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

                       A SMARTER INVESTMENT: PATHWAYS TO A
                                 CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

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

                                VIRTUAL HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 18, 2021

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-6

    [GRAPHIC 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
    45-514 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021

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

                        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 Energy

                            BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                     Chairman
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    KIM SCHRIER, Washington              ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GREG PENCE, Indiana
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       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. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, 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

                                   Witnesses

    Stephen W. Pacala, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary
      Biology, Princeton University..................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   235
    Paula R. Glover, President, Alliance to Save Energy..............    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    41
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   241
    Craig Gordon, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs,
      Invenergy......................................................    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   245
    Richard J. Powell, Executive Director, ClearPath.................    61
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   250
    Daniel C. Camp III, Chair, Beaver County Board of Commissioners..    72
        Prepared statement...........................................    74
        Submitted questions\1\.......................................   255

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of February 17, 2021, from the National Association of
      Convenience Stores, et al., to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton,
      submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   133
    Article of February 18, 2021, ``Texas Blackouts Hit Minority
      Neighborhoods Especially Hard,'' by James Dobbins and Hiroko
      Tabuchi, The New York Times, submitted by Ms. Barragan.........   138
    Letter of February 18, 2021, from Charles T. Driscoll, Jr.,
      University Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering, and
      Kathleen S. Lambert, Senior Advisor, Harvard T.H. Chan School
      of Public Health, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr.
      Rush...........................................................   144
    Article of February 18, 2021, ``A Plan to Future-Proof the Texas
      Power Grid,'' by Jesse Jenkins, The New York Times submitted by
      Ms. Kuster.....................................................   150
    Article of February 16, 2021, ``Texas largely relies on natural
      gas for power. It wasn't ready for the extreme cold.,'' by Erin
      Douglas, Texas Tribune, submitted by Ms. Kuster................   152

    ----------

    \1\ Mr. Camp did not answer submitted questions for the record by the
    time of publication.
    Article of January 8,2020, ``Construction of Shell Chemicals'
      ethane cracker plant made Beaver County a leader in economic
      growth two years ago, new data reveals,'' by Chrissy Suttles,
      Beaver County Times, submitted by Mr. Rush.....................   160
    Article of August 9, 2019, ``$6.5 Billion Pa. Cracking Plant Puts
      a Region to Work,'' IBEW Media Center, submitted by Mr. Rush...   162
    Blog post of December 31, 2017, ``Pipelines Are Key to the
      Keystone State's Future, Let's Not Mess It Up,'' by James T.
      Kunz, Jr., Natural Gas Now, submitted by Mr. Rush..............   166
    Fact sheet, ``Potential Economic Benefits of an Appalachian
      Petrochemical Industry,'' American Chemistry Council, submitted
      by Mr. Rush....................................................   168
    Report of the Appalachian Storage Hub Conference, ``What is a
      storage hub?,'' November 5, 2020, submitted by Mr. Rush........   169
    Article of September 5, 2016, ``Gas pipelines represent
      prosperity,'' by David Spigelmyer and James Kunz, Pittsburgh
      Post-Gazette, submitted by Mr. Rush............................   175
    Report of the Department of Energy, ``Ethane Storage and
      Distribution Hub in the United States,'' November 2018,
      submitted by Mr. Rush\2\.......................................
    Editorial of February 17, 2021, ``Texas Spins Into the Wind,''
      Wall Street Journal, submitted by Mr. Duncan...................   180
    Editorial of February 15, 2021, ``A Deep Green Freeze,'' Wall
      Street Journal, submitted by Mr. Rush..........................   184
    Report of the Department of Energy, ``Extreme Cold & Winter
      Weather, Update No. 1,'' February 16, 2021, submitted by Mr.
      Rush...........................................................   188
    Report of the Department of Energy, ``Extreme Cold & Winter
      Weather, Update No. 2,'' February 17, 2021, submitted by Mr.
      Rush...........................................................   199
    Article of December 6, 2019, ``Can a Coal Town Reinvent
      Itself?,'' by Eduardo Porter, The New York Times submitted by
      Mr. Griffith...................................................   211
    Article of August 13, 2008, ``The 2003 Northeast Blackout-Five
      Years Later,'' by JR Minkel, Scientific American, submitted by
      Mr. Burgess....................................................   222
    Article of February 18, 2021, ``EV battery maker: Court ruling
      threatens Biden climate plan,'' by David Iaconangelo and
      Timothy Cama, E&E News, submitted by Mr. Rush..................   227
    Article of September 22, 2020, ``Petra Nova is closed: What it
      means for carbon capture,'' by Carlos Anchondo and Edward
      Klump, E&E News, submitted by Mr. Burgess......................   229

    ----------

    \2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at
    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210218/111210/HHRG-117-IF03-
    20210218-SD014.pdf.

            A SMARTER INVESTMENT: PATHWAYS TO A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:30 a.m.,
    via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Bobby Rush
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
    McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, DeGette, Butterfield, Matsui,
    Castor, Welch, Schrader, Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester,
    O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio), Burgess, Latta, McKinley,
    Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg, Duncan, Palmer,
    Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
        Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly
    Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff
    Director; Perry Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk; Anne Marie
    Hirschberger, FERC Detailee; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director,
    Outreach and Member Services; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and
    Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Press
    Assistant; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort,
    Press Secretary; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn
    Peel, Digital Director; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Medha
    Surampudy, Professional Staff Member; Tuley Wright, Senior
    Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Sarah Burke, Minority
    Deputy Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief
    Counsel for Environment; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Peter Kielty,
    Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services
    Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and
    Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for
    Energy; 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. Rush. I am going to symbolically gavel the meeting to
    order. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order.
        I want to thank all of you all for your presence here.
    Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``A
    Smarter Investment: Pathways to a Clean Energy Future.''
        Due to COVID-19 and this pandemic that we are living in,
    the public health emergency, today's hearing is being held
    remotely. Our Members and our witnesses will be participating
    via video conferencing.
        As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
    the purposes of eliminating any and--any unnecessary--as part
    of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for the
    purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members
    and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each
    time you wish to speak.
        Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez
    in the email address that we provided through staff. All
    documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
    the hearing.
        And now, today, in--the Subcommittee on Energy convenes for
    its first hearing in the 117th Congress. Before I proceed to
    beginning the opening statements, I would like to take a moment
    to welcome to the subcommittee's new majority and minority--new
    minority Members. I want to take a moment just to welcome our
    new majority Members, and they include Congresswoman Kim
    Schrier from Washington.
        Welcome, Kim.
        She is new to the Energy and Commerce Committee. And two
    veterans of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congresswoman
    Doris Matsui of California--wave to us, Doris, that is right;
    she will be joining with us--and Congresswoman Kathy Castor. Is
    Kathy on the line? I don't see her on the line. They will both
    be joining us.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you. I am pleased to have each of our new
    majority Members on the subcommittee for this Congress.
        And we also have returning with us our esteemed ranking
    member, Fred Upton, of the great State of Michigan. And Fred, I
    am also pleased that you also are rejoining us as the leader of
    our minority colleagues.
        And would you at this time like to introduce the minority's
    new Members?
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is Cathy. Fred
    Upton is not able to be with us today, so we have Dr. Burgess
    that is sitting in to serve as the ranking member on the
    subcommittee. And, as far as our new Members, I can do a little
    wing action here.
        Let's see here: Debbie Lesko from Arizona, new Member to
    the subcommittee; Greg Pence from Indiana, new Member to the
    subcommittee. And the rest of you may need to wave at me here.
        Mr. Rush. I think we have Gary Palmer.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Gary Palmer.
        Mr. Rush. And Debbie Lesko.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
        Mr. Rush. Greg Pence.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
        Mr. Rush. And Kelly Armstrong.
        Mrs. Rodgers. There we go, Kelly Armstrong. I did see him,
    too.
        Mr. Rush. Right.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. That is quite all right. Well, I want to thank
    you, Chairman--the ranking member of the full committee. And I
    will now--opening--5 minutes for an opening statement on my
    part. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a brief opening
    statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        In October 2018 the IPCC Panel on Climate Change released a
    special report on global warming. This report made several
    things apparent: global emissions are on the rise; changes are
    necessary before 2030; and, to avoid the harshest consequences
    of this climate change, we must reduce global emissions to net
    zero by 2050. Today the subcommittee meets to discuss the
    reinvigoration of our Nation's pathways to a clean energy
    future toward those very ends.
        In the year 2018 the energy sector was the second-largest
    source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is according to
    the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2019.
        In the year 2019, approximately 26 percent of the U.S.
    energy-related CO2 emissions came from mining
    petroleum fuels; 33 percent came from natural gas; and 21
    percent came from burning coal. In the same year, 63 percent of
    U.S. electricity generation came from fossil fuels.
        These past trends may seem daunting. However, reports show
    that a clean energy future is more than possible and that our
    progress toward this goal is well underway. For a case in
    point, renewables will account for most of the new electricity
    generating capacity for commercial operations in the year 2021.
    In addition, the cost of clean energy sources like solar power
    has increased by up to 82 percent since 2010, as a result of
    improved technology and expanding market participation.
        This month the National Academies released a report on the
    U.S. energy system. The report emphasizes that achieving net-
    zero carbon emissions in our Nation by 2050 is not only
    feasible, but that it would also bolster the economy, increase
    the availability of quality jobs, and help address systemic and
    longstanding social injustices.
        It also concludes that near-term emission reduction may be
    achieved by doubling generation from noncarbon-emitting
    sources, deploying renewables, scaling back coal and some gas,
    and preserving nuclear and hydroelectric plants.
        Representatives of the subcommittee, I humbly submit to you
    that getting the U.S. back in the lead on clean energy is
    essential for all of us. Yet there are severe consequences to
    our inaction. Inaction is not an option.
        Recent manifestation of this includes the disproportionate
    impact of the coronavirus on communities that shoulder the
    burden of energy generation and what is currently happening in
    the great State of Texas, where many of you reside, also where
    at least 4.3 million customers have endured frigid--I must say,
    Chicagolike--temperatures without electricity. This is a
    climate crisis in the State of Texas, and I do intend to have
    hearings in the future around the failure of our energy center
    to protect our American citizens in the State of Texas.
        Members, through our jurisdiction and through our
    membership, you and I have the tools and we are the team to
    address these issues and other issues, as well. We demonstrated
    this same acumen during the 116th Congress by releasing the
    CLEAN Future Act, which was a framework to get the U.S. on a
    path to net zero by 2050.
        This year we are in pursuit of complementary policies that
    would increase our overall transmission capacity to support
    energy security; advance electric vehicle charging; drive
    diversity and inclusion; and increase clean energy usage via
    strategies like a clean electricity standard.
        It has been said that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with
    the first step. Today, my dear colleagues, I urge the
    reinvigoration of our march toward a clean center of gravity,
    and that is to--and that is we must march forward to a clean,
    reliable, and secure energy future.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

        In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change (IPCC) released a special report on global warming. This
    report made several things apparent: global emissions are on
    the rise, changes are necessary before 2030, and, to avoid the
    harshest consequences of climate change, we must reduce global
    emissions down to net zero by 2050. Today, the Subcommittee
    meets to discuss the reinvigoration of our Nation's pathway to
    a clean energy future toward those ends.
        In 2018, the energy sector was the second-largest source of
    U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. According to the U.S. Energy
    Information Administration, in 2019, approximately 46 percent
    of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions came from
    burning petroleum fuels, 33 percent came from natural gas, and
    21 percent came from burning coal. In the same year, 63 percent
    of U.S. electricity generation came from fossil fuels.
        These past trends may seem daunting. However, reports show
    that a clean energy future is more than possible, and that our
    progress towards this goal is well underway. Case in point,
    renewables will account for most of the new U.S. electricity
    generating capacity for commercial operations in 2021. In
    addition, the cost of clean energy sources, like utility-scale
    solar power, has decreased by up to 82 percent since 2010 as a
    result of improved technologies and expanded market
    participation.
        This month, the National Academies released a report on the
    decarbonization of the U.S. energy system. The report
    emphasizes that achieving net-zero carbon emissions in the U.S.
    by 2050 is not only feasible, but that it would also bolster
    the economy, increase the availability of quality jobs, and
    help address systemic and long-stemming social injustices. It
    also concludes that near-term emissions reductions may be
    achieved by doubling generation from non-carbon emitting
    sources, deploying renewables, scaling back coal and some gas,
    and preserving operating nuclear and hydroelectric plants.
        Members of the subcommittee, I submit to you that getting
    the United States back in the lead on the clean energy game is
    essential. There are severe consequences to our inaction.
    Recent manifestations of this include the disproportionate
    impact of the coronavirus on communities that shoulder the
    burden of energy generation and what is currently happening in
    Texas, where 4.3 million customers have endured frigid,
    Chicago-like temperatures without electricity.
        Through our jurisdiction and membership, we have the tools
    and the team to address these issues and other challenges. We
    demonstrated this during the 116th Congress by releasing the
    CLEAN Future Act, a framework to get the U.S. on a path to net
    zero. This year we are in pursuit of complementary policies
    that will increase our overall transmission capacity to support
    energy security, advance electric vehicle charging, drive
    diversity and inclusion, and increase clean energy usage via
    strategies, like a clean electricity standard.
        It has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins
    with a single step. Today, colleagues, I urge the
    reinvigoration of our march toward a new center of gravity--and
    that is forward to a clean, reliable, and secure energy future.
    And with that, I recognize my friend and colleague, the
    gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.

        Mr. Rush. And with that, I recognize--now recognize my
    friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, who is the
    acting ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.
        I recognize you for 5 minutes for an opening statement,
    Representative Burgess.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
                  IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Burgess. And I thank the Chair. And let me just say,
    starting out, I also want to thank the Denton Independent
    School District that has provided me one of their offices that
    has both heat and Internet. So I knew I needed a reliable
    source of Internet to be a participant in this hearing.
        And Chairman Rush, it is good to be back with you. Of
    course, you and I served for 5 terms on the Energy Subcommittee
    going back to the 119th Congress. I took a brief hiatus, but
    with the retirement of Representatives Olson and Flores, is it
    important to have a Texan back on the subcommittee.
        And your hearing today does occur at a critical time in the
    Nation's history: 5 million American households left without
    electricity across Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
    And we had dangerous, record-setting winter weather, which
    ravaged the entire central United States, blasting subfreezing
    Arctic air all the way well south of the Mexican border, and
    many types of power production across all fuel types were
    challenged and went offline. People were left stranded. Power
    outages have lasted for days. Other utility services,
    particularly water, has also been impacted. Tragically, people
    have lost their lives.
        Americans are rightfully angry. Texans are rightfully angry
    and deserve answers. Given these recent events, it is
    important--and I welcome your observation to hold additional
    hearings, but part of today's hearing should focus on ways to
    increase the reliability and resilience of our electric grid.
    This is not a partisan issue. When the temperature drops below
    zero, no one cares which party the electricity comes from. They
    just want the heat to come on, the lights to go on when they
    flip the switch.
        As we know, Texas leads the nation in renewable power. It
    has transitioned faster than any other State. Congress needs to
    gather facts and understand the root causes of this energy
    crisis before speeding ahead with new renewable mandates that
    shift away from more reliable components of the existing energy
    fleet.
        In recent years the energy sector has done a rapid
    transformation and reduced our dependence on foreign energy.
    And that is so critically important, and people forget that.
    And it has helped rescue us from the 2008 economic recession
    and lowered our Nation's emissions. This revolution was not
    produced alone by Federal spending and mandates, but instead
    created by America's spirit of innovation and our Nation's
    dynamic free market economy. Transformation has brought many
    benefits to our Nation, including--but those benefits do not
    eclipse the importance of a stable supply of energy for all
    Americans.
        Investments are made in new energy production and energy
    infrastructure, but the reliability of those systems must
    always be the priority. Unfortunately, some of the early
    actions of this administration canceling pipelines, prohibiting
    new energy production on Federal lands signaled the desire to
    go in the opposite direction.
        And let me just remind my colleagues that America leads the
    world in reducing its carbon emissions. And some of us are
    still around who sat through the markup of the 2009 Waxman-
    Markey climate bill. But, in fact, we have reduced emissions
    through market forces greater than what would have been reduced
    if Waxman and Markey's bill had been signed into law. So let's
    not forget the actions that have been produced by the free
    market, and they will reduce our Nation's--they--if we don't
    pay attention to that, we will reduce our Nation's energy
    resiliency and hurt our energy workers without any significant
    impact to global emissions.
        Look, Chairman Rush, you are correct to say that America
    deserves a cleaner energy future, but pursuing a path toward
    that future while ignoring energy reliability may be the wrong
    approach. This subcommittee, this subcommittee should work
    together to prioritize the reliability of our power sector. We
    can pursue methods of expediting clean, American-made energy
    products, but we must remove barriers to slowing down
    innovation and creating jobs to provide affordable energy at
    home for Americans at home. Our energy sector stands ready to
    meet those challenges, but we can't let the heavy hand of
    government become an additional obstacle.
        Look, we have got significant work ahead of this Congress.
    We can look to America's clean energy future, but we cannot
    afford to rapidly transition our energy system without
    assurance of its reliability. We cannot support policies that
    destroy entire industries or increase America's dependence on
    foreign sources of energy and critical minerals. I hope we can
    find a bipartisan consensus and keep those priorities in mind.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess

        Thank you, Chair Rush, I look forward to serving on the
    Energy Subcommittee with you once again in the 117th Congress.
        Today's hearing occurs at a critical time in our Nation's
    history. This week, almost 5 million American households were
    left without electricity across Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana
    as dangerous and record-setting winter weather ravaged the
    Central United States, blasting sub-freezing arctic air all the
    way south to the Mexican border. Many types of power
    production--across all fuel types--went offline.
        People were left stranded, with power outages that lasted
    for days. Other utility services, like water and sewage were
    also impacted. Tragically, people lost their lives. Americans
    are rightfully angry and deserve answers.
        Given these recent events, I intend to use today's hearing
    to focus on ways to increase the reliability and resilience of
    our electric grid. This is not a partisan issue. When the
    temperature drops below zero, nobody cares where the
    electricity comes from--they just need the heat to come on.
        As we know, Texas leads the Nation in renewable power, and
    it transitioned faster than any other State. Congress needs to
    gather the facts and understand the root causes of this energy
    crisis before speeding ahead with new renewable energy mandates
    that shift away from a reliable existing fleet.
        In recent years, the energy sector has undergone a rapid
    transformation that has reduced our dependence on foreign
    energy, helped rescue us from an economic recession, and
    lowered our Nation's emissions. This revolution was not
    produced by Federal spending or mandates, but instead created
    by America's spirit of innovation and our Nation's dynamic,
    free market economy.
        This transformation has brought many benefits to our
    Nation, but those benefits do not eclipse the importance of a
    stable supply of energy for all Americans. As investments are
    made in new energy production and energy infrastructure, the
    reliability of those systems must always be the priority.
        Unfortunately, President Biden's early actions, such as
    canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, rejoining the Paris Climate
    Agreement, and prohibiting new energy production on Federal
    lands, signal a desire to go in the opposite direction.
        Let me remind my colleagues that America leads the world in
    reducing its carbon emissions and that the 2006 Waxman-Markey
    climate bill would have produced worse results for the
    environment than the results produced by the free market. These
    actions will reduce our Nation's energy resiliency and hurt our
    energy workers without any significant impact to global
    emissions.
        We all agree that America deserves a cleaner future, but
    pursuing a path towards that future while ignoring energy
    reliability is the wrong approach.
        This subcommittee should work together to prioritize the
    reliability of our power sector. We can pursue methods of
    expediting clean, American-made energy products. We must remove
    barriers slowing innovation to create jobs and provide
    affordable energy at home. America's energy sector stands ready
    to meet these challenges, but we can't let the heavy hand of
    government become an obstacle.
        Our subcommittee has significant work ahead this Congress.
    We can look to America's clean energy future, but we cannot
    afford to rapidly transition our energy system without
    assurance of its reliability. We cannot support policies that
    destroy entire industries or increase America's dependence on
    foreign sources of energy and critical minerals. I hope we can
    find bipartisan consensus with those priorities in mind.

