[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BACK IN ACTION: RESTORING FEDERAL CLIMATE LEADERSHIP
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-382 WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia, opening statement...................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, prepared statement................................ 85
Witnesses
Christy Goldfuss, Senior Vice President for Energy and
Environment Policy, Center for American Progress............... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 165
Kerene N. Tayloe, Cofounder and Executive Director, WE ACT for
Environmental Justice.......................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Additional information submitted for the record\1\
Answers to submitted questions............................... 168
Anna Fendley, Director of Regulatory and State Policy, United
Steelworkers................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Answers to submitted questions............................... 172
Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Answers to submitted questions............................... 176
Submitted Material
Letter of February 5, 2021, from National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al., to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 87
Letter of February 8, 2021, from Julia Olson, Executive Director,
Our Children's Trust, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted
by Mr. Tonko\2\
Letter of February 9, 2021, from Paul N. Cicio, President,
Industrial Energy Consumers of America, to Mr. Pallone, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 92
Letter of February 9, 2021, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice
President of Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 102
Article of February 7, 2021, ``Top union leader: Biden's Keystone
plan wrong, will cost U.S. jobs,'' by Jonathan Swan, Axios,
submitted by Mr. Johnson....................................... 104
Article of February 8, 2021, ``Trumka hits Biden over lost
Keystone XL jobs,'' by Lesley Clark and Carlos Anchondo, E&E
News, submitted by Mr. McKinley................................ 107
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111146.
\2\ The letter has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210209/111146/HHRG-117-IF18-
20210209-SD004.pdf.
Report of Global Energy Monitor and Center for Research on Energy
and Clean Air, ``China Dominates 2020 Coal Plant Development,''
February 2021, submitted by Mr. McKinley....................... 109
Article of February 2, 2021, ``China's new coal power plant
capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world's:
study,'' by David Stanway, Reuters, submitted by Mr. McKinley.. 116
Letter of February 9, 2021, from Anne Bradbury, Chief Executive
Officer, American Exploration and Production Council, to Mr.
Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. McKinley.............. 118
Report of the Department of Energy, ``U.S. Oil and Natural Gas:
Providing Energy Security and Supporting Our Quality of Life,''
September 2020, submitted by Mr. McKinley\3\
Report of North America's Building Trades Union, ``Construction
Job Quality Across the US Energy Industries,'' July 2020,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 121
Fact sheet, ``Job Quality Matters: What Workers Think About
Energy Construction,'' North America's Building Trades Unions,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 142
Report of National Energy Technology Laboratory, ``Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas
from the United States: 2019 Update,'' by Selina Roman-White,
et al., September 12, 2019, submitted by Mr. McKinley\4\
Report, ``The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Federal Onshore Oil
and Gas Lease Moratorium and Drilling Ban Policies,'' by
Timothy J. Considine, Professor of Energy Economics, School of
Energy Resources, University of Wyoming, December 14, 2020,
submitted by Mr. McKinley\5\
Report of the Western Energy Alliance, ``Cost of a Biden Ban on
Public Lands,'' January 2021, submitted by Mr. McKinley........ 144
Statement on Keystone XL Pipeline Decision, LIUNA, January 18,
2012, submitted by Mr. Johnson................................. 146
Article of February 4, 2021, ```It makes you want to give up.'
Keystone workers feel left behind by Biden executive orders,''
by Cara Korte, CBS News, submitted by Mr. McKinley............. 147
Letter of February 9, 2021, from Biotechnology Innovation
Organization to Mr. Tonko, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko...... 156
Report of opensecrets.org, Congressional donations, 1990-2020,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 164
----------
\3\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210209/111146/HHRG-117-IF18-
20210209-SD014.pdf.
\4\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210209/111146/HHRG-117-IF18-
20210209-SD018.pdf.
\5\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20210209/111146/HHRG-117-IF18-
20210209-SD020.pdf.
BACK IN ACTION: RESTORING FEDERAL CLIMATE LEADERSHIP
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:02 p.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Schakowsky,
Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Barragan, McEachin,
Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio),
McKinley (subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, Mullin,
Hudson, Carter, Palmer, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers (ex
officio).
Also present: Representatives Castor and McNerney.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director;
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer,
Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez,
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff
Member; Perry Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy
Director, Outreach and Member Services; Rick Kessler, Senior
Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie
Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator;
Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Elysa Montfort,
Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson,
Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Deputy Chief Clerk; Nikki Roy,
Policy Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications,
Outreach and Member Services; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy
Analyst; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Jerry
Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; William
Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Theresa Gambo, Minority
Financial and Office Administrator; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff
Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King,
Minority Member Services Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority
Chief Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and
Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for
Energy; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health;
Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and
Commerce, Energy, Environment; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior
Professional Staff Member, Energy; and Michael Taggart,
Minority Policy Director.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order.
Good morning, good afternoon, depending on where you are
located, and welcome to the subcommittee's first hearing of the
117th Congress. Today's hearing is entitled, ``Back in Action:
Restoring Federal Climate Leadership.''
I would also like to welcome our subcommittee's new ranking
member, Mr. David McKinley. I have done great work with
Congressman McKinley in the past and look forward to a great
partnership on the subcommittee. Welcome aboard, and look
forward to what will be, I think, a very energized bit of
hearings this year.
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency--and by the
way, we also have new members on the subcommittee, and I
welcome each and every new member. So thank you.
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via video conferencing. Microphones will be
set on mute to limit background noise. The Members and
witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each time
you wish to speak.
Documents for the record, by the way, can be sent to
Rebecca Tomilchik at the email address provided to staff. All
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
the hearing.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
We began the 116th Congress with a hearing called ``Time
for Action.'' It allowed us to understand the latest climate
science, the opportunities to grow America's economy by
deploying clean energy technology and better, safer, more
resilient infrastructure, and the consequences that will befall
future generations of Americans should we fail to act swiftly
and with boldness.
We have already begun to see those future generations pass
unfavorable judgment on current elected leaders for doing so
little, so slowly, at a time when the science and the stakes
for them personally could not be more clear.
That is why, in the 116th Congress, the committee held a
series of hearings focused on achieving economywide, net-zero
emissions no later than 2050. It is why we brought in
stakeholders from far and wide and used their insights to write
and release the CLEAN Future Act, a discussion draft for
national climate legislation spanning our economy.
We saw the need for urgent and ambitious Federal policy
supporting a wide range of technologies that could help us
achieve necessary decarbonization targets in an efficient and
cost-effective way.
This is also why many of us are excited that, in its first
days, the Biden administration has started to build the
foundation for the kind of bold climate action America requires
and needs now. In today's hearing, we can expect to learn more
about the underlying strategies in that first set of Executive
orders, as well as gaps Congress will need to fill to
complement Executive action.
Achieving net-zero emissions will mean transforming our
economy. We know this will not be an easy task. President Biden
knows this too and is calling for a whole-of-government
approach, directing every agency to use existing authorities
and budgets to the fullest to, not only reduce climate
pollution but also spark a new age of innovation, of
environmental justice, of support for workers and their
families and communities, through America's energy transition,
to grow well-paying jobs and to always to put science at the
heart of our public policy.
The Executive order signed by President Biden last month
established for the first time a White House Office of Domestic
Climate Policy, led by the National Climate Advisor, a National
Climate Task Force, and a Special Presidential Envoy for
Climate.
These will be critical to coordinate across agencies in
both domestic and foreign policy. These are wise and welcome
steps, but on their own they are not enough. Congress cannot
turn away from its responsibility any longer. We must act.
At its core, President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is
about making Federal investments and implementing pollution-
reducing standards to drive America's economic recovery and put
millions of Americans to work, modernizing our infrastructure,
and making us a healthier, more competitive, and more just
Nation. This approach will create sound-paying jobs building
America's next generation infrastructure, produce affordable
clean energy, protect public health through cleaner air and
water, and breathe new life into American manufacturing.
Importantly, this agenda recognizes that America can and
should manufacture products with the lowest emissions in the
world. If we don't, America's competitors will make those same
products with much weaker environmental and labor standards.
Our approach must keep America's energy-intensive
industries operating here in the United States, employing
American workers, and moving toward a decarbonized future. And
Congress can help make that happen.
Similarly, the Build Back Better agenda drives these
investments beyond the small confines of existing centers of
wealth and power to reach all neighborhoods, so that low-income
Americans, communities of color, and indigenous communities not
only share in America's prosperous future but bring it to life.
But we cannot stop there. We need rural, deindustrialized,
and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuels
to know they have a big role to play in building America's
future. While sharing the investments and the benefits of
America's climate transformation will be part of the solution,
people must have a seat at the table to be heard and to
participate in the decisions to determine the future economic
development strategies for their own communities.
I look forward to our witnesses' perspectives on the Biden
administration's climate Executive orders and the role for
Congress in moving forward. I am certain that this will be just
the first of many conversations this year focused on how to get
the entire Federal Government tackling climate change with the
needed urgency and scale necessary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
We began the 116th Congress with a hearing called ``Back in
Action: Restoring Federal Climate Leadership.''
It allowed us to understand the latest climate science, the
opportunities to grow America's economy by deploying clean
energy technologies and better, safer, more resilient
infrastructure, and the consequences that will befall future
generations of Americans should we fail to act swiftly and with
boldness.
We have already begun to see those future generations cast
unfavorable judgment on current elected leaders for doing so
little, so slowly, at a time when the science--and the stakes
for them personally--could not be more clear.
This is why, in the 116th Congress, the committee held a
series of hearings focused on achieving economywide, net-zero
emissions no later than 2050.
It is why we brought in stakeholders from far and wide, and
used their insights to write and release the CLEAN Future Act,
a discussion draft for national climate legislation spanning
our economy.
We saw the need for urgent and ambitious Federal policies
supporting a wide range of technologies that could help us
achieve necessary decarbonization targets in an efficient and
cost-effective way.
This is also why many of us are excited that, in its first
days, the Biden administration has started to build a
foundation for the kind of bold climate action America needs
now.
In today's hearing we can expect to learn more about the
underlying strategies in that first set of Executive orders, as
well as gaps Congress will need fill to complement Executive
action.
Achieving net-zero emissions will mean transforming our
economy. We know this will not be an easy task.
President Biden knows this too and is calling for a whole-
of-government approach--directing every agency to use existing
authorities and budgets to the fullest to not only reduce
climate pollution, but also spark a new age of innovation, of
environmental justice, of support for workers and their
families and communities through America's energy transition,
to grow well-paying jobs, and always to put science at the
heart of our public policy.
The Executive orders signed by President Biden last month
established--for the first time--a White House Office of
Domestic Climate Policy, led by the National Climate Advisor, a
National Climate Task Force, and a Special Presidential Envoy
for Climate. These will be critical to coordinate across
agencies in both domestic and foreign policy.
These are wise and welcomed steps, but on their own they
are not enough. Congress cannot turn away from this
responsibility any longer. We must act.
At its core, President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is
about making Federal investments and implementing pollution-
reducing standards to drive America's economic recovery and put
millions of Americans to work modernizing our infrastructure
and making us a healthier, more competitive, and more just
nation.
This approach will create good jobs building America's
next-generation infrastructure, produce affordable clean
energy, protect public health through cleaner air and water,
and breathe new life into American manufacturing.
Importantly, this agenda recognizes that America can--and
should--manufacture products with the lowest emissions in the
world. If we don't, America's competitors will make those same
products with much weaker environmental and labor standards.
Our approach must keep America's energy-intensive
industries operating here in the U.S., employing American
workers, and moving toward a decarbonized future. And Congress
can help make that happen.
Similarly, the Build Back Better agenda drives these
investments beyond the small confines of existing centers of
wealth and power to reach all neighborhoods, so that low-income
Americans, communities of color, and indigenous communities not
only share in America's prosperous future, but bring it to
life. But we can't stop there.
We need rural, deindustrialized, and communities that have
historically relied on fossil fuels to know they have a big
role to play in building America's future.
While sharing the investments and the benefits of America's
climate transformation will be part of the solution, people
must have a seat at the table, to be heard and to participate
in the decisions to determine the future economic development
strategies for their own communities.
I look forward to our witnesses' perspectives on the Biden
administration's climate Executive orders and the role for
Congress moving forward.
I am certain this will be just the first of many
conversations this year focused on how to get the entire
Federal Government tackling climate change with the urgency and
scale necessary.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. With that, I yield back and I recognize the
newly appointed ranking member of our subcommittee,
Representative McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Representative McKinley?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
First, let me congratulate you, Paul, on your return as
chairman. It is an honor for me to have the opportunity to lead
this panel for the Republicans. Look, even if we disagree on
the approach to our country's problems, Paul, I am confident
you too will consider the cost to families and communities and
the overall impact of Executive orders.
Efforts to transform our energy sector should be mindful of
the failures of past regulatory overreach and an inability to
pivot to renewables. Look at the coal industry. When the war on
coal was underway, there was no transition to renewables, but,
rather, those workers adapted their skills for jobs in the
natural gas sector, which is now being threatened.
Or what about the American steel industry? During the '80s
and '90s, excessive government regulations devastated steel
towns and families. Think about it. Just 45 years ago, America
was producing 5 times the amount of steel as China, but now
America is producing less than 90 million tons while China has
exploded to manufacturing a billion tons, 11 times more than
America.
What happened to the tax base, the school systems, and the
healthcare in the communities that have lost these high-paying
jobs of Kaiser, Youngstown Sheet and Tube, McLouth, National,
Bethlehem Steel, and others? The companies and jobs are gone.
The communities have never recovered. Where was the
compassionate transition for those communities and families?
Based on these experiences, neither a President, nor
Congress, should ever put a regulation in place before a
bipartisan transition plan has been adopted.
Mr. Chairman, Republicans are ready to work to develop
renewable energy with you, but the lack of sufficient battery
storage is enormous, and you and I have talked about that. Even
former Secretary Moniz has said dependence on 100 percent
renewables is not yet realistic and certainly not cost
effective.
The path to developing sufficient battery storage in
America will be complex, and I look forward to examining
solutions to that in future hearings.
Mr. Chairman, these new Executive orders will divide--
increase the divide between big cities and rural America, not
foster unity. Think about it. Seventy percent of Alaska's State
revenues comes from fossil fuels; Wyoming, 52 percent; North
Dakota, 45 percent. That money funds their schools, emergency
services, health departments, and pensions. It is how States
operate.
Mr. Chairman, you and I would agree that climate change is
a global problem that requires a global solution. So hopefully
our panelists today won't insult us by saying that rejoining
the Paris Agreement will solve all of America's environmental
dilemma.
Look at paragraph--article 4, paragraph 4 of the agreement,
which says, China, quote, ``should try'' to reduce its
emissions. There is no ``must'' or ``shall.'' There is no
enforcement or penalties when they violate. Meanwhile,
according to financial economists, China is aggressively
building these additional coal-fired power plants that will
equal the entire coal fleet of Europe.
Furthermore, it should be noted that ill-thought policies
to rush to green in the United States will not improve the
global environment and will actually undermine our national
security and decimate our jobs, families, and communities.
We will hear testimony today from Mark Mills of the
Manhattan Institute, who will explain considerations about the
scale and reality of hurriedly replacing America's energy
infrastructure with renewable energy.
Don't forget that, when Joe Biden was a candidate, he said
that Executive orders could become an abuse of Presidential
power.
The solutions to energy and climate change should not be
pursued through Executive orders but rather through consensus
and bipartisan policies that accelerate innovation, ensure
affordable, reliable energy, and enable our American
communities and families to thrive.
But if members of this committee naively think the other
nations are waiting for America to lead, they are wrong.
Nations have not been following. As a result, John Maxwell
summed this up by saying, ``He who thinks he leads, but has no
followers, is merely a man taking a walk.''
So, Mr. Chairman, remember, your party controls the House,
the Senate, and the White House. You can do almost anything you
want, but please don't forget, just because you can doesn't
mean you should.
I look forward to a thoughtful discussion, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley
First, let me congratulate you, Paul, on your return as
chairman.
It's an honor for me to have the opportunity to lead this
panel for the Republicans. Even if we disagree on the approach
to our country's problems, I'm confident you too will consider
the costs to families and communities, and the overall impact
of Executive orders.
Efforts to transform our energy sector should be mindful of
the failures of past regulatory overreach, and an inability to
pivot to renewables. Look at the coal industry. When the war on
coal was underway, there was no transition to renewables, but
rather, those workers adapted their skills for jobs in the
natural gas sector, which is now threatened.
Or what about America's steel industry. During the 80s and
90s, excessive government regulations devastated steel towns
and families. Think about it. Just 45 years ago, America was
producing 5 times the amount of steel as China.
But now, America is producing less than 90 million tons,
while China has exploded to manufacturing a billion tons--11
times more than America.
What happened to the tax base, the school systems, and the
healthcare in the communities that lost the high-paying jobs of
Kaiser, Youngstown Sheet and Tube, McClouth, National,
Bethlehem Steel, and others?
The companies and jobs are gone. The communities have never
recovered. Where was the compassionate transition for those
communities and families?
Based on these experiences, neither a President nor a
Congress should ever put a regulation in place before a
bipartisan transition plan has been adopted.
Mr. Chairman, Republicans are ready to work to develop
renewable energy, but the lack of sufficient battery storage is
enormous.
Even former Energy Secretary Moniz has said, ``Dependence
on 100% renewables is not yet realistic.and certainly not cost
effective.''
The path to developing sufficient battery storage in
America will be complex, and I look forward to examining
solutions to that issue in future hearings.
Mr. Chairman, these new Executive orders will increase the
divide between big cities and rural areas, not foster unity.
Think about it. Seventy percent of Alaska's state revenue comes
from fossil fuels; Wyoming, 52%; and North Dakota, 45%. That
money funds their schools, emergency services, health
departments, and pensions. It's how states operate.
