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


                 OFFSHORE WIND, ONSHORE BENEFITS: GROWING 
                  THE DOMESTIC WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY

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

                             HYBRID HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 21, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-54
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
56-194 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          
                       
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
                 WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
                         Subcommittee on Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    Chair                            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG PENCE, Indiana
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware           (ex officio)
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Heather Zichal, Chief Executive Officer, American Clean Power 
  Association....................................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   152
David Hardy, Chief Executive Officer, Ørsted Offshore 
  North America..................................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   159
James Strong, Assistant to the Director, District 8, United 
  Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 
  Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union......    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   168
Mark W. Menezes, Former Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy...    32
    Prepared statement...........................................    34

                           Submitted Material

Letter of October 19, 2021, from Erik Milito, President, National 
  Ocean Industries Association, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................    95
Letter of October 19, 2021, from Liz Burdock, Chief Executive 
  Officer and President, Business Network for Offshore Wind, to 
  Mr. Rush, submitted by Mr. Rush................................    97
Report, ``Help Wanted: Diversity in Clean Energy,'' by E2, et 
  al., 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush\1\
Article of September 9, 2021, ``As clean energy jobs grow, women 
  and Black workers are at risk of being left behind,'' by 
  Charisse Jones, USA Today, submitted by Mr. Rush...............   102
Report of Affordable Energy for New Jersey, ``Natural Gas: 
  Crucial for New Jersey's Energy and Economic Future,'' prepared 
  by Continental Economics, Inc., September 2020, submitted by 
  Mr. Rush\1\
Article of February 5, 2020, ``Wind Turbine Blades Can't Be 
  Recycled, So They're Piling Up in Landfills,'' by Chris Martin, 
  Bloomberg, submitted by Mr. Palmer.............................   105

s----------

\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114148.
Article of May 6, 2019, ``The Reason Renewables Can't Power 
  Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To,'' May 
  6, 2019, by Michael Shellenberger, Forbes, submitted by Mr. 
  Palmer.........................................................   109
Article of October 17, 2021, ``Behind the Energy Crisis: Fossil 
  Fuel Investment Drops, and Renewables Aren't Ready,'' by 
  Christopher M. Matthews, et al., Wall Street Journal, submitted 
  by Mr. McKinley................................................   117
Article of September 13, 2021, ``Fishing industry sues BOEM over 
  Vineyard Wind approval,'' by Kelsey Tamborrino, Politico Pro, 
  submitted by Mr. Upton.........................................   127
Letter of October 20, 2021, from Affordable Energy for New Jersey 
  to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Upton..............   130
Policy paper, ``Trenton's Dirty Little Secret: Nobody Can Afford 
  the Energy Master Plan,'' Affordable Energy for New Jersey, 
  submitted by Mr. Upton\2\
Letter of October 20, 2021, from Annie Hawkins, Executive 
  Director, Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, to Mr. 
  Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Walberg...................   133
Article of October 20, 2021, ```Bloody expensive.' Major U.S. 
  offshore wind plan hits obstacles,'' by Heather Richards, E&E 
  News, submitted by Mr. Griffith................................   142

----------

\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20211021/114148/
HHRG-117-IF03-20211021-SD019.pdf.

 
   OFFSHORE WIND, ONSHORE BENEFITS: GROWING THE DOMESTIC WIND ENERGY 
                                INDUSTRY

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. 
Bobby L. Rush (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Staff present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, DeGette, Castor, Schrader, 
Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex 
officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Burgess, Latta, 
McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, 
Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Rice, Schakowsky, Trahan, 
Carter, and Joyce.
    Staff present: Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and 
General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry 
Hamilton, Clerk; Anne Marie Hirschberger, FERC Detailee; Zach 
Kahan, Deputy Director, Outreach and Member Service; Rick 
Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 
Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Tyler O'Connor, 
Energy Counsel; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kris 
Pittard, Policy Coordinator; Kylea Rogers, Staff Assistant; 
Tuley Wright, Senior Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; 
Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, 
Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, 
Energy, Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; 
Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority 
Member Services Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, 
Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief 
Counsel for Energy; and Michael Taggart, Minority Policy 
Director.
    Mr. Rush. The subcommittee on energy will now come to 
order. Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled 
``Offshore Wind, Onshore Benefits: Growing the Domestic Wind 
Energy Industry.''
    Due to COVID-19 public health emergencies, Members can 
participate, as I am, in today's hearing either in person or 
remotely via online video conferencing. Members, staff, and 
members of the press----
    Mr. Upton. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. Yes?
    Mr. Upton. We weren't in order when you started. So if you 
could start again, that would be good.
    Mr. Rush. We weren't in order?
    Mr. Upton. So I would ask unanimous consent--No we weren't. 
The gavel didn't come down, and now the gavel has come down 
and--I ask that you start things again.
    Mr. Rush. I am going to disagree with you. I brought the 
gavel down at 9:30 central time, 10:30----
    Mr. Upton. I know. We didn't hear it. So we were all 
talking. So there is bad behavior here. So we would ask that 
you start again so we can be fully attentive.
    Mr. Rush. Well----
    Mr. Upton. I apologize for the actions of our Members on 
both sides of the aisle.
    Mr. Rush. All right. Well----
    Mr. Upton. And our chairman, Mr. Pallone, has just walked 
in the door.
    Mr. Rush. In consideration of my friend's request and 
unanimous consent request, I will take time to begin the 
meeting again and for all of those who didn't hear the gavel 
come down previously, this is the gavel, watch me.
    The subcommittee will now come to order. Today the 
subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``Offshore Wind, 
Onshore Benefits: Growing the Domestic Wind Energy Industry.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergencies, Members can 
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely via 
online video conferencing. Members, staff, and members of the 
press present in the hearing room must wear a mask in 
accordance with the updated guidance issued by the attending 
physician.
    For Members participating remotely, your microphones will 
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating and averting 
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to 
unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak.
    Please note that once you unmute your microphone, anything 
that is said will be heard over the loudspeaker in the 
committee room and is subject to being heard by live stream and 
C-SPAN. Since Members are participating from different 
locations at today's hearing, our recognition of Members, such 
as for questioning, will be in order of the subcommittee's 
seniority. Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-
Martinez at the email address that we have provided to staff. 
All documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion 
of today's hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

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

    Again, good morning, I would like to thank all of you for 
joining us today for this important hearing on the state of the 
offshore wind industry. The U.S. offshore wind industry is 
lagging behind the rest of the world, with Europe having just 
over 25 gigawatts and China with just over 7. The U.S. by 
comparison has effectively zero. That is why I was so delighted 
when earlier this year President Biden announced a goal of 
deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, 
helping kickstart what I hope would mean a start of an offshore 
wind revolution.
    According to an analysis by the National Renewable 
Inventory Laboratory, 30 gigawatts of offshore wind has the 
capacity to create 70,000 jobs by 2030. And it would tee up 
creation of over 135,000 jobs by the year 2050.
    We will see turbines in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, in 
the Gulf of Mexico, and perhaps even in the beloved Great Lakes 
that is close to my home State of Illinois. Additionally, at a 
time when U.S. consumers are vulnerable to violent variations 
in fossil fuel prices, the allure of a consistent, affordable 
source of base load electricity produced right here at home by 
American workers should be clear.
    And the part of our broader effort to Build Back Better, we 
need to ensure that we are making small investments so that the 
offshore wind lives up to its high, very high, potential. These 
include investments in American shipbuilding, steel, and 
American ports.
    The Biden administration has announced that it will provide 
$3 billion worth of loan guarantees to help direct investment 
to where they so desperately need to loan. An investment in 
offshore wind would truly exemplify what we know as the Build 
Back Better promise. That same NREL study found that the 
construction and operating jobs created by the offshore wind 
industry would have a median pay higher than the current 
nationwide median wage. In other words, these are high-paying 
jobs.
    There are also good union jobs. As some of our witnesses 
today will attest, the sector has seen a good deal of success 
integrating organized labor into its plans.
    I was pleased last year that Ørsted signed an 
agreement with the national North American Building Trades 
Unions to transition construction workers into the offshore 
wind industry. Additionally, Vineyard Wind, which is slated to 
be the first commercial-scale offshore wind project in the 
Nation, recently signed a project labor agreement with the 
Southeastern Massachusetts Building Trades Council. This is 
great, a great, great beginning. And I am constantly on the 
alert that minorities and women are included into this process.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    Good morning. I would like to thank you all for joining us 
today for this important hearing on the state of the offshore 
wind industry.
    The U.S. offshore wind industry is lagging behind the rest 
of the world--with Europe having just over 25 gigawatts and 
China with just over 7. The U.S.--by comparison--has 
effectively zero.
    That's why I was so delighted when, earlier this year, 
President Biden announced a goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind capacity by 2030, helping kickstart what I hope 
will be the start of an offshore wind revolution. According to 
an analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 30 
gigawatts of offshore wind have the potential to create 77,000 
jobs by 2030 and would tee up the creation of over 135,000 jobs 
by 2050. We will see turbines in the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of 
Mexico, and perhaps even the Great Lakes close to my own home 
state of Illinois.
    Additionally, at a time when U.S. consumers are vulnerable 
to violent variations in fossil fuel prices, the allure of a 
consistent, affordable source of baseload electricity--produced 
right here at home by American workers--should be clear.
    As a part of our broader efforts to Build Back Better, we 
need to ensure that we are making smart investments so that 
offshore wind lives up to its potential. These include 
investments in American shipbuilding, steel, and ports. The 
Biden Administration has announced that it will provide three 
billion dollars' worth of loan guarantees to help direct 
investments to where they need to go.
    And investments in offshore wind truly exemplify the Build 
Back Better promise. That same NREL study found that the 
construction and operating jobs created by the offshore wind 
industry would have a median pay higher than the current 
nationwide median wage. In other words, these are high-paying 
jobs.
    They are also good, union jobs. As some of our witnesses 
today will attest, the sector has seen a good deal of success 
integrating organized labor into its plans. I was pleased that, 
last year, Ørsted signed an agreement with the North 
America Building Trades Unions to transition construction 
workers into the offshore wind industry. Additionally, Vineyard 
Wind, which is slated to be the first commercial-scale offshore 
wind project in the country, recently signed a project labor 
agreement with the Southeastern Massachusetts Building Trades 
Council. I sincerely hope that these early steps create a 
standard for the industry as it grows and evolves.
    While this is all very promising, it is critical that we 
remain on high alert to ensure that the offshore wind industry 
does not follow in the footsteps of so many other clean energy 
industries, which have disproportionately left Black and Brown 
workers--as well as women of all races--behind. The offshore 
wind industry cannot repeat those same mistakes, and I hope 
that we take this opportunity to do better.
    With that said, I am looking forward to today's hearing and 
to a good discussion around the potential and promise of the 
offshore wind industry.
    And with that, I would like to welcome my friend and 
colleague, the Ranking Member from the great state of Michigan, 
Mr. Upton, to make an opening statement.

