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


                     COST-SAVING CLIMATE SOLUTIONS:
               INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY TO PROMOTE 
                  ENERGY SECURITY AND CUT ENERGY BILLS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 
                             CLIMATE CRISIS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             APRIL 7, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-17
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                         

                            www.govinfo.gov
   Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
   
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-955                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------      
                 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
                 
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                      KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
JULIA BROWNLEY, California             Ranking Member
JARED HUFFMAN, California            GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California               CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
                                 ------                                
                Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
                Sarah Jorgenson, Minority Staff Director
                        climatecrisis.house.gov
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                   STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
    Prepared Statement...........................................     3
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the 
  Climate Crisis:
    Opening Statement............................................     4

                               WITNESSES

Paula Glover, President, Alliance to Save Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................     6
    Prepared Statement...........................................     8
Darnell Johnson, President & CEO, Urban Efficiency Group; and 
  Vice Chair, Building Performance Association
    Oral Statement...............................................    11
    Prepared Statement...........................................    12
Dave Schryver, President & CEO, American Public Gas Association
    Oral Statement...............................................    18
    Prepared Statement...........................................    20
Sara Baldwin, Director of Electrification Policy, Energy 
  Innovation
    Oral Statement...............................................    22
    Prepared Statement...........................................    24

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

American Public Gas Association's 2021 Winter APGA Board of 
  Directors Meeting Book, submitted for the record by Mr. Casten.    46
Article by Anne C. Mulkern in E&E News, ``Surging electric bills 
  threaten Calif. climate goals,'' submitted for the record by 
  Mr. Graves.....................................................    47

                                APPENDIX

Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Paula Glover..    49
Questions for the Record from Hon. Mike Levin to Paula Glover....    51
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Darnell 
  Johnson........................................................    52
Questions for the Record from Hon. Mike Levin to Darnell Johnson.    55
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Dave Schryver    57
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Sara Baldwin..    58

 
                     COST-SAVING CLIMATE SOLUTIONS:
                     INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
                       TO PROMOTE ENERGY SECURITY
                          AND CUT ENERGY BILLS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, April 7, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
                    Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
                                                   Washington, DC. 
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 
1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor 
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley, 
McEachin, Casten, Neguse, Escobar, Graves, Palmer, Carter, 
Armstrong, and Crenshaw.
    Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 
committee at any time.
    As a reminder, members participating in a hearing remotely 
should be visible on camera throughout the hearing. For members 
participating in person, masks are optional. As with in-person 
meetings, members are responsible for controlling their own 
microphone. And you can be muted by staff only to avoid 
inadvertent background noise.
    And as a reminder, statements, documents or motions must be 
submitted to the electronic repository, to 
[email protected].
    Finally, if anyone's experiencing technical difficulties, 
please alert the staff right away.
    And welcome to the Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: Investing 
in Energy Efficiency to Promote Energy Security and Cut Energy 
Bills committee meeting. Today, we will explore how investments 
in energy efficiency can save Americans money, reduce carbon 
emissions, and promote energy security.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.
    Well, on Monday, the world's top scientists, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued another stark 
wake-up call. We are behind. We are late. And we are running 
out of time to limit warming and avoid catastrophic impacts and 
rising costs. And unless we dramatically ramp up our efforts to 
expand clean energy and reduce heat trapping pollution, the 
consequences will be bleak. But America has the clean 
technologies needed to avoid these costly impacts. But unless 
Congress deploys them with urgency in partnership with 
innovators and entrepreneurs, and across the economy, Americans 
will be forced to pay more and more.
    The economic case for cost-saving clean energy and energy 
efficiency innovations is clear. In fact, the very first 
recommendation in our committee's Climate Crisis Action Plan is 
maximizing energy efficiency, one of the most cost-effective 
solutions for nearly all sectors of the economy.
    By making our transmission lines more efficient, we can 
expand the reach of affordable renewables. By making renewables 
more fuel efficient, and deploying electric cars and trucks and 
fleets, we can save Americans money at the pump and avoid the 
volatility of global oil and gas markets. And by investing in 
energy efficiency in electrification upgrades, we can drive 
down the cost of keeping the lights on, keeping appliances 
running, and keeping the temperature agreeable inside and out.
    Here's one example of how electrification can dramatically 
improve efficiency: according to the Department of Energy, 
electric vehicles use more than 75 percent of the energy they 
get from the grid to get your wheels moving, whereas gas 
vehicles only use about 12 to 30 percent of the energy from 
gasoline. In other words, when you charge up your electric car, 
you will use three-quarters of that energy to get where you are 
going. But when you fill up your tank, you are using less than 
a quarter. So that is $40 that you paid at the pump, just $10 
of that gets you moving, and the rest is wasted.
    So beyond cost saving potential, investing in cleaner, 
cheaper technologies will also go a long way in building the 
true American energy independence and security. Clean energy 
investments support American workers, American industries, and 
American manufacturers, instead of supporting foreign dictators 
and big oil CEOs.
    By maximizing these savings, we can reinvest them to 
strengthen our most vulnerable communities. And we can deploy 
transformative energy efficient technologies that could 
potentially reduce heat trapping pollution by between 50 and 80 
percent by the year 2050.
    Federal investment in energy efficiency will put money back 
into the pockets of Americans. The average household could save 
up to $500 a year with the investments in the House-passed 
reconciliation bill. Going even further would save households 
even more. By electrifying everything, we could save families 
thousands of dollars every year, and cut their energy use in 
half. Those extra savings would be a godsend for Americans, 
especially those least able to afford their energy costs.
    So there is a common theme here. The cost of climate change 
and the cost of energy seem to always fall on working families, 
while oil and gas companies are reaping record profits. 
Americans are paying more at the pump for last century's fuels, 
meanwhile their communities are the ones suffering the economic 
harms of climate fuel disasters which cost more than $145 
billion last year. For too many Americans, it is hard not to 
feel like they are getting ripped off. That is why President 
Biden is working to lower energy costs and expand clean 
technologies. The Biden administration is working to update 
energy conservation standards for appliances, and to modernize 
energy codes for Federal buildings. They are also working to 
deploy the investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
which included more than $3 billion to make homes more energy 
efficient and lower cost. Thanks to the infrastructure law, we 
are also poised to build a national network of 500,000 EV 
charging stations with a goal to make them as readily available 
as gas stations.
    So as we stare down the barrel of a costly climate 
catastrophe, there is so much more that we must do. And the 
world's top scientists did offer a hopeful note in their report 
that reinforces the action we see across America. We have the 
talent, the innovations, the tools, and the technology to save 
consumers money, to reduce pollution, and provide a livable 
planet for future generations. So I look forward to the insight 
of our witnesses and our committee's discussion today.
    [The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]

                Opening Statement of Chair Kathy Castor

              Hearing on ``Cost-Saving Climate Solutions:

            Investing in Energy Efficiency to Promote Energy

                    Security and Cut Energy Bills''

                             April 7, 2022

                        As prepared for delivery

    On Monday, the world's top scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, issued another stark wake-up call. We're behind, 
we're late, and we are running out of time to limit warming and avoid 
catastrophic impacts and rising costs. And unless we dramatically ramp 
up efforts to expand clean energy and reduce heat-trapping pollution, 
the consequences will be bleak.
    America has the clean technologies needed to avoid these costly 
impacts. But unless Congress deploys them with urgency, in partnership 
with innovators and entrepreneurs and across the economy, Americans 
will be forced to pay more and more.
    The economic case for cost-saving clean energy and energy 
efficiency innovations is clear. In fact, the very first recommendation 
in our committee's Climate Crisis Action Plan is maximizing energy 
efficiency, one of the most cost-effective solutions for nearly all 
sectors of our economy. By making our transmission lines more 
efficient, we can expand the reach of affordable renewables. By making 
vehicles more fuel-efficient and deploying electric cars and trucks and 
fleets, we can save Americans money at the pump and avoid the 
volatility of global oil and gas markets. And by investing in energy 
efficiency and electrification upgrades, we can drive down the costs of 
keeping the lights on, keeping appliances running, and keeping the 
temperature agreeable inside and out.
    Here's one example of how electrification can dramatically improve 
efficiency. According to the Department of Energy, electric vehicles 
use more than 75% of the energy they get from the grid to get your 
wheels moving, whereas gas vehicles only use about 12 to 30% of the 
energy from gasoline. In other words, when you charge up your electric 
car, you'll use three-quarters of that energy to get to where you're 
going. But when you fill up your tank, you're using less than a 
quarter. So that $40 you paid at the pump? Just $10 of it gets you 
moving--and the rest is wasted.
    Beyond the cost-saving potential, investing in cleaner, cheaper 
technologies will also go a long way in building true American energy 
independence and security. Clean energy investments support American 
workers, American industries, and American manufacturers--instead of 
supporting foreign dictators and Big Oil CEOs. By maximizing these 
savings, we can reinvest them to strengthen our most vulnerable 
communities. And we can deploy transformative energy-efficient 
technologies that could potentially reduce heat-trapping pollution by 
between 50% and 80% by the year 2050.
    Federal investment in energy efficiency will put money back in the 
pockets of Americans. The average household could save up to $500 a 
year with the investments in the House-passed reconciliation bill. 
Going even further would save households even more; by electrifying 
everything, we could save families thousands of dollars every year and 
cut their energy use in half. Those extra savings would be a godsend 
for Americans, especially those least able to afford their energy 
costs.
    There's a common theme here: the costs of climate change and the 
rising costs of energy seem to always fall on working families. While 
oil and gas companies are reaping record profits, Americans are paying 
more at the pump for last century's fuels. Meanwhile, their communities 
are the ones suffering the economic harms of climate-fueled disasters, 
which cost more than $145 billion just last year. For too many 
Americans, it's hard not to feel like they're getting ripped off.
    That's why President Biden is working to lower energy costs and 
expand clean technologies. The Biden administration is working to 
update energy conservation standards for appliances, and to modernize 
energy codes for federal buildings. They're also working to deploy the 
investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included more 
than $3 billion to make homes more energy efficient and lower costs. 
Thanks to the infrastructure law, we are also poised to build a 
national network of 500,000 EV charging stations, with the goal of 
making them as readily available as gas stations.
    As we stare down the barrel of a costly climate catastrophe, 
there's much more we must do. And the world's top scientists offered a 
hopeful note in their report that reinforces the action we see across 
America: we have the talent, the innovations, the tools, and technology 
to save consumers money, reduce pollution, and provide a livable planet 
for future generations. So I look forward to the insight of our 
witnesses and our committee's discussion.

    And at this time, I am happy to recognize the Ranking 
Member, Mr. Graves. Good morning. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Good morning, Madam Chair.
    Thank you for having this hearing. And this is another 
topic, Madam Chair, where you and I, I think, share a lot of 
objectives. We have spent a lot of time talking about 
resiliency and adaptation of our respective coastal states and 
coastal districts, and the importance of making investments 
there. Being from south Louisiana, we have had 90 percent of 
the coastal wetlands lost in the Continental United States, 
which does make our communities more vulnerable to hurricanes, 
and sea rise, and other challenges related to sustainability.
    This one, energy efficiency, look, if we can reduce the 
consumption of energy in things that we are doing, whether it 
is in our business, it is driving vehicles, it is 
manufacturing, then that helps improve the competitiveness of 
the United States. Energy efficiency and energy conservation 
efforts are absolutely critical in our long-term objectives 
here. And it is a no-regrets approach, because it allows us to 
reduce the cost of utility bills for consumers that are 
struggling with their ability to pay their bills today. It 
helps to reduce the cost of fueling vehicles in order to get to 
work or go to school, or spend time with family. Those are all 
win-wins, and there are no regrets. It improves the 
competitiveness of the United States.
    But Madam Chair, I think something that is really important 
to keep in mind as well is the international perspective here. 
You are right, IPCC did release a new report last week. And it 
is interesting, because what has happened with Ukraine has sort 
of made, I think, a lot of people realize the United States is 
one country in a very large global community. And you have 
people that operate by different standards. And we often find 
ourselves trying to apply American values, American ethics, 
American standards to other countries.
    How do you think Vladimir Putin feels about that? How do 
you think he feels about America's values, our standards? Look 
at what he is doing. He is just completely just rolling over 
people. No respect for human rights. No respect for 
sovereignty. Yet, he is going to be a partner in climate 
change? Not a chance in hell.
    What about President Xi in China? You think looking at what 
they are doing with slave labor and child labor, the way that 
they completely abuse the Uyghurs in human rights. Do you 
really think that China is going to have any respect for human 
rights? China's released 4 tons of emissions, increased 4 tons 
of emissions for every one ton we have reduced. I think that we 
are looking at ourselves a little bit more--as a bit more 
inflated than we really are. We are not going to be able to 
solve this issue on our own. Let me say it again, China has 
increased emissions 4 tons for every one ton of emissions we 
have reduced. That is moving in the wrong direction globally. 
Yet, we are sitting here talking about spending not millions, 
not hundreds of millions, not billions, tens of billions and 
hundreds of billions of dollars to try to save the planet 
whenever we have got other international actors that don't 
care. They don't care.
    Let me read you something. President Biden's energy plan is 
going to result in higher electricity prices, higher prices at 
the gas pump, lost revenue sharing for hurricane protection, 
flood control, and coastal restoration, higher delivery costs, 
meaning delivery of groceries and all products, more dependence 
on foreign energy from China, Russia, Iran, and other 
countries, and a net increase in global emissions.
    Madam Chair, all of those things--let me run through them 
again. Higher electricity prices. Check, we are seeing it. 
Higher prices at the gas pump. Check, we are seeing it. Lost 
revenue, because as a result of not doing lease sales, the 
first President in modern history to not do energy lease sales, 
we are losing revenue. The United States Treasury is losing 
revenue, which means because we have revenue sharing for 
offshore energy production--my home state, one of the most 
powerful hurricanes to ever made landfall, Hurricane Ida, we 
are not getting the revenues that we should have to build 
hurricane protection restoring our coastal ecosystem and other 
projects, flood control. So that one we have realized.
    Higher delivery costs. With inflation and supply chain we 
are getting high costs there. More dependence on foreign energy 
from China, Russia, and others. We are seeing that. A net 
increase in global emissions. We have seen that.
    This is a statement that I made on January 27th of last 
year. Madam Chair, I am all for--I am all for the objectives 
that you have stated. But we have got to have a strategy that 
is actually global looking in nature, and one that truly 
achieves the objectives, not one that just thrusts costs on the 
United States taxpayers and makes energy unaffordable, and 
doesn't achieve what I believe are our common environmental 
goals.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Now I want to welcome our witnesses. We have 
got a great panel to talk about the benefits of energy 
efficiency. Paula R. Glover is the President of the Alliance to 
Save Energy. Ms. Glover leads a diverse coalition of 
stakeholders to find lasting consensus-based energy efficiency 
solutions. She has helped the Alliance secure billions of 
dollars in Federal funding for energy efficiency programs, 
amplified its work on energy justice, and worked to advance the 
next generation of technologies.
    Darnell Johnson is the CEO and President of Urban 
Efficiency Group, Illinois' first minority-owned utility 
implementation contractor and sustainability design firm run by 
and for Chicagoans. His work with UEG has assisted thousands of 
underserved residents in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, 
helped them reduce their energy burden by delivering energy 
efficiency and clean energy to communities.
    Mr. Johnson is also the Vice Chair of the Building 
Performance Association and Chair of its Diversity, Equity and 
Inclusion Committee.
    Dave Schryver is the President and CEO of the American 
Public Gas Association. Mr. Schryver leads APGA's work to 
represent the interest of America's publicly owned natural gas 
local distribution companies before Congress, Federal agencies, 
and other energy-related stakeholders.
    And Sara Baldwin is the Director of Electrification Policy 
at Energy Innovation. Ms. Baldwin leads the firm's 
Electrification Policy practice area, providing research and 
analysis on the pathways to electrify and decarbonize 
buildings, transportation, and industry.
    Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will 
be made part of the record.
    With that, Ms. Glover, you are now recognized 5 minutes to 
summarize your testimony. Welcome.

  STATEMENTS OF PAULA R. GLOVER, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE 
 ENERGY; DARNELL JOHNSON, CEO AND PRESIDENT, URBAN EFFICIENCY 
GROUP (UEG), AND VICE CHAIR, BUILDING PERFORMANCE ASSOCIATION; 
DAVE SCHRYVER, PRESIDENT & CEO, AMERICAN PUBLIC GAS ASSOCIATION 
 (APGA); AND SARA BALDWIN, DIRECTOR OF ELECTRIFICATION POLICY, 
                       ENERGY INNOVATION.

                  STATEMENT OF PAULA R. GLOVER

    Ms. Glover. Thank you very much. Chair Castor, Ranking 
Member Graves, members of the House select committee----
    Ms. Castor. Ms. Glover, will you pull the mic up a little 
closer?
    Ms. Glover. How is that?
    Ms. Castor. That is a little better.
    Ms. Glover. Thank you.
    Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, members of the House 
Select Committee, my name is Paula Glover. I am the President 
the Alliance to Save Energy. And I really appreciate you having 
me at today's hearing.
    The Alliance is a nonprofit. We are a bipartisan coalition 
of business, government, environmental and consumer leaders, 
working to expand the economy while using less energy, doing 
more and using less. We were founded in 1977 by Senator Charles 
H. Percy from Illinois, and Senator Hubert Humphrey from 
Minnesota in response to the oil embargo and the energy crisis 
at that time.
    Today, in addition to a potential energy crisis resulting 
from the pandemic, and the geopolitical crisis in Europe, we 
are also moving closer to a climate crisis, the climate tipping 
point. And this requires us to develop climate change solutions 
while also meeting the challenges of energy security and 
affordability.
    We are required to lead in energy production, but we must 
also lead in energy efficiency throughout all sectors of the 
U.S. economy, including manufacturing, transportation, and 
agriculture, and the built environment. And as we make these 
investments in efficiency products, equipment, supplies, and 
technologies, and as consumers in businesses adopt efficiency 
solutions, energy consumption is reduced and generation and 
production supplies are offset through lower demand.
    In fact, without these investments made in efficiency since 
1980, energy consumption would have been more than 60 percent 
higher. And these same investments help consumers avoid 
approximately $800 billion a year in energy costs. That is the 
power of efficiency. This is achieved by investments that 
secure the building envelope, equipment standards, building 
codes, building design, and establishing policies that 
prioritize efficiency as a primary part of U.S. domestic 
policy----
    And I am having a problem here. Excuse me. I am sorry. And 
I apologize. I am having a problem with my technology.
    I do not. And that's probably why I am having a problem.
    At the end of the day, efficiency needs to play an 
essential role in U.S. energy policy, and should be seen as a 
necessary and critical to help address our challenges, 
including climate. Efficiency investments are more critical 
when considering avoiding infrastructure costs, in addition to 
creating greater system reliability because of that reduced 
demand.
    Moreover, efficiency is one of the most cost-effective and 
fastest ways to reduce emissions. And as indicated in a recent 
report, Halfway There, efficiency alone can reduce carbon 
emissions by 50 percent by 2050. And according to the 
International Energy Agency, over 40 percent of the emission 
reduction objectives of the Paris climate agreement can be 
reached to efficiency by 2040.
    Further, if we are talking about economic impact, energy 
efficiency is the largest employer in the clean energy economy. 
We employ over 2.1 million people in the United States. And 
energy efficiency jobs are located in all but six counties in 
this country. We are local. We do this locally. We pay, on 
average, $24 an hour, or 28 percent higher than the national 
median. And so, as you consider moving forward with budget 
reconciliation, and tackling our challenges, and future 
preparedness, we urge you to look at efficiency and make 
substantive investments. Investments, tax credits like 25C, 
179D, 45L are important to get us moving over, moving forward. 
In addition to programs like HOPE for HOMES, building codes, 
and the like.
    We thank you for your leadership on these issues. And, of 
course, are available for any questions that you may have. 
Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Glover follows:]

                  Written Testimony of Paula R. Glover

                   President, Alliance to Save Energy

        Before the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

    Hearing on ``Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: Investing in Energy 
                               Efficiency

