    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH
                            FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 25, 2021

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-7

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    43-798PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
    AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                MIKE GARCIA, California
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  YOUNG KIM, California
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California
    GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 VACANCY
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    VACANCY
                                     ------

                             Subcommittee on Energy

                     HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             RANDY WEBER, Texas,
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan                  Ranking Member
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          MIKE GARCIA, California
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         PETER MEIJER, Michigan

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                 March 25, 2021

                                                                       Page

    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     6

    Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     7
        Written Statement............................................     8

    Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................    10

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Nora Esram, Senior Director for Research at American Council
      for an Energy-Efficient Economy
        Oral Statement...............................................    11
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Dr. Roderick Jackson, Laboratory Program Manager for Buildings
      Research at National Renewable Energy Laboratory
        Oral Statement...............................................    24
        Written Statement............................................    26

    Dr. James Tour, T.T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry at
      Rice University
        Oral Statement...............................................    40
        Written Statement............................................    42

    Ms. Jacqueline Patterson, Director of Environmental and Climate
      Justice Program, NAACP
        Oral Statement...............................................    47
        Written Statement............................................    49

    Mr. Joseph Hagerman, Group Leader for Building Integration and
      Controls at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
        Oral Statement...............................................    53
        Written Statement............................................    55

    Discussion.......................................................    70

                         BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH
                            FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

         The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:04 p.m.,
    via Webex, Hon. Jamaal Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
    presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairman Bowman. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our
    hearing entitled ``Building Technologies Research for a
    Sustainable Future.'' This hearing will come to order. Without
    objection, the Chairman is authorized to declare recess at any
    time.
         Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note
    that, today, the Committee is meeting today virtually. I want
    to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the
    conduct of this hearing. First, Members should keep their video
    feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are
    responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your
    microphones muted unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members
    have documents they wish to submit for the record, please email
    them to the Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated
    prior to the hearing.
         I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
         Good afternoon, and thank you to all of our witnesses who
    are joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of
    sustainable buildings research. This is a critical component of
    fighting the climate crisis.
         In my State of New York, we have some of the most densely
    populated cities in the country. We also have some of the most
    aggressive climate goals in the world. Thanks to a broad
    coalition of social movements, New York State passed the
    Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019. Part
    of this law was the inspiration for President Biden's Justice40
    Initiative, which will channel 40 percent of the Federal
    Government's climate investments into marginalized communities.
    Also in 2019, New York City passed a first-of-its-kind law to
    cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Now, we need to
    come together as a nation and build on these victories at the
    Federal level.
         When we think of reducing emissions, we often think of
    renewable power or electrifying our transportation sector. But
    another large source of emissions, especially in New York, is
    buildings. Currently, about 40 percent of our country's carbon
    dioxide emissions comes from the structures that we live, work,
    and sleep in, and that we depend on for life-sustaining care.
    This goes to the heart of why we need to address climate
    change, inequality, and racism together.
         As we have been discussing on this Committee, when climate
    disasters strike, redlined communities of color and low-income
    people are hit hardest. They're the first to lose power when
    the electricity grid is strained, as we saw in Texas. And these
    are the same communities that struggle with housing and utility
    costs. They face health risks from toxic materials in
    buildings, including in public housing that we have allowed to
    fall into a state of disrepair. In my district and around the
    country, the people who live in these buildings have been dying
    at higher rates from COVID, partly because of co-morbidities
    caused by the fossil fuel economy. We need sustainable
    buildings now, and we need to rebuild our communities from the
    ground up.
         The Department of Energy (DOE) invests millions of dollars
    every year in improving building technologies in a variety of
    ways. DOE, along with other Federal science agencies, plays a
    role in making buildings more resilient to extreme weather. DOE
    also researches energy efficiency and increased electrification
    in buildings, with an emphasis on ensuring the equitable
    distribution of the effects of this clean energy research.
         Let's also think about how Federal research can become
    more interdisciplinary. Social scientists, for example, have
    started exploring how green investments in neighborhoods can
    lead to gentrification. This process is not only unjust but can
    undermine climate goals. Instead of cutting emissions for
    everyone, this can create a low-carbon economy for people with
    privilege, while displacing communities of color and other low-
    income people out of dense, walkable neighborhoods. We need a
    combination of natural science, engineering, and social science
    to guide equitable and effective green investments for
    everyone.
         And research alone won't be enough. The other work that
    DOE must continue to focus on is how to get the results of this
    research into the hands of the communities that need it most. A
    week ago, I released a proposal to heal our K-12 school system
    from the impacts of climate change and the pandemic, and from
    decades of disinvestment. A huge part of this plan is focused
    on retrofitting public school buildings and removing toxic
    materials, beginning in the highest-need districts. Schools can
    become living laboratories for the energy transition, putting
    students and young people at the center of the Green New Deal,
    and launching STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics) careers across the country.
         Big problems require big solutions, and that is exactly
    what we will be pursuing together on this Committee. I am
    excited to chair the Energy Subcommittee this Congress and to
    hold this first Subcommittee hearing on such an important
    topic. Investing in building technologies means investing in a
    safe, healthy future for our country and for the entire world.
    I want to thank our excellent panel of witnesses assembled
    today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. With that,
    I yield back.
         [The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]

        Good afternoon, and thank you to all of our witnesses who
    are joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of
    sustainable buildings research. This is a critical component of
    fighting the climate crisis.
        In my state of New York, we have some of the most densely
    populated cities in the country. We also have some of the most
    aggressive climate goals in the world. Thanks to a broad
    coalition of social movements, New York State passed the
    Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019. Part
    of this law was the inspiration for President Biden's Justice40
    Initiative, which will channel 40% of the federal government's
    climate investments into marginalized communities.
        Also in 2019, New York City passed a first-of-its-kind law
    to cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Now, we need to
    come together as a nation and build on these victories at the
    federal level.
        When we think of reducing emissions, we often think of
    renewable power, or electrifying our transportation sector. But
    another large source of emissions, especially in New York, is
    buildings. Currently, about 40% of our country's carbon dioxide
    emissions comes from the structures that we live, work, and
    sleep in, and that we depend on for life-sustaining care.
        This goes to the heart of why we need to address climate
    change, inequality, and racism together. As we have been
    discussing on this Committee, when climate disasters strike,
    redlined communities of color and low-income people are hit
    hardest. They're the first to lose power when the electricity
    grid is strained, as we saw in Texas. And these are the same
    communities that struggle with housing and utility costs. They
    face health risks from toxic materials in buildings, including
    in the public housing that we have allowed to fall into a state
    of disrepair. In my district and around the country, the people
    who live in these buildings have been dying at higher rates
    from COVID--partly because of co-morbidities caused by the
    fossil fuel economy. We need sustainable buildings now, and we
    need to rebuild our communities from the ground up.
        The Department of Energy invests millions of dollars every
    year in improving building technologies in a variety of ways.
    DOE, along with other federal science agencies, plays a role in
    making buildings more resilient to extreme weather. DOE also
    researches energy efficiency and increased electrification in
    buildings, with an emphasis on ensuring the equitable
    distribution of the effects of this clean energy research.
        Let's also think about how federal research can become more
    interdisciplinary. Social scientists, for example, have started
    exploring how green investments in neighborhoods can lead to
    gentrification. This process is not only unjust, but can
    undermine climate goals. Instead of cutting emissions for
    everyone, this can create a low-carbon economy for people with
    privilege, while displacing communities of color and other low-
    income people out of dense, walkable neighborhoods. We need a
    combination of natural science, engineering, and social science
    to guide equitable and effective green investments for
    everyone.
        And research alone won't be enough. The other work that DOE
    must continue to focus on is how to get the results of this
    research into the hands of the communities that need it most. A
    week ago, I released a proposal to heal our K-12 school system
    from the impacts of climate change and the pandemic, and from
    decades of disinvestment. A huge part of this plan is focused
    on retrofitting public school buildings and removing toxic
    materials, beginning in the highest-need districts. Schools can
    become living laboratories for the energy transition--putting
    students and young people at the center of the Green New Deal,
    and launching STEM careers across the country.
        Big problems require big solutions, and that is exactly
    what we will be pursuing together on this Committee. I am
    excited to Chair the Energy Subcommittee this Congress, and to
    hold this first subcommittee hearing on such an important
    topic. Investing in building technologies means investing in a
    safe, healthy future for our country, and for the entire world.
        I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses
    assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
    With that, I yield back.