Mr. Chairman, you and I would agree that climate change is
a global problem that requires a global solution. So hopefully
our panelists today won't insult us by saying that rejoining
the Paris Agreement will solve America's environmental dilemma.
Look at article 4, paragraph 4, of the agreement, which
says China ``should try'' to reduce its emissions. There is no
``must'' or ``shall.'' And there is no enforcement or penalties
for violations.
Meanwhile, according to the Financial Times, China is
aggressively building additional coal-fired power plants that
will equal the entire fossil fuel fleet of Europe.
Furthermore, it should concern everyone that ill-thought
policies to rush to green in the United States alone will not
improve the global environment, but will actually undermine our
national security, and decimate our jobs, families, and
communities.
We will hear testimony today from Mark Mills, of the
Manhattan Institute, who will explain important considerations
about the scale and reality of hurriedly replacing America's
energy infrastructure with renewable energy.
Don't forget that, when Joe Biden was a candidate, he said
that Executive orders could become an abuse of Presidential
Power.
So, solutions to climate change should not be pursued
through Executive orders, but rather through consensus and
bipartisan policies that accelerate innovation, ensure
affordable and reliable energy, and enable our American
communities and families to thrive.
But if members of this committee naively think that other
nations are waiting for America to lead, they're wrong. Nations
have not been following. Therefore; John Maxwell summed this up
by stating, ``He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is
merely a man taking a walk.''
So, Mr. Chairman, remember, your party controls the House,
the Senate, and the White House. You can do almost anything
want, but don't forget that ``just because you can, doesn't
mean you should.''
I look forward to a thoughtful discussion and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And again,
welcome, as ranking member to the subcommittee.
The Chair now recognizes the chair of the full Energy and
Commerce Committee, our great chair, Representative Pallone.
You are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Two years ago, when Democrats became the majority, the
first hearing our committee held was on the climate crisis, and
throughout the Congress we worked tirelessly to develop the
legislative solutions needed to address the climate crisis. And
the committee followed up that first hearing with a dozen more
hearings on deep decarbonization, met with countless
stakeholders, and drafted the first comprehensive climate
legislation in the House in a decade, the CLEAN Future Act. And
now as we begin this new Congress, one of this committee's top
priorities remains combating the climate crisis.
The science is clear. We must achieve net-zero greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050 if we are to avoid the most catastrophic
consequences of climate change. And we must take decisive
action this decade to ensure we are on a path to reaching that
target.
Now, with this urgency in mind, I am thrilled that the
Biden administration has hit the ground running on climate.
Before stepping into the White House, President Biden promised
an ambitious, sweeping approach to tackle the climate crisis.
Within his first week in office, he began making good on that
promise.
On day one, the President rejoined the Paris Agreement,
reestablishing the U.S. leadership on the global stage. He then
signed a suite of additional actions on climate and
environmental protection, and these measures include steps to
reverse the Trump administration's climate rollbacks and move
us forward to a clean electricity, clean cars, and
conservation, while pursuing environmental justice and economic
revitalization.
So for too long, communities of color, low-income
communities, fence-line communities, and others on the front
lines of climate change have borne the brunt of environmental
injustice without equal opportunity to participate in the
regulatory process.
But I am really encouraged by the Biden administration's
approach because it balances immediate steps to advance equity
and environmental protection with a robust consultation process
for environmental justice communities to plan future actions.
And as that process moves forward, this committee will play an
essential role in enacting legal protections for overburdened
communities to empower this administration and ensure equity.
President Biden's early actions also underscore what we
have long argued, that climate action presents a unique
opportunity to revive our economy and create good, well-paying
jobs in promising new industries.
The world is moving towards a clean energy future. The
question is whether we choose to lead to ensure our workers
actually benefit from that transition. And the President's
early climate actions are an important part of his jobs agenda.
President Biden is working to ensure that as we Build Back
Better, we create opportunities for all Americans. And his
administration's early actions put workers at the heart of the
clean energy transition, including by applying strong labor and
wage standards.
This committee will play a critical role in advancing
legislation to revitalize our Nation's infrastructure using
well-paid workers and clean materials made in America. An
infrastructure package similar to the Moving Forward Act from
last Congress will modernize our crumbling infrastructure, help
rebuild our economy, and combat climate change.
President Biden also recognizes that the transition to a
clean future will affect different communities in different
ways. That is why he established an interagency working group
focused on creating economic opportunities for communities
impacted by the shift away from fossil fuels.
And, again, this committee will play an important role in
fostering economic revitalization for communities undergoing
these energy transitions.
So taken together, Chairman Tonko, the President's early
actions to address the climate crisis are a welcome change from
the previous administration. It is a new day for climate and
environmental action in the U.S., and this committee, as I
said, is ready to lead.
Today's witnesses will highlight the significance of
President Biden's climate actions, but they will also highlight
the role that Congress and this committee will have to play.
The administration has many tools at its disposal, but the fact
is, without additional legislative action, we can't fully
address the scale, scope, and urgency of the climate crisis,
and legislative action can provide even more tools to ensure
our communities and workers are well positioned to benefit
economically from the ongoing transition to a clean energy
economy.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and how or
where Congress is going to step in, including new legislation
like the CLEAN Future Act that can advance our climate goals.
And I just wanted to say, you know, I heard from our
ranking member of the subcommittee his concern about, you know,
how changes and moving away from fossil fuels may impact
communities. We are very aware of that, and we understand that
we can't leave anybody behind as we move to this clean future.
And I just want to assure you that I and Paul and all of us are
very cognizant of the fact that, if a community is impacted by
the changes, we want to make sure that they share in those
changes and that they have a good job and they are not left
behind.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Two years ago, when Democrats took control of the House,
the first hearing our committee held was on the climate crisis.
And throughout the Congress, we worked tirelessly to develop
the legislative solutions needed to address the climate crisis.
The committee followed up that first hearing with a dozen more
hearings on deep decarbonization, met with countless
stakeholders, and drafted the first comprehensive climate
legislation in the House in a decade: the CLEAN Future Act.
Now, as we begin this new Congress, one of this committee's top
priorities remains combating the climate crisis.
The science is clear: We must achieve net-zero greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050 if we're to avoid the most catastrophic
consequences of climate change. And we must take decisive
action this decade to ensure we're on a path to reaching that
target.
With this urgency in mind, I'm thrilled that the Biden
administration has hit the ground running on climate. Before
stepping into the White House, President Biden promised an
ambitious, sweeping approach to tackle the climate crisis.
Within his first week in office, he began making good on that
promise.
On day one, the President rejoined the Paris Agreement,
reestablishing U.S. leadership on the global stage. He then
signed a suite of additional actions on climate and
environmental protection. These measures include steps to
reverse the Trump administration's climate rollbacks and move
us forward toward clean electricity, clean cars, and
conservation while pursuing environmental justice and economic
revitalization.
For too long, communities of color, low-income communities,
fence-line communities, and others on the front lines of
climate change have borne the brunt of environmental injustice
without equal opportunity to participate in the regulatory
process. But I'm really encouraged by the Biden
administration's approach because it balances immediate steps
to advance equity and environmental protection with a robust
consultation process for environmental justice communities to
plan future actions. As that process moves forward, this
committee will play an essential role in enacting legal
protections for overburdened communities to empower this
administration and ensure equity.
President Biden's early actions also underscore what we
have long argued--that climate action presents a unique
opportunity to revive our economy and create good, well-paying
jobs in promising new industries. The world is moving toward a
clean energy future. The question is whether we choose to lead
to ensure our workers actually benefit from that transition.
The President's early climate actions are an important part
of his jobs agenda. President Biden is working to ensure that
as we build back better, we create opportunity for all
Americans. His administration's early actions put workers at
the heart of the clean energy transition, including by applying
strong labor and wage standards. This committee will play a
critical role in advancing legislation to revitalize our
Nation's infrastructure using well-paid workers and clean
materials made in America. An infrastructure package similar to
the Moving Forward Act from last Congress will modernize our
crumbling infrastructure, help rebuild our economy and combat
climate change.
President Biden also recognizes that the transition to a
clean future will affect different communities in different
ways. That's why he established an interagency working group
focused on creating economic opportunity for communities
impacted by the shift away from fossil fuels. Again, this
committee will play an important role in fostering economic
revitalization for communities undergoing energy transitions.
Taken together, the President's early actions to address
the climate crisis are a welcome change from the previous
administration. It's a new day for climate and environmental
action in the United States, and this committee is ready to
lead.
Today's witnesses will highlight the significance of
President Biden's climate actions, but they'll also highlight
the role that Congress, and this committee, will have to play.
The administration has many tools at its disposal--but the fact
is, without additional legislative action, we cannot fully
address the scale, scope, and urgency of the climate crisis.
And legislative action can provide even more tools to ensure
our communities and workers are well positioned to benefit
economically from the ongoing transition to a clean energy
economy.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how and
where Congress must step in, including how legislation like the
CLEAN Future Act can advance our climate goals.
Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Chairman. And the gentleman
yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Rodgers. Mrs.
Rodgers has been appointed as ranking member of the full
committee. Congratulations. And you are now recognized, Mrs.
Rodgers, for 5 minutes for opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see
the subcommittee back in action, and I look forward to working
with you and all of the members of this subcommittee and the
full committee to keep our energy costs low and to protect our
environment.
I want to congratulate my colleague and my friend, Mr.
David McKinley, for taking the reins for the Republicans on
this subcommittee. I know that he is going to be a powerful
advocate for the people of West Virginia and all of America to
secure our energy future.
When we work together thoughtfully, we can win the future
with policies that serve American families. And this is
especially the case as we advance climate solutions that are
going to work for all regions of the country and our diverse
communities.
Today in America, we are celebrating American energy
independence. It was a goal first promoted by President Jimmy
Carter and Congress when the Department of Energy was
established in the '70s. And in addition, we have met this
goal, while reducing our carbon emissions more than any other
country in the world and keeping our energy costs lower than
any other country, for our families and our businesses.
For too long the discussion about climate policy has been
dominated by the view that there is only one way--the
relentless government-knows-best approach of the environmental
extremists, you know, but a one-size-fits-all, a Green New
Deal-style approach with mandates that never yield the best
results is not going to serve our families or our businesses.
Yet we see that type of thinking time and time again in
proposals that would undermine hydropower, weaken nuclear
energy, kill fossil fuel energy, including clean energy, clean
natural gas. A prime example are policies that would tax and
cap-and-trade away our affordable and reliable energy, our
industries and our manufacturing base.
President Biden declaring a return to global leadership is
proposing this path and weakening the backbone of America's
economic and national security. His Executive orders signal a
push to close off large portions of our oil and natural gas
resources.
This administration is threatening millions of jobs,
billions of State tax revenue, and our Nation's energy
security. It doesn't make sense, especially as we rebuild and
restore our way of life in this pandemic recovery.
The administration has also signaled a slew of Executive
orders that would raise more barriers to affordable energy and
crush our economic opportunity. These actions signal a rapid
push to build out renewable energy at a pace, as we will hear
in this testimony, that I fear is going to hurt low- and
middle-income families the most, renewable technologies that
are a key component of our clean energy future. But top-down
mandates that pick winners and losers are not the way.
I would encourage this committee to look at California with
its renewable energy and electrification mandate. Energy prices
are rising seven times faster than the rest of the Nation--
seven times. High electricity bills hurt our most vulnerable
population, and they drive away the good-paying jobs that we
seek for everyone.
California's energy policies have failed to meet their most
fundamental purpose--keeping the lights on--and we cannot
afford to go down that path. Rather than a plan that is going
to nationalize California's mandate and weaken our grid and
raise prices and export our jobs to other nations, let's
explore a more positive and responsible path. Let's capture all
of the advantages of our abundant resources, including hydro,
fossil fuel, and nuclear technologies.
We can expand our energy. We can provide more opportunity
and prosperity. And the good news is that there is bipartisan
policy. For example, there are opportunity zones and brownfield
reforms to attract new jobs, and licensing reforms to
accelerate LNG exports, nuclear technology, and hydropower.
These can be true game changers.
In Washington State, Energy Northwest is collaborating to
support nuclear technology--TerraPower's Natrium, NuScale's,
and X-Energy's small modular reactors. We have opened doors to
carbon capture technology.
In the recently passed Energy Act, in the USE IT Act, we
support bipartisan technological innovations across the energy
landscape. That is what we should be talking about today. Let's
work together. Let's win the future. We can lead a new era of
innovation, a new era of hope in the American Dream. Let's not
let regulations hold us back and crush our chances of achieving
this.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
INTRO
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it's good to see the subcommittee
back in action.
I look forward to working with you to protect our
environment and keep energy costs low.Congratulations to my
friend, David McKinley, for taking the reins as Republican
Leader of the subcommittee.
I know he'll be a powerful advocate for the people of West
Virginia and all of America for a secure energy future.
When we work together thoughtfully, we can win the future
with policies that serve American families.
This is especially the case when we advance climate
solutions that work for ALL regions of the country and our
diverse communities.
MANDATES
For too long, the discussion about climate policy has been
dominated by the view that there is only one way--the
relentless big government mandated approach of the
environmental left.
But one-size-fits-all, Green New Deal-style mandates never
yield the best results.
Yet we see that narrow thinking time and again--in
proposals that would undermine hydropower, weaken nuclear
energy, and kill fossil energy, including clean natural gas.
A prime example are policies that would tax and cap and
trade away our affordable and reliable energy, our industries,
and our manufacturing base.
President Biden--declaring a return to global
``leadership'--is taking us back to this path and weakening the
backbone of America's economic and national security.
His Executive orders signal a push to close off large
portions of our oil and natural gas resources.
This administration is threatening a million jobs...
billions of State tax revenues... and our Nation's energy
security.
It makes ZERO sense--especially as we rebuild and restore
our way of life in the pandemic recovery.
The administration has also signaled a slew of new
regulatory actions that would raise more barriers to affordable
energy and crush economic opportunity.
These actions signal a rapid push to build-out renewable
energy at a pace that--as we will hear in testimony--will hurt
low and middle income families the most.
CALIFORNIA
Renewable technologies are a key component of our clean
energy future, but top-down mandates are not the way.
Just look at California with its renewable energy and
electrification mandates.
Energy prices are rising seven times faster there than the
rest of the nation. Seven times!
High electricity bills hurt our most vulnerable populations
and drive out better-paying jobs.
California's energy policies have failed to meet their most
fundamental purpose--keeping the lights on.
We cannot afford to follow California's downfall and force
these failed policies on the rest of the Nation.
OPPORTUNITIES
Rather than President Biden's plan to nationalize
California's mandates, weaken our grid, raise prices, and
export jobs to other nations...
... let's explore in this hearing a more positive,
responsible plan to address climate risks.
We can capture all the advantages of our abundant
resources--including hydro, our fossil energy, and our nuclear
technologies.
We can expand affordable energy AND maintain America's
global competitive edge to beat China.
We can provide more opportunity and prosperity in all our
communities, while ensuring America continues to lead the world
in emissions reductions and technologies that make our energy
cleaner.
The good news is there are bipartisan policies we can build
from.
For example, there's the opportunity zones and brownfields
reforms to attract new jobs to communities in need...
... and, the licensing reforms to accelerate LNG exports,
nuclear technology, and hydropower.
These can be true game changers in clean energy, driven by
R&D and reforms that unleash innovation.
In Washington State, for example, Energy Northwest is
collaborating to support nuclear technologies that benefit from
our Federal policies and reforms in recent years.
These include TerraPower's Natrium, NuScale's and X-
Energy's small modular reactors.
We've also opened doors to new carbon capture technologies.
The recently enacted Energy Act of 2020 and USE IT Act
provide support for technological innovations across the energy
and industrial landscape.
These new laws provide the ingredients to drive cleaner
energy and industrial systems.... and a strong, competitive
economy.
We should talk today about what else is needed to remove
the barriers to licensing, permiting, and deploying new
technologies.
Our goal must be to understand what will work for our
environment, our economy, and our security.
They are all tied together.
To win the future, we can lead a new era of innovation--a
new era of hope in the American dream.
Let's not let regulations hold us back and crush our
chances of achieving this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, all Members' and witness' opening statements shall be--
or their written opening statements shall be made part of the
record.
So, with that, now we will move to our witnesses, and we
welcome them all. We thank them for participating in today's
hearing and look forward to their message.
We begin with Ms. Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president
of energy and environment policy at the Center for American
Progress. Next, we have Ms. Kerene Tayloe, Esquire, director of
Federal legislative affairs with WE ACT for Environmental
Justice. We are going to have Ms. Anna Fendley, MPH, director
of regulatory and State policy with USW, the United
Steelworkers. And finally, Mr. Mark Mills, senior fellow with
the Manhattan Institute.
We, again, welcome each and every one of you and thank you
for your input in advance.
At this time, I recognize Ms. Goldfuss for 5 minutes to
provide her opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTY GOLDFUSS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS;
KERENE N. TAYLOE, COFOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WE ACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ANNA FENDLEY, DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AND
STATE POLICY, UNITED STEELWORKERS; AND MARK P. MILLS, SENIOR
FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
STATEMENT OF CHRISTY GOLDFUSS
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers,
Subcommittee Chairman Tonko, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
McKinley, for inviting me to participate in this important
discussion.
I am the senior vice president for energy and environment
policy at the Center for American Progress, and ran the White
House Council on Environmental Quality during the Obama
administration.
I am incredibly excited to be here today to discuss how the
Federal Government can build a hundred percent clean future
that addresses the climate, economic, racial justice, and
public health crises faced by our country.
These crises are inextricably linked. The many extreme
weather events last year were fueled by climate change and hit
during a devastating pandemic that created the economic crisis
and further laid bare the racial injustices in our society.
Former President Donald Trump exacerbated these crises
through policies that moved the country backwards and stymied
nearly all growth toward a clean energy future. But since then,
building on the bold foundation laid by previous congressional
proposals, the Biden administration has acted swiftly to
reverse the damage, restore public health and environmental
protections, and move the country quickly and ambitiously
forward.