            to Promote Energy Security and Cut Energy Bills

                             April 7, 2022

    Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, members of the House Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis, my name is Paula Glover, and I am 
President of the Alliance to Save Energy. I thank you for inviting me 
to participate in today's hearing titled Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: 
Investing in Energy Efficiency to Promote Energy Security and Cut 
Energy Bills.
    The Alliance to Save Energy is a nonprofit, bipartisan coalition of 
business, government, environmental and consumer leaders working to 
expand the economy while using less energy. Our mission is to promote 
energy productivity worldwide--by advancing energy efficiency policy to 
achieve a stronger economy, a cleaner environment and greater energy 
security, affordability, reliability, and equity.
    The Alliance was founded in bipartisanship in 1977 by Senator 
Charles H. Percy (R-IL) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN). The 
organization was launched at a time not too dissimilar from today, when 
an instability in energy supplies exposed a fundamental weakness in our 
nation's economic and energy security. The challenges of the period 
required the nation to identify and develop solutions that would place 
the U.S. on a more secure energy path, less reliant on foreign 
resources with greater investments and development of energy 
technologies here at home. For Senators Percy and Humphrey, energy 
efficiency and demand-side solutions would provide part of the answer.
    Today, in addition to a potential energy crisis resulting from the 
COVID-19 pandemic and the geopolitical crisis in Europe, we are also 
moving closer and closer to the climate tipping point. This requires us 
to develop climate change solutions while also meeting the challenges 
of energy security and affordability. We are required to lead in energy 
production--but we must also lead in energy efficiency.
    However, the issue of energy security is not simply about supply. 
As Senators Percy and Humphrey identified 45 years ago, we must also 
invest in reducing energy demand through energy efficiency. Energy 
efficiency investments reduce energy intensity throughout all sectors 
of the U.S. economy--including manufacturing, transportation, in 
agriculture, and the built environment. In fact, but for investments 
made in energy efficiency since 1980, energy consumption would have 
been more than 60% higher.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://energyefficiencyimpact.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When measuring energy consumption, industry and manufacturing 
account for 33% of all energy consumed; transportation equals 26%; and 
the residential and commercial built environment represent 22% and 18% 
respectively.\2\ As we make investments in energy efficiency products, 
equipment, supplies, and technologies--and as consumers and businesses 
adopt efficiency solutions, energy consumption is reduced, and 
generation and production supplies are offset through lowered demand. 
This is achieved by investments that secure the building envelope, 
equipment standards, building codes, building design, and establishing 
policies that prioritize energy efficiency as a primary part U.S. 
domestic policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Energy efficiency also effectively addresses the issue of climate 
change--and should be used as the first solution to the climate crisis. 
As indicated in the recent report Halfway There, energy efficiency 
alone can reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2050 \3\, and according to 
the International Energy Agency (IEA), over 40% of the emission 
reduction objectives of the Paris Agreement can be achieved through 
energy efficiency by 2040.\4\ Through energy efficiency standards and 
labeling alone, the U.S. already avoids 343 metric tons of carbon 
emissions each year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.aceee.org/fact-sheet/halfway-there.
    \4\ https://www.iea.org/commentaries/how-energy-efficiency-will-
power-net-zero-climate-goals.
    \5\ https://www.iea.org/reports/achievements-of-energy-efficiency-
appliance-and-equipment-standards-and-labelling-programmes/executive-
summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, as efficiency effectively delivers on its ability to 
increase energy security and mitigate climate change, it also makes 
energy more affordable. As a result of the efficiency investments made 
since 1980, consumers avoid approximately $800 billion per year in 
energy costs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://energyefficiencyimpact.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is the power of energy efficiency--reduced carbon emissions; 
reduced demand on supply; and billions of dollars in savings for 
consumers--all of which directly impact today's challenges of energy 
and national security, energy affordability, and climate change.
    Furthermore, energy efficiency has a positive impact on the 
economy. Energy efficiency is currently the largest employer in the 
clean energy workforce, employing over 2.1 million people in the U.S.--
nearly seven times that of the wind and solar industries combined, and 
12 times the size of the entire coal industry. These jobs pay on 
average $24.44 an hour, or 28% higher than the national median hourly 
wage.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs-in-
America_National-Summary-2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To advance the multiple positive benefits of energy efficiency as a 
tool for national security, energy affordability, and climate change--
and I would add economic growth--there should be a whole of government 
approach. This means prioritizing the role of energy efficiency 
targeting the major sectors of the U.S. economy, including industry, 
transportation, and the residential and commercial built environment. 
As federal dollars are released and deployed through agencies and 
programs, policies should ensure that national energy efficiency 
objectives are substantively linked. This includes energy efficiency as 
connected to small business activity, affordable housing funding, 
mortgage lending, agriculture, commerce investments, and elsewhere.
    This means retrofitting and modernizing the nation's critical 
facilities and public buildings--through direct investments, improved 
codes and standards, by leveraging private public partnerships, and 
through other measures. And this should also be across the federal 
footprint.
    This also means research, development and commercialization of 
Active Efficiency technologies, which are the application and use of 
digital energy efficiency, including grid-integrated enabled buildings, 
and technologies that allow single and multiple buildings to take on, 
shift, and share load on a continuous basis.
    We should employ these same solutions in the residential built 
environment, and with an emphasis on equity. According to research 
conducted by the Alliance to Save Energy on single-family 
homeownership, of the nearly 74.5 million owner-occupied households, 
35.2 million are households with annual incomes below $60,000.\8\ 
Moreover some of these same households represent families with the 
highest energy burden, with rural households having the highest energy 
burden when compared to other groups.\9\ At the same time, when 
segmenting energy burden by race, when compared to white households, 
Blacks spend 43% more of their income on energy costs, Hispanics, 20% 
more, and Native American households 45% more.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ All data from 2015 EIA RECS.
    \9\ https://www.aceee.org/press/2018/07/rural-households-spend-
much-more.
    \10\ https://www.aceee.org/press-release/2020/09/report-low-income-
households-communities-color-face-high-energy-burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To effectively deploy energy efficiency solutions in these homes, 
and to secure the full benefits of energy security and emission 
reductions, we must include these households as we deploy identified 
energy efficiency investments. This will also result in lower energy 
costs for these families, and reduced energy burden.
    That said, we must also address energy efficiency for renters, 
where multi-family households under $60,000 in annual income equal 33.4 
million households out of 43.7 million.\11\ These families often have 
little control over the energy efficiency investments in their homes, 
requiring policies and investments to incentivize landlords, including 
building performance standards, energy codes, tax incentives, and other 
mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ All data from 2015 EIA RECS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As we consider transportation, efficiency opportunities exist 
across the sector, including light and heavy vehicles, aviation, marine 
technologies, and rail. However private investments are costly, and 
research and development to advance future technologies are required, 
especially in aviation, rail, and marine engine performance. That said, 
on-the-road vehicles equal approximately 82% of transportation energy 
use, which makes the application of fuel efficiency standards in 
addition to investments in alternative fuel vehicles essential to 
reducing transportation energy demand.\12\ As a brief example of the 
energy efficiency impact of electric vehicle (EV) technology as an 
alternative, EVs convert up to 77% of the charged energy to the vehicle 
and braking systems versus 12%-30% for vehicles powered by 
gasoline.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://afdc.energy.gov/conserve/system_efficiency.html.
    \13\ https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From the industrial perspective, the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) has taken the lead through its Better Plants Program, the purpose 
of which is to improve energy efficiency and sustainability through 
partnerships with some of the nation's leading manufacturers and water 
and wastewater treatment agencies. Total program participants equal 
3,500 facilities and 13.8% of the U.S. manufacturing energy footprint. 
Most recent reporting indicates that program participants have avoided 
more than 1.9 quadrillion Btus and saved $9.3 billion in energy 
costs.\14\ Avoided energy use and energy savings should be increased 
exponentially but will require greater support for and expansion of 
initiatives like the Better Plants Program and other related projects, 
including incentives for manufacturers to increase energy efficiency 
investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/attachments/2021_Better_Plants_Progress_Update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the above in mind, we also see investments in energy 
efficiency as essential to the reliability of the electric grid. This 
is particularly true as policy and markets shift a substantive share of 
energy demand toward electrification. Based on analysis and depending 
on the rate of electric vehicle (EV) adoption, we should anticipate 
significant future growth in grid load. According to the Brattle Group, 
if the projected rate of EV growth increases from 1.5 million in 2020 
to 10-35 million by 2030, we will need grid investments up to $125 
billion across the electric power sector--and that's to serve 20 
million EVs.\15\ These vehicles will add 60-95 terra-watt hours (TWh) 
of electricity demand to the grid annually, in addition to 10-20 
gigawatts (GW) of peak load, which in turn would require 12-18 
gigawatts of generation capacity from renewable energy.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://www.brattle.com/insights-events/publications/electric-
power-sector-investments-of-75-125-billion-needed-to-support-projected-
20-million-evs-by-2030-according-to-brattle-economists/.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These investments will come at a cost. There will be a cost to 
develop and deploy the infrastructure, and there will be a cost 
transferred to consumers and businesses. Brattle estimates that $30-50 
billion will be needed for generation and storage, with $15-$25 billion 
needed for transmission and distribution upgrades, and another $30-$50 
billion for charging and customer related infrastructure.
    Although some of these costs will be offset as we factor in fuel 
switching, carbon reductions, and the future ability of EVs to shed and 
share load, the payback is not immediate.\17\ In all likelihood, 
consumers will realize an increase electricity costs, which will be 
necessary to ensure that the grid is reliable and able to meet consumer 
demand. However, energy efficiency can help avoid some of these 
increased costs, while also adding greater grid reliability.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ https://www.ase.org/blog/does-grid-study-many-reminders-
success-energy-efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is particularly true as we think about Active Efficiency when 
combined with traditional passive efficiency measures including 
building envelope retrofits. Active Efficiency reduces consumption 
through demand flexibility, and also reduces load through technologies 
that allow appliances, buildings, communities, neighborhoods, and 
potentially whole cities to shift, share, and shed load on a continuous 
basis.
    In conclusion, the energy transition is here. However, if we fail 
to lead with energy efficiency, then our investments in the transition 
will have sealed-in decades of energy waste, in addition to lost 
savings for consumers. From a policy perspective--including as we think 
about national security and the nation's energy security--when 
forwarding policies on electrification, we must lead with energy 
efficiency. As we deploy renewable generation assets and related 
transmission and distribution investments, we must lead with energy 
efficiency. And as we identify future investments in oil, natural gas, 
coal, and carbon capture, we must lead with energy efficiency. We have 
the ability through investments in demand-side solutions to directly 
lower the level, rate, and cost by which we consume our energy 
supplies.
    The focus on energy efficiency in the Infrastructure Investments 
Jobs Act (IIJA), and what might come out of a budget reconciliation 
package are a good start, including but not limited to facilitation of 
energy code adoption, funding for the Weatherization Assistance 
Program, grants for schools and non-profits, and other measures. 
However, congress must also ensure passage of key investments proposed 
in budget reconciliation, including robust funding of energy efficiency 
tax incentives, 25C, 45L, and 179D, funding for Hope for Homes, and 
robust funding for climate bank activity targeting energy efficiency 
solutions in disadvantaged and tribal communities. And, we would also 
urge hearings, and consideration of the Main Street Efficiency Act--
Alliance to Save Energy-led legislation that specifically targets 
energy efficiency investments in small businesses. This legislation was 
introduced by Congressman Peter Welch in the House, and Senator 
Catherine Cortez-Masto in the Senate.
    I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony as part of 
today's hearing. As we lead with energy efficiency, we add reliability 
to our energy supplies, we increase national and energy security, we 
help to ensure greater energy affordability, and we reduce carbon 
emissions. It is worth repeating--that through energy efficiency alone, 
we can reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. And through energy 
efficiency we can achieve 40% of the reductions required by the Paris 
Climate Agreement. Thank you again for the opportunity, and I look 
forward to your questions.

    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Ms. Glover.
    Mr. Johnson, you're recognized for 5 minutes to summarize 
your testimony. Welcome.

                  STATEMENT OF DARNELL JOHNSON

    Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Chair Castor, Ranking Member 
Graves, and members of the House Select Committee. I am honored 
to be invited to discuss the important role that buildings and 
the building environment can play in reducing America's 
contribution to the global crisis, climate crisis. Again, thank 
you for inviting me to this discussion.
    My name is Darnell Johnson. And I serve as the CEO and 
President of Urban Efficiency Group, a utility implementation 
contractor and community sustainable design firm. Our firm's 
work systemizing sustainability has influenced how BIPOC 
communities adopt energy efficiency and sustainability best 
practices in how they engage in across community climate 
collaborations.
    As you may know, the building sector is responsible for 31 
percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And while 
buildings are significant contributors to our climate crisis, 
they can also be a key part to the solutions.
    As the committee is focused on addressing the climate 
crisis, I want to emphasize that all of my testimonies today 
are all policies and practices that will advance energy 
efficiency; will not only help save the planet by adjusting 
climate change and decarbonization, but would also save the 
people; as our decisions affect the lives of real humans, both 
environmentally and economically. Therefore, we must ensure our 
actions toward eliminating energy poverty are diverse, 
equitable, and inclusive.
    As we look at the stark disparities that exist in U.S. 
energy burdens, both in urban and rural, low-income households, 
spends substantially greater portions of their income on energy 
costs compared to non low-income households.
    Often those that fall between the gap of qualifying for 
low-income energy efficiency programs and those that have the 
financial bandwidth to leverage rebates and pay the upfront 
costs associated with energy efficiency upgrades are left with 
limited options and are often referred to as the working poor.
    To bridge this growing gap, Congress should advance 
policies aimed at helping low-income Americans make energy 
efficiency upgrades to their home. That is the reason why I 
strongly urge Congress to enact the bipartisan HOPE for HOMES.
    And I want to thank Chairwoman Castor and Congressman 
Casten on this committee for their cosponsorship to that. This 
is important legislation that aims at helping all Americans by 
providing homeowner's manager energy or savings for homes, 
rebates for upgrading homes and doubling those rebates for 
middle and lower-income Americans.
    As we look at the economic benefits, the same built 
environment that creates some of our challenges also creates 
the opportunities for small business to work with development 
opportunities. Energy efficiency was the largest employer and 
the fastest growing sector in the energy industry before the 
pandemic and can be again. But simply put, energy efficiency 
equals jobs. It is crucial that we invest in our workforce. And 
that means that we must ensure that contractors across the 
country have equal access to job training. The hope training 
portion in HOPE for HOMES that I mentioned earlier would 
provide immediate hope, training, support to contractor 
businesses, and help companies pay their contractors to 
undertake training to educate them about a home's energy 
structure and systems.
    And as we begin to look at the equity within all of this, 
the challenges of energy equity are also visible in the 
disproportionate diverse makeup of the workforce and the 
contractors. And so, we have to do more to prepare our diverse 
workforce for quality jobs and energy efficiency and drive 
further growth in this industry.
    In conclusion, Madam Chair, members of the committee, I, 
again, thank you for the opportunity to come before you and to 
share in this important discussion.
    One of the things that is really important is that the Blue 
Collar to Green Collar Jobs Development Act of 2021 would 
create a comprehensive program to improve education and 
training for workers in the energy efficiency industry.
    And so, the legislation would also give priority to the 
businesses and other entities that recruit workers for local 
communities, displaced energy sector workers, veterans, 
minorities, and women, thereby creating more diverse, robust, 
and inclusive workforce for the future.
    And so, as I conclude, I ask that you consider the homes 
that you and your constituents live in as part of the solution 
to eliminate the crisis, the climate crisis. We can no longer 
allow incrementalism to be the standard by which we measure 
success when dealing with the complex issues of climate and 
energy efficiency. We acknowledge the challenges regarding the 
climate crisis are great, but our collective ability to find 
the resolve is greater. Achieving energy equity is the outcome 
of an intentional investment.
    Thank you. I look forward to any questions that you may 
have.
    [The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

                      Testimony of Darnell Johnson

    Vice Chair of the Building Performance Association, and CEO and 
                  President of Urban Efficiency Group

                               Before the

 U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                    At the Hearing on April 7, 2022:

  ``Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: Investing in Energy Efficiency to 
             Promote Energy Security and Cut Energy Bills''

    Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Committee, 
my name is Darnell Johnson and I thank you for inviting me to testify 
today on the important role that buildings can play in reducing 
America's contribution to global climate change. As you may know, the 
buildings sector is responsible for 31% of all U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions.\1\ While buildings are a significant contributor to our 
climate crisis, they can also be a key part of the solution. My 
testimony will focus in particular on how the residential sector is key 
to carbon reductions and achieving numerous other benefits. In 
addition, I am here because I believe that diversity brings strength, 
inclusion is indicative of an acceptance that is essential to growth, 
and equity is a human right that should be embraced as the standard and 
not an exception. Energy efficiency policies must provide continuous 
support for the diverse, equitable and inclusive expansion of workforce 
development, which is indicative of meaningful policy reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/
us-ghg-inventory-2019-main-text.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Policies aimed at retrofitting the over 115 million homes across 
the country will not only help reduce carbon emissions from the 
nation's residential building stock but will also help homeowners save 
money on their monthly utility bills and improve the comfort, health, 
safety, and resiliency of their homes. Advancing energy efficiency in 
buildings across the U.S. will support climate change mitigation and 
resilience, while also being an engine for job growth and economic 
opportunity.
    I am the CEO and President of Urban Efficiency Group, a utility 
implementation contractor and community sustainability design firm 
based in Chicago, IL and I have over two decades of entrepreneurial 
experience and a fixation on advancing energy equity. My industry-
specific credentials include, but are not limited to, BPI-Building 
Analyst, Building Envelope, Infiltration Duct Leakage, Energy Auditor, 
Quality Control Inspector, Healthy Homes Evaluator, RESNET Rater, and 
EcoDistrict Accredited Professional.
    I am also proud to serve as the Vice-Chair of the Building 
Performance Association (BPA), formerly known as the Home Performance 
Coalition, a national non-profit 501c6 organization that works with 
industry leaders in the home performance and weatherization industries 
to advance energy-efficient, healthy and safe home retrofit policies, 
programs and standards through research, education, training and 
outreach. Additionally, I serve as Chair for the Diversity, Equity and 
Inclusion (DEI) Committee to advance the organization's internal DEI 
practices to influence the industry more broadly. I am pleased to 
represent BPA here today.
Energy Efficient Buildings are a Pathway to Deep Decarbonization
    As this committee is focused on addressing the climate crisis, I 
want to emphasize that all I am testifying to today, all policies and 
measures that will advance energy efficiency, will not only help 
address climate change and are critical to achieving deep 
decarbonization. Energy efficiency is not only cleaner and cheaper than 
building new low-carbon or carbon-free generation, but by reducing the 
need for energy and stretching out the work of every unit of energy, we 
can reduce the overall need for more resources. Deploying energy 
efficiency reduces demand for primary energy and generating capacity 
needs and therefore lowers the overall costs of shifting to a low-
carbon energy system.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ An NRDC study found that 80% emissions reductions in the U.S. 
by 2050 is achievable and cost-effective using existing clean energy 
technologies. Energy efficiency is the single greatest contributor to 
emissions reductions in the model scenario which assumes an aggressive, 
but technically and economically achievable, deployment of energy 
efficiency across the U.S. economy. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/
files/americas-clean-energy-frontier-report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, the cleanest and cheapest energy is the energy you 
don't use in the first place. A 2019 report from ACEEE found that 
energy efficiency alone can cut energy use and greenhouse gas emissions 
in half by 2050.\3\ Buildings deliver 33% of the total emissions 
reductions in the report's model, and upgrades to existing buildings, 
homes, appliances, and equipment are identified as some of the largest 
cost-effective opportunities to achieve these reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/
researchreports/u1907.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The residential buildings sector in particular remains a largely 
untapped resource for carbon reduction goals. I will discuss specific 
policy opportunities to address barriers and advance energy efficiency 
in the residential sector in a moment. But first I would like to give 
you some examples of how energy efficiency can benefit the workforce 
and the homeowner in ways that can positively impact the lives of 
Americans.
    It is our firm's experience, working in 13 ``Chicagoland'' 
communities covering both South and West Suburban Cook County, and 5 
communities in Northwest Indiana for more than a decade and delivering 
energy efficiency retrofit services to more than 6,000 low-income 
homes, that many (Black, Indigenous, People Of Color) BIPOC and low-
income communities are severely underserved by energy efficiency 
programs. We have observed that there are three primary drivers that 
sustain this inequity: awareness, access, and affordability. While 
utility and WAP income qualified programs attempt to address the 
affordability barrier, awareness and access remain the existential 
threats to program participation. Failure to incorporate inclusive 
processes that enlist the input of diverse thought leaders and 
organizations from within the target communities, perpetuates the use 
of misguided communication and marketing strategies. In order to 
connect with hard-to-reach populations, we must first listen to them. 
To do otherwise stymies information sharing and limits participant 
enrollment in energy efficiency programs and exacerbates the divide 
between those who are participating in the fight to address climate 
change, and those forced to remain on the sidelines.
Energy Burdens and Energy Efficiency
    The reduced energy burden resulting from energy efficiency upgrades 
to the residential stakeholder, in general, and to the low-income 
residential stakeholder, specifically, cannot be understated. According 
to a report published by ACEEE, low-income households spend 8.1% of 
their income on energy costs, on average, in comparison to 2.3% for 
non-low-income households \4\. However only 17% of homes receiving 
energy efficient upgrades are identified as low-income. This high 
energy burden correlates even more strongly with race. Nationally, 
Black households spend 43% more of their income on energy costs than 
their white, non-Latinx counterparts; Latinx households spend 20% more; 
and Native American households spend 45% more.\5\ It is critical that a 
new approach that incorporates procedural justice is used that focuses 
its results on increasing low-income participation and reducing both 
carbon emissions and energy burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Report: Low-Income Households, Communities of Color Face High 
``Energy Burden'' Entering Recession | ACEEE
    \5\ u2006.pdf (aceee.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Burdens Matter
    As we consider the adverse impacts of energy burdens on our 
country's most vulnerable populations, the need for energy equity 
advocacy becomes clear. We believe those that are closest to the 
problems are also closest to the solutions. As a practitioner and 
diversity thought leader, it is important that I provide accurate 
accounts of the social fatigue resulting from the energy inequity 
that's disproportionately affecting BIPOC and low-income communities. 
Admittedly, it is not enough for me to share the accounts with our 
congressional leaders, but rather to be the impetus of innovative ideas 
that will influence policy and resource allocation going forward.
Energy Efficiency Policy as a part of Health and Equity Policy
    As I showed in my example, energy efficiency is a key strategy for 
not only reducing carbon emissions but also for improving the lives of 
Americans. Legislation that advances energy efficiency in buildings, 
especially residential buildings, provides many benefits in addition to 
energy and pollution reductions including increased comfort, health, 
and energy affordability.
    The occupants of the vast majority of homes in the U.S. experience 
building-related comfort problems, health issues, and/or high utility 
bills--problems which could all be significantly mitigated by proper 
construction techniques and energy efficiency upgrades. Studies have 
shown that improvements in occupant health from residential energy 
efficiency are strongest among vulnerable groups: lower income 
households and residents with pre-existing health conditions linked to 
housing risks.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Occupant-
Health-Benefits-Residential-EE.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Energy costs are a significant living expense. Even before the 
pandemic, the nearly one-third of U.S. households who face challenges 
paying energy bills or sustaining adequate heating and cooling in their 
homes, the cost savings provided by energy efficiency are critical \7\. 
A study released last year by the Roosevelt Institute and Evergreen 
Action aptly called ``Economic Recovery Begins at Home \8\ provides a 
policy prescription for creating jobs and protecting the climate while 
focusing on equity. I encourage you to consider it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37072
    \8\ https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/RI_EconomicRecoveryBeginsatHome_3Pager_202103-
1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress should advance policies aimed at helping middle income 
Americans make efficiency upgrades to their homes. This is why I 
strongly urge Congress to enact the bi-partisan, HOPE for HOMES Act 
(H.R. 3456). And, I want to thank Chairwoman Castor and Congressman 
Casten on this committee for their co-sponsorship. This important 
legislation aims to help ALL Americans by providing Home Owners Manage 
Energy Savings (HOMES) rebates for upgrading homes and doubling those 
rebates for middle and lower income Americans. These rebates target the 
actual energy performance of a home--so Congress is paying for the real 
energy savings resulting from those retrofits, investing in America's 
homes and the people who live in them. You have done your part by 
including significant portions of this legislation in Build Back 
Better, but as you know, the job is not done yet and I encourage you to 
continue to fight to pass H.R. 3456.
    In addition to the cost-savings benefits to homeowners, efficiency 
upgrades also have health and safety benefits. A U.S. Department of 
Energy report on the Weatherization Assistance Program found that home 
improvements focused on energy efficiency can improve indoor air 
quality, which reduces respiratory illness and sick days, and reduce 
thermal stress caused by exposure to extreme indoor thermal conditions 
(temperature, humidity, drafts).\9\ A report from E4TheFuture, entitled 
``Occupant Health Benefits of Residential Energy Efficiency'' \10\ 
which reviews existing research on the link between resident health 
benefits and energy efficiency upgrades, also found that residential 
energy efficiency upgrades can produce significant improvements in 
asthma symptoms and help improve overall physical and mental health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://weatherization.ornl.gov/wp-
content/uploads/pdf/WAPRetroEvalFinalReports/ORNL_TM-2014_345.pdf
    \10\ https://e4thefuture.org/occupant-health-benefits-of-
residential-energy-efficiency/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While Congress passed the reauthorization and expansion of the 
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) in 2020, and then provided 
additional support in the bi-partisan infrastructure bill in 2021, it 
is critical that Congress continue to support and expand the WAP. One 
of the key issues we see are contractors not weatherizing homes because 
there are barriers--such as mold, asbestos, rodent concerns--that need 
to be addressed first, before energy efficiency measures can be put in 
place. I know there are members in the House and Senate looking to 
allow the Weatherization program flexibility to address these barriers 
so that unhealthy homes are not left untreated.
    I implore the committee to remember that there can be no climate 
policy without taking into account equity. Walking away from upgrading 
the efficiency of a home, moving onto another because that home is not 
healthy, is not seeing climate through an equity lens.
Energy Efficiency Through an Equity Lens
    By definition equity means to be fair, and it is with this in mind 
that I would like to establish a premise to bring the equity lens into 
focus regarding the energy efficiency industry. Energy efficiency as we 
know it began in the mid-1970's with the OPEC oil crisis, around the 
same time the US was wrestling with the social policy exhaustion 
stemming from the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's. It was 
during this paradigm shift that white men established themselves as the 
dominant force that would drive the energy efficiency industry forward 
while people of color were inundated with fighting for basic human 
rights.
    To fault the historical trailblazers for their contribution in 
establishing and advancing energy efficiency would be a misplacement of 
blame. However, to resist systemic change that supports diversity and 
equitable access to this emerging market is disempowering. To make this 
point more salient, I would like to introduce the Social Equity Theory 
of Change \11\. This theory of change suggests that in order to achieve 
greater equity the following must be considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ This concept is consistent with the Racial Equity Theory of 
Change while the Social Equity Theory of Change goes beyond race and 
racism and addresses the systemic social barriers that deal with 
inclusion, diversity and equity. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/content/docs/rcc/
RACIAL_EQUITY_THEORY_OF_CHANGE_08.PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1.  Self--Address the unconscious and implicit biases that 
        shape our opinions and influence how we process the surface 
        level diversity that we see in other social identity groups.
        2.  Systems--Organizations, companies, and governments are run 
        by people, but if the people that run these entities lack the 
        ability to be equitable, so will the practices, policies, and 
        opportunities that they develop and deploy.
        3.  Society--Ultimately the end-users, which is society in 
        general, and low-income communities specifically, will 
        experience an inequitable allocation of resources and 
        opportunities.
    By sharing and urging consideration of these unconventional, and 
perhaps uncomfortable, concepts with this committee, I hope to humanize 
the challenges associated with the climate crisis and energy burden and 
help you build a policy path that includes equity and job creation 
while decarbonizing the U.S. economy.
Energy Efficiency Creates Jobs
    As soon as the nation began shutting down in response to the global 
pandemic, America's energy efficiency workforce began to dissolve. A 
report from E2 \12\ found that, over the course of 2020, the energy 
efficiency sector shed a net of nearly 272,000 jobs, an 11% decline 
that wiped out the consistent job gains from the three years before. 
The small businesses that make up the residential energy efficiency 
sector were particularly hard hit by the crisis, as residential 
contractors conduct most of their work via physical visits to homes. 
Many homeowners and renters still remain hesitant to invite contractors 
indoors, and it is vital that we support these contractor companies as 
they rebuild their businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/E2-2021-Clean-Jobs-
America-Report-04-19-2021.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now is the time to help these small businesses rehire and prepare 
for a new stage of significant advancement of America's existing home 
infrastructure. It is crucial that we invest in our workforce and that 
means that we must ensure that contractors across the country have 
equal access to job training.
    The HOPE Training portion in HOPE for HOMES (H.R. 3456) that I 
mentioned earlier would provide immediate ``HOPE'' training support to 
contractor businesses and help companies pay their contractors to 
undertake training and educate them about a home's energy structure and 
systems. While the Build Back Better language is briefer, I urge you to 
review the needed details in H.R. 3456 where HOPE training provides 
needed stipends for contractors. These stipends will also support 
individuals who have changed careers during the pandemic or due to 
changes in the economy. Because this training also allows for and 
encourages online training--which has evolved and improved 
significantly during the crisis--contractors from all states would have 
access to these courses and would be able to invest in workforce 
development.
    To address climate change, America's homes must use energy more 
efficiently. As I noted, I am the Vice-Chair of the Building 
Performance Association which stands ready to support contractors in 
connecting them to job training and employment resources. BPA is 
committed to helping build an energy efficiency workforce to meet the 
demand of the climate crisis.
    Energy efficiency was the largest employer and fastest growing 
sector in the energy industry before the pandemic and can be again. Put 
simply, energy efficiency equals jobs. According to the 2021 Energy 
Efficiency Jobs in America \13\ report released by E4TheFuture, the 
energy efficiency sector employs over 2.1 million Americans, more than 
twice as many workers as the entire U.S. fossil fuel industry. In the 
first half of 2021, the industry added more than 8,000 jobs nationwide, 
bouncing back from massive layoffs stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Still, employment remains well below pre-pandemic total job numbers due 
to challenges related to workforce, construction, and supply chains. 
Importantly, these are well-paying and sustainable jobs. Entry level 
wages in all sectors of energy efficiency jobs exceed the national 
average and approximately 80% of employers in the industry provide 
healthcare and retirement account contributions.\14\ These local, 
family-sustaining jobs exist all across the country; 99.8% of U.S. 
counties have energy efficiency jobs and more than 280,000 of these 
jobs are in rural areas.\15\ A significant portion of the energy 
efficiency jobs in the U.S. are in the residential sector, and 54 
percent of energy efficiency jobs involve construction and repairs.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs_2021_All-States.pdf
    \14\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs_2021_All-States.pdf
    \15\ Ibid; https://e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/E2-2021-Clean-
Jobs-America-Report-04-19-2021.pdf
    \16\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs_2021_All-States.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These are the contractors--the ``boots on the ground''--installing 
energy efficiency products and technologies and working to reduce 
energy waste in homes and commercial buildings across the country. 
These jobs are, by their very nature, inherently local and cannot be 
exported. Contractors are local--their kids go to the same schools as 
their clients, they sponsor baseball teams, they share in community 
successes and failures. Policies that encourage investment in energy 
efficiency can further advance growth in this industry, creating even 
more well-paying jobs all across America and generating economic 
opportunity through the decarbonization transition.
    Importantly, policies that provide incentives for building 
efficiency retrofits, such as the HOMES act or tax policy like the 25C 
federal credits, create a ripple effect on jobs. Demand for insulation, 
air sealing, HVAC will certainly create work for those who install 
these products, but it also creates jobs in the manufacturing and 
distribution of those products. This creates jobs around those 
industrial centers where workers eat, shop, and live.
    Not only can energy efficiency be the largest employer in the 
energy sector, it has the most potential for even more job growth 
moving forward. With an aging building stock across the country, we 
have only scratched the surface on the investment potential for energy 
efficiency improvements. Addressing barriers to retrofitting these 
existing homes and buildings and advancing energy efficiency across the 
entire buildings sector will simultaneously support decarbonization and 
job creation.
    It is also important to note that the energy efficiency industry is 
made up of small businesses: 90% of energy efficiency businesses in 
America have fewer than 100 employees.\17\ These small businesses are 
the heart of the American economy--creating jobs, driving growth, and 
saving us all money through improved energy efficiency. They are also 
the ones that are in need of assistance when it comes to ensuring that 
there are qualified workers to fill these jobs. Small energy efficiency 
businesses need resources to help train new hires and provide ongoing 
education to existing employees, keeping them up to date on 
certifications and trained in the latest technologies and health and 
safety practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To prepare more American workers for quality jobs in energy 
efficiency and drive further growth in this industry, Congress should 
act to support workforce development and jobs training. The Blue Collar 
and Green Collar Jobs Development Act of 2021 would create a 
comprehensive program to improve education and training for workers in 
the energy efficiency industry, including manufacturing, engineering, 
construction, and building retrofitting jobs. This legislation will 
result in more American workers who are equipped to provide energy 
efficiency products and services and whose work will reduce energy 
waste and save money for homes and businesses across the country. The 
legislation would also give priority to businesses and other entities 
that recruit workers from local communities, displaced energy sector 
workers, veterans, minorities, and women, thereby creating a more 
diverse, robust, and inclusive workforce of the future. This important 
legislation continues to evolve, and I want to encourage the members of 
the committee to work with Chairman Rush to move this legislation 
through Congress and to the President's desk.
Energy Efficiency and Sound Economic Policy--The Small Business Story
    Energy Efficiency provides a career path that pays a living wage, 
but is also a gateway to small business ownership. Yet the cost 
associated with training, equipment, certifications, and the access to 
a qualified workforce are barriers to entry. Our firm developed a 
quasi-small business incubator (Energy+) to remove the barriers 
mentioned and increase supplier diversity. This comprehensive approach 
to developing and deploying more minority business enterprise (MBE) 
firms in the energy efficiency space, or ``business in a box'' concept 
was successful in launching two (2) minority owned energy efficiency 
contracting firms that boast a six-figure net profit year over year. 
With greater investments in legislation like the Blue Collar to Green 
Collar Jobs Development Act of 2021 and the HOPE for HOMES Act of 2021 
we can increase the contractor diversity in the energy efficiency 
sector and experience a more diverse workforce.
Small business and micro-business in BIPOC communities
    The Energy+ initiative provides an end-to-end experience to ensure 
success and sustainability of a new energy efficiency firm. This 
experience includes, but is not limited to, MBE candidate recruitment 
and screening, small business development training, BPI certification 
training, connection to a broader network of support, connection to 
systems support, access to capital, access to contracts, MBE 
certification support, and capital purchase support. Additionally, this 
initiative empowers local MBE service providers the opportunity to 
create and expand local workforce and small business opportunities, 
while delivering healthy home and energy assessments and home retrofit 
services to households at or below 80% of Area Median Income. Despite 
the many barriers that entrepreneurs of color face, BIPOC businesses 
comprise a significant portion of our economy and often act as the 
economic lifeblood of their communities. Yet, despite the growth of 
BIPOC small businesses, there is still a disparity when it comes to 
access to capital, contracting opportunities and other entrepreneurial 
development opportunities for minority-owned firms \18\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
minorityentrepreneurs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The disproportionately low number of minorities with jobs in the 
energy efficiency field is symptomatic of a lack of MBEs working in the 
space. The lack of qualified MBEs is symptomatic of difficulties any 
firm faces when entering the relatively small and closed community--the 
clean energy community may be small, but it is growing. It needs to 
also grow in inclusivity. MBEs also face barriers associated with 
limited financial capacity, access to capital, access to clients, and 
challenges attracting workers in a closed business community. As we 
invest in addressing climate change, we must invest in a broad and 
inclusive vision of the green, American jobs that retrofit America.
Conclusion
    In conclusion, Madam Chair, members of the committee, I again thank 
you for this opportunity to come before you and share my story and ask 
you to consider the homes you and your constituents live in as a part 
of the solution to the climate crisis. The built environment is one of 
the largest consumers of energy and thus emitters of greenhouse gas 
emissions. But we cannot address climate change without being mindful 
of the impact those policies have on communities of color and low-
income households. Please know that we can address all these concerns 
simultaneously and fundamentally change the relationship people have 
with their energy use while improving the lives of families and 
increasing good, green, jobs.
    With policy and program innovation that brings all of these pieces 
together to optimize energy usage we can reduce the need for new power 
plants, deliver more reliable energy services at lower costs, all while 
making homes healthier, more comfortable places to live.