         Chairman Bowman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber for an
    opening statement.
         Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
    the Committee. We're going to have a little fun. We're going to
    be a lighthearted Committee, and we're going to be very serious
    about our work, serious about what we do with energy and for
    our country, so I appreciate you being here Chairman Bowman.
    All of my thanks I want to add to all the witnesses for being
    with us here virtually this afternoon.
         I will tell you that, today, we're going to discuss
    building technology research and development (R&D) needs. And
    while I'm excited to hear about the critical work being
    performed by the Department of Energy's Building Technologies
    Office and, quite frankly, all across DOE, I want us all to be
    mindful of the role that industry can and should play in this
    area, especially where there is a clear incentive and an
    ability to take up mature technologies.
         I say this as someone who knows the building industry
    firsthand. In the 1970's, I couldn't even spell air
    conditioning or what we call AC in Texas, but by the mid-'90's
    I was actually running my own AC company. And I can tell you
    this: Whether it's through regulation, taxation, mandates,
    businesses suffer when the government gets heavy handed and
    intervenes, so we have to take a very careful approach.
         Today, we must also remember that we have limited Federal
    research and development dollars. The Department of Energy
    mainly supports building technology research and development
    through their Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
    which I am inclined to mention is the highest funded applied
    energy office at the Department with a budget this past year
    alone of $2.8 billion with a B. That's why I have long
    prioritized investment in basic and early stage research that
    will drive innovation into the next century and not just for
    building technologies but across our entire energy and
    efficiency portfolio.
         DOE's world-leading national laboratories support that
    type of cutting-edge research that we're talking about here
    today. National labs around the country, from Oak Ridge and
    NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) to Argonne and
    Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, are leveraging DOE's unique
    capabilities and user facilities to support critical
    discoveries in innovative material science, data analytics, and
    advanced sensors and controls. And private-public partnerships
    with these labs are exactly how we get the most bang for our
    taxpayers' buck when investing taxpayers' dollars in this
    research. DOE partnerships with industry and academia enable
    the development of new technologies that can increase the
    energy efficiency of building envelopes, improve construction
    practices, and meet the demand for greater energy generation
    capacity.
         Today, we will hear from Dr. Jim Tour of Rice University
    in my home State of Texas, who will give us his perspective as
    one of those partners. As a professor of chemistry along with
    materials science and nanoengineering, Dr. Tour's research
    focuses on advanced building materials like, for example,
    lighter, stronger concrete that is a result of turning waste
    into a manufacturing additive called graphene. I look forward
    to hearing his testimony on how fundamental materials research
    can transform building technologies and at the same time how
    successful public-private partnerships have supported these
    innovations.
         And just like Dr. Tour's example of turning trash into
    treasure, we can support a future that protects our environment
    for the next generation and is affordable for all Americans.
    But we won't necessarily accomplish this by doing what we call
    in Texas, just throwing in the kitchen sink and billions of
    dollars at a broad, unspecified portfolio. Instead, we should
    make our clean technology affordable through significant
    investment in fundamental research paired with targeted and
    responsible investments in applied energy R&D.
         That is why, this week, I was proud to sign on as one of
    the original cosponsors of Ranking Member Lucas' Securing
    American Leadership in Science and Technology Act. This
    legislation supports a diverse, all-of-the-above clean energy
    strategy and prioritizes critical research to establish U.S.
    leadership in industries of the future, like advanced materials
    and manufacturing. This long-term strategy for investment in
    basic research and infrastructure is how we in Congress should
    support innovative building technologies. It creates a pipeline
    from lab to market and is the most direct and efficient path to
    a more sustainable future for both new and current buildings.
         Thanks to the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
         [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

        Thank you, Chairman Bowman, for hosting this hearing, and
    thank you to all our witnesses for being with us virtually this
    afternoon. Today is the first Energy Subcommittee hearing of
    the 117th Congress and I'm looking forward to continuing the
    bipartisan successes that have marked my time here.
        Today, we will discuss building technology research and
    development needs. And while I am excited to hear about the
    critical work being performed by the Department of Energy's
    Building Technologies Office and across all of DOE, I want us
    all to be mindful of the role industry can and should play in
    this area, especially where there is a clear incentive and
    ability to take up mature technologies.
        I say this as someone who knows the building industry
    firsthand. In the 70s, I couldn't even spell air conditioning,
    but by the mid-90s I was running my own HVAC company. And I can
    tell you this: whether it's through regulation, taxation, or
    mandates, businesses suffer when the government gets a heavy
    hand and intervenes.
        Today, we must also remember that we have limited federal
    R&D dollars. The Department of Energy mainly supports building
    technology research and development through their Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which I am
    inclined to mention is the highest funded applied energy office
    at the Department with a budget of $2.8 billion this past year
    alone. That's why I have long prioritized investment in basic
    and early stage research that will drive innovation into the
    next century. Not just for buildings technologies--but across
    our entire energy and efficiency portfolio.
        DOE's world-leading national laboratories support the type
    of cutting-edge research I'm talking about. National labs
    around the country--from Oak Ridge and NREL to Argonne and
    Lawrence Berkeley National Lab--are leveraging DOE's unique
    capabilities and user facilities to support critical
    discoveries in innovative material science, data analytics, and
    advanced sensors and controls.
        And public-private partnerships with these labs are exactly
    how we get the most bang for our buck when investing the
    taxpayers' dollars in this research. DOE partnerships with
    industry and academia enable the development of new
    technologies that can increase the energy efficiency of
    building envelopes, improve construction practices, and meet
    the demand for greater energy generation capacity.
        Today, we will hear from Dr. Jim Tour from Rice University
    in my home state of Texas, who will give us his perspective as
    one of those partners. As a professor of chemistry along with
    materials science and nanoengineering, Dr. Tour's research
    focuses on advanced building materials like lighter, stronger
    concrete that is a result of turning waste into a manufacturing
    additive called graphene. I look forward to hearing his
    testimony on how fundamental materials research can transform
    building technologies and how successful public-private
    partnerships have supported these innovations.
        Just like Dr. Tour's example of turning trash into
    treasure, we can support a future that protects our environment
    for the next generation and is affordable for all Americans.
    But we won't accomplish this by throwing the kitchen sink and
    billions of dollars at a broad, unspecified portfolio. Instead
    we should make our clean technology affordable through
    significant investment in fundamental research paired with
    targeted and responsible investments in applied energy R&D.
        That is why, this week, I was proud to sign on as an
    original cosponsor of Ranking Member Lucas' Securing American
    Leadership in Science and Technology Act. This legislation
    supports a diverse, all-of-the-above clean energy strategy and
    prioritizes critical research to establish U.S. leadership in
    industries of the future, like advanced materials and
    manufacturing.
        This long-term strategy for investment in basic research
    and infrastructure is how we in Congress should support
    innovative building technologies. It creates a pipeline from
    lab to market and is the most direct and efficient path to a
    more sustainable future for both new and current buildings.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and I
    look forward to a productive discussion, Mr. Chair. Thank you
    and I yield back the balance of my time.

         Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
         The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Full
    Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement.
         If Ms. Johnson is not present at this time, the Chair is
    going to move forward.
         If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
         [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good Afternoon and thank you Chairman Bowman for holding
    this hearing today, as well as to all of our witnesses for
    being here.
        The sustainability of our buildings is a topic that touches
    on every American across the country.
        Buildings make up almost 40% percent of the total energy
    consumption in the United States, and reducing that consumption
    can not only decrease our electric bills, but also
    significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
        My own city of Dallas, Texas is the fastest growing
    metropolitan area in the U.S. Our growing population supports a
    growing economy, but we must ensure that new infrastructure to
    meet these needs is built with the most up-to-date technologies
    to provide efficiency, comfort, and resilience.
        Existing buildings are another key component of federal
    research, development, and demonstration activities. Many of
    the advancements that have been made on improving heating,
    cooling, windows, and lighting can be more easily applied to
    new construction projects, but our existing buildings are not
    going away any time soon. Retrofit technologies can help to
    equitably distribute local and federal resources, as some of
    the communities that could most use healthier, cleaner, and
    more resilient buildings have aging infrastructure.
        As we have seen with recent, devasting events in my home
    state of Texas, ensuring the resilience of our grid is
    paramount. When constructing new buildings, grid connectivity
    could be a key element in alleviating energy demand and
    improving reliability through next-generation sensors,
    controls, and communication technologies. I look forward to
    hearing how our national labs and the Building Technologies
    Office within the Department of Energy can help us achieve
    these goals.
        Buildings affect all aspects of our daily lives, and we
    should be doing everything we can to ensure that we are laying
    a foundation for these technologies to improve our
    infrastructure for decades to come.
        Thank you again to our witnesses for being here, and with
    that I yield back the balance of my time.

         Chairman Bowman. At this time I would like to introduce
    our witnesses. Dr. Nora Esram is the Senior Director for
    Research of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
    Economy (ACEEE). Dr. Esram overseas ACEEE's research programs
    on buildings, transportation, industry, and behavior. Dr. Esram
    holds a Ph.D. in architecture from the University of Illinois
    Urbana-Champaign and is a licensed architect.
         Dr. Roderick Jackson is a Laboratory Program Manager for
    Buildings Research at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
    His portfolio includes a broad range of research, development,
    and market implementation activities that aim to improve the
    energy efficiency of buildings materials and practices. He
    holds a bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. in mechanical
    engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
         Dr. James Tour is a T.T. and W.F. Chao professor of
    chemistry, professor of computer science, and professor of
    materials science in nanoengineering at Rice University. He
    received his bachelor's degree from Syracuse University and his
    Ph.D. in chemistry from Purdue University.
         Ms. Jacqueline Patterson is the Director of the NAACP
    Environmental and Climate Justice Program. She has worked as a
    researcher, program manager, coordinator, advocate, and
    activist working on women's rights, violence against women, HIV
    and AIDS, racial justice, economic justice, and environmental
    and climate justice. She received her master's degree in social
    work from the University of Maryland and a master's degree in
    public health from Johns Hopkins University.
         Last but certainly not least, Mr. Joseph Hagerman is a
    Section Head for buildings technology research at Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory. He leads the lab's research in building
    envelope materials and equipment, as well as in integrated
    building performance and multifunctional equipment integration.
    He holds a master's in civil engineering from the Fu Foundation
    School of Engineering and Applied Science at Columbia
    University and earned his bachelor's in architecture from
    Mississippi State University.
         Thank you all for joining us today. As our witnesses
    should know, you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken
    testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the
    record for the hearing. When you all have completed your spoken
    testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will have
    5 minutes to question the panel.
         We will start with Dr. Esram. Dr. Esram, please begin.