These crises cannot be ignored, but they can be addressed
together by acting on climate, through both the executive and
legislative branches of government, and we now have the
political opportunity and the moral obligation to do so.
For so long, climate action and climate policy have been
focused on costs instead of opportunities, sacrifices instead
of gains. We must recognize that investing in climate action
not only reduces emissions but is critical to economic recovery
and can directly and meaningfully improve people's lives.
Sustained climate investments, designed correctly, will
create good-paying, high-quality unionized jobs here at home in
the U.S. that all people can access, especially people in
underserved communities.
The Biden administration has stated that its planned $2
trillion investment program in infrastructure could create as
many as 10 million new good-paying jobs, including for workers
in industries displaced by the transition to a clean future,
such as fossil fuel workers.
Investing in climate action will also promote equity and
help dismantle systemic racism and economic inequality. Low-
income communities and communities of color have for too long
suffered from a toxic legacy of unjust pollution in their
neighborhoods.
The Biden administration's dedication to directing 40
percent of all of these investments benefits to communities
sets a new standard for equity and justice. Today's climate
policy centers on the immediate benefits and returns, both in
terms of emissions and economic recovery that can come from
large-scale public investment in clean energy.
The introduction of legislation such as this committee's
own CLEAN Future Act and 100% Clean Economy Act, complemented
by last year's House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
report, have set the stage for swift and long-lasting climate
action that matches the scale and scope of the challenges we
face.
The ambitious climate commitments that the Biden
administration has initiated through Executive order in his
first weeks in office are excellent. However, as you all know,
to fully address the current crises and achieve the much-needed
and permanent clean energy future, congressional action will be
necessary.
The first and most significant congressional action needed
to tackle climate change is the enactment of a major, long-term
investment program following the American Rescue Plan to create
good-paying, clean jobs. This will help to build the economy
back, to be more just and equitable, and to set the country up
for a successful transition to a hundred percent clean future,
starting with hundred percent clean electricity by 2035.
These investments need to be focused on long-term recovery,
not relief. Congress now has the opportunity to use every tool
in its toolbox to tackle climate and the economy, including but
not limited to a clean energy standard, a clean energy and
sustainability accelerator that targets 40 percent of
investments to disadvantaged communities, the Environmental
Justice For All Act, and major investments such as through
long-term predictable clean energy tax credits, the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act, or the Low Income Housing and Energy
Assistance Program.
Climate change has accelerated over the last 4 years, and
the level of action that is needed has also shifted. But
scientifically and politically, the Biden administration's
actions on climate reflected this change in consensus.
President Biden's day one actions began to restore global
leadership on the climate crisis and roll back harmful Trump
regulations.
In conclusion, this is a turning point. Congress must act
boldly to create the hundred percent clean future we need, one
that supports family-sustaining, good-paying jobs, cuts
pollution in communities that have suffered too long, and
creates a just and equitable clean energy economy.
Thank you for inviting me today, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goldfuss follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Ms. Goldfuss, for your
participation.
Next, we will move to a 5-minute opening statement from Ms.
Tayloe, please. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Please
unmute.
STATEMENT OF KERENE N. TAYLOE
Ms. Tayloe. Good afternoon, Chairman Pallone, Ranking
Member Rodgers, Chairman Tonko, and Ranking Member McKinley. My
name is Kerene Tayloe, and I am director of Federal legislative
affairs for WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
WE ACT was founded more than 30 years ago and responds to
overt environmental racism impacting our community in West
Harlem. Since then, we have grown to a staff of 16, with
offices in both DC and New York. We are one of the first people
of color-led EJ organizations in New York State and the only
grassroots EJ organization with a permanent presence in DC.
To address the climate crisis and environmental injustice,
Congress must pass equitable and just legislation that will
provide tangible benefits to communities targeted by pollution.
I urge Congress to pass the Environmental Justice For All Act
that was introduced by Congressman Raul Grijalva and
Congressman Donald McEachin.
This comprehensive bill reflects more than a year of
engagement with grassroots environmental justice advocates and,
more importantly, requires consideration of cumulative impacts
in permiting decisions under both the Clean Water and Clean Air
Act. This will ensure the protection of human health in
communities that are inundated with industrial toxic emissions.
The bill would also codify Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice, which ironically turns 27 this week,
directing Federal agencies to create a working group on
environmental justice compliance and enforcement, something
that is long overdue.
Secondly, we must address legacy pollution. Last year, a
study from the Shriver Center on Poverty Law found that 70
percent of hazardous waste sites on the National Priorities
List are located within 1 mile of federally assisted housing. A
Harvard University study found that counties with high exposure
to particulate matter also experienced high COVID-19 mortality
rates.
Substantial investments into remediating Superfund sites,
brownfields, abandoned coal mines, and former defense sites,
and lead pipe replacements are desperately needed.
Last Congress, we supported the Environmental Justice
Legacy Pollution Cleanup Act, supported by Senator Cory Booker
and Representative Deb Haaland, which would invest $100 billion
to clean up legacy pollution sites across the Nation. This is a
substantial amount of money, and in order to address historical
environmental injustices, we need bold action, particularly to
make up for decades of Federal inaction that has permitted
industry to pollute without repercussion.
We will continue to support this bill and hope that other
members of the Energy and Commerce Committee will do the same.
The clean energy sector in the United States lost 429,000
jobs last year due to the economic impacts of COVID-19. That is
12 percent of that sector's workforce since March, with women,
Black, Latinx workers disproportionately impacted.
Environmental justice leaders understand that we must
remediate our communities and create good-paying jobs. At WE
ACT, our own Solar Uptown Now program has trained more than 125
local residents in solar installation and has helped 2,000
residents get their OSHA cards and begin careers in the
construction industry.
We must also address the failures of our education system
and incorporate climate literacy in our public schools.
Teenagers in the United States continue to lag behind East Asia
and Europe in reading, math, and science. Latinx and African-
American students are less likely to pass Algebra I and less
likely to attend high schools that offer up advanced math or
science classes than their White and Asian peers, according to
the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.
How can we address the climate crisis and create good-
paying jobs if we are not equipping all children with the
skills needed to get the certifications required to install
solar and wind technology?
Last year, we also supported Congressman Bobby Rush's Blue
Collar to Green Collar Job Development Act, which would
reauthorize and expand the Department of Energy's Office of
Minority Economic Impact to improve the education and training
of underrepresented groups for employment in energy-related
industries, including manufacturing, engineering, construction,
and retrofitting jobs. Of particular interest is the bill's
emphasis on grants to schools and nonprofits like our own who
already have workforce development and solar training programs.
These suggestions that I have provided today only scratch
the surface of what is needed to really bring climate and
environmental justice to our communities. I have submitted a
number of documents to the record, including our policy agenda,
our green jobs report, and our report on extreme heat. And I
hope that you all will take a look at those.
But most importantly, I want to thank you for the time for
allowing me to testify today, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tayloe follows: \1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional information submitted by Ms. Tayloe has been
retained in committee files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111146.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome, and the participation is
most appreciated.
Next, we will go to Ms. Fendley for 5 minutes for your
opening statement, please, and remember to unmute.
STATEMENT OF ANNA FENDLEY
Ms. Fendley. Yes, thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers,
Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member McKinley, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
behalf of the members of the United Steelworkers Union.
Since January 20, President Biden has taken some important
actions to address climate change, such as rejoining the Paris
Agreement, creating an interagency working group on energy
communities in transition, and prioritizing environmental
justice.
The Biden administration's early actions have demonstrated
that efforts to address climate change are largely economic
policies. The whole-of-government approach outlined in the
President's Executive orders sets up a promising framework in
which climate policies will not be designed and implemented in
a vacuum by environmental policy experts. Instead, appointees
and career staff across the Federal Government will work to
ensure that climate action is paired with sound economics. Our
hope is that this framework retains and grows middle-class
union jobs in a diversity of sectors and geographies, an
immense challenge that we cannot overstate but what must be our
ultimate policy goal.
This is why our union views the Executive orders on
climate, in conjunction with the order on Buy America policy.
The newly created Made in America Office must be empowered to
fulfill the rhetoric of the order and to bring better
consistency and organization to procurement preferences
throughout the Federal Government.
Congress can and must hold the administration to this goal.
This is critical, not only for the economic crisis, but the
climate crisis as well. Buying American is a commonsense way to
show Federal leadership. If necessary materials are not
produced here, they will be produced elsewhere. And in most
cases, that production will result in more greenhouse gas
emissions.
For example, research found that among major steel-
producing nations, the United States is among the lowest in
terms of both energy intensity and carbon intensity. And this
pattern doesn't just hold for steel.
As our union has seen, when U.S. production is
disincentivized, it is most often replaced by imports from
China. Failure to prevent this in the development of climate
policies would be doubly catastrophic, causing a loss of jobs
here in the U.S. paired with an increase in greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the products consumed here.
Now, these are good first steps, but there is more to be
done. Both Congress and the administration must place a special
emphasis on infrastructure and investing in manufacturing
competitiveness. Americans need aggressive investment in a
modernized infrastructure to address the climate crisis and
recover from this economic crisis, because American jobs depend
on our infrastructure's strength.
Throughout infrastructure investment, policymakers should
direct funding to programs that already apply a strong buy-
America preference and include Buy America in new funding
authorizations. This way, policy will create both construction
and manufacturing jobs across the country.
Congress should look to invest in all types of
infrastructure, including all forms of transportation, water,
buildings, energy, and technology.
In addition to Buy America, Congress and the administration
should implement a buy-clean consideration within procurement
programs. Similar policies are being considered around the
world, making low emissions manufacturing a necessity to remain
globally competitive in the long term.
Buy clean should begin with transparency and investment in
manufacturing facilities, which leads to a second major goal
for climate policy: growing a more efficient domestic
manufacturing base.
American leadership in inventing and in manufacturing the
most advanced technologies was once a cornerstone of a strong
and growing middle class. However, there is much to be done to
innovate and transform existing industry, invest at scale in
manufacturing, and ensure that our economic recovery is built
to work long term for workers, communities, and our Nation's
competitiveness.
We need a national strategy on industrial transformation
and clean technology supply chains that is coordinated among
Federal agencies and expands funding in existing programs,
particularly those at the Department of Energy. And as Congress
discusses spending for economic recovery, access to capital
will be critically important to achieving emissions reduction
goals in industry.
And, of course, policymakers must address leakage in the
global marketplace for manufacturers. This speaks to the
importance of the Biden administration's whole-of-government
approach, where economists and trade experts must be at the
table.
In conclusion, Congress and the administration must invest
in rebuilding our infrastructure and our manufacturing base to
ensure that working people are at the center of our Nation's
climate ambition and economic recovery.
I thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fendley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Fendley.
And, finally, we will move to Mr. Mills for your opening
statement, please, 5 minutes, and remember to unmute, please.
STATEMENT OF MARK P. MILLS
Mr. Mills. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. And, as you
know, I am a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where I
focus on science, technology, and energy issues. And I am also
a faculty fellow at the McCormick School of Engineering at
Northwestern University, where the focus is on future
manufacturing technologies.
And for the record, I am a strategic partner in a venture
fund that is focused on software startups--startup companies
that focus on energy markets.
Since the purpose of this hearing is to explore actions
directed in the main at changing the energy supply system of
the United States, permit me to highlight some of the realities
anchored in the science of energy.
As the committee knows, 80 percent of the Nation's energy
comes from hydrocarbons--oil, natural gas, and coal--and
internal combustion engines account for 99 percent of all
transportation miles. Meanwhile, at the moment, wind and solar
supply are less than 4 percent of U.S. energy, and electric
cars today are under half of 1 percent of road miles.
Given the scale of our economy, changing that status quo
presents some rather daunting economic, environmental, and
geopolitical challenges, I think must be considered.
First, the cost of a complete grid restructuring would be
far greater than popularly acknowledged. The administration has
proposed spending $2 trillion on climate programs across seven
large domains. But, for the electric grid alone, analyses show
that we would have to spend at least 5 to 6 trillion dollars in
wind, solar, and battery hardware and systems to replace the
existing hydrocarbon generation. And doing so by, say, 2035,
would require a continuous construction program, at least 600
percent bigger than any single peak year for utility
construction that has occurred in the United States or China or
Germany in any time over the past half century.
It is true, of course, this would create jobs, but I think
it is important to point out that the final product remains
unchanged, so--and it uses more labor and capital.
So, in economic terms, the way economists think about this,
this reverses a long-run goal of increasing productivity. And,
as you know, productivity is the single most important feature
of any economy. It is the one that expands overall wealth for
all of the citizens. And none of this includes the need for the
enormous expansion of our grid if a significant share of cars
do, in fact, shift--and they will shift--from oil to
electricity.
In the end, it bears noting that there is an arithmetical
outcome in this. The new grid, the decarbonized grid, would
reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by less than 6 percent
and at rather substantial cost to America's economy.
Grid restructuring and accelerating electric cars also
means exporting jobs and offshoring of environmental
consequences. Some 90 percent of solar panels in America are
imported, as are 80 percent of the key components for wind
turbines.
Asian companies, and China in particular, utterly dominate
global battery production and account for 80 percent of all the
planned new factories for battery production. They also
dominate the mineral production, the mineral fining and
materials production for batteries and its components.
Even if we expand domestic manufacturing, which I endorse,
our import dependencies will remain. In fact, they will
increase because of the need for the critical minerals and
materials that are inputs to all those machines.
On average, it is important to know that scientifically the
per unit of energy delivered, the quantity of materials
extracted from the Earth and processed for clean technologies,
is 500 percent to 1,000 percent greater than the quantity of
materials associated with producing the same quantity of energy
from hydrocarbons.
As it stands today, China dominates the firms that produce
and process all the critical materials and their rare earth
elements, which have been in the news a lot of late.
And nearly all of the growth in mining to supply the clean
tech industries is expected to occur offshore and, frankly,
increasingly in the fragile and biodiverse wilderness areas,
which is of some concern to the United Nations Environment
Program.
So, of course, more mining can be done in an
environmentally responsible way, but so far, I haven't seen
much evidence of support for opening new mines in America.
These are just some of the kinds of challenges I think we
should be aware of and are part of the calculus for Congress as
we seek new ways to meet society's energy needs in the future.
With that, I thank you very much. Look forward to talking
about this further.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Mills, thank you. And thank you to each of
our four panelists. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your
input. And we will now move to questions that Members have of
our panel. I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
We have mentioned the President's Executive order on
tackling the climate crisis, but that same day he also signed
an order on scientific integrity and evidence-based
policymaking.
Ms. Goldfuss, can you explain briefly how these two
Executive orders are intended to complement each other and the
importance of relying on scientists and experts in developing
climate policy and setting pollution reduction targets?
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you for the question, Subcommittee
Chairman Tonko. What we saw over the last 4 years with the
Trump administration was an unprecedented persecution of
scientists in the Federal Government, and really what that has
led to is removing science and data and facts from our
policymaking.
So, by accompanying this scientific integrity Executive
order with the climate change Executive order, what President
Biden was saying is, whether it is addressing the pandemic and
looking at the data necessary to do that in a meaningful way or
addressing climate change, we know and understand that science
needs to drive those decisions.
In addition to all the other data and information that we
get about how a policy impacts people's lives, science has to
be at the center, so that we can look around the corner and do
and make the best decisions possible for the American public.
So really it was the two of these Executive orders together
that put us on the strongest footing in terms of our climate
policy.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I believe also that climate
targets should be based on sound science. Our committee's
efforts have focused on achieving economywide, net-zero
emissions by no later than 2050, based on the scientific
consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
So, Ms. Goldfuss, that same 2050 target, I believe, is
included in President Biden's climate Executive order. Is that
correct?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes. There is an embrace of the net-zero-by-
2050 target. He has also committed in his plan that was
released over the summer to a hundred percent clean energy,
clean power, in the power sector by 2035. And it is really
important that we focus on that power sector goal if we are
going to achieve the midcentury goal.
Mr. Tonko. Well, with the 2050 target, why does that
matter? What do we risk if we don't meet that target?
Ms. Goldfuss. What we saw in the 1.5 degree special report
is that we have locked in a lot of the warming that we have
already seen to date. So, even if we meet that midcentury
target, this is not like a car that immediately turns around
and we can reverse all of the impacts.
It will take time for the warming to stop and for us to
stabilize our climate impact. So this is what science tells us
we need to do by midcentury in order to stabilize the warming
and then reverse course where possible.
Mr. Tonko. Well, we know that it is not going to be an easy
task, but it requires transforming certainly of every sector of
our economy. We can't do that overnight. So, Ms. Goldfuss, if
we want to achieve that 2050 target, how important is it for us
to make significant progress toward that goal in the next 10
years, in the 2020s?
Ms. Goldfuss. We are at a race against time right now. This
next decade is our last best opportunity to make progress here.
And we understand this isn't going to--our economy is not going
to change. So we are looking at a transition over the next
several decades that really shifts the entire way we power our
country. And the importance of getting this right and doing
this in the next 10 years is essential to meeting those goals
by midcentury. If we lose that time, we really don't have the
chance to get back on track.
Mr. Tonko. And, as this committee considers climate change
legislation, do you think we should recognize the importance of
action this decade by setting an interim target for 2030?
Ms. Goldfuss. Absolutely. I mean, you can't succeed without
tracking and measuring your success along the way. So we really
need to have benchmarks so we know how successful we are being,
whether or not we need to change course in our policy
recommendations or our policy decisions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Ms. Tayloe, should a 2030 target--and all of our
climate goals, for that matter--be informed by the voices of
environmental justice communities?
