[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT: INDUSTRIAL CLIMATE POLICIES TO CREATE JOBS AND
SUPPORT WORKING COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 18, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-14
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-333 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia, opening statement...................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Rebecca Dell, Ph.D., Program Director, Industry, ClimateWorks
Foundation..................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Bob Perciasepe, President, Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions, on behalf of the Renewable Thermal Collaborative.... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Additional information \1\
Kevin Sunday, Director, Government Affairs, Pennsylvania Chamber
of Business and Industry....................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Answers to submitted questions............................... 158
Jason Walsh, Executive Director, BlueGreen Alliance.............. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Answers to submitted questions............................... 164
Submitted Material
H.R. 1512, the CLEAN Future Act, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Letter of March 17, 2021, from Ryan Gilliam, Chief Executive
Officer and Cofounder, Fortera Corporation, to Mr. Tonko and
Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................... 92
Report of the Coalition for Green Capital, ``Accelerating Job
Growth and an Equitable Low-Carbon Energy Transition: The Role
of the Clean Energy Accelerator,'' by Susan F. Tierney and Paul
J. Hibbard, Analysis Group, January 14, 2021, submitted by Mr.
Tonko \2\
Report of the Coalition for Green Capital, ``Clean Energy and
Sustainability Accelerator: Opportunities for Long-Term
Deployment,'' by Frank Graves, et al., Brattle, January 14,
2021 submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association, March 18,
2021, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................... 94
Statement of the Ultra Low Carbon Solar Alliance, March 18, 2021,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 98
----------
\1\ Additional information that Mr. Perciasepe submitted has been
retained in committee files and is available at http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20210318/111348/HHRG-117-IF18-Wstate-PerciasepeB-
20210318-SD001.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111348.
Report of the Coalition for Green Capital, ``Accelerating
Investment in Clean Energy & Climate Infrastructure to Create
Jobs & Drive an Equitable & Just Transition: Policy Analysis of
the Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator,'' November
2020, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Letter of March 17, 2021, from Paul N. Cicio, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, to
Mr Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko..................... 101
Report of ClimateWorks, ``Build Clean: Industrial Policy for
Climate and Justice,'' December 2020, submitted by Mr. Tonko
\2\
Statement of the Just Transition Fund, ``National Economic
Transition Platform,'' Summer 2020, submitted by Mr. Tonko..... 106
Report of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment,
``Colorado Just Transition Action Plan,'' December 31, 2020,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 120
Report of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, ``The
Need for Federal Support to Ensure Just Transitions for Local
Energy Economies,'' March 1, 2021, submitted by Mr. Tonko...... 140
Letter of March 18, 2021, from Biotechnology Innovation
Organization to Mr. Tonko, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko...... 142
Letter of March 3, 2020, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice
President, Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association, to
Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. McKinley........................... 150
Report, ``Permitting Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in
California,'' by George Peridas, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, February 2021, submitted by Mr. McKinley \2\
----------
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111348.
THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT: INDUSTRIAL CLIMATE POLICIES TO CREATE JOBS AND
SUPPORT WORKING COMMUNITIES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette,
Schakowsky, Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Barragan,
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, Pallone (ex officio), McKinley
(subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, Mullin, Hudson, Carter,
Duncan, Palmer, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Trahan and Griffith.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director;
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer,
Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman,
Professional Staff Member; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan,
Deputy Director, Outreach and Member Service; Rick Kessler,
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment;
Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Brendan Larkin, Policy
Coordinator; Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel;
Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital
Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk;
Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, Director of
Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Rebecca
Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff
Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer
Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment; Jerry Couri,
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; Nate Hodson,
Minority Staff Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General
Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and
Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for
Energy; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff
Member, Energy; and Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
Mr. Tonko. Well, good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee
on Environment and Climate Change will now come to order.
Today's hearing is entitled ``The CLEAN Future Act:
Industrial Climate Policies to Create Jobs and Support Working
Communities,'' and we will examine several provisions of the
recently introduced H.R. 1512.
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via video conferencing.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members
and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each
time you choose to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik
at the email address we have provided to staff. All documents
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of the
hearing.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
I grew up and continue to live in a mill town, Amsterdam,
New York, formerly one of the largest carpet-producing cities
in the world. And when I was young, the mills closed. My
grandparents were among those workers who, through no fault of
their own, lost their jobs. Those mills went to the southern
States, and then eventually offshore. And the people and
community left behind had little to no support for many, many
years.
I have spent my life, along with other community leaders,
working to revitalize our city, to rebuild by building new
infrastructure, redevelop waterfront industrial properties, and
attract new and innovative businesses. It has taken 60 years,
and there is still more work to be done.
These types of economic disruptions have happened before.
They are happening right now, and they will continue happening,
whether or not we pass the CLEAN Future Act. There is always
some risk when a community relies on one employer or one
industry. We can pretend this is not the case, or we can work
together and do better for the people and communities facing
this challenge today than was done for my grandparents and my
hometown.
With a national commitment, as is proposed in the CLEAN
Future Act, we can treat energy workers with respect. We can
provide the resources to accelerate local economic
redevelopment and diversification, and we can provide fairness
for the workers and communities that have powered our country
for decades.
The bill proposes a framework for a national energy
transition strategy. This has been done for other issues of
national importance that cut across several Federal agencies--
for example, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Council on
Environmental Quality.
And importantly, this approach recognizes that it is not
for me or anyone else in Washington to try to dictate these
transitions. It must be a community-driven process, since every
affected community will have different needs, different wants,
and different assets. The CLEAN Future Act provides Federal
resources and technical assistance to empower local community
leaders to manage their own economic transitions.
This hearing will also examine some of the bill's
provisions regarding the industrial sector. We know the
industrial sector is diverse and does account for a large
amount of emissions. Some subsectors are energy-intensive,
trade-exposed, and difficult to decarbonize. Decarbonizing the
United States industry requires investing in the United States
industry. And investing in our manufacturers is the key to
America's long-term global competitiveness.
The CLEAN Future Act includes several provisions to make
those investments. This includes the Clean Energy and
Sustainability Accelerator, which provides access to financing
to make investments across numerous sectors in support of our
Nation's clean energy transition.
The CLEAN Future Act also includes an innovative Buy Clean
proposal that leverages public procurement to support low-
emissions industrial products. Well over 22 percent of the U.S.
climate emissions are from the industrial sector. A small
number of facilities make up a very large share of that total.
Many of these products, including cement and steel, are
purchased in large quantities by the public sector. In the
United States, nearly one half of all cement and a fifth of
steel is purchased with tax dollars. These products are
critical to our goals of rebuilding America's infrastructure,
and we have the opportunity to support building with cleaner,
more innovative materials than ever before.
Buy Clean brings transparency to the market. It
standardizes how to calculate embodied emissions of products so
that the private sector and State and local governments can
indeed make informed decisions about what they purchase.
It also supports Federal leadership by requiring Federal
use of products with a proposed Climate Star label, a voluntary
label similar to the popular Energy Star and Water Sense
programs.
Buy Clean leverages things that are already occurring in
the private sector, through environmental product declarations,
while seeking to improve data quality, guard against unfair
foreign competition, and reward investments in U.S.
manufacturing.
The CLEAN Future Act's industrial sections are critical to
the growth and the retention of U.S. manufacturing jobs, and
the promotion of markets for new and innovative products. And
the worker and community title is critical to fulfilling our
commitment that no one is left behind during this energy
transition.
I believe these are areas where we should be able to find
bipartisan support. I am looking forward to today's testimony
and hope we can work together to improve these sections of the
committee's proposal.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
I grew up and continue to live in a mill town--Amsterdam,
New York; formerly one of the largest carpet producing cities
in the world.
And when I was young, the mills closed. My grandparents
were among the workers who, through no fault of their own, lost
their jobs. Those mills went down south and then eventually
offshore. And the people and community left behind had little
to no support for many, many years.
I have spent my life, along with other community leaders,
working to revitalize our city--to build new infrastructure,
redevelop waterfront industrial properties, and attract new and
innovative businesses. It has taken 60 years, and there is
still more work to be done.
These types of economic disruptions have happened before.
They are happening right now. And they will continue happening
whether or not we pass the CLEAN Future Act. There is always
some risk when a community relies on one employer or industry.
We can pretend this is not the case, or we can work
together and do better for the people and communities facing
this challenge today than was done for my grandparents and my
hometown.
With a national commitment, as is proposed in the CLEAN
Future Act, we can treat energy workers with respect. We can
provide the resources to accelerate local economic
redevelopment and diversification. And we can provide fairness
for the workers and communities that have powered our country
for decades.
The bill proposes a framework for a national energy
transition strategy. This has been done for other issues of
national importance that cut across several Federal agencies--
for example, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Council on
Environmental Quality.
And importantly, this approach recognizes that it is not
for me, or anyone else in Washington, to try to dictate these
transitions. It must be a community-driven process since each
affected community will have different needs, wants, and
assets.
The CLEAN Future Act provides Federal resources and
technical assistance to empower local community leaders to
manage their own economic transitions.
This hearing will also examine some of the bill's
provisions regarding the industrial sector.
We know the industrial sector is diverse and accounts for a
large amount of emissions.
Some subsectors are energy-intensive, trade-exposed, and
difficult to decarbonize.
Decarbonizing U.S. industry requires investing in U.S.
industry. And investing in our manufacturers is the key to
America's long-term, global competitiveness.
The CLEAN Future Act includes several provisions to make
those investments. This includes the Clean Energy and
Sustainability Accelerator, which provides access to financing
to make investments across numerous sectors in support of our
Nation's clean energy transition.
The CLEAN Future Act also includes an innovative Buy Clean
proposal that leverages public procurement to support low-
emissions industrial products.
While over 22% of U.S. climate emissions are from the
industrial sector, a small number of facilities make up a very
large share of that total.
Many of those products, including cement and steel, are
purchased in large quantities by the public sector. In the
United States, nearly half of all cement and a fifth of steel
is purchased with tax dollars.
These products are critical to our goals of rebuilding
America's infrastructure, and we have the opportunity to
support building with cleaner, more innovative materials than
ever before.
Buy Clean brings transparency to the market.
It standardizes how to calculate embodied emissions of
products, so that the private sector and State and local
governments can make informed decisions about what they
purchase.
It also supports Federal leadership by requiring Federal
use of products with the proposed Climate Star label, a
voluntary label similar to the popular Energy Star and Water
Sense programs.
Buy Clean leverages things that are already occurring in
the private sector through Environmental Product Declarations,
while seeking to improve data quality, guard against unfair
foreign competition, and reward investments in U.S.
manufacturing.
The CLEAN Future Act's industrial sections are critical to
the growth and retention of U.S. manufacturing jobs and
promotion of markets for new and innovative products.
And the worker and community title is critical to
fulfilling our commitment that no one is left behind during the
energy transition.
I believe these are areas where we should be able to find
bipartisan support. I am looking forward to today's testimony
and hope we can work together to improve these sections of the
committee's proposal.
Mr. Tonko. With that, I now yield to the chair--excuse me,
the ranking member--of the Subcommittee on Environmental and
Climate Change, our ranking member, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes
for his opening statement.
Representative McKinley?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here to
examine the CLEAN Future Act, but it reminds me, during the
Vietnam War an American general was paraphrased as saying, ``We
had to destroy the town to save it. We had to destroy the town
to save it.'' It reminds me of the motivation behind this
proposal.
The goal of the Act is to decarbonize the U.S. economy by
2050, have net-zero emissions from power plants by 2035, 80
percent by 2030. In so doing, we are going to destroy
livelihoods, disrupt families, decimate communities, increase
utility bills, threaten the stability of our grid, and we will
still experience negative effects of climate change, since the
rest of the world isn't following suit.
Look, Chairman, we agree we need to work to reduce carbon
emissions. But we also need to understand the consequences
before we rush into such a punitive action.
Let's keep in mind, last year 60 percent of our power came
from fossil fuels: coal, gas, and oil. It is reasonable to
understand that this total transformation, it may be--is it
reasonable to undertake this total transformation of our
electric grid in less than 14 years, or even 9?
Look at solar energy. They are predicting--in their
publication this week, they are predicting they are going to
quadruple their capacity in solar in the next 10 years. Now,
make sure we understand, that means they are going from 2.3
percent of the mix to 9 percent. But remember, coal and gas are
still 60 percent. According to the utilities we have consulted,
decarbonizing our power sector by 2035 and 80 percent by 2030
will take a miracle.
So, Paul, at what cost, if we increase costs for families
with higher utility bills? According to the Institute for
Energy Research, $2,000 per household annually.
It will destroy jobs, not just coal miners and pipeliners,
but all the secondary jobs that rely on them: the railroad
workers, the barge operators, and machinists, the fabricators.
I could go on and on. Where will these workers go? Many of them
are making 70, 80, $100,000.
We get--yes, we get these vague promises about making solar
panels or windmills. About these promises, Terry Sullivan, the
president of the Labor International Labor Union, said``it is
pie-in-the-sky BS''--and he didn't say BS--``about these green
jobs being good, middle-class jobs,'' he said, ``because they
are not.''
As a result, single-industry towns like Welch, West
Virginia; Gillette, Wyoming; Hazard, Kentucky; Cadiz, Ohio,
they are going to be crushed. Not to mention we will be left
with a grid that is far less reliable and resilient, with more
frequent blackouts. Haven't we learned anything from California
and Texas about how fragile our grid is?
And for what gain? Even if America totally decarbonizes,
the rest of the world is still increasing its consumption of
fossil fuels. We still have wildfires on the West Coast,
droughts and flooding in the Midwest, and hurricanes on the
East.
Mr. Chairman, we want to work in a bipartisan fashion to
address climate change and utilize all-of-the-above energy
resources. This committee has demonstrated a history of
bipartisanship. And if you will let us, we can do it again.
Let's not destroy the village in order to save it.
So we have--on our panel we have Kevin Sunday from the
Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce who is going to be testifying
today. He will explain Pennsylvania's dependence on fossil fuel
resources for economic growth and job creation and discuss the
devastation, the impact this legislation will have on his
State.
I look forward to this conversation today, and I hope that
we can work with Frank Pallone and his--and all of you on this
committee, how we can make this a bipartisan bill, or start
with something that is bipartisan from the very beginning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley
Mr. Chairman, we're here today to examine the CLEAN Future
Act.
There was a quote used during the Vietnam War when, to
paraphrase an American general, we had ``to destroy the town to
save it.''
It reminds me of the motivation behind this proposal. The
goal of the Act is to decarbonize the U.S. economy by 2050:
net-zero in power sector by 2035, 80% by 2030.
In so doing, we will destroy livelihoods, decimate
communities, increase utility bills, threaten the stability of
the grid, and we would still have the effects of climate
change, since the rest of the world isn't following suit.
Look, we agree--we need to work to reduce carbon emissions.
But we also need to understand the consequences before we rush
into legislating.
Take a step back. keep in mind, in 2020 60% of our power
came from coal, gas, and oil. Is it reasonable to undertake
this transformation of the electric grid, in less than 14
years?
Look at solar energy. They predict aggressive growth.
Quadrupling in the next 10 years. Increases from 2.3% to 9%.
Remember, coal and gas represent 60%.
According to the utilities we've talked with, decarbonizing
our power sector by 2035--and 80% by 2030--would take a
miracle, and at what cost?
It will increase costs for families with higher utility
bills. Estimate: $2,000 per household annually.
Destroy jobs: not just coal miners and pipeliners, but all
the downstream jobs that rely on them. Railroad, barges,
machinists, fabricators--where will these workers go--many of
whom are making $70k, $80k, $100k?
We get vague promises about making solar panels or
windmills. Terry O'Sullivan, president of laborers: ``It's pie
in the sky bulls-- about these green jobs being good middle-
class jobs, because they're not.''
