[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]