        Mr. Burgess. And Mr. Rush, I would also ask unanimous
    consent--in my research for this hearing I came across a
    Scientific American article that talked about the 2003
    northeast blackout 5 years later. And interesting in this look-
    back article, they referenced the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
    which many of us will remember, that created some additional
    resiliency because of the challenges to the northeast grid that
    happened during that summer. And, of course, we all recall that
    many lives were lost to the extreme heat conditions, and we
    can't forget that heat can be just as deadly as cold if
    Americans are unprepared.
        But again, Mr. Chairman, I will get this--have my staff get
    this to your staff, but I would ask unanimous consent to
    include it as part of the record, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        Are there any objections?
        Hearing no objections, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Rush. The chairman now recognizes the chairman of the
    committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today the Energy Subcommittee begins its work for this
    Congress renewing our efforts to chart a path to a clean energy
    future. Last Congress was particularly productive for the
    subcommittee, culminating in enactment of the Energy Act of
    2020. And I commend Chairman Rush, along with many others from
    both sides of the aisle, for their work on this new law that
    was included in the omnibus.
        Last year Chairmen Rush, Tonko, and I released a draft of
    the CLEAN Future Act, comprehensive climate legislation to get
    us to a 100 percent clean economy by 2050. In the coming weeks
    we plan to introduce an updated version of the CLEAN Future Act
    that will serve as the basis for comprehensive climate action
    this year.
        The CLEAN Future Act touches on the whole energy economy,
    from the power sector to buildings to transportation, all
    aspects we will explore at today's hearing. The bill includes a
    Federal clean electricity standard, or a CES, a policy that has
    long existed in many States. A national CES can play a key role
    in building a clean power sector, which is critical to reducing
    carbon emissions in other economic sectors. And the CLEAN
    Future Act also sets forth policies to drastically reduce
    energy consumption in the building, transportation, and
    industrial sectors, among others.
        Now, President Biden has made the climate crisis a
    centerpiece of his administration and has already taken bold
    actions to address climate change. I stand ready to work with
    him to enact comprehensive climate legislation, and I hope my
    Republican colleagues will join us in that effort.
        Now, as we discuss the climate crisis, it is important to
    also recognize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Last
    Congress this subcommittee held a hearing on the impacts of the
    pandemic on the energy sector, including job loss, delayed
    projects, and the effect of pandemic restrictions on energy
    demand. Pandemic-related job losses have also resulted in
    millions of households being unable to pay their utility bills,
    and that is why the reconciliation instructions our committee
    marked up last week included additional funding for the Low-
    Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. And LIHEAP
    helps the growing number of qualifying families pay their
    utility bills and is especially crucial during a pandemic.
        And last, it is critical that we discuss the devastating
    toll this week's severe winter weather is taking on our Nation.
    Millions are facing power outages and dangerously cold
    conditions, and these outages are further exacerbated by the
    COVID-19 pandemic.
        Now, earlier this week the energy market in Texas, known as
    ERCOT, was forced to take 34,000 megawatts of electricity
    generation off the system. And since Sunday evening, over
    25,000 megawatts of mostly fossil-fueled energy were offline.
    Of this number, most of those outages are at gas-fired power
    plants.
        Those are the facts, as stated by Texas's own regulator.
    Yet some Republicans and media outlets are suggesting
    alternative realities. They are turning a crisis into an
    antirenewables campaign, and they are conveniently leaving out
    the fact that the majority of the failures have come from
    fossil fuel. So we can't allow the Texas crisis to be used as
    an excuse to discourage movement towards renewables. That will
    not help Texas or the United States.
        What failed here was an energy sector that didn't consider
    fully our changing climate and the extreme weather that comes
    with it. It was a failure to fully recognize that the 100-year-
    old storm of yesterday may now be the 10-year storm of today.
    As both the Department of Energy and fossil generation
    companies reported yesterday, gas pipelines, wells, and plants
    all froze because they weren't equipped to handle the cold
    weather.
        But I agree--I heard what Dr. Burgess said, and I agree
    that we need to do more in terms of resiliency. And certainly
    the bill that we are hoping--an infrastructure bill that we are
    hoping we will be doing, similar or maybe even more expansive
    than the Moving Forward Act that we passed last year in the
    Congress and through this committee, will be an opportunity for
    us to address some of these resiliency issues, as well. And
    those things are also included in our CLEAN Future Act.
        But I do think that the severely limited interconnection
    between ERCOT and the rest of the country probably didn't help
    matters either. I think it is sad that we saw these problems
    arise 10 years ago with another major storm that hit Texas and
    the Southwest, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at
    the time issued a report, but nothing really changed. You know,
    the fact that Texas is almost like an island separated from the
    rest of the Nation's energy grids I don't think helps, because
    it is more difficult for us to get power to them in the time of
    crisis. So hopefully we won't ignore this last FERC report, and
    we will follow up on it.
        And I also want to stress that this committee will
    investigate the Texas crisis further, and we will see what
    other actions we have to take based on that oil report as well
    as what we find out now. So, ultimately, this episode
    underscores the importance of prioritizing clean and resilient
    energy infrastructure, which is exactly what we aim to do with
    this.
        So thank you again. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Today the Energy Subcommittee begins its work for this
    Congress, renewing our efforts to chart a path to a clean
    energy future. Last Congress was particularly productive for
    the subcommittee, culminating in enactment of the Energy Act of
    2020. I commend Chairman Rush along with many others from both
    sides of the aisle for their work on the new law.
        Last year, Chairmen Rush, Tonko and I released a draft of
    the CLEAN Future Act, comprehensive climate legislation to get
    us to a 100 percent clean economy by 2050. In the coming weeks,
    we plan to introduce an updated version of the CLEAN Future Act
    that will serve as the basis for comprehensive climate action
    this year.
        The CLEAN Future Act touches on the whole energy economy,
    from the power sector to buildings to transportation--all
    aspects we will explore at today's hearing. The bill includes a
    Federal clean electricity standard, or CES, a policy that has
    long existed in many States. A national CES can play a key role
    in building a clean power sector, which is critical to reducing
    carbon emissions in other economic sectors. And the CLEAN
    Future Act also sets forth policies to drastically reduce
    energy consumption in the building, transportation, and
    industrial sectors, among others.
        President Biden has made the climate crisis a centerpiece
    of his administration and has already taken bold action to
    address climate change. I stand ready to work with him to enact
    comprehensive climate legislation and hope my Republican
    colleagues will join us in that effort.
        As we discuss the climate crisis, it's important to also
    recognize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Last Congress,
    the subcommittee held a hearing on the impacts of the pandemic
    on the energy sector, including job loss, delayed projects, and
    the effect of pandemic restrictions on energy demand. Pandemic-
    related job losses have also resulted in millions of households
    being unable to pay their utility bills. That's why the
    reconciliation instructions our committee marked up last week
    included additional funding for the Low-Income Home Energy
    Assistance Program. LIHEAP helps the growing number of
    qualifying families pay their utility bills and is especially
    crucial during a pandemic.
        Finally, it's critical we discuss the devastating toll this
    week's severe winter weather is taking on our Nation. Millions
    are facing power outages in dangerously cold conditions. These
    outages are further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Earlier this week, the energy market in Texas known as ERCOT
    was forced to take 34,000 megawatts of electricity generation
    off its system. Since Sunday evening, over 25,000 megawatts of
    mostly fossil-fueled energy were offline. Of this number, most
    of these outages are at gas-fired power plants.
        Those are the facts as stated by Texas' own grid regulator.
    Yet, some Republicans and conservative media outlets are
    peddling alternate realities. They are shamefully turning a
    crisis into an anti-renewables campaign, and they are
    conveniently leaving out the fact that the majority of the
    failures have come from fossil fuel infrastructure.
    Unfortunately, this misinformation campaign is nothing new.
        The fact is the power outages in Texas and other States
    throughout the Midwest and South are not a failure of any
    single generation technology. Every technology has been
    affected, including nuclear and coal. What failed was a sector
    that didn't consider fully our changing climate and the extreme
    weather that comes with it. It was a failure to fully recognize
    that the 100-year storm of yesterday may now be the every-10-
    year storm of today.
        As both the Department of Energy (DOE) and fossil
    generation companies reported yesterday, gas pipelines, wells,
    and plants all froze because they weren't equipped to handle
    the cold weather.
        Furthermore, the severely limited interconnection between
    ERCOT and the rest of the country probably didn't help matters.
    What's truly sad is that we saw these problems arise 10 years
    ago this month with another major storm that hit Texas and the
    Southwest. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) even
    issued a report, but nothing changed. Hopefully, this time it
    will.
        The fact that Texas is an island separated from the rest of
    the Nation's energy grid doesn't help because it's only more
    difficult for us to get power to them in a time of crisis.
    Hopefully, we won't ignore this last FERC report and we'll
    follow up on it. I also want to stress that this committee will
    investigate the Texas crisis further and we'll see what other
    action we have to take based on that report as well as what we
    find out today.
        Ultimately, this episode underscores the importance of
    prioritizing clean and resilient energy infrastructure, which
    is exactly what we aim to do in the CLEAN Future Act.
        These major outages also show that the climate crisis
    doesn't differentiate between red States and blue States: the
    whole Nation is being impacted by the climate crisis. It's time
    to recognize that and join together to enact the best
    comprehensive solutions for keeping Americans safe with
    affordable, reliable, and clean energy.

        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the ranking member, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5
    minutes.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
        REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
    Dr. Burgess for the extra effort to sit in the lead Republican
    chair today. He is certainly at the right place at the right
    time for this hearing. Texas has the lowest energy cost in the
    country, along with the fastest transition to clean energy.
        With that, let's recognize that there are many good ideas
    for developing cleaner energy systems to ensure that we win the
    future. The key is to recognize how we unleash American
    innovation and free enterprise using all our resources to
    protect our economic and energy security. We should build, not
    destroy. We should use our abundant natural resources like
    hydrogen and natural gas, not shutter them. We should enable
    people to deploy, take risks, improve, and create the next
    great advances so America leads a new era of entrepreneurship
    and innovation.
        We can pursue practical policies to innovate a cleaner
    energy future if we work together. We should be clear-eyed
    about what is at stake if we get this wrong.
        The radical environmental left is pushing top-down, one-
    size-fits-all mandates and costs on Americans, which will
    threaten our Nation's energy dominance and our national
    security. This is clear in the repeated attacks on our oil and
    natural gas industry and its people, which has provided
    tremendous opportunity and given the advances--has actually
    driven the advances in cleaner energy generation that are
    benefiting all around the globe. Yet the left is rejecting
    fossil energy, while also talking about transforming America's
    electricity system in 14 years, and the entire energy economy
    in 30 years.
        How is that possible? What does this transformation really
    mean for our economy? What does it mean for families and
    workers? We should look beyond the rhetoric to understand what
    this is really about, and we should understand the consequences
    on energy, reliability, household cost, and security.
        The importance of reliability has been on full, heart-
    wrenching display this week in Texas, the South, and the
    Midwest. At times available electricity could not meet the
    record-high demand for power from the extreme cold. Wind
    turbines across the State froze. Natural gas production was
    shut in. This ultimately deprived the grid of critical energy
    and power, just as the demand spiked. There wasn't enough
    natural gas supply or baseload generation to close the gap,
    especially because of other weather issues and emergency
    priorities to heat homes and hospitals.
        On Monday, to prevent more widespread power failure, the
    Texas grid operator, ERCOT, directed utilities to implement
    outages that eventually affected an estimated 5 million
    households. The emergency exposed systematic weaknesses
    relating in part to overreliance on intermittent renewables. It
    is a powerful reminder that electricity reliability is a life-
    and-death matter.
        The supply of energy also is a serious pocketbook matter,
    especially for low-income households. Low- and middle-income
    families must be top of mind if this discussion turns to new,
    clean energy mandates and taxes. Especially during the pandemic
    recovery, families cannot afford an increase in their
    electricity and gasoline bills.
        According to the Department of Energy, States with the
    highest low-income energy burdens, 10 percent or higher, are in
    the Southeast. For mostly heating and cooling, low-income
    households use about 36 percent more power than the national
    average for low-income households in other regions of our
    country. Fortunately, States like my home state of Washington
    also enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the Nation,
    thanks to our hydropower.
        But imagine how families will be squeezed if top-down
    energy policies increase the price of electricity. What happens
    when people in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina
    have to pay the same rates as people in California or
    Connecticut?
        And then there is economic and national security. The rush
    to green seeks to ban fossil energy and its quality jobs for
    millions of people. It will massively increase reliance on
    renewables and electrification of transportation. This domestic
    policy has global implications.
        First, it won't do much to reduce global emissions. The
    global emissions will keep going up as developed nations seek
    access to affordable energy.
        It will also hurt America's security and competitive edge.
    Absent major changes in our domestic mining and manufacturing
    base, increasing reliance on wind, solar, and electric
    batteries trades energy security for energy insecurity. It
    pushes carbon emissions offshore and increases reliance on
    Chinese supply chains. It does nothing meaningful for global
    climate change.
        We can do better, and I hope that we all begin to pay
    attention to what is really at stake: reliability, jobs,
    affordability, and our Nation's economic security.
        I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

        AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank Dr. Burgess
    for the extra effort to sit in the lead Republican chair today,
    he certainly is at the right place at the right time for this
    hearing.
        Texas has the lowest energy cost in the country along with
    the fastest transition to clean energy. With that, let's
    recognize there are many good ideas for developing cleaner
    energy systems to ensure we win the future.
        The key is to recognize how we unleash American innovation
    and free enterprise--using all our resources to protect our
    economic and energy security.
        We should build, not destroy.
        We should use our abundant natural resources like hydro and
    natural gas, not shutter them.
        We should enable people to deploy, take risks, improve, and
    create the next great advances so America leads a new era of
    entrepreneurship and innovation.
        We can pursue practical policies to innovate a cleaner
    energy future ... if we work together.
        We should be clear-eyed about what's at stake if we get
    this wrong.
        The radical environmental left is pushing top-down, one-
    size-fits-all mandates and costs on Americans, which will
    threaten our Nation's energy dominance and our national
    security.
        This is clear in the repeated attacks on our oil and
    natural gas industry, and its people, which has provided
    tremendous opportunity and driven advances in cleaner energy
    generation that are benefiting the globe.
        Yet the left is rejecting fossil energy, while also talking
    about transforming America's electricity system in 14 years,
    and the entire energy economy in 30 years.
        How is that possible?
        What does this transformation really mean for our economy?
    What does it mean for families and workers?
        We should look beyond the rhetoric to understand what the
    rush to green is really about.
        We should understand the consequences on energy
    reliability, household costs, and security.
        TEXAS
        The importance of reliability has been on full, heart-
    wrenching display this week in Texas, the South, and the
    Midwest
        At times, available electricity could not meet the record-
    high demand for power from the extreme cold.
        Wind turbines across the State froze.
        Natural gas production was shut in.
        This ultimately deprived the grid of critical energy and
    power, just as demand spiked.
        There wasn't enough natural gas supply or baseload
    generation to close the gap, especially because of other
    weather issues and emergency priorities to heat homes and
    hospitals.
        On Monday--to prevent more widespread power failure--the
    Texas grid operator, ERCOT, directed utilities to implement
    outages that eventually affected an estimated five million
    households.
        The emergency exposed systemic weaknesses relating in part
    to overreliance on intermittent renewables.
        It's a powerful reminder that electricity reliability is a
    life and death matter.
        FAMILIES
        The supply of energy also is a serious pocketbook matter,
    especially for low-income households.
        Low- and middle-income families must be top of mind if this
    discussion turns to new clean energy mandates and taxes.
        Especially during the pandemic recovery, families cannot
    afford an increase in their electricity and gasoline bills.
        According to the Department of Energy, States with the
    highest low-income energy burdens--10 percent or higher--are in
    the Southeast.
        For mostly heating and cooling... Low-income households
    there use about 36 percent more power than the national average
    for low-income households in other regions of the country.
        Fortunately, States--like my home State of Washington--also
    enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the Nation thanks
    to our hydropower.
        But imagine how families will be squeezed if top-down
    energy policies increased the price of electricity?
        What happens when people in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,
    or South Carolina have to pay the same rates as people in
    California or Connecticut?
        SECURITY
        And then there is economic and national security.
        The rush to green seeks to ban fossil energy--and its
    quality jobs for millions of people.
        It will massively increase reliance on renewables and
    electrification of transportation.
        This domestic policy has global implications.
        First it won't do much to reduce global emissions.
        Global emissions will keep going up as developing nations
    seek access to affordable energy.
        It will also hurt America's security and competitive edge.
        Absent major changes in our domestic mining and
    manufacturing base, increasing reliance on wind, solar, and
    electric batteries trades energy security for energy
    insecurity.
        It pushes carbon emissions offshore and increases reliance
    on Chinese supply chains. It does nothing meaningful for global
    climate change.
        We can do better. And I hope my colleagues across the aisle
    begin to pay attention to what is really at stake--for
    reliability, jobs, affordability, and our Nation's economic
    security.

        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair would like
    to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all
    Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the
    hearing record.
        Now I would like to welcome our esteemed witnesses for
    today's hearing.
        The first witness is Dr. Stephen Pacala, who is a professor
    of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University.
        Our next witness is Ms. Paula Glover, a friend who is the
    president of the Alliance to Save Energy.
        The next witness is Mr. Craig Gordon, the senior vice
    president of global affairs at Invenergy.
        The next is Mr. Richard Powell, the executive director at
    ClearPath, Incorporated.
        And finally, last but not least, Mr. David [sic] Camp III,
    who is the chairman of the Beaver County Commissioners.
        I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for
    being with us today. I must say that our witness--we have--one
    of our witnesses have a--1:00, a 2:45 hard stop. So we want to
    be mindful of this hard stop for our witness as we go forward.
        And to all of our witnesses this morning, we look forward
    to your testimony.
        And now we begin with Dr. Pacala.
        You are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF STEPHEN W. PACALA, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY AND
     EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; PAULA R. GLOVER,
     PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY; CRAIG GORDON, SENIOR VICE
     PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INVENERGY; RICHARD J. POWELL,
        EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEARPATH; AND DANIEL C. CAMP III,
                 CHAIRMAN, BEAVER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN W. PACALA, Ph.D.

        Dr. Pacala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this invitation to
    provide testimony. I am here as chairman of the National
    Academies committee that released a report on February 2nd that
    Chairman Rush just mentioned, containing policies that would,
    over the next 10 years, put the U.S. on a 30-year path to net-
    zero greenhouse gas emissions.
        The committee was asked to determine how to achieve net
    zero, but importantly, not whether or not the Nation should do
    so. The committee was instructed to provide both the
    technological blueprint for the transition to net zero and a
    portfolio of socioeconomic policies to ensure that the
    transition is fair and just.
        The first of two reports covers CO2 emissions
    from electric power, transportation, industry, buildings, and
    fuels, but not agricultural and forestry carbon sinks, nor non-
    CO2 greenhouse gases that will be covered in the
    second. It covers only Federal actions over the first 10 years
    of the 30-year transition.
        Lessons learned in a comprehensive review of existing
    information include, first, that the transition is affordable.
    The Nation would spend a similar or lower fraction of GDP on
    energy during the transition than it has over the past 30 years
    because of the dramatic drop in the cost of wind, solar, and
    lithium ion batteries.
        The transition would save lives. Medical savings during the
    2020s would be larger than the costs.
        The transition would create more than a million new net
    jobs, but fossil jobs would decline.
        The energy system today contains substantial injustice.
    Poor and historically marginalized groups suffer
    disproportionate harm from fossil pollution while receiving
    disproportionately low benefits from fossil energy.
        Past transitions have left legacy workers and
    infrastructure behind. If we do that again, and if we do not
    work to eliminate existing environmental injustice, then
    prohibitive public opposition is likely to develop.
        The report identifies technological goals with quantitative
    targets, including a doubling of the share of net-zero
    electricity, increased electrification of transport and home
    heating, and new infrastructure such as electrical transmission
    lines and CO2 pipelines.
        It also identifies socioeconomic goals, including
    revitalizing the manufacturing sector, cost-effectiveness,
    increasing high-quality jobs, promoting equity, diversity, and
    inclusion, and fair treatment of communities, businesses, and
    workers during the transition.
        The policy recommendations are summarized in a single
    table, which is in the testimony. The table offers the quickest
    way to assimilate and understand what the report recommends.
    Recommendations include an economywide price on emissions
    starting at $40 per ton, a green bank, and standards to ensure
    an on-schedule transition, including zero-emissions electric
    power and vehicle standards.
        The report calls for regulatory reforms in the electricity
    sector, without which net-zero power goals are unlikely to be
    realized.
        It recommends a tripling of Federal net-zero RD&D.
        It is the first report containing a comprehensive policy
    portfolio designed from scratch to address the social
    dimensions of the energy transition. This includes a national
    transition task force to identify workers and communities at
    risk, regional centers where State and local leaders can learn
    about what is coming and how to manage it, community block
    grants for local planning, and an independent national
    transition corporation that would provide funding to address
    social impacts of the transition, and a comprehensive education
    and training program.
        Some might be tempted to view policies targeting deployment
    of net-zero technology as the highest priorities, because the
    social consequences would lag behind deployment. However, this
    view has it backwards, because the technological transition and
    the social disruption that goes with it are already occurring
    and will inevitably continue. The ongoing decline in coal-
    sector employment is already hollowing out communities across
    the Nation. The recent announcement by General Motors that it
    will produce only electric cars by 2035 is a harbinger of
    similar inevitable declines in oil and gas employment.
        In conclusion, a transition to a net-zero economy in the
    United States by mid-century is technologically feasible with
    energy system costs that have been manageable in the recent
    past. With appropriate policy, the transition could advance a
    number of national objectives simultaneously: a more fair and
    just energy system; improved international competitiveness;
    revitalized American manufacturing; and enhanced energy
    innovation.
        The transition would also provide new, high-quality jobs,
    but at the cost of lost fossil jobs; eliminate the substantial
    health impacts of fossil fuels; reduce U.S. greenhouse gas
    emissions to zero; and enhance the Nation's leadership in
    climate and energy.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Pacala follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. The gentleman--opening statement. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. Paula Glover, the president of the Alliance to
    Save Energy.
        Paula, it is so good to see you again. And you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF PAULA R. GLOVER

        Ms. Glover. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you and good
    afternoon, Chairman Rush, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member
    McMorris Rodgers, and Dr. Burgess, for holding this hearing.
        A clean energy future that works for everyone is going to
    require careful planning. And we all appreciate your
    leadership. Certainly I do. I want to recognize the members of
    this committee who also serve on the Alliance's honorary board:
    Chairman Rush, Representatives Tonko, Welch, Dr. Burgess,
    Representatives McKinley, and Kinzinger. I started with the
    Alliance just about a month ago, and I am really looking
    forward to working with all of you.
        I also want to just send my thoughts out to those folks in
    Texas, my friends, my colleagues, and all of those individuals
    and members of my family who are really going through a very
    tough time. And just want them to know that we are all thinking
    and praying about them.
        I am going to start by saying, you know, there has been a
    lot of back and forth recently about the risks and
    opportunities of the clean energy transition. And I actually
    believe that it boils down to one essential question: How do we
    handle and tackle the climate crisis in a way that uplifts
    every community?
        How do we avoid leaving future generations the costs and
    life-threatening dangers of climate change while at the same
    time making sure we are not increasing energy costs or leaving
    communities behind?
        We can't make this transition fair unless we are thinking
    of the communities that could be harmed in the process, as well
    as the communities that have already been harmed, communities
    where history tells us we need to do so much better at
    providing clean air, economic opportunity, and more affordable
    energy.
        And, if I leave you with one thought with my testimony
    today, I hope it is that energy efficiency is the most powerful
    answer we have for addressing this challenge. And I would argue
    that energy efficiency should be the starting point in the
    conversation about an equitable, clean energy transition.
        We can start with jobs. Energy efficiency is often
    overlooked as one of the largest employers in the entire energy
    economy. Even after losing more than 300,000 jobs during this--
    since this pandemic began, efficiency employs more than 2
    million Americans. That is about 7 times the amount of wind and
    solar industries combined, and more than 10 times the size of
    the coal workforce.
        Energy efficiency jobs are spread all over the country.
    They are construction workers and HVAC contractors who retrofit
    homes and buildings. They are factory workers making windows
    and insulation. They are electricians and plumbers and,
    increasingly, tech workers designing or installing digital
    controls and systems to manage energy demand. These are the
    type of jobs that will be created if we launch a national
    campaign to modernize our infrastructure by retrofitting
    millions of homes and buildings, creating a more efficient
    transportation system, and cleaning up our industrial sector.
        It is an incredible opportunity to create durable, skilled
    trade jobs that pay good wages and that are available in 99
    percent of U.S. counties. And if we do it right, we can ensure
    that those opportunities are available first for the
    communities that need them the most, whether it is a rural town
    in West Virginia or an urban neighborhood in Illinois.
        And at the same time, we have to carefully consider energy
    affordability. I started my career more than 30 years ago
    taking payments in a gas utility. And I know firsthand about
    the energy burden that many families deal with. In fact, 1 in 5
    U.S. households today find themselves making a choice at least
    once a year between paying their energy bill or buying food and
    medicine. And I can't begin to imagine what that must be like.
        I am not here to tell you that energy efficiency is going
    to make that burden disappear. But what it can do is deliver
    hundreds of dollars in lower bills and savings that can make
    the difference for some families. And that cost savings is not
    just for consumers. Energy efficiency improvements can cut
    costs and increase profits for small businesses and
    manufacturing plants, making them more productive and
    competitive.
        Finally, we have a pressing need to address climate change.
    When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency is
    simply the fastest, cheapest, and most effective solution we
    have. The International Energy Agency projects that energy
    efficiency using existing technologies will account for nearly
    half of the emission reductions needed to meet the goals of the
    Paris Agreement.
        So what do we need to do to achieve these goals? I am going
    to highlight several policy solutions under this committee's
    jurisdiction, and we urge you at the Alliance to consider them
    as you develop infrastructure and clean energy legislation this
    year.
        First, we have been working with Representative Welch and
    others--thank you, Congressman--to develop a new program for
    helping small businesses improve their efficiency with an
    emphasis on boosting minority-owned businesses and businesses
    in disadvantaged communities. This plan for Main Street
    efficiency would target Federal grants to match existing
    utility programs to provide low- and no-cost efficiency
    upgrades to small businesses immediately and permanently,
    lowering their operating expenses. Since 80 percent of energy
    efficiency contractors are small businesses themselves, this is
    a small business helping small businesses.
        We also strongly support a proposal championed by
    Representative Blunt Rochester--thank you, Congresswoman--to
    retrofit mission-critical public buildings around the country--
    our schools, hospitals, airports, and other facilities--not
    just to be more efficient but also to be safer and more
    resilient in the face of natural disasters and other
    emergencies. This proposal would leverage Federal funding to
    draw billions in private capital through performance
    contracting and other financing and, importantly, ensure that
    at least 40 percent of the projects are in low-income or
    disadvantaged communities.
        We also strongly support expanding core efficiency programs
    at the U.S. Department of Energy, particularly the
    weatherization assistance program.
        I would emphasize that all these proposals, because they
    are so tailored to creating jobs, go hand in hand with improved
    worker training programs. We support Chairman Rush's
    longstanding workforce legislation, the Blue Collar and Green
    Collar Jobs Act, because that ensures that everyone seeking a
    skilled position can get one.
        In addition, while not under your jurisdiction, we also are
    looking at tax incentives that will help us grow our--grow
    efficiency improvements in our homes and buildings.
        I believe efficiency is a foundational solution to the
    challenges that you are trying to address. And we at the
    Alliance are looking forward, and we are eager to working with
    you to find the best solutions for all of our communities.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Glover follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Ms. Glover. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Gordon.
        Mr. Gordon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF CRAIG GORDON

