[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GENERATING EQUITY: IMPROVING CLEAN ENERGY ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 1, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-129
[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
56-468 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, BILL FLORES, Texas
Massachusetts RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Ariel Drehobl, Senior Research Associate, Local Policy, American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy........................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Tony G. Reames, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School for
Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan......... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Robert Bryce, Visiting Fellow, the Foundation For Research on
Equal Opportunity.............................................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Answers to submitted questions 129
Alexandra M. Wyatt, Policy and Regulatory Manager, Grid
Alternatives................................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Submitted Material
Report of January 2019, ``Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics
deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity,'' Nature
Sustainability Article, submitted by Mr. Rush.................. 109
Letter of September 30, 2020, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, from
Allen R. Schaeffer, Executive Director, Diesel Technology
Forum, submitted by Mr. Rush................................... 115
Letter of October 1, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, from
Mark Wolfe, Executive Director, National Energy Assistance
Directors' Association, submitted by Mr. Rush.................. 124
Letter of September 18, 2020, to Californians, Los Angeles Times,
from the Sierra Club, submitted by Mr. Rush.................... 127
Letter of September 29, 2020, to Sierra Club, Los Angeles Times,
from United Latinos Vote, submitted by Mr. Rush................ 128
GENERATING EQUITY: IMPROVING CLEAN ENERGY ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
Sarbanes, McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Welch, Schrader, Kennedy,
Kuster, Barragan, O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Pallone (ex
officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Latta, Rodgers,
Olson, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Hudson, Walberg,
Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Dingell and Schakowsky
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll,, Staff Director; Sharon
Davis, Chief Clerk; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Perry
Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member
Service Coordinator; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy
Coordinator; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort,
Press Secretary; Joe Orlando, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel,
Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Medha Surampudy,
Professional Staff Member; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst;
Tuley Wright, Senior Energy and Environment Policy Advisor;Mike
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; William Clutterbuck,
Minority Staff Assistant; 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; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; and Peter
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment
and Climate Change.
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee hearing is called to order.
Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled
``generating Equity: Improving Clean Energy Access and
Affordability.''
Due to the coronavirus, the public health emergency,
today's hearing is being held remotely. All of the Members and
the 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 wish to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik
at the email address that we have provided to your staff. All
of the documents will be entered into the record at the
conclusion of the hearing.
And now we will begin the hearing, and the Chair now
recognizes himself for 5 minutes for opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has exposed a series of
daunting truths within our Nation. One of these truths is the
disproportionate impact of pandemics on our most vulnerable
communities and its inability to compound the structural
inequalities that afflict our Nation. Today we examine these
injustices as we work to achieve a clean energy economy to
confront the sweeping pandemic of climate change and to ensure
equitable access to clean energy technologies and their
benefits.
Communities of color, low-income communities, and
indigenous communities are disproportionately burdened by a
traditional energy production system. According to the NAACP,
nearly 70 percent of Black Americans live or have lived within
30 miles of a coal-fired power plant and, as a result,
experienced adverse health consequences associated with the
production of energy at these plants.
In addition to this, communities of color and low-income
communities spend a higher percentage of their household
incomes on electricity bills. According to an EIA report, 25
million of these households have foregone necessities like food
and medicine to pay their electricity bill, many of which are
faced with this decision each and every month.
In conjunction with this, low-income households are also at
a higher risk of utility shutoffs, which effectively leaves
them without access to a vital resource amid the ongoing
pandemic.
Given these circumstances, we must improve access to clean
energy technologies and the affordability of their benefits
within the frontline communities to lower electricity bills,
improve air quality, and reduce energy insecurity. A recent
report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
demonstrates that energy efficiency and home winterization
strategies have the ability to reduce low-income energy burdens
by up to 25 percent.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory also suggests
nearly half of all U.S. residential rooftop solar potential
exists on the existing roofs of low- and moderate-income
households who would directly benefit from these resources.
The committee has worked to establish both short-term and
long-term incentives to achieve these objectives through
legislative proposals. Today it is my hope that the
subcommittee and its witnesses will identify pathways and
potential policies to address the various--that impede clean
energy accessibility and affordability among these communities.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for their
participation in this hearing.
And today I am going to yield right now to the chairman of
the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for--I want to recognize Mr.
Upton, rather, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5
minutes for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush
Good morning. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has exposed
a series of daunting truths within our nation. One of these
truths is the disproportionate impact of pandemics on our most
vulnerable communities and its ability to compound the
structural inequalities that afflict our nation. Today, we
examine these injustices as we work to achieve a clean energy
economy to confront the sweeping pandemic of climate change--
and to ensure equitable access to clean energy technologies and
their benefits.
Communities of color, low-income communities, and
indigenous communities are disproportionately burdened by
traditional energy production. According to the NAACP, nearly
70 percent of Black Americans live or have lived within 30
miles of a coal-fired power plant and, as a result, experience
adverse health consequences associated with the production of
energy at these plants.
In addition to this, communities of color and low-income
communities spend a higher percentage of their household
incomes on electricity bills. According to an Energy
Information Administration report, 25 million of these
households have forgone necessities like food and medicine to
pay their electricity bills - many of which are faced with this
decision every month. In conjunction with this, low-income
households are also at a higher risk of utility shutoffs, which
effectively leaves them without access to a vital resource amid
the ongoing pandemic.
Given these circumstances, we must improve access to clean
energy technologies and the affordability of their benefits
within frontline communities to lower electricity bills,
improve air quality, and reduce energy insecurity. A recent
report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
demonstrates that energy efficiency and home weatherization
strategies have the ability to reduce low-income energy burden
by up to 25 percent. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory
also suggests nearly half of all U.S. residential rooftop solar
potential exists on the vacant roofs of low- and moderate-
income households, who would directly benefit from access to
these resources.
The committee has worked to establish both short-term and
long-term solutions to achieve these objectives through
legislative proposals, like the CLEAN Future Act, and recent
pandemic relief legislation to place a moratorium on utility
shutoffs and to expand LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program. However, today it is my hope that the
Subcommittee, and its witnesses, will identify pathways and
potential policies to address the barriers that impede equity
in clean energy accessibility and affordability within the
communities that need it most.
I thank our witnesses for their participation in today's
discussion. I also thank the various stakeholders who shared
their valuable insights in advance of this discussion. And with
that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.
Mr. Rush. And with that, I yield to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thanks Mr. Chairman. Nice to see you.
Mr. Rush. The same to you.
Mr. Upton. I know we got started a bit late, but I am glad
everything is working.
I appreciate today's hearing on energy access and
affordability for sure. It is very timely as we head into the
winter months, still battling COVID and the economic fallout
from the pandemic.
Here in the U.S., of course, we are blessed with the most
reliable and affordable supplies of energy and electricity in
the world. Diversity is the key to our success, which is why I
support, many of us, all of us support, I hope, an all-of-the-
above approach to energy.
Nationwide our top sources for electricity generation in
ranked order are natural gas, then coal, nuclear, wind,
hydropower, and solar. Most Americans and businesses rely on
gasoline and diesel for their transportation needs; we know
that. And last year petroleum products accounted for some 96
percent of total energy use for transportation; electric
vehicles, far less than one percent.
So, it is important to understand why we as a Nation have
such a diverse fuel mix and how it makes us more secure and
more competitive than other nations. In the Pacific Northwest,
they have got plenty of cheap hydro. Some parts of the country
have more wind, more sun, or more fossil fuel resources, and in
some States, of course, nuclear energy makes the most sense. In
reality, it is the weather, the population, and geography that
varies so widely across the country making it impossible to
make sweeping generalizations.
In Michigan, households use more energy than the U.S.
average. When the temperature drops, we use a lot more natural
gas for electricity to heat our homes because it is more
efficient and more affordable. We also use a lot of propane,
particularly in the Upper Peninsula, in rural areas. That is
why the one-size-fits-all Federal mandate, like proposals to
ban natural gas and gasoline cars, doesn't work in States like
Michigan.
Instead, the proper role of the Federal Government is to
promote innovation and technological development and to ensure
competition and consumer choice. It would be foolish to bet it
all on one technology or energy resource. Congress doesn't have
a crystal ball. Rather than mandate a top-down clean energy
standard or a ban on fossil fuels, let's learn from the
experience of all 50 States.
California's rush to green--even though it may have a good
first name time, right, Bobby--is a perfect example. They have
monopoly energy provides providers, an unstable grid that is
prone to blackouts, and the Nation's highest prices. I have got
serious concerns about a forced transition to implement the
California standard nationwide.
With that, I look forward to today's hearing to learn about
what Congress can do to make energy more reliable and certainly
more affordable for all Americans.
I would also like to welcome the first witness, Dr. Reames.
I plan to use today's hearing to focus on ways to promote
innovation and new technologies. I think it is going to be
useful to examine the lessons learned from States like
California that appear to be struggling to provide reliable and
affordable energy to consumers. In Michigan and States like
Texas that are leading the Nation, we have got different models
for incorporating clean energy. The key is to keep prices
stable and affordable.
I look forward to a discussion about carbon-free nuclear
energy, which is, of course, vital to meeting our shared clean
energy goals.
The bottom line is we all want to see cleaner energy
technologies, but whether we are talking about power generation
or passenger vehicles, we are not going to get there by picking
winners and losers. We should learn from the failure of the
past and work together to make energy more affordable, reliable
and affordable.
With that, I look forward to our witnesses today and the
interaction. Welcome, everybody.
And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on
energy access and affordability--a very timely topic as we head
into the winter months, still battling COVID and the economic
fallout from the pandemic.
Here in the United States, we are blessed with the most
reliable and affordable supplies of energy and electricity in
the world. Diversity is the key to our success, which is why I
support an all-of-the-above approach to energy. Nationwide, our
top sources for electricity generation--in ranked order--are
natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydropower, and solar. Most
Americans and businesses rely on gasoline and diesel for their
transportation needs. Last year, petroleum products accounted
for 96% of total energy used for transportation. Electric
vehicles accounted for less than 1%.
It is important to understand why we, as a nation, have
such a diverse fuel mix, and how it makes us more secure and
more competitive than other nations. In the Pacific Northwest,
they have plenty of cheap hydropower. Some parts of the country
have more wind, more sun, or more fossil resources. In some
States, nuclear energy makes the most sense. The reality is
that weather, population, and geography vary wildly across the
nation, making it impossible to make sweeping generalizations.
My home state of Michigan, for example, is also unique. For
one, Michigan households use more energy than the U.S. average.
When the temperature drops, we use a lot of natural gas for
electricity and to heatour homes because it is often more
efficient and affordable. We also use a lot of propane.
This is why a one-sized-fits-all Federal mandate--like the
proposals to ban natural gas and gasoline cars--is the wrong
approach. Instead, the proper role of the Federal government is
to promote innovation and technological development; and to
ensure competition and consumer choice.
It would be foolish to bet it all on any one technology or
energy resource. Congress does not have a crystal ball. Rather
than mandate a top-down clean energy standard or a ban on
fossil fuels, let us learn from the experience of other States.
California's ``Rush to Green'' is a perfect example. They
have monopoly energy providers, an unstable grid that is prone
to blackouts, and the nation's highest prices. I have serious
concerns about a forced transition to implement the California
standard nationwide.
With that, I look forward to today's hearing to learn what
Congress can do to make energy more reliable and affordable for
all Americans. I would also like to welcome our University of
Michigan witness, Dr. Reames.
I plan to use today's hearing to focus on ways to promote
innovation and new technologies. I think it will also be useful
to examine the lessons-learned from States like California,
that appear to be struggling to provide reliable and affordable
energy to consumers.
My home state of Michigan, and States like Texas that are
leading the nation, have different models for incorporating
clean energy. The key is keeping prices stable and affordable.
I also look forward to discussion about carbon-free nuclear
energy, which is vital to meeting our shared clean energy
goals.
The bottom line is that we all want to see cleaner energy
technologies, but whether we are talking about power generation
or passenger vehicles, we are not going to get there by picking
winners and losers. We should learn from the failures of the
past and work together to make energy more available, reliable,
and affordable for all.
With that, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing
before us today. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
you on these important issues, which I know we both care deeply
about. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Am I supposed to speak?
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes
of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Thank you for
holding this important hearing on both energy affordability and
clean energy access. Chairman Rush has been passionately
working on including communities of color in the clean energy
transition, especially through his blue collar and green collar
jobs bill, and I thank him for his leadership on this and so
many things.
Energy access and energy burden often do not get the
attention they deserve. Throughout the country, low-income
households and particularly communities of color face
disproportionate negative impacts on traditional fossil fuel
generation due to their proximity to power plants and the lack
of clean energy options. And these communities see increased
risks of polluted air and water, resulting in a greater
likelihood of health conditions, like asthma or cancer. They
also disproportionately suffer the devastating effects of
fossil-fueled climate change, like severe damage and flooding
to their homes during hurricanes. While we are all affected by
climate change, we have to make sure that no one is overlooked
in their efforts to build a clean and resilient future.
Along with climate and environmental threats, communities
of color are also disproportionately affected by the COVID-19
pandemic. Americans in all regions are suffering from job loss
and are spending more time at home, but that means that many of
them are bringing home a lot less money than they were before
the pandemic, and their energy bills are going up because they
are using more energy at home, and it is just pushing
struggling families further to the edge.
And as we experience a public health and economic crisis,
unpaid electricity bills and the threat of electricity shutoffs
should not be something struggling families are concerned about
right now. Over 800,000 low-income customers are currently at
risk of having their electricity shut off by their electric
utility company, these communities, which already experience
higher rates of COVID-19, are now being forced to deal with the
potential loss of power. It is really an outrage, particularly
since we included a moratorium on electricity and water
shutoffs from the HEROES Act that passed in May, and that was
four and a half months ago, but Senate Republicans have refused
to act, and now we are again working to protect these valuable
communities with a shutoff moratorium in our updated HEROES
legislation, which may come up today. It is long past time for
President Trump and Senate Republicans to recognize the need to
act.
This assistance is critical right now because the pandemic
is only exacerbating an unfortunate trend that already existed
that many struggling families face high energy burdens. They
are spending a higher percentage of their paychecks on energy
because of factors like income, location of where they live,
and the quality of the building where they live. Yet while low-
income energy assistance programs exist, they have limited
funding.
In the updated HEROES Act, we include $4.5 billion to the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. And last
week, the House passed the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation
Act, which included numerous bills from the committee that
support low-income clean energy projects, energy-efficiency
programs, and rural energy development. And I think that bill
is a step in the right direction for a clean and equitable
energy future.
The transition to a clean energy economy has to be
equitable and affordable. We must include all Americans in this
enormous effort to ensure that no communities are abandoned or
face the threats of climate change by themselves.
[The prepared statement of The Chairman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I thank Chairman Rush for holding this important hearing
on energy affordability and clean energy access. Chairman Rush
has been passionately working on including communities of color
in the clean energy transition, especially through his Blue
Collar and Green Collar Jobs bill, and I thank him for his
leadership.
Energy access and energy burdens often do not get the
attention they deserve. Throughout the country, low-income
households - particularly communities of color--face
disproportionate negative impacts from traditional fossil
generation due to their proximity to power plants and a lack of
clean energy options. These communities see increased risks of
polluted air and water, resulting in a greater likelihood of
health conditions like asthma or cancer.
They also disproportionately suffer the devastating effects
of fossil-fueled climate change, like severe damage and
flooding to their homes from hurricanes. While we are all
affected by climate change, we must make sure that no one is
overlooked in our efforts to build a clean and resilient
future.
Along with climate and environmental threats, communities
of color are also disproportionately affected by the COVID-19
pandemic. Americans in all regions are suffering from job loss
and are spending more time at home during this public health
emergency. That means many of them are bringing home a lot less
money than they were before the pandemic, and their energy
bills are going up because they are using more energy at home.
This is just pushing struggling families further to the edge.
As we experience a public health and economic crisis,
unpaid electricity bills and the threat of electricity shutoffs
should not be something struggling families are concerned about
right now. However, 800,000 low-income customers are currently
at risk of having their electricity shut off by their electric
utility company. These communities, which already experience
higher rates of COVID-19, are now being forced to deal with the
potential loss of power.
This is an outrage, particularly since we included a
moratorium on electricity and water shutoffs in the Heroes Act
that passed in May. That was four and a half months ago, but
Senate Republicans have refused to act. Now we are again
working to protect these vulnerable communities with a shutoff
moratorium in our updated Heroes legislation. It is long past
time for President Trump and Senate Republicans to recognize
the need to act.
This assistance is critical right now because the pandemic
is only exacerbating an unfortunate trend that already existed
- many struggling families face high energy burdens. They are
spending a higher percentage of their paychecks on energy
because of factors like income, location of where they live and
the quality of the building where they live. And while low-
income energy assistance programs exist, they have limited
funding.
Fortunately, the updated Heroes Act includes $4.5 billion
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
And last week the House passed the Clean Economy Jobs and
Innovation Act, which included numerous bills from this
committee that support low-income clean energy projects, energy
efficiency programs and rural energy development. This bill is
a step in the right direction for a clean and equitable energy
future.
The transition to a clean energy economy must be equitable
and affordable. We must include all Americans in this enormous
effort and ensure that no communities are abandoned to face the
threats of climate change alone.
And, again, thank you, Chairman Rush, for taking the lead
on so much of this. I would like to yield the remainder of my
time to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Pallone, for yielding.