    Mr. Rush. With that, I now yield to my good friend from the 
great State of Michigan, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, my friend, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.
    A special welcome to the honorable Mr. Menezes, the former 
Deputy Secretary of Energy and former Energy and Commerce chief 
counsel for energy and development and environment. It is 
always good to have you back.
    Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit troubled by the topic of 
today's hearing. As you know, we are in an energy crisis right 
now, which is what I believe this committee ought to be focused 
on. The price of gas and many energy commodities are at a 7-
year high. The average price in my district earlier this week 
around my district was about $3.35 a gallon, almost double what 
it cost a year ago. And I was in Chicago last weekend, and it 
was over $4.20 in your district as I traveled up and down the 
Dan Ryan Expressway.
    So, compared with last winter's heating costs, the 
Department of Energy forecasts that U.S. households are going 
to spend 54 percent more for propane, 43 percent more for 
heating oil, 30 percent more for natural gas, and 6 percent 
more for electricity to heat their homes this season.
    Last week, the Republican members of the committee sent a 
letter to DOE Secretary Granholm to understand what specific 
actions DOE is taking to address energy prices and supply 
shortages. We needed to know what steps DOE is taking to 
encourage more U.S. energy production to be able to reduce our 
growing reliance on foreign oil. And as we all know, the U.S. 
was a net energy exporter in 2019, but since President Biden 
took office, we are now relying on Russia and Middle East for 
energy imports, not the right trend.
    We also need to know what Federal policies might be causing 
or contributing to energy price increases. I suspect that the 
cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and moratorium on 
drilling on Federal lands and offshore waters may have played a 
role.
    Congress should also understand how proposed environmental 
regulations and policies like the push for economywide net-zero 
greenhouse gas emissions will impact energy bills. We also need 
to look before we leap. And we need to gather those facts.
    We should also be studying the energy crisis in Europe and 
the impact that it is having on global energy markets and 
prices. Europe is that big on offshore wind, and the track 
record is not particularly good. The world read the headlines. 
In September, the winds in the North Sea stopped blowing, 
forcing regional energy markets to scramble for natural gas to 
heat homes and power businesses.
    Russia, energy's largest supplier of gas, seems to be the 
biggest winner. And ironically, Europe is burning more coal due 
to the high gas prices. Here in the U.S., we only have seven 
offshore wind turbines. We have talked a lot about that over 
the years, we have seven. One commercial project off Rhode 
Island that has been plagued with maintenance and operational 
difficulties and one small pilot project off the Coast of 
Virginia.
    Biden administration plans more than 3,000 new offshore 
turbines by 2030, not too far away. But it is very difficult to 
imagine that any projects are going to be get built without 
substantial taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, and of course we 
have the questions of permitting. Where is the streamlining on 
permitting to get 3,000 new offshore turbines in just a short 
period of time?
    Offshore wind faces serious obstacles, including those 
related to poor economics, operating reliability in harsh 
conditions, onshore and offshore permitting challenge, negative 
environment and fishery impacts, workforce and labor issues, 
marine traffic and shipping, concerns expressed by the 
Department of Defense. The list goes on and on.
    While I am optimistic that technological innovation and 
American ingenuity will bring advances in the offshore wind 
era, I believe this committee should be focused on ways to 
lower energy prices for consumers across the board in the near-
term.
    With that, I look forward to today's testimony and yield 
back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, to our witnesses, 
for appearing before us today. A special welcome to the 
Honorable Mr. Menezes, the former Deputy Secretary of Energy 
and a former Energy and Commerce Chief Counsel for energy and 
environment. It's good to have you back.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm troubled by the topic of today's hearing. 
As you know, we are in an energy crisis right now, which is 
what I believe this Committee should be focused on. The price 
of gasoline and many energy commodities are at 7-year highs. 
The average price of gasoline in my home state of Michigan is 
$3.30--almost double what it cost last year.
    Compared with last winter's heating costs, the Department 
of Energy forecasts U.S. households will spend 54% more for 
propane, 43% more for heating oil, 30% more for natural gas, 
and 6% more for electricity to heat their homes.
    Last week, Republican Members of the Committee sent a 
letter to DOE Secretary Granholm to understand what specific 
actions DOE is taking to address energy prices and supply 
shortages.
    We need to know what steps DOE is taking to encourage more 
U.S. energy production and reduce our growing reliance on 
foreign oil. As we all know, the U.S. was a net energy exporter 
in 2019, but since President Biden took office, we are back to 
relying on Russia and the Middle East for energy imports.
    We also need to know which Federal policies may be causing 
or contributing to energy price increases. I suspect the 
cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and the moratorium on 
drilling on Federal lands and offshore waters has played a 
role.
    Congress should also understand how proposed environmental 
regulations and policies--like the push for economy-wide net-
zero greenhouse gas emissions--will impact consumer's energy 
bills. We must look before we leap and gather those facts.
    We should be studying the energy crisis in Europe and the 
impact it is having on global energy markets and prices.
    Europe bet big on offshore wind, and the track record is 
not good. The world read the headlines: in September, the winds 
in the North Sea stopped blowing, forcing regional energy 
markets to scramble for natural gas to heat homes and power 
businesses. Russia--Europe's largest supplier of gas--seems to 
be the biggest winner, and ironically, Europe is burning more 
coal due to the high gas prices.
    Here in the U.S., we only have seven offshore wind 
turbines. One commercial project off Rhode Island that has been 
plagued with maintenance and operational difficulties, and one 
small pilot project off the coast of Virginia.
    The Biden Administration plans more than 3,000 new offshore 
turbines by 2030, but it is very difficult to imagine that any 
projects will get built without substantial tax-payer and rate-
payer subsidies.
    Offshore wind faces serious obstacles--including those 
related to poor economics, operating reliably in harsh 
conditions, onshore and offshore permitting challenges, 
negative environmental and fishery impacts, workforce and labor 
issues, marine traffic and shipping, and concerns expressed by 
the Department of Defense. The list goes on and on.
    While I am optimistic that technological innovation and 
American ingenuity will bring advances in offshore wind, I 
believe this Committee should focused on ways to lower energy 
prices for consumers in the near-term.
    With that, I look forward to today's testimony and hearing 
from Mr. Menezes on ways Congress can address the current 
energy crisis.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time.
    The chairman now recognizes the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Today we are going 
to discuss the growing potential of the offshore wind industry 
to power American homes with clean energy. The industry's 
growth also provides us a real opportunity to revitalize 
manufacturing in poor communities throughout the Nation.
    This hearing is not only important but timely. Early this 
year, President Biden restored American leadership in the fight 
against the climate crisis by announcing an ambitious goal of 
deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. 
Achieving this goal will provide clean power to 10 million 
American households and avoid 78 million metric tons of carbon 
emissions.
    This is not only critical to our efforts to combat the 
climate crisis, but it would also mean major investments, 
domestic manufacturing and supply chains, including U.S. flag 
shipping and shipbuilding. These investments would help create 
tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for blue-collar workers.
    In fact, communities across the Nation are already seeing 
the incredible benefits of investing in offshore wind, and 
nowhere is that truer than in my home State of New Jersey. Just 
this year, New Jersey has spurred development of more than 
2,600 megawatts of offshore wind capacity. Our State is also 
constructing the first purpose-built wind port in the Nation, 
bringing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of 
investment to the Garden State.
    But to be clear, the economic benefits of offshore wind 
won't just accrue on the Coast, they will impact communities 
across the country. A study released last week estimated that 
achieving the Biden administration's offshore wind goals would 
generate 109 billion in economic activity. Additionally, the 
Business Network for Offshore Wind has identified more than 600 
domestic supply contracts for offshore wind components to be 
built by companies throughout the United States.
    Offshore wind also holds significant promise for American 
workers. Achieving the Biden administration's goals will 
support 80,000 jobs by 2030, including good-paying union jobs 
in construction, steel fabrication, welding, and many other 
fields. But we we need to make sure that the rising tide of 
offshore wind lifts all boats.
    So I look forward to hearing how workforce development 
efforts can ensure that local and disadvantaged communities 
reap the benefits of development. And I know this has been a 
major concern of Chairman Rush.
    The offshore wind industry has great potential for growth, 
and that is particularly important in a rapidly changing world 
where fossil fuels are increasingly unreliable and subject to 
huge price swings. We witnessed this from a global volatility 
of oil and gas prices, from the unreliability of gas during the 
Texas winter storm, from the hack of the Colonial oil pipeline 
and others.
    Doubling down on existing fossil fuel infrastructure makes 
little sense, in my opinion. We must invest in mechanisms that 
reliably bring energy to consumers. And that is why I am proud 
that the Build Back Better Act passed by this committee last 
month included significant funding for transmission, including 
for offshore wind.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the 
measures the Federal Government can take to ensure we build a 
backbone transmission system capable of delivering reliable 
offshore wind energy to American households and businesses.
    Rapidly expanding offshore wind will be critical to 
decarbonizing the power sector. I am excited about the progress 
in New Jersey and other States in the Northeast. And I hope 
that some momentum will spread to other offshore areas 
throughout the country. We can't rely on existing trends or 
wishful thinking to get us to net-zero electricity sector 
emissions. And that is why the investments in the Build Back 
Better Act are so critical in our efforts to tackle the 
climate.
    I want to welcome all four of our witnesses here today, 
including--although I can't really see you, Heather. Lisa is in 
the way. We love Lisa, so that is OK. But Heather Zichal was my 
environmental legislative assistant and then legislative 
director--it says in my notes about 20 years ago--before she 
moved over to the Senate.
    I didn't really want to read that part, Heather, because 
that shows that you and I have been around here for a while, 
but whatever. She then served as a senior adviser to President 
Obama and is now the CEO of the American Clean Power 
Association. So welcome, in particular, Heather.
    I look forward to our overall discussion today, Mr. 
Chairman, and yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today we are going to discuss the growing potential of the 
offshore wind industry to power American homes with clean 
energy. The industry's growth also provides us a real 
opportunity to revitalize manufacturing and port communities 
throughout the nation.
    This hearing is not only important, but timely. Earlier 
this year, President Biden restored American leadership in the 
fight against the climate crisis by announcing an ambitious 
goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 
2030. Achieving this goal will provide clean power to ten 
million American households and avoid 78 million metric tons of 
carbon emissions.
    This is not only critical to our efforts to combat the 
climate crisis, but it would also mean major investments in 
domestic manufacturing and supply chains, including U.S.-
flagged shipping and ship building. These investments would 
help create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for blue 
collar workers.
    In fact, communities across the nation are already seeing 
the incredible benefits of investing in offshore wind, and 
nowhere is that truer than in my home state of New Jersey. Just 
this year, New Jersey has spurred development of more than 
2,600 megawatts of offshore wind capacity. Our state is also 
constructing the first purpose-built Wind Port in the nation, 
bringing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in 
investment to the Garden State.
    But to be clear, the economic benefits of offshore wind 
won't just accrue on the coasts, they will impact communities 
across the country. A study released last week estimated that 
achieving the Biden Administration's offshore wind goals would 
generate $109 billion in economic activity. Additionally, the 
Business Network for Offshore Wind has identified more than 600 
domestic supply contracts for offshore wind components to be 
built by companies throughout the United States.
    Offshore wind also holds significant promise for American 
workers. Achieving the Biden Administration's goals will 
support 80,000 jobs by 2030, including good paying union jobs 
in construction, steel fabrication, welding, and many other 
fields. But we need to make sure that the rising tide of 
offshore wind lifts all boats, so I look forward to hearing how 
workforce development efforts can ensure that local and 
disadvantaged communities reap the benefits of development.
    The offshore wind industry has great potential for growth, 
and that's particularly important in a rapidly changing world 
where fossil fuels are increasingly unreliable and subject to 
huge price swings. We've witnessed this from the global 
volatility of oil and gas prices, from the unreliability of gas 
during the Texas Winter storm, and from the hack of the 
Colonial oil pipeline. Doubling down on existing fossil fuel 
infrastructure makes little sense. We must invest in mechanisms 
that reliably bring energy to consumers.
    That is why I am proud that the Build Back Better Act 
passed by this Committee last month included significant 
funding for transmission, including for offshore wind. I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses about the measures the 
federal government can take to ensure we build a backbone 
transmission system capable of delivering reliable offshore 
wind energy to American households and businesses.
    Rapidly expanding offshore wind will be critical to 
decarbonizing the power sector. I am excited about the progress 
in New Jersey and other states in the Northeast, and I hope 
that same momentum can spread to other offshore areas 
throughout the country. We cannot rely on existing trends or 
wishful thinking to get us to net-zero electricity sector 
emissions, and that's why the investments in the Build Back 
Better Act are so critical in our efforts to tackle the climate 
crisis.
    I welcome all four of our witnesses here today, including a 
former member of my staff. Heather Zichal was my environmental 
legislative assistant and then legislative director about 20 
years ago before she moved over to the Senate. She then served 
as a senior advisor to President Obama and is now the CEO of 
the American Clean Power Association. Welcome back, Heather.
    I look forward to our overall discussion today.

    Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington 
State, the ranking member of the full committee, Mrs. McMorris 
Rodgers, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 
statement.

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

    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. Good morning.
    Mrs. Rodgers. We are going to be talking about the state of 
offshore wind energy. We should take a hard look first at what 
is happening right now with energy crises. Just yesterday I 
filled up with gas in Spokane: $3.59 a gallon. Ouch.
    The worry and the discussion about rising costs is 
happening around every kitchen table in America today. It is 
our job on this committee to make sure that people have access 
to reliable and affordable energy to heat their homes, drive 
their cars, run their businesses. Unfortunately today, this 
committee is ignoring the real energy crisis in front of us. 
Around the world over the past month, post-COVID economic 
forces and a radical agenda for the Green New Deal are driving 
up energy costs.
    In the United Kingdom, where they are betting heavily on 
offshore wind, a sudden loss of wind for electricity generation 
helped spike natural gas prices to record levels in September.
    Increasing energy and power costs rippling through 
economies of the U.K. and Europe. And it has raised the cost 
for goods and services, especially household energy, just in 
time for winter months. What is happening in Europe should 
provide a powerful reminder of the dangers of both tight fuel 
supplies, dependency on Russia, and weather-dependent energy. 
These reckless policies hurt people's health and welfare. U.S. 
households are not escaping this energy crisis.
    Committee Republicans reminded the Secretary of Energy just 
last week that, over the past year and a half, retail gasoline 
prices have almost doubled. Natural gas prices have almost 
tripled, electric rates continue to increase, and propane 
prices, so critical for many households, have skyrocketed by 
552 percent. Meanwhile, the President and his Cabinet prepares 
to jet off to the Glasgow Climate Conference with celebrities.
    The Energy Information Administration forecasts that 
households will pay significantly more this winter as energy 
and power prices continue to rise. Families are already being 
stretched thin by the inflation crisis. What will they do when 
there are 746 heating and natural gas bills pile up this 
winter?
    These are Biden's bills for keeping natural gas in the 
ground and lurching to unreliable energy sources like wind that 
aren't affordable for families. Unaffordable energy costs from 
global supply chain disruptions and COVID-related demand shocks 
have only been accelerated by the anti-fossil-fuel agenda of 
this administration despite technology for carbon capture and 
sequestration, including the President's decision to cancel the 
Keystone and issue a moratorium on exploration and development 
on Federal Lands while calling OPEC to ask them to increase 
production. How does this make any sense?
    And it is not just the high prices that harm working 
families and our prosperity. Electricity reliability is also 
jeopardized, as people in California and Texas are painfully 
aware. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation is 
reporting that increasing risk of brownouts, not just in 
California or Texas but the Midwest and New England. In short, 
an electricity reliability crisis is unfolding across this 
country.
    And much of this can be traced to the environmental and 
Federal regulatory policies, from renewable energy standards to 
electricity market regulatory structures, that drive out 
traditional base load.
    All of this should focus our attention on what really 
matters, what is necessary to ensure affordable, reliable power 
for hard-working families and communities now and in the 
future. What can we do about the current energy crisis? And how 
will this radical agenda to take over our electricity grid and 
rush renewable energy hurt prices, security, and reliability? 
That should be central to our questions today.
    We must reset our energy discussions to focus on the very 
real affordability and reliability crises that are confronting 
people, especially middle-class Americans.
    To be sure, we should try to understand the 
administration's agenda to accelerate the build out of offshore 
wind generation. The pace and scale of these plans promise 
industrial development, but they raise many practical questions 
about affordability and reliability. Let's learn from Europe, 
not copy its failures.
    So I welcome the witnesses. I would like to welcome 
especially Mark Menezes, the former Deputy Secretary of Energy, 
an alumni of this staff. I am sure that he can help us explore 
the really pressing issues that people care about and put into 
context what is necessary to ensure affordable, reliable energy 
today and an innovative and prosperous future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    If we are going to talk about future of offshore wind 
energy, we should first take a hard look at what is happening 
now with energy prices.
    The worry and discussion about rising costs is happening 
around every kitchen table in American today.
    It's our job on this Committee to make sure that people 
have access to reliable and affordable energy to heat their 
homes, drive their cars, and run their businesses.
    Let's not use this hearing to distract us from the very 
real energy crisis in front of us.
    Across the world over the past month, post-COVID economic 
forces and a radical agenda for the Green New Deal are driving 
up energy costs.
    In the United Kingdom--where they are betting heavily on 
offshore wind--a sudden loss of wind for electricity generation 
helped spike natural gas prices to record levels in September.
    Increasing energy and power prices rippling through 
economies of the UK and Europe.... And it's raised the costs 
for goods and services, especially household energy-just in 
time for winter months
    What's happening in Europe should provide a powerful 
reminder of the dangers of both tight fuel supplies, dependency 
on Russia, and weather-dependent energy. These reckless 
policies hurt peoples' health and welfare.
    U.S. households are not escaping this energy crisis.
    Committee Republican's reminded the Secretary of Energy 
last week that over the past year-and-a-half:
     retail gasoline prices have almost doubled,
     natural gas prices have almost tripled,
     electric rates continue to increase,
     and propane prices--so critical for many 
households--have skyrocketed by 552 percent.
    Meanwhile, as the President and his Cabinet prepares to jet 
off to the Glasgow climate conference with celebrities, the 
Energy Information Administration forecasts that households 
will pay significantly more this winter as energy and power 
prices continue to rise.
    Families are already being stretched thin by Biden's 
inflation crisis.
    What will they do when their $746 heating and natural gas 
bills pile up this winter?
    These are Biden's bills for keeping natural gas in the 
ground and lurching to unreliable energy sources like wind that 
aren't affordable for families.
    Unaffordable energy costs from global supply chain 
disruptions and Covid-related demand shocks have only been 
accelerated by the perpetual anti-fossil-fuel agenda of this 
Administration, including the President's decision to cancel 
Keystone and issue a moratorium on federal drilling.
    And it is not just high prices that harm working families 
and our prosperity.
    Electricity reliability problems are a growing concern, as 
people in California and Texas are painfully aware.
    The North American Electric Reliability Corporation is 
reporting the increasing risks of brownouts, not only in 
California or Texas, but the Midwest and New England if there 
is a harsh spike in demand.
    In short, an electricity reliability crisis is unfolding 
across large regions of the country.
    And much of this can be traced to state environmental and 
federal regulatory policies...
    ...from renewable energy standards to electricity market 
regulatory structures that drive out traditional baseload 
generation assets.
    All of this should focus our attention on what really 
matters, which is: what is necessary to ensure affordable, 
reliable power for hard working families and communities now, 
and in the future?
    What can we do about the current energy crises?
    ...and how will the Democrat's radical agenda to take over 
our electricity grid and rush renewable energy hurt prices, 
security, and reliability?
    These should be central to our questions today.
    We must reset our energy discussions to focus on the very 
real affordability and reliability crises that are confronting 
people, especially the middle class, today.
    To be sure, we should try to understand the Biden 
Administration's agenda to accelerate the build out of offshore 
wind generation.
    The unprecedented pace and scale of these plans promise 
industrial development, but also raise many practical questions 
about affordable, reliable power.
    We should be learning from Europe, not copy its failures.
    So, I welcome the witnesses. And I'd like to welcome 
especially Mark Menezes, former Deputy Secretary of Energy, and 
alumni of this Committee's staff.
    Given his experience, I'm sure he can help us explore the 
really pressing issues people care about and put into context 
what is necessary to ensure affordable, reliable energy today 
and an innovative and prosperous future.

    Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind all the Members on the 
subcommittee that, pursuant to the committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the 
record.
    And now it is my honor and my privilege and my pleasure to 
welcome our witnesses for this morning's hearing.
    As was stated earlier, Ms. Heather Zichal, a former staff 
member of the committee, and who is currently the chief 
executive officer of the American Clean Power Association.
    Along with her is Mr. David Hardy, who is the chief 
executive officer of Ørsted Offshore North America.
    Along with both of them is Mr. James Strong, who is the 
assistant to the director of District 8, United Steel, Paper 
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial 
and Service Workers International Union.
    And last but not least, the honorable Mark Menezes, who is 
the former staff member, and also the forme Deputy Secretary of 
Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.
    I want to welcome each of our witnesses and thank you for 
joining us here today, and we look forward to your testimony.
    At this time, the Chair will recognize each witness for 5 
minutes to provide an opening statement. But before we begin, I 
would like to explain the lighting system for witnesses 
testifying in person.
    In front of our witnesses there is a series of lights. The 
lights will be initially green. The light will turn yellow when 
you have 1 minute remaining. Please begin to wrap up your 
testimony at that point. The light will turn red when your time 
expires.
    With that said, Mr. Zichal, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes for your opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF HEATHER ZICHAL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN 
CLEAN POWER ASSOCIATION; DAVID HARDY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
 ORSTED OFFSHORE NORTH AMERICA; JAMES STRONG, ASSISTANT TO THE 
DIRECTOR, DISTRICT 8, UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, 
 MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS 
    INTERNATIONAL UNION; AND MARK W. MENEZES, FORMER DEPUTY 
                SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                  STATEMENT OF HEATHER ZICHAL

    Ms. Zichal. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, 
members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Energy, thank you for the invitation to testify at today's 
hearing. My name is Heather Zichal, and I am the CEO of the 
American Clean Power Association, a national trade association 
that unites the power of offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, 
storage, and transmission companies.
    While the U.S. industry is in its infancy, with 42 
megawatts of offshore wind currently deployed, the global 
offshore wind industry is booming, with 34,000 megawatts in 
Europe, U.K., and Asia.
    As U.S. market grows, ACP and our member companies are 
committed to growing a domestic supply chain. The 
administration's goal to deploy 30 gigawatts by 2030 as well as 
additional State goals are jump starting this industry and will 
create up to 83,000 jobs and $25 billion in annual economic 
output.
    The Vineyard Wind project will be the first commercial-
scale project in the United States and has already completed 
two major milestones this year, receiving the final Federal 
permits and reaching financial close. There are 13 other 
offshore wind construction and operation plans, or COPs, in the 
permitting pipeline. And BOEM has promised to review at least 
16 of those by 2025.
    Last week, Interior Secretary Haaland announced plans for 
up to seven new lease sales by 2025 in the Gulf of Maine, New 
York Bight, Central Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Carolinas, 
California, and Oregon. These commitments to reviewing COPs and 
new leases and long-term followthrough will provide the 
certainty needed to build a successful new offshore wind 
industry here in the United States.
    Currently, the offshore wind industry is investing millions 
of dollars in a domestic supply chain. Equinor is investing in 
the first offshore wind tower and transition piece 
manufacturing facility in New York's port of Albany. 
Ørsted and Eversources selected Kiewit Offshore Services 
in Texas to design and build the South Fork project substation.
    Dominion Energy is investing $500 million to build the 
first U.S. flag offshore wind turbine installation vessel in 
Brownsville, Texas, with 10,000 tons of steel sourced from West 
Virginia and Alabama. Atlantic Shores signed a labor agreement 
with six different unions for workforce training in New Jersey. 
Nexans is opening a new offshore wind subsea cable 
manufacturing plant in South Carolina.
    These investments will only continue to grow as projects 
are permitted and construction begins.
    Additional policy levers can help drive an even greater 
degree of domestic offshore wind manufacturing on a more 
ambitious timeline. Congress can help spur these investments 
with policies like ACP-backed legislation from Senator Markey 
that would create offshore wind manufacturing tax credits for 
turbine components and vessels. And we hope to see companion 
legislation introduced in the House soon.
    Integrating offshore wind into our electric system will 
require coordination between Federal agencies, States, 
utilities, developers, and grid operators. These groups 
collectively have the skills, knowledge, and experience to 
successfully integrate offshore wind, but we need to be sure we 
are looking ahead, because transmission takes time to develop.
    The wind industry looks forward to working collaboratively 
with this committee and all of the relevant actors to make sure 
that we are planning for the infrastructure we need to bring 
low-cost offshore wind to customers.
    The FERC, Department of Energy, BOEM, the States, and 
regional grid operators must coordinate to ensure that 
transmission planning accounts for at least 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind. In many cases, offshore wind projects will 
interconnect to the electric grid where other sources have 
retired, providing a clean and reliable replacement energy 
source. In other cases, new or upgraded transmission will be 
needed.
    Initial offshore wind projects will connect to the grid 
using individual radio transmission lines. But sustaining the 
long-term growth of offshore wind will require a coordinated 
approach to transmission that spans multiple lease areas, 
States, and regions.
    Forward-thinking transmission planning will help to expand 
the market for offshore wind more quickly and benefit the 
supply chain. Some early-stage transmission plaining is taking 
place, but multistate and multiagency planning is necessary to 
ensure that we have the onshore and offshore infrastructure to 
meet the 30 gigawatt goal.
    As such, FERC has commenced a review of its transmission 
planning, cost allocation, and interconnection rules that would 
help to spur proactive transmission development, including 
transmission for offshore wind. New Jersey and PJM are working 
together on transmission proposals specifically to integrate 
7.5 gigawatts of offshore wind. ACP also supports the 
committee's budget reconciliation language that includes 
funding for a number of crucial programs along these lines.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify during this 
historic time for the offshore wind energy. And I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Zichal follows:]
   
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. And please accept my sincere apologies 
for saying you are Mr. rather than Ms. Please accept my 
heartfelt apologies.
    I want to now recognize Mr. Hardy for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.
    Mr. Hardy, you are recognized.

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID HARDY

    Mr. Hardy. Good morning, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Rush, 
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and Ranking Member Upton, and 
members of this committee. Thank you for the invitation to 
speak with you today. My name is David Hardy, and I am the CE0 
of Ørsted Offshore North America.
    Ørsted is a global leader in offshore wind energy, 
with approximately 8,000 megawatts of installed capacity 
globally. While today's hearing is focused on offshore wind, it 
is important to note that Ørsted is also a global leader 
in onshore wind, solar, energy storage, and green hydrogen.
    While once a fossil-fuel-intensive oil and gas company, 
today we have transitioned to a 100 percent clean energy 
company. Although we have this global experience, at our core 
we are a local company rooted in the communities we serve.
    In the U.S., Ørsted is the leading offshore wind 
energy company currently developing offshore wind farms 
totaling more than 4,000 megawatts and powering millions of 
homes in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and 
Maryland. We have been involved in one way or another with all 
seven of the current operating offshore wind turbines in the 
U.S., installing the first two turbines in Federal waters off 
the cost of Virginia last year and owning and operating the 
five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island.
    While our offshore wind projects obviously being built 
along the Coast lines, I would like to highlight how offshore 
energy creates economic opportunity in communities across the 
country.
    One of the challenges facing the U.S. wind industry is the 
capacity of and expertise within the supply chain. 
Ørsted has a two-pronged approach to help solve this 
challenge. This includes, first, building U.S. capability with 
existing American companies, and second, attracting European 
firms to build facilities here in the U.S., thus creating 
foreign direct investment in new American jobs.
    Here are some examples of how we are helping to build 
capacity and capability within U.S. companies. First, in the 
area of offshore substation, we have partnered with Kiewit, a 
company based out of Nebraska, to build the first American-made 
offshore wind substation. Kiewit will leverage its oil and gas 
experience to produce this important piece of infrastructure in 
Texas.
    Next, in the area of vessels, earlier this summer I was in 
Minority Whip Scalise's district to meet with Edison Chouest 
Offshore, a Louisiana company that will build America's first 
service operation vessel, or SOV. This is an $80 million vessel 
that is 260 feet long.
    In June, I joined Congressman McKinley, Senator Manchin, 
and Secretary Granholm in West Virginia to celebrate the lease 
that we signed to charter for the first U.S.-built offshore 
wind turbine installation vessel. This $500 million vessel will 
be built in Texas.
    U.S. steel manufacturers in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, 
Alabama, and West Virginia will supply the steel for these two 
vessels, and Caterpillar in Illinois will produce the engines 
to power our SOV.
    Last in the area of foundation components, I attended an 
event just 2 weeks ago with Congressman Tonko to announce an 
$86 million investment for Riggs Distler and Ljungstrom Steel 
Fabricators to make steel components in western New York for 
turbine foundations. And in Maryland we are investing $70 
million into Crystal Steel, a minority-owned company, to do 
similar work.
    Now I would like to share some examples of how we are 
working with global partners to build U.S. facilities and 
create American jobs. First, in the area of undersea submarine 
cables, we partnered with Nexans, a French global leader in 
submarine export cables, to expand their capability in their 
South Carolina facility.
    And as part of our current bid in Maryland, we have 
partnered with Hellenic Cables, a Greek company, to open a 
factory in the Baltimore area and produce the first American-
made offshore wind submarine array cables there.
    Additionally, we have also attracted EEW, a German offshore 
wind foundation manufacturer, to open the world's most advanced 
monopile manufacturing facility in Paulsboro, New Jersey. This 
investment includes six large buildings to make the 400-foot-
long and 40-foot-in-diameter monopile foundation.
    As you can see, there is already significant economic 
activity happening across the country. Even as a new U.S. 
industry, our supply chain today already includes companies and 
employees from every State represented on this subcommittee.
    In closing, I would like to emphasize one more important 
point. That is, Europe has a had several decades to build the 
infrastructure needed to support a mature offshore wind 
industry. And although we are making considerable progress in 
building the U.S. supply chain, it remains a challenge that 
needs regulatory certainty and incentive if we want to achieve 
30 gigawatts by 2030 and realize our full potential.
    It is an exciting but critical time for U.S. offshore wind 
energy, an industry that will both reduce the impacts of 
climate change as well as create jobs across America.
    Thank you for your interest. And I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Strong for 5 minutes for the 
purpose an opening statement.
    Mr. Strong, you are recognized.