Ms. Tayloe. Definitely. Unfortunately, historically when we
look back at the treatment of Black, Brown, and indigenous
communities in the United States, we have typically been the
sacrifice zone for the energy choices and the choices we made
in our government and our country. If we are serious about
addressing the climate crisis, environmental justice must be
integral in network.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I couldn't agree more, and I just want to
say how refreshing it is to hold a hearing on positive actions
the administration is taking to affirm science, address climate
change, and pursue environmental justice. So honored by all of
that.
So I have exhausted my time. I will now move to our ranker
of the subcommittee. Representative McKinley, you are
recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have submitted
a document for the record. Has it been approved?
Mr. Tonko. Well, let me check.
Has the document been approved?
They are reviewing it as we speak, and we will----
Mr. McKinley. OK, good. The document is fairly----
Mr. Tonko. OK. We are going to address all the documents at
the end of the hearing.
Mr. McKinley. OK. The document is fairly simple. It is just
a document indicating that--from the United Steelworkers, that
we are just showing that over the last recent years, numbers of
years, that they have not worked with us in unity and
bipartisan--99.6 percent of their contributions have gone to
the Democrats.
So I appreciated their remarks, because I agree, coming
from a steel area, I can relate to the steelworkers.
But let me just--let me get to my primary remarks and
questions, because what I was hearing, Mr. Chairman, was that
Biden's transition from fossil fuels is going to--we got to
have alternative employment if we are going to do that. But we
look at what John Kerry said. He says, ``President Biden wants
workers to have alternatives.'' He goes on to say ``to make
solar panels.''
Gina McCarthy says workers from coal communities will be,
quote, ``put to work making solar panels.'' And even Vice
President Harris said displaced workers, coal miners, can work,
quote, ``reclaiming abandoned land mines.'' I am not sure she
meant to say that, but, nevertheless, that is what was said.
So I am saying that, Mr. Chairman, let's be fundamental.
There are no solar panel or wind turbine manufacturing plants
in Gillette, Wyoming; Hazard, Kentucky; Cadiz, Ohio; or Welch,
West Virginia. These are communities that are based on fossil
fuels with downstream jobs in steel fabricating, concrete
plants, machine shops. So I don't understand what these
alternatives--these towns and these workers don't have other
alternatives. You have to understand, these are small towns.
They don't have choices.
So I guess they have three choices, if they have any. One
is be underemployed, go from $85,000 job to 20. They could
commute hundreds of miles to find some other job someplace else
and leave their families. Or the third option, I guess, is
relocate.
So if I could, to the Steelworker Union, are these the best
options we have? Anna?
Ms. Fendley. Thank you for the question. Sorry, it took me
a moment to come off mute.
I think we see this slightly differently. I mean, there
certainly historically has been a discrepancy between where
renewable jobs have been created and some of the devastation we
have seen, particularly in coal communities. In a----
Mr. McKinley. OK. I am not getting a straight answer on
that. I am saying that the same thing is, yes, this may happen
over a period of time, but I am saying that, where was this
transition plan for the workers of the Keystone Pipeline or the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline or the Mountain Valley Pipeline? Their
jobs were cut overnight. They don't have a transition. So I am
very concerned about our idea of having a transition plan.
So now, if I could go back to--with Mr.--with the Manhattan
Institute. Wouldn't it be better to be investing in innovation
and research, like dealing with carbon capture, rather than
importing and relying on other countries like China for rare
earths and critical materials? I would like to hear his
comments. Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills. Well, let me first go on record with saying, and
as I have said before, I am fully supportive of building more
factories in America that can make solar panels and batteries.
I am in support, and have asked many times in the past the
Congress to think about encouraging more mining and mineral
processing in America and more steel production in America. So
I am an unabashed endorser of more of all of these jobs in
America.
As a practical matter, that takes time, as you said, and
over the coming years, as we accelerate the incentives and
requirements for wind, solar, and batteries, that necessarily
means exporting jobs. It just does. Because, as I said in my
opening remarks, 90 percent of solar panels are now imported.
We can't build factories fast enough. We surely can't open
mines fast enough to get the critical minerals for batteries.
So, as a practical matter, in the coming decade, you know,
it is arithmetically and scientifically and economically
impossible to have any other consequence but exporting the
environmental consequences of those activities to other
countries and exporting the primary jobs for those machines to
other countries. So I think it is a very thorny problem for
Congress to deal with. I fully endorse the idea of, you know,
encouraging more production in America. But this is--we have to
be honest about what it will mean right now.
Mr. McKinley. If I could, Mark, just jump in, but what
happens to Gillette, Wyoming; Hazard, Kentucky; Cadiz or Welch?
What happens to those in the meantime? There are no other
alternatives.
Mr. Mills. Look, we know the--you laid out the three
answers. There are no other answers if jobs disappear
overnight, which they can when bans are enacted or things are
canceled, obviously.
But I am slightly more optimistic about the ability to do
retraining in the modern era than we were in the last 30 years,
but that takes time too, right? You can, quote, ``repurpose''
workers to other things, but that doesn't--they have to have a
factory. We don't make solar panels in any significant quantity
in America, so there is no place to go. You can install more of
them, but those are, as everybody knows, important jobs, but
they are very low-wage jobs.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Representative Pallone, for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
As I mentioned in my opening, the committee drafted
comprehensive climate change legislation last Congress, the
CLEAN Future Act, and I have been pleased to see significant
similarities between the CLEAN Future Act and the early climate
actions that have come out of the White House. Both approaches
emphasize environmental justice, both seek to use climate
action as a means to create jobs--good jobs--and both recognize
that different industries and sectors will require different
solutions.
So I wanted to start with Ms. Goldfuss. Are there some
industries or sectors that will be able to decarbonize more
quickly, and which ones and how quickly, recognizing that, you
know, this is not a one-size-fits-all situation? Ms. Goldfuss.
Ms. Goldfuss. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Chairman Pallone.
The power sector is really going to be the key during the
Biden administration, how quickly can we deploy as much
renewable energy as possible. President Biden referenced clean
electricity standard, as you all did as well in your
legislation, as a really promising policy approach that sets
goals for the amount of renewable energy deployment. It sets a
standard. We have seen more than 17 States deploy similar
styles of this policy and have been really successful. It is
focused on the outcome that we want to see, not punitive
measures.
So we are pretty optimistic that a clean electricity
standard could be a key component of this proposal. Also
investments, the ICC and PPC in wind and solar have been some
of the most promising climate policy that we have seen over the
past decade. They have had an incredible impact on the cost of
renewables.
We need to expand, make those tax credits more reliable
longer term so that wind and solar and other clean forms of
energy really can expand at the rate that we need.
So I think it is the power sector, the power sector, the
power sector. We also have to be supportive of transportation,
but the shift in change will be slower than what we can see
over the power--in the power sector over the next decade.
Mr. Pallone. And I want to get to Ms. Fendley, but let me
just ask you quickly, what is Congress' role in moving the
electricity sector to decarbonize by 2035?
Quickly, because I want to get to Ms. Fendley.
Ms. Goldfuss. It is those investments. And then really if
we are going to reach those targets, it is paramount that
Congress take action to give EPA the full authority and to
explore a full policy like a clean electricity standard.
Mr. Pallone. All right. So the President's early actions
included significant efforts to use Federal Government's
purchasing power to support decarbonization in some sectors.
Ms. Fendley, how can President Biden's early actions on
procurement help decarbonize these challenging sectors? And how
can Congress go further?
Quickly, because I have one more question of you.
Ms. Fendley. Sure. Quickly, his early actions showed the
leadership of creating markets and buying from manufacturers,
and we think that this can be paired with action from Congress
on a buy-clean policy, which we have talked to many companies
and industry associations about the manufacturing to really
show and buy from American manufacturers who are cleaner than
their foreign counterparts.
Mr. Pallone. All right. So, just as--in a follow up, we
know that COVID-19 has done, you know, a lot of damage. And
there is maybe an opportunity now to bolster our economy by
investing in infrastructure, which will hopefully require a lot
of American-made steel and cement. You know I want to see a
major infrastructure bill.
So how can a preference below emissions materials to a buy-
clean program, for example, you mentioned, help decarbonize
these sectors? And can we design such a program to ensure that
imported products are held to the same emission standards as
domestically manufactured products?
Obviously, I would prefer made in America, but I don't want
these other things to be awful either if they are imported.
Ms. Fendley. Right. Well, we have proposed starting with
transparency on the embodied carbon or the emissions associated
with production of materials used in major infrastructure
products and materials. And using the data collected from that
to direct investment into decarbonizing sectors, manufacturing
sectors that really need help decarbonizing. And then
eventually only having the Federal Government purchase
materials that meet very reasonable standards for embodied
carbon.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, thank you very much. I really
think we have to use every tool we can, you know, to address
climate actions, but obviously anything that is done should be
oriented towards American products.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The chairman yields back. The
Chair now recognizes ranking member of the full committee
Representative Rogers. Mrs. Rodgers you are recognized for 5
minutes of questions, please.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
of our witnesses. I think that we need to recognize the
tremendous advances in the United States to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and meet clean air goals. There is no question
the United States is leading the world in greenhouse gas
emissions.
Last November, EPA released some data showing that between
2018 and 2019 total greenhouse gas emissions from large
facilities in the United States fell by nearly 5 percent, so
for power plants we are leading the world. Greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants decreased by 25 percent between
2011 and 2019. You know, we have brought down our carbon
emissions to the lowest that they have been since 1992, and per
capita emissions are the lowest since 1950. And it is
accomplished through this tremendous free enterprise system and
the benefits of our shale revolution, not because of the Paris
Agreement.
And I think it is interesting to note that right now not a
single European Union country is within 80 percent of its
target for emission reductions. All but 5 haven't even achieved
50 percent of their current target. It continues to be China
and India that is driving global carbon emissions, accounting
for nearly half of the increase. China continues to be the
world's biggest polluter, increasing millions of tons of
emissions every year.
Meanwhile, in the United States we continue to improve our
air quality to record levels, helping all communities. EPA air
standards have significantly reduced industrial toxic air
pollution and over the last 50 years dramatically cut dangerous
tailpipe emissions from vehicles and engines.
From 1970 to 2019, emissions of key six pollutants have
dropped 77 percent while our economy has grown 285 percent,
proving that clean air policies and a robust economy can go
hand in hand.
Mr. Mills, can you just speak a little bit to what the
United States may be trading? You think about, you know,
trading our strategic advantage in fossil energy for more
reliance on supply chains from China and other countries.
I would like you to just speak to how U.S. domestic policy
decisions relating to energy and climate tied roughly to our
national and economic security interests.
And if you believe that China views America's climate
policy decisions as a strategic economic and security matter
and how it might use these decisions to take advantage of the
United States.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Congressman--sorry, I apologize,
Congresswoman. I think it is obvious what the challenges are,
and I just repeat and I emphasize what you said, repeat again
that we need to be honest about what we are undertaking.
And since 80 percent of America's energy is provided--all
of our energy is provided by hydrocarbons, we are self-
sufficient, essentially a net exporter of hydrocarbons. Not
using that and using mineral-based machines completely
reverses--it essentially shuts down that part of the economy
and reverses us from being self-sufficient and an exporter to
an importer--not a net importer, but a significant importer.
And that will be the case for years. It is not as if we can
change that overnight. So it is indisputable that we are now
importing or de facto importing minerals and materials made all
over the world but largely in China. And to the carbon balance
issue, since it is a global able issue, it is indisputable that
we have enormous hidden, if you like, export carbon dioxide
emissions associated with let us just say batteries and solar
panels.
It takes about 100 to 200 barrels of oil worth of energy to
make a battery that could store a barrel of oil's worth of
energy. Those battery materials are where our energy enters the
process. They are mainly processed in China on a grid that is
two-thirds coal fired. There are no plans, China tells us, that
they are going to get rid of those coal-fired power plants for
decades.
So I think it is obvious to the Chinese this is a trade.
They are net importers of oil and gas, so the biggest importers
of oil in the world now. So, as dependent importers of oil and
gas, I think they made a strategic decision to make the world
dependent on them for the purchase of these energy minerals and
materials.
It is a nontrivial trade in economic and geopolitical
terms, but importantly from a climate perspective, we will call
them the hidden emissions that are associated with this are
unavoidable, they are significant, and they are impossible to
get rid of or change in the near term.
But certainly, we don't have any means to change that. Now,
if we say we are not going to import things made with coal-
fired electricity from China, we could say that, since their
grid is two-thirds coal fired, that would mean that we would
have to consider banning the imports of pretty much everything
that China fabricates for us, from electronic components and
air conditioners to cleaning products and T-shirts. They all
have huge carbon burdens associated with them by virtue of our
importing them. They do that, by the way, to make their power
cheap for their industries. China has some of the cheapest
electricity in the world. And the reason they have cheap
electricity is because they are doing it with coal fire.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. That is OK.
Mrs. Rodgers. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. You are
recognized, Representative, for 5 minutes for questioning,
please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I think I feel sometimes that we are not
beginning at the same place in believing that we what we face
right now with the climate is an existential challenge to life
on this planet that is going to require some major changes,
some disruptive. And I agree totally that we have to think
about those things that may be disrupted, including jobs of
everyday people.
But at the same time, you know, when the tobacco industry
realized how it was causing death and still does, we still felt
that we had to take action. And I think it is so important that
we acknowledge that and get a grip on the kind of changes that
need to be made while we help those people who are caught in
the transition.
I wanted to ask Ms. Fendley some questions. You know, I
have really dedicated much of my life, or at least in public
service, to the importance of domestic manufacturing and
achieving our climate goals at the same time. And I wanted to
ask you--I wanted to ask you this: Can you discuss the
importance of domestic manufacturing to achieve our climate
goals, putting those two together, by producing clean energy
technologies and essential materials to rebuild our
infrastructure?
Ms. Fendley. Yes. Thank you for the question.
These two crises, climate and the economy, have to go hand
in hand. And manufacturing is, in our view, the only way to do
this. It is an enormous challenge, but we already know that
domestic manufacturers are among the cleanest in the world. And
we can use innovative policies to drive the onshoring and
reshoring of the manufacturing of some of these clean energy
technologies like solar panels that were designed, that were
conceptualized at the U.S. Department of Energy and are now
primarily not manufactured here.
We certainly have steelworkers in the glass industry who
used to make class for solar panels. They lost that business to
China. But that factory is still open, and we should figure out
a way to make sure that those folks are making products for the
economy of the future.
Ms. Schakowsky. So the people who may have lost their jobs
because of the glass industry, those plants are still there.
And those workers could be in those plants, is that what you
are saying?
Ms. Fendley. Absolutely, absolutely. And we represent a lot
of members who make components that are currently sold to the
oil and gas industry or the coal industry, and those facilities
could be retooled. Those workers could make things for
different industries. Those companies could be helped with new
technology innovations in their factories.
It is not simple. There is not a one-size-fits-all
solution, but this is the challenge that we have before us that
we have to tackle together.
Ms. Schakowsky. And what you are saying too is that it is
not a zero sum gain. There are things that we can do.
Ms. Tayloe, I wanted to talk to you about the issue of
environmental justice. We know that the victims of
environmental pollution are greater in communities of color. So
how do we make sure that the benefits of moving toward a
cleaner economy also go to those communities?
Ms. Tayloe. That is a really great question. In the
Executive order there was the language around the Justice 40.
And we are very happy to see the Biden administration make that
commitment.
I think it would be critical to have very strong engagement
with the communities for us to articulate how we would like to
see that 40 percent. As mentioned, we have a solar worker
training program in Harlem. And we have been very underfunded
for years, and there are similar programs throughout the
country with an emphasis on workforce development and helping
underemployed individuals get jobs. So having us at the table
to discuss how we would like to see that money would be
critical.
In addition to transportation, in New York we have MTA that
has been underfunded as well, and many of our residents depend
on transportation. So having, you know, assistance there and
also looking to electrify bus fleets would I think be
critically important in terms of how to determine what that 40
percent should look like.
Ms. Schakowsky. Absolutely. We have to build it into our
legislation.
And if I could, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one thing
to Mr. McKinley, a friend of mine. I absolutely think we can't
just slop over the word ``transition,'' but we have to have
real answers to that. What do we mean? What do we think will
happen to the people who inevitably will lose their jobs in the
fossil fuel industry if we move toward a much cleaner
environment? And I don't feel like we are exactly there yet.
And I think that answer is deserving.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Bill Johnson of
Ohio for questioning for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter two items
into the record. The first is a statement from the Laborers
International Union of North America, LIUNA, and a second is a
collection of comments from the AFL-CIO, both condemning the
Biden administration's cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline
and the good-paying jobs that are being canceled along with it.
I have to say, I find it disturbing that my colleagues are
actually talking about disrupting the livelihoods and the jobs
for I think this term was ``everyday people.'' I mean, I didn't
know who those everyday people are, but I suspect those
everyday people are the hard-working people in my district,
places like where I live, whose jobs are being threatened by
the Biden administration's policies.
You know, the Biden administration has been arrogant and
dismissive in response to questions about these workers that
are losing their jobs. As the Special Presidential Envoy for
Climate, John Kerry, recently said when asked what these
workers will do now, he stated they could, and I quote, ``be
the ones to make the solar panels.'' Seriously?
I mean, to Mr. Kerry and those who share this view, these
are human beings, not machines that can simply be retooled.
They have livelihoods, families, homes, and work that they take
pride in. And does Mr. Kerry also recommend these workers pick
up and move to China? Because that is where most solar panels
are being manufactured today.
In my home State of Ohio, the oil and gas industry supports
over 200,000 jobs, many of which are located in my Appalachian
district in the eastern and southeastern part of the State.
These hard-working men and women who get up every morning to
keep our lights on, keep our homes heated, our cars and trucks
running, and who provide us with products that make modern life
possible and our environment cleaner with the use of natural
gas, they deserve more respect than this.
So Mr. Mills, if the Biden administration eliminates more
oil and gas infrastructure along with the good-paying jobs that
go with it and plows trillions of dollars into rapidly
switching to renewables, is it fair to say that China would be
the one, the top geopolitical and financial beneficiary of such
a policy?