              TESTIMONY OF DR. NORA ESRAM, SENIOR DIRECTOR

                    FOR RESEARCH AT AMERICAN COUNCIL

                    FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY

         Dr. Esram. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member
    Weber, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
    to testify on the topic of building technologies research and
    development. I bring with me today my 20 years of knowledge and
    experience as an architect, an educator, a lab scientist, and
    now as a Research Director at American Council for an Energy-
    Efficient Economy.
         Building efficient technologies are known to lower energy
    costs and create local jobs, but the biggest opportunities are
    still ahead. Improving efficiency of buildings has the
    potential to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20
    percent. The industry needs help from the Federal Government
    and science community to develop integrated solutions and
    productive processes to upgrade existing buildings faster.
         Building retrofits also improve occupants' health,
    comfort, productivity, and community resilience. Today, many of
    our buildings don't serve us well. For instance, when COVID-19
    hit, public health experts suggested increasing indoor
    ventilation and filtration to lower this ease of transmission
    risk, but many legacy building systems can't handle that. When
    offices were sitting empty during the lockdown, they still
    consumed 40 to 100 percent of their usual energy. That's a huge
    waste. When the power went out across much of Texas, many
    poorly insulated homes quickly dropped to near freezing
    temperature. Imagine if these houses could have been kept warm
    with a heating device as small as a hairdryer. That's not a
    dream. That's efficiency building technologies.
         Thanks to decades of Federal investment in research, we
    have many technologies to make buildings efficient, healthier,
    and resilient for everyone. But we don't know yet how to
    expeditiously deliver these technologies to existing buildings.
    Improving construction productivity offers a path. If
    construction labor productivity were to catch up with the
    progress made by other sectors, we will gain $1.6 trillion
    economic growth globally. A third of that is in the United
    States.
         Many countries are moving onsite construction toward a
    manufacturing inspired mass production platform. We'll lose our
    competitive edge if we don't take bold actions. Transforming
    the building industry would also provide an opportune time to
    reduce embodied carbon in building materials and products.
         I also believe a strong and a creative workforce is key to
    success. We need to equip the building contractors and
    specialized trades with knowledge and skills to adapt to new
    technologies. We need to educate and attract a new generation
    of innovators and entrepreneurs. Buildings of the future are
    machines that interact with the grid and transportation
    systems. Workforce development is a creative and interactive
    process. Therefore, we need Federal R&D support to grow
    tomorrow's building leaders outside the classroom.
         I urge Congress and DOE to take bold actions to lay a
    solid foundation for a successful transmission of the building
    sector. First, spur modernized approaches to accelerate deep
    energy retrofits and create local jobs. Second, train and
    diversify our workforce and inspire a new generation of
    leaders. Third, drive enduring market transformation through
    integration of efficiency with health, resilience, and other
    societal goals. Last but not least, collaborate with local and
    State governments and community-based organizations to create
    proactive, replicable solutions for all.
         I truly believe that we are facing a paradigm shift.
    Together, we can both create and witness history. Thank you
    again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
    your questions.
         [The prepared statement of Dr. Esram follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Esram. Dr. Jackson, you
    are now recognized.

                   TESTIMONY OF DR. RODERICK JACKSON,

                       LABORATORY PROGRAM MANAGER

                         FOR BUILDINGS RESEARCH

                AT NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

         Dr. Jackson. Thank you to the Subcommittee for giving me
    this opportunity today to provide a testimony on a topic of
    critical national importance and deep personal passion. So my
    bio is included in the written testimony for reference, so I
    won't get into those details, but I wanted to provide a
    personal perspective of who I am and my passion.
         So my father, Louis C. Jackson, was one of 16 children,
    and out of 16--and out of 11 boys, they all built houses. So
    construction was a deep passion for my dad, so much so that he
    first introduced it to me when I was only 3 years old. I think
    my first job was to go out on the jobsite and pick up all the
    straight nails.
         A little after finishing my undergraduate degree, he and I
    formed L&R Jackson Construction back in my hometown of Canton,
    Mississippi. However, my personal passion for science and
    engineering drew me back to Georgia Tech to complete my Ph.D.,
    but the legacy my dad and my brothers, [inaudible] was never
    far from my heart.
         I have since been able to marry my love for science with
    family legacy, and that brings me here today. Unfortunately, my
    dad passed away on January 19th, 2021, but the opportunity to
    provide testimony on the future of the industry he so--he loved
    so dearly is immensely fulfilling.
         So let's talk science. Because buildings consume about 3/4
    of our current electricity demand, they can be a large part of
    the sustainable energy solution. By leveraging energy
    efficiency, greater connectivity, advanced data science and
    analytics, along with next-generation materials, sensors, and
    controls, buildings can be designed to synergistically interact
    in real-time with the electric grid to provide demand
    flexibility, all while not compromising comfort, health, or
    productivity.
         DOE is leading the charge in this new vision for the
    pivotal role that buildings can play and has appropriately
    titled this initiative Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings. In
    my written testimony I highlighted how modeling, sensors, and
    controls enable this future of Grid-Interactive Efficient
    Buildings by providing a platform to understand, plan, and
    optimize the performance of buildings in varying scenarios. I
    provided ResStock as an example of an idea first cultivated by
    laboratory directed R&D funds and developed by DOE funding and
    support. It is now currently being used by multiple research
    activities, as well as private-sector use cases.
         In my written testimony I also highlighted the need for
    thermal energy storage because thermal end uses like space
    conditioning, water heating, and refrigeration represent
    roughly half of our building energy demand. Thermal energy
    could be stored as a complement as well as an alternative to
    battery energy storage to balance supply and demand.
         Now, I'm particularly excited about a publication--NREL
    publication in this month's Nature Energy journal. It presented
    an analogous adaptation of the energy/power tradeoff curve that
    has been foundational in the design and advancement of battery
    systems. This and others are really just some of the examples
    of opportunities that we can use to further accelerate the
    deployment of thermal storage as a viable energy storage
    solution.
         So as we continue to advance the science of--science and
    engineering of individual Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings,
    there are actually new possibilities that emerge to aggregate a
    collection of buildings with other local distributed resources
    into connected communities. So not only can we then see
    optimized solutions where the total is indeed greater than the
    sum of the individual parts, we can also enable innovation at
    the intersection of these diverse and distinct technology
    domains.
         However, unfortunately, according to a recent McKinsey
    study, labor productivity in the United States has remained
    stagnant over the last 80 years, approximately marking the time
    when the first Jacksons began to master the carpentry trade. So
    this reality not only hinders U.S. competitiveness, it limits
    the transition to a sustainable energy future with affordable
    building construction and retrofit costs. The DOE's Advanced
    Building Construction (ABC) Initiative targets this opportunity
    with a vision to integrate higher levels of energy efficiency
    into new construction and retrofits.
         But--so as we transition to a sustainable energy future,
    we have to ensure the benefits as well as the costs are more
    equitably distributed. Our examples of centering equity in
    energy technology innovation and energy transition are most
    often focused on the deployment phase of the research,
    development, demonstration, and deployment spectrum. However,
    while this is important and essential, deployment is the final
    stage of that technology spectrum I just described. And so as a
    result, in many cases, it actually may be more difficult to
    equitably deploy technology that was developed without regard
    to equity. In other words, this approach could be akin to
    attempting to force a square peg into a round hole. So, as an
    alternative, the R&D community, the community to which I
    belong, should take the additional step of centering equity
    into the early stages of the technology development pipeline.
         And then also due to historical under-investments, the
    solutions faced by low-income communities are actually
    different and actually distinctly more difficult to overcome in
    many cases, hence the need for science, engineering, and
    innovation are even more pressing.
         So in summary, thank you for this opportunity. And to meet
    our Nation's goal and continue our American leadership in
    energy innovation, we should continue to prioritize the R&D
    investments in building technologies. I look forward to any
    other questions you may have. Thank you.
         [The prepared statement of Dr. Jackson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much, Dr. Jackson. Dr. Tour,
    you are now recognized.

                      TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES TOUR,

               T.T. AND W. F. CHAO PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY

                           AT RICE UNIVERSITY

         Dr. Tour. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a professor of
    chemistry, material science, and nanoengineering at Rice
    University and part of the Welch Institute for Advanced
    Materials. I have 730 research publications, 234 of those on
    the topic of graphene. I have over 50 U.S. patents plus 90
    international patents on graphene. In the past 6 years alone,
    my academic research has led to the formation of 14 companies,
    eight of those in nanomaterials, and two of them now public
    companies.
         On March 15, 2017, I gave testimony before the Energy and
    Commerce's Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection on the topic of graphene and attaining U.S.
    preeminence. Four years later, I'm here to report that the
    future has arrived.
         What is graphene? Think of it as carbon chicken wire.
    That's what it looks like, chicken wire in its atomic
    arrangement but on the one-atom-thick scale. Graphene is a non-
    toxic, naturally occurring carbon material, and it's a
    glomerate to the natural mineral graphite. It is very slow to
    enter the carbon dioxide cycle, and hence it can be considered
    a terminal carbon sink with near zero contribution to
    greenhouse gas emissions.
         Graphene is a revolutionary material for building
    construction, but until recently, affordability and access to
    sufficient quantities made it only a dream for those
    applications. In 2018, a graduate student in my laboratory Duy
    Luong, working under funding from the Air Force Office of
    Scientific Research, discovered a process that we call flash
    graphene. We immediately filed patents to protect the
    technology, and companies were formed 1 year later, Universal
    Matter Inc. and Universal Matter Limited.
         The process can take any carbon material, any carbon
    material and convert it into graphene in less than 1 second
    using only electricity, no water, no solvents, no additives
    other than carbon itself. This new graphene manufacturing
    process will lower the cost by a factor of 10, therefore making
    it economically viable for use in building materials.
         The majority of waste products generated by human beings
    are carbon-based. If it's not rocks or water, it's probably
    carbon. We can take coal, petroleum coke, unsorted plastic
    waste, discarded food, mixed household waste, any other carbon
    source and convert it into graphene. Our production rate is
    doubling every 9 weeks, thereby projecting to hundreds-of-tons-
    per-day scale within 3 years. With grants from the Department
    of Energy and Department of Defense in collaborations with the
    Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC (Engineer Research and
    Development Center), Argonne National Laboratory, and several
    large automotive, concrete, asphalt, and wood manufacturers,
    we're developing graphene for concrete, asphalt, aluminum,
    plastics, polymer foams, lubricants, rubber, wood, fabric, and
    paint composites. By adding just .1 weight percent, that's 0.1
    weight percent to cement, we get a 35 percent enhancement in
    compressive strength. It means we could use 1/3 less cement for
    construction. And since cement and concrete constitute 8
    percent of all worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, that could
    translate into a remarkable diminution of emissions.
         Concrete alone is a $30 billion new market opportunity for
    graphene. Zero-point-five weight percent addition of graphene
    to asphalt will triple the life of the road. Zero-point-zero-
    five weight percent of graphene to carbon fiber composites will
    lower the weight of an aircraft by 20 percent, translating into
    enormous fuel and carbon dioxide reductions, all made possible
    by this U.S. invention.
         Through Rice University's carbon hub, we're developing
    methods to convert natural gas into hydrogen and graphene with
    near zero carbon dioxide emissions. That's clean hydrogen fuel
    from natural gas. The next step is developed--is to develop
    entirely new classes of graphene composites that can substitute
    for the energy-intensive 2,500-year-old materials that we use
    today like concrete and steel while providing a non-toxic
    carbon sink for most human waste products.
         The takeaway from my testimony is this: First, continue to
    foster basic support of basic and applied research directed
    toward advancement and deployment of new materials. A few years
    ago, graphene was only viewed as appropriate for ultrahigh-end
    aerospace and device applications but not anymore. The
    bipartisan Endless Frontier Act could embody an interesting
    approach to achieve the requisite research and translational
    goals.
         Second, it remains challenging to go from the lab bench to
    the build site with market profitability. Congress has immense
    power and influence over tax policy and administrative and
    regulatory burdens that can make or break our startup
    companies.
         Third and finally, streamlining the green card process for
    scientists and engineers that have received their Ph.D.'s in
    the United States so that people like Duy Luong, the Vietnamese
    graduate student that discovered the flash graphene process in
    my laboratory, can stay to develop their discoveries in our
    Nation's companies. We just need to do it right, safeguarding
    U.S. intellectual property through background checks and
    security oversight. Thank you.
         [The prepared statement of Dr. Tour follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Tour. Ms. Patterson, you
    are now recognized.