    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Schryver, you are up. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 
minutes to summarize your testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF DAVE SCHRYVER

    Mr. Schryver. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Castor, 
Ranking Member Graves, and members of the committee. My name is 
Dave Schryver. And I am the President and CEO of the American 
Public Gas Association. I am honored to appear today on behalf 
of the approximately 1,000 communities across the United States 
that own and operate their retail natural gas distribution 
systems. APGA's members are not-for-profit gas distribution 
systems owned by cities and other local government entities. 
The primary mission of a public gas system is delivering 
affordable energy. Our members have no obligation to deliver a 
profit to shareholders. Instead, local officials are 
responsible for setting rates with the goal of delivering 
energy to their community as safely and affordably as possible. 
That mission has become even more vital as Americans are 
struggling with the burden of high prices at the gas pump and 
rising inflation.
    Natural gas has not been immune to price increases in 
recent years, but data from the Energy Information 
Administration continues to show that it remains the most 
affordable fuel source to heat your home in the winter. Homes 
fueled by natural gas consume less energy than electric homes 
when you consider the full fuel cycle from source to site, 
because almost two-thirds of the energy involved in delivering 
electricity is used or lost before it ever reaches the point of 
end use. In contrast, less than 10 percent of the natural gas 
is lost between the point of production and the residents, 
making direct use of natural gas almost three times more 
efficient than electricity.
    It is estimated that the average home that uses natural gas 
appliances for heating, cooking, and clothes drying saves over 
$1,000 a year compared to homes using electric appliances. 
Emissions reduction efforts also play a critical role in public 
gas systems' ability to deliver energy affordably. Leaks are 
not just bad for the environment, they are also bad for 
business.
    APGA members have dedicated significant resources to 
upgrading their pipeline infrastructure and investing in leak 
detection technology to decrease the amount of gas lost. Those 
efforts are good for the environment, but also ultimately 
reduce our members' operating costs and deliver savings to 
consumers.
    APGA's members are also committed to helping their 
customers reduce their energy usage. Most offer weatherization 
assistance and appliance rebate programs to help their 
customers reduce their demand for energy and lower their bills.
    Natural gas is not only more affordable than electricity, 
but also more reliable due to the inherently secure nature of 
the underground pipeline network that is used to deliver it, 
which is less vulnerable to extreme weather than electric 
transmission lines. Only one in 800 natural gas customers 
experiences an unplanned outage in a given year, compared to 
electric customers, who experience an average of at least one 
outage every year.
    Even though we know natural gas is the most affordable and 
reliable way to fuel a home, public gas systems are still 
facing challenges. Some of our members have wait lists for 
would-be customers who cannot be connected due to a lack of 
pipeline capacity. This is a direct result of how difficult it 
has become to permit new natural gas infrastructure to supply 
gas to everyone who wants it. In colder climates, this often 
means continued reliance on propane or heating oil, which leads 
to higher energy bills and a greater environmental footprint.
    We are also facing proposed bans on new natural gas 
hookups, building code changes at the local level to 
disincentivize the use of gas appliances. These bans are being 
proposed even though residential natural gas use accounts for 
only 4 percent of the emissions in the United States. Not only 
does this take away a consumer's right to choose the energy 
source that fuels their home, these efforts will also lead to 
higher costs for American families while producing little 
environmental benefit.
    If politicians force fuel switching on natural gas 
customers, those households will not only face higher energy 
bills, but will also have to shoulder the cost of expensive new 
appliances. Last year, the Consumer Energy Alliance considered 
what it would cost if the nearly 60 million American households 
who rely on natural gas were forced to switch their furnaces, 
water heaters, stoves, and clothes dryers to run on 
electricity. Their research estimated a nationwide cost to 
consumers of more than $258 billion. Those costs are just for 
the appliances themselves and do not account for the electric 
service panel upgrades needed to support the additional load of 
converting all their appliances to run on electricity.
    One recent study estimated that that could result in an 
additional $100 billion cost nationwide. APGA understands the 
need to transition to a clean energy future, but we urge 
Congress not to discount the role that natural gas can play. 
Natural gas has been delivering emission reductions in the 
energy sector for decades. But the development of renewable and 
natural gas and the potential of hydrogen, the gas industry can 
continue to deliver clean energy for American families in the 
future.
    Congress should pursue an all-of-the-above energy policy 
that continues to invest in energy efficient, gas-fired 
appliances and the infrastructure needed to support their 
continued use if we are going to transition to a clean energy 
future without compromising reliability and imposing 
unnecessary burdens on consumers.
    I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify on 
this important topic. And I look forward to today's discussion.
    [The statement of Mr. Schryver follows:]

                 Written Testimony of Mr. Dave Schryver

           President and CEO, American Public Gas Association

        Before the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

    Hearing on ``Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: Investing in Energy 
      Efficiency to Promote Energy Security and Cut Energy Bills''

                             April 7, 2022

    Good morning, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members 
of the Committee. My name is Dave Schryver, and I am the President and 
CEO of the American Public Gas Association. Thank you for this 
opportunity to testify before the Committee.
    I am honored to appear today on behalf of the approximately 1,000 
communities across the United States that own and operate their retail 
natural gas distribution entities. APGA's members include not-for-
profit gas distribution systems owned by municipalities and other local 
government entities, all directly accountable to the citizens they 
serve.
Prioritizing Affordability
    The primary mission of a public gas system is delivering affordable 
energy. Our members have no obligation to deliver a profit to 
shareholders. Instead, local officials are responsible for setting 
rates with the goal of delivering energy to their community as safely 
and affordably as possible. That mission has become even more vital as 
Americans are struggling with the burden of high prices at the gas pump 
and rising inflation.
    Natural gas has not been immune to price increases in recent years, 
but data from the Energy Information Administration continues to show 
that it remains the most affordable fuel source to heat your home in 
the winter.\1\ The low price of gas as a commodity is not the only 
factor at play here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Winter Fuels Outlook,'' U.S. Energy Information 
Administration, October 2021, available at: https://www.eia.gov/
special/heatingfuels/resources/winterfuels2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Homes fueled by natural gas also have the advantage of consuming 
less energy than electric homes when you consider the full fuel cycle 
from source to site. To deliver electricity to homes and businesses, 
almost two-thirds of the energy involved is used or lost before it ever 
reaches the point of end use. In contrast, when natural gas is being 
burned as the direct source of energy, less than ten percent is lost 
between the point of production and the residence, making direct use of 
natural gas almost three times more efficient. As a result, it is 
estimated that the average home that uses natural gas appliances for 
heating, cooking, and clothes drying saves over $1,000 a year on their 
energy bills compared to homes using electric appliances for those 
purposes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``A Comparison of Energy Use, Operating Costs, and Carbon 
Dioxide Emissions of Home Appliances 2021 Update,'' EA 2021-04, 
American Gas Association, October 1, 2021, available at: https://
www.aga.org/globalassets/research_insights/reports/ea-2021-04-
appliance-cost-and-emissions-comparison-2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emissions reduction efforts also play a critical role in public gas 
systems' ability to deliver energy affordably. Leaks are not just bad 
for the environment; they are also bad for business. APGA members have 
dedicated significant resources to upgrading their pipeline 
infrastructure by repairing or replacing leak prone pipe in their 
systems to decrease the amount of gas lost. They are also investing in 
leak detection technology that allows them to more accurately monitor 
their systems to identify and stop leaks. These efforts are good for 
the environment, but also ultimately reduce our members' operating 
costs and allow them to deliver savings to their customers.
    Delivering affordable energy is not just about low rates. APGA 
members are also committed to helping their customers reduce their 
energy usage. Most offer weatherization assistance and appliance rebate 
programs to help their customers take advantage of all available 
resources to reduce their demand for energy and lower their energy 
bills.
A Proven Reliability Track Record
    Natural gas is not only more affordable than electricity, but also 
more reliable. Only 1 in 800 natural gas customers experiences an 
unplanned outage in a given year. In comparison, electric customers 
experience an average of at least one outage every year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Assessment of Natural Gas and Electric Distribution Service 
Reliability,'' Gas Technology Institute, July 19, 2018, available at: 
https://www.gti.energy/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/Assessment-of-Natural-Gas-Electric-
Distribution-Service-Reliability-TopicalReport-Jul2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is due to the inherently secure nature of the underground 
pipeline network that is used to deliver it. Pipes buried underground 
are much less vulnerable to extreme weather than electric transmission 
lines. During recent extreme weather events like Winter Storm Uri, 
which had devastating consequences for many families that were without 
electricity for days, gas utilities were able to continue delivering 
energy to their customers.
The Gas Industry Is Confronting Significant Challenges
    Even though we know natural gas is the most affordable and reliable 
way to fuel a home, public gas systems are still facing significant 
challenges. Some of our members, particularly those in the Northeast, 
have waitlists for would-be customers who want to receive gas service 
or add lines for additional appliances, but they are unable to do so 
due to lack of capacity. This is a direct result of how difficult it 
has become to permit new natural gas infrastructure. There are simply 
not enough pipelines to supply gas to everyone who wants it. 
Unfortunately, in colder climates, this often means households continue 
to rely on propane or heating oil to stay warm in the winter. This not 
only produces a greater environmental footprint, but also forces those 
customers to continue paying higher energy bills.
    Other public gas systems are confronting challenges from local 
officials who want to ban new natural gas hookups or change building 
codes in their cities and counties to disincentivize the use of gas 
appliances in homes and businesses. These bans are being proposed in 
spite of the fact that residential natural gas use accounts for only 4% 
of emissions in the United States.\4\ Not only does this take away a 
consumer's right to choose the energy source that fuels their home, if 
successful, these efforts will inevitably lead to higher costs for 
American families while producing little environmental benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2019,'' Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 2021, available at: 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-main-text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost of Forced Electrification
    If politicians force fuel switching on natural gas customers, those 
households will not only face higher energy bills, but will also have 
to shoulder the additional cost of expensive new appliances and 
potential electrical system upgrades to support them.
    Last year, the Consumer Energy Alliance considered what it would 
cost if the nearly 60 million American households who rely on natural 
gas for cooking, cleaning, or heating their homes were forced to switch 
to electric appliances. Their research found:
          A new electric furnace and installation costs an 
        estimated $2,500,
          A new water heater costs an average of $1,180,
          A new, low-end electric range costs an estimated 
        $767, and
          A new electric clothes dryer costs an average of 
        $749.
    The nationwide cost to consumers if we forced natural gas 
households to switch to electric appliances would come in at more than 
$258 billion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ ``Green New Deal Would Cost American Consumers More Than $258 
Billion--in JUST Four Appliances,'' Consumer Energy Alliance, April 20, 
2021, available at: https://consumerenergyalliance.org/2021/04/green-
new-deal-would-cost-american-consumers-more-than-258-billion-in-just-
four-appliances/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These costs are just for the appliances themselves and do not 
account for the fact that many homes that currently rely on natural gas 
appliances would also be forced to upgrade their electric service 
panels to support the additional load of converting all their 
appliances to run on electricity. One recent study estimated that as 
many as 48 million households may require such an upgrade to fully 
electrify.\6\ Assuming an average cost of $2,000 for an electric panel 
upgrade, we are looking at an additional $100 billion cost 
nationwide.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ``Addressing an Electrification Roadblock: Residential Electric 
Panel Capacity: Analysis and Policy Recommendations on Electric Panel 
Sizing,'' Pecan Street, August 2021, available at: https://
www.pecanstreet.org/panel-size-paper-update/.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clean Energy Future
    We at APGA understand the need to transition to a clean energy 
future, but we urge Congress not to discount the role natural gas can 
play in that future. Natural gas has been delivering emission 
reductions in the energy sector for decades. With the development of 
the renewable natural gas industry and the potential of hydrogen, the 
gas industry can continue to deliver clean energy for American families 
in the future, utilizing our existing infrastructure and skilled 
workforce.
    It is vital that Congress pursue an all-of-the-above energy policy 
that continues to invest in and support energy efficient, gas-fired 
appliances and the infrastructure needed to support their continued use 
if we are going to transition to a clean energy future without 
compromising the reliability of our energy system and imposing 
unnecessary financial burdens on consumers.
    I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify on this 
important topic, and I look forward to today's discussion.

    Ms. Castor. Thank you.
    Next, Ms. Baldwin. Welcome. You are recognized 5 minutes to 
present your testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF SARA BALDWIN

    Ms. Baldwin. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Castor, 
Ranking Member Graves, and Select Committee members. Thank you 
so much for the opportunity to be here this morning.
    I work for Energy Innovation, which is a nonpartisan energy 
and climate policy think tank. We provide research and analysis 
to support policy design that reduces emissions at speed and 
scale, required for a stable climate. Our work is data-driven 
and informed by climate science.
    The IPCC report released this week made clear that actions 
are needed within this decade. And they will determine our 
collective climate future. Ignoring the urgent call to act will 
result in locked-in emissions, stranded assets, nonviable 
investments, and costly climate change.
    The same IPCC report, as well as a recent International 
Energy Agency report, points to widespread electrification of 
more end-uses, buildings, vehicles, and some industries as a 
way to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
    Electrification refers to switching end uses that currently 
run on fossil fuels to run on carbon-free electricity. For 
example, by replacing an older inefficient gas furnace with a 
more energy efficient, all-electric heat pump.
    The high prices for oil and gas are front of mind right 
now, but it is important to keep in mind that they are the 
result of issues on both the supply side, and the demand side. 
Reducing the demand for fossil fuels protects customers by 
putting a dampening effect on the high and volatile prices.
    Electrification reduces demand for fossil fuels and today's 
all electric technologies are far more efficient than their 
fossil counterparts. For example, air source heat pumps to heat 
your home are two to four times more energy efficient than 
natural gas-burning furnaces. Induction stoves outperform gas 
stoves by 3-to-1, without emitting harmful indoor air 
pollution. And EVs are nearly four times as efficient compared 
to gas or diesel vehicles also with pollution benefits to 
communities and individuals.
    Electric technologies are also cheaper to operate. And 
electricity is a more price-stable commodity, which insulates 
consumers from price shocks. A March 2022 analysis shows EVs 
are 3-to-6 times cheaper to drive per mile than gas powered 
vehicles. Another analysis shows that if all new vehicle sales 
were all electric in 2035, that would yield $2.7 trillion in 
consumer savings by 2050.
    Electricity is generated from a diverse set of homegrown 
resources. And electric utilities and the grid are highly 
regulated to ensure affordable and reliable electricity for all 
end users. Modeling from Energy Innovation shows that 
electrification combined with a clean carbon-free grid is the 
most cost-effective pathway to drive down greenhouse gas 
emissions to net zero by 2050, while also creating jobs and 
improving public health. Our modeling shows that strong 
policies would, by 2050, increase gross domestic product by 
$920 billion, create more than 5 million new job years, avoid 
more than 45,000 premature deaths, and 1.3 million asthma 
attacks annually.
    We already have the technologies we need to start 
electrifying more end uses. And we don't have to wait for a 
breakthrough or an unproven costly alternative to be viable. 
However, ensuring a wide range of available models and 
products, and a trained workforce to support widespread 
electrification in an equitable manner, requires policy to 
remove barriers, uptake, and enable mainstream adoption.
    Equitable incentives for EVs and electric appliances, such 
as those passed by the House last year, would be market game 
changers, and ideally, would be integrated into any future 
reconciliation package.
    Well-designed incentives provisions, such as caps based on 
income, and cost per vehicle, used EV incentives, and higher 
incentives for electric equipment in households that are 
underserved and communities that are front-line will ensure 
more Americans can access and benefit from these technologies 
sooner.
    Although I have not touched on it in detail today, more 
support is needed for industrial electrification. The U.S. 
industrial sector contributes nearly a quarter of our 
greenhouse gas emissions, yet few policies focus on this 
sector. Industrial operations are an untapped opportunity for 
greater price stability for made-in-America commodities by 
shifting more processes to run on carbon-free electricity.
    Policies to boost domestic manufacturing and production of 
the minerals and materials needed for electric and clean 
technologies will improve America's competitiveness, and make 
our economy more insulated from supply chain disruptions.
    The recent invocation of the Defense Production Act for 
critical minerals and some provisions in the Infrastructure Act 
are important first steps, but more incentives and funding 
would help move the dial.
    In conclusion, the urgency of our climate crisis, combined 
with the inherent price volatility of oil and gas, requires 
that we work quickly to electrify as many end uses as possible. 
Although 2050 may seem like a far-away day, policy adoption and 
implementation take time, as does the necessary capital stock 
turnover to convert existing fossil fuel assets to carbon-free 
assets.
    We must start now. Electrification is a viable solution 
that reduces harmful air pollution, creates American jobs, 
saves consumers money, and offers a cost-effective pathway to 
decarbonize our economy, but we need Federal leadership and 
smart policies to electrify the movement.
    Thank you for your time and I look forward to questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Baldwin follows:]

                              Testimony of

                              Sara Baldwin

                    Director, Electrification Policy

                           Energy Innovation

  U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

    ``Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: Investing in Energy Efficiency

           to Promote Energy Security and Cut Energy Bills''