        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Rush, Mr.
    Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers, and Acting Member
    Burgess for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. My
    name is Craig Gordon, and I am senior vice president of
    government affairs at Invenergy.
        Invenergy is a privately held clean energy company that
    develops, owns, and operates large-scale renewables, gas-fired
    generation, as well as energy storage and electric
    transmission. Starting with just 6 employees in 2001, Invenergy
    will employ more than 1,500 employees by the end of the year.
    Invenergy has developed 175 utility-scale clean energy
    projects, with the capacity of over 27,000 megawatts, and has
    completed more than 40 billion in project financings. We focus
    on renewables because, as our CEO, Michael Polsky, loves to
    say, it just makes sense.
        Before I begin my testimony, I would like to briefly
    address the recent reliability issues in Texas and neighboring
    States. These events underscore the importance of your work to
    ensure a reliable and affordable grid as the realities of
    climate change are hitting us in unexpected ways.
        On behalf of Invenergy I want to say that we are deeply
    troubled and saddened by the events that have unfolded. The
    system failed in Texas for 2 reasons: first, because the market
    and the resources themselves were not designed to sustain such
    extreme cold weather--wind, gas, coal, and nuclear operations
    were all disrupted--no single resource type bears all the
    blame; second, since Texas is electrically isolated from the
    rest of the grid, available generation elsewhere could not be
    imported to address the shortfall.
        Even now, as the crisis in Texas and elsewhere continues,
    the real investigations into what went wrong haven't even
    begun. But the recommendations I made in the file testimony
    already point to the path forward. They were true before the
    disaster hit, and they are painfully true today.
        First, transmission. There is simply no way to achieve the
    ambitions of this administration and the American people
    without more of it. Higher penetrations of renewables
    throughout the country require a massive investment in
    transmission infrastructure. Transmission connecting diverse
    regions of the country and different types of technologies with
    complementary generation profiles is key to solving this
    challenge.
        Second, long-term energy policy. Without a national policy
    to direct the country toward a decarbonized grid, we will only
    make incremental progress. And without a long-term approach,
    the industry will not be able to plan for projects and
    infrastructure across the multiyear development and supply
    chain timelines that are required for these huge investments. A
    patchwork of State policies has filled the void of a Federal
    policy so far, but real progress has been limited because every
    State does it differently. An overarching goal would align all
    States and help address thorny issues.
        Additionally, there are several other policies that aren't
    squarely under the jurisdiction of this committee that are
    critical to meeting these goals.
        First, Congress should consider policies that allow for
    monetization of energy tax credits at 100 percent of their
    value to address the tightening tax equity market.
        Second, Congress should consider Federal incentives like an
    investment tax credit for transmission to unlock renewables and
    improve reliability of the grid.
        Third, Congress should increase resources and develop
    advanced technologies to ensure the long-term compatibility of
    renewable energy and our national security.
        The transition to a decarbonized grid will create
    significant socioeconomic benefits. For example, we create
    good-paying jobs in rural and historically disadvantaged
    communities. Invenergy invests in training and STEM programs to
    produce the next generation of workers in communities we serve.
    Approximately 10 percent of Invenergy's employees are veterans,
    and we continue to recruit from that great talent pool.
        In addition to job benefits, the affordable, emissions-free
    power that our industry generates can help alleviate
    environmental burdens, especially in low-income areas, or those
    most susceptible to harmful environmental impacts. Indeed, a
    thoughtful expansion of clean energy can contribute to a just
    transition in an equitable, clean-energy economy.
        The urgency with which we must all tackle this challenge
    has never been greater. Fortunately, we have the tools to do
    so. The path to achieving our goals is not mysterious.
    Transmission is as core to the economy of the future as the
    highway system is to interstate commerce today. What we have
    before us is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to tackle the
    most existential threat modern mankind has ever faced. And we
    must, because it just makes sense.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to address this
    subcommittee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you. Our next witness is Mr.
    Powell.
        Mr. Powell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. POWELL

        Mr. Powell. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairmen Rush
    and Pallone, Dr. Burgess, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers,
    and members of the committee. I lead ClearPath. We advance
    policies that accelerate clean energy and industrial
    innovation. An important note: We receive no industry funding.
        As I stated the last time I had the honor to address this
    committee, climate change is an urgent challenge that merits
    significant policy action at every level of government and the
    private sector. We need look no further than Texas and across
    the Midwest to see the havoc extreme weather can have on the
    energy system. As America creates the grids of the future, we
    must utilize all forms of clean energy to ensure reliability.
        As this committee considers its part in U.S. climate and
    clean energy policies, those solutions should be ambitious, but
    also technology inclusive, politically realistic, and
    pragmatic. Policies must also support U.S. jobs.
        Too often solutions are oversimplified to a set of false
    choices: renewable versus fossil; economy versus environment;
    immediate action versus inaction. The reality is solutions to
    make the global clean energy transition cheaper, faster, and
    more flexible.
        Policy proposals must also reflect the global nature of the
    challenge. A molecule of CO2 emitted in Shanghai has
    the same impact as one released in Chicago. Policies like fuel
    switching, shutting down traditional energy production, or
    simply subsidizing certain technologies will do little to
    impact global emissions and may lead to loss of American jobs.
    A more effective strategy is rooted in American clean energy
    abundance, innovation, and exports.
        Today I will, first, level-set on where we are today;
    second, discuss policy to achieve a clean power future
    affordably and reliably; and third, look at options to reduce
    U.S. industrial emissions.
        So where are we today? Emissions are significantly down.
    Retail electricity prices have been flat, helping manufacturing
    jobs come back to America. Returning these jobs is also leading
    to lower global emissions because our environmental standards
    are tougher than China's. America's largest electric utilities,
    including Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Duke Energy, and DTE,
    have committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Sixty-
    eight percent of the country is now served by a utility with a
    significant carbon goal.
        But these utilities have emphasized that many of the 24/7
    clean technologies required to get them to that zero are not
    commercially available today. Xcel Energy said, even with their
    first-rate access to wind and sun, existing technology is
    sufficient to reach only 80 percent clean. We need policies to
    enable technologies that can eliminate the final 20 to 50
    percent of power sector emissions.
        According to the International Energy Agency, only 2 of 14
    critical power technologies are on track to deploy. We
    recommend that policymakers now work with industry, not against
    them. The Energy Act of 2020 is a perfect example. The most
    significant energy legislation in over a decade, your new law
    lays the foundation for a comprehensive commercialization
    strategy that focuses the world-class American innovation
    engine on these key technologies. It includes more than 20
    major new demonstration programs for long duration storage,
    carbon capture, advanced nuclear, geothermal, and direct air
    capture. It also expands DOE's work in industrial emissions and
    hydrogen.
        We congratulate you on the Energy Act, and now we must look
    to implementation, ensuring accountability at DOE and
    appropriately investing so your legislative success goes from
    letters in law to clean steel in the ground.
        Now, getting it built. We have all heard the Biden
    administration's mission to build back better. But right now we
    can only build new clean energy and reduce CO2
    emissions as fast as we can permit new projects. The mission
    ought to be to build cleaner faster. Currently, the Federal
    permitting process can take 5 to 10 years to complete, and cost
    millions of dollars. The good news: Your colleagues have
    introduced a number of proposals to modernize.
        Lastly, financing. Large-scale energy innovation needs to
    bring together private and public investment to scale up
    deployment and bring down costs. At the end of 2020 and early
    this year, you hit a policy trifecta for carbon capture, new
    aggressive R&D authorizations, a carbon capture tax credit, 45Q
    extension, and final administrative rules on how developers can
    properly claim the credit. While 45Q was a major victory, we
    also need a better structure for helping incentivize big
    investments and driving down costs. The Energy Sector
    Innovation Credit would update the energy portion of the tax
    code by allowing cutting-edge technologies to gain commercial
    viability.
        Now, our power sector work has been that the U.S. will not
    meaningfully reduce emissions without more clean and affordable
    technologies. This is even truer in the industrial sectors.
    More than 10 million hardworking Americans are employed there,
    and ensuring those jobs stay in America must remain a priority.
    Energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like steelmaking
    absolutely require affordable new technologies to help them
    decarbonize. Without them, we risk not only losing essential
    U.S. jobs but leaking the industrial activity to countries with
    worse emissions, like China, effectively increasing the risks
    of climate change.
        A serious debate on climate solutions must include a dose
    of political and technical realism. Climate change is an urgent
    problem that must be addressed today. It is imperative for all
    sides to agree that building cleaner energy in America will
    rebound our economy from COVID-19, create jobs, and have a
    significant global impact.
        Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to the
    discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Pause.]
        Voice. You may need to unmute.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Camp, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF DANIEL C. CAMP III

