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



      GENERATING EQUITY: DEPLOYING A JUST AND CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 20, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-22



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               



     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov


                                 ______
                               
                               

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

47-112 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 Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman

SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    Chair                            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG PENCE, Indiana
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware           (ex officio)
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)





                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     9

                               Witnesses

Subin DeVar, Director, Initiative for Energy Justice.............    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   132
Kiran Bhatraju, Chief Executive Officer, Arcadia.................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   134
Chandra Farley, Just Energy Director, Partnership for Southern 
  Equity.........................................................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   136
Donnel Baird, Chief Executive Officer, BlocPower.................    42
    Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   137
Jose L. Perez, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hispanics 
  In Energy......................................................    48
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
Louise Carter-King, Mayor, City of Gillette, Wyoming.............    55
    Prepared statement...........................................    56

                           Submitted Material

Report, ``The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Federal Onshore Oil 
  and Gas Lease Moratorium and Drilling Ban Policies'','' by Dr. 
  Timothy J. Considine, University of Wyoming, December 14, 2020, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush \1\
Article of March 2021, ``The Intersection of Decarbonization 
  Policy Goals and Resource Adequacy Needs: A California Case 
  Study,'' by Elliott J. Nethercutt and Chris Devon, NRRI 
  Insights, submitted by Mr. Rush................................    97
Letter of April 13, 2021, from Mike Flores, Policy Advisor, 
  Hispanics In Energy, to Natural Resources Committee members, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   115
Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, ``The Value of U.S. 
  Energy Innovation and Policies Supporting the Shale 
  Revolution,'' October 2019, submitted by Mr. Rush \2\
Declaration of April 19, 2021, by Mark N. Fox, Chairman of the 
  Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, submitted by Mr. Armstrong.   117

----------

\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210420/112462/HHRG-117-IF03-
20210420-SD003.pdf.
\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210420/112462/HHRG-117-IF03-
20210420-SD007.pdf.
Article of April 20, 2021, ``A coal miners union indicates it 
  will accept a switch to renewable energy in exchange for 
  jobs,'' by Norm Schneiber, New York Times, submitted by Mr. 
  Peters.........................................................   123
Letter of February 22, 2021, from Mr. Kinzinger, et al., to 
  President Biden, submitted by Mr. Kinzinger....................   125
Editorial of April 19, 2021, ``John Kerry's Climate Kowtow,'' 
  Wall Street Journal, submitted by Mr. Rush.....................   129


 
      GENERATING EQUITY: DEPLOYING A JUST AND CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m. via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, Butterfield, Matsui, Castor, 
Welch, Schrader, Kuster, Blunt Rochester, O'Halleran, Pallone 
(ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Burgess, 
Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, 
Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, Rodgers (ex 
officio).
    Also present: Representative Fletcher.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly 
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff 
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Fabrizio Herrera, Staff 
Assistant; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, 
Digital Director; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Tim 
Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Sarah Burke, 
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority 
Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, 
Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Emily King, 
Minority Member Services Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Energy and Environment; and Michael Taggart, Minority 
Policy Director.
    Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to 
order. Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing that is 
entitled ``Generating Equity: Deploying a Just and Clean Energy 
Future.'' 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 any background noise. Members and 
witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each time 
you wish to speak. Documents for the record can be sent to Lino 
Pena-Martinez at the email address we've provided to the staff. 
All documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion 
of the hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

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

    The Subcommittee on Energy convenes today in continuation 
of its work to advance a 21st century clean energy system with 
the guiding principles of equity and justice mainly in mind. 
Historically, the impacts of climate change and the consumption 
and production of energy have disproportionately burdened the 
health and environment of our Nation's most vulnerable 
communities.
    A University of Washington and Stanford University study 
lays these alarming facts bare for all to see: Black and low-
income people have the highest risk of death from pollution 
linked to energy production. This awful truth is compounded by 
the fact that these same communities lack adequate access to 
clean energy solutions.
    As an illustration, a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
report shows that low-income households represent only 15 
percent of the U.S. solar energy adaptations. The vast majority 
of these low-income households instead rely on environmentally 
polluting alternatives. In addition to this, DoE's Low-Income 
Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool shows that the national average 
energy burden for the percentage of gross income spent on 
energy costs is three times higher for low-income households 
than for non-low-income households.
    Frankly, the poor pays more for its energy needs even 
though these very same needs are met with disastrous outcomes. 
These inequities also affect rural communities, and they face 
some of the highest energy burdens of any U.S. household group.
    With these factors in mind and given that the clean energy 
transition is already underway, it is incumbent upon this body 
to advance policies that ensure resilient, reliable, and 
equitable clean energy systems for all. The CLEAN Future Act 
includes a series of policy proposals that seem to balance the 
scales by delivering clean energy solutions to our Nation's 
underserved and disadvantaged communities.
    The CLEAN Energy Future Act also includes my bill, the 
Energy Equity Act of 2021, which would provide everyone more 
access to clean energy technologies through the creation of an 
Energy Equity Office within the Department of Energy.
    I applaud the Biden-Harris administration for their work to 
ensure that underserved and disadvantaged communities receive 
their fair share of benefits through their Justice40 
initiative. I also applaud Secretary Granholm for recruiting 
Ms. Shalanda H. Baker, a clean energy justice leader, who is 
working to integrate the Department of Energy's mission around 
this very work. Therefore, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues across the aisle toward those ends.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    Good morning. The Subcommittee on Energy convenes today as 
a continuation of its work to advance a 21st century clean 
energy system with the principles of equity and justice chief 
in mind. Historically, the impacts of climate change and the 
consumption and production of energy have disproportionately 
burdened the health and environments of our Nation's most 
vulnerable communities. A University of Washington and Stanford 
University study lays this alarming fact bare: Black and low-
income people face the highest risk for death from pollution 
linked to energy production.
    This truth is compounded by the fact that these same 
communities lack adequate access to clean energy solutions. As 
an illustration, a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report 
shows that low-income households represent only 15 percent of 
U.S. solar adoptions. The vast majority of these low-income 
households, instead, rely on polluting alternatives. In 
addition to this, the Department of Energy's Low-Income Energy 
Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool shows that the national average 
energy burden, or the percentage of gross household income 
spent on energy costs, is three times higher for low-income 
households than for non-low-income household. Frankly speaking, 
it really is costly to be poor. These inequities also affect 
rural families, as they face some of the highest energy burdens 
of any U.S. household group. With these factors in mind--and 
given that the clean energy transition is already underway--it 
is incumbent upon this body to advance policies that ensure a 
resilient, reliable, and equitable clean energy system for all.
    The CLEAN Future Act includes a series of policy proposals 
that seek to balance the scales by delivering clean energy 
solutions to our Nation's underserved and disadvantaged 
communities. These policies--many of which were created with 
input from my esteemed colleagues from this subcommittee--
include efforts to deploy a clean energy standard, distributed 
energy systems, and community and low-income solar. The CLEAN 
Future Act also includes my bill, the Energy Equity Act of 
2021, which would drive equitable access to clean energy 
technologies through the creation of an energy equity office 
within the Department of Energy.
    The threat that climate change poses to our communities--
especially the most vulnerable among us--requires a whole of 
government approach. With this in mind, I applaud the Biden-
Harris administration for their work to ensure that underserved 
and disadvantaged communities receive their fair share of 
benefits through their Justice40 Initiative. I also applaud 
Secretary Granholm for recruiting Ms. Shalanda H. Baker, a key 
energy justice thought leader, who is working to further 
integrate the Department of Energy's mission around this work.
    Bipartisanship is equally important to the creation of just 
and equitable policies. Therefore, I look forward to working 
with my colleagues across the aisle toward those ends.
    And with that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.

    Mr. Rush. With that I want to yield to my dear friend, the 
great gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, the one and 
only Mr. Frederick Upton.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 
with you. It is nice to see you down the hallway, I think, 
right? I want to thank our witnesses as well, and certainly I 
look forward to today's hearing that is going to explore the 
opportunities to take full advantage of America's energy 
abundance, our economic strength, our spirit for innovation.
    We're also going to examine what is at stake with the Biden 
administration's Executive orders attacking American energy 
production and manufacturing and also the majority's CLEAN 
Future Act, which would enforce a de facto ban on hydraulic 
fracturing, pipeline infrastructure, and even plastic 
manufacturing.
    Over the last decade the U.S. has become the world's 
leading producer of oil and natural gas, and we are proud of 
that. And as a result we import less from the Middle East, and 
we're certainly more energy secure today than ever before. And 
thanks to hydraulic fracturing and the shale revolution in a 
good number of States, we are all reaping those benefits in the 
form of good-paying jobs and, yes, affordable and reliable 
energy at a much reduced cost than otherwise it would have 
been.
    So today we're going to hear from Gillette Mayor Louise 
Carter-King and Mr. Perez. Jobs in fossil energy, mining, and 
manufacturing certainly provide meaningful, family-sustaining 
work for millions. States and local governments also rely on 
those revenues to pay for hospitals, schools and roads.
    We're not just talking about a few people's livelihoods. 
We're talking about entire communities who could be harmed by a 
transition to lower-paying jobs, poorer performing schools and, 
yes, underfunded local government services under this CLEAN 
Future Act.
    So, as we discuss this so-called just transition that 
certain friends across the aisle are advocating for, let's 
review some of the recent history to remind ourselves how we 
got to where we are today. From the days of the gas lines in 
the 1970s--and yes, I remember those--to the mid-2000s, America 
was trapped in an energy scarcity mindset. Energy prices always 
seemed to be going up. Our domestic production was, in fact, 
declining, and we faced ever-growing dependence on oil from the 
Middle East.
    In 2008, something remarkable began to happen within the 
energy industry. In the face of global economic recession, 
private companies started investing billions of dollars in new 
technologies to unlock oil and gas from America's shale 
resources that, in fact, had been overlooked, and thanks to the 
free market and States with pro-growth regulatory policies, 
domestic production flourished and we were able to cut our 
imports from more than 2 million barrels a day to zero. Not 
bad.
    In fact, in 2020, for the first time in our history, we 
became net energy exporters. Today, as a result of the shale 
revolution and the rise of natural gas production, we are also 
leading the world in carbon emission reductions--a good thing--
and we didn't need the top-down Federal mandate, a price on 
carbon, or even the Paris Agreement to get there, either. We 
owe that to the free market and competition that rewards 
efficiency and innovation.
    So let's recognize that the States and local governments 
rather than maybe the Federal Government are the primary 
drivers of the trends that we see today, which is why I believe 
it is so important to hear from our mayors and the workers who 
live and work in those communities.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the 
testimony, engaging with the witnesses, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, to our witnesses, 
for appearing before us today virtually to provide your 
testimony.
    I look forward to today's hearing to explore opportunities 
to take full advantage of America's energy abundance, our 
economic strength, and our spirit for innovation. We will also 
examine what's at stake with the Biden administration's 
Executive orders attacking American energy production and 
manufacturing, and also the majority's CLEAN Future Act, which 
would enforce de facto bans on hydraulic fracturing, pipeline 
infrastructure, and plastics manufacturing.
    Over the last decade, the United States has become the 
world's leading producer of oil and natural gas. As a result, 
we import less from the Middle East and we are more energy 
secure today than ever before. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing 
and the shale revolution, we are all reaping these benefits in 
the form of good-paying jobs and affordable and reliable 
energy.
    As we will hear from Gillette Mayor Louise Carter-King and 
Mr. Perez, jobs in fossil energy, mining, and manufacturing 
provide meaningful, family sustaining work for millions of 
Americans. States and local governments also rely upon the 
revenues to pay for hospitals, schools, and roads. We are not 
just talking about a few people's livelihoods. We are talking 
about entire communities who could be harmed by a 
``transition'' to lower paying jobs, poorer performing schools, 
and underfunded local government services under the CLEAN 
Future Act.
    As we discuss the so-called ``just transition'' that my 
friends across the aisle are advocating for, let us review some 
recent history to remind ourselves how we got where we are 
today.
    From the days of gas lines in the 1970s until the mid-
2000's America was trapped in an energy scarcity mindset--
energy prices were going up, our domestic production was 
declining, and we faced ever-growing dependence on oil from the 
Middle East.
    In 2008, something remarkable began to happen within the 
energy industry. In the face of the global economic recession, 
private companies started investing billions of dollars in new 
technologies to unlock oil and gas from America's shale 
resources that had been overlooked. Thanks to the free market 
and States with pro-growth regulatory policies, domestic 
production flourished, and we were able to cut our imports from 
more than 2 million barrels a day to zero barrels per day. In 
2020, for the first time in our history, we became net energy 
exporters.
    Today, as a result of the shale revolution and the rise of 
natural gas, we are also leading the world in carbon emissions 
reductions, and we didn't need a topdown Federal mandate, a 
price on carbon, or the Paris Agreement to get there either. We 
owe that to the free market and competition that rewards 
efficiency and innovation.
    Let us also recognize that the States and local 
governments--rather than the Federal Government--are the 
primary drivers of the trends we see today, which is why I 
believe it so important to hear from our mayors and the workers 
who live and work in the community.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony 
engaging with witnesses. Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 
from the great State of New Jersey, Mr. Franklin ``Frank'' 
Pallone. Chairman Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 
the purposes of an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. This is an important 
hearing. I know that you've been a champion for ensuring 
inclusion of underserved communities and communities of color 
in the clean energy transition, including the bill that you 
recently introduced, the Energy Equity Act of 2021. So I know 
how important this issue is for you.
    And we're going to talk today about how we can improve 
clean energy access inequity, which is a critical part of our 
efforts to tackle the climate crisis. The equitable deployment 
of clean energy technologies is crucial for our energy 
transition. We have to ensure that all communities have access 
to the environmental benefits and economic opportunities of 
clean energy.
    The committee has held several hearings on this critical 
topic. Last Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing on 
energy burdens faced by low-income communities and communities 
of color and how the pandemic exacerbated those burdens, and 
last week the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee held 
the hearing on important legislation to address the needs of 
environmental justice communities, and through these hearings 
we have heard about the urgent needs of these communities and 
we have explored different strategies to address existing and 
longstanding disparities.
    The equitable deployment of clean energy will produce a lot 
of positive results. It will improve local air quality, help us 
to meet climate goals, stabilize and lower energy prices, 
provide access to good jobs, and help stimulate local economies 
in both urban or rural areas. And for too long underserved 
communities and communities of color have disproportionately 
faced the negative effects of fossil fuel generation and 
climate change. These communities are often the most impacted 
by the climate crisis and our country's history of reliance on 
fossil fuels because they are oftentimes located in close 
proximity to power plants or urban heat islands.
    They also frequently endure housing conditions that lack 
proper weatherization, and by gaining access to clean energy 
technology such as through community solar subscriptions or 
energy efficiency upgrades these households can see reduced 
energy burdens and health risks as well as increased economic 
opportunity.
    So I think we all know that the energy industry is 
changing, and this is good news for our efforts to tackle the 
climate crisis and to create good-paying jobs for American 
workers. According to the 2020 U.S. Energy and Employment 
Report, solar and wind jobs paid higher wages than those in the 
fossil fuel sector, and the clean energy sector employed 
roughly three times more workers than the fossil fuel sector in 
2019.
    And despite these promising trends I believe the Federal 
Government needs to do more to speed up and incentivize the 
clean energy transition, and that is exactly what we accomplish 
with the CLEAN Future Act, a plan to combat the climate crisis 
and achieve net zero greenhouse gas pollution by no later than 
2050. And our bill includes several provisions that support 
clean energy development and deployment, including in 
underserved areas. It also includes a robust set of provisions 
on workforce development in transition.
    This is the kind of comprehensive approach that we have to 
take. I outright reject the notion that we must choose between 
addressing climate change and the communities that currently 
rely on fossil fuel jobs. That is a false choice, because that 
transition is already happening. For example, market forces are 
already driving down coal revenue. Coal generation fell 10 
percent from 29 percent in 2017 to 19 percent in 2020.
    And clean energy is the future, and it is time that we 
worked together to ensure that these communities don't get left 
behind. Yesterday the Nation's largest mining union put out a 
document about this transition. And they said, and I quote, 
``Change is coming whether we seek it or not.'' And the 
president of the mining union said, and I quote, ``We're on the 
side of job creation, of a future for our people.'' And I just 
want to say emphatically, so are we.
    Make no mistake. The rest of the word is already embarking 
on a major transition to clean technology. We simply can't 
stand idly by as the world moves on without us and American 
workers and industries get left behind. I don't want that to 
happen. So it is time we come together to ensure everyone 
regardless of who they are or where they live has access to 
cleaner, cheaper energy and the jobs that come with growth in 
the clean energy sector. That is what this hearing is about.
    And I want to thank you again, Chairman Rush, because this 
has always been at the forefront of your concerns, and that is 
why you're having this hearing today. Thanks again. I yield 
back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding this important 
hearing on deploying a just and clean energy future. Chairman 
Rush has been a champion for ensuring inclusion of underserved 
communities and communities of color in the clean energy 
transition, including through his recently introduced bill, the 
Energy Equity Act of 2021.
    Today we will discuss how we can improve clean energy 
access and equity, which is a critical part of our efforts to 
tackle the climate crisis. The equitable deployment of clean 
energy technologies is crucial for our energy transition. We 
must ensure that all communities have access to the 
environmental benefits and economic opportunities of clean 
energy.
    The committee has held several hearings on this critical 
topic. Last Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing on 
energy burdens faced by low-income communities and communities 
of color and how the pandemic exacerbated these burdens. And 
last week the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee held 
a hearing on important legislation to address the needs of 
environmental justice communities. Through these hearings, we 
have heard about the urgent needs of these communities and we 
have explored different strategies to address existing and 
long-standing disparities.
    The equitable deployment of clean energy will produce a lot 
of positive results. It will improve local air quality, help us 
meet climate goals, stabilize and lower energy prices, provide 
access to good jobs, and help stimulate local economies in both 
urban or rural areas.
    For too long, underserved communities and communities of 
color have disproportionately faced the negative effects of 
fossil fuel generation and climate change. These communities 
are often the most impacted by the climate crisis and our 
country's history of reliance on fossil fuels because they are 
oftentimes located in close proximity to power plants or urban 
heat islands. They also frequently endure housing conditions 
that lack proper weatherization. By gaining access to clean 
energy technology, such as through community solar 
subscriptions or energy efficiency upgrades, these households 
can see reduced energy burdens and health risks, as well as 
increased economic opportunity.
    The energy industry is changing and this is good news for 
our efforts to tackle the climate crisis and to create good-
paying jobs for American workers. According to the 2020 U.S. 
Energy and Employment Report solar and wind jobs paid higher 
wages than those in the fossil fuel sector. And, the clean 
energy sector employed roughly three times more workers than 
the fossil fuel sector in 2019.
    Despite these promising trends, I believe the Federal 
Government needs to do more to speed up and incentivize the 
clean energy transition. And that is exactly what we accomplish 
with the CLEAN Future Act, a plan to combat the climate crisis 
and achieve net zero greenhouse gas pollution by no later than 
2050. Our bill includes several provisions that support clean 
energy development and deployment, including in underserved 
areas. It also includes a robust set of provisions on workforce 
development and transition.
    This is the kind of comprehensive approach that we must 
take. I outright reject claims that we must choose between 
addressing climate change and the communities that currently 
rely on fossil fuel jobs. That's a false choice because this 
transition is already happening. Market forces are already 
driving down coal revenue. Coal generation fell 10 percent from 
29 percent in 2017 to 19 percent in 2020. Clean energy is the 
future and it is time that we work together to ensure these 
communities don't get left behind.
    Yesterday, the Nation's largest mining union put out a 
document about the transition, saying ``Change is coming, 
whether we seek it or not.'' Its president said: ``We're on the 
side of job creation, of a future for our people.'' So are we.
    Make no mistake--the rest of the world is already embarking 
on a major transition to clean technology. We simply cannot 
stand idly by as the world moves on without us and American 
workers and industries get left behind.
    It is time we come together to ensure everyone--regardless 
of who they are or where they live--has access to cleaner, 
cheaper energy and the jobs that come with growth in the clean 
energy sector.