                             April 7, 2022

    Good morning, Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Select 
Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to be speak with you 
all today, and it's an honor to be here. I appreciate the work of this 
committee, and the leadership each of you has shown in your public 
service, to understand climate science and work collaboratively to 
generate policy solutions.
    I am the Director of Electrification Policy with Energy Innovation, 
a non-partisan climate policy think tank providing research and 
analysis to support policies that reduce emissions at the speed and 
scale required for a safe climate future. Our work is based on 
scientific assessments of climate change, and our policy 
recommendations are grounded in data, driven by our open-source and 
peer-reviewed Energy Policy Simulator model.\1\
    I have devoted my 18-year career to advancing workable solutions to 
climate change because it is the one issue that truly impacts 
everything, and I believe it is one of the most important issues of our 
time. The two most recent contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (from Working Groups 
II and III) are sobering; both make painstakingly clear that our time 
to limit warming is perilously short, and the societal choices and 
actions taken within the next decade will determine our collective 
climate future.\2\ The Working Group III report, issued this week, 
notes that limiting warming to around 1.5 degrees Celsius requires that 
global greenhouse gases must peak before 2025 at the latest, and be 
reduced by 43 percent by 2030; at the same time, methane would also 
need to be reduced by about a third.\3\ Fixing the ``pervasive leaky 
natural gas infrastructure'' \4\ is paramount to minimizing methane's 
damage within the decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Available at: https://energypolicy.solutions/.
    \2\ IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Portner, D.C. 
Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegria, M. 
Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V. Moller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: 
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 
Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Portner, D.C. Roberts, 
M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegria, M. Craig, S. 
Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V. Moller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press. In Press. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/
ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf and IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers. 
In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of 
Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. 
Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. 
Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, 
J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New 
York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.001, available at https://
report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can 
halve emissions by 2030,'' IPCC Press Release, April 4, 2022, https://
www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/.
    \4\ Eric Roston, ``Planet's Breakneck Warming Likely to Pass 1.5+C, 
UN Scientists Warn,'' Bloomberg, April 4, 2022, https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/planet-s-breakneck-warming-
likely-to-pass-1-5-c-un-scientists-warn?cmpid=BBD040422_GREENDAILY&utm 
_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220404&utm_campaign=greenda
ily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The science tells us we must achieve net zero greenhouse gas 
emissions by or before 2050. That seems far away, but it takes time for 
policies to take effect, and to adopt new technologies. The greenhouse 
gases we emit into our atmosphere today will warm our world for 
decades. Getting on a safe climate pathway requires cost-effective 
solutions capable of scaling quickly. Electrification is an essential, 
cost-effective strategy to achieve this goal by switching end-uses that 
currently run on fossil fuels to run on carbon-free electricity. For 
example, swapping out an old gas furnace for a more efficient all-
electric air-source heat pump, or driving an electric vehicle in lieu 
of an internal combustion engine vehicle. As I will discuss in my 
testimony, electrifying buildings, transportation, and much of industry 
powered by a clean grid puts us on the path to achieving a stable 
climate, while creating jobs and improving public health. It is also a 
pathway to enhance energy security and ensure our global 
competitiveness.
    The International Energy Agency's Net Zero by 2050 report calls out 
electrification as a core solution to achieve net zero emissions: ``As 
electricity generation becomes progressively cleaner, electrification 
of areas previously dominated by fossil fuels emerges as a crucial 
economy-wide tool for reducing emissions. This takes place through 
technologies like electric cars, buses and trucks on the roads, heat 
pumps in buildings, and electric furnaces for steel production.'' \5\ 
Similarly, the Working Group III report notes that ``[s]tringent 
emissions reductions at the level required for a 2+C and below are 
achieved through increased direct electrification of buildings, 
transport, and industry, resulting in increased electricity generation 
in all pathways (high confidence).'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ ``Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector,'' 
International Energy Agency, May 2021, https://www.iea.org/reports/net-
zero-by-2050.
    \6\ ``Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment 
Report, Chapter 3: Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term 
goals,'' IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: Mitigation of Climate Change, 
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/
IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf, 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All-electric technologies are considerably more efficient than 
fossil fuel counterparts, and this inherent efficiency reduces fossil 
fuel demand with a dampening effect on prices--which helps all 
consumers. Because electricity is a price-stable commodity, electric 
technologies are far cheaper to operate and help protect consumers from 
volatility and price shocks.
    We have the technologies, and they are increasingly cost-effective, 
but smart policies and regulations are needed to jumpstart the market.
    Today, we are experiencing a perfect storm of converging factors 
whose root cause is our overreliance on oil and gas: volatile and high 
fuel prices, devastating climate events, and energy insecurity. It is 
important to think both about the near- and long-term impacts of any 
solutions or actions so that solving one problem does not exacerbate 
others.
    As this Committee has discussed at length, the high price \7\ of 
gas and oil is hurting Americans at the pump and at home \8\ and is 
increasing energy burdens \9\ for lower- and middle-income households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``Gas Prices,'' AAA website, https://gasprices.aaa.com, 
accessed April 5, 2022.
    \8\ ``Short-term Energy Outlook: Winter Fuels Outlook, October 
2021'' U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 8, 2022, https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/WinterFuels.php.
    \9\ Energy burden refers to the relative proportion of your income 
that goes to pay energy bills, including for home heating and fueling a 
vehicle. Energy burden is different than an energy bill, which is the 
rate you pay for electricity combined with how much you use. With 
energy efficiency and conservation measures, even where electricity 
rates are high, you can reduce energy bills and help mitigate high 
energy burdens. According to ACEEE, 25% of U.S. households face a high 
energy burden (spend 6% or more of their income on energy bills), and 
low-income households spend three times more of their income on energy 
costs compared to the average non-low-income households (8.1% vs 2.3%). 
Source: https://www.aceee.org/energy-burden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These high prices are caused by a post-pandemic surge in consumer 
demand \10\ for oil and gas combined with supply shocks caused by 
global shutdowns, extreme weather events, and Putin's war against 
Ukraine.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ David Gaffen, Scott DiSavino, and Stephanie Kelly, ``U.S. 
December oil demand
hits highest since before pandemic--EIA,'' Reuters, February 28, 2022, 
https:
//www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-oil-demand-reached-highest-level-
since-before-pandemic-december-eia-2022-02-28/.
    \11\ ``Making Sense of Soaring Oil Prices,'' Columbia Energy 
Exchange Podcast, March 22, 2022, https://
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/making-sense-soaring-oil-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil is a global commodity, and natural gas increasingly so, meaning 
oil and gas markets operate outside the boundaries of any one country. 
Increasing short-term domestic production can provide some immediate 
relief, but no amount of domestic drilling and production will insulate 
us from this unending cycle of price volatility.
    Fortunately, electrification can stabilize prices by reducing 
fossil fuel demand because all-electric technologies are highly energy 
efficient. Today's efficient electric technologies offer a hedge 
against price spikes. For example, air source heat pump furnaces are 
two to four times more energy-efficient than natural gas-burning 
furnaces.\12\ Induction stoves outperform gas stoves by about three to 
one.\13\ Electric vehicles are nearly four times as efficient as 
internal combustion engine vehicles.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Claire McKenna, Amar Shah, and Mark Silberg, It's Time to 
Incentivize Residential Heat Pumps, RMI, June 8, 2020, https://rmi.org/
its-time-to-incentivize-residential-heat-pumps/.
    \13\ Micah Sweeney, Jeff Dols, Brian Fortenbery, and Frank Sharp, 
Induction Cooking
Technology Design and Assessment, ACEEE, 2014,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2014/data/papers/9-702.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``All-Electric Vehicles,'' U.S. Department of Energy,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml
    Inherent efficiency advantages make electric technologies cheaper 
to operate, and electricity is more price-stable than oil and gas 
without global market volatility. Electricity is generated from diverse 
homegrown resources and electric utilities and the grid are regulated 
by federal, state, regional, and local entities tasked with ensuring 
affordable and reliable electricity for all consumers.
    Today, U.S. households and businesses that rely on fossil fuels for 
transportation and heat are being hit with higher energy bills and 
gasoline bills, whereas those who live in all-electric homes or drive 
electric vehicles have been insulated from this price shock.
    A recent analysis conducted by the Zero Emissions Transportation 
Association shows electric vehicles are three to five times cheaper to 
drive per mile than gas-powered vehicles, and in several states are 
five to six times cheaper to drive per mile.\15\ Analysis from 
University of California, Berkeley, Energy Innovation, and GridLab 
(known as the 2035 2.0 Study) shows light-duty electric vehicles will 
hold a total cost of ownership advantage within the next five 
years.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Comparing the Operating Costs of Electric Vehicles and Gas-
Powered Vehicles, Zero Emissions Transportation Association, April 
2022,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_d6OXxWpF6GzBjZiFP3oj0QqQTM1P5io/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Amol Phadke, N. Abhyankar, J. Kersey, T. McNair, U. Paliwal, 
D. Wooley, O. Ashmoore, R. Orvis, M. O'Boyle, R. O'Connell, U. Agwan, 
P. Mohanty, P. Sreedharan, and D. Rajagopal, Plummeting Costs and 
Dramatic Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean 
Transportation Future, University of California, Berkeley Goldman 
School of Public Policy, Energy Innovation, and Grid Lab, April 2021, 
http://www.2035report.com/transportation/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/2035Report2.0-1.pdf?hsCtaTracking=544e8e73-
752a-40ee-b3a5-
90e28d5f2e18%7C81c0077a-d01d-45b9-a338-fcaef78a20e7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All-electric homes also save money. RMI analysis comparing new all-
electric single-family homes with dual fuel homes in seven cities \17\ 
shows that a new all-electric, single-family home has a lower net 
present cost than the new mixed-fuel home with lower annual utility 
costs in most cases.\18\ All-electric new homes also yield emit 50 
percent up to 93 percent fewer greenhouse gases compared to mixed-fuel 
homes.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Austin, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, 
Colorado; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York City, New York; and Seattle, 
Washington.
    \18\ The two modeled scenarios have nearly equivalent utility bills 
in Boston and Seattle.
    \19\ Claire McKenna, Amar Shah, and Leah Louis-Prescott, ``All-
Electric New Homes: A Win for the Climate and the Economy,'' RMI, 
October 15, 2020, https://rmi.org/all-electric-new-homes-a-win-for-the-
climate-and-the-economy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the promise of energy savings is enticing, many consumers 
face upfront cost barriers and challenges accessing financing. Though 
costs are declining ahead of most projections, policies, regulations, 
and incentives can bring down costs further, level the playing field 
for all-electric technologies. Upfront incentives, applied at the 
point-of-purchase, are highly effective tools for equitable market 
transformation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Sam Abuelsamid, ``EV Purchase Incentives Need to Shift to 
Point-of-Sale Rebates,'' Guidehouse Insights, June 24, 2021, https://
guidehouseinsights.com/news-and-views/ev-
purchase-incentives-need-to-shift-to-point-of-sale-rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The upside to electrification is that we already have the 
technologies we need to start electrifying more end-uses today, without 
compromising performance. We don't have to wait for a new technology 
breakthrough or an unproven, costly alternative to become viable \21\ 
because conversion can occur incrementally using existing electrical 
infrastructure. In the U.S., 25 percent of homes are already all-
electric,\22\ and almost half of single-family homes are appropriately 
wired for all-electric appliances.\23\ Many buildings have sufficient 
electrical capacity to switch to all-electric appliances today, though 
older buildings might require electrical upgrades like a new panel or 
wiring. Consumers replacing older equipment, appliances, and vehicles 
can opt for all-electric options. Or, when building or buying new, they 
can choose all-electric options, avoiding potentially costly upgrades 
down the road. However, model and product availability to meet consumer 
needs is closely tied with policy support. As such, it is important for 
policies to send strong market signals to manufacturers, contractors, 
distributors, and dealers to encourage them to make and sell high 
performing, energy-efficient all-electric products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Sara Baldwin, Dan Esposito, and Hadley Tallackson, Assessing 
the Viability of Hydrogen Proposals: Considerations for State Utility 
Regulators and Policymakers, Energy Innovation, March 28, 2022, https:/
/energyinnovation.org/publication/assessing-the-viability-of-hydrogen-
proposals-considerations-for-state-utility-regulators-and-
policymakers/.
    \22\ ``One in Four U.S. Homes is All Electric,'' U.S. Energy 
Information Administration, May 1, 2019, https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39293.
    \23\ Pecan Street, Addressing an Electrification Roadblock: 
Residential Electric Panel Capacity, https://www.pecanstreet.org/panel-
size-paper-update/, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More relevant to this Committee, electrification plus a clean grid 
puts us on a climate stable path while creating jobs, improving public 
health, and ensuring global competitiveness. Energy Innovation's U.S. 
Energy Policy Simulator modeling shows that electrification policy 
pathways combined with a clean grid--powered by a diverse mix of 
carbon-free resources like wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, 
paired with batteries, existing nuclear and gas, and demand-side 
resources--can cut emissions, increase gross domestic product $570 
billion per year in 2030 and $920 billion in 2050, and create more than 
3.2 million new job-years by 2030 and 5 million new job-years by 
2050.\24\ The wedge graph below shows U.S. emissions under business-as-
usual and the 1.5+C Scenario, including how much each specific policy 
reduces emissions through 2050. Although these are illustrative 
pathways, the electrification policies for buildings, transportation, 
and industry all contribute significant emissions reductions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7955A.001

    \24\ Robbie Orvis and Megan Mahajan, ``A 1.5+C NDC For Climate 
Leadership by the United States,'' April 2021, https://
energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/A-1.5-C-Pathway-to-
Climate-Leadership-for-The-United-States_NDC-update-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Transportation is the largest source of U.S. GHG emissions, 
contributing 29 percent of all emissions in 2019 and rising, unlike the 
electricity sector. Annual transportation emissions grew 22.9 percent 
between 1990 and 2019--the largest growth in annual emissions from any 
sector.\25\ The 2035 2.0 Study showed that reaching 100 percent 
electric sales for all new cars and trucks by 2035 would cut 
transportation-related GHGs 93 percent, and put the U.S. on a path to 
net zero economy-wide emissions in 2050, avoiding the most devastating 
impacts of climate change. This would also create more than 2 million 
jobs in 2035 as compared with business-as-usual.\26\ Adding more 
emphasis on domestic manufacturing would only amplify those job 
numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ ``Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer,'' United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/
inventoryexplorer/#allsectors/allsectors/allgas/econsect/all.
    \26\ Amol Phadke, et al., Plummeting Costs and Dramatic 
Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation 
Future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the U.S. nearly 90 million residential housing units and 4 
million commercial buildings burn fossil fuels for space and water 
heating and cooking, and those buildings contribute 13 percent of our 
nation's GHG emissions.\27\ Rewiring America analysis shows that we can 
avoid 166 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) 
emissions by deploying heat pump technology across 104.7 million 
households (or 87 percent of U.S. households) today.\28\ Building and 
retrofitting electrified homes and buildings across the country will 
require hundreds of thousands of skilled workers, creating more than 
460,000 installation jobs, 80,000 manufacturing jobs, and 800,000 
indirect and induced jobs in the U.S.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Sara Baldwin and Hadley Tallackson, Making Buildings Better, 
Energy Innovation, December 2021, https://energyinnovation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/Making-Buildings-Better-in-the-Build-Back-
Better-Act.pdf.
    \28\ ``Benefits of Electrification,'' Rewiring America, https://
map.rewiringamerica.org.
    \29\ ``Benefits of Electrification,'' Rewiring America, https://
map.rewiringamerica.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even if we power our electric vehicles and homes with today's grid 
(which is not yet 100 percent carbon-free), we will still reduce net 
emissions. A Union of Concerned Scientists study shows that electric 
vehicles are already cleaner than gas vehicles in all states, 
regardless of regional differences in grid mix.\30\ We have an 
opportunity to begin reducing emissions today with the adoption of 
efficient electric technologies, while we continue to drive towards a 
carbon-free grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ David Reichmuth, ``Electric Vehicles are Cleaner than 
Gasoline--and Getting Better,'' Union of Concerned Scientists Fact 
Sheet, May 2020, https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-
05/evs-cleaner-than-gasoline.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, given the slow pace of capital stock turnover,\31\ we need 
to start electrifying as many end-uses now as feasible to be on the 
path to climate stability by 2030 and ultimately 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Amanda Myers, ``The Capital Stock Turnover Problem for 100% 
Clean Energy Targets,'' Greentech Media, November 18, 2019, https://
www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-capital-stock-turnover-
problem-for-100-clean-energy-targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electrification will also improve public health and reduce harmful 
air pollution indoors and outdoors. Nearly half of all U.S. residents 
live in counties with unhealthy ozone and particle pollution,\32\ and 
more than 20,000 die prematurely \33\ every year from transportation 
pollutants. Transportation electrification will reduce a major source 
of harmful air pollutants, which disproportionately impact economically 
disadvantaged and communities of color \34\, children, pregnant women, 
and the elderly. The 2035 2.0 study found that electrifying cars and 
trucks would avoid 96 percent of the premature deaths caused by 
transportation pollution.\35\ Similarly, all-electric appliances and 
stoves can significantly reduce toxic air pollution in homes \36\ and 
cut outdoor air pollution damaging to human health.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 2020 State of the Air Report, American Lung Association,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.stateoftheair.org/assets/SOTA-2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Kenneth Davidson, N. Fann, M. Zawacki, C. Fulcher, and K. 
Baker, The recent and future health burden of the U.S. mobile sector 
apportioned by source, Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, 
Number 7, July 6, 2020, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/
1748-9326/ab83a8.
    \34\ American Lung Association 2020 State of the Air Report.
    \35\ Amol Phadke, et al., Plummeting Costs and Dramatic 
Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation 
Future.
    \36\ ``Combustion Pollutants in Your Home--Guidelines,'' California 
Air Resources Board, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/
combustion-pollutants-your-home-guidelines, accessed April 5, 2022.
    \37\ Dr. Yifang Zhu, R. Connolly, Dr. Y. Lin, T. Mathews, Z. Wang, 
Effects of Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality 
and Public Health in California, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, April 2020, https://
ucla.app.box.com/s/xyzt8jc1ixnetiv0269qe704wu0ihif7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electrification is synergistic with updating the electric grid to 
improve reliability, and more electric end-uses will cut per unit 
consumer costs. U.S. electric utilities have historically invested $30 
billion per year into the grid, and more investments will be needed to 
support more electrified end-uses.\38\ But these investments will make 
the grid stronger and more reliable and resilient.\39\ Increased 
electricity demand from electrification will spread grid upgrade 
expenses over a much larger sales volume, lowering the cost per unit of 
electricity and benefitting 100 percent of U.S. residents that use 
electricity.\40\ Combined with demand response and distributed energy 
resources, all-electric buildings provide unique load flexibility and 
other benefits, including integrating more renewable energy and 
expanded electric vehicle charging. For example, electric appliances 
can be programmed to respond to grid conditions and price signals, and 
if set up to do so, can provide valuable grid services and demand 
response when called upon by utilities. New smart grid funding from the 
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for will 
support continued deployment of these functions and capabilities at 
scale.\41\ All-electric equipment can also be supported with 
distributed or community solar and battery storage to increase 
resilience when the grid goes down. No such back-up technologies exist 
for oil and gas equipment--which are also subject to grid outages. For 
example, you cannot pump gasoline or use most modern gas furnaces 
without electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Amol Phadke, et al., Plummeting Costs and Dramatic 
Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation 
Future.
    \39\ Katherine Hamilton remarks for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission Technical Conference on Electrification and the Grid of the 
Future, Docket No. AD21-12-000, April 29, 2021, https://www.ferc.gov/
media/panel-1-katherine-hamilton-world-economic-forum.
    \40\ Baldwin, et al., Assessing the Viability of Hydrogen 
Proposals.
    \41\ Ellie Long, ``Here's How the Infrastructure Bill Improves the 
Grid,'' Alliance to Save Energy, November 22, 2021, https://
www.ase.org/blog/heres-how-infrastructure-bill-improves-grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite their advantages, all-electric technologies are nascent 
relative to their fossil fuel-powered counterparts, and they stand to 
benefit from strong policies to jumpstart the market. Government 
policies, strong standards, and regulations can enable mainstream 
adoption, allowing more consumers to benefit from these technologies. 
Rigorous performance and efficiency standards are the foundation upon 
which policies should be built, reducing consumer costs, leveling the 
playing field for businesses, and amplifying the impact of other 
policies. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's work updating energy conservation 
standards for space- and water-heating equipment can save U.S. 
consumers and businesses more than $100 billion on energy bills through 
2050 while reducing cumulative CO2 emissions by more than 
500 million metric tons.\42\ Similarly, EPA's recent update to tailpipe 
emissions standards will reduce GHG emissions 3.1 billion tons by 2050, 
representing 50 percent greater emission reductions than their less 
stringent proposed standards, and will unlock $190 billion in net 
benefits, including reduced climate change impacts, improved public 
health from lower pollution, and cost savings for vehicle owners.\43\
    But, more is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ ASAP analysis based on Mauer, J. and A. deLaski, ``A Powerful 
Priority: How Appliance Standards Can Help Meet U.S. Climate Goals and 
Save Consumers Money.'' 2020. Available at https://appliance-
standards.org/sites/default/files/Powerful_Priority_Report.pdf. 
Products evaluated included residential and commercial gas-fired 
furnaces, boilers, and water heaters.
    \43\ ``EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Standards for Passenger 
Vehicles, Paving Way for A Zero-Emissions Future,'' US Environmental 
Protection Agency, December 20, 2021, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/
epa-finalizes-greenhouse-gas-standards-passenger-vehicles-paving-way-
zero-emissions; and ``Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG 
Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model 
year 2026,'' US Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/
regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-
national-ghg-emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We need practical and equitable incentives to help reduce upfront 
cost of electric technologies and send market signals. One of the 
biggest barriers to uptake is the slightly higher incremental cost of 
all-electric appliances and equipment. The International Council on 
Clean Transportation projects that electric vehicles will reach upfront 
price parity with gas vehicles within the next two to three years for 
shorter-range vehicles and within four to six years for longer-range 
vehicles.\44\ Until that transpires, government leadership can help 
bridge this gap and get more consumers in price-stable electric 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Nic Lutsey and Michael Nicholas, Working Paper: Update On 
Electric Vehicle Costs in the United States Through 2030, The 
International Council on Clean Transportation, April 2, 2019, https://
theicct.org/publication/update-on-electric-vehicle-costs-in-the-united-
states-through-2030/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress' passage of the incentives for new and used electric 
vehicles \45\ and electric equipment for buildings \46\ at the end of 
last year was an important first step in addressing this barrier. 
Ideally, such incentives would be integrated into any future policies 
under consideration by Congress and the Senate.\47\ Any future policies 
should include provisions that ensure equity, expand access, and 
meaningfully address environmental justice. For example, including 
incentives for used electric vehicles would help the millions of U.S. 
residents that choose not to buy or cannot afford a new vehicle. 
Appropriate income caps, capping the vehicle value, and limiting the 
incentive based on the vehicle price will ensure the electric vehicles 
tax incentive is available to as many people as possible, while 
excluding high-income individuals and households that are far less 
likely to need an incentive to motivate their purchase decisions. 
Higher incentives for electric equipment located in multi-family 
housing and for frontline and underserved communities are other 
examples of common-sense policy provisions that merit future 
consideration to ensure an equitable transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Electric Vehicle Incentives in the Build Back Better Act, 
Energy Innovation, November 2021, https://energyinnovation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/Electric-Vehicle-Incentives-in-the-Build-Back-
Better-Act.pdf.
    \46\ Baldwin, Making Buildings Better.
    \47\ A University of California, Davis study documented the 
efficacy of EV tax incentives for middle- and moderate-income earners, 
finding federal tax credits are one of the most important incentives 
for owners of moderately-priced EVs. Source: https://escholarship.org/
uc/item/0x28831g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ensuring seamless adoption of electric technologies needs 
sufficient support for the infrastructure and workforce supporting 
them. The IIJA was a good start, allocating $7.5 billion to help build-
out a national electric vehicle charging network to reduce range 
anxiety and ensure equitable access to charging for people in rural and 
urban communities.
    Although I've not touched on it in detail today, more support is 
needed for industrial electrification. Direct GHG emissions from the 
U.S. industrial sector make up roughly a quarter of the nation's total, 
yet very few policies and programs are focused on this sector. 
Industrial operations are an untapped opportunity to provide greater 
price stability for Made in America commodities by shifting more 
industrial processes to run on electricity. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Lab research shows industrial electrification could reduce fuel price 
risks and improve product quality in some industrial processes, noting 
that many essential industrial electrification technologies exist, but 
the diversity of processes and high levels of process integration make 
solutions more complex.\48\ More funding is needed for research, 
development, and demonstration of electrification of low- to medium-
heat industrial process heating and new programs to help address the 
economic and regulatory challenges to industrial electrification. Two 
existing tools that can and should be leveraged for this purpose are 
DOE's ARPA-E \49\ program and the America COMPETES Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ ``New study explores prospects and approaches for increased 
electrification of buildings and industry,'' Lawrence Berkeley National 
Lab, April 9, 2018, https://emp.lbl.gov/news/new-study-explores-
prospects-and-approaches.
    \49\ ``Technologies,'' ARPA-E, https://arpa-e.energy.gov/
technologies.
    \50\ ``America Competes Act,'' Public Law 110-69, Authenticated 
U.S. Government Information, August 9, 2007, https://www.congress.gov/
110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More support for domestic manufacturing of electric appliances and 
domestic production of the key minerals and raw materials needed for 
electric vehicles, batteries, electric appliances, and other clean 
technologies will improve America's competitiveness and insulate our 
economy from supply chain disruptions, as we electrify more end uses. 
Immediate steps to increase domestic supply chain of electric 
technologies through incentives for domestic manufacturing and domestic 
production of essential minerals and raw materials will ensure those 
jobs are created here and not outsourced. President Biden's recent 
invocation of the Defense Production Act for critical minerals is an 
important first step in this direction.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Steven Mufson and Paulina Villegas, ``Biden to use Defense 
Production Act for U.S> critical-minerals supply,'' The Washington 
Post, March 31, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-
environment/2022/03/30/critical-minerals-defense-production-act/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Policies should consider workforce development opportunities and 
challenges inherent to technological changes. Electrification can 
create millions of jobs, but workers will need access to training, 
professional development, and in some cases incentives to help them 
retool or make necessary upgrades. The IIJA, for example, provides 
dedicated funding for workforce training in the power, buildings, and 
industrial sectors. As more policies are considered, they should 
continue to account for the workforce transition already underway.
    In conclusion, the urgency of our climate crisis combined with the 
inherent volatility of fossil fuels requires that we work quickly to 
scale solutions that replace fossil fuel end-uses and equipment with 
zero-carbon alternatives. We cannot wait until 2030 or later to start. 
Electrification is a viable solution that offers a path to reduce our 
dependence on fossil fuels in the near- and long-term, support the 
decarbonization of buildings, transportation, and some industry, reduce 
consumer costs, improve public health, and create jobs. Smart policies 
will electrify the movement and energize our economy.
    Thank you for your time and I look forward to questions and 
discussion.