                   STATEMENT OF JAMES STRONG

    Mr. Strong. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 
Upton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 
invitation to testify today. My name is Jim Strong. I am here 
on behalf of the United Steelworkers Union because wind shore 
wind lends tremendous opportunities to workers in 
manufacturing.
    In my testimony, I want to make three points. Number one, 
most of the potential for job growth from offshore wind is in 
the manufacturing supply chain.
    Number two, manufacturing offshore wind can significantly 
benefit deindustrialized and economically disadvantaged 
communities across the country.
    And number three, partnerships are critical for workforce 
training.
    Our union appreciates the Biden administration goal of 
achieving 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. To meet this, 
the U.S. will require massive production and purchase of 
materials for these products, including nacelles, blades, 
towers, foundation, and subsea cables. The manufacturing of 
this products will create the demand for raw, and intermediate 
products, as well as finished goods. The difference between the 
modest domestic content and high domestic content means a new 
doubling of the job creation [inaudible] For wind energy. These 
jobs will not be isolated on the Coast. For example, steel 
plate is made in the United States in Indiana, Pennsylvania, 
and Kentucky.
    The Jones Act compliant vessels commissioned by Dominion is 
being built in Texas with steel from Alabama and West Virginia. 
And existing American technology from the offshore oil and gas 
industry, common in the Gulf Coast States, has potential for 
offshore wind as well.
    In order for this new industry to thrive and create jobs, 
it must make long-term commitments to domestic sourcing and 
domestic supply chains. Manufacturers can make investments, 
including by taking advantage of Federal programs like loans 
and tax credits. But those will not make a difference if 
manufacturers cannot be confident that they will have 
customers. Congress, the administration, and the States will 
need to align policies to make sure our supply chain grows.
    Manufacturing for offshore wind can benefit communities 
across the country by bringing back high quality jobs. One 
potential success story is nearby in Baltimore where I live. 
Baltimore and its inner suburbs were once home to vast 
industrial facilities, with nearly one-third of the labor force 
working in manufacturing in 1970.
    Now, less than 10 percent have manufacturing jobs. This has 
left Baltimore residents, particularly in communities of color, 
with access to only low-paying service sector jobs. Our union 
was proud to announce an agreement with offshore wind developer 
US Wind this summer in Maryland.
    Bethlehem Steel in Sparrows Point was an important part of 
our Nation's history that once employed tens of thousands of 
workers. US Winds intends to open a new facility called 
Sparrows Point Steel on the site of the former steel mill that 
will manufacture monopile foundations, first for its own 
projects and then later for other customers.
    The company anticipates that there will be 500 permanent 
manufacturing jobs at the facility, once again bringing people 
into that sacred site to work with steel. Our union will work 
with the company to recruit and train local workers, ensuring 
that the surrounding communities share in the benefits of this 
investment.
    The new jobs created invariably elsewhere will require both 
new and common skills. When I was younger, I went to vocational 
school in the Baltimore area as did many of my peers. There 
were good, union manufacturing jobs in our community at the 
time. However, now fewer students attend vocation school and 
employers invest much less in training.
    The ideal modern workforce training partnerships of today 
are those under collective bargaining agreements where training 
is site specific and tailored to the needs of the employer, the 
workforce, and the company or community.
    Importantly, policymakers and partnerships should help 
ensure that public investment and workforce training feed 
trainees into actual employment. Offshore wind has the 
potential for economic and environmental benefits across the 
country. However, they will only occur if the industry develops 
responsibly.
    Our union looks forward to working with Congress to ensure 
that the supply chain is developed and that economic benefit 
from the industry reached communities across the country, and 
that the workforce is trained.
    Again, I want to thank you again for this opportunity to 
testify on this issue.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Strong follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. Mr. Strong.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Menezes for 5 minutes for the 
purpose of an opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF MARK W. MENEZES

    Mr. Menezes. Thank you, Chairmen Pallone, Rush, Ranking 
Member McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Upton, and members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify this 
morning. I am Mark Menezes. I will be speaking as a private 
citizen, not in any official capacity, and my testimony is my 
own. I ask that my written statement be entered and printed 
into the record.
    Before I get to offshore wind, I too think it important to 
note that energy and commodity prices are at their highest in 
years. The cost of crude, gasoline, natural gas, even propane 
have increased dramatically over the past several months. 
Consumers are paying higher costs than they have grown 
accustomed to since the U.S. shale revolution and when the U.S. 
became the leader in oil and gas production.
    Offshore wind will provide electricity to consumers. But 
until our transportation and industrial sectors electrify, 
consumers will expect to be able to get energy when they need 
it at affordable prices.
    So what is not to like about offshore wind? Winds offshore 
are abundant, stronger, more consistent, more sustainable than 
onshore winds, they are off coast lines where populations are 
located. Since offshore and undersea, it appears that planning 
and citing is less complicated than onshore wind projects.
    Things aren't always as they appear. Offshore wind is very 
difficult to cite, build, connect, and estimate actual cost. 
One only has to utter Cape Wind to cause pause in this 
enthusiasm. When this committee faced the controversial 
project, we met with Danish officials who told us the answer 
was munis and co-ops. That is right, they had to require local 
ownership to gain acceptance. I am not sure that is a solution 
here.
    A lot has been done to foster offshore wind. At the 
Department we created and funded the Offshore Wind Consortium, 
comprised of all stakeholders, selected a State authority to 
lead it. We had regular briefings from developers and planners. 
We released the Offshore Wind Market Report. We engaged our 
National Labs to model and solve technical issues. We analyzed 
the environmental-inciting challenges. We even had a blog.
    We also looked at costs. Our offices and labs modeled the 
costs of certain offshore wind projects using state-of-the-art 
technologies. The results appeared promising. But others now 
challenge both the estimated cost to plan projects and the 
actual cost of existing projects, and that consumer costs are 
actually higher. Costs of the proposed projects off New York's 
coast goes up and down our eastern seaboard have been 
questioned. And still others now question the true cost in 
Europe, particularly in U.K., where offshore wind has been 
operating for years. So consumer costs are an issue you should 
be aware of.
    And as you know, there are Jones Act and FERC issues. We 
had interagency meetings on the Jones Act, and FERC initiated a 
technical conference to examine its offshore transmission 
policies.
    Well, what can Congress do? Well, in 2005, Congress gave 
lead authority to the Department of the Interior over all 
offshore energy projects, including wind, except in the Great 
Lakes, as you will recall, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Upton. And Congress has sought to address the complicated 
Federal, State, and local regulatory processes before. Perhaps 
a CZMA should be looked at. But that is likely outside of this 
committee's jurisdiction. But even then, States can ban 
offshore wind off their coast in State waters.
    In July we saw what happened in Maine. A supportive 
Governor signed a bill banning offshore wind in State waters. 
One can say they still support offshore wind, but in my view 
States banning offshore wind doesn't make it easier, or 
efficient, or less expensive to consumers if you have site and 
operate projects in Federal waters. And even if we are able to 
overcome all the issues involved, we saw what happened in the 
North Sea just about a month ago when the wind stopped blowing. 
Grid operators turned to natural gas and coal to keep the grid 
operating.
    The cost of natural gas is at an all-time high. A retired 
coal plant shuttered due to anti-fossil policies had to be 
restarted. At least two electricity suppliers went bankrupt. 
The only good news was that U.S. LNG exporters helped keep the 
lights on in the U.K.
    We have learned this lesson in the U.S. When our electric 
systems are stressed during cold winters and hot summers, grid 
operators turn to baseload power, natural gas, coal, nuclear, 
and oil because wind and solar cannot ramp up to meet increased 
demand.
    We saw this in the 2014 polar vortex when operations relied 
on coal. During the 2018 bomb cyclone in the East, operators 
relied on nuclear, increased coal and oil sources as plants 
switched to oil to meet increased demand. And for the past two 
summers, DOE issued emergency orders to California with its 
abundant wind and solar to run natural gas to meet high demand.
    Our system should be designed to provide power when 
consumers need it the most. For all the positives of offshore 
wind, until we have long-duration storage battery technology 
greater than 10 hours deployable at affordable costs, offshore 
wind will be a luxury to most Americans.
    Some predict that batteries will take the place of 
traditional power generation, while our current state of 
effective battery technology is 4 hours. It takes years to 
site, permit, and build. In California, a 4-hour, 350-megawatt 
battery storage project on a solar project scheduled to come 
online in 2022 has been under development for 7 years. Long 
duration energy storage, possibly the Holy Grail of grid 
storages, is still years away from demonstration and 
deployment.
    Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, offshore wind has great 
potential. It is not without its challenges. I respectfully 
suggest this committee might take time to consider other 
important measures, keep the U.S. leader of energy production 
at affordable cost to consumers to ensure a strong economy in 
our domestic security.
    In my written statement, I mention several bills pending in 
this subcommittee and why their passage will help achieve these 
goals.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my statement and look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:]
   
