[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR AN EQUITABLE,
LOW-CARBON RECOVERY
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-124
[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
55-870 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 Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Witnesses
Devashree Saha, Ph.D., Senior Associate, World Resources
Institute...................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Answers to submitted questions............................... 176
Lonnie R. Stephenson, International President, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.............................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Answers to submitted questions............................... 183
Denise Fairchild, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Emerald Cities Collaborative................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Answers to submitted questions............................... 185
Michelle Michot Foss, Ph.D., Fellow in Energy and Minerals, Baker
Institute for Public Policy, Center for Energy Studies, Rice
University..................................................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Answers to submitted questions............................... 189
Submitted Material
Letter to Ms. Pelosi, et al., from Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox,
President and CEO, the Evangelical Environmental Network, et
al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.................................... 105
Letter of September 15, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, from
Coalition of Communities, Environmental Groups, and Researchers
Regarding Critical Minerals, submitted by Mr. Tonko............ 109
Letter of September 16, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from Paul
Billings, National Senior Vice President, Public Policy,
American Lung Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko \1\
Report on ``Environmental Remediation and Infrastructure Policies
Supporting Workers and Communities in Transition,'' Resources
for the Future and the Environmental Defense Fund, submitted by
Mr. Tonko \2\
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD005.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD008.pdf.
Report on ``Economic Development Policies to Enable Fairness for
Workers and Communities in Transition,'' Resources for the
Future and the Environmental Defense Fund, submitted by Mr.
Tonko \3\
Report from World Resources Institute, ``America's New Climate
Economy: A Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of
Climate Policy in the United State'', submitted by Mr. Tonko
\4\
Letter of September 15, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from Clean
Transportation Stimulus Coalition, submitted by Mr. Tonko...... 115
Letter of September 15, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from
Michele Roberts, National Co-Coordinator and Jessica Ennis,
Legislative, Director for Climate and Energy, Earthjustice,
submitted by Mr. Tonko \5\
Report of September 2020, ``Job Creation Estimates Through
Proposed Economic Stimulus Measures'', Political, from Robert
Pollin, Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Co-
Director and Shouvik Chakraborty, Assistant Research Professor,
PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst, submitted by Mr.
Tonko \6\
Article of May 18, 2018, Final List of Critical Minerals, Federal
Register, submitted by Mr. Tonko \7\
Letter of September 16, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, by
Abigail Ross Hopper, Esq., President and CEO, Solar Energy
Industries Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko................. 123
Article of May 21, 2019, ``China Raises Threat of Rare-Earths
Cutoff to U.S.,'' cents Keith Johnson, Senior Staff Writer and
Elias Groll, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy, Twitter, submitted
by Mr. Tonko \8\
Article of December 2, 2018, ``China Has a Secret Weapon in the
Race to Dominate Electric Cars,'' by Jack Farchy and Hayley
Warren, Bloomberg, submitted by Mr. Tonko...................... 126
Article of May 25, 2020, ``U.S. Falters in Bid to Replace Chinese
Rare Earths,'' by Keith Johnson and Elias Groll, Foreign
Policy, Twitter, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................ 135
Report of April 2020, ``Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply
Chain: A Situational White Paper,'' from the Department of
Energy, submitted by Mr. Tonko \9\
----------
\3\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD007.pdf.
\4\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD010.pdf.
\5\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD004.pdf.
\6\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD009.pdf.
\7\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD011.pdf.
\8\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD012.pdf.
\9\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD015.pdf.
Report on ``A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable
Supplies of Critical Materials,'' Department of Commerce,
submitted by Mr. Tonko \10\
Articled of December 20, 2017, ``Presidential Executive Order on
a Federal Strategy and Reliable Supplies of Critical
Minerals,'' Executive Order from President Donald J. Trump,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 142
Article on ``Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon
future,'' by Benjamin K. Sovacool, et al., AAAS, submitted by
Mr. Tonko...................................................... 152
Map, Nuclear Plants in all Regions of the Country Have Announced
Premature Retirements, Exelon, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......... 157
Document on H.R. 4447, 6270, and 8319, submitted by Mr. Tonko.... 158
----------
\10\ The information has been retained in committee files and
also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD016.pdf.
BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR AN EQUITABLE,
LOW-CARBON RECOVERY
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters,
Barragan, Blunt Rochester, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui,
McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson,
Long, Flores, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director;
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer,
Junior Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief
Counsel; Perry Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk; Rick Kessler,
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment;
Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, Press
Secretary; Joe Orlando, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital
Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Nikki Roy, Policy
Coordinator; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Mike
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Minority
Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and Climate Change; Tiffany
Haverly, Minority Communications Director; 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; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst,
Health; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; Peter Spencer,
Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment and
Climate Change; and Callie Strock, Minority Press Secretary.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order.
And today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled
Building a 100 Percent Clean Economy: ``Opportunities for an
Equitable Low Carbon Recovery.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via video conferencing. As part of our
hearing, microphones will be set on mute for purposes of
eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members and
witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each time
you choose to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca ``Becky''
Tomilchik at the email address we provided to staff. All
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
the hearing, and I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
When we began the 100 Percent Clean Economy hearing series,
we set out to identify the challenges and the opportunities for
our Nation to achieve scientifically necessary pollution
reduction targets. Over the past year we have heard from
experts about how to achieve these goals while strengthening
our economy, creating new jobs and industries, modernizing our
infrastructure, and addressing historic environmental
injustices, all while transitioning every sector to a low-
carbon future.
When we began this work, we had a pretty good idea that
wildfires, hurricanes, and extreme heat, all exacerbated by our
changing climate, were serious threats to Americans' lives and
our near- and long-term economic outlook, but we had no way of
foreseeing the COVID-19 pandemic. Closures due to COVID-19 have
led to manufacturing reductions, supply chain disruptions, and
increased installation of clean energy and energy efficiency
technologies. Prior to COVID-19, clean energy sectors were
adding jobs at twice the rate of overall U.S. employment. Today
over one half a million clean energy workers have lost their
jobs.
And, undoubtedly, the pandemic has shed light on systemic
inequities. Many of the people that have been most likely to
lose their lives to COVID are most likely to be unemployed
because of it, more likely to experience harmful pollution in
their communities, and most at risk to the dangers caused by
climate change.
It has never been more obvious that our collective climate
response, future economic prosperity, and commitment to
building a more just and equitable society are intertwined. As
we continue to consider how these goals should be achieved,
given our current circumstances, I believe it is imperative
that we start with targeting Federal investments to ensure that
an economic recovery and clean energy transition will benefit
workers and frontline communities while delivering a healthier
and more resilient environment for all Americans.
Throughout the 116th Congress, this subcommittee has heard
many ideas to do just that. Programs in the committee's
jurisdiction can support the creation of American jobs,
especially in labor-intensive sectors like construction and
manufacturing. This isn't some unrealistic dream. There are
real and existing programs that can be leveraged. We just need
to increase the scale of our ambition and the depth of our
commitment. This includes investments to modernize the grid,
retrofit buildings, manufacture clean vehicles, develop a
modern energy workforce, and research innovative technologies.
These efforts can also make us more resilient to unforeseen
disruptions like COVID. For example, building domestic, low-
carbon manufacturing capacity can shorten supply chains, while
creating new jobs in emerging industries. These were ideas
included in our comprehensive climate plan last year. And they
make just as much sense today, given their climate and economic
benefits.
And it may surprise some people, but in recent years, we
have worked on a bipartisan basis on many important components
of such a plan to support redevelopment of brownfields,
remediation of Superfund sites, and improvements to water
systems. These types of programs can be at the heart of our
Nation's recovery to put people to work modernizing and
climatizing our infrastructure while reducing pollution,
especially in frontline communities.
Putting Americans back to work should be a top priority,
but that is not the only important metric. We need to ensure
that the jobs we are creating are of high quality. We need to
create a support system for workforce development and training
that isn't just putting people into transitional jobs but into
long-term careers. We need to make strategic and sustained
investments to develop new industries that will employ
Americans for decades to come, and we need to make certain that
these investments reach all communities.
While the need for action is as urgent as ever, we can be
confident that this approach can have a meaningful impact. Much
of the clean energy progress made in the past decade can trace
its origins back to the historic investments of the Recovery
Act. The cost of solar, wind, LEDs, and lithium-ion batteries
have declined at an unthinkable rate, supported by those
investments and incentives. Those investments created jobs
while having long-term benefits: technology breakthroughs from
ARPA-E, deployment of smart meters, and the first carbon
capture demonstration projects to name just a few.
We are approaching 200,000 COVID deaths, and meanwhile,
millions are unemployed, and we continue to see terrifying
images of wildfires from the West and hurricanes from the Gulf.
At our first hearing of the 116th Congress, I suggested that we
wore at an inflection point. And how our committee responds in
this moment will define our Nation for the next one-half
century and beyond. This is truer today than ever before. And I
look forward to today's discussion of the tremendous
opportunities available to put Americans back to work in the
short term while realizing the long-term benefits of a cleaner,
more resilient, more competitive, and more just economy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
When we began the 100% Clean Economy hearing series, we set
out to identify the challenges and opportunities for our nation
to achieve scientifically necessary pollution reduction
targets.
Over the past year, we have heard from experts about how to
achieve these goals while strengthening our economy, creating
new jobs and industries, modernizing our infrastructure, and
addressing historic environmental injustices, all while
transitioning every sector to a low-carbon future.
When we began this work, we had a pretty good idea that
wildfires, hurricanes, and extreme heat--all exacerbated by our
changing climate--were serious threats to Americans' lives and
our near- and long-term economic outlook.
But we had no way of foreseeing the COVID-19 pandemic.
Closures due to COVID-19 have led to manufacturing
reductions, supply chain disruptions, and decreased
installation of clean energy and energy efficiency
technologies.
Prior to COVID-19, clean energy sectors were adding jobs at
twice the rate of overall U.S. employment.
Today over half a million clean energy workers have lost
their jobs.
And undoubtedly, the pandemic has shed light on systemic
inequities.
Many of the people that have been most likely to lose their
lives to COVID are also more likely to be unemployed because of
it, more likely to experience harmful pollution in their
communities, and most at risk to the dangers caused by climate
change.
It has never been more obvious that our collective climate
response, future economic prosperity, and commitment to
building a more just and equitable society are intertwined.
As we continue to consider how these goals should be
achieved given our current circumstances, I believe it starts
with targeting Federal investments to ensure that an economic
recovery and clean energy transition will benefit workers and
frontline communities, while delivering a healthier and more
resilient environment for all Americans.
Throughout the 116th Congress, this Subcommittee has heard
many ideas to do just that.
Programs in the Committee's jurisdiction can support the
creation of American jobs, especiallyin labor-intensive sectors
like construction and manufacturing.
This isn't some unrealistic dream. There are real and
existing programs that can be leveraged.
We just need to increase the scale of our ambition and the
depth of our commitment.
This includes investments to modernize the grid, retrofit
buildings, manufacture clean vehicles,develop a modern energy
workforce, and research innovative technologies.
These efforts can also make us more resilient to unforeseen
disruptions, like COVID.
For example, building domestic, low-carbon manufacturing
capacity can shorten supply chains while creating new jobs in
emerging industries.
These were ideas included in our comprehensive climate plan
last year, and they make just as much sense today given their
climate and economic benefits.
And it may surprise some people, but in recent years, we've
worked on a bipartisan basis on many important components of
such a plan- to support redevelopment of brownfields,
remediation of Superfund sites, and improvements to water
systems.
These types of programs can be at the heart of our nation's
recovery to put people to work modernizing and climatizing our
infrastructure while reducing pollution, especially in
frontline communities.
Putting Americans back to work should be a top priority,
but that is not the only important metric.
We need to ensure that the jobs we are creating are of a
high quality.
We need to create a support system for workforce
development and training that isn't just putting people into
transitional jobs, but into long-term careers.
We need to make strategic and sustained investments to
develop new industries that will employ Americans for decades
to come.
And we need to make sure these investments reach all
communities.
While the need for action is as urgent as ever, we can be
confident that this approach can have a meaningful impact.
Much of the clean energy progress made in the past decade
can trace its origins back to the historic investments of the
Recovery Act.
The costs of solar, wind, LEDs, and lithium-ion batteries
have declined at an unthinkable rate, supported by those
investments and incentives.
Those investments created jobs while having long-term
benefits-technology breakthroughs from ARPA-E, deployment of
smart meters, and the first carbon capture demonstration
projects, to name just a few.
We are approaching 200,000 COVID deaths, and meanwhile
millions are unemployed, and we continue to see terrifying
images of wildfires from the west and hurricanes from the gulf.
At our first hearing of the 116th Congress, I suggested
that we were at an inflection point, and how our Committee
responds in this moment will define our nation for the next
half century and beyond.
This is truer today than ever before.
I look forward to today's discussion of the tremendous
opportunities available to put Americans back to work in the
short-term while realizing the long-term benefits of a cleaner,
more resilient, more competitive, and more just economy.
And, with that, I now recognize Mr. Shimkus, our ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
for 5 minutes.
Representative, please, your opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For any community to be prosperous and healthy, it takes
energy. I think there is no dispute on this committee that
promoting economic recovery, growing an economy, building and
spreading prosperity, themes of today's hearing, require that
energy be both affordable and reliable. The American people
overwhelmingly agree. Recent polling found Americans prioritize
affordability and reliability over emissions reduction. The
same poll found 50 percent of people could not afford an
electricity bill increase of $15 or more, including 25 percent
who said that they could not afford an increase of any amount.
Higher energy costs also disproportionately hurt the poor
more than the rich because low-income families spend a higher
percentage of their income on those bills. The burden of higher
energy costs is even more acute in communities of color. A
study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
found that, on average, Black, Hispanic, and Native American
households spend a much larger portion of their income on
energy bills than White, non-Hispanic households.
It is our responsibility as policymakers to closely examine
the costs, the effectiveness, and other impacts of the
environmental policies that affect energy. Failure to do this,
especially when addressing climate change risks, harm to public
health and hurts most of those who can afford it the least.
Let's not lose sight of that today as we consider a low-carbon
recovery that aims to benefit all Americans.
This is a laudable goal, but I think we should look very
carefully and cautiously at any measures that rush towards a
national energy transition that results in new insecurities and
other problems. On August 14th and 15th last month, for the
first time since its energy crisis in 2001, California's grid
operator had to institute rolling blackouts for some two
million people. This was because the state supply of
electricity could not meet demand during the later hours of the
day. This is when the sun sets and the State's estimated 12
gigawatts of utility-scale solar no longer provides power to
the grid. And so, the grid operator has to draw upon other
power sources if they are available. The immediate cause of
this crisis was the unexpected drop-off in wind energy and a
loss of power plant, coupled with limited electricity
availability for import as the heat wave hit other Western
States.
But the chronic cause of the crisis in California is its
increasing reliance on wind and solar, driven up by the State's
mandate that 60 percent of its electricity must come from
renewables by 2030, up from about 36 percent today. This rush
to green in California is driving out baseload generation,
including clean nuclear energy, and locking in a system that
its own authorities warn is more vulnerable to supply
disruption and that charges among the highest electricity rates
in the Nation.
Tellingly, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which
represents 20 percent of the State's carbon-free energy and a
thousand high-paying jobs is scheduled to begin shutting down
in four years. That State's overcapacity of solar and wind
forced regulators to curtail Diablo's output, making it
uneconomical, even though nuclear offers equally clean but far
more reliable power than wind and solar.
I don't think we want to impose California's green new
normal on the rest of the Nation. But what else are we failing
to consider as we look at clean economy policies, especially
policies that drive toward the mandatory reliance on renewables
and electrification?
One witness today, Dr. Michot Foss, from Rice University's
Baker Institute, will offer some important considerations that
will help us understand more fully where these clean economy
policies that depend on renewables and electrification are
going. She will speak to the energy and economic security risks
we face concerning the materials that will be needed for
building out complex green energy systems. These include the
critical minerals and raw materials for batteries and for
components for wind and solar as well as other systems and
machines that make up our Nation's energy and transportation
infrastructure.
A growing dependence on critical minerals in these new
energy systems raises serious supply chain, national security,
and economic security and environmental issues that have not
received the attention they deserve. After 50 years of national
energy policies that sought to protect America's energy
security, it would be a shame to reverse all those gains we
have made because we didn't confront the hard questions that
proposed energy transitions raise. We can begin asking those
questions this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to an informative
hearing.