    Mr. Pallone. I think he is--do you hear him, guys? I don't. 
Bobby, I think you're muted.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was muted.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the great 
State of Washington, Ms. McMorris Rodgers, the ranking member 
of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an 
opening statement.

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

    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and everyone.
    Mr. Rush. Good morning.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning. And to the chairman of the full 
committee I just want to say on behalf of the Republicans that 
we, too, support clean energy, but it doesn't just mean wind 
and solar. It is hydro. It is nuclear. It is natural gas. 
America is leading the way on all kinds of clean energy 
sources.
    It is great to be with all of you today. Making sure people 
have access to affordable, reliable energy must remain a 
priority of this committee's work on energy. Americans have led 
the world in lifting people out of poverty, raising the 
standard of living, and we must recognize the tremendous value 
of our existing energy system. It is central for expanding 
economic growth and spreading opportunity. The evidence is in 
plain sight. The shale revolution has brought tremendous 
opportunities, an American energy renaissance. It has 
revitalized communities with hundreds of billions of dollars in 
economic activity, thousands of new jobs. It has meant the 
equivalent of about $2,500 extra in the average family's annual 
budget, with low-income households benefiting the most from 
reduced energy burdens.
    It has raised the promise of a better quality of life for 
families along the Ohio River Valley, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
West Virginia. It has increased opportunity through Texas, New 
Mexico and from Wyoming to California, helping people of all 
incomes. To continue to address energy poverty and climate 
risks Republicans. seek to build on these current achievements 
in energy and economic opportunity.
    We also want to keep electricity rates low. I have noted in 
several recent hearings the Department of Energy data on energy 
poverty and how new regulatory regimes will raise electricity 
rates and stretch the family's budget's last dollar. Instead we 
should focus on innovative energy technologies that will reduce 
emissions while using all of our resources, including hydro, 
natural gas, nuclear as outlined by the E&C Republicans' 
Securing Cleaner American Energy agenda. Many of the Securing 
Cleaner American Energy bills are included in the Energy 
Innovation Agenda launched this week by House Republicans.
    We are committed. The Energy Innovation Agenda focuses on 
innovation, clean energy, conservation policies for tackling 
climate change risk, building energy infrastructure and 
developing new technologies, because to win the future we 
should be about building not dismantling American opportunity.
    Unfortunately, dismantling is a feature of the CLEAN Future 
Act and the administration's job-crushing agenda. The rush to 
green undermines many of the goals we all share to address 
energy poverty. For example, the CLEAN Future Act will restrict 
permitting of the kind of projects that provide good jobs and 
raise community prosperity. They would restrict natural gas 
development and supply for jobs, low energy rates, and even the 
expansion of renewable energy.
    Provisions in the CLEAN Future Act would force top-down 
Federal requirements on State regulation of hydraulic 
fracturing, dismantling the proven innovation and this approach 
that has helped drive the shale revolution.
    Two witnesses this morning, Jose Perez of Hispanics In 
Energy, and Louise Carter-King, Mayor of Gillette, Wyoming, 
will talk about the trillions of dollars of new economic 
opportunity in the oil and gas development and how this 
American resource fits into a cleaner energy future that 
benefits everyone. The pace of transformation in the majority 
bill makes no time for the practical reality of ensuring the 
lights stay on when people need it most.
    California is a case study for what can go wrong. Its 
unrealistic policies have driven the growth of weather-
dependent, unreliable solar and wind and shuttered natural gas, 
nuclear, and other traditional generators while all the time 
driving up electricity rates. California's policies have 
dismantled large amounts of base load and generation when the 
wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. A review of the 
National Regulatory Research Institute shows California's 
dreams have created a huge gap in reliable, affordable energy.
    When the sun goes down and the energy demand goes up, all 
those homes that enjoyed inexpensive power during the day--now 
the grid has a huge spike in demand. We see this happen every 
summer. My friends in California are having to buy generators. 
This is resulting in unreliable and expensive energy.
    I'm proud of the work of this committee. America is energy 
independent. It was a goal that we had for decades. We're 
leading the way in bringing down carbon emission. Let us avoid 
the California experiment and make sure that America continues 
to lead with affordable and reliable energy.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Making sure people have access to affordable, reliable 
energy must remain a priority in this committee's work on 
energy policy.
    We must recognize the tremendous value of our existing 
energy system, its central role for expanding economic growth 
and spreading opportunity. The evidence is in plain sight.
    The shale revolution has brought tremendous opportunities 
and America's energy renaissance. This has revitalized 
communities, with hundreds of billions in economic activity, 
thousands of new jobs.
    It's meant the equivalent of about $2,500 extra in the 
average family's annual budget--with low-income households 
benefiting the most from reduced energy burdens. It's raised 
the promise of a better quality of life for families along the 
Ohio River Valley--in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia.
    It's increased opportunity through Texas, New Mexico and 
from Wyoming to California--helping people of all incomes. To 
continue to address energy poverty and climate risks, 
Republicans seek to build on these current achievements in 
energy and economic opportunity. We also want to keep 
electricity rates low.
    I've noted in several recent hearings the Department of 
Energy data on energy poverty, and how new regulatory regimes 
will raise electricity rates and stretch a family budget's last 
dollar. Instead, we should foster the innovative energy 
technologies that will reduce emissions while using all our 
resources including hydro power, natural gas, nuclear--as 
outlined in E&C Republicans' Securing Cleaner American Energy 
agenda. Many of the Securing Cleaner American Energy bills are 
included in the Energy Innovation Agenda launched just this 
week by House Republicans.
    The Energy Innovation Agenda focuses on innovation, clean 
energy, and conservation policies for tackling climate change 
risks, building energy infrastructure, and developing new 
technologies. Because to win the future, we should be about 
building, not dismantling American opportunity.
    Unfortunately, dismantling is a feature of the Democrats' 
CLEAN Future Act and the administration's job-crushing agenda. 
The rush-to-green undermines many of the goals we all share to 
address energy poverty.
    For example, the CLEAN Future Act would restrict permitting 
for the kind of projects that provide good jobs and raise 
community prosperity. They would restrict natural gas 
development and supply essential to jobs, low electricity 
rates, and even the expansion of renewable energy.
    Provisions in the CLEAN Future Act also would force top-
down Federal requirements on State regulation of hydraulic 
fracturing--dismantling the pro-innovation regulatory approach 
that helped drive the shale revolution. Two witnesses this 
morning--Jose Perez of Hispanics In Energy and Louise Carter-
King, Mayor of Gillette, Wyoming--will talk about the trillions 
of dollars of new economic opportunity in our oil and gas 
development and how this American resource fits into a cleaner 
energy future that benefits everyone.
    The pace of ``transformation'' in the majority's bills 
makes no time for the practical reality of ensuring the lights 
stay on when people most need it.
    California's downfall remains the case study for what can 
go wrong here. Its unrealistic decarbonization policies have 
driven the growth of weather-dependent solar and wind 
resources, and shuttered natural gas, nuclear, and other 
traditional generators all while driving electricity rates up.
    California State policies essentially dismantled large 
amounts of the baseload and dispatchable generation needed when 
wind and solar come up short. A recent review by the National 
Regulatory Research Institute shows California's green dreams 
have created a huge resource gap that undermines reliable 
delivery of energy.
    Much of the solar resources encouraged by State policies 
are outside the control of system operators, sitting behind the 
meter on customer rooftops. When the sun goes down and energy 
demand goes up, all those homes that enjoyed inexpensive power 
during the day, come onto the California grid in a huge demand 
spike.
    We saw this summer what happens when the resources are not 
available to meet the spike. California's experiment shows the 
relentless rush to accommodate decarbonization goals can 
backfire.
    Republican policies led to an American energy renaissance 
that created jobs, decreased emissions, and increased our 
security. Following California and the CLEAN Future Act will 
take us back to the dark ages.
    We must avoid following California's path and instead focus 
our policy efforts on ensuring affordable and reliable energy 
the resources and innovations to accomplish that and the 
American energy workers who keep the lights on.

    Mrs. Rodgers. And with that I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair would like 
to remind all Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statements shall remain part of the 
record.
    Now it is my fervent and distinct honor to welcome our 
esteemed witnesses for today's hearing. I would like to thank 
each and every one of them for taking time out from their 
precious days to come before this committee. I'm going to 
introduce them to you now, and I hope that I am pronouncing 
their names correctly.
    The first witness is Mr. Subin DeVar, who is the director 
of the Initiative For Energy Justice; Ms. Chandra Farley, Just 
Energy director for the Partnership for Southern Equity; Mr. 
Donnel Baird, chief executive officer of BlocPower; Mr. Jose L. 
Perez, president and chief executive officer of Hispanics In 
Energy; and Ms. Louise Carter-King, the mayor of the City of 
Gillette.
    I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses again 
for joining us for today's hearing, and we look forward to your 
testimony.
    Mr. DeVar, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

  STATEMENTS OF SUBIN DeVAR, DIRECTOR, INITIATIVE FOR ENERGY 
  JUSTICE; KIRAN BHATRAJU, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARCADIA; 
CHANDRA FARLEY, JUST ENERGY DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIP FOR SOUTHERN 
EQUITY; DONNEL BAIRD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BLOCPOWER; JOSE 
 L. PEREZ, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HISPANICS IN 
   ENERGY; AND LOUISE CARTER-KING, MAYOR, CITY OF GILLETTE, 
                            WYOMING

                    STATEMENT OF SUBIN DeVAR

    Mr. DeVar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Rush, Mr. Ranking Member 
Upton, and members of the committee. My name is Subin DeVar, 
director of the Initiative For Energy Justice, and I am honored 
to testify on equity in the deployment of clean energy.
    The COVID-19 vaccine deployment provides a useful point of 
comparison for our conversation today. Experts knew we needed 
to have a phased deployment of the vaccine given the time 
necessary to vaccinate millions of Americans. There was a 
recent debate about the priority groups, and in the end 
efficiency used logical and ethical parameters to set phases of 
vaccine deployment focusing first on vaccinating frontline 
workers and vulnerable populations.
    Equity in the energy system is not that different. You 
can't transition the whole system all at once, so how do you do 
it in the most fair and broadly impactful way? That is energy 
equity, the just distribution of the holistic benefits of the 
energy system, including nonenergy benefits such as economic 
and health benefits. It particularly focuses on remediating the 
harms of the existing pollution-heavy energy system centering 
frontline communities and vulnerable populations.
    A simple way to think about energy equity is in terms of 
who benefits from the energy system and how much people benefit 
from the energy system. I will discuss both of these topics in 
turn in the context of obstacles to the equitable deployment of 
clean energy.
    First, there are two key obstacles regarding equity and who 
benefits from clean energy. One, most energy regulatory 
jurisdictions do not have comprehensive definitions and 
strategies for target customer groups to pay special attention 
to in the transition. Without such definitions it is impossible 
to accurately assess the state of equity in clean energy 
deployment or to implement effective solutions.
    Therefore, my first recommendation is to identify priority 
groups or, in other words, marginalized or underserved 
communities. This should include mapping geographically defined 
groups based on cumulative health impacts and demographic data 
as well as other volatile populations such as low-income 
households, customers who rely on home electricity to power 
medical equipment, fossil fuel workers, rural and Tribal 
communities.
    The second obstacle to ensuring that marginalized 
communities benefit from the energy system is the absence of 
their voice, insight, and perspective at the stage of energy 
system design and policymaking. In response to this obstacle, 
my second recommendation is to invest in robust outreach, 
inclusive practices for soliciting feedback and providing 
resources, including financial compensation, for community 
participation in rulemaking.
    Next is the question of how much do various groups benefit 
from clean energy. There are two primary obstacles regarding 
equity in this sense. One, the absence of equity goals and 
metrics is a fundamental barrier to people benefiting from the 
whole suite of potential clean energy benefits. Accordingly, my 
third recommendation is to require the equitable distribution 
of clean energy benefits, including a minimum of 40 percent of 
benefits targeted to marginalized and underserved communities. 
Enforceable accountability mechanisms should track and report 
on metrics of benefits every few years or every decade 
alongside decarbonization targets.
    A final obstacle is that overly broad clean energy 
requirements combined with the profit incentive of investor-
owned utilities could fail to prioritize specific approaches to 
clean energy that maximize public benefits across different 
sectors. So my fourth recommendation is to focus on renewable 
distributed and community-led energy resources.
    A Federal clean electricity standard, for example, should 
allow only energy that meets international definitions of 
renewable energy, require that at least two-thirds of 
electricity come from distributed energy resources and that at 
least 25 percent of energy generation is community-led through 
nonprofits, cooperatives, or public entities.
    To close, I'd like to reiterate my main points. Equity can 
be understood in terms of who benefits and how much people 
benefit from the energy system. Second, inequities regarding 
who benefits from clean energy can be mitigated by, one, 
identifying priority groups including through mapping and, two, 
investing in meaningful community participation.
    Third and finally, inequities regarding how much Americans 
benefit from clean energy can be addressed by requiring the 
accounting of benefits and advancing renewable distributed and 
community-led energy resources
    Thank you. Look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. DeVar follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Thanks. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
failed to introduce one of the witnesses for today's panel. I 
want to introduce right now Mr. Kiran Bhatraju, and Mr. 
Bhatraju is the chief executive officer of Arcadia Power. Mr. 
Bhatraju, please forgive me. It was a failure of the head and 
not the heart. So welcome to our subcommittee hearing.

                  STATEMENT OF KIRAN BHATRAJU

    Mr. Bhatraju. Good morning. First I'd like to thank you, 
Chairman Rush--and no offense taken--and Ranking Member Upton 
for inviting me and acknowledge Chairman Pallone and Ranking 
Member McMorris Rodgers as well.
    I'm glad to be here today to talk about how we can combat 
climate change, spur economic growth, and also lower consumer 
power bills with community solar. I'm Kiran Bhatraju. I'm the 
founder and CEO of Arcadia. We're a software company making it 
easy for customers anywhere to choose clean energy in all 50 
States no matter where you live, whether you rent or own, and 
no matter how much you make. Our software platform has enabled 
over a billion dollars in Energy investments in communities 
across the country.
    Before I talk a bit more about community solar and my 
company's work, I want to talk a bit about why this topic is so 
important to me. I was raised in Pike County, Kentucky, in the 
heart of coal country. In elementary school we took a field 
trip into a coal mine, and my father, who is a physician, 
treated black lung patients. Today I run a company that serves 
customers in all 50 States, and I can tell you that people 
everywhere are extremely interested in solar energy, 
Republicans and Democrats all over the country.
    In Kentucky, they want to talk about solar because they 
want to hear about economic development resilience and job 
opportunities in light of a transition away from coal. In 
cities, they want to hear about solar because of the threat of 
climate change. People everywhere want to save money, and in 
both places people think solar is hard. They think you have the 
wrong roof, you have no roof. or that you can never afford it, 
and that is when I like to tell then that the answer is 
community solar.
    Simply put, this is the best way for everyone to access the 
benefits of solar energy no matter your income, whether you 
rent or own, or how much sun hits your particular roof. By 
joining a community solar project, customers get guaranteed 
savings, and that is important. It is guaranteed savings 
against the traditional utility rate. There is no long-term 
commitment, no upfront cost, and if you move, your solar can 
move with you. And all of that is from a new resilient 
distributed solar project nearby, not one on their roof.
    It is hands down the best energy product in America, and 
I'm not just saying that because my company works in community 
solar. It is the reason I started this company. Literally 
everyone would be better off if they joined a resilient 
community solar project.
    Today our software is delivering savings to customers in 
eight States, including a lot of places represented by folks on 
this subcommittee. For some examples, we manage a project in 
Kankakee County, Illinois, saving customers close to 10 percent 
on their power bills. We managed the first project in New York 
incorporating battery storage in Yorktown Heights, and we 
manage a project in Logan County, Colorado, where the proceeds 
from the leased land benefit the State's school trust.
    These are just a handful of our projects. We have got 185 
projects across the country. Community solar is particularly 
important, and I know it is new, so I want to make this point 
very clear, is that it is the only way for the majority of 
Americans to actually share in the benefits of solar. Only a 
third of American households can put a power plant on their 
roof. The families who are excluded from rooftop solar because 
they rent, because they have a low credit score--these are 
disproportionately people of color, women-led households, or 
people without college degrees.
    Community solar, on the other hand, is available to 
everyone who can pay a power bill. It doesn't matter if you 
have a roof or can put a power plant on your roof. And so these 
are so unique because they are offsite.
    A lot of our projects are actually found on farmland. If 
you're a farmer struggling with prices and you have got some 
land that isn't great for farming, getting a lease payment from 
a solar project might just be your lifeline. In fact, in 
Pennsylvania the Farm Bureau is actually promoting community 
solar because farmers can get thousands of dollars a year in 
lease payments, basically a lifeline for their families.
    Our projects are also often located in economically 
distressed areas. Close to 22 percent of our projects are in 
what are called opportunity zones representing millions of 
dollars of investment in places that need it the most. So what 
I'm describing to you is just one of the most exciting 
competitive energy trends happening in America today. It is 
happening everywhere--red States, blue States, deregulated and 
regulated markets--and it can work everywhere.
    The problem is other States need to catch up. The best way 
to do that is to pass a law that would require public utility 
commissions to consider a community solar program. The proposal 
was introduced in the last Congress as the Community Solar 
Consumer Choice Act, and the same language is in Section 225 of 
the CLEAN Future Act. And to be clear, this legislation only 
asks States to consider. They can do what they want and embrace 
community solar when they learn more about the equity and the 
benefits.
    I'll just close by saying my job as CEO of this company is 
to make it easy for people to use clean energy and to help them 
save money. I've been doing this since 2014, and hands down 
community solar is the only way to make that mission a reality. 
I'm incredibly excited to be here and talk to you about this 
new segment of solar today. Thanks for having me, and I look 
forward to answering any questions you have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatraju follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yield back. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Farley for 5 minutes for the purposes of an 
opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF CHANDRA FARLEY