    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you to all of our witnesses for 
your insightful testimony. I will recognize myself for the 
first 5 minutes for questions.
    You know, it really has been a remarkable last decade to 
watch the American innovation in energy, innovation in 
appliances, and housing, and materials. And it holds such 
promise to help our neighbors back home reduce their electric 
bills and save money; but also, reduce pollution with all the 
health benefits that brings and help us solve the climate 
crisis. And that is why I am really proud of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law that President Biden championed, that has 
these historic investments in weatherization, which means the 
ability to add insulation to your homes, more energy efficient 
appliances, and smart meters, and things like that. It means we 
are going to update our building codes, and we provided 
historic resources for electric vehicle charging, and even down 
to helping public schools become more energy efficient and save 
taxpayers money overall.
    But Ms. Baldwin, you know, you have taken a deep dive, 
Energy Innovation certainly has done a really comprehensive 
analysis. There are a lot of naysayers out there that say, Oh, 
okay, we can't have a reliable grid, we can't have all of these 
things, we can't save money and reduce pollution, and help 
solve the climate crisis. What do you say after all of your 
work and analysis looking at the EE opportunities?
    Ms. Baldwin. Thank you for that question Chair Castor.
    What I would say is that, you know, our model informs our 
work. We really try to identify the solutions that are most 
cost effective, that simultaneously create co-benefits. As I 
mentioned, creating a clean grid powered by carbon free 
electricity, and then electrifying as many end uses as possible 
shows repeatedly that that is the way to drive down emissions, 
and we can do so by saving consumers money, but also creating 
American jobs.
    Is it easy? No. We have work to do. I think that is clearly 
the message for this committee as well as the committee--excuse 
me, as well as this body. There are ample opportunities to 
correct market failures with strong policy and leadership. And 
I think that, as I mentioned in my testimony, the 
reconciliation package forthcoming that may or not pass----
    Ms. Castor. Oh, it is coming----
    Ms. Baldwin [continuing]. Is a great opportunity to rectify 
these market failures, to fill in the gaps that the 
Infrastructure Act did not address, and really address the 
American consumer and the businesses here in figuring out ways 
to benefit them.
    Ms. Castor. And Mr. Johnson, you are doing a lot of that 
hard work on the ground. I mean, this is labor intensive to 
help folks on the ground, small business owners, folks who are 
just trying to get through the day. Tell me what has been 
successful? And now with these historic investments just under 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and hopefully with some of 
the other tax credits, what is happening out there? And what 
opportunities do you see? And what else do you need for the 
Congress to help folks put the insulation in their homes, 
weatherize their homes, get the energy efficient appliances in?
    Mr. Johnson. Thanks for the question, Chair Castor. I think 
it is very insightful that we begin to look at what is going on 
at the ground level. And as we begin to look at different 
legislations such as HOPE for HOMES, and the HOPE for HOMES Act 
and the Zero Energy Home Act, all of these different types of 
bills that are making resources readily available to empower 
the contractor, at the ground, the boots on the ground.
    Ms. Castor. Tell us a story of a contractor. Tell us a 
personal story----
    Mr. Johnson. Sure.
    Ms. Castor [continuing]. Of what you've seen on the ground 
where you do work.
    Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. And I think that most importantly 
what is most transformative to me is when we began to see how 
these resources directly impact the contractor and their 
ability to scale their businesses, and create local jobs, and 
create opportunities for small business development, and 
expansion of those small businesses. As we began to see the 
infusion of resources, we have been able to see small 
businesses empowered to deliver training for their existing 
staff to be able to scale up, while being able to afford to 
bring on new employees to be able to expand their business 
model to deliver on the growing demand of energy efficiency and 
the other sustainability best practices that are out there. And 
so, it is really important to see that happening, because that 
is where the magic really happens. Oftentimes, on the ground 
where we don't see those lives transform, those businesses 
expanding, and those communities receiving services that they 
traditionally have been overlooked. And so, that is empowering 
for me when you understand the disproportionate nature by which 
historically those services have not been delivered.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Armstrong, good morning. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is just 
interesting to me how different places in the world are, and 
even in our own country, as there is a lot of communities doing 
what they can, either rightly or wrongly, to try and wean 
themselves off of gas, we are trying to get more in North 
Dakota. And, you know, over the last 10 years, our state has 
grown about 16 percent, which for a small rural state is a lot, 
but it doesn't tell the whole story. We have had tremendous 
growth in the western part of the state, tremendous growth in 
the eastern part of the state. But our rural ag communities in 
the center part of our state continue to have an out migration. 
And the number one thing I hear from every one of those 
communities, in order to survive in the 21st century, we need 
water, and we need gas, and we need it for things that are 
important, not just for North Dakota, but I think for the whole 
country and the world right now. Trying to get a fertilizer 
plant put together. We have a soybean crushing facility that 
will then take its products and put them into a biodiesel 
refinery, of which we sell almost all of it to the State of 
California.
    And listen, not all problems with this are borne out of the 
Federal Government. I know it is easy to deal with this, but we 
have had a tremendous oil boom in western North Dakota and have 
fought, and fought, and fought, and invested billions and 
billions of dollars to get gas infrastructure in place so we 
can actually deliver that associated gas that we are capturing 
in the western part of the state to some of our communities. 
And we need it. And we don't have the other options. I mean, 
there is not a member on this committee that doesn't support 
energy efficiency. It is good for the consumer; it is good for 
the environment. And year over year, producers throughout the 
system improve a variety of household items to increase 
efficiency and deliver energy savings to the market. And at-
home consumers demand everything from windows, to heating 
systems, to small appliances, consumers demand these items 
delivery efficiency at an affordable price and the market 
provides.
    However, I do--and I do get concerned whenever we talk 
about, and have these conversations about energy efficiency 
because they often, in this town, tend away from cooperation 
and move towards mandates, and voluntary programs that allow 
the market to innovate and the consumer decide just work 
better, because they work better in North Dakota, compared to 
Colorado, compared to wherever else, because the on-the-ground 
demands are just different, depending on where you live.
    So Mr. Schryver, the ENERGY STAR program is a well-known 
guide for consumers looking to choose more energy efficient 
items for their home. Seeing the blue label on an application 
is a powerful indicator that guides consumers in a certain 
direction when purchasing at-home appliances. In your 
testimony, you mention the cost savings provided by gas 
appliances. Are those included in the ENERGY STAR program?
    Mr. Schryver. Not to the extent that we would like. We 
believe there should be a greater focus on the cost associated 
with operating the appliance. And as I mentioned earlier, just 
tremendous savings associated with natural gas appliances.
    The way the program is structured right now, natural gas 
appliances do not make that top cut of the most elite, most 
efficient under ENERGY STAR. We, as I said earlier, we do 
believe that natural gas appliances are the most efficient on a 
cyber-source basis. They are 92 percent efficient. You don't 
lose three times that efficiency that you do on electricity. So 
we would like to see the program revamped to include natural 
gas appliances in that top tier.
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, and would it be fair to say through 
EPA actions, there are entire communities in states like mine 
that will not be able to take advantage of the program now 
because they don't have other options?
    Mr. Schryver. We think--studies have shown consumers prefer 
natural gas. They prefer it for cooking, they prefer it for 
heating. It is more efficient. It is more affordable, you know. 
Overall, it is domestically produced. So from APGA's 
perspective, we are concerned about any Federal action that 
precludes the ability of a consumer to choose which appliance 
works best for them. And we have seen standards at the 
Department of Energy that we believe push people away from 
natural gas furnaces. That is something we are focused on.
    Mr. Armstrong. Can you specifically walk through some of 
the costs associated with forced electrification and current 
efforts to increase the efficiency of gas appliances?
    Mr. Schryver. Sure. If you have forced electrification, you 
are going to have costs associated with switching your 
appliances out, you are going to have costs associated with 
upgrading your electric panel, you are going to have costs 
associated with upgrading generation and transmission. All 
those costs can be passed on to consumers and they are 
significant.
    Mr. Armstrong. But it is not just efforts to ban or 
discourage the use of appliances in the home. In your 
testimony, you mention efforts at the local level to cut off 
supply, including through bans in natural gas hookups.
    What policy proposals at the Federal level may have a 
similar effect?
    Mr. Schryver. We haven't seen anything at the Federal 
level, just at the local level, as you stated. We have seen 
communities ban new natural gas hookups, which more or less 
creates a death spiral for that local gas utility.
    At the Federal level, in the past we have seen appliance 
standards that push people away from natural gas, such as the 
furnace standard that requires a condensing furnace.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Next up, Rep. Brownley.
    I see you virtually. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 
holding this hearing.
    I wanted to talk about a bill that I introduced a while 
ago. It is a bill around energy efficient appliances for both 
consumer products and industrial equipment.
    The bill allows states to set stricter standards than the 
national standard when the DOE misses statutory deadlines for 
issuing new or revised standards. It expands the pool of 
products that DOE may issue standards. It reduces the lead time 
for when standards must come into effect, generally to a 
maximum of 3 years. And it gives explicit authority to DOE that 
it can evaluate more than one efficiency metric when measuring 
products' performances.
    So we know that products not covered by the Federal 
standard have the potential to save Americans a substantial 
amount of energy, and there are so many products that are not 
under the Federal law that states are providing. They can 
provide their own efficiency standards if it is not covered by 
Federal law. And there are quite a few and the states seem to 
be doing a better job, in my opinion, than the Federal 
Government does.
    So, Ms. Glover, can you kind of speak to, if we had better 
Federal standards, higher standards, continuing standards that 
continue to update with new technologies, et cetera, what 
difference is that going to make for both consumers and for our 
climate?
    Ms. Glover. Congresswoman, I want to first apologize, 
because I am not as familiar with your proposed bill. So I am 
going to try my best to answer your question, but I am not 
familiar with your bill and I want people to put that on the 
record.
    I think improved standards can always help consumers. But I 
think we also want to ensure that we have the right standards 
in place so that consumers can make the choices that are best 
for them. And I think in doing that, in giving people the kind 
of information that they need to make those choices, we can 
resolve lots of problems.
    My hesitancy is always that we have many problems that we 
are trying to solve at the same time. We are trying to address 
climate, we are trying to address affordability, and we are 
trying to address security. And so we want to make sure that 
creating a standard that solves one problem doesn't make 
another problem worse. And so that would be my only hesitancy.
    I also, though, believe that consumers are really the ones 
who should have the say, and that, as we talk about equity, we 
should be thinking and allowing communities to really speak on 
their own behalf for what they believe is right for themselves 
and how this transition should work for them.
    Because in the end, I think that is, one, how we are going 
to have some sustainable change that is going to be successful 
and not have a flip-flop because we are trying to enact some 
things that consumers aren't aligned with and do not support.
    Ms. Brownley. So then do you think that it is better not to 
have Federal standards and to have community standards, state 
standards, that are more consistent with what the consumer----
    Ms. Glover. No, I don't want to say that. No. So let me 
correct myself. I am actually not saying that we should not 
have Federal standards.
    Ms. Brownley. Okay. And do you believe that the Federal 
standards are not comprehensive enough?
    Ms. Glover. I honestly, Congresswoman, do not know that I 
would have enough information to say that they aren't or they 
are. I just don't know enough.
    Ms. Brownley. Okay.
    Is there anybody else on the panel that might respond?
    Ms. Baldwin. I would be happy to jump in, Congresswoman, 
with one comment, which is there is absolutely room for 
improvement with respect to appliance standards. We are lagging 
relative to the rest of the world.
    And in particular, with respect to all-electric appliances, 
I think that there is much more that can be done to bring more 
of them into the market and make them both more cost 
competitive upfront, but also get the models and the products 
into circulation. We are not seeing enough in circulation. So 
more should be done and can be done.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Next, Rep. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the Chairman.
    I thank the witnesses for being here.
    Mr. Johnson, there is a township in Pennsylvania, Pembroke 
Township, about 2,100 people, 85 percent or so are African 
American. They have been heating their homes with wood, with 
propane, which is fairly expensive. They haven't had natural 
gas. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Marc Morial, major civil 
rights leaders, have all been involved in trying to get a 
natural gas pipeline in Pembroke Township.
    Do you support their efforts to do that?
    Mr. Johnson. I want to thank you for the question. I think 
that is a very----
    Mr. Palmer. Yes or no? Just, I mean, do you support their 
efforts to get a natural gas pipeline so that these people can 
have low cost--it is not as low cost as it used to be with the 
Biden administration policies--but low cost, reliable fuel for 
heating their homes in the wintertime? It is a yes or no.
    Mr. Johnson. I think it is a bit more than a yes or no. I 
mean, I think----
    Mr. Palmer. No, it is yes or no. You either support it or 
you don't.
    Mr. Johnson. I think it is a bit more than yes or no.
    Mr. Palmer. I think your answer is no. And I think you are 
trying to filibuster the answer.
    Mr. Johnson. No, I wouldn't say it is no. My answer is not 
no. You asked me if I support their efforts. When you say their 
efforts, I think their efforts are much broader than just 
saying whether I support it on the premises of them getting 
natural gas.
    Mr. Palmer. No, sir, I am not going to let you filibuster 
the answer. You either support getting this impoverished 
community natural gas, which not only provides them with a 
means of heating their homes, but also gives them the 
opportunity to grow the local economy and create jobs.
    And I don't understand why those of you on the other side 
of the aisle just cannot say yes or no to a simple question. It 
is because you don't support it.
    Mr. Schryver, I have talked a lot about energy poverty, 
energy injustice, economic injustice. I grew up dirt poor. We 
heated our house with a coal heater. We cooled it with a box 
fan in a window. So I kind of get this a little bit.
    I just want to hear from you what benefit it has been to 
American families, particularly low-income families, for the 
revolution in natural gas. I will give you some stats and you 
can comment on it.
    Over the last decade natural gas prices have saved 
consumers $1.1 trillion. Electricity customers' costs have gone 
down by $203 billion. And Ms. Baldwin might be interested in 
this, it saved 11,000 winter deaths.
    Would you like to comment on that?
    Mr. Schryver. Thank you for the question.
    I agree with you, homes powered by, fueled by natural gas 
save consumers money. And when you are talking about low-income 
homes, that is especially important because that is less of 
their percentage that is going to pay their utility bill.
    Natural gas is fueling an industrial surge in states like 
Georgia. It is, as I mentioned, it is cheaper than electricity. 
It is more reliable than electricity. It is domestic. It is 
abundant. It is resilient.
    For all those reasons, we think consumers benefit from 
having natural gas appliances in their home.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, at the very beginning of the Biden 
administration they began terminating leases on Federal lands. 
We know the other things they have done that have caused prices 
to go up. We were below $3 per million cubic feet of natural 
gas, now we are up around, what, $6 or $7?
    And that is coming right straight out of the pockets of 
hardworking Americans that right now are struggling to pay 
their energy bills, struggling to pay their food bills.
    The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a fourth of all U.S. 
households cut back on what they spend on food and medicine 
because of higher utility costs.
    In Great Britain, Ms. Baldwin, you might be interested to 
know this, that in the winter of 2016-2017, because of the 
tremendous increase in utility, household utility bills, there 
were 17,000 excess winter deaths directly attributed to energy 
poverty. I fear that is where we are heading in this country.
    And, Mr. Schryver, would you like to comment on that?
    Mr. Schryver. Sure. From APGA's perspective, our members 
are fighting hard to preserve the ability of consumers to 
choose natural gas. As I said, those who want to have natural 
gas in their homes should be allowed to have it, whether it is 
for cooking, water heating, cooktop, heating their home. We 
believe consumers want natural gas and should have that choice.
    Mr. Palmer. For the record, let it be known that my 
Republican colleagues and I support lower household energy 
costs for all Americans.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Rep. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Castor.
    And thank you to all of our witnesses.
    We all know that investing in energy efficiency lowers 
household and business energy costs, reduces emissions, and 
mitigates the effect of climate change, including on 
respiratory health.
    In my state, we have Energy Trust of Oregon. It is an 
independent, nonprofit organization that partners with our 
local utilities to help consumers, their customers, benefit 
from energy efficient use and also renewable energy generation.
    In 2021, their efforts kept a total of 162,000 metric tons 
of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. That is the equivalent 
of removing 38,000 cars from Oregon roads for a year. So they 
really do show that energy efficiency works.
    Mr. Schryver, I want to thank you, first of all, for 
acknowledging the need to transition to clean energy. Thank you 
for that acknowledgment. But I note in your testimony you 
talked about the cost of electrifying common household 
appliances, and you said it would cost more than $258 billion.
    I want to point out that that finding does not accurately 
depict the actual costs and benefits of electrifying household 
appliances. It only accounts for the upfront costs and not the 
lower energy use and long-term savings that come from 
electrification.
    And second, it ignores the reality that thousands of 
customers every year actually replace aging appliances. So it 
is sort of analogous to discussing the cost of transitioning to 
clean energy without considering the cost of inaction or the 
benefits of transitioning.
    And I wanted to ask Ms. Baldwin--I have a two-part 
question--why do the long-term cost savings associated with 
household electrification outweigh the upfront costs?
    And second, how can we help appliance-buying consumers--and 
this is following up on your answer to Representative 
Brownley--how can we help appliance-buying customers make 
choices that will save them money and keep the air they breathe 
cleaner?
    Ms. Baldwin. Thank you so much for that question, 
Congresswoman.
    As I stated in my testimony, energy efficient appliances, 
and all-electric appliances in particular, hold an efficiency 
advantage over their fossil fuel counterparts, which means that 
for each unit that goes in to provide heat or heat water or to 
cook, you get two to four times more out of that unit of heat. 
And that is effectively why there are substantial energy 
savings over the long-term.
    In addition, electricity, as I mentioned, is a price-stable 
commodity. We have a diverse source of resources that we draw 
on to provide electricity. And that diversity effectively 
creates a hedge against spikes in prices, as well as volatility 
resulting from reliance on international markets. Oil and gas 
are--oil especially, but increasingly natural gas--are global 
commodities, and as such, they are subject to that volatility.
    To your second question, helping consumers get access to 
more efficient appliances and all-electric appliances is 
paramount to success in this electrification effort.
    I know that in Utah I cannot easily access an all-electric 
heat pump without perhaps getting talked out of it by the 
contractors that I call, who want to sell me a gas furnace. I 
also know that I can't get an incentive from my utility because 
fuel switching is prohibited by law.
    I know that there are a lot of people out there who want to 
do the right thing. They want to purchase an all-electric, 
efficient heat pump, or an EV, or other appliances, and they 
find upfront costs to be the barrier.
    So policies that do two things: reduce the upfront cost, 
make it a level playing field, increase the availability of 
those appliances in the market, sending the right signals to 
manufacturers and contractors alike, and also ensuring that 
they have access to equitable financing.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, thank you for your testimony.
    We know that, as you mentioned and Ms. Glover mentioned, 
energy efficiency is also a boon for jobs. There were 2.1 
million jobs in the energy efficiency space in 2020, more than 
any other sector within the energy industry.
    But job growth is potential and significant, but only 25 
percent of the energy efficiency workforce is female, and Black 
and Latino workers are underrepresented.
    So, Mr. Johnson, what steps can Federal lawmakers take to 
increase diversity in the energy efficiency workforce?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you for that question.
    One of the things I think is very critical in terms of 
increasing diversity is ensuring that there is access, local 
access, to training opportunities, and making sure that those 
training opportunities are diversified so that there is more 
than one path to get you to certification and get you into an 
industry that is growing at the rate that the energy efficiency 
industry is growing.
    I think that when we began to see more diversity within the 
ranks of workforce and small business development, we began to 
see broader adoption of those services and technologies in 
underrepresented communities as well.
    Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. And as a member of the 
Education and Labor Committee, we just marked up the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act the other day that is heading to 
the floor that will do just that, to help people get into the 
path to a good job and also diversify and make those 
opportunities available to more.
    My time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank all of you for being here. This is a very 
important hearing.
    But I have to admit that it is somewhat ironic that here we 
have a hearing on how to promote energy security and cut energy 
bills at a time when we have a lack of energy security and we 
have record high energy prices directly as a result of the 
policy of this administration, of the Biden administration. 
That is just some irony that I find here.
    Mr. Schryver, I am very glad that we have got you here 
today. I appreciate you being here. You are with the American 
Public Gas Association.
    And gas is extremely important. It gives us reliable energy 
to power our economy. And we really need natural gas well into 
the future.
    I want to share a story with you. I am a member of the 
Conservative Climate Caucus, and about a month ago we were over 
in Europe, in Brussels, and then we went up to Sweden. And we 
had an opportunity to meet with the leaders over there about 
what they are trying to do with renewables.
    The unfortunate thing that we found there is that the 
innovation is not keeping up with the public policy there. They 
have already set in place the process of closing down nuclear 
plants, and some of them are already closed. And yet they can't 
provide for their energy needs with the renewables at this 
point.
    Now, hopefully, they will in the future, and I hope we will 
here in this country in the future. But we can't right now.
    And we look at natural gas, and before the Russian invasion 
of Ukraine what we saw was Nord Stream 2, where they were going 
to be getting natural gas from Russia to Germany and all 
throughout Europe. And yet that is dirtier natural gas than 
what we have here in America. We have some of the cleanest 
natural gas and we have an abundance of it.
    And I would share another story with you, and that is in my 
district we have had an LNG plant that has converted from an 
import plant to an export plant at Elba Island, in Chatham 
County, in Savannah. And that is the kind of progress that we 
need to have and the direction that we need to be moving, and I 
am very convinced of that.
    You know, when we talk about gas and natural gas, the 
direct use of natural gas in homes is 97 percent efficient and 
it is almost universally cheaper than electricity. And that is 
significant again. And in Georgia, we have experienced that.
    I know in some areas of this country, such as San 
Francisco, Seattle, and New York, that they have actually 
stopped using natural gas and prohibited from using it.
    We have done just the opposite in Georgia. In fact, we have 
had the State of Georgia and our legislature actually 
prohibited local governments from banning natural gas or any 
other type of energy. And I think that is the right move and I 
am very proud.
    And it is because of our use of natural gas in the State of 
Georgia that we have been able for, I believe it is 7 years in 
a row now, been the most business-friendly state in the nation, 
and it is because we have low energy costs, because we utilize 
natural gas.
    Let me ask you, Mr. Schryver, as I just mentioned, gas is 
very important to the State of Georgia. How is the push for 
electrification impacting your members in my state?
    Mr. Schryver. Thank you for the question.
    Gas is very important in the State of Georgia. As I 
mentioned earlier, it is fueling an industrial growth that you 
just talked about, which is great for the state. Municipal Gas 
Authority of Georgia is one of our members and they are very 
involved in that effort.
    When you talk about electrification, one thing to keep in 
mind is right now natural gas is actually the largest source of 
electricity generation. It is 40 percent. Renewables are about 
20 percent.
    And certainly renewables are going to grow, and they should 
grow. But at the end of day, when the wind is not blowing and 
the sun is not shining, that generation is going to be backed 
up by natural gas generation.
    So our view is, isn't it a lot more efficient to use that 
natural gas directly, as we talked about? It is over 90 percent 
efficient from the time you take it out of the ground and get 
it to the burner tip. You are only losing 10 percent of that 
efficiency.
    With electricity you are losing two-thirds of that 
efficiency when you take the natural gas out of the ground, get 
it to the generation plant, get it over the transmission line, 
the distribution line, and to the electric appliance. You are 
losing two-thirds of that efficiency.
    Our view is it is just more efficient to use it directly.
    Mr. Carter. I am almost out of time, Mr. Schryver, but I 
would be remiss if I did not mention, and it will probably come 
as a surprise to my fellow members and my colleagues here on 
the committee, but Georgia, being the number one forestry state 
in the country, not only did we use natural gas, but those 
forests serve as a carbon sink.
    So if you look at the full cycle, then you see that we are 
carbon neutral when we are using natural gas.
    And with that new information that I have submitted to this 
committee, I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Rep. Neguse, you are up now. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Colorado's forests take great umbrage at the championing of 
the Georgia forests by my friend from Georgia.
    I will say, Mr. Schryver, I appreciated your comment about 
renewables. I think you said renewables will go up and should 
go up. And I am not sure if my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle would agree with that sentiment, but I appreciate 
nonetheless you acknowledging that.
    I also will say that I am grateful that some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have seen the light 
with respect to energy efficiency and the importance of 
promoting and advancing energy efficiency.
    I wish they would have translated that newfound passion for 
energy efficiency into legislative action, because of course 
they have had multiple opportunities over the course of the 
last year and a half to show in practice what energy efficiency 
means.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure law, just by way of example, 
as I am sure each of our witnesses are aware of, included 
significant investments in energy efficiency. Unfortunately, I 
believe none of my colleagues--with the exception of one of my 
colleagues--on the other side of the dais voted for that bill.
    But, nonetheless, we hope there will be more opportunities, 
as one of our witnesses mentioned, through perhaps a 
reconciliation bill this summer, and we will see where the 
chips fall.
    I thought, Mr. Johnson, your written testimony was very 
powerful. And there is a quote here I will just read from it.
    ``A 2018 report from the ACEEE found that energy efficiency 
alone can cut energy use in greenhouse gas emissions in half by 
2050.'' Just energy efficiency alone. That is remarkable. And I 
would think that could serve as a clarion call for us to take 
energy efficiency seriously and to lean in and double down on 
the investments that would get us there.
    Now, Mr. Schryver, I want to follow up on a question that 
my colleague from Oregon articulated during her presentation, 
and that was around some of the costs of what you describe as 
forced electrification. And I guess I just want to dig in this 
a little bit.
    So you talk about, you say the nationwide cost to consumers 
if we forced natural gas households to switch to electric 
appliances would come in at more than $258 billion in your 
written testimony.
    You are saying if every, all 60 million Americans that have 
natural gas appliances, dryers, furnaces, water heaters, et 
cetera, if they were all compelled to switch to electric 
devices today, that is the cost, in your view.
    But of course, as you well know, the life span of a dryer 
is 10, 15 years, right? Furnace, you tell me, 15, 20 years, 
maybe with the right repairs may go 25. So these appliances are 
being replaced every day in America. And this cost I don't 
think is a true reflection in that sense. You would agree?
    Mr. Schryver. We think the costs of forced electrification 
are significant. Appliances will be switched. The transmission 
system will have to be upgraded. Generation will have to be 
increased.
    And as I mentioned earlier, the whole premise behind forced 
electrification is to move to a more renewable grid. But at the 
end of the day, again, when the wind is not blowing and the sun 
is not shining, that generation [inaudible] be backed up by 
natural gas.
    Mr. Neguse. I hear that you say they are significant. I am 
just saying this number, I think you and I both can agree, 
nobody is saying that tomorrow every single appliance in the 
United States of America would be replaced. So I don't think 
this is a fair characterization of the cost.
    I hear what you are saying about your argument regarding 
the costs being significant. And so over a 10-year period or a 
15-year period perhaps you could talk about sort of how much it 
would cost over that time frame.
    But, in any event, I mean, let's say we will go with your 
number, let's say $250 billion over a 10-year period. Do you 
know how much the Tax Code subsidizes crude oil and natural gas 
today?
    Mr. Schryver. I think most energy forms enjoy subsidies of 
some form or another.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure. I am asking you about natural gas 
subsidies.
    Mr. Schryver. Most of the natural gas--oh, on the 
production side, you know, our members aren't producers.
    Mr. Neguse. Understood.
    Mr. Schryver. So I can't speak to those.
    Mr. Neguse. Understood. It is part of the supply chain. I 
am sure you know that by some estimates, conservative 
estimates, they range between $18 billion to $20 billion a 
year, 80 percent of which would go towards natural gas and 
crude oil. You could further allocate that number, but call it 
$10 billion, call it $11 billion a year, over the course of 100 
years--excuse me, 10 years--$100 billion dollars that we are 
spending to subsidize natural gas here in the United States.
    I think that is an important part of the equation when you 
consider the upfront costs that you have described regarding 
the electrification of appliances in the United States, and I 
think that is important to keep in mind.
    But with that, I see my time has expired. I would yield 
back to the Chair.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you.
    Next up, Ranking Member Graves, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Graves. All right. Thank you.
    I appreciate y'all's testimony.
    Ms. Glover, I really appreciated your comments. I just 
thought that they were largely grounded and rational and 
thinking about solutions.
    One of the things I mentioned in my opening statement that 
I just struggle with--and looking at Vladimir Putin, for 
example. Again, the guy has no respect for human rights. He 
doesn't care about the environment. He doesn't care about 
anything. All he cares about is his own ego.
    The United States has led the world in reducing emissions. 
And, yes, energy efficiency efforts that you promote, it is a 
part of that. It is a part of reducing emissions.
    How does the United States move forward with some of these 
actors, like Russia and China and others, who just don't care? 
And like I said before, for every 1 ton of emissions we have 
reduced, China has increased by 4.
    And so how do we handle sort of the international aspect? 
Because we can't change the climate just in the United States. 
Whatever happens is going to happen globally.
    And so what is your thought on how we address this 
international issue when you have countries like that that just 
don't care?
    Ms. Glover. That is likely the million-dollar question, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Graves. Or gazillion.
    Ms. Glover. Okay, Gazillion-dollar question.
    I don't know how you would change someone's mind. But I 
think that the United States can demonstrate some real 
leadership in efficiency----
    Mr. Graves. Sure.
    Ms. Glover [continuing]. By doubling down and making the 
kind of commitment so that every community, every small-
business owner has not only access to efficiency measures, but 
also has the ability to adopt them.
    And that ability to adopt them I think is even more 
important in some way. That ties to this idea of affordability. 
And through that demonstration of that leadership, what you 
would hope is that other economies would follow suit. And that 
may be the best that we can do.
    But in terms of your specific question of how do we 
influence a Vladimir Putin, how do we influence a Xi Jinping. I 
don't know. I mean, that would be my honest answer. But I don't 
think that that should prevent us from doing what we can do in 
terms of efficiency here.
    Mr. Graves. And one of the things that I like, I think, 
largely about your testimony, I am not sure if I am putting 
words in your mouth, but I think that you largely kind of 
reflect this model of aligning incentives.
    And what I mean by that is that, look, it is an incentive. 
If I just own a house, it is an incentive for me to be more 
energy efficient because I have a lower heating and cooling 
bill, a lower electricity bill. Incentives are aligned. And it 
makes sense there.
    But in many cases we are watching things that are being 
done where we are just spending unbelievable amounts of money 
and we are not seeing a requisite return on investment. We are 
spending money on things that are not providing a return on 
investment for U.S. taxpayers and it is concerning for me.
    But I just want to tell you that I appreciate your 
testimony and your perspective on this.
    Mr. Johnson, you seem to express a lot of comments and 
concern about affordability, which, again, we represent south 
Louisiana, we have some of the highest poverty rates in 
America, and this is a big deal for our constituents.
    But you also seem to advocate a lot of policies that have 
been pushed by states like California, by European nations, 
where you have significantly higher energy costs there than we 
do in my home state.
    And so, I am just curious if you can help me reconcile 
that. So if you are pushing things that actually cause higher 
electricity bills and pushes people into energy poverty, how 
does that line up with your objective of ensuring the 
affordability of energy?
    Mr. Johnson. It is a good question. I think that one of the 
things that we have to be very clear on in understanding this 
larger issue of equity and energy efficiency and affordability 
is that there are different needs based upon the areas that you 
are in.
    And, ultimately, when you are trying to address the needs 
of communities that have been traditionally left behind, it is 
going to require investments larger upfront to get many of 
those communities on pace.
    So initially, yes, you will see a larger investment, but 
what we have to also focus on is: What is the economy of scale 
over time? What is the payback on that investment?
    And so, if we are looking at it strictly from upfront 
costs, then, yes, it is very easy to make that argument. But 
what is our rate of return on the back side? Are we making sure 
that communities are advancing? Are we making sure that 
employment rates are increasing? Are we making sure that 
workforce development opportunities are becoming more 
diversified? To be able to lift those things, it costs.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you.
    I am running out of time here. But, Mr. Schryver, I just 
want to make note, up in New England we watched where they 
prohibited the connection of natural gas pipelines into homes 
and others. And we saw them have to get natural gas from 
Vladimir Putin to bring into New England to actually supply 
those homes.
    And I am out of time, but perhaps I will submit a question 
for the record for you to share a little bit more information 
on that.
    Yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Rep. Casten, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you so much for our speakers. I have a deep and 
longstanding love affair with energy efficiency, and I 
appreciate you all being here to support it. I think by most 
measures it is the single largest source of new energy in our 
system over the last couple decades, and certainly the biggest 
opportunity going forward.
    I also think that there has been some confusion in this 
hearing. This is the climate committee, sometimes I feel like 
we need to remind ourselves of that, and energy efficiency, per 
se, is not the jurisdiction of this committee. It is a question 
of, are we reducing the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of 
useful energy in our homes?
    Mr. Palmer and I are in violent agreement. I do not want to 
go back to the coal burner in his house. Not just--even if it 
was a really efficient coal burner, I wouldn't want that in 
your home for all the pollution reasons, and we are supportive 
of that transition.
    However, by the same logic, if you have a solar panel on 
your roof that is only converting sunlight into electricity at 
9 percent, and you are using that to keep your stove heated, I 
would rather you have that than a 33 percent electric grid 
converting natural gas because it is fewer greenhouse gas 
emissions and it is less money for consumers.
    Mr. Johnson, number one, welcome from Chicago and 
representing us well. It is great to see you here.
    You have been, I think, a very effective and loud advocate 
to make sure that all of our communities have access to cheaper 
and cleaner energy.
    And as I am sure you are aware, it is a fairly common 
practice for a lot of municipal utilities, who in theory should 
support a locality's freedom to choose, to actually prevent you 
from having access to all those choices. There are 21 states, I 
believe, that have legislation now in place that prevents 
municipalities from putting any limitations on the use of 
fossil gas and new construction.
    So I think you will agree. But just for the record, do you 
agree that it should be up to local communities to decide what 
is best for the people they represent?
    Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. I think that there should be, in 
looking through the lenses of procedural justice, I think that 
we should be able to have a voice and be influential of what we 
are doing at the local level that best services that local 
community.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you. I am glad you agree.
    Mr. Schryver, a couple just quick yes or noes.
    Do I understand right, APGA is funded primarily by the 
membership dues from municipalities?
    Mr. Schryver. By community-owned utilities. They are not 
just cities, but --
    Mr. Casten. No, I understand. But most of your revenue 
comes from the funding from municipalities and your memberships 
in municipalities?
    Mr. Schryver. That is correct.
    Mr. Casten. Yes, okay. So then most of your members are 
overseen or managed by the democratically elected municipal 
government. Yes or no?
    Mr. Schryver. The vast majority are regulated by a locally 
elected or appointed utility board or city council.
    Mr. Casten. Okay. So your industry has referred to your 
opposition to greenhouse gas emissions reduction as energy 
choice legislation. But doesn't that legislation prevent 
democratically elected municipal officials from actually 
setting the kinds of local energy policy and code ordinances 
for their community that Mr. Johnson would like to see to make 
his job better?
    Mr. Schryver. You are talking about the 20 states that have 
enacted energy choice legislation?
    Mr. Casten. I am talking about the policies that you have 
been advocating for to prevent municipalities, democratically 
elected municipalities, from doing their job.
    Mr. Schryver. Sure. And just for the record----
    Mr. Casten. Thank you for the yes, because I would like to 
submit----
    Mr. Schryver. Actually, it is not a yes.
    We believe natural gas is in the best interest of consumers 
and they should have the right to choose. Natural gas, solar, 
these bills don't restrict just natural gas, they leave open 
any fuel choice.
    Mr. Casten. Well, look, I want to come back to that.
    Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record an APGA 
board book that is listing energy choice legislation, as they 
call it, which serves as a gas preemption as their number one 
policy for 2021.
    Ms. Castor. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       Submission for the Record

