[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]