        Mr. Camp. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman, Majority
    Chairman Rush, Dr. Burgess, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member
    McMorris Rodgers. I want to thank you for having me be part of
    today's important hearing.
        As Chairman Rush said, my name is Daniel Camp. I currently
    serve as the chairman of the Beaver County Board of
    Commissioners.
        Beaver County and most of Pittsburgh Region's affinity and
    strong endorsement for the energy sector isn't tied to a common
    political ideology, because the support crosses political
    boundaries. The energy sector support can't be limited to one
    particular generation, because many Boomers, Millennials, and
    those in between living in Western Pennsylvania are supportive
    of our energy sector in Western PA. In my opinion, our support
    of the energy sector can be, in large part, due to the family-
    sustaining jobs they have been providing for many years.
        Therefore, policy--tax through increased taxes, regulation,
    and diverse rhetoric against certain types of producers within
    the energy sector are justifiably seen as personal attacks by
    those working within those specific sectors, as well as the
    businesses benefiting those workers and their families.
        Ultimately, if these attacks are achieved through new
    public policy, they are risking these workers having the
    ability to pay their mortgage and pay their own utility bills.
    Please just think about that when you are considering this. The
    desire for some policymakers to kill a particular industry and
    to invoke punitive policies against that industry alone will
    impact folks in my area in a way that jeopardizes their ability
    to put a roof over their family's heads and continue to keep
    food on their tables.
        The reality of this is that hundreds of thousands of
    people, many working in our trade unions in Western PA, rely on
    the natural gas industry's ability to produce natural gas in
    the Marcellus and Utica shales. And thousands of moms and dads
    rely on Consol Bailey's mine to provide for their children each
    and every month. Combine those jobs with downstream jobs whose
    survival directly depends on those energy sources being readily
    available and affordable--yes, in Beaver County that includes
    Shell's petrochemical multibillion ethylene cracker plant.
        But let's be reminded, Shell is the fourth-largest company
    in the world. I am not going to sit here today and argue that
    they can't afford to pay higher prices for their feedstock. But
    I know small manufacturing companies that can't afford the same
    price increases, nor have the Capex dollars to retrofit their
    plants to an alternative energy source.
        The manufacturing sector has seen a resurgence recently,
    because of the affordability and readily available energy
    resources that we have here. As you know, regulations that
    increase the cost of energy production, even on large companies
    like Shell, EQT, Chevron will certainly be passed down the
    supply chain and ultimately be paid by their vendors, and even
    their customers. That means truck drivers, food workers, local
    union workers, power plants, and even homeowners will incur
    those higher costs too.
        Many of these small regional companies that can't afford
    those increases--the situation in Western Pennsylvania and our
    support for all energy sources can be summarized by looking at
    the employment statistics.
        Now, I am aware that some people and groups will distort
    statistics to fit their agenda. But that is not my reason for
    being here today. I am merely here to give my personal
    observation about reasons behind why so many people that I
    represent support this energy sector in Pennsylvania. That is,
    the natural gas industry supports almost 24,000 production-
    related jobs.
        Pennsylvania jobs are specifically attributed to the
    natural gas industry's total 106,000 people, and an outstanding
    323,000 jobs are supported solely by that industry. The
    petroleum and oil industry, almost 24,000 jobs associated with
    production alone. Combine natural gas and oil, $23 billion in
    wages for Pennsylvanians. The coal industry directly supports
    more than 10,000 jobs; nuclear, 5,000-plus indirect jobs. Wind
    and solar combined for 8,000, and hydro 400.
        There may be other others who testify that certain types of
    energy have done wonderful things for their local economies and
    communities. But the reality today is that some have not had
    the same impact as the energy sector. And therefore, the
    support for those others are very proportional.
        I thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering
    any questions. Again, thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Camp follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the witness. And we have now
    completed all the opening statements for the witnesses, and we
    will now move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5
    minutes to ask questions of our witnesses. And I will start by
    recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        A component of the National Academies report on
    decarbonization involves the elimination of inequities in the
    current energy system that already severely disadvantage the
    disenfranchized. In the coming days I intend to introduce a
    bill to establish a Department of Energy office to advance
    principles of energy equity and all the conditions and
    resources to that very end.
        Dr. Pacala, I want to ask you. What else must we do to
    eliminate the inequities of the current energy system, while
    creating, at the same time, a clean energy future?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Rush. Dr. Pacala? Will you unmute, Dr. Pacala? You are
    muted.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Rush. Can you hear me? Dr. Pacala?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Rush. Dr. Pacala?
        [No response.]
        Dr. Pacala. Can you hear me now?
        Mr. Rush. Yes, we hear you now, Dr. Pacala.
        Dr. Pacala. OK, sorry. The system was--we have a big storm
    going here, and I think the wires are blowing around. It would
    not unmute.
        Mr. Rush. All right.
        Dr. Pacala. So our report--the committee included experts
    in environmental justice and experts on the social consequences
    of technological transitions and what to do about it.
        The--as a--for a climate and energy person like me, it was
    a real education to learn how much inequity is built into our
    current energy system, with disproportionate health exposure to
    fossil pollutants in communities of color and low-income
    workers across the country, how much energy prices contribute
    to poverty, how unavailable the kinds of opportunities that we
    afford people, like tax credits for electric cars, are to low-
    income communities who lack capital, and how difficult it is
    for low-income communities often to take advantage of Federal
    programs that do exist because, for instance, their homes can
    be noncompliant with codes.
        So we recommended a sort of an integrated portfolio to
    address the ongoing energy injustice, and forward-looking to
    have the transition itself also be fair and just, because
    workers are--some communities and workers would be otherwise
    damaged. This starts with a task force, a national task force
    to map where the energy injustice is in the country. There are
    good sector-specific studies, but nothing comprehensive. So we
    need first a top-down look at this.
        And then we have an integrated program of a White House
    office to coordinate 10 regional centers where representatives
    and mayors and others can get together to learn what can be
    done and to plan a national transition corporation that works
    with a green bank to provide capital, community block grants,
    so that they can plan and then apply for projects; a DOE
    extension service to provide technical know-how; a
    comprehensive education and training program; additional
    funding in LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
        And so, in combination, this package is designed to provide
    workers with multiple options during the transition, and to
    protect communities that would lose a dominant employer, and to
    eliminate the injustice that we have built into the energy
    system to date.
        Mr. Rush. All right, thank you. I have--my time is almost
    out, according to the clock, although I think that the--well,
    let me just yield back the balance of my time.
        And now the Chair recognizes the chairman of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. Frank, you got to unmute, Frank.
        Mr. Burgess. So, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Rush. Yes?
        Mr. Burgess. This is Burgess.
        Mr. Rush. Oh, Mr. Burgess.
        Mr. Burgess. Sometimes we go to the acting ranking member--
    --
        Mr. Rush. Yes, absolutely. My error. Please forgive me.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, don't----
        Mr. Rush. You are now recognized, the acting ranking member
    of the subcommittee, my friend, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
        And Ms. Glover, welcome to you. I have been on your board
    for some time, and I have always believed that energy
    efficiency is the common ground that we probably can find
    between all of the disparate political philosophies that weigh
    in on these energy questions.
        And I will just tell you my own experience with energy
    efficiency has really taught me just exactly what you are
    saying, that you can achieve 40 percent or greater reductions
    in your energy consumption. So if we look at it just from the
    standpoint of the consumer, by making wise choices with energy
    efficiency, whether it be in retrofitting a home, a new build,
    or even just a selection of particular appliances or products,
    your group does bring a wealth of expertise and knowledge and a
    significant voice to the discussion. So I thank you for being
    here today.
        I do an energy efficiency summit every non-COVID year in my
    district, and I find it to be very well attended, and people
    are actually hungry for the type of information that you
    provide.
        Ms. Glover. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
        Mr. Burgess. And Mr. Rush, I think too, you know, in the
    future, we would do well to include Ms. Glover in future
    discussions because energy efficiency sometimes just kind of
    gets pushed to the side. But it is one of the most readily
    available to the end energy consumer--a way that they have of
    impacting their energy purchases.
        Mr. Powell, thank you for being on our group today. Thanks
    for your testimony. Can you just--you did a very great job in
    your written testimony providing information about grid
    reliability. So the changing of the energy sector--I would
    infer from that that you believe has weakened our energy
    reliability.
        Dr. Pacala. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Burgess. Yes.
        Dr. Pacala. OK, good. Well, so our committee didn't
    investigate whether or not there has been any short-term
    decrease in grid reliability. What we did was to focus on how
    to decarbonize the grid and maintain its high reliability. And
    this is, of course, technologically feasible. The key, of
    course, is to have not just--is to have firm sources of power
    that can be relied upon at any time. As we have seen in Texas,
    when the firm sources of power fail, you are in trouble.
        And also it is important to--transmission, because you can
    interconnect areas from, you know, areas where demand is lower
    than average to areas where demand is higher than average.
        So the--I want to be very clear that it is possible to
    build a net-zero electricity grid that is as reliable as the
    grid we have today, or as the grid that we had 10 years ago.
        Mr. Burgess. So if I may, I got notice over the weekend--I
    believe it was on Saturday--that ERCOT was buying power from
    Mexico and Southwest Power Pool. I presume that that was a
    price phenomenon, rather than a weather phenomenon. But
    obviously, those sources were closed off as soon as it got cold
    in those neighborhoods, as well. But ERCOT is not an entirely
    closed system. There are inputs and there are egresses into
    other parts of the grid.
        Mr. Gordon, I wonder if I might ask you: You operate wind
    turbines in Texas, is that correct?
        Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Mr. Burgess. And you also operate natural gas facilities in
    Texas, is that correct?
        Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
        Mr. Burgess. Can you speak to the overall impact on the
    reliability of both of those as energy sources?
        Mr. Gordon. Yes. So I think, to answer your question,
    Congressman Burgess, we saw an unprecedented weather event hit
    Texas over the last week, which included significant icing on
    wind turbines. Our wind turbines are designed for cold-weather
    operation, so our turbine operations weren't impacted by the
    temperature so much as they were by significant icing. So we
    had icing, you know, for several days, and our technicians had
    worked around the clock to try to, you know, get the icing--so
    they can resume operations.
        On our natural gas facility we have a peaking plant in
    Ector County, and we were unable to procure gas for the plant
    over the sustained time of this event. So our inability to get
    gas prevented us from operating. I think what our experience
    was is consistent with what other gas generators experienced,
    as well. Because our facility did not have dual fuel, we
    weren't able to operate. Had, you know, an ERCOT system been
    designed to pay for capacity as other systems do, our facility
    could have had dual fuel capabilities. But there is just no
    compensating that right now to do that.
        Mr. Burgess. Right. There has actually been a move away
    from dual fuel capabilities for some number of years.
        And although--and I am going to yield back. And I can
    appreciate that it is an unprecedented--but, you know, this
    happened in 2011, the same situation occurred, it just didn't
    last as long. So--and I remember Governor Perry's response to
    that was to recommend the construction of several new coal
    power plants to sort of bolster the energy grid in Texas. He
    was rebuffed in that by the mayors of Dallas and Houston, who
    did not want to see new coal generation built in Texas. Some
    redundancy, clearly, is necessary.
        But thank you, Mr. Rush, I will yield back my time.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And now that we return
    to regular order, I will now yield 5 minutes to the chairman of
    the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for questioning.
        Mr. Pallone, you are recognized.
        Mr. Pallone. I will unmute myself. Thank you, Chairman
    Rush.
        I am trying very hard today and in the future to have us
    move towards a collective, you know, bipartisan response to the
    climate crisis. I mentioned our CLEAN Future Act, which has
    been introduced, but I also want the Republican Members to
    understand that, if at all possible, we would like to see a
    bipartisan response to the climate crisis.
        And I am concerned today, starting with the Governor of
    Texas, that, you know, that somehow renewables are being blamed
    for this, what happened in Texas, or the suggestion is being
    made that we shouldn't move towards--you know, not necessarily
    by members of this committee, but the suggestion is being made
    that this should be some reason for us to stop moving towards a
    clean energy future, or not encouraging renewables.
        And, you know, I really wish that we could avoid that,
    because I do think that renewables have to be a major part of
    this. It is not to say that we are going to rule out fossil
    fuels, or gas, or hydroelectric--which is, actually, a
    renewable, hydro is a renewable. So I don't know. I just--you
    know, I don't want this devastating situation in Texas to be
    blamed on renewables, because I just think that is false. The
    blame lies in the failure to properly consider how climate
    change and extreme weather events impact the grid.
        And the answer, as Dr. Burgess said, is to move towards
    more resiliency with the grid and other--and also resiliency
    for, you know, for power lines and gas lines and everything
    else, as well as looking towards the issue of whether or not it
    may--you know, there should be more interplay between the Texas
    grid and the grids in the other parts of the country.
        So let me just ask Mr. Gordon. Based on recent statements
    from ERCOT, it appears that, although 12,000 megawatts of wind
    and solar did go offline, the region was only expecting to rely
    upon 2,800 megawatts of wind this winter to meet energy demand.
    Meanwhile, ERCOT lost well over 25,000 megawatts of thermal
    generation, much of it natural gas, that it was relying on to
    meet the winter energy demand.
        So, again, I am not trying to get into this, but I think
    that the suggestion is being made that renewables are the cause
    of this power crisis. But it is not--I want you to comment. I
    mean, is it fair to say that the failure to ensure a reliable
    natural gas supply was a major cause of the outages that we are
    now facing, as compared to any failure of renewables, if you
    will?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Chairman. I guess, to answer your
    question, again, we don't want to cast aspersions on any
    particular type of technology, either. Having said that, wind,
    as everyone knows, is naturally variable, and it goes up and it
    goes down hour by hour, day by day. And, as ERCOT has noted,
    wind, as a portfolio in the system, actually outperformed day-
    ahead expectations.
        So, when all things were considered, wind did better than
    ERCOT's own system operators expected it to. And, as for what
    happened to the natural gas supply system, I really don't have
    insight into what happened there, other than I suppose it was
    too cold for gas to flow.
        Mr. Pallone. But I mean, right now, I mean, ERCOT was much
    more dependent on the natural gas generation to meet the winter
    energy demand. I mean, there is no question of that. I mean,
    that is just a fact, correct?
        Mr. Gordon. That is true. I mean, ERCOT has coal and
    nuclear and natural gas and wind, and all work in concert with
    each other. They are economically dispatched, and we don't run
    more gas than we need to when the wind is up, and we expect--
    and ERCOT knows that gas will be available when the wind is
    down. It is, you know, how the system has operated pretty much
    flawlessly for a decade.
        Mr. Pallone. Right. But, you know, my concern is--I don't
    know if you want to answer this, but maybe I will just say it--
    that, look, the bottom line is that Texas was not prepared for
    this. You know, gas pipelines in Texas are not, you know,
    insulated the way they are in the Northeast. The bottom line is
    that Texas and all of us had to prepare for these extreme
    weather events. And more must be done across the board, whether
    it is--you know, whether it is coal powered, gas, wind,
    whatever it is.
        I just don't think it is fair to suggest that somehow wind
    was the real problem here, or that renewables were a real
    problem here. I mean, they don't even rely on those that much
    in the winter. And--but if you don't want to comment on that,
    you don't have to. If you want to, go ahead, you have got 10
    seconds.
        Mr. Gordon. OK, yes. I mean, I think wind is a--is often
    the whipping boy of the energy industry. So we are kind of used
    to it. But it is unfair, and it is untrue. If we had more
    infrastructure, transmission infrastructure, this could have
    been avoided.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mrs.
    McMorris Rodgers.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to start
    just by saying to the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
    Pallone, that I appreciate you saying that you would like to
    work with us, Republicans and Democrats, to move to the clean
    energy future. We would welcome that. We would love to work
    together on innovation and removing regulatory barriers to more
    clean energy.
        Our concern is really when American energy resources,
    whether it is pipelines like Keystone, are canceled with the
    stroke of a pen or other Executive orders are removing American
    energy resources and fuel sources and really impacting
    America's leadership and our future, that is important to our
    economy as well as our national security.
        But I want you to know we stand ready to work together. And
    I think these are important discussions that we are having.
        I appreciated--Mr. Powell, I liked your theme about build
    cleaner faster. So I would like to explore that a little bit
    more with you, because we had testimony in the Environment
    Subcommittee last week that highlighted a serious problem: 90
    percent of solar panels are imported; 80 percent of the key
    components for wind turbines are imported. Asian companies
    dominate global battery production, and account for 80 percent
    of all planned factories. China also dominates critical
    minerals. It supplies 90 percent of the rare earth minerals.
    And China right now is announcing that they will allow the
    banning of exports of strategic minerals to companies and
    nations that are considered a national security threat. That is
    a problem.
        So today, we--you know, we continue to hear this drumbeat
    of building out the wind and the solar energy and restricting
    the oil and natural gas development. This is on a collision
    course. And what that means is that we are going to be losing
    our hard-earned energy independence and become reliable on
    these vulnerable supply chains from countries like China, or
    will be offshoring our emissions to nations with lower
    standards. So that is no help for the climate, and it will harm
    our own security.
        So, Mr. Powell, I wanted to start--because I don't think
    that this is an acceptable path for American leadership and for
    us to win the future. So would you just comment on how you
    believe the United States should focus on building on our own
    strengths, our--and ensure that we have a secure energy supply,
    and that we are also addressing global emissions?
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Ranking Member
    McMorris Rodgers. Let me congratulate you again on your
    election to the ranking membership of the committee. And thank
    you for your leadership on the Energy Act of 2020, and so much
    of your support for hydropower policy--I know an issue we have
    talked about many times before--and energy innovation, broadly.
        You know, I think that there is a couple of components to
    this, on retaking American leadership on clean energy, both
    domestically, here in the United States and, even more
    importantly, exports. I think that begins with innovation.
        We have fallen behind in domestic ownership and domestic
    manufacturing on a number of key clean energy technologies and
    a number of the components of those technologies. We need to
    focus on a next generation of technologies, where we can retake
    leadership. We still have a chance to lead in advanced nuclear
    energy, and long-duration storage, in carbon capture
    technologies that can use the natural fossil fuel abundance we
    have the United States, but do it in a cleaner and cleaner way
    every year. We can lead on advanced geothermal technology.
        And we can do more to ensure that there are strong and
    robust domestic supply chains for critical minerals. That means
    opening up mining resources for critical minerals here in the
    United States and using innovation to find more earth-abundant
    substitutes for those materials. We don't necessarily have to
    use exactly the same mix of materials and elements that we have
    used so far and that have made us quite dependent on China and
    other nations with very poor labor standards like the
    Democratic Republic of Congo, for example. We can find
    substitutes for a lot of those materials that are more
    available either here in the United States or in our allied
    countries. So I think----
        Mrs. Rodgers. Great.
        Mr. Powell [continuing]. Innovation, opening up
    exploration, and finding alternatives.
        Mrs. Rodgers. In just these last few seconds, would you
    comment on the prospects of nuclear technology--because there
    is some exciting technology being developed in Washington
    State--and if it would help overcome the transmission problem
    that we are seeing even in Texas right now?
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely. As I think everyone has said, no
    technology was unscathed in Texas. But I think nuclear did
    probably a little better than average in Texas. Only one of the
    nuclear units, to my understanding, went down. Nuclear is a
    highly resilient part of any clean energy mix, of any energy
    mix, and I think that we can find even more resilient and even
    more advanced designs for nuclear.
        I am extremely excited about the 2 designs that are likely
    to be piloted and demonstrated in Washington State in the
    coming 5 years. That is part of the Advanced Reactor
    Demonstration Program started in the previous administration at
    the Department of Energy that is going to set up 2 commercial-
    scale, fully commercialized--it is like selling electricity to
    the grid, demonstrations of advanced reactor technologies.
    These are the next generation. They don't use water to cool
    them. They have a number of different attributes that make them
    cheaper and more efficient, and potentially offering the same
    safety for a significantly lower cost profile. So I am very
    excited about those developments, and I hope Congress will
    support them.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Peters for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having this
    fascinating hearing. And I want to start on behalf of the
    residents of San Diego, California, by expressing our concern
    and prayers for the tremendous challenges facing the folks in
    Texas and nearby areas. I commit to working with you to find
    out the facts behind what has gone wrong and honestly figure
    out the ways that the Federal Government can play a role in
    ensuring reliability.
        I also want to acknowledge that the transition to cheap
    natural gas has lowered carbon dioxide emissions. But, because
    this has become a talking point in this committee, I want to
    again remind everyone that, if we don't control fugitive
    methane emissions along the way from production to end use,
    there is no climate benefit.
        And if I had more time, I would also like to explore the
    carbon tax with Dr. Pacala, as his report touts the advantages
    of pairing well-designed carbon tax--and by that I mean one
    that can mitigate the negative distributional impacts on
    society--with other ambitious climate policies. But I will
    defer that for our discussion of how we pay for infrastructure
    investment, because I think that matches that well.
        Today I want to use my time to talk about transmission. It
    is widely acknowledged that the national power grid needs to be
    modernized to make it more secure, resilient, and efficient. It
    also needs to be interstate. The United States has tremendous
    renewable energy resources that have not been--not yet been
    tapped. But often these resources--sun, wind, geothermal,
    hydropower--are in remote or rural areas.
        According to research from the Department of Energy's
    National Renewable Energy Lab, if we connect centers of high
    renewable resources with centers of high electric demand by
    building a macrogrid--that is, an overlay of high voltage DC
    lines--and optimize that grid for the Nation's best wind and
    solar, we can dramatically reduce carbon emissions, while
    improving system resiliency and reducing wholesale power costs.
    A macrogrid will enable more robust and more competitive
    wholesale power markets, which translates to lower costs for
    consumers. One model shows consumers saving $42 billion
    annually by building HVDC transmission, allowing power to flow
    across the seams between electricity regions.
        And one more point about U.S. competitiveness. The Brattle
    Group estimates that the U.S. electric industry needs 200
    gigawatts of new transmission capacity in order to accommodate
    widespread electrification. China has already done this and
    more. By the end of 2021 China will have developed over 250
    gigawatts of new interregional transmission capacity over the
    last 7-year period. In contrast, we, the United States, have
    added 3. We need 200; we have added 3. So clearly the scale of
    the challenge is significant, just as clearly the current
    regulatory environment hampers our collective ability to meet
    this challenge.
        So I want to ask a question first to Ms. Glover. It
    certainly hasn't been for lack of trying. Why is it so
    difficult for us to build large-scale transmission projects
    across State lines? And what role does Congress have to play in
    removing the barriers, once and for all?
        And then--Ms. Glover and then maybe Mr. Gordon.
        Ms. Glover. Thank you, Congressman. I am not sure that I am
    the best person to respond to your question, because my focus
    typically isn't on the building of transmission lines. So I
    will yield that time to someone who is more suited, if you
    don't mind. But I would welcome an opportunity to kind of do
    some research on the Alliance's position and get back to you.
        Mr. Peters. That is great. Mr. Gordon?
        Mr. Gordon. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
        Invenergy historically has been developing wind, solar,
    thermal resources. And right now it sees the need for long-
    distance, high-voltage transmission, really, to connect the
    windiest parts of the country that don't have any real electric
    connectivity to deliver the best wind to where the load centers
    are.
        So we stepped into a project that had been in development
    for nearly a decade. And these projects take a long time. It is
    an 800-mile line project from southwest Kansas that would
    ultimately go through Missouri and Illinois and terminate just
    across the Indiana border, and would carry upwards of 4,000
    megawatts of clean, renewable power. The interesting thing
    about this line in the context of the hearing today is it would
    be designed so they could carry power in both directions, as
    needed.
        Mr. Peters. Right, right.
        Mr. Gordon. So if we have an abundance of wind----
        Mr. Peters. Right.
        Mr. Gordon [continuing]. Normally in southwest Kansas, we
    could take it all the way to the eastern part of the grid.
        Mr. Peters. Can I just add Mr. Powell--or from Mr. Powell--
    I don't know, I am going to run out of time--but ERCOT itself
    explained in its comments to FERC that many ISOs and RTOs said
    that large-scale transmission is the key to resilience: ``One
    of the most critical elements''--this is ERCOT--- ``of system
    resilience is ensuring that the transmission system is planned
    in a way to ensure continued operations following an unexpected
    outage of one or more generators or transmission elements.''
        Mr. Powell, you have 5 seconds to react to that.
        Mr. Powell. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Peters.
    Thank you for your leadership on all these issues.
        In that short amount of time I will--you know, I will--as
    Dr. Burgess noted, ERCOT is not entirely an island. There is
    transmission that interconnects it with the rest of the grid. I
    think every observer of this, you know, would note that more
    transmission probably would be helpful here, if there were
    larger, better interconnections to--particularly on the east
    and west, there may have been an opportunity to bring in more
    resources.
        Obviously, there are cost implications to that. And it has
    been, as you noted, devilishly difficult to site and permit
    those new wires. So I think we need to figure out both the
    regulatory and permitting issues that would enable that, and
    figure out how to pay for those and maintain a--you know,
    affordability in the local power supply.
        Mr. Peters. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I do see
    an opportunity to work with Mrs. Rodgers on regulatory relief
    on this issue, in particular, and I yield back.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks very much
    for holding today's hearing, and thanks for our witnesses for
    being with us today.
        Also, I want to express my thoughts and prayers for the
    folks down in Texas for everything that they are going through
    from this about once-in-a-century winter storm, and that, you
    know, we want to do everything we possibly can. We are
    committed to making sure that we get the assistance to them.
        Mr. Chairman, we can continue to work with the private
    sector to promote job creation, innovation, and emissions
    reduction, and energy security by embracing a diverse portfolio
    of domestic energy sources, or we can pursue a top-down, heavy-
    handed government policy that can destroy our economy, put
    millions of Americans out of work, and stifle innovation
    through onerous bureaucratic red tape. And, unfortunately, what
    we have been seeing so far is that the Biden-Harris
    administration is going to take that second path.
        If I could start with Commissioner Camp, and as a former
    county commissioner myself here in Wood County, you know, you
    have spoken previously to the committee about the benefits that
    your county has experienced because of these energy projects.
    Could you go into more detail? I know you did some in your
    opening statement about that, but could you go into more detail
    about the types of program investments that Beaver County has
    made--been able to make because of this revenue stream that you
    have gotten?
        Mr. Camp. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. I had the
    honor to testify in 2019 to the Subcommittee on Environment and
    Climate Change to discuss the petrochemical plant that we were
    able to land here in Beaver County in 2016. We are--on the
    process, they are still at the time to be finished here very
    soon.
        We have seen tremendous investments from not only Shell
    Petrochemical but the downstream organizations who are here in
    Beaver County and the southwestern Pennsylvania region through
    the infrastructure, the highways, center township. My home
    community has been granted a new water treatment facility with
    100-year span. Our community college has been donated millions
    of dollars for a process technology lab, where--we have these
    companies who are starting to invest into our community because
    they are going to be calling it their home.
        Not only are they investing in our higher education, they
    are also investing in our minority communities, who are not
    capable of the technology--through their investments, because
    of the global pandemic here, we are capable of having these
    schools now have classes online.
        So we are seeing a great deal of investment, not only
    through Shell but through all the other companies who are
    downstream jobs of Shell, who are now planting their feet in
    the ground.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thanks very much, Commissioner, for your
    leadership in the county.
        Mr. Powell, if I could go to a follow-up on some questions
    that our Republican leader was talking about on the nuclear
    side, how can Congress and the new administration build on the
    achievements of the Energy Act of 2020 to accelerate the
    development and deployment of the domestic fuel supply for