                 TESTIMONY OF MS. JACQUELINE PATTERSON,

                       DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL

                   AND CLIMATE JUSTICE PROGRAM, NAACP

         Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much. It's an honor to be here
    with you all. And I appreciate being--having the opportunity to
    share these brief remarks.
         So the NAACP, when we first started doing this work,
    people were surprised that we were working on energy, much less
    the sustainable building sector. However, as one considers the
    extreme disparities in equality, safety, and health of the
    places where African American communities especially live,
    learn, and work, play, and worship, for us the historic social,
    political, and economic disenfranchisement has been detrimental
    to generational well-being.
         In 1861 and 1862 the United States Government passed the
    Morrill and Homestead Acts, which were intended to give land
    grants to White Americans for colleges and those seeking land
    to farm. These acts were also accompanied by offers of
    subsidies to facilitate the acquisition and use of the land. As
    slavery was not abolished in the United States until 1865, many
    enslaved and freed African Americans were unable to benefit
    from these acts, and a lack of legal services meant that
    African Americans who managed to acquire land couldn't even
    write legally binding wills that would facilitate legalized
    inheritance of property.
         This is all tied to the fact that overall economic
    insecurity has resulted in extreme income and wealth
    differentials that persist over centuries. Even now at $171,000
    in net worth of a typical White American family is nearly 10
    times greater than that of a Black American family at $17,150.
    And for Black American single women-headed households, the
    average family net worth is only $5. At 44 percent, African
    Americans are least likely to be homeowners, whereas it's 75
    percent of White Americans and overall 65 percent for the
    Nation.
         Historic and modern-day redlining practices impact
    everything from whether we own homes, where we own homes, and
    the quality of the homes and other resources to which we have
    access. Also impacting is the quality of the infrastructure in
    our communities such as levees that protect our homes, and
    property values that finance our schools are also--also affects
    the quality of the buildings in which our schools are housed.
         Subpar quality of the buildings and structures in our
    communities means that we are inundated by energy burden, which
    challenges our finances, indoor air pollution which sickens our
    family, and poor housing stock, which renders us vulnerable
    when disaster impacts.
         African Americans have the highest energy burden, which
    means that the amount of income that goes toward energy in the
    buildings we occupy is the highest of any other racial and
    ethnic group. African Americans are also more likely to have
    our energy shut off for nonpayment, too often with fatal
    impacts as we pay the price of poverty and racism with our very
    lives when a candle or a space heater or carbon monoxide has
    taken the lives of too many seeking to heat or light our homes
    when our finances can't meet the demands of our bills.
         Yet we're more likely to suffer from the pollution being
    emitted from energy production as we are more likely to live
    near coal-fired power plants, oil and gas refineries, waste-to-
    energy incinerators, et cetera, and we pay the price with our
    health. We are more likely to bear the impacts of climate
    change that results from emissions from buildings.
         We also know that energy improvements, whether it's
    weatherization, retrofits, and clean energy like solar are tied
    to homeownership and credit ratings, which are compromised by
    the historic and current factors I've already described.
         COVID-19 means that we are in buildings more due to remote
    working and due to the need for isolation, which means we are
    using more energy and also are more exposed to indoor air
    pollution.
         With 2020 being the hottest year on record as part of the
    progression of increasingly hotter years, as well as greater
    weather extremes, our ability to cool and heat our homes
    reliably and affordably becomes increasingly more critical. Yet
    communities and populations most impacted by these disparities
    are underrepresented in the building sector and professions,
    including those working on building standards in terms of
    organizations, architects, and beyond. For example, just .03
    percent of certified architects are Black women, while, again,
    $5 is the average wealth of a single Black woman-led household,
    thereby arguably rendering us as Black women as the No. 1
    critical stakeholder in the future of buildings.
         Key steps to right the wrong--right the historic and
    present-day wrongs include campaign-finance reform so that
    money interests don't have their thumb on the scale of the
    change we need to have in advancing energy justice for all.
    Dismantling the weapons of mass distraction, including the
    formulas that tie property values with quality of
    infrastructure and services at the local level, increasing
    investments in BIPOC, Black, indigenous, and people of color in
    education and leadership in STEM, increasing resources for job
    and business opportunities for BIPOC communities, and shifting
    wealth to community-led endeavors to develop sustainable,
    affordable, safe, and healthy infrastructure, including
    buildings.
         In 2018 the NAACP launched----
         Chairman Bowman. Ms. Patterson, your time is expired.
         Ms. Patterson. Oh, thank you. Sorry.
         [The prepared statement of Ms. Patterson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairman Bowman. Don't worry. We'll come back to you when
    we get to questions. Thank you so much.
         Mr. Hagerman, you are now recognized.