    Ms. Farley. Thank you. Good morning to Honorable Chairman 
Bobby Rush, Ranking Member Upton and all members of the 
Subcommittee on Energy. Thank you for the opportunity to 
provide this testimony today. My name is Chandra Farley, and I 
am the Just Energy director at the Partnership for Southern 
Equity, a racial equity organization based in Atlanta, Georgia.
    The American South is a region laid bare by racial, 
economic, and class inequities due to the legacy of slavery. 
These facile barriers have hampered the opportunity for Black 
communities, community of color, rural and low-wealth 
communities to lend their perspective to the shaping of their 
clean energy future. To combat this we created Just Energy, our 
framework for advancing energy equity, which we define as the 
fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of energy 
production and consumption. We advance Just Energy through 
relationship-centered strategies like organizing that build 
civic power with communities across the South.
    The data is clear: Historically disinvested communities in 
the South bear a disproportionate burden of the negative 
impacts of our climate emergency and carbon-based energy 
production. The South experiences a higher frequency of 
billion-dollar climate disaster events than any other region. 
The Southeast is home to 84 percent of all U.S. counties that 
experience persistent poverty.
    Some of the biggest carbon polluters in the power sector 
are in the South, and southern States rank at the bottom of 
lists for energy efficiency policies and programs while also 
consistently posting the highest rankings for energy burden. 
Pile on the fact that we now have millions of laid-off and 
unemployed workers that are losing access to their utilities 
due to the economic fallout from COVID, you can see why Just 
Energy is an urgent and pressing matter.
    The CLEAN Future Act can deliver on many of the Just Energy 
policies and community accountability tools that address 
systematic issues and generate equity through increased 
deployment of clean distributed and democratic energy by 
focusing on four main strategies: reducing energy burdens by 
lowering utility bills and stabilizing energy costs through 
clean energy investments like weatherization, energy 
efficiency, rooftop solar, and community microgrids; two, 
improving household financial stability by providing thriving-
wage job opportunities and supporting clean energy 
entrepreneurship that can lift people out of poverty and 
advance an economic inclusion agenda; three, reducing harmful 
carbon emissions that pollute our air and exacerbate 
disproportionate impact of this pollution on environmental 
injustice communities through the Environmental Justice for All 
Act; and four, promoting clean-energy-centric economic 
development that builds community wealth.
    The levels of funding now possible across energy, water, 
housing, transportation, and broadband sectors presents a 
transformative opportunity for reparation and restoration of 
historically disinvested communities that are locked out of the 
clean energy transition. This movement moment is meeting 
critically needed investment mechanisms such as the Clean 
Energy and Sustainability Accelerator. Combined with the 
Justice40 initiative that must be frontline community informed, 
the $100 billion commitment for the Clean Energy and 
Sustainability Accelerator can transform the underlying systems 
of racial oppression while building lasting institutional 
change.
    We must also commit to taking care of the fossil fuel and 
coal country communities that have kept this country growing 
for the last 150 years. Through proposals such as reforming the 
Rural Utility Service Hardship Loan Program, we could direct 
$100 billion to facilitate the retirement of coal plants in 
exchange for new investment in distributed energy resources, 
high-speed broadbands, storage, and electric transportation.
    When we ask ourselves how deploying a just and clean energy 
future can generate equity, we must recall the definition of 
equity itself: just and fair inclusion. An equitable society is 
one in which all can participate, prosper, and reach their full 
potential. We also need a racially equitable society, one where 
society's benefits nor burdens would be skewed by race.
    In short, an equitable and just transition creates an 
antiracist path from hope to change. Together we can flip the 
systematic inequities imbedded in our social, economic and 
environmental systems to a forward-thinking, equitable, and 
regenerative future. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Farley follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Rush. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Baird for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 
statement. Mr. Baird, you're recognized.

                   STATEMENT OF DONNEL BAIRD

    Mr. Baird. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm 
delighted to be here and have the chance to virtually meet the 
Honorable Bobby Rush, who is the only human being who ever 
defeated Barack Obama in an election head to head--and whipped 
him good, is what I understand. My name is Donnel Baird, and I 
run a climate tech startup called BlocPower. We focus on 
analyzing, financing, and installing efficient and all-electric 
equipment in low-income buildings.
    Clean energy in low-income buildings across America is 
central to economic recovery in all of our communities and 
central to the survival of our species as human beings on this 
planet. I am on the board of the Climate Reality Project with 
Vice President Al Gore, Columbia University's Entrepreneurship 
Committee, the Sierra Club Foundation, the Sunrise Movement, 
Better Markets, the New York City Workforce Development Board, 
the New York City Tech Alliance, and the New York Federal 
Reserve Bank Advisory Board. All of these organizations must 
work together in order to ensure clean energy investments in 
low-income communities because it is complicated and it is 
hard.
    Community ownership of clean energy, energy efficiency and 
internet connectivity infrastructure must, in my view, be owned 
and controlled by low-income communities across America. Low-
income communities need ownership and equity, not just 
ownership in the sense of morality of ownership and equity in 
the sense of justice and equality but literal economic 
ownership, an equity ownership of stock, of shares of special 
purpose corporations that house infrastructure assets.
    In low-income communities, I know that we all see lots of 
waste. We see wasted fossil fuel energy in the buildings where 
we burn oil to overheat these buildings, and we see a waste of 
human potential due to high rates of unemployment, 
incarceration, poor education, and opioid addiction. I started 
my tech company to fix that waste both of fossil fuels and the 
waste of human potential.
    This is 2021, and this is America. This is not ancient 
Mesopotamia. We do not need to heat buildings across our 
country by burning dead dinosaurs in our basements and causing 
high asthma rates amongst our children. We can turn millions of 
buildings across America into Teslas, all-electric, healthy, 
using cutting-edge software and creating up to 25 million 
American jobs.
    Electrifying millions of American buildings will require 
sensors, smart grid, solar batteries, carbon capture and 
storage, the Internet of Things, cloud computing, mobile 
computing, edge computing. These are new industries that we can 
and will launch and own and manufacture right here in America, 
including in West Virginia. We believe that as many as 5 
million permanent jobs will be created.
    To date BlocPower has focused on learning how to finance 
and analyze and reduce fossil fuel waste and health disparities 
in New York City buildings in partnership with the New York 
State government, the New York City government, and Goldman 
Sachs. We've greened 1,100 apartment and community buildings in 
New York City and low-income communities. We've raised over $70 
million of private capital, including a $50 million loan from 
Goldman Sachs.
    We've designed a community-owned clean energy solar 
microgrid in part with New York State because community 
ownership of clean energy assets and internet broadband assets, 
again, is critical. We've launched a community-owned WiFi 
network to help low-income families in the Bronx who have no 
broadband access to have internet access, and in a few weeks 
that mesh system will serve millions of New Yorkers with free 
internet [audio malfunction].
    Mr. Rush. We've lost the sound, the audio. We've lost 
audio.
    Mr. Baird [continuing]. Caucasian 55-year-old white dudes, 
immigrants, students, Americans of all kinds to work in our 
company, and we've done this--in closing, we've learned a few 
quick things that I believe are useful to this committee. We 
believe that pay for performance public/private partnerships 
are critical because they combine the best thinking and 
learning from community groups, workers, finance, Wall Street, 
Silicon Valley, and the best and brightest in government policy 
and ensure that each and every taxpayer dollar that is spent is 
wisely invested and that performance is assured. We believe 
that we can leverage each dollar of taxpayer subsidy with $5 to 
$10 of private capital, which we have demonstrated in our 
partnership with Goldman Sachs to invest in clean energy and 
low-income communities.
    And in closing, clean energy must include low cost-internet 
connectivity at scale. All of the clean energy devices that we 
install require internet, and we must provide community 
internet in low-income communities, and that community internet 
must be owned by low-income communities, which is a core part 
of the White House plan. America has a unique opportunity in 
front of all of us right now----
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Baird, pardon me. You started out with such a 
bang, but your time has expired----
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush [continuing]. And will you bring your comments to 
a close.
    Mr. Baird. Yes, sir. We have opportunity to launch several 
new industries, and we should not waste it. Thank you, Mr. 
Chair.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Perez for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 
statement.
    Mr. Perez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF JOSE L. PEREZ

    Mr. Perez. My apologies. I didn't have the unmute button 
on. It is on now. Good morning. My name is Jose Perez, and I'm 
the president and CEO of Hispanics In Energy, and I want to 
make a few remarks before I get into my statement. And that is 
I want to personally thank you, Congressman Rush and 
Congressman Upton, for speaking at our former events, one in 
Chicago and one in Washington, DC. We really have followed your 
career and thank you very much for your service to this 
country.
    Let me begin by saying that Hispanics In Energy, a 
nonprofit, strongly supports the goal of a clean and healthy 
environment, and we are eager to contribute towards that goal. 
We must all fight carbon emission-induced climate change. 
Providing a healthy future for our families is a core value for 
our community, and we support practical and well-thought-out 
efforts for clean energy development.
    However, this proposed new direction of clean energy needs 
much more thought and analysis before such a radical approach 
is adopted. We do not think it demonstrates enough appreciation 
or concern for the Hispanic energy workers community or other 
communities, including our African-American and indigenous 
brothers and sisters. There is no evidence that Hispanics will 
benefit economically and prosper from the emerging clean energy 
economy.
    With 18 percent of the American people, Hispanics are 
America's largest minority group, over 60 million people. We 
have the highest labor force participation rate as compared to 
any other group. We like to work. We quickly pick up our roots 
and move to follow the jobs. We don't complain about having to 
get up early in the morning to go to work.
    Many in our community have chosen to work in the oil and 
gas fields in Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, and 
other critical oil-producing States. In California, 30 percent 
of the 385,000 oil and gas workers are Hispanic. That is 
115,000 jobs with an average salary of $100,000. So that is an 
$18 billion infusion into Hispanic households and families 
every year. Of all the oil and gas jobs available to Hispanics, 
none beats the job opportunities as in the 86,000-square-mile 
Permian Basin, a land many times bigger than Delaware where the 
locals are 65 percent Hispanic.
    The Permian Basin is gigantic, and it sits between the 
Southeastern part of New Mexico and the Western part of Texas. 
In this particular area, the development has a potential of $3 
trillion with over 400,000 new jobs. Clearly, Hispanics are 
already a large part of the workforce in the shale plates of 
Texas, Colorado, Utah, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. The same can 
be said about oil exploration and leasing along the Gulf of 
Mexico. This proposal would take away those jobs and the 
economic infusion going into California's Hispanic community 
and those in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota. Is that 
what we want? We don't think so.
    America's energy policy should include a complete mix of 
energy strategies, including the expansion of nuclear energy 
generation because of its safe technology, inexpensive 24/7 
operation and pure, clean energy as an output. The expansion of 
natural gas is the primary reason for the lowering of carbon 
emissions in this country. There is still much more benefit 
that could be gotten out of natural gas, the development of new 
technologies to neutralize the harmful effects of carbon 
emissions in burning fossil fuels, and there is a lot of great 
developments. It seems like we ought to be putting more 
resources to make sure that we come up with a solution for 
that.
    And then finally we should encompass principles that do not 
harm American energy workers, that help to enhance their 
training and capacity to increase their economic success and 
security. Taking away from an American worker doesn't make any 
sense to us. Our country's transition to a low-carbon, clean 
energy economy must include all communities to be sustainable. 
The clean energy sector can do way more to diversify and 
embrace equity and inclusion with our Hispanic community.
    Thank you for being asked to provide thoughts about energy 
strategy and policy. As large as our community is in America, 
it is too rare for the Government to ask for ideas about 
energy.
    Thank you very much for that, Congressman. I look forward 
to answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks Mr. Perez. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Carter-King for 5 minutes. You're recognized for 
5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