I would like to briefly recognize a wonderful witness from
the University of Michigan, who my colleague from Michigan also
recognized, Dr. Tony Reames, a Ph.D., who is assistant
professor in the School for Environment and Sustainability at
the University of Michigan, located in the heart of my
district. Go Blue.
Dr. Reames is a multidisciplinary scholar who has expanded
the study of environmental justice to specifically focus on
energy justice. Currently, Dr. Reames is exploring disparities
that exist in residential energy generation consumption and
affordability, focusing on the production and persistence of
inequality by race, class, and location.
Dr. Reames, thank you for being here. You are going to
provide this committee with a lot of important information, and
there is just so much this committee can learn from you and
from the other witnesses today. We look forward to your
testimony--and the other witnesses.
And I would also like to thank the chairs of the full
committee and the subcommittee for the work that has been done
in the HEROES Act in working with Rashida and I. It is very,
very important.
And I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. I yield back as well, Chairman Rush.
Thank you, Mrs. Dingell.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes of
an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
colleagues, as well as our witnesses. Thank you all for your
participation today.
Today's hearing will examine an important topic concerning
access and affordability of energy for low-income or otherwise
disadvantaged households. As a result of the COVID-19 related
shutdowns and economic hardships, energy cost burdens have
become more common. Sadly, many Americans now know what it is
like to have to live on limited resources to pay to keep the
lights on, the air-conditioning running, the car fueled.
Fortunately, the economy is beginning to rebound a bit, and
there is help available for many of these families.
Data from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, which we will hear from this morning, indicates 26
million households face a high energy burden. This means six
percent or more of these households' spending goes towards
energy, and this does not include fuel for necessary
transportation, which further adds to the burden.
The Department of Energy data showed the States with the
highest low-income energy burdens, ten percent or higher are in
the Southeastern United States where the most electricity is
used for heating and cooling. Low-income households in that
region use approximately 36 percent more electricity than the
national average for low-income households in other regions of
the country. Fortunately, Southeastern States also enjoy some
of the lowest electricity rates in the Nation.
So imagine the impact on low-income households in
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina if energy
prices drove up the price of electricity so much they had to
pay the same rates as residents of Connecticut, where energy
prices are nearly twice as high. Or consider other parts of the
country, like my home State of Oregon. If policies driven by
the radical environmentalists severely curtailed our State's
dominant hydroelectric production, what would that mean to low-
income households if we doubled our electricity rates to those
of California levels? What would it mean for our ability to
provide energy assistance?
So, there are many State and Federal programs aimed at
relieving American families' energy burdens. These include
efficiency and weatherization programs at the Department of
Energy and subsidy programs at the Department of Health & Human
Services, programs which are authorized by this committee.
Several witnesses this morning will talk about ways to
improve coordination among Federal programs and how we measure
poverty to expand energy access and affordability.
My point here is that whatever the value of these programs,
we cannot lose sight of the powerful impact Federal, State, and
local energy policies, including clean energy, have on the
underlying affordability and reliability of energy. Renewable
energy sources have a place, they certainly do, but they cannot
come at the expense of families who are already struggling to
make ends meet. Policies that drive up energy prices or curtail
access to energy sources conflict directly with efforts to
confront poverty. These policies risk depriving people of the
key component of community and household prosperity. Access to
affordable, reliable energy is essential for jobs and economic
opportunities, especially in lower income communities.
This is plainly evident in the expensive energy policies of
California. Mandates or regulatory policies are raising prices
seven times faster than the rest of the Nation, as we will hear
this morning. That is driving out high-paying energy jobs
including thousands of jobs with zero-emissions nuclear energy.
New policies seeking to end use of natural gas and gas-
fueled vehicles will further drive up housing and
transportation costs, which is especially harmful to the
working poor, who often have to commute great distances.
Robert Bryce, who is testifying today for the Foundation
for Research on Equal Opportunity, will provide some useful
perspective we should all keep in mind so we can consider
various policies to accelerate to clean energy systems.
Throughout this Congress, Republicans have advocated for
practical approaches to address climate risks and improve and
protect the environment. We have advocated for removing
regulatory barriers to promote innovation and to posture the
deployment of new clean energy sources. Our view has been that
the surest path to cleaner energy systems is to put the energy
consumer front and center so we do not undermine our Nation's
ability to make and do things nor to deprive people their
opportunities for prosperity.
We know this can work because we have seen the benefits in
cleaner air, world leading reductions in carbon emissions, and,
at least prior to COVID-19, an increasingly productive economy.
We should not lose sight of that larger picture as we work
together on policies to help those most in need.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Today's hearing will examine an important topic concerning
access and affordability of energy for low-income or otherwise
disadvantaged households.
As a result of COVID-19 related shutdowns and economic
hardships, energy cost burdens have become more common. Sadly,
many Americans now know what it feels like to have limited
resources to pay to keep the lights on, the air conditioning
running, and the car fueled. Fortunately, the economy is
rebounding and there is help available to these families.
Data from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, which we will hear from this morning, indicates 26
million households face a ``high energy burden.'' This means
six percent or more of these households' spending goes toward
energy-and this does not include fuel for necessary
transportation, which further adds to the burden.
Department of Energy data show the states with the highest
low-income energy burdens--ten percent or higher--are in the
Southeastern United States where the most electricity is used
for heating and cooling. Low-income households in that region
use approximately 36 percent more electricity than the national
average for low-income households in other regions of the
country.
Fortunately, Southeastern states also enjoy some of the
lowest electricity rates in the nation. So, imagine the impact
on low-income households in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or
South Carolina if energy policies drove up the price of
electricity so much that they had to pay the same rates as
residents of Connecticut, where prices are nearly twice as
high.
Or consider other parts of the country--like my home state
of Oregon. If radical environmentalist policies severely
curtailed our state's dominant hydroelectric production, what
would that mean to low-income households if we doubled our
electricity rates to California's levels? What would it mean
for our ability to provide energy assistance?
There are many state and federal programs aimed at
relieving American families' energy burdens. These include
efficiency and weatherization programs at the Department of
Energy and subsidy programs at the Department of Health and
Human Services - programs which are authorized by this
Committee.
Several witnesses this morning will talk about ways to
improve coordination among federal programs and how we measure
poverty to expand energy access and affordability.
My point here is that whatever the value of these programs,
we cannot lose sight of the powerful impact federal, state, and
local energy policies--including clean energy--have on the
underlying affordability and reliability of energy. Renewable
energy sources have a place, but they cannot come at the
expense of families who are already struggling to make ends
meet.
Policies that drive up energy prices or curtail access to
energy sources conflict directly with efforts to confront
poverty. These policies risk depriving people of a key
component of community and household prosperity. Access to
affordable, reliable energy is essential for jobs and economic
opportunity, especially in low-income communities.
This is plainly evident in the expensive energy policies of
California. Mandates to increase renewable energy and
electrification are raising prices for power seven times faster
than the rest of the nation, as we will hear this morning, and
driving out high-paying energyjobs--including thousands of jobs
associated with zero-emissions nuclear energy. New policies
seeking to end use of natural gas and gas-fueled vehicles will
further drive up housing and transportation costs, which is
especially harmful to the working poor.
Robert Bryce, who is testifying today for the Foundation
for Research on Equal Opportunity, will provide some useful
perspective we all should keep in mind as we consider various
policies to ``accelerate'' to clean energy systems.
Throughout this Congress, Republicans have advocated for
practical approaches to address climate risks and improve and
protect the environment. We have advocated for removing
regulatory barriers to promote innovation and foster the
deployment of new, clean energy sources. Our view has been that
the surest path to cleaner energy systems is to put the energy
consumer front and center so that we do not undermine our
nation's ability to make and do things, nor deprive people
their own opportunities for prosperity.
We know this can work because we have seen the benefits in
cleaner air, world-leading reductions in carbon emissions,
and--at least prior to COVID-19--an increasingly productive
economy. We should not lose sight of that larger picture as we
look at policies to help those most in need.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
The Chair would like to remind members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
be made part of the record.
At this time, I would like to recognize our witnesses for
today's hearing.
The first witness that I want to recognize is Ms. Ariel
Drehobl. She is a senior research associate for local policies
at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
She will be followed by Dr. Tony Reames, the assistant
professor for the School of Environment and Sustainability at
the University of Michigan.
Our next witness will be Mr. Robert Bryce, the visiting
fellow for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.
And, lastly but not the least, our final witness will be
Ms. Alexandra Wyatt, the policy and regulatory manager for GRID
Alternatives.
And I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for
appearing before us today, and we certainly look forward to
your testimony.
Ms. Drehobl, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF ARIEL DREHOBL, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, LOCAL
POLICY, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY; TONY
G. REAMES, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL FOR ENVIRONMENT
AND SUSTAINABILITY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; ROBERT BRYCE,
VISITING FELLOW, THE FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH ON EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY; AND ALEXANDRA M. WYATT, POLICY AND REGULATORY
MANAGER, GRID ALTERNATIVES
STATEMENT OF ARIEL DREHOBL
Ms. Drehobl. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to
speak at this hearing on ``Generating Equity: Improving Clean
Energy Access and Affordability.'' My name is Ariel Drehobl. I
am a senior research associate at the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, also known as ACEEE, and I am the
lead author of ACEEE's newly released energy burden report.
ACEEE is a nonprofit organization that acts as a catalyst
to advancing energy-efficient policies, programs, technologies,
investments, and behaviors so that all households can
experience equitable benefits from energy efficiency.
Over the past five years, ACEEE has published three reports
that analyze energy burdens across different populations.
Energy burden is the percentage of annual income a household
spends on its annual energy bills, and the energy burden metric
is used widely to measure inequity in the energy sector.
On September 10, we published a new report which calculates
energy burdens nationally, regionally, and in 25 of the largest
metro areas. From the study, we found that energy affordability
is a persistent national challenge. Of all U.S. households, 25
percent face a high energy burden, meaning that they pay more
than 6 percent of their income on energy bills, and 13 percent
face a severe energy burden, meaning they pay more than 20
percent. Low-income households fare the worse. Nationally 67
percent of low-income households face a high energy burden, and
60 percent of low-income households with a high burden face a
severe burden. Low-income households spend three times more of
their income on energy costs compared to other households. And
compared to non-Hispanic White households, the median energy
burden for Black households is 43 percent higher, the median
for Hispanic households is 20 percent higher, and the median
for Native American households is 45 percent higher.
This research shows that energy burdens are not equitable
and that policy action is needed to improve energy
affordability. High energy burdens are associated with
inadequate housing conditions and have been found to affect
physical and mental health, nutrition, and local economic
development.
Researchers have found that high energy burdens are
correlated with older, inefficient, and unhealthy housing,
which is itself associated with other negative health impacts.
These households are more likely to stay caught in cycles of
poverty. Bringing policies to address high energy burdens can
ensure a more just and equitable energy system.
COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on energy
affordability. More than 40 million Americans have filed for
unemployment since the start of the pandemic, and many of them
are low income. More than one-fourth of those who have lost
jobs have reported skipping a utility bill payment.
Black, Hispanic, and Native American households are
disproportionately burdened by COVID-19. They face greater
long-term exposure to air pollution, and they are more likely
to face energy insecurity, economic instability, and chronic
diseases.
By expanding energy-efficiency programs, we can reduce
overall energy consumption and our reliance on fossil fuels.
Energy efficiency and weatherization provide a long-term
solution to reducing high energy burdens. These strategies
should complement bill-payment assistance and programs aimed at
energy-saving education and behavior change.
In our report, we estimate that weatherization can reduce
the median low-income households' burden by 25 percent, making
this investment an effective strategy to reduce high energy
burdens while also benefiting the environment. These
investments are especially important in the wake of the
pandemic as they can also help stimulate the economy by
creating local jobs while helping households afford their
energy bills in the long term.
Congress can take action to improve equity in the clean
energy sector. We recommend expanding the low-income
Weatherization Assistance Program and include funds for health-
related home improvements. WAP currently serves about a hundred
thousand homes per year through community funding and leverage
funds from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This
number is far below the 15.7 million severely energy burdened
households in the U.S. At this rate, it would take 360 years to
weatherize all eligible households.
Weatherization can also stimulate the economic recovery by
creating green jobs, maintaining employment for thousands of
small business, and provide updates to furnaces and air
ventilation that are critical to those most vulnerable to the
impacts of COVID-19.
Congress can also increase funding for LIHEAP, leverage
Medicaid funding to improve health and efficiency in homes,
address efficiency and affordable local family housing, and
provide national guidance on how to protect the home health of
Americans during this public health crisis.
In conclusion, energy insecurity is a persistent national
challenge that has been worsened by the global pandemic and
economic crisis. Increasing investment in low-income energy
efficiency and weatherization can provide a long-term solution
to reducing high energy burdens for low-income households.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to speak on
this critical issue, and I welcome your questions and yield
back the rest of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Drehobl follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentlelady.
And, Dr. Reames, you are recognized now for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY G. REAMES, PH.D.
Dr. Reames. Good morning.
Chairman Rush and Pallone, Ranking Member Upton and Walden,
Congresswoman Dingell, and members of the subcommittee. It is
an honor to appear before you today, and I thank you for
inviting me to discuss the importance of an equity-based
approach to improving clean energy access and affordability.
My name is Tony Reames. I am an assistant professor in the
School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of
Michigan, and I lead the Urban Energy Justice Lab, which
conducts research on the production and persistence of spatial,
racial, and socioeconomic disparities, and energy access,
affordability, and policymaking.
As Ms. Drehobl testified, stark disparities exist in U.S.
energy burdens. Both urban and rural low-income households
spend substantially greater proportions of their income on
energy costs when compared to non-low-income households.
Moreover, Black, Latinx, indigenous, elderly, and multifamily
and renter occupied households are disproportionately impacted
by high energy burdens. This leaves millions of Americans in
energy poverty.
Estimates before the coronavirus pandemic found that 25
million households had to forego food and medicine in order to
pay their energy bills, 17 million households faced energy
shutoff, and 6 million households were unable heat or cool
their homes due to being disconnected. And we know that the
pandemic has only exacerbated these issues as the same
communities reeling from COVID-19 are racking up massive
utility debt and fear the imminent end of shutoff moratoriums.
Thus, as policy discussions consider the transition to
cleaner energy technology, acknowledging the nuance of energy
poverty is critical to ensuring the transition is just,
equitable, and affordable for all.
Investments in residential energy-efficiency improvements
have long been a key site of intervention to reduce energy
burdens with additional economic and environmental benefits.
However, an equitable investment in energy efficiency must
account for disparate vulnerabilities of groups most likely to
reside in the least energy-efficient housing.
Our research shows that homes and neighborhoods with lower
median incomes, more households below the Federal poverty
level, and more racial ethnic minority head of households on
average are less energy efficient. Furthermore, the persistence
of racial segregation in America increases the energy poverty
vulnerability of Black and Latinx households.
As we implement policies and programs to transition to a
cleaner energy future, individual adoption of new technology is
crucial. Therefore, new technology must be accessible and
affordable for all. However, our research shows that even entry
level clean energy technology, such as LED bulbs, can be both
less available and more expensive in communities where
households would benefit most from the energy savings provided
by these products.
Moreover, millions of households that fall into the gap
between qualifying for low-income energy assistance programs
and having the resources to cover upfront costs for
improvements have few to no avenues for improving energy
efficiency in their homes or accessing renewable or other clean
energy technology.
There are several actions Congress can take to address the
disparities in clean energy access and affordability that we
raise in our research. Components of legislation, such as the
Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act and the Housing is
Infrastructure Act are good examples.
In my written statement, I discuss the need for a national
energy poverty and justice strategy and potential approaches
that can be taken.
First, we can explore the feasibility of restructuring and
integrating the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance,
Weatherization Assistance, and other energy-related assistance
programs into a streamlined comprehensive strategy for Federal
energy assistance.
Second, develop a national framework to identify and
quantify current residential energy equity gaps across
geographies, race, ethnicity, income, and other social
demographic groups.
Third, determine whether individual or place-based
approaches to policy design and implementation best address the
identified energy disparities.
And, fourth, establish measurable equity goals and
transparent mechanisms for tracking progress, such as energy
poverty reduction goals or employment equity targets in the
clean energy industry, and institutionalize these equity
metrics and set new policies, funding, and evaluation.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Upton, and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to
discuss an important and timely issue, and I look forward to
your questions and comments.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Reames follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks Dr. Reames.
Dr. Bryce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRYCE
Mr. Bryce. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I am not
a doctor. I am barely a mister, but I appreciate the honorific.
My name is Robert Bryce. I am a journalist. I am a
filmmaker. I am a podcaster. I have been writing about the
energy business for 30 years. I am also a visiting fellow at
the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.
These discussions about energy burden are important and, as
Dr. Reames and Ms. Drehobl pointed out, very timely. But more
attention must be paid to how policies designed to address
climate change are resulting in higher energy prices for low-
income ratepayers and consumers.
I will talk about three issues this morning: Renewable
energy mandates, natural gas restrictions, and electric
vehicles.
California has mandated the State's electric utilities
procure at least 60 percent of the electricity they sell from
renewables by 2030 and to be selling 100 percent zero carbon
electricity by 2045. The imposition of these mandates over the
last 12 years has coincided with a dramatic increase in our
electricity prices. Between 2011 and 2019, according to the
Energy Information Administration, the average price of
electricity in California for all users has jumped by nearly 30
percent. That is more than seven times the rate of increase in
the rest of the U.S. California now has the highest electricity
prices in the Continental U.S. outside of the Northeast.