                       Representative Sean Casten

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                             April 7, 2022

    ATTACHMENT: American Public Gas Association, 25 January 2021, 
``2021 Winter APGA Board of Directors Meeting Book.''

    The document is retained in committee files and available at:
        https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20959775-2021-winter-
        board-book#document/p50/a2093951

    Mr. Casten. I want to come back to your last comment there, 
Mr. Schryver. I completely agree with your point that in a grid 
that is 33 percent efficient and is fueled by gas the choice 
between using gas and a 33 percent efficient generator and 
sending that through a wire uses less gas, emits less 
greenhouse gas emissions than using that same gas if it is a 
swap between an electric stove and a gas stove. I take your 
point.
    We are rapidly electrifying our grid--oh, I am sorry, we 
are rapidly greening up our grid. We cannot look our children 
in the eye and say that we are doing what we have to do to 
provide a sustainable planet unless we electrify massive parts 
of our grid and decarbonize the grid. In big parts of our 
country, like the Northwest, we are already primarily a 
renewable grid.
    Does your industry advocate, in the name of our children, 
in the name of our environment, in the name of people's wallets 
in those parts of country that have a lower carbon grid, to 
make sure that people have access to those? Or is it just about 
selling the gas?
    Mr. Schryver. First of all, on the natural gas side, since 
1990 we have reduced emissions by approximately 70 percent.
    Mr. Casten. I am asking a different question. In a grid 
that does not have--that does not depend on 33 percent 
efficient fossil fuel plants--and, yes, that is the grid we 
have had since 1957. It is not the grid we want to give our 
children. We owe them better.
    As we transition, is it still about the gas or is it about 
giving ourselves a better planet?
    Ms. Castor. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Casten. I yield back.
    Mr. Schryver. It is about--oh, I am sorry.
    Ms. Castor. Next up, Rep. Crenshaw. I see you virtually. 
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would say what we owe our children is prosperity and 
energy reliability. And, as of now, there are only three things 
that offer that: gas, coal, and nuclear energy.
    I yield the remainder of my time to the Representative from 
Louisiana, Garret Graves.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
    Mr. Schryver, I want to continue the line of questioning 
before.
    So you have a situation where you have people, and Ms. 
Glover brought this up before, giving consumers choice. But you 
have governments that are coming in and actually blocking or 
preventing access to your technology, your gas, in some cases.
    So when they didn't have the access to gas, they brought in 
home heating oil, which of course has higher emissions, less 
efficient and more expensive, and then they had to bring in gas 
from Vladimir Putin from Russia.
    Could you just reflect on the impacts to consumers and the 
environment and what it does to global security when you have 
policies like that that are so shortsighted?
    Mr. Schryver. When you have a capacity constrained area, 
like we have seen in Massachusetts, and consumers want natural 
gas, because it is cleaner, it is more affordable, it is more 
resilient, and they can't get it, they are heating their homes, 
because, as you know, Massachusetts has a tough winter, with 
heating oil or propane, both of which are much more expensive 
and have a greater environmental footprint than natural gas.
    Mr. Graves. So, Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent, an April 5 article from E&E News, ``Surging electric 
bills threaten California climate goals.''
    Ms. Castor. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       Submission for the Record

                      Representative Garret Graves

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                             April 7, 2022

    ATTACHMENT: Mulkern, A. C., 5 April 2022, ``Surging electric bills 
threaten Calif. climate goals,'' E&E News.

    This article is retrained in committee files and available at:
        https://www.eenews.net/articles/surging-electric-bills-
        threaten-calif-climate-goals/

    Mr. Graves. Thank you.
    Another question. Under the Biden administration, they 
projected that global energy demand is going to go up 50 
percent--50 percent--between now and 2050. And that means, yes, 
more renewables, and it means an increase in every energy 
source, wind and solar and wave and geothermal--and oil and 
gas.
    Let me say this again: The Biden administration's 
projections show an increase in demand for all energy sources. 
In fact, for developing countries, depending on economic 
scenario, as much as an 80 percent increase in natural gas 
demand.
    So the Biden administration, the first--or one of the first 
actions they took was an executive order to ban new energy 
production--to ban new energy production. So you are not 
cutting off demand, you are just cutting off domestic supply.
    So what happens in a scenario like that? And I know you are 
not an expert on the upstream side, but what happens in a 
scenario like that?
    Mr. Schryver. You know, we have experienced it, last year 
with Storm Uri. When you have instances where demand increases 
and supply decreases, consumers are hit with high energy 
prices.
    Mr. Graves. So consumers are hit with higher prices because 
you have a lack of supply to meet demand. But then also you 
have a scenario where other countries, like, I don't know, 
Vladimir Putin, comes in and backfills the lack of production 
in the United States.
    It was said a few times today, the U.S. has some of the 
most efficient, some of the cleanest production in the world. 
If the Biden administration is even projecting that there is 
going to be a 50 percent global increase in energy demand, why 
would we not fill it domestically where we do it safer, we do 
it cleaner, it creates economic activity here, it doesn't fund 
bloodshed like we are seeing in Ukraine right now?
    Does that make sense to any of you? To any of you, does 
that makes sense why we wouldn't produce energy here when even 
this administration is saying there is an increase in demand? 
And by not doing it, as Mr. Schryver said, it results in higher 
prices, it results in funding authoritarian regimes?
    Look, I am all for energy efficiency, I am, because, like 
you said, Ms. Glover, the incentives are aligned. If we can pay 
lower electricity bills and it costs us less money to build 
widgets in the United States, that is great. It is good for all 
of us.
    But if we are just going to push solar and wind and what 
other pixie dust technology and we haven't thought through the 
supply chain and we are going to trade buying energy from 
Vladimir Putin to saying we are going to get critical minerals 
and rare earths from China, who then is going to use the money 
against us as well?
    We have got to think through the supply chain strategies 
here to make sure that we can actually achieve these goals in a 
way that is consistent with U.S. interest. Does that make 
sense? Do any of you object to domestic energy production, to 
meeting the demand?
    Madam Chair, let the record reflect no one objects, 
apparently.
    Yield back.
    Ms. Castor. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being 
very efficient today with their time.
    You have given us a lot of good advice on how to lower 
energy bills for consumers at home. And we hear you loud and 
clear: Using energy efficiency and all of these innovative 
tools also helps reduce greenhouse gases that are creating 
escalating costs for consumers.
    And that is the reality we face. And, in fact, the world's 
top scientists, again, if you haven't dug into their report 
released just on Monday, say that we must--must--find these 
clean energy solutions quickly and urgently.
    We cannot continue to double down on costly fossil fuels. 
We need to stand up to the petro despots across the globe and 
break this addiction to fossil fuels.
    And the best way to do that, the most efficient way to do 
that is through energy efficiency, the energy of the jobs that 
are created right here in America that are abundant and ready 
to be deployed--not just lip service to energy efficiency, but 
actual votes, policy, and resources provided to our neighbors 
back home.
    So with that, thank you all very much. The committee is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                 United States House of Representatives

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                        Hearing on April 7, 2022

  ``Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: Investing in Energy Efficiency to 
             Promote Energy Security and Cut Energy Bills''

                        Questions for the Record

                              Paula Glover

                               President

                        Alliance to Save Energy

                       the honorable kathy castor
    1. How would the energy efficiency investments in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, such as the $3.5 billion for the Weatherization 
Assistance Program, funding for energy code adoption, and grants for 
schools and non-profits help advance energy efficiency across the 
nation? How would the House-passed climate investments build on that 
foundation?

    The residential and commercial built environment represent 
approximately 40% of U.S. carbon emissions. Funding through the IIJA to 
support the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), grants for energy 
efficiency improvements in non-profits and public schools, and similar 
investment opportunities directly address the need to reduce emissions 
and respond to climate priorities. That said, additional and 
substantive investments in energy efficiency are required if we are to 
meet the urgent need. This includes but is not limited to additional 
WAP funds, and resources to support WAP readiness.
    That said, federal investments proposed in budget reconciliation 
that are now part of the House-passed legislation are essential if we 
plan to move the ball forward. Key funding provisions include the 
energy efficiency tax incentives 25C, 45L, and 179D; Hope for Homes; 
critical facilities modernization; climate bank provisions, and others. 
Unfortunately, the critical facilities modernization provision in the 
House-passed measure is substantially reduced when compared to the Open 
Back Better legislation (H.R. 1485) on which the provision is based. 
The House-passed measure would provide $500 million versus the $18 
billion proposed in H.R. 1485.

    2. Could you please describe the role of appliance and equipment 
standards in furthering energy efficiency, energy cost savings, and 
reducing carbon pollution? What are some examples?

    Appliance and equipment standards play an essential and critical 
role in reducing carbon emissions, and in fact, appliance standards and 
labeling alone avoid 343 metric tons of carbon emissions a year. 
Currently, the administration has a large task with some 100 plus 
rulemakings not yet completed, which could save consumers billions over 
the next 3 decades, while also lowering energy costs and carbon 
emissions.
    That said, in addition to establishing clear standards to drive 
market penetration of high efficiency equipment and appliances, the 
Alliance recommends that policy makers also respond to concerns related 
to affordability and access. While we definitively want consumers using 
the most efficient product types, if they are unable to afford the 
equipment or retrofit, then the benefits of emission reductions and 
energy cost savings are avoided. Although high efficiency appliances 
and equipment repay the consumer over the life of the product, often 
when affordability is an issue, consumers make their purchase decisions 
based on exiting daily and monthly living expenses. To help address 
this issue, policy makers should support additional funding for the 
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), expansion of the energy 
efficiency tax incentives (25C, 45L, and 179D), and programs like Hope 
for Homes.

    3. What are some additional Federal energy efficiency policies that 
could help reduce consumer energy bills and help achieve our national 
climate goals?

    Energy efficiency tax incentives are an important tool to drive 
greater energy efficiency adoption, with specific attention to sections 
25C, the tax credit for homeowners making efficiency upgrades; 45L, the 
credit for single-family and multi-family development; and 179D, the 
deduction for commercial buildings.
    That said, many consumers do not itemize and are otherwise left 
without an incentive to drive efficiency investments. Hope for Homes, 
legislation that is part of the budget reconciliation bill that passed 
the House is idea for these homeowners, and provides a rebate when 
achieving identified efficiency levels.
    Climate banks can also be effective tools in driving energy 
efficiency investments for consumers, and budget reconciliation as 
passed by the House provides $11.970 billion for climate bank activity 
and an additional $8 billion for the rapid deployment of low and zero-
emission products, technologies, and services, specifically targeting 
financial and technical assistance in low-income and disadvantaged 
communities.
    The Alliance would also recommend funding pathways to incentivize 
energy efficiency investments in small businesses, as provided in HR 
4903, the Main Street Efficiency Act. Small businesses often lack the 
resources to prioritize energy efficiency, however once solutions are 
deployed, owners are able to identify significant business savings. HR 
4903 would provide grants to utilities that operate demand side 
management programs, and leverage those funds to provide reduced or no 
cost retrofits for the small business enterprise.

    4. In your testimony, you mentioned that energy efficiency 
investments are essential to improving electric grid reliability as we 
continue to electrify homes, businesses, and vehicles. Could you please 
describe in additional detail how energy efficiency investments can 
complement upgrading and expanding the electric grid? How can energy 
efficiency help unlock a path towards a cleaner and more reliable grid?

    As indicated in written testimony, investments in energy efficiency 
are essential to the reliability of the electric grid. This is 
particularly true as policy and markets shift a substantive share of 
energy demand toward electrification. Based on analysis and depending 
on the rate of electric vehicle (EV) adoption, we should anticipate 
significant future growth in grid load.
    According to the Brattle Group, if the projected rate of EV growth 
increases from 1.5 million in 2020 to 10-35 million by 2030, we will 
need grid investments up to $125 billion across the electric power 
sector--and that's to serve 20 million EVs.\1\ These vehicles will add 
60-95 terra-watt hours (TWh) of electricity demand to the grid 
annually, in addition to 10-20 gigawatts (GW) of peak load, which in 
turn would require 12-18 gigawatts of generation capacity from 
renewable energy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.brattle.com/insights-events/publications/electric-
power-sector-investments-of-75-125-billion-needed-to-support-projected-
20-million-evs-by-2030-according-to-brattle-economists/.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Energy efficiency directly reduces demand on the grid through 
efficient products and equipment that have lower energy intensity and 
still perform the same or better as a less efficient equipment or 
product type. A most common example would be the use of an incandescent 
light bulb versus an LED. LEDs in general use more that 75% less 
energy. As grid load decreases through energy efficiency we also 
increase the ability of the grid to provide power to customers and 
businesses without interruption. Additionally, ``during power 
interruptions, lower loads due to energy efficiency measures allow more 
customers to be switched across feeders for faster restoration time.'' 
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/
ee_reliability_resilience_2021_12_03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Energy efficiency's positive impact on grid reliability and its 
ability to lower load and infrastructure investment costs, also make it 
possible to integrate more renewable capacity onto the grid faster. 
Researchers already appreciate the variability of renewable energy and 
the limited capacity of storage technologies, and see energy efficiency 
as a necessary compliment to a cleaner grid.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0064570.

    5. In your testimony, you describe ``active efficiency.'' How could 
active efficiency opportunities support better resilience to climate 
impacts like the extreme heat waves in the Pacific Northwest last 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summer?

    Active Efficiency technologies would include solutions such as 
grid-interactive efficient buildings, smart buildings optimization and 
analytics, and use of distributed energy technologies that allow 
building systems to shift, share, and shed load, including direct links 
to light and heavy vehicles. As Active Efficiency technologies are 
added into the energy efficiency equation, overloading and wear and 
tear on the grid are reduced significantly, reducing the likelihood of 
equipment failure.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id.

    6. Could you please describe how innovation in industrial energy 
efficiency could help save money for businesses while also reducing 
carbon pollution? Which Federal investments could facilitate greater 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
innovation in industrial energy efficiency?

    Industry and manufacturing account for 24% of U.S. GHG 
emissions.\6\ As a result, any viable strategy to reduce overall 
emissions must include industry energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When talking about energy efficiency in the industry and 
manufacturing context, we are targeting the equipment used, operations 
and process, and the application of smart manufacturing technologies. 
The end game is to optimize manufacturing and industry systems in a way 
that achieves the highest efficiency outcomes. In application, this 
means deployment and utilization of multiple solutions, including but 
not limited to distributed energy resources, carbon capture, 
electrification, low-emission fuel technologies, and storage. From an 
equipment and operations perspective, relevant solutions would include 
high efficiency motor systems, combined heat and power, strategic 
energy management, and others.
    Federal investments that could be useful in driving energy 
efficiency include funding to support Industrial Assessment Centers, 
incorporating First Three \7\-- applications of transformative 
industrial technologies; Flex-Tech \8\--DOE funding for states to 
create a version of the successful energy saving NY program; and 
Commercial Deployment of Efficient Technologies \9\--building on the 
Clean Industrial Technologies Act provisions of the Energy Act of 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/
CASTOR_050_xml220128155220265.pdf.
    \8\ https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/
TONKO_053_xml220128093201458.pdf.
    \9\ https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/
DOYLE_018_xml220129124931674.pdf.

    7. How could Federal energy efficiency investments promote American 
energy security? Could increased energy efficiency help reduce demand 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for globally traded fossil fuels with volatile prices?

    Energy efficiency investments reduce energy intensity throughout 
all sectors of the U.S. economy -- including manufacturing, 
transportation, in agriculture, and the built environment. In fact, but 
for investments made in energy efficiency since 1980, energy 
consumption would have been more than 60% higher.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://energyefficiencyimpact.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As we make investments in energy efficient products, equipment, 
supplies, and technologies-- and as consumers and businesses adopt 
efficiency solutions, energy consumption is reduced, and generation and 
production supplies are offset through lowered demand. This is achieved 
by investments that secure the building envelope, equipment standards, 
building codes, building design, and establishing policies that 
prioritize energy efficiency as a primary part of U.S. domestic energy 
policy. If we are using less energy as a result of energy efficiency, 
we are also using less supply-- reducing the need for larger and larger 
amounts of energy production.
                        the honorable mike levin
    1. The United States has a long history of developing fuel economy 
standards. President Ford signed the first standards into law in 1975 
in response to the 1973 oil embargo by Arab nations in protest to U.S. 
support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War. These fuel standards, 
along with subsequent updates, have cut American oil consumption by 25 
percent, or nearly 2 billion barrels a year. Strong fuel economy 
standards strengthen U.S. energy independence and help reduce reliance 
on fossil fuels, particularly from foreign nations. Unfortunately, the 
previous Administration sought to weaken these fuel economy standards 
and limit the ability of states like California to set their own 
emissions rules. According to Consumer Reports, each vehicle sold under 
the Trump rule would have cost its owner on average $2,100 dollars more 
due to increased gas costs. Thankfully, the Biden Administration has 
reversed this decision--last week, the Department of Transportation 
office released new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, increasing 
fuel economy to a fleetwide average for new vehicles of 49 miles per 
gallon by 2026. As a result, Americans purchasing new vehicles in 2026 
will get 33 percent more miles per gallon as compared to 2021 vehicles. 
This means new car drivers in 2026 will only have to fill up their 
tanks three times as compared to every four times that new car drivers 
today do for the same trips. This rule is expected to save 234 billion 
gallons of fuel through 2050. Can you talk about why these strengthened 
fuel efficiency standards, along with parallel investments in electric 
vehicles, are good for both consumers and the environment?

    Fuel economy standards and electric vehicle deployment directly 
reduce demand for oil and gas supplies thus reducing the levels of 
carbon emissions that would be emitted from less efficient vehicle 
types. Additionally, fuel economy standards lower the cost of energy 
for consumers in that they are traveling further while burning or using 
less fuel. The efficiency impact of electric vehicle (EV) technology as 
an alternative is much greater. EVs convert up to 77% of the charged 
energy to the vehicle and braking systems versus 12%-30% for vehicles 
powered by gasoline.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Questions for the Record

                            Darnell Johnson

      President and CEO, Urban Efficiency Group; and Vice Chair, 
                    Building Performance Association

                       the honorable kathy castor
    1. How would the energy efficiency investments in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, such as the $3.5 billion for the Weatherization 
Assistance Program, funding for energy code adoption, and grants for 
schools and non-profits help advance energy efficiency across the 
nation? How would the House-passed climate investments build on that 
foundation?