Mr. Mills. Certainly, the short answer is yes. And other
than that, Russia and the Middle East. But let me just briefly
point out that the International Energy Agency, which is no--
they are certainly bullish and advocates of alternative energy
sources and Fatih Birol, their head, is very much an advocate
of following the Paris accord--the early forecast pointed out
that the world will use more oil and gas in the future and not
less, for the usefully foreseeable future, I mean, the next
decade or two.
And, if we produce less of it, others will produce that
supply. That is the path that we are on, just given the inertia
in the systems. Those that are the principal beneficiaries of
us exiting the production of gas and oil are China--not China,
so--China because of the price issues--the producers will be
Russia and the Middle East primarily, some from Iran.
So the geopolitics of this are unavoidable. The world is
going to keep using oil for a long time no matter how much
effort we put into it.
And let me just say for the record, we should put more
effort into it. Technology matters, we should have a--
transitions happen. They take a very long time.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Mills. Beneficiaries will be China, in terms of
exporting the so-called green products, minerals, and Russia
and the Middle East in terms of exporting the oil and gas the
world will continue to use.
Mr. Johnson. OK. You know, as you have mentioned, there are
serious human rights, national security, and environmental
consequences to the staggering increase in minerals and rare
metals required for large-scale solar and wind energy.
But I want to touch an additional often overlooked point.
As the Biden administration declares war on fossil fuels, where
do they think the energy-intensive production and
transportation of millions of tons of plastics, concrete,
steel, glass, and batteries will come from? Would clean energy
even be possible without robust oil and gas production, Mr.
Mills?
Mr. Mills. Well, no. I mean, that is the challenge that
Bill Gates has talked about. Even if you, quote,
``decarbonize'' the electric grid, that is about 30 percent of
the direct emissions in America for carbon dioxide. But it
leaves the other two-thirds, which is exactly the subject you
talk about, as well as the embodied carbon dioxide emissions if
we don't produce the plastic here or the steel here, which we
don't. The embodied emissions that we import are coming in from
China and other countries.
France, by the way, is the only country I am aware of that
has looked at--honestly--at the real emissions of their
citizens. And their climate ministry issued a study at the end
of last year and pointed out that the real per capita of
emissions of carbon dioxide counting imported products in
France has almost doubled the domestic emissions.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired, I yield
back.
Mr. Tonko. The The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Raul Ruiz, Representative
Ruiz. You have 5 minutes for questioning, please.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
After 4 years of constantly defending attacks on clean
energy and the environment, this hearing establishes a night-
and-day difference in priorities in leadership on climate and
the environment. In particular, I would like to focus on the
needs and voices of underserved communities, communities of
color and frontline communities, the people and neighborhoods
like the ones in the eastern Coachella Valley in my district in
southern California.
For decades these areas have borne the brunt of
environmental pollutants and the subsequent health effects
without the opportunity to participate in the very decisions
affecting their health and safety.
President Biden's Executive order on tackling the climate
crisis at home and abroad takes important steps towards
strengthening our environmental justice and public health
protections. And it does so in a way that takes into account
the voices of the people who are most affected. Specifically,
the order creates a consultation process to develop
recommendations to update the original environmental justice
Executive orders 12898 from 1994.
Ms. Tayloe, from your perspective, how important is it to
make sure impacted communities have a voice in updating
Executive order 12898?
Ms. Tayloe. Thank you for that question, Congressman Ruiz.
And I also would like to just thank you for your leadership
around environmental justice. I know you had a bill that was
released in I believe 2019 that we thought was very helpful for
our issues.
As it relates to having an opportunity to engage around
Executive order 12898, which turns 27 years old on the 11th, I
think it is critical. Unfortunately with it being an Executive
order and depending on the President in office at the time, it
doesn't always get the, I think, attention and Federal support
that we need.
And so one, in addition to updating and strengthening the
Executive order, we also think it is critical to codify that
order so that, regardless of the President, it becomes law and
that we have ability to----
Mr. Ruiz. So how would you strengthen that order?
Ms. Tayloe. Well, for sure right now taking the emphasis
away from not only the EPA, but making sure that other Federal
agencies understand that incorporating environmental justice
into their work isn't something that only the EPA does.
I think historically, unfortunately, we have not seen the
same level of interest in environmental justice, policies, and
implementation across the agencies. And so that would be one of
the key steps that we would want to see in terms of addressing
the Executive order.
Mr. Ruiz. And so that is a very key component. So I will be
reintroducing the Environmental Justice Act of 2021, which is
with Senator Booker, with codify parts of that Executive order
that you just mentioned, 12898.
And this bill passed the House last year as part of the
Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act. I am hoping it will get
signed into law this Congress, because codifying the order will
strengthen compliance and protection and doesn't leave it
vulnerable to the whims of an administration that may not
prioritize environmental justice protection, as you said.
I have another question for you, Ms. Tayloe. If President
Biden issues a new, stronger Executive order on environmental
justice following this consultation, do you believe we should
work to codify that order so that it will really be followed?
Ms. Tayloe. Definitely. Again, depending on the President
in office, Executive orders are at their whim. So having laws
on this will truly protect environmental justice organizations
and communities is critical.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. And I agree. I look forward to working
with President Biden to incorporate improvements into my
legislation. And I look forward to working with Chairman Tonko
and Chairman Pallone of the full committee to move that
legislation. These early climate leadership actions from the
President are encouraging, and I look forward to more to come.
This is an equity issue on the environment.
If we talk about environmental equity, then it is precisely
the environmental justice communities that we need to support,
because the brunt of the pollutions in our country are near
underserved communities, working poor, and communities of
color. And it is no wonder why they also have the highest rates
of asthma, the highest rates of COPD, the highest rates of
public health issues, because environmental health is clearly
demonstrated in the public's health.
And so that is why, when we talk about climate change, we
must talk about how it is overburdening its health impact in
working-class poor and communities of color throughout America.
And with that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia for
questioning for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of the
panelists for being here and participating in this.
Mr. Mills, I want to start with you. We have all heard some
of the facts that have been cited here about how the U.S. has
done such an outstanding job of decreasing our carbon emissions
over the last decade. In fact, over the last decade, carbon
emissions have decreased in the United States more than the
next 12 countries combined.
I don't understand why we don't give ourselves more credit
for that. I just find that baffling. But even in EPA's 2020
report, they showed that emissions had fallen since 2005, the
national greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by 10 percent, and
that power sector emissions had fallen by 27 percent, all the
while that our economy has grown by 25 percent. So it has been
proven that we can decrease our carbon footprint, decrease our
carbon emissions, and still grow our economy, and we have been
doing that. And we have been doing it through the private
sector, through the private sector innovation and through their
investment. And that is what we need to continue to do, in my
opinion.
Mr. Mills, I wanted to ask you, on January 27 President
Biden signed an Executive order that would push the energy
sector towards decarbonization by 2035. In reality, how are our
utilities going to be able to do that? How are they going to be
able to realistically meet those goals of decarbonization by
2035?
Mr. Mills. Well, I appreciate that question. As I have
pointed out in my opening remarks, if I were guessing--and this
is just a guess--I don't think it will happen. Not whether it
should happen--this is not a judgment call. The rate at which
new capacity has to be added to the grid to replace existing
capacity, it is a construction program.
Wind farms are big, solar farms are big, battery arrays are
huge. These are physically large things that involve a lot of
concrete, steel, plastic, and other metals. We know how long it
takes to build these things. It would require genuinely a World
War II level of effort, which is certainly in theory possible--
I am not disputing that--but it is a 600 percent faster
construction program that any grid construction program at peak
has occurred in America in the last half century, or in
Germany, or in China. It is one heck of a big construction
program. So, if we do this massive push to try to do that, I
just don't think we have either the capacity, infrastructure,
or economic appetite for it.
To your point about the decarbonization so far, it has come
entirely, as we all know, from switching from cheap coal to
cheaper gas, the fracking revolution. One thing we could do--
which again it I will refer to the head of the IEA, who has
said numerous times--is the United States could help
decarbonize the world by exporting more of its cheap gas and
replacing coal.
Last year's China Commission brought on the line more new
coal plants in the entire world combined. We could export
natural gas and replace coal. This is for some people an
interim solution, but it is a very real solution. It has a
significant impact.
Mr. Carter. Let me ask you, Mr. Mills. When we talk--a
great point about gas plants and about natural gas and how we
have done that. Here in my district we have converted a liquid
natural gas import to an export for. And that is the kind of--I
mean, that is good for the economy, good for the United States,
good for the environment. And that is what is working here.
But let me ask you about the role of nuclear. As you know,
there are only two nuclear reactors--four nuclear reactors, I
should say--under construction right now, and they are under
construction in Georgia. What role do you see nuclear playing
in all of this?
Mr. Mills. Well, I will give a short answer. I am--
extraordinarily important--I am a nuclear bull. For the record,
I was at the accident at Three Mile Island during the week of
the accident, spent the next decade of my life and career
arguing for new classes of nuclear reactors that were easier
and cheaper to build, inherently and transparently safe. We are
clearly on that track. As we have heard earlier from the
Congresswoman from the State of Washington, there are some very
exiting technologies. This will take time, but I think is it is
an extraordinarily important area of investment.
Mr. Carter. One last thing real quickly. As we push toward
more renewables and we talk about the supply chains and we know
that rare earth minerals are being processed in China, but as
China enacts more legislation to prohibit the export of those,
what is that going to mean for America?
Mr. Mills. Well, China has in fact put in their plan to
consider strategic constraints on exports of rare minerals. It
does mean that we are very dependent and at risk geopolitically
for that.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. You are welcome.
The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
Representative from New York, Representative Yvette Clarke, for
5 minutes worth of questioning.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
Ranking Member McKinley for holding this very important
hearing, very timely, on Federal climate leadership.
Let me first say that I believe we are standing at an
inflection point in our civil society. Not only are we facing
interrelated crises around COVID-19, the economy, racial
injustice and climate change, but these crises have also forced
us to come to terms with the disparities that stem from deeply
rooted systemic racism and inequality which continue to plague
our institutions, our society, and indeed our policies.
Our constituents are now demanding for us to be bold, to
rise up and meet the magnitude of this moment. And we must heed
their call. The Biden-Harris administration has already
released several Executive orders on climate change and
environmental justice, including a Justice 40 initiative to
target Federal investments towards disadvantaged communities.
Ms. Tayloe, why is it so important that we prioritize low-
income communities, communities of color, the Tribal
communities as we invest in a clean energy future?
Ms. Tayloe. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
Clarke. It is critical that we prioritize communities of color
for the Justice 40 initiative because for years we have been
disproportionately impacted by climate change. While we are all
experiencing extreme heat and storms, unfortunately our
communities get the brunt of that. And unfortunately there
hasn't always been the same level of support in helping us to
recover from these major climate experiences that we have had,
whether that be extreme storms, heat, et cetera.
So, moving forward with the Justice 40 initiative that the
Biden administration has laid out in terms of how they believe
we should operate within the Executive order, we think it is
critical that again EJ organization, similar to React, be at
the table to talk about what we believe those investments
should look like, whether that is air monitoring in our
communities, access to electric buses and school buses for our
communities to reduce air pollution, access to workforce
training opportunities to increase our access to the green
jobs, the future that we see coming forward.
So this Justice 40 initiative must center environmental
justice communities again because we have been
disproportionately impacted.
Ms. Clarke. Yes. In addition to having its own 40 percent
goal, New York State's recent Climate Leadership and Community
Protection Act establishes a climate justice working group
comprised of community stakeholders and government experts to
help guide the allocation of clean energy investments.
Ms. Tayloe, do you think that a similar climate justice
working group at the national level could also help ensure that
Federal investments and programs appropriately prioritize
climate-burdened communities?
Ms. Tayloe. Definitely. And for the New York version that
you spoke of, we actually served on the Climate Justice Working
Group and the Transportation Advisory Panel, and so having a
similar mechanism for Federal engagement I think is really
critical.
We are really proud of work that we did around the CLCPA to
get that passed, and for New York to lead the country in the
creation of such important climate policy I think shows what we
can also duplicate at the Federal level. So, again, having that
working group for communities to be a part of is critical.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you. I think this is something that we
should be seriously looking into. And I look forward to
discussing this matter further with you.
You know, the Biden-Harris administration has also publicly
stated their commitment to a clean energy sector by 2035. And I
believe it is critical that Congress support this effort with
bold legislation. In particular, we must ensure that renewable
sources of energy like wind and solar are central to these
goals.
Ms. Goldfuss, do you think that adopting an ambitious
renewable energy standard at the national level could be
complementary to the proposals that we are seeing for a clean
energy standard and help us to more rapidly and equitably
achieve a zero emission energy sector?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, absolutely. I think figuring out the
role and how much renewables we have and actually getting a
goal of 2030 is crucial to making sure that the policy actually
works and we deploy the right amount of energy to achieve those
goals.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely. And Ms. Fendley, a recent study
conducted by Wood MacKenzie found that reaching a majority
renewable thread would support 1 million energy sector jobs. Do
you agree that a strong Federal push towards renewables would
create substantial good-paying union jobs?
Ms. Fendley. Yes. It would certainly create many, many
good-paying union jobs. I think the other thing that Congress
has to do to ensure that those are union jobs is pass the PRO
act as well.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Back in December, Congressman Peter Welch and I introduced
legislation to set bold nationwide renewable energy targets
over the next 10 years. And I look forward to reintroducing
that legislation with my colleague in the coming weeks. It is
time for Congress to rise up, meet its obligations, and meet
the magnitude of this moment. Our future depends on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Gary Palmer of Alabama for
questioning for 5 minute, please.
Representative Palmer. Welcome to the subcommittee.
Mr. Palmer. Am I unmuted now? Can you hear me?
Mr. Tonko. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. Am I unmuted?
Mr. Tonko. We can hear you, sir.
Mr. Palmer. OK. Thank you.
I just want to talk a little bit about some of these
policies that concern me, and that is how they impact low-
income families. I grew up in a family basically dirt poor. We
heated our house with a coal-fired heater. And as we pursue
these policies, it is going to have a disproportionate impact
on low-income families.
And particularly in regard to being able to keep their
homes heated. There is a huge disparity between people who die
from cold than heat. There is a Lancet report that came out a
few years ago that said that basically 17 times more people
died from cold than from heat. Mr. Mills, I would like you to
comment on that.
Mr. Mills. So, Congressman, I think you put your finger on
it. It is important. I know everyone in Congress is keenly
aware of this, is affordability of energy for people who are in
the lower income brackets. It is easy if you are wealthy to
afford your electric bill and your gas bill. These have always
been difficult issues. It is clearly the case--we have done
this experiment before--if we restrict production of oil and
gas in a significant way, the price of gasoline and oil will go
up. It is already happening, I think it may accelerate.
If we push hard to increase the use of wind and solar,
which is a principle of clean energy technologies being
proposed and subsidized, it will increase the cost of
electricity. It already has. We have in our European neighbors
the experiments that have been done. We have far more higher
penetrations of wind and solar and far more expensive
electricity.
In U.K. and Germany, and other countries, that talk about
energy poverty--where the cost to heat a home, their electric
bill is their single largest bill--it overwhelms all their
other bills. These are serious issues. I think we can't ignore
them. They are hard to avoid. It isn't the case that we end up
with the cheaper grid if we mandate the replacement of
inexpensive power with more expensive power.
Mr. Palmer. I will give you an example. The Reverend Jesse
Jackson has been advocating for the construction of a natural
gas pipeline to serve the Pembroke Township in Illinois. It is
a town of 21,000 people who have no access to natural gas. And
without the pipeline, some of those residents have been using
appliances like wood-burning stoves to heat their homes.
And so, Ms. Fendley, do you support or oppose that effort
to bring national gas to Pembroke, Illinois?
Ms. Fendley. I am not familiar with that particular issue.
But I will say that, as I included in my testimony, climate
policies are economic policies. We have to work to raise
people's----
Mr. Palmer. Ms. Fendley, the question is, would you support
or oppose bringing a natural gas pipeline to Pembroke Township,
or do you think that Jesse Jackson's wrong?
Ms. Fendley. Congressman, I am not at all familiar with
this particular----
Mr. Palmer. I will take that as an effort to try to
filibuster with your answer.
Let me also point out that extreme weather events--let me
go back to something else, because I am running out of time.
Candidate Biden said during a debate that he would not ban
fracking. Do you think he should keep his word, or was he
misleading the American public? I will ask Ms. Goldfuss that.
Ms. Goldfuss. His comment was that he would not ban
fracking on private lands. He does not have the authority to do
that. He made very clear that he was going to put in place a
moratorium for fracking on public lands, which is what he did
in his Executive order that came out on climate change.
Mr. Palmer. Well, actually, his campaign put out a
statement that he said he would ban new fracking. So I think he
has already kind of backed away from what he originally said.
I would also like to point out that your efforts to
eliminate the fossil fuel industry, particularly natural gas,
is going to have a major impact on the employment of women,
African Americans, and Hispanics. Maybe you consider that
collateral damage. I hope not. But I think you have to take
that into account. And as someone who grew up, like I said,
pretty much dirt poor, these policies will make an enormous
difference to the lives of people.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Scott Peters from California,
Representative Peters, you are recognized for questioning for 5
minutes, please.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by
acknowledging the calls of my friends Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and
Mr. McKinley for bipartisanship on this panel. I would just
point out that the Green New Deal is a talking point on both
sides of the aisle. I would remind my colleagues that fewer
than half of the congressional Democrats have cosponsored it.
Yet we all recognize that we have real work to do on climate
change.
And I want to thank Mr. McKinley for partnering with me and
coauthoring my bill the USE IT Act on carbon capture and
utilization, which was passed in a bipartisan way as part of a
year-end package. And I want to thank and reiterate my support
for working with Mrs. McMorris Rodgers on hydropower, next-
generation nuclear, and on fighting wildfires, which are not
only an effect of climate change but are also major
contributors of warming black carbon soot, which is a major
climate pollutant. And I think we have to deal with that and we
can work on that together.
