[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]