             TESTIMONY OF MR. JOSEPH HAGERMAN, GROUP LEADER

                 FOR BUILDING INTEGRATION AND CONTROLS

                    AT OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

         Mr. Hagerman. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member
    Weber, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
    for the opportunity to virtually appear before you today. My
    name is Joe Hagerman. I lead the Building Technologies Research
    Section at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National
    Lab in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. I'm a building technologies
    researcher by education and training.
         I'm not going to take our time today to discuss how much
    energy is consumed in buildings. We all pay energy bills at the
    end of the month. In fact, last year, buildings used 74 percent
    of all the electricity in the Nation at a cost of over $332
    billion. I think we can all agree that's a big bill.
         I want to focus today on the impact that Oak Ridge has
    made with the support of DOE Building Technologies Office. It
    is our thesis that when our Nation's buildings are cleaner and
    more efficient and--the effect can be profound, improving
    comfort, safety, productivity, and it will take American labor
    and American jobs to realize these benefits.
         So what's Oak Ridge doing? Staff at the lab are
    accelerating clean energy innovation throughout the buildings'
    ecosystem. Our Nation's fastest supercomputer at Oak Ridge's
    speeds modeling and simulations to analyze the potential for
    retrofits down to the neighborhood level for every building in
    America. Our nanomaterials science leads to new building
    materials with extraordinary insulation and self-healing
    properties. And our engineering expertise continues to drive
    breakthroughs for new energy-efficient equipment like cold
    climate heat pumps, climate-friendly refrigerants, and advanced
    next-generation appliances. A lot of this sounds like science
    fiction, but it's not. It's science fact, and that's the
    current seat of the lab, transformational science.
         The cornerstone for our research is of course our
    facilities, particularly the Building Technologies Research and
    Integration Center or BTRIC. BTRIC is DOE's only user facility
    dedicated to accelerating breakthroughs for clean energy-
    efficient buildings. But the largest contributor to our work is
    our partnerships. We partner with industries, universities, and
    communities, and we make good partners because success to my
    staff is clear: make positive, practical impact.
         Let me share with you about working with the lab. The
    sheer volumes of connections, interactions, and collaborations
    are what make Oak Ridge a special place to work. We foster
    great science because we invest in great diverse people,
    expertise, and skills. And equally important we have clear
    goals. Our first goal is that Oak Ridge will continue to lead
    the building energy efficiency research for the Nation. One
    example is how Viral Patel and his team at Oak Ridge developed
    piezoelectric drying science that mechanically shakes and
    vibrates fabric at a high frequency to remove moisture. They
    demonstrated a faster drying time with five times less energy
    that will one day reshape conventional residential dryers. To
    me that's transformative.
         But let's transform it again here today by recognizing
    that these innovations can also provide a solution to the hard-
    to-decarbonize industrial sector. This is another important
    thesis to the lab's research and science. Our advancements can
    apply to other processes, and it's my hope that American
    companies engage with us to decarbonize all sectors.
         Our second goal, Oak Ridge will continue to pioneer
    connected smart communities for grid resilience, benefiting
    consumers and the grid equally. Group leader Heather Buckberry
    worked with Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Georgia Power
    to provide and prove that homes and businesses can provide a
    central stability to the grid. Heather and her team
    demonstrated that more than 30 percent decreased overall energy
    consumption and an approximately 35 percent lower demand during
    peak winter, all with no impacts to comfort. More importantly,
    residents engage with their buildings and controls in no
    different way than normal, and that's Heather's thesis: Control
    science can be done behind the scenes, and with Oak Ridge's
    deep bench in cybersecurity, we can guard the associated data
    and control actions.
         Goal No. 3, Oak Ridge will help lead the Nation in meeting
    our decarbonization goals. Another group leader Kashif Nawaz is
    developing direct air carbon capture solutions with building
    equipment technologies. Looking forward, Kashif hopes to
    develop concepts and methods for net negative carbon buildings
    where equipment can efficiently heat, cool, dehumidify the air
    while capturing CO2, all possible by relying on
    transformative science, not science fiction.
         In closing, Oak Ridge is a foundational partner that can
    accelerate the clean energy transition across the Nation to all
    communities, and the challenges ahead to the Nation are great.
    I believe they are bigger than one person, one team, or one lab
    alone. It's going to take all of us, not some of us, to achieve
    our goals, but from great challenges, great opportunities
    emerge, opportunities for equities, collaboration, and allies
    across the sciences, and opportunities to create good-paying
    American jobs while we're at it.
         I'm proud to work for my staff every day and honored to
    work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Thank you.
         [The prepared statement of Mr. Hagerman follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Hagerman.
         At this point we will begin our first round of questions.
    The Chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
         Dr. Esram, thank you for your testimony. I appreciated
    your emphasis on the need to align carbon reduction with other
    social goals such as health and equity. I want to zero in on
    the health piece. We know that redline communities and poor
    people in this country face multiple health threats from
    buildings. Our public school and public housing infrastructure,
    for example, has major issues with mold, asbestos, and other
    toxins.
         What do we know about the health benefits of deep energy
    retrofits at this point, and what do we still have to learn?
    Can you paint a picture for us for how life could be better in
    a highly efficient, zero-carbon home or workplace?
         Dr. Esram. Well, thank you for the question, Chairman
    Bowman. What we know, decades of scientific research have
    proven the impact of a built environment on the human circadian
    rhythm, immune system, cognitive function, and task
    performance. There are plenty of literature. But what we don't
    know is how to fully integrate these nonenergy benefits with
    technology and strategy development that speaks to the
    consumers and the investors. And there are no standard methods
    to quantify and monetize these benefits in a trustworthy way
    for consumers.
         A quick example is when we buy organic food, we trust USDA
    (United States Department of Agriculture) organic stamps.
    There's a standard way to measure these nonenergy benefits for
    organic food and procedure, but we don't have those for
    buildings, for healthy buildings.
         Just to--yes, that's my answer in a simple way. Thank you.
         Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
         Ms. Patterson, thank you for being with us today. Can you
    speak more to the challenges involved in bringing sustainable
    building technologies to redlined and low-income communities?
    I'm wondering what the CESBS (Centering Equity in the
    Sustainable Building Sector) program has learned about what the
    main barriers are and what we need to do to surmount those
    barriers. How can we scale up weatherization, energy
    efficiency, and electrification efforts in low-income and
    affordable housing, for example? What do you see as some of the
    research and policy needs here?
         Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much. So--yes, so there are a
    lot of questions in that one question. But--so first definitely
    some of the barriers are really just lack of investment in
    these communities both in--not only in terms of homes but also
    in terms of various structures and communities. And so whether
    we have--the challenge I spoke of before with housing in terms
    of the historic challenges that resulted in people in the
    disproportionate homeownership and so much in terms of these
    kind of weatherization, retrofitting, clean energy. All of that
    is tied to homeownerships and being able to be--get financing
    mechanisms to--equity in one's home. And so that's definitely a
    barrier.
         In terms of ways that we can shift this is everything from
    making sure that there are economic opportunities to bring up
    the economic well-being of people so that they can make those
    investments and the homeowners themselves but then also
    shifting--and so that's from an individual standpoint, but also
    shifting as well to communities that have been under-invested
    in historically over time, shifting away from this notion that
    all of the--what's available in terms of public financing
    through property values, which we know just kind of continues
    to have the same communities not having the types of resources
    that are needed and really thinking about new and innovative
    economic ways of lifting all boats because we know that there's
    been attempts through--whether it's the opportunity zones or
    other types of mechanisms but that have not necessarily been
    successful in actually lifting the well-being and the economic
    status and what's available in terms of finance for those
    communities. So we're actually advancing this transformational
    climate finance initiative to significantly invest in these
    communities and making sure that, whether it's social impact
    investing or municipal bonds or other finance mechanisms, that
    they're being brought into communities in ways that aren't
    extractive or that actually put communities in the driver's
    seat so that these actually work for them. And the Centering
    Equity in the Sustainable Building Sector Initiative is a
    multi-sector initiative that pushes policies, and that's
    everything from renewable portfolio standards to making sure
    that building codes are also tied to the economic engine to be
    able to ensure that people can be up to the standards we're
    putting forward in building codes. So I don't know how much
    longer I have to respond, but I'll pause there [inaudible].
    Thank you.
         Chairman Bowman. That was perfect. Thank you so much. I
    now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
         Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go to you,
    Dr. Tour. I want to make sure that what I think I heard, I
    heard. Are you with us, Dr. Tour?
         Dr. Tour. I am.
         Mr. Weber. OK, good. You've got 730 publications, 230 of
    those are on graphene, and there was how many patents and how
    many companies formed as a result?
         Dr. Tour. I have over 150 patent families, but 50 U.S. on
    graphene and 90 international on graphene, started 14
    companies, eight of those in nanomaterials.
         Mr. Weber. Thank you for that. You said a decade ago your
    program was supported 90 percent by Federal funds and then 10
    percent by industry and that that was normal for many research
    groups. Then, due to a number of factors, you started appealing
    to industry and showing them how your fundamental research in
    nanoscience could address some of their technical needs. And
    boy, the numbers you just reiterated for us, if they don't
    prove you were successful, I don't know what does.
         Dr. Tour. Yes.
         Mr. Weber. This might surprise some people who think
    industry only wants applied research. So, Dr. Tour, can you
    talk more about basic research, how it can deliver applications
    for industry, and specifically in the building technology
    sector, please?
         Dr. Tour. Right. So thank you for that, Representative
    Weber. I--so what happens is I do basic research. I'm a
    scientist primarily. And--but the transition is something that
    we need to look for. How do I transition this into something
    that can be applied and utilized? And when we make discoveries,
    right away, we need to be thinking how can I apply this? And if
    we just publish a paper and just think somebody else will apply
    it, it just doesn't work. We need to carry that banner several
    more steps forward to show them how it might work. I don't have
    to bring it all the way to the building, but I have to bring it
    to a point where some company is really interested.
         So for many years we would license our technology to big
    companies, and for one reason or another it would stall in
    those big companies. So about 6 years ago I made a categoric
    decision we are going to start our own companies, and we're
    going to start our own companies and build upon those because
    then we can control the technology and push it forward.
         And success breeds success. After we were successful with
    one or two, then investors started coming and wanting to fund
    more and more. And part of that, as I say, you've got to
    continue to fund some of the basic work in my laboratory that
    will broaden the applications of these, and that then spawns
    new companies. So that's basically how we've done it.
         Mr. Weber. Well, and that's a great segue because when you
    talk about broadening and spawning new companies--as you know,
    as a Texan, Houston is an active hub for the oil and gas
    industry and also the aerospace industry, and so these large
    industries have become interested in your work. And can you
    explain that why many of the, quote, building technologies, end
    quote, research projects have applicability actually to more
    than just the skyscraper construction business? What other