                STATEMENT OF LOUISE CARTER-KING

    Ms. Carter-King. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Rush, 
Ranking Member Upton, and members of the committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to allow me to speak. I am here today as 
the nonpartisan elected at-large Mayor of the City of Gillette, 
Wyoming. On behalf of the community that proudly bills itself 
as the energy capital of the Nation, I wanted to share a few 
considerations from our city regarding the transition to a 
decarbonized power sector.
    Located in the heart of the Powder River Basin containing 
significant deposits of coal, oil, gas, and uranium, our 
community has a vested interest in the continued responsible 
use of our region's abundant natural resources. For decades, 
our residents have quite literally been on the front lines of 
powering the country. Our municipal revenue and subsequent 
governmental operations are largely dependent on these 
industries. The loss of this revenue will have an immediate and 
direct impact on the public safety of our residents from the 
officers that we have on the street to the doctors and nurses 
we have in our hospitals, not to mention what it will do to our 
public education system, which is already facing steep cuts.
    We recognize that the global demand for how energy is 
produced is changing. We have worked hard to forge partnerships 
with other local, State, and private entities all dedicated to 
both expanding and diversifying our local economy. We are also 
acutely aware that these major changes do not occur overnight 
or without significant financial resources.
    As is true for any other elected body, our primary goal at 
the City of Gillette is to preserve and improve the quality of 
life for those that we represent. Aggressive goals for the 
decreased use of fossil fuels will directly result in the loss 
of revenue, jobs, and well-being for the citizens of our 
community and many others like it. While we understand the 
desire to transition to a carbon-neutral energy matrix, we 
believe a measured, thoughtful approach is prudent and 
necessary.
    We are actively working with other public and private 
entities to not only work towards reducing carbon emissions but 
also to identify new uses for carbon. Partnerships with local 
utilities, the XPRIZE Foundation, the University of Wyoming 
School of Energy Resources, and the U.S. Department of Energy 
have spurred research into uses of the carbon created from 
energy production as well as finding the value-added products 
created from our abundant fossil fuel. We will need the 
continued support of the Federal Government to see these 
projects come to fruition for the benefit of everyone in our 
Nation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to hear this perspective and 
for your important work. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Carter-King follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank all the witnesses for their 
exemplary testimony, and we have concluded the opening 
statements for this morning. Now we will move toward Member 
questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of 
our witnesses. I want to start by recognizing myself for 5 
minutes.
    This month Chairman Pallone, Chairman Tonko, and I 
introduced the CLEAN Future Act to put the Nation on a path 
toward a clean energy future by no later than 2050. Among these 
policies is my bill, the Energy Equity Act of 2021, which would 
drive principles of equity and justice in our energy system by 
establishing a Federal program office solely dedicated for 
these purposes.
    My first question is to Mr. DeVar. Mr. DeVar, will you 
briefly describe the importance of Federal policies to advance 
the equitable distribution of clean energy and why they should 
be a requirement.
    Mr. DeVar. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Rush. The reason why 
these policies need to be a requirement in brief stems from 
many of the points and questions that have been raised by all 
the Members here and all the witnesses. There is a key question 
in who will benefit, and in fact there is a lot of agreement 
here.
    I'm astounded to hear the concern about wages, about 
income, and about jobs and which communities benefit from that. 
And so the Federal Government has a key role in ensuring 
equity. The Federal Government has a key role in leadership, 
and the Office of Energy Equity that you're proposing would be 
essential for closing the gaps that folks have mentioned where 
there is evidence that these benefits will actually be realized 
by the communities and populations that folks have raised.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. DeVar. Ms. Farley, as you know, 
clean energy transmission must be just, must be equitable for 
all communities, both urban and rural. How will a Federal 
Energy Equity Office support community-based groups in meeting 
the energy needs of all communities?
    Ms. Farley. Thank you, Chairman Rush. It is critically 
important that any activities with goals to be more just and 
equitable include direct input from the communities who are 
first and most impacted by any of the negative impacts that we 
have discussed today, whether that is the climate emergency 
overburdened by electricity bills and legacy pollution.
    So the opportunity to establish an Energy Equity Office 
within the Department of Energy is this kind of critical 
opportunity. It is important that we have the infrastructure 
that is needed to deliver on these benefits, and an office like 
Energy Equity would be there to support Shalanda Baker, who we 
are very excited about. But this is a massive undertaking, 
and----
    Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. I'm sorry to cut you off, 
but I only have a few more seconds, and I would like to ask now 
Mr. Bhatraju and Mr. Baird: How would a Federal Energy Equity 
Office support public/private partnerships in delivering 
greater clean energy access to underserved communities?
    Mr. Bhatraju. I'll be quick. The community of solar at its 
heart is expanding access to communities that haven't had 
access to rooftop solar. It is a competitive energy trend, but 
it requires public cooperation to set up the structures to 
enable private developers and investors to actually build these 
projects. So that public/private partnership is incredibly 
important to expanding access.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. Mr. Baird, would you contribute to 
answering the question?
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chair, thank you. My company was started by 
a $2.1 million contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, and 
I believe the opportunity to create similar companies started 
by people of color, by women, by our country's veterans would 
be greatly assisted by having an Office of Equity in the 
Department of Energy, given our corporate experience and 
partnership with the Department of Energy. That Office of 
Equity is very necessary.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair yields back the balance of 
his time. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Upton for 5 minutes for 
purposes of an opening statement.
    Mr. Upton. Well, I'm going to ask questions, but thank 
you----
    Mr. Rush. Questioning. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perez, I think that 
we share similar views on the need to address climate change 
and certainly the benefits of clean energy. It is something 
that we know is happening and what we want. With that said, I 
want to talk a little bit about some of the actual policies 
that have been proposed and impact that they would have on 
communities, especially the Hispanic energy workers that you 
represent.
    First of all, let me ask what is the volume of folks, in 
fact, that you think that you represent with your position? 
What are some of the numbers?
    Mr. Perez. Thank you for that question, Mr. Upton. There's 
about 10 and a half million people that work just in the oil 
and gas side, and I would say that the total Hispanic workforce 
in that sector is about 10 percent, or about a million, and 
that doesn't include utilities or the clean energy space. It is 
only the oil and gas side. That includes pipelines, refineries, 
all the upstream. So it is a very large part of the working 
population of energy workers.
    Mr. Upton. I appreciate that. As you know, there was some 
news that was made just in the last week to ban fracking in 
California. They actually had a vote in the State legislature. 
As I understand, it was defeated because, in fact, of its 
impact it would have on the Hispanic community. What kind of 
impact do you think a nationwide ban on fracking would have on 
the Hispanic community, and not only there but throughout the 
country?
    Mr. Perez. Thank you for that question. We believe that the 
impact would be devastating because you're talking about in the 
case of the Permian Basin where it is being developed right now 
with a $3 trillion potential. That community around there is 65 
percent Hispanic. The workers are a higher percentage. So if 
you can imagine just wiping out all that opportunity and the 
significant economic impact it has not just to the workers but 
to their families and their communities.
    In other places like California that are more established, 
the oil and gas business is fairly centralized in southern 
California and parts of the current county in Bakersfield. 
Those communities would also be severely impacted. And in Texas 
with Eagle Ford and some of the development that goes on in 
Texas, very significant impacts. So you are, basically, taking 
a whole community and throwing it under the bus.
    Mr. Upton. So, as you know, a frequent line that certain 
many of us in Congress and on this committee have used is 
``all-of-the-above'' strategy. I support all of the above. 
Always have. Needs to be a strong source of renewables. We need 
efforts on new technologies, whether they be clean coal or 
carbon capture. I mean, all those things are very important, 
but the argument has been made time and time again by some that 
if, in fact, if you eliminated a number of these jobs, maybe 
millions, that they would be able to find some alternative line 
of work at equal pay in some other energy sector. Do you see 
that as actually holding water that argument?
    Mr. Perez. No. That is not our experience. I have been 
working in this environment for 9 years when we organized 
forums around the country around jobs and energy, and the 
people who are, for example, the trainers of clean energy 
workers, for example, the rooftop solar installers, they 
average about $13 an hour. There's no benefits. There's no 
security in their jobs. There's no career ladder. Once a job is 
complete, they essentially have to go out and--they are on 
their own. They have to go out and find another job, whereas we 
find that in at least the oil and gas business, because the 
union protection that is offered, that there is long-term 
security.
    And a lot of people that, even if they are working at the 
lower level of the working hierarchy, you know, they still find 
enough incentive to stay and make it a career and retire from 
that because there is that sustainability.
    So we have not seen any evidence that the clean energy 
space, at least for the Hispanic community, is a good option, a 
good alternative, and so it really concerns us that we are 
drawing a lot of assumptions without really any evidence. So we 
just think that we need to research this thing very carefully 
because we are talking about a very significant, very negative 
economic impact at least to our community. And so we need to 
have some very sober discussions around this.
    Mr. Upton. Well, I see my time has expired, but I 
appreciate everybody's testimony and looking forward to 
participating through the rest of the hearing. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, the 
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for questioning 
the witnesses.
    Mr. Pallone, you are recognized.
    Chairman Pallone, you are recognized.
    [Pause.]
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Peters from California for 5 
minutes for questioning the witnesses.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just trying to 
grab a bite to eat there. I'm happy to be here, and thank you 
for the hearing. I had a question for Mr. DeVar. Just 
yesterday, United Mine Workers of America, the largest mine 
workers union in the race to transition to clean energy jobs, 
has paired with robust investment in the communities they call 
home. The union says that ``change is coming whether we seek it 
or not. Coal production in the electricity sector has been 
falling for years for market reasons irrespective of any 
Federal policy, and we can support these communities and these 
workers by investing in technologies like carbon capture, 
utilization and storage and by funding reclamation of abandoned 
mines.''
    We need to stop acting as if we have to choose between 
clean energy and fossil energy and instead focus on solutions 
for workers in the clean energy transition that is clearly 
already happening. So can you please expand on the types of 
policies that are needed in order to ensure we maintain and 
develop strong energy economies in diverse regions of the 
country?
    Mr. DeVar. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Peters. I would say the 
first thing that we need to stay true to that hope that this 
transition is paired with protections for communities is to 
think about where we need to set goals and metrics to ensure 
that we deliver on that, and I think that is the key role of 
this hearing, and I think that is the key role of the Federal 
Government.
    And so there are policies that can ensure that we put in 
labor protections and that we incentivize those approaches to 
clean energy that actually do the most to protect workers and 
do the most to protect particular communities.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you. Another question for you, sir. In 
your testimony, you highlight the gaps in data collection that 
can hinder the fair allocation of resources. In particular, you 
identify the lack of definitions for what you call energy 
deployment priority groups. Since we're talking about 
definitions, could you expand on what you mean by ``energy 
deployment priority groups'', and what data should the Federal 
Government be collecting that we aren't?
    Mr. DeVar. Sure. So first, as far as priority groups, I 
don't have all the answers, but if we look at communities' and 
States' research, we know that question have moved the needle 
in understanding at least two ways of thinking about priority 
group: geographically based priority groups and identity or 
population groups. Some key places to start would be groups 
that have higher pollution rating or health impacts, but we 
also know we need to include low-income communities, 
communities that are--or households that are reliant on medical 
equipment. So these are just some examples.
    We need two sides of data and evidence to address the 
issues that everyone here has raised. We need to identify 
groups, and we need to identify harms or benefits. Some of 
those example are, to the point that Mr. Perez has made, what 
is the evidence that certain communities, particularly Hispanic 
and Latino communities, are benefiting? We need data both that 
starts to disaggregate about customer groups as well as what 
are the harms and benefits. And that way we would have more 
data and evidence as to whether there is equity in the clean 
energy transition.
    Mr. Peters. Speaking about the discussion about fracking 
bans from some of my colleagues, if California didn't do it, it 
is probably a little bit of a Chicken Little, sky-is-falling 
kind of discussion. North Dakota is not going to do it. Texas 
is going to do it. And I think we can have constructive policy 
discussions assuming that is not going to happen.
    I guess, finally, directing to all panelists: The committee 
has put forth a comprehensive bill under Chairman Pallone's 
leadership and the leadership of Chairman Rush to support the 
equitable deployment of clean energy technologies. Do you have 
any thoughts for us in the last minute I have about what we 
could do to improve what the committee has introduced? Anybody?
    Ms. Farley. I'm happy to just increase that support and 
making sure that any of the recommendations and any of the 
policies are done in partnership directly with communities and/
or in partnership with those who represent communities. The new 
White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council I think is a 
great place to start. It seems to be the first mechanism that 
we have in place across the administration to have that direct 
input and support.
    And I along with a number of other groups have previously 
submitted a letter to Honorable Chairman Frank Pallone and this 
committee regarding support for inclusion of the Energy 
Resilient Communities Act Low-income Solar Energy as well as 
new rural Just Energy financing programs. So we would really 
want to make sure that these jobs that we discuss adhere to 
High Roads labor standards and incentivize unionized labor.
    Mr. Peters. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. 
Chairman, I'd also ask if we could add to the record an article 
from yesterday's New York Times on the coal miners' renewable 
energy pleas. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Ms. McMorris Rodgers for 
5 minutes for questioning the witnesses.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the 
witnesses for being with us today.
    I mentioned in my opening statement some of the benefits of 
the shale revolution not only in jobs but really in leading in 
resulting in bringing down carbon emissions. America, in fact, 
is leading the world in bringing down carbon emissions but also 
in lowering energy spending on average $2,500 per household.
    The White House Council of Economic Advisors estimated that 
most of the benefits of the shale revolution went to low-income 
households, which spend the highest portion of their budgets on 
energy, as has been mentioned by others. The flip side to these 
benefits for low-income households is what happens if policies 
limit natural gas delivery or shutter natural gas generation 
and raise electricity rates.
    In California we've seen rates increase seven times faster 
than the rest of the Nation and now are close to double what 
people in the southeastern States are paying in energy costs. 
We saw last summer that California wasn't able to maintain 
reliable operations of its electricity system for the first 
time in two decades. Wealthy people buy generators to prepare 
for potential rolling blackouts caused by these policies. Low-
income households don't have this luxury, so on top of their 
prices being higher there is less reliability.
    Mr. Perez, in your testimony you stated that in California 
the Hispanics are 30 percent of the workers in the oil and gas 
industry, about 115,000 employees, good-paying jobs. Average of 
these workers is about $100,000 per year plus benefits and 
overtime. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Perez, what role do you see 
for natural gas resources to ensure low rates and reliable and 
resistant energy?
    [Pause]
    Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Perez, I think you may be muted.
    Mr. Perez. Apologize for that. I was saying that we believe 
that to assure resiliency and low-cost energy to energy 
consumers that we clearly need to have an all-energy strategy 
to deal with our demand and our needs. And the way to do that 
is to take a look at each sector and see how we can move 
towards a level where there is zero carbon emissions.
    And in the natural gas/oil space really it is technology. I 
know they are working on carbon sequestration. They are 
working--we have some generation plants that are now producing 
very close to zero in carbon emissions, especially in the 
Houston area, and so there is potential for achieving some of 
these goals without having such what we consider to be very 
harsh actions that have severe consequences on workers and, in 
our case, our Hispanic workers.
    And so clearly we think that resiliency for energy, low-
cost assurance is guaranteed by natural--I'm sorry, by several 
strategies, and natural gas is a critical one.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you for that. Thank you for 
highlighting the impact on jobs. It is really exciting, though, 
to hear about American ingenuity and creativity, technology 
leading the way. It is definitely worth celebrating, and I 
believe that that is going to be the way forward.
    Ms. Carter-King, I wanted to, well, first of all, applaud 
Gillette, Wyoming, as the energy capital in the United States 
of America and your all-of-the-above approach. Would you just 
speak to the impact on State finances as well as impact on 
local schools and community services? Department of Interior 
shows that Federal oil and gas revenues fund between 19 and 30 
percent of New Mexico and Wyoming's State budgets.
    Ms. Carter-King. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Rodgers.
    It has been devastating to our State and our economy here 
with trying to curtail the oil production that we have for so 
many years had in our community and our State. So it has cost 
already lots of jobs and a lot of our youth having to leave our 
State to find employment otherwise. So I plead with the 
committee and all to please work with us. Work with our 
community and our State and others that need--that cannot 
sustain such a quick devastation of our economy. We can work 
with you. We can work with everyone to make sure that we can 
research other ways that can help with the energy. We can work 
with energy.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Ms. Carter-King. The people of Wyoming, we were 
environmentalists before it was the in thing to be.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, I appreciate your leadership and your 
plea because the technological transformation in fossils is 
very real, too, and we need to allow that to develop. So thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this 
hearing, you and Ranking Member Upton.
    I've been listening to the testimony, and a couple things 
that I would like to just reflect on before I ask questions. 
I'm sympathetic to what I heard from Mr. Perez and the mayor of 
the City of Gillette. I live in western Pennsylvania. 
Pittsburgh is surrounded by Marcellus shale gas, not in the 
city of Pittsburgh but the counties around the city of 
Pittsburgh. A lot of people have good jobs there.
    And as Mr. Perez said, the reason they have good jobs is 
they're unionized, which means they have pensions and they have 
benefits. So I hope all my Republican colleagues will support 
the unionization of these new industries that we're going to be 
bringing online as we address climate change because that is 
the key to having good-paying jobs that you can support a 
family with, and I think that point needs to be made.
    I would say secondly, too, that as Democrats we have to 
understand the people who are working in industries that are 
making good wages and have pensions and healthcare benefits 
aren't going to just buy into the idea that magically there is 
going to be something else to replace those jobs. It isn't that 
these people in oil and gas industry don't care about a clean 
environment, but they care about eating and they care about 
supporting their families. And if you show them an alternative 
way to make a living in the clean energy industry, they're 
going to flock to that industry, but they're not going to just 
take our word for it. They want to see these jobs develop.
    So that is why I think it is also important as we're 
building energy storage systems--and I heard the ranking member 
say, ``What do we do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind 
doesn't blow?'' Well, we have technologies for that. I have a 
tax credit bill which I hope all my Republican colleagues will 
sign onto which provides a tax incentive for these companies 
that are developing and scaling up energy storage systems so 
that we can store renewable energy so that when the sun doesn't 
shine and the wind doesn't blow that that energy is available 
to pick up that thing.
    And the other thing I would say is we are not shutting down 
the natural gas and oil industry overnight. This is a 
transition that is going to take place over a decade or so. Our 
scientists have told us that we are still going to need carbon 
capture and sequestration. There is still going to be a role 
for some fossil in this picture down the road.
    But colleagues, this change is coming. It is coming, and if 
we're going to be successful in achieving our climate change 
goal to get to net zero carbon by 2050, we are going to have to 
utilize a lot of technology that doesn't exist today, but we 
need to fund it and research and development so that we can get 