As a result, communities like Welch, West Virginia;
Gillette, WY; Hazard, KY; Cadiz, OH will be crushed.
Not to mention: We will be left with a grid that is far
less reliable and resilient. With more frequent blackouts and
brownouts. Didn't we learn anything from California and Texas
about how fragile our grid is?
And for what gain? Even if America totally decarbonizes,
the rest of the world will still increase consumption of fossil
fuels. We will still have wildfires, droughts and flooding,
hurricanes.
Mr. Chairman, we want to work in a bipartisan fashion to
address climate change
This committee has demonstrated a history of
bipartisanship. And if you'll let us, we can do it again. Let's
not destroy the village to save it.
I want to welcome Mr. Kevin Sunday of the Pennsylvania
Chamber of Commerce, who is testifying today.
He will explain Pennsylvania's dependence on fossil fuel
resources for economic growth and job creation.and discuss the
devastating impact this legislation would have on his State.
I look forward to today's conversation, and I yield back.
Mr. McKinley. So I thank you, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the very busy chair of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
Chairman Pallone?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Paul Tonko. I like the
characterization of busy. Thank you.
Today we are holding our first legislative hearing on H.R.
1512, the CLEAN Future Act, which is our comprehensive and
ambitious legislation to combat the climate crisis and achieve
100 percent clean economy by no later than 2050.
And I just want to say to my friend Mr. McKinley, the
ranking member, look, we obviously want to do things on a
bipartisan basis. I will keep repeating that over and over
again. But I also want to stress, you know, this is the
innovation committee. This is the innovation country. And we
can't be left behind.
I guess, you know, I know that climate change is viewed,
obviously, as an environmental issue, a health issue, but it is
also a security issue. And, you know, I constantly say to Mrs.
Rodgers that, you know, I agree with her that China is the
enemy, that China is the competition. But I am just so afraid
that, if we don't innovate, if we don't think about the future,
if we don't think of what is going to happen in 10 or 20 years,
that China is going to eat our lunch, and they are going to
take our jobs, and they are going to--you know, and we are just
going to be left behind in this global competition.
So, you know, keep a--keep--when you say, like my colleague
from West Virginia, that, you know, that we have to look at
this long term, that is exactly what we are trying to do. We
are trying to look at this long term and be innovative and
creative in what we do, because we don't want to be left
behind.
But anyway, I just wanted to say that this CLEAN Future Act
is the product of nearly 30 hearings and countless ideas and
recommendations from Members. At the heart of our bill is the
commitment to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas pollution no
later than 2050, with an interim goal of reducing pollution by
50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. And science is the impetus
for our goal, innovation is the impetus.
The climate crisis presents one of our greatest challenges,
but it also presents one of our greatest opportunities. And I
want to stress the opportunities through innovation. Today's
hearing will examine CLEAN Future provisions that seize the
opportunity to use climate action to create jobs and support
working communities.
First we have the Federal Buy Clean program, which would
steadily reduce emissions from construction materials and
products used in federally funded projects. This innovative
program leverages government funding and procurement power to
fundamentally transform and strengthen the competitiveness of
the U.S. manufacturing sector.
And next, and first of its kind, we have the Clean Energy
and Sustainability Accelerator, which would help States,
communities, and companies transition to a clean economy.
Capitalized with $100 billion, the accelerator will mobilize
public and private investment.
Finally, the Worker and Community Transition title ensures
every worker and community has Federal-level support and
resources during the Nation's transition to a clean economy.
The legislation creates a new Office of Energy and Economic
Transition in the Executive Office of the President, and this
office develops programs that support dislocated workers and
provides financial assistance to local governments. This
assistance, coupled with the bill's infrastructure investments,
will support economic development.
Now, collectively, these three provisions provide new
opportunities to decarbonize the industrial sector, but also
bolster our economy.
And, you know, I also wanted to mention before I close that
there are pathways to industrial decarbonization that already
exist. We have many technologies and programs available now
that, with meaningful funding and wider deployment, would drive
industrial sector improvements. Just today EPA announced that
95 manufacturing plants earned Energy Star certification in
2020 for being amongst the most energy-efficient plants in
industries like automotive, baking, cement.
And I know that the Republicans believe in efficiency,
believe in resiliency. They talk to me about it all the time.
Energy efficiency is crucial as part of a decarbonization
strategy, and this Energy Star industrial program will help us
reach our clean economy goals.
So I guess what I really want to stress is I believe that
these and other climate policies in the CLEAN Future Act will
empower America's workers with new, good-paying jobs and ensure
that we do not fall behind in global competition. They will
revitalize our communities with the support they need to
rebuild from the pandemic, and leave no one behind. So I just
think that, you know, we are working on protecting the
environment, protecting our health. But at the same time,
through innovation, we can get there and create more jobs and
be competitive, and not be left behind.
And so, you know, I understand what you are saying, Mr.
McKinley. I don't disagree with a lot of the things you say,
but let's think of ways that we can do this together, which is,
I think, our common goal.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today we are holding our first legislative hearing on H.R.
1512, the CLEAN Future Act, our comprehensive and ambitious
legislation to combat the climate crisis and achieve a 100
percent clean economy by no later than 2050.
The CLEAN Future Act is the product of nearly 30 hearings
and countless ideas and recommendations from Members and
stakeholders.
At the heart of our bill is a commitment to achieving net-
zero greenhouse gas pollution no later than 2050, with an
interim goal of reducing pollution by 50 percent from 2005
levels by 2030. Science is the impetus for our goals.
The climate crisis presents one of our greatest challenges,
but it also presents one of our greatest opportunities. Today's
hearing will examine CLEAN Future Act provisions that seize the
opportunity to use climate action to create jobs and support
working communities.
First, the Federal Buy Clean Program would steadily reduce
emissions from construction materials and products used in
federally funded projects. This innovative program leverages
government funding and procurement power to fundamentally
transform and strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S.
manufacturing sector, all while reducing climate pollution by
promoting and expanding the market for cleaner materials.
Next, the first-of-its-kind Clean Energy and Sustainability
Accelerator would help States, communities, and companies
transition to a clean economy. Capitalized with $100 billion,
the Accelerator will mobilize public and private investment to
provide financing for a suite of climate-focused projects and
the development of State and local green banks where they do
not yet exist.
Finally, the Worker and Community Transition title ensures
every worker and community has Federal-level support and
resources during the Nation's transition to a clean economy.
The legislation creates a new Office of Energy and Economic
Transition in the Executive Office of the President. The office
will develop programs to support dislocated workers and provide
financial assistance to local governments--including by
replacing lost revenue due to the closure of a major employer.
This assistance, coupled with the bill's infrastructure
investments, will support economic development and
diversification for all affected communities.
Collectively, these three provisions provide new
opportunities to decarbonize the industrial sector while
bolstering our economy.
It's also important to recognize that pathways to
industrial decarbonization already exist. We have many
technologies and programs available now that, with meaningful
funding and wider deployment, would drive industrial sector
improvements.
Just today, EPA announced that 95 manufacturing plants
earned Energy Star certification in 2020 for being among the
most energy-efficient plants in industries like automotive,
baking, cement, food processing, pharmaceutical, and fertilizer
manufacturing. These plants saved nearly $400 million on energy
bills and prevented over 5 million metric tons of greenhouse
gas emissions.
Energy efficiency is a crucial decarbonization strategy for
the industrial sector, and the Energy Star Industrial Program
will help us reach our clean economy goals. The popularity,
trust, and proven track record of Energy Star is why we used it
as a model for the ``Climate Star'' labeling program in the
legislation.
I believe these and other climate policies in the CLEAN
Future Act will empower American workers with new, good-paying
jobs and ensure we do not fall behind our global competitors.
They will revitalize our communities with the support they need
to rebuild from the pandemic and ensure a just transition,
leaving no one behind.
Climate policies can also decarbonize the industrial sector
while supporting competitiveness of domestic manufacturing.
We must use this opportunity to ensure that the economy
works for everyone and supports a safe, healthy environment for
generations to come. I look forward to hearing recommendations
from our witnesses today and from my colleagues in the coming
weeks.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. The Chair yields back. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Rodgers, the ranking member of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
Representative Rodgers.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Tonko and
Chairman Pallone. I appreciated what you had to say there. We
have shared goals around protecting our health, protecting our
environment, leading the world in innovation.
Our concern is, first of all, America is leading. America
is leading in bringing down carbon emissions today. We are
doing that through American innovation, American technology. We
are doing it through carbon capture, advanced nuclear. We are
leading the world in advanced nuclear technology that is
absolutely fundamental to the goals around bringing down carbon
emissions.
Our concern is that the agenda, as we hear being promoted
right now by many Democrats, is one that is focused on solar
and wind and batteries that are controlled by China. And so I
am very concerned that there is a lack of recognition that 90
percent of the solar panels, 80 percent of the wind machines,
90 percent of the rare-earth minerals, the batteries, are in
Asia or in China.
And so the future, a clean energy future that is based upon
those kind of solutions that are dominated by China, is really
a pro-China agenda. It is making us vulnerable. Have we not
learned anything through COVID and the concern around supply
chains as to the vulnerability and the dependence that we have
on China for basic, fundamental needs?
So that is--I think that summarizes why there is a
fundamental concern with the direction that is being laid out
right now.
We--you know, the Republicans on this committee--we are
ready, and we are ready to work with you to address the climate
risk. We must pursue policies that will not undermine our
communities or our national security. It means protecting
energy affordability and reliability and building a stronger
economy.
We should also work together to help the Nation confront
all future risk. We should preserve what is best for our
Nation, our communities, our families, and the freedom and
dignity of workers. This is the path to securing a cleaner
energy future. You can achieve a clean future by relying upon
free enterprise and private initiative. This will unleash
innovation and transform how we make and do things with massive
benefits for our society. It is how America has led the world
in lifting people out of poverty and empowering people to build
better lives.
America will win the future by building on our assets and
our strengths. That includes our abundant resources, which
helps us preserve and strengthen our strategic relationships to
confront the national security challenges. This is the
practical path that Republicans support in our legislative work
to update permitting and reduce regulations in order to deploy
new, cleaner technologies more quickly and at a lower cost.
This path rejects one-size-fits-all central planning--as
experience tells us, is suitable only for special interest and
Federal regulators.
So today we are talking about the CLEAN Future Act. It is a
1,000-page bill, and it seeks to transform the nation's
economy, its energy systems, the way people live on a timeframe
and at a scale that far surpasses anything practical. For
example, energy technology expert Mark Mills testified before
this panel last month on the scale of this transformation, if
it were possible just for the power sector. He said this about
meeting the goals of 2035: ``It would require a continuous
construction program at least 600 percent bigger than any
single peak year for utility construction that has occurred in
the U.S., China, or Germany over the past half century.''
Given technological and market realities, this bill would
increase American reliance on China and do little to reduce
global emissions or improve America's competitive edge. This is
not the policy outcome we want. But we will be on this path if
we rush down the top-down, regulatory controls over our power,
transportation, and industrial sectors.
The problem is, at this pace, it is a rush. And it makes no
allowance for technological readiness. Carbon capture for
natural gas or industrial processes are tough. It is very
tough. And it is chilling. It is a chilling impact for energy
workers today in America.
Let's reject the central planning. Let's free our
innovators by reducing regulations.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
As we work to address climate risks, we must pursue
policies that will not undermine our communities or our
national security. That means protecting our energy
affordability and reliability and building a stronger economy.
We should also work together to help the Nation confront
all future risks. We should preserve what is best for our
Nation, our communities, and families, and the freedom and
dignity of workers.
This is the path to securing a cleaner American energy
future. You achieve a clean future by relying upon free
enterprise and private initiative. This will unleash innovation
and transform how we make and do things, with massive benefits
for society.
It's how America has led the world in lifting people out of
poverty and empowered people to build a better life. America
will win the future by building on our assets and our
strengths.
That includes all our abundant resources, which helps us
preserve and strengthen our strategic relationships to confront
national security challenges.
This is the practical path Republicans support in our
legislative work to update permitting and reduce regulations,
in order to deploy new, cleaner technologies more quickly and
at lower cost.
This path rejects one-size-fits-all central planning that--
as experience tells us- is suitable only for special interests
and Federal regulators.
Earlier this month, Energy and Commerce Democrats released
their draft CLEAN Future Act. This 1,000-page bill seeks to
transform the Nation's economy, its energy systems, the way
people live--on a time frame and at a scale that far surpasses
anything practical.
For example, energy technology expert Mark Mills testified
before this panel last month on the scale of this
transformation, if it were possible, just for the power sector.
He said this about meeting decarbonization goals by 2035.
Quote: It ``would require a continuous construction program
at least 600% bigger than any single peak year for utility
construction that has occurred in the U.S., China or Germany
over the past half-century.''
Given technological and market realities, this build-out
would increase American reliance on China and do little to
reduce global emissions or improve America's competitive edge.
This is not the policy outcome we want. But we will be on
this path if we rush into place top-down regulatory controls
over our power, transportation, and industrial sectors.
This legislation incorporates the Left's relentless drive
to eliminate fossil energy, regardless of the harmful strategic
or economic impacts. That includes all of the American jobs
that rely on fossil fuels.
The problem is the pace, the rush. It makes no allowance
for technological readiness. If CCUS is not ready for natural
gas or industrial processes, tough.
If energy-intensive industries struggle to compete, tough.
If overbuilds of renewable energy stifle investment in
innovative, more flexible technologies like nuclear, tough.
The chilling implications of this centralized control over
our future are clear in the final title of the bill--the Worker
and Community Transition title.
This title plainly acknowledges the bill's threats to
workers and communities reliant on the high-quality energy-
intensive jobs that do so much for American prosperity.
The title establishes new programs to measure likely
employment impacts and creates a Federal transition czar, with
unlimited authorizations, to provide welfare support and
training for workers and communities.
Think about this title and what it signals for Federal
planning over our future; over people's own freedom to work and
make the best decisions for themselves and their families.
Enacting job-destroying policies are not the path to a
better future. Our future should be about building, not
destroying.
Consider the reforms Republicans are promoting in our
Securing Cleaner American Energy Agenda, building off our work
in the Energy Act of 2020.
We can update Clean Air Act requirements in the New Source
Review program so power plants and manufacturing facilities can
make environmental improvements without costly regulatory
requirements.
This will attract private capital and it will improve
operations to become more productive and cleaner--a benefit to
workers and communities that are home to these operations.
We can update licensing for more rapid deployment of
nuclear technology-the kind of technology that can be sited
close to industrial facilities, to provide heat and processing
for new ways to make fuels.
These breakthroughs actually add to productivity, create
wealth across communities-and would transform our world to a
more secure energy future. Let's reject central planning. Let's
free our innovators by reducing regulations.
Mrs. Rodgers. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written statements, opening
statements, shall be made part of the record.
I now will introduce the witnesses that we have for today's
hearing.
First, Dr. Rebecca Dell, Ph.D., director of the industry
program at Climate Works Foundation.
Mr. Bob Perciasepe, president, Center of Climate and Energy
Solutions, C2ES, on behalf of the Renewable Thermal
Collaborative.
Mr. Kevin Sunday, director of government affairs,
Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.
And finally, Mr. Jason Walsh, executive director of the
BlueGreen Alliance.
At this time, I recognize Dr. Dell for 5 minutes to provide
an opening statement.
And again, welcome, Dr. Dell.
STATEMENTS OF REBECCA DELL, Ph.D., PROGRAM DIRECTOR, INDUSTRY,
CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION; BOB PERCIASEPE, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR
CLIMATE AND ENERGY SOLUTIONS, ON BEHALF OF THE RENEWABLE
THERMAL COLLABORATIVE; KEVIN SUNDAY, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, PENNSYLVANIA CHAMBER OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY; AND
JASON WALSH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE
STATEMENT OF REBECCA DELL, Ph.D.