    advanced nuclear companies?
        Mr. Powell. Thank you very much, Congressman Latta. Thank
    you for your leadership on this issue and your legislation
    around creating a reserve of HALEU fuel.
        Just to take a step back, on advanced nuclear there are a
    couple of components to getting this up and running.
        Component one is to demonstrate the technologies, to
    actually show the world, show utilities, show potential
    industrial users that it is real, that it could actually work.
        Step two is making sure that we have the fuel to run the
    things, because they run on higher-test fuel, or high-assay,
    low-enriched uranium. Currently we don't have a supply of HALEU
    fuel in the United States, and we need to establish a reserve
    for one of those.
        And then we need to start actually building a robust supply
    chain for that HALEU fuel here in the country.
        And then last, we probably need some deployment incentives
    to provide the early financing, which would bring those
    technologies into the market, just as so many other
    technologies have had those early incentives.
        And so I think we can work on all of those things. There
    could be appropriations and oversight of the Department of
    Energy to make sure those demonstrations work. There can be
    legislation like yours, to establish programs to set up a HALEU
    reserve and a robust supply of this fuel. And there could be
    new incentives created like the Energy Sector Innovation Credit
    that would provide incentives to pull these things into the
    market.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. Let me ask real quick in my few
    seconds remaining, just to follow up, because, again, I am
    really worried about rare earth minerals. And you were also
    talking about finding other elements that could be a
    substitute. Can we do that on our own in this country, without
    having to rely on countries that don't like us?
        Mr. Powell. I sure hope so, because, as was noted
    previously, I worry that those countries may shut off the
    supply to these technologies, or threaten to shut off the
    supply to these minerals and resources whenever we get into
    areas of geopolitical tension. I think this needs to be a top
    priority for both our private sector and for our innovators at
    the national labs and other research institutions, and finding
    ways to get around this.
        I am very excited about some of the developments in earth-
    abundant battery chemicals, even an organic battery chemical,
    so it would basically take things like organic chemicals--think
    like sugars and fats--and be using those as the way that we
    would store huge amounts of energy in new batteries and storage
    systems. So I think that there is a lot of potential here, but
    it needs to be adequately resourced at the research stage.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back. Thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    thank you and the acting ranking member for holding this
    hearing today. I want to thank all the witnesses for their
    testimony, and give a special shout out to Commissioner Camp, a
    fellow Western Pennsylvanian. It is good to have you here on
    the panel.
        The commissioner knows in Western Pennsylvania we are an
    all-of-the-above region. We do fossil fuels, we do nuclear, we
    do renewables. And the people that work in those industries
    don't love one better than the other. What they love is to feed
    their families. And that is what we are talking about.
        So we know that, over time, there is going to be a
    transition as we take renewables and put more on the grid and
    deal with their intermittency by using things like advanced
    nuclear and storage so that we can lessen the need on fossil
    fuels. But when we make this transition over time, the key is
    to make sure that we don't leave people behind, that we don't
    leave families behind, that if we are going to create new
    manufacturing and a clean economy, that we build those plants
    in areas where people may be displaced because they are working
    in industries that we are going to be less reliant on. I think
    that is going to be the key to success.
        But we are glad to have all the panelists here.
        Mr. Gordon, we have all heard about the struggle of
    utilities getting past that 80 percent figure. Everyone I have
    talked to is saying, you know, we can reduce 80 percent, but it
    is that last 20--you know, to get us to net-zero carbon by
    2050--that is the tough part. How important will energy storage
    and reducing its costs be to expanding renewable energy?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Doyle, for your
    question. And, as it happens, I was born in Indiana,
    Pennsylvania, and lived there for 11 years, so I am also a
    Western Pennsylvania native.
        I think, to your question directly, you know, energy
    storage is going to be a critical component to the future of
    the generation stack, and reducing those costs will be
    imperative, of course. I think what we are largely looking
    forward to is, you know, additional cost reductions over time,
    different types of batteries being designed, and ultimately
    working with new technologies like hydrogen to see how hydrogen
    can play a role with battery storage, as well. So I think we
    are very optimistic.
        But you are right, the last 20 percent, that last mile, is
    going to be more expensive than the first 80. And we just need
    to put our heads together. And I think, as a country, we have
    got some pretty bright minds. And if we are committed to it, I
    think we can make it happen.
        Mr. Doyle. Thanks.
        Mr. Powell, you mentioned how important driving down
    emissions in the industrial sector will be. Improvements at
    industrial facilities, they are big, capital-intensive
    projects. And outside of tax credits for carbon capture, how
    would you suggest we create a long-term structure for
    cofinancing big emission-reducing investments?
        Mr. Powell. Thanks for the question, Congressman. Thanks as
    well for your leadership on so many of the innovation
    provisions that landed in the Energy Act of 2020, a very
    important sector, and your support for all of these different
    technologies.
        Carbon capture and incentives for carbon capture are
    actually--are absolutely an excellent place to start for
    industrial emissions. So probably the fastest way we can bring
    those emissions down is simply capturing them before they leave
    the plant, and using the same underlying process.
        We can also do two other major things. One is to find
    alternative ways to supply some of the heat that go into
    industrial processes. That is the largest single source of
    those emissions. And so that would be providing clean heat in
    those facilities. So that would be with an advanced nuclear
    reactor that could provide a lot of that heat, with hydrogen or
    renewable fuels, those sorts of things, or the fuels themselves
    with carbon capture.
        The other thing we can do is provide different processes in
    the first place. So, for example, think about a steel plant
    that doesn't use coking coal to do that reduction of steel but
    instead does electrochemical reduction. There is a company up
    in Boston called Boston Metals that is pioneering new
    technology around that and would use direct electrical current
    to do that reduction of the iron ore.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Powell. I want to get this
    question to Dr. Pacala, too, because I think it is important.
        All of you have testified that ensuring we don't leave
    communities behind as we move to a cleaner economy is crucial.
    And I believe that fervently. What policies do you see as
    critical to ensuring that future energy development or the
    manufacturing of energy equipment is done in those areas who
    have historically been affected by pollution or losing their
    jobs, their fossil fuel jobs? What do you say to that, Dr.
    Pacala? What do we need to do to ensure that?
        Dr. Pacala. Well, the package that we proposed is designed
    to do exactly that, right? So the idea is that--let's suppose
    that you are a town and we are in middle America with a
    dominant employer that is going to be lost. And the wind and
    solar jobs are great, but they don't compensate for this highly
    concentrated employment in your town. It is worthwhile
    understanding that more towns gain resources than lose them.
    Where they lose them, they lose them in a way that would
    otherwise be catastrophic.
        And so what could be done? Well, the idea first is that you
    have to anticipate the loss and plan for it in advance because,
    if it catches you by surprise, that is it, right?
        And so the idea is to have a bunch of regional centers,
    together with State offices that work together, where
    Representatives of Congress, and mayors, and Governors, and
    other officials can meet to understand what regionally is
    likely to happen, and to serve as a conduit for planning grants
    to towns and to counties. And there, the idea is to anticipate
    what is going to happen and when, with technical assistance
    that other programs would provide.
        Having discovered that something was going to happen----
        Mr. Doyle. I see we are way over our time, and I want to be
    polite to my fellow colleagues, but we will talk more about
    this. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I apologize, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
    Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman. And as a good friend, it
    is always good to see you.
        I thought the premise of this hearing was going to be about
    the decarbonization, accelerating the decarbonization in the
    United States. And I have been functioning for years now on the
    fact that climate change is a global issue and requires a
    global solution.
        So we have heard from previous panels, including Gina
    McCarthy, when they said that, if America alone decarbonizes,
    the impact on the global environment would be virtually
    immeasurable. And then they went on to say that, as long as
    countries like China and India are expanding their dependence
    on fossil fuels, America will still experience wildfires on the
    West Coast, droughts and floods in the Midwest, and hurricanes
    in the East.
        So I guess the issue is, can America decarbonize?
    Absolutely. I would agree it can. But at--what is the cost to
    families, communities, and businesses that are reliant on
    fossil fuels?
        This report that everyone is referring to was silent about
    Hazard, Kentucky; Gillette, Wyoming; Cadiz, Ohio. There are no
    transitional employment opportunities in those areas.
        So to Rich Powell, let me ask a couple of questions of you.
    First, I say, Rich, I agree with your testimony where you said
    serious Federal policy proposals must also reflect the global
    nature of the challenge. Let me ask, Rich, have you read the
    National Academy report?
        Mr. Powell. I have.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Do you think that there were--maybe there
    was--given that there were no representatives who were not
    academics among the authors, and based on their tweets and
    papers that they have published, do you believe that the
    authors may have had a bias against fossil fuels?
        Mr. Powell. It certainly seemed like an objective was first
    to think first about decarbonization, and maybe secondarily
    about the transmission impacts.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Do you agree that one of the authors who
    tweeted out that--and his quote was in his tweet, showing--
    these are the people that put this--that ``America can
    eradicate poverty by decarbonization.'' Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Powell. I don't think it is the first way we would
    eradicate poverty.
        Mr. McKinley. But that was the statement, that
    decarbonization is going to eradicate poverty.
        And then, also, part of the study was, quote, it was to
    ``build an energy system without social injustices that
    permeate the current system.'' Do you think it does permeate
    the current system?
        Mr. Powell. I don't. I believe that there can be----
        Mr. McKinley. OK, let me get back on point, through, Rich,
    because I have got some more questions I would like to get with
    you. So back on point, were the policies outlined in this
    study--because it was very comprehensive, and very thoughtfully
    put together from white papers that they published. But will it
    encourage other nations like China and India to actually follow
    our lead and reduce their emissions?
        Mr. Powell. It focuses on U.S. emissions reductions.
        Mr. McKinley. Yes.
        Mr. Powell. The one piece that might have a global impact
    is the R&D section, and that could reduce the cost of global
    emissions. But beyond that, it is largely silent on the global
    question.
        Mr. McKinley. Now, since the anti-fossil-fuel zealots that
    we deal with in Washington are agitating for America to choose
    this simplistic route, just--in other words, discontinue fossil
    fuels. That is one way to do it. You can. That is a fork in the
    road, you can take that, and we can not use fossil fuels. But
    wouldn't America be better off, better advised if they adopted
    a more pragmatic approach to capturing carbon through advanced
    innovation and deployment?
        Mr. Powell. We should. We should be focusing on reducing
    emissions, not eliminating fossil fuels.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So wouldn't that approach protect
    the economy, reduce carbon emissions, and develop a technology
    that we can export around the world for other nations that are
    offensive in their emissions? Wouldn't that be the better
    approach, rather than just doing away with fossil fuels?
        Mr. Powell. Prioritizing carbon capture so that we can make
    the breakthroughs that the rest of the world can then use to
    decarbonize should really be at the top of the list of our
    energy innovation priorities.
        Mr. McKinley. So, Rich, would you think that--would you
    concur that the global environment will not improve measurably
    if America alone decarbonizes?
        Mr. Powell. I would.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Is there--what policies--in the remaining
    few seconds here, what else would you be saying for us that we
    should be adapting?
        Mr. Powell. Well, I think, if you look back at the Energy
    Act of 2020, the technology that received the most bipartisan
    support in that very bipartisan bill was carbon capture. That
    bill now calls for a massive demonstration program for carbon
    capture technologies. But a lot of work remains to actually
    implement that. And so I would encourage this committee and all
    of Congress to focus now on implementation.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Rush. My friend yields back. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for the hearing,
    and the ranking members.
        Your witnesses--your testimony has been very important and
    useful, so thank you for coming out, or appearing today. Like
    all of my colleagues, I am extremely concerned about what is
    taking place in Texas. Millions are suffering in the cold with
    no immediate end in sight.
        Dr. Pacala, we have heard from Mr. Gordon about what
    happened to cause the blackouts in Texas. Would you walk us
    through your understanding of what happened?
        Dr. Pacala. Yes. I am not an expert, but I have consulted
    experts on it, and my understanding is just about what has been
    said, predominantly. There was, in fact, a failure of some of
    the generating capacity across the board, and it was across all
    types of generating capacity. So the thermal units--that is,
    natural gas and coal plants and nuclear plants--all had a
    failure rate. And the cause was primarily, you know, different
    routes in which the cold can prevent the plant from operating.
    So that, for example, if you have got a pipeline from a
    production field to a power plant, when the production field
    goes down because of cold, the fuel stops.
        There was also some loss of wind capacity. The wind
    capacity that went down was a little bit less in sort of
    percentage terms than the thermal capacity. But it is not
    really a meaningful difference, right? So--and those were
    primarily due to pipes freezing.
        And beyond that, I think that what has been said about the
    interconnectivity of the Texas grid is right, right? If you had
    more interstate transmission, you had high voltage lines that
    could bring power in, they would have been better off.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. At last week's markup in
    this committee, we heard a lot from Republicans about
    California blackouts. And now we are seeing the same thing
    happen in Texas.
        Republicans again are blaming renewable energy this time
    for Texas' problems. This is ludicrous. This is ludicrous
    because--and both States are similar: extreme weather related
    to climate change, together with underinvestment in our
    electric utility and infrastructure and resilience. Reducing
    renewables will just accelerate climate change and increase the
    suffering of our constituents.
        So, moving on, as we continue to confront the severe
    impacts of climate change, it is critical to prepare by
    hardening the grid. The issue is front and center to me, since
    California has its share of natural disasters and extreme
    weathers.
        Mr. Gordon, should the Federal Government have a role in
    grid hardening for extreme weather events?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman. I do think that the
    Government should have a role in hardening the grid for extreme
    weather events, yes.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, do you have any recommendations for
    resilience improvements that are also clean?
        Mr. Gordon. Well, I think, going back to the infrastructure
    question, getting more transmission built, connecting to
    renewable resources would be by definition a clean way of doing
    that, while hardening the grid for reliability and resiliency
    for when these events happen.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Dr. Pacala, same question. Is there a role for the Federal
    Government in grid hardening with respect to clean weather, and
    how do we make sure that that is done in a way that produces
    clean energy?
        Dr. Pacala. So there is absolutely a role. And the report
    that we released has very specific recommendations for
    regulatory reforms that are critical to get the grid reforms in
    place, certainly in time to do a rapid decarbonization of the
    U.S. grid.
        And there are two difficult actions in Congress that we
    think are essential. One is a clarification of the Federal
    Power Act, so that it is understood that it does not limit the
    ability of States to use policies to support the entry of zero-
    carbon resources into electric utility portfolios and wholesale
    power markets. And the second is an amendment of the Energy
    Policy Act to assign FERC the responsibility to design the
    national interest electricity corridors.
        And then there are a whole host of other recommendations
    that are very specific and that you can find in the--mostly in
    the footnotes to that table I talked about.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I am going to ask, in my remaining
    time, Ms. Glover, do you think there is a role for
    electrification as a part of the effort to improve resilience?
        Ms. Glover. I think there probably is a role for
    electrification, but I think there is also a much larger role
    for energy efficiency in improving resilience. Right? The less
    that we use opens up capacity, and it helps utility companies
    and others not to have to invest in some infrastructure if we
    do energy efficiency right and make those kinds of investments.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Let's get back to efficiency.
        All right, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
    first I look forward to seeing the science on what caused this
    cold snap in Texas. I know it is easy to go and say this is a
    part of climate change, and that may be a contributing factor.
    But apparently there was a similar weather pattern in Texas in
    1928, which is why one of our earlier folks talked about this
    happening about once a century in Texas, because apparently it
    has happened before. So I don't know that we can put all of the
    cold weather in Texas at the feet of climate change or global
    warming.
        Ms. Glover, thank you so much for talking about energy
    efficiency. I do have some good-paying jobs in my district with
    that, in a coal district, but I do appreciate you highlighting
    that very much.
        And some have called for the complete elimination of using
    our fossil fuels, and I was pleased to hear Chairman Pallone
    say that, while we may shift and transition and lower that
    number, that he didn't see it being eliminated from part of our
    mix. And it is interesting, because one of my professors, a
    science researcher at Virginia Tech working on fossil fuels,
    has lamented in the past that never before have we eliminated
    or tried to eliminate an energy source, whether we started with
    wood, et cetera. With the exception of whale oil, we have never
    eliminated one. We have reduced it, depending on market
    conditions, and it improved efficiencies, but we have never
    eliminated one of our potential energy sources. And I think
    that is important to keep in mind.
        Mr. Powell, I appreciate you mentioning that we are trying
    to make false choices, that you have to choose one or the
    other. I am an all-of-the-above kind of guy. I like your
    concepts of using more innovation. You talked with my
    colleague, Mr. McKinley, about reducing emissions, and that
    that ought to be at the top of our list, and doing the research
    to reduce that.
        I would point out that, in my district--and they are all
    over the country, but one in my district, MOVA Technologies,
    has been working on panel bed filtration systems that not only
    eliminate CO2, but eliminates, depending on what
    panel you have and what industry you are dealing with, it
    eliminates all kinds of other pollutions. It is already out of
    the test phase and is now into the--in the small-test phase--
    and it is now going to the next level. And these are the kinds
    of things that I think we need to be working on, as well.
        Now, we can invest all the money we want to in research and
    innovation, but if industry is disincentivized to install new
    technologies, it will be for naught. Last week I had a meeting
    with the pulp and paper workers--challenges associated with the
    New Source Review permitting program. And we have learned that
    the NSR often discourages new investments at facilities like
    paper mills, a furniture factory in my district, other
    manufacturing plants and power plants. It discourages them from
    making small bites of the apple. They are told if you take a
    small bite, you have got to swallow the whole apple.
        I have reintroduced the New Source Review Permitting
    Improvement Act, H.R. 245, which would reform the program so
    that we can upgrade U.S. facilities with new pollution control
    technology. But not having [audio malfunction] all at one time.
    Is New Source Review a barrier to reducing emissions, Mr.
    Powell?
        Mr. Powell. Yes, sorry, you froze there for a second, but I
    think I heard the question. Thanks so much for the question.
    Thank you for your leadership on this vital issue for carbon
    capture technologies, really for all technologies which would
    help reduce the emissions from existing facilities.
        It absolutely is a barrier in its current form. I do not
    think that the original drafters of the Clean Air Act
    understood this kind of scenario. I think they would have
    probably framed New Source Review in a different way, had they
    been thinking about things like carbon dioxide emissions at the
    time. I think reforming that so that we don't have NSR as a
    barrier, and so that you don't enter an entirely different
    regulatory regime if you simply bolt one thing on to a facility
    which significantly helps reduce the emissions. That actually
    has the exact opposite effect of, I think, what folks would
    have been trying to accomplish with the original New Source
    Review revisions.
        And so I think reforms are urgently needed, and I think
    your proposal is an excellent step in that direction.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I mean, look, a lot of
    times people characterize it as just trying to get rid of the
    rules. No, what we are trying to do is make the rules so that
    they can be used effectively. And, if you take one bite at the
    apple every 3 or 4 years, a factory can make its facility a
    whole lot better. If you have to do the whole thing at one
    time, they are never going to do it, and it slows down our
    ability to control emissions.
        I was pleased to hear, you know, discussion, and I know the
    intent is good about, you know, being prepared and planning--
    and this would have been Mr. Pacala--being prepared and
    planning. I come from an area where there is a lot of coal
    production and a lot of lost jobs already. But I will tell you
    that there is a December 6, 2019, New York Times article, which
    I forwarded to committee staff because I would like to have it
    introduced into the record.
        This article talks about a town--10 years has been spending
    money trying to reinvent their economy. They have created a law
    school with some of their money. They have created a
    pharmaceutical school, or a pharmacy school in their community.
    And they have spent--according to that article, they have spent
    approximately $170 million over this 20-year period trying to,
    you know, reinvent themselves.
        Now, there are all kinds of other issues--road access --
    that we are working on. But I will tell you that----
        Mr. Rush. Will the gentleman----
        Mr. Griffith. Give me just one second, thank you. But I
    will tell you that 1 in 6 jobs is still coal-related, and the
    county is getting hit hard.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman----
        Mr. Griffith. I yield back, I apologize. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I apologize.
        Mr. Rush. That is quite all right. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is a great
    hearing, and there is so much to cover. I will try to get
    through as much as I can.
        I don't think we should overlook the importance of energy
    efficiency and decarbonizing our energy system. There are many
    widely available, cost-effective measures that can be done to
    improve the energy efficiency as well as the health and safety
    of homes. But we need to recognize that many low-income people
    aren't going to take advantage of a tax credit. And for this
    category of individuals, often they pay a much higher
    percentage of their incomes on energy bills.
        So, Ms. Glover, what is the role for a program like DOE's
    Weatherization Assistance Program to improve energy efficiency
    of low-income homes?
        Ms. Glover. Thank you so much, Congressman, for that
    question. You know, WAP program, the weatherization program, is
    an important program for low-income consumers. And certainly, I
    would say even middle-income consumers would, if they could
    take advantage of it, would want to. It certainly needs to be
    funded more, and there have been some requests to add more
    funding to that program.
        But I would also say that, as you as you all in--as Members
    of Congress have been thinking about how do we direct that
    funding to the right families. And so part of that thinking has
    to be what are the communities that we are going to start with
    first. Is weatherization, in and of itself, that program, going
    to be enough of an investment for some communities in rural and
    urban communities around this country? Their homes are not
    ready for even basic weatherization. And so we do have to think
    about what is the proper investment, and do we need to build on
    top of existing programs to make those communities more
    resilient, in terms of energy efficiency.
        Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. And do you believe this program
    helps promote more equitable energy policy?
        Ms. Glover. I do think that it does. I just--I think that
    it is--you know, look, we--there are so many things we need to
    invest in. And I think that weatherization--and that program is
    probably one of those programs that needs greater investment.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And last year Congress enacted
    reforms to strengthen the program, and President Biden has
    called for weatherizing 2 million homes. So I think that is a
    great shot in the arm.
        Ms. Glover, do you believe funding for a program like the
    Weatherization Assistance Program should be considered for
    inclusion in a future infrastructure package?
        Ms. Glover. I do. I do believe that funding for that could
    be included in a future infrastructure package.
        But I want to say that, you know, if we are trying to
    impact low- and moderate-income families, it is not just the
    weatherization program that can do that. There are other
    programs, as well, and other proposals out there that also--our
    small business proposal, I think, is a good one. It talks about
    how you bring jobs to these communities and small business
    growth to those communities, as well as ensuring that the
    businesses in those communities are thriving.
        I think Congresswoman Blunt Rochester's bill on mission
    critical and building infrastructure is another important
    program that can help not only those communities in terms of
    making them more resilient, but also in terms of jobs and small
    business opportunity and addressing our equity needs.
        So there are lots of programs that I think have been
    proposed that will get us where we need to be and at the same
    time address our issues around climate change, decarbonizing
    our energy grid, and providing economic opportunity to
    communities around the country, particularly those who are
    suffering the most.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And Dr. Pacala, could you give us a sense of why the NAS
    report recommended increasing funding for weatherization?
        Dr. Pacala. Yes, the--we recommended both an increase in
    funding in the low-income--in LIHEAP and in the Weatherization
    Assistance Program because of the need to upgrade
    infrastructure, which has lagged behind and which
    disproportionately impacts the incomes of low-income Americans
    already.
        And so there are--we did discuss the inefficiencies built
    into some of those programs but on balance thought that we
    ought to put more money into them. So there are specific
    numerical amounts in the recommendations, and it followed a
    review of the performance of both of those programs.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Powell, I am excited to hear that ClearPath is getting
    involved in the industrial sector. Do you believe low-emissions
    hydrogen could play a role in decarbonizing certain
    manufacturing processes?
        Dr. Pacala. Thanks for the question, Ranking Member [sic]
    Tonko, thanks for your leadership on the Energy Act of 2020, as
    well.
        I absolutely believe that hydrogen could be a big part of
    that solution.
        As I mentioned earlier, low-carbon heat is going to be a
    core component to decarbonizing the industrial sector, and low-
    emission hydrogen, whether that is produced from natural gas,
    but carbon capture from renewable electrolysis, from nuclear
    electrolysis, or maybe a whole lot of processes that we don't
    even understand or realize yet could be a really significant
    part of that transition.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
        Well, Mr. Chair, I think I have exhausted my time, so I
    will yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be really
    brief, so I can get to my questions. But as I listen to my
    colleagues and some of our witnesses today, we keep hearing
    proposals for, I quote, ``deep decarbonization'' that would
    serve, really, only to kill good-paying American jobs while
    simultaneously increasing our supply chain dependency on China,
    embolden Russia, and, ironically, do very little to decrease
    total global carbon emissions.
        I keep thinking, why would we want to go down that road?
    Well, I think we might have found the answer. One of our
    witnesses today, in their prepared testimony, cited a desire to
    achieve a--and I quote--``fundamental economic and social
    transition.''
        So, I am wondering, are decarbonization policies about
    climate or energy at all, or is it more about power and
    control?
        Outside of this Zoom hearing, in the real world, abundant
    American resources are being leveraged to create jobs,
    revitalize communities, and strengthen American manufacturing.
    So I have a question for Commissioner Camp.
        Thank you for joining us, Commissioner. My district is not
    far from Beaver County, just across the State line in eastern
    and southeastern Ohio. We have a site ready for a similar, I
    think, cracker facility. And, just as in Beaver County, it is
    intended to take advantage of the vast natural gas resources
    right below our feet in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It is still
    awaiting a final investment decision, but, God willing, if
    construction begins on this project, we will see our
    communities benefit immediately with thousands of workers
    coming to town. Is that your perspective, will we see those
    thousands of workers coming to town?
        And also, what does it mean for a community with a proud
    but distant industrial past to have heavy manufacturing like
    this return?
        Mr. Camp. Congressman Johnson, thank you very much. I
    worked closely with the previous board in Belmont County, Ohio,
    where that proposed petrochemical plant is being set forth.
    Absolutely, we see right now--in 2019, as I said before, when I
    testified in front of the Subcommittee on Environment and
    Climate Change, we had roughly 3,500 employees on site. Today
    we have 7,950 employees on site; 7,000 are working there during
    the day, 950 in the night turn. We are seeing that.
        But not only are we seeing that at the plant itself, we are
    seeing the effects of them, even through this global pandemic,
    support our community. Our tax base has gone up due to this.
    There is a pilot program in place with Shell Petrochemicals for
    20 years, 25 years. But we are going to see the downstream
    jobs. There are many, many, many options on property up and
    down Interstate 376, which is our headquarter here, where the
    train--rail meets the river and Interstate 376. You can't
    purchase a piece of property in Beaver County right now that is
    an industrial site, because the options are exercised.
        Mr. Johnson. So the bottom line is, it is far from over.
        Mr. Camp. It is far from over. We won't start seeing these
    downstream manufacturing jobs, the companies who utilize the
    rubber pellets that Shell Petrochemical will be making, for
    years. Once they start production, these companies will then
    start to look at building facilities in Beaver County, Western
    Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Westmoreland, even into Ohio
    and West Virginia in Representative McKinley's district.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, good. Well, good. Well, let me go to Mr.
    Powell now. Thank you, Commissioner.
        Mr. Powell, you made an important point earlier about how a
    molecule of carbon released in Shanghai has the same impact as
    if it was released in Chicago. Well, what I am hearing from my