where we want. We can get 80 percent of the way there right 
now. It is that last 20 percent that is going to be the tough 
part, and we need to invest in that.
    So I have used up almost all of my time, but let me just 
ask Ms. Farley: What do we have to do at the Federal level to 
ensure the jobs we are creating in the clean energy and 
manufacturing and installation, that these are good-paying 
jobs, that they are stable jobs like Mr. Perez talks about that 
people can support families on?
    Ms. Farley. Thank you, Representative Doyle.
    I think that we have to make sure that we are in 
partnership with people. There are strong standards around 
unionized labor, what we mean by a thriving wage, jobs, what we 
mean also by supporting clean energy entrepreneurship. So I 
think that we have to make sure to your point we are all 
concerned with supporting our families, being strong 
contributors to healthy communities.
    I am a product of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act. When the housing market crashed, my housing sector job 
disappeared literally overnight. I was able to regain an 
opportunity to join the energy efficiency industry through a 
nonprofit in the southeast that focused on building science 
that jumped into and exploded with training and opportunity to 
train the workforce.
    Mr. Doyle. Ms. Farley, thank you. I want to ask Mr. Baird 
one question, and I only have 30 seconds left.
    Mr. Baird, how do we make sure that companies that are 
installing energy efficiency systems or clean energy systems 
have a workforce and that people have the skills they need to 
do this work especially in historically disadvantaged 
communities? How do we make sure we are giving people the 
skills they need?
    Mr. Baird. Congressman, all of the highly skilled 
construction workforce of America is nearing retirement age, as 
you know. We must train up a new generation of Americans who 
are going to use software from day one as they execute and 
implement clean energy jobs across the country. That can happen 
in community colleges, local workforce development, nonprofits 
and of course labor unions training people for the jobs of the 
future.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 
your indulgence, and I yield back my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes. I don't see him on the 
monitor.
    Dr. Burgess, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Then the Chair recognizes Mr. Latta of Ohio for 5 minutes. 
Mr. Latta, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
today's hearing, and thank you very much to our witnesses. I 
think Dr. Burgess is over in Rules Committee right now.
    As this subcommittee continues its hearings on many 
different aspects of the clean energy policies, I have to say I 
am still a little baffled that the majority continues to ignore 
one of the most reliable sources of clean energy in our 
country, and that is nuclear. The people that work in the 
industries all along the nuclear fuel cycle, including miners, 
engineers, operators, machinists and more, are proud of the 
work that they do and should have our full support.
    Unfortunately, government restrictions and regulations 
impeded the growth of our nuclear sector for decades, and we 
have fallen behind the rest of the world. We have seen our 
supply chains become more vulnerable due to our heavy reliance 
on foreign entities for the resources we need to power our 
nuclear sector, especially when it comes to uranium.
    In order to regain our leadership role in nuclear power, 
protect ourselves from threats to our national security 
interests, and reduce carbon emissions, we should be doing all 
we can to help our domestic nuclear sector, beginning with our 
uranium miners. These are some of the many reasons I introduced 
H.R. 1351, which is the Nuclear Prosperity and Security Act. 
The bill would direct the Department of Energy to establish and 
operate a uranium reserve to ensure the availability of the 
uranium mined in the United States in the event of a market 
disruption.
    I was glad to see this bill was included in the Republican 
Securing Cleaner American Energy agenda because it will ensure 
that the United States continues to lead the world in reducing 
emissions while also keeping the lights on and maintaining 
lower energy costs.
    Mayor Carter-King, if I could start with a few questions 
with you. The State of Wyoming has been at the forefront of 
this industry as the United States' leader in uranium mining 
and production, and also my colleague, your representative, Ms. 
Cheney, is my colead on H.R. 1351. Would you speak to the 
importance of maintaining a healthy domestic uranium mining 
industry from both an energy and a national security aspect?
    Ms. Carter-King. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Latta.
    The uranium industry has really fallen in Wyoming in, I'd 
say, the last decade because of decreased demand, but lately 
there has been more interest in it, and that is why the 
Department of Energy is also in our community now to look at 
uranium and other rare earth elements that they can find in 
carbon. So yes, we would be very interested in reviving our 
uranium industry here around our community as well in the State 
of Wyoming.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. I know that our ranking member had 
asked you some questions about the effect of oil and natural 
gas on your community. What about uranium? How would that 
affect your community, especially when you think about the 
importance in Gillette and also in Wyoming?
    Ms. Carter-King. Well, I think if we could get into the 
production once again of uranium it would help our county as 
well as the State of Wyoming. Right now it is not--it is kind 
of lower on the scale of the energy resources just because the 
demand is not there. And, like you said, if we would start 
looking at nuclear energy, which is one of the cleanest forms 
of energy, I believe that would be a boost to our State.
    Mr. Latta. You also talked about when you're thinking about 
the economy and making sure that you keep people in the State 
and have people coming into the State. If we would have a 
situation where we would see our uranium mining going down and 
also those jobs being lost right there in Wyoming, what is 
going to happen to these workers? Are there other mining jobs 
out there for them, or are they just going to have to either 
leave the city, look someplace else? What would you anticipate?
    Ms. Carter-King. Your question is what would I anticipate 
if uranium continues to decrease?
    Mr. Latta. Well, right. Where would the workers end up 
right now? Are there other jobs out there for them, or what 
would happen?
    Ms. Carter-King. Not with the current state of what is 
happening with energy. So no, they would have to leave our 
State, and I don't know where they would go with their 
particular skills as far as uranium mining goes because where 
else would they go?
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time has 
expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman and the witnesses.
    Mr. Rush. I see the chairman of the full committee has 
returned.
    Mr. McNerney. I'll yield.
    Mr. Pallone. I mean, you can do Jerry first if you want to.
    Mr. Rush. Well, he has just yielded to you, Mr. Chairman. 
So why don't you go, Mr. Chairman, and then he'll wait to 
become the next Democratic Member to speak.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. I'm sorry. All right. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to try to ask a couple questions of Mr. DeVar and 
Mr. Bhatraju. Mr. DeVar, in your testimony, you spoke about the 
role of outreach and participation. You said that lack of 
access to State and Federal rulemaking processes prevent 
marginalized groups from benefiting from the energy system. 
Would you just expand on this, particularly on how the Federal 
Government can better ensure that these impacted communities 
are properly represented in decisionmaking?
    Mr. DeVar. Yes, Ranking Member Pallone. Thank you.
    I'd say there are three ideas that come to mind. Let's 
think about it this way: Who is at a decidingmaking table, and 
if there is a problem with someone not being there, what do we 
do? The first thing you do is you reach out to people. So there 
needs to be a robust outreach. You have to go to community 
groups and leaders and trusted parties to actually reach people 
in the first place. So that is one role that the Federal 
Government can play.
    The second would be actually resourcing people to be able 
to participate meaningfully. So that could look like investor 
compensation in rulemaking proceedings, and that could be 
through support at the Federal level and guidelines and 
encouragement of what is occurring at the State level.
    And finally, I would say there has to be followthrough. 
Take the example of being at a table. That would be like having 
confirmation that you paid and that someone knew that you had 
spoken. And so the same is true in rulemaking proceedings. We 
need to have clarity that those comments were heard and 
responded to.
    Mr. Pallone. Right. And then you also talked about the role 
of data in properly identifying these vulnerable groups. What 
more could we do at the Federal level to identify these 
communities of need, and what are the ramifications of 
improperly targeting Federal assistance?
    Mr. DeVar. I'd say first, in terms of improperly 
identifying groups and targeting assistance, the downside would 
be if we don't get this right we are going to have wasted 
resources and we are going to have growing inequity. The issues 
that everyone here is raising actually is getting to the heart 
of constituents, of communities, lost jobs either from one 
sector or to the other.
    So what we actually agree on here in this hearing is that 
we need to get to the bottom of those things, and inevitably it 
is just going to be more costly if we don't really have data 
about these communities and the benefits. But I'll also note 
that we can have accounting and iteration, and so if we have 
data, goals, and metrics we can track and in a few years see if 
we're not reaching certain groups, if we're not achieving the 
goals of reducing rates for energy customers, particularly low-
income communities, and then we iterate our approaches after 
that.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I wanted to go to Mr. Bhatraju. In 
your testimony, you detailed your company's business model and 
how community solar can be used to increase clean energy 
access, and then you detailed some of the obstacles you face in 
enrolling customers, especially low- and moderate-income 
customers. Could you please give us some insight into community 
solar? In other words, do customers know that it is an option 
for them, and what are the challenges you face with outreach?
    Mr. Bhatraju. That is a great question, Congressman. When I 
am sure any of you talk about solar to anyone, they're thinking 
about a power plant on someone's roof, and community solar is 
actually just a totally new way of delivering solar because it 
is offsite. It is somewhere else. And so it is a very new 
product in the market that has expanded pretty rapidly, and, 
frankly, customers absolutely love it. You can live in an 
apartment. You don't necessarily have to have the world's 
greatest credit score. You don't have to have a roof.
    One of the challenges at least our business faces is 
awareness. The expansion of these programs will inevitably 
increase awareness because people want energy options. They 
want to be able to choose how they power their homes and their 
businesses. I think what is one of the more exciting things 
about community solar is the investment community loves it. 
Customers love it. Utilities actually appreciate building large 
centralized distributed generation sites, not individual 
rooftop sites everywhere. It is an awareness that I think the 
legislation and having a national legislation can really help 
with.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you so much. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman. This has been very helpful in terms of what 
we want to do with the CLEAN Future Act. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from West Virginia, my good friend Mr. McKinley, 
for 5 minutes.
    You're muted.
    Unmute.
    Mr. McKinley. I got it now. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You're 
one of the few Democrats that I think really grasps the impact 
of what we're talking about here today, because at church on 
Sunday we had a prayer that asked God to enlighten all who 
inflict darkness on others--asked God to enlighten all who 
inflict darkness on others--so, in essence, to educate our 
political leaders that there are consequences to their 
policies.
    Mr. Chairman, the Democrats control the House, the Senate, 
and the Presidency. You all can force a restructuring of fossil 
fuel economies all across America, but I don't believe you 
fully understand the consequences of your action will result in 
higher utility bills and lost jobs. How many coal mines, oil 
wells, refineries, coal-fired power plants are in cities like 
New York, Chicago, or San Francisco?
    People working in these fossil fuels are not statistics, 
but they're real people with families. They've maintained their 
way of life for over a century, but now liberal Democrats are 
using a political timeline to eliminate the use of fossil fuels 
in 10 years or less.
    Now, I've heard the promise of a just transition. It just 
won't happen. Look at what has happened over history with the 
steel, the electronics, and the textile industries. The 
Government said all the same promises but betrayed the American 
people. Mr. Chairman, there was an editorial in today's Wall 
Street Journal. It was their effort, I think, to educate its 
readers on the consequences of Biden's energy agenda. It begins 
with, ``Beijing is clear that it would ignore any carbon 
emission commitments that impinge on China's economic growth.'' 
It goes on to say, ``Chinese leaders don't mind the Paris 
Accord because they know it doesn't bind them to anything while 
Western nations will harm their economies with new regulations 
and misallocated resources.''
    ``The Chinese must be dumfounded,'' the article goes on. 
The editorial says they must be dumfounded the United States 
``administration wants to kill the shale and natural gas boom 
that has kept energy prices low and made the U.S. less reliant 
on foreign oil,'' and then it ends with, ``No wonder Beijing 
thinks America is in decline.''
    So much for China's commitment to climate change. We can't 
trust them on trade, South China Sea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, human 
rights, intellectual property. Why should we think we can trust 
them on pollution? So let me get this straight: America will 
have higher utility bills, lost jobs, a less reliable grid, and 
we're still going to experience extreme weather events all the 
while China continues to pollute.
    If I could, I'd like to turn to the mayor in Gillette. 
Mayor, wouldn't it make more sense for us in America to perfect 
carbon capture so that we can continue to use our fossil fuels 
and maintain a stable economy in the coal fields and natural 
gas production, for example, in Wyoming?
    Ms. Carter-King. Absolutely, Congressman McKinley, and 
thank you for the question.
    That is what we have been advocating for for years now. 
Work with us. We have some of the cleanest coal in the country. 
We already have perfected some--you know, we have started at 
least on working on cleaning the carbon out of the coal, and 
our research that we've done at our integrated test center, 
which also has the XPRIZE, which awarded a multimillion-dollar 
prize yesterday for using carbon in construction----
    Mr. McKinley. So Mayor, I've got a couple more questions 
for you.
    Ms. Carter-King. OK.
    Mr. McKinley. How would you recommend--what would you 
recommend? How do we do this to educate our Members of Congress 
about the injustices that their policies will inflict on their 
fellow Americans? How do we educate them?
    Ms. Carter-King. Well, we would invite people to come and 
visit us here where we can show them what we have been working 
on. We've got the Department of Energy here. We've got 
universities from across the Nation here working on our 
research. Work with us. We can do this.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, you referenced 
you are the energy capital of America, and earlier you heard 
Chairman Pallone say that renewables will create more jobs than 
are currently in fossil fuels. Now, I'm aware of the number of 
jobs that the coal-fired power plants and gas-fired power 
plants, but could you tell me out in Gillette what is the size 
of the parking lot, employee parking lot outside a wind farm?
    Ms. Carter-King. You know, I'd have to be truthful and say 
I have never seen a parking lot outside of a wind farm.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Mayor, I don't think we have 
either. So I think this is disingenuous for us to be thinking 
we're going to create long-term jobs by switching over. I think 
we can find a mix that works out and so that we keep our fossil 
fuels as part of all of the above. So I thank you, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time. Mr. McNerney. The patient Mr. McNerney is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman again and the witnesses 
again. It is a great hearing.
    First, I'd like to respond to the ranking member's opening 
remarks in which she continued the Republican tradition of 
bashing California's energy system, but please be careful. The 
Texan Republican members of this committee used to do the same 
thing until they had their own big freeze.
    For the record, California's energy challenges are largely 
due to wildfires and other climate-related disasters which are 
caused by excessive carbon emissions. Let's focus on the real 
problems at hand and not on phantom issues.
    Mr. DeVar, in your testimony you write about the equity 
benefits of distributed resources and the goal of a 
demographically managed grid. Would you further explain how the 
distributed nature of resources like community solar 
contributes to energy equity?
    Mr. DeVar. Yes. Thank you, Representative.
    There are a few ways, and I think to get to the heart of 
unpacking the difference between the current energy system and 
the options in front of us and the clean energy system. So one 
of the benefits that has come up many times here is the 
question of rates and the income and expense ratio of families, 
of households.
    Distributed energy generation has the most potential to 
really reduce someone's energy bill anywhere from 15 to 50 
percent, and that is one area in which distributed resources 
are really meaningful. Another metric or benefit that sort of 
relates to what you just addressed is the question of 
resilience. It's really only distributed generation of solar 
care with storage that could really allow the flexibility of 
keeping the lights on on a particular home or a microgrid for a 
particular community in the face of disasters.
    And third, for the issue of how distributed generation 
would also allow us to target where we want to really reduce 
pollution and wind down peaking power plants: There are plans, 
for example in New York City, to think through pairing solar 
and storage with the reduction of pollution and the use of 
these plants that we don't need very often, and they both are 
expensive and cost a lot of money.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Bhatraju, in California, we've 
seen the value of locally sited distributed resources. Can 
recourses like community solar contribute to grid resilience, 
especially in underserved communities?
    Mr. Bhatraju. Absolutely. To hammer this point home--and 
thank you, Congressman, for the question--is community solar 
allows people who move, people who rent, people who don't have 
the right roof to access the benefits of the cheapest energy 
source out there. We often get asked the question is community 
solar--how does it compete, and who can benefit?
    In reality, building larger-scale solar projects is cost 
efficient. It builds resiliency to build these distributed 
generation assets. These are all things that I think have been 
talked about at the hearing, especially highlighting 
California. A community solar program there would benefit the 
grid, it would benefit resiliency, but it would also share the 
benefits broadly with folks who just have been traditionally 
left out of the solar revolution that we have seen in the last 
few years.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Baird, I cochair the 
Artificial Intelligence Caucus, and I care deeply about 
reducing carbon emissions and increasing the use of clean 
energy and renewables. How can AI help accomplish these goals, 
especially in underserved communities? And do you have examples 
that you can share for the work that BlocPower is doing?
    Mr. Baird. Congressman, thank you.
    We do use artificial intelligence and machine learning to 
help us analyze and size the correct size of solar batteries or 
all-electric heating and cooling systems on a house-by-house 
basis. As the committee knows, each American home is an 
individual home that needs its own specific mix of energy-
efficient and renewable energy equipment. Artificial 
intelligence and machine learning will allow us to recommend 
the appropriate clean energy equipment, the appropriate healthy 
equipment on a building-by-building basis for over 120 million 
American homes.
    We can either do that by manually going house to house and 
doing an assessment, or we can use the tools of Silicon Valley 
to help us reduce the soft costs of clean energy so that we can 
unlock more and more green construction and installation jobs.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. If you could submit policy 
recommendations on using AI. And I want to say by finishing 
that I sympathize with Mr. McKinley. He emphasizes the 
consequences of a transition, but what about the consequences 
of continuing carbon emissions? We need to make the transition. 
That is exactly what we're attempting to do, and we really 
prefer Republican participation in this process. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from the greatest State in the Union. 
Mr. Kinzinger from the great State of Illinois, you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate 
you holding this.
    I agree that there is a disparity in energy costs that we 
should debate and address in a responsible manner. I have 
consistently supported a true all-of-the-above energy approach, 
and I understand the fundamental importance of preserving our 
resources and natural heritage and agree that the consideration 
of environmental impacts is essential to energy policymaking.
    I have a record demonstrating support for renewable energy 
technologies and expect their use to expand over time, but the 
United States cannot simply afford to continue pushing a 
renewables-only energy strategy to the detriment of abundant 
and reliable sources, including nuclear and natural gas.
    My colleagues and I sent a letter to President Biden in 
February stating as much and asked him to work with us to 
calibrate our national energy strategy, and I'll ask unanimous 
consent to include that into the record.
    Mr. Rush. Without objection so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
    According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear power 
generates 20 percent of America's electricity, and in 2018 it 
prevented the emission of 528 million metric tons of carbon 
dioxide. In Illinois, six nuclear power stations, including 
four in my district, provide 88 percent of the State's 
emission-free electricity. Unfortunately, due to nonmarket 
governmental forces giving preferential treatment to certain 
renewables, two of these plants, Byron and Dresden, are now 
slated for closure.
    When I visited schools in Byron or I talked to control room 
operators and engineers in Dresden, I am able to see the 
incredible impacts and legacy of this technology. These two 
plants represent 1,500 direct jobs and millions of dollars in 
municipal revenues. If these plants shut, the lost revenue 
would devastate my communities and make it extremely difficult 
to pay for high-quality schools, hospitals, emergency personnel 
and other critical services. All this not to mention the 
prospect of blackouts, unreliable electricity costs, increased 
carbon emissions, and job losses.
    Reserving the existing nuclear fleet will take a concerted 
national approach, but I am doing what I can on my part. In 
December my colleague Mike Doyle and I introduced the 
Preserving Existing Nuclear Energy Generation Act, which would 
help save nuclear plants that are on the chopping block, 
including Byron and Dresden, by providing financial credits 
through an emissions avoidance program. The bill would also 