Dr. Dell. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman
and Ranking Member, and thank you to the entire subcommittee
for the invitation to testify on the CLEAN Future Act.
Today I will address the importance of Buy Clean for
rebuilding our infrastructure, investing in American
manufacturing, and addressing the climate crisis.
As you all know, this bill establishes a Buy Clean program
to steadily reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Federal
construction. I will explain what Buy Clean is and why it is
important for addressing bipartisan concerns like
infrastructure and national competitiveness. And I will mention
some complementary actions that Congress can take to accelerate
progress in American manufacturing.
We all know that we need a major national infrastructure
investment. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently
gave our infrastructure an overall grade of C-minus. Climate
change will only accelerate this need. So why should we support
Buy Clean?
First, Buy Clean is important because it targets the most
important sectors. As Chairman Pallone reminded us, this bill
sets a national target of 50 percent reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. We simply cannot
achieve these goals without dramatically reducing industrial
emissions, which account for a quarter or more of national
emissions. These emissions are heavily concentrated in a small
number [inaudible] making building materials, like steel and
cement. The Government is the largest consumer of building
materials, buying nearly half of cement and a fifth of steel.
Buy Clean policies require or incentivize the Government to buy
building materials made with cleaner processes.
The environmental stakes are not small. Without Buy Clean,
the infrastructure bill passed through the House last year
could lead to an additional 200 million tons of CO2
emissions from making the associated building materials. As you
consider a major infrastructure reinvestment as part of the
economic recovery from COVID-19, it is more urgent than ever
that we modernize our infrastructure in a way that does not
contribute to the climate crisis.
Second, Buy Clean is powerful because it uses government
leverage to increase innovation and competitiveness in
manufacturing. Countries and companies around the globe have
realized that climate-safe manufacturing and construction
practices are essential for their long-term competitiveness. We
are significantly behind many other large economies in Europe
and Asia in this respect.
Buy Clean offers companies that want to invest in clean
manufacturing the opportunity to profit by it. It is not a
burden on American manufacturing, but an investment in high-
quality jobs. It prevents foreign producers from getting around
the rules, and domestic producers would have the same
advantages they always have had, like Buy America requirements.
The best part is that Buy Clean is affordable. Cement is
responsible for the largest share of emissions in public
construction, but it only accounts for about 1 percent of the
cost of projects. Because it is such a small portion of the
total cost, even if clean cement is more expensive than
conventional cement in the near term, it won't significantly
change the overall cost of infrastructure.
Finally, Buy Clean--in order for Buy Clean to be
successful, it needs leadership and innovation investment. Buy
Clean policies should be complemented by dramatically increased
investments in industrial innovation and commercialization of
critical industrial technologies. This is long overdue.
Manufacturing and construction generate more employment and
almost as much GDP as the healthcare industry. Yet healthcare
is supported by the innovation activities of NIH, with an
annual budget of $42 billion, or 5,000 percent of what the
Government spends on industrial innovation. Congress should
fund programs to commercialize critical new industrial
technologies at a much larger scale than currently.
To succeed, this entire agenda needs high-level leadership.
Currently, the highest-ranking person in the Federal Government
whose job it is to advance the future of American manufacturing
has the rank of Acting Office Director. In order for both
innovation investments and Buy Clean programs to be successful,
Congress should create an additional Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Manufacturing and Industry, as recommended in this
bill.
In conclusion, Buy Clean supports American innovation and
competitiveness, it reduces greenhouse gases and local
pollution, and it does not significantly increase costs. We
should use Buy Clean, supported by expanded and elevated
investments in industrial innovation, to affordably address the
climate crisis and increase the competitiveness of American
manufacturing.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Dr. Dell. And now we will
move to Mr. Perciasepe.
You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF BOB PERCIASEPE
Mr. Perciasepe. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member McKinley. Thank you all for inviting me today. I
am here to testify, as you mentioned, on behalf of the
Renewable Thermal Collaborative.
I am the president of Center for Climate Energy Solutions.
And before joining the Center 7 years ago, I was the Deputy
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Renewable Thermal Collaborative is a global coalition
of companies and institutions committed to scaling up renewable
heating and cooling at their facilities, thus reducing carbon
emissions. The collaborative was founded in 2017, and it is
facilitated by C2ES, David Gardiner & Associates, and the World
Wildlife Fund.
The industrial sector is very challenging to decarbonize
due to its very tremendous--its tremendous amount of diversity,
and its reliance on a large quantity of energy and heat. And
the fundamental nature of many of the core manufacturing
processes also produce greenhouse gases. Industrial emissions
account for about 29 percent of the emissions in the United
States, and they are projected to grow over the next decade
under our current situation, as the--and become, potentially by
2030, the largest source of emissions in the United States.
The goals of the Thermal Collaborative are to create a
community of corporate buyers of technology, of service to
establish policy support, and to put us on a path so that the
industrial sector can reduce its thermal emissions by 30
percent by 2030, with a goal of full-sector decarbonization by
the middle of the century, in 2050.
Policy, and the use of policy, has been an underutilized
resource for achieving decarbonization in the industrial
sector. And the Thermal Collaborative recently published a
report which surveyed leading policies across the world, in
Europe and in the United States, on advancing low-carbon
technologies. We explored a number of policy approaches to
catalyze a wide variety of renewable thermal technologies,
including geothermal, beneficial electrification, green
hydrogen, solar thermal technologies, renewable natural gas,
biomass, and biogas, and others.
Advancing the low-carbon solutions--the level of policies
at the State level are often targeted to specific technologies,
or specific companies, or specific corporate and business
sectors, and they tend to be fragmented. At the Federal level,
if you used it as an example of what has been done in the power
sector, the production tax credit and the investment tax credit
has spurred billions of dollars of investment and reduced the
cost of renewable energy in the power sector.
We identified a number of policies that could really help
in the industrial sector: expanded research and development;
demonstration and deployment; grant programs; and a national
financial facility that could provide grants, as well as
crucial financing; deployment initiatives; procurement, as you
just heard from Dr. Dell; and renewable thermal portfolio
standards that could help.
The CLEAN Future Act is on track on a number of these
points, and I will mention three things in particular.
The Clean Energy Manufacturing Grant Program would support
a range of zero and low-emitting technologies, including some
of the technologies mentioned in the opening comments already
today. The carbon--and there is a special attention to the
carbon and energy-intensive industries.
The Carbon Mitigation Fund would support beneficial
electrification, and could be benefited by expanding the
eligibility to other low-carbon renewable thermal technologies
that meet robust sustainability criteria.
And the third one I will mention is the Clean Energy
Sustainability Accelerator. In many ways I look at this as the
accelerator of innovation. You have lots of innovation taking
place already, as many have already mentioned. But what we have
here is a financial facility that will help accelerate the
deployment of those innovations as they occur, getting to that
next step of implementation and deployment, which is very
important. And it has a wide variety of flexibilities to enable
it to accomplish those goals.
Let me just say, in conclusion here, that fragmented
policies that apply only to certain locations or certain
technologies or certain kinds of business classes will result
in uneven approaches. Federally based financial incentives,
such as are envisioned in the CLEAN Futures Act, would really
help accelerate the innovation that we need in the industrial
sector.
And I will stop with that, and look forward to your
questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional information that Mr. Perciasepe submitted has been
retained in committee files and is available at http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20210318/111348/HHRG-117-IF18-Wstate-PerciasepeB-
20210318-SD001.pdf.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Perciasepe, for your input.
And now we will move to Mr. Sunday.
And again, welcome, Mr. Sunday. It is good to have you
joining us, and you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN SUNDAY
Mr. Sunday. Thank you, sir, and good morning, Chairman
Tonko, Ranking Member McKinley, and members of the committee.
Thank you for the honor and privilege to appear before you
today to represent the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and
Industry.
We are the largest business advocacy organization in the
State of Pennsylvania, which itself is the number-2 State for
natural gas development, energy production, and nuclear power.
We are the biggest power producer in the 13-State PJM grid, and
we are also a leader in a number of manufacturing segments.
My testimony talks about how Pennsylvania's energy and
industrial base have helped put this country in the catbird
seat for sustainable economic growth. And I reemphasize that
our workers and companies are up to the task in meeting the
many challenges of the 21st century. Let me make a few summary
points in my testimony.
First, the development of Marcellus Shale has led to
massive investment in the new pipeline, energy, and
manufacturing infrastructure. And projects like the Shell
petrochemical facility in southwest Pennsylvania are totally
changing the course of a region that was left behind a
generation ago.
We are seeing natural gas and renewable resources being
paired together to develop resilient microgrid projects at
critical infrastructures like airports and the Navy Yard in
Philadelphia. Combined heat and power projects are helping
universities, hospital systems, and manufacturers in pulp and
paper and food product segments manage costs and improve
sustainability. And manufacturers in Pennsylvania are underway
with a project to use carbon capture and natural gas liquids to
sustainably produce ammonia, hydrogen, and fertilizer.
And at the same time, air quality in our State is improving
dramatically. We are in statewide attainment, or very close to
it, for all national ambient air quality standards. Since 2005
no State has reduced CO2 emissions more than
Pennsylvania, but one. And, as EPA officials recently noted,
the nationwide 2030 goals of the Obama administration's Clean
Power Plan have already been achieved, due to market forces.
In part because of Pennsylvania's resource base to help
this country reduce emissions and send power prices in our
regional grid down to generational lows, no country has the
story to tell like that of the United States when it comes to
reducing costs and emissions while growing the economy. The
United States has lapped the European Union in growth over the
past decade and a half while reducing emissions more. And our
energy prices are much lower.
And so, while it is reasonable to discuss setting long-term
goals, we have real challenges today, and we need smart policy
that will unlock further investment and environmental gains. A
more predictable, rational, and flexible air quality permit
process, including reforms to new-source review, will allow for
more investment in domestic facilities, including carbon
capture, and a stronger domestic manufacturing base, instead of
production in other countries who don't share our country's
commitment to stewardship.
In addition, whether it is a bridge, or port, or an energy
infrastructure component, it takes entirely long to build any
new infrastructure in this country if that project is touched
by the National Environmental Policy Act. And it is imperative
we streamline the Federal decisionmaking process if America is
going to have the infrastructure to compete.
The pandemic and recent energy crisis in multiple States
have shown the need for smart, durable, bipartisan policy that
accommodates resilient energy resources and that allows
manufacturers to quickly retool. It is vital we leverage our
human capital and knowledge bases in a host of traditional
industries to meet the challenges of tomorrow, especially given
the economic data showing the only rural regions of the country
that are keeping up, in terms of productivity and wage growth,
are those with natural resource economies.
And moreover, energy security in the coming decades will
require policy that accommodates expanded mining for critical
minerals, efficient build-out of energy and telecommunications
infrastructure, and continued investment into exploration and
production of hydrocarbons and nuclear power.
Finally, given our Nation's environmental requirements are
much more stringent than other countries', it is imperative
that regulatory policy doesn't end up offshoring key industries
like refining, steel, cement, concrete, aggregates, and timber,
all resources that we are going to need, regardless of what the
energy mix looks like.
In closing, because our State's success has helped the
United States keep energy costs lower than nearly every other
developed nation while outpacing them in growth, I hope you
consider our contributions and assets as you work towards
producing durable, bipartisan, effective policy that keeps the
United States in a flagship position in this increasingly
challenging and dynamic global marketplace.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
this morning, and I am happy to take any questions you may
have, and look forward to the discussion.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sunday follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Sunday, for your contribution to
today's hearing.
And finally, we will move to Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and welcome.
STATEMENT OF JASON WALSH
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member
McKinley, distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is
Jason Walsh. I am the executive director of the BlueGreen
Alliance. On behalf of my organization, our labor and
environmental partners, and the millions of members and
supporters they represent, I want to thank you for convening
this hearing today regarding the CLEAN Future Act and how it
can help us rebuild our economy, while creating good jobs,
reducing pollution, and revitalizing communities.
Congress has taken historic action to address the COVID-
driven health and economic crisis, yet significant challenges
facing our Nation remain. We went into this pandemic with three
ongoing and interconnected crises: income inequality, racial
injustice, and climate change, each of which exacerbates the
other. Legislation should tackle these crises at the same time
with intersecting solutions. And the CLEAN Future Act is one
such piece of legislation.
The Act will help revitalize American manufacturing,
support workers and communities impacted by our Nation's energy
transition, and invest in clean infrastructure to create good,
accessible union jobs.
First, the CLEAN Future Act includes an important focus on
the industrial sector. As an integral part of a strategy to
address the climate emergency head on, we have the opportunity
to modernize and transform our industrial base to make it the
cleanest and most competitive in the world, creating a new
generation of good, union manufacturing jobs, making clean
technology, and making all products in cleaner ways.
The CLEAN Future Act includes a number of key provisions
aimed at this outlined in my written testimony. What I will
flag today is the Buy Clean provisions in the bill, which
ensure that Federal procurement supports cleaner domestic
manufacturing of the materials that go into our public
infrastructure projects.
I want to note, in particular, the establishment of an
interagency transparency and disclosure program to enhance the
quality and availability of data used to calculate emissions of
eligible materials, and strengthen our understanding of the
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers across industries. We
believe this is an important and necessary first step, and,
coupled with robust reinvestment in domestic manufacturing, can
help ensure that the United States leads the world in
manufacturing the technologies and products of the future in an
increasingly carbon-constrained global economy.
The CLEAN Future Act is a great first step, but we urge
additional enhanced loan and grant funding for wide-scale
deployment of emissions-reducing processes across energy-
intensive manufacturing subsectors in America, as well as to
fill critical supply gaps in clean technology and material
supply chains. These policies will help upgrade and modernize
the U.S. industrial base and drive a new generation of
industrial development that rebuilds good American jobs and is
clean, safe, and equitable for workers and communities alike.
As we work to rebuild our economy while tackling the
underlying crises of climate change and economic and racial
inequality, we must prioritize equitable rebuilding and
investments in those workers and communities most in need,
including those impacted by changes in our Nation's energy
economy. America's energy transition is well underway, but a
transition that is fair for workers and communities isn't
something that will happen organically.
We need a broad, holistic, governmentwide response. This
response must keep workers and communities whole, revitalize
and diversify local economies, and address inequities, while
ensuring the retention and creation of good-paying jobs. And we
should be clear that the best approach to energy transition
among workers and communities and sectors not already impacted
is one that prevents economic disruption and employment loss
before it happens.
BGA strongly supports several structural reforms
established in the CLEAN Future Act to realize these goals. We
believe these reforms must go hand in hand with additional
policies outlined in my written testimony, such as the
establishment of an interagency grant program; a broad system
of support for workers; the reclamation of damaged lands and
waters; and bankruptcy reform.
Lastly, the CLEAN Future Act includes a number of
provisions aimed at ensuring that critical infrastructure
investments made across the bill will boost our economy and
create jobs while simultaneously reducing pollution, combating
climate change, and strengthening our communities. Thanks to
key, cross-cutting Buy America, prevailing wage, project labor
agreement, and community benefit provisions in the bill, these
investments will deliver quality, family-sustaining jobs, and
accessible pathways into those jobs for all Americans.
In closing, we want to thank the committee for beginning
this conversation, and look forward to providing additional
feedback and working with you as we move forward on this bill
and your broader agenda for the 117th Congress.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome, and thank you, Mr. Walsh,
and thank you to all of our witnesses for the input that is
tremendously valuable to the discussion of this phase of
activity in the CLEAN Future Act.
So with that we will now move to Member questions. I will
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Addressing the needs of people and communities that may be
disrupted by the energy transition, which is already underway,
isn't going to be easy. We should be honest about that. But our
current course of action is to do very little in an
uncoordinated manner. We need a range of policies and
investments, including economic development, workforce
development, environmental remediation, and public benefits to
ensure fairness for workers and communities in transition.