It is quite correct, though, we can't win this global
battle without the rest of the world. And that is exactly why
we need to be engaged in leading the world in climate policies
through the Paris Agreement and other international
engagements.
And I--finally, I do have to stand up for California. I am
really proud of California's leadership in this deal. Today, 45
percent of the power that come out of my wall outlet from San
Diego Gas & Electric Company is renewable, and that number is
headed up. And if California is first--if you are first, you
won't always get it right, we get that. But it is really
deceptive to talk about costs in the way that is being
discussed now, and no one has mentioned this before. People are
talking about today's cost without thinking about the cost of
doing nothing. This will be an expensive effort, but it will a
much less expensive effort if we act now, and I think that is
the right thing to do.
One other point: There has been a lot of talk about carbon
here lately, carbon dioxide, which is essential. I want to
remind everyone that short-lived climate pollutants, primarily
HFCs, methane, and black carbon soot, deserve at least as much
attention from this subcommittee, as they are causing warming
today and because constraining these short-lived pollutants
would give us the fastest impact on slowing warming.
And this talk about carbon emissions being down, and that
is true, but mostly that is because of cheap natural gas. And
just about all the climate benefits of going from coal to cheap
natural gas are lost unless we can control fugitive methane
emission, and I hope we can work on that in this committee.
I do have two questions with respect to carbon dioxide.
First is with respect to high voltage transmission. According
to recent studies from UC Berkeley and Princeton, we may need
about 70 new gigawatts of clean electricity added to our energy
mix every year for the next 15 years. Last year we deployed
about half of that.
Mrs. Goldfuss, can you explain how transmission can be a
limiting factor in bringing renewable resources on board,
especially when they are in remote parts of the country?
Ms. Goldfuss. It is a matter of hooking up the actual
generation with basically the areas that can transmit the
electricity to people's homes. So, if you put wind and solar in
places where there aren't access to hookups for transmission,
then we can't get the electricity to people's homes.
So this is a crucial part of the puzzle. And we have seen
some interesting policies, Senator Heinrich has a bill out
right now that actually incentivizes those tax credits for
transmission. But this will need to be a core part of our
strategy, because if you can't transmit the renewable energy to
where it needs to go, then we won't be successful in building
it out, obviously.
Mr. Peters. Right. Every credible study indicates a
significant need to build new interstate transmission lines to
enable geographically constrained renewables to be built for
that electricity to be used where it is needed. It can be done
in a way that grows jobs across our national geography and
socioeconomics in a way that enhances the grid's resilience and
reliability and reduces pollution and energy prices, and I
think that could be a bipartisan effort.
My second question, I think I will pose this also to you,
Ms. Goldfuss. I really appreciate your emphasis on science-
based decision making. I think that is very welcome. Recently I
saw that none other than the National Academy of Sciences in
its report on accelerating decarbonization of the U.S. energy
system recommends that economywide price on carbon to help
transition away from fossil fuel energy.
Now we in Congress anticipate a big infrastructure bill to
be sent from the administration with a focus on battling
climate change and with an emphasis on environmental justice.
Historically we have used the gasoline tax to fund those
efforts. Don't you agree that an economywide tax on carbon
would be a logical and effective way to help pay for
infrastructure investments going forward?
Ms. Goldfuss. I don't think it is appropriate to start with
an economywide carbon tax. It does not reach certain sectors,
like the transportation sector. Really, we need to focus on
incentivizing the behavior we need to see first to get to those
communities, get the 40 percent of benefits right to get the
jobs right. And right now, a carbon tax has not proven to be
either politically viable or really effective in the way that
we know a----
Mr. Peters. I just----
Ms. Goldfuss [continuing]. Standard or deployment of
renewables could be.
Mr. Peters. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, that is not
the advice of scientists or economists, and that is going to a
problem for me going forward. I just want to let folks know. I
think that is critical to saving this planet.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman John Curtis of Utah
for the purpose of questioning for 5 minutes.
Representative Curtis, please.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our ranking member.
I am so happy to be on this subcommittee.
Mr. Tonko. Welcome to the subcommittee.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
I just would like to compliment my colleagues who called
for bipartisan action. My colleague in San Diego, thank you not
only for the call for bipartisan, but really your tone. I
appreciate that. My regret today is that I only have 5 minutes
to discuss this topic. Because of its nuances, it is so
important to Utah. I would like to think that all of us can
agree on some common goals when it comes to the environment.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I am getting some background noise
there.
Mr. Tonko. I ask everyone to please mute yourselves.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
I would like to think that we could all agree on some
common goals when it comes to the environment. Now let's pause
for just a minute. We can all agree that less pollution is
better than more, less carbon in the air is better, less
plastic in the ocean is better, cleaner water is better,
cleaner air is better.
We can all agree that we shouldn't waste resources and we
should be more efficient. I can't imagine that there is really
even a Member on this committee who would disagree with these
points.
With that in mind, I have watched the flurry of Executive
orders dealing with the environment and questioned if anybody
has really defined the exact goal. Now, what I mean by that is
I kind of think the goal is less carbon in the air. And if that
is so, and if that is the goal, I think it is fair to evaluate
these Executive orders in light of how well they meet that
goal.
Mr. Chairman, you have encouraged this, as others have, to
put science at the heart of our decision making. And I would
love to look at the Executive orders from a science-, fact-
based perspective, particularly the Keystone pipeline. Much has
been said about the loss of jobs. I would also like to point
out that the company set aside hundreds of millions of dollars
in contracts in Canadian indigenous communities who saw the
pipeline as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build
infrastructure.
Some say canceling the pipeline is a little bit like taking
the head off to fix the headache. But jobs and infrastructure
aside, does the science of evidenced-based evaluation claim to
have fixed the headache, or in other words does the science
point to reduced carbon in the air because of the cancellation
of the pipeline.
I recently spoke with a Member of Parliament from Canada
who expressed strong concern. In his opinion, we didn't
increase demand, therefore we will be now trucking that oil in
or it will be coming from sources around the world that produce
it in a dirtier environment.
Mr. Mills, is it fair to say that canceling Keystone XL
Pipeline won't significantly decrease the demand for oil and
that the oil will simply be provided in a different manner such
as trucking or from a source that will likely produce more
carbon?
Mr. Mills. The short answer is yes. The oil will move both
by truck and rail into markets, unless there is a legal
mechanism--I don't know one--to stop that, but in which case
the oil will be produced elsewhere. Because the world isn't
overnight going to stop using oil. I think most everybody
recognizes that. So the carbon footprint of the oil that is
used to fuel airplanes and cars and trucks is relevant.
And of course the Keystone folks, as you clearly know, not
only have gone out of their way in Canada--I confess I am
Canadian, so I might be bragging here a bit--but the premier of
Alberta who I will be talking to tonight, as a matter of fact,
on a [inaudible] to the event is adamant that they are leaders
in the world in decarbonizing oil production. That may sound
oxymoronic, but it is essential in this path that we have
talked about. And also, they had also contracted for the pumps
that move the oil to be powered by wind and solar machines.
Mr. Curtis. Let me be really specific then. In your
opinion, and if we looked at science and evidence-based facts,
canceling the pipeline will not decrease our carbon output in
the air?
Mr. Mills. No. It clearly will not. There is no arithmetic
or science that gets you to that point. You have to cancel the
use of oil everywhere to reduce that footprint.
Mr. Curtis. In other words, we have got to work on the
demand.
Mr. Mills. You have to work on the demand globally because
we are talking about a global issue, exactly.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. Now I only have just have a few seconds
left, but I regret that part of this conversation villainizes
fossil fuels. And you touched on this earlier, but I wanted to
emphasize it: If our goal is less carbon in the air, using U.S.
natural gas could dramatically reduce carbon around the world.
I know that is hard, because a lot of people don't want to
use fossil fuels. But using fossil fuels to reduce carbon,
should that be part of our strategy?
Mr. Mills. Well, I think it should be. I can say that Bill
Gates has gone on the record saying it should be. And Fatih
Birol, the head of IEA, has gone on the record saying it should
be.
Mr. Curtis. I regret we are out of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And the Chair now
recognizes the Representative from Maryland, John Sarbanes for
5 minutes for questioning. Representative Sarbanes, please.
It appears as though we may have some technology problem
with unmuting.
Brenden, do we----
Staff Member. You can go ahead to Mrs. Dingell and come
back to him.
Mr. Tonko. We are trying to solve the problem with
Representative Sarbanes. And we will go to Representative
Dingell of Michigan for 5 minutes, please. Representative
Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
convening today's hearing.
For the past 2 years, this committee has been working day
in and day out to address the climate crisis. Now we have an
administration that recognizes the urgency of the crisis and
has already taken actions to tackle it head on. But the real
work has really got to begin, and that is what we are about
today.
As the President has said, climate change presents
substantial challenges, but it also offers a vital opportunity
to invest in our economy, in our workforce, in our future.
Last week, I reintroduced legislation to establish a
national clean energy and sustainability accelerator to start
making those investments and help us achieve a clean net-zero
emission economy by 2050. I am very proud to say it is
bipartisan.
My colleague Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania is one of
the cosponsors, and we are going to keep working to try to make
this a very bipartisan effort.
The accelerator's based on a highly successful green bank
model that has been deployed across the United States,
supported against by Democrats and Republicans. It would
leverage public and private funding to invest in our clean
energy future, financing projects to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions across sectors and across the countries. And it would
also support the development of new State and local green
banks.
Importantly, the accelerator would direct 40 percent of the
investments to communities that are on the front lines of
climate change, which is a key pillar of the THRIVE agenda.
So let me start with you, Ms. Goldfuss, if I could. Recent
research, including findings released just last week by the
National Academy of Sciences, has identified this exact type of
financing institution as a critical tool to help decarbonize
the United States economy. Can you please speak to the role
that the national Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator
can play in helping the U.S. meet its goals?
Ms. Goldfuss. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman, and
thank you for the legislation. It is really exciting to see
this move forward and to see the shift from the 20 percent
investment in communities to the 40 percent, which matches
where the President and Vice President are right now.
It is critical that we have investment opportunities like
this that allow us to invest in new innovation and really the
new technological opportunities. What an accelerator like this
does is it really helps, bridges the gap in some cases for
where deployment needs to happen and some types of technology
to give them a better leg up than they might be able to get in
other types of financing.
So this has been, as you mentioned, a really crucial tool
at the State level to investing into those solutions and making
the leaps that need to happen in technology. And this would
only back up other States that need to take that step
themselves or work with some of the infrastructure that is
already on the ground in States to deploy clean energy. So it
is a really exciting advancement that has been tested both in
the States and internationally and been successful.
Mrs. Dingell. I had another question for you, but I am
going to do it on the record because I want to get to Ms.
Fendley.
Ms. Fendley, how would a national finance institution like
the accelerator stimulate investment in infrastructure,
including a clean energy infrastructure?
Ms. Fendley. Well, as Ms. Goldfuss said, this is an
important tool that could be used to invest in the right kinds
of infrastructure, the kinds that we need to make sure that we
move goods efficiently and productively and the kinds of
infrastructure that are resilient to the extreme weather events
that we are expected to see moving forward. We would just want
to make sure that domestic content preferences, Buy America,
buy clean, were part of any policy like that.
Mrs. Dingell. So I am running out of time, so I am going to
put questions on the record for both of you.
I really want to switch quickly to electric vehicles,
because we have got to--the shift is taking place to
electrifying transportation. It is going electric. You have
heard GM and Ford in the last week, the announcements that they
have made. It is a major milestone.
I would like to ask both of you in the remaining time what
you think this means for a clean energy transition, but what
are the challenges, and how do we ensure that, one, we are
doing the battery development here, building those batteries
here, and that we are creating green jobs, not losing jobs?
Whichever of you wants to go first.
Ms. Goldfuss. Ms. Fendley, why don't you start. The jobs
are so important on this one.
Ms. Fendley. Yes. I agree that this presents an enormous
opportunity, and we should avoid the pitfall, the potential
pitfall, that a shift to EVs is used as an opportunity to
offshore the domestic supply chain for others, which is a
crucial industry that spans across many geographies.
I think that, as far as batteries goes, we have a real
challenge to develop a Federal strategy, to make sure that we
do that production here, that we build those technologies.
Mrs. Dingell. I am out of time, but I am going to ask you
both for the record because I totally agree on all fronts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Dan Crenshaw of
Texas for 5 minutes for questioning. Representative, welcome to
the subcommittee.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, it is great to be here. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you all for being here and holding this
hearing.
Protecting the environment is incredibly important, and we
should use all the tools in our toolbox to do so. I firmly
believe that. But I also want to read you a quote. Quote: ``A
job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It is about dignity.
It is about respect. It is about being able to look your kid in
the eye and say, `Everything will be OK.'''
President Joe Biden said that countless times on the
campaign trail, and I fully agree with him, but I can't tell
you how many of my constituents, my neighbors, people in my
community, oil and gas workers in my district, who have told me
that they can't look their family in the eye and tell them
everything will be OK. They don't know if they are going to be
able to put food on the table or afford to put a full tank of
gas in their car or if they will have to leave Texas in search
of the quote/unquote ``green'' jobs they are being promised by
John Kerry after their industry is destroyed.
But at least we could hope that they would sleep well
knowing they are sacrificing their job to save the environment,
to save the world, right? Well, no, and I think we all know
that.
According to the U.N. projections, if the world's richest
countries stopped emitting carbon right now, stopping economies
in their tracks, we would lower global temperatures by just 0.8
degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Moreover, ceding
our energy leadership will do nothing to stop global energy
demand from increasing. This point has been made over and over
again on this hearing.
That demand will get filled. It just won't get filled by
us. It will get filled by countries like Russia and Saudi
Arabia and Venezuela. As many of our witnesses have already
pointed out, I would also point out that they emit a lot more
carbon dioxide as they produce oil and gas. So we are doing
nothing to help the environment at all. We are just destroying
lives and we are not getting anything in return.
The conversation today is not about whether there is
climate change caused by man-made emissions. That is not the
debate. The conversation is about the solutions. And for all
the talk of science I have heard, it seems that science has no
place in the solutions being offered by many of my colleagues.
The reality is my constituents in the oil and gas industry
are the only ones that have made meaningful change in reducing
our emissions. It is U.S. fracking that has brought U.S.
emissions down to 1992 levels.
If we want to reduce emissions globally--and I think we
do--we need to be exporting more U.S. liquid natural gas. Even
Energy Secretary nominee Jennifer Granholm believes that
exporting LNG has an important role in reducing global
emissions. She said so. Fatih Birol, executive director of the
International Energy Agency, said, from an emissions point of
view, U.S. LNG, if it replaces coal in Asia, can lead to
significant emission declines, both in terms of CO2
emissions but also for air pollution.
I just want to know if we all agree on that baseline. For
all the witnesses, do we agree? Shouldn't we export more
natural gas, or does anyone disagree with that?
Going once, going twice. If no one disagrees, then----
Ms. Goldfuss. I disagree. I was--sorry, I just have to
say----
Mr. Crenshaw. Let's have that conversation. Tell me why.
Because, Ms. Goldfuss, you were very emphatic earlier that you
were happy that the science is back. So tell me how the
sciences support your position.
Ms. Goldfuss. Because, if you lock in the natural gas
infrastructure now, you are talking about decades of
deployment. It is really a question about where we are
investing and this particular turning point. So, you know, that
being said----
Mr. Crenshaw. These experts seem to disagree with you, and
basic logic disagrees with you, because, again, global demand
will increase for energy by at least 25 percent over the next
two decades. That will be met by somebody, OK? You cannot
replace it with just green energy. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that we have reduced our emissions to
1992 levels because of the fracking revolution. Again, it is
not just science. It is engineering and it is common sense. It
is looking back at what has worked and what hasn't. So the
experts disagree with you, the ones I just mentioned, the new
Secretary of Energy disagrees with you, I disagree with you.
I want to move on.
Ms. Goldfuss. I just want to make one last point. OK, go
ahead.
Ms. Tayloe. I would like to say----
Mr. Crenshaw. I have heard a lot about environment--I wish
I had more time, because I would love to do this with you guys
all day long.
I have heard a lot about environmental justice today. Seems
to me there is a belief that hydrocarbons are particularly
dangerous for Black and Brown communities. Here is the thing:
Effective emissions are color-blind, but the radical solutions
being proposed are not and, in fact, hurt low-income citizens
the most.
Ms. Tayloe, I would like to know, how is it that in
California it is primarily leaders from communities of color
that are pushing back against the radical environmental
policies of Governor Newsom? These include the California Black
Chamber of Commerce; the Two Hundred, which is a coalition of
Latino civil rights leaders; two minority Democrat California
legislators, Jim Cooper and Blanca Rubio; and the UCLA Center
for Environment and Sustainability. So I am just wondering, who
should we listen to, you or them?
Ms. Tayloe. You should always listen to community voices.
So I would hope that, when you are talking about these
organizations that are against it, they are speaking from the
community.
And I would also like to say that climate scientists say
that the rising production of natural gas is emerging as one of
the biggest drivers of climate change. So, while you want to
put that as a priority, we also have to think about the public
health impacts to communities.
So make sure that you are doing the meaningful engagement
when you are quoting communities--quote communities instead of
just organizations. I think that is where you are going to have
the real solutions and the real honest impacts of how
hydropower, or what you are speaking to there, or even natural
gas, how that impacts us.
Mr. Crenshaw. I am sorry, but you didn't answer the
question. Are they wrong? Do these people not represent Black
and Brown communities? Because that is your implication.
Ms. Tayloe. No. What I am saying is make sure that when you
are listing up voices that you are including communities in
doing that.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. Well, I have family who--I have a Latino
stepbrother who works in the oil and gas industry, but I guess
his voice matters too?