soften the blow to local communities by providing resources to 
help shore up municipal budgetary shortfalls, preserve critical 
services, and promote economic development. And last week I 
reintroduced the Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act, which builds 
upon the recent efforts by Congress to modernize nuclear 
licensing fees and procedures.
    So to bring this home: Yes, there are disparities in 
utility costs for households across the Nation. These 
disparities can be seen across racial and ethnic lines in 
geographical terms and in the rural/urban divide, but the 
answer is not to simply put solar panels on the rooftops of 
lower-income households, wipe our hands, and walk away, and the 
answer cannot be heavy-handed intervention to artificially 
reduce utility prices without regard to market forces.
    So question to Mayor Carter-King. Your testimony mentions 
the municipal revenues associated with the energy industry. Can 
you elaborate? Specifically what financial effect would your 
community suffer if these energy extraction and power 
generation jobs were to disappear?
    Mayor, you might be muted.
    Ms. Carter-King. Thank you, Congressman Kinzinger.
    It will be--it is devastating for our community. Was that 
your question?
    Mr. Kinzinger. Yes. If you could just kind of elaborate on 
those impacts.
    Ms. Carter-King. OK. Well, just the city alone we had to 
cut a million dollars from our budget, and then you have the 
school district, the hospital, everybody. It is a domino effect 
on our community. We have got to cut people. We have got to cut 
safety people on the streets, our teachers. It is devastating 
for a community like ours, especially when we can help the 
situation just given the chance.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you. So, as my colleagues and I 
said in our letter to the President, it is long past time that 
elected officials, finance and business organizations and 
environmental lobbyists put down pitchforks and come to the 
table and have honest discussions about the future of our 
energy. Many have done so, but a handful of influential 
partisans have become the loudest voices stoking fear and 
talking past one another as each perpetuates a my-way-or-the-
highway approach.
    The issues at their core require thoughtful debate and 
compromise. I hope this committee can again be that voice of 
reason and a beacon of congressional bipartisanship when it 
comes to finding the appropriate balance of solutions, just as 
we have in the past.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with that I'll yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko is recognized for 5 minutes. All right.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Veasey, for 5 minutes. The gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Veasey, you are recognized for 5 minutes. I don't see 
him on the screen.
    Ms. Schrier from Washington State, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Well, I am proud to say that I come from Washington State, 
a leader in carbon-free electricity and conservation, and most 
of the electricity in Washington comes from carbon-free 
resources like hydropower, wind, and solar. We've also made 
significant investments on the public and private side to 
ensure equity and energy efficiency investments, and this is by 
providing grants or low- or no-cost loans for families to 
conserve literally tens of millions of kilowatt hours of 
electricity while keeping their homes warmer and safer, 
particularly during the winter months.
    Through conservation our State has sort of acquired new 
affordable carbon-free resources without having to build 
anything but just by saving, and those saved electrons can be 
used to reduce emissions in other sectors, and it is really a 
win/win. Yet there are still thousands of homes, especially 
rental homes and multifamily buildings, that need upgraded 
heating systems, added installation, double-paned windows that 
could save energy long term for low-income customers, and we 
need to encourage rental property owners that energy efficiency 
is good for everyone's bottom line.
    Now, the CLEAN Future Act would reauthorize the Energy 
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program for 10 years, 
providing another valuable tool for electric customers to lower 
their bills and perhaps deal with some of these more complex 
challenges all while creating jobs.
    Mr. Baird, can you tell me what suggestions you would have 
for the committee to ensure that those dollars are distributed 
in an equitable way to underserved communities?
    Mr. Baird. Congresswoman, is that question for me?
    Ms. Schrier. Mr. Baird, yes.
    Mr. Baird. We recommend that a map be built that houses 
census tracks with low-income communities all across this 
country and that budget distributions through this bill and 
other infrastructure investments be mapped onto that map in 
order to help all employees of the Federal Government 
understand the social and environmental benefits of the 
investments and grants that are being made and to track and 
analyze those investments post-disbursement. We think that a 
centralized visualization of low-income communities is a 
critical part of supporting this plan.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you very much. Now I have another 
question. I am just going to change gears slightly to talk 
about solar energy and low-income community solar deployment. 
We've talked about the community solar projects, but Mr. DeVar, 
I have a question for you that is a little bit different, and I 
am listening to other questions like my colleague, Ms. Rodgers, 
also from Washington State, pointed out, lack of equity in 
terms of having a generator for outages or looking at Texas, 
and sometimes these communities are the last to have power 
restored.
    And so my question is not so much community solar, but is 
there any role here for solar roofing or solar panels and then 
connecting that to something like a power wall, a Tesla power 
wall or something else that could store enough energy for a few 
days and to do this on the individual home level for low-income 
homes? Any comments about that, Mr. DeVar?
    Mr. DeVar. Yes. Congresswoman, this is an important issue 
not just for the sake of keeping lights on, but keeping power 
on, particularly for low-income communities, has more relevance 
than many other Americans may realize in California or Texas.
    I grew up in Houston, so I knew a lot of family and friends 
who went through those issues there, spent time in California, 
but folks with limited means spend a sizeable portion of their 
income on every grocery bill. And so, when the power goes out 
and your refrigerator stops working, that's your livelihood.
    I appreciate this question because the role of solar and 
storage at a local household level is crucial, and without 
distributed energy resources, which starts with solar but 
compare that with household storage or without storage at the 
community level to have shelters or the local grocery store 
somehow having backup power through storage or on a microgrid--
these are all ways in which we would have safer, stronger 
communities if we deployed resilient storage technologies.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you for that answer. I really appreciate 
it, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair sees that 
Dr. Burgess has returned. Dr. Burgess, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush. My apologies that 
I'm having to toggle between several hearings today, but that's 
not atypical. But, of course, with all of the disparaging 
remarks being offered about the State of Texas, I thought it 
was important that I be back and at least be prepared to defend 
the Lone Star State.
    I have a couple questions for Mr. Perez. Mr. Perez, in 
particular--well, first off, thank you for being part of the 
hearing today. The CLEAN Future Act that is the subject of this 
hearing does, in fact, include some significant burdens on the 
traditional energy sector, and there's the risk that energy 
producers would raise prices, cut jobs, or just go out of 
business.
    So let me just ask you if traditional energy jobs promote 
economic stability in diverse and minority communities.
    You may be on mute.
    Mr. Perez. The answer to your question is absolutely. Aside 
from Hispanics In Energy, I've served in a lot of leadership 
roles with trade associations, in particular the Hispanic 
Chambers of Commerce, president of the Sacramento Hispanic 
chamber and vice chair of the California Hispanic chamber. So 
yes, economic stability is definitely part of the equation as 
it relates to energy and in particular that portion of energy 
in California. But all energy includes--for us includes the 
utility companies and all the emerging companies that are in 
the clean energy space.
    Mr. Burgess. I thank you for that answer. Of course, being 
from Texas you are familiar with--and it is not the area that I 
represent, that is up in the Midland Odessa area--but the 
Permian Basin certainly seems to have benefited the local 
minority and disadvantaged communities because of the jobs boom 
in the Permian Basin. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Perez. Absolutely.
    Mr. Burgess. And again, then, as a natural consequence of 
that, anything that restricted the energy production in that 
sector would likely have a deleterious effect on those jobs, 
would it not?
    Mr. Perez. Absolutely. And not just the jobs, but the 
cascading effect on families and communities is just 
incredible.
    Mr. Burgess. Right. So if those energy jobs disappeared, 
would workers in those jobs be able to just quickly transition 
to one of these other technologies that we're hearing about 
today?
    Mr. Perez. I don't see how, Congressman Burgess, because 
that area, as you well know, is really almost--it is very plain 
landscaping out there, mostly desert and cactus. So the answer 
is no. There is no alternative. If those folks moved to 
metropolitan areas, it would be a very huge stretch of reality 
to see that population do that.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you. I thank you for your prior answers. 
I thank you for your participation today.
    I wonder if I could ask Mayor Carter-King just briefly as I 
wrap up. Earlier this week it was announced that there was a 
power plant in Gillette that will be carbon capture 
technologies to produce concrete. That's a fairly novel 
approach. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
    Ms. Carter-King. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Burgess.
    That did just happen yesterday that a team up here at the 
XPRIZE was awarded a multimillion-dollar prize for that: 
technologies of extracting an element that they can use in 
concrete for building purposes. So it was quite innovative and 
something that can happen from the research that is going on 
with carbon. They were just one of many teams that are looking 
at other ways to use carbon. So it is a valuable resource in 
more ways than just burning it for energy.
    Mr. Burgess. Right. Well, I appreciate you bringing that 
up. I had an opportunity to visit with the good folks at 
Occidental Petroleum, and one of the projects that they are 
working on is removing carbon from ambient air--not just from 
an emission stack but from ambient air--and using that as a 
feedstock to be able to produce ethylene and then a variety of 
plastic products. So it is fascinating technology that people 
are working on. I am glad we have such smart people in our 
country that are working on innovative solutions to problems 
that have perplexed generations.
    Thank you, Chairman Rush. I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank the witnesses who are here today for this very, very 
important hearing.
    Mr. Chairman and witnesses, in addition to decreasing 
carbon emissions, clean energy deployment also improves public 
health and lowers energy prices. Despite this, many of these 
benefits are not available to low-income customers and 
communities of color who are disproportionately affected by 
high and severe energy burdens, heat islands, and pollution 
from fossil fuel energy production.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated these 
disparities. With more parents and children staying at home and 
increased household electricity demand, energy affordability 
and home electrification are now more crucial than ever. To 
tackle some of these issues I led efforts to lower energy bills 
through residential tree planting, and in my district energy 
equity organizations such as the Community Resource Project are 
focused on home retrofits, energy efficient appliances, and 
solar panel installations in low-income homes and multifamily 
units.
    Earlier this year I led a letter to the administration 
encouraging the establishment of a Federal program to upgrade 
HVAC units and improve energy efficiency in our Nation's 
schools. This effort would enhance indoor air quality in 
schools disproportionately affected by air pollution and also 
create jobs and electrification and energy efficiency.
    Mr. Baird and Ms. Farley, what initiatives can Congress 
support to ensure that local vulnerable populations have access 
to energy efficiency jobs and training? Mr. Baird first.
    Mr. Baird. Congresswoman Matsui, thank you for the 
question.
    We believe that low-income communities should own the 
microgrids, the solar, the electric wires that serve their 
communities, and keep their low-income communities from being 
vulnerable to the ravages of climate change and the 
deteriorating electricity grid. Once we start from a framework 
of low-income communities owning these new emerging clean 
energy assets, of course we will train and hire community 
residents to maintain those systems.
    Of course we will develop the skills to maintain those 
systems, because we will be the owners of those systems. And of 
course we will embrace the jobs, the living wages, the 
increased health benefits that come from embracing this 
equipment. And so the traditional distrust that prevents a lot 
of these technologies from being embraced from our communities 
will be removed through ownership. Thank you.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. And Ms. Farley, would you 
like to make a comment on that also?
    Ms. Farley. Yes. I think it is critically important to 
marry the technologies and those job opportunities with 
programs such as the National Institute of Environmental Health 
Science Environmental Career Working Training Program. This 
provides job safety and training for disadvantaged members of 
communities of color and low-income communities to secure jobs 
in these skills and technologies that we are talking about.
    There is also the Environmental Workforce Development and 
Job Training Program, and I think when you marry the training 
with the technology you begin to generate a greater buy-in and 
support that we need to advance----
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. I want to move on to 
another topic. Mr. Bhatraju, in your testimony you mentioned 
that community solar contributes to grid resilience and helps 
reduce large grid expansion. How can community solar help with 
wildfire resiliency?
    Mr. Bhatraju. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for the 
question.
    So community solar projects, they are acres-large solar 
products distributed that don't require new transmission build. 
So, first of all, they are cheaper to put on the grid because 
you can build large-scale projects that are part of the 
distribution grid. So to the question earlier, it certainly 
helps with resilience and making sure the power stays on if 
transmission wires go down like what happened in Texas.
    But on the second point, these projects can also--they 
don't catch on fire. Solar generally will use the sun to create 
power and just don't have the same combustion as traditional 
fossil fuel. So it is simpler in that respect.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you. I have already run out of 
time here, so I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. I don't see Mr. 
Griffith on the screen. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    I don't see him.
    We will move on to Mr. Johnson, the gentleman from Ohio. 
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As our Nation recovers from a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic 
and economic downturn, it is evident that working-class 
Americans have suffered greatly, and many are still struggling 
to get back on their feet, pay the bills, and care for their 
families. But in listening to some of my Democratic colleagues 
and their witnesses today, their message to these hard-working 
Americans seems to be, ``Hey, don't worry, here is a 
government-subsidized solar panel for your roof.'' I mean, are 
you serious? How can we be that out of touch?
    Unemployed Americans don't need wasteful green energy 
projects and top-down mandates. They need jobs, the kind of 
good-paying jobs that come with energy dominance. What we see 
in proposals like the CLEAN Future Act is a two-pronged attack 
on working Americans. The first attack includes provisions that 
will increase their energy prices and decrease reliability. 
This will hurt lower-income earners the most. The other attack 
goes after fossil fuel jobs, which threatens the livelihoods of 
millions of Americans.
    So Mayor Carter-King, from your testimony today it is clear 
that you represent a town that obviously punches above its 
weight. I'd like to think my district in Appalachian, eastern 
and southeastern Ohio is similar. We might be in an isolated, 
sometimes forgotten corner of our State, but the folks I 
represent take pride in keeping the economy moving by producing 
the coal, oil, and gas that our region is blessed with.
    So can you talk to this committee today about what it means 
to your constituents and to our Nation's security for such a 
small dot on the map to have such a significance, as you noted 
in your testimony, not only with fossil fuel resources but also 
rare earth minerals and uranium?
    Ms. Carter-King. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman 
Johnson.
    It is very important here with--especially since you said 
rare earth elements--that we get all of that. We depend on 
China for all of those, and we have plenty here in the United 
States and especially here in Wyoming that would help us with 
United States security and defense. So that is a great point.
    Also, we do have hard-working people here who for 30, 40 
years have supplied the country with energy, with goods, low 
economical energy, and to just kick us to the side without even 
trying to help us and even see what we can offer with our new 
research and everything, it is going to be devastating for 
communities like ours and I'm sure yours as well.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thanks. And Mr. Perez, the message 
from our Democratic colleagues and from the mainstream media is 
the idea that, if someone is part of a minority group, the 
American dream is somehow now out of reach and hard work just 
won't get you ahead. I know that you represent many immigrants 
and the children of immigrants from very poor backgrounds who 
work in the oil and gas industry. It is not easy work, of 
course, but as we've examined in this committee, it pays well.
    So, in your opinion, does the oil and gas industry, a great 
American industry, still provide a path to achieve the American 
dream and with it a better future for the next generation?
    Mr. Perez. For the Hispanic community, Congressman Johnson, 
the answer is yes. And there is no stronger evidence of that as 
we see Mexico recommitting itself to the oil and gas industry 
with the current president, and the reason he is doing that is 
exactly for that one reason, is jobs, good-paying jobs in an 
industry that offers family security and family economic 
growth. And so we just need to realize that it is not going to 
be an easy transition. There's some very hard human impact 
issues that we have got to seriously consider as we move in 
this direction.
    And we believe that technology is a great answer, nuclear 
power expansion and natural gas and all the technology. We have 
got a lot of innovation. We have got a lot of smart people in 
America. We ought to put them to work.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thanks, Mr. Perez.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back a total of 8 seconds.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair certainly appreciates the gentleman for 
yielding back. I see that the chairman of the Committee on 
Environment has returned. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 
great work you are doing as subcommittee chair on Energy, and 
thank you to our witnesses.
    Before I ask my questions I just wanted to make something 
abundantly clear because there has been a lot of talk about 
nuclear energy today, and the CLEAN Future Act, which both you 
and I have helped author along with Chairman Pallone and others 
on the committee, would indeed support nuclear generators. So I 
wanted to get that on the record.
    One challenge we see is that landlords are rarely 
incentivized to make investments that will reduce the energy 
bills of their renters. This has definitely been the case of 
energy efficiency and weatherization. So, Mr. Bhatraju, can you 
discuss how community solar can help overcome this barrier if a 
landlord doesn't want to invest in rooftop solar on his or her 
building?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Are you muted?
    Mr. Baird. That was Mr. Bhatraju, or Mr. Baird?
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Bhatraju.
    Mr. Bhatraju. I'm sorry, Congressman. I just had an issue 
with my audio. Could you just repeat the question quickly?
    Mr. Tonko. Kindly will do. Can you discuss how community 
solar can help overcome the barrier of landlords who are rarely 
incentivized to make investments that will reduce the energy 
bills of their renters? What about rooftop solar on their 
buildings?
    Mr. Bhatraju. Yes. Absolutely. It is a great question, 
Congressman. And apologies for that.
    As you know, you can't really put panels on everyone's 
roof, and some landlords who even can won't allow--there may be 
residents in their building that want to get it, but they make 
it hard to actually install even though it will save everyone 
money. The beauty of community solar is you can actually build 
a project distributed elsewhere. Like I was saying earlier in 
my testimony, on farmland oftentimes we find farmers who have 
unused land who are on the same distribution grid as maybe a 
multidwelling unit and can build a project that can then serve 
that multifamily housing unit and any customer inside that 
actually wants the benefits and savings to solar energy.
    And that is really the beauty of this product. Again, you 
know, we tend to think of solar as something that has to be on 
the perfectly southern-facing roof that a customer owns, and 
the reality is a lot of Americans don't own their home, don't 
have the perfect roof, and don't have the right credit score 
for that. So this is what I love about community solar. 
Everyone can access it even if you live in an apartment.
    Mr. Tonko. Right. Thank you. We want to make certain that 
this energy transition is affordable, that we are not impacting 
especially our poorer neighborhoods. Can you give us a sense of 
how community solar can result in reduced electricity bills for 
people?
    Mr. Bhatraju. Yes. Absolutely. It is a given now, but I 
think this still is a thing people don't know. Solar is the 
cheapest form of energy in the market. Every single project we 
manage at Arcadia is at a 5 or 10 percent savings to the 
traditional local utility rate, and that is indexed to the 
utility rate over a 20-, 25-year period. So the savings are 
effectively guaranteed to the customer.
    Now, the question you may ask, as any business owner, like, 
nothing is free, so who takes on the risk? Well, it is 
developers. It is investors. It is big investment banks, tax 
equity investors. They are the ones who also realize--this 
transition, they realize it is an amazing economic opportunity, 
and they realize they can sell cheaper power by investing in 
these projects. So it is an amazing customer value prop because 
they can choose cleaner energy and save money.
    But to that broader point, it is the larger investment in 
financial community that also loves this because you are 
delivering a great customer value prop. It is a steady asset 
that can produce returns over a long period of time.
    Mr. Tonko. So are there any State regulatory barriers that 
might make it difficult to deploy community solar or utilize 
the business model that you have established?
    Mr. Bhatraju. So we are a software business. We make it so 
that we can manage hundreds of megawatts of projects and 