So, Mr. Walsh, let's go to you. How can we most effectively
deploy this mix of tools in a coordinated way, so that policies
are implemented as efficiently as possible?
And can we leverage existing State and Federal programs?
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Congressman. There are several
provisions providing support for workers and communities in
title 10, which I think are foundational and necessary to
achieve the kind of fair and equitable transition that you are
talking about and make it one of sufficient scale and ambition.
So this includes the establishment of an Office of Energy
and Economic Transition to the Executive Office of the
President to coordinate and align activities across the
resources of the Federal Government. You mentioned previous
precedents and examples like the Office of National Drug
Control Policy that we have placed within the EOP. We are going
to need that kind of leadership and coordination at the White
House level to really drive this transition in a fair and
equitable way.
There are other provisions, like an interagency task force
and stakeholder advisory committee, to enhance coordination of
relevant programs. There is a program to provide financial
assistance to local governments that have lost significant
amounts of revenue due to permanent facility closures and
assist local governments.
And there is also a program within title 10 to fund one-
stop community-based organizations that can help local
communities access Federal funds and other kinds of funds and
provide technical assistance to those communities as they
grapple with some of these challenges. So I think title 10 is a
really good first start.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And having a skilled workforce is a
community asset. Having good infrastructure is a community
asset. Mr. Walsh, as Congress thinks about infrastructure or
economic recovery packages, how can these things be leveraged
or improved upon to put potentially affected communities in a
better position to deal with local economic disruption?
Mr. Walsh. Well, let's talk about infrastructure. I mean, I
think there are a number of infrastructure investments that are
badly needed in energy transition communities. Let's start with
coal communities, right, where investments in water
infrastructure, in broadband, in the reclamation of abandoned
mine lands and waters are all crucial, not just for community
health, but are also prerequisites for economic development and
economic diversification opportunities.
We are also going to need a fuller package of supports for
workers who are making the transition. I realize that is
outside the jurisdiction of this committee, but there are a
number of ideas that we have and would be happy to talk with
members of the committee about.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Dr. Dell, your Build Clean report makes it clear that we
need a holistic approach with several types of industrial
policies to achieve our goals for the sector. And we have tried
to cover at least some of those ideas in the CLEAN Future Act.
But today United States policy to support manufacturing
pales in comparison to our foreign competitors like Germany and
like China. Do you have advice on how we should elevate these
policies as part of both a national economic strategy and a
climate strategy?
Dr. Dell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, for--that is a really
important question.
For a long time, our manufacturing policy in the United
States has been quite fragmented and often pushed down to
relatively junior levels of the Federal bureaucracy, which
makes it very difficult for us to have coherent policy that
ties together all of the important issues that have already
come up, including workforce development, infrastructure,
creation of markets for key new opportunity areas, investments
in innovation, all of these.
And so what we need are--is greater focus and attention,
and higher-level leadership across multiple parts of the
Federal Government. The Department of Energy is a very
important part, from the--on the innovation side. But a
holistic approach would also require the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Department
of the Treasury, and many other parts of the Government, which
would have to be coordinated from--at the level of the White
House.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And I certainly think it is
important that these policies are built on a transparent,
standardized, and high-quality data foundation.
So thank you so much for your input.
Dr. Dell. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. I have exhausted my 5 minutes, and so now will
recognize--I will recognize Representative McKinley,
subcommittee ranking member, for 5 minutes, sir, to ask
questions.
Mr. McKinley?
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman. And I just want to
remind the committee that Kevin Sunday's wife is about to
deliver a baby, his second son. So we all have to appreciate
the attention that we are getting, his attention, on this very
important day.
But let me direct some questions to you to see how alert
you are, Kevin. So the first is, are you aware that the
International Energy Agency and others have stated that it is
virtually impossible to reach net-zero carbon emissions without
carbon capture?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, sir.
Mr. McKinley. OK. And so, to capture carbon, won't power
plants and industrial facilities need a new source review
permit to add this equipment?
Mr. Sunday. It is fact-specific if they will need--if NSR
would apply, but they are going to at least need to go through
the lengthy determination process.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. And since NSR is a complex and
convoluted process, EPA has issued more than 690 guidelines and
policy documents on it over the recent years. Would you agree
that this process discourages implementing carbon capture and
other clean energy technologies?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, I would agree with that.
Mr. McKinley. OK. So in your testimony, you said we need--
therefore, we need to reform NSR. My question is, is there NSR
reform in this package?
Mr. Sunday. Not based on my reading of the bill, no.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So why should we expect anyone
across this country is going to do carbon capture?
So when you factor in it takes 2 to 3 years to get a
permit, an NSR permit that costs millions of dollars to achieve
[inaudible] 2 or 3 years without litigation, and then add the 5
to 6 years for the engineering design, the permitting by the
States, and the installation of this equipment, we are talking
about--it is conceivable that a utility company or
manufacturer--it could take 7 to 10 years to install carbon
capture.
So I am back to you, Sunday. Is it reasonable then to
assume that we can expect an 80 percent reduction in
CO2 emissions by 2030?
Mr. Sunday. No, sir, I believe that would be a very tall
order without further reforms.
Mr. McKinley. It would. And what about a 100 percent
reduction in CO2 emissions by 2035 in power plants?
Mr. Sunday. No, same thing.
Mr. McKinley. OK. So let me change just--direction just a
little bit on this, and go to plastics, because that is part of
it, under section 902.
During the pandemic, do you recall the shortage of plastic
masks, gloves, shields, and gowns that are PPE?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, yes.
Mr. McKinley. And America was--it was painful and life-
threatening for our healthcare workers to not have access to
PPE.
So, if the current manufacturers were unable to meet the
demand last year and the year before, why--then wouldn't it
make more sense to make more facilities, have more facilities
to produce more masks, gowns, shields, and gowns?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, we should have a streamlined permit
process to accommodate that type of dynamic market.
Mr. McKinley. So it is fundamental here. Now, so you turn
to section 902 of this bill, it withholds permits, new permits,
for facilities that would produce plastics or the raw materials
to use to produce plastics. Could this section, therefore,
prevent the opening of the new petrochemical complex north of
Pittsburgh and Monaca, Pennsylvania, or the one being planned
in eastern Ohio?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, I believe that language would jeopardize
future investment into those types of facilities.
Mr. McKinley. So seriously, we just experienced a shortage
of PPE, and this bill calls for more restrictions on the
plastics industry. Mr. Sunday, am I missing something?
Mr. Sunday. No, sir. And beyond PPE, we use plastics in
automotive devices, weatherizing homes, recreational products
like canoes and backpacks. We actually use some petrochemicals
in, not just storing and transporting the vaccine, but the
component itself, to capture the messenger RNA so it can cross
the bloodstream. These are vital, life-sustaining products and
medical devices that we rely on, as you mentioned.
Just to be clear, my wife is not going into labor, like, at
this moment. We are a couple of days away from that, so I am
not being negligent by any means, but I appreciate the well
wishes there and the opportunity to speak before you this
morning.
Mr. McKinley. Well, thank you again, Mr. Sunday. I have got
to say it is just bizarre that, in a bill of this importance,
that there is something in there under section 902. I just hope
we look at that very seriously, the impact it could have on us.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And Mr. Sunday, to
you and your wife, all the best on the pending new arrival.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone, full
committee chair.
Chairman Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. I wanted to talk
about decarbonizing the industrial sector. In the CLEAN Future
Act we have provisions that will help drive down emissions in
the industrial sector but at the same time rebuilding the
country's infrastructure and economy. So let me start with Ms.
Dell.
How can we most effectively use a Federal Buy Clean
program, which we have in the CLEAN Future Act, to ensure a new
infrastructure is developed in a climate-friendly manner?
And why is that crucial that we do that?
Dr. Dell. Thank you so much for the question. I think that
the most important reasons why we should invest in a Federal
Buy Clean program are, one, that the Federal Government has
enormous leverage over emissions, over greenhouse gas
emissions, so this is how we actually reduce emissions; and
second, this allows us to make a major investment in critical
manufacturing sectors.
The members of the committee may or may not be aware that,
in the last 6 months, all five of the largest steel companies
in the world have committed to bring their emissions to net-
zero by 2050. These are companies in China, Japan, South Korea,
and Europe. No American steel company has made that commitment.
So around the world, companies in these critical industries are
realizing that their future competitiveness, their long-term
success, is tied to their ability to manufacture in a climate-
safe way. And I am very concerned that this is a fast train
leaving the station, and American firms are waiting on the
platform.
And so, what Buy Clean will do is provide market conditions
that allow companies to make a profit by investing in their
long-term competitiveness with clean manufacturing, and make a
profit by investing in the good jobs that come with that.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I want to ask Mr. Walsh the same
question.
How can we most effectively use a Federal Buy Clean program
to ensure new infrastructure is developed in a climate-friendly
manner?
But if you could just answer in a minute, because I have a
question for Mr. Perciasepe, too, that I would like to get to.
Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, I mean, I will echo Rebecca's statements.
It is incredibly important that we create markets, right, for
producing some of these products in lesser-emission ways.
We work closely with a number of industry leaders in the
iron and steel industries and the cement industries, and the
only thing, really, standing in their way is clear demand
signals that the Federal Government can be a market leader in
producing.
I do think the emphasis in title 5 on other forms of
investment in clean technology manufacturing are also really
important. I think we are particularly interested in and
excited by the Clean Energy Manufacturing Grant Program, which
also invests in the kind of supply chains that we are going to
need as we make this transformation.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
So, we also need additional policies and incentives to
reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial
sector. And to that end the Renewable Thermal Collaborative
recently released a suite of policy recommendations for
Congress to consider. So, Mr. Perciasepe, can I ask you, how
could we use existing laws and policies to quickly curb
greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector?
And hi, how are you doing, by the way?
Mr. Perciasepe. Hello. It is great to see all of you,
really.
Well, there is--there are plenty of existing policies in
the Federal Government that are designed to provide technical
assistance to or advice to many different manufacturers: the
advanced manufacturing program at the Department of Energy, and
even some of the technical assistance programs at EPA.
But what the CLEAN Futures Act does is take--harnesses some
of that, and expands on that. And I think that is a really
important part, Mr. Chairman, for us to accelerate those
activities that the Federal Government is able to do.
We have a fragmented system. And I think Dr. Dell mentioned
that, that you don't have a cohesive component in the Federal
Government looking at this. So there is an ability for the
Government to coordinate that, even without legislation, and
they should do that.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. You are welcome.
The gentleman, the Chair, yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Rodgers, full committee ranking
member, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Representative Rodgers, please?
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
everyone, for joining us here today.
The Republican policies to address climate change and the
risks that face us are driven by an appreciation for the
beneficial creations of free enterprise, capitalism, private
initiative, versus the stifling role of Federal regulatory
control and central planning.
Innovation doesn't come from the Federal Government. It
comes from the ideas in the garages and in the kitchens of
people all over this country. And businesses and innovators
should build and deploy clean technologies that take advantage
of the abundant, affordable energy that we enjoy today, as
Americans. It is a competitive advantage that I am concerned
will be lost through legislation like is before this committee
today.
It is also so important to our national security, which is
why we seek the regulatory and the permitting reforms in the
package that we put together.
You know, I was--when I was elected to Congress, it was
interesting. The U.S. was very concerned about the rising cost
of natural gas. We were focused on building more import
facilities in order to meet the energy needs in our country.
And then, soon after that, 11 years ago now, in 2009,
Waxman-Markey, cap and trade, passed the House. And at that
time, nobody accounted for the American shale revolution.
Private companies have taken the technological ideas from the
labs and tested them and improved them on their own dime and
really took the Federal planners by surprise, creating
tremendous new economic and security benefits, while reducing
emissions.
Mr. Sunday, you have seen the benefits of this energy
renaissance. Given today's industrial focus, would you talk
about what you see as the biggest threats of proposals like
CLEAN Future Act on industrial progress and the benefits in
your region?
Mr. Sunday. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I
think one of the biggest threats is we don't take into account
the reliability and cost impacts of a sudden and abrupt
transition.
We know the labor unions estimate the goals of this
magnitude would cost about a million and a half jobs over the
next decade and a half. The high energy prices would simply
result in offshoring of key industries. And, as I have noted in
my testimony, higher energy prices don't necessarily translate
to better environmental outcomes, but they do translate to
worse economic performance for our State and country.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. As a follow-up, I have seen in
eastern Washington, where I represent, and across the country
the positive work to implement technological advances in
communities by major companies like Land O' Lakes' American
Connection Project. And these companies aren't waiting for the
Government to take action, they know that they can do it better
and faster than the Federal Government.
What work do energy companies in Pennsylvania do to be good
stewards of their communities?
Mr. Sunday. Thank you. In addition, as I mentioned, to
keeping energy prices low and reducing emissions to put the
United States in a world leadership position, it can touch on a
number of community initiatives, whether that is constructing
turkey habitat in conjunction with the National Wild Turkey
Federation or working with local trade schools to stand up
curriculum and, through EITC programs, donate the type of high-
tech equipment that kids that maybe colleges and--not everyone
needs to go to college, but they do need a good education. And
so going and having the skilled trades programs is the focus of
a lot of our members so they can draw on the local high-
schoolers and put them to work in a family-sustaining job that
supports American energy independence.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, I just wanted to turn to the topic of Buy
Green--or Buy Clean, Buy Clean, which is a major provision in
this legislation. From your testimony it appears that the Buy
Clean legislative provisions are based upon a program that has
been mandated in California, and the California program has not
been fully implemented. For example, this is the first year
that contractors have had to show compliance.
We often have concerns about the aggressive and unworkable
policies of California that are--we see resulting in blackouts
and increasing energy costs for families and communities. We
don't even know how this program is working in California. I
just wanted to ask if you could supply for the record
evaluations from stakeholders regarding the competitive impacts
of this program.
Mr. Walsh. I only have a few seconds left--happy, happy to
do that, Congresswoman.
You are right, they are just moving into full
implementation this year. But the whole idea of Buy Clean is to
level the playing field for U.S. manufacturers, and to ensure
that taxpayers get the biggest bang for their buck in terms of
jobs in this country, and reductions in pollution.
So happy----
Mrs. Rodgers. Thanks.
Mr. Walsh. Happy to engage in a further conversation with
you.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, that would be great. And anything you can
supply would be helpful.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back, and thank you. The
Chair now recognizes the subcommittee chair of oversight of the
standing committee, Representative DeGette of Colorado for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much----
Mr. Tonko. Chair DeGette, please----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing, and for your important legislation as
well, because I think workforce transition is really important
for everybody to have.
We had a hearing last week in my subcommittee, in the
Oversight Subcommittee, about--it was actually about the EPA.
But the issue of transitioning in coal-related communities came
up with a--in a very powerful way with a witness, actually,
from West Virginia. And he was talking about the disruption we
are seeing in coal-dependent communities.
But frankly, Mr. Walsh, I would like to go with you. I
would like to start with you. This disruption we are seeing in
these communities is not necessarily as a result of
environmental laws, but of changing market forces where natural
gas, wind, and solar energy are out-competing coal, even in the
absence of a Federal climate policy. Is that accurate?
Mr. Walsh. That is accurate, Congresswoman. And, in fact,
over the 4 years of the Trump presidency, we saw coal mining
jobs continue to decline and coal production hitting its lowest
levels since the 1960s, as both utilities and consumers
continued to shift to cleaner and cheaper forms of energy.
Ms. DeGette. And surely, under the Trump administration,
that was not due to Federal energy policies. In fact, the
President told the coal miners that he would preserve their
jobs. And I believe he wanted to preserve their jobs. But the
market just is shifting away from coal. Is that accurate?
Mr. Walsh. That is accurate. I would call that a false
promise, which raised some some false hopes, unfortunately.