In Ontario, Canada, after the province introduced the Green
Energy Act and shuttered traditional generation plants and
began providing big subsidies for renewables, electricity
prices soared. Between 2008 and 2016, residential electric
rates in the province jumped by 71 percent, which was more than
double the average seen in the rest of Canada over that time
period.
Germany, which has pledged to slash its greenhouse gas
emissions by 95 percent by 2050, has seen its electric rates
also increase dramatically. Between 2007 and 2018, according to
the think tank Agora Energiewende, residential electric rates
in Germany jumped by 50--50--percent. German residential
customers now pay the highest rates in Europe, about 37 cents
per kilowatt hour, which is three times the average residential
rate here in the United States.
So why are these renewable mandates pushing up prices? Last
year, Michael Greenstone and Ishan Nath of the University of
Chicago published a study which concluded that renewable energy
mandates lead to--I am quoting--substantial increases in
electricity prices that mirror the programs' increasing
stringency over time.
The report said the intermittent nature of renewables meant
that backup capacity must be added and that, by mandating an
increase in renewable power, base load generation is
prematurely displaced and some of the cost is passed to
consumers.
Bans and restrictions on natural gas will also mean higher
prices. As I noted in a recent report for the Foundation for
Research on Equal Opportunity, more than 30 local governments
in California have passed bans or restrictions on the use of
natural gas in buildings. These restrictions are being done, of
course, in the name of climate change, but they are in practice
a form of energy taxation. By banning the direct use of natural
gas, these regulations will force homeowners and renters to use
electricity instead, which costs four times as much per joule
of energy delivered as natural gas. These higher energy costs
could amount to hundreds of dollars per year for each
household.
Finally, electric vehicles, these aren't--the subsidies and
mandates are, in fact, a form of regressive taxation. As
pointed out by Assemblyman Jim Cooper from California, one
California Senate district in the Bay Area has collected EV
rebates from the State totaling more than $55 million. That is
more than has been collected by seven other senate districts in
the State combined so that you have residences and homeowners,
families in low- and middle-income senate districts subsidizing
luxury electric vehicle purchases by wealthy individuals in the
Bay Area. This makes no sense.
Subsidies are only part of the cost. Consumers are also
facing dramatic--potentially dramatic increases in electricity
prices to pay for public charging stations needed to refuel the
costs for those cars. I have calculated, in California alone,
the increase in electricity use due to electrification of that
State's electric transportation could result in an increase in
electricity demand in California of 50 percent. This is in a
State that is already experiencing blackouts.
In summary, these efforts to increase access to clean
energy are laudable, but policymakers must be paying attention.
If we want to decrease inequality, policymakers have to be
attentive so that the costs of decarbonizing America's enormous
energy and power sector is not borne by low- and middle-income
American families.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryce follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes Ms. Wyatt for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA M. WYATT
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you very much. Chairman Rush, Ranking
Member Upton, Chairman Pallone, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you.
My name is Alexandra Wyatt, and I am here on behalf of GRID
Alternatives, where I am policy and regulatory manager. GRID is
the Nation's largest nonprofit solar installer and a leader in
helping low-income communities, communities of color, and
Tribal communities nationwide get clean, affordable solar power
and solar jobs.
Since 2004, we have served more than 16,000 families, all
low-income households and tenants of affordable housing, with
residential, multifamily, and community solar systems that have
brought them more than $400 million in lifetime savings. We
administer a number of equity-focused solar, clean mobility,
and workforce training programs.
There are few more urgently needed and high return
investments our society can make than mitigating climate change
through eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, preventing
needless death and suffering by reducing toxic pollution, and
reducing high energy burdens that contribute to economic
insecurity and worse, crises that all result largely from our
traditional energy system and that all disproportionately hurt
low-income communities and communities of color.
The dollar value of addressing these problems is in the
trillions, and their importance in matters of racial and
economic justice is invaluable. Undervaluing and externalizing
these problems has stacked the deck in favor of fossil fuels
artificially and unfairly. Yet, luckily, the clean energy
transition already underway can help solve all of these
problems at once, while spurring economic development. Policy
choices will determine whether and how well it does. GRID's
work shows that it is possible.
Through policies that get pollution sources out of
underserved communities and clean healthy zero-carbon resilient
local energy solutions into them while protecting communities
that have depended on fossil fuels for their livelihoods,
Congress can seize the opportunity to leverage the clean energy
transition as a solution to some of our country's highest
needs, including equity and racial justice.
GRID has seen firsthand how expanding access to clean
energy can solve multiple problems. When families, like our
clients, struggling with high energy burdens, particularly now
in the pandemic, have access to bill savings from solar, they
get significant, long-term financial relief. That then leads to
social stability, economic development, and community health.
When clean energy solutions are combined for underserved
communities, like solar plus efficiency, weatherization,
electrification, electric bikes or cars and chargers, and
storage, their benefits multiply.
When a more diverse range of communities sees clean energy
technology as viable solution, markets can move beyond early
adopter phases and scale faster. When communities have control
and ownership over their energy, their energy systems better
meet their needs and their energy dollars stay local. When
there are accessible and inclusive on-ramps to well-paying jobs
in the fast-growing clean energy industries, industries get the
skilled and diverse work force they need, and more Americans
can support their families.
Last but far from least, when communities at the front
lines of the climate crisis have energy storage and resilience,
devastation from such is reduced. And when pollution from
traditional energy sources no longer poisons the
disproportionately low-income Black and Brown communities
outside their fence lines, those communities won't suffer and
die from the health problems, neighborhood disinvestment, and
other effects resulting from that environmental injustice. They
can breathe.
Despite all of these benefits, low-income households face a
number of barriers to clean energy even though they often
benefit the most.
On top of threshold financial hurdles of lack of access to
capital and credit, lower income households may be shut out of
incentives like the Federal investment tax credit. Other
obstacles may include language, education, mistrust, home
ownership status and housing conditions more often in these
communities. Well-designed community solar programs can
overcome some of those barriers, but they are not available
everywhere. All together, these barriers contribute to market
disinterest in the absence of targeted intentional policies and
investments.
My written testimony makes a number of specific policy
recommendations to address these barriers. They are drawn from
GRID's years of direct on-the-ground-and-roof experience
working exclusively with low- and moderate-income households
and underserved communities. They are also informed by our
partnerships with community-based organization; though, to be
clear, we don't purport to speak for the communities we serve
or substitute for their own input.
To summarize, first, equitable and just processes are
necessary for success. Frontline communities aren't just
experts on equity issues. They are experts, period. People
closest to the problem are closest to the solution; however,
they are often not actively included in decisions early on.
Second, financial hurdles are threshold barriers for low-
income and low-wealth families. Policy and investments
recognize this and cite incentives to enable clean energy with
no upfront or variable costs. The investments can be made in a
number of means, including careful coordination with existing
energy assistance programs. The ITC should be extended with a
direct pay option to make it available to low-income
households, as well as nonprofits and Tribes, as ineligibility
puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Well-designed policies
won't shift any additional costs on to low-income taxpayers or
ratepayers.
Third, policies must comprehensively account for the many
wide-ranging and intertwined benefits of clean energy access,
including racial equity and work force development. GRID's work
shows that models combining these benefits work.
Finally, it is not just electric power that people need,
but also political power, powers in their communities, and
power over their own futures. Policymakers can use a number of
strategies to promote local community-level ownership and
control over energy systems.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wyatt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank all of the witnesses for
their opening statements, and we have concluded the opening
statements.
And now we will move to member questions. Each member will
have 5 minutes to ask questions of the various witnesses.
I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
The ongoing coronavirus pandemic continues to demonstrate
the importance of affordable energy and its relevance to our
most vital and basic needs.
Dr. Reames, you are the founder and director of the
University of Michigan's Urban Energy Justice Lab. Given your
energy justice research, would you describe the importance of
viewing energy-related topics and airing of topical discussion
through what we would call a justice lens?
Dr. Reames. Yes, Chairman. Thank you for that question.
The whole idea behind energy justice is that a just energy
system fairly disseminates both the benefits and costs of
energy services and is also representative and impartial in
energy decisionmaking.
I started this work during our last crisis, the economic
recession, and was really impressed by a policy that or a
program that Congressman Cleaver proposed in Kansas City called
the Green Impact Zone. And this project looked at concentrating
Federal dollars from the stimulus in one area, recognizing the
disproportionate challenges that disinvested urban communities,
African-American communities experience. And a big component of
that was focusing on energy, whether it was access to
renewable, access to clean energy technology such as energy
efficiency. And in studying that and looking at this issue
across the country, again, you see that, you know, vulnerable
communities are living in less efficient housing, have less
access to energy-efficient technology and appliances, and if
those things are available, they are more expensive and so they
can't afford them.
So this idea that if we want to transition to a cleaner
energy future, we can't disregard the vulnerability that
communities already face, and that is across race. That is
across income groups. There are gender disparities in energy
access participation. And so a justice idea not only recognizes
existing vulnerabilities but ensures that decisionmaking
doesn't focus on just equality but actually equity.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Dr. Reames.
Ms. Drehobl, under this current administration, DOE has
failed to update or even rolls back essential energy-efficiency
standards. How does this impact the availability and the
affordability of these energy technologies within vulnerable
communities?
Ms. Drehobl. Thank you for the question.
DOE has already missed the legal deadlines to update
product standards. A recent report from ACEEE has found that
updates to existing standards could save $43 billion per year
on utility bills U.S. families by 2035. Because low-income
households already spend three times more of their income than
other households, the loss of these savings will hit them
harder. Low-income households are often renters or live in
multifamily housing, and they don't always have direct control
over what appliances are in their homes, and landlords
frequently buy the cheapest or the least efficient models. But
standards can ensure that they are replaced with more efficient
versions when the time arises for replacement. Failure to
update standards breaks this cycle and leaves less efficient
appliances in place as they are being replaced for low-income
households.
So, you know, not updating standards definitely has an
impact on low-income households in this way and doing so could
save a lot of money for U.S. families on their energy bills.
Mr. Rush. Ms. Wyatt, in the statute, FERC has established
Federal energy capacity marketing rules that can come at a cost
to consumers that hinder marketing access for clean energy
sources. In what ways will these rules impact clean energy
accessibility and affordability within vulnerable communities?
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you say, these types of Federal decisions absolutely
impact vulnerable communities, in this particular decision that
you are referencing, negatively.
First, it is key that State support for clean energy
correct market distortions without, you know, an economywide
carbon price or something like that, that forces polluting
resources to internalize this whole cost escalation, which are
enormous and unjust, the resource mix is inefficiently weighted
towards these resources, not a level playing field. But FERC
has failed to recognize that. And how the decision works, you
know, even as distributed clean energy growers--and to be
clear, distributed energy is GRID's area of work--utilities
still have to source wholesale energy in much of the mid-
Atlantic and Northeast and Midwest.
This happens through the PJM regional transmission
organization and their auction mechanism. Unfortunately, this
mechanism is indifferent to resources, environmental and equity
profiles. And the recent decision from FERC further overrides
State support for clean energy. So the minimum offered price
rule, or MOPR, prevents wholesale energy sellers from
recognizing State support in their offers, pushing bids higher
than what they would otherwise be. And if that sounds like it
directly raises prices for utility ratepayers, including those
like our clients who can least afford it, it does.
It also slows climate action again with inequitable impacts
on vulnerable communities because some renewable resources
won't be able to clear it in that market.
Mr. Rush. And my time is--it is the end of my time. So
would you conclude your answer, please?
Ms. Wyatt. Sure, thank you.
Yes, the long and short of it is that, you know, the FERC
decision forces States to provide greater support to clean
energy resources, making them more expensive, or cut back on
climate policy. And it is worth taking a fundamental look at
FERC's role in including climate and equity in their mandate.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Upton, the subcommittee
ranking member, for 5 minutes for purposes of asking questions
of the witnesses.
Mr. Upton. Well, thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
our witnesses for their testimony.
I would say I have always been a huge supporter of clean
energy, but, obviously, issues like reliability and
affordability are critical. In Michigan, we have had a clean
energy standard. It was passed by our State legislature, I
don't know, 80 years ago or so. It has helped spur utility
investments, keeps prices relatively low and stable, and that
is in large part because we have a pretty diverse fuel mix.
And I would note that, a couple of weeks ago, I was down in
Niles, Michigan, which is just north of South Bend on the State
line, and literally they are building a new gas turbine
electric facility, natural gas for electricity, and it is going
to be the most efficient natural gas facility probably within
300 or 400 miles of that spot. So they are encouraged. And, of
course, in Michigan we will see the closing of a number of coal
plants as we meet the renewable standards, which are going to,
frankly, probably double in terms of the percentage over the
next 10 or 15 years.
I want to see us continue to lead the Nation, but I am
worried about going the same route as California, imposing a
national clean energy standard. They have rushed ahead with
some pretty strong renewable mandates, natural gas bans, which,
of course, would impact this new facility in Niles, a billion-
dollar facility in a relatively small town. EV subsidies, a new
ban on gasoline cars, obviously, would impact Michigan in a
pretty big way. And, of course, we know that California's
utility bills are among the highest in the Nation, rapidly
rising. The grid has been unstable. We have seen that
particularly with the fires. And as you said, Mr. Bryce, they
would expect perhaps a 50-percent increase in the electricity
demand.
Mr. Bryce, where are they going to the get that electricity
knowing this path that they are on?
Mr. Bryce. Well, Mr. Upton, I have no idea, and it doesn't
appear that California has a plan. They relied heavily--have
been relying heavily on imports, and that was what led to the
rolling blackouts that occurred in August. I would point out
that California has these mandates for renewables, but it is a
State where it is extraordinarily difficult to build new
renewable energy capacity. In fact, the amount of wind energy
capacity in California has been flat essentially since 2013.
Since last December, two major wind projects have been rejected
in the State of California, one in Humboldt County and one, I
think it was just in April, near Lompac. So California--in
fact, they recently rescinded moves to prematurely close some
of their gas-fired generation because they realized that they
couldn't afford to keep that--they needed those plants to stay
on line to ensure grid reliability.
So I think California provides a case study on a lot of
different fronts. But, first and foremost, is the land use
question because these discussions about moving the entire
economy and they--you know, the people that are pushing for
these kinds of policies to have economywide renewables are
completely ignoring the land use challenge. And I have
documented this.
Over the last six years, over 280 communities or local
governments from Maine to California have rejected or
restricted wind energy projects. We are seeing increasing
resistance to solar energy projects. If you can't build it in
California, where do they think they are going to put it? Well,
somewhere else? You can't build it in Vermont. There are no
wind projects being built in Bernie Sanders' home State.
The same thing applies to high-voltage transmission, which
is other critical part of this discussion, which is not being
included. But the best renewable sources are outside of cities.
I have rooftop solar. I believe in the growth of solar. It is
going to continue growing. But the challenge in siting the
scale of the renewable capacity that will be needed in
California or any other State is just enormous.
Mr. Upton. Well, didn't they have problems years ago when
they were looking at doing a major solar farm there and they
were sued because they weren't able to get access to the grid
to be able to send that renewable solar power to parts of the
State?
Mr. Bryce. Mr. Upton, I don't know. I can't answer that
question. I do know that the siting of the large thermal solar
projects in the State have been very controversial because of
their impacts on desert communities. And, you know, I think one
of the--the key challenges there for California, this is a
State that has the highest poverty rate in America, and yet
their electricity rates are continuing to rise, and this is bad
for low- and middle-income consumers, and I think these
problems are going to be even worse in the years to come in
California, unfortunately.
One last point, San Bernardino County, the largest county
by area in America, last year banned all large-scale
renewables. So if you can't build them in San Bernardino County
in California, again, where are you going to put it? These land
use issues are key to this entire discussion and almost
completely ignored.
Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired. Thank you very much.
Thank you all.
Mr. Bryce. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the full committee
chairman, for 5 minutes for the purposes of asking questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. As we have heard,
the ongoing COVID-19--excuse me. I will just turn my phone off
here. We have heard over and over again that the ongoing COVID-
19 pandemic has led to an increasing number of unpaid
electricity bills, and some utilities are reporting more than
20 percent of their customers are falling behind.
Recent figures estimate there will be between $19 and $25
billion in unpaid electricity bills by the end of the year. So
let me ask Ms. Drehobl. In light of these mounting unpaid
bills, what can be done to ensure that the system remains
operational, and homeowners are not left in the dark? What more
can the Federal Government do to be helpful.
Ms. Drehobl. Thank you for your question. I think the
Federal Government can provide guidance on this issue. Right
now, it is up to States to decide if they will have moratoriums
in place to keep people's lights on. And as you stated, you
know, as of today, only 21 States and the District of Columbia
still have connection bans in place for electricity, gas, and
water.
And as we move into the winter months, a lot of people are
going to be in danger of losing their electricity. This is
going to place a massive burden on families and will have wide
ramifications for the economy as we work towards recovering
from the public health crisis. I think more funding for LIHEAP
could definitely help in the short term, and I think energy
efficiency investments can also act as a long-term solution to
help people afford their energy bills in the long term.
Mr. Pallone. Well, as I mentioned earlier, the House is
expected to debate today an updated version of the HEROES Act,
and that provides an additional $4.5 billion for LIHEAP. It
includes a moratorium on energy and water shutoffs.
You know, let me ask. Let me go back to you, Ms. Drehobl,
and I will ask Dr. Reames. You know, in light of these mounting
unpaid electricity bills, I mean, would you say that this is a
good thing to do, that we need these shutoff moratoriums and
this additional funding for LIHEAP?
