of those reductions come from in this bill?
    Mr. Ungar. By far, the largest portion of those reductions 
come from the building energy codes provisions. It can be 
challenging to analyze, but those codes affect homes and 
commercial buildings throughout the country. And when you make 
improvements, those improvements last for decades. And so, we 
find that those are really significant energy savings.
    Ms. Barragan. Great.
    Dr. Ungar, I am also interested in developing programs and 
opportunities where people in marginalized communities facing 
energy insecurity and energy-related pollution can gain access 
to energy efficiency careers. How can these energy efficiency 
and building codes bills help to accomplish this?
    Mr. Ungar. So, training and assistance really for the 
workforce as a whole, but, in particular, for underserved 
communities is very important. The bill you mentioned, the 
Welch-McKinley bill, actually has two provisions on training 
that are important. One I mentioned in my testimony is on 
Industrial Assessment Centers. These centers are located in 
communities throughout the country, and they help people train 
students to manage industrial energy use and do energy audits, 
and then, to use those to help small and medium-sized 
manufacturing plants become more efficient. The bill proposes 
to extend those to community colleges and to labor training 
programs and other places, particularly where they may be even 
more effective in reaching underserved communities.
    In addition, I will mention there is a similar program for 
buildings--it does not exist yet, but it would be authorized in 
this bill--called Building Training and Assessment Centers. And 
those would apply the same thing on the building side, which is 
even more widespread, to help energy management in buildings.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, great. Thank you to our panelists.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentle lady yields back.
    This concludes the witness questioning. And I certainly 
want to once again thank all of our witnesses for your 
participation.
    And I just want to add a note to Dr. Ungar. Thank you so 
much again for being here. And you were an aide for former 
Member Markey who was on this committee. And so, we recall your 
participation very fondly. So, thank you again and welcome 
back.
    Mr. Ungar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. Yes.
    I remind embers that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the 
record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared before 
this subcommittee. And I ask each witness to respond promptly 
to any such questions that you may receive.
    And I would also ask for unanimous consent that the 
following documents be entered into the record:
    A letter from the National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association in support of H.R. 4447;
    A coalition letter in support of legislation to address the 
energy conservation standards for ceiling fans;
    A coalition letter in support of H.R. 3962;
    A letter from the Real Estate Roundtable in support of H.R. 
3962;
    A letter from the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative 
Association in support of H.R. 4447;
    A letter from the Consumer Technology Association in 
support of H.R. 3962;
    A letter from the American Public Gas Association in 
support of H.R. 3962;
    A PowerPoint presentation for the Department of Energy's 
investment in research and development from fiscal years 2017 
through 2019 for energy storage;
    A letter from the Sierra Club in support of H.R. 3962;
    A letter from a Kentucky fan company in support of H.R. 
5847.
    And seeing no objection, these documents are entered into 
the record without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. And this concludes the subcommittee hearing, and 
I want to thank you once again. At this time, the subcommittee 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Today's hearing will allow us to examine policies that seek 
to save energy, reduce emissions, and ensure electricity 
reliability while protecting the interests of taxpayers and 
consumers. We will consider six bills that address two 
important energy policy areas for the committee--energy 
efficiency programs and energy storage technologies.
    As we know from our experience moving legislation on this 
panel, the most effective measures build on past bipartisan 
approaches and take reasonable steps to advance innovation and 
energy savings. Our responsibility today is to review the 
measures carefully to identify the policies that will ensure 
meaningful, effective reforms.
    For this reason, I am pleased that Undersecretary for 
Energy Mark Menezes, is here to provide the Department of 
Energy's perspective and suggestions. Most of the bills under 
consideration today involve DOE directly or will be reliant 
upon DOE resources and information. And it is DOE's resources 
and information, its technical capabilities, that help support 
the acceleration of innovation across the energy landscape. So, 
undersecretary Menezes, welcome back to the Committee.
    One of today's bills amends the Public Utility Regulatory 
Policies Act of 1978, known as PURPA, to require state 
electricity regulators to consider investments in energy 
storage systems as part of the resource planning process. While 
these ``states-must-consider'' provisions are voluntary, we 
must be careful not to add to the regulatory burden without 
adequate justification.
    As we review these bills, I will be interested to hear from 
DOE to understand what they are currently doing in this space, 
and what additional authorities, if any, would help further 
their mission and priorities.
    Take energy storage for example. These technologies promise 
to enable more reliable and flexible electricity systems. 
Improvements in these technologies may increase the viability 
of alternate energy sources, such as wind and solar. They also 
promise to provide the tools for utilities to respond to the 
growth of intermittent renewable generation, to protect the 
grid from power disruptions, and to lower congestion on the 
transmission system, which can in return lower electricity 
rates for consumers.
    My home state of Oregon has been ahead of the curve when it 
comes to recognizing the benefits of energy storage as many of 
our electric utilities are integrating energy storage projects. 
In Richland, Washington, across the river from my district, the 
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, is among the DOE 
facilities that are working to advance and develop energy 
storage technologies and analytical tools for grid-scale 
deployment.
    As DOE develops new tools and assists development of new 
power electronics, polices that pave the way for deployment 
should be examined. Fortunately, the electric industry, 
particularly investor owned utilities, have been increasing 
capital expenditures by tens of billions of dollars to upgrade 
grid and transmission infrastructure, which will help harness 
the benefits of DOE's work.
    Yet, some portions of the electric sector do not have the 
resources to invest in innovative new technologies. The 
bipartisan bill by Mr. O'Halloran and Mr. Mullin aims to 
provide targeted DOE technical assistance and grants to rural 
electric cooperatives and non-profits to help share DOE know 
how. This is the kind of legislation that deserves our 
attention.
    On the energy efficiency front, several measures today 
would help to reduce emissions and save taxpayer expenditures 
over the long term. For example, authorizing in statute DOE's 
Federal Energy Management Program, as proposed in a measure by 
Mr. Welch and Mr. Kinzinger, would build upon reforms 
considered in previous Committee work to expand public private 
partnerships in federal facilities.
    This is the kind of policy, grounded in innovation, not 
regulation, that offers the surest path to more efficient use 
of energy. Provisions in the bill by Mr. Welch and Mr. McKinley 
would also improve federal and industrial energy efficiency and 
seek to accelerate innovations in buildings.
    When it comes to ways to save energy and improve the 
performance of the homes where we live and the buildings where 
we work, we should aim for solutions that are affordable, cost-
effective, and appealing to consumers. With a careful balance 
of incentives and market-driven policies, consumers will choose 
the products and services that work best for them.
    We should support the development and deployment of new 
technologies that use less energy, but we need free markets and 
consumer choice to drive that innovation. We should avoid 
mandates that stifle growth and make homes and buildings more 
expensive. I firmly believe we can find common ground with 
solutions that are focused on affordability, cost-
effectiveness, and as always, consumers.
    I look forward to hearing from DOE and the witnesses on the 
second panel to explore these issues to ensure our legislative 
efforts will work for energy security, energy savings, and for 
the American consumer.
    Thank you, and I yield back.


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]