deliver the credits and actually size it properly. You may have 
large homes. Someone in an apartment can use different sizes. 
There are barriers, right. Today there is only a handful of 
States that have these programs. They are regulated and 
deregulated energy markets, as I mentioned earlier. It can 
happen everywhere.
    And part of what we are hoping to pass this Congress with 
your support is the ability to do a national program and 
somewhere every State realize that you can do community solar, 
create a resilient grid, give people cheaper energy bills, and 
produce jobs, right, that can be everywhere. A lot of fossil 
fuel jobs tend to be in very specific locations. You can put 
community solar everywhere in this country, in all 50 States.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, our legislation would empower States, so 
this is good--or compacts of States--so this is good to know, 
and we thank all of you for providing witness testimony today. 
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now sees Mr. 
Griffith has returned. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 
from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
apologize. I had to step out for a couple of minutes to go make 
a presentation at the Rules Committee.
    Earlier in the testimony as we were discussing all of this 
we had Mr. Doyle, who indicated that we weren't going to get 
rid of fossil fuels immediately, that we would have a decade or 
so. I don't think we have to get rid of fossil fuels at all, 
particularly if we work on new carbon capture technologies like 
is being worked on in my district by Mova Technologies for 
panel filtration, and I think it is important that we continue 
to use base fuels whether it be nuclear or fossil and that we 
do an all of the above.
    One of the things I thought was interesting, though, and I 
think it shows a weakness in some of the legislation that is 
being discussed ,is that one of the witnesses in a prior 
hearing who was a Democrat witness, Allison Silverstein, when I 
asked her would it take more than 20 to 30 years to build the 
high-voltage power lines that she thinks are necessary in order 
to have a completely renewable energy system, her response was 
yes. And the bottom line is that somebody has got to have these 
high-voltage power lines to come through the areas to make sure 
that we are wheeling the electricity to the areas that need it, 
wherever the sun may not be shining because of weather 
conditions or where the wind hasn't blown, but they've got 
solar in the area, but it isn't working. They have to wheel it 
from other areas that have an abundance.
    Now, I know we've got some battery technologies, and so 
forth. The problem is Mr. Doyle and some of the legislation 
anticipates even in a best-case scenario that we are looking at 
a decade or so, but quite frankly we can't build the 
infrastructure necessary to wield that electricity, as your 
witnesses showed in a prior hearing unless--it is going to take 
more than 20 to 30 years to do so.
    And then I asked this question that I think is an important 
question because I represent one of the poorest financially--it 
is a great district, but it has financial issue right across 
the line from Pike County, Kentucky--in Virginia. So I know 
that one of our witnesses knows about that. But I represent an 
area that is pretty poor. So where are we going to put these 
high-voltage power lines? Because historically what we do is we 
put those high-voltage power lines where the poor folks live, 
and that is who I represent, folks who don't have as much 
money.
    And I don't want to see the beautiful mountains of central 
Appalachia crisscrossed with high-voltage power lines any more 
so than they already are. And wouldn't the members of this 
panel agree with me that that is not where it should be, that 
they should put these new power lines closer to the big cities 
where they need more of those power lines to draw the power to? 
Anybody on the panel want to address that?
    Mr. Bhatraju. I'm happy to, Congressman. Look, I don't 
think--you know, I think there are tons of issues with siting 
transmission. We will need it. You are absolutely right. We 
also need hardened distribution grids. Some of these large 
community solar projects, they are on the distribution grid. 
They do not actually require large-scale transmission.
    And to the earlier questions about resilience, these 
projects can create a more resilient grid in tandem with 
battery storage and other fuels by being on the specific 
distribution grid not requiring new transmission buildout, 
which I think a lot of other types of renewables do.
    Mr. Griffith. Go ahead.
    Mr. Baird. Congressman, I'm joining this hearing via my 
iPhone, my smartphone. Computers used to be great big pieces of 
equipment that used to take up entire rooms. Now they're small 
enough to fit in your pocket or to fit in your lapel pin. That 
is the same thing that is going to happen to our energy 
equipment and energy infrastructure. It is going to shrink from 
large, centralized energy production systems to smaller and 
smaller systems that can fit in each and every American home.
    That transition will occur, and it is simply a question of 
who owns it. Is it going to be us, or is it going to be China? 
But the technology is here, and the macro trends are clear as 
to what is going to be happening in terms of the transition of 
the energy industry.
    Mr. Griffith. But do you truly believe that will happen in 
the next decade? I think it will happen, but not in the next 
decade.
    Mr. Baird. I think it will happen within 5 to 7 years. It 
is already happening across America.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, I hope you are right because that is 
what we are going to be gambling on, apparently, with America's 
power system and hoping that we have enough power and hoping 
the technology catches up. I would rather we had that plan 
already in place. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Kuster, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    You are muted, Ms. Kuster.
    Ms. Kuster, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    All right. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Blunt Rochester. 
Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would 
like to thank you also for holding this important hearing, and 
thank you so much to the witnesses.
    This Thursday marks the 51st year we commemorate Earth Day, 
and for the second year in a row amid social distancing 
measures, most Earth Day events will be virtual. The ongoing 
pandemic and the racial and income disparities in COVID-19 
deaths and hospitalizations are an important reminder that the 
health of our planet and the health of our people are 
inextricably linked.
    Transitioning to clean energy is not only necessary to 
protect human health and the environment, but it is also an 
enormous opportunity to create a more equitable economy. 
Generations of inequalities and injustices have placed a 
disproportionately high energy burden on our low-income, 
indigenous, and Black and brown communities.
    The average low-income family in Delaware spends nearly 10 
percent of their income on home energy costs. Too often 
environmental justice communities are excluded from 
considerations on clean energy, perpetuating underinvestment in 
these communities. We need to work together to ensure that 
environmental justice communities have a seat at the table as 
we transition to clean energy.
    And my first question is for Mr. Butrauju--sorry for that. 
Bhatraju. We recognize that the transition to clean energy will 
not be seamless, but we also know clean energy creates good-
paying union jobs. Prior to the pandemic there were nearly 
14,000 Delaware residents working in clean energy. Can you 
explain how clean energy investments like community solar 
provide jobs for Americans while increasing access to energy in 
high-burdened and low-income communities?
    Mr. Bhatraju. Thank you, Congresswoman. And no worries at 
all. My name is not phonetic.
    So community solar--and I want to go over this point 
again--it can happen everywhere, and the benefits are broad 
because it is offsite and requires skilled electricians and 
tradesmen to actually install these projects. There is a great 
story out of West Virginia, for example, where a company called 
Solar Holler where they have retrained coal miners to actually 
install megawatts now of solar in West Virginia, as an example.
    But even in urban areas you are seeing community solar as 
an amazing benefit to the question earlier, people living in 
apartments, and creating resilient distribution grids, hardened 
grids. We know that the climate is getting weirder, and there's 
more storms, and having these hardened grids is especially 
beneficial for low-income populations and communities.
    So the benefits of community solar are going to be more 
widespread by virtue of the product itself but by virtue of the 
fact that it can happen in all 50 States.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you. And Ms. Farley, High 
Road businesses apply a collection of labor policies that take 
a more sustainable approach to treating workers, the planet, 
and the local community, which includes racial justice, racial 
equity hiring practices, prevailing wage standards, 
unionization, and environmental sustainability. We often hear 
from critics that clean energy is antilabor, but the two are 
not mutually exclusive, and we do know that we don't have to 
choose between our good jobs and the environment.
    How can we incorporate the High Road business model into 
the clean energy industry to stimulate good job growth and 
create jobs for all Americans?
    Ms. Farley. Thank you, Congresswoman Rochester. I think 
that we have strong models for this. There are many equitable 
High Road job policies and programs that have been developed 
and create great models and demonstrate great models of this. 
We know that President Biden's American Jobs Plan specifically 
speaks to the promise of higher-paying, unionized clean energy 
jobs with family-sustaining benefits.
    And so I think that the clean energy industry has a lot to 
learn from the labor industry, and I have been encouraged to 
see more coordination between traditional unions and the clean 
energy industry. And I think that both industries have a lot to 
learn from each other as soon as we begin to see each other as 
mutually supportive and not mutually exclusive.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for your leadership. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, for 5 
minutes. You are recognized, Mr. Bucshon.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I just want to dispute a little bit the 
comment made that says the rest of the world are doing what is 
in the Democrats' proposals. Well, India and China don't seem 
to be listening, so we don't want to economically disadvantage 
ourselves.
    I'm deeply troubled by the legislation to keep CLEAN Future 
Act before us. The partisan bill not only jeopardizes America's 
energy security and affordability, but worse it destroys the 
livelihoods of hard-working Hoosiers and Americans across the 
country. I want to make it clear I support an all-the-above 
energy approach, and I support decreasing CO2 
emissions. Innovation and technology advances such as carbon 
capture are critical to this goal. We don't need to ruin the 
economy and our energy leadership to do that.
    The legislation proposed before us, I believe, is somewhat 
out of touch with reality and moves to get rid of the fossil 
fuel industry with its overreaching provisions. I want to read 
from the bill itself, in fact, in Section 1002, the Energy and 
Economic Transition Impact Studies section. The Democrat bill 
says that ``the Secretary shall seek to enter into an agreement 
with the National Academy of Sciences under which the Academy 
agrees to conduct studies on matters concerning potential 
impacts of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions on 
workers and communities dependent on employment related to 
fossil fuel as follows.''
    I think I know the answer to the question, but I will read 
you what the study they are proposing would do: ``Identify 
types of occupations related to fossil fuels that may be 
impacted by the Nation's transition to achieving net zero 
greenhouse gas emissions, including occupations involved with 
the extraction of fossil fuels, the refinement of fossil fuels, 
the generation of electricity from fossil fuels, the production 
of energy-intensive industrial products, the manufacturing of 
light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles that utilize an 
internal combustion engine and other component parts for such 
vehicles, and the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
infrastructure to deliver fossil fuels for domestic use, and 
for each type of occupation identified under subparagraph (A), 
estimates of the number of employees serving in each 
occupation, and the locations of the employees for each type of 
occupation.''
    So even in the bill it is recognized that there is going to 
be a substantial impact. I don't think we need to have the 
Secretary study that to prove that. In regard to the all-of-
the-above approach, I think my record speaks for itself with 
respect to my support for hydro and nuclear energy as well as 
other renewable sources of energy, but I represent with great 
pride a district that is responsible for providing the bulk of 
energy generation from coal: the whole State of Indiana.
    Mr. Chairman, it is personal to me. I grew up in the coal 
fields in central Illinois. My father was a proud United Mine 
Worker for his entire career. Over the past 4 years, however, 
thousands of hard-working Hoosier coal miners in my district 
have lost their jobs, and we are having more power plant 
retirements. As more plants are set to retire partially because 
of stringent regulations like we see in this legislation, there 
will be an increase in hard-working folks who will be laid off 
and struggling to find work. Why don't we innovate and 
implement advanced carbon capture technology before all of 
these jobs are lost?
    Mr. Perez, this transition will have serious impacts on the 
fossil fuel industry. What economic opportunity alternatives do 
energy workers have should their years of experience and valued 
skill sets no longer be needed or warranted?
    Mr. Perez. Well, it is very limited, especially at the 
scale when you deal with millions of people that would be 
displaced across the country. I mean, the Hispanic community is 
only maybe a million of those workers, but when you are dealing 
with 10 million people it is very difficult because it is 
essentially taking a worker, retraining them, so it is going to 
be very expensive to do that, very time consuming. Some folks 
will filter out because they don't like the new work, and so by 
the time it all ends up it might be years down the road, and 
you may only have partial success while at the same time you 
are increasing economic distress for some of these workers and 
their families.
    And so in our case we are seeing the Hispanic community is 
coming out of poverty. We definitely are in an upward mobility 
mode. We are great contributors of the country's economy with 
$2.3 trillion purchasing power. There is a lot of opportunity 
there, and so we are very concerned about the shift over. And 
we are saying let's stop. Let's really take a good look at what 
we are trying to do and figure this out before we put so many 
people in harm's way.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you for that. I would agree.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now once 
again recognizes Ms. Kuster for 5 minutes. The gentlelady from 
New Hampshire, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
it.
    This is an important hearing, and I am grateful to our 
panel for being with us today. As Congress works to help the 
country transition to net zero carbon emissions, we must ensure 
that low-income Americans and communities of color will benefit 
from this revolution in our energy sources, and I want to make 
sure that everyone has the chance.
    So, according to the Department of Energy, the average low-
income family spends nearly 9 percent of their income on home 
energy bills, three times more than the national average. These 
burdens are even more acute in rural communities in New 
England, where the average low-income family spends nearly 11 
percent of their income on energy bills. It is unacceptable 
that low-income Americans are forced to spend 1 out of every 10 
hard-earned dollars keeping the lights on and keeping their 
family warm. We need to help low-income Americans spend less 
money on their energy bills, and one way we can do that is by 
reducing the cost of electricity itself.
    In my district, the Plymouth Area Renewable Energy 
Initiative has done just that. Partnering with the Common Man 
restaurant and the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, they 
built a community solar project that sells clean energy into 
the local grid and uses the revenue to subsidize energy bills 
of local low-income families.
    Mr. Bhatraju, what can Congress do to help develop more of 
these projects that strengthen the grid, reduce carbon 
emissions, and make the clean energy revolution more equitable?
    Mr. Bhatraju. Thank you, Congresswoman. As a lot of you 
know, the power grid is not actually competitive in a lot of 
parts of the U.S. The community solar projects I talked about 
that we manage are right now across eight States. Again, these 
are red States, blue States, deregulated, regulated markets. 
Community solar can happen everywhere, but it is a form of 
competitive energy that we need to promote everywhere.
    And it is part of the legislation that we are discussing 
here today is to give every public utility commission--and 
there's 50 States, 50 public utility commissions--the ability 
to consider creating a community solar program. And they can go 
through their own deliberations of how to do it--how big, where 
to put it, et cetera--but that is all we are asking.
    And I think, hopefully, it came through today that the 
benefits of community solar are so much more widespread than 
traditional rooftop solar that opening up the ability for these 
policymakers to consider these programs, put them in all 50 
States, benefits everyone, the communities and folks that are 
left out of the transition.
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you very much. Another way to 
reduce energy bills is by helping families operate their homes 
more efficiently. Heat pumps cost less to operate than a 
traditional natural gas or oil furnace. Because heat humps run 
on electricity instead of carbon-based fuels, they can help us 
meet our carbon reduction goals as we electrify the grid.
    Mr. Baird, what are some of the barriers that you see to 
broader heat hump utilization, and should Congress consider 
incentives to help more Americans adopt this technology?
    Mr. Baird. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Heat 
pumps will be a central technology in the American economy over 
the next 30 to 50 years. Right now they're being primarily 
produced in Japan. They are new models of heat pumps that use 
carbon as refrigerant. So for our friends across the aisle who 
are interested in carbon capture and storage, heat pumps 
actually present a multitrillion-dollar use case for capture 
carbon and using it as refrigerant in heat pumps.
    The barriers to deploying heat pumps at scale include a 
lack of homeowner awareness. Americans are not aware of the 
benefits of heat pumps as is the case in Europe and Asia, where 
heat pumps are the top home energy technology. And second, we 
must train up a new, highly skilled construction workforce that 
has the ability to do plumbing and electrical work and 
hazardous materials construction work that is necessary to 
install heat pumps in 120 million American homes. Thank you.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much. I did have another 
question about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
LIHEAP, but I will submit that for the record. Thank you. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes my friend from the great State of Michigan, Mr. 
Walberg, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. I thank the Chairman, and thanks to the panel 
for being here.
    This is an important issue that sometimes I think we ought 
to step back and really, really consider what we are talking 
about for the future, especially as we are thinking about 20, 
30, 50 years. Mayor Carter-King, I'd like to talk to you about 
carbon capture since I know there is work being done on a 
storage facility at Dry Fork Station in Gillette, which my 
staff had the privilege to visit.
    I agree with you that there are many good uses for carbon 
rather than keep it in the ground, which is not practical in my 
view, not necessary either, I believe. We should invest in 
carbon capture utilization and storage. This is a bipartisan 
solution since we need to figure out how to manage carbon 
across the value chain, but we need to make sure we're not 
duplicating existing regulations or imposing impractical 
permitting requirements that may undermine future development 
of this technology.
    The Federal Tax Code can be a tremendous tool, but we can 
also look at speeding up the infrastructure process for 
companies to obtain Federal permits needed to inject 
CO2 into storage. And so, Mayor King, do you support 
equipping the EPA for the Federal Government with the ability 
to process these infrastructure permits at a faster rate and 
helping other States take the lead like you are doing in 
Wyoming?
    Ms. Carter-King. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman 
Walberg. That is absolutely what we would appreciate here so 
that we can fast track more of the research that is going on 
here. When President Biden was running for election, he said he 
would work with the red States as well as the blue States. 
Well, we here are willing to work with him on subjects like 
this because we do need his help now.
    Mr. Walberg. I think that is called primacy, isn't it? 
Could you also speak to the importance of new technologies and 
innovations in carbon capture utilization and storage? And then 
secondarily, what would that mean for your community of 
Gillette, and shouldn't we give your State a strong opportunity 
to lead in this space?
    Ms. Carter-King. Absolutely. Thank you again. That is a 
great question. We do need the help to continue this vital 
research in such an abundant resource that we have here that 
can help the Nation as well as the world. Other nations do 
recognize this, and we have other countries here working on the 
research as well. We need to work more with the rest of the 
world. This is a global problem that we can help with right 
here in the Powder Basin. It is vital that we continue this 
important research into carbon capture.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I think we forget--so often we forget 
our primacy itself in all-of-the-above energy opportunities and 
solutions that we don't necessarily need to throw them all out 
or throw certain ones out, but we can use them appropriately.
    Mr. Perez, thank you for being here. We keep hearing about 
the job potential of this so-called just transition and no 
doubt there is huge potential in clean energy jobs, but I think 
we need to be realistic. Even former Secretary of Energy Moniz 
concluded that new replacement green jobs pay significantly 
less, not to mention impediments to retraining our entire 
generation of workers.
    I just think it is silly to think that a government 
transition czar and task force are going to take care of all of 
those workers who lose their jobs. Mr. Perez, can you speak to 
your workforce and the need to reserve jobs that folks are 
training for today?
    Mr. Perez. Oh, absolutely. Well, first of all, we found 
that there is a huge need to develop a workforce in energy 
STEM, and the reason for that is 25 percent of K-12 students in 
America today are Hispanics, which means 10, 15 years down the 
road that is your workforce. So we need to be thinking about 
how we are going to create the new intellect to innovate and 
develop the technologies necessary to not only carry our 
industry forward but our country and, of course, hopefully the 
world.
    So we initiated a program called the Hispanic American 
Energy STEM Institute 2 years ago. We launched it in Arizona. 
We have had similar discussion on this with very influential 
people, including the top leaders of education in California 
and the CEOs of the utilities there to talk about how the 
industry and the academia and the community can develop a 
pathway to create 25,000 Hispanic and other minority group 
energy STEM graduates by the year 2025. Very ambitious goal, 
but if we don't throw it out and have some discussion, who 
knows? Maybe we might be able to pull it off.