Ms. DeGette. But what is a real situation, though, is in
these communities people are losing their jobs. And I don't
think we can brush that under the rug. We need to figure out
something to do, which is why we are discussing this bill
today. Would that be fair?
Mr. Walsh. That would be fair. And actually, I think your
State of Colorado provides something of an example in that
regard.
Ms. DeGette. Well, thank you for raising that, because in
Colorado we have the Colorado Office for Just Transition. And
that has been a model for important elements of my bill and the
CLEAN Future Act. Are you familiar with that Colorado
initiative?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, we had the pleasure of working with
Colorado policymakers and our allies to craft the legislation
that created that office.
Ms. DeGette. And can you briefly describe for folks what
that does?
Mr. Walsh. Sure. What it does is to set up a centralized
office of just transition within State government in Colorado
to play a role that is--it is actually quite analogous to the
office that is established under title 10, at a Federal level,
of the CLEAN Future Act, basically aligning, coordinating, in
particular, different economic and workforce development
programs across State government to invest in coal communities
and workers and provide support for those communities and
workers.
I think it is really worth flagging that they will be the
first to tell you that they can't do that alone, as a State.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Walsh. But the Federal Government has to be a full
partner, particularly when it comes to making investments in
workers and communities.
Ms. DeGette. Well, and also, Colorado has a much more
diverse economy than just coal, for example. So you really need
a unified national plan to help States like West Virginia and
other States that have an economy much more dependent on coal.
Wouldn't that be fair to say?
Mr. Walsh. Yes. And, in fact, I think the hallmark of
transition is that it happens very differently in very
different parts of the country. And it is based on the economic
profile of that community or region and the labor markets of
that community and region.
Ms. DeGette. Some of the efforts in the past to retrain
workers in coal and other energy-dependent communities have not
succeeded. Can you tell us a little bit about why those
programs haven't succeeded, and what would be different about
an initiative like the one we are discussing today?
Mr. Walsh. We could talk about that for a while,
Congresswoman. I will just say, really quickly, that it is
absolutely critical that we link job training, workforce
development with economic development and economic
diversification, because it doesn't do any good to train people
for jobs that aren't there. And unfortunately, it is
characteristic of coal-reliant communities that they have a
very narrow economic base, which is one of the reasons we need
to invest in those communities.
Ms. DeGette. Great, great.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to
continuing to work with you on these issues, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair DeGette, and we now will
recognize Representative Johnson of Ohio for 5 minutes, please.
Representative Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to shift
gears a little bit and go a little bit of a different direction
in my questions.
You know, I know that some of my friends on the Republican
side today will argue this legislation is a Green New Deal
Light. But I would argue that this is actually the tactical
implementation plan for the Green New Deal. It is the Green New
Deal put into action. The Green New Deal, in its current form,
is a short but broad resolution outlining the dangerous and
unworkable goals of the radical environmental left. But what we
are discussing today, the 900-plus-page CLEAN Future Act, fills
in a lot of the blanks.
Today we are discussing decarbonizing industrial sectors.
And unfortunately, this legislation is filled with top-down
mandates and one-size-fits-all incentives, instead of adopting
a true market-driven, all-of-the-above approach, letting
American entrepreneurs and innovators lead the way, which is
what American workers are so well known for.
If implemented, we will look awfully foolish a decade or so
from now, millions of tons of carbon-intensive manufactured
materials and billions of dollars later, only to find out that
advanced nuclear technologies have arrived that can provide
zero-carbon power, including innovative industrial applications
with a fraction of the resources my Democratic colleagues want
to use for large-scale wind and solar.
So, Mr. Sunday, your examples of the economic vitality in
Pennsylvania are encouraging, especially the central role an
all-of-the-above energy approach has played there. I have seen
it across the border, in my State of Ohio, as well. We need
more American energy innovation expanding into industrial uses.
But I am worried we aren't focusing on the right policies
today. Removing unnecessary barriers and modernizing licensing
is critical, which is why I have reintroduced the Strengthening
American Nuclear Competitiveness Act. This legislation would
improve our strategic competitiveness in nuclear technology and
will facilitate investment in U.S. nuclear technology by our
allies. It will promote efficient licensing for new industrial
uses of nuclear energy and for new techniques to help build
American nuclear reactors faster, safer, and at lower cost.
Advanced small modular reactors under development are capable
of being safely placed next to existing industrial
infrastructure.
So imagine the uses of these applications to produce
hydrogen or generate heat with zero emissions. After all, isn't
that the ultimate goal of the Green New Deal, zero emissions?
So, Mr. Sunday, does this sound like a sound policy?
And could you see these innovations in nuclear technology
coupled with the diverse industrial and manufacturing
industries in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and across the country?
Mr. Sunday. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes, I
think you are exactly right. That is the type of building on
the tradition--the traditional industries and knowledge base we
have.
What comes to mind for me is we have great research
institutions like Penn State and Carnegie Mellon, who are
graduating nuclear engineering students who want to be involved
in a growing industry, and advanced nuclear capabilities into
their manufacturing space could be just that. That lets them
stay in States like ours and grow the domestic base in high-
energy uses, whether that is refining, whether that is
hydrogen, whether that is nanotechnology, whether that is data
centers, all the back-into-the-cloud computing that we take for
granted.
Again, a lot of things that we rely on, there is a high
energy use, and it is very possible in the future that advanced
nuclear fits that. And there is really no credible zero-carbon
strategies out there that don't--that wouldn't include carbon
capture and advanced nuclear. And it is important that we keep
those options on the table.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you.
Mr. Walsh, do your members believe nuclear technology
should be part of the clean energy solution?
Mr. Walsh. The partners of BGA believe that zero-emission
electricity--and nuclear, of course, is an example of that--are
absolutely critical to achieving net zero by 2050.
Mr. Johnson. Good.
Mr. Walsh. I----
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Perciasepe, how about you?
Mr. Perciasepe. I have to remember to unmute. I am here
today speaking on behalf of the Renewable Thermal
Collaborative, and we feel--let me just say quickly that we
feel a significant amount of the lower-energy thermal needs of
the industrial sector can quickly and easily, with some
incentives, be decarbonized with renewable energy.
But, speaking as a general matter to your bigger question
beyond why I am here today, of course, some of the higher-
temperature issues in industry will need other technologies,
and we see incentives for those in the--in these bills, in
this----
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have
extended my period, so I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection
and Commerce, Representative Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.
Representative Schakowsky from Illinois, you are recognized
now.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Since 1999 the EPA voluntary Energy Star program has been
in effect. And as someone who has absolutely taken advantage of
that when I bought some washer-dryer appliances, I think it is
really, really terrific. And I know that we now have--are
looking at, as part of the legislation we are talking about, an
Energy Star program. And I want to just tell you how important
it could be to an important business in my district.
There is a major cement manufacturer, Lafarge. It is the--
it is headquartered in my district. And so I am especially
interested in this new program, because they have both a
decarbonized version of their product and the one that has been
traditionally used. And the costs are pretty similar, but there
is no way to distinguish them, and to encourage the use of the
less-carbonized version.
So, Ms. Dell, if you could elaborate on the Climate Star
program and--you know, I think people know I am not always for
voluntary, but this seems to be working, doesn't it? Or it
certainly has in terms of the Energy Star program. Could you
talk about that?
Dr. Dell. Sure. Pardon me.
Mr. Tonko. Bless you.
Dr. Dell. Thank you so much for the question.
So this bill contains a provision for something called
Climate Star, which is closely analogous to Energy Star but
looks at greenhouse gas emissions instead of energy consumption
per se. This is a particularly important distinction in the
cement industry, which you mentioned, because if you imagine,
for example, if you use carbon capture and storage to reduce
your emissions, you might not reduce your energy consumption,
but you would still be a Climate Star even if you weren't an
Energy Star.
And so one thing that has been a real barrier to the
broader diffusion of existing lower-carbon alternatives has
actually been the public sector's reluctance to use it in
public construction. And that exists at the State, Federal, and
local level.
So one of the--so Climate Star will provide information and
transparency, and allow customers to feel confident that the
thing they are buying is actually better for the climate than
the conventional alternative. But it will be even more
effective paired with the broader Buy Clean requirements that
will move the public sector from being a laggard to being a
leader on this issue.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. You mentioned the issue
of transparency.
And I wanted to ask Mr. Walsh, from your organization's
perspective, why are the transparency measures in the CLEAN
Future program so important?
[Pause.]
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. Because we need the data. We need to know the
emissions intensity of these different products. We need to
verify it, and we need to learn from it.
There--the system that it builds on that is already being
used by many manufacturers' environmental product declarations
is called out in the bill. I think we also need, through the
Buy Clean program, to understand whether that fully captures
lifecycle emissions and emissions connected to transportation.
But data is absolutely going to be critical, and we are not
going to get it without full transparency.
Ms. Schakowsky. So that is a requirement, not a voluntary,
right, in the bill?
Mr. Walsh. Yes. I mean, it all builds on transparency.
This--we have to have that in place as a foundation for the
rest of the program to move forward.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, thank you very much.
And I just have a few seconds, so I will yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. We now recognize
Representative Duncan of South Carolina.
Representative, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. What--is anything going on on the floor?
Mr. Duncan. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Ms. DeGette from Colorado for mentioning market forces and how
they actually affect what the United States and other countries
do with regard to climate versus government regulations.
But I want to address some of the ramifications from an
environmental security and competitiveness standpoint. Should
we pursue market manipulation--manipulating globalist policies
supported by President Biden and the Democrats' CLEAN Futures
Act?
I agree with President Biden's Buy American agenda, but
that starts with buying American energy and supporting policies
to create an environment conducive to supporting American
manufacturing. The CLEAN Futures Act and most all energy and
environmental policy coming out of the Biden administration
undercuts the Buy America idea across the board.
We don't give enough credit to the environmental progress
the U.S. has made as a result of the American energy
renaissance. We got here by innovation in the energy industry,
not through mandates and regulations. The United States has
become the number-one oil and gas producer in the world, while
simultaneously outpacing most of the world in reducing
emissions. In 2019 U.S. emissions reached our lowest level
since 1992. Market forces drove this, not government policies.
I want to thank Mr. Johnson from Ohio for discussing the
role that nuclear power and innovation plays in lowering our
carbon footprint, while also providing very-good-paying jobs
within the energy sector.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm delivered her first
international address as Energy Secretary this week, and she
said the U.S. should replicate Germany's 50 percent renewables.
But the fallacy in that is this--so she is holding Germany out
as the model the U.S. should follow--the fallacy is this:
Germany began shutting down all their nuclear power plants
after Fukushima. They only have a handful--I think seven--
operating now, and are all scheduled to close. Germany imports
electricity from France, 75 percent of which is generated from
nuclear power. It is the only way Germany's renewables actually
work.
The only way Germany can get to the 50 percent or lower
renewables is by importing French nuclear-generated
electricity. The price of German electricity is twice that of
the average French household. Germany's shift to renewables is
why countries like Poland are also looking to expand their
electricity generation capacity, buying nuclear power plants.
They know they can make a fortune off selling power to Germany
because of Germany's desire to feel good and their pretension
of being green.
And so if we are talking about global carbon reductions and
global energy, nuclear power has got to be a big part of this.
Mr. Sunday, you note that, as we develop new technology
solutions in both fossil and zero-carbon resources, it is
imperative trade and energy policies support the continued
export of these solutions to developing countries. I couldn't
agree more.
We can help improve the lives of people across the globe by
exporting U.S. energy sources, clean-burning natural gas that
helps them have electricity and get off of the more climate-
producing dirtier energy. Can you speak to some of the
geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. not exporting our
energy, Mr. Sunday?
Mr. Sunday. Thank you for the question, Congressman. There
is a few.
India is a growing market: carbon intensive, a billion
people there want reliable, low-carbon energy. LNG is an answer
there.
In the Middle East we have seen some turmoil for decades. I
was always--the Strait of Hormuz, if an oil tanker went down,
it was cause for war. We had that recently, two springs ago.
And because of the LNG assets, it has given greater optionality
that we didn't descend into another war over that, because we
are less reliant on those fuels.
Sending LNG to Southeast Asia to shore up their security
reduces their footprints and have to rely less on Chinese and
Russian energy, and the same goes for our allies in Eastern
Europe.
And we are landing LNG in Spain, in the Mediterranean, in
Turkey. And that is allowing them to have the option of turning
away and saying, ``No, Russia, we would rather have energy from
a country that is interested in democracy.''
Mr. Duncan. There is no doubt about that. And look, Russia
and China are way ahead of us on emerging nuclear technologies.
The United States needs to get in gear. We are a true leader in
nuclear power. But instead of dealing with bills like the CLEAN
Future Act, we need to put our resources toward modernization
and innovation in the nuclear power realm and exporting that.
It is less carbon footprint, cleaner burning.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Representative Sarbanes, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for convening today's hearing on the CLEAN Future Act. I
want to thank the witnesses for their very valuable testimony.
I am particularly interested today in the focus on
communities and in particular how the CLEAN Future Act can take
action to protect and uplift communities across the country and
in my State of Maryland.
I represent parts of Baltimore, which, as many of you here
know, was once a thriving industrial hub. Over time that base
shrank, unfortunately, creating a lot of economic hardship
across many communities. And it is vital that we have
conversations like we are today on how you can revitalize and
reinvigorate our local economies.
The CLEAN Future Act does more than just start that
conversation. I have to say it takes action. The measures like
the Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator and the
community transition provisions in title 10 are an example of
this. It is a promise to invest in economically distressed
communities across the country. And these investments and
programs can bring new clean industries to places like
Baltimore, which in turn would create jobs, expand economic
opportunity, and so forth.
Mr. Perciasepe, first of all, thank you for all your
incredible work over the years, your career of commitment on
the environment, your service in the past to the State of
Maryland, which we are all very proud of.
Can you speak to the accelerator's potential to jump start
investment in clean and innovative industries, especially in
parts of our country that have seen this kind of decline in
industrial activity?
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman, for that
question and for the shout out. Baltimore is a favorite--a very
important place in my heart.
You know, there are a number of provisions in the Futures
Act that really address and look at the paramount issue that we
need to have in a decarbonizing world, and that is how to
strengthen American industry and American manufacturing in that
environment.
So you have things like the Clean Energy Manufacturing
Grant Program which have a focus on small and modest-sized
businesses. But you also have the Clean Energy Sustainability
Accelerator, which has provisions in it to not just look at
funding a particular technology but also funding economic
development around a decarbonized future for our manufacturing
and industrial sector.
And here is where a facility like the accelerator can not
only stimulate innovation, which I think is paramount, but also
pull in private capital, giving the confidence that the Federal
Government is there with them. Private capital will be needed,
as well, as we look at these communities in a broader economic
development program.
So I think the accelerator has a lot of mechanisms, and it
has a lot of authority in the bill to look at those things more
broadly and provide that broader economic development stimulus,
which I think will be essential for not only urban areas but
also rural areas, as agriculture and forestry are also part of
that.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much. I think it is a terrific
idea, this accelerator, and I would emphasize your phrasing
here, that it can help stimulate innovation, because we hear
this suggestion that somehow the Federal Government is trying
to become the chief innovator and crowd out or push away all of
the sort of private-sector innovators out there that are
getting started.
That is not what we are doing here. We want to stimulate
innovation in creative ways. And the Federal Government has
done that many times before and can do it through this
accelerator program.
I have got about 45 seconds left, but, Mr. Walsh, maybe you
can speak as well to what you think the potential offer through
the accelerator program is.
Mr. Walsh. I mean, I think it is significant, and I just
want to say that we strongly support the prioritization of
investments in the accelerator to disproportionately impacted
communities. We think that is really essential, not just in
Baltimore but across the country.