    The energy efficiency investments included in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed by President Biden on November 
15, 2021, will support a number of crucial residential energy 
efficiency programs. As you noted, IIJA included an historic $3.5 
billion in funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which 
focuses on bringing energy efficiency to communities that need it most 
and improving home performance for low-income households. These 
investments will not only lower utility bills and reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions but will also improve occupant comfort and health \1\ in 
underserved communities that have historically been left behind. With 
rising energy prices stemming from Russia's war in Ukraine, these high-
energy-burden communities have suffered disproportionately--so this 
historic investment could not come at a more important time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://e4thefuture.org/occupant-health-benefits-of-
residential-energy-efficiency/. As I noted in my initial testimony, 
this report from E4TheFuture, entitled ``Occupant Health Benefits of 
Residential Energy Efficiency'' which reviews existing research on the 
link between resident health benefits and energy efficiency upgrades, 
found that residential energy efficiency upgrades can produce 
significant improvements in asthma symptoms and help improve overall 
physical and mental health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, IIJA included other funding to drive additional 
energy efficiency adoption, including: $550 million for the Energy 
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) to support 
implementation of energy audits and retrofits to improve both 
residential and commercial energy efficiency; $500 million for grants 
for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements at public 
school facilities; $250 million to support an energy efficiency 
revolving loan fund for residential and commercial buildings; and $225 
million to enable sustained, cost-effective implementation of updated 
building energy codes within the DOE Building Technologies Office 
(BTO). These programs will all drive demand for energy efficiency 
upgrades in buildings across the country, including in homes, 
businesses, and schools.
    While the historic investments from IIJA--in WAP in particular--
will improve home performance in underserved communities, this funding 
alone is not enough. One key issue facing WAP is that many low-income 
homes have other issues--such as structural deficiencies, and health 
issues such as mold and asbestos--that have to be addressed before they 
are eligible for WAP. Nationally, 10-30% of income-eligible 
weatherization clients are deferred because of one or more of these 
problems.\2\ We need to address these health and safety issues so that 
this backlog of homes can become eligible for the program. Many 
deferred income-eligible weatherization clients are located in low-
income, historically disadvantaged communities--the very same 
communities facing disproportionately high energy burdens and health 
risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/E4-
EFG_Weatherization-Barriers-Toolkit-4-7-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I was pleased to see the enacted Fiscal Year 2022 Appropriations 
package appropriate $15 million for a Weatherization Readiness Fund to 
address these issues, and I applaud the leadership of Sen. Reed (D-RI), 
Sen. Collins (R-ME), Sen. Coons (D-DE), and Sen. Shaheen (D-NH) in the 
Senate for introducing legislation (S. 3769, the Weatherization 
Assistance Program Improvements Act of 2022) to authorize this FY22 
appropriation and support potential additional appropriations in FY23. 
Congressman Tonko (D-NY-20) is leading the effort on the House side, 
and I hope Chairwoman Castor and the other members of this committee 
will consider supporting Congressman Tonko's bill upon introduction 
President Biden requested $30 million in his FY23 budget for the 
Weatherization Readiness Fund, and the Building Performance Association 
(in conjunction with E4TheFuture) submitted FY23 appropriations 
requests to both House and Senate offices in support of $37.5 million 
for the fund.
    Beyond these weatherization readiness issues, access and awareness 
challenges in underserved communities are also critical barriers to 
broader adoption and program success. As I mentioned in my testimony 
before the committee, to connect with hard-to-reach populations, we 
must first listen to them. To do otherwise stymies information sharing, 
limits participant enrollment in energy efficiency programs, and 
exacerbates the divide between those participating in the fight to 
address climate change, and those forced to remain on the sidelines.
    The House-passed climate investments from last year's Build Back 
Better package would make crucial investments in residential energy 
efficiency via both direct funding and tax credits (including an 
expanded and extended 25C residential energy efficiency tax credit). 
Most notably, the HOPE for HOMES Act, included in the package that 
passed the House last fall, would provide funding to small businesses 
for training contractors in new skills and rebates to homeowners for 
upgrading their home's energy performance (doubling rebates for middle- 
and lower-income Americans). I applaud Chairwoman Castor for her 
leadership cosponsoring HOPE for HOMES and ensuring its inclusion in 
Build Back Better, and I thank her for her continued advocacy in 
support of this bill this year.

    2. Could you please share one or two specific insights from your 
on-the-ground experience on how energy efficiency improvements have 
helped families enjoy a higher quality of life?

    Our firm's work is largely performed in disinvested, economically 
challenged communities. The disparities associated with this demography 
include, but are not limited to, limited access to information and 
resources resulting in them being placed in the ``hard to reach'' 
category. Respecting the customer's confidentiality, I'm going to use 
``Mrs. Jones'' to reference the customer experience. Mrs. Jones lives 
on the Southside of Chicago and happened to be home the day our firm 
was providing retrofit work for her neighbor. She inquired about the 
work and wanted to know how she could receive the services and 
associated cost. After explaining to her the benefits of living in an 
energy efficient home (cost savings, comfort, and health and safety), 
she was sold. She was connected to the program administrator and, when 
she was approved to receive the services at no cost, she was ecstatic.
    During the energy audit, it was discovered that Mrs. Jones had 
asbestos in her attic that was disturbed, and a furnace that was over 
30 years old with a cracked heat exchanger. Additionally, due to the 
age of the furnace and neglected maintenance, the furnace was 
contributing to higher levels of CO2 in the home, creating 
an additional health and safety risk. The presence of asbestos in the 
attic would have caused the retrofit services to be deferred until the 
asbestos was remediated, but our firm was able to leverage our social 
capital to get the asbestos remediated ($8500.00) at no cost to the 
homeowner. This action allowed the retrofit work to proceed as planned. 
The value add to the customer is as follows:
    1.  She was made aware of the energy efficiency program offerings.
    2.  She was educated on the benefits of living in an energy 
efficiency home.
    3.  She received the retrofit upgrade to enjoy cost savings, 
increased comfort, and remedied the health risks.
    4.  She received a brand new furnace.
    5.  She became an ambassador for the program and energy efficiency 
more broadly.
    6.  She remains an advocate for our work, energy efficiency, and 
participates in our referral program to get new customers enrolled.
    7.  We have experienced a 35% increase in customer participation 
from that community year over year.

    There are many examples of ``Mrs. Jones'' in low- and middle-income 
communities across the country--folks who need critical home energy 
upgrades, but face other issues--including structural deficiencies and 
health issues such as mold and asbestos--that must be addressed before 
they are eligible for key programs like WAP. These important 
``readiness'' upgrades would be supported by the Weatherization 
Readiness Fund, mentioned in more detail above under Question #1.

    3. In your testimony, you mention the need to deliver reliable 
energy services at lower costs. What kinds of investments will help 
ensure equitable access to reliable and affordable electricity?

    Significant investments in energy efficiency and an expanded energy 
efficiency workforce, with a particular emphasis on underserved 
communities, can help ensure equitable access to reliable and 
affordable electricity--while also creating jobs, reducing demand on 
the electric grid, lowering household utility bills, cutting greenhouse 
gas emissions, and improving energy independence. As I noted in my 
testimony to this committee, deploying energy efficiency reduces demand 
for primary energy and generating capacity needs and therefore lowers 
the overall costs of shifting to a low-carbon energy system. Energy 
efficiency is cleaner and cheaper than building new low-carbon or 
carbon-free energy generation resources.
    Nowhere is this need clearer than in residential buildings. In 
2021, residential buildings accounted for 21% of total U.S. energy 
consumption.\3\ Unlike other sectors of the economy, the residential 
sector is notoriously difficult to address, with approximately 140 
million housing units nationwide \4\ that make up a patchwork of 
varying household income levels, awareness, and access to key energy 
efficiency solutions. These circumstances make the residential sector 
particularly challenging to decarbonize. Policies like the rebate 
program contained in the HOPE for HOMES Act (H.R. 3456) would expand 
access to more affordable residential energy solutions, particularly 
via larger rebates available for middle- and lower-income homeowners, 
leading to more affordable electricity and energy bills. Additional 
training funding included under HOPE for HOMES would also expand 
training opportunities for contractors, growing and diversifying the 
energy efficiency workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/04/f61/bto-
geb_overview-4.15.19.pdf
    \4\ https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HCN010212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The cost to upgrade a home's energy efficiency is growing, as are 
the costs for contractors to carry out these upgrades. The pandemic-led 
workforce shortage and supply chain constraints have driven these price 
increases, making it less likely that a homeowner will make those 
investments without federal subsidies providing the incentives. These 
upgrades are even more cost-prohibitive for lower-income homeowners, 
underscoring the crucial importance of rebate proposals like HOPE for 
HOMES.

    4. How should Congress ensure that all communities, including 
environmental justice communities, are included in climate policy 
development and benefit from the transition to a clean energy economy? 
Could you please elaborate on why it is important for communities to 
have a seat at the table when Federal, state, and local governments are 
exploring climate solutions?

    Traditionally, BIPOC communities are the last to adopt emerging 
energy efficiency technologies. This delay should not be interpreted as 
a lack of interest, but rather reflects existing barriers to adoption 
(awareness, access, and affordability). The top-down approach usually 
causes an information gap, leaving social identity groups that are 
considered the ``outgroups'' with limited or late information. We can 
close this gap by adopting Procedural Justice \5\ best practices, to 
ensure policies are equitable and require the inclusion of diverse 
perspectives. Those perspectives should be shared by the stakeholders 
and thought leaders that have the ``lived experience'' and understand 
the challenges and needs of the demography they represent. It's not 
enough for these communities to just be at the table--their 
perspectives should inform and influence the policies being drafted in 
a way that is equitable. The existential threats are too great to 
continue transactional policy making. We need to embrace diversity, 
prioritize inclusion, and demand transformative policy making that 
serves the greater good of humanity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Procedural justice--Wikipedia

    5. Energy efficiency can be complementary to other climate 
solutions like rooftop solar energy. Could you please describe the 
holistic approach your firm has taken to helping families benefit from 
complementary climate solutions? What lessons could we draw for Federal 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
policy development?

    At Urban Efficiency Group (UEG), we are focused on advancing energy 
equity by all means necessary. While we are fully supportive of 
decarbonizing our electric grid and shifting to renewable energy 
sources, we must also recognize the significant equity issues that can 
arise from electrification, particularly in the absence of proper 
information and awareness in our most underserved communities. We must 
first focus our attention on providing these communities with accurate 
and straightforward information about what fuel switching entails--the 
benefits to health and the environment but also the costs--both short 
and long term. We should not, and cannot, expect our low- and moderate-
income communities to absorb the cost of fuel switching. In the example 
of rooftop solar energy, many of the low- and moderate-income homes we 
serve do not have the rooftop integrity to support PV arrays, and still 
lack needed weatherization, health, and structural measures (which 
could be addressed via the Weatherization Readiness Fund, as mentioned 
in more detail above under Question #1).
    We must also recognize that various mechanisms bringing renewable 
energy sources to underserved communities--for example power purchase 
agreements--can also present equity issues in terms of asset ownership 
and profitmaking. We must make sure to shape policy in a way that can 
bring low-carbon energy to our underserved communities while also 
helping these communities increase resiliency and human capital, not in 
a way that leads to continued/renewed exploitation.
    While Congress works to get those policies crafted, we should be 
focusing primarily on energy efficiency. As I mentioned in my written 
testimony submitted to the committee, the cleanest and the cheapest 
energy is the energy you don't use in the first place. A 2019 report 
from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found 
that energy efficiency can cut GHG emissions by about 50 percent by 
2050.\6\ Buildings deliver 33% of the total emissions reductions in the 
report's model, and upgrades to existing buildings, homes, appliances, 
and equipment are identified as some of the largest cost-effective 
opportunities to achieve these reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.aceee.org/fact-sheet/halfway-there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have seen these savings firsthand at UEG, and the on-the-ground 
success of deploying these energy efficiency measures offers important 
lessons for Federal policy development: energy efficiency is a vastly 
untapped resource that our communities can unleash--with adequate 
financial support and a focus on equity. Initial investments from the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and further proposals like the 
HOPE for HOMES Act contained in the House-passed Build Back Better 
package, can bring crucial energy efficiency measures directly into 
millions more homes in the communities where they are needed most.
    Importantly, a holistic approach to helping our most vulnerable and 
underserved communities must involve not just clean energy and energy 
efficiency investments, but investments to grow the human capital in 
these communities via well-paying clean energy and energy efficiency 
jobs, with particular attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion. 
Like many trades, the energy efficiency industry has historically been 
a white, male-dominated industry.\7\ There is a real need to focus on 
training and workforce development that incentivizes greater diversity 
and equity, prioritizing minorities and women for training. Residential 
energy efficiency businesses--the vast majority of which have fewer 
than 25 employees--are crucial to our communities, providing local jobs 
that cannot be outsourced. They know how to do more with less and 
should have equal access to funding sources to bring on local workers 
and train them for growing demands. Supporting small businesses will 
generate economic growth and could help avoid unintentional exclusion 
of communities of color who have been historically overlooked by unions 
who may not have deep ties to these specific communities, thus opening 
opportunities to expand workforce diversity and allowing local 
communities to build and maintain human capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ According to the 2021 Energy Efficiency Jobs in America report, 
a large majority of workers in the US energy efficiency industry are 
white males.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Rush's Blue Collar and Green Collar Jobs Act (HR156) will 
be crucial to building this workforce. The bill includes an important 
Energy Workforce Grant Program and I urge the members of the Select 
Committee to co-sponsor this important legislation. I elaborate further 
on the importance of this bill in the question below.
                        the honorable mike levin
    1. According to Department of Energy estimates, households 
participating in the Weatherization Assistance Program save on average 
$372 dollars each year. Not only will this funding provide critical 
assistance to low-income households, but it will also help grow the 
energy efficiency job sector. This sector already employs 2.1 million 
people, more than twice as many workers as work in the entire U.S. 
fossil fuel sector. That is why I am also glad that the bipartisan 
infrastructure law recognizes the need to recruit and train more 
Americans for careers in this sector by including $10 million dollars 
for energy efficiency career skills training grants. Can you talk about 
why it is important to pair energy efficiency program investments with 
parallel investments in developing the energy efficiency workforce?

    Pairing energy efficiency program investments with investments in 
the energy efficiency workforce is critical--one cannot fully advance 
without the other. I was pleased to see funding for energy efficiency 
career skills training grants included in the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (IIJA), but much more support is needed, as that funding 
focuses on non-residential sectors. As I noted in my testimony before 
this committee, the costs associated with training, equipment, and 
certifications are often steep, and constitute significant barriers to 
expanding and diversifying the energy efficiency workforce. Like many 
trades, the energy efficiency industry has historically been (and 
remains) a white, male-dominated industry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs_2021_All-States.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Directly pairing investments in energy efficiency with workforce 
investments is smart strategy, and there is legislation that would do 
just that. The HOPE for HOMES Act (H.R. 3456) pairs workforce training 
grants with a direct rebate program for homeowners to ensure workforce 
needs are met alongside critical home performance upgrades. A budget 
reconciliation version of HOPE for HOMES was included in the Build Back 
Better package that passed the House last year. Thank you for your vote 
of support for HOPE for HOMES in this reconciliation package, and I 
urge you to continue supporting this bill during legislative 
negotiations this year. The ``HOPE'' training will help small 
businesses make investments in their workers that they are currently 
disincentivized to do as the workforce is unstable and the fear of 
losing a newly trained employee challenges those investments. By 
subsidizing this training, we are ensuring that both the work is done 
well and that small businesses embrace the training as a part of 
business, raising the education level and expertise of the industry.
    Additional federal investments via legislation like the above-
mentioned Blue Collar and Green Collar Jobs Development Act (HR 156) 
can increase the contractor diversity in the energy efficiency sector 
and create a more diverse workforce. That legislation, sponsored by 
House Energy & Commerce Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush (D-IL-
01) includes a vital Energy Workforce Grant Program that provides 
grants directly to small businesses, among others, to support on-the-
job training and external training of employees in the clean energy and 
energy efficiency industries, with an emphasis on minority and women-
owned businesses. Small residential energy efficiency businesses like 
ours, the Urban Efficiency Group (UEG), are the perfect vehicles for 
this workforce funding--we know how to do more with less. Supporting 
small businesses will generate economic growth and could help avoid 
unintentional exclusion of communities of color who have been 
historically overlooked by unions who may not have deep ties to these 
specific communities, thus opening opportunities to expand workforce 
diversity and allowing local communities to build and maintain human 
capital. I urge the members of this Select Committee to co-sponsor this 
important legislation and hope to see it passed before the end of the 
117\th\ Congress.
    As I mentioned in my written testimony before the committee, our 
firm, UEG, developed a quasi-small business incubator (Energy+) to 
remove some workforce cost barriers and increase supplier diversity. 
This comprehensive approach to developing and deploying more minority 
business enterprise (MBE) firms in the energy efficiency space, or 
``business in a box'' concept was successful in launching two (2) 
minority owned energy efficiency contracting firms that boast a six-
figure net profit year over year.

    2. What efforts are you working on to build the future of the 
energy efficiency workforce and how can your experiences inform our 
work here in Congress?

    We are vested in solving the challenges of an illiquid clean energy 
workforce by localizing training opportunities for diverse 
participants. Additionally, we understand the workforce challenge will 
continue as we are losing practitioners through attrition. This 
challenge has influenced the creation of a training program for high 
school students, to provide early exposure and engagement to the energy 
efficiency and home energy performance industry. Our youth initiative, 
Green Generation, is entering its second year and we have experienced 
an increase in enrollment. This program not only focuses on energy 
efficiency, but also includes leadership training, advocacy, and 
sustainability. Upon high school graduation, the students will have 
secured six Building Performance Institute certifications, qualifying 
them to enter the clean energy workforce immediately if college is not 
the plan after high school. The impact of this program was covered by 
the Department of Energy in an article here.\9\ I believe it is 
imperative that Congress considers making larger investments in youth 
focused clean energy programs to ensure the next generation leaders are 
prepared to enter these emerging markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/wipo/articles/eere-success-story-
building-green-generation-chicago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Questions for the Record

                             Dave Schryver

                           President and CEO

                    American Public Gas Association

                      the honorable garret graves
    1. Mr. Schryver, as I mentioned in our hearing, I am really 
concerned that the energy policy decisions that some states and regions 
of the country are making will have negative consequences for 
consumers. For example, in New England, the permitting and regulatory 
structures in place often makes it difficult to obtain natural gas--
some states like New York have even sought to ban it.

        a.  How does limiting access to natural gas impact consumers?

    As discussed in my testimony, data from the Energy Information 
Administration continues to demonstrate that natural gas is the most 
affordable way to heat a home, and a recent study commissioned by the 
American Gas Association found that the average home that uses natural 
gas for cooking, heating, and clothes drying saves $1,000 a year 
compared to a home using electricity for those functions. When 
consumers are unable to choose natural gas for their homes, they are 
denied those savings.
    In colder climates, this oftentimes means households are forced to 
rely on propane or heating oil to stay warm in the winter. This leads 
not just to higher energy bills, but also to a larger environmental 
footprint as these fuels produce higher emissions than natural gas.

    2. Mr. Schryver, during our hearing, you were asked about the 20 
states around the country that have enacted energy choice legislation.

        a.  How important is consumer choice when it comes to fuel 
        sources to heat and power their homes--whether it's natural 
        gas, solar power, or another fuel source? Please explain.

    APGA and our members believe consumer choice is vital. As 
referenced in my response to the previous question, using natural gas 
in the home delivers significant savings to consumers. As families 
across the country struggle with rising costs due to inflation, it is 
more important than ever that consumers be empowered with the ability 
to choose the energy source for their home that makes the most economic 
sense for them.

    I want to emphasize that energy choice legislation does not prevent 
state or local lawmakers from introducing tax breaks or other 
incentives for consumers to choose to electrify their homes. Energy 
choice bills simply ensure that natural gas remains an available option 
for those who want it, so consumers have no limitations when it comes 
to choosing the energy source that best suits their needs.

        b.  How important is local control when it comes to reliability 
        and affordability of energy? Please explain.

    APGA members are not-for-profit entities that are owned and 
operated by local governments, which means they have no obligation to 
create profits for shareholders. Instead, they are directly accountable 
to the ratepayers, which means affordability and reliability are always 
a priority. Our members are residents of the communities they serve--
their ratepayers are also their families, friends, and neighbors, which 
influences how they operate their utilities.

    3. Mr. Schryver, during our hearing, it was suggested that the 
costs of electrification would be lower than stated in your testimony 
because consumers would eventually need to replace their existing 
appliances at the end of their lifespan anyway.

        a.  Would you like to expand upon this and how you arrived at 
        your estimated costs?

    The numbers cited in my testimony were compiled by the Consumer 
Energy Alliance. They calculated the cost to consumers of replacing 
their existing natural gas appliances with the electric equivalent. 
While it is true that appliances have a limited lifespan and consumers 
may eventually confront this cost regardless of whether they switch 
fuel sources, we cannot disregard the other costs consumers will be 
burdened with if gas-fired appliances are no longer an option when the 
time comes for replacement.
    As I mentioned in my written testimony, many homes that currently 
rely on gas appliances would require an electric panel upgrade to 
support the additional load of running the entire household on 
electricity, which comes at an additional cost.
    Not only would individual homes potentially struggle with this 
increased load, our country's entire electrical grid is not prepared to 
supply the increased demand that it would face in an all-electric 
economy. A recent Wall Street Journal article \1\ highlighted electric 
utilities' plans to invest unprecedented sums of money in overhauling 
their aging infrastructure to make it more reliable and able to support 
the increased demand that would be associated with the current 
Administration's plans to electrify everything. Those investments will 
ultimately be paid for by consumers when utilities pass those capital 
costs on to them in the form of higher electric bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Katherine Blunt, ``Utilities Plan Huge Electric Grid Upgrades, 
Adding to Power Bills,'' Wall Street Journal, available at https://
www.wsj.com/articles/utilities-plan-huge-electric-grid-
upgrades-adding-to-power-bills-11650187802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As stated in my written testimony, natural gas homes currently save 
an average of $1,000 per year on their energy bills compared to their 
electric counterparts. There is every reason to believe that gap will 
continue to grow, making it more important than ever that consumers 
retain the ability to choose the energy source that makes the most 
sense for them.

                        Questions for the Record

                              Sara Baldwin

                   Director of Electrification Policy

                           Energy Innovation

                       the honorable kathy castor
    1. How would the electrification investments in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, such as the $7.5 billion for electric vehicle 
charging help advance access to energy-efficient vehicles? How would 
the House-passed climate investments build on that foundation to 
increase the energy efficiency of the entire economy?

    Increasing our economywide energy efficiency requires replacing 
inefficient appliances, equipment, lighting, vehicles, and buildings 
with energy-efficient alternatives. Ensuring equitable access for all 
consumers, businesses, and communities--regardless of income, 
demographic, or location--requires available and affordable energy-
efficient options. Whether via retrofit, replacement, or new 
construction, every purchase decision represents an opportunity to lock 
in energy-efficient assets that generate near- and long-term energy and 
cost savings while also providing climate, public health, and economic 
benefits. Because energy-efficient products and equipment occasionally 
have a higher upfront price and face other market barriers that prevent 
widescale adoption, policy plays an important role in leveling the 
playing field.
    As noted in my testimony, all-electric vehicles (EVs), appliances, 
and equipment have considerable energy efficiency advantages over their 
fossil-fueled counterparts.\1\ Increasing their deployment so that more 
consumers can benefit from these technologies requires overcoming the 
primary barriers to adoption: higher upfront cost, limited access to 
technologies, and limited infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Testimony of Sara Baldwin at the Select Committee on the 
Climate Crisis Hearing ``Cost-Saving Climate Solutions: Investing in 
Energy Efficiency to Promote Energy Security and Cut Energy Bills'' 
held on April 7, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the House-passed 
climate investments included several provisions to address these 
barriers and support widespread adoption of energy-efficient 
technologies. The BIL, for example, provides funding to support:\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``President Biden, U.S. 
Department of Transportation Releases Toolkit to Help Rural Communities 
Build Out Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure,'' February 2, 2022, 
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/president-biden-us-
department-transportation-releases-toolkit-help-rural-communities; and 
M. Moaz Uddin, ``Electric Vehicle Programs in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill,'' Great Plains Institute, December 6, 2021, 
https://betterenergy.org/blog/electric-vehicle-programs-in-the-
bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Increased transportation electrification 
        infrastructure investments to benefit rural and urban 
        communities while beginning strategic EV charging buildout via 
        $5 billion in major highway charging investments along the 
        Alternative Fuels Corridor. The dedicated $2.5 billion will 
        support rural charging and measures to improve local air 
        quality in disadvantaged communities.
          These investments will increase consumer confidence 
        in their ability to charge wherever they travel--a barrier that 
        must be overcome to encourage widespread EV uptake.
          Increased adoption of electric school buses through 
        the Clean School Bus Program and electric trucks at ports, both 
        high activity areas that can have a large impact on the air 
        quality and public health of nearby communities. These measures 
        will also provide long-term cost savings over the life of the 
        vehicles.
          Increased domestic production of materials needed for 
        scaled transportation electrification: $140 million for rare-
        earth elements, $3 billion for battery material processing, and 
        $3 billion for battery manufacturing and recycling.