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. That indeed concludes the opening statements of 
our witnesses, and we will now move to Member questions. Each 
Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses. 
And I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for 
questioning of the witnesses.
    As I have been known and privileged as stated on many other 
occasions, I am indeed committed to ensuring that the offshore 
wind industry does not recreate the lack of diversity that is 
far too common other renewable energy industries.
    As an article in USA Today last month stated, and I quote, 
``women and Black workers are vastly underrepresented in the 
clean energy workforce.'' I would like to ask unanimous consent 
to enter into the record the article as well as the underlying 
study on diversity in the clean energy sector.
    And without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The letter appears at the conclusion of the hearing. The study 
is retained in committee files and is available at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20211021/114148/HHRG-117-IF03-20211021-
SD013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earlier this year, I introduce a bill to help address this 
very problem entitled the Blue Collar to Green Collar Jobs Act, 
which will create a program at DOE to improve education and 
training for jobs in the clean energy-related sector.
    And I look forward to working with my colleagues and to 
advance this bill, and to advance similar legislation in this 
Congress to ensure that workers have the skills that they need 
to thrive in these high-paying jobs.
    With that said, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Strong, what is 
Ørsted and the U.S. Steelworkers doing to recruit more 
minorities and women into the offshore wind industry? And what 
can Congress do to help increase the number of minorities and 
women seeking jobs in this sector?
    Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is a really important topic and something that I also 
feel quite passionate about. As a CEO of an American company 
here, I am constantly looking to try to make sure we have the 
best and the brightest from all parts of our society.
    At Ørsted, in North America we have about 400 
employees, and 40 percent of those employees are women. And we 
have a lot of actions to try to bring more minorities and 
disadvantaged folks into our industry--not just direct in our 
industry, but across the whole supply chain, as I previously 
announced. And our--which I haven't discussed, but we are in 
discussions with----
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Ørsted, Mr. Ørsted, do you have 
any specific programs that you can tell us about to bring 
minorities into Ørsted?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. I have two examples, sir. One is in our 
agreements that we are working on right now, the national 
offshore wind agreement with NAV 2. We are requiring the trade 
unions recruit through their apprentice programs or 
preapprentice programs people of all backgrounds.
    And secondly, we have got specific programs in some of our 
States to do training for environmental justice communities, 
and at least in the State of New Jersey we have $1.5 million 
scholarship for New Jersey Institute of Technology to try to 
recruit American people from disadvantaged communities.
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Hardy, my time is moving forward.
    Mr. Strong, can you answer this more specifically, 
specifics?
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    When we signed this relationship with US Wind going back a 
couple of years ago, that was a priority for us in our 
discussions on what their plans were as far as encouraging and 
bringing in minorities to help run this program. And I can tell 
you that, as a union, we support, you know, opportunities for 
everybody, minorities, women. It is an important foundation of 
our union.
    But regarding US Wind, when we had this discussion, US Wind 
I do know it has expanded its staff to they hired three 
individuals that have a background in working with the minority 
business enterprise. They specialize in outreach and ensuring 
that maximum participation of minority groups. I know 
businesses are a part of this development. I know that they 
have had outreach meeting with membership of the Maryland/
Washington Minority Companies Association. And they have also 
had communications and are working with the Governor's Office 
of Small, Minority and Women's Business Affairs.
    And sometime in the very near future, they are going to 
provide a briefing of these reports in moving forward and what 
their plans are working with minorities, businesses, women, and 
so forth, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. That concludes my time. My time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes. Mr. 
Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Five minutes goes by 
very fast.
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Upton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you. Thank you.
    Ms. Zichal, you mentioned that Europe has 34,000 megawatts, 
or the rest of the world, 34,000. We are at 42 megawatts. The 
goal is to get to 30,000 in this country within a number of 
years.
    Mr. Hardy, your bottom line was we need regulatory 
certainty. Do we have that today?
    Mr. Hardy. I think that we are seeing positive momentum in 
building confidence in this industry, which is bringing the 
supply chain investments that we have spoken about, the Biden 
administration's target of 30 gigawatts by 2030, BOEM's 
advancement of Federal permitting on the 15 or so projects that 
are bringing confidence. But these are large, expensive 
infrastructure projects that we need certainty, long-term 
certainty in order for us to invest and in order for the supply 
chain to make those investments.
    Mr. Upton. So I want to say virtually everybody here 
supports an all-of-the-above approach, which includes 
renewables, but what do we need to do legislatively to work 
with industry to make sure that we have regulatory certainty to 
try and achieve this goal that is out there? Ms. Zichal?
    Ms. Zichal. Thank you, Chairman Upton. I think you are 
asking a really important question. And certainly as 
representatives up here, we agree that, you know, we have got 
to advance all energy sources. We are committed to making sure 
we are looking at this energy transition energy through the 
lens of how do we do it in a way that is reliable and 
affordable.
    And I think as--we have regulatory certainty and 
predictability inasmuch as this administration and Department 
of the Interior are currently making timely decisions about 
permitting and leasing. We don't know that that is always going 
to be the case going forward.
    I think that there are some ways that we could find to work 
together that would allow for expedited processes. It is not to 
say the process today is broken. I think when you are standing 
up a new industry and a new permitting process for the first 
time in any country, you are going to find ways to improve that 
process.
    Mr. Upton. So how--I am sorry to interrupt. So how does the 
rest of the world get 34,000 megawatts and we are at 42? Do 
they have a shot clock? I mean, what do they do on the 
regulatory side that we are not?
    Ms. Zichal. Well, so I think we have a lot to learn from 
other countries, right? It is very clear, as you pointed out, 
globally we are looking at 34,000 megawatts versus 42 in this 
country. It has been a slow start. But the good news is I think 
we can catch up.
    I think we have seen from this administration a commitment 
to this 30,000 gigawatt goal, which is terrific. But I think at 
the same time, it is not as easy as installing one wind 
turbine, right?
    We have to think holistically about what we want to do with 
this industry. What does this mean in terms of the kind of jobs 
we are creating domestically? What percentage of the supply 
chain is coming from the United States versus other countries? 
How do we make sure that the transmission planning, which is a 
really long and complicated process, allows us to bring those 
30 gigawatts on?
    So I guess we could look at it and say the rest of the 
world is ahead of us, but I look at it and say we can learn a 
lot from what has worked and what hasn't.
    Mr. Upton. So let me ask you another question.
    I am going to ask unanimous consent to put into the record 
a letter addressed to Mr. Rush and myself from the Affordable 
Energy for New Jersey. It is a 3-page letter. We will put it 
into the record.
    We talk about we want to make it affordable. We do.
    Mr. Rush. So ordered.
    Mr. Upton. Yes, without--I would ask unanimous consent to 
stick--put this in the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Upton. And you already have a copy, as I do.
    But when you talk about you want to make this affordable, 
we all want that, particularly when we see these alarming 
energy costs that are going up. In this letter from the 
Affordable Energy for New Jersey, they talk about, currently, 
in 2035, the last year of the contract in New Jersey, it is 
going to be $470 per megawatt hour. By contrast, the average 
price for wholesale electricity in New England last year was 
about $31. So a difference of 15-fold.
    How does that make it affordable?
    Ms. Zichal. Well, I think, again, we just permitted the 
first project in the United States for offshore wind. And if 
you look at the lessons in the renewable energy sector, I am 
pretty optimistic. The cost of wind has come down 71 percent 
since 2009. Solar is down 90 percent. And offshore wind, yes, 
initially there is going to be, you know, a cost for doing 
something and being a first mover in the United States.
    But I also think what is interesting about many of the 
opening statements, we were focused on the fact that we have 
got rising energy--rising commodity costs for things like 
propane, heating oil, natural gas. The beauty of offshore wind 
is that the wind is free. We don't have to rely on these 
commodities that are subject to the whims of the global market. 
And I think over time what we have learned by looking at the 
European example is that costs have come down 43 percent. There 
is cost parity, and I am very optimistic that we as an industry 
can get there.
    Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired, but appreciate you--
--
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    You know, I just listened, obviously, to what Mr. Upton 
said, and, you know, I just want to say, like all new 
technologies, offshore wind didn't start cheap, but it is 
getting cheaper. And, in fact, offshore wind prices are already 
dropping each year, and NREL estimates further price decreases 
of up to 50 percent over the next few years. But keep in mind 
that, unlike offshore wind and renewables, the price of natural 
gas is skyrocketing. In fact, in more than 60 percent of the 
country, building new solar now is actually cheaper than 
running an existing coal plant. So, you know, it is all 
relative, in my opinion.
    But I wanted to get in at least two, maybe three questions. 
So, you know, I want to say I am very proud of New Jersey's 
leadership in developing a robust offshore wind industry in the 
United States, and Ørsted is playing a large role in 
achieving that vision, but it is important that in developing 
these projects Ørsted invests in New Jersey's workforce 
and local communities.
    So, Mr. Hardy, could you elaborate on Ørsted's plans 
to partner with local labor organizations and communities to 
ensure that New Jersey residents benefit from offshore wind 
development and, in particular, describe what actions 
Ørsted is taking to help shoreside communities?
    I know, for example, you are doing things in the Port of 
Newark and Elizabeth, but maybe a minute or so because I want 
to get to Ms. Zichal too.
    Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are also proud of 
our work that we are doing in New Jersey. I could spend a lot 
of time on New Jersey, but I will try to keep it short.
    I mean, building of this EEW monopile manufacturing 
facility, this is a huge factory. It will employ over a 
thousand workers for 3 years just building the factory, and 
then we will employ--all signed with local PLAs. And then 
workers in that factory will be 500 to 600 long-term workers 
building these monopile facilities, and that is just one 
example.
    We are investing in the wind port. We are opening an office 
in Newark for our industrial IoT, Internet of Things, 
headquarters. We are partnering with--we are building an O&M 
base on the New Jersey shore in the Atlantic City area. So just 
a lot of activities to create jobs in New Jersey and to invest 
in this industry there.
    Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
    Let me get to Ms. Zichal, or Heather. You identify in your 
testimony how constructing new transmission and upgrading 
existing onshore facilities to reliably deliver offshore wind 
energy to the onshore grid. You mentioned that. And we just 
passed in the committee provisions in the Build Back Better Act 
that direct the Department of Energy to plan for offshore wind 
transmission development and fund the significant expansion of 
the offshore wind transmission system.
    So I mention these steps, but what else can Congress or DOE 
or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission do to make sure we 
are proactively planning our transmission system to incorporate 
offshore wind?
    Ms. Zichal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your 
kind words in the introduction. It is a little strange for you 
to call me Ms. Zichal. But I appreciate your question.
    You know, embedded in your question is exactly what--how we 
need to be thinking about standing up offshore wind, because it 
is not--as I said earlier, it is not just about constructing 
the wind turbines, it is how do we actually bring that power 
onto the grid to power American homes and businesses.
    And, you know, we are very grateful for the collective 
actions that have been taken around the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill, because those transmission components are 
really critical for our industry overall.
    I would say additionally, you know, some examples of what 
additional planning efforts could include, I think the 
Department of Energy funding studies through the National Labs 
and providing technical support to States and grid operators is 
going to be a step in the right direction.
    And I also believe that between FERC and BOEM, they have a 
2009 memorandum of understanding to enhance their collaboration 
on offshore wind and transmission. I think, you know, updating 
that memorandum could be helpful. But at the end of the day, it 
really truly is about regulatory certainty and predictability 
in the permitting process so that, you know, we have got one 
permit done. We see the pipeline. We want to make sure that we 
are continuing to make timely decisions so that the industry 
can respond and we can then make the investments domestically 
that we want to do to grow the economy, create jobs, and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The chairman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mrs. McMorris 
Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Menezes, as you know from your time at the Department 
of Energy and on this committee, that our job is to oversee 
energy policy and ultimately make sure that people have 
affordable, reliable energy. In my opinion, we should be 
harnessing all of the benefits of our Nation's abundant energy 
resources, and our goal should be to do what is going to be 
best for prosperity, for the prosperity of hard-working 
families and our energy security.
    The prospect of higher prices for American families this 
winter is alarming. What also is alarming is the energy crisis 
that is unfolding in Europe. It should be a warning to American 
policymakers. In the United States, gas and electricity bills 
could double this winter, with harmful impacts for those in 
need. It is energy-induced poverty.
    Half of Europe's natural gas is supplied by Russia, which 
news reports indicate is refusing to boost their supplies. All 
of this has been driven by the U.K. and the European rush for 
renewables, at the exclusion of developing the U.K. shale, 
shutting down coal and nuclear, especially in Germany.
    So I just wanted to ask if you would talk briefly about the 
factors behind the European energy crisis, its energy security, 
and what we should be doing here to avoid the same fate.
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you for the question. Indeed, there are 
many factors that go into, of course, the high prices, you 
know, around the world right now today. Of course, we are 
coming back, we are coming out of COVID, so there's increased 
demand and there's tight supplies. But, to be sure, it is a lot 
of the policies that you see in place that have very 
aggressively favored renewables over fossils.
    So, for example, when the winds stopped blowing in the 
U.K., there weren't really that many natural gas units or coal 
units available, because to be able to be in ready standby, you 
had to purchase very expensive certificates to run, you know, 
in the EU. So it was always already out of a price point.
    Policymakers here in the United States too, I mean, because 
U.S. LNG has been now a global export for these several years, 
the EU has been expecting to be able to get U.S. LNG. They 
favor that. We tried to develop that so they weren't dependent 
on Russia over that. And indeed, it turns out that Cheniere, 
one of our LNG exporters, was able to, you know, sort of come 
to the rescue, if you will, of Europe.
    So policies do make a difference in the real marketplace. 
Capital is waiting to be invested here in the U.S. What you see 
signaling from this administration, you know, pretty much puts 
the chilling effect on moving capital, making investments as 
you see the policies coming out of this administration.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, just as a followup, the standing is 
that the administration has reached out to OPEC and Russia and 
Kyrgyzstan to boost oil production, but yet at the same time 
shutting down exploration development of energy here in the 
United States and production right here in the United States. 
On the first day in office, President Biden cancelled the 
Keystone pipeline, imposed a moratorium on exploration and 
development of Federal lands while asking Russia and OPEC to 
produce more.
    Would you speak to how these actions contribute to higher 
prices?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you very much. You know, indeed, 
the actions that we have seen from this administration actually 
go down further than what you have read about in stopping the 
Keystone pipeline and, you know, he has allowed Nord Stream to 
go, which, of course, the Russians enjoy because now they will 
be able to send natural gas to Europe and Europe will become 
more dependent on Russia gas.
    But, you know, he has placed a moratorium on new coal and 
gas leases in Federal lands and waters. The Interior Department 
drilling permits are down 75 percent from April. You know, he 
suspended the leases, the existing leases in Anwar and Alaska. 
He has announced stricter methane emission regulations on 
natural gas industries. He has increased fuel mileage standards 
for automobiles.
    The FERC, his FERC that we are looking forward to to try to 
help solve the offshore wind issues, announced it is 
considering greenhouse gas emissions for all natural gas and 
LNG and announced that it is even reviewing its certification 
process on pipelines. And for the President to be calling on 
OPEC to provide, you know, increased oil, he should be calling 
on the U.S. producers in the United States. We have shown that 
we can produce. That is why we are the world's number-one 
leading producer in oil and natural gas. He should be calling 
on the U.S. producers, Americans to produce the energy that we 