With that, I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus
For any community to be prosperous and healthy, it takes
energy.
I think there's no dispute on this Committee that promoting
economic recovery, growing an economy, building and spreading
prosperity-themes of today's hearing- requires that energy be
both affordable and reliable.
The American people overwhelmingly agree. Recent polling
found Americans prioritize affordability and reliability over
emissions reductions. The same poll found 50 percent of people
``could not afford an electricity bill increase of $15 or
less--including 25 percent who said they could not afford an
increase of any amount.''
Higher energy costs also disproportionately hurt the poor
more than the rich because low-income families spend a higher
percentage of their income on those bills. The burden of higher
energy costs is even more acute in communities of color. A
study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
found that, on average, Black, Hispanic, and Native American
households spend a much larger portion of their income on
energy bills than White non-Hispanic households.
It's our responsibility as policymakers to closely examine
the costs, effectiveness, and other impacts of environmental
policies that affect energy. Failure to do this, especially
when addressing climate change, risks harm to public health and
hurts most to those who can afford it least.
Let's not lose sight of that today as we consider a ``low-
carbon recovery'' that aims to benefit all Americans. This is a
laudable goal. But I think we should look very carefully and
cautiously at any measures that rush towards a national energy
transition that results in new insecurities and other problems.
On August 14th and 15th last month, for the first time
since its energy crisis in 2001, California's grid operator had
to institute rolling blackouts for some two million people.
This was because the state's supply of electricity could
not meet demand during the later hours of the day. This is when
the sun sets and the state's estimated 12 gigawatts of utility
scale solar no longer provides power to the grid, and so the
grid operator has to draw upon other power sources, if they are
available.
The immediate cause of the crisis was the unexpected drop
off in wind energy and loss of a power plant, coupled with
limited electricity available for import as a heat wave hit
other Western states.
But the chronic cause of the crisis is California's
increasing reliance on wind and solar, driven by the state's
mandate that 60 percent of its electricity must come from
renewables by 2030, up from about 36 percent today.
This rush to green in California is driving out baseload
generation, including clean nuclear generation, and locking in
a system that its own authorities warn is more vulnerable to
supply disruptions and that charges among the highest
electricity rates in the nation.
Tellingly, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which
represents 20 percent of the state's carbon free energy and a
thousand high-paying jobs, is scheduled to begin shutting down
in four years. The state's overcapacity of solar and wind
forced regulators to curtail Diablo's output, making it
uneconomical, even though nuclear offers equally clean, but far
more reliable power than wind and solar.
I don't think we want to impose California's ``Green New
Normal'' on the rest of the nation. But what else are we
failing to consider as we look at clean economy policies,
especially policies that drive towards a mandatory reliance on
renewables and electrification?
One witness today, Dr. Michelle Michot (Mee-show) Foss from
Rice University's Baker Institute, will offer some important
considerations that will help us understand more fully where
these clean economy policies that depend on renewables and
electrification are going.
She will speak to the energy and economic security risks we
face concerning materials that will be needed for building out
complex ``green'' energy systems. These include the critical
minerals and raw materials for batteries and the components for
wind and solar, as well as the other systems and machines that
make up our nation's energy and transportation infrastructure.
A growing dependence on critical minerals in these new
energy systems raise serious supply chain, national security,
economic security, and environmental issues that have not
received the attention they deserve.
After fifty years of national energy policies that sought
to protect America's energy security, it would be a shame to
reverse all the gains we have made because we didn't confront
the hard questions that proposed energy transitions raise.
We can begin asking those questions this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to an informative
hearing.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes now Mr. Pallone, the Chair of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Today's hearing is the latest in the committee's series on
building 100 percent clean economy, which becomes even more
crucial to the future of our country and our planet by the day.
The images and the stories from the wildfires that are
engulfing large parts of California, Oregon, and Washington are
devastating. The destruction of homes and businesses and the
loss of life is heartbreaking. And the fires are producing some
of the worst air quality in the world.
And these fires are climate fires, and it was disheartening
to watch the President on the ground in California earlier this
week where he once again fully denied scientific facts. 2020 is
on track to be one of the two hottest years, if not the hottest
year, on record.
On the East and Gulf Coasts, it has been a record-breaking
Atlantic hurricane season. For the first time in recorded
history, 18 tropical storms have formed before October. And now
Hurricane Sally is predicted to drop about 30 inches of rain on
part of the Gulf Coast.
Unfortunately, this is all a preview of what is in store
for the future if we don't take bold, decisive action to combat
the climate crisis. And now as the COVID-19 pandemic has
changed the economic landscape, the path to 100 percent clean
looks difference today than it did last year, but the science
based target of transitioning to 100 percent clean economy by
no later than 2050, which we adopted last year, is still
important. In fact, we really need to move much faster. And
achieving that goal remains critical if we are to avoid the
most damaging and costly consequences of climate change.
Now, in January, our committee released a draft of the
CLEAN Future Act, which outlined tools to put the United States
on the path to 100 percent clean economy, and today we will
look at how those tools and others can help our economy recover
stronger and cleaner than it was before the pandemic.
Over the last seven months, nearly 200,000 Americans have
died and nearly 3.4 million Americans have permanently lost
their jobs, and less than half of the 22 million jobs lost
since February have been recovered. Even worse, job growth has
slowed with each passing month. And this crisis has not hit all
Americans equally. Communities of color have been
disproportionately affected by the health and economic impacts
of the pandemic. These are the same communities that have
endured disproportionate exposure to air and water pollution
for far too long. As we begin to recover from the current
crisis, we have an opportunity and an obligation to build a
fair, better future for these communities and for all
Americans.
So today we will examine the role of the Federal Government
in enabling such a recovery, a recovery that not only jump-
starts the economy but one that centers on equitable, inclusive
climate action. A recent report from the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission offers a startling view of the economic
costs of climate inaction. The report found that climate-
related extreme weather events will wreak havoc on our
financial systems, undermining long-term economic growth. And
that dire warning builds on the Federal Government's prior
estimates that climate change could cut U.S. gross domestic
product by ten percent by the end of the century.
These figures are alarming. But they simply confirm what we
already know, that the climate crisis is real, it is
devastating, and it is unfolding before our very eyes. The
public health, economic, and climate crisis are all happening
simultaneously. And we have no choice but to tackle all of
these challenging head-on as we rebuild. We cannot recreate the
problems--or I should say we should not recreate the problems
of the past but instead create a future that is cleaner, more
equitable, and more inclusive.
An ambitious recovery effort focused on climate action will
give us the tools to build back better and stronger and create
millions of new, good-paying jobs. And I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses about how Federal support can
reinvigorate our economy and put us on a path to a cleaner,
more equitable future.
I just want to thank Chairman Tonko and also our Ranking
Member Shimkus, Greg. This hearing is very important and,
obviously, we spent a lot of time on climate change both in the
subcommittee and the full committee, and we need to continue to
do so as a committee.
So thanks again, Paul.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today's hearing is the latest in the Committee's series on
building a 100 percent clean economy, which becomes even more
crucial to the future of our nation and our planet by the day.
The images and the stories from the wildfires that are
engulfing large parts of California, Oregon and Washington are
devastating. The destruction of homes and businesses and the
loss of life is heartbreaking, and the fires are producing some
of the worst air quality in the world.
These fires are climate fires, and it was disheartening to
watch the President on the ground in California earlier this
week, once again, fully deny scientific fact.
2020 is on track to be one of the two hottest years--if not
the hottest year--on record. On the east and Gulf coasts, it's
been a record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season. For the first
time in recorded history, 18 tropical storms have formed before
October, and now Hurricane Sally is predicted to drop about 30
inches of rain on parts of the Gulf Coast.
Unfortunately, this is all a preview of what's in store for
the future if we don't take bold, decisive action to combat the
climate crisis.
And now, as the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the economic
landscape, the path to 100 percent clean looks different today
than it did last year. But the science-based target of
transitioning to a 100 percent clean economy by no later than
2050, which we adopted last year, must remain the same.
Achieving that goal remains critical if we are to avoid the
most damaging and costly consequences of climate change.
In January, our Committee released a draft of the CLEAN
Future Act, which outlined tools to put the United States on
the path to a 100 percent clean economy. Today, we will look at
how those tools, and others, can help our economy recover
stronger and cleaner than it was before the pandemic.
Over the last seven months nearly 200,000 Americans have
died, nearly 3.4 million Americans have permanently lost their
jobs, and less than half of the 22 million jobs lost since
February have been recovered. Even worse, job growth has slowed
with each passing month.
This crisis has not hit all Americans equally. Communities
of color have been disproportionately affected by the health
and economic impacts of the pandemic. These are the same
communities that have endured disproportionate exposure to air
and water pollution for far too long. As we begin to recover
from the current crisis, we have an opportunity and an
obligation to build a fairer, better future for these
communities and for all Americans.
Today we'll examine the role of the Federal Government in
enabling such a recovery - a recovery that not only jumpstarts
the economy, but one that centers on equitable, inclusive
climate action.
A recent report from the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission offers a startling view of the economic costs of
climate inaction. The report found that climate-related extreme
weather events will wreak havoc on our financial systems,
undermining long-term economic growth. That dire warning builds
on the federal government's prior estimates that climate change
could cut U.S. gross domestic product by ten percent by the end
of the century.
These figures are alarming, but they simply confirm what we
already know: that the climate crisis is real. It is
devastating. And it is unfolding before our very eyes.
The public health, economic, and climate crises are all
happening simultaneously, and we have no choice but to tackle
all these challenges head-on as we rebuild. We must not
recreate the problems of the past, but instead create a future
that is cleaner, more equitable, and more inclusive.
An ambitious recovery effort focused on climate action will
give us the tools to build back better and stronger, and create
millions of new, good-paying jobs. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses about how federal support can reinvigorate
our economy and put us on the path to a cleaner, more equitable
future.
Mr. Pallone. I can't hear Paul.
Mr. Tonko. I can teach myself here.
The Chair will now recognize Representative Walden, ranking
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Greg, before you take the floor here, let me extend my
condolences to you and other members of this subcommittee who
have witnessed and absorbed some terrific damage in your
districts. I am sure the entire subcommittee shares its
thoughts and its concerns with you, and let's go forward and
make certain we can do the best in response to that damage that
has occurred in your area.
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you for your
thoughts and prayers, especially for my constituents and those
of Kurt Schrader as well who have lost everything. This hit the
poorest of the poor. Those with the least were wiped out the
most, and so we have got a lot of recovery. It is a long road
back. So, I appreciate that.
And today's hearing does come as Oregon and much of the
West, California and Washington, have suffered from these
horrific and devastating wildfires, kind of hitting us all, all
at once. In Oregon, more than 40,000 people are displaced,
lives have been lost, thousands of homes have been destroyed,
and an area the size of Rhode Island has burned. Our hearts go
out to those impacted by these catastrophic fires.
Sadly, our Federal forests have lacked proper management
for years, resulting in our Federal forests becoming
tinderboxes. We got nearly 63 million acres of national
forestlands the Forest Service has determined need active
management and thinning to get them back in balance with
nature. So that is something we, I think, should all be able to
agree upon, because when these fires come, the emissions are
just extraordinary. And by the way, upwards of 70 percent of
carbon emissions come after the fires are out from the decaying
material left behind.
Proper forest management reduces fire risks, lowers carbon
emissions from fires, and it creates good jobs. It also allows
us to utilize our natural resources in a sustainable way to
protect and grow our communities and our forests.
Today's hearing is also relevant in the wake of
California's most recent rolling blackouts, affecting hundreds
of thousands of people in the middle of both a heat wave and a
pandemic. There is a lot we can do as a Nation to improve
reliability and resilience of our electric grid, and I think
that is good bipartisan work.
Mr. Chairman, you referenced it in your statements as well.
We have to prioritize energy security and affordability for
consumers, as Mr. Shimkus said, and use experience and science
as our guide for our energy policy. We share the goal of a
clean economy. Republicans put consumers and innovation first
as we balance many complicated issues impacting our economy,
our environment, and national security.
Regrettably, California's current energy crisis was
predictable, and it was avoidable. California policymakers
ignored the scientists and the engineers who maintained the
electric grid and, instead, mandated their version of a Green
New Deal. California forced the retirement of the most stable
baseload nuclear natural gas-fired power generation without a
reliable backup option in place. California regulators, I
believe, failed in the most basic responsibility, and that is
ensuring adequate electric generation is available whenever and
wherever needed.
So, as a result, hundreds of thousands of Californians were
forced to endure rolling outages when they needed their
electricity the most, and, in fact, had the Bonneville Power
Administration not been able to ramp up hydropower regeneration
on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, it would have been even
worse. If California, the world's fifth largest economy, cannot
keep the lights on during a heat wave, that is a serious
warning for anyone considering placing these mandates on the
rest of the Nation.
I would also like to highlight another major challenge we
must confront, and that is the growing reliance on foreign-
sourced critical minerals which serve as raw ingredients to
manufacture all kinds of electronics, batteries, solar panels,
and windmills. These critical minerals are largely controlled
by China and mined beyond our borders now and without our high
environmental and worker safety standards. This is a supply
chain issue I hope the committee will look at and those of our
colleagues on other committees.
The U.S. has an extraordinary abundance of these very same
mineral resources, both onshore and offshore. We are the
world's number one producer of oil and gas and a leading
producer of coal. These traditional energy resources have
powered our Nation's economy and strengthened our hand
diplomatically. Today we are more energy secure than ever in
the history of the United States. Millions of people have good
jobs in the energy industry, and our businesses and consumers
have some of the lowest and most stable energy prices anywhere
in the world.
Despite our abundance energy resources, though, we do rely
on other countries for dozens of other vital minerals. We are
100 percent net-import reliant on some minerals used in many
electronics, batteries, solar panels, and windmills. If the
vision is to power the Nation on these technologies alone, we
could be in serious trouble if we don't deal with the supply
chain issue.
As we have learned from this pandemic, our reliance on
foreign, especially Chinese, supply chains is a strategic
vulnerability. Given our innovative strength and the progress
we have made to become energy secure, it would be
unconscionable to sacrifice these gains for a Green New Deal
fantasy that bans hydraulic fracturing and discards decades of
progress. So, let's learn from the mistakes of the past and not
move too quickly without a full understanding of the facts and
science.
Is transitioning to 100 percent renewables and electric
vehicles a good idea if it means we are going to be 100 percent
dependent on China for the minerals to produce them? Do
Americans want to transition to 100 percent renewables if it
means rolling blackouts? These are the issues that I know the
committee takes seriously.
We need to have a serious solutions-oriented discussion
about dealing with climate change. We all want affordable,
clean, and reliable energy options. The question is, what is
the best way to get there?
So, Mr. Chairman, thanks for the hearing. I look forward to
the testimony. I will be going back and forth because I am
dealing with the emergency in my district in real time.
But I yield back and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Today's hearing comes as my home state of Oregon and much
of the west reels from devastating wildfires. In Oregon over
40,000 people are displaced, lives have been lost, thousands of
homes have been destroyed, and an area the size of Rhode Island
has burned. Our hearts go out to all those impacted by these
catastrophic fires.
Sadly, our federal forests have lacked proper management
for years, resulting in our federal forests becoming
tinderboxes, with nearly 63 million acres of national forest
the Forest Service has determined needs fire prevention
treatment. This is something we should all be able to agree on.
Proper forest management reduces fire risk, lowers carbon
emissions from fire and creates good jobs. It also allows us to
utilize our natural resources in a sustainable way to protect
and grow our communities and our forests.
Today's hearing is also relevant in the wake of
California's most recent rolling blackouts, affecting hundreds
of thousands of people in themiddle of both a heat wave and
pandemic. There is a lot we can do as a nation to improve the
reliability and resilience of our electric grid.
We have to prioritize energy security and affordability for
consumers and use experience and science as our guide for our
energy policy. We share the goal of a clean economy.
Republicans put consumers and innovation first, as we balance
many complicated issues impacting our economy, our environment,
and our national security.
Regrettably, California's current energy crisis was
predictable and it was avoidable. California policy makers
ignored the scientists and the engineers who maintain the
electric grid and instead mandated their version of the Green
New Deal. California forced the retirement of the most stable
base-load nuclear and natural gas fired power generation,
without a reliable backup option in place.