    While the BIL funding is an important step to enable transportation 
electrification and jumpstart the shift to more energy-efficient 
vehicles, it's just a down payment to equitably get more EVs on the 
road. The House-passed climate investments for new and used EVs 
included caps on income and vehicle costs to ensure that moderate-
income households and individuals can access and benefit from EVs (not 
just those with higher incomes). The House-passed climate provisions 
also provided a 30 percent tax credit for electric heavy-duty vehicles 
to help convert the highest polluting vehicles on the road to run on 
clean, emission-free electricity.
    In addition, the House-passed climate investments provided 
incentives for energy-efficient all-electric appliances and buildings 
to help reduce upfront costs and make the technologies affordable for 
more people.\3\ These investments would reduce overall energy consumed 
across the United States, lowering consumer energy bills and improving 
health in communities due to decreased NOx pollution. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Energy Innovation, ``Electric Vehicle Incentives in the Build 
Back Better Act: Provisions Will Save Consumers Money, Boost U.S. 
Manufacturing, And Protect Public Health,'' November 2021, https://
energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Electric-Vehicle-
Incentives-in-the-Build-Back-Better-Act.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          High efficiency electric home rebates, with targeted 
        investments specifically for low- and moderate-income 
        households, homes in multifamily buildings, and upgrades in 
        underserved and Tribal communities.
          Home Owner Managing Energy Savings (HOMES) Rebates 
        for efficiency retrofit measures that are based on the amount 
        of energy savings provided, with additional incentives for 
        contractors.
          Home Energy Performance-Based Contractor Training 
        Grants that support contractors transitioning to the high-
        efficiency economy through on-line and in-person training 
        courses.
          Other investments in efficiency upgrades for public 
        housing, affordable housing projects, rural rental housing, 
        public buildings, tribal community housing, and public schools. 
        In addition to funding efficiency upgrades, these investments 
        would also support indoor air quality and increased climate 
        resilience.

    Ensuring more Americans benefit from energy-efficient technologies 
while shifting our economy to be more energy-efficient requires a 
combination of policies that address extant barriers to uptake, while 
also creating the market conditions that make it easy and affordable to 
choose the more energy-efficient option. The BIL is a good start, but 
the House-passed climate provisions are still needed to achieve these 
goals.

    2. Could you please describe how efficient electrification could 
save money for consumers in communities throughout the United States?

    Numerous studies show that consumers will save money with 
electrification:

          Energy Innovation, GridLab, and University of 
        California, Berkeley's 2035 2.0 Report modeling showed that a 
        high electrification transportation scenario powered by a clean 
        grid \4\ would create $2.7 trillion in consumer savings through 
        2050--equivalent to an average U.S. household saving $1,000 per 
        year for the next 30 years. This analysis also accounted for 
        the costs of grid upgrades that may be necessary due to 
        increased electrification and a decarbonized grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The DRIVE Clean Scenario: 100% of new passenger vehicles in 
2030 would be EVs and 100% of new medium- and heavy-duty trucks would 
be EVs in 2035. Amol Phadke and Nikit Abhyankar, ``2035 2.0 Report,'' 
April 2021, https://www.2035report.com/transportation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Energy Innovation analysis shows that electric 
        vehicles are cheaper to own and finance from day one in most 
        states compared to gasoline-powered counterparts including 
        purchase price, financing, taxes, incentives, maintenance, and 
        operational fueling or charging costs. These savings are 
        contingent the existing federal EV tax credit; if EV incentives 
        in the House-passed climate investments are included then EVs 
        become cheaper in nearly every instance, opening up ownership 
        for all Americans looking to purchase a new car.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Orvis, ``Most Electric Vehicles Are Cheaper to Own Off the Lot 
than Gas Cars'' (Energy Innovation, May 2022), https://
energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Most-Electric-Vehicles-
Are-Cheaper-Off-The-Lot-Than-Gas-Cars.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Rewiring America found that 87 percent of U.S. 
        households would save money on their bills through household 
        electrification (104.7 million of 120.7 million households).
                &ctrcir  The average U.S. household would save $356 
                per year on their energy bills through electrification, 
                for $37.3 billion in collective annual savings.
                &ctrcir  45 percent of households saving money would 
                be low- and moderate-income, many of which would 
                average $444 in annual savings.
                &ctrcir  Households currently using electric 
                resistance, fuel oil, or propane would average $451 in 
                annual savings.
          Energy-efficient all-electric new construction also 
        offer consumer savings. RMI found that new all-electric homes 
        save consumers on a net present basis and result in long-term 
        energy savings in nearly all cases (the study was conducted 
        across seven American cities with differing climatic 
        conditions). I'd refer you to my written testimony for more 
        details and the link to the full study.

    Despite their cost-saving potential, higher upfront costs of 
efficient all-electric technologies are still a deterrent for many 
consumers. As such, incentives combined with rigorous performance 
standards can reduce upfront costs, thus enabling more people to 
benefit from technologies as they gain market maturity. As noted above, 
Energy Innovation research shows that federal incentives are necessary 
for consumers to experience the monthly bill benefits of purchasing 
electric passenger vehicles.\6\ Without these incentives, consumer 
savings will be left on the table as energy costs rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Orvis, ``Most Electric Vehicles Are Cheaper to Own Off the Lot 
than Gas Cars.''

    3. Could you please describe how consumers benefit when local 
governments are free to make decisions that support clean energy and 
the beneficial electrification of homes, businesses, and vehicles? From 
your perspective, how could a local government's decision to ban fossil 
gas hookups actually increase the reliability and affordability of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
energy for consumers?

    Decisions made at the local level directly impact residents' health 
and well-being as well as community-level resilience. Local governments 
can also have an outsized impact on emissions. Buildings and 
transportation currently constitute 13 percent and 27 percent of the 
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions inventory, respectively.\7\ Local 
governments influence how buildings in their jurisdiction are built 
since they create the rules governing construction, permitting, 
inspections, and in some cases utility interconnections. They also 
influence different types of mobility and the adoption of cleaner 
vehicles through planning, zoning, incentives, regulations, and 
educational campaigns. Local building and transportation policies thus 
have huge potential to slow climate change, bolster resilience, reduce 
energy and water consumption, multiply consumer savings, and expand 
jobs and economic development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The 13 percent of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to 
commercial and residential buildings accounts for both direct (e.g., 
onsite natural gas combustion) and indirect (e.g., offsite emissions 
associated with consumed electricity) greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, ``Sources of Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions,'' n.d.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
    Across the country, local governments are adopting clean energy, 
air quality, environmental justice, and climate goals and using the 
tools at their disposal to achieve these goals. In the process of 
assessing local air pollution, many of these governments are realizing 
that continued fossil fuels reliance will prevent them from achieving 
their climate goals while adversely impacting their constituents' 
health and well-being. Many local governments are influencing the 
adoption of clean electricity and electrified end-uses, along with 
distributed resources that improve resilience in the face of climate 
disasters. Achieving these goals at the local level directly impacts 
consumers, by saving money on energy bills and greater overall 
community sustainability and resilience. When local governments can 
choose the course that best fits their priorities, based on the will of 
their electorate and citizens, they benefit consumers where they live.
    To the second part of the question, increased electrification 
increases grid reliability by enabling demand-side measures that can 
reduce and manage electricity load, especially during times of grid 
strain. Whether through programmable thermostats, smart appliances, 
automated settings responsive to price signals, or vehicle-to-grid 
charging, technologies are increasingly expanding opportunities to 
improve grid reliability via electrified end-uses.
    Although the rates paid for electricity, natural gas, and other 
fuels are not determined by local governments (they are far more 
influenced by state and federal government actions as well as 
international market forces), local actions to adopt energy-efficient 
equipment and construct energy-efficient buildings can reduce energy 
demand and lower monthly energy bills for consumers. Finally, the cost 
of electricity per unit of energy sold can potentially decrease as the 
economy electrifies. E3 analysis showed that grid investments required 
to support the high electrification scenario powered by a clean grid 
modeled in the 2035 2.0 report would have a nominal impact on rates and 
could even reduce the overall cost per unit of electricity.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Eric Cutter and Emily Rogers, ``2035 2.0 Report Appendix: 
Distribution Grid Cost Impacts Driven by Transportation 
Electrification'' (E3--Energy and Environmental Economics, n.d.), 
http://www.2035report.com/transportation/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/
2035-Transportation-Dist-Cost.pdf?hsCtaTracking=56dd694b-3158-4ad9-
8c8e-11c00a78e98f%7C4ffcaa0e-5eee-4028-87ac-cccdd080ced4.

    4. Could you please explain how the normal turnover in appliances 
and equipment due to their average life expectancy could help reduce 
any cost impacts to consumers of switching to electric appliances and 
equipment? How could Federal policy reduce that cost impact even 
further to make it even easier for consumers to switch to electric 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appliances and equipment?

    Electrification is an immediately available climate solution that 
can occur as appliances, vehicles, and equipment are replaced due to 
old age--the average life of most building appliances, equipment, and 
vehicles is 10-20 years. An average consumer can switch to all-electric 
alternatives without replacing all equipment and machines at once. 
Rather, they can do so as the equipment ages out. The expenses incurred 
to replace those machines can go towards adopting more energy-efficient 
options that save consumers over the life of the equipment or vehicle. 
At the time of replacement, the impact should be measured not in the 
total cost of the replacement (which they would have to do regardless), 
but in the incremental cost of the all-electric alternative.
    Bringing down this incremental cost with incentives can help 
efficient all-electric options compete on a level playing field with 
their fossil fuel-powered alternatives. Incentives that help the 
efficient appliances or vehicles `break even' with their fossil fueled 
counterpart are most effective at influencing the consumer purchasing 
decisions. Efforts to bring down the upfront cost also impact financing 
and the monthly cost of ownership, which concerns many consumers. A 
federal policy can make it even easier to switch to electric appliances 
and equipment by influencing uptake at the point of purchase, ensuring 
the all-electric option breaks even with its fossil fueled counterpart, 
and by accounting for the real-life monthly cost of ownership. Ideally, 
consumers should see no net upfront cost difference when choosing the 
all-electric option over the fossil-fueled option.
    Federal policy can also help ensure more options are in the market, 
supporting greater competition which will further reduce upfront costs. 
Incentives for manufacturers, distributors, and contractors to produce 
ample efficient electric appliances and equipment such as heat pumps 
helps meet consumer demand and reduces upfront costs. Consumer 
incentives provide assurance to manufacturers that increased market 
demand will exist for their products, prompting them to ramp up 
production.
    The House-passed climate provisions mentioned above would jumpstart 
the market for all-electric appliances and EVs, while also providing 
support for contractor training, domestic manufacturing, and supply-
chain development.

    5. Any comparative analysis of the efficiency of residential 
heating options must be done carefully. Could you please explain in 
detail why electric residential heating systems could have greater 
efficiency than residential heating systems powered by distributed 
natural gas?

    From energy production to end-use, generating electricity using 
renewable energy like solar and wind to power efficient all-electric 
appliances is the most efficient mode of powering end-uses. Renewable 
energy is around 97 to 98 percent efficient (meaning they do not 
generate much wasted energy in the form or heat or other losses to 
produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity). When renewable energy is 
stored in batteries and dispatched for later use, it enjoys a roundtrip 
battery efficiency anywhere from 85 to 90 percent.\9\ Comparatively, 
producing electricity with natural gas ranges from 40 to 60 percent 
energy-efficient.\10\ Regardless of source, the transmission and 
distribution of electricity results in approximately 5 percent energy 
loss in the process, which impacts overall efficiency.\11\ The natural 
gas transmission and distribution network incurs around 3 percent 
losses due to leakage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Susan Tierney and Lori Bird, ``Setting the Record Straight 
About Renewable Energy,'' May 12, 2020, https://www.wri.org/insights/
setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy.
    \10\ A standard natural gas turbine for power generation has an 
efficiency ranging from 40 to 60 percent. Combined-cycle turbines, 
which provide 85 percent of U.S. natural gas-fired electricity, account 
for the higher end of the efficiency range. U.S. Energy Information 
Administration, ``Natural Gas Generators Make up Largest Share of U.S. 
Electricity Generation Capacity,'' October 16, 2020, https://
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45496. Natural gas combined 
heat and power (CHP) systems achieve higher efficiencies of 80 percent 
or more. Steven Nadel, ``Natural Gas Energy Efficiency: Progress and 
Opportunities'' (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, July 
2017). https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/
researchreports/u1708.pdf.
    \11\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, ``How Much Electricity 
Is Lost in Electricity Transmission and Distribution in the United 
States?,'' November 4, 2021,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3.
    Equipment and appliance efficiency also impacts overall lifecycle 
efficiency. As noted in my testimony, highly efficient all-electric 
technologies are two to four times more energy-efficient than fossil-
fuel counterparts. Determining the lifecycle efficiency of different 
energy sources for different end-uses, and the assumptions made about 
transmission and distribution losses, impacts the resulting efficiency 
figures. For example:

        &ctrcir  Using the federal minimum standard for air source 
        heat pumps of 260 percent, and the natural gas production 
        efficiency numbers from the American Gas Association (AGA) 
        report cited in Mr. Schryver's testimony,\12\ electric space 
        heating from air source heat pumps powered by 100 percent 
        natural gas, results in a 105 percent lifecycle efficiency. 
        Comparatively, using 100 percent natural gas to fuel a high 
        efficiency (97 percent efficiency)\13\ natural gas furnace 
        would result in an 88.8 percent lifecycle efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ``A Comparison of Energy Use, Operating Costs, and Carbon 
Dioxide Emissions of Home Appliances 2021 Update'' (American Gas 
Association, October 1, 2021),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.aga.org/globalassets/research_insights/reports/ea-2021-04-
appliance-cost-and-
emissions-comparison-2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Based on EIA estimates of existing stock, the average 
efficiency of a natural gas furnace is 90 percent. U.S. Energy 
Information Administration, ``Annual Energy Outlook 2022,'' March 3, 
2022, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=30-
AEO2022&cases=ref2022&sourcekey=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        &ctrcir  Using 100 renewable energy to power the same air 
        source heat pump (260 percent efficient) would result in a 
        lifecycle efficiency of 240 percent--almost three times more 
        energy-efficient than heating with a gas distribution system 
        fueling a gas furnace.
        &ctrcir  The energy trajectory efficiency of energy delivered 
        to the home in AGA's report, which does not include end-use 
        device efficiency, shows that electricity generated by 
        renewable energy results in a cumulative efficiency of around 
        92 percent, compared with natural gas-based electricity's 
        cumulative efficiency of around 41 percent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``A Comparison of Energy Use, Operating Costs, and Carbon 
Dioxide Emissions of Home Appliances 2021 Update.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        &ctrcir  According to the same AGA report, the end-use of the 
        appliance impacts the overall lifecycle efficiency (emphasis 
        added):

                    ``For new residential applications, full-fuel-cycle 
                efficiency will be 74 percent for the natural gas space 
                heating option that meets the minimum efficiency rating 
                of 0.80. For electric heat pumps, whose federal minimum 
                standard for fuel utilization efficiency is about 260 
                percent, the full-fuel-cycle efficiency will be about 
                98 percent. Less efficient electric resistance heating 
                has a full-fuel-cycle heating efficiency of only 39 
                percent. The full- fuel-cycle efficiency for an oil 
                furnace averages about 67 percent, due to an energy 
                trajectory efficiency of 84 percent. The propane 
                furnace full-fuel-cycle efficiency measure is also 70 
                percent. Again, these efficiencies reflect the total of 
                all losses from extraction, processing, transportation, 
                conversion, distribution, and end use of the natural 
                gas, electric, oil, and propane systems.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ ``A Comparison of Energy Use, Operating Costs, and Carbon 
Dioxide Emissions of Home Appliances 2021 Update.''

    In summary, the combined energy efficiency of electricity generated 
from renewable energy and efficient all-electric appliances used for 
space heating is the most energy-efficient mode of space heating--and 
this will only increase as the grid becomes increasingly clean and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
modernized.

    6. The reliability of our energy systems is important to 
maintaining health, safety, and a high quality of life for American 
families. Could you please expand on how energy efficiency and 
electrification investments can enhance the reliability of the electric 
grid? How does a reliable electric grid help unlock the efficiency 
benefits of electrification?

    The U.S. electricity grid and many of its largest utilities and 
grid operators are subject to numerous regulations and oversight that 
serve to ensure reliability and affordability. The established National 
Electricity Reliability Council (NERC) Reliability Standards define the 
reliability requirements for planning and operating the North American 
bulk power system that focuses on performance, risk management, and 
entity capabilities.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ North American Electric Reliability corporation, ``NERC 
Standards,'' n.d., https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration 
data, the U.S. electricity grid was fully operational and reliable for 
the average customer 99.9 percent of the time in 2020.\17\ That same 
year, during the limited time the grid was down for the average U.S. 
customer, 75 percent of outages were due to major weather events 
(hurricanes, snowstorms, wildfires)--these climate-related events are 
only getting worse as we delay climate action. Electrification and 
efficiency can further enhance reliability by deploying new and 
existing technologies, while also providing a clear climate solution 
that can be scaled within this decade:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, ``U.S. Electricity 
Customers Experienced Eight Hours of Power Interruptions in 2020,'' 
November 10, 2021,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50316.

        &ctrcir  Widespread adoption of high-efficiency electric 
        stoves, water heaters, and heat pumps reduces energy waste and 
        overall demand for electricity. Generation resources allocated 
        to serve peak demand can be utilized less frequently, thus 
        ensuring greater longevity of existing capacity and other grid 
        infrastructure components, such as transmission lines and 
        substations.
        &ctrcir  Electrification provides many opportunities for 
        demand-side measures that enhance reliability. For example, 
        some electric appliances can be programmed to respond to grid 
        conditions and price signals. Others, such as energy-efficient 
        air conditioners, can provide valuable grid services via demand 
        response programs.\18\ New smart grid funding from the BIL will 
        support continued deployment of these functions and 
        capabilities at scale.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Justin Brant, ``Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: 
Providing Energy Demand Flexibility for Utilities in the Southwest'' 
(Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, August 2019), http://
swenergy.org/pubs/grid-interactive-efficient-buildings-report.
    \19\ Ellie Long, ``Here's How the Infrastructure Bill Improves The 
Grid,'' November 22, 2021, https://www.ase.org/blog/heres-how-
infrastructure-bill-improves-grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        &ctrcir  The increasing number of extreme weather events 
        requires a greater attention to resiliency, and all-electric 
        equipment can be powered directly by distributed and community 
        renewable energy and battery storage to increase resilience 
        when the grid goes down.
        &ctrcir  Winter Storm Uri in Texas was largely due to an 
        overreliance on natural gas that failed in the storm due to 
        lack of appropriate weatherization of equipment. Such failures 
        were chiefly responsible for and exacerbated the power 
        outage.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Dan Esposito and Eric Gimon, ``The Texas Big Freeze: How a 
Changing Climate Pushed the State's Power Grid to the Brink,'' 
UtilityDive, June 2, 2021,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/the-texas-big-freeze-how-a-changing-
climate-pushed-the-states-power-grid/601098/.
        &ctrcir  Most natural gas appliances and modern gas furnaces 
        rely on electricity to operate, even though their primary fuel 
        source is gas. This means that heating with natural gas does 
        not obviate consumer impacts during an outage. For most gas 
        appliances, an electric power outage also renders gas 
        appliances inoperable, and reliability of the gas system does 
        not translate to reliability of using gas-burning appliances. 
        The same is true for gas stations--you cannot pump gas if the 
        power goes out.

    Fortunately, the BIL also includes $65 billion in funding to 
upgrade the grid and bolster grid reliability going forward. This and 
numerous ongoing efforts by utilities and regulators across the country 
will ensure our electric grid remains strong, reliable, and resilient.

    7. How would maximizing electrification as a climate solution 
reduce greenhouse gas pollution from the U.S. consistent with limiting 
average global warming to 1.5 degrees C?

    According to several studies, an 80 percent clean grid by 2030 is 
achievable and would not compromise grid reliability nor 
affordability.\21\ A decarbonized electric grid is the lynchpin to 
broader economywide decarbonization as we electrify more sectors and 
end uses; indeed it is the most scalable and affordable pathway to 
align with a 1.5 degree C climate stable pathway. Rather than wait for 
a not-yet-existing technology breakthrough or commercializing expensive 
alternatives, electrification offers a near-term route to decarbonizing 
sectors still reliant on fossil fuels: namely, the building sector, 
ground transportation, and much of industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Dan Esposito, ``Studies Agree 80 Percent Clean Electricity By 
2030 Would Save Lives And Create Jobs At Minimal Cost'' (Energy 
Innovation, September 7, 2021), https://energyinnovation.org/
publication/studies-agree-80-percent-clean-electricity-by-2030-would-
save-lives-and-create-jobs-at-minimal-cost/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted in my testimony, Energy Innovation modeling with our 
Energy Policy Simulator shows which sectoral policies would put the 
U.S. on a 1.5 degree Celsius climate stable pathway through 
electrification and bring other benefits, for example:
          Buildings: reaching a 100 percent electric appliance 
        sales standard by 2030 would cut 530 million metric tons (MMT) 
        of carbon dioxide per year by 2050, contributing 10 percent of 
        the overall emissions reductions needed to meet the U.S. NDC by 
        2050.
          Transportation: Achieving 100 percent EV sales for 
        passenger vehicles, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and buses by 
        2035 would reduce emissions by 821 MMT per year by 2050, or 16 
        percent of total emissions reductions needed to meet the U.S. 
        NDC by 2050. This would save consumers $2.7 trillion dollars 
        through 2050.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Amol Phadke and Nikit Abhyankar, ``2035 2.0 Report,'' April 
2021,https://www.2035report.com/transportation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Industry: Electrification, paired with supplemental 
        green hydrogen, can reduce emissions by 1,325 MMT per year by 
        2050, or more than 25 percent of total emissions reductions 
        needed to meet the U.S. NDC by 2050.

    8. American innovation is one of our greatest strengths. Could you 
please expand on how the electrified technologies you mentioned in your 
testimony are innovative and more efficient improvements over last 
century's fossil fuel-powered cars and appliances?

    Electric technologies are efficient by design. Heat pumps move heat 
rather than burn fuel to heat or cool space and water. Induction stoves 
transfer heat directly to pans rather than first letting it dissipate 
into the air along with harmful air pollution from burning fossil 
fuels. In vehicles, removing combustion technology to instead rely only 
on battery storage reduces vehicle weight and total moving parts, thus 
reducing maintenance expenses and overall wear and tear over the 
vehicle's lifetime. Relying on battery charging means that users can 
charge their vehicle at times that suit them--overnight when it's 
parked in the garage or along the street, at the store as they shop, at 
work, or any other time the vehicle is parked (assuming charging is 
available). The new era of technologies has advantages of comfort, 
performance, and in many cases, long-term affordability. Their biggest 
advantage, however, is mitigating climate change while improving air 
quality and creating jobs.

    9. How could American leadership on efficient electrification help 
encourage other countries to follow our example? Could American 
innovation and exports of clean and electrified technologies facilitate 
faster adoption of climate solutions in other countries?

    As one of the world's top GHG emitters, the actions we take to 
reduce emissions and lead by example send a strong signal to other 
countries that we are committed to being part of the global solution to 
climate change. However, the U.S. must ramp up efforts to remain 
competitive. From 2010 through 2020, China manufactured the largest 
proportion of EVs globally at 44 percent, while Europe produced 25 
percent. By 2020, the U.S. had manufactured only 18 percent of the 
global EV stock, a decrease from 20 percent in 2017.\23\ Failure to 
stimulate domestic manufacturing of EVs and batteries, along with clean 
technology supply chains, will hinder our ability to lead in these 
critical markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ ``Update on Electric Vehicle Costs in the United States 
through 2030,'' International Council on Clean Transportation (blog), 
accessed April 19, 2022, https://theicct.org/publication/update-on-
electric-vehicle-costs-in-the-united-states-through-2030/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continued federal leadership can leverage the full capabilities of 
our domestic manufacturing industries and position the U.S. as a global 
leader. For example, adopting federal incentives for manufacturers to 
support the deployment of 100 percent passenger EV manufacturing by 
2035 will create jobs and increase affordability for U.S. consumers. 
Similarly, significantly ramping up manufacturing of heat pumps and 
heat pump water heaters would support growth of domestic jobs and 
enhance competitiveness in a clean, electrified future. Doubling down 
on fossil fuel technologies, on the other hand, would likely render us 
obsolete in a global economy moving away from fossil fuels and toward 
decarbonization technologies.

    10. How could the EnergyStar program be updated to better support 
efficient electrification consistent with our national climate goals?

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's EnergyStar program 
recently removed gas-fired appliances from their ``Most Efficient'' 
designation, which affirms the efficiency advantage electric appliances 
have over gas appliances. However, their general Energy-Efficient 
Products for Consumers list still includes several gas appliances, 
which may confuse consumers considering which equipment to buy if they 
are seeking highly energy-efficient, price stable, and climate-friendly 
options. The EnergyStar program could align their future decision-
making to recognize only high-efficiency electric appliances, including 
air source heat pumps, including those designated for cold climates, 
and geothermal heat pumps.

    11. How could Federal energy efficiency investments promote 
American energy security? Could increased energy efficiency help reduce 
demand for globally traded fossil fuels with volatile prices?

    The global oil and gas markets are in turmoil amidst the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine, leading the European Union and the U.S. to reduce 
reliance on Russian oil and gas. Temporary increases to domestic fossil 
fuel production are unlikely to offer reprieve, and continued fossil 
fuel extraction and production will hold the U.S. captive to the 
inherent volatility and insecurity associated with global energy 
markets. Reducing demand for these products, however, would have a 
dampening effect on prices, and limit the power of the petro-state 
dictators controlling their production and sale. The faster the U.S. 
moves toward energy-efficient electrification and generation of 
renewable electricity, the sooner we can achieve greater energy 
security at home and abroad.

                                  [all]