    applicabilities does it have?
         Dr. Tour. Well, it has to do with roads, as well as
    concrete for building, with paints, for wood composites.
    Everything is about light-weighting and using----
         Mr. Weber. Right.
         Dr. Tour [continuing]. Less materials. And when we use
    less materials, there's less carbon dioxide emissions, less
    energy put into them, and the processes that we've come up
    with--so, for example, just plastics, high density polyethylene
    is $2,000 a ton. We put in $30 a ton to convert waste plastic
    into graphene that can strengthen a huge amount of plastic with
    that. So these innovations have great implications for the
    energy industry and for lowering carbon emissions.
         Mr. Weber. Sure. Well, I'm just about out of time, so I
    will go ahead and yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your indulgence.
         Staff. Mr. Casten is next.
         Mr. Casten. Thank you so much. Always a pleasure in this
    panel, Mr. Chairman and to our witnesses. This is a hugely
    timely hearing not least because as we sail into thinking about
    infrastructure bills, we have some real opportunities I think
    to modernize our Federal building stock, public housing,
    Federal buildings, the whole scope of that. It's going to be
    real important to understand as we are prudent stewards of
    taxpayer capital where the biggest bang for the buck is.
         So I want to start, Dr. Esram, I wonder in the work you've
    done or your colleagues have done at ACEEE, as you're looking
    at building efficiency technologies, not the ones of the future
    but the ones we can deploy today, what kind of simple payback
    can owners realize on these technologies? And if you had to
    pick sort of your top three absolute no-brainers that every
    building owner should do, what would they be?
         Dr. Esram. That's not a very easy to answer question. I
    would pick lighting and water heater and probably, you know,
    some HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems
    depending on the home location, the building types. Yes, that
    is usually--we have done a lot of research. For most of the new
    technologies, they pay for themselves. However, they may not
    pay fast enough to speak to the consumer's needs. There are
    additional benefits as we discussed in the health, resilience,
    and productivity. They haven't been really translated in a way
    that the consumer will value more with energy efficiency. If
    there were a way to quantify, monetize those, I think we can do
    retrofitting much faster than we're doing now.
         Mr. Casten. OK. Well, would that be a good area for
    further research then to try to figure out how to monetize and
    understand those benefits?
         Dr. Esram. Yes, definitely.
         Mr. Casten. OK.
         Dr. Esram. We have a lot of pieces of technologies. We
    don't know how to build efficient, affordable, healthy
    resilient building at the same time. We--they haven't been put
    together yet.
         Mr. Casten. OK. Well, part of the reason that I started by
    asking about proven technologies is that a number of years ago
    I had the pleasure of touring the Bullitt Center in Seattle,
    Washington, that my friend Denis Hayes has been responsible
    for. Many folks on this Committee know Denis is one of the co-
    founders of Earth Day. That building uses about 10,000 BTUs per
    square foot in a city that averages 90,000, so almost 1/10 of
    the energy use with no compromise on the--it's a beautiful
    building. It's a wonderfully comfortable place to work, and
    they've done it with some low-tech stuff like natural lighting,
    with some high-tech stuff like continuous commissioning, and
    then really interestingly with the regulatory reforms that they
    actually had to work to get the local utility to pay them for
    the benefit they provided the utility for reducing peak energy
    demand in the city of Seattle. And that building was
    commissioned in 2013. There's no reason that technology
    couldn't be widely deployed other than perhaps people having
    access to capital and what those returns are. Can you tell us a
    little bit about the split incentive problem in buildings? Are
    you familiar with that term?
         Dr. Esram. Yeah, of course. The split incentive meaning if
    the landlord is paying for the retrofits and the saving will be
    from the tenants because, you know, they are getting the saving
    on their utility bills.
         Mr. Casten. So when you say that the analysis of some of
    the benefits is--some of the--and I'm going to misquote you
    here, but some of them have a good payback, some of them don't.
    How much would that move if we solve the split incentive? So if
    we took a holistic approach, how many of these problems you--or
    the challenges you described would go away if we said what is
    the total societal savings that would come from these
    investments? If we frame it that way, what are--do you have--
    does it change your answer at all?
         Dr. Esram. Yeah, absolutely. You know, in the commercial
    real estate there's like a 3, 30, 300 rules that on average you
    pay $3 dollars per square foot for utilities, $30 for rent, and
    $300 for your personnel, your salaries. So if we're able to
    quantify all the non-energy benefits and pick a package and the
    investors, the building owners, the business owners, the
    tenants all have more incentives to work together to upgrade
    the buildings.
         Mr. Casten. Well, thank you. And I see I'm about out of
    time, but perhaps we can follow up afterwards because I think,
    again, as we think about making significant investments in our
    Federal building stock, we've got a real incentive to save a
    lot of money for future generations. But as we think about how
    much money we're willing to spend and how to finance that, it's
    going to be important that we quantify those things as much as
    we can and would welcome the opportunity to work with you and
    your colleagues to quantify that as we move forward. Thank you,
    and I yield back.
         Staff. Ranking Member Lucas is next.
         Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    and the Ranking Member. This is a fascinating hearing, and some
    really impressive witnesses today.
         With that, Dr. Tour, I'd like to turn to you and note that
    the Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act,
    SALSTA as a lot of us like to refer to it, creates a long-term
    strategy for investment in basic research and infrastructure to
    ensure American competitiveness in industries of the future.
         So with that, I turn to you. In your testimony you noted
    that you or your companies have received grants from both the
    Department of Energy and the Department of Defense and you've
    also collaborated with the Army Corps of Engineers. Having
    worked with different agencies, do you think a more coherent,
    governmentwide strategy on Federal science and research efforts
    could assist Federal agencies and the national laboratories in
    being a more effective partner to researchers?
         Dr. Tour. Yes, absolutely. Anything that can be done to
    assist these interactions were we can work across because the
    national labs have tremendous facilities, facilities that we at
    universities would love to be able to access. And working with
    the national labs has been terrific. I mean, we have
    representatives here today from Oak Ridge. We've published
    papers just recently with Oak Ridge, and we're doing more. And
    so to facilitate this and then it's not just--then it goes from
    me to then the companies. The companies are able to work, and
    so we have both me at Rice University and the companies working
    with the Army Corps of Engineers, the companies doing much
    bigger projects. We're doing the nano-sized projects, they're
    doing the macroscopic projects, but all working toward the same
    direction. So whatever Congress could do to streamline that
    would be terrific.
         Mr. Lucas. And how do you think such a strategy would
    impact international competitiveness in next-generation
    technologies like building efficiency?
         Dr. Tour. Yes, so one of the things that we have done in
    the past because we didn't have access in the university to
    certain equipment is we've established collaborations with
    overseas universities, and that's a shame. I mean, if we could
    keep it all here in the United States, that would be much
    better. And this has to do with the nanomaterials that are
    going to go into making building materials with a lot less
    footprint of energy. Like I said, concrete and cement, 8
    percent of all CO2 emissions. If we could lower
    that, it is tremendous. And then the jobs then it all effects
    right here. So it would be very good if we could streamline
    that and have to be less dependent on the excellent access to
    equipment, particularly in Asia.
         Mr. Lucas. Dr. Tour, our legislation I mentioned, SALSTA,
    also aims to expand our American STEM workforce pipeline and
    its investment in infrastructure needed to maintain domestic
    research facilities. So I'd ask you the following. What role
    does infrastructure--and by that I mean world-class
    laboratories, top-notch instruments, collaboration,
    collaborative user facilities--have in attracting and keeping
    researchers here in the United States?
         Dr. Tour. This is a very big deal. We have a brain drain
    going on right now because students are going back to their
    home countries rather than becoming professors in the United
    States, which they have traditionally done, because of the lack
    of equipment and the lack of deep support from government
    agencies toward academic research. And they are going home
    because the packages they can get are much better. I've
    testified to Congress before on this same issue, that the brain
    drain that is currently happening in the United States is
    frightening. Many of these people would have stayed in the
    United States had the packages been here, had the equipment
    been here. So if we want to keep the first-class people here,
    we've got to have the infrastructure to maintain this.
         Mr. Lucas. Let me conclude by saying, Ms. Patterson, I
    very much appreciate your comments about the Morrill Act of
    1862. Hopefully, with time and generational societal change we
    are overcoming those deficiencies.
         I'm very proud of the efforts made by Congress in 1890 to
    create the 1890 land-grant universities and the 1994s. At some
    point this is not the right venue we should discuss how we
    address the proper funding of the 1890's. I have one of those
    in my district, Langston University, an outstanding facility,
    but making sure the necessary resources are there so that they
    can be fully utilized by people.
         With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.
         Staff. Ms. Stevens is next.
         Ms. Stevens. OK, great. Well, thank you all so much, and
    thanks to our Chairman. And congratulations to him on his first
    hearing on a critical topic with some great witnesses.
         So our energy efficiency sector employees, you know, just
    shy of 2.5 million people according to the latest data that we
    have from 2019, and it's projected to grow at about, you know,
    3.4 percent year-over-year, and that's according to the
    National Association of State Energy Officials and Energy--our
    Energy Futures Initiative, yet 91 percent of construction
    employers in energy efficiency reported difficulty in hiring
    experienced, trained workers. And we certainly hear from our
    construction and building trade stakeholders here in Michigan
    about our critical workforce shortage, which has been obviously
    exacerbated by COVID-19.
         And energy efficiency in buildings, as we've been talking
    about, has an enormous potential to be a job creator, and we
    want to have equity, we want to have inclusion, we want to
    target the needs, as our Chairman was discussing.
         So, Mr. Hagerman, you discussed the need for workforce
    development and training in the energy efficiency sector. You
    touched on that. Can we shed some light on the role that the
    Federal Government can maintain to help fill this gap, and
    could you also comment on programs at Oak Ridge National Lab
    that are working to address this need?
         Mr. Hagerman. Absolutely. So, first, thank you for that
    wonderful question. And as I said in my--with my written and my
    oral testimony, jobs are--American jobs are so critical as we
    start to decarbonize all the sectors and we actually achieve
    energy efficiency savings for the Nation particularly because
    these are jobs that are--should be un-outsourceable, right? We
    need real people to go in buildings and make them more
    efficient.
         So let me first to speak to what Oak Ridge is doing. And
    of course I think we need to do more. We always need to do more
    to train the available workforce that are actually going to
    make good on the retrofits and all the other activities that
    American companies want to pursue. But we do three main things.
    One, we have the Oak Ridge Institute, which is a collaboration
    with University of Tennessee, where we're trying to grow the
    talent population and pool, pipeline to actually train and
    educate the workforce of the future. In one example, a
    colleague of mine works in the power electronic space. That's a
    space where I think that we need to spend a little bit more
    time and focus on actually making sure that Americans lead the
    intellectual pursuits in power electronics and advanced power
    electronics. It was a little concerning in the renewable space
    we saw Huawei as the No. 1 seller of solar----
         Ms. Stevens. Right.
         Mr. Hagerman [continuing]. At one point in time, right? So
    we need to----
         Ms. Stevens. Yes, we need this to be American jobs. No,
    and, Ms. Patterson, thank you so much for your testimony. I
    wanted to give you back some of your time because I know 5
    minutes goes quick. But you say the lack of representation in
    certain energy efficiency fields specifically that only .3
    percent of architects are Black women. So let's talk about this
    a little bit more. What are some ways--and, you know, I've been