California regulators, I believe, failed in their most
basic responsibility--ensuring adequate electric generation is
available whenever and wherever it is needed.
As a result, hundreds of thousands of Californians were
forced to endure rolling outages, when they needed their
electricity the most. In fact, had the Bonneville Power
Administration not been able to ramp up hydropower generation
on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, it would have been even
worse.
If California--the world's fifth largest economy--can't
keep the lights on during a heatwave, that is a serious warning
for anyone considering placing these mandates on the rest of
the nation.
I'd also like to highlight another major challenge we must
confront: growing reliance on foreign sourced critical
minerals, which serve as raw ingredients to manufacture all
kinds of electronics, batteries, solar panels, and windmills.
These critical minerals are largely controlled by China and
mined beyond our borders and without our high environmental and
worker safety standards. This is a supply chain issue I hope
the Committee will look at.
The U.S. has an extraordinary abundance of mineral
resources, both onshore and offshore. We're the world's number
one producer of oil and gas, and a leading producer of coal.
These traditional energy resources have powered our nation's
economy and strengthened our hand diplomatically.
Today, we are more energy secure than ever in the history
of the United States. Millions of people have good jobs in the
energy industry,and our businesses and consumers have some of
the lowest and most stable energy prices anywhere in the world.
Despite our abundant energy resources, we rely on other
countries for dozens of other vital minerals. We are 100% net
import reliant on some minerals used in many electronics,
batteries, solar panels, and windmills. If the vision is to
power the nation on these technologies alone, we may be in
serious trouble.
As we have learned from this pandemic, our reliance on
foreign and especially Chinese supply chains is a strategic
vulnerability. Given our innovative strength and the progress
we've made to become energy secure, it would be unconscionable
to sacrifice these gains for a Green New Deal fantasy that bans
hydraulic fracturing and discards decades of progress. Let's
learn from the mistakes of the past--and not move too quickly
without a full understanding of the facts.
Is transitioning to 100% renewables and electric vehicles a
good idea if it means we are going to be 100% dependent on
China for the materials to produce them? Do Americans want to
transition to 100% renewables if it means rolling electricity
blackouts? These are the issues I know the Committee takes
seriously.
We need to have a serious, solutions-oriented discussion
about dealing with climate change. We all want clean,
affordable, and reliable energy options. The question is, what
is the best way to get there?
So, Mister Chairman, thanks for the hearing. I look forward
to it.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written open statements shall be
made part of the record.
I now will introduce the witnesses for today's hearing.
First, we have Dr. Devashree Saha, Ph.D., senior associate with
the World Resources Institute; Mr. Lonnie R. Stephenson,
international president of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, IBEW; Dr. Denise Fairchild, Ph.D.,
president and chief executive officer, Emerald Cities
Collaborative; and, finally, Dr. Michot Foss, Ph.D., fellow in
energy and minerals, Baker Institute for Public Policy at the
Center for Energy Studies of Rice University.
I will now recognize Dr. Saha for 5 minutes to provide an
opening statement. Welcome again.
STATEMENTS OF DEVASHREE SAHA, PH.D., SENIOR ASSOCIATE, WORLD
RESOURCES INSTITUTE; LONNIE R. STEPHENSON, INTERNATIONAL
PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
(IBEW); DENISE FAIRCHILD, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, EMERALD CITIES COLLABORATIVE; MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS,
PH.D., FELLOW IN ENERGY AND MINERALS, BAKER INSTITUTE FOR
PUBLIC POLICY, CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES, RICE UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF DEVASHREE SAHA, PH.D.
Dr. Saha. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and other members of the subcommittee. My name is
Devashree Saha, and I am a senior associate at World Resources
Institute. Thank you for this opportunity.
This year has been like none other, and I am sure all of
you here agree with me on that. We are witnessing the impacts
of COVID-19, an economic recession with millions of Americans
unemployed, a rising racial and social justice movement, and
the direct effects of climate change with historic wildfires
raging on the West Coast.
With all these intersecting crises, I want to talk about
the important role that clean energy and other low-carbon
technologies can play in enabling an economic recovery that
benefits all Americans, that increases stability in the
financial markets, and puts the United States on the path to
100 percent clean economy.
A new analysis by WRI reviewed the latest economic and
policy literature, and it clearly concluded that better
economic growth and better climate go hand in hand. They are
not incompatible. My written testimony has more details, but I
want to highlight three key findings from our report.
First, strong climate action and investments in low-carbon
infrastructure can be effective in stimulating jobs and
economic activity as part of the recovery process and also
ensure our long-term competitiveness and growth.
Clean energy is already a major U.S. employer. It supports
3.6 million American workers, and these are jobs this which are
well-distributed all over the country and, prior to COVID-19,
had been growing at a much faster pace than overall employment.
With today's high unemployment level, investments in these
technologies can create more jobs than similar level of
investment in carbon-intensive sectors of the U.S. economy.
Let me give you one example. $1 million spent on clean
energy generates about seven to eight full-time equivalent jobs
per year. A similar level of investment in fossil fuel
technology generates only two to three jobs. There are other
economic benefits. The domestic and global clean tech market is
booming. It has been growing significantly in the last decade.
The U.S. advanced energy industry generated $238 billion in
revenues in 2018. This is only about 14--15 percent off the
global total, but the sector's 11 percent growth in 2018 was
almost four times the growth of the U.S. economy. In short,
America can improve its manufacturing competitiveness by
building a domestic market for low-carbon technologies and
tapping into foreign markets.
The second key finding is that delaying action on climate
will further expose the United States to costly damages from
climate impacts, air pollution, and other public health crises,
as well as create instability in the financial markets, which
is why it is so heartening to see that the financial sector is
increasing the ability to recognize the risks associated with
climate change and also realize the significant opportunities
that emerge from climate action.
As Chairman Pallone said, the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission put out a report which warned that climate change
poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial
system, and it has recommended that enacting a carbon price is
the most important step that the U.S. needs to take now. And it
is significant that the report and its findings have been
endorsed by some of the largest banks, asset manager and
owners, Big Agriculture, including Cargill as well as a major
oil company, which brings me to the third and final finding.
The investments needed for the low-carbon transition are
significant, but the returns in economic opportunities,
improved public health, and avoided climate catastrophes will
far exceed the costs. America stands to benefit economically
from taking strong climate action, which is why it is well past
time for Congress to enact comprehensive climate legislation to
accelerate America's transition to a clean, thriving economy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Saha follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Saha.
Mr. Stephenson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LONNIE R. STEPHENSON
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and members of the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change. Thank you
for inviting in me to participate in this morning's hearing.
My name is Lonnie Stephenson. I have the honor of serving
as the International President of the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers. The IBEW is the largest energy union in
the world. We represent more than 775,000 members in the United
States, U.S. territories, and Canada who work in a variety of
energy-related fields, including utilities, construction,
telecommunication, broadcasting, manufacturing, and
transportation.
IBEW members are working on the front lines of the climate
change. We are proud to be building and maintaining the zero-
and no-carbon power generation sources from large-scale solar
installations in the deserts of California to offshore wind
farms off the coast of Rhode Island.
Our inside wiremen regularly retrofit older buildings with
modern energy efficiency techniques that significantly reduce
energy usage and lowers energy prices for consumers. In recent
weeks, the IBEW outside linemen from all around the country
have been deployed in response to the power outages caused by
the severe weather events, such as Hurricane Laura, Tropical
Storm Isaias, the Midwest derecho windstorm, and now the
wildfires that are threatening the communities along the West
Coast.
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a terrible toll on
America's workers and labor unions. The Bureau of Labor stats
reported earlier this month that 13.6 million Americans are
currently out of work, more than double since February. This
includes tens of thousands of IBEW members who have lost work
due to the temporary shutdowns or are victims of the sharp
decline in the economic activity. Further troubling are the 2.1
million Americans who have permanently lost their jobs since
this spring.
At the same time, the climate crisis is real and urgent and
poses a threat to our Nation's long-term prosperity. The
Federal Government needs to develop a plan to mitigate the
impacts of climate change and responsibility--and responsibly
reduce emissions to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
For these reasons the IBEW supports Congress developing a
stimulus plan that would create over a million family-
supported, union-friendly jobs to rebuild our Nation's
infrastructure, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate
the impacts of climate change. In my written testimony, I
address three areas of importance of the IBEW members in a low-
carbon economy: labor standards, baseload generation, and
manufacturing.
For our members, all the workers--all the workers, it is
critical that Congress--labor standards to make sure that--to a
future low-carbon stimulus legislation. Labor standards, such
as prevailing wages, project labor agreements, and requiring
employers to respect workers' rights to join a union, are some
of the best policy tools available to ensure that our green
economy will create family-supported jobs and provide equity
for all workers.
Supporting baseload generation, including coal, gas, and
nuclear generation is key to maintaining the security and
reliability of our Nation's electric grid. Robust Federal
investments in carbon capture and advanced nuclear technology
will be critical to lower emissions and ensuring the
reliability and preserving jobs.
The IBEW views the low-carbon economy as America's best
opportunity to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector. A large
percentage of green jobs in the low-carbon economy will come
from manufacturing, whether here or overseas. Congress must
take advantage of this opportunity and support the domestic
manufacturing and American workers who will build the green
products and the future before this sector is dominated by
China or other foreign competitors.
Finally, I want to recognize and share the exciting
partnership that the IBEW has started recently with the AFL-CIO
and the Energy Futures Initiative, which was started by former
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Our initiative of labor-energy
partnership will be developing State, regional, and national
analysis that will focus on the intersection of job quality,
equity, and climate change.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Stephenson. Thank you for
your leadership with the IBEW.
With that, we will now move to Dr. Fairchild.
Doctor, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF DENISE FAIRCHILD, PH.D.
Dr. Fairchild. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and the
distinguished members of this committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you today about how to build 100 percent
clean economy with both low-carbon and an equitable focus. My
name is Denise Fairchild. I am the president and CEO of Emerald
Cities Collaborative, and we are a national nonprofit
organization with a triple bottom-line mission: to green our
cities, build our communities, and strengthen our democracy
through equity and inclusion.
Since I am on the clock and I am not sure how you guys get
this down to 5 minutes, I would like to start with my bottom
line. We have a triple pandemic that we are dealing with. This
is a pandemic of our environment and climate, our economy, and
justice.
So, if we are going to make a difference, we have to have
large-scale investments to, one, not just modernize our grid
but decentralize it, decentralize our energy, food, and water
infrastructure, to eliminate energy waste, to mitigate and also
adapt to extreme weather, and to put the economy back into the
hands of our communities, local, urban, and rural communities.
We need to scale a climate economy that ensures a just
transition, high road jobs and business opportunities in order
for our current workers and our future workers to move from the
fossil fuel sector into the new clean economy.
We need to break systemic barriers to jobs and business
opportunities that are faced by low-income communities, Black,
indigenous and people of color. We need a flexible energy
block-grant program that will fund and develop local energy,
clean energy infrastructure. We need at least one percent of an
investment to ensure that the capacity of low-income workers,
frontline workers can compete in this new economy, as well as
our businesses. And then we need to develop investment capital
to fund a community-driven and -owned energy food and water
sector.
So who are we? Emerald Cities was founded ten years ago
when we had the last economic crisis. And it was really a
coalition. We are a coalition of community business, labor, and
sustainability organizations to build a high road economy that
worked at the intersection of environment, economy, and equity.
I am a witness to the possibilities of a justice-centered
economy. We have retrofitted billions of dollars of public
buildings to save energy, waste, money, and carbon emissions.
We have created greener and healthier homes for low-income
communities of color. We put Black and Brown youth into union
apprenticeship programs. We created family wage jobs and
minority contracting opportunities in rebuilding the
infrastructure and the food sector.
We remain committed to a carbon-free economy, rebuilding
our middle class, and connecting disadvantaged communities to
this new economy. But there is a lot more to be done and to do
this time around. We learned a lot in ten years, and we are in
a different place today than we were ten years ago. In the
energy sector, we know that ARRA, the ARRA climate recovery got
us to the starting blocks, but these investments funded only
short-term jobs, not years. They did not get us off fossil
fuels. They did not mitigate our energy vulnerabilities to
blackouts and brownouts, and it did not democratize our energy
sector to benefit everyone.
Our food sector is failing us. Not only is it energy
intensive but COVID exposed the deficiencies of our current
centralized food system. Our food supply chain fell apart.
Farmers were dumping milk, destroying food products they
couldn't get to market. At the same time, people, the market,
waited hours in line at food banks. Our water infrastructure is
drowning us from floods, hurricanes, rising rivers, seas, and
our new normal.
Inequity, we know that low-income communities of color are
last to get clean infrastructure investments and are
underrepresented in the clean economy. We will reproduce income
inequalities, wealth inequalities if we do not get rid of the
structural impediments to high-wage careers and business
opportunities for low-income Black, indigenous, and communities
of color.
We have seen this work take place. It is happening all
around the country. What we need, however, is a real
commitment, a political will to not bounce back but to bounce
forward, to be a 100 percent renewable and generative economy,
to invest first in communities most impacted by climate, to
create shorter supply chains that narrow the gap between
producers and consumers, to use the best in our technologies to
decentralize and create a distributive infrastructure that
increase redundancy and minimizes the disruptions that we are
facing and to democratize our economy to the high road with
labor and community standards.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward to
the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fairchild follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Ms. Fairchild, you did that in 5 minutes. So
thank you.
Dr. Fairchild. I had about ten minutes more though.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you.
And we now move to Dr. Michot Foss.
You are recognized, Doctor, for 5 minutes, please.
Staff. I think she is muted, Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. You will have to unmute yourself, Doctor.
Dr. Michot Foss. Got it. Technology accomplished.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS, PH.D.
Dr. Michot Foss. Good morning. I am happy to help out with
this hearing today. I am Dr. Michelle Michot Foss. I am a
fellow in energy and minerals at Rice University's Baker
Institute for Public Policy at the Center for Energy Studies.
We can all agree that, whatever we do, especially when
using scarce public resources, tax dollars, and natural
resource endowments, we would like outcomes to be a net
improvement. I am here to speak on the importance of nonfuel
minerals for energy.
Minerals and materials criticality includes the
distribution of natural resources, minerals resources, their
geology, relative abundance, proximity to markets, among other
things. The quality of minerals matters. Not all quality works
for specific applications. A significant hurdle today and going
forward is access for development in countries and locations
where minerals resources are extracted.
A few facts and figures to add to what already has come up.
Between 1984 and 2018, total tonnage output of nonfuel minerals
increased more than two and a half times, exceeding what we
have grown in energy. We know the demand will increase for
alternative energy applications, and that material requirements
will be higher. This is a logical function of lower energy
densities.
In 2018, the U.S. constituted 12 percent of global nonfuel
minerals production. We at the Baker Institute are currently
tracking 41 minerals, including basic metals like copper,
minerals essential for catalysts and magnets like the rare
earths, minerals for catalytic converters and hydrogen fuel
cells like the platinum group, minerals that could be used for
advanced batteries and solar PV like niobium, indium, and
others. We are among the top ten producing countries for only a
few. We are a large consumer, and so our demand exceeds what
our domestic supply chains can serve.
And, finally, advanced materials for high-performance
electric power grids and equipment will expand our list of
minerals. There is a lot going on in that space that we need to
attend to.
With respect to critical mineral security, in my view, we
should consider the following. One is price risk. In recent
years, the prices of traded energy and nonfuel minerals have
converged. There are good reasons for this. Both of these are
linked to GDP. Higher mineral prices means higher cost energy
and vice versa. The next one to worry about is supply chains:
mines to wheels or mines to plugs and beyond, including end of
life. Internal--international shipments of lithium battery
products already rival those of traditional fuels in global
extent. Nearly 80 percent of battery manufacturing is located
in China. All of the raw materials for that battery
manufacturing are sourced well beyond China, as already
mentioned. This largely explains why lithium batteries are
cheap, by the way. It is the Chinese capacity.
Supply chains for end of life, decommissioning, recycling,
and disposal have their own ESG risks and uncertainties.
Recycling could reduce raw material demand. Globally, we
currently recycle less than lithium--less than five percent of
lithium battery product.