Let me start with you, and then I will go to Dr. Reames.
Ms. Drehobl. I would say definitely, we do. We definitely
need more support to help people keep their lights on as we
move into the winter months and as the pandemic continues.
Mr. Pallone. And then, Dr. Reames, in light of these
mounting unpaid electricity bills, what do we do to ensure that
lights stay on for vulnerable committees and that system has
enough resources to remain operational?
So on the one hand, you know, do you support what we are
doing in this updated HEROES Act with additional LIHEAP money
and a moratorium on energy and water shutoffs? But at the same
time, what do you think we should be doing to make sure that
there are enough resources in the industry to remain
operational? I will ask you both things.
Mr. Reames. Yes. Thank you for that. I do think the
additional funds for LIHEAP are definitely very important. I
think this also allows us a time for there to be greater
coordination between this idea of the long-term strategies of
weatherization and the short-term benefits of LIHEAP. It is
also a time to discuss with utilities and State regulatory
bodies on, one, how we are tracking this mounting debt that
people are having, what parts of the community are experiencing
this at greater proportions, and then to think about long-term
strategies to reduce energy burdens and energy debt. There
needs to be a really serious conversation about what do we do
on the other side of this pandemic with all the debt that
people are accumulating and may not be in an economic position
to pay, and then how can LIHEAP be distributed more effectively
to pay off some of that debt.
Mr. Pallone. I mean, I really believe that without the
moratorium on shutoffs, because there are just too many people
that will be shut off and won't have power, won't have water,
et cetera, and obviously, you both agree with that. But I also
think in addition to helping people with the LIHEAP, we have to
figure out how the system remains operational, and I think that
probably means some kind of Federal assistance as well.
But, again, I am going to reiterate that, you know, this is
an updated bill that the House is going to pass, but the most
important thing is that we get Leader McConnell and President
Trump to come to a consensus bill that we can pass, you know,
in the next few weeks, and hopefully we are moving in that
direction.
So I thank you both, and I yield back, Chairman Rush.
Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks again to all our witnesses. Your testimony has been most
helpful.
It is unfortunate that the HEROES Act 1 and HEROES Act 2,
Republicans were completely excluded from the discussions on
this. When we did do the CARES Act, we were involved, and those
bills passed nearly unanimously, I think, and we came together
as a country and as two parties with different views to stand
up and work for the American people.
Sadly, in both of these initiatives, HEROES 1, HEROES 2, it
is just a proffer for the Senate, and we have not been included
in those discussions. It is a one-way communication strategy
that is doomed to fail unless things change. It didn't have to
be that way.
I would like to enter into the record two recent advocacy
ads in the Los Angeles Times, one from the Sierra Club and
another in response by the United Latinos Vote, a low-income
advocacy group in California. The reaction to the Sierra Club
ad pushing for gas bans and electric vehicles underscores the
poor and working-class concerns about California policy very
well. I would encourage members to read this.
Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would ask that those be
entered into the record.
Mr. Rush. So ordered. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bryce, you raise a point that I think we should all
bear in mind, and that is transitioning to clean energy carries
costs that are not always discussed thoroughly to the people
that have to pay those costs. And we have talked today about
affordability, especially during the pandemic.
You enlightened us about what is happening in Germany, what
is happening in other States. Oregon is a big renewable energy
State with hydroelectricity. My district has thousands of
megawatts of wind energy generation capacity as well as big
solar fields and great potential for geothermal.
Last week, California's governor, though, called to
eliminate sales in the State of light duty gasoline-powered
vehicles. In your analysis, what impact will that have on
communities that benefit from the ban on gas-fueled vehicles?
Is this going to hurt low income communities?
Mr. Bryce. I think there is simply no doubt, sir, that this
ban on internal combustion engines which, in my view, is
remarkable after the auto cycle engine was designed in the
1880s. It has been over the past 140 years continually
improved. The technology has gotten cleaner. The power density
has increased, and gasoline prices have been flat for over 40
years, according to the EIA.
The fact is, sir, and I was at Costco the other day. There
was a Chevy Volt out in front, a brand new electric vehicle.
The sticker price was $46,000.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Bryce. Tradesmen, the working class Americans, working
class Californians are not going to be able to afford electric
vehicles. And that was some of the--the United Latino vote made
this point. Assemblyman Jim Cooper in California has made this
point, that these alternative fuel vehicles are simply out of
reach for most Americans, and it is unfortunate, and I think it
is a misguided policy.
Mr. Walden. Well, and I know--I think you mentioned rolling
blackouts and capacity issues on the grid in California with
the existing system. I believe that it was energy from Snake
River dams in the northwest, 50,000 megawatt hours, a 25
percent output increase ship power to California that kept the
lights on.
Many of these same groups that are pushing these policies
also want to pull out those dams and eliminate that carbon-free
hydro power. What impact does that have, do you think, if that
happens?
Mr. Bryce. Well, sir, I am no expert on the hydropower
politics and the situation in the northeast. I will answer the
question, maybe, that I think is more critical to the low
carbon electricity grid nationally is the ongoing shutdown of
nuclear power plants. We have seen that at the Indian Point
nuclear plant in New York. I am not a partisan. I am not a
Democrat. I am not a Republican. But the Democratic States--in
New York, they are closing Indian Point. The San Onofre nuclear
plant in California has been closed. They are closing Diablo
Canyon.
Exelon just announced they are going to close two nuclear
power plants in Illinois. This is the wrong direction to be
going if we are serious about pursuing low and no carbon
electricity.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Bryce, I have had people tell me that we
should stop talking about the need for firm baseload power,
that is unnecessary in today's marketplace, and it is a
complete red herring. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Bryce. I do not.
Mr. Walden. Why?
Mr. Bryce. Well, we live in an as-needed electric grid, not
an as-wanted grid. You know, solar and wind energy are growing.
They are getting very significant subsidies, but these are
intermittent sources of energy. You can't count on them, and
that was what we learned just most recently in California.
So the cost--as the University of Chicago study showed, the
cost of making intermittent electricity sources firm is large
because you need that standby generation or potentially in the
future very large batteries. Well, consumers are going to have
to pay the cost of all of those.
So baseload electricity, the idea that these plants aren't
needed anymore, is simply not true.
Mr. Walden. All right. I have used up my time, Mr.
Chairman. You have been most generous.
Thank you again to all our witnesses as we work on these
important issues, and I yield back.
Mr. Bryce. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Peters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Rush. And I guess since I
am the first Californian called on, I just have to respond
briefly to my colleagues who criticize my State's effort to
lead the country, and frankly, lead the world in climate
action. We might agree on some land use policies that
California could improve on, and I am sympathetic to baseload
power, but when my colleagues cite increased costs of action,
they pretend that there are no costs to inaction which we all
know is false.
Climate change is going to be expensive, but it is going to
be a lot less expensive if we act now. So I am willing to
discuss whether what California is doing makes sense because we
are running the first experiments, and we are going to make
mistakes. But acting now on climate is not an example--it is
not a mistake; it is an example;
Now, to today's topic. We have heard our witnesses talk
about the importance of targeted policies like energy
efficiency requirements in buildings and appliances,
investments in community-based energy efficiency assistance
programs. We have also heard that policymakers need to do more
to ensure policies that incentivize clean energy technologies.
I just want to say that the big picture here is that
because these disadvantaged communities are disproportionately
harmed by the effects of climate change, everything we do to
reduce the rate of climate change helps these communities the
most, and that is the urgency. I think that is the important
frame to keep in mind here as we talk about what to do, because
generally, action would be helpful.
And we didn't talk about it today, but I wanted to talk
about another topic that I raised before which is the price on
carbon. A 2017 DOE energy report showed that continued
investments in clean energy technologies, coupled with the
price of carbon, will cut CO2 emissions faster than the sum of
each approach on its own.
But I also want to talk about in this context how important
it is that the price of carbon be designed to offset the energy
burden on low income housing, on low income households. And I
call your attention to a 2018 CRS study that was prepared by
Joseph Rosenberg of Columbia that assessed the household impact
of a $50 per ton metric--$50 per metric ton carbon tax that was
designed with a per capita household rebate that generated for
the lowest income quintile a four percent increase in household
income in 2025.
I think it is very important to combine these kinds of
technologies in terms of private investment with public
investment and send that incentive to the private sector to do
the right thing and to make investments. But we have to design
these things with these disadvantaged communities in mind, and
I think we can do that.
I wanted to ask Ms. Drehobl a question about something you
said. Can you elaborate on how incentives for home energy
efficiency improvements can aid in reducing carbon emission by
what I think you said in your testimony was 60 million tons?
That seems like a benefit not just to these households but to
the whole effort nationally to fight climate change.
Ms. Drehobl. Yes. Thank you for your question. Reducing
household energy use not only helps reduce burdens on
individual homeowners who are paying those bills, but it also
reduces the amount of pollution generated from carbon-polluting
energy facilities which improves public health overall and has
multiple benefits for communities as well as job benefits which
I think are really important right now as we work to rebuild
the economy.
So from a climate change perspective, energy efficiency and
weatherization updates not only impact indoor air quality and
health but also helps with climate change overall.
Mr. Peters. Thank you.
Dr. Reames, I believe it was you, and it might have been
someone else, and so they can chime in as well. I wanted to
talk a little bit about energy efficient products like light
bulbs and why they are more expensive and not affordable in
areas of high poverty.
Can you explain that to me and talk a little bit also about
what incentives or aid do you think Congress should provide or
could provide to help low income communities transition to
affordable clean energy to combat the climate crisis?
Mr. Reames. Yes. Thank you for your question. We did a
study in Detroit looking at store prices of light bulbs. And
what we found in poor communities, because of the type of
stores that are there and the partnerships that stores have
with utilities, that most of the rebates were in big box stores
which we know are located in the suburbs and not in the urban
core.
And the stores also did not carry the most efficient
appliances either because they, you know, can't afford to stock
them, or that is just not a part of their inventory.
And so in places, particularly where transportation access
is low and people go to local stores in those communities, they
will not have access to either the most efficient technology or
the most affordable technology. And so offering rebates from a
Federal level that also targets those communities would help
those communities with access.
Mr. Peters. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for the hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Here we go.
Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for
appearing before us today.
Over the past few months, the American people have been
hard hit by the outbreak of COVID-19. Many have lost their jobs
and are finding it difficult to continue to pay their bills. We
have also seen businesses and manufacturing plants shut down or
curtail production which have caused ripple effects across the
greater economy. For years, our country has been trying to
bring back more manufacturing jobs lost to China, Mexico, and
other countries, and COVID-19 has only made the effort more
difficult.
Given all of this, the last thing that working families and
businesses need to see is rising electric bills. Unfortunately,
if we were to adopt the energy mandates like those in the Green
New Deal, that is exactly what would happen.
My district in northwest and west central Ohio is home to
over 60,000 manufacturing jobs. Thankfully, in part due to the
policies implemented by the Trump administration and the
American energy renaissance, I believe we are seeing growth in
the manufacturing sector. I have been told by model businesses
in Ohio that one of the reasons for this is reduced cost of
energy.
Companies small, medium, and large, want to pay Americans
what they deserve in these manufacturing jobs, and they have
found they can do so by saving on energy and operating costs.
They can also, in turn, bring these jobs home, build up the
local tax base, and inject more money into our local towns and
economies.
Mr. Bryce, if I could ask, start with you. In your
testimony, you point out that imposing arbitrary energy
mandates would actually increase the cost of the electricity to
rate payers. Wouldn't companies be dissuaded from bringing back
manufacturing jobs if they are forced to pay higher electricity
costs?
Mr. Bryce. Well, I think, yes--sir. Mr. Latta, I think that
the answer is yes. And I think that it is clear that what we
have seen, thanks to the shale revolution, since 2005, the U.S.
has seen the biggest increase in energy production in world
history. The scale of the increase in U.S. oil and gas is truly
unprecedented, and that has resulted in a big surge in
manufacturing jobs in the United States, in particular, due to
lower cost natural gas, but electricity figures into that as
well.
I think it was last year the Council on Economic Advisors
released a report that said that the shale revolution has saved
American consumers something on the order of $200 billion a
year, and most of those savings are occurring because of lower
cost electricity, and that is a knock on effect on the fact
that we are using more low cost natural gas to generate power.
So all of these things are connected, but yes, I think
there is just simply no doubt the industrial base in the U.S.
has benefitted greatly from this increase in domestic oil and
gas production.
Mr. Latta. Well, if I can continue with another question
for you because the ranking Republican member from Oregon
brought this up when you were talking about baseload capacity
and also volume peaking. And the real question is, really, if
you could go into more details on the impact on manufacturing
plants since they would be--you know, you would also be
required to use the renewable mandates and maintain that
baseload capacity, those differences there.
Because, again, you know, I talked to some companies out
there, again, in my district, and I have got a lot of companies
that use a lot of electricity. But, you know, what would be
those differences in cost out there?
The other would be that you wouldn't even have that ability
if you didn't have that baseload to have that company there
because we have got to rely on the baseload to turn the factory
on in the morning.
Mr. Bryce. Well, sir, I am not exactly sure how to answer
your question, but I will answer it this way, that what I know
and from talking with people that I know, investors here in
Texas that put money into plants, for instance, in Mexico. They
have built an electric plant near an auto plant near Monterey,
and the electric load there is enormous because of the
heavily--they use a lot of robotics.
So I think as manufacturing becomes more automated, not
only is electricity supply more important, but electricity
reliability is more important.
So these are key issues and key challenges because we have
a very diffuse ownership of the grid in the United States,
incredibly diffuse, partly as a result of the new deal where we
have about 800, 900 different electric cooperatives, we have a
lot of investor-owned utilities, locally owned utilities. They
all have to coordinate. But the key here is reliability and low
cost, and those are the key challenges that I think that the
United States is facing now in trying to talk about going to
cleaner energy and power systems is how is all of this going to
be coordinated while assuring lower prices and reliability?
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time
is about to expire, and I yield back.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bryce. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Upton, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses
for being online with us.
It is a disgrace that so many people in this country have
energy bills they can't afford. We have to attack this issue
aggressively so that no families have to choose between food or
electricity or face having their power shut off because they
can't make a payment. It is clear that we must invest in
solutions like weatherizing homes and deploying cheap, clean
energy systems, and right now is the time for us to be making
those investments.
We have the technical capability, we have many people
looking for good-paying jobs that can be done safely, and the
government currently can borrow money basically interest free.
Making the right investments now can help people afford their
bills, provide a cleaner future, and help dig us out of this
economic hole created by the pandemic.
I also believe that as we figure out how to make these
investments, we must provide people from low income and
particularly minority communities with access to the education
and training they need to get good-paying jobs in the
construction and rehabilitation industry for the clean energy
industry.
We must also make sure we are not leaving behind
communities who have lost fossil fuel jobs as they are also
struggling and have a skilled workforce that can be deployed to
build and run clean energy systems.
I would like to start by asking Ms. Drehobl. Can you please
expand on how helpful to advancing clean energy systems it
would be to allow the weatherization assistance program to also
cover the cost of things like roof repairs so solar could be
installed or having an attic insulated?
Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Thank you for your question.
Often, households who are eligible for weatherization have
health and safety issues or things that need to be repaired
before they are able to participate in the program. Including
additional funding to cover some of those costs such as roof
repairs, such as addressing mold or other issues, can help many
more households be able to access the benefits of these
programs.
So that was one of our recommendations was including more
funding for health and safety repairs within the weatherization
program.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Wyatt, a large percentage of households that face high
energy costs, these people live in multi-family homes or they
are renters. The challenge, it seems, is incentivizing
landlords to install clean energy systems since they don't live
in the home or pay utilities.
So how effective would making the solar or solar plus
storage investment tax credits refundable or providing direct
pay for be in getting these landlords to install these systems?
And how do we design such a system so that we don't end up
simply giving wealthy landlords a larger tax write off for all
their properties?
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you very much for your question. You are
absolutely right to flag the incentive structure difficulties
with making sure that residents of multi-family housing,
including affordable housing, can receive the benefits of clean
energy and that the owners of that housing who are often non-
profit entities are incentivized to go solar even if they are
not necessarily the ones paying the energy bills.
Different programs have been pioneered around the country,
including solar and multi-family affordable housing in
California, with which GRID Alternatives co-administers. The
ITC making that--the Federal investment tax credit making that
refundable for non-profits would, again, enable non-profits,
including affordable housing providers, to directly access the
benefits of that incentive for installing clean energy systems.
And, you know, in terms of tax write-offs for--you know,
who gets the benefit of the clean energy? One of the strategies
that we found useful, it pioneered in California which, of
course, has done a lot of experimenting on clean energy policy
and how to make it more equitable is, you know, requiring the
beneficiaries of clean energy incentives that are multi-family
housing owners and providers to pass on those benefits in
tangible ways, either in bill savings if the energy bills are
structured that way, or other tangible benefits like maybe they
get better internet service or other services for residents.
Mr. Doyle. I see. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about to
expire, so I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair understands that Mrs. McMorris Rodgers is not
available, so the chairman will recognize Mr. Olson for 5
minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank my good friend from the south side of
Chicago, Chairman Bobby Rush. My friend, I am compelled to
apologize in advance. If your White Sox beat Mr. McNerney's
Oakland As today, my Houston Astros have bats and brooms. There
is going to be a big, old sweep in the baseball world.
Mr. Rush. I choose not to respond to wishful thinking.