I think we would love to work with you to broaden the
definition of what constitutes qualified projects. But I think,
as written, this is a really great start.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Representative Curtis, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Pallone, in
his opening remarks, reminded us that science was to be our
impetus. And I am not a scientist. So at a very surface level,
I would like to look at the science of the CLEAN Future Act.
Now, let's suppose hypothetically--just hypothetically--
that we take a moonshot and we are able to reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions to zero. Hypothetically, not by 2050
but by 2030.
So I ask--and it is somewhat of a rhetorical question--I
ask members of this committee and our witnesses, what would be
the impact on worldwide greenhouse gas emissions if we were 100
percent successful with that moonshot?
Now, looking at the Paris Accord--you will know where I am
going--China will reach its peak of carbon emissions in 2030.
And so I believe the science tells us that, even if we are
wildly successful, we will fail in our goal of reducing
worldwide carbon emissions even if this bill is implemented.
And we all know that there would be more carbon in the air, not
less, because of these other countries.
And any one of our witnesses that would like to dispute
that or tell me I am wrong, I would love to hear from you.
And I believe that is because, in the name of the U.S.
showing leadership, we are proposing that the U.S. sacrifice
U.S. jobs and at the same time we are willing to give a pass to
a human-rights-violating dictator.
And let's be honest, in the year 2030 the U.S. could take
our greenhouse gas emissions to zero and we would fail in what
I believe is a shared goal, reducing worldwide greenhouse gas
emissions.
Now, Mr. Sunday, the U.S. has--I am told--has reduced
emissions more in the last decade than the next 12 emission-
reducing countries combined. In your testimony you said
something, and it caught my attention, and you said--I am
paraphrasing--``No country has the story to tell like the
United States.'' Why aren't we telling the story, Mr. Sunday?
Why don't we hear this--in your opinion, why aren't we
shouting this from the housetops?
Mr. Sunday. Well, that is, in part, why I am so honored to
be here today, to help let folks know what Pennsylvania has
done to contribute to that story. It is a story that can't be
told. It is a story we shouldn't be ashamed of. And it is
trends that we would--should want to continue, continued
emissions reductions outpacing the developed world on growth,
and keeping consumers' energy costs low----
Mr. Curtis. I have got a----
Mr. Sunday [continuing]. Batting three for three.
Mr. Curtis. Yes, I have got a theory, and I would like to
ask you if you feel like you could verify it. We could lower
more greenhouse gas emissions by exporting U.S. natural gas to
China and India than by implementing the CLEAN Future Act. Do
you have a response to that?
Mr. Sunday. Not having an advanced degree of mathematics,
intuitively, yes. It makes sense, right?
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Sunday. I would definitely agree with that, yes.
Mr. Curtis. And so, like, this whole concept of, like, we
don't need to kill fossil fuels--fossil fuels, according to
your testimony, is our secret weapon to dramatically lower
worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
So I am quite limited on time, but I would like to kind of
switch gears for a minute. And Mr. Walsh, I have listened
carefully to your testimony, and I believe you are very, very
sincere in your desire to help these communities.
I represent a county, and the name of that county is called
Carbon County. So you can imagine what they do in this county.
And I watched closely the exchange between you and
Representative DeGette about how programs have not succeeded
there. Are you aware of any programs that have succeeded in
these coal countries?
And I don't know that you need to elaborate all of them
now, but are we being successful anywhere in this concept?
Mr. Walsh. I believe we have a lot of really promising
examples from the power grant program that we started during
the Obama administration and continued through the Trump
administration. A lot of that was focused on Appalachia. For a
bunch of reasons, in part because we didn't have a whole-of-
government approach and an office at the White House, we had a
harder time driving investment to coal communities out west, in
the district that you represent. But I think there are many
examples out there, be happy to share some of them with you for
the record, if that would be helpful.
Mr. Curtis. Yes, I am going to run out of time, so--but I
would love to do that offline with you, because I share this
goal with you. And I have a theory in this regards, too, is
that one of the problems is that our dialogue so often
villainizes these people in coal country, and that is a hard
way to start. Does that make sense?
And I would love us to think about how we address these
communities, and how they feel, before we even come in with
these plans because of this villainization.
I regret that I am out of time. I would love to explore
that more offline with you.
Mr. Walsh. Will the chairman indulge me, just to respond to
that?
I want to strongly agree with you, Congressman. In fact, we
need to start from the premise that workers in these
communities, these communities themselves, have kept the lights
on in this country for generations. They deserve our respect.
They deserve our support, which is exactly why we need the kind
of policy constructs envisioned by title 10 of the CLEAN Future
Act. So we would love to continue that conversation.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California.
Representative Peters, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Peters. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I also
want to begin by acknowledging some of the comments from my
colleagues on the other side.
Of course we have to work internationally to solve this
problem. I certainly don't disagree with that.
I believe there is a role for nuclear. I believe there is a
role for looking at streamlining permitting, particularly for
renewables. And I would love to work with you on all that
stuff.
But I do have to one--make the one comment again about
reducing our emissions. It is great that we reduce our
emissions by the use of natural gas, but let's remember that
all of the climate benefits of natural gas are lost unless we
deal with methane. And I am talking to my colleagues about
that, as well. So--and I think we should not pat ourselves--
break our arms patting ourselves on the back about natural gas
without dealing very frankly with the methane threat.
I do want to talk to Dr. Dell, and in particular about the
comment you made in your testimony: ``In order for Buy Clean to
be as successful as possible, it should be complemented by
investments in innovation and the commercialization of
strategic new technologies in the industrial sector.'' I
couldn't agree with you more.
As you well know, concrete is the second-most-used material
on Earth after water, and its main binding ingredient, Portland
cement, accounts for fully 7 percent of global carbon
emissions. The Buy Clean program in the Futures Act would
require building materials and products procured with Federal
funds to achieve a minimum GHG standard. This provides a strong
incentive to reduce the quantity of carbon emissions.
And similar to California's Buy Clean threshold model, our
Buy Clean approach goes one step further and includes a program
called the Climate Star Program that would establish a
voluntary labeling mechanism to identify and promote products
with significantly lower embodied emissions than comparable
products while meeting strict performance standards in order to
reduce GHG emissions and encourage the use of products with
lower embodied emissions.
I think that is great. I do have to acknowledge that one of
the most popular sports in this committee is to beat up on
California. I have to say I heard about rolling blackouts. No
one has changed their talking points, apparently, since Texas
had their problems.
But let me just say that I heard about a Buy Clean model in
New York and New Jersey. So I would like to talk about that and
see whether you thought that was a good approach. It is called
the Low Embodied Concrete Leadership Act, or LECCLA. And the
basic concept is concrete producers would bid on public
projects based on the global warming potential values of their
concrete in addition to costs. And those with the highest-
performing global warming potential scores get a discount rate
applied to their bid price, making their bids functionally less
expensive and more competitive, relative to lower-performing
bids.
For products that use any carbon capture utilization or
storage technologies to manufacture their concrete, a discount
would be applied. Now, my interest in this is that it might
actually incentivize producers to work beyond any threshold
that we might set, if the incentive was good enough. So I
wanted to hear, if you are able--if you are familiar with the
bill, what you thought the benefits of that approach might be
and how an approach like this might fit into existing
legislation and plans.
Dr. Dell?
Dr. Dell. Thank you so much for the question, Congressman
Peters. And if you will indulge me, I will say I used to be
your constituent, back when I was a scientist at the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography.
Mr. Peters. If you indulge me, I am sympathetic that you
had to move someplace else.
Dr. Dell. You know, I remember at the time one of my
colleagues commenting that, when it came to lifestyle, we are
the 1 percent. San Diego is a very beautiful part of the world.
But on your substantive question, I think that the broad
point that you are making is incredibly important, that what we
need in our Buy Clean programs is to both ensure that everybody
is using current best practices but also that we are providing
incentives for people to innovate, or for people to do new
things and to get, you know, new and even better than current
best practices systems in place and to make that profitable.
And so I actually think that the New York and New Jersey
model is fantastic. I am a big fan of it. And my reading of the
CLEAN Futures Act, of this title of the CLEAN Futures Act, is--
tells me that there is--the current legislative text retains a
lot of flexibility about exactly how the program would be
structured that, ideally, would be used to both incentivize
innovation and current best practice.
Mr. Peters. Thank you. I have run out of time. I wanted
to--but I would just say that, although they always like
commenting on California, my subcommittee chair and full
committee chair might like an idea from New York and New
Jersey, so I think we should pursue it, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman is absolutely right. We would
appreciate that. And he yields back.
So now we now will--the Chair will recognize the gentleman
from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sunday, the hearing is about creating jobs and working
in communities. Would banning the development of natural gas
and other fossil fuels create jobs for working communities in
Pennsylvania?
Mr. Sunday. No, that would cause enormous economic
disruptions in our State.
Mr. Palmer. Do you think that would be true in other
States?
Mr. Sunday. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. Do you think that if we just completely
eliminated the production of steel and petrochemicals that the
world would just quit using steel and petrochemicals?
Mr. Sunday. No, and that speaks to the folly of supply-side
intervention. There is still a demand, globally, for these
products, and it does us no good to lose the domestic base and
just have them manufactured somewhere else.
Mr. Palmer. My next question is, do you think that these
would simply move offshore, as so many of our industries did
during the Obama administration? Do you think that might
happen?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, that is quite likely.
Mr. Palmer. Can you briefly discuss how NEPA prevents newer
and cleaner infrastructure from being built?
Mr. Sunday. Sure. We are part of the Unlock American
Investment Coalition, which includes all sorts of builders,
groups, contractors, manufacturers, developers. If a federally
approved or federally permitted project touches NEPA, we are
looking on upwards of 5 years for the Federal agency to get the
paperwork done on that. On transportation infrastructure
projects, it is upwards of 7 or 8 years.
We have got a rail project outside of Philadelphia to
expand public transit that has been under NEPA review since
2012. If we want to upgrade our infrastructure, we have got to
get our act together on permitting.
Mr. Palmer. I think the same thing would apply if we wanted
to upgrade our electric grid. I assume that most of my
Democratic colleagues are aware that we don't have one single
grid, that it is a patchwork, and it would be enormously
expensive to replace that grid.
I want to talk a little bit more about--under section--
under title 5 of the CLEAN Future Act, we will spend billions
of dollars to support manufacturing clean energy technologies
and components. Some of the covered technologies and components
likely include batteries for electric vehicles and solar
panels. Both of those require substantial amounts of critical
rare-earth materials.
If we are not mining in the U.S. for these materials, where
are we going to get them?
Mr. Sunday. Well, at present, most of the mining and
refining base for those products is China.
You mentioned the word ``rare.'' They are definitely
critical. We have some of those assets here. The problem is a
lot of folks are opposing new mining and refining for those
types of minerals. So absolutely, smart national energy policy
would encourage mining of these types of materials
domestically.
Mr. Palmer. We have just established, I think, that if this
bill were to pass and become law, that a lot of these
industries would move offshore to other countries, everything
from steel manufacturing, petrochemicals, to mining and
production, and refinement of rare-earth metals, probably to
China and India and some other places.
Do you have an idea of what their records are, what their
laws are regarding environmental issues, emissions, things like
that?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, I think, you know, a cursory look at their
emissions output per GDP--much more carbon-intensive, much more
particulate matter coming out of their factories. And then it
makes its way across the Pacific and contributes to why some of
our western States have such persistent ozone issues, because
there is so much air pollution from international sources that
we still feel the impacts of, believe it or not, halfway across
the world.
Mr. Palmer. Are you aware that 25--according to the EPA,
25--up to 25 percent on any given day of the air pollution, the
particulate matter over the skies of Los Angeles, are from
China?
And they project in a few years 30 percent of all the
emissions over the State of California will be from China.
And also, we had a hearing on the Select Committee on
Climate Crisis, and I asked the Democrat witnesses--all three
of whom were scientists, one of whom was one of the lead
authors and editors of the International Panel on Climate
Change report--and I asked them, if we completely eliminated
all CO2 emissions, went to absolute zero in the U.S.
and the entire world, would it stop climate change, and the
answer was no.
So I might suggest that, if this were to become law, we
implement it only in Democrat congressional districts and see
how that works out.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Representative Dingell, you are welcome to question now for
5 minutes, please.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and thanks for
having this important hearing on the CLEAN Futures Act.
[Inaudible] from the industrial sector present both
technical and financial challenges. And I am from the Midwest,
and I am watching this happen. But there are solutions to those
challenges, and I am thrilled that this hearing is focused on
such solutions.
One of the solutions, which I am proud to be spearheading
[inaudible] and sustainable accelerator. The accelerator is
based on the Green Bank model that has been successfully
deployed across cities and States, including my own home State
of Michigan. Similar legislation passed the House twice last
Congress. And so thank you for including it in the CLEAN Future
Act, again.
Capitalized with $100 billion over a 6-year period, the
accelerator will leverage public and private funds to invest in
low- and zero-carbon technologies, clean infrastructure
buildings and transportation, sustainable agriculture, and so
much more. It would also support the development of new State
and local green banks. And importantly, it would direct 40
percent of investments to communities on the front lines of
climate change, a key pillar of the THRIVE Agenda.
And I would like to thank the Coalition for Green Capital
for all their help in developing and advancing the bill.
Mr. Perciasepe, your testimony outlines some of the
benefits of establishing the accelerator, particularly for the
industrial sector. Can you elaborate on how this type of
financing institution differs from other tools in our toolbox,
why it is so important for us to establish a program like the
accelerator to help overcome barriers to financing projects
that reduce emissions in the U.S.?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, thank--Congresswoman, thank you so
much for that question and all that you have been doing,
working on these issues.
Let me just give a few highlights of that. Otherwise, we
could spend the rest of the hearing on it.
But the key thing here--and you have already outlined it--
is the holistic approach taken here in this financial facility.
It looks not just at a particular kind of technology or a
particular kind of server, it looks at all of it that is
combined. It has to be pulled together to really make sure that
we strengthen our economic situation and our economic
development as we move forward.
It also has the ability, as you pointed out, to help
facilitate local financial facilities. But more importantly, it
sends a huge signal to the private markets. We have talked a
lot on this hearing so far about market mechanisms versus
command and control. Well, here is a massive market mechanism.
Once the Federal Government makes this kind of significant
commitment, which in today's dollars isn't a lot different than
what we did in the moonshot, and we send that signal to the
private sector, as you have pointed out, it is going to
leverage hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment,
which is what we need.
The last point I will make: We have innovation going on in
this country. When innovators are working, one of the things
they see in their future is, ``What do I do? How do I get it
commercialized? How do I move to the point where things can be
implemented?'' This facility has the ability to take the
innovation that is developed in research and development
programs and move it to that next level.
So I think there is a lot of opportunity here, and we are
very supportive.
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Perciasepe, I have a ton of questions,
and I am almost out of time. So let me ask you one more.
Can you--Mr. Chairman, I want to do some for the record--
but can you explain why and how a program like the accelerator
is so critical to unleashing private investment in clean
technology and infrastructure, especially in areas of our
economy like the industrial sector?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes. Well, certainly, the industrial sector
is one of the more difficult to visualize how we are going to
deal with the great diversity of industrial processes that go
on there. Some of those have been mentioned already, including,
you know, for instance, LafargeHolcim and cement manufacturing.
The idea of being able to assist in those very varied ways
in a more holistic approach with something like the accelerator
is really going to provide that impetus for that public-private
partnership and drive the market forces of private investment
in the same direction.
So I could give you a lot longer explanation, and I would
be happy to reply for the record when you send those questions.
Mrs. Dingell. I will do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back zero seconds.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
The gentlewoman yields back. Next the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Georgia.
Representative Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being part of this most important discussion. And, Mr.