Environmental security, roughly 80 percent of the lithium-
based battery capacity in China is supported by nearly 3,000
coal-fired power plants, the backbone of China's electric power
grid. This means an output of CO2 emissions that
rivals everything that we produce in our domestic oil and gas
system, which we are in the process of lowering.
Sulfur hexafluoride, I don't know if the committee has
dealt with this. SF6 is an insulator for electric power switch
gear and electronics. It has a more powerful GHD than carbon
dioxide or methane. It does not decay in the atmosphere, and it
will increase with electrification.
Geopolitical risks, we have had long experience with oil
import dependency. Our domestic petroleum and natural gas
abundance has provided relief. Our import dependence for raw
materials and alternative energy components, such as wind
turbans and motors, solar PV and batteries, is very high. This
presents a distinct security tradeoff in making a rapid shift
away from our legacy energy fuels. Import dependence also
affects our trade balance and represents a leakage of economic
wealth from our country.
With respect to mining and minerals processing, attention
to ESG risks is growing. We believe that these can be done
well. We think governance matters. And this is a subject that I
hope we come back to. Mr. Walden basically referred to this in
terms of our regulatory oversight.
We submitted a brief with Missouri Science and Technology
for the G20 meetings. We have five recommendations in those
that I will share with you quickly. One is that we should
include nonfuel minerals in G20 discussions. The second is that
G20 members should fund research to develop a uniform mineral
criticality index, that they should promote transparency of
critical minerals, that members should engage relevant
multilateral agencies to foster technical technological
collaborations, and that we should commit to share best
practices on mining and minerals processing.
And we would like to mention the energy resource governance
initiative that we have here in the U.S. and that we are
sharing with other countries as an example.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Michot Foss follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Michot Foss.
And thank you again to all of our witnesses. Thank you for
sharing such great perspective and information with us. We will
now move to member questions, and I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
I will start by saying I don't think anyone believes the
transition to a 100-percent clean economy will be easy. If it
were, we wouldn't have had all of these hearings and sought
expert testimony over the past 18 months.
So I appreciate Dr. Michot Foss' testimony, and I will
mention that I recently introduced a bipartisan bill to support
our D&D to recycle and reuse critical materials from energy
storage systems. I am happy to discuss that effort with any of
my Republican colleagues because I truly believe it is critical
that, when we identify a potential challenge, we must try to
work together to overcome it.
But this morning I want to focus on the opportunities.
Let's see if we can identify some programs ripe for Federal
investment which could support well-paying jobs, transition us
to a cleaner economy, and indeed lead to more equitable
outcomes for all Americans.
So, Dr. Saha, are there opportunities for emissions
reductions in domestic manufacturing if we support deployment
of zero-emission school buses?
Dr. Saha. Thank you.
Yes, I think in any forthcoming economic recovery stimulus
packages or infrastructure bill, focusing on a few key areas
can lead to not only emission reductions potential but also
economic benefits in terms of, you know, creating jobs, long-
term economic resilience. And earlier this year, WRI had
identified five key areas. And one of them actually includes
investing in public transit and transportation infrastructure,
then also investing in manufacturing electric school and
transit buses. They cannot only reduce operating and
maintenance costs, reduce CO2 emissions, and avoid
emissions of harmful local pollution, the negative health
impacts, these can also create jobs, especially manufacturing
jobs, and they can position the U.S. as a leader in the growing
zero-emission vehicle market. So definitely the answer is yes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Mr. Stephenson, if Federal investments included strong
labor standards, could IBEW members find job opportunities
building and maintaining the network of charging stations that
would be needed to support those given buses?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, yes, there is no doubt there is going
to have to be a huge infrastructure investment to install
charging stations really across the country, not only for the
buses but for other vehicles as well. And so it should provide
many job opportunities, I think, hopefully for our members to
install all those charging not only for along the highways but
also in the homes and in the businesses and the schoolyards,
wherever they have those buses. Obviously, we have to have
charging stations for them to recharge.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Dr. Fairchild, in the communities in which you work,
could--would deploying new clean buses and reducing tailpipe
emissions from heavy duty vehicles check all the boxes we are
discussing today?
Dr. Fairchild. Oh, absolutely. As you know, there are
frontline communities, communities of color live close to all
carbon emission land uses. And it would be substantial,
particularly mobile sources of air pollution if we were able to
mitigate that and--but I also think that it is important if
that we make those investments, those investments must be large
enough so that not only can we get our union brothers and
sisters back to work, but it has got to be enough so that they
open up their opportunities for and create access for lower
income communities of color to also be a part of those economic
opportunities.
Mr. Tonko. Great. So this isn't some unrealistic dream we
are chasing. There really are Federal investments that could be
made to support these three goals.
Let's try to cover a couple more examples. Dr. Saha, your
testimony mentions how grid investment, such as building high-
voltage transmission lines, can create jobs and other economic
benefits. Is this also important infrastructure for
decarbonizing our electricity sector?
Dr. Saha. Yes. Absolutely, yes, especially when we keep in
mind the context, right? We have a growing need to advance
energy efficiency. We have to integrate increasing amounts of
renewable energy onto the grid, and we have to keep basic new
demands for electricity including from electrification of the
transportation and building sectors. So definitely modernizing
the electric grid infrastructure is not only an important
investment opportunity but also critical for decarbonizing the
power sector.
I just want to quote one stat here that transmission
investment ranging between $12 billion and $16 billion annually
to 2030 could stimulate about $30 billion to $40 billion in
annual economic activity and create 150,000 to 200,000 full-
time jobs each year.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Mr. Stephenson, my time has run out, but if you could
just maybe perhaps with us in written form back to the
committee how your members would benefit from a build-out of
our Nation's transmission infrastructure, I think that would be
important. You might even share it with my colleagues this
morning. But my time is up.
And we will now to move to recognize Mr. Shimkus, our
subcommittee ranking member for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Representative.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a great
hearing.
So, Lonnie, I want to go to you first, and, you know, I
appreciate your work, especially in our push to finalize Yucca
Mountain and really get the Federal Government to actually
comply with the law. So, my thanks to that effort. And you know
the high-quality and well-paid workforce, that would continue
then go to Nevada to help finish that project.
Now I understand that there is roughly 14,000 IBEW members
that work at about 40 nuclear power plants around the country,
and I have a, you know, a photo of the disposition of these
nuclear power plants around the country. Some have closed. Some
of them are planning to close. Some of them have been rolled
back because of State activity. Your workers are in these
plants. What are the benefits of the nuclear power across our
country?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, thank you, Representative Shimkus. It
is always good to see another Illinoisan.
Mr. Shimkus. And we got Dresden. In your testimony, you
mentioned Dresden--
Mr. Stephenson. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. --on the closure list now, too.
Mr. Stephenson. Yes, both Dresden and Byron, two very
productive power plants in Illinois. It is crucial that we keep
them open.
I think nuclear power is a huge piece of the puzzle, if you
will. As we have talked, as we do the transition to the
renewables, we still have to have strong reliable baseload and,
of course, you know, nuclear zero emissions, when it comes to
cleaning the emissions, and So with the current nuclear
facilities that are there and the new technology, the new next
generation of nuclear would be a great opportunity to make sure
that we have reliable clean baseload to keep power running when
the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining. So we think
there is a huge opportunity for the nuclear industry and should
be into the future.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. So, I would hope in our discussions we
would work with the majority to try to make sure we somehow
incentivize nuclear baseload because of zero-carbon emissions
and the baseload, as everyone who has followed the grid, is
critical. Really the whole deployment if we are going to
transition, we need some solid, big numbers of electrons
flowing on the grid while we move up and down the rest of the
supply-and-demand chain through renewables.
Let me go to Dr. Michot Foss.
And I just, before I want to ask my questions, I want to
make sure people look at page 5 and 6 of her testimony because
she has, like dominant producer of battery chemistries and I am
not going to go through it all but 28 of the 39 minerals that
are needed in battery technology, the dominant producer is
China. So, I could read this list, and know that 28 of the 39
will be coming from China. So, this is the energy security
portion of this discussion that we have to have. So, I wanted
to make sure people take a look at that in my short time.
Dr. Michot Foss when we talk about carbon-free emissions in
these systems, are we really talking about ``clean energy?'' I
am always having trouble with words, and how we use it - zero
carbon, clean, there is a lot hidden in the way we parse out
these things. In other words, when you consider the whole
supply chain from the mine to the plug, how do these
technologies stack up in terms of clean energy?
Dr. Michot Foss. I don't know the definition of clean
either. So, I will admit to that. I think everybody has got
their own.
But if what we are looking at is reducing measurable
quantities of certain things, gases from, you know, emissions
or even other things that we are concerned about, I think it
is--you are--again, Mr. Walden's comment about governance, it
is easier to do this when you have got good policies, good
oversight, protections for workers, and protections for the
environment.
And I think the interesting thing, watching these debates
in the United States, is the extent to which we know how
difficult it would be to revitalize the mining industry,
minerals processing in the United States or much less
manufacturing for that matter, for everybody who would like to
use manufacturing as a way of creating jobs and wealth around
all of this. But yet we are the best positioned country to do
that, us and other countries that also have difficulty dealing
with public opposition to extractive businesses.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me stop. My time is almost expired, but
let me end with this in that there have been some people, a
Senator friend of mine, who says the next energy revolution
would not come from a mine. And I would beg to argue in that
all of these precious minerals in that are coming from a mine.
So mining is still going to be part of this debate, and energy
security is important.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I ran over my time. I
appreciate it.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. I thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman Pallone of the full
committee.
Mr. Pallone you have 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
I wanted to ask Dr. Saha a question and then--and then go
to a second question with Mr. Stephenson. So try to get both of
them in.
But, Dr. Saha, the transition to a low-carbon economy is
more important today than ever before, and I mentioned in my
opening remarks that we are facing three overlapping crises,--a
pandemic, an economic collapse, and a climate emergency--and it
is critical that we provide relief to communities battered by
the COVID-19 pandemic and the destructive impacts of climate
change.
So I wanted to start by asking you about the role of the
Federal Government in transitioning to what you describe as the
new climate economy, especially given the crisis that we face.
The pandemic has fundamentally altered our economy. But would
you agree that reaching a net-zero emissions by 2050 is still
as important as ever or maybe even earlier, as some have
suggested, and, if so, in the absence of Federal leadership,
will this transition happen fast enough and at sufficient scale
to both meet our climate goals and provide the economic
benefits you describe in your testimony?
I know we could spend an hour or two on it. But if you
could just take a couple of minutes, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Saha. So, again, let me give you a little bit of
context. Between 2005 and 2018, U.S. carbon emissions reduced
by 12 percent, 12 percent. OK? And that is admirable. But we
have to keep in mind that much of this decline came from fuel
switching from coal to gas in the power sector. So this is what
happened between 2005 and 2018.
And now think about where we need to go. By 2050, we have
to reduce net emissions to zero if we want to be on track for
1.5 degree centigrade of warming. So this means that, from 2018
to 2030, U.S. emissions will have to decrease more than twice
as fast as they did during 2005 and 2018. So that means that we
cannot simply leave things to market forces or on the shoulders
of subnational governments and businesses. The effort to
address climate change will require leadership from the Federal
Government. Period.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks so much.
Mr. Stephenson, the energy sector, like so many others, has
been hit hard by the economic crisis, and I would like to hear
your perspective on the role of Federal Government in
revitalizing these sectors. Do you believe we can quickly
recover the clean energy and energy efficiency jobs that have
been lost, jobs that are vital to transitioning to a low-carbon
economy? We have talked about that in previous hearings, you
know, these jobs that we lost in clean energy and energy
efficiency. So can we do that quickly, get them back, or are we
going to need some significant Federal support and investment
to accomplish that?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, I think there is going to have to be
some Federal support to accomplish that. As you know, as some
of these jobs, our members have worked in coal generation, for
example. Those are very good-paying jobs with good salaries and
benefits. And as those jobs--you know, we start the transition,
continue the transition into the renewables, those type of jobs
are hard to replace because, you know, you might have 200
people working at a coal generation plant. Then if you replace
that with solar and wind, while there is a lot of job
opportunities in the construction of all those, there are very
few jobs really to maintain those.
And so but we really need, you know, the just transition is
a word you use. You know, you hear it all the time. How do we
have a just transition, you know, from workers that are
currently in those jobs or they have got, you know, jobs in the
future that is going to pay them, you know, similar wages and
benefits.RPTR MARTINEDTR HUMKE[11:04 a.m.]
Mr. Pallone. I believe you testified about jobs in people
that are actually working on renewables, you know, windmills
and solar and all of that. Don't you think we are going to need
some kind of Federal help to bring those back as well because--
Mr. Stephenson. Absolutely. For example, there is not a
solar panel that is manufactured in the United States. Why
can't we bring back the manufacturing and manufacture those
solar panels?
Wind generation, same thing, we are not manufacturing here
in the States. Why can't we bring that back and give that a
boost to our economy by encouraging and bringing the
opportunity to build those, you know, the renewables and do it
here, do it here in the States and provide good quality jobs in
those markets to provide those services.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Walden, full
committee ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Representative Walden.
Mr. Walden. Hey, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks again to our witnesses today.
I have a quick yes or no question for all of our witnesses.
In the Northwest, obviously, we rely on a lot of hydropower and
their efforts to take out that hydropower, especially the Snake
River Dams.
And I just wondered, yes or no, do you or the organizations
you represent support removal of the Snake River Dams and the
hydropower it provides?
I don't know who wants to answer.
Mr. Stephenson. I will give you a quick answer. We need to
have hydro again as a clean energy source and it need to be a
part of the equation.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Ms. Fairchild?
Dr. Fairchild. Taken a position on that.
Mr. Walden. Has not? There is a lot of background noise, I
am sorry. Has not taken a position?
Dr. Fairchild. So we are a collaborative a position on
that.
Mr. Walden. OK. All right.
Ms. Saha?
Dr. Saha. Given that climate change is an existing shared
threat, I think we need to allow the use of all possible tools,
including hydropower, to emission tests as soon as possible.
Mr. Walden. Yes, yes.
Dr. Foss?
Dr. Michot Foss. I would say that you would only take them
out if you have a viable alternative.
Mr. Walden. Yes, thank you.
Did I get to everybody? Did I leave anybody out?
Yes, I just would say for my friends in the South, BPA
provided as much generation in California as they could within
their transmission capabilities. Between the 14th and 19th of
August, they sold 65,000 megawatt hours of hydropower and
increased their peak hydropower levels by 50 percent and its
load by 25 percent in the days leading up to those power grid
issues.
So, you know, what I endure out in my part of the world is
a threat to the hydro system and a constant effort to try and
reduce it and remove these dams. And, obviously, we have fish
mitigation issues and all, enormous billion-dollar investments
in trying to deal with some of that.
But, on the other hand, we do have clean zero emission
hydropower that is constantly under threat of renewable. And
then we watch as the nuclear facilities are getting shut down
around the country, and I would tell you I am a big advocate--
and I know that both chairman are--for enhancing the electric
grid, but it is darn near impossible to site expansion of
electric grid, especially in the West. 55 percent of my
district is Federal land. They have been trying to build the
Boardman to Hemingway Line for quite a while from Idaho into my
district. It is very controversial. And they are doing
everything they can to avoid having it touch Federal ground
because it is so difficult to get it permitted and approved.
And so, of course, that raises you-know-what with private land
owners who see their land then under a threat.
So, expanding the grid to be able to manage the renewable
energy and the grid itself is really problematic. Needs to
happen, don't get me wrong. And my district is home to
thousands of megawatts of wind power. And I don't know the
current number on solar. But we have huge expansions going on
in solar.
We actually have great opportunity to expand geothermal,
too. But a lot of that, again, is on Federal land. These are
very controversial issues politically when you try to do
anything on the Federal ground, but in the West, so much of our
States is Federal, and it is something I think we have to
address.
One other question to Dr. Michot Foss. Let's start with
some facts. Here in the U.S. we are blessed with a rich
diversity of these energy sources. If you look at total energy
consumption in 2019, 80 percent came from fossil, eight percent
from nuclear, 11 percent from renewables, and the share of
energy that comes from renewables is projected to grow in the
years ahead. But if we just look at electricity generation,
only 7 percent came from wind and less than two percent from
solar.