Mr. Olson. Wonderful witnesses. A special howdy to a Texas
Longhorn, Robert Bryce, who knows what six words come after
four quick claps; deep in the heart of Texas.
I have a few questions for you, Mr. Bryce. Like all Texans,
you understand that we have the best and most competitive
electric market in the Nation. It is a free market with
competition. That means lower prices for consumers. We lead the
Nation in renewables, number one in wind, number four in solar.
In your testimony, you mentioned that California has,
quote, ``big mandates with big prices,'' end quote. Do you mind
discussing how the Texas competitive market keeps prices so low
while we lead the way in renewables and how California, with
their hard push for green energy without the means to achieve
that, is going to pay such a high price for electricity now and
in the future?
Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, sir. I did graduate from the UT
a long time ago, but I am still from Oklahoma, so I still--you
know, I still root for the Sooners, so just got a full
disclosure here. Nevertheless----
Mr. Olson. Sorry to hear that.
Mr. Bryce. Nevertheless, sir, there is a contrast, a big
contrast, between what we see in California and what we see in
Texas. Texas has had a much lighter hand in terms of
regulation. You saw Governor Gavin Newsom announcing that he
wanted to ban hydraulic fracturing in California despite the
fact that hydraulic fracturing has led to this renaissance in
the U.S. oil and gas business that has saved every consumer in
this country an enormous amount of money.
So as far as the details of the electric markets, those are
complex. They are very complicated markets. But Texas has been
successful, but I will--in terms of how it has structured its
market, California, I was interested in Mr. Peters admitting
that there had been mistakes in California, but there have been
20 years of mistakes that have not been corrected.
So what we have seen in Texas, I think more than anything,
is that the State has, and particularly the electricity
consumers, have benefitted due to low cost natural gas.
Remember, it was about in the mid 2000s the average price
of gas in the-- natural gas in the United States was as high as
$7 or $8 on an annual basis. And now we are at $2 and change.
This is a remarkable reduction, and that reduction is saving
consumers not just in electricity but in home heating.
In industry, we see the increased investment in foreign
direct investment in chemical plants, petrochemicals along the
Gulf Coast. These are massive investments that are benefitting
American workers and the American consumers.
Mr. Olson. You mentioned natural gas. As you know, America
now is awash in natural gas. We are exporting liquified natural
gas. It is the cleanest, most versatile, and cheapest source of
energy for power.
You also mentioned that three local governments in
California have passed bans or restrictions on the use of
natural gas in buildings. You point out that these are being
done in the name of climate change and decarbonization, but
they are, in practice, a form of energy taxation that many of
these people can't afford.
I think that is a factor why SpaceX moved to Austin, why
Toyota moved their North American headquarters to Plano, and
why 90,000 Californians moved to Texas in 2018. Can you
elaborate on this phenomena about banning natural gas for
buildings?
Mr. Bryce. Well, I understand the sentiment. What I think
is remarkable, though, is when you look at the residential
sector in terms of natural gas use in the United States,
consumption in that sector has been effectively flat for 50
years at about 5 trillion cubic feet per year. And California,
I think, if memory serves, has a higher percentage of homes,
has I think about 80 percent of homes in California are
connected to the natural gas grid.
So even the California Public Advocates Office has issued a
report talking about the regressive effects of banning natural
gas, and particularly for renters and for low income
households, that if they are forced to give up the direct use
of natural gas, they will have to use electricity instead.
And, further, that as the number of customers that are
connected to the gas grid declines, the cost of maintaining
that grid will then be spread over fewer and fewer customers,
and that, again, is a regressive, a knock on effect of these
bans.
So it is interesting. I mean, even the Public Advocates
Office has been looking at this and recognizing the potential
economic impacts of those bans.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. I am out of time.
This is to you, Mr. Bryce, and Markwayne Mullin. Horns up
and beat OU. Hook 'em, Horns. October 10. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair understands that Mr. Sarbanes is presently not
present, so the Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman, and I can't help
but admire Mr. Olson's undying enthusiasm for Texas and that,
but I get a little tired of hearing such bashing of California
from all these folks.
In particular, criticisms of our energy policies and
blaming rolling blackouts on those policies. But inaction on
climate is already hurting low income communities more than any
energy policies.
Blackouts are caused by extreme heat from climate change,
and wildfires are related to that, impacting everyone, but
especially low income communities.
Dr. Reames, thank you for your testimony this morning. I
also hear Members from the other side claiming that clean
energy will rise electricity rates. However, a recent study
from UC Berkeley showed definitively that the cost of wind,
solar, and storage are decreasing so quickly that the U.S. can
reach 90 percent of clean energy by 2035 without raising
customer cost and may actually decrease wholesale price by ten
percent.
Please discuss the decreasing cost of clean energy, the
relatively high cost of fossil fuel generation, and the
expensive cost and consequences of climate change and the
short-sighted claim that clean energy costs more.
Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question.
I think it was mentioned by Chairman Rush in his opening
statement that nearly half of the rooftop solar potential rests
upon the rooftops of low and moderate income households when it
comes to solar. And so this idea that solar is available, the
potential is there, and the costs are going down makes it more
economical to begin to think about strategies to expand rooftop
solar access to low and moderate income households.
In addition, if we look at some of the inconsistencies or
the burdens on the costs for residential electricity has raised
substantially for the residential class customer going far
beyond that for commercial and industrial customers over time.
And so this idea of equity versus equality, the focus on equity
would look at rates for residential customers.
It was mentioned that if we move away from natural gas that
the cost of that infrastructure will be borne on residential
customers. But if we actually focus on electrifying the
residential sector, we could look at equity and pricing for the
commercial and industrial sector.
We also know that poor communities who have high energy
burdens are also bearing the cost of the pollution that is
related to our fossil fuel energy generation.
And so, again, higher income households and communities
that do not have generating plants are using more energy, but
the cost of the energy and the pollution is borne by low and
moderate income communities and communities of color.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Dr. Reames.
Ms. Wyatt, as you noted in your testimony, one way Congress
can address the economic impacts of the pandemic is through the
expansion of job training and grant programs, particularly with
those focused on clean energy, especially in low income and
underserved communities. While the energy sector saw incredible
job growth over the past decade, the distribution of that
growth hasn't been equitable. Specifically, the inclusion of
women and Black Americans remains a challenge.
Can you speak more to what can be done to ensure that those
historically underrepresented groups are not overlooked as
clean energy jobs are created?
Ms. Wyatt. Absolutely. And thank you for your important
question, Congressman.
Clean energy industries do need to look more like the
country. And while they are making some worthwhile efforts on
that front, we have several policy recommendations on how to
boost inclusion in the industry.
Many clean energy industry jobs can be made to have
particularly low barriers to entry and strong career paths if
the barriers to employment are reduced and the career paths are
targeted and made accessible to every community through policy
actions and investments.
We also recommend, you know, support for clean energy
entrepreneurship in communities of color as well. Most solar
companies, for example, are quite small, and it is an industry
that can and should have a lot more CEOs and executives of
color, people at all levels and all rules.
So workforce development programs should emphasize clean
energy, and clergy energy programs should emphasize workforce
development, two sides of the same coin.
GRID has seen the success of this sort of approach. One
example is our Solar Works DC program in the District of
Columbia that gets local residents paid training for solar
careers. Paid training is important to enable more
participation. We also have women and solar in troops to solar
program, SolarCorps.
There are lots of ways to reach out and be inclusive in
workforce development training.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you for that answer.
I thank all the witnesses today, and I thank the chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McKinley of West Virginia.
Mr. McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, my friend. I am going to direct my
questions back to Mr. Bryce, but before I do that, Chairman
Rush, I would like to ask you if I could get some help, maybe
from your staff, because in some of your opening remarks in the
preparation for this document that talked about the impact coal
has had on low income families and communities of color.
And I respect that, but I am also saying this as an
observation, that when I came here in 2010, over 52 percent of
the power plants in America or the generating plants came from
coal. There were 700 coal-fired power plants. Now we are down
to 25, 25 percent, and we only have just over 200 coal-fired
power plants.
But what I am not seeing is any measurable decrease
whatsoever in asthma, in lung disease, cardiovascular disease.
I am asking can someone show me that doing away with coal
actually improves the health of all of these communities.
Now, one thing that actually has happened, Chairman Rush,
has been in West Virginia. We have seen nearly a 70 percent
increase in our utility bills, and we are the second lowest
income in this country.
So when all of you are talking about concern about low
income communities, what about low income States that you just
impacted by doing this?
So I would like to hear from your staff if they will get
back to me.
But let me go to Mr. Bryce, if I could, because I have got
a series of math issues that I am concerned about, and that is
one starting with the weatherization program. I have been very
supportive of it and will continue to work with Peter Welch and
others to continue this.
But I am looking at the numbers, that we are spending about
$300 million, Mr. Bryce, $300 million into the weatherization
program, and we are doing--just a couple years ago we were
doing 60,000. Last year we did only 35,000 homes, but let's use
that 60,000 homes as the number, 60,000 homes we are fixing.
The average savings, according to the Department of Energy,
is around $300. So as a result, we are spending $18 million out
of $300 million. I wonder, maybe, is there sense in it because
if we just wrote them a check, these constituents, a $300
check, wouldn't that be beneficial?
Or maybe what we could do is, Mr. Bryce, would you say,
what if you gave more families? Because instead of just
limiting it to 60--60,000, what if we went to 10 times that, to
600,000 families? We can afford to do that. Just write them a
check for $300 because that is the savings that we are
spending.
So I am wondering. Or Mr. Bryce, would you say, should we
do research into more weatherization so that the savings that
we get is more than $300. Should we save $1,000? Should we save
$1,200? Would that be a better use of our money rather than
doing the simple weatherization we are doing because we are
only saving $18 million out of $300 million being spent.
Or should we switch to energy performance contracts and not
have to spend any money because energy performance contracts
across the country, there is no expense on that. The Federal
Government doesn't have to put out anything. We don't have to
put $300,000 out. Individual companies would do that.
So I am just curious, Mr. Bryce, either one of those three:
Give more families money, increase our research into
weatherization, or what about switching to performance
contracts? What say you on that?
Mr. Bryce. Mr. McKinley, I am going to be honest with you.
I don't know those programs, and I would be--it would not be my
place to comment on them because I simply don't know those
numbers, and I am not familiar with the program.
So I appreciate the question.
Mr. McKinley. Well, I appreciate that, and I am jamming you
a little bit on it, but what I am saying, Mr. Bryce, is that if
we are only saving--if the energy savings is only $18 million,
but we are spending $300 million to do that, what if we just
wrote them a check? What if we just wrote a check, and then we
don't--then we could save $280 million.
Mr. Bryce. Well, yes, sir. I understand your point, but I
think those savings would accrue over many years, and so, you
know, I am in favor of efficiency. I replaced my refrigerator
this year, and it uses a third as much electricity as my old
refrigerator. So I have seen personally the benefits of
efficiency.
But, again, as far as the specific programs and the math
that you are putting forward, I can't tell you any--I can't add
anything to what you have said.
Mr. McKinley. I am just wondering whether or not--I would
love to see more efficiency with it. I agree with you on that.
But, again, at $300 million to get 18, what if we gave more
people that are hurting, that are struggling out there, the low
income families, let's help more of them than just 30,000. What
if we had 60, 100, or 200,000? Let's do something that has an
impact, not this program. It needs to be updated significantly.
So I thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I do hope to hear back
from your staff. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
The gentleman yields back.
I just wanted to let the gentleman know, you know, it is
not my intention, nor has it ever been, to engage in any kind
of false dichotomy between poor people who reside in West
Virginia and poor people who reside on the south side of
Chicago.
I think that that feeds into an unfortunate narrative that
has really created so many divisions in our Nation.
I am for and have been advocating for the poor people in
West Virginia just as I am an advocate for the poor people on
south side of Chicago.
And that said, I fully intend to engage the gentleman with
staff and any other means in a meaningful, productive
conversation in the future, and I thank the gentleman for his
open invitation.
Mr. McKinley. I look forward to it. Take care Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. And with that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, who has returned.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Chairman Rush, and thank
you for the hearing today.
I wanted to speak to a project in Baltimore city that I am
very proud of that is trying to lift up communities that have
been under a lot of pressure, particularly recently. It is a
program called the Baltimore Shines program. It helps increase
access to solar energy by installing solar panels in
underserved communities.
What the City of Baltimore does is it couples that work
under the weatherization assistance program, the work that they
do there, with the solar initiative, so they go in, and they do
all these things at the same time.
It has a workforce component that trains local individuals
for jobs in the solar sector which can be very good jobs, high
quality of life there if you can get one of those jobs.
And I am glad to see the GRID Alternatives, one of the
witnesses here today. They were an early partner in the
Baltimore Shines project, the pilot project that then became
Baltimore Shines along with the Department of Energy, the U.S.
Department of Energy a few years back, Morgan State University,
and others which provided over 30 homes in that area of
Baltimore with solar systems.
Ms. Wyatt, I know that your testimony has touched on
previous projects that GRID Alternatives implemented. You
understand the value of decreasing barriers and increasing
access to solar energy for low income and underserved
communities, and you mentioned the need to build trust there
with community members.
Can you explain some of the benefits of working with
community leaders and local officials on these projects as GRID
Alternatives did in the Baltimore solar initiative, and how can
Federal programs help to foster and support these partnerships?
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you for your questions and your kind
remarks about GRID Alternatives' work in Baltimore,
Congressman. We are very proud of the combination of solar
savings, weatherization, and workforce development that has
helped so many Baltimore families.
As you say, trust with community members is crucial.
Honestly, sometimes the immense benefits of solar can seem too
good to be true in some of the communities that, frankly, have
been targeted for scams, low income communities and communities
of color, have been exploited and are often on guard when they
hear we can cut your energy bills in half. It sounds too good
to be true.
There is also, you know, again, the barriers relating to
just not seeing solar and clean energy as the sort of thing
that is for me. Cultural barriers, educational barriers,
language barriers, of course, in some communities.
And so working directly in partnership with community
members and local officials could really bridge gaps and also,
you know, help shape the program in ways that make it actually
responsive to community needs so that you are not just dropping
down in a top down manner and imposing solutions on
communities.
Letting the communities, again, lead the solutions is very
important, and, you know, giving them tools to hold officials
and programs accountable for how well they are doing.
Some ways to, you know, try to accomplish that, you can
enhance participation in the design phase through, you know,
steps to recognize the barriers that communities face like even
just needing childcare and working day jobs and participating
in program design. You can give capacity-enhancing assistance
to community-based organizations to help them interact with the
decisionmakers and the program administrators.
The key is deliberate effort and deliberate outreach.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. I appreciate that response.
And I think what you are saying is all of these different
initiatives that we are speaking about today have the
opportunity to be empowering for the communities in which they
are deployed. And building that partnership, creating the
opportunity for input on the front end, I mean, obviously
groups like yours bring expertise, but you don't have expertise
about what a particular community's perspective has been, its
history has been, the resources it can put together, the
pipeline it can create.
So you have to be very--bring humility to that, and it
seems like when that happens, you get the best results. Again,
I want to thank you for your efforts in Baltimore. We are going
to continue to try to be as innovate there as we possibly can.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State
of Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a little
bit of time for a point of personal privilege, just as you did.
I have served with you now for ten years on the Energy and
Commerce Committee. This morning, Mr. Doyle was at another
meeting where he said we have got to stop thinking just because
we disagree that the other side is evil. I agree with that, and
I can say as an affirmative to your comments to Mr. McKinley
that in the entire time I have been here, we have not always
agreed on how to accomplish it, but you have always advocated
for poor people, whether they were from Appalachia or the south
side of Chicago, and I appreciate that about you.
And even though we may disagree on how we solve these
problems, I do greatly appreciate your leadership in that area
and making it clear that this is not about one part of the
country or another. It is about trying to help poor people
across the board, and I thank you for that.
That being said, I will go to questioning Mr. Bryce, if I
might. But thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that indulgence.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. Well, I do appreciate your leadership in that
way.
Mr. Bryce, you point out in your testimony that between
2011 and 2019, California has seen the average price for
electricity, industrial, commercial, and residential, increase
by nearly 30 percent. That is more than seven times what we
have seen throughout the rest of the country. I am particularly
concerned with how California's renewable mandates have
impacted consumers' electricity bills because the same public
policies that have brought extremely high rates and rolling
blackouts are now being pushed forward in Virginia.
In April, Virginia's governor signed the Virginia Clean
Economy Act, requiring 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2050.
Now, it is estimated by the largest provider in Virginia,
Dominion Energy, that that will cause an increase--and they put
this in their report to the State Corporation Commission of
Virginia. That will cause--that mandate to build solar and wind
generation capacity will increase rates for the average
Virginia household roughly 45 percent or $52.40 to $55 per
month or $660 a year.
What advice do you have for the Commonwealth of Virginia if
the priority is truly to provide affordable and reliable energy
to all?
Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, Mr. Griffith. My policy, or you
know, I don't come--I am not pushing any particular bill,
particular policy. But for ten years or more now in my books
and the things that I have written, I am an advocate for
natural gas and nuclear. These are the sources of energy that
are low carbon, affordable, scalable. I think what is
happening, particularly with the closure of nuclear plants
across the country, is exactly the wrong direction.
And I think that, you know, there is no question that
renewable capacity and renewable generation is growing and
growing fairly dramatically. But what I see, and I think is
going to clearly be a problem in Virginia, it is already a
problem in Maryland with the Dans Mountain Wind Project.