Oh, I am out of time. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Maryland,
Representative John Sarbanes. Hopefully, the connection is
better.
Mr. Sarbanes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear
me?
Mr. Tonko. I can.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Great. I appreciate your indulgence here.
I want to thank you for this hearing today, emphasizing, I
think, in many respects how different the Biden administration
approach is going to be from the last administration in
important ways.
Certainly, communities across the Nation, including in my
own district, have gotten tired of a system that seems to put
the special interest ahead of the public interest and the
interest of the people, and I think that is the focus that the
Biden administration is trying to restore.
I am very pleased that the Executive order that President
Biden issued on tackling the climate crisis here at home as
well as abroad focuses, among other things, on enforcement of
environmental laws and environmental justice communities, just
to kind of pick up on the theme of the last exchange. I think
that is very important to put that environmental justice lens
in place.
In particular, section 222 of the Executive order, would
outline new duties for the EPA and the Department of Justice to
strengthen enforcement of environmental violations with
disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged communities.
Ms. Tayloe, do you think that these early actions that have
been taken by President Biden with respect to enforcement for
environmental justice communities is significant--is a
significant step?
Ms. Tayloe. I will say for surely that last--well, January
2017 was a very important day for environmental justice
communities. The Executive order reflected a lot of
recommendations that we have been making, not only within the
transition but beyond, I would say for decades.
Having an Office of Environmental Justice within the
Department of Justice would be a very important step, and so we
are happy to see that included in the Executive order, in
addition to changing the name of the Office of Energy and
Natural Resources to the Office of Environmental Justice and
Natural Resources.
So that level of commitment we do see as something very
valuable, in addition to the creation of the advisory council
at the White House level on environmental justice. That is
something we really appreciated. And just even the language
that was used in the Executive orders, looking at legacy
pollutions, that is very strong language that really denotes a
really strong understanding from the Biden administration about
how to address climate injustice issues.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. You know, when we look at
environmental justice in the context of climate action, one
topic often overlooked, it turns out, is waste, and more
specifically plastic waste. But this is an issue that is
central both to the climate crisis and to environmental
justice.
The U.S. produces inordinate amounts of plastic each year,
and that is expected to ramp up, unfortunately, in the years
ahead. By 2050, global greenhouse emissions are expected to
account for as much as 13 percent of the global carbon budget
from waste and plastic. But 9 percent of all plastic waste ever
produced has been recycled. So there is a lot of work to do
here. The rest of it ends up in landfills as litter or
incinerated, and we have got to get that under control if we
are going to address the climate crisis.
Ms. Goldfuss, why is it important that we broaden our
approach to climate action to include these sorts of issues
like plastic production and disposal that some might view, I
guess, as secondary contributors to climate change?
Ms. Goldfuss. The issue of expansion around petrochemicals
is becoming an incredible concern. We expect it to drive about
half of the growth in fossil fuel demand over--until the mid-
century. So the pollution that we see from petrochemical
plants, which are commonly--as Ms. Tayloe knows, surround
communities of color. Mossville, Louisiana, is a particular
community that has 12 petrochemical plants that are being sited
around it.
But we also see, if there is a disaster, like extreme
weather in Houston, there was a facility where the toxic
chemicals actually spilled out and exposed the communities
around the area. So it is both a matter of the emissions and
the pollution in creating plastics that make it a serious
concern. And then, obviously, as you mentioned, all of the
plastics end up in the ocean. We do not have great strategies
for cleaning up plastic pollution at this time, and we will
need to address that as we look at the ocean getting more and
more damaged due to climate change.
Mr. Sarbanes. Ms. Tayloe, I only have about 20 seconds, but
I would love your thoughts on this issue with respect to
frontline communities.
Ms. Tayloe. Definitely. I think immediately of Cancer Alley
in Louisiana, which is home to a number of petrochemical
facilities, in addition to just the whole Gulf South that has,
unfortunately, been the seat of a number of our most polluting
industries. And, if we are truly going to address environmental
justice and the climate crisis, we need to make sure that, when
we think about permiting, you know, the Clean Air and Clean
Water Act, that community impact is considered.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks to all of you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Delaware,
Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes of
questioning, please, and welcome.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important
hearing. Congratulations to Ranking Member McKinley. And I want
to thank the witnesses also for their important testimonies.
Every part of our country is seeing the impacts of climate
change, from the devastating wildfires ravaging the West, to
the rising sea levels and higher temperatures right here in my
home State of Delaware. We are all impacted by the changing
climate.
But climate change is not the only challenge that we have
faced this past year. We are also facing an ongoing public
health crisis, an economic disruption, and systemic racism. And
these crises are not occurring in a vacuum. They are all
interrelated, and our solutions to address them must be as
well.
And I want to say thank you so much to the responses,
particularly yours, Ms. Tayloe, regarding the fact that, of
course, those other communities, like the Black Business
Chamber, are all welcome to the table and represent people, but
what is different about this moment and why this is so
significant what this administration is doing is that there is
a focus on bringing the people who are most impacted, not just
their livelihoods, but their lives and the quality of their
lives to the table.
President Biden ran on a platform to Build Back Better, and
I can't agree more, which is why I introduced the Open Back
Better Act last year and why I plan to reintroduce it in the
upcoming weeks.
The Open Back Better Act invests in retrofits to public
buildings, such as our hospitals, libraries, and community
centers, making them more energy efficient and more resilient.
And it prioritizes investments in environmental justice
communities which are disproportionately burdened by the health
and economic impacts of the COVID pandemic.
My first question is for Ms. Fendley. First, I want to
thank you and the Steelworkers for all of the work that you do.
Both of my grandparents were able to get great-paying jobs and
raise our families in the quality of life as steelworkers. I
just found my grandmom Lillian Lucille Jackson's card, her life
membership card as a steelworker.
And in the first days of President Biden signing these
Executive orders, it included measures to make the country's
infrastructure more sustainable. Why is this policy guidance so
important, and how might investments in energy efficiency and
resiliency in schools, hospitals, and other public buildings
help Americans get back to work?
Ms. Fendley. Thank you for the question. And it is always
wonderful to hear about a family legacy of membership in our
union.
As you have said, energy efficiency is incredibly
important. This is a great bucket of infrastructure investment
that we can and must do. And I will reference a study that I
mentioned in my written testimony about the importance of Buy
America in energy retrofits, of buying the windows that we are
replacing with windows made by American workers, and the
potential to create 170,000 jobs if we are doing those deep
energy-building retrofits as both this climate strategy to
reduce our emissions but also, as you said, an economic
development strategy to help with those interlocking crises.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Tayloe, how will these investments help communities,
and specifically, how can we ensure that these investments
reach environmental justice communities?
That is one question I have. And the other, in the interest
of time, is really about how folks can do a better job engaging
the communities that are least at the table. So one is, how can
we ensure that the investments go to the right places?
Ms. Tayloe. Well, quickly, to retrofit public buildings, I
think, is an easy way to utilize our Federal and State funding
to create the transition to a more renewable energy future. In
addition, there are so many children and teachers who spend so
much time within schools, within libraries, et cetera, so
having more energy-efficiency kinds of implementation within
those buildings speaks to creating more healthier environments
for them as well.
So, when we think about how all those communities have been
impacted by COVID, et cetera, with air quality, asbestos, all
of these issues happen in our schools, and so retrofitting them
to make them a healthier place for everyone, I think, is
critical to communities.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you so much.
I just want to end up by saying that, again, I am glad that
there is a focus on bringing more people to the table to make
better decisions about the future of our country and to make
sure that our health, our environment, and our economy are all
strong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, and I yield
back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Representative Darren Soto, 5 minutes for questioning, sir, and
welcome.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
Years from now, schoolchildren will learn about the climate
crisis we face. At this very moment, they will learn about how
we had until about 2050 to substantially reduce fossil fuel
pollution. Either they will read how we came together to solve
this existential threat to the human race or that a partisan
divide hindered our response, dooming us to failure.
And we are charged with challenging and addressing this
climate crisis in this committee, at this moment. Polluting
nations like China and India do not set the standards for
American excellence. We do.
And what is the cost of inaction? Florida will be largely
under water or surrounded by seawalls and suffer over 100
extremely hot days a year by 2050. Tourism and agriculture jobs
in my State would be decimated by this. Millions of Floridians
would become climate refugees as well, and this will play out
throughout the sunbelt States.
I keep hearing about job losses in the fossil fuel
community. What about my State? What about our job losses in
Florida by continuing to go on this path? The jobs you are
arguing for destroy the jobs in my State. They destroy the
economy and our way of life in my State. That is why we believe
we have to act.
And the good news is the majority of Americans are already
with us, especially our young people. I mean, the private
sector--we keep on hearing about that--they are already moving
forward. Do you think it was by accident that GM booked a Super
Bowl ad talking about how they are moving away from gas
vehicles to electric-powered vehicles by 2035 and how they are
boosting 30 new electric vehicles by 2025? They are getting
with the program, as is Ford with the $29 billion investment in
electric vehicles and even producing an electric F-150, a
workhorse of American industry, by 2022.
President Biden is doing his part with the climate accord,
the Paris climate accord, pausing new Federal oil and gas
leases, converting our Federal fleet to electric vehicles, like
private industry, reserving 30 percent of Federal lands for
conservation, and most importantly, boosting the Buy American
rules to boost our Federal purchases of U.S. goods.
And we have to do our effort here in Congress--the Moving
Forward Act, with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, including
the LIFT Act that we worked on to upgrade our grid, boost
renewable potential, hospital infrastructure, and broadband,
included all the recommendations of the Climate Change Plan,
the bipartisan Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act, and the
CLEAN Future Act, to have an economywide solution.
Ms. Goldfuss, we talked already a lot about moving solar,
wind, and other renewable energy equipment manufacturing to
fossil fuel country to mitigate job losses. What about building
and siting new nuclear power plants in these areas as well?
Would this be a help to mitigate job losses? Ms. Goldfuss.
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, sorry about that. Took me a minute to
get off mute.
I think it really depends on what communities you are
talking about. We are strongly supportive of continuing to
provide support to existing nuclear, but there is still a lot
of concern about expanding access to nuclear energy around the
country. And so you have seen particular States really say that
it is not for them.
So I think it depends on the community, the cost, and--but
it is true that, if we lose all existing nuclear and it is
replaced by natural gas, we are not going to be able to reach
our climate goals. So it is definitely one of those complex
problems.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much. And that is why President
Biden included it in his plan.
Ms. Fendley, if we want to upgrade our infrastructure,
boost American manufacturing, and combat climate change, can we
do it all with the Moving Forward Act and Buy American rules?
Ms. Fendley. I think we can make significant progress with
the Moving Forward Act. But, as we have talked about this
afternoon, there is so much investment that has to happen in
our infrastructure to get it up from a failing grade and to
really have the economy of the future.
Mr. Soto. Thanks so much.
And, Attorney Tayloe, we know that communities of color
have been more vulnerable to climate change. How can you
explain it to the committee, why that is true?
Ms. Tayloe. Well, the data is very clear that race has
historically been the biggest indicator of the location of our
most polluting facilities, whether that is our landfills, power
plants, et cetera, incinerators, you name it. Race is still the
biggest indicator historically. And, unfortunately, we have
seen time and time again that, when it comes to really
empowering communities to have a say in the creation of sound
and fair environmental policies, that we don't always have that
access.
But I will say, with the Biden administration, we have
already seen within just less than a month the real commitment
to making sure that environmental justice is lifted to a
national priority, so we are very hopeful.
Mr. Soto. Thanks so much. My time is expired.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona,
Representative Tom O'Halleran. Welcome to the subcommittee,
sir, and you are recognized for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
And it is great to be on the committee. I really appreciate it.
Today marks the first hearing of this subcommittee in the
117th Congress. It is my hope we can come together and build on
the success of the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020, signed into
law late last year, and the first major Federal climate action
in 13 years.
The Energy Act provided over $5 billion in research,
development, and demonstration resources to advance renewable
energy and energy storage technology--much more needs to be
done--established a timeline to eliminate harmful HFC gases
from the atmosphere, supported the development of essential
carbon capture, and renewable technologies, and much more.
I could not agree more with the words shared by President
Biden's nominee to lead the EPA, Michael Regan. During his
confirmation hearing last week, he said, ``To address complex
challenges, you must first be able to see them from all sides.
You must be willing to put yourself in other people's shoes.''
He continued, ``The best way to do that is by convening
stakeholders where they live, work, and serve, fostering an
open dialogue, rooted in respect for science, a clear
understanding of the law, and a commitment to building
consensus around solutions.''
We can't simply regulate our way out of every problem we
face. More work on climate change can and should be
accomplished if we work on policies with broad consensus to
meet the needs of the movement--moment. I am sorry.
If we look at the state of our climate, we must recognize
that climate change is not just a domestic problem, but it also
is an international problem. Going forward, it is essential no
energy worker and no community is left behind. This is a
bipartisan area of concern.
My district was home to the largest coal-fired generation
facility in the country until the Navajo Generating Station
closed in 2019. Today, my district is home to three other coal-
generation facilities, which produce over three gigabits--three
megawatts of electricity for Arizonans and countless good-
paying jobs for workers and families in their communities.
I am determined to ensure economic opportunity and reliable
energy is available to all those in the front lines of the
energy transition. I will also be introducing legislation to
provide that necessary economic process.
Ms. Fendley, your testimony also discusses where certain
technologies and products within the energy industry are
produced. In your view, do you foresee any emerging industries
or manufacturing sectors where dislocated energy workers in the
United States could compete in? What barriers may exist for
workers this committee should be aware of? Thank you.
Ms. Fendley. Thank you for that question. It is a very
complex one. I think we have a lot of challenges to help
workers in those communities impacted by potential job loss
that we have historically failed.
There are new technologies that we should be aiming to make
sure that we are developing and manufacturing here, like direct
air capture, like building out carbon capture transportation
infrastructure, batteries manufacturing and storage. There are
all kinds of possibilities. I think the challenge is making
sure that we utilize both technology, to make sure we don't
lose jobs where we don't have to, and then making sure that we
do that economic development in the places where jobs are lost,
that we are bringing blue-collar jobs to blue-collar
communities.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. And a followup question to you--
and I have a longer question, but I am going to get down to
this--how important is it for there to be White House staff
focused on addressing worker and community impacts from the
energy transition and coordinating interagency work? It is
complicated, there are a lot of people out there, it is
disconnected right now. So I would like to hear your thoughts
on that.
Ms. Fendley. It is indeed complicated, and I think that is
why we need to have that centralization at the White House to
be thinking about that, to be garnering the resources from so
many Federal agencies, because the goal is to keep communities
intact. You know, the goal is not to displace workers where we
don't have to and, as I said, to bring those good blue-collar
jobs to blue-collar communities.
And the centralization of that interagency working group
that the Biden administration is setting up is going to be
critically important. It will also be important for Congress to
help hold them accountable.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. Let's remember the people of
America also.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California,
Representative Nanette Barragan, thank you for joining us, and
5 minutes for questioning, please.
Need you to unmute, Representative. Not hearing you yet.
OK. We are going to go to the--can we hear you,
Representative Barragan?
OK. We will go to Representative McEachin, and we will be
back to you. We have a technical problem.
So the Chair will recognize Representative Donald McEachin
of Virginia. You are recognized for 5 minutes for questioning,
sir. And thank you for your work on environmental justice too.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and
Chairman Pallone for convening this hearing.
I want to take a moment just to applaud the Biden
administration for its swift and bold action in the area of--
excuse me--in the area of the climate crisis, particularly the
Executive orders which are bringing to bear a whole-of-
government approach, which I think is exactly what we need to
get our country on the right foot going forward.
I also want to thank our witnesses for their time and their
expertise. Some of you I have had the privilege of working with
in the past, and I want to thank all of you all for your
commitment to equity and justice.
In my view, for far too long, communities of color,
indigenous communities, and poor communities have been on the
front line of bearing the burden of the climate crisis. And,
tragically, we see that the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare for
all to see how pollution impacts health and the economies of
what we have called environmental justice communities.
I have been very pleased to see that the early actions of
President Biden emphasize the importance of environmental
justice and specifically the importance of ensuring government
benefits reach these communities where the need is enormous,
where the centerpieces of the President's environmental justice
effort is the Justice 40 initiative, which has been talked
about previously. It states that 40 percent of the benefits of
Federal investments should go to disadvantaged communities.
Ms. Tayloe, you have talked about how WE ACT works
alongside various EJ communities. Can you tell us how these
organizations and how your organization would benefit from
these targeted investments?
Ms. Tayloe. Thank you for that question, Congressman
McEachin. In terms of the Justice 40 initiative, we see a lot
of potential in it to address some longstanding issues that we
have experienced, not only within Harlem but in the broader
environmental justice community.
In terms of what we would think that this could look like,
it could be anything from investments in LIHEAP--in the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program--weather assistance
programs, more opportunities for grants at the Department of
Energy for workforce development or for community solar, and
also, of course, to clean up the legacy of pollution that
exists in our communities.
So we are very excited about the Biden commitment to
investing 40 percent in communities, and look forward to
articulating what that will look like in the future.
Mr. McEachin. Ms. Tayloe, as you know, the President's
Executive orders have tasked the Council on Environmental
Quality to develop a new screening tool for climate and
economic justice. This keeps me up at night, because we have
got to make sure that this 40 percent lands on the target, that
we have defined things correctly.
Can you speak briefly about the importance of improving our
tools for identifying environmental justice communities, and
how can Congress support this effort?
Ms. Tayloe. Thank you for that question, again. And data,
again, is critical to helping to articulate where the
communities are that are experiencing the most harm. And so
having really--well, for sure, updated data that talks about,
not only census-level data, but health indicators, like low
birth rate, high rates of asthma, respiratory conditions, heart
conditions, et cetera, I think is critical in terms of
articulating where the 40 percent should go.