So, there are, obviously, efforts to ban the other fossil
fuels along the way. But if we were to rapidly phase out use of
fossil energy, how do we replace that 80 percent of our energy
mix? Could you speak to that?
Dr. Michot Foss. Not easily. It will take time, and I think
that is the crux of the political conversation is the amount of
time that it will take, especially if you want to repatriate
manufacturing, repatriate jobs, build supply chains and do it
at home as opposed to spending our dollars to acquire imported
equipment and materials. You know, those are the issues, right.
Worldwide, in fact, renewable energy is still only about 2 or 3
percent.
So rapid growth rates, everybody notices that, but still a
very small proportion. It is hard to do. It takes a lot of
infrastructure.
Mr. Walden. I appreciate that. Because I do think that is
the challenge. We all want to use the latest innovative
technology with the least emissions, but getting from here to
there is, I think, where the debate is, how quickly can you do
it and not risk rolling blackouts or other issues.
My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your thoughts
on my district and your continued leadership on these issues.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
Representative Peters, for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to discuss a strategy that I haven't heard
much about recently, but it is a fundamental component of any
effective climate change mitigation policy, and that is the
price on carbon. If we are going to save this plant, we need to
change the behavior of every decision-maker throughout the
economy, from the largest corporations to each of us
individuals.
And one of the best ways to incentivize this collective
solution is to put a price on carbon either through a cap in
trade like California has or through a carbon tax. Those of us
who represented the United States at the UN Climate Conference
COP25 in Madrid last year heard this over and over again from
economists and heads of state alike, markets need clear pricing
levels to transition to a low-carbon economy.
Why? Because a price on carbon would incentivize producers
and consumers of carbon intensive goods without any further
government action to make better choices and to use less fossil
fuel and to substitute lower carbon alternatives.
We have talked at length in Congress about an ambitious
multi-trillion dollar infrastructure initiative to fix our
bridges and roads, expand broadband, upgrade the electrical
grid, and more. Historically we funded those programs by
raising the Federal gasoline tax. Now, we could raise that tax
again, but at this point an upstream carbon tax makes much more
sense.
We are still providing funding through an energy levy, but
we also continue incentivizing conservation and innovation in a
technology neutral way that will reduce the generation of
greenhouse gases.
The double benefit of using a carbon tax for infrastructure
is that it will fund Federal infrastructure investments and
without any further government action will also induce carbon-
saving infrastructure investments in the private sector,
building resilient communities, providing financial support for
energy efficiency retrofits, building electrical charging
infrastructure, among many other priorities.
According to Senior Fellow Dallas Burtraw of Resources for
the Future, quote, "Industry has many opportunities to reduce
emissions, but firms can rarely act alone. Policies like carbon
pricing and performance standards are essential to coordinate
this effort. Deep mid-century decarbonization goals require
private sector and government partnership."
Now, some worry that a carbon tax is regressive, and you
could say the same thing about the gasoline tax, which we have
used for years; but most proposals in Congress for a carbon tax
contemplate the refund of a large portion of the revenues to
disadvantaged communities that don't have ready alternatives
and can't afford increased energy prices.
For instance, the Energy Innovation and Dividend Act, which
I cosponsor, proposes a tax that protects low-income
communities. But even in this divisive Congress, there are five
bipartisan bills that put a price on carbon, and any one of
them would be a game changer.
With respect to disadvantaged communities, let's not
discount the cost of not acting. People in low-income
communities today are disproportionately exposed to air
pollution that is linked to asthma, cancer, and other health
issues. A price on carbon that slows the rate of climate change
does the most good for the communities that are most harmed by
climate change today.
Now, a carbon tax is a necessary but not a sufficient
solution. There are many issues that will require direct
regulation. For instance, it is hard to imagine any scenario
where economic incentives alone would prevent fugitive methane
emissions or industrial agricultural emissions. So many of
these ideas are laid out in the excellent work of the Select
Committee on Climate Change.
So with that, I would like to address my question to Dr.
Saha from WRI. And I wanted to say that, I meant to start out
by saying people haven't been talking about this. But here is a
quote from your testimony today, which is "A carbon price is
needed to embed climate change costs into economic decision-
making while providing clear incentives for the development and
deployment of low-carbon technologies and shifts in operations
to reduce carbon emissions.
An economy-wide carbon price should be one of the central
elements of a national climate policy and paired with
complementary policies can be designed to help achieve net-zero
emissions by mid-century."
And that is on page 13. I certainly commend everyone to
read that. But, Dr. Saha, can you talk about why it is
important, in addition to these Federal investments we are
talking about, to engage and incentivize the private sector in
doing the right thing on climate?
Dr. Saha. Yes, absolutely. WRI's position is that an
economy-wide carbon price, whether it takes the form of cap in
trade or carbon tax, has to be one of the most important tools
in our toolbox and it can be designed in such a way that it can
get the U.S. economy to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-
century, and at the same time, it can also build a prosperous
economy that offers good jobs, minimizes impacts on families,
and helps address environmental justice issues.
And WRI also takes the position that while carbon pricing
is necessary, it is not going to be a sufficient approach to
achieve multiple climate goals and--
Mr. Peters. My time has expired. I agree with that. I just
want to put that on the table because we can't just focus on
Federal investments, which are important, and Federal
regulation on which we can agree. We have to incentivize the
private sector to be part of this or it won't work.
Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
Mr. Peters. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Representative Peters. The gentleman
yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Washington
State. Representative Rodgers, you are recognized for 5
minutes, please.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the majority's focus today on equitable
opportunities as a part of today's hearing title. What we have
seen in the past from Democrat Congresses, as well as the
administration, has been more of, I think, an insistence on
massive government subsidies and top-down mandates that,
unfortunately, pick winners and losers.
When we think about policies to advance clean energy
solutions to lower emissions, it should be technology neutral
and allow private sector innovation to occur, free from the
government mandates and without having to compete on unequal
grounds.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
committee, Republicans and Democrats, to really identify the
solutions that are going to lower emissions but do it free from
the government mandates and really make it more equitable.
As we consider policies to promote renewable energy
technologies compared to other energy solutions, it is critical
that we examine their entire life cycle and the impact their
manufacturing components and materials have on the environment.
Dr. Michot Foss mentions in her testimony that nearly 80
percent of lithium battery manufacturing capability for
electric vehicles is in China, whose grid is overwhelming
powered by coal-fired plants. A similar percentage of global
supply for solar panels also originates in China.
Dr. Michot Foss, how should we consider the impact of the
manufacturing process on these renewable technologies and the
impact that they are having on the environment when we are
evaluating their efficacy for reducing emissions globally,
especially coming from high emission countries like China, and
how do we mitigate these issues?
Dr. Michot Foss. I would have to say that one of my biggest
concerns is that if you try to accelerate by any means, either
market incentives or direct policy interventions, subsidies,
whatever, the process of speeding up the integration of certain
technologies that we don't produce ourselves, the components of
which we don't produce ourselves, all we are doing effectively
is shifting our emissions abroad.
Now, we have been doing this for a really long time. All of
the more developed countries have been doing this for a very
long time. And so the net improvements that everybody hopes to
gain in terms of whatever it is that we are after, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions or achieving more equitable access to
energy, universal access to energy, whatever the targets are,
all become diminished if that is what we end up doing.
This is a really difficult conversation with China. I think
everybody has got to be honest about that. We are all hopeful,
those of us who have studied the country for years, been there,
that they will continue to make improvements in their own
energy system. I mean, they are doing certain things. But they
also have a very strong stand of self-determination and very
little willingness, it seems, to engage in ways that I think
others would like them to. So I think that has to be part of
the conversation. It is part of the reality check on all of
this.
I would point to an example over the past few days, Angela
Merkel in Germany got her reality check on this because the
Germans would like to be very assertive and stronger in terms
of what they are doing, and they would like to be able to meet
their policy goals and policy targets.
But it is meaningless if what they are doing is effectively
having to rely on China for a lot of their inputs, and the
Chinese are not willing to make the same types of commitments.
I mean, that is where we are, I think, in the discussions.
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, I appreciate that.
We are also seeing issues arise at the end of these
technology life cycles. According to some estimates, there will
be 600,000 tons of waste of lithium batteries removed from EB
by 2025, 78 million tons of solar panel waste by 2050. As we
continue to compete with China in critical materials and
manufacturing clean energy technology, recycling can help us
reduce waste and increase our ability to compete.
Dr. Michot Foss, some have said that recovering these raw
materials from these devices remains impractical, especially
since they are not made to come apart.
Do you agree with that view? And how clear is it whether a
profitable history will be borne at times to get clean energy
from adding to an already growing pile of waste?
Dr. Michot Foss. Well, do you want me to answer? Talk is
over. Let me just say quickly there are a lot of ideas. There
is good work that is being done on recapturing recycling. I
gave you all the figure that we know or that we think we know,
which is five percent with recovery of lithium batteries.
I mean, it is really hard to track this stuff, very, very
difficult. Lack of data, lack of information, lack of
transparency, there are huge issues in tracking waste in
general, but e-waste in particular.
And then, frankly, when it comes to things like--and I am
sure the other panelists, Dr. Saha, for instance, would be
aware of this. That when it comes to recapturing and recycling
or properly disposing of waste associated with renewable energy
components, there is really an unwillingness to talk about that
and engage on it, probably for a whole variety of reasons.
But it is something that we have to own up to and we have
to figure out. It is going to be part of the problem-solving in
order to be able to move forward the right way.
So it can be done. People have to be realistic about the
timing and the cost and whether it is practical or not----
Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentle lady yields back.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentle lady yields back. Thank you so
much.
And now the Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentle lady
from California. Representative Barragan, you are up for 5
minutes, please.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you, Chair Tonko, for holding
this important hearing.
Our country cannot afford inaction on the climate crisis,
which is no longer a far off threat in the future but is
affecting us today. We can see with the unprecedented wildfires
in my State of California and throughout the West Coast, which
are endangering the health and safety of millions of people.
We also have unprecedented opportunity to act by making a
transformational green stimulus investment that delivers an
economic recovery, puts people back to work, and serves as a
down payment on building a more sustainable future that we can
pass on to the next generation.
Dr. Fairchild, I would like to start with you and talk a
little bit about equity and clean energy jobs. I want to first
start by thanking you for your past work in Los Angeles on
community development and job training for underserved
communities, like those that I represent.
My district is the fourth poorest district in California.
It is critical we center equity in any green stimulus
investments we make so that the communities most in need of
jobs can benefit.
Can you discuss model programs or policies at the local and
State level that we can adopt alongside green investments to
make sure communities of color aren't left behind? And those
are policies we can adopt on a Federal level.
Dr. Fairchild. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, and LA
is my home, so I am going to do as much as I can to help your
district.
We have a number of innovative programs. And, first, the
thing that we have to recognize is that communities of color
are underrepresented in the construction industry, we are
underrepresented in the environmental sector, we are
underrepresented in the energy sector, we are underrepresented
in the water sector. And so that is a problem we have to
address, but we have to address it at a number of different
levels.
The first is to create awareness among the next generation
about the opportunities in the clean energy future. They
understand a clean energy future and a clean economy is about
their generation and their future opportunities, but they don't
know the current pathways that are available to them.
So ASIS, the ASIS program that we have in seven high
schools in South and Southeast Los Angeles is actually training
young people about, and giving them industry certified skill
certificates in huge cells, in technology solid works and
figuring out how to actually excite them about this career that
is also a mission for them. So we really have to start from the
middle school and to the high school level.
We also need to work, and we have been working closely with
many of our unit partners, with the Youth Build programs.
Particularly in Los Angeles, we have got about a hundred black
and brown youth in the ironwork apprenticeship program and
building a solar farm in Lancaster.
And then we are also working with small minority women and
veteran owned contractors. We must invest in these contractors
or in less than five years they will be out of business if we
don't teach them about the new technologies that go with the
clean energy.
There is new software. There is new equipment and new
materials, new building codes, and they are still dealing with
legacy issues in terms of access to capital, as well as bonding
and insurance.
So this initiative really requires that level of
investment.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you so much, Dr. Fairchild.
Dr. Stephenson and Dr. Saha, over 490,000 clean energy
workers remain jobless since the pandemic hit, including over
84,000 workers in California. Can you describe the most
effective policies and investments we can enact today to bring
these jobs back?
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you.
Obviously, we have got to get the funding and get these
things back up and running again. It is unfortunate, you know,
that the pandemic has slowed down a lot of opportunities for
our members to continue to work in the renewable energies.
However, you know, there is still a lot of work going out
there.
We are still doing a lot of solar. We are still doing a lot
of wind. But, you know, I just think that the drive to move
into the renewables is going to move us in that direction I
think naturally.
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Dr. Saha. And I would just add that there are few areas
which can actually--their investment can be helpful. So, for
instance, targeted expansion of energy efficiency and energy
assistance programming can provide several benefits that can
put people to work immediately in quality jobs. It can
contribute in the future and also find relief to struggling
households by eliminating energy costs.
Similarly, investing in public transit and transportation
infrastructure can create jobs, and economic growth investment
in energy technologies, especially by extending the tax credits
for these technologies, can be really helpful.
So there are a few areas that I think Congress should be
focusing attention on.
Ms. Barragan. Great.
Mr. Stephenson, IBEW represents--oh, I apologize. I believe
I am over my time.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I--I had, of course, a lot more
questions, a very important hearing. Thank you for holding it.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you for participating. The gentle
lady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Representative McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, it was only a matter of time. The democratic
leadership simply can't let a crisis go to waste. Now, what do
I mean by that? Let's go back. I am aware of any industrialized
nation, any other in the world, that has hijacked this
healthcare crisis as an excuse to fundamentally transform their
energy mix. But that is exactly what is happening here.
Now, even China, we talk about China, and its focus on
renewables. That is true. But at the same time, they are
investing--they are putting, if you look at this headline, they
are talking about putting an investment in coal-fired power
plants that is equal to or better than the renewables. They are
going to be producing enough coal-fired prevalency equivalent
of all of the Eastern European Union. So there is where we are.
Now, if we are trying to represent we are sensitive to
people losing their jobs, where was that compassion over the
years as the coal industry, all across America--in 26 States,
we mine coal. What happened to them when they lost a very
similar number of jobs with it?
What about towns like Hazard, Kentucky; Gillette, Wyoming;
or Welch, West Virginia? Welch, West Virginia, is an example.
It only has 1,700 people. There are no other job opportunities
in Welch, West Virginia, and they are sitting there with a
poverty rate of 27 percent. There are only 1,700 people living
in the town. It has got a 35 percent minority population.
But, yet, if we fulfill this mission of going to a hundred
percent renewables, what happens to Welch, West Virginia, or
Hazard, Kentucky, or Gillette, Wyoming? I think we have a moral
obligation to protect them.
But let me switch my question now to Dr. Foss because I
have been listening to this diatribe from the other side on
this for now for close to ten years.
Dr. Foss, can you assure the American public that if our
country does indeed achieve a hundred percent renewables, once
we reach that hundred percent, that we will have no more
wildfires, no more hurricanes, no more droughts, and the oceans
won't rise? Can you say yes or no?
Dr. Michot Foss. I don't think anybody could make that
claim.
Mr. McKinley. Well, that is what they are doing. They are
saying that we have got to do this so we can achieve, we won't
have wildfires in the West. Those wildfires are horrible. But
don't try to tell me as an engineer that this is the first time
we have had wildfires.
Go back through your record and look at some in the past.
They are horrible right now, I understand that. But the idea is
being perpetrated to the American public that if we go to a
hundred percent renewables, we will stop the wildfires, we will
stop the hurricanes, we won't have that hurricane season on the
East Coast anymore, we won't have droughts.
Thank you for your answer on that.
Let me go to a second question then. So I think you touched
close to it. I want to understand, because by 2035 we are going
to be--the democratic leadership is trying to go to 2035, there
will be 100 percent carbon-free emissions at power plants. So
my question is, that means we are going to rely on renewables,
which is--eventually that is fine. We want to be at renewables
eventually, but we need this bridge of using out fossil fuels
to bridge to that.
So my question is, by 2035, will we have enough
domestically produced--domestically, and that is the operative
word--domestically produced critical minerals to produce 100
percent of our power generation with renewable resources in
just the next 10 years, 15 years? Do you think that we can do
that?
Dr. Michot Foss. The issue, of course, is not just the raw
material supply, but also the manufacturing capacity.