Perciasepe, I want to ask you, Georgia is the number-one
forestry state in the Nation. We have more----
Mr. Tonko. Excuse me----
Mr. Carter. We have more forestry than any other State in
the Nation, and it is extremely important to us. And biomass is
something that we have really concentrated on. In fact, we have
biomass plants in my district that provide biomass for a number
of different industries as well as we send biomass for heating
purposes to Europe, and they use a lot of it, as well.
So I wanted to ask you. During the Obama administration the
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation had sent out a memorandum in
November of 2014 on the carbon benefits of forest-derived
biomass. And the memorandum said--and I quote--``Use of waste-
derived feedstocks and certain forest-derived feedstocks are
likely to have minimal or no net atmospheric contribution to
biogenic CO2 emissions, or even reduce such impacts,
when compared with an alternative disposal.''
I know that you have written op eds, as well--in fact, I
think you wrote an op ed in The Hill almost a year ago--citing
the benefits of biomass. And I wanted to ask you, since you
have noted and EPA has noted that the decarbonization benefits
of forest-derived biomass--do you agree that it makes sense for
the EPA to recognize the benefits of bioenergy produced from
forest products that--manufacturers?
Mr. Perciasepe. Oh, I am still unmuted, great.
Yes, you know, the Renewable Thermal Collaborative lists
biomass as one of their key components of the options available
to decarbonize parts of the thermal needs of American
manufacturing and industry.
The counterbalance to that, and what is always the hangup
in everybody's analysis--and my op ed, not representing the
Renewable Thermal Collaborative, but representing myself,
pointed out that most of the forest land in the United States
is privately owned. And to maintain those forests--needs to be
an economic incentive for those forests to be maintained.
And so finding that balance of all the proper sustainable
foresting practices to assure that the balance is correct in
terms of the carbon neutrality of the use of those forest
products is what the discussion is about. And I am confident
that we can--we, as a country--can work through that. And I
think some of the innovation that will be stimulated by some of
the provisions in this bill can, I hope, help move those
industries closer together.
Mr. Carter. Well, I appreciate you saying that very much. I
serve on the Select Committee for Climate Change, and I have
just--sometimes I run up against a brick wall when I talk about
biomass as being carbon neutral. And people just don't want to
accept it. But it is carbon neutral.
And if you think about it, you know, with the sustainable
forests and everything that we are doing with our forests here
in America, that is certainly an egg in the egg basket, if you
will, that we need to be using to fight carbon emissions. Would
you agree?
Mr. Perciasepe. Look, we need to preserve the American
forest and allow even additional forest to grow. And this is
another whole conversation. Again, I think there are some
incentives in this bill that will stimulate innovation in this
area.
But whether it is 100 percent carbon neutral or 93 percent
carbon neutral or 95 percent, that is--that can be determined.
And I am going to guess here, without any scientific analysis,
that there will be some discounting there because of, you know,
transportation issues and other things, but--and management
practices--but certainly there are significant benefits. And,
you know, certainly the Renewable Thermal Collaborative that I
am representing today sees biomass as an important component of
decarbonizing industrial heat.
Mr. Carter. Right. Well, thank you for that very much. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Sunday, very quickly, because I am running out of time
here, under title 9 of this bill all the permits that would
essentially be--all permits would essentially be stopped for
plastic. And not only that, but this means that recycling of
plastics would also be stopped.
How is that going to impact--killing the recycling,
cutting-edge technology that we are working on, how is that
going to provide us a realistic path forward?
Mr. Sunday. It would do nothing but shoot ourselves in the
foot. And again, it calls us to rely on manufacturing in other
countries.
Mr. Carter. Right. Well, I am out of time, but thank you,
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Representative Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chair Tonko, for holding this
important hearing in reducing industrial emissions and a just
transition. This is an important issue for me.
My district has heavy industry, including oil refineries in
Carson, California, and Wilmington, California, that pollute
the air in what is a majority Latino and African-American
communities. But also these jobs support--are union jobs.
As we transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy
economy, it is critical we make the necessary investments to
ensure that every community can breathe clean air and that no
worker is left behind.
Mr. Perciasepe, the industrial sector is a significant
contributor for greenhouse gas emissions, and it is also a
major cause of the environmental injustice in low-income
communities and communities of color. Can you describe how
electrifying industry and increasing the amount of clean energy
used by the industrial sector can help to reduce the impact of
pollution in communities?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, that--and thank you for that question.
As I mentioned in my testimony, the industrial sector is one of
the more complicated ones to decarbonize, because of the
diversity of the different manufacturing processes.
But here--but almost 50 percent of the emissions are coming
from the need for heat. And heat is something that is
ubiquitous across all industrial sectors. They need to heat
things or to create products to drive them, you know, for all
different needs. But how that heat is created is about 50
percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. I am rounding here, it
might be upper-40 percent.
And so reducing the emissions from that heat, which many
have already done, has been pointed out here. There has been
some fuel switching to cleaner natural gas, but there is a real
opportunity to continue to use things like electrification,
using renewable energy for that, or biomass--I was just talking
about--but with all--obviously, with the proper pollution
controls on it.
The other place that is really important, Congresswoman, is
in the innovation of the industrial processes. How can those
industrial processes be modified to reduce the emissions that
they produce, as well?
And I think looking at that holistically are what some of
the measures in the CLEAN Futures bill tries to do.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that.
Now, I think it is helpful to look at incentives that can
be helpful in reducing emissions and setting standards for
different sectors of our economy. You know, it is critical to
reducing fossil fuel usage and reaching 100 percent clean
energy.
We already have fuel economy standards for transportation.
And the CLEAN Future Act proposes a clean electricity standard
for utilities. Should we also have standards for the industrial
sector to address climate and environmental justice issues?
And maybe you can elaborate a little bit on what that would
look like.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, certainly, the thermal part of the
industrial sector can be subjected to performance standards
similar to a clean energy standard. It is--you know, there is
still energy being used. But the industrial process part of
it--you know, the making of cement, the cracking of chemicals
at a refinery to make plastics and other goods, the moving of
iron ore to elemental iron--all of these things require not
only heat, but also they have chemical processes.
And so those processes aren't able to--there is innovation
that could be occurring there that will help reduce those
emissions. But a clean energy-type standard or performance
standard could be applied to the thermal aspects of industrial
heat.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Mr. Walsh, in California there are
35,000 abandoned oil wells sitting idle, many leaking methane
and harmful chemicals in communities of color. Across the
country there are millions of abandoned wells. Could investing
in communities to plug and remediate these wells be part of a
just transition program that creates immediate job
opportunities?
Mr. Walsh. Quickly, absolutely. It has the combined effect
of cleaning up polluted sites, but also creating jobs in the
short term.
Let me just speak to your other question. I think one of
the most important opportunities provided by pursuing solutions
around industrial decarbonization is to also reduce criteria
pollutants from the industrial sector. And there are ways in
which--of deploying technologies that can do both. And that is
what is so exciting, I think, about this industrial title.
Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you, sir.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Representative Crenshaw, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. Look, I want to focus on costs and benefits and
tradeoffs.
Policymaking is about tradeoffs, not necessarily solutions.
And when you have a preferred solution in mind, well, then
there is a large incentive to exaggerate problems, exaggerate
benefits associated with that solution, and diminish the costs
associated with that. So there is a lot of things to cover
here.
I want to hit the transition of jobs, or the supposed
transition of jobs. The reality is that this bill creates one
job, and that is a director of a task force that would have--
would supposedly transition workers to green energy jobs. The
problem is--and this has already been acknowledged in this
hearing--that if there is no opportunity on the other end of
that, well, these government programs never work.
The Washington Post had to fact-check John Kerry using
Bureau of Labor Statistics data when John Kerry claimed that
the fastest-growing jobs in America, or some of them, were
renewable energy jobs. Here is the thing. By percentagewise,
that might be true. But in reality, when you actually look at
the--in absolute numbers, it is only about 10,000 new jobs over
the next 10 years. Here's the other thing. These jobs, on
average, pay about $20,000 less than oil and gas jobs.
This idea that we are just going to transition jobs is a
myth. It is a fantasy.
I want to hit on the Buy Clean program, and this question
will be directed to Ms. Dell, just a quick question.
If the plan was implemented perfectly--we didn't lose any
industry, let's say, which, of course, is quite the
assumption--how much would we actually reduce carbon emissions?
Dr. Dell. Thanks so much for the question. The first thing
I would say is that one of the most important aspects of Buy
Clean is that it has no incentive whatsoever to offshore
production. Exactly the same standards are applied to overseas
production----
Mr. Crenshaw. Please answer the question. I have such--if
we had an hour, I would love to talk with you. But please
answer the question that I asked.
Dr. Dell. Sure, that is all I wanted to say. And so
building materials in the U.S. represent a few percent of our
total emissions. So if we brought those to zero, we might see
an impact of a few hundred million tons of CO2.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK, so a few percent meaning 3 percent of
U.S. emissions?
Dr. Dell. Well, that depends very sensitively on how much
money Congress decides to spend on infrastructure.
Mr. Crenshaw. Let's say it is 10 percent. All right? Let's
say we reduce U.S. emissions by 10 percent. U.S. emissions
account for about 15 percent of global emissions. This would
equal about 1 percent decrease in global emissions, which is
kind of nothing, practically speaking, at a huge cost.
I realize you claim that there is no cost to this. I notice
you said that in your testimony too, but you did not cite any
references. Do you have any references now for why there would
be no cost? Have you consulted with industry about this?
Dr. Dell. Yes, so in my written testimony there are
extensive footnotes which provide all the numbers. But I didn't
say there would be no costs. I said the costs would be very
modest.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK----
Dr. Dell. Typically----
Mr. Crenshaw. A lot of people in industry would vehemently
disagree.
I want to move on and ask another question----
Dr. Dell. Very modest compared to the cost of the
infrastructure project, not necessarily very modest compared to
the cost of the old way of making cement.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. Again, cost benefits is what I am trying
to get at.
On plastic manufacturing--so there would be a pause on new
plants in the next 3 years. On this question, what benefits do
we expect from doing that?
Is the benefit directed towards emissions, or plastics
recycling, or are we afraid plastics are going in the ocean?
What is the expected benefit?
Dr. Dell. So I was not invited to testify on the plastics
title of the bill.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. Does any other witness want to answer
that question?
[No response.]
Mr. Crenshaw. OK, well, I am going to say it is both,
right? I am going to say that maybe my colleagues are expecting
both, OK? So it is emissions and we don't like plastic in the
oceans.
I don't like emissions. I want to reduce emissions. I also
don't like plastic in the oceans.
Here's the thing. Let's look at this study: Danish Ministry
of Environment and Food found that you would have to use a
cotton bag 20,000 times just to have less environmental impact
than a simple plastic bag. Now, look, I am a millennial. I take
that cotton bag to Whole Foods. I do. But I know I am virtue
signaling. I know that it is actually bad for the environment.
We need to acknowledge this reality.
In California you can't get a plastic bag.
Here's the other thing. If we are concerned about plastic
in the oceans, let's be honest, you are in America. Your straw
isn't going into the ocean. It just isn't. Ten rivers
contribute to 90 percent of plastic in the oceans. It is not
your straw.
Mr. Sunday, in my limited time left, can you hit this theme
of the costs that are being ignored by this bill?
Mr. Sunday. Sure. I think, broadly speaking, we see
significant public intervention in the marketplace. You see a
glut of the thing that the government is trying to buy and
scarcity and high prices for the things that the market
actually needs. So that has been an underexplored aspect of all
of this.
If private companies' management wanted to make a
significant change, then we would need to see some modeling,
some analysis, some real extensive understanding of tradeoffs
before we would jump on that sort of massive shift in approach
on the private side.
So from where we sit in Pennsylvania--like, again, we have
done everything we should be doing, in terms of air quality,
energy costs, and manufacturing, and we want to see those
trends continue.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, and I yield back no time. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Representative McEachin, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your excellent leadership in this area and for the introduction
of the CLEAN Future Act.
You know, to my mind there is nothing more important than
combating our climate crisis. I have said it before and I will
say it again: It is the most important issue of the 21st
century. We have exactly one opportunity to get it right, and
we can't afford to miss the mark. I will go ahead and skip
right to my questions.
Mr. Walsh, first of all, thank you for the wonderful and
outstanding work that you and the others on the BlueGreen
Alliance are doing. You previously worked on coordinating
interagency efforts through the POWER initiative. Can you give
us a sense of the importance of having a formalized process to
reach across agencies and to incorporate stakeholder input in
the design and implementation of Federal programs?
How critical is participation through an advisory committee
otherwise--of affected workers or community members to the
success of these efforts?
It is a 2-part question.
Mr. Walsh. A coordinated office is essential. What we did
during the Obama administration, as you and I have talked
about, was kind of ad hoc, kind of jury-rigged. I think we got
a lot done, but what we were missing was a structural system in
place that would allow different offices, different agencies to
work together. So that was vitally important.
On the point of public participation, look, you know, the
best kind of economic development is from the bottom up, right?
The way you get that is getting full buy-in and full
participation from community members, economic developers,
other stakeholders in local communities about their vision,
their plan for the economic future of their community. So it is
absolutely vital.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you. That is a nice segue into my next
question about empowering local leaders. Can the Federal
Government play a role in the community-driven economic
redevelopment by supporting capacity building, technical
assistance, and financial support?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, it can, and I think in title 10 you see
some clear examples of that, in particular the establishment
of, essentially, community hubs, right, that would put into
practice what I just described about bottom-up planning and
also really help navigate--help these local communities and
workers navigate the Federal resources that are out there.
That, in my experience, is incredibly important.
Mr. McEachin. Sir, I am sure you will agree with me that
remediation is an awfully important aspect of what we have to
do to get to where we need to be by 2050: the cleaning up of
abandoned mine field--I mean, abandoned mines, Superfund sites,
orphan oil wells, orphan gas wells, and brownfield sites. How
can these remediation activities help provide jobs, protect
public health, and lay the groundwork for future economic
growth in these communities?
Mr. Walsh. Well, I mean, they create jobs for a number of
different trades in the cleanup itself, some of which is
actually highly skilled. So there is an immediate job creation
incentive right there.
But it also recognizes that you are not really going to get
economic development in places that are badly polluted, right?
Businesses aren't going to locate there, new businesses aren't
going to grow there. People aren't going to want to live there.
If you have got a watershed, for example, that is poisoned by
acid mine drainage, then that is not an attractive place to
build a new business or a new industry sector. So it is a vital
precondition for economic diversification to clean up the mess
that was left behind.
I would also say, look, we talked about--you heard a little
exchange before about costs. Let's also be clear that--the
costs of pollution, right?
You know, the University of Minnesota issued a report in
2019 that found that poor air quality is responsible for more
than 100,000 deaths in the United States due to heart attacks,
strokes, lung cancer, and other diseases. And these, of course,
are impacts that disproportionately impact communities of color
and low-income communities.
If we are going to have a full conversation about costs, we
need to be talking about those costs, as well. And cleaning up
those costs, cleaning up that pollution not only addresses
that, but creates jobs and creates the conditions for
sustainable, more resilient economic development.
Mr. McEachin. Well, thank you for that very fine answer.
You know, we--historically, we have undervalued the societal
cost of pollution, and we appreciate you bringing our attention
back to that.
Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Yes, the gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlewoman from Delaware.
Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for
5 minutes, please.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this important hearing on the CLEAN Future Act. And thank you
to all the witnesses for your testimony today.
As has been said, and as we all know, the climate crisis
continues to threaten our country and the world. And in order
to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we need to move
to a 100 percent clean energy future.
Transitioning to a clean energy future is not only an
imperative for our planet, but it is also an opportunity to
rebuild our economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. And
millions of new construction, skilled trades, and engineering
jobs needed to build a clean energy future will help us to
create a cleaner, healthier, more equitable and sustainable
country.