But across the country in essentially every State, we are
seeing conflicts over the siting of wind projects, the siting
of utility scale solar, the siting of high voltage
transmission. And I think if Virginia is going to push ahead
with this mandate, which it appears they are, that these land
use conflicts are going to be very much in the news, especially
lower income counties.
What I see, in fact, in New York where the State has
overridden the power of local zoning for local communities.
There is a major project, the Alle-Catt wind project, that is
being pushed on the counties of Allegheny and Cattaraugus.
These are the fourth and fifth or fifth and sixth poorest
counties by median household income in the State.
So if what is happening in other States happens in
Virginia, you can count on the lowest income counties in
Virginia being targeted for these large scale projects because
the local communities don't have the kind of resources to fight
them in court.
Mr. Griffith. Well, in representing a congressional
district that ranks 422nd on median household income of the 435
in Congress, that is of some concern, although we would welcome
the jobs in many types of energy production. We currently have
a lot of coal and natural gas, but we would--we welcome a lot
of energy because it is a field that we know.
But I do think it is interesting. You also mentioned that
you were in favor of efficiency, and I was curious about the
California electric car situation because as I have interpreted
that or listened to that, they are only going to ban the sale
of new cars, new gas-powered cars.
And so I know exactly what happens in communities that
don't have money, and that is they will continue to drive those
gas-powered cars. They will figure out a way to keep them on
the road, fix them up when they might otherwise trade them in.
Doesn't that create for less efficiency instead of more
efficiency?
Mr. Bryce. Well, I certainly see your point, and I think
you can clearly argue that. I think what is clear is that the
automotive fleet is getting more efficient. That is a very
positive thing, but you know, electric vehicle sales still
account for a very small fraction of overall vehicle sales. And
numerous studies have found that it is the very wealthy
households are the ones that are buying these vehicles, not
working class, and so I--and not working class households.
So I think there is definitely--as Dr. Reames has pointed
out over and over, there are issues of equity here. And
Assemblyman Jim Cooper wrote an open letter to the big
environmental groups in California about this very issue of
equity when it comes to subsidies and mandates around electric
vehicles. Transportation is essential, especially for working
class people.
Mr. Griffith. Let me claim back my time because I only have
a couple seconds left.
Mr. Bryce. Sure.
Mr. Griffith. I do want to recognize the community housing
partners that not only do weatherization. They are
headquartered in my district, and they do a lot of great work
training other people on how to weatherize homes, and that is
something that is important. And I think that Mr. Rush and I
would agree--Chairman Rush and I would agree, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair does agree. The gentleman yields back.
Now the chairman recognizes Mr. Tonko from New York for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Thank you to my friend, Chairman Rush, and just a couple of
points for the record. While there was talk about incentives in
the State of New York, let me also place on the record that my
home State of New York has also passed significant incentives
to keep our nuclear power plants in upstate continuing to
operate.
And, also, when we talk about displacing some of these
programs or replacing them with an outright check that would be
drafted for consumers, we better be ready to pay that $300
check each and every year because these are recurring benefits.
There is a tremendous need to center equity in our energy
policy, and DOE's weatherization assistance program is an
important part of this effort as the largest Federal program
focused on delivering efficiency services to our low income
households.
The weatherization program recognizes that low income
Americans are paying much more of their paycheck for essential
utility services, three times what higher income households pay
as a percentage of their income. These families don't have the
disposable income to make home improvements even when those
cost-effective improvements pay back over time.
And we know the program works. Each weatherization program
dollar delivers $4.50 in benefits, including energy savings and
improved health and safety. So homes that receive these
services save on average $283 every year, each and every year,
on their utility bills.
So, Ms. Drehobl. We know it is difficult to get rental and
multi-family housing units to participate in the weatherization
program. Many landlords don't see a reason to improve the
efficiency of their tenants' homes, but obviously, many of us
have a strong interest in ensuring these services reach
everyone. Do you have any suggestions for how to increase these
types of homes in the program, or how else might we incentivize
weatherization services for these homes beyond the DOE program?
Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Thank you for your question. That is a
major challenge. One of the recommendations that we included in
our testimony is ways that the Federal Government can help
target affordable multi-family housing which is a very large
market of households. Right now, there are 1.1 million units of
occupied public housing, and we estimate that deep retrofits to
1 million of these units would cost about $4.5 billion and lead
to many, many benefits for those households and lower bills
that are being subsidized by the Federal Government.
There is ways to work with public housing authorities and
housing finance agencies to address this issue. That is one way
that this could be done.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And the reauthorization
bill that recently passed the House establishes a small,
competitive grant program for innovative practices which could
include community-based strategies; for example, a community's
solar project to complement the weatherization of multiple
homes in a neighborhood might be an offer.
Dr. Reames, what do you think about expanding this program
beyond traditional services of lighting, windows, caulking, and
insulation? And how might incorporating new technologies and
strategies be a good modernization of the weatherization
assistance program?
Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, and I think you
hit on a really important point. We noticed during our effort
that there were some innovations in actually targeting
weatherization to certain communities like I mentioned, the
green impact zone in Kansas City. And that allowed for
recognition that more than 50 percent of the homes are renter
occupied, and so we realize that there needed to be a
relationship with landlords, and that included some community-
based social marketing, allowing landlords and renters to talk
about the opportunity to weatherize the homes, and what that
would mean for the tenant to be able to pay their rent and pay
their utility bills.
And so this idea that homes are spatially located, built
around the same time with the same building codes, really
advocates or really pushes for this idea of community-based
strategies that are place targeted.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
And, Ms. Drehobl, this innovation program is also intended
to support pre-weatherization, work like roof repairs and mold
remediation, as well as other complimentary practices. How
might this type of work be complimentary to traditional
weatherization services? And should improving the health and
safety of homes also be a priority of the program?
Ms. Drehobl. Thank you for your question.
Yes, I would say that improving health and safety is really
important to tie in with weatherization. There are a lot of
additional benefits that come from improving indoor air quality
and help with heallth conditions such as improving asthma,
COPD, school attendance for children, et cetera, a lot of
benefits that have been monetized by some States, as well such
as the State of Massachusetts.
So I think being able to incorporate these estimates into
the program is really important to access these additional
benefits.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I had a question for Ms. Wyatt, but I have run
out of time and will get that to her so that she can respond
within the given days after the hearing.
So thank you all for appearing before the subcommittee.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now notices that Ms. McMorris Rodgers is
available for questioning.
Ms. McMorris Rodgers, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the subcommittee's focusing on increasing
affordability and access to clean energy, a goal that we all
share. I worry, though, that some of the proposals from the
majority will have the opposite effect by raising cost on
middle- and low-income families and decreasing access to
reliable energy.
Recently, Governor Newsom said California is, quote,
America fast forward, end quote. Even if unintentional, this is
a warning about following California's failed policies.
Nationalizing California's mandates for renewables, like wind
and solar, at the expense of affordable reliable energy
sources, like hydropower, nuclear, and natural gas, is a
mistake. We have all seen the results of these mandates and sky
high costs in California and recent rolling blackouts over the
summer.
Wind and solar have a crucial role to play in our energy
future, but we need to be realistic about their current
limitations. And yet California is doubling down on costly
regulations by mandating that cars sold in the State should be
100 percent electric by 2035. I am not sure how their grid will
meet that demand when they can barely keep the lights on as it
is.
Our goal should be to increase clean energy access and
decrease energy costs for all Americans. But we can't do that
by letting Governor Newsom's prediction come true.
Mr. Bryce, during California's energy shortage, they relied
on imported energy sources to meet the demand that California's
renewables were not able to make on their own. Specifically,
they relied on 65,000 megawatt hours from BPA and the Federal
Columbia River Power System.
Overall, despite being 16 percent of California's energy
capacity, hydro was providing 33 percent of its energy at their
peak. Hydro provides 70 percent of the power in my home State
of Washington, which is why we have some of the lowest
electricity rates in the world. It is clean. It is reliable.
And it should also be recognized as a renewable source of
energy.
How does California's energy crisis this summer illustrate
the need for policymakers, both at the State and the Federal
level, to provide more flexibility on energy source mixes, not
less, and how sources like hydropower can play an even more
important role in increasing access and decreasing costs?
Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, Ms. Rodgers.
I feel we are becoming the bash California show today, and
that is not my purpose today. But I think to answer your
question regarding hydropower directly, we are not building
more dams in America, and the Northwest is blessed with
enormous hydro resources, and that has been a great boon to the
States in the Northwest.
I would answer your question by saying, again, that I think
what--I am a longtime advocate of nuclear energy, and I have
testified before the Senate on several occasions making these
very points. Natural gas and nuclear, if we want to continue
decarbonizing our grid, those are the ways to go. I am not
saying renewables aren't going to grow. They are. But the
problem that we are facing in States all across the country,
including in Washington, where the Benton Public Utility
District just a few months ago said they don't want any wind
added to their mix in the State of Washington, are these latest
conflicts. And to me this is not necessarily about belief. It
is fundamental math and physics. The power density of wind and
solar are low, one watt per square meter for wind, ten watts
per square meter for solar. That is one reason why I think
solar is going to continue to grow, the greater power density,
but those don't even come close to the power densities of
natural gas and nuclear, and that is key because land use
matters, so--
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. I
would also highlight that only three percent of the dams in
America actually produce electricity. So there is a huge amount
of infrastructure that could be converted and utilized for new
hydro moving forward, and hydro is still the largest renewable
in America.
Mr. Bryce, on another topic, I wanted just to note in your
testimony that you note that wealthy electric vehicle drivers
in California have been directly subsidized through tax credits
and other incentives at the expense of lower and middle income
individuals. We have seen more indirect costs levied on
American consumers by other policies, such as California's Zero
Emission Vehicle Program, which forces manufacturers and
dealers to sell EVs regardless of the demand.
And I see that I am out of time. I just think that this is
also a very important point, and I will ask my question in a
followup in a written question. But thank you for being here,
and thanks for your insight.
Mr. Bryce. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. You are welcome. OK.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
Mrs. Rodgers. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa,
Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking
Member Upton, for holding this hearing today, and thank you to
the witnesses who are joining us as well.
And I do want to acknowledge Mrs. McMorris Rodgers'
emphasis on hydropower. I have enjoyed working with her on that
while I have been on the committee. I think that is very
important.
And as we are discussing today, the burden of energy costs
is felt very differently by households across the country, and
these disparities can depend on a number of factors, including
income level, race, regional location, as well as whether
households are located in an urban or rural setting.
A significant number of my constituents in my Southeast
Iowa district reside in rural communities where they generally
face a higher energy burden, especially compared to their more
urban counterparts. For example, according to the Department of
Energy, in the metropolitan area of Iowa City, the average
energy cost per household is around $1,500 per year whereas in
the rural small town of Farmington, Iowa, way down in the
southeast corner of the State, the same average cost per
household is nearly three times higher at just under $4,400 per
year. In fact, many of the communities located in the most
rural counties in my district spend around 5 to 7 percent of
their income on energy, while our more urban and suburban
counties are typically around 2 to 3 percent, which is more in
line with the average for the State.
Considering the fact that much of the cost-effective
renewable energy produced in Iowa, particularly from wind, is
generated in our rural communities, this disparity and cost
burden is particularly pronounced; I might even say maddening.
Ms. Drehobl, first to you, thank you for your testimony
today. And can you expand on what specific and unique
challenges rural communities face in accessing affordable
energy?
Ms. Drehobl. Yes. Thank you for your question.
I will say ACEEE previously published research in 2018
measuring rural energy burdens and did find they are higher. I
would say rural households are often frontline communities
facing significant climate impacts, economic shocks, and other
major challenges to daily life, and they also have less
flexibility to move or change how they get around or how they
heat their homes, and energy can be more expensive, as you have
said.
I think access to energy efficiency and renewable energy is
an important piece for economic recovery right now in the midst
of the COVID pandemic in these communities, both in terms of
lowering people's monthly bills as well as providing training
and good job opportunities for people living in rural
communities.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you.
And I want to move to Ms. Wyatt now. What is the potential
for renewable distributed projects, including distributed
wind--I have been a big champion of that--in rural low-income
communities? And what benefits specifically related to energy
burden would these communities see from increased access to
clean energy, Ms. Wyatt?
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
GRID Alternatives itself doesn't have direct experience
with distributed wind, but we do work in rural communities,
including agricultural communities and Tribal communities, like
Navajo Nation, and distributed energy has immense benefit for
these communities and the ability to cut their energy bills, as
we have seen with a number of our projects, including, you
know--energy burdens are particularly high, as you said, in a
lot of rural areas around the country, especially Tribal areas
that may even have energy poverty and lack of access to the
full modern energy to meet their needs in the first place,
where micro grids would be of a special help.
So, yes, as with, you know, other households in
communities, rural households and communities have barriers
that it is very much a worthwhile investment to enable them to
overcome and receive the savings from energy sources like solar
that can cut their energy bills.
Mr. Loebsack. And, additionally, we have seen much of this
Iowa, but can you expand on the role of clean energy in
stimulating local economies and creating jobs as well?
Ms. Wyatt. Absolutely, yes. The energy transition is an
enormous opportunity. The clean energy sector is many times the
size right now, in terms of work force, of the fossil fuel
energy sector. It is employs many more workers, well over a
million. Solar has hundreds of thousands of workers, and they
are good jobs. They have--there are low-barrier-to-entry jobs
that can really give opportunities to people who need the most,
and there are a lot of skilled jobs. It is a whole range with
diverse roles, as long as, you know, policies enable those kind
of training programs and everything else to develop, but huge
economic opportunity in stimulating local economic development
through clean energy, especially distributed clean energy.
Those jobs aren't going to be off shored. You can't install a
solar rooftop system from China.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, thanks to all of the panelists.
And, Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes now the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking
Member Upton.
And I, too, I want to associate myself with the comments
made by my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman,
I, too, have enjoyed working with you and appreciate your
passion for the disadvantaged and poor people, regardless of
where they live. So I appreciate that about you.
You know, the energy burden, quote/unquote, energy burden
defined as the percentage of household income used for energy
expenses that we are talking about today, it highlights the
important fact that low- and fixed-income families are much
more vulnerable to energy price hikes. What is interesting,
however, is that earlier in this Congress I recall the majority
hosting hearing after hearing highlighting their plans for a
zero-carbon recovery while warning about the dangers of fossil
fuels and advanced nuclear energy.
So it begs the question, do my friends in the majority
really support lowering energy costs? Because given their
attack on fossil fuels in their Green New Deal agenda,
specifically coal and natural gas that are so essential in
powering America's energy grid, I think it is a bit
disingenuous for them to claim that they are concerned about
keeping energy prices low for consumers. You simply can't work
to lower energy expenses for low- and fixed-income families
while simultaneously conducting a full on assault at the local,
State, and national levels against some of our primary proven
sources of abundant, reliable, and affordable energy.
So, Mr. Bryce, as you have stated in your testimony,
natural gas is commonly used directly by consumers for powering
their stoves, dryers, water heaters, and furnaces, frequently
at a lower energy cost than similar electric appliances.
In my home State of Ohio and across the country, we have
seen a number of communities whose elected leaders inspired by
this Green New Deal movement have floated future proposals that
would actually shut the gas off to their citizens all in the
name of combating climate change.
So my question to you: This doesn't sound like reducing the
energy burden to me, but can you explain the effect on poor and
disadvantaged families if they were forced to switch to
electric-only energy to meet all of their household needs?
Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, sir.
As I pointed out in my presentation a moment ago and in my
written remarks, by outlawing natural gas and forcing consumers
to use electricity, on a BTU basis, electricity is four times
as expensive. So I think, on the face of it, that is a problem.
Now, advocates for beneficial electrification would point
out, well, heat pumps and some of these other new appliances
are more efficient. Well, that may well be, but even if they
are twice as efficient as the existing ones, you still have a
basic cost of energy per joule or per BTU that is twice that of
using natural gas directly.
So I think that the other risk here is that by pushing for
electrification only, then the system, the grid would be using
more natural gas indirectly. Instead of using the gas directly
in the home to, say, heat my water or cook my dinner, I would
be using an electric appliance that would be fueled by gas
burned in the power plant, and then in that process, half to
two-thirds of that heat energy is lost simply because of the
conversion process.
So, if you look at it from a basic physics standpoint, that
is problematic because there is no way to know that that
electricity would be coming from renewable sources.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I agree with you because we are talking
about electric distribution, in your answer for the most part,
where that electricity comes from. We don't even address the
issue of the generation and how we are going to generate all
that energy from renewable or alternative sources.
So how could this affect their bottom lines if these same
low and fixed income families happen to be living in a State or
locality with aggressive renewable energy electricity mandates?
Mr. Bryce. Well, you know, as I said, I mean, it is going
to vary by States and by the prices of electricity. But I think
ultimately the banning of natural gas has a regressive effect.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you very much.
I will yield back an entire five seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair appreciates the five seconds from the
gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kennedy because I don't see
Mr. Welch in attendance right now. Mr. Kennedy, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you all.
Thanks for calling this important hearing. I want to thank the
witnesses for their testimony and their presence today and for
the discussion.
This is an issue that is important to me, important to my
constituents across Massachusetts, but across my district as
well, where we have a variety of economically extraordinarily
diverse tied into the northern part and high residential
communities and life sciences sector, medical device sector,
and a lot of small businesses and small manufacturers where
energy costs end up being a driving aspect to their ability to
run a sustainable business, but also folks that are very much
tied into the economic inequities we are seeing across
Massachusetts and around our country and the needs to address
climate change.