Mr. McKinley. Can you amplify more on that, if you could,
please? I have got a minute. I want people to understand that I
know the goal is aspirational. But when they put it in a
statute by 2035, are we going to be able to achieve that?
And the fact is, what effect is that going to have on
droughts, wildfires? And there is none, as I can understand.
Dr. Michot Foss. You are asking a tough one. I mean, you
know, the problem is this. There is a lot of uncertainty, and I
think people want to do things that they feel provide us humans
with some control, and I think that is understandable. I think
the political debate is what makes the most sense given the----
Mr. McKinley. Or what gets them the most votes when they
gin up their bases, and that is what this is all about, ginning
up your liberal base to attack fossil fuels.
Dr. Michot Foss. I am not privy to the strategies of----
Mr. McKinley. All right. Mr. Chairman, I have ran out of
time on this. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you for your questions.
And now the Chair will recognize the gentle lady from
Delaware, the great State of Delaware as she would say. We
recognize Representative Blunt Rochester, please, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this important hearing, and thank you to all of the witnesses
for your testimony here today.
As has been said, our Nation is facing a plethora of crises
right now, the COVID-19 pandemic, all-time high unemployment
numbers, and climate change. On top of that, the systemic
racism that is deeply woven into the fabric of our society
exacerbates these crises for people of color.
Watching the wildfires in the West that my colleagues
shared with us earlier and knowing that we are simultaneously
bracing for the worst hurricane season in decades, the urgency
to address climate change couldn't be any clearer. We don't
know if we will avoid a wildfire, as was just said, but we can
mitigate them. There are some things that are uncertain, but
what is certain, we can and we must act, which is why I am
proud of Delaware's Attorney General, Kathy Jennings.
Earlier this month she filed a suit on behalf of our State
against the fossil fuel industry for its role in exacerbating
climate change and the damage it has caused to Delaware's
environment. We must act swiftly and boldly.
Right now we have an unprecedented opportunity to build our
economy back in a cleaner, healthier, stronger, and more
equitable way. And we need jobs that are not only helping us to
fight climate change but also create family-sustaining wages
and are accessible to all Americans.
Dr. Fairchild, in your testimony, you described the need
for equity first strategies to address ongoing climate crisis,
and I agree.
Can you elaborate on why it is so important for the Federal
Government to prioritize investment in environmental justice
communities?
Dr. Fairchild. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
Well, first of all, communities of color are, as you all
know, the first and most impacted by climate change, and they
are most impacted by the effects of COVID, are most effected by
the challenges of inequities in justice.
So if we are going to--an equity first strategy basically
says we support the most vulnerable, release the best first,
then everybody benefits because that investment is going to
have a multiplier effect. And I think there is a number of
particular things that I have been hearing today that is
missing the boat.
But number one, we have to have energy security defined in
a different way. When we have a blackout or a brownout, what
happens to folks that are in home healthcare situations, in
critical facilities, people that are in public housing? We had
a huge hurricane in New York City.
Folks lost--the last folks to get back on the energy grid
were the public housing residents. I am talking about folks
that are on the 10th, 15th, and 20th floors that couldn't even
get up and down.
So we have to figure out how we invest first in critical
facilities, how we invest in energy strategies for affordable
multifamily housing, which is the most difficult building stock
to retrofit. We have got to create community level jobs for our
contractors to retrofit buildings and residential and small
commercial buildings that will be left out into energy ghettos
if, in fact, we don't go in there and retrofit these folks to
contribute to a clean energy future and then create green and
happy homes.
And I have seen a bipartisan bill on both sides of the
House that really talks about retrofitting our schools where
our vulnerable communities are.
So these are sort of equity first type of strategies that I
would like to be considered.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Dr. Fairchild, and thank
you also for your efforts about expanding and diversifying the
building and contracting work force.
And on that, Dr. Saha, I chaired the House Bipartisan
Future Work Caucus, which we just started, and I launched
earlier this year. And with many industries evolving or
disappearing as a result of the pandemic, it is more important
than ever to create high-paying jobs with varying minimum
educational requirements.
How can the clean energy industry combat educational
disparities?
Dr. Saha. Yes. So right now I think as we are sort of
moving towards a low-carbon transition, we have to make sure
that the jobs that are going to be created in the new climate
economy are well-paying jobs, they provide access to people
from all communities, and they come, you know, with benefits,
and they are accessible to pretty much everyone.
So in terms of that, I think it is really incumbent on the
clean energy, you know, the private sector working in
partnership with policymakers and, you know, universities and
education institutions to understand what are the skills that
are going to be needed in this new industry, what are the gaps
that need to be addressed, and work towards making sure that
these challenges are being addressed.
Otherwise, I think we will perpetrate many of the
inequalities and inequities that the currency has seen, and we
cannot replicate those again.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Doctor.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Representative Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Shimkus, for holding this hearing today and to our
panelists for offering their valuable perspectives.
You know, noted economist Thomas Sowell once said, ``there
are no solutions, only tradeoffs.'' So I am afraid that as the
majority continues to hold hearing after hearing on their goal
of replacing fossil fuels with a green economy.
My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to
admit the advantages America will have to forego in order to
realize their green goals. As members of this subcommittee, it
is our duty to dive deeper on these sweeping policy proposals
that would fundamentally restructure America's energy economy.
I would argue that it would fundamentally weaken America's
energy economy.
Americans deserve to know the full scope of economic,
environmental, and geopolitical costs of some of these much
discussed proposals, like massively scaling up wind and solar
or tremendously increasing the use of batteries. If this
subcommittee won't look into it, who will?
For example, the testimony today reveals that these
sweeping proposals to rapidly shift to green energy would
likely result in American dependence on long, fragile supply
chains moving through lands controlled by our adversaries. But
I have to ask you, is this what we really want for America?
We should welcome innovation in helping America produce
cleaner and more abundant energy, as we always have; but a
policy change as fundamental as restructuring our energy
economy and potentially seeding our energy independence must be
discussed with clear eyes and a true appreciation for the costs
and risks in doing so.
So, Dr. Michot Foss, we have witnessed a shell revolution
in the United States, which I have seen firsthand in eastern
and southeastern Ohio. And it has made America the global
energy leader, strengthening our geopolitical hand, as well as
spurring our economy.
Domestic demand will continue to rise for critical minerals
and crucial rare metals for use in electrical components. But,
unfortunately, America is dangerously dependent on these
materials being mined and processed abroad.
What do we need to do, Dr. Michot Foss, what do we need to
do to get America on a firm footing with these materials like
we have seen with natural gas production?
Dr. Michot Foss. Well, I think, first of all, what the
committee could do is consider that our natural resource
endowments are not unsubstantial.
The question is, are we willing to access our own resources
and bring them into the market? We are still never going to be
able to supply everything that everybody would want to use for
any of the applications that we have been talking about today.
So we still will need trade access for those. But I think
what we could do is we could look at our own backyard and see
what we are willing to do and how we would be willing to do it,
with what kind of guidance and what our expectations are in
terms of performance of the industry.
No business is perfect. I mean, none of the things that we
have talked about today are going to be completely free of
problems and challenges and other things.
But in your point about our domestic oil and gas
businesses, I think anybody who has studied those over time has
seen what the industry can do to improve technologies, to
reduce its own emissions, to be more efficient.
The mining industry and minerals processes could do the
same. We would have expectations about how they perform. They
need to be able to gain access to the resources for development
and build the logistics in order to deliver them.
And I can tell you that in talking with any of the
industries that we visit with, whether it is automakers who are
trying to step up their commitments to electric vehicles, or
people who are trying to plan wind and solar projects,
distributor generation, think about new grid expansions and
improvements, or whatever, all of those folks would like to
have more domestic content in their businesses. And some of
them are making major obligations to that.
So that is something you all have to think about because I
think before you spend money trying to promote the application,
you need to think about the inputs and how the inputs are going
to be provided.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you very much.
I did have a second question. I will submit it for the
record, Mr. Chairman. But I will yield my time now.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome to do that. So thank you so
much. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Illinois who
serves as Chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce, Representative Schakowsky. You are recognized,
Representative, for 5 minutes, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for this important hearing.
You know, we started 2020 watching the horrifying wildfires
in Australia that took millions and millions of acres, and now
as we speak, of course, we are seeing that happening on the
West Coast and the devastation. So let me also just give my
condolences and my concern to my colleagues and, of course,
their constituents that are facing so many challenges and even
death right now.
And I really appreciate the effort that everyone is making
right now, particularly our firefighters going into harm's way,
and also the weather occurrences that are happening in the East
and the multiple, you know, challenges that we have there.
And so I wanted to talk about something that is happening
in Illinois. The Federal Government is investing in a program
in Chicago that we call Brownfields to Brightfields, and this
program converts old industrial facilities into solar
brightfields, and it also creates good paying jobs and the
benefits to the community around the city.
So there are so many ways that our local communities can
provide good jobs, but I wanted to talk right now to President
Stephenson. You know what, the subheading of this hearing today
is "Opportunities for an Equitable, Low-Carbon Recovery." And I
don't know that everyone would necessarily suspect that a big
part of that could be talking about unions, and I wanted to
explore that a little bit with you.
As a dues-paying, currently, union member myself--I have
continued to pay my do you see even as I am here in Congress--
it seems to me that this is a really important factor, that--in
fact, I was a big supporter--I am a big supporter of the PRO
Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize, if we want to
rebuild a middle class even as we make our country more green.
So I wanted to ask you, how does union, in your view,
really fit into this discussion about how we build a more
equitable and job secure future?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, thank you, Representative Schakowsky,
and, again as a fellow Illinoisan, it is great to see you.
You know, we think it is very important as we move forward
with the renewable energies and the new technologies that are
going to come out of that, that those are good paying, good
quality jobs, union jobs, that can provide--that those workers
can adequately work and provide for their families.
And we in the, you know, building trades and in the
construction trades, we all have recognized--and we talked
about the communities that have been underrepresented or been
the ones that have been directly affected by climate change,
and we have all across the building trades really increased our
efforts to attract and get more women and people of color into
our programs because we know that--and we have training
programs all across the United States.
In every State we have got training programs that is
already there and privately paid for between us and our
contractors.
And so we have the opportunity to, as these new
technologies and jobs come out is get--have the training
available to train new workers to come in with the specific
skills they need to be able to, you know, go out and maybe it
is a wind tech.
Somebody that is taking care of those wind turbines, or,
you know, in the solar. There is maintenance jobs that also,
like you said, hopefully we can get back to where we are
manufacturing some of those products as well, and that would
provide great opportunities for jobs in areas where they really
need them.
Ms. Schakowsky. So bringing jobs home and also good union
jobs.
Dr. Fairchild, you heard what our president of the union
has said. How important is it to make sure that there is
reaching out to the communities that really need the help?
Dr. Fairchild. It is essential. I think we need to rebuild
the middle class if we rebuild our labor unions. But we do have
to really find a better way to get people of color into unions,
especially the IBEW.
And, by the way, amazing relationships with IBEW and they
are opening up their apprenticeship programs, but these are
hard tests for young people to pass.
So we have to have intensive boot camps to figure out how
to pass these tests, and HVAC and electrical trades and other
trades.
So there is a lot of work to be done, but that is the work
that we need to do.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, I
believe is next, Mr. Flores. Or do we have Representative Long
with us?
Mr. Long. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. We do?
Mr. Long. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Mr. Long, I am sorry we lost you there for a
minute. You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Foss, from your testimony it is clear that
critical materials play a significant role in a transition to
clean energy, and the U.S. is becoming more dependent on these
minerals by the day.
Even though America has trillions of dollars in mineral
reserves, we are 100 percent relying on importing more than a
dozen key minerals. Most of these minerals come from China and
other countries around the world that don't share our values
and don't play by our rules.
This is especially clear with respect to environmental
standards where these countries are far less concerned about
environmental impact of their processes to extract these
critical minerals.
I see from your testimony that you are working with
Missouri Science and Technology in Rolla, Missouri, and crafted
recommendations for the upcoming G20 hearing related to these
topics. Can you explain the current conditions of our domestic
mining industry?
Dr. Michot Foss. Well, our domestic mining industry has
faded just as a lot of our domestic industries have,
manufacturing. And that is a consequence of both commodity
markets and pressures from commodity markets, lower cost
sources abroad, and partly due to governance in those exporting
countries, producing in exporting countries.
And also because we, in protecting people, in protecting
the environment, it made our costs higher, and that is
something that is a tradeoff. We made it easier for competitors
to supply raw materials who don't have the same obligations
over their industries that we do.
Mr. Long. OK. Well, we have critical materials right here
at home, especially on Federal lands so the reason, why can't
we produce American.
Dr. Michot Foss. It takes a really long time to permit a
new mining facility. It can take a really long time to open one
that has already been in operation and is being recommissioned.
I think the point came up earlier, dealing with Federal
lands is very difficult. Not much of what I think people would
pursue would be on private lands, so we don't have, you know, a
more flexible arrangement there. It is not that scrutiny is a
bad thing.
Scrutiny is a good thing. If processes could be
streamlined, if there was more certainty around the permitting
process for new facilities, if there were ways of being able to
build better consensus among different groups about access and
how mining operations would be conducted in different
locations, along with all of the supporting infrastructure,
then I think we would be in better shape.
I often feel that what we really need to do is just
revisit--if we are serious about this, we need to just revisit
the entire scope of how regulation is as it pertains to the
mining in the United States to see where improvements can be
made in order to be able to generate more of a----
Mr. Long. I think we are serious about it, and I would say
to import 12 minerals, you know, it is not a good thing.
So the third domestic environmental permitting process hurt
our international competitiveness in this area.
Dr. Michot Foss. I think that certainly what it has done is
it has made our industry clean and safe. It has contributed to
that. I think people have learned how to adapt.
Just like every other business, the mining industry has
acquired new practices. There is a lot more that can be done to
make mining safe and to make it clean. I mentioned that
earlier, we have got emerging ideas and emerging practices that
we ought to be the leader in because we are the best place with
our rules, our laws, and our transparency to be able to
implement some of the things that people talk about, greener
mining, climate friendly mining, you know, things that actually
do a better job of protecting mineworkers.
We are deploying new technologies to reduce the human
interface. I mean, this is happening in all basic industries.
One way to make mining safer is to have fewer mineworkers. I
mean, this is a reality in the business in terms of being able
to move things forward. Better thinking, better management over
permitting, licensing, compliance, and other things I think
would help.
Mr. Long. You hit on permitting there at the end, and that
was going to be my next question, but I will submit it for the
record since I am out of time, as far as the permitting process
and fixing that to be more competitive in our global markets.
And thank you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
Next we recognize the gentle lady from California,
Representative Matsui, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
really very important hearing. I think it is really critical
that we recognize that this is not a one-off deal. Climate
change is happening, certainly in California, Oregon, and
Washington State, but also throughout the country, whether it
is fires or whether it is tremendous hurricanes. This is
impacting the entire country, so this hearing is really quite
important.
You know, I believe we need to chart a path forward that
addresses not only immediacy and gravity of the climate crisis
but recognize that costs to inaction are not borne equally by
all Americans. Moving toward a clean energy will create new and
lasting economic opportunities for helping really to alleviate
some of the disproportionate impacts harming frontline
communities.
Now, over the last several weeks, more than 700 wildfires
have been burning throughout California. If you look at a map
of California and the West Coast, you see these little icons of
just fires going on all over.
This is including the second and third largest in our
State's history. The fires this year are even more disruptive
than last, and we have just seen just the beginning of the
season. So this is not the height of the destruction right now.
The 2018 and 2019 fires cost more than $40 billion, and as
the fire season goes longer and more severe, I am really
concerned that the costs in terms of human life and economic
damage will only grow.
So, as I said before, this is not just California and the
West Coast. It is coming all throughout the country. So this is
a national problem, and it has huge economic downsides.
So, Dr. Saha, can you describe what your research shows
regarding the economic impacts of climate inaction in terms of
the U.S. GDP?
Dr. Saha. Thank you.
I think that is a very important question because
oftentimes when we debate about the merits of climate policy,
we don't take into account the costs that are already being
borne on the U.S. economy. And as I said in my oral testimony,
the longer we delay taking action, the longer the United States
is going to be vulnerable to increasing damages from climate
catastrophe and air pollution and other impacts.