Mr. Walsh, I would like to start with you. In response to
Representative Crenshaw's question, and as someone who works
closely with unions, how do you view the relationship between
tackling the climate crisis and jobs?
And does it create more net jobs or not?
And then secondly, if you could just talk about how people
from varying skills and educational levels will also be able to
partake.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. It is
our view that rebuilding and repairing our infrastructure and
our industrial base to be modern, safe, less polluting is an
enormous job-creation opportunity. We can cite different
metrics. Some have actually been referenced in this committee
in the past.
But I want to emphasize just how much work will be involved
in doing all of those things in the industrial sector, in the
energy sector, in the building sector, as you know well, in
environmental remediation. These are enormously big projects
that we need to take on and that will create a lot of jobs.
Now, the key is to make sure that the jobs created are high
quality, and the jobs are accessible to the broadest range of
the American people, right? And so we have some work to do in
that regard. It is the case that the job quality of jobs that
are in the wind and solar industries right now is really mixed.
It is not good enough. But what that doesn't mean is that we
should try to stand in the way of this transformation. What
that means is that we should use well-established policy levers
to improve the quality of jobs in those sectors, right?
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes.
Mr. Walsh. This act does that, right? It uses a prevailing
wage.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes.
Mr. Walsh. It uses project labor agreements. It uses
community benefits. So I just want to be really clear about
that point.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you for clarifying.
And I think that it is important to say that this isn't
easy work. As you may know, I served as Secretary of Labor in
Delaware and also head of state personnel. And so jobs are a
passion for me, which is why I created our first-of-its-kind,
bipartisan Future Work Caucus in the Congress to look at
challenges and opportunities.
And earlier this week, just this week, I got to visit the
Port of Wilmington, where they are showing us how they are
using automation in ways to not displace workers--they have
worked with the union with a guarantee that no one would lose
their job, but they are also now being able to expand.
And so, in shifting to a clean energy future, how can we
alleviate even some of the fears of automation in the
industrial sector?
Mr. Walsh. Talk to the bricklayers. What they will tell you
is that--I mean, as folks who know--and you know the
construction trades--this is incredibly skilled work. It is
also dangerous work, and it is hard on the body, right?
If you can surgically use robotics to lift things on a
construction site, you are not only going to be increasing
productivity, but you are going to be helping that bricklayer
that is, you know, right next to that machine that is helping
that person do their work. So I think that is part of the
conversation that we need to be having.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes, thank you.
And Dr. Dell, what role does data play in our evolution to
a clean energy future?
And how can we use data to support our low-carbon
investments?
Dr. Dell. Thank you for the question. As has come up
already in the hearing, data and transparency are going to be
critical for this because we want to be--we want to design our
policies to reward people who--and firms that are using the
cleanest and most modern techniques. And in order to do that,
we need to have accurate information about what are the
environmental performance of not just domestic firms, but also
international firms that want to participate in domestic
markets.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. My time has
expired, but I want to thank the chairman for his leadership
and his vision in this area.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman yields
back. Next the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Representative Soto, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please, and thank you for your patience.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. I want to start with a
history lesson. Quote, ``As we sign this bill in this room, we
can look back and say, 'In the Roosevelt Room, on the last day
of 1970, we signed a historic piece of legislation that put us
far down the road toward a goal that Theodore Roosevelt, 70
years ago, spoke eloquently about, a goal of clean air, clean
water, and open spaces for future generations of Americans.'''
That was a quote by Republican President Richard Nixon during
the Clean Air Act signing ceremony.
When the Clean Air Act was first--became law in 1970, it
passed in the Senate unanimously, and only one person voted
against it, one member of the House voted against it. What a
shining environmental achievement. So what has happened since
then?
I realize this is hard for many of you, since there are
major coal, oil, or gas industries in your States that provide
jobs. And we need to work together to ensure transition in
these communities. Because we know why: We face a climate
crisis.
We must reduce carbon emissions to avoid intensifying
hurricanes--we know that in Florida--rising sea levels--we also
know that in Florida--extreme heat in the summer and extreme
cold in the winter. Its effects are even worse. Our agriculture
could start to fail, and more Americans will go hungry. We can
see the entire southern United States find themselves as
climate refugees. Add political destabilization, war, and
famine across the world and you fully begin to understand the
impacts that happen.
In addition, I have heard countless arguments about China
and India. Let me say it again: Their failures don't define
American excellence. We do. And as we develop these
technologies, we will sell them abroad and position ourselves
for continued economic dominance in the 21st century.
So once again, our Nation has to come together with a
comprehensive plan. That is what the CLEAN Futures Act is. It
moves us towards carbon neutrality by 2050, with
decarbonization of government, transportation, utilities,
manufacturing, and agriculture. And we will continue to convert
our transportation system with electric vehicles.
The facts that my colleagues--the fact that my colleagues
across the aisle aren't motivated by the climate crisis,
perhaps other things will motivate you, like the fact that the
private sector is already moving forward with all this. Look no
further than Ford or GM and the electric vehicles. They are
rolling on the market faster than you could think. Millennials,
the biggest generation, they are moving along. Consumer
preferences, insurance companies, reinsurance markets, board
rooms are moving forward.
You blocked the Clean Power Plan, utilities still moved
forward. You blocked the auto fuel efficiency standards, auto
manufacturers still moved forward. So we could either work on
this bill, or communities you represent can be left behind. And
sooner or later, they will realize that it is your fault, that
we should have worked together on this.
Lastly, I want to mention that this would include solar,
and it would include hydro, and it would include wind, and it
would also include nuclear power. President Biden's climate
plan includes nuclear power. Let me repeat that: President
Biden's plan includes nuclear power. It calls for the
development of small modular reactors, SMRs. So I offer to work
with you all.
Let me end just by talking to Mr. Perciasepe. We know we
have in Florida the Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center
located in Indiantown, and concentrating solar power has been a
real potential.
Can you go into some of the roles that CSP can play in
expanding the use of renewables in the industrial sector, Mr.
Perciasepe?
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you. Thank you for that question.
Yes, concentrated solar power is different, in a way, than
what we traditionally think with the photovoltaic cells. It is
taking--concentrating the forces of the sun into a more defined
point or space, which can create very high temperatures.
And so, for some industrial operations that need high
temperatures and have the space for that kind of a collection
system, you can definitely achieve some exceedingly high
temperatures, which is really one of the more challenging parts
of the industrial sector. But if you are looking at an
industrial park, or some other large industrial complex,
usually it will be harder to implement that.
So it has a role, it is an important part of the solution,
but it will have that geographically limited ability.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Perciasepe. My time has expired,
and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the former vice chair of the standing Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and a fellow New Yorker.
Representative Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Ms. Clarke. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member McKinley, for convening today's hearing, a hearing on an
important set of provisions within the CLEAN Future Act. And
thank you to our witnesses for your testimony.
We have heard from our witnesses it is crucial that we
scale up investment in the clean technologies and
infrastructure.
Just a couple of weeks ago I was speaking with a minority-
owned clean energy startup called WeSolar CSP, which has an
office in my district. Their unique solar thermal technology
allows them to provide scalable clean energy for a variety of
applications, including industrial. Now that we--now what they
need is the financing opportunity to put their technology into
action. I think that the Clean Energy Sustainability
Accelerator included in the CLEAN Future Act is a perfect
example of how the Federal Government can help address this
need.
In my home State of New York we have seen firsthand just
how beneficial these types of programs can be. Since its
inception, the New York Green Bank has used $1.2 billion of
public funds to stimulate over 3.4 billion in total investment
in clean energy and energy-efficiency projects across New York
State.
But that is not all. I am proud to say that New York City
is home to the first local green bank in the United States,
known as the New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation. In my
district in Brooklyn this program helped finance an affordable
multifamily solar and storage microgrid at the Marcus Garvey
Apartments, serving 625 units. This investment has resulted in
a clean and resilient energy system that also provides major
savings on energy costs for community residents.
Across the Nation, State and local green banks have helped
communities save money, improve efficiency, and reduce
emissions. Now it is time we bring this model to the Federal
level.
So, Mr. Perciasepe, do you agree that establishing a
national accelerator will help reduce the cost of climate
action and expedite the transition into a cleaner, healthier,
and more prosperous economy?
[Pause.]
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Perciasepe?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I am--can you guys hear me?
Ms. Clarke. We can now.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am sorry, I hope it is not my side over
here, but I am on my personal Internet here.
The accelerator is broadly constructed to look at solutions
and cooperating with the local green banks, as well. So I think
it has a great opportunity to help accelerate the work that is
underway by existing green banks but also filling gaps where
those existing green banks haven't yet gone, in the more
broader----
Ms. Clarke. And why is it so important that we make
financing for clean technology and clean infrastructure more
accessible, all the way down to the community level?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, one of the barriers, obviously, to
transition and also to innovation is that next step. And
whether it is transitioning at the community level, or becoming
more resilient at a community level, which is also part of the
portfolio of the accelerator, all of these things require that
insertion of investment.
And so this is a real opportunity to bring together both
the green and clean technology and accelerating that and
providing financing for it to move toward being commercialized
and at the same time looking at the infrastructure and other
needs at the local community level as part of that resiliency
component.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, I couldn't agree more. The ability to
focus investments on local circumstances is critical to
addressing the needs of local communities, particularly
environmental justice communities. I am very glad to see that
our committee's accelerator proposal places this issue front
and center by directing 40 percent of investments to frontline
and disadvantaged areas.
I thank my colleague, the gentlelady from Michigan, Rep.
Dingell, for her leadership on the accelerator, and I look
forward to working with her and the committee to advance this
program.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. And now we go to, I
believe, our last colleague to question, and that would be the
gentleman from Virginia.
Representative Griffin, thank you for your patience, and
you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much for letting me waive on,
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate it, and it is a policy of--
it is a bipartisan policy this committee has had for some time.
It allows us to get into issues that we consider important even
if we are not on the subcommittee, if we are on the full
committee. So I do appreciate it.
Mr. Sunday, I have appreciated your perspective today and
in your testimony on how we can leverage our historical
leadership in energy and industry to continue leading the world
in clean and affordable electricity. On page 9 of your
testimony you state that the cost of triggering NSR, new source
review, has caused companies in your State to cancel projects
that would have reduced emissions, lowered operating costs, and
improved public health and our environment.
I would like to describe--I always like to describe this as
forcing a company to swallow the apple whole, whereas I think,
if we take bites or if we allow the company to take bites out
of that apple, they would be able to consume the apple. In
other words, get the improvements that are needed out there.
But if they are forced because of NSR to take it all in at one
time, then they just don't do it.
Do you agree with that assessment or analysis?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, I do. It is certainly an obstacle to
enhancing the operations of domestic facilities and getting
cleaner. It is a very perverse regulatory approach that
discourages cleaner operations from our facilities.
Mr. Griffith. And in fact, I will tell you that--and I have
said this before in committee in other contexts--that, you
know, whether they could get around it or not, I have a
furniture manufacturing facility in my district that now has a
conveyor belt to nowhere. It goes out, oh, I don't know, 75,
50--75, 100 yards and comes back because at one time part of
their paint process was at the other end of the conveyor belt.
But they had been advised by their attorneys, because of
NSR, not to take that conveyor belt out because then that would
trigger the entire set of the Clean Air Act rules coming down
on their heads. And they are like, ``OK, it costs us a couple
of seconds in manufacturing of each piece of furniture that we
do, case goods, but even though we are fighting every second to
get it better to compete with the Chinese, we can't afford to
have--suddenly to have all these new rules placed on us at one
time.''
Is that--do you have similar stories, or have you heard
stories like that, as well?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, it comes up in a number of contexts. Maybe
you come out of an economic recession and your factory wants to
run more. NSR is going to hit you if your emissions--if you are
going to make a significant modification.
In other circumstances, maybe you want to add another
shift, and NSR again comes into play. As you mentioned, it
discourages efficiency improvements.
And, you know, and we have had the opportunity at the
Chamber to come down in front of this committee in the past and
talk about, you know, your potential solutions, other ways to
make NSR better.
Whatever we want to make in this country, whether it is
solar panels, telecommunications assets, et cetera, NSR reform
has got to be on the table if we are going to talk about
competitiveness.
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that. And people need to
remember that NSR is just one piece of the complicated Clean
Air Act regulatory puzzle, and providing much-needed clarity to
this complex program does not take away from other provisions
under the Clean Air Act. And it is clear that providing greater
certainty through commonsense, targeted reforms would replace
some of the ambiguity and confusion surrounding NSR and result
in a more effective and efficient program.
And you mentioned that I have legislation, and I do, the
NSR Improvement Act, and it would do that. But there is nothing
in the CLEAN Future Act or the Climate Leadership and
Environmental Action for our Nation's Future Act. There is
nothing in there that deals with NSR reform, is there?
Mr. Sunday. No, sir.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. Let me ask you this. Would adopting an
hourly emissions rate test like the one used in the EPA's new
source performance standard program enhance the new source
review, or NSR program, so that companies can update their
facilities and install technologies like carbon capture? Would
that be helpful?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, and that is a solution we have endorsed in
the past.
Mr. Griffith. Yes, I think that makes sense. And in fact,
as you may recall, the language that was in the underlying
bills that started the NSR and started the new source
performance standard, that language is virtually identical. But
because of interpretations in different divisions of the EPA,
we have a completely different application. Is that not your
understanding, as well?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, it really depends on the regional office.
Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. And that makes it hard for businesses to
make decisions, does it not?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, or at least causes certain parts of the
country to lose out on investment.
Mr. Griffith. And that investment would make the air
cleaner, correct?
Mr. Sunday. Correct. Again, we are always--we can't just
put blinders on and pretend that it is only what is going on in
the United States. It is a globally competitive market.
Mr. Griffith. I am for getting the air cleaner. Let's pass
some NSR reform. Thank you for your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And I believe that
completes the list of colleagues who had chosen to ask
questions.
I again thank our witnesses for joining us at today's
hearing. Their input is extremely appreciated.
I do remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. I ask that each
witness please respond promptly to any such questions that you
may receive.
Before we adjourn, I know that a number of documents have
been asked to be entered into the record by our colleagues, so
I hereby ask unanimous consent for the following documents to
be entered into the record: a letter from Fortera; a report
from Analysis Group entitled ``Accelerating Job Growth and an
Equitable Low-Carbon Energy Transition: The Role of the Clean
Energy Accelerator;'' a report from Brattle entitled ``Clean
Energy and Sustainability Accelerator: Opportunities for Long-
Term Deployment;'' a statement from the American Forest & Paper
Association; a statement from the Ultra Low-Carbon Solar
Alliance; a report from Coalition for Green Capital entitled
``Accelerating Investment in Clean Energy & Climate
Infrastructure to Create Jobs & Drive an Equitable & Just
Transition: Policy Analysis of the Clean Energy and
Sustainability Accelerator;'' a letter from the Industrial
Energy Consumers of America; a report from ClimateWorks
entitled ``Build Clean: Industrial Policy for Climate and
Justice;'' a report from the Just Transition Fund entitled
``National Economic Transition Platform;'' a report from the
State of Colorado's Department of Labor and Employment entitled
``Colorado Just Transition Action Plan;'' a report from the
State of Colorado's Department of Labor and Employment entitled
``The Need for Federal Support to Ensure Just Transitions for
Local Energy Economies;'' a letter from the Biotechnology
Innovation Organization; a letter from the Portland Cement
Association; a report from the Lawrence Livermore National
Library entitled ``Permitting Carbon Capture and Storage
Projects in California.''
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Analysis Group, Brattle, Coalition for Green Capital,
ClimateWorks, and Lawrence Livermore National Library reports have been
retained in committee files and are available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So with all of that, we again encourage our witnesses to
respond promptly to any questions that are submitted after this
formal part of the hearing.
And at this time the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]