    working on this in my career before I got to Congress, very
    focused on this now, but what are ways in which we can target
    and train workers particularly in communities of color in an
    appropriate and significant way?
         Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much for that question. Yes,
    so we have been working with Department of Energy specifically
    and through the Solar in Your Community Initiative and also
    through their Solar Energy Technology Office around how do we
    start to deploy both kind of the skills and resources to
    support kind of skills building, as well as providing resources
    for entrepreneurs and vendors so they can be competitive in
    this market.
         So one of the--so everything from policymaking like local-
    hire provisions and disadvantaged business enterprise
    provisions that are tied directly to these contracts I think is
    critical so that [inaudible]--and then also ways that we can
    look at the investments in--I think, as we talked before, in
    terms of the HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities) and other educational institutions to ensure that
    we have a pipeline, the good kind of pipeline in terms of
    pathways for folks to enter into these professions are critical
    as well and really working closely with those institutions to
    help to build. And then also the skills training in terms of
    vocational training but it's not necessarily through the
    university, but those--making pathways like we--we're working--
    we're starting a Solar Vets Initiative to help to train--that's
    just--that's tied to the solar that's resources that are
    available that we'd love to see--I think they've cut back on
    their funding. We'd love to see that reignited and fully funded
    in terms of the Solar Vets Initiative, as well as really some
    funding that would target women. We did a project that was
    doing----
         Chairman Bowman. Ms. Patterson, just finish up your last
    thoughts. Sorry about that.
         Ms. Patterson. Yes, it's no problem. So working with
    things like grid alternatives [inaudible] and others that were
    specifically trying to train women and making sure that we have
    funding [inaudible]--thank you.
         Ms. Stevens. Thanks. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
         Staff. Mr. Baird is next if he's available.
         Mr. Baird. I am.
         Staff. OK. You may proceed.
         Mr. Baird. Thank you, sir. You know, I really appreciate
    your having this hearing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Weber. Now, I see our Ranking Member Lucas is on here, too, and
    he's always got an interesting perspective.
         But the thing that I was very interested in, Dr. Tour, I'm
    going to start with you because I found this carbon sink and
    the materials you mentioned kind of fascinating. And you know
    we have a tremendous capability at DOE with the computer
    capacity that we have to be able to advance this kind of
    technology. So I hope we can see a strong future partnership
    between the industry and our national labs and all this kind of
    research. But I would just like for you to elaborate on using
    the material to make cement, airplanes, building materials, and
    how we get that to our rural communities and some of our more
    remote situations. So that's the question.
         Dr. Tour. Yes, so thank you, Representative Baird. This is
    a real material that is transforming right now. So, like I
    said, our production rate is doubling every 9 weeks, so a
    single factory within 3 years will be able to produce hundreds
    of tons of this per day in about 3 years, and that's the
    projection rate. This--the collaborations right now are
    happening with companies that are testing these in concrete and
    asphalt, and one of those entities is the Army Corps of
    Engineers, ERDC, in Mississippi because they have the
    capability to do this, and then there's agreements with
    companies. We are working with big auto manufacturers taking
    their waste plastic because they're responsible now at least
    overseas--they're responsible--the American companies that sell
    overseas are responsible for their plastic in the E.U. now from
    every vehicle, and it's almost 200 kilograms of plastic in a
    car. We've converted that into graphene, we've given it back to
    them to put it into new plastic that goes into cars, so it's
    really a wonderful cycle here.
         And the energy savings are real material. This is real
    material going into then construction, concrete, wood
    composites with wood manufacturers, so this is really beginning
    to transform this. And this is one of the things that's been
    permitted by keeping this in a small company where I can help
    to control this and say, no, we got to get this into these
    products, as well as small companies contacting me that want to
    deploy this. I say, OK, we're not in the big scale deploying
    right now, but that's going to come within a few years and we
    marked down their names and we want to see this deployed.
         Mr. Baird. Fantastic. I find that extremely interesting.
    And with the ag background, some of the materials that you
    could have access to, including forest products that can be
    converted into this kind of material is of great interest to
    me, so I'm glad to see the research that we do, the research
    that you've done making that kind of progress.
         If any of the other witnesses would like to or care to
    make a comment, feel free to do so at this time. I got about a
    minute and 25 seconds left.
         Mr. Hagerman. I--so this is Joe Hagerman with Oak Ridge
    National Lab and, you know, partnerships are a key to our
    science, right? They are one of the fuels for our science. In
    our BTRIC user facility we have 19 active CRADAs (cooperative
    research and development agreements) where we're actively
    working with companies, and companies seek us out. And DOE has
    just announced or has announced a technical collaboration
    program that companies can use and leverage Oak Ridge to solve
    their problems, and I think that's a wonderful way that we can
    augment U.S. companies and make them get to the results that we
    know they can have.
         Mr. Baird. Yes, I think it's important, too, that our
    national labs--I'm very pleased that they're able to do some of
    the basic research sometimes that the industry cannot really
    justify, that that then leads into the kinds of things we're
    talking about here, so thank you very much. And I yield back.
         Dr. Jackson. Can I add as well?
         Mr. Baird. Sure.
         Dr. Jackson. Yes, so I'd like to add as well, coming from
    a background of being a general contractor before going into
    the national lab, really understanding that most general
    contractors are small and don't have the research budgets, and
    so the role of DOE and a national lab being able to provide
    research and through programs such as Building America where
    Building America is actually taking technologies that are
    developed in the lab and working with builders boots on the
    ground to actually deploy this, as well as retrofit
    contractors, and so that's just one example. Better Building is
    another. And then the ABC, Advanced Building Construction, is
    yet another initiative that is intending to do that, to be that
    venue, and now we can develop science, take science, develop it
    into products and bridge that gap, so those contractors like
    myself back in the day could help get technologies developed
    and deployed.
         Mr. Baird. Excellent point, excellent point. I yield back.
    Thank you.
         Staff. Ms. Bonamici is next.
         Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Bowman and Ranking Member
    Weber. Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today
    and for your expertise.
         I know that residential and commercial buildings--we know
    this--are notoriously challenging to decarbonize. But to
    address the climate crisis, we need to meaningfully repair and
    rebuild our Nation's infrastructure in a resilient and
    sustainable manner. So last year I joined my colleagues on the
    Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. We released a bold,
    comprehensive, science-based climate action plan to reach net
    zero emissions no later than midcentury and net negative
    thereafter. Our plan includes many policies to eliminate
    emissions from new buildings by 2030, increased homeowner
    incentives for energy-efficient affordable housing. And I look
    forward to working with my colleagues on this Subcommittee and
    the Full Committee to advance these policies.
         Dr. Esram, I represent a district in northwest Oregon. I
    know you're in the Pacific Northwest as well. In the district I
    represent, the Orchards, which is--was completed in June of
    2015, at the time was the largest certified multifamily Passive
    House building in North America. They anticipated in its 57
    units to have a 90 percent energy reduction for heating and 60
    to 70 percent overall savings in energy use compared to a
    typical building of its size. Not far from the Orchards is the
    headquarters of the First Tech Federal Credit Union, which is a
    five-story 156,000 square-foot building built of cross-
    laminated timber (CLT).
         So in northwest Oregon the industrial sector is turning to
    mass timber as an alternative to steel and concrete, and cross-
    laminated timber, when harvested using sustainable forest
    management practices, can sequester and store massive amounts
    of carbon dioxide. There are still questions about the
    lifecycle assessments of CLT, but the material raises the
    possibility of storing massive amounts of carbon in buildings
    for decades or perhaps in perpetuity.
         So, Dr. Esram, in your testimony you noted that the R&D
    gap in our understanding of lifecycle carbon--that there is an
    R&D gap. So what initiatives could the Department of Energy's
    Building Technologies Office advance to better address embodied
    carbon and operational carbon emissions in building materials,
    equipment, and construction processes?
         Dr. Esram. Well, thanks for the question, Congresswoman.
    The most-needed R&D gap is a standardized way to calculate the
    lifecycle impact of all these materials and also from a
    holistic perspective to consider building as an integrated
    entity, not just pieces, you know, the concrete [inaudible]. I
    think we need to think about what is a target, how to
    standardize it, and also give innovation or freedom to the
    architect, to the builders to create low-embodied carbon
    buildings and not just really at a surface level and go one
    step deeper, standardization, and the most holistic view of
    looking at embodied carbon buildings.
         Ms. Bonamici. And what difference would it make if we had
    those standards?
         Dr. Esram. I think that will make the industry being more
    innovative to actively think about how can they create building
    products that--increase--include multiple benefits for the
    society and for the building owners and for the building
    occupants because currently our so-called lifecycle analysis is
    too narrowly defined on the economic payback of certain
    technologies or constructions. It's just----
         Ms. Bonamici. That's helpful. And I don't want to cut you
    off, but I really want to get a question in to Ms. Patterson.
    And, Ms. Patterson, Portland State University recently released
    a study demonstrating how historically racist redlining housing
    policies in northeast Portland have exacerbated the effects of
    warming temperatures and poor air quality and we--for Black
    people and people of color. Extreme heat events are expected to
    increase in frequency and intensity because of the climate
    crisis and, as a result, these same historically underserved
    neighborhoods will face health risks of increasing
    temperatures, higher energy bills, and inequitable access to
    green spaces.
         And we know that many Federal programs like the DOE's
    Weatherization Assistance Program can't meet current demands.
    So what does this mean for our BIPOC communities and how can
    Congress better support innovative residential weatherization
    and energy practices, particularly for frontline households?
         Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much. Yes. So I think one key
    strategy is to really think about spending priorities across
    the board and think about models that are multi-solving so that
    we don't just think about energy retrofits that are just
    focused on energy reference retrofits through the Department of
    Energy but we think about how we do energy retrofits that are
    tied to other--you know, that are financed through health
    funding because we know that having better indoor air quality
    and better temperature moderation and so forth are better for
    multiple reasons and also tied to resources from Department of
    Labor. So we've put together kind of cross-sector packages in
    order to be able to truly fund these and recognize that it's
    not just about providing one single thing, but it's about
    lifting the quality of housing and the quality of health and
    well-being and think about how each of these sectors contribute
    to that goal. So I think really multi-solving is the key--key
    term here and therefore multisector or multi-funding
    approaches.
         Ms. Bonamici. Great, thank you. And I see my time is
    expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
         Staff. Mr. Garcia is next.
         Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Bowman and
    Ranking Member Weber, thanks for pulling this together. This is
    actually very interesting discussions here. I want to thank all
    of our guests and actually congratulate you all for your
    achievements and your successes in being leaders in your
    respective fields.
         I've got two questions. The first is for Dr. Tour and the
    second is for Dr. Jackson. Dr. Tour, this graphene discussion
    is very interesting. When I saw the writeups for this, I was
    doing some homework yesterday in preparation for today, and
    what I was looking at initially was whether or not the use of