And I think there is literature that says, emerging studies
that have actually looked at how much climate inaction is going
to shave off, you know, from U.S. GDP in case it fails to take
action. And the impact on U.S. GDP is actually going to be
quite significant.
So, in that sense, I think it is really urgent that we
understand the gravity of the situation and look at all
technologies that can get us to a path of reducing emissions by
2050.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
And, you know, I am talking about wildfires and the fact
that we have such significant air pollution that we can barely
breathe, day is night, and it is just totally incredible; but
we also have the aspects of flooding. In my district,
Sacramento is the second most flooded town and urban are in
this country, second to New Orleans.
And climate change exacerbates the risk of extreme weather
and flooding events which makes it more common even throughout
the Midwest. Modernizing our water infrastructure has
significant public safety implications and presents an
opportunity to minimize our carbon footprint.
Dr. Fairchild, what steps should we be taking to ensure our
water infrastructure is climate resistant, resilient, and
clean?
Dr. Fairchild. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
Well, I think there are two things I would like to bring
into focus. One is how do we mitigate and slow carbon
emissions; and then, secondly, how do we adapt to the fact that
the climate change is here and the fires are here and how do we
build an infrastructure to do both.
On the one hand, our mitigation strategy in green
infrastructure looks at watersheds, doing water management
infrastructure, which is not the centralized water systems, but
really how do we capture water.
On school sites, for example, a lot of initiatives are
helping to dig up our playgrounds and making permeable
pavements, and we can do this to our streets to capture the
water to prevent flooding so it goes into the aquifer.
So there are a number of things, new technologies in
coastal restoration and sort of ecological approaches to
mitigation.
I guess the more important part is the adaptation, besides
the green infrastructure, which is a job generator, by the way,
from landscaping to putting up free canopies to address urban
heat islands, that we really need to figure out how to adapt to
rising heat waves and temperatures in our communities by making
our communities cooler.
So I think that the water, energy, climate nexus is clear,
and we need to recognize that these are water infrastructures,
a huge energy consumer, but we also need to build an
infrastructure to adapt to the floods that are taking place.
Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you very much for all of your work.
And I see I have run out of time, so I yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Representatives Flores, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding the hearing today.
Dr. Michot Foss, I have a couple of questions for you, but
let me start with this. The goal of this hearing is to
determine how we can build a hundred percent clean economy with
opportunities for a low-carbon recovery.
But let me say this, that there are no equitable
opportunities for recovery for hardworking Americans if the
power is out at work or if the lights out at home or school for
our Nation's kids.
And California is an example of how to do this incorrectly.
The California Green New Deal ignores the science of
electricity physics, and it ignores market forces when setting
power policy.
Today their flawed policies are causing blackouts and
brownouts, and last year they caused massive fires.
California's Governor Newsom recently said that the failure
to prevent blackouts was unacceptable, and he called for an
investigation.
Well, he won't have to look far because their problems are
caused by their failed policies. The Wall Street Journal summed
up this viewpoint in an editorial recently saying that
California's blackouts were a warning to the rest of America
about the risk of Green New Deal policies.
In contrast, Texas is a great example about how to do it
right. While oil and gas are both very important to Texas, our
State is also a leader of renewable energy. In fact, renewable
energy throughout Texas has helped to place our State ahead of
all others in contributing to renewable energy production.
According to an article that appeared in Green Tech Media
in January, Texas accounted for more than a quarter of all
corporate renewable energy deals signed in 2019 around the
world. This phenomenal growth is driven by the successful
market-based model adapted in Texas in the 1990s when Texas
began to deregulate the power industry.
The contrast between California and Texas clearly shows
that policy solutions for a low-carbon economy should be based
on real world strategies focused on conservation, innovation,
adaptation, and market dynamics.
It is also important to realize that policymakers need to
pay close attention to the importance of baseload power
generation. In this context we should heed the comments of Mr.
Stephenson, the President of the IBEW, where he talks about his
organization's support for preserving key baseload energy
services, including natural gas, coal, and nuclear power.
And as stated in his written testimony, the IBEW sees
existing and advanced nuclear power as the cornerstone of low-
carbon future. His testimony also states that as the United
States moves toward increasing reliance on renewable energy,
such as solar and wind, the need for nuclearenergy's
reliability, the country's only carbon-free source that can
ensure around-the-clock generation, even during inclement
weather, has become greater.
Today's hearing, which explores the attributes of renewable
energy, is a topic in which I have taken a keen personal
interest. With regard to the moving toward carbon-neutral
future, I have done more than talk about it. My residence is
the largest producer of residential solar power in Brazos
County, Texas, and during the hottest part of day, I will be
feeding power back into our local grid.
Overall, on an annual basis, I generate 40 percent of my
own power. And since 2014, by careful energy usage management
and converting to 100 percent LED lighting, we have reduced our
gross electricity percentage by another 37 percent.
Mr. Flores. The point that I want to make is that finding a
lasting solution to any of our economic, environmental, and
energy solutions requires us to use nothing less than all of
the tools in our toolbox, and our solutions again need to focus
on conservation, innovation, adaptation to market dynamics.
So, again, Dr. Michot Foss, thank you for being here today
and thank you for your blunt warnings regarding the severe
economic security and environmental risk of relying on China to
achieve our clean energy goals
We as policymakers should also heed your comments regarding
the fallacy of expanding pollution sources in China in order to
meet our environmental objectives. In my opening statements, I
discussed the contrast between the successes of Texas energy
policy, which has reduced energy emissions, and that of
California, which has experienced a number of shortcomings
resulting in rolling blackouts and other issues.
Can you speak to the difference in the way these two States
approach incentivizing low-carbon energy production and
reducing emissions while maintaining economic growth?
Dr. Michot Foss. The most important difference is that we
have an energy-only market, meaning electricity comes into the
wholesale market on a full competitive basis. We have price
caps that send price signals into the market that people
respond to. Also renewable energy that has been developed,
including probably yours at your household, Mr. Flores, have
benefited from Federal tax supports. So there is that but one
thing that we have done that--that is very difficult to do
around the country is to build high-voltage transmission to
carry renewable energy sources into the market. That was not
easy. In fact, there is a lot to learn from that experience.
Mr. Flores. OK. And my next question is this, and we may
have to get to you answer it supplementally for me. We need to
think about this beyond our borders and think globally. With
respect to that, U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG, can ensure
that global energy demand is met in a manner that minimizes
greenhouse gas emissions while maximizing reliability and cost
efficiency. So, based on your expertise, what are your thoughts
on increasing LNG use and exports as a way to meet global
energy, security, and environmental goals?
Dr. Michot Foss. Mr. Chairman, should I answer?
Mr. Tonko. Please do.
Dr. Michot Foss. OK.
Mr. Tonko. If you could do it quickly though.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Michot Foss. To the extent that, as was already pointed
out by other panelists, natural gas has a lower carbon content
fuel, then what we would be helping to do through our LNG
exports is reducing carbon emissions in other locations around
the world the same way that we achieved carbon emission
reductions here. It is low-hanging fruit. It is something to
think about.
Mr. Flores. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Chairman, you are muted.
Mr. Tonko. Sorry about that.
The gentleman yielded back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
Representative McNerney. You are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Chairman. I thank the
ranking members, and I thank the witnesses. Interesting hearing
this morning.
So watching the members' questions, I observed that we
are--both sides are talking past each other, and that is
unfortunate. The climate is clearly changing. It may not be
impacting Ohio just yet, but it will. It is imperative to
reduce carbon emissions, but energy security is also important,
and everyone recognizes that. The challenge is to reduce
emissions while improving energy reliability. I believe that
that is possible.
And that is why I recently introduced H.R. 7975, the GREEN
Workforce Act, which focuses on helping Americans train for and
transition to careers in clean energy fields, providing them
with the skills needed to develop and operate clean energy
systems of the future.
Mr. Stephenson, thank you for your testimony. By all
accounts, we will need millions of new jobs in order to fully
recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic. But while
the energy sector saw incredible job growth over the past
decade, the distribution of that growth has not been equitable
and diverse. What can be done ensure that the historically
underrepresented groups are not overlooked as the clean energy
jobs are created?
Mr. Stephenson. Yes, thank you for that question.
As I kind of alluded to earlier, within IBEW, ourselves, we
have developed what we call IBEW Strong and that is designed
particularly to make sure that we are reaching out to
communities that haven't been part of the--particularly on our
construction side--of the IBEW, that we are embracing and
bringing different communities, people that maybe didn't think
they have a place in the IBEW. It is part of the training and
education of our local unions, of our apprenticeship programs.
We just partnered with our National Electrical Contractors
Association, NECA, and they are taking on the same goal, is to
make sure we are increasing our diversity and inclusion within
our construction industry. And so that's a vital part of it.
And as these new jobs are created, like I mentioned before,
we have got training facilities all across the country. Every
State, we have got training facilities. So we are in a position
that we can, you know, bring these new workers into our
programs, get them the training that they need to be
successful, and lead the industry as these new technologies and
new opportunities open up.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Saha, Dr. Fairchild, agriculture is the biggest
economic sector in my district. In your testimony, you each
highlighted the role of carbon farming in enhancing
productivity, profitability, and resilience in the ag sector.
Please describe the economic and climate benefits associated
with improving soil health and sequestration.
Dr. Saha first.
Dr. Saha. Hi. So, Yes, so natural carbon capture in trees
and agricultural soil actually lead to emission reductions. But
they also have a lot of economic benefits in terms of enhancing
productivity, profitability, and resilience in U.S. farms,
forests, and rural communities. So one thing, one strategy is,
you know, tree restoration, whether it is happening in forests
or interspersed across, you know, nonforested rural landscape.
That has, you know, one of the greatest potential to sequester
carbon.
Also things like improved soil management can enhance
carbon storage in agriculture soils by reducing carbon losses
or increasing carbon uptake, and these practices also provide
other benefits, including reduced erosion or resilience to
drought and in some cases increased eels (ph).
So these can open up significant opportunity for rural
farming communities to economically benefit from the adoption
of improved soil management practices.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Fairchild.
Dr. Fairchild. I want to speak to the probably the
distribution and processing side of this which really accounts
for as much as 25, 20 percent--26 percent of energy waste
appeared energy emissions and what we are doing is building--
bringing the farmers closer to the markets by shortening the
supply chain, working with anchor institutions, Eds and Meds,
to buy sustainable foods and to buy locally.
And we are--we are building now an 800,000 square foot
sustainable food factory, hiring 250 union workers in
sustainable foods, and at the same time buying within the 250-
mile food shed food products from farmers to--into that
processing facility. So it addresses emission. It addresses
jobs. It addresses business opportunities.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
All right. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Representative Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a very timely
hearing. I want to thank all the panelists for being here. Bill
Flores, great comments earlier.
I would be remiss if I didn't address the wildfires out
West and really point to the failure of the folks in Western
States from actively managing the Nation's forests. These are
resources that the taxpayers own in many, many instances, and
we are seeing over the last few years very rampant while fires
out there. We have to ask ourselves: Why? If you look at the
fires last year in California, many were started from faulty
transition lines arcing and sparking. This year we have seen
lightning strikes. We have seen terrorism, ecoterrorists, and
arsonists. We have also seen a gender reveal party start one of
the largest fires in California. That is well beyond any sort
of climate change that you are trying to blame these fires on.
Let's look at what actually is causing the rampant
wildfires to be as large and out of control as they are, and
that is lack of forest management over a number of decades.
That is prescribed burning. We need to, as a Nation, realize
that a little bit of nuisance during the winter and spring wet
months for a prescribed burning, the smoke that is going come
from prescribed burns that take that fuel out of the way is
much better than the rampant smoke that we are seeing all
across the West now coming from the wildfires in many, many
States. And it is not just California. It is Washington. It is
Montana. It is Oregon where we have not actively managed these
fires.
We need to put in shading and firebreaks. We need to have
prescribed burns. We need to manage the Nation's resources, and
that is failure of many, many States and that is a policy, Mr.
Chairman, I think we need to look at beyond climate change is
look at how we manage the Nation's timber resources.
And all the experts in the field of forestry will agree
with me that you have got to take the fuel away or you are
going to experience this, regardless of the cause, whether it
is a lightning strike or a faulty transmission line.
So, while I am talking about transmission lines, let's talk
about what is going on in California this year that is pretty
applicable to this hearing, and that is a 60-year failure of
California energy structure to maintain and upgrade the
transmission lines, the move toward renewable energy, which is
intermittent. So, when you have really 100-plus days and a lot
of demand, you see rolling brownouts and blackouts. That is
going to happen when you go to a more renewable energy source.
Let me tell you what does work, and that is fossil fuels
and nuclear power. If we want to lower our carbon footprint, we
need to put more emphasis on nuclear power. In fact, let me
show you this graphic. And there is a lot of windmills on that.
I don't know that you can see this, but let me read this
graphic. It takes 2,077 2-megawatt wind generators to produce
about nine million megawatt hours of electricity, 2,000
windmills. The same energy can be produced by--one 1154-
megawatt nuclear power plant produces about the same amount of
energy. This--the square footage, you could put all of that--
you know how much land it takes to put 2,000-something wind
generators up? In less than 1 square mile footprint, you can
have a nuclear power plant that is going to provide the same
amount of low-carbon electricity generation. That is where we
need to put our emphasis.
Ms. Fairchild, you talked earlier about hydro. I think Ms.
Matsui was asking about hydropower and reservoir and clean
water. This is rhetorical, but when was the last time that
California built a reservoir to hold the water that is coming
out of the Sierra Nevadas that is flowing into the ocean every
year? Instead of holding that water to use as clean drinking
water or use for hydropower, we are going to stop any sort of
hydropower development in California because of a smelt order,
not thinking about the need of human beings in California.
They need clean drinking water and the glaring need this
year of good, stable, 24/7, 365 baseload power that is provided
by nuclear power or hydro or fossil fuels that you are not
going to get through renewables. And, look, I am all about
renewables. I love it. I think it is groovy technology. I think
it is part of the energy matrix. But we know what works, just
like we know what works with active forest management of the
resources that we have.
It is interesting that these wildfires aren't rampant in
Canada or Mexico, a very similar topography as what we see in
California. But when we see these wildfires are out of control,
then we understand why. It is because we have not actively
managed our forest resources, and we have got to do that. That
is a policy change.
Mr. Chairman, I have 11 seconds. I want to thank you for
this hearing.
And I think California and the Nation really needs to
address active forest management and look at good, stable, 365,
24/7 baseload power supply generation that comes from fossil
fuels, it comes from nuclear power, and upgrading our grid
system to make sure that we don't have sparks that are causing
a lot of fires in the past.
With that, I will yield back.
Dr. Fairchild. Congressman, I wanted to correct for the
record. I did not make a--take a position on water, on water
power. So just wanted to correct that.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. Recognized.
So the gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr.
Ruiz.
Representative Ruiz, you are represented for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Ruiz. You know, as a Californian, it strikes me funny
to hear a Republican from southern--South Carolina blame
environmental laws for climate change and also recognizing that
the vast majority of forest land in California is Federal land.
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ruiz. No.
I am Congressman Raul Ruiz. I represent California's 36th
Congressional District, which includes 11 federally--I am
sorry--got the wrong thing. I got all worked up after hearing
that. One second.
You know, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. Today's hearing examines two of the most pressing
issues facing Californians and my constituents right now: the
massive economic toll of the COVID-19 pandemic and the
devastating effects of climate change. Unemployment for my
district remains above 13 percent, and small businesses from
Hemet to Cathedral City have been contacting my office to share
their specific hardships as a result of the pandemic.
At the same time, wildfires have torched 3.5 million acres
in California, three percent of the State's total area
including the 30,000-acre Apple fire, which threatened the city
of Banning in my district. As climate change worsens, these
fires will only get worse, more intense, and more frequent. And
it is hard to imagine a worse fire season than what we have
seen so far this year. That is why it is so important that we
use this opportunity to invest in industries that can reduce
our carbon output while also putting Americans back to work.
The daily high temperature in the Coachella Valley desert
hasn't dropped below 100 degrees since June, and with more of
my constituents at home during the day either because they are
unemployed or working remotely, air conditioners are working
overtime and requiring more energy and more costs than ever.
There is no better time to invest in harnessing solar energy to
lower utility bills, reduce carbon emissions, and save our
environment and our health from climate change.