So all of that compounds into a community that before,
shortly before I was elected eight years ago, had two large
coal-fired generation power projects, and that is now down to
zero. And, again, enormous opportunities that come with the
potential for offshore wind and offshore wind generation--
electricity generation, but trying to make sure that we do
that, as we catalyze towards that, do that in a way that
empowers frontline communities like Fall River and helps build
a new initiative that does not yet exist here in Massachusetts
and in the country.
So, Dr. Reames, I wanted to start with you. And thank you
for your testimony.
In your statement, you discuss environmental justice,
communities, and energy burden, and I wanted to see if you
could talk about the overlapping effects of a high energy
burden and what we have seen with the effect of COVID-19
particularly on environmental justice communities.
Dr. Reames. Thank you for that question, Representative
Kennedy.
What you do see is that communities that are reeling from
COVID-19 are definitely the same communities that have high
energy burdens. They are hosting the generation pollution from
the energy sector, and they also have, you know, inefficient
housing. So you have this kind of combination of disadvantaged,
where people live in inefficient housing, so they are wasting
energy. They are hosting the pollution from that energy, and
the surrounding areas are consuming more energy at a cheaper
rate. And so this idea that the equity versus equality argument
really plays into, you know, where these things kind of come
together.
Mr. Kennedy. 100 percent. And thank you for articulating
that and walking us through it.
And, Ms. Wyatt, I wanted to go to you for the next one
here, building off that. In your testimony, you talked about
the impact of traditional generation on environmental justice
communities. I was hoping that you might be able to expand on
that a bit, the potential for renewable energy to address some
of those impacts.
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you Congressman.
You know, there has just been a lot of recent conflicting
science on the detrimental impact on air pollution in
particular but the water pollution from fossil fuel generating
sources across the--you know, the fence lines, right outside
the fence lines of these facilities, the communities. They are
disproportionately likely to be low income and communities of
color, and so they face higher rates of asthma, cancer, birth
defects. It also contributes to COVID mortality.
And the way--you know, clean energy can remedy this, of
course, directly by displacing the need for dirty fossil fuel
energy generation directly one for one. It also, you know,
empowers the communities to have their own energy that meets
their needs and is more affordable. As we have said, clean
energy from the sun and wind is more affordable in the short
and long run.
So, by reducing pollutants and increasing access to
affordable clean energy at the same time, you are really
reducing racial disparities in a way that our country, you
know, desperately needs.
Mr. Kennedy. So I want to build on something you said there
just really briefly.
But pollution is a subsidy, right? It is a cost to society
that those that generate it don't bear. We all do. There is a
common critique here that clean energy is just too expensive to
be competitive that, in my mind anyway, doesn't take into
account, one, the subsidies that many of those existing
fossil--energy generation infrastructure one receives to the
pollution, the contamination that comes with it and how we all
bear that cost.
You have got about 20 seconds, Ms. Wyatt, but to the extent
that you can explain all of this in 20 seconds as to why--the
economic piece of it here. I would love to have you go. Twelve
seconds, go.
Ms. Wyatt. Sure. The current--we don't have a free market
right now. The subsidies of the ability to pollute our
atmosphere and people's lungs are in the trillions. They are
not accounted for in energy bills or otherwise, but policy
needs to account for them as a matter of justice.
Mr. Kennedy. Well done.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair understands that Mr. Bucshon is unavailable at
the moment, so the Chair now recognizes Mr. Hudson for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing, and thank you to our panelists for
being here today as we examine an issue our most economically
vulnerable constituents face, which affordability of energy.
Before the coronavirus shut down our energy economy, all
Americans were benefiting from an energy renaissance. We had
become the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the
world, which has lowered to millions of Americans. President
Donald Trump's aggressive energy initiatives have cut
regulatory burdens on our energy sector and have saved
Americans over $200 billion annually through lower energy
bills.
At the same time, the United States has cut our emissions
the last 20 years more than the next 12 countries combined, and
that is through innovation and private sector technology.
However, Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for President, who
described himself the other night as, quote, he is the Democrat
Party, if you look at his web site to figure out what the
Democrats' energy plan is, it says he supports the Green New
Deal.
The Green New Deal is estimated to raise Americans' energy
bills by as much as 286 percent. So I find it ironic this
hearing is about examining ways to lower energy costs for
people, but the other side's energy plan would dramatically
increase energy costs for Americans. And as our panelists have
eloquently explained, that impacts lower income families the
most.
I am an all-of-the-above energy supporter. Just this week,
Duke Energy in North Carolina, announced plans for a 1.1
megawatt floating solar facility at Fort Bragg, which would be
the largest floating solar plant in the Southeast. This will
bring more clean energy to North Carolina, enhance our grid,
and increase Fort Bragg's energy defense resiliency.
We can build a cleaner energy economy effectively and
affordably through innovation and technology. I am proud to
have worked to lower energy costs and to give my constituents
more money in their pockets.
Now, Mr. Bryce, you mentioned in your testimony that
policymakers must have a frank and transparent discussion about
how to lighten the energy burden, not increase it. When
renewable energy policies are proposed, do you think there
should be more public analysis to estimate what the full cost
would be? Is that something we should use to better inform our
own decisions on any plans to decarbonize the economy?
Mr. Bryce.
Mr. Bryce. Yes, sir, I think absolutely. But let me be
clear, this is not an easy assignment. As I mentioned earlier,
the American electric grid is balkanized. We have State
regulators. We have the regional transmission operators. We
have Federal regulators that all have a say in what local
communities do and what they--how they treat generation
resources.
What I think is the other big challenge here is that
electric--overall electricity demand in the United States has
been flat for years. Roughly the last ten years electricity
demand has not grown at all. That is due to greater efficiency,
which is a very worthy goal, but what we see now is an
increased effort--or really competition among different
generators for the remaining--for the share of the pie and who
gets priority access or distribution on the grid.
So these are complicated challenges, and I don't have the
perfect answer to say this is how we should do these price
analyses. But, yes, these kinds of analyses and knock-on
effects on ratepayers that would include all of the costs, for
transmission, for high-voltage transmission, for new
transformers, poles, wires, synchronous generation, all of
these things that are needed to augment and offset the
generation that is being added to the grid.
So there is no simple answer here, sir. But, yes, getting a
better handle on these price impacts is essential.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that, and I agree with you.
You know, I think Republicans and Democrats agree we have got
to find ways to reduce emissions, and I think we all care about
our consumers, particularly the most vulnerable.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that we recognize
that you have been a champion for those folks all around the
country. But I think the difference is Republicans want to
continue to reduce the emissions through innovation, through
private sector technology, developments and advancements. And
we have a role to play in that, but we don't have to cripple
our society. We don't have to double or triple the costs on our
lowest income families to achieve these goals.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on
that. And, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire,
Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
important hearing.
This committee has worked tirelessly to address the public
health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
I appreciate today's hearing, which touches on the
affordability of energy and electricity, a topic that is top of
mind in New Hampshire as we head into another winter season.
While our economic recovery has begun and businesses begin
to navigate this new normal, we cannot lose sight of the
reality that millions of Americans and tens of thousands of
Granite Staters are still out of work. As a result of the
pandemic, New Hampshire's August 2020 unemployment rate was
triple that of August 2019, and it has caused more Granite
Staters to struggle with their energy bills.
According to data from Eversource, one of the largest
utility companies in my State, the number of individuals and
small business ratepayers who are more than $125 behind on
their energy bills has nearly doubled, from 21,000 in September
of 2019 to 38,000 in September of 2020. The New Hampshire
Electric Co-op reported that the number of customers who were
more than 90 days in arrears on their bills have tripled from
August 2019 to August 2020.
And with the expiration of the pandemic unemployment
compensation and lost wage assistance program, I fear that more
Americans will soon fall behind on their energy bills.
Thankfully, in New Hampshire, individuals who are struggling
with utility bills will not have their service cut until at
least April of 2021 if they certify that they are experiencing
financial hardship. But after that point, I fear that Granite
Staters who already were paying too much for their energy bills
might not be able to pay off larger bills that have accrued
during the pandemic even with good-faith efforts by utility
companies to put ratepayers into gradual repayment plans.
Dr. Reames and Ms. Drehobl, do you think Congress should
consider setting aside dedicated funds to help Americans pay
off unaffordable energy bills that accrued during the pandemic?
Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
I do think that the increased funds for LIHEAP is a perfect
way to use those funds to pay off accrued debt. There was a
pilot in Michigan that did direct payments, so working with the
utility company to identify households that were behind on
their utility bills and actually made those direct payments on
those customers' behalf.
So I think this is an opportunity for utilities,
regulators, and the Congress to work together.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you.
Ms. Drehobl, anything to add?
Ms. Drehobl. I agree with Professor Reames, and I think
utilizing LIHEAP would be a good suggestion.
Ms. Kuster. Great.
So let me switch gears and touch on the importance of the
Weatherization Assistance Program that provides funding to
local governments and nonprofits to help low-income families
make their homes more energy efficient.
Again, for the two of you, should Congress increase funding
for the Weatherization Assistance Program? And what would be an
ideal funding level?
Dr. Reames. I will comment really quickly. If you look at
funding for LIHEAP and weatherization, we spend about seven
times the amount on LIHEAP, which I view as a temporary
solution. So we should increase the funding for weatherization.
If we think 35 million households qualify and we have only
weatherized about seven million, like Ms. Drehobl has said, it
would take, you know, several decades to weatherize all of the
homes that qualify.
Ms. Kuster. Anything, Ms. Drehobl, before my time is up?
Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Yes, I would add that ACEEE supports
increasing funding for LIHEAP at a consistent rate to move
towards the funding levels that we had during the ARRA time,
and that could help weatherize many more homes than we are
currently weatherizing. So I think ramping up this program
would be helpful.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you so much for your testimony.
And, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg for 5 minutes. If you can turn on your--unmute, Mr.
Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Thanks for reminding me. And,
Chairman Rush, it is much appreciated that you have this
hearing today. Having been born and started my raising life in
your district, I know exactly where you are coming from and
appreciate your commitment.
Also, it is good to have the representative from the
University of Michigan here today, Dr. Reames. I started out at
that little university on the banks of the Red Cedar just the
beginning this week as we dedicated the facility for
radioactive isotope beams, which was exciting, and so it is
good to end the week here as well discussing the issue of
energy as it touches people's lives. So thank you for being
with us.
On the issue of energy affordability in colder climates
like my home State of Michigan, 75 percent of our residents
rely on natural gas for home heating because it is efficient,
it is dependable, and it is affordable. In fact, the Michigan
Public Service Commission has found that natural gas saves the
average Michigander over $1,000 annually compared to an all-
electric home.
And so, Mr. Bryce, could I ask you to elaborate on what
your research has found about the role natural gas can play in
keeping customer bills affordable, especially in the climates
like we have in Michigan, the northern climes where significant
cold weather remains and we have a very, very plentiful source
of natural gas?
Mr. Bryce. Sure. Thank you, sir.
Yes, just one quick comment, which is that the effort to
electrify all residential use sounds good, but particularly in
colder States like Michigan--my wife is from Ann Arbor. My
father-in-law taught at the University of Michigan. It gets
cold there, really cold, and heat pumps don't work in very cold
weather. You need resistance heaters, which then adds more
demand to the electric grid, which then has knock-on effects in
terms of the cost of upgrading the grid to accommodate all of
that energy use that was being provided by natural gas.
So I think particularly the effort to take gas out of
residential use and out of commercial and industrial use, for
heating in particular, heat bumps simply are not a solution, a
viable economic solution in colder climates.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Bryce, going on from that, our Governor,
Governor Whitmer, recently issued an executive order making
Michigan carbon-neutral by 2050. Many energy companies in my
State were already undertaking aggressive steps to install more
renewables. I know that full well having the energy district of
the State of Michigan where over 35 percent of all the energy
is produced right in the Seventh District with DTE and
Consumers Energy headquartered in my district.
Their aggressive steps with renewables has, like wind and
solar, may require substantial new transmission build out, and
it already is. However, energy providers must also ensure the
grid is reliable and can meet demand on days when the wind
isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining, and we have a lot of
those days in Michigan. Natural gas, as well as nuclear, are
24/7 power sources to help provide certainty to the grid.
Having a nuclear plant in my district as well, we recognize the
value of that, and yet we are moving away.
How should we think about the future of our energy mix and
the role natural gas and nuclear can play in generating
electricity most cost-effectively for consumers?
Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, sir. That is a very good
question.
And let me be clear that the challenges facing the nuclear
plants across the country are formidable. The low price natural
gas is undercutting the wholesale price--or is lowering the
wholesale price and, in some cases, making these big nuclear
plants, which have high fixed costs, very low fuel costs but
high fixed costs, particularly in terms of labor, so the
utilities are saying, well, we will shut them down unless we
get some--effectively some kind of consideration; call it a
subsidy because that is what it is.
But I am in favor of a diverse portfolio. And what I fear--
I am adamantly pro-natural gas, but what I fear is happening in
the United States is that, with the shuttering of all of these
coal plants and the shuttering of these nuclear plants, the
U.S. grid is going to be too reliant on a single fuel, which is
natural gas. And I think that potentially is a liability,
particularly during--as we have seen during the--what was it,
not the cold bomb or the--you know, the Arctic cold fronts that
we have had where natural gas supplies are strained, and those
are just-in-time deliveries through pipelines.
So I think this issue has to be looked at in the entirety
around the country because I do fear that we are becoming too
reliant on gas on the grid as a whole.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman, Mr. Walberg, is the last member on the
minority side that is present right now. So we will go straight
through the members on the majority side.
Ms. Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Chair Rush, for holding this
hearing on energy equity.
Whether it is cost, pollution, or jobs, our energy system's
dependence on fossil fuels doesn't work for communities of
color. Our transition to a clean energy economy offers a unique
opportunity to reverse the injustices in the current system. It
is critical that we don't leave behind Black, Latino, and
indigenous communities behind in these efforts.
I want to start by responding to the ad by a group, United
Latinos Vote, that Ranking Member Walden filed for the record
to imply that Latinos in California are concerned about moving
from fossil fuels to clean energy.
United Latinos Vote is an industry front group, funded in
part by a $15,000 donation by Pacific Gas and Electric. One
recent campaign they were involved in was in response to a gas
ban proposed by the small city of San Luis Obispo. There
hasn't--there wasn't opposition from local minority groups, so
the fossil fuel industry manufactured opposition through United
Latinos Vote, which is based 230 miles away from San Luis
Obispo in Oakland.
California Environmental Justice Alliance, an environmental
justice group representing communities of color, called the
actions by United Latinos Vote, quote, gas lighting aimed to
manipulate the public and decisionmakers on a just transition
away from fossil fuel based economy that most hurts people of
color, end quote.
I think it is an important principle of equity and energy
justice that we allow communities of color to speak for
themselves, make their own decisions without this outside
political influence and money into the community.
And so, with that, Ms. Wyatt, I want to start with you
first. I want to thank you for all of the work that you have
done. GRID Alternatives has done amazing work, especially in my
district in South Los Angeles. With communities in my district,
they have gone out and done the work on the rooftops. Now,
recently, you installed solar and battery storage in
Wilmington's Harbor City Community Job Center and individual
homeowners' solar systems in Watts.
Now, these projects create green jobs while reducing energy
costs and pollution. Many of these clean energy projects are
supported by grants from California's climate programs. I want
to see more of these community-led projects in my district and
in Black, Latino, and indigenous communities across the
country.
What climate programs can Congress enact to help achieve
this?
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you very much for your question,
Congresswoman, and your kind words about the great work that
our construction teams and others are doing in California.
California has pioneered a lot of great programs, and a lot
of them have had a lot of success and could be scaled up. The
combination of subsidies that get the--just bridge the gap to
enable institutions serving low-income people and low-income
households themselves directly on their own rooftops to get the
benefits of clean energy. Those could come from the Federal
Government, as well as the State government. They could go
through State and local governments or other institutions, and
we have made a number of recommendations in our written
comments on some suggestions for how to do that. There have
been a number of legislative proposals in recent years. These
could be coordinated, in addition, through weatherization
assistance and energy assistance. Again, we don't want to set
up clean energy to compete with those very important programs,
but by fully funding those and, in addition, including
renewable energy, low-income renewable energy with those
programs, you could really multiply the beneficial impacts.
You know, we also leverage the investment tax credit
wherever we can, making that directly accessible to low-income
communities and Tribes, and nonprofits would really enhance its
utility and level the playing field for investments in
renewable systems for those beneficiaries.
Congress has a lot of room for creativity to get clean
energy to where it is going to have the most benefit.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you so much.
Dr. Reames, in the short time I have left, in 2017, you
released a study on energy efficiency investments by Michigan's
utilities which showed that most of the dollars and energy
savings went to wealthier ratepayers.
Can you talk about how State laws led to this inequity and
whether this is a problem in other States?
Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
I think we need to look at how we promote and push equity
investments, particularly focusing on what partnerships are
made between utilities and State regulators to reduce the cost
of energy-efficient technology, how we market to low-income
communities, how we allow community groups as trusted members
in that community to promote these programs as well. So there
are knowledge gaps, there are cost gaps, and participation gaps
that lead to those disparities.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
With my time expired, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be brief, a couple of questions real quickly.
Ms. Wyatt, do we have a national plan for recycling solar
panels?
Ms. Wyatt. We do not have a national mandate. There is a
lot of work being done in the industry regarding recycling and
reuse of solar panels after multiple decade lifetimes.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, because, I mean, you are looking at,
what, 20- to 30-year life expectancy.