    graphene would become a potential environmental risk like what
    we've seen with PFAS creeping into our water tables. I'm sure
    you're familiar with what PFAS is, the polyfluoroalkyl
    substances. We have a contamination problem in California with
    PFAS getting into our waters. And while I was doing that
    research, I was reading that graphene is actually as it is
    effectively an allotrope of carbon, right? It's a derivative of
    sort of an activated carbon. And I was reading articles where
    graphene may actually be used to remove PFAS as a potential
    filtrate opportunity. Have you seen any research or done any
    research to where the use of graphene within water filtration
    systems can help mitigate our PFAS problems that we're seeing
    in some of our local communities?
         Dr. Tour. Yes, I don't know particularly with PFAS, but I
    know that graphene, these carbon materials are indeed being
    used for water filtration. In fact, I have a company that's
    actually doing that, using graphene in water filtration
    systems. And so--and the thing about graphene is it's already
    naturally occurring. If you have graphite in a riverbed, it's
    shearing off slices of graphene. It's already naturally
    occurring, and that's what makes it all the more attractive in
    that it's a naturally occurring material, hard to access, but
    for water filtration, the PFAS problem, there are other ways
    that we're addressing that. And actually my group is addressing
    particularly that problem, so I know something about that. And
    we've just recently gotten some grant money to do that through
    the Department of Defense to try to address specifically that
    PFAS problem.
         Mr. Garcia. If it's OK, maybe you and I can take it
    offline, but I'd love to connect you with our local water
    districts here in my district in southern California. They're
    struggling with this right now, as many are, but they're on the
    precipice of making very significant investments, and I just
    want to ensure they're looking at all options before we go too
    far downrange. A lot of Federal assistance going into those
    types of programs as well, as you know, so I would love to be
    able to connect you offline if we can with some of our folks on
    our end.
         Dr. Tour. I would be glad to.
         Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. Dr. Jackson, it's hard to
    believe that solar power for residential applications has been
    around for, what, 30 years now, maybe even a little bit longer.
    Can you talk to us a little bit about the generational shifts
    in solar power? I know the cost curve is coming down. You know,
    it's Moore's law really, right? It's double-capacity, half-
    price every, what, 5 or 6 years. We're seeing that real-time.
    Is it just an improvement in efficiencies and costs, or are
    there other sort of revolutionary increments in terms of the
    technology? I know the integration of solar into roof tiles now
    is a new thing, but can you talk to us about how the solar
    industry is actually--what is the state-of-the-art and why is
    that so important right now?
         Dr. Jackson. So I think that's a great question. I think
    we've seen some of the trends because of multiple things. I
    think it's a multifold, one being the materials. We have been
    able to go from some of the traditional semiconductor-type
    materials that we used 30, 40 years ago, and now we're actually
    using even some of organics so even one of the things that's
    been--really NREL has been leading on is perovskites (PV) is
    one where you can basically paint it on. There's YouTube videos
    of painting on of PV device.
         And so one of the things--then the next step is what we do
    as we continue to advance the curve is the soft costs, the cost
    of integration, because if you make a supercheap material but
    it takes a lot integrate it, then the overall effective cost is
    still high. So that's been coming down as well.
         Then finally where I see this going is now what we're
    seeing--actually, it was a Nature Communications paper last
    year where we took those advances in perovskites and other
    types of materials and said what if you actually integrated
    those into your window--into your building facade? So now you
    can see that window that actually is glazing. You can see out
    of it, but by innovating some technology that we have, you can
    make it where it switches, where it's a clear window when it's
    kind of the light it isn't as clear, but then when the sun is
    readily available, it can actually serve as a glaze to help
    with glare while also collecting solar. So you have a--so it's
    taking that perovskites, those types of innovations and
    incorporating into traditional facade and windows to be able to
    take solar innovation to the building envelope to the next
    level.
         Mr. Garcia. That's fantastic. I can go on for hours on
    this stuff. Thanks, guys, for sharing, very interesting
    technologies. And I yield back. I'm out of time. Thanks, guys.
         Staff. Ms. Ross is next.
         Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this be our first hearing. It's really fascinating.
         I want to talk a little bit about your initial theme for
    the hearing, and so--which is how do we get some of these
    technologies that are good for our environment and good for
    people's health in affordable housing. And right now in my
    district I have a--I'm from the Research Triangle area. It's a
    growing area. And we are coming up against a real battle to get
    more affordable housing. At the same time, old--what used to be
    called housing projects are being torn down because they are--
    they're past their useful lives and the living conditions are
    not as good, and we're replacing them.
         And so I'd love to know from any of the panelists where
    there are good examples of sustainable, healthy, affordable
    housing projects in this country or in other countries so that
    when we build again, we build in a way that all residents get
    the health benefits, get the energy-efficiency benefits, and we
    get the environmental benefits. So to anybody, it looks like we
    have a few people who want to jump in. Yes.
         Mr. Hagerman. So this is Joe Hagerman with Oak Ridge. I
    can talk a little bit about our work with Clayton Homes, so
    Clayton Homes is the largest affordable housing manufacturer I
    think in the Nation. We're working with them to apply some of
    the connected-community principles into their manufactured
    housing and make those homes safer, more efficient, and
    healthier in terms of indoor air quality. And this is really
    about adding controls into their normal product and making
    those things world-class and really taking the lessons learned
    from our previous projects in Alabama, Georgia, and with EPRI,
    the Electric Power Research Institute.
         Ms. Ross. And as a follow-up, how can we in Congress
    create incentives to do that? So, you know, some people who are
    in the affordable housing business are in it as a business.
    Other people are in it because they really care about the
    residents. Are there any triggers or incentives that we in
    Congress could provide to have that--these practices--best
    practices be more widespread?
         Mr. Hagerman. Oh, absolutely. So another project we have
    with the Knoxville Community Development Corporation, they're
    actually actively decarbonizing their buildings, and they--
    those are actually their words, right? And so I think we as a
    lab have really learned a lot from that in terms of seeing
    retrofits, and as you talk about best practices for retrofits,
    they need to pivot to see those as decarbonization events
    because it would make the house healthier for the homeowner and
    they'd pay one less bill at the end of the day as well. So I
    think those incentives to really kind rethink retrofits is a
    whole--and incentives to help decarbonize or make the
    justification to decarbonize would help.
         Ms. Ross. Thank you. Does anybody else know of examples
    around the country or around the world, any of the other
    panelists?
         Dr. Jackson. I'll give some--I'll give an example
    [inaudible] because I think one of the things we have to be
    [inaudible] to ensure that we approach the affordable housing
    challenge particularly with retrofits. Those are distinctly
    harder. As the Chairman mentioned, in--because--in New York
    we've seen--the New York Times, we've talked about like some of
    the urban heat island effects, and so a lot of times in
    projects you see the actual temperature change--the temperature
    dynamics in those environments are different, so we have to
    think through them differently to make sure that we have the
    right solution for the right application.
         And so a--we've seen in Europe--some of the things they've
    done in Europe is they use modular construction and actually
    replace the whole building facade. Now, those are some of the
    things that the Advanced Building Construction Initiative
    through the DOE's funding were actually trying to say how can
    we take the best from those things like we--in Energiesprong
    that's done in Europe and say what does that look like or what
    is a modular-type approach that can be used here or a panelized
    approach and say for these types of affordable construction,
    how do we do the best thing for that? Because just because it
    worked in a market rate or advance market community doesn't
    mean it's going to work in an affordable community. And I think
    that's the--that's the challenge that we face is if we do that,
    we have--we end up with a less optimal or a less correct
    solution for those communities that actually need more
    investment.
         So to your question of what we can do, I think we need to
    have a very focused effort on the affordable community so that
    we can make sure we're developing the right solutions for those
    challenges.
         Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Feenstra is next.
         Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Lucas.
         Before I start, I just want to thank each of the witnesses
    for their testimony and sharing their extensive research and
    opinions with us. Iowa's 4th District, where I'm from, is no
    stranger to leading an energy and environmental design. With
    over 65 LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)-
    certified buildings in my district, northwest Iowa takes its
    sustainable buildings very seriously.
         Additionally, I'm an original cosponsor on Ranking Member
    Lucas's SALSTA's Act that includes an increase in the
    investment in the DOE's Office of Science. Their research can
    help support the next generation of clean energy and efficiency
    and technology.
         Dr. Jackson and Dr. Hagerman, I got a question.
    Retrofitting existing buildings, which we have a lot of here in
    the 4th District, is one way to avoid the embodied carbon and
    cost produced from the building and construction process. What
    are some of the most cost-effective and carbon-reducing
    retrofitting techniques that can be utilized today?
         Dr. Jackson. So I'll start. I think the most cost--one of
    the things is it's kind of--you know, as an engineer, it
    depends. It depends on the application in many instances. So
    for the climate, one of the things that you would do is the
    building facade to ensure that you get the biggest bang for
    your buck because that helps you with resilience, particularly
    as we look forward with climate change and making sure that the
    building works today but it also works 50 years from now. So
    the best you can do is a building facade.
         And so now going back to the question Dr. Esram mentioned
    before, we need to ensure that we understand the embodied
    impact of the materials that go into that facade, and so that's
    why we need to continue to advance the research in what--in
    embodied energy so that as we do those facade retrofits that
    can be done today, they can use the least-embodied energy
    approach. So those are--that's one of the most readily
    available.
         Mr. Hagerman. So this is Joe Hagerman from Oak Ridge, and
    I would answer controls and retuning, so controls, if you can
    get your controls right, tune up the equipment, you can save a
    lot of money, and then once we have controls available, we can
    make the schedules fit people's active lives. And then we can
    also expose those controls to the utilities so we can start
    using and leveraging those buildings as a resource of the grid
    to make the grid more resilient, just as we're making your
    house more resilient.
         Mr. Feenstra. That's very good. This is for anybody. So my
    district, we're very high into agriculture production, and so
    we maximize the use of our bio-based materials. As an example,
    Iowa State Centers for Crop Utilization has worked on projects
    like creating adhesives and insulation from crops and crop
    byproducts. These can provide a cost-effective alternative
    instead of petroleum-based products. Is there a way--or how do
    we see that we could expand this research or do you think this
    is a good method that we should be spending our time on in
    future research?
         Mr. Hagerman. So if I could answer that, yes, and, right,
    we see a lot of those types of cellular materials going into
    the feedstock for our additive manufacturing machines, so I
    would encourage you to explore, you know, other uses of those
    materials, too, especially in the advanced construction kind of
    industry and this 3-D printed world we're about to live in.
         Mr. Feenstra. All right. Well, thank you so much, Doctors.
         Mr. Chair, thank you, and I yield back.
         Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. Before we bring the
    hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for
    testifying before the Committee today. The record will remain
    open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the Members and
    for any additional questions the Committee may ask of the
    witnesses.
         The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now brought
    to a close. We are adjourned.
         [Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]