As of 2018, there were more than 2,300 individuals employed
by solar energy companies in my district alone, and I believe
that we can continue to grow this number and bring the promise
of clean energy and secure unemployment to everyone. This is
why I introduced H.R. 7849, the Renewable Energy Jobs Act,
which would create a Federal grant to fund training programs
that help people find good-paying jobs in renewable industries
like wind and solar development.
Ms. Saha, in your testimony, you describe how investment in
clean energy industries can help put Americans back to work.
Specifically you describe how every $1 million invested in
renewable energy can generate 78 full-time equivalent jobs. Can
you give this committee a better sense of what that that means
and how investment translates into employment?
Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
Representative Ruiz, may I just take a few minutes to
address something that--
Mr. Ruiz. We only have 1-minute and 50 seconds left. So, if
you can address it in ten seconds and then answer the question,
that would be wonderful.
Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
We are hearing a lot of issues about how renewable energy
is to blame for, you know, California's, you know, first
rolling blackouts in 19 years. And I just want to say that that
is a mischaracterization of the problem. So data shows that,
right now, California's net electricity generation from one
hydro renewable clean energy source is about 40 percent. Iowa
has about 60 percent. So, clearly, the problem isn't the amount
of renewable energy on the State's grid but what the State and
its utilities are doing to balance its resources. So let's not
blame renewable energy for rolling blackouts.
Mr. Ruiz. It is interesting that that argument also
coincides with cuts in forest management in the budgets that we
have seen over the past this administration and also the answer
to this climate change is more reliance on fossil fuels.
Let me ask Mr. Stephenson a question, because I only have a
few seconds. You know, we have worked closely with labor in
making sure that labor has the ability to receive grant funding
to train people in renewable energy jobs on-site. So how will
investing in solar and wind energy development help create more
job opportunities in places like the Coachella Valley where one
of those large solar plants that we have been working on
together help create more jobs?
Mr. Stephenson. As the new jobs, new technologies continue
to move forward, it is going to be new training. It is going to
be needed, you know, bring in more workers in, into the
industry and getting them trained on the--on solar and wind,
what have you. So and we are a part of that is our training
programs. Like I said, we are all over the country. So we are
prepared to do that and assess to get the trained people to not
only do those installs, but also retrofit is also an important
part of that process.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
I have run out of time. So I will yield it back to the
Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Representative Carter.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for participating in this. This is
certainly something that is extremely important, extremely
timely. There is no question about that.
Dr. Foss, I want to start with you and ask you. When we
discuss a transition to a low-carbon economy, we have to
discuss the cost and the requirements that are associated with
the supply chain. And certainly supply chains, as we know, are
very important. I want to point out two examples of where
supply chains are important.
First of all, I am old enough and I suspect there are some
other members on this call who are old enough to remember the
late 1970s when we realized that we were too dependent on
foreign countries, particularly the Middle East, for our energy
needs, and we needed to have more energy independence.
More recently, we have recognized that we are too dependent
on other countries for our pharmaceutical needs. During this
pandemic that we are experiencing right now, we understand that
they are essential ingredients that we can't do without in
order to--in order to manufacture some of our pharmaceuticals
and in order to get those, we have to get them from other
countries, and that is not a good position for us to be in.
So I appreciate the fact that you have pointed out that we
need to look at this in detail. We need to look at the supply
chain and to look at the cost and the sources of these
materials.
I want to ask you, Dr. Foss. Do you believe that the energy
policies that are being proposed really adequately factor in
the requirements for mining for rare earth minerals, for the
production of aggregates when we use--that are used in concrete
and cement industries are the locations of where these minerals
are mined?
Dr. Michot Foss. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Carter. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate you being
succinct about that because it is an important point, and
certainly it is an important point for us to recognize this.
You know, I live in what I consider to be one of the most
beautiful areas in south Georgia. I represent the entire coast
of Georgia. And if you look at that, you know, we have had a
number of companies that have looked at mining, and we have got
the Okefenokee Swamp, which is a great national treasure that
all of us love and none of us want to see disrupted. Yet there
are minerals there that could save us and help us in this
country, but nobody wants it in their back yard, and I get it.
I understand that, and that is one thing I think we have to
take into consideration.
You also mentioned, Dr. Foss, in your testimony how the
United States was ranked 12th overall in nonfuel mineral
production. We know that many of these critical minerals are
mined in poor conditions in areas like the Republic of the
Congo, or they are used for strategic advantage by the
Japanese--or by the Chinese--excuse me--and that they use them,
just like I mentioned earlier, that we are witnessing right now
that they are using the pharmaceuticals to their advantage. We
understand that that is not a good position for us to be in,
and we should not be in that position.
How important is it for us to factor into the supply chain
questions when we are planning for future energy investments?
Dr. Michot Foss. First of all, let me quickly correct the
record. I had a cut-and-paste error in the testimony. We
represent 12 percent of the global nonfuel mineral output, but
we might as well be 12th when it comes to the things we don't
produce sufficient amounts of.
So we have talked about--we put governance on the table,
which is what you are talking about again, responsible mining
and minerals production, responsible energy production from any
source; it doesn't matter where it comes from, what the
technology is. Best practice, that is another phrase. What is
best practice? We have lots of engineering standards that are
used, widely used, and indicative of best practice.
The huge difference is that, in our country, for better or
worse, when projects are proposed of any sort, any type of
industrial project, they undergo tremendous amounts of
scrutiny. We have laws and rules to protect people, property,
and the larger environment, and we have transparency. And if
something happens, we know about it.
And what we would like to see is we would like to see a
level playing field and see these kinds of things adopted,
these kinds of values and practices adopted in other countries
that are going to supply the global economy.
Mr. Carter. Great. Well, I am out of time.
Dr. Foss, thank you very much.
And thank everyone who has participated in this today.
It has been a very good hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. I thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the full
committee, Representative Clarke, from my home State of New
York.
Represent Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
our ranking member for convening today's hearing at such a
critical time for our country.
As has been stated by numerous of my colleagues, we
currently stand at the intersection of multiple crises: a
public health crisis, an economic crisis, a crisis over
longstanding racial injustice, and a climate crisis that
threatens our very existence on this planet,
Now, as we look toward an economic recovery, we must
address the deep-seated and interrelated issues with
comprehensive solutions that put our country on the path to a
more resilient and equitable future.
In my district in Brooklyn, we know the importance of
resilience all too well. We have felt the impacts of climate
change firsthand from Superstorm Sandy to summer heat waves
that disrupt our power supply. And as our Nation experiences
record fires out West and a record hurricane season down South,
we know that resilience must be a primary consideration in all
of our efforts to build a better future.
So I would like to begin by focusing on the idea of
resilience starting with Dr. Saha.
Dr. Saha, in your testimony, you describe the importance of
rebuilding a low-carbon economy that is resilient to future
shocks from climate change and other crises. You also describe
the importance of ensuring that decarbonization policies and
technologies benefit all communities and not just those with
the most resources.
Can you please expand on the need for what you refer to as
climate-smart investments and how these investments in smarter,
low-carbon technologies can start to build an economy that is
simultaneously more resilient, competitive, and inclusive?
Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
I think as we think about the benefits of transitioning to
a low-carbon economy, we have to keep front and center issues
of resiliency and equity because these are issues that are
going to determine whether our climate policies are going to be
effective in the long run as well.
So one of the things in terms of resiliency, let me, you
know, give you an example from rural communities in this
country. So plenty of research has shown that rural households
suffer from a higher energy burden compared to their urban
counterparts. So investments in things like energy efficiency
can actually address that challenge that is being faced by
rural communities, things like it can save them hundreds of
dollars annually on utility bills. So, at a time when low
income communities, whether in urban USA or in rural
communities, are suffering from, you know, unemployment issues,
thing like saving money on their utility bills is actually
speaking to the whole resiliency issue.
So that is, you know, just one example that, you know, I
would like to highlight.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Dr. Saha.
Dr. Fairchild, your organization, Emerald Cities, works to
build resilience in communities that are on the front lines of
climate change, including communities in New York City who were
impacted by Superstorm Sandy. You also mentioned in your
testimony the importance of climate equity and how we need to
bounce forward and not bounce back.
Can you please discuss the importance of building
resilience in communities that you work with and how these
efforts go hand in hand with investments in clean energy and
climate equity?
Dr. Fairchild. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
And I was born and raised in Brooklyn and Queens. So I am
homegirl.
The essence of resilience is that there is at least
minimally issues of redundancy. If the central energy grid goes
down, people still have the ability to turn on their lights, to
cook, and to plug in their iPhones. The same with the food
system, as in COVID, when the food central distribution system
falls down, where do we get our food from? So we are doing
things like, for example, just in Brooklyn, the Armory is
actually--and this is what frontline communities are organized
to do--putting solar on top of the Armory that would feed clean
energy, renewable energy to the surrounding neighborhoods. I
believe it is about 2 kilowatts, 2 megawatts of clean energy
that is being produced. Folks are looking for micro grids,
community energy districts that will allow them to be resilient
in the case of--so we don't see a Puerto Rico, where the whole
city, whole county goes black because there is no backup
generation, no energy.
So how do we build these decentralized energy
infrastructures, decentralized food infrastructure that allows
us to be resilient in the case of extreme whether?
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
This is a very good hearing. Look forward to much further
consideration and conversation as we move forward to advance
our Nation with clean energy future. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I have to note that all roads lead to
Brooklyn, according to--
Ms. Clarke. Yes, they do, sir.
Mr. Tonko. So the gentle lady yields back.
And I now recognize the gentle lady from Michigan,
Representative Dingell, you are represented for 5 minutes,
please.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Thanks for holding
this hearing. As my other colleagues having said, it's a great
hearing.
And thank you to all of the witnesses, who I know by the
time you get to somebody like me, you will be glad when this is
over.
But today's hearing is incredibly important as we find
ourselves confronting multiple intersecting crises. No State,
no community, no sector of our economy has been spared from
COVID-19, and the public health and economic impacts have been
devastating, and tragically this crisis is only getting worse.
But the parallels to the climate crisis are unmistakable.
The human and economic toll of unmitigated climate change
aren't a distant inevitably. They are here and wreaking havoc
on our communities. If you just look at the headlines this
week: The West is on fire. Hurricane Sally is pounding the
Southern States, and scientists believe two major Antarctic
glaciers are on the verge of breaking free.
This is what climate change looks like, but we have got
time to work together and to act boldly. It is time to reboot
our economy and create a cleaner, more inclusive future for all
Americans. And I hope that all of us can work together to
summon the courage to act with the urgency that we need to
tackle the climate crisis and come together on a way forward.
It is always good to see my brothers and sisters in labor
at the table. I think they are a very important voice. Mr.
Stephenson, your testimony discusses how Congress and this
committee in particular can revive American manufacturing. I
think that is critical.
Can you please expand on how manufacturing policy, coupled
with major public investments, can support America's middle
class while addressing the climate crisis? It is not either/or
but especially in the context of today's economic downturn.
Mr. Stephenson. Yes. Thank you.
And it is critical that all the jobs that could be created
or should be created as we continue to move into a more carbon
neutral or renewable energy source; there is lots of
manufacturing jobs that could be out there. And that is going
to not only, you know, when you go into the auto industry and
converting to more electric vehicles and all the building, the
manufacturing of the batteries that we have already talked
about, the solar panels, the wind turbans. If we could truly
manufacture that here in States, it would create hundreds of
thousands of good-paying, quality jobs for Americans in this
country.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
And your testimony also expressed support for a national
climate bank, much like the one that I have introduced this
session. That program, the Clean Energy and Sustainable
Accelerator, was included in the infrastructure bill that
passed the House in June and is also in the Clean Economy Jobs
and Innovation Act that was introduced yesterday. With $20
billion in funding, the accelerator would finance and stimulate
private investment in low and zero carbon technologies and
infrastructure, creating millions of new jobs.
Mr. Stephenson, can you tell us how Federal investment and
climate action would help mobilize private investment and why
attaching strong labor protections to recovery spending would
benefit Americans workers?
Mr. Stephenson. Yes. Again, you know, with the investment
of the United States Government in moving this, you know, these
initiatives forward, we have more people stepping up,
entrepreneurs that are looking at getting involved, even small
business people that could participate in this as we are, you
know, continuing to build the infrastructure that is needed.
Like I said, we have all the materials to provide for the
services for the manufacturing. There are just multiple ways
that investment would help encourage and build those companies,
those employers, and their workers.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
The Clean Energy and Sustainable Accelerator also includes
designated funding for one of my top priorities, which is
accelerating the electrification of vehicles and fleets.
Dr. Saha, your testimony discusses the importance of
electrifying vehicles and expanding EV infrastructure. Can you
please elaborate on the benefits of investing in transportation
electrification? What scale of investment is needed to truly
move the needle on electrification to realize both its economic
and climate benefits?
Dr. Saha. Absolutely. Let me just say that transportation
is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States. So we need a comprehensive set of policies that
addresses vehicles, fuels, infrastructure, as well as mobility
options. So, in terms of infrastructure, I think Congress needs
to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle charging
network that anticipates and enables the transition to 100
percent zero emission vehicle fleet.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up but I would like to request
unanimous consent to submit a report by the Political Economy
Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst
on the job creation estimates for various economic stimulus
proposals, showing the benefits of a recovery based on the
principles of the thrive resolution.
Mr. Tonko. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. I would like to--I believe that completes the
list of colleagues who wanted to ask questions of our
witnesses.
With that, I would certainly thank our witnesses for
joining us for today's hearing. I thank you for your time, for
your patience, and certainly for your input. It has been a very
valuable hearing.
And I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
they have ten business days by which to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by our witnesses.
I ask that our witnesses please respond promptly to any
such questions that you may receive.
I now have a long list of requests for unanimous consent to
enter into the record. So allow me to just run through this
list.
A letter from the Evangelical Environmental Network;a
letter from the coalition of communities, environmental groups,
and researchers regarding critical minerals;a letter from the
American Lung Association and accompanying report entitled
``The Road to Clean Air: Benefits of a Nationwide Transition to
Electric Vehicles''; a report from Resources For the Future and
the Environmental Defense Fund entitled ``Environmental
Remediation and Infrastructure Policies Supporting Workers and
Communities in Transition''; a report from Resources for the
Future and the Environmental Defense Fund entitled ``Economic
Development Policies to Enable Fairness For Workers and
Communities in Transition'';a report from World Resources
Institute entitled ``America's New Climate Economy: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy
in the United States''; a letter from Clean Transportation
Stimulus Coalition; a letter from Earthjustice and an
accompanying report entitled ``Equitable and Just National
Climate Platform''; a report from the Political Economy
Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst entitled ``Job Creation Estimates through Proposed
Economic Stimulus Measures''; a letter from the Solar Energy
Industries Association; a Federal registered final list of
critical minerals; a May 2019 Foreign Policy article entitled
``China Raises Threat of Rare-Earths Cutoff to the United
States''; a December 2018 Bloomberg article entitled ``China
Has a Secret Weapon in the Race to Dominate Electric Cars''; a
May 2020 Foreign Policy article entitled ``U.S. Falters in Bid
to Replace Chinese Rare-Earths''; a report from the Department
of Energy entitled ``Critical Materials Rare-Earth Supply
Chain: A Situational White Paper''; a report from the
Department of Commerce entitled ``The Federal Strategy to
Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.''
Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Tonko. Do we have a problem with that one?
Mr. Shimkus. No, no, sir.
Mr. Tonko. OK. A December 2017 executive order from Donald
J. Trump entitled ``Presidential Executive Order on a Federal
Strategy and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals''; a
January 2020 AAAS article, AAAS article, entitled ``Sustainable
Minerals and Metals for a Low-Carbon Future''; and, finally,
the announcement from Exelon entitled ``Nuclear Plants in All
Regions of the Country Have Announced Premature Retirement
With that, I now request unanimous consent to enter these
items into the record.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the right to object.
I am not going to object. I want to take this time to thank the
panelists. They did a great job.
It is virtually this is always challenging, but you took a
lot of great questions, and I think it was a very good hearing.
So I will not object, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having it.
Mr. Tonko. OK. I share your sentiments totally. We thank
you for your participation and cooperation on the other side of
the aisle.
And, without that objection to request for unanimous
consent, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. And at this time, the subcommittee is
adjourned.I21Thank you, everyone.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]