    Democratic colleagues today is too much of a focus on reducing
    carbon emissions domestically, regardless of the cost to
    American jobs like those in Beaver County, without
    acknowledging that climate change isn't just America's problem
    to confront. In fact, even if America reduced its emissions to
    zero, there wouldn't be a measurable effect on the global
    climate.
        We need to take a step back here and put the American
    people first. Rather than trumpeting gimmicks like the Paris
    Accord, which gives a free pass to huge global emitters such as
    China and India, we have an opportunity to support pragmatic
    policies that can build new and carbon-free technologies like
    nuclear here in the U.S. and enable them to be built
    internationally.
        So, Mr. Powell, do you believe there is room for bipartisan
    consensus on improving advanced nuclear technology?
        And how best can we modernize our export process, which not
    only has clean energy benefits but supports U.S. interests and
    national security?
        Mr. Powell. Thanks for the question, Congressman. Thank you
    for your support for modernizing our nuclear exports
    infrastructure.
        I believe there is bipartisan consensus on advanced nuclear
    energy. It was one of the technologies highlighted in the
    Energy Act passed in December, demonstrating new pieces of
    that.
        I do think that the exports process, both the 810
    agreements and the 123 process, do need to be modernized. We
    have to remember it is not a choice about whether a country is
    going to accept new nuclear technology. It is whether they are
    going to accept U.S. technology or Russian or Chinese
    technology. And our preference would be that it was American
    technology with American safeguards and where America captures
    the economic opportunity and the benefits and the jobs of those
    exports.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And of
    course, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we are going through
    catastrophic weather events right now in Texas. And it is--you
    know, it is really bad. I am not going to mince words about it.
    It is as bad as it seems from afar. People don't have heat.
    People haven't had heat for days. We have had a record number
    of people going in to local hospitals because of carbon
    monoxide poisoning, trying to stay warm. It is bad. And I want
    to thank you for hosting this hearing today. And I wanted to
    ask some questions specifically related to this catastrophic
    energy failure that we are having in our State right now.
        The extreme weather events over the last few days have
    caused a massive failure to deliver electricity to those who
    desperately need it, as I just pointed out, and the inability
    of some of these power plants to produce electricity when our
    communities needed it the most meant that people in 254
    counties all across our State are going without power.
        And now we are at a point now, Mr. Chairman, to where there
    are people having to boil water. We have several places here in
    the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex where people are under boil
    alerts, because they don't have fresh water. I even--I have
    heard of at least one hospital that doesn't have fresh--that
    doesn't have adequate clean water.
        And, in the days and weeks to come, we will be examining
    the questions of infrastructure-related causes, looking at what
    measures can be taken to properly weatherize and insulate our
    power plants of all fuel types.
        Another important issue for us to consider is how we can
    better connect Texas to the national grid to allow for
    interregional transmission to bring electricity from other
    areas of the country. And yesterday I sent a letter to FERC
    with a desire to start a conversation on this. There will be
    many benefits and challenges of allowing limited energy
    transfers into ERCOT territory in certain emergency situations.
    There are a number of legal and technical infrastructure
    hurdles that we will need to overcome for greater
    interconnection, and I believe that every option should be
    explored so we can avert any other potential disasters that we
    may have in the future.
        And, as we continue to search for answers, I am glad that
    we have some experts on power generation with us here today.
    And Mr. Craig--and I don't want to get into the silly season of
    comparing things that--that has been too much of the
    conversation, that has been utterly ridiculous, that people are
    comparing these things. We obviously had failures with all of
    our platforms in ERCOT, and we need to figure out how we can
    weatherize these things. And I want to ask you, given that a
    large part of the blame for the Texas grid failure was due to
    some of our more traditional fuels around natural gas and coal
    and nuclear, and not having adequate weatherization and
    insulation, can you speak a little bit about a--what--about
    weatherizing a power plant for cold weather looks like?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman. I am not sure I am the
    expert on how to weatherize a coal plant or a gas plant. I do
    think there are ways to do so. I think folks at ERCOT and the
    generation owners ought to, you know, consult with folks in the
    Dakotas, and Minnesota, and places like that, where they are
    dealing with these sort of things, you know, year in and year
    out.
        I will say, however, that the way the market is designed
    doesn't encourage additional investments in generation
    technology. For instance, we have peaking plants in Ector
    County. They do not have the capacity to burn fuel oil in a
    situation like this. If the ERCOT market was structured such
    that there was a way to compensate for that additional
    reliability, you would have plenty more generating-owning
    companies invest in the dual fuel capabilities to ensure that,
    when a situation like this comes, that there will be, you know,
    backup fuel to keep the generation going.
        I would also say that additional investments in energy
    storage which don't require water would be a smart investment,
    as well. And again, you know, always going back to more
    transmission to connect different parts of the Texas grid, as
    well as to different parts of----
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is a
    great hearing. It is timely.
        Look, I am an all-of-the-above energy believer. I think we
    should continue to pursue innovation and technology advances
    across the energy-generating space. You know, my district is a
    coal district, however, and I just, you know, want to remind
    people that, actually, coal may be the most reliable source of
    energy in this situation, because you have a stockpile at your
    plant, you don't require a pipeline, and--when the wind and
    solar panels don't get frozen up or covered in snow.
        That said, that is why I think we need to continue to
    innovate across the energy space and not forget about fossil
    fuel.
        I also am very happy that part of this conversation has
    been about energy efficiency, because, you know, I grew up in a
    small town, 1,500 people. And I can tell you the homes are 100
    years old, and they are very energy inefficient. That is a very
    big piece of this.
        Mr. Gordon, how did Invenergy wind projects perform in
    Texas, and how many megawatts out of the total system had to be
    shut down due to cold weather and icy conditions?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. At
    various points of the last several days, many of our wind farms
    were not operational. However, at no point over this period did
    all of our wind projects fail to operate. So it was hit or
    miss. It was really dependent on the location of the facility.
    You know, some facilities were iced over more than others, and
    so some came through, you know, doing very well, better than
    expectations.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK, how did Invenergy's natural gas units
    perform during the same period?
        Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. So we were not able to procure
    natural gas. The transmission pipelines were not available.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK, so--I mean, I am just going along the
    lines of innovation and technological advances that can help
    all aspects of our energy generating system, including natural
    gas, including wind. And, I guess in Texas, we saw a domino
    effect, where the wind started to fail early in the wintery
    conditions, which constrained the system. And then, as natural
    gas, coal, and nuclear facilities--plants began to have
    operational problems and freeze off, the blackouts started.
        Mr. Powell, if Texas were 100 percent wind for power
    generation, what would have happened to the grid?
        Mr. Powell. Well, I don't think Texas or any jurisdiction
    should be 100 percent any generation. You know, I think in
    any--I just don't think it would be technically possible for
    Texas or any State to be 100 percent wind.
        Mr. Bucshon. I think that----
        Mr. Powell. If it was, this would have been a bad event,
    and I don't think----
        Mr. Bucshon. I mean, it is a hypothetical question, I think
    proving my point again, that----
        Mr. Powell. Sure.
        Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. We need to continue to pursue an
    all-of-the-above energy approach, which includes renewables and
    fossil fuels.
        In addition, I guess, homes having no heat, it was reported
    that electric vehicles saw a dramatic loss of charge, and many
    charging stations were unavailable. Mr. Powell, how do you--how
    do we ensure the future of EVs and the reliability of the
    charging stations are not another way we could leave people
    without access to their vehicles?
        Mr. Powell. It is a great question, Congressman. I think
    the unfortunate reality of this and many of the other extreme
    weather events we have seen, and will likely see more of, is
    that all parts of our energy system and our energy-dependent
    systems like transportation are going to have to be hardened
    for more extreme weather on both sides, for more extreme heat
    events and extreme cold events.
        Unfortunately, these extreme events are hard on all energy
    systems. They can be hard on batteries, and they can degrade
    the performance of these vehicles. So we are going to have to
    invest more in insulating these vehicles and improve
    technologies that can operate under a wider range of conditions
    if those are going to be a bigger part of the transportation
    system in the future.
        Unfortunately, it will----
        Mr. Bucshon. I mean, you have probably seen--I think
    everyone has--major automobile companies announcing they are
    going to go completely electric in a short, fairly short period
    of time. And interestingly, you know, I think GM did a
    demonstration I posted on my social media, and they had an
    electric car plugged in, and they asked the GM executive where
    the electricity was coming from. And she replied, ``Well, it is
    coming from the building.'' And then she said, ``Well, it is
    the local power company providing power to the building.'' And
    that wasn't the question. The question was where does the
    electricity come from.
        And it turns out, in this area where they were
    demonstrating the electrical vehicle, 90 percent of the
    electrical power was generated from coal. So I just think we
    need to be open-eyed about this, and all of us, you know, try
    to be as least ideological and more practical as we can and
    recognize that we need to continue to advance innovation and
    technology across the space. You know, wind turbines are going
    to learn from this. They are not going to freeze up any more,
    if we get some technological advances. The same thing is true
    with other forms of power.
        So I would encourage all of us to continue to support
    innovation and technology advances to decrease our carbon
    emissions, as we have more than any other country in the world,
    and work towards a lower carbon future.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. Schrier.
        Ms. Schrier, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses.
        Dr. Pacala, your report covers a wide range of technologies
    that need to all be deployed in rapid fashion in order to reach
    our goals and have diversity and avoid putting all of our eggs
    in one basket. And I want to ask specifically about hydrogen
    cells for energy and their potential applications.
        Washington State's energy portfolio is 80 percent clean,
    mostly because of two-thirds of our energy, our electricity,
    comes from hydropower. And hydropower provides a fantastic,
    reliable baseload. And sometimes there is oversupply,
    especially when you add wind and solar. And spilling more
    water, which, you know, you would like to do, environmentally,
    actually could further harm salmon populations. And so there is
    a lot of interest in capturing and storing that excess,
    including as hydrogen energy.
        And I recently had a really interesting meeting with the
    Douglas County PUD general manager, Gary Ivory, about the
    renewable hydrogen demonstration project happening in my
    district. And last September the Bonneville Environmental
    Foundation partnered with the county to develop the first
    hydrogen fueling station for fuel-cell electric vehicles in
    Washington State. Increasing development of these technologies
    and storing excess electricity in this way could go a long way
    toward building a clean energy economy.
        The White House has also pointed to green or renewable
    hydrogen as an area they are interested in. And I know the
    Department of Energy has been working on this innovation for
    years.
        Your report calls on a rapid scaling of hydrogen
    technology, stating that we need--that this could create
    positive synergies. Now, in parts of my district I can't drive
    2 minutes without seeing a Tesla, but I have yet to see a
    hydrogen-cell-powered vehicle. And so I just want to know,
    where are we with hydrogen innovation? Has it reached a point
    where it can play a serious role in helping the U.S. meet an
    interim goal of net zero by 2050? And can you talk about some
    of these positive synergies?
        Dr. Pacala. So, like Rich Powell, I believe that hydrogen
    is a big piece of the long-term future. But the fact is that
    hydrogen, as an energy storage device, is still expensive. All
    right? And it is still expensive relative to other alternatives
    that we could deploy during the 2020s.
        So, during the 2020s, if we expand our net-zero power
    offerings primarily with wind and solar, while planning for
    other sources, right, while trying to reduce the very high cost
    now of nuclear, and while also preparing for CO2
    transport technology so that we continue to use decarbonized
    fossils--if we, as a species, decide to do so, as a Nation
    decide to do so--then these are ways in which we can reach an
    80 percent decarbonized power grid.
        And then hydrogen comes in probably later. And it depends
    on the combined ingenuity of people in the country. Now, I am a
    real believer in the combined ingenuity. It is one of many
    technologies that we need to double down, on R&D investments.
    Yes.
        Ms. Schrier. Yes, I really appreciate that, because, first,
    it gives me a perspective on time. But second, starting these
    kind of pilot projects now is what will pave the way to the
    2030s, and potentially having this.
        And we have heard a lot about resources, whether they are
    metals, solar panels that are cheaper now from China, and not
    wanting to be dependent, that this is just one of the--sort of
    the layers of redundancy that will help give us that kind of
    security.
        I wanted to ask--and I am not sure which of you is the best
    to ask--just about other ways of storing excess energy. Because
    we will get that from wind and solar too. And I wonder if you
    could just comment--I have got about 40 seconds left--about
    other ways of storing excess energy.
        Dr. Pacala. So I can. Pumped hydro is the way we do it now,
    but we have exhausted a lot of their--a lot of the sites for
    that.
        Long-term batteries that make fuels like hydrogen and store
    it is another way to do it. And there are a number of
    technologies that look for that. There are some exotic, long-
    term storage solutions.
        Right now, the center of the action on close to deployment
    or deployable is grid-scale storage in the--sort of the 6-hour
    range, which is one of the sweet spots. And that is a real
    commercial opportunity for U.S. firms.
        Ms. Schrier. Can you tell me more about that, the--oh, we
    are out of time.
        I yield back. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all agree on the
    need for a clean energy future. What we differ on, as this
    hearing title indicates, is the best path to get there.
        As many of my colleagues have already indicated, this
    administration has dropped an economic bomb onto the Nation's
    energy sector, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs and
    billions in State tax revenues that go toward supporting public
    schools, fire departments, police stations, and countless other
    community services.
        The Laborers International Union of North America said
    themselves that canceling the Keystone XL pipeline will result
    in the loss of 1,000 jobs immediately, and an additional 10,000
    jobs over time.
        Mr. Powell, in your testimony you state that, according to
    the International Energy Agency, only 2 of 14 critical power-
    sector technologies are on track to reduce emissions in the
    timeframe laid out by President Biden's Executive orders.
    Further, you state--and I quote--``Requiring further emissions
    reductions before those technologies are ready poses
    significant risks to the reliability and affordability of our
    energy system, and to the millions of workers whose jobs rely
    on that energy supply.''
        We have already heard demands that President Biden go
    further to ban all fossil fuels, shut down additional
    pipelines, and enact policies inspired by the job-killing Green
    New Deal. And so, Mr. Camp, thank you for talking about the
    vital role natural gas plays in Western Pennsylvania. We know
    natural gas has already played a critical role in reducing
    emissions in the power sector.
        What about heavy industry? Can we continue to meet the
    demands of steel and cement facilities without natural gas?
        Mr. Camp. Natural gas plays an important role in the heavy
    industries. You know, I don't specialize in ``Can we meet the
    demands?,'' but personally, what I see whenever I talk to the
    individuals who are running these facilities, that they need
    the natural gas to meet these demands. You know, that is based
    off their opinion.
        You know, I don't think we can cut the fossil fuels
    completely out. I think we can't abandon them. I think we have
    to clean them up. But I think this committee alone will work
    together to do that. It is important that we continue to use
    those fossil fuels to have that feedstock into these
    facilities.
        You know, as we talk in great lengths about nuclear, you
    know, Beaver County is home to First Energy--is now Energy
    Harbor. We do have a nuclear power plant in Beaver County. We
    had a coal-fired power plant in Beaver County that closed down
    in 2019. So, you know, not--as I speak, not just on the natural
    gas industry, when I say ``all energy sectors,'' that is what I
    am talking about here, in Beaver County, in Southwestern
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Walberg. All-of-the-above plan. Thank you.
        Mr. Powell, according to the U.S. Energy Information
    Administration, no power sector technology has been responsible
    for more emission reductions than natural gas over the past
    decade. We have also moved to become a top exporter of
    liquefied natural gas, allowing more counties and countries to
    utilize cleaner fuels. In your testimony you highlight the
    opportunity of exporting clean U.S. technologies and
    commodities. How does restricting fossil fuel development align
    with that line of thinking?
        Mr. Powell. Well, thanks for the question, Congressman.
    Thanks for your leadership on cleaner fossil technologies and
    innovation in this space.
        I do think there is a real tension there. Exporting
    liquefied natural gas, for example, is one of the top ways that
    we can help other economies around the world decarbonize their
    sectors. Often that liquefied natural gas is going in and it is
    displacing, oftentimes, critical coal plants, some of the
    highest emitting plants in the world, or coal for district
    heating. So liquefied natural gas exports can play a huge role
    in that global decarbonizing picture. And I don't think that is
    necessarily being taken into account when folks are talking
    about restricting particular pieces of U.S. fossil extraction.
        Mr. Walberg. And in my home State--in fact, my own
    district--America's largest electric utilities, like DTE in my
    district, have committed to reaching net-zero emissions by
    2050.
        You also mentioned that zero-emission fuels like hydrogen
    should play a role in response to climate change. Has your
    organization looked at how existing infrastructure, such as our
    natural gas pipeline network, can be utilized to deliver
    alternative fuels?
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely. I think we should all remember that
    we have this asset. We have, literally, trillions of dollars of
    natural gas infrastructure in the ground around this country.
    We should be trying to find ways to work with that as part of a
    low-carbon future. And there are so many ways.
        We could use that natural gas. We could create hydrogen
    with it and capture the carbon emissions and put them
    underground. We could partially run hydrogen alongside natural
    gas and other low-carbon fuels through the pipelines along the
    way. We could do a lot with that existing infrastructure.
    Again, we ought to be focusing on reducing the emissions, not
    on eliminating the use of the fossil fuels and certainly not on
    eliminating the use of the fossil fuel infrastructure, which we
    have invested so dearly in, and which could be a real asset in
    decarbonizing.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. DeGette for 5 minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am so
    delighted to join your subcommittee in this Congress. I think
    that energy policy and, in particular, climate issues are going
    to be the preeminent issue in this Congress.
        And I also--I want to share your concern, the concern of so
    many on this committee, about what has happened in Texas, which
    is really a national tragedy. And I will volunteer to put the
    resources of the Oversight Subcommittee to work in helping us
    make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened in Texas
    and working with you to make sure we can have policies that
    address this.
        I just want to ask some questions of the panel about
    greenhouse gas emissions. And the first thing I want to say--my
    staff actually wrote a question on this, but I don't think we
    need a question on it. I think everybody on this panel would
    agree Americans deserve affordable, reliable electricity. And
    that is becoming more and more of a challenge, something we
    need to deal with.
        I want to ask the panel this question: Does climate science
    tell us we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to net
    zero by no later than 2050, and sooner if possible, to minimize
    the risk of catastrophic climate events like we are seeing
    right now?
        Let's just go down the panel, if we can.
        Ms. Glover?
        [Pause.]
        Ms. DeGette. You have gone on mute. There you go.
        Ms. Glover. I said, ``Congresswoman, I really don't know if
    scientists are telling you that it has to be net zero by 2050.
    I''----
        Ms. DeGette. OK, you don't know.
        Ms. Glover. I don't have that knowledge.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Dr. Pacala?
        Dr. Pacala. Yes. So the science is extremely clear that, if
    you want to limit global climate change to substantially less
    than 2 degrees, the globe has to get to net zero by 2050.
        Ms. DeGette. OK, all right.
        Dr. Pacala. There is no doubt about that.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Gordon?
        Mr. Gordon. Yes, Congresswoman. Again, I am not qualified
    to answer that question.
        Ms. DeGette. So you don't know, either.
        Mr. Powell?
        Mr. Powell. So I echo Dr. Pacala's point that, globally, we
    need to make an extremely deep reduction in CO2
    emissions if we are to have that impact on the climate.
        Ms. DeGette. Great. And Mr. Camp?
        Mr. Camp. As Mr. Gordon said, I am not qualified to make
    that----
        Ms. DeGette. OK.
        Mr. Camp. But with the--with Dr. Pacala, this hearing we
    mentioned many times, this is a global issue.
        Ms. DeGette. Absolutely.
        Mr. Camp. And if we continue to take our fossil fuels----
        Ms. DeGette. I appreciate that, sir. You are right. The
    2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    says that we need to reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions
    to zero no later than 2050, and sooner if possible.
        Dr. Pacala, I want to ask you if we have the technology
    today to achieve an ambitious reduction in carbon emissions by
    2030 while still providing affordable, reliable electricity for
    every American?
        Dr. Pacala. Yes, we absolutely have the technology to do
    that.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. And that is interesting, because what I
    heard, like, from my utilities is that we have most of the
    technology. It is that last 10 to 20 percent we just need to
    incentivize. Would that be accurate, or do you think we could
    just get there today?
        Dr. Pacala. Yes, it is absolutely accurate. So the--most
    net-zero plans by 2050 call for a 75 percent or 80 percent
    decarbonized--de-emissioned grid, electricity grid, by 2030.
    OK?
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Dr. Pacala. And so----
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Dr. Pacala [continuing]. It is true that the last 20
    percent is way harder.
        Ms. DeGette. Right. But that is why we need to incentivize
    research and development, from----
        Dr. Pacala. Right.
        Ms. DeGette [continuing]. What I have heard, to get there,
    because we can't get there without new technology, is that
    right?
        Dr. Pacala. That is right. And also, right now, we get to
    use, for instance, our abundant natural gas capacity as backup
    generators to provide the firm source of electricity for when
    the wind doesn't blow, when the sun doesn't shine. And that
    gets you down to about 80 percent decarbonized. But then you
    have got to do something with those sources as well, either
    decarbonize them, carbon capture and storage, or build more
    nukes, or build some other--you know, build long-term storage
    or something, some other form source.
        Ms. DeGette. Right. So, just for my colleagues, I have got
    a bill, the Clean Energy Innovation and Deployment Act, which
    is designed to address this issue by setting up a 3-speed
    mechanism where the speed to which we try to get to zero is
    impacted on how fast we can break through with new technology.
    So I will be talking more about that.
        Thanks to our whole panel. I appreciate it.
        Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. Let me just say to
    the gentlelady that I want to personally welcome you to the
    subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you over this
    next--so, again, my personal welcome to you to this
    subcommittee.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this
    hearing. I want to enter into the record an editorial from The
    Wall Street Journal today. It has a lot of facts in it. It is
    entitled, ``Texas Spins into the Wind,'' and I would like to
    enter that into the record.
        Mr. Rush. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you. I also want to point out--and Ms.
    DeGette may want to look at this article--but there is a great
    graphic on there, very difficult to see on there. But let me
    just tell you that change in power output in the State of Texas
    from January the 18th until February the 17th, when generation
    reduced by almost 20,000 megawatts, that was a 93 percent
    reduction in wind power output.
        At the same time you saw coal increase by 47 percent, and
    natural gas increase. This is power generation output increased
    by 450 percent. I don't know that it was necessarily the
    transmission to the power plants, other than a diversion of
    some of the natural gas in Texas to meet the needs of powering
    and heating homes and hospitals and other communities.
        You know, Mr. Chairman, in my district we get a lot of our
    power from nuclear power. Nuclear energy produces a lot of the
    electricity in the Carolinas. In fact, Duke Energy in the
    Carolinas has a fleet of 11 nuclear power plants that make up
    more than 50 percent of the power utility in North Carolina and
    South Carolina. That fleet of nuclear power plants are
    responsible for cleaner air where I live. In 2019 alone, this
    same nuclear fleet generated almost 74 billion kilowatt hours
    of electricity and avoided the release of more than 52 million
    tons of carbon dioxide.
        I point that out because nuclear energy is the future if we
    want to lower our carbon emissions in this country. And I am
    all about next-gen nuclear power, I am all about SMRs and
    thorium reactors and anything that we can do, Mr. Chairman.
        But I wanted to ask Mr. Powell, as you stated in testimony,
    in order to reduce CO2 emissions as fast as possible
    we need to modernize the permitting process. Last Congress I
    introduced a bill to modernize the review of our nuclear power
    reactor projects, and I plan to reintroduce this bill again in
    this Congress. I hope some of my colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle will join me on that. But could you--what do you
    see as the biggest barrier to rapidly deploying new, clean-
    energy projects and--whether it is nuclear and other clean
    technologies, Mr. Powell?
        Mr. Powell. Well, first, thank you, Congressman, for your
    leadership on nuclear innovation and supporting the existing
    nuclear fleet, both extremely important. ClearPath was founded
    in the Carolinas, and we greatly appreciate the remarkable
    clean energy abundance that that nuclear fleet that Duke
    maintains provides, along with the clean air and the tax base
    and all the other great benefits of nuclear.
        You know, going forward with nuclear and continuing that,
    there is a couple of big challenges ahead. The first is
    modernizing the existing nuclear fleet so that those plants
    could all go through the second life extensions, and could go
    from being 60-year plants to 80-year plants.
        In the wholesale power markets, the ones that aren't
    regulated, a lot of those nuclear plants are facing extreme
    economic stress due to subsidized renewables and extremely low-
    cost natural gas. There is a number of pieces of legislation
    that have been introduced in the past Congress that I think
    could be looked at again this year that would take a stab at
    preserving those existing nuclear units, using EPA and other
    authorities to keep those generating, keep those online. I
    think that is a really important priority.
        Then, as we think about the future and the next generation
    of reactors, obviously there is a big piece about regulatory
    reform. You have really taken this on at the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission. Finding ways to streamline and shorten the
    timelining to permit new nuclear design is absolutely vital
    right now. The fastest the NRC could do is about 40 months. And
    with a lot of licensing activity in front of that to get a new
    nuclear design license, you can't even start building or
    financing it before you get that design license. That is a long
    time----
        Mr. Duncan. Right.
        Mr. Powell [continuing]. Kind of innovator, right, so
    finding ways to shorten that down.
        And then, once we get the plants actually--the designs
    licensed, finding ways to then get the siting and the
    permitting of the specific sites done in a more expeditious
    manner, while not sacrificing in any way safety in that siting
    I think is the next big challenge.
        Mr. Duncan. Absolutely. And I just want to point this out,
    that in my district alone, replacing the Oconee Nuclear
    Station, which is a land use of about 2 square miles with
    solar, would require 107 square miles of land. That is nearly 4
    times the size of the City of Greenville, South Carolina. To
    replace a nuclear power with wind would require over 854 square
    miles of land. That is more land than the entirety of Anderson
    County, which is in my congressional district. So we have got
    to address all these, I believe, in nuclear.
        Mr. Chairman, it is a great hearing, I have enjoyed it. And
    I look forward to continue to listen on the way out. Thanks.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    convening this very important hearing today. And certainly
    thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Let me start
    with Mr. Gordon.
        Mr. Gordon, you referenced, I believe, a solar project in
    my district, a 75 megawatt solar project called Edgecombe
    Solar. It is in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, which is just
    a few miles from where I am right now. Let me just commend your
    company's decision to base this project in my district. This
    project, along with others across the State, will ensure that
    North Carolina remains a leader in solar energy deployment. So
    thank you so very much.
        Now, my question is, how can we continue to support the
    development of the solar industry? And perhaps you could
    provide some insights into your company's decision to build a
    solar farm in a rural community so we can learn more about what
    constitutes an attractive environment for solar and for
    renewables.
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to
    answer your question.
        I think, first and foremost, you have got to have the right
    conditions for a solar plant. So, you know, ample sun. But you
    also need interconnection capacity. You need to be able to
    connect to the grid at a cost that is affordable, because, you
    know, high cost to connect can kill a project quickly. And I
    think, you know, underpinning those 2 things, you need the
    customers who are willing to buy it. And what we are seeing
    right now is just a huge interest from Fortune 100 companies to
    invest in renewable energy.
        And so what we are doing is we are trying to work with some
    of these companies to find locations where they have interest
    in--you know, in having renewables nearby to act as an energy
    hedge for them, or to provide renewable attributes to them.
        So I think the answer to your question is, you know,
    complex. There is a lot of things going on. And ultimately, we
    are also looking for landowners who want a project. You know,
    we provide significant financial benefits to the landowners who
    participate. And so it--the whole community is raised.
        Mr. Butterfield. I am glad you are mentioning the land
    ownership aspect of it, because that is so critically
    important. I know it is here in my district.
        The construction of high voltage, long-distance
    transmission facilities is highly necessary to meet the needs
    of the clean-energy transition. Existing utilities, such as