    But in terms of the comparison to the clean energy space, 
we have connected with people who train solar installers. They 
tell us that those jobs don't pay very well. It is about $13 an 
hour, no benefits, no union, no sustainability, no career 
ladder. Once a project is over, that person has to go out and 
find another project.
    So on the other hand, in the oil and gas side, we can take 
assistant welders, for example, right off the street they go 
through the union training. They put them on the job. It is $23 
an hour, $20 an hour for benefits and then $64 a day for per 
diem, which is how they house themselves and feed themselves 
when they have to move across the country for these very 
special jobs.
    So there is a big difference in terms of the scale of 
security, income, opportunity, training, education, and 
development that is offered in one sector compared to another.
    Mr. Walberg. Great. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. Now the Chair does not 
see Mr. O'Halleran on the screen. Mr. O'Halleran, you are next.
    So the Chair now will move to Mr. Duncan.
    I don't see Mr. Duncan on the screen.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama for 5 
minutes. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Lesko for 5 minutes. Mrs. 
Lesko, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, although I see Mr. Palmer 
waving his hand. So I don't know if you want to go back to him 
first.
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    You are muted, Mr. Palmer.
    All right. Mrs. Lesko, why don't we just go with you. You 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this 
hearing, and I thank you for being here.
    I think it is important that we talk about things like 
equity, that we have an honest conversation about what equity 
really means. For my colleagues, many of them on the other side 
of the aisle, achieving equity requires the creation of an 
Office of Energy Equity, but I believe the easier way to serve 
our communities is to have policies that promote affordable and 
reliable energy and maintain good-paying American jobs.
    We can continue innovating and deploying clean technology 
as well as a lot of traditional forms of energy like natural 
gas to be a choice for Americans. I represent nearly 180,000 
fixed-income senior citizens and 173,000 Hispanics in my 
congressional district in Arizona, and I want to make sure that 
these people and this energy policy we consider doesn't lead to 
higher prices, especially on the seniors who are living off 
fixed income. I also want to make sure that policies proposed 
in the name of equity or environmental justice aren't taking 
away good paying jobs from working class communities.
    Mr. Perez, in this bill--and I would like to read part of 
this bill, it is on page 953 of the CLEAN Future Act--it 
identifies types of occupations related to fossil fuels that 
may be impacted, meaning lost, by the Nation's transition, and 
it is a fast transition, to achieving zero net greenhouse gas 
emissions and includes ``occupations involved with the 
extraction of fossil fuels, the refinement of fossil fuels, the 
generation of electricity from fossil fuels, the production of 
energy-intensive industrial products, the manufacturing of 
light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles that utilize an 
internal combustion engine and other component parts for such 
vehicles, and the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
infrastructure to deliver fossil fuels for domestic use.''
    That is right in the bill, and you have testified in 
advance, but I want you to repeat again the impact that the 
loss of these jobs is going to have on the Hispanic community 
and the 173,000 Hispanics that I have in my congressional 
district.
    Mr. Perez. It will be a very devastating impact 
economically. It would create a depression made by government, 
and so we really caution against that. We think that there 
needs to be a lot of research and a lot of study. Otherwise, I 
hate to say this but you probably won't want to claim 
responsibility for that if that happens.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Perez. Mayor Carter-King, I am 
really concerned about the increased cost of electricity and 
energy if we rush too fast to replace the oil and gas industry 
and not have an all-the-above energy policy. Do you think that 
a quick rush--I think in this bill it is 14 years we only have 
until electric generation plants have to totally be at zero 
carbon emissions, meaning no natural gas. Do you think that 
would lead to increased utility prices for these low-income and 
communities of color?
    Ms. Carter-King. Thank you, Congresswoman Lesko. 
Absolutely. I don't think people are even thinking about how 
expensive power would be. And who would that hurt? Your lower-
income people. It would be so--I can't even manage without 
having the low cost of these fossil fuel energies in the mix at 
least. It will be devastating to people that won't be able to 
afford to turn on lights. We have spoiled our country with low 
energy prices all these years. So yes, it will have quite an 
impact on the price of energy across the board.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, and I am concerned for all people and 
what the impact will be on the cost of utility rates and also 
the reliability of the utilities of energy. And so with that I 
yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Rush. Yes, Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. Perfect. I am going to make a couple statements 
here about energy justice. It is widely reported that low-
income households can spend up to 20 percent of their household 
income on their energy cost. It is disproportionately a heavy 
burden on low-income families. I also want to point out that 
they suffer energy poverty in the sense that they can't afford 
to adequately heat and cool their homes. And this is especially 
problematic when the homes are cold for people with respiratory 
and cardiovascular issues, particularly asthma.
    Mr. Perez, there is a study from IHS Market, one of the 
most highly respected research groups in the world, and they 
predicted that by 2035 there would be 1.9 million jobs in oil 
and natural gas, that 700,000 of those would be African 
Americans and Latinos. What do you say in regard to how it 
would impact those communities if those jobs were not 
available? Would you agree those would be very high-paying 
jobs?
    Mr. Perez. There is no questions about it. We partner very 
closely with the American Association of Blacks in Energy, 
AABE. They have been around since 1977. We are a fairly new 
organization. They actually incubated us for a couple years 
when we got started 10 years ago. So we have done projects 
together. One of them is focused on energy jobs.
    We toured around the country in 10 different cities to meet 
with leaders and talk to them about the opportunities in the 
energy space as it relates to jobs, and it was all inclusive. 
And I can tell you that the effect from my perspective--I 
cannot be a spokesperson for them--but I think that it 
definitely would have an impact on the African-American 
community almost as dramatically as it would in the Latino 
community.
    Mr. Palmer. The thing about these jobs, they are longer-
term jobs as opposed to the jobs in the green industry.
    Mr. Perez. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. For instance, Germany in 2011, they reported 
300,000 green jobs that had fallen to 150,000 by 2018. And then 
if you go back and look at the first version of the Green New 
Deal, which was the 2009 stimulus package the Obama-Biden 
administration passed, the Democrats passed, in 2009, they were 
predicting that it would create 5 million new green jobs, but 
they could only account for 2.7 million. And according to the 
Brookings Institute, most of those were bus drivers, sewage 
workers, and other types of work that didn't fit the green jobs 
of the future. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics even included 
jobs like lobbying for green industries.
    That makes no sense that there were people in the septic 
tank and portable toilet servicing industry had 33 times more 
green jobs than solar electric utilities. This is the kind of 
stuff that really concerns me, is the misrepresentation of what 
the Green New Deal will provide for the country, and 
particularly the cost increases.
    In California their energy costs are 60 percent higher than 
the national average, and that is a tremendous burden on low-
income families. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Perez?
    Mr. Perez. It is higher than other States. Absolutely. I 
moved from California recently, and I live now in Minnesota, 
and so big difference in terms of our energy bill, absolutely.
    Mr. Palmer. I appreciate the response. I would also like to 
ask again, and I have done this in two or three hearings in 
Pembroke Township in Illinois. It is a city of 2,100 people, 80 
percent Black population. They have no natural gas. Many of 
these people heat their homes with wood-burning stoves or more 
expensive propane, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson is leading an 
effort to get a gas line in Pembroke Heights to provide these 
people with lower costs and more reliable fuel for heating 
their homes.
    I just want to know from the witnesses how many of you 
would support Reverend Jackson's efforts to get a natural gas 
pipeline into Pembroke Township. How many of the witnesses, 
period, the Republican or--would you support that, Mr. Perez?
    Mr. Perez. Well, I am a Democrat, and the answer is yes.
    Mr. Palmer. How about you, Mayor Carter-King? Any of the 
Democrats, would you support that? Seeing no takers, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Baird. I oppose gas pipelines. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, the great State of 
Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran, you are muted.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 
and I want to thank the panel also for all their information 
from today.
    Changing energy economies means that rural communities like 
those in my district with generating stations have lost and 
will continue to lose jobs as coal becomes less economically 
viable. With support like that provided by my legislation, the 
New Promise Act, communities across the country will be able to 
transition to the next generation of good-paying clean energy 
jobs. Ensuring that Federal resources are available and 
communities are driving the direction of those resources will 
support communities through this transition that is already 
being driven by market forces.
    I believe that we should ask ourselves how Federal 
investment into clean energy can improve the lives of our 
constituents and our communities. Asking this question allowed 
me to develop the New Promise Act to support rural economies 
and make sure that hard-working Americans continue to have 
opportunities to pursue good jobs.
    Mr. DeVar, how will Federal transition assistance to both 
local governments and workers promote rural equality in an 
energy transition?
    Mr. DeVar. Thank you, Congressman.
    Well, first of all, the focus on local governments and 
workers has to be built into recognizing where there will be 
shifts in workforces. Actually, I think this question really 
connects to issues that have been raised. Where are there going 
to be job losses? Where will there be local governments that 
have different shifts in revenue streams?
    And approaching this overall transition not as one that is 
simply an energy transition but approaching it as one that 
focuses on American families and jobs would elevate. If we set 
the goal of this transition equally to look at American 
families and how they benefit and if we set metrics to ensure 
that we reach cities, towns and have local governments 
connected to the transition, then we would ensure that we were 
able to build distributed generation, for example, which can 
reach all of our cities and towns as opposed to types of 
resources that may leave certain communities out as well as 
rural communities.
    That is the other important issue where we need to think 
about the benefits of a decentralized and distributed approach, 
which could really bring jobs to all of our communities.
    And lastly, I will just say this is actually an important 
question to think about that issue of job loss, but I think we 
have to connect that also to communities that are thinking 
about their income as well as communities that are facing risk 
of pollution. So this isn't a simple tradeoff of one harm to 
another harm. It is a complex web, and if we are honest with 
ourselves we really need to analyze what the tradeoff of 
benefits and burdens are, and that will really get to the heart 
of addressing specifically local governments and workers.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. I have followup question. Can 
you speak to some successful examples of rural communities 
successfully transitioning coal jobs to clean energy jobs?
    Mr. DeVar. I myself am not an expert in specific job 
training programs. I think some of the other witnesses here 
would. But I think what I can point to is that the vehicle for 
ensuring that just transition happens is often rural electric 
cooperatives that are responsive to their customers, that care 
about fossil fuel workers. And so if, again, we connect to 
local governments and those institutions that care about folks 
there, care about those jobs and tie that into our transition, 
we will ensure that we have training and support for workers 
from one industry to another.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. Those rural co-ops are also 
important to broadband distribution throughout our country 
also. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses 
for appearing before us today.
    The academic ideas incorporated in the majority's 
aggressive energy policies are neither equitable nor just for 
my constituents in southeast Indiana. Under this bill, a just 
transition means less reliable energy for a higher price, fewer 
jobs, and economically depressed communities in my Hoosier 
State.
    If we want a preview of a similar rush to green, we can 
look to the outcomes and looming energy shortages in Germany. 
The country's premature shift has left consumers with the 
highest cost of electricity in the European Union. All the 
while Germany still relies on their neighbor for coal and 
nuclear generation to meet peak energy needs.
    At a time when gas prices are already straining the budgets 
of Americans in rural and suburban communities, we simply 
cannot afford to foot the bill to bring renewable energy and 
electric vehicles just to the urban areas. As the attack on 
fossil industries intensifies, it is important to remember the 
impact on the entire value and distribution chain.
    That includes the trucking industry, manufacturing plants, 
our farmers and Hoosier products that fuel the country. Just 
the other week I had the opportunity to meet with Superior Oil 
in Connersville, Indiana. This company is helping lower our 
carbon footprint by recycling and reusing different types of 
liquid fuels for chemical, plastics, and manufacturing 
industries.
    Consider companies in my district like Cardinal Ethanol and 
POET who are leaders in the high-tech ethanol and biofuel 
development, all from the locally sourced agriculture products. 
What would be the just transition for these workers in my 
district when we shift to complete electrification? What 
happens to the local economy and tax revenue that grows a 
community? Unfortunately, President Biden and the House 
Democrats' one-size-fits-all approach to energy catches rural 
Hoosiers in the crossfire.
    Mayor Carter-King, your community faces a serious threat 
from the policies coming from the CLEAN Future Act. In your 
testimony, you detailed the real-world impact of these 
aggressive policies. Eliminating fossil fuels result in the 
loss of revenue, jobs, and wellbeing for the citizens of 
Gillette. One of the reasons I ran for Congress was because I 
watched the destruction of the manufacturing sector hollow out 
entire communities across Indiana in my district. It is my fear 
that the very policies we're talking about today will replicate 
this situation for my constituents.
    You have been investing in new, cleaner ways to use coal, 
oil, and natural gas. This would benefit small rural towns by 
keeping anchor institutions in place. My question: Before we 
unjustly destroy entire communities on the way to green, 
shouldn't we give these innovations more time to develop so we 
can transition these communities in an orderly manner?
    Ms. Carter-King. Thank you, Congressman Pence. Absolutely. 
That is all we're asking, is for time to develop these 
innovations that the great minds of the world are coming up 
with here in our community and in other communities. We just 
need more time. They can't happen overnight. But they will 
benefit everyone. These could have worldwide implications some 
of the technology that they are working on now just like the 
concrete solution they came up with yesterday in the XPRIZE. So 
yes, thank you. We need more time.
    Mr. Pence. All right. Thank you today for being here and 
championing our smaller communities. And Mr. Chair, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Armstrong for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have heard it 
several times today that the free market is what is continuing 
the cause of the decline of coal, and I think it is important 
to go through this because if we're talking about creating new 
energy standards, understanding how the electric grid works 
economically is probably pretty important, and anybody who says 
that market forces and not government regulation is what killed 
coal simply doesn't understand how the economics of the 
electric grid work.
    To be sure, abundance of natural gas from shale plates has 
a free-market factor in what continues to cause the decline of 
coal, but that is literally the only free-market portion of 
this conversation. Every other thing has been created by 
government regulation.
    It actually started under the H.W. Bush administration but 
was aggressively and effectively pursued under the Obama 
administration. The admission of CO2 to the New 
Source Review standard was significant because it made the 
decision to retire coal plants instead of retrofit them. The 
cost and uncertainties weren't worth it. It was a bad policy, 
and it was administered poorly. Rather than risk an NSR review, 
coal plant were shuttered. And while the clean power plant was 
never fully implemented, it was really effective in one thing: 
It gave States the message that the Federal Government was 
going to shut coal plants down and that States plan 
accordingly, which brings us to probably the most important 
thing.
    There is no real free market in the electric grid. Electric 
companies in most States are government-approved monopolies. 
They have guaranteed market share. State regulators set the 
rates, and the utilities aren't allowed to make a profit from 
the sale of electricity. It is a cost-of-service business 
model. Regulated by the government, it covers expenses and 
builds in a profit margin which is usually around 10 percent.
    We have created a system where utilities have a guaranteed 
profit when they spend on capital assets, but the profits they 
make on assets declines every year as an asset depreciates. As 
coal plants get older, it makes utilities less--they make less 
money on that asset, and as plants are paid off the electricity 
is cheaper, and rate payers benefit but government-controlled 
utilities don't.
    Through a perverse regulatory incentive, utilities have 
strong financial reasons to retire depreciated coal plants and 
build wind, solar, and natural gas, and this is before we talk 
about regulatory and economic advantages renewables continue to 
have over coal with the never-ending production tax credit: 
2019, 4.7 billion in market manipulation; 2020, 4.3 billion in 
market manipulation; 2021, 4.3 billion in market manipulation, 
not the least of which renewables are granted primacy on the 
grid.
    So when we talk about a just transition, let's be honest 
what we are talking about, and we should just tell the people 
in my communities like Beulah, Hazen, Watford City, Williston 
and yes, Gillette, Wyoming, that we are going to kill their 
communities because, whether it is coal or oil or natural gas, 
none of these renewable jobs that we continue to say will exist 
will scale up to allow these communities to survive.
    And I am going to let everybody in on a little secret. 
Everybody who lives in Watford City, North Dakota, is in the 
energy business--everybody from the teacher to the cop to the 
government officials. If there's 15 clean energy jobs that are 
created in Rochester, Minnesota, that does nothing for the 
people in my communities in western North Dakota. And we're 
seeing these same fights coming in different ways right now.
    One of the things we're seeing in the oil and natural gas 
space is how we continue to attack pipelines. Somebody said 
earlier States aren't going to ban fracking--and that's 
probably true mostly because, when it comes to oil and gas, 
which while there is a difference to coal, States have too much 
control over production--but you don't have to kill fracking to 
kill the industry. All you have got to do is continue to sue 
pipelines out, sue pipelines out, sue pipelines out, make the 
cost of compliance so hard, the time built to get that 
infrastructure in the ground is so burdensome that the capital 
to deliver the products to market matters.
    And if we want to talk about equity in the setting that it 
is talking in now, I would have everybody read the declaration 
of Mark Fox, who is the chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes 
in North Dakota. They transport 60 percent of their oil by the 
Dakota Access Pipeline. It accounts for 80 percent of their 
travel budget. Everybody who lives on that reservation is in 
the oil and gas industry, and every single person on that 
reservation is going to be negatively impacted if the Dakota 
Access Pipeline shuts down, and those are the real cause for 
real concerns.
    And finally, when we are talking about community solar 
projects and all of these different issues, we have a model for 
that. It is called a co-op. We can do these things under 
current existing structures. My problem is and my guess is in 
order to make a co-op economically viable you are going to have 
to have a carbon fuel source to back it up when the wind 
doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. So with that, I would 
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the declaration 
of Mark Fox, and I'll yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And if the gentleman 
will hold on to his recommendation, I do have a series of 
documents, and included in the documents that I have for 
unanimous consent is the letter from Mr. Mark Fox.
    So that concludes the witnesses' questioning and answers, 
the questioning of the Members and answers by the witnesses. I 
again want to thank our esteemed witnesses for their 
participation in today's hearing. I want to thank you for your 
perseverance and for your endurance, and thank you so very, 
very much for your exemplary testimony.
    I must remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, 
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for 
the record to be answered by our esteemed witnesses who have 
appeared before us today, and I would ask each witness to 
respond promptly to any such questions that you may receive.
    Before we adjourn, I want to request unanimous consent to 
enter into the record the following documents: a report from 
the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources on Federal 
leasing and drilling ban policies; a report from the NRRI 
Insights, ``Resource Adequacy Needs,'' dated March of 2021; a 
letter from the Hispanics In Energy regarding opposition to SB 
467; a report from the executive president of the United States 
CEA on the value of U.S. energy innovation and policies; a 
letter from the stated Mark N. Fox with the chairman of the 
Three Affiliated Tribes; an article from the New York Times 
entitled ``A coal miners union indicates it will accept a 
switch to renewable energy in exchange for jobs;'' a letter to 
President Biden regarding winter storm Fed assistance 
supporting Masonite energy; and lastly an article from the Wall 
Street Journal entitled ``John Kerry's Climate Kowtow.'' 
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The University of Wyoming and United States CEA reports have 
been retained in committee files and are available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rush. And I now declare that the Energy and Power 
Subcommittee do hereby stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                [all]