need, not OPEC countries or Russia.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, thank you. There's a lot of questions 
around all of these policies being promoted right now by the 
administration.
    I have run out of time, though. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Peters, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having the 
hearing.
    Offshore wind can play a key role in accomplishing our 
clean energy and climate ambitions. I suggest to ensure the 
technology reaches its full potential we should do three 
things: We should level the playing field among energy 
technologies; we should reduce the regulatory burden for siting 
and permitting both offshore wind projects and the transmission 
infrastructure needed to bring that energy to market; and we 
should deploy innovative financing tools to make sure that the 
United States leads the world in advanced technology 
development.
    First on incentives, I am a strong supporter of the Clean 
Energy Payment Program. However, if that program is no longer 
politically viable, as we are hearing, we should add a price on 
carbon pollution to the Build Back Better bill. It is the only 
single budgetary tool that substantially reduces greenhouse gas 
emissions and raises significant revenue, and that fits 
squarely within the reconciliation process, which is restricted 
to Federal outlays in revenues and provides technology-neutral 
and economywide incentives that would not assure an outcome 
with respect to renewables but would allow wind to compete.
    Second, we have to reform our siting and permitting 
processes for major clean energy and transmission projects. As 
an example, my POWER ON Act, which is included in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, would clarify FERC's backstop 
citing authority and lead to more rapid deployment of 
interstate transmission projects.
    But I want to say here that I completely agree with the 
implication of Mr. Upton's questions that, if we are serious 
about renewables and climate change, we cannot hold up the 
development of wind, solar, hydro, carbon capture, and nuclear 
projects. We have to get out of our own way if we claim this is 
a crisis, and we do believe it is a crisis.
    And, third, we have to use the Department of Energy Loan 
Programs Office to accelerate the deployment of advanced 
offshore wind through loan guarantees, and I would advocate for 
more funding for this office in the House Build Back Better 
Act.
    With that, I wanted to ask a couple of questions, and start 
with Ms. Zichal, about California in particular. I know that 
there is an easier deployment in the East Coast because of the 
way the ocean floor is. What is the potential for offshore wind 
off the coast of California? What are the policy barriers that 
[inaudible] deployment?
    Ms. Zichal. Well, thank you for your question. You know, I 
couldn't be more excited about the opportunity for offshore 
wind in California. And earlier, we were talking about the fact 
that the United States is behind when it comes to the 
deployment of offshore wind. But where I think the United 
States has the ability to lead the world is in the floating 
technology, and that is the kind of technology we need off the 
coast of California.
    It is a different--as you point out, it is a different 
ocean environment, but obviously one that we believe can 
contribute in a very meaningful way to clean, affordable power 
for families, not only in California, but throughout the 
region.
    We are really--we were excited to see the decision by BOEM 
to move forward with some leasing programs in call areas, Morro 
Bay and Humboldt. I know that those--getting those decisions 
made and seeing that process move forward has been a priority 
for you. It has certainly been a priority for the industry as 
well.
    I also think, because we are looking at new technology, 
thinking through DOE funding and pilots would help to provide 
valuable experience that can be applied at scale on the West 
Coast, and that is certainly something we would love to work 
with you on.
    Mr. Peters. OK. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Hardy, I want to give you a chance to respond to a 
question that was posed to Ms. Zichal before about the U.S. 
being so far behind Europe in the development of offshore wind. 
And, particularly, what policies--what can we learn from 
Europe? What policies has Europe implemented that has 
contributed to a more rapid build out than here?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes, I would like to just discuss this price 
discussion, I think it will be helpful. Part of the reason that 
prices are higher here in the U.S. is because we are just 
standing up this industry, and we have a lot of fixed costs in 
the beginning. We are doing port infrastructure, we are 
building half-a-billion-dollar ships, we are building 
factories, et cetera. Europe has been doing this for 30 years, 
so their supply chain is already built, and they are on the 
variable cost curve. We are coming down on the variable cost 
curve related to the turbine technology, but eventually we will 
have a prompt jump down and then continue on the cost curve 
once we get these fixed costs behind us.
    So what can the U.S. Congress do to help? Help us get down 
that curve faster by helping us invest in these fixed costs, 
get these factories built, get these ports built, get the 
transmission built, and then we will be on a low-cost variable 
cost like Europe is today in offshore wind.
    Mr. Peters. So your advice is let's get started. I think 
the loan program at DOE is probably a helpful tool for that.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Menezes, it is good to see you again. Thank you for 
your help in my district this summer. We did our annual energy 
efficiency event. Sometimes we forget that energy efficiency is 
another arm of one of the arrows in our quiver when we talk 
about the Nation's energy armamentarium, and I certainly thank 
you for your help that day.
    I also agree with you and virtually every other Member on 
this side of the dais who has voiced concern. We are, of 
course, talking about big-scale wind projects that down the 
road are a significant deliverable, and not that that is not 
important, but it is a little hard to consider that when you 
are facing a cold winter with rising prices. And what is that 
going to mean for our constituents? And what is it going to 
mean for American families and families around the world?
    You referenced the wind stopping blowing in Europe. What if 
they have a colder winter than we do and the demands for our 
exportable natural gas are going to increase, and that is going 
to affect price here?
    Unfortunately, in the Build Back Better Act, there is a 
methane fee that was included. We don't call it a tax because 
that would be a tax on families earning under $400,000 a year. 
So we are a little sensitive of the language, but nevertheless 
it is going to increase price.
    So I just wonder if you had any additional thoughts on 
that. You know, we as the authorizing committee for energy 
policy in the people's House looking ahead with the dire wolf 
at the door in the wintertime, any other advice that you can 
give us from your recent activity at the Department of Energy?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you very much for that. I will 
tell you, Congress actually has a good bill that they can pass 
right now. It is the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. That will 
address a lot of the issues that we are talking about here 
today. So instead of waiting around and try to figure out 
passing the reconciliation package, you can actually look very 
closely at that one and you will achieve some of the goals here 
that we have been talking about.
    We have the solution to tight supplies right here in this 
country, right here. You know, the shale revolution. Once 
again, you have heard me say this, both oil and natural gas, we 
are able to help not only domestically but globally. We can 
bring the supply. So as--and this is a good story. As demand 
increases coming out of COVID, we should be able to produce 
enough so that everybody can get what they need at reasonable 
prices.
    We will have to go through a little bit here, but the fact 
is that if we are not sending out the negative messages to move 
capital and to get resources out of the ground, we would be 
actually spending money and getting the economy moving so that 
we can actually celebrate what we have here. All studies show 
that our natural gas displaces coal and has led to decreased 
global emissions. All studies show that.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Menezes. OK.
    Mr. Burgess. Right. The deliverable--yes, 5 minutes goes by 
terribly quickly.
    It is a little bit off topic, but that never stops me. The 
stranded natural gas in the Permian Basin is an area where we 
could perhaps focus for an immediate deliverable on natural gas 
for heating homes, delivering it to electrical generation 
plants, getting it from West Texas. Unlike wind energy, the 
wind is right on the shoreline and you can bring the power 
right on board. we will have to get the natural gas from the 
Permian to the places where it is going to be used--Houston, 
Dallas, San Antonio, and the ports down in Corpus Christi and 
Freeport--but it is doable.
    And there are existing pipelines--this is a fascinating 
topic that one of our railroad commissioners brought up to me. 
There are existing abandoned natural gas pipelines in the State 
of Texas that could begin this process literally by turning it 
back on. To be sure, there are things that will have to be 
checked and make certain everything is up to specs, but this is 
an immediate source for an immediate problem that we have, 
again, just right around the corner.
    I do have to ask you, since there has been so much talk 
about the price on the wind energy, are people factoring in, 
will there be like a Federal subsidy like there is for land-
based wind energy in this offshore wind energy?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question. Everything 
that I have read says that we still continue to need, you know, 
the subsidies and support from the Government to be able to get 
where we want to go, to even get to the variable cost curve. So 
while there's a lot of fixed costs that are being spent, there 
needs to still be considerable subsidies.
    We see this with the extension of the renewable tax credits 
that we go through decade after decade after decade. You know, 
each year we say we are going to phase them out because, why, 
you know, it is cheap, we have gotten down the variable cost 
curve, you know, the wind is free, right? Well, why do we 
continue to have all these subsidies? Why is it a good thing 
that FERC can allow negative pricing in energy markets and we 
can't actually price the real cost that consumers know as to 
what they are paying for?
    Mr. Burgess. There is a real effect. We felt it last 
February. Absolutely.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding this hearing.
    I think the U.S. offshore wind industry, it is a game 
changer for renewable energy and for our efforts to combat 
climate change. Additionally, opportunities to bring home 
manufacturing and provide good-paying, long-term jobs in the 
industry is tremendous.
    You know, I think the key to getting buy-in from the public 
as we build out more clean energy systems will be the benefits 
they bring to communities in terms of jobs and economic 
activity. Unfortunately, we have heard too often that the 
renewable energy sector is lagging in unionization and 
abundance of good-paying, career-sustaining jobs.
    Mr. Strong, let me ask you, what has been your union's 
experience working with offshore wind industry thus far? And 
what can Congress do to ensure that labor is getting a fair 
shake as industry grows?
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Congressman. This has been my first 
experience actually dealing with offshore wind, and that is a 
relationship that we have with US Wind. It started about 3 
years ago. It has really progressed very well. We have entered 
into an MOU with US Wind that those jobs at this facility will 
be union jobs. They have agreed they will not interfere in our 
ability to organize. And in that MOU, it says that we will get 
an agreement within a short period of time, and whatever issues 
that we don't agree to, we will submit to arbitration.
    Now, we are pleased with our relationship with US Wind, and 
it has been a very good experience. And we think that 
eventually these are going to be well-paying jobs. You know, in 
the high 30s, $40-an-hour job with benefits, and it is much 
needed in our State. We are bringing steel back, fabrication 
back to what would be considered sacred ground at the Bethlehem 
Steel Sparrows Point.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Mr. Hardy, it is my understanding your company has strong 
relationships with labor in Denmark. What is Ørsted 
doing to build strong relationships with construction and 
manufacturing unions here in the United States?
    Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Congressman Doyle. Look, I am a Navy 
veteran, submarine veteran enlisted. Other than the military, I 
think the unions have the best training programs. We are 
building a new industry here that requires a certain skill 
level, and so we are on our front foot at Ørsted. We 
leaned into working with unions. We signed an MOU with NABTU, 
and we are in the process which we will expect to complete 
national offshore wind agreement, which will propose that we 
use the building trades for every aspect of our projects, 
onshore, offshore.
    Some of those capabilities already exist in the unions. 
Building an onshore substation, they know how to do that. But 
erecting an offshore wind turbine, the U.S. unions have never 
done that before. But we are developing a relationship with the 
unions, doing training programs, introducing our supply chain, 
our service providers, and trying to bring those jobs to the 
unions.
    And in the cases where there may be some parts of the 
country that aren't union, we are agreeing to prevailing wage 
requirements, trying to create these middle-class jobs in our 
industry.
    Mr. Doyle. Very good. Thank you.
    Ms. Zichal, given the administration's estimate of the 
offshore wind industry will generate a demand of more than 7 
million tons of steel, equivalent to 4 years of output for a 
typical U.S. steel mill, what can Congress do to ensure that 
the benefits of offshore wind extend beyond the coast and into 
these manufacturing communities like mine in western 
Pennsylvania and other places?
    Ms. Zichal. One of the things that excites me most about 
working on offshore wind is the new opportunity for economic 
development. Offshore wind developers today are already 
committed to $729 million in port infrastructure and $280 
million in U.S. manufacturing facilities. So think about the 
opportunity there.
    In terms of actions from Congress, I think there is an 
important conversation happening today around domestic content 
requirement as it relates to the Build Back Better legislation. 
I also think there are important conversations happening about 
what are some of the manufacturing credits that we might be 
able to provide. So it is kind of think holistically about 
let's create the demand and create the opportunity to build 
these projects, but then let's also look at, you know, what are 
the other tools in the toolkit to make sure that we are 
creating opportunities across the board.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair muted himself.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Latta, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for 
our witnesses being with us today.
    As already stated by Members on our side of the aisle, our 
country is facing an immediate crisis over how everyday 
Americans will be able to afford to heat their homes this 
winter, fill up their vehicles to go to work, turn the lights 
on at the small businesses, and importantly right now, 
especially across my district, how farmers are going to dry 
their grain.
    This year, we have seen energy prices reach their highest 
levels in years, gas prices up to a 7-year high with no signs 
of relief. Natural gas price is at levels we haven't seen since 
the end of the Bush administration.
    This coming winter, residential propane prices are 
projected to be at their highest level since the polar vortex 
in 2013 and 2014. At that time, I worked tirelessly to address 
propane shortage and make sure Ohioans were able to heat their 
homes and maintain their livelihoods. I had legislation that 
was signed into law to help prevent future shortages, and I 
cofounded the Congressional Propane Caucus to make sure that 
Congress stayed educated on the benefits and resources that 
come from propane.
    Mr. Under Secretary Menezes, quick question. You know, as I 
have been sitting here and hearing the testimony today, you 
know, we have had a lot of testimony over the last year in this 
committee and also in the subcommittee. We are talking about 
protecting our infrastructure and how critical that is. I am 
just curious, what is the vulnerability of offshore wind to 
cyber and physical attacks? And how far--just in general, how 
far off are most of the wind turbines?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I will defer to the experts on, you 
know, distances, but you know that they have to be beyond the 
viewshed, because we are not really going to build many too 
close. But it is in harsh environments. You know, it is deep. I 
think on the East Coast we can probably have fixed platforms. 
On the West Coast it will be floating.
    But to be sure, they are using state-of-the-art technology, 
which is a good thing. But what we know and we have learned at 
the Department and everybody knows it now is that as, you know, 
you improve the technology and you become more sophisticated 
and you put these industrial control systems, you know, on 
these operations, you want to make sure that they are very, 
very secure from cybersecurity.
    And so, certainly, we haven't even brought that up, but I 
think security of these, I think is something that we should 
look into. They are far away from the shoreline, so one would 
wonder, if you can't see them, are they operating? You know, 
you get your electricity, but who is out there guarding them, 
protecting them? And what about the cybersecurity risks?
    Mr. Latta. Because, you know, when I have gone through 
power plants, especially nuclear power plants--and this is the 
question I want to bring up--is that, you know, the security 
levels at them are pretty high, because they want to make sure 
that that power stays on.
    But, you know, just talking, if I could move on in talking 
about our domestic nuclear industry, and you mentioned two 
pieces of my legislation, in that nuclear power being one of 
the most reliable sources of energy and it is emissions free. 
Is it possible for the United States to meet the Biden 
administration's climate mandates if we don't have a strong 
nuclear industry here at home?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, not only here in the U.S.--I mean, our 
nuclear fleet, you know, provides at least 20 percent typically 
both in capacity and almost in generation each year on 
emission-free energy. It is by far, you know, the largest 
producer of emission-free energy that we have here. And 
certainly even internationally, EIA, Dr. Fatih Birol, he called 
on all nations should be considering, if you are interested in 
reducing your emissions and bringing electricity to the people, 
particularly in developing countries, you should be developing 
nuclear.
    Now, who is the leader in nuclear technology? Well, it has 
been the United States, right? Now, we need to continue that 
global leadership, because it really makes a big difference. 
Because other countries are going to be turning and they are 
turning to nuclear to meet these emission-free goals, and they 
will want to deal with the United States. Well, the United 
States requires 123 agreements, right, nonproliferation, 
nonenrichment agreements, for nuclear weapons. That is all 