    electric co-ops and municipally owned utilities, will rely on
    these transmission facilities for distribution of renewable
    energy. Mr. Gordon, as high-voltage transmission infrastructure
    is constructed to integrate growing renewable energy
    production, how can we make sure the services of existing
    electric utilities can continue to serve their customers
    uninterrupted?
        Mr. Gordon. So the type of projects that we are proposing
    basically interconnect with the high-voltage grid at the
    various locations. They do not disrupt the local service
    whatsoever. And what they do is, ultimately, provide new
    resources, new low-cost, renewable resources, to be shipped and
    delivered to areas of the country that may not have an
    abundance of geography to site new wind or new solar, such as
    South Carolina.
        Mr. Butterfield. Yes. Let me take my last minute with Ms.
    Glover, if I may.
        Ms. Glover, while climate change affects everyone, our most
    vulnerable communities disproportionately bear the brunt of
    impacts of climate change. This is why environmental justice is
    a critical part of the CLEAN Future Act. Low-income communities
    like my community and communities of color are more likely to
    lack resiliency against the risk of climate change and less
    likely to have access to sustainable and affordable energy. We
    have got to fix this thing.
        Ms. Glover, from your perspective, what can we do to make
    sure that low-income communities, communities of color are
    better prepared for climate change?
        Ms. Glover. Thank you so much for the question, Mr.--
    Congressman Butterfield, and for your leadership. You know, I
    am going to keep repeating my song, which is that I believe
    energy efficiency is really one of the starting points for
    this. And it should be the center point of these conversations.
        At the end of the day, we want to be able to get to
    customers, particularly those in low-income, disadvantaged
    communities, frontline communities, and help them to use less
    now, and invest in those communities so that they are using
    less, so that there is more money for them, but also to be able
    to develop their infrastructure so that it is more resilient.
    Those 2 things combined, I think, need to happen in the worst
    of our communities, the communities that are suffering the
    most.
        And I believe that energy efficiency really is an
    opportunity that is sitting right there and something that we
    can pull the trigger on fairly quickly and can have some
    significant impact very quickly, as well.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am right on the
    mark. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mrs. Lesko for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to
    the witnesses and all of the Members.
        I agree with Mr. Pallone that we need to try to work
    together to come up with an energy plan for the future of
    America. I think it needs to be a commonsense, affordable,
    reliable, high-quality energy plan.
        I have to tell you that I don't think it should copy the
    California policies, because my utility companies here in
    Arizona say that at certain times of the year California
    actually pays Arizona utilities to take their energy off of
    their hands. And I don't think that is probably a very good
    plan for the Californians.
        I do, Mr. Chairman, want to ask unanimous consent that an
    article mentioned by Morgan Griffith earlier be entered into
    the record. It is a New York Times December 6, 2019, article
    entitled, ``Can a Coal Town Reinvest Itself?''
        Mr. Rush. I thought I had, by unanimous consent, already
    entered that into the record.
        Mrs. Lesko. Oh, fantastic. Mr. Griffith had texted me and
    didn't know if it was done or not. So thank you.
        Mr. Rush. Will the gentlelady--for a moment? Let me just
    take another stab at it.
        Hearing no objections, so ordered, the lady's request for
    entering into the record of the New York Times article.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Mr.
    Powell.
        Mr. Powell, the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at
    Arizona State University is currently working on carbon removal
    technologies, particularly direct air capture, under the
    direction of Klaus Lackner.
        Do you know if--what we can do to increase the efforts and
    research on that technology and use of that technology? Do you
    think it is being financed enough?
        Mr. Powell. Thank you so much for that question,
    Congresswoman, and thank you for your attention to this really
    important, relatively new technology.
        Everyone should remember that, when we say net zero, that
    means that folks might still be emitting as long as they have a
    corresponding offset, or something netting out those emissions,
    and pulling it back out of the atmosphere. And that is what
    these technologies like direct air capture or broader carbon
    dioxide removal technologies could do. They could give us a lot
    of flexibility, and they could also, in the far future, if we
    decide there is just too much CO2 in the atmosphere,
    maybe we might decide to pull more out, just as a public
    service kind of a thing.
        And so it is very, very important. A lot of university-
    scale research is done at this stage. I was very excited to see
    in the Energy Act of 2020 a major new program to demonstrate
    these technologies at scale was authorized in that bill. This
    would be the real start of a big Federal program to actually
    demonstrate it. There is a prize concept which would be
    conducted at the Environmental Protection Agency for
    breakthrough technologies in this space. And then there would
    be a more traditional demonstration program at the Department
    of Energy.
        Of course, the authorizing legislation is only the first
    step. And now your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee
    actually have to fund that research at DOE and that prize at
    EPA. And I think significantly more can be done in this space.
        A number of utilities who have made net-zero commitments
    seem to be relying on the existence of a serious amount of this
    technology 30 or 40 years from now. I know Duke Energy, for
    example, in some of their modeling has indicated they might
    like to buy as much as 8 million tons a year. That is a really
    significant market signal to innovators in this space. But that
    is a market signal far in the future. So we need to invest in
    the R&D along the way to make sure that that is actually going
    to be available when they want to start buying that in the
    future.
        Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you, Mr. Powell. That sounds like
    something maybe the Democrats and Republicans can agree upon as
    part of the energy mix. And so I hope we can.
        Mr. Powell, I have another question for you. My
    understanding is that the Federal Government is required to
    purchase 7.5 percent of its energy from renewable sources. But
    right now hydroelectric power isn't included as a renewable
    energy source. And I know Representative Schrier talked about
    all the hydroelectric power in her State. Why shouldn't
    hydroelectric power be included as a renewable energy source?
    It seems counterintuitive to me. And do you think it should be?
        Mr. Powell. That is a great question. It absolutely should
    be. And, to take a bigger step back, it is unclear to me why
    that requirement is only renewable resources. If what we care
    about is low-carbon energy, I don't see why that wouldn't be a
    low-carbon requirement for Federal purchasing, not a renewable
    requirement.
        I was actually heartened to see, I believe, one of the
    Executive orders from the Biden administration actually
    proposed making that change, that it is going to be a carbon-
    free procurement as opposed to a renewable procurement. A long
    way to go, I don't think that has been implemented yet, but I
    think that is a step in the right direction.
        And, absolutely, large and existing hydropower should be
    part of that mix. It is--right now it is the second-largest
    renewable resource in this country, and it is by far the most
    flexible renewable resource in this country. So it certainly
    should be included in procurements like that.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
        And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am really
    looking forward to being on this subcommittee. And I also want
    to thank the witnesses for being here today. This is such an
    important subject area and I think we can devote a lot of time
    to it, but I am trying to be as quick as possible.
        A clean energy development fueled by California's renewable
    portfolio standard, or as we call it, RPS, has attracted more
    than $2 billion in clean energy investments. And the clean
    energy sector now employs over a half a million workers in the
    State. Now, Federal tax credits for solar and wind energy have
    also made these developments possible. And the recent extension
    of these programs really will continue to fuel investments into
    clean energy and decarbonization.
        Given California's success with RPS, a national clean
    energy standard, or CES, should be a crucial solution for
    decarbonization. Dr. Pacala, I would like to ask you about the
    role a CES can play in driving decarbonization during this
    decade, the 2020s, and what is a realistic, ambitious clean-
    energy target for 2030?
        [No response.]
        Dr. Pacala?
        Dr. Pacala. So I should start by representing what is in
    the report that we just released, and that is that we recommend
    a clean energy standard that--particularly for electric power--
    that gets us to 75 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2030, and
    also a standard for zero-emissions vehicles that gets us to 50
    percent of sales for light-duty vehicles by 2030, and also a
    zero emissions standard, manufacturing standard, for home
    appliances, particularly home heating but also home cooling.
        I want to also just double down on the point that you made,
    that the position that we are in, where we can do a transition
    at about the same cost as the energy system that we have had
    over the last 30 years--actually, a little less than the energy
    system we have had for the last 30 years--the reason we are in
    that position is a triumph of human ingenuity, backed by public
    policy.
        So it is precisely the creation, for instance, of markets
    in wind and solar before they were ready and also, to some
    extent, the unconventional natural gas by using public policy
    instruments that created these markets before they were ready
    that allowed free-market competition to drive their costs down
    and made them available as alternatives today.
        And the clean--the fuel standard in California has been
    used in exactly that same way. I will note that one of the big
    companies doing direct air capture is making use of that
    subsidy to bring that technology into the marketplace, even
    though it is still pretty commercial otherwise.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Now I want to get into transportation. The
    Diesel Emissions Reductions Act bill that I have championed for
    many years was enacted last Congress. This legislation focused
    on providing millions of dollars in funding to retrofit
    polluting diesel engines in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
    with cleaner technologies.
        Similarly, my home State adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks
    bill, which requires truck makers to sell cleaner zero-emission
    trucks in the State. Both initiatives will have significant
    consequences on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air
    pollution for frontline communities.
        Dr. Pacala, once again, what are your recommendations for
    actions to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in this
    decade?
        Dr. Pacala. So there are----
        Ms. Matsui. Go ahead.
        Dr. Pacala. Yes, there are two technologies that can be
    used to decarbonize heavy vehicles, and they are still in
    competition, right?
        There are some developers that think that you can do this
    with batteries, even for long haulers, and that we can get
    charging rates down to low enough levels that you could do long
    hauling, interstate transport with big trucks. Almost everyone
    agrees now that, for routes less than 250 miles, which includes
    a lot of the urban traffic you are talking about that leads to
    local air pollution, that probably can be done with batteries.
        The alternative is hydrogen fuel cells right now. And
    hydrogen fuel cells represent, you know, still--there is a
    horse race. I think that, if I had to guess, I am going to
    guess batteries are going to win, but I wouldn't go to the
    market on that yet.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, well, I am running out of time, so thank
    you very much. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, for 5
    minutes.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Pence? Please unmute.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Pence, it seems as though you are muted. Mr.
    Pence, it seems as though you are muted.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could go to Mr.
    Armstrong, and we will try to get Mr. Pence on.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Armstrong for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Mr. Powell, I actually appreciated some of what you
    talked about, probably because I was the prime sponsor of the
    FAST Act legislation last session and am going to introduce it
    again. And I know Ms. Castor is going after me, and I had the
    ability to serve on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
    with her. And one thing we heard from witnesses from all across
    the ideological spectrum is the interoperability, and the
    interoperability of our grid is reliant on infrastructure.
        And, regardless of what source of infrastructure that is,
    the permitting process, primarily in Federal areas has become
    so duplicative, burdensome, and just simply takes so long that
    it is very difficult to raise capital for that. So, if you
    could, just talk about that as part of making sure, regardless
    of which energy is getting on the grid, that we actually have
    an ability to do this.
        Because I am in North Dakota right now, and we obviously
    deal with these issues better than Texas. We know winter pretty
    well. But we have rolling blackouts as well right now, because
    of the strain on the grid, as a whole, from the Canadian border
    to the Gulf of Mexico.
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely. So thank you so much for the
    question, Congressman. Thank you for your leadership on this
    really important issue.
        You know, we can only build clean energy as fast as we can
    permit it. And it doesn't really matter what your vision of a
    clean energy future is, whether it is something that is really,
    really highly renewable and requires an enormous amount of new
    transmission, and that kind of linear infrastructure along with
    a lot of really large land area developments, like very large
    wind farms or large solar plants, or if it is a vision of the
    future that has a much more compact, clean energy vision, like
    a lot of carbon capture plants on existing fossil facilities.
        But that probably requires more pipelines running around
    the country, taking that carbon dioxide away from those power
    plants. Or, if it is a vision with a lot of hydrogen, that is
    going to require a lot of new hydrogen pipelines. Like,
    regardless, we are going to need to build a significant amount
    of new linear infrastructure in this country, thousands and
    tens of thousands of miles of this.
        I think the Princeton net-zero study that Dr. Pacala was
    very influential in setting up the meeting has demonstrated
    that, kind of regardless of which clean energy future, we are
    going to need an enormous amount of this going forward. And so
    it just cannot be the case that it takes a decade from the, you
    know, beginning of attempting to site a project to actually
    realizing steel in the ground between the NEPA reviews, the
    environmental impact statements, the traditional air and water
    permitting processes, and the local, State, and Federal
    permitting processes along the way.
        I am not suggesting that we sacrifice the environmental
    reviews or the environmental integrity of any of that, but I
    think we do need to find ways that we can do more things in
    parallel as opposed to in sequence, and that we can get to yes-
    and-no answers much more quickly in these processes.
        Mr. Armstrong. Yes, and I think actually, I mean, people
    talk about pipelines, we talk about transmission lines. The
    hardest thing to permit over a Federal waterway is a highway. I
    mean, year in and year out, that is what takes longer than
    everything else.
        So, I mean, I will have plenty of time to fight with my
    colleagues about what sources of energy that are--and we will
    probably go into it in the next minute and 45 seconds. But I
    think, realistically, we have to do a better job of protecting
    the environment, but getting permitting done. Otherwise, first
    of all, private capital is going to be chased away because the
    time constraints just take too long. And secondly, it is--I
    mean, time value of money and energy are really important.
        But one of the other things I just wanted to talk about is
    when we talk about renewables versus other sources of energy,
    we don't talk about the economics of producing energy well
    enough. Because in North Dakota we do--about 29 percent of our
    grid is renewables. But over the last month, when it has been
    20 below, it has dropped under 3 percent. And, for a very windy
    State, it has been unquestionably calm.
        So coal and natural gas, between--part of it--and the other
    thing we don't talk enough about is primacy on the grid, which
    is where--one of the ways where low natural gas prices are an
    advantage against coal, but where they really have an advantage
    against coal is being able to start up and scale down,
    depending on the amount of energy. And you have seen some of
    this in Texas in the last 2 days.
        So, to oversimplify this in any way, shape, or form--but a
    coal plant or a natural gas plant has to be economically viable
    when they are at--when--in North Dakota, they are 70 percent of
    the grid because we need them when they are 97 percent of the
    grid. And we don't spend enough time talking about that.
        And I can just guarantee you, when we introduce a bill that
    somehow harms a wind subsidy in North Dakota, the reason every
    wind lobby is--from across the country flies into North Dakota
    is not because they care about the environment. It is because
    it has become incredibly lucrative. And we have done policies
    where we allow people to sell energy onto the grid for less
    than it costs us to produce. And then, when we get into these
    severe weather actions, we run into resiliency problems and we
    run into reliability problems.
        And with that I will yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, with the
    aspirational background.
        We are all jealous of you, Kathy. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush. This is a very
    important and timely hearing, and I want to thank our witnesses
    today, as well.
        I am really thinking about all of the folks all across the
    State of Texas and what they are going through. So we really
    have a responsibility to work together to ensure that this kind
    of thing doesn't happen again. The problem is these climate-
    fueled disasters are coming faster, and they are costing us
    more. So we have a lot of work to do together on this.
        To the witnesses, I wanted to ask you about some of the
    recommendations that we included last year in the big Select
    Committee on the Climate Crisis, our Solving the Climate Crisis
    report. They relate to resiliency in our electricity system and
    infrastructure.
        We recommended that we develop Federal resilience standards
    for electricity infrastructure, authorizing DOE to identify and
    evaluate climate-related risks to the electric grid, in
    partnership with States and local communities in the private
    sector, and build in the priorities of consumers.
        We recommended that the Department of Energy, FERC, and
    NERC work with the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group to
    develop resiliency standards so that, when we are federally
    funding these infrastructure upgrades, they have to come along
    with appropriate standards.
        We also recommended improving planning and cost allocation
    for transmission lines, something that you all have discussed a
    little bit already, and helping States harden their physical
    grid infrastructure and improve maintenance to make the grid
    more resilient.
        Now, when we are talking about the modernization and
    expansion of the grid, the macrogrid in America, I would think
    that it would be wise, if we are making those kind of Federal
    investments, that they have to be paired with these kind of
    resiliency priorities. I want to ask you all if you agree. And
    do you highlight one over the other?
        First, Dr. Pacala.
        Dr. Pacala. I can be quick. I do believe that we need
    resiliency requirements as we develop the grid. Even if we
    didn't develop the grid to be more decarbonized, we need
    resiliency measures, additional resiliency measures.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Powell?
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely, Congresswoman. But one thing I will
    note is I think storage could play a big role in this, if we
    thought of storage as a transmission asset alongside a
    distribution asset, and we have more ability to move energy and
    time, as opposed to just in space. I think that could be a
    really powerful part of this, as well, and could increase
    resilience.
        Ms. Castor. Yes, and I think folks agree on that. And when
    we are looking at the economic recovery package, we want to do
    more on storage. I mean, my friends from the natural gas areas,
    remember, it was Federal investments that led to the expansion
    of natural gas. And now it is time to mitigate the damage that
    climate change is doing and help put the R&D into those cleaner
    sources of energy.
        Mr. Gordon, what do you think about these important
    resiliency requirements, having the Congress authorize new
    requirements directing the Federal Department of Energy to do
    so, as we expand and modernize the grid across the country?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Castor. I think it is a
    great idea. We are--we would be fully supportive of that.
        And just to clarify, I think you may have said that ``if
    the Federal Government is investing in a lot of the
    transmission infrastructure.'' And I think--I am not sure if
    that was the intent, but the transmission system, by and large,
    is owned by private companies today. And it is a patchwork grid
    that wasn't really designed for the future that we have to plan
    for.
        And so what we do really need to do is make sure that the
    transmission-owning utilities are working in concert with each
    other, both regionally and interregionally, to make sure that
    electrons can flow seamlessly long distances in order to make
    sure that everyone has a higher degree of resiliency in the
    grid.
        Ms. Castor. Well, I think we envisioned significant Federal
    cooperation and investment and modernization and upgrading of
    the grid, and that has got to come in partnership with private
    utilities, public utilities, and the rest. And it would seem
    that we are on the cusp now, coming out of the COVID pandemic--
    hopefully, soon--and the economic turmoil that it has wrought,
    that this can be a source of hundreds of thousands of good-
    paying jobs in infrastructure and construction.
        And Dr. Pacala, I think the Academies--in your report you
    focused a little bit on this. What is the potential here?
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time is up.
        Ms. Castor. We will take that for the record.
        Mr. Rush. All right.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much----
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Pence, who has returned on screen.
        Mr. Pence, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me now? Thank
    you, Chair Rush and Republican Leader Burgess, for holding this
    hearing today. And thanks to the witnesses for your insight on
    decarbonization in the U.S. energy industry.
        Like many of my colleagues on this committee, I support an
    all-of-the-above approach to our energy supply and power
    generation. Access to abundant, reliable energy sources is
    beneficial for the customer, the economy, and for our national
    security and safety, as we are, unfortunately, seeing so
    drastically in Texas in the last few days.
        I agree with my friends across the aisle that renewables
    should play an important role in the future of our energy
    supply. Indiana's sixth district is doing its part to implement
    innovative clean energy technologies.
        North Vernon, Indiana, was the first city government in the
    State to be entirely powered by solar energy. The street
    lights, buildings, traffic signals are all powered by locally
    sourced solar energy.
        Cummins Engine Company--just mentioned the over-the-road
    diesel emissions--is located in my hometown in Columbus,
    Indiana. It is an international leader in heavy-duty electric
    engines. And, in 2020 alone, Cummins won 5 Department of Energy
    awards, the most of any company, to advance production of fuel
    cell technologies. So, Doctor, I hope that one wins out.
        And, in the State of Indiana, wind energy production has
    doubled over the past decade, accounting for 6 percent of
    energy produced in Indiana. Hoosiers do not have a top-down
    Federal mandate to thank for this progress. This progress is
    attributed to improved economic costs and a free-market
    response to the growing demand for diverse energy production.
        It is in our best interest to support both the efforts to
    expand renewable energy capacity and access to fossil fuels
    like natural gas and coal. They provide robust baseload energy
    we need for a regional electric grid.
        As Mr. Camp mentions in his testimony, natural gas plays a
    critical role in local economic development, emissions
    reduction, and lower consumer utility bills. It is also a
    driver for good-paying manufacturing jobs that use natural gas
    for feedstock in the production process of plastics and
    chemicals in everyday consumer goods in the manufacturing,
    which is so important to the State of Indiana. We need a robust
    network of pipelines to extend those benefits to parts of the
    country that do not have locally sourced supplies of natural
    gas.
        Before coming to Congress, I personally shipped through
    pipelines, rail, and trucking companies. I know firsthand that
    nothing is safer for the environment and human lives than the
    pipelines that move reliable sources of energy to every corner
    of our country. If we are serious about maintaining a reliable
    energy source and competitiveness, low prices for consumers,
    then a diverse energy supply is paramount.
        Mr. Powell, running along the Ohio River in Madison,
    Indiana, the Clifty Creek Power Plant burns coal for
    electricity generation, producing enough energy to power a city
    of 1 million people. Since the plant was constructed in the
    1950s, the Clifty Creek Power Plant has invested more than $1
    billion in environmental upgrades and efficiencies.
        Congress passed several provisions in the omnibus bill
    relating to clean coal innovation, including the 45Q tax credit
    extension for carbon capture, as well as demonstration programs
    to explore alternative uses for coal. Mr. Powell, can you speak
    to the importance of these provisions, and how the Biden
    administration can approach the implementation in accordance
    with congressional intent?
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely. Thanks so much, Congressman, thank
    you for your attention to these issues, this important support
    for carbon capture technology.
        For facilities like the one you are discussing, I think the
    important thing now is, first, demonstrating that we can bring
    down the cost of coal carbon capture technology. So that is the
    first thing that DOE needs to do. Right now 45Q isn't quite
    enough to probably justify putting carbon capture on those
    facilities. We need to bring the price down a little further.
        And so the demonstration program set up at DOE will now
    authorize public-private partnerships to do more demonstrations
    on facilities like yours to capture those emissions in cost
    share with private-sector players and with private-sector
    utilities. So I think that is the first thing.
        And then, once we have brought the cost down further to
    where it is more economic, 45Q hopefully will be able to take
    over. We may need to think about further extensions of 45Q in
    the future to continue helping support that technology and that
    deployment.
        Mr. Pence. Thank you, I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Pacala, you asked that you be excused at 2:45. Do you
    still need to be excused from the hearing?
        Dr. Pacala. Well, I do have a National Academies webinar
    with 3,000 people signed up that starts at 3:00, and they can
    soldier on without me if I am needed. But if not, then I am
    happy to make that gig.
        Mr. Rush. So if--we would love for you to continue as a
    witness, but you have to make the call. Do you need to be
    excused?
        Dr. Pacala. Yes, that would be best.
        Mr. Rush. Well, we thank you, Mr. Pacala, for your time.
    You have really made this hearing worthwhile, very interesting,
    and we certainly appreciate all your contributions to this
    area.
        Dr. Pacala. I want to thank you, Chairman Rush, and every
    member of the committee for your service in the Nation's
    interest. There is no more important issue today than the one
    that you are in charge of. So thank you.
        Mr. Rush. All right, very good. You are excused. And now
    the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5 minutes
    for questioning.
        Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I want to say one of the best experiences I
    had in Congress was going to a coal mine in West-by-God
    Virginia with David McKinley. And Vermont is not coal country,
    but I got to tell you I really admired those hardworking coal
    miners who kept the lights on in our barns and schools for so
    long.
        And I want to say to Mr. Camp I really admire the
    hardworking folks that you are here representing. So whatever
    it is we do, there has to be enormous respect paid to people
    who have been, really, the pioneers and the hard workers in
    keeping our lights on, keeping our economy going.
        But having--there is also something that Mr.--I think Mr.
    Powell said: Disruption is happening. And many of our major
    utilities have adopted zero-emission goals. So whether it is
    market forces, whether it is business changes, whether it is
    the awareness of climate change and carbon emissions playing a
    big role in that, change is here.
        And I think the challenge for us is to come up with
    pragmatic policies that are all-of-the-above approach to
    addressing the changes that we need. But as we do it, never
    forget the people who have contributed. And we have to
    acknowledge that there is some disruption, and we have got to
    mitigate that for communities that are affected.
        One of the approaches that makes a lot of sense for me is
    energy efficiency. And Ms. Glover, I want to ask you--
    congratulations on your position, I really appreciate your
    leadership, and--of the Alliance. But we have some bipartisan
    bills in this legislature, in this committee: the Main Street
    Efficiency Act, and the HOPE for HOMES legislation. Could you
    comment on, A, efficiency and, B, why those 2 pieces of
    legislation would be helpful?
        Ms. Glover. Excuse me, I didn't realize I was muted. I
    apologize. Thank you, Congressman, for your leadership and for
    that question.
        You know, the Main Street Efficiency Act is particularly
    important to us, and we really do appreciate, you know, your
    leading on that, because it does allow small businesses to have
    a place in this conversation, and they have a role that they
    can play. And, as we talk about economic recovery for our
    country and the importance of small business, we believe that
    the Main Street Efficiency Act and giving grants not only to
    small businesses and particularly those in distressed
    communities and minority-owned businesses so that they can
    better improve the efficiency of their own spaces, whether that
    is building efficiency and/or maybe even manufacturing
    processes, but at the same time supporting small businesses to
    be able to do that work is a double win.
        Additionally, we also believe that investments in homes and
    retrofits so that they are more efficient is also a double win.
    It is a win in that it allows people to save money, it allows
    us to save energy in our use on the grid and builds resilience,
    but it also can be a really big economic driver. The cost to
    enter the efficiency spaces of small business, it is a low
    barrier. It is not like other areas, other sectors of the
    industry. And so anything that we can do to not only encourage
    small businesses and residents to take advantage of these
    opportunities to participate, as well as take advantage of what
    it provides is a really good----
        Mr. Welch. That is great, thank you. Because that--it is
    local control, business control, homeowner control, community
    control, community jobs.
        Let me ask Mr. Gordon. The administration has a goal of
    clean energy by 2035. Representative Clarke and I have
    introduced a renewable energy standard which would have as a
    goal 55 percent renewable by 2030. We have heard how absolutely
    important it is for our generation folks to have some
    reliability. How would a 10-year renewable energy standard
    combined with a clean energy standard allow for certainty of
    the electrical generator community? And how would that help us
    with a clean energy economy?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Welch, for that
    question.
        I think, as you point out, business certainty is huge for
    major infrastructure investments. And so having a 10-year
    program, whether it is a clean energy standard or a renewable
    energy standard, gives us the certainty we need to know that
    customers are going to be buying for that period of time, at a
    minimum.
        And normally what happens, as soon as they start buying a
    little, they start buying a little bit more, because the
    economics are so positive for them and for their customers. And
    so I think just giving a little nudge to the market through
    programs like this really gets the ball moving.
        And I think, you know, what we have seen is massive
    interest, you know, over the last 5 years from, historically,
    the biggest coal utilities in the country: the American
    Electric Powers, for instance, they are going big on wind right
    now. So all it takes is a nudge. You get the policy direction
    set, you give the certainty to the investors and the developers
    because these projects take 5 to 7 years to develop, and you
    have got to get them onto the grid, which can take even more
    time and more money.
        So we need that long horizon in order to make those type of
    investments.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes. I don't see any
    additional Republican Members--I am sorry.
        Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sitting way out
    here to your right, so it may have made me hard to see. I yield
    to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for--may consume.
        Mr. Burgess. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and of
    course Mr. Palmer here to the right of all of us, so that is no
    great surprise.
        So Mr. Powell, you are still here. Let me ask you a
    question. I tried to ask you one earlier, and it got taken by
    another witness. But that is OK. I got a good answer, so it
    gave me something to work on. But you talked about the 45Q tax
    credit. Are you familiar with Petra Nova Coal Plant in Houston,
    and the fact that it has been closed since September because it
    could not meet the operating costs, or the operating costs
    were--exceeded any ability for it to meet those because of the
    reduction in energy prices that occurred with the COVID
    pandemic?
        So could you speak to that issue? Right now it just seems
    criminal that that plant is shuttered with the State so badly
    needing electricity. And granted, it is in the southern part of
    the State, but every little bit helps right now. But could you
    speak to that?
        Mr. Powell. Sure. Absolutely, Congressman. And it certainly
    does seem tragic at the moment that, you know, not just a coal-
    fired power plant but a coal-fired power plant operating with
    very low emissions is not running, you know, at this very
    moment of kind of energy scarcity in the State.
        You know, to take a big step back on Petra Nova, I think we
    should all remember that was a demonstration project, and it
    worked as intended, so it clearly demonstrated host combustion
    carbon capture on a coal-fired power plant. [Audio
    malfunction.] It has worked very well at sequestering more than
    2 million tons, it put it safely underground into an--used it
    for--recovery.
        Overall, the economics of the project worked, even in the
    absence of [audio malfunction]. It wasn't able to capture those
    45Q benefits. It was able to capture some of the revenues from
    the enhanced oil recovery project that it was associated with.
    But, unfortunately, when, you know, the COVID pandemic hit, oil
    prices crashed and all gas prices crashed, as well, in Texas,
    and the gas-fired production is so expensive it just no longer
    made sense to run that plant.
        So you know, I think it worked very well as a technical
    demonstration. And now we need to go forward with the next
    generation of combustion capture to bring that price down a
    little bit further. And then, those would also be--45Q--it
    probably would be a lot closer to an economic operation if you
    were to, say, do a Petra Nova----
        Mr. Burgess. Right. Well, when we were working on one of
    the coronavirus response packages last summer that didn't
    actually get passed into law, I worked with Senator Cornyn here
    in Texas to get extension of the 45Q tax credit, and I also
    worked with Mr. Crenshaw to get that extended to natural gas-
    generating facilities.
        But it seems to me that, having the stability of that--I
    mean, that credit is going to expire. So it makes it harder to
    plan a big capital-intensive project like that if the tax
    credit is going to evaporate. So it just seems to me--and
    again, maybe we will get a chance to revisit this with one of
    the coronavirus response things. We haven't so far had any
    ability for bipartisan input. But Mr. Cornyn and I--or Senator
    Cornyn and I--our contribution last summer was to extend this
    45Q tax credit to provide perhaps a little bit more stability
    for major projects like this.
        And I just think that is such an important part of this,
    and we can't lose sight of it. We have got the technology. We
    are doing what everyone asked us to do: produce electricity
    with coal with zero--near-zero emissions and, as you correctly
    point out, the enhanced oil field recovery on the other side of
    it. It really was a win-win-win proposition. And again, right
    now, tragically, it is shuttered and not contributing to the
    very necessary baseload of electricity in Texas.
        So just in general, and the question that I had asked
    earlier that kind of got taken up by another witness, but just
    in general, your thoughts on decarbonization, renewables,
    resiliency of the grid--in short, could you summarize that?
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely. I think--let's take the Texas
    example. I think what we have seen very clearly is that we need
    a more resilient grid with a mix of resources.
        I think there are a number of highly resilient, advanced
    technologies that could help in situations like this, and they
    could help companies' grids all over the country when they are
    going to be dealing with situations like this [audio
    malfunction] carbon capture, that is enhanced geothermal, and
    that is energy storage, so that we can take the great low-cost
    energy from wind and solar, and then we can move it around
    through time, right, because that is a more variable energy
    source. So I think technology can be a big answer in all of
    this.
        But the real key is that we need a broad portfolio, a
    really resilient mix. We don't want to have all our eggs in any
    one or a few baskets in this. We need a lot of options,
    especially because, if we are going to have different parts --
    we are going to be [audio malfunction] extreme weather.
        Mr. Burgess. Great answer, I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would--I do need to point out
    that one of the hazards of an interconnected grid is that
    problems can spread more rapidly. And we need to bear that in
    mind, as well.
        And I will yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The acting ranking member yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
    appreciate this hearing. It is certainly timely, and I agree
    with folks that this is going to be, hopefully, one of the
    signature efforts of this particular Congress, as we get,
    hopefully, on the other side of this COVID epidemic.
        And my heart goes out to the folks in Texas and that part
    of the Midwest and South that are really getting hit by this
    terrible freezing cold weather. But I will point out to
    everybody my district has also, unfortunately, been in the
    throes of a once-in-a-century ice storm in the mid-Willamette
    Valley here in Oregon, and it has put hundreds of thousands of
    folks out of power. I got my power back yesterday, 5 days
    without heat, water, you know, just the ability to do pretty
    much anything. My fireplace came in handy. But it showcases and
    headlines, I think, some of the problems that we face out here.
        Ours in the Pacific Northwest wasn't the result of frozen
    pipelines, but it was downed power lines with the trees. It
    points out, I think, we need to do a serious vegetative
    management and pursue some of the new Federal policies this
    Congress and previous Congresses have put in place over the
    last several years to effectively harden our grid, if you will,
    just by minimizing some of the power problems that we are going
    to have due to overhead power lines.
        I just would say also--I think it goes for every Member on
    this panel--I want to thank all the line crews. The efforts
    that these men and women have put in going 24/7, 18-hour
    shifts--certainly in my mid-Willamette Valley, and I am sure it
    is true down in Texas, too--that they have done everything they
    can, trying to get Oregonians and Texans back online. So I
    really want to call that out, and appreciate their work.
        I guess I question--well, a comment. I just agree with
    Congressman Welch and the work that Ms. Glover's power alliance
    is doing. I think that is critical. Energy efficiency is
    probably the least expensive, most efficient--no pun intended--
    way to get reduction in carbon emissions and compliance with
    all our folks out there.
        But I was going to ask Mr. Gordon if he could talk--with
    the transmission line problems that we are having, the pipeline
    problems--could you talk a little bit about what does it mean
    to harden the grid, how do you have redundancy, what role
    putting power lines underground plays, and how economical all
    that is?
        Everyone wants to talk about building another plant or
    doing more renewable, but there is a certain amount of just
    getting the transmission redundancy, I assume, that needs to
    occur. Could you comment on that?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Schrader. Yes, it is
    absolutely the case. What we need to harden the grid will be
    more high-voltage transmission lines so that, if one line trips
    off or is taken out by a tree, that there is redundancy in the
    system, which obviously improves the resiliency of the grid and
    hardens the grid. So, I mean, absolutely, that is imperative.
        As you might know, there is not a lot of public support for
    new transmission lines, so it is a tough one. You know, it is
    going to be the Achilles heel of making this transition happen,
    because what really needs to happen is more of these lines in
    order to harden the grid. Burying the lines is an option in
    some cases. The costs are higher, as well. So that has to be
    taken into consideration, of course.
        So there is no one easy solution, from a cost standpoint.
    But I think the solution from a technical standpoint is fairly
    clear.
        Mr. Schrader. I appreciate that. Maybe a role of Congress
    could be to incentivize some of the landowners to allow some of
    these transmission lines to go over or under their properties.
        Mr. Powell, what is the proper balance? We talked a little
    bit about our role in the United States and other governments,
    about global--you know, globally balancing out, what is
    America's role, and how do we engage others to do their fair
    share?
        Mr. Powell. Thanks very much for the question, Congressman,
    and thanks for your leadership on the energy innovation topic,
    broadly.
        It is a delicate balance. You know, when we think about
    some of these very aggressive goals, even some of the voluntary
    goals that have been made in the United States, the net-zero
    goals, we do have to acknowledge those things are going to come
    with a cost, in all likelihood. And, you know, there may be
    near-term opportunities for cost savings, but it probably will
    mean more cost in the future. And that is why innovation is so
    important, because it can help drive down the costs of
    compliance. So hopefully we don't lose too much to American
    competitiveness and jobs during that period.
        And, of course, if we don't drive down the costs, then we
    are not going to have the things to export to the rest of the
    world that it will take so many other--you know, Nigeria,
    Indonesia, the rapidly developing world, they don't have the
    rich resources that the United States does. They are making
    their decisions about building up their economies almost
    entirely on the basis of the lowest-cost, nearest-term
    opportunities. So, unless we give them better opportunities to
    decarbonize their grids, as well, they are very unlikely to
    take them on.
        So I think it is a delicate balance, and it really
    highlights the need for innovation to drive down costs and
    improve performance.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much. I hope American
    innovation and technology can contribute to that solution.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. I seem to have lost my
    visual, but can you hear me?
        Can you hear me?
        Voice. Yes, Mr. Chairman, loud and clear.
        Mr. Rush. All right, Ms. Kuster, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted
    to, at the outset, insert into the record, if I could, two
    articles: the first from the Texas Tribune, ``Texas largely
    relies on natural gas for power. It wasn't ready for the
    extreme cold''; and the second, the New York Times article
    entitled ``How to Prevent the Next Texas Power Breakdown.'' So
    I would seek permission to insert those into the record.
        Mr. Rush. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Acting Ranking
    Member Burgess, for holding this important hearing today. I am
    excited to be returning to the Energy Subcommittee and
    continuing our work across the aisle to advance policies to
    tackle climate change and advance clean energy solutions.
        I believe that the Federal Government must take bold action
    to invest in clean energy to achieve net-zero carbon emissions
    because it is good for our health, it is good for the planet,
    and it will create millions of good-paying green jobs.
        As a recent National Academy of Sciences report found, the
    transition to net zero could provide quality jobs and economic
    benefits for American workers. One form of carbon-free energy
    that is ripe for expansion is hydropower. A 2016 DOE report
    outlined U.S. hydropower production could grow up to 150
    gigawatts in 2050, producing enough carbon-free energy to power
    36 million homes. We don't need to build new dams to achieve
    this goal. The Federal Energy Regulatory Energy Commission has
    already identified hundreds of dams, including 4 in my
    district, that could be safely retrofitted to generate
    hydropower.
        Mr. Gordon, my first question is for you. Would
    retrofitting, rehabilitating, and removing dams create quality
    jobs and help to decarbonize the energy system?
        Mr. Gordon. I am sorry, Congressman Kuster, can you repeat
    the question?
        Ms. Kuster. Sure. Would retrofitting, rehabilitating, and
    removing dams create quality jobs and help to decarbonize the
    energy system?
        Mr. Gordon. So our company does not operate in the hydro
    sector, so I am not sure I am qualified to answer that
    question.
        Ms. Kuster. OK. Is there anyone else on the panel that
    wants to take a crack at that? If not, I will move on.
        Mr. Powell. I would be happy to, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Kuster. Sure.
        Mr. Powell. Thank you for your attention to this issue. We
    have got an enormous potential in retrofitting nonpower dams in
    this country, literally thousands of potential opportunities
    for that. And I think there was just an important announcement
    between the National Hydro Association and American Rivers,
    where basically the conservation community and the hydropower
    community are coming together with some joint proposals about
    places where perhaps older or nonused dams could be removed and
    other nonpower dams could be powered up, and so we could have a
    real win-win on conservation and producing more clean
    electricity. I think that there is an enormous opportunity
    there.
        Ms. Kuster. Terrific. Well, I am a big fan of that
    approach, and I am a--I know well Dan Reicher, formerly of the
    Department of Energy, who was involved in that negotiation. So
    thank you for bringing it up.
        What I am interested in is, while I am a strong supporter
    of taking steps to reach net-zero emissions, I believe we
    should also pursue negative-emission technologies that remove
    carbon directly from the atmosphere. And my time is short, so I
    am going back to Mr. Gordon, but if someone else would like to
    respond, can you speak to the role that negative-emissions
    technologies have to play to help the planet achieve net-zero
    emissions?
        Mr. Gordon. Congressman Kuster, again, I am sorry, I am not
    informed on that topic----
        Ms. Kuster. All right. Anyone else want to take a stab at
    that?
        Mr. Powell. I am happy to also add, Congresswoman Kuster,
    and I apologize for the siren behind me here. But negative-
    emission technologies, I think, could play an enormous role in
    this space. Most of the models of the future of decarbonized
    energy systems show that we will need to rely on, you know,
    perhaps around the world, billions of tons of this negative-
    emission technology. That could take a number of forms. That
    could take the form of mechanical devices, which capture things
    directly from the atmosphere. That could take the form of
    better forestry and soil management practices, where foresters
    and farmers could be compensated for pulling this out of the
    atmosphere. It could even take the form of ocean approaches,
    where we either grow more plants in the ocean or do things to
    the ocean so that they become more of a sink for carbon
    dioxide.
        A ton of innovation is needed in this space. DOE is just
    getting started, and the broader Federal energy innovation
    apparatus is just getting started. The private sector is also
    leading the way. You have seen major commitments from Microsoft
    and Amazon and a number of other major technology producers
    that are really investing deeply in this space, as well. So I
    think it is a space with a lot of movement.
        It is very early days, and it remains very expensive.
    Currently we need to focus on bringing the cost far, far down
    so it could be a real part of the mix.
        Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you, Mr. Powell. My time is up,
    and I will yield back. Thank you for your expertise.
        Mr. Rush. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. The
    Chair's screen is frozen, and my time--my clock is frozen,
    also. So--but the audio is--I can hear you. The audio is
    working fine. So the Chair now recognizes Ms. Barragan for 5
    minutes.
        And Ms. Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for this important
    hearing on solutions to reach a 100 percent clean-energy
    economy. We have seen the deadly cost associated with the
    fossil fuel industry through extreme weather events influenced
    by climate change. Whether it is record wildfires in California
    or a polar vortex in Texas, we cannot drill, mine, or frack our
    way out of the climate crisis.
        Instead, we need a massive investment in clean energy,
    energy efficiency, and battery storage combined with
    modernizing our grid for this century's challenges. By
    prioritizing these investments in environmental justice
    communities, we can have a transformational impact on our
    economy and our climate.
        Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record a February
    16, 2021 article from The New York Times entitled, ``Texas
    Blackouts Hit Minority Neighborhoods Especially Hard.''
        Mr. Rush. So ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Glover, I would like to start with you. It is critical
    for there to be racial equity in the new jobs created from our
    transition to clean energy. In California, Latinos make up 34.4
    percent of California's workforce yet only 21.8 percent of the
    energy efficiency industry. Black workers are 9.8 percent of
    the workforce yet only make up 7.3 percent of the energy
    efficiency industry. How can the energy efficiency industry do
    more to prioritize minorities for training and support to
    enable them to obtain employment in energy efficiency business?
        Ms. Glover. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question,
    and I appreciate your leadership.
        You know, through the summer the Alliance and the members
    of our coalition really started to talk very deeply about
    equity and the concerns of underrepresented communities, and
    how we could do better. And we adopted a set of principles that
    would guide us not only in our advocacy positions, but also we
    are working to support our companies and those that are part of
    our coalition.
        They are all really focused on trying to figure out how do
    they better attract people of color to their business, how do
    they reach out to them better, do a better job of that,
    identify those types of opportunities that people would be
    interested in and encourage them to participate.
        But additionally, we are looking at who our partners should
    be who are already in these communities, who can really provide
    us the kind of guidance and direction that we need. And I would
    suggest that, you know, the entire industry in some way is
    thinking about these problems and trying to figure it out. But
    we do need the help of leaders as yourself--such as yourself--
    as well as others in our communities to help us do the right
    thing the right way.
        And what I mean by that is address the concerns of the
    community in a way that they see them, and also make sure that
    we are encouraging investment in those communities so that, as
    you stated, they are also getting, not just jobs--I think jobs
    and for people to be employed is a great thing--but we have
    lots of entrepreneurial minds in our communities and people who
    have the ability to grow great businesses in terms of energy
    efficiency, and we want them to be a part of this industry and
    use that talent so that we can spread the work that we do
    throughout the country----
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
        Ms. Glover [continuing]. Quite frankly.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you so much, Ms. Glover.
        Mr. Gordon, when I listen to my colleagues on the
    Republican side, they repeatedly talk about electricity prices
    being a consequence of the transition to a cleaner, healthier
    energy future. However, over the past 10 years the cost of wind
    power has dropped by 70 percent, solar power costs are down by
    90 percent, and lithium ion batteries are--for energy storage
    and electric vehicles--are down by 85 percent.
        Is the argument that clean energy is too expensive based in
    reality or outdated?
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. I
    think that is a very good question, and you are right to state
    the facts. The cost of new wind, new solar, new battery storage
    have declined significantly over the last 10 years. And so,
    when you are comparing, you know, the building of a new gas
    plant versus a new wind plant versus a new solar plant, wind
    and solar are competitive with both of those. And if you look
    at the stats, there is not a single coal plant being built in
    the United States in the contiguous 48 right now.
        On the other hand, you have significant builds in wind and
    solar. It is because the costs have come down so much that the
    utilities who own both renewables, nuclear, coal, gas, they see
    the future is very--that is very clear to them, and it is going
    to be dominated by renewables. And so they are just making that
    move right now because of the costs.
        Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that. One thing we don't
    talk enough about is the cost of the impact on health and
    negative health impacts. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. I just want to remind
    Members I am having a technology problem. My screen is frozen,
    my clock is frozen. My audio is working just fine, so I am
    going to ask Members--you know, I can't see the clock, so
    please be mindful of the fact that, when your time is up, bring
    your questions to a conclusion.
        The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
    Virginia, Mr. McEachin, for 5 minutes.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. Mr. McEachin?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Delaware, Ms. Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
    calling this important hearing. And I want to thank the
    witnesses, not only for your testimony but for your
    perseverance.
        I hear every day from my constituents in Delaware about the
    impacts of climate change that are--that they are already
    facing, whether it is the rising sea levels that flood our
    beaches, the changing seasons impacting our farmers in
    Delaware, or the extreme heat that endangers our most
    vulnerable citizens.
        This week's extreme weather event in Texas and parts of the
    Midwest has highlighted the importance of investing in energy
    resilience. We need to work together to create a more climate-
    resilient energy system. We need to be better prepared for
    future emergencies to better protect our constituents, which is
    why I introduced the Open Back Better Act last year and why I
    plan to reintroduce it in the upcoming weeks.
        As we start to rebuild our economy from the ongoing public
    health pandemic, we need to be intentional. The Open Back
    Better Act invests in retrofits to ensure that our Nation's
    critical infrastructure, such as hospitals, libraries, and
    community centers, are safer, cleaner, more energy efficient,
    and more resilient against future threats while creating good-
    paying jobs and prioritizing those communities hardest hit by
    the COVID-19 pandemic. These upgrades are critical to low-
    wealth communities and communities of color, which are so often
    disproportionately burdened by the impacts of public health
    emergencies and natural disasters.
        My questions are for Ms. Glover.
        First, Ms. Glover, I want to thank you and the coalition
    for all of your hard work, and also your leadership and support
    for the Open Back Better Act. As you referenced in your written
    testimony, the Open Back Better Act helps to retrofit mission-
    critical buildings throughout the country. Can you please
    expand on why these efforts are so important, especially to
    low-wealth communities and communities of color?
        And how do we ensure that resiliency efforts include all
    communities?
        Ms. Glover. Sure. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for the
    question and for your leadership on this issue.
        You know, I think, as we start to think about buildings in
    particular and the importance that they place, a lot of the
    conversation that we have had over the last 6 months around
    equity is really focused on underinvestment or noninvestment.
    And so it is really important for those communities that are
    the most disadvantaged that we start investing in them first.
        And retrofitting buildings is a great way to do that, and
    an important way to do that, one, for those communities,
    particularly when we are talking about public buildings, being
    able to save money for localities on their energy costs--and
    they can redirect those funds to other things that they have to
    take care of, is one thing that this would do.
        Secondly, as you mentioned, the opportunity for jobs is a
    big one, right? And we are talking about not just a job on one
    building, but we are talking about giving people skills that
    they can carry on to do that work in all kinds of ways. And we
    are not talking about just college education jobs, but also
    blue jobs, green jobs, however you would like to describe them.
    And we are talking about giving people skills that are going to
    allow them to sustain themselves and their family over the long
    haul.
        And thirdly, I think, is an opportunity to give a
    demonstration to the community at large about why efficiency is
    important, what it can do for you. People get to see it in ways
    that they may not--even if they can't see behind the walls,
    they see the effective impact of that work in their schools, in
    their mayor's offices, et cetera, and their hospitals.
        And so I think, you know, for all of those reasons, this
    work is critically important, and we have an opportunity to do
    it now. And if we are going to transition, we need to take care
    of these communities first, and we need to do it now.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent. Can you also tell us how
    Congress can help alleviate any real or even perceived risks
    for businesses and industries as we accelerate transition to a
    clean energy economy?
        Ms. Glover. I think the--what Congress can do is to think
    about what businesses are really needing now and address those
    needs. And that means hearing from people.
        A lot of what we learned with how we were trying to help
    small business, particularly out of the pandemic, what we
    learned sometimes is that the rush to put money out there
    sometimes doesn't hit the people that you want. And so I
    appreciate all of your deliberative efforts to make sure that
    what you are putting out into the market in terms of funding is
    very specific and is going to hit the communities and
    intended--that you intend.
        And I just think that, in terms of energy efficiency, as we
    said, 99 percent of the energy efficiency job--99 percent of
    the jobs--well, no, all the jobs happen in 99 percent of the
    counties across this country. That means we are all impacted by
    it, and we should do something with that.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, and I yield back
    the balance of my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the panel, and
    also the Members on the committee for the outstanding
    discussion today. It was a broad view of what the discussion is
    going to be for the next year, number of years.
        The energy industry has changed significantly in the last
    decade, as we all know. Electricity from coal has declined, our
    Nation has become energy independent, and renewable energy
    technologies have put our Nation on the path to continued
    carbon emission restrictions--reductions, I am sorry.
        My district is facing the brunt of the transition away from
    coal. As major plants continue to close, workers are laid off,
    and local economies are hurt. It is essential that new Federal
    policies provide equality and opportunity for rural communities
    that are too often left behind. As the Biden administration
    pursues its robust climate agenda, I look forward to putting
    forward bipartisan climate proposals that support innovation
    and energy security.
        I will soon be introducing comprehensive legislation, the
    New Promise Act, to put impacted coal communities in the
    driver's seat, with economic development support for their
    economies and workers, mitigate the tax revenue losses, major
    plant closures that cost those--cause local economies to have
    impact, empowers workers, and more, including job training.
        Dr. Powell--or Mr. Powell, I am sorry--I appreciate your
    testimony highlighting the need for pragmatic policies to
    support impacted communities and workers in the energy
    transition. Part of my legislation will authorize grant funding
    for communities to respond and repurpose coal-fired facilities
    for new energy production, manufacturing, and other proposal
    purposes. Could you comment on how this and other policy
    solutions could reduce the strain on assets and create real
    employment?
        Mr. Powell. Thank you so much, Congressman. Thank you for
    your support of USE IT Act and so much other legislation that
    has tried to bring forward carbon capture and these other
    important technologies. Thank you for the update in title, as
    well. I didn't get quite that far, but I will take it here.
        You know, I think that policy that tries to take advantage
    again of the existing infrastructure, as we discussed with
    Congressman Armstrong, has a lot of real merit. I mean, it is
    an absolute shame that units like the Navajo Generating Station
    that have all of the interconnects, probably a lot of boilers
    and other potential things that could be put back to use,
    aren't being taken advantage of right now.
        I would say the highest and best use for facilities like
    that are as demonstration sites for carbon capture technology.
    So, you know, continuing the existing use of those sites and
    continuing the existing use of the fossil fuel assets, we know
    we need to crack that technology if we are going to resolve
    global emissions. We know we need to demonstrate that
    somewhere. Why shouldn't we prioritize disadvantaged
    communities?
        And if it is not carbon capture technology, I do think that
    there is a lot of other things that could be done with those
    units and assets. For example, advanced nuclear technologies
    might be one thing that you could put into repower an existing
    fossil generating plant like that. Low-carbon hydrogen also
    might be something that you could bring in, whether that is
    produced from fossil fuels or carbon capture or produced from
    renewable resources, it might be something that you could bring
    in to revitalize those facilities and reuse those assets.
        So I think that prioritizing communities that are facing
    this transition and prioritizing using those existing assets is
    the way to do this that both has the least impact on
    communities and potentially is the most cost-effective way to
    do it, because you are using the existing assets.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
        Mr. Gordon, a recent report stated that utility-scale
    energy storage installations will exceed 10 gigawatts by 2021.
    I was proud to see my legislation signed into law last year,
    which the committee voted for also, which will provide
    technical assistance, identify barriers and financial resources
    from DOE to utilities serving rural communities.
        Could you discuss the importance of new energy storage
    technology being considered with transmission resource
    planning? Thank you.
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. And, in fact, in
    your own district we have over 1,000 megawatts of combined
    solar and energy storage projects in development. So we are
    working with utilities in the state to address, you know, the--
    their resource adequacy needs after they replace or decide not
    to build new fossil generation. So we are already in your
    district working right now to build significant amounts of
    projects.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much. And I yield.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And with that, this
    concludes the witness questions-and-answers phase of the
    subcommittee.
        And I certainly want to thank each of witnesses for your
    participation in today's hearing. You have made this hearing a
    very, very meaningful and successful hearing. I want to also
    thank all the Members for your fine questions that you asked of
    the witnesses, and the witnesses for your answering these
    questions.
        So, again, I want to thank our witnesses for your
    participation, and the witnesses are excused.
        I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
    that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
    for the record to be answered by the witnesses who have
    appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such
    question that you may receive.
        And now I have a unanimous consent request to enter into
    the record the following documents. And the staff has agreed
    that, due to the high volume of documents for the record, the
    minority and the majority staff have come to an agreement on
    the completeness of this list. And I will ask now that we enter
    these records and these documents into the record, rather, en
    bloc.
        And without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the
    hearing.\1\]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A Department of Energy report submitted for the record has been
    retained in committee files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/IF/IF03/20210218/111210/HHRG-117-IF03-20210218-SD014.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Rush. At this time, the subcommittee stands----
        Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Wait, this is
    Burgess. Would you yield for another unanimous consent request?
        Mr. Rush. Oh, yes. I yield to Mr. Burgess.
        Mr. Burgess. I just wanted to ask unanimous consent that an
    article from E&E News discussing the Petra Nova plant that I
    talked about in Houston from September of 2020--I will have my
    staff get that to you, and I would ask unanimous consent to
    include that in the documents in the record, as well.
        Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Rush. We will now--and without objection now, the
    subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]