And we look forward to seeing that data come to life, so
that we can also use it to articulate where we--you know, for
the programs we think are beneficial but then also where the
investments should be made. So thank you for that question.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the questions that I
have. I appreciate your time and the attention of the
witnesses. And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We thank you for your
questions.
And we are going to go back to the Representative from
California, Representative Nanette Barragan, 5 minutes for
questioning, please.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me
better now?
Mr. Tonko. Very well.
Ms. Barragan. OK, good. I am on my phone, so I apologize if
the connection isn't as good.
So I want to start by thanking all the witnesses for being
here today, and to thank you, Chairman Tonko, for holding this
important hearing on restoring Federal climate leadership.
The recent actions of the Biden administration to address
the climate crisis and environmental justice bring hope that
meaningful progress is possible. The damage of the last 4 years
by the Trump administration to our planet and to our
communities of color was devastating. We have a tremendous
amount of work to do to ensure our commitments and, most
importantly, our actions rise to the challenge we face. It is
almost impossible to be too bold on climate or on justice. So
thanks for doing this, again, today.
Ms. Tayloe, I would like to start with you. I represent the
Port of Los Angeles, it ports the country, and as you know,
they bring a lot of jobs, but they also bring pollution. I
recently reintroduced legislation called the Climate Smart
Ports Act to invest in zero emissions technology for cargo-
handling equipment and trucks at ports and shore power for
idling ships.
Nearly 40 percent of Americans live within 3 miles of a
port, including my constituents near the Port of L.A. Can you
speak to how investing--how important it is for us to invest in
climate smart ports and how that can help combat environmental
injustice and create good-paying green jobs?
I think you are on mute, Ms. Tayloe.
Ms. Tayloe. Sorry about that.
I would like to also just thank you and both Congressman
McEachin for just coming in as junior Congressmen at the time
and founding the United for Climate and Environmental Justice
Congressional Task Force.
But to your question about ports, even looking at
California specifically, due to poor zoning and regulations,
unfortunately, communities of color, low-income communities are
homes to not only ports but just really poor transportation
systems that have trucks coming in and out of our communities
all of the time.
The transportation sector not only is one of the larger
emissions of greenhouse gas emissions but, because of the fuels
that they use and the type of work that they do, they also
increase particulate matter, which causes ozone and other kinds
of air quality issues. So having some type of regulation over
port systems, as you have indicated, would be very critical to
helping improve the air quality for our communities. So thank
you for introducing that legislation.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Ms. Fendley, is there anything you want to add on this
about investing in----
Ms. Fendley. Sure. I will just say that ports are
critically important to making sure that our goods can move in
and out of the country. There is certainly a lot of investment
going on in ports, to help reduce emissions from them. I would
just caution that we do need to make sure that, again, those
technologies are not used as excuses to displace workers in
that process.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Ms. Fendley, because I
specifically have a provision in the bill that will make sure
that we are saving union jobs and that we are not phasing human
labor jobs for automated labor. So thank you for bringing that
up. Our bill does cover that, and it is a huge issue for me as
well and your workers. Thank you.
Ms. Goldfuss, a year ago the Energy and Commerce Committee
released a draft CLEAN Future Act to get the U.S. to a hundred
percent clean energy by 2050. Are there any specific improved
changes you would like to see in the Clean Future Act that our
committee members can consider as we work to pass clean energy
and climate legislation this year?
Ms. Goldfuss. I think the one improvement that the
committee might consider is the 2030 target that could be more
consistent with what President Biden and Vice President Harris
have put forward. We know where we need to get by mid-century,
but we need to make sure we have a check along the way. So what
is an appropriate target by 2030 that really shows that we are
on that path.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Ms. Tayloe, anything you want to add in my last 20 seconds
on that last question?
Ms. Tayloe. I think we just have to focus on how to create
green jobs and also do it with a lens for communities to
address legacy pollution. And I think with the Biden-Harris
commitment to--that we have seen within the Executive orders,
we are on the right path.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you, again, to the witnesses.
Thank you, Chairman, for this very important hearing. As I
stated at the beginning, we can't be bold enough after the last
4 years with the disastrous policies, so we have got to move
forward and move wholly. Thank you, and with that, I yield
back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
We have a few members who have waived on to the
subcommittee. We thank them for their patience. We next go to
the Representative from Florida, Representative Kathy Castor,
who chairs the Select Committee on Climate Crisis. And 5
minutes, Representative Castor, for questioning, please.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Tonko. I am looking
forward to working with you hand in hand in the coming session,
and to Rep. McKinley, my good friend, you as well, on a
bipartisan basis.
Thank you to our outstanding witnesses today. Everyone is
focused on the opportunities in clean energy, especially the
power sector. It really is, as Ms. Goldfuss stated right off
the bat, it is the linchpin to so much of what we want to do to
meet our scientific imperative, to meet our moral obligation to
our kids and our grandkids.
And then there is a study out just today, out of Harvard
and other research institutes, that says that it has determined
that pollution from dirty fuel sources is responsible for one
out of five deaths globally today. That is more than had been
previously understood. So there is a very significant public
health interest in us moving forward on clean energy.
So let's--I want you all to make some recommendations to us
on--and it is good Rep. Barragan got into it on clean futures--
what we need to do to update that.
So, Ms. Tayloe, we know environmental justice communities
are burdened inordinately by pollution. We understand that we
have to build in engagement and consultation along the way and
force the Clean Air and Clean Water protections on the books,
create a civil rights cause of action. As we are thinking,
though, of building the macro grid--the big new modern grid,
great job-creating initiative, jobs that cannot be outsourced
anywhere--what else do we need to keep in mind when it comes to
equity and environmental justice?
Ms. Tayloe. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
Castor. I would like to lift up the solar investment tax
credit. I think it plays a very critical role in creating the
investment potential for the solar industry. I think it is one
of the single most effective current policies available to
encourage clean energy deployment. And, in addition to that, we
want to make sure that the opportunities available for people
of color and women to enter into the green job sector is there
in terms of diversifying those opportunities.
Beyond the job side, of course, the legacy of pollution
that we experience in our communities requires that we start
thinking about cumulative impacts and how to think about the
application of both the Clean Air and the Clean Water Act in
terms of permiting. And this has just been something that EJ
communities have been demanding for a very long time. Thank you
for your question.
Ms. Castor. And, you know, you reminded me when you said
community solar, there are so many families and small business
owners that want to access energy efficiency and clean
technologies, but there is a real problem with that upfront
cost. But, boy, we could put money back into the pockets of
consumers and small businesses, don't you think, if we could
help address that?
Ms. Tayloe. For sure. You know, there was an earlier
comment about solar in Florida. And, frankly, sometimes
utilities have monopolized and limited the availability of
solar opportunities for people, whether it is putting the
panels on their roofs or providing the benefits in terms of net
metering. So expanding, I think, the policies around that would
be critical in making it affordable for everyday people who
really do want to lessen their dependence on fossil fuels to
start seeing solar as a viable option for their homes and also
for their businesses.
Ms. Castor. Boy, you are right about that, and I can tell
you, in the so-called Sunshine State, we have a ways to go on
that.
So, Ms. Fendley, let's talk about what we need to do when
we are talking about good-paying union jobs. Building the macro
grid across the country, it has got to be combined with
prevailing wage, with Davis-Bacon, project labor agreements.
What else? And how do we incorporate that into law as we move
forward?
Ms. Fendley. Thank you for that question. It is, of course,
the great challenge that we have as we build the clean future.
One of the important policy levers that Congress has is the
support it gives to many of these industries. And I think we
need to look at, when we are giving public money to renewable
energy, the renewable energy industry, or any industry, whether
it is through tax credits or grants or loans, we need to make
sure that the spending of that money is done to support those
high-quality union jobs, to support domestic manufacturing. And
we have been working with a number of stakeholders, with
Senator Merkley and Congressman Boyle, on legislation to try to
make sure we do just that, particularly with tax credits.
Ms. Castor. Thanks so much.
I yield, Represenative Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the, again, patient Representative
from California, Representative Jerry McNerney, for 5 minutes
for questioning, please, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
allowing me to participate in this hearing. And I want to
congratulate my friend from West Virginia for elevation to
ranking member. I look forward to working with you, David.
There is a clear tension between the urgency to transition
to a low-carbon economy and the cost of carrying out that
transition. Mr. Mills made a good case of that, actually, but
clearly the transition will not be easy or cheap--or
necessarily cheap. But I believe that American innovation will
open up tremendous opportunities in the future.
Ms. Goldfuss, do you think it is possible to get to net
zero by 2050 or even earlier, with strong economic growth in
the meanwhile?
Ms. Goldfuss. Absolutely. This is our moonshot. This is the
opportunity. We don't have all the technology now, but it will
come if we invest in the right areas and we set those goals.
Mr. McNerney. And Congress has a big role to play in that,
I presume?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes. I mean, ARA, the American Recovery Act,
is still seen as the biggest climate bill we have had to date.
Those investments led us to the point we are now, where
renewables are really competitive with fossil fuels.
Mr. McNerney. And I agree. I spent 20 years developing wind
energy technology, and it was a lot of fun and we did a lot of
progress.
Ms. Tayloe, what are the consequences if we just throw up
our hands, like we are being urged to, and let the fossil fuel
industry run the day?
Ms. Tayloe. The consequences will be more lives lost,
whether we are seeing that with more extreme heat types of
issues in the summer, more wildfire, more destructive storms,
people unable to rebuild their homes. We are still seeing that
even in New York after Superstorm Sandy. So the consequence is
just a continuation of harm and lack of support for communities
who are on the front line of our climate crisis.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Honestly, I don't believe that
reducing emissions will be enough to prevent catastrophic
change, and we need to prepare for all the possible actions
that we could take, including climate intervention.
Ms. Tayloe, do you agree with that?
Ms. Tayloe. It cannot be the only solution. We have to
think about--thinking about things through the lens of
environmental justice and remediating communities. I mentioned
the opportunity to clean up brownfields and closed coal mines,
et cetera. We have to remediate communities, we have to create
resiliency funding and opportunities.
There is also an issue with people who aren't able to
qualify for home loans, to cover them during, you know, all the
storms, et cetera. So having some type of support for low-
income communities who might want to purchase home insurance
but can't afford it.
So we have to have all levels of protection, because what
we are seeing every single year is that we are having hotter
summers, colder winters, more extreme temperatures. And so we
have to prevent and be prepared through investments federally
and at the State level.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Thank you for speaking up on that.
Ms. Fendley, as you noted in your testimony, grid
modernization is critical to improving efficiency, performance,
and resiliency. How important is grid modernization to
manufacturing?
Ms. Fendley. It is very important. I appreciate the
question. You know, energy intensive trade exposed industries
need high-quality reliable power, and without that, you know,
without a grid modernization, we won't be able to live up to
the manufacturing goals that we have been talking about today.
Mr. McNerney. Well, lastly, Ms. Fendley, could you
elaborate on the need to tie climate policy to economic
recovery?
Ms. Fendley. Well, these two things are just inextricably
linked. As we deal with climate change, we need to be looking
at our long-term economic situation, and the rest of the world
is addressing emissions.
In order for our economy to continue to be globally
competitive, we also have to lower emissions, lower embodied
carbon in manufactured goods. It is a part of how we are going
to remain economically competitive into the future and make
sure that workers are at the center of these policies.
Mr. McNerney. And so what would be the benefits of
investing in American-made climate and energy infrastructure?
Ms. Fendley. The benefits are putting our money back into
the American working class. The benefits are that our
manufacturers make things more cleanly than other manufacturers
around the world. And it is putting a down payment on our
manufacturing base for the future.
You know, technologies and manufacturing infrastructure
doesn't get replaced for decades because it runs for so long,
and it is so important that we invest now and invest early in
manufacturing and in industrial emissions to make sure that we
are building the facilities, retaining the facilities,
retaining the jobs long into the future.
Mr. McNerney. And I think that is something we can all
agree upon.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
I believe, unless there is anyone we have missed here, I
think all of our colleagues who chose to ask questions have
been recognized. And I would remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, they have 10 business days by which to submit
additional questions for the record.
In the effort to cooperate here, we are asking that our
witnesses respond promptly to any such questions that you may
receive.
So we thank everyone. We thank Ms. Tayloe, Ms. Fendley, Ms.
Goldfuss, and Mr. Mills for your participation today. It has
been a lot of information exchanged, and it is a start of a
great session addressing climate change and economic recovery
and environmental justice.
We also do have a number of documents that have been
requested to be entered into the record, and I will do that
now. Again, welcoming Mr. McKinley to our subcommittee as the
ranker. So I request unanimous consent to enter the following
into the record.
We have a letter from the retail fuel community trade
associations; we have a letter from Our Children's Trust; we
have a letter from Industrial Energy Consumers of America; we
have a letter from Portland Cement Association; an article from
Axios on Keystone Pipeline jobs; an article from EE News on
Keystone Pipeline jobs. We have an article from Global Energy
Monitor on China coal plant development; we have an article
from Reuters on China's coal plants capacity; we have a letter
from American Exploration and Production Council; we have a
report from DOE on natural gas; we have a report from North
America's Building Trades Union on energy job quality; we have
a report from North America's Building Trades Union on key
findings of quality study; we have a report from National
Energy Technology Laboratory on LNG lifecycle; we have a report
from the University of Wyoming on Federal leasing, drilling ban
policies; a report from West Energy Alliance on permitting ban
costs; the statement from LIUNA on Keystone Pipeline; we have
an article from CBS News on Keystone Pipeline jobs; we have a
statement from Representative Diana DeGette; we have a letter
from Biotechnology Innovation Organization; and also a document
on political contributions from Mr. McKinley, which can be
included in the record, pending a citation. We require that
citation.
But all those that I have listed, I would ask, without
objection, to include those in the unanimous consent.
Without objection, they are so ordered.
Mr. Tonko. And, again, the document on political
contributions----
Mr. McKinley. What is he saying?
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. From Mr. McKinley----
Staff Member. We can include that.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Will be included--did we receive--
--
Staff Member. Yes. We can include that.
Mr. Tonko. We can include it. OK. So that also is made in
order, with the request of the several items that I listed, the
several documents.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.
\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter from Our Children's Trust and the reports from the
National Energy Technology Laboratory, the University of Wyoming, and
the Department of the Environment have been retained in committee files
and are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So any objection?
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman? No objection, Mr. Chairman. I
just wanted to thank you for this hearing and welcoming all of
the Members on both sides of the aisle, the new Members that we
add to this. And I thought it was very beneficial to hear their
perspectives from all sides on this. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Well, it has been my pleasure. It is great to
have you on as ranker. I enjoyed the great participation from
our panelists today and so many colleagues. So we are off to a
good start.
And, you know, again, any questions received, we ask that
be done in 10 days by committee rules and that our witnesses
respond promptly.
With that, the hearing is closed--or, let me say, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing. I am so excited and grateful that we are finally
working with an administration prepared to address the climate
crisis.
Climate change poses an existential threat to humanity.
President Biden has correctly identified it as one of the great
crises we must confront as a nation today.
Perhaps the single most important objective in reducing
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, as the
President has called for, is to eliminate the carbon emissions
of the electricity sector. The electricity sector is currently
our second greatest emitter.More than that, however, zero-
emission electricity will be the key to eliminating climate
footprint of the transportation sector, the manufacturing
sector, and buildings, because we will do this largely by
replacing the use of fossil fuels with zero-emission
electricity.
In eliminating the carbon emissions of the electricity
sector, we face the following challenges. First, every American
deserves and demands affordable, reliable electricity. Second,
climate science tells us we need to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions to net zero as soon as possible, to minimize the risk
of catastrophic climate change. But third, we do not currently
have the technology to generate all of our electricity
affordably, reliably and with zero carbon emissions, and the
pace of technology innovation is inherently unpredictable.
I have written a bill, the Clean Energy Innovation and
Deployment Act, CEIDA, intended to meet these challenges. Among
other things, CEIDA includes a Clean Energy Standard that will
automatically adjust the required pace of technology deployment
to match the pace of technology innovation. It will do so by
using the fact that the market price of the tradable Zero-
Emission Electricity Credits, or ZEECs, issued under the
standard will rise and fall depending on the availability of
zero-emission technology.
If the price of these credits remain very low year after
year from the beginning of the program--indicating that zero-
emission technology is readily available and affordable--the
standard will require 100% zero-emitting electricity as soon as
2035. On the other hand, if the pace of technology is about
what we have seen in recent years and the technology to
eliminate carbon emissions fully has not been developed by
2050, the price of ZEECs will spike, power companies will pay
an Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) instead of submitting
ZEECs, and the revenue from the ACP will be used to offset the
remaining emissions with carbon abatement outside the power
sector.
I think of CEIDA, therefore, as having three speeds,
depending on the pace of technology innovation.
Under the first speed, if new carbon-free technologies
continue to come to market at the current pace, despite the
additional investment in innovation provided in the bill, CEIDA
will offset any carbon emissions in 2050, yielding a net-zero
electricity sector. A lot of people talk about ``net zero''--
CEIDA will actually deliver it.
Under the second speed, if the innovation provisions of
CEIDA produce a technological breakthrough, we will advance the
mandatory date by which we achieve zero-emission electricity,
possibly as soon as 2035.
Finally, under the third speed, any power company ready to
replace all emitting technologies with nonemitting technologies
before 2035 will receive significant financial support from the
Federal Government to do so.
Other provisions of CEIDA will provide R&D and other
support for innovation, protect low-income rate payers, and
help displaced energy workers and people in frontline
communities get access to jobs in the modern energy economy. I
think the key to addressing this crisis will be to establish
reduction targets as ambitious as the technology allows and
provide every reasonable means of support to achieve them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you
and Chairman Pallone to finally pass legislation that will deal
with the climate crisis.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]