great.
    Well, we are now in competition with the Chinese and 
Russians of providing nuclear technology to other countries. 
This is 40 years, 100-year relationships where you bring in the 
regulatory process, you know, the institutional knowledge, you 
have to train everybody, you have to have the whole educational 
system in place to do that. You want to have that relationship.
    If we in the United States--whether you are for or against 
nuclear--if we give up on nuclear, we lose that leadership, and 
we are ceding it to Russia and China, and those are two 
countries that do not have statutory obligations for 123 
agreements.
    So nuclear plays a big role in not only emissions but also 
in global security, and you want the U.S. to maintain that. And 
we should be building next generation of nuclear here both for 
climate reasons and global world security.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I am going to submit 
my additional questions for the record. Thank you. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman. This is an 
interesting hearing, close to my heart.
    Offshore wind on the West Coast is behind offshore wind 
development for the rest and some of the other countries 
because of our ocean geography, and this will present a unique 
set of challenges and opportunities.
    Ms. Zichal, I really appreciate your comment that we may be 
behind other countries in offshore development, but that gives 
us an opportunity to learn from their mistakes. I spent 20-plus 
years in the wind industry, and I can verify that mistakes are 
made and that diligent parties can learn from the mistakes of 
others without having to pay enormous learning costs.
    Do you see floating turbine technology as ready for 
utility-scale development in the Pacific at costs that are 
comparable to those on the East Coast deployments? Now, I 
realize this is similar to Mr. Peters' question, but I would 
really like to focus on the technology rather than on the 
policy.
    Ms. Zichal. Well, thank you for your question. I mean, the 
short answer is yes. But, again, I think what is interesting 
about California and the work that the Department of Interior 
is doing with their leasing is thinking down the road about 
what are we--what is the opportunity here, how do we think 
differently about the technology, and what potential do we have 
in America to grow and really lead, pave the way for the rest 
of the world to develop and embrace the floating turbine 
technology.
    I also think what is really important as we think about the 
opportunity in California and the opportunity for offshore 
wind, that we also get in front of the conversation that needs 
to happen around transmission. You know, obviously, planning 
for transmission and, you know, the work that goes into 
connecting offshore wind resources to the grid is going to be 
really crucial. So as--I think as we are thinking holistically 
about California's opportunity, we need to think not only about 
how do we get the technology right, how do we make sure that 
America is leading the way there, but also, you know, how do we 
jump start that conversation about transmission planning. 
Because I think that is going to be really important, 
especially in a State like California.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, you sort of anticipated my next 
question. You mentioned in your testimony the possibility for 
an interconnection at the site of a retired nuclear generation, 
which would be a good way to use existing infrastructure. What 
kind of planning [inaudible] systems are needed to ensure that 
these transfers happen?
    Ms. Zichal. So as I think about interconnection processes, 
which is something I am sure everyone loves to think about, the 
transmission and interconnection have three P's: planning, 
permitting, and paying.
    And on the planning side, FERC has jurisdiction over how we 
plan for transmission. Each individual offshore wind project 
today is determining where to best interconnect to the grid and 
is paying their own costs. I think as these projects move 
forward, we are going to need to be planning for the long term 
with a backbone transmission approach.
    On permitting, this is a shared responsibility between BOEM 
and the States. I think BOEM and FERC can better coordinate on 
transmission to make sure there aren't unnecessary hurdles.
    And on paying, FERC also has jurisdiction over who pays for 
transmission. We want to be sure that the benefits of upgraded 
transmission, including lower-cost power, reliability, and 
reduced emissions, are equitably shared and not just placed 
solely on generators.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that answer.
    Mr. Hardy, Ørsted already has made large investments 
on fixed bottom offshore wind projects in the eastern United 
States. Is there specific equipment that will be needed for 
installation of floating wind turbines? And has Ørsted 
started investing in the supply chain for that?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. As previously discussed, I mean, we are the 
world's leader in offshore wind, so, of course, we are 
monitoring and planning for the transition to floating 
technology. We have got some partnerships and some active 
projects in Europe and in Asia around floating. Floating is 
still a little less mature than fixed-bottom, for sure, but 
these are long-cycle projects, so when we think about floating 
in California, we are thinking about projects that are 
installed in late 2020, early 2030s, and the technology will 
continue to evolve between now and then.
    So you have got float--you have got the floating, the 
floaters themselves, the foundation. You have got dynamic 
cables. And we are researching, you know, all of those types of 
technologies and partnering with technology providers to make 
sure that these become, you know, commercially viable as soon 
as possible.
    Mr. McNerney. Are we going to be able to benefit from the 
oil technology of floating platforms?
    Mr. Hardy. Sir, can you repeat the question?
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. McNerney. I am out of time, but oil platforms have used 
floating technology for years. Are we going to benefit from 
that?
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, 
Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to enter into the record an article that was 
published this week in The Wall Street Journal that is entitled 
``Behind the Energy Crisis: Fossil Fuel Investment Drops, and 
Renewables Aren't Ready.''
    With all due respect, Chairman Rush--and we have been 
friends for years--this hearing seems to be taking on an air of 
distraction from what Americans are really dealing with across 
this country. I can't for the life of me understand why we are 
having a hearing on offshore wind when there are so many 
uncertainties that we are going to be facing in the next couple 
of months as we enter into winter and the fact that countries 
all around the globe are dealing with this global energy 
crisis.
    In the United States, energy costs are at a 7-year high. In 
Europe, according to Daily Mail, the natural gas prices are up 
600 percent. And in China, we have rolling blackouts and 
rationing energy. But the Democrat leadership here in Congress 
is seemingly and apparently more interested in discussing 
offshore wind turbines.
    Look, I am supportive of offshore wind turbines. I like the 
project that we are going to be involved in in West Virginia 
with it, but this is a topic better suited for the end of 
winter, not dealing with how we are prepared to deal with the 
winter weather as we approach this.
    So let's talk about some of those things we are facing 
today. Remember earlier this year, winter storm Uri exposed a 
number of issues with our grid in ERCOT, MISO, and other parts 
of the country. Fourteen States experienced shock because of 
the winter weather. And the polar vortexes of 2014 and 2016 
exposed America's vulnerability, and outages occurred. PJM came 
within 5 minutes of having a major power outage on the East 
Coast.
    These are the important issues, and this committee's 
responsibility is to give the American people confidence that 
as we get into this winter, they won't face the same problems 
and crisis being experienced currently in Europe and China, 
higher utility bills, and energy rationing.
    Look, this is America, but we have fewer supplies due to 
Biden's cutbacks, like threats to the gas production, 
reductions in mining coal, decommissioning nuclear power 
plants. What is Congress doing about supply? And this is a case 
of Economics 101. I am just an engineer, I am not an economist, 
but it is so fundamental. We have supply and demand. Demand is 
going up, and the supply is dropping. We are bound to hit 
higher costs with that. So no wonder IEA is estimating the 
energy costs are going to go up 30 percent this year.
    So how can we give the American people confidence today 
that the United States won't have shortages or heating costs?
    So, Menezes, could you explain this? Is the United States 
prepared for a potential winter storm this time?
    Without your mask, please.
    Mr. Menezes. Right. Well, our own EIA is predicting, of 
course, that costs are going to be much higher, certainly in 
propane, really across the board. You can expect that. I know 
utilities are already sending out letters to their ratepayers 
informing them that because of the high price of natural gas--
which is unusual in the United States. Why would the United 
States have high price of natural gas? Well, again, it has all 
happened since the change of administration.
    Again, as we come back, you know, demand is increasing, but 
the fact of the matter is we have the solution right here. 
Congress really doesn't have to do anything. They should do no 
harm. They should allow, really, the producers to produce, and 
supply will get to demand. And guess what will happen to 
prices? It puts downward pressure on prices.
    So while an engineer, I think you have got the economics 
right, although I, myself, am neither, but I think that is what 
we can do here in the United States.
    But don't forget about propane, right? Where does propane 
come from? Propane is a byproduct of natural gas. So if we are 
producing less natural gas, guess what we have less of? We have 
less of propane. So it all works together and is something----
    Mr. McKinley. You more or less answered my third question. 
Wouldn't it make more sense to balance the scale and ramp up 
production? And that is what you are saying. We need to be 
doing that rather than cutting back.
    And then the last, do you think currently--remember, we are 
just 2 months away. There is already snow in Colorado. We know 
the winter is coming. We have seen the predictions that this is 
going to be a pretty severe winter. I don't know how well we 
are prepared for it.
    So I am saying, do you think we currently have enough 
energy supply to avoid increased utility bills this year?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, everything that I read, I think, if you 
are a Member of Congress, you should be very concerned about 
what we are reading today about tight supplies for an expected 
cooler winter.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. My time has expired. I yield back the 
balance of any time I have. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for this hearing. And 
thank you to our witnesses for participating.
    It is indeed rare that we have the opportunity to witness 
and support the development of a brand-new industry in the 
United States. With offshore wind, we can get it right from the 
start to build our own resilient supply chains that create 
high-quality, unionized American jobs. It has been estimated 
that offshore wind will result in some $109 billion in domestic 
supply chain investments in the next decade. And even though my 
district is hundreds of miles from any wind energy area, both 
ports in New York 20 have recently announced hundreds of new 
jobs to manufacture components.
    Mr. Hardy, it is great to see you again, and thank you for 
the good news. While we were together recently at the Port of 
Coeymans, which will be involved in advanced foundation 
components construction, I understand that you have been 
visiting with suppliers located across the country. While 
coastal communities and their ports will experience new 
investments, can you speak to how Ørsted projects are 
creating opportunities for those that are beyond the coastal 
communities?
    Mr. Hardy. Absolutely. Good to see you again, Congressman, 
as well.
    As I mentioned in my original testimony, right now we 
already see jobs being created by this early--in the early 
stages of this new industry in 44 States. So this is not a 
manufacturing opportunity along the coastlines. Of course, some 
of the operation and maintenance jobs will be there, and, of 
course, the port infrastructure will be closer to shore, but 
the supply chain, when you think about tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, 
will stretch across the whole United States. And so we are 
looking every day to try and bring as many jobs to Americans as 
we stand up this industry, like you said, doing it right from 
the start.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir.
    And I have a bill, the Restoring Offshore Wind 
Opportunities Act, that would lift the ban on offshore wind 
leasing off the Carolinas. Some might question why a Member 
from upstate New York is interested in seeing offshore wind 
projects built so far away, but I do believe this speaks to the 
profound opportunities that offshore wind is creating for 
United States manufacturers and why we all have a stake in this 
industry.
    So, Mr. Hardy, again, do you expect that as more projects 
are developed around the country that there will continue to be 
opportunities for steel plants in West Virginia and Maryland, 
shipbuilders in Texas, and component manufacturers in upstate 
New York?
    Mr. Hardy. Well, the simple answer is yes, I do. But a 
little bit more feedback. I mean, we are excited about 
Secretary Haaland's announcement just last week to bring some 
certainty to the industry and lay out timelines for additional 
offshore wind leases. And as we continue to bring certainty--
you hear this theme from me over and over--then companies like 
mine and companies in the supply chain will continue to invest, 
and that investment will happen across America as people see 
the market opportunities to supply components to the industry, 
and, of course, that will create new jobs.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Strong, where do you see the opportunities for 
union jobs being created across our country? And what types of 
jobs would be part of the supply chain?
    Mr. Strong. Well, obviously, steel. A tremendous amount of 
steel goes into one of those turbines. Cement. We have two 
facilities in Maryland that we will see increase in production, 
could be very well we will see additional hirees, depending on 
how much production they will provide for these projects.
    But the supply chain is enormous, from steel to the cables 
to the cement to the various components, the blades. We have a 
great opportunity here to really put manufacturing to levels 
that we haven't seen before, going back many, many years ago. I 
am optimistic. Our union is really supporting offshore wind 
renewables because of the tremendous potential in growth in 
manufacturing.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir.
    And the Build Back Better Act reported by this committee 
last month included $100 million for DOE to convene 
stakeholders to plan, model, and analyze the transmission needs 
for offshore wind.
    Ms. Zichal, you were earlier asked by Representative 
McNerney about the challenges to offshore--or about 
transmission as an issue for the West Coast. There are probably 
unique challenges to offshore transmission in that regard. And 
because I am out of time, I would just ask that you get to the 
committee a response to how this DOE funding would be helpful 
to overcome any of the challenges that you imagined would be 
there for transmission as it relates to the floating offshore 
wind industry.
    Thank you very much. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Griffith, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have an article that I would like to submit for the 
record from E&E News called ```Bloody expensive.' Major U.S. 
offshore wind plan hits obstacles.'' Without objection----
    Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
    Mr. Menezes, as referenced in the article I have submitted 
for the record, there is a significant concern in my beloved 
Commonwealth of Virginia about who will pay for this massive 
offshore wind project. The cost of the project just to build 
two of the 180 turbines costs $300 million. While the full cost 
remains unclear, we know this will be a--it will result in a 
hefty price tag.
    Isn't it true that under current Virginia law, all Dominion 
customers will pay for the building of the turbines?
    Mr. Menezes. That is correct. I think your legislature made 
sure that that was going to happen.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes. And looking at this at the national 
level, if the Biden administration aims to add 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind by 2030, I understand that means somewhere 
between--somewhere around 3,000 new turbines. Won't nationally 
it also be mostly customers, with some taxpayer dollars, paying 
for those?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, right. You just heard Ms. Zichal. Ms. 
Zichal said that she didn't want these costs to be put on the 
power developers. Well, where are those costs going to be put 
on? The costs are going to be put on ratepayers. You know, 
these--and the resident--if you are not aware of it, it is the 
residential customers that pay the largest amount of all rates, 
over industrial users and over commercial. So when you hear 
things like this, don't--make sure you know where the costs are 
going.
    Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Hardy, I am concerned about the impacts some of the 
wind farms will have on our environment, particularly birds. 
Many of the US Wind farms are located in the paths that are 
used by migratory birds, because the birds use the wind to get 
north and south, and the turbines are put there in order to 
catch the good winds.
    So as Ms. Zichal said, a lot can be learned from other 
countries. What has your company learned in dealing with white-
tailed eagles and other Palearctic bird species?
    Mr. Hardy. Sir, I can talk broadly about birds. I will have 
to follow up with you on the specific bird type that you are 
asking about. But, in general, the lease areas that we are 
building in our Federal lease areas, which have been studied by 
the Federal agencies, including----
    Mr. Griffith. OK. I am asking about your experience in 
Europe. What experience has your company had in Europe?
    Mr. Hardy. In Europe, we are the most sustainable energy 
company in the world, and we build all of our projects in----
    Mr. Griffith. So you really don't know about the birds, the 
experience that your company has had in building fairly large 
wind farms off the coast of northern Europe?
    Mr. Hardy. I know a little bit about that. I am the North 
American CEO, and we are looking at all the environmental 
aspects, including white whales, fish, birds, et cetera.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. So let me--I asked specifically 
about the white-tailed eagle because it is the cousin of the 
American bald eagle and has similar habits, and that is why I 
wanted to know about that. If you could follow up with me later 
on that, I would appreciate that.
    Mr. Hardy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. But one of the studies from northern Europe 
shows that the mortality rate caused by the wind turbines is 
reduced 70 percent if you paint the turbine blades black. Now, 
in this article I submitted, there is a picture that purports 
to be the Dominion facility, one of the two you have already 