What do we do with the ones that are end of lifecycle right
now?
Ms. Wyatt. Some of the early solar systems are approaching
the end of their lifecycle, not GRIDs, and so I will get back
to you with some additional information.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, sure. I will tell you what we do with
them. First of all, I am an all-of-the-above energy supporter,
so I support solar energy. But I am concerned about we are not
looking at the entire lifecycle of that form of energy source.
What we do now is put them in landfills. So, you know, as we
expand our solar energy and the solar energy space, 20, 25
years from now, we are going to have landfills full of these
things, which have heavy metals, all kinds of other things. So
we need to work on that, which I am.
So I do find it frustrating sometimes when we talk about
different forms of energy, we don't talk about the entire
lifecycle of an energy source, and that is one of the big ones
there.
Ms. Wyatt. I agree. We also don't talk about the full
impacts of the fossil fuel energy sources and their life cycle
impacts the climate.
Mr. Bucshon. Fair enough, fair enough.
Dr. Reames, have you studied rural America with the issues
that you have been talking about? Because I represent southwest
Indiana. It is all rural. And I can tell you some of the
challenges that rural America faces are very similar to urban
challenges, with low-income individuals, with problems with
accessing affordable energy. And also, you know, a lot of their
homes and businesses lack, what I would say, improvements and
weatherization and other things. Have you studied rural
America?
Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
I have not studied rural America as much as I have studied
urban America.
Mr. Bucshon. Sure.
Dr. Reames. But I think a lot of those studies I do,
particularly like food insecurities studies, when we did the
lightbulb study, we did find that there were replicate studies
in rural areas that found the same challenges of lack of access
to LED lightbulbs or more expensive LED lightbulbs.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I mean, I think it would be good to
expand out, you know, to look at the challenges we face in
rural America as also the ones that we face in urban America.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman--go ahead. Do you have another
comment, Mr. Reames?
Dr. Reames. No, sir, I agree with you.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. Great.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
O'Halleran, for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Upton, for holding today's hearing, and thank you to the
panelists for being here.
As we enter into the final weeks of the 116th Congress, I
would like to briefly summarize some of the key actions the
House has voted on, passed, and sent to the Senate to promote
clean energy for Americans: the Climate Action Now Act, to
reenter the United States into the first climate accord; the
Moving Forward, H.R. 2, to revitalize our Nation's crumbling
infrastructure and invest in the renewable energy and storage
projects; and the Clean Energy Jobs and Innovation Act just
recently to modernize our Nation's energy and environment and
address some of the climate change issues.
While there are many more decisive actions to highlight,
including many taken by the Energy and Commerce Committee this
Congress, as lawmakers, we must ensure clean, affordable, and
reliable energy is truly available to everyone as the energy
economy continues to evolve.
As many of you know, I am proud to represent 12 Native
American Tribes in my district, including the Navajo Nation.
Since today's discussion is focused on the energy burdens many
Americans face, I would like to highlight an energy burden many
may not be aware of. Arizona's First Congressional District has
a high level of seniors who are on fixed incomes and below the
poverty line. Additionally, many people in our work force have
not seen a wage hike that has kept them up with inflation for
some time. On top of that, my district has a tremendous amount,
on a per capita basis, of people on Medicare and Medicaid, that
are on those types of fixed incomes.
Every winter, thousands of Navajos drive miles from their
homes to load up their trucks from community coal heaps. For
many Navajo, these coal heaps are the only source of light and
heating for their homes.
For many thousands of families, including members of the
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe throughout Northern Arizona,
energy burdens are compounded by unemployment rates between 50
and 80 percent, and that was pre-virus I will say, following
the recent closure of the Navajo Generating Station, which
provided many of the good-paying jobs to provide for their
families. In addition to the policy incentives for promoting
energy efficiency and renewable energy, I believe the strength
of the work force plays a factor in the energy burdens a family
may face.
I look forward to assisting communities in my district,
help them navigate the energy transition, and lessen their
burden on energy.
Ms. Drehobl, I got that right, I hope, and, Ms. Wyatt, for
communities disconnected from the electric grid or on the front
lines of the energy transition, how can employment
opportunities in the renewable energy sector, which requires
specialized skills and training, be made more available for
low-income and minority households?
Ms. Wyatt. If you don't mind me jumping in first. GRID
Alternatives and our Tribal program have pioneered a lot of
programs to train Tribal members. Recently we just had a Tribal
training program for some members, and they were trained at a
centralized location, and they are taking that knowledge and
that on-the-ground experience back to their Tribes with them,
that technical training. So it is really invaluable.
Again, it just takes deliberate programmatic support to
combine the benefits of work force training with establishing
the clean energy availability where it is needed on Tribal
areas.
Mr. O'Halleran. And, Ms. Wyatt----
Ms. Drehobl. Sure. I will add to that.
From an energy-efficiency perspective, there is also major
job opportunities for training of work force in rural areas in
similar ways.
Mr. O'Halleran. Oh, I am sorry. I got the names mixed up
here with the faces. Thank you.
Ms. Wyatt. That is quite all right. Thank you.
Mr. O'Halleran. Dr. Reames, I am sure you know the energy
transition may lead to excess transmission line capacity in
communities where previous power generation has been retired. I
have three more coal generation plants in my area that will
eventually be closed.
Could you comment on whether your research has examined how
rural and remote communities replace retired power generation
with renewable energy?
Dr. Reames. Just really quickly, I have not studied it
intently, but I have looked at how rural communities--just a
couple of pilot studies in Michigan are looking at adding
community solar for rural communities and partnering with
weatherization to ensure that the homes are more efficient and
that they have equitable access to renewable energy.
Mr. O'Halleran. Does somebody else want to speak?
Mr. Rush. No. The gentleman's time has ended. The gentlemen
yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Duncan, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank the panelists for being here.
I want to thank especially Robert Bryce for being here. I have
read your book ``Power Hungry.'' You can see we have read it
quite a bit and referenced it. I recommend it for everyone on
the committee, but I don't think my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will like it too much because you clearly
point out the true costs of green energy and show what works. I
want to thank you especially for your sections on how the
American energy renaissance has created an opportunity for us
to export energy sources, like clean-burning natural gas, to
other parts of the world to improve the quality of lives of so
many people so that they have better air in their homes, the
ability to keep food fresh, the ability to heat and cool, keep
mosquitos out, all of the other things that are quality-of-life
issues that you point out in this book that are really good.
I would like to switch gears to talk about nuclear for just
a minute. My State of South Carolina, we get 56 percent of all
of our electricity from nuclear power. That is 95 percent of at
all of our clean carbon-free electricity. Renewables, hydro,
wind, and solar, make up less than five percent of the carbon-
free sources in our State.
As you know, wind and solar require huge swaths of land,
and their power density is weak compared to nuclear. You
mentioned that earlier just briefly. To match the power
produced by one nuclear reactor would require 2,077 megawatt
wind turbines. So, you know, you have mentioned California's
climate goals would be better served by keeping the Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant online and by encouraging the
deployment of next generation reactors. That is something I
agree with.
Could you talk about what it would mean to replace closing
nuclear units with wind and solar, especially in a State like
South Carolina? And would it be even possible in the terms of
land use and economics?
Mr. Bryce.
Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, Mr. Duncan.
I have done the calculations in both my new documentary
``Juice''--you didn't plug this one, so I am going to plug it.
``Juice: How Electricity Explains the World'' came out in June.
We visited the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York, and the
calculations are very straightforward. That plant covers 1
square kilometer, produces about 16 terawatt hours of
electricity per year. To produce that volume of electricity,
that quantity of energy with wind turbines would require a land
area of 1,300 square kilometers. So roughly 1,300 times more
land would be required to replace that one nuclear plant. And,
unfortunately, that plant, which provides about 25 percent of
New York City's electricity, is being shuttered prematurely.
That plant could run for many more decades, but there was no
political support for it, so it is, unfortunately, being
closed.
One other point is that the land use conflicts in New York
State, as I mentioned earlier, are as pitched as in any other
State in America. You have numerous small towns and counties
who have declared themselves saying, ``We don't want more wind
capacity in our counties,'' and has led to the Governor now
essentially saying, ``Well, we are going to override local
zoning,'' which is really unprecedented, the overruling of home
rule because the State is in a rush to build more renewables.
So these kinds of land use conflicts are going to become
much more common and, as I already mentioned, over 280
rejections or restrictions already in the United States since
2015.
Mr. Duncan. No doubt, no doubt. Is that an Ohio State
Buckeye on your lapel pen there?
Mr. Bryce. Oh, well, no. Since we are talking about
electricity, this is ready kilowatts.
Mr. Duncan. I don't care. I just wanted to make sure
because I am a Clemson guy.
Real quickly, the fact is that exporting oil and gas to
energy poor nations will help save thousands, if not hundreds
of thousands of lives. I want to give you an opportunity to
talk to you about how America can play a role in the
geopolitical arena to improve the quality of lives of so many
people around the world.
Mr. Bryce. I think it is obvious, in terms of geopolitics,
the U.S. becoming an LNG exporter has had significant
ramifications in Europe. Poland signed a long-term LNG supply
deal with Cheniere Energy about two years ago because Poland
doesn't want to rely on Russia for their gas. They have a long
history with Russia. It is all bad.
But I think--you didn't ask this question, but it is clear
to me that in terms of geopolitics, natural gas is becoming the
energy form that is driving a lot of changes in geopolitics,
with Israel sending gas to Egypt, the Egyptians and the--now
supplying on a 30-year deal through the Power of Siberia
Pipeline gas to China. These are significant and long-term
deals that are going to affect geopolitics for decades to come.
Mr. Duncan. Absolutely. I think you are spot on with that.
Again, I will recommend your book, if folks want to really see
a true picture of energy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the remaining
ten seconds. Thanks.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, Ms.
Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. I join my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, in
thanking you for calling this important and timely hearing, and
I thank all of the witnesses for testifying today.
In my State of Delaware, we are suburban, urban, and rural.
And as is the case throughout our country, we are seeing
families fall farther behind on their electricity bills. With
winter approaching, this is a daunting reality for many folks.
The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the health, economic, and
environmental racial disparities in our society. Black and
Brown communities are seeing higher infection and death rates
from this disease. Black and Brown communities are more likely
to spend a larger percentage of their household income on
energy bills. And Black and Brown communities are being hit the
hardest with the economic recession we are facing.
The economic upheaval we are experiencing from this
pandemic has presented us with an opportunity to correct these
injustices and rebuild a cleaner and more equitable country.
One of my passions is the future of work, which is why I
created a bipartisan caucus to look at solutions for the myriad
challenges facing our companies and workers, not least of which
is this pandemic. With clean energy, we have an opportunity to
accelerate into the jobs of tomorrow.
The impact of COVID-19 pandemic has caused--has forced us
to face the future work sooner than we thought, and while this
certainly feels daunting, I also see it as an opportunity. We
need high-paying jobs that not only minimize environmental
impacts and help us fight climate change but ensure that all
Americans have access to clean and affordable energy.
So my first question is for Ms. Wyatt. Following up on Mr.
McNerney's questions about how to increase women and people of
color in the clean energy industry, I would like you to give--I
would like to give you some more time to expand on some of the
programs that you mentioned, how we can in the Federal
Government continue to incentivize and invest in programs like
these so that clean energy jobs are accessible to all.
Ms. Wyatt. Thank you, Congressman.
Congress can start by expanding existing Federal job
training programs like the HUD Jobs Plus program and adding an
emphasis on the clean energy jobs that, as you said, are the
jobs of the future as well as the jobs of the present. These
are large and growing industries.
Congress can also expand existing grants that provide solar
and renewable energy training, especially focused on low income
and underserved communities and workers who are displaced from
fossil fuel industries. GRID particularly supports funding for
the SolarCorps program supported through Americorps VISTA, one
of the programs that we benefit from greatly because career
choices are shaped by experiences and education prior to
entering the workforce.
Congress should incentivise resources for HBCUs, travel
colleges, minority sharing institutions, programs for women,
high schools, and technical schools to really ensure that we
are being as inclusive as possible.
And there is ample opportunity to create new renewable
energy, storage, and electric vehicle infrastructure-focused
training programs that provide living wages and benefits during
training which is very important for ensuring that people who
otherwise can't afford to just take off time from work to train
into these new careers are able to access those.
Again, the SolarWorks DC program is an example of a program
that combines clean energy access with workforce development
training, real world experience, and wrap-around services, and
it is had a lot of great success.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. You know, just to follow up on that,
with our high unemployment rates right now, we know that we are
going to have to create new, high-paying jobs with varying
training requirements. Why is the clean energy industry ideal
for creating these types of jobs?
Ms. Wyatt. The clean energy industry has a lot of facets.
There are low barrier to entry jobs such as solar installation
that can really form the basis for entire, very rewarding
career paths.
Average wages for even entry level jobs of that type are
higher than the national average, and they allow people to
support their families while they are growing in these careers
and learning on the job.
Again, the different facets of the clean energy revolution
are interrelated, so people who are exposed to solar
installation can also be exposed to weatherization and
efficiency services and really just take advantage of the best
opportunities where they are and for where they are in their
lives to be part of this transition.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And I have 20 seconds left.
Ms. Drehobl, as we are transitioning our society to
telework and distance learning, and telehealth, can you talk
about what low income communities and communities of color can
do to not be left behind, what we can do as a society?
Ms. Drehobl. That is a great question. I think more
investment in efficiency weatherization to help people use less
energy while they are spending more time at home is really
needed right now.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
And I have run out of time, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Schakowsky who has waived on
this subcommittee for the purposes of asking questions of our
witnesses.
Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois, you have 5 minutes.
Please unmute.
Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky, unmute.
Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. There we go. I am so sorry. I really
apologize.
Mr. Rush. Quite all right.
Ms. Schakowsky. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me
waive onto this subcommittee.
I have to tell you. There are times that I get so
frustrated about this issue about the challenge between and the
discussion between whether or not it is about jobs or it is
about the environment because it seems to me that there is no
contradiction whatsoever.
And we are hearing about communities that are facing higher
energy costs around the country. And while I know that is true,
there are also low income communities, communities of color are
facing also higher health risks in their communities, and we
cannot have this kind of division between saving our
environment and jobs.
There is, in my view, no contradiction. But it is a
contradiction to me to find that the permanent tax breaks to
the fossil fuel industry are seven times larger than those in
the renewable energy sector.
And so I did want to ask Ms. Drehobl--is that correct? I
know I have been listening all day how to say it, and I still
didn't--probably didn't say it right.
But how do we reconcile these things? I think this is the
existential issue of our world right now, that we get a grip on
carbon emissions in the atmosphere but also that we make sure
that we address the inequities among communities and the
disparities that are faced.
I wonder if you could just talk a little bit more, and I
know you have talked quite a bit about it already today, about
that and the frustration I feel in the debates that are going
on right now, including by the President during whatever you
call that, the debate.
Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Thank you for your question.
I agree with you that I don't think these are separate
things. I think investing in clean energy leads to more jobs
being created. It leads to a healthier environment. It leads to
reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, and all of these things
can also benefit low income communities if there is an
environmental justice lens set with these policies as we move
forward.
I think it is important to note too that when it comes to
energy prices and costs that just because prices are low also
doesn't mean that people are going to have affordable energy.
If your home is inefficient, then you might need to use a lot
more energy to keep it at a comfortable level. So I think, you
know, discussions around prices also need to tie in with the
reality of the bills that people are paying as well.
Ms. Schakowsky. So we have what we call the LIHEAP program
to help people pay their energy bills. I am wondering if you
know much about that, or if anyone does, whether or not we are
building into that when we help make homes more energy
efficient if we are using energy efficiency. Anybody know about
that?
Ms. Drehobl. Well, the LIHEAP program does allow for States
to spend some of that portion of money for weatherization. They
can have a waiver of 15 to 25 percent.
So that program not only helps with the immediate need that
people have to pay their energy bills but also can be leveraged
for that long-term solution of weatherization.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me also ask about the importance,
because I think there is one, of making sure that communities
are involved in the solutions that they have--that are offered
to them and making decisions for their own communities and if
you think that there is enough of that.
Ms. Drehobl. Yes. I think that is vitally important. I
think a lot of policies and programs have been designed without
the involvement of communities. And I have seen, you know,
different practices from utilities in States and the Federal
Government working more directly with communities in the
process of designing policies and programs. And I think that
really is key to make sure that we have a just energy system.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, thank you so much. And, again, thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry about my inability to promptly unmute myself, but it
has all been worth it for me, anyway.
So thank you very, very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back, and that concludes
the witnesses' questions.
And I want to again thank the witnesses for participation
in our hearing today. And, again, I want to repeat my apologies
for the shaky start of this hearing, the technical glitches
that we were confronted with.
And I want to remind members that pursuant to committee
rules, they have ten business days to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who
have appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any
such questions that you may receive.
Now, I don't know if we have any unanimous consent
requests.
I don't see any, so--we have unanimous consent requests,
and where are they? Let me see.
All right. Unanimous consent requests are the January 2019
Nature and Sustainability article entitled Disparities in
Rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by Race
and Ethnicity.
Also, a letter from the New York Technology Forum.
Additionally, a letter from the National Energy Assistance
Directions Association and an Ad in the L.A. Times from the
Sierra Club, and lastly, an Ad in the L.A. Times from the
United Latinos Vote.
Without any objections, the documents are entered into the
record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. And without any further objection, at this time,
the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]