put up, and they are white. Why wouldn't you all look into that 
if there is a study that says there is a 70 percent reduction 
in mortality?
    Mr. Hardy. Sir, I will just have to follow up with you on 
these questions.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, I mean, I do think the environment is 
important, and everybody assumes that wind is environmentally 
friendly, but as an avid birdwatcher, I can assure you there 
are lots of deaths caused by wind turbines.
    And your turbines, the blades are actually going to be 
about 40 percent--or the height is going to be about 40 percent 
greater than everything you have in Europe. Isn't that true?
    Mr. Hardy. We will be building projects that are larger 
than the projects that were built in Europe 30 years ago. The 
projects that are being built in Europe today are using the 
same technology that we are using.
    Mr. Griffith. So the new ones in Europe are going to be 
just as big as this one you are putting off the coast of 
Virginia?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes.
    Mr. Griffith. A hundred eighty-some facilities, with 800-
foot--almost as big as the Eiffel Tower?
    Mr. Hardy. That is correct.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. Mr. Menezes, back to you. Would it 
be cheaper and more efficient and potentially better for the 
environment--talking about my birds there--to invest in and 
deploy carbon capture technologies on existing coal and natural 
gas plants?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes. We should put carbon capture on existing 
facilities. That will help reduce emissions.
    Mr. Griffith. And that will help reduce emissions, and 
won't it also help us not leave costs stranded? Because the 
ratepayers have already paid for those plants. Isn't that true?
    Mr. Menezes. That is correct.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, I appreciate it.
    Mr. Menezes. By the way, you said captured carbon, and you 
can help make some of the blades here and you can probably use 
carbon black and maybe they will actually be black.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, we can actually use--yes, and we can use 
some graphene out of southwest Virginia. I appreciate it. 
Appreciate the plug.
    Thank you all very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Veasey of Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I want 
to thank all the panelists for being here today to discuss the 
importance of investing in domestic wind energy.
    I look forward to hearing from the panel throughout the 
rest of the committee to just talk about how we can provide 
more safer, more sustainable, and more reliable energy to Texas 
and the Nation.
    As I think everybody already knows here, Texas is one of 
the dominant players in wind energy. I don't think that there 
is any secret about that. As a matter of fact, Texas dominates 
the wind energy to such an extent that if we were a country to 
our own, we literally would rank number five in total wind 
generation in the world.
    Mr. Hardy, I understand there is a potential in the longer 
term for offshore wind to be developed in the Gulf. But in the 
more immediate term, can you expound on what Texans have to 
gain from supporting offshore wind development in the U.S.?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your 
question.
    First off, I would highlight that Ørsted builds 
onshore wind farms in Texas, so we are one of the participants 
in the Texas onshore wind and solar industry. With respect to 
offshore wind in Texas, you are also correct that there are now 
studies being done about offshore wind being built in the Gulf 
and potentially supplying power to not only Texas but 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and other Gulf States.
    Likewise, today there are significant supply chain 
activities happening in Texas, not least some of the things we 
talked about earlier. The Kiewit offshore substation is being 
built near Corpus Christi, there are the Dominion vessels, the 
Jones Act-compliant turbine installation vessels being built 
down in Brownsville. These are large, job-creating projects 
that are supporting our offshore wind industry today, and the 
oil and gas sector is a natural place for engineering and 
construction to be transitioned into the offshore wind 
industry. And, of course, Texas has a long history in Houston 
and elsewhere in supporting that industry.
    Mr. Veasey. So how many jobs are we talking about? Can you 
expand on that a little bit? What sort of job creation numbers 
would we be looking at?
    Mr. Hardy. Just the vessel alone is over 1,000 jobs for a 
multiyear period. The Kiewit offshore substation is similar 
types of numbers, hundreds of jobs for a multiyear period. The 
construction yard is actually down in Brownsville--outside of 
Corpus Christi, but there will be other jobs related to that, 
engineering procurement jobs in other States as well.
    Mr. Veasey. Mr. Strong, in your testimony you emphasize the 
importance of providing workforce training to develop new 
talent in the wind industry. How can we ensure that quality, 
good-paying jobs created by wind are disperseed across States? 
And furthermore, how might this revitalize postindustrial 
communities?
    Mr. Strong. Well, thank you, Congressman. I sit on the 
Maryland Manufacturing Advisory Board. I represent organized 
labor. I was appointed by the Governor in that capacity. But in 
Maryland what we have noticed in the manufacturing sector, 
every company that participates has a demand for a skilled 
workforce. There is a shortage of skilled workforce in many 
trades: welders, machinists, millwrights, so forth. So it is a 
problem in Maryland that we are constantly talking about.
    And you know eventually we have to get all the stakeholders 
together, the Federal Government, the State government, come up 
with ideas and plans. I went to a vocational school when I was 
young, but you don't see them anymore, but it is a problem.
    And in my conversations with US Wind, we know that this is 
a challenge for us to find the type of skills that we are going 
to need to work at this facility. We are working on it. We are 
talking to the State about worker development and so forth. But 
this is a problem in all of manufacturing sectors.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes, absolutely it is.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman thanks and the gentleman yields 
back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I have to say that I am deeply concerned about 
the subject of today's hearing. I mean, just look at the news. 
We have rampant inflation, gasoline and grocery prices rising, 
shortage of essential products. And we are staring down a cold 
winter with price hikes on electricity, natural gas, and oil. 
You could say that America is experiencing an energy problem 
and a commerce problem. That is what this committee is all 
about: energy and commerce.
    So one would think that the Energy and Commerce Committee 
would be working on solutions and holding hearings to address 
these issues that the American people are so concerned about. 
But no, the American people will be tuning in today to watch us 
participate in a windmill hearing. Can you believe that? A 
windmill hearing. You can't make this stuff up.
    In my district in Appalachia Ohio, my constituents are 
starting to get worried. Families on fixed incomes, seniors are 
sensitive to energy costs. When these costs rise, it crowds out 
the rest of their budget.
    The latest data shows that these fears are warranted. 
According to the Energy Information Administration, if winter 
this year is 10 percent colder than usual, which many are 
predicting, heating oil would be 59 percent higher than last 
year; natural gas bills, 50 percent higher; propane, 94 percent 
higher; and electricity, 15 percent higher.
    Folks, I think the windmill hearing could have waited. 
Perhaps, we should be examining what is happening in Europe to 
figure out how to prevent their energy crisis from coming here.
    So Mr. Menezes, you mentioned in your testimony U.S. LNG 
recently helped the U.K. keep the lights on when the wind 
stopped blowing. I appreciate you mentioning my LNG export 
legislation, H.R. 1575. So here is my question to you: Is it 
true that any large-scale build out of renewables such as 
offshore wind still needs to be backed up by ample supplies of 
reliable, abundant, and affordable natural gas or coal-fired 
base load electricity?
    Mr. Menezes. That is correct. We need backup power. We are 
not there with batteries, so that has been my testimony.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Does it concern you that, given what we 
are seeing in Europe, that the movement to quote ``keep it in 
the ground'' coupled with a rush to renewables could raise 
energy prices and risk grid reliability here at home in 
America?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, I agree. I mean, fossil fuels still 
provide 80 percent of our energy today. It is the propane, it 
is the heating oil, its everything that we use every day, every 
aspect of our lives. And this administration has essentially a 
keep-it-in-the-ground policy.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Menezes, continuing with you, we are 
currently seeing our natural gas and other commodities 
stockpiles blow their seasonal averages. I am worried about 
this administration discouraging domestic production of our 
abundant coal, oil, and gas resources. In your opinion, is this 
administration focused enough and truly doing all it can to get 
ready for this winter with reports of major energy price 
increases and perhaps even energy shortages on the way?
    Mr. Menezes. I do not see it. I would expect them to call 
on U.S. producers to really help increase supplies so that 
prices can be addressed.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I hope it is noted I am yielding back an 
entire 104, 1 minute and 4 seconds.
    Mr. Rush. And the Chair appreciates the gentleman for 
yielding. The Chair does note it.
    And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington 
State, Ms. Schrier, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 
witnesses.
    You know, I have been listening with interest. Many of my 
colleagues have argued that we should be increasing our 
reliance on fossil fuels in order to keep energy costs down and 
reduce uncertainty. But there is certainty that continued 
resilience on fossil fuels will further warm the planet. And 
that is already disastrous.
    Also, the major impetus for transitioning to clean energy 
is to stop adding to atmospheric CO2 and responsibly 
manage climate change. So we need a full portfolio of 
alternative sources of energy: hydro, nuclear, solar and wind, 
including offshore wind. And of course, I just want to point 
out that no natural gas is coming offline until we have enough 
renewable energy to replace it. So tying these together, which 
some of my colleagues are doing, is misleading, it is 
fearmongering. And it is just making a bunch of excuses for 
doing nothing.
    Mr. Hardy, I have a question for you, which is, as we 
establish more and more manufacturing jobs here, the training, 
the manufacturing, and the steel, what can Congress do to 
promote a possible export market for American-made offshore 
wind complements?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. Thank you for that question.
    You might be surprised to realize that we are actually 
exporting offshore wind components from the U.S. today. I 
talked about the Nexans cable factory in South Carolina. They 
are actually--the first product they are producing there, they 
are exporting to a project in the U.K. So this can happen 
quickly. We are behind in megawatts, but we are coming in where 
the technology is much more advanced.
    We have American ingenuity. We have the best labor force, 
good engineering schools. And so, it will be a while before we 
maybe have the megawatts that they have, but we can produce 
components and supply chain items today and export them. And 
some of the investments that I talked about earlier have the 
potential for further export in the global market.
    Ms. Schrier. I appreciate your saying that.
    Having visited Wild Horse Wind Farm in my district, I have 
seen the size of those turbines. And so, just imagining them 
being exported is pretty remarkable. And I would just point out 
that, even if the wind energy isn't here, converting the clean 
energy anywhere on the planet helps all of us. So I want to 
thank you for that.
    Ms. Zichal, I have a question for you. Given your 
experience in the Obama administration, I was wondering about 
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's regional energy 
deployment system model. And it has estimated that the State of 
Washington has offshore wind technical generation potential of 
more than 160 megawatt hours, or enough energy to power 13 
million homes in the State, which we don't even have.
    How do you believe industry can leverage the work of the 
Department of Energy and the National Labs to address technical 
and market barriers to really unlock the full potential of 
offshore wind? And can you talk a little bit about public-
private partnerships to lower some of the supply chain 
barriers?
    Ms. Zichal. Yes. Thank you for your question.
    I think big picture what we have learned about standing up 
an industry for the first time ever, which is what we are doing 
with offshore winds, it does take a village. And we are very 
lucky in the fact that we have agencies, we have the National 
Labs, we have a number of different agencies that are able to 
lean in and help, not only through the technology, but, you 
know, the regulatory process as well.
    And a lot of the proposals that have come from Congress as 
well as some of the appropriations supported by this committee 
are going to provide important funding to help continue down 
that path. So I would like on behalf of the American Clean 
Power Association and member companies to thank the committee 
for your important work there.
    As you talk about a public-private partnership, I think 
there are absolutely tremendous opportunities. And previously 
we were talking about cybersecurity and clean energy. And this 
is an area where our trade association is working directly with 
the National Labs to create a clean energy cybersecurity 
incubator. So this is an industry that very much recognizes the 
important role that the U.S. Government and elected officials 
are playing in helping us achieve decarbonization in the power 
sector. And we would love an opportunity to continue working 
together in that vein.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
    With my remaining time, Mr. Hardy, my colleague Marc Veasey 
talked about wind power in the Gulf. Can you--is that viable, 
given the climate?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes, it is viable. The wind speeds are lower 
there, but the turbine technology continues to evolve. And just 
like in onshore wind, the original turbines were developed for 
the north seas, where the wind speeds are higher. But as we 
move to lower wind speeds, the turbine technology, the rotor 
diameter-to-generator ratio can be built to support those low-
speed winds.
    Ms. Schrier. All right. I am way out of time. Thank you 
very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to point out that people like me are not 
proposing doing nothing about carbon emission.We just want 
solutions and timelines that don't destroy our economy and put 
us in a very weak geopolitical position against the rest of the 
world, which is what a lot of these proposals are doing coming 
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and will do. 
I feel like I had to respond to that since we were accused of 
doing nothing by my colleague that just spoke.
    I support an all-of-the-above energy approach. It keeps the 
lights on, rates down, and emissions low. I believe there is a 
role for wind energy. I support wind energy as part of the 
portfolio. And I support research and development efforts made 
by public and private entities to develop the technology needed 
to make wind energy more reliable and more affordable.
    However, we have a duty to our constituents to ensure that 
our energy grid remains reliable and affordable. The majority's 
focused on wind energy at a time when many of my constituents 
are seeing their energy prices soar is out of touch with the 
challenges facing ordinary Americans.
    As such, I am concerned that the Biden adminstration's 
pledge to deploy 3,000 offshore wind turbines and make 
everybody in some of these companies rich in the United States 
by 2030 would make our energy grid overly reliant upon weather-
dependent energy sources. Plus, it is just not feasible. 
Permitting, workforce, grid infrastructure, et cetera--this 
type of a build out could take decades.
    As we saw last month in Europe, an overreliance on wind 
energy fails to meet energy needs when the wind doesn't blow, 
which is why we must continue to employ other energy sources 
like nuclear, natural gas, coal, utilizing carbon capture 
technologies. We all want to get our emissions down. They 
aren't dependent on the weather. The Biden administration's 
unrealistic target ignores the constraints of current 
technology to deliver reliable, affordable wind energy.
    Mr. Menezes, in your testimony you discuss access to 
critical minerals necessary to make wind turbines. From where 
are we currently getting the parts like turbine blades and 
generating equipment to build and operate offshore wind?
    Mr. Menezes. I thank you for the question.
    In my testimony I identified rare earths that are used in 
the magnets on these turbines. And we did the study of critical 
minerals and materials in the Trump administration. We 
identified 35. And the rare earths are one of these. Fourteen 
of those rare earths we have no domestic production of, the 
other 31 we import over 50 percent. And of that amount that we 
import, 75 percent comes from China. So you should be aware of 
that. Therefore, we have supply chain vulnerabilities.
    Mr. Bucshon. So the short answer is we don't produce much 
of these things at all ourselves. We are going to buy it from 
China, and other foreign countries----
    Mr. Menezes. Critical materials.
    Mr. Bucshon. Critical materials to make these. Understood.
    I also want to again point out that Mr. Upton pointed out 
this letter from Affordable Energy for New Jersey, and a couple 
of key questions. Will the work be done by an American 
workforce? The answer is no. Look at Rhode Island's 30 
megawatt, 6-turbine offshore wind project off Block Island as a 
benchmark. The majority of the work was performed on a 
specialty wind turbine installation vessel, was completed by 
foreign nationals from the developer's country of origin, 
something that could be considered a violation of the Jones 
Act. Why is that? Well, because there is a limited supply of 
installation vessels. That provides a--this provides a 
challenge in this area.
    Currently, there's zero Jones Act-qualified offshore wind 
turbine installation vessels in the United States. The first is 
under construction and not expected to sail until 2023.
    The second question: Will it be affordable? Well, I am not 
so sure. When Block Island's six turbines came online in 2016, 
the local utility paid $245 per megawatt hour for the project's 
electricity with a guaranteed increase 3.5 percent per year. By 
contrast, the average price of wholesale electricity in New 
England last year was $31 megawatt hour. As Mr. Upton pointed 
out, a massive cost increase.
    So I guess my last question, Mr. Menezes, is what steps can 
the Federal Government take to ensure that we can develop and 
manufacture and maintain offshore wind technology here in the 
U.S. and get control of our own supply chain to do so?
    Mr. Menezes. It is an excellent question.
    Look, at the Department what we decided to do, we cannot 
continue to rely on rare earths or critical materials or 
minerals manufactured in China or other countries. And so, we 
turned our labs loose to find, frankly, substitutes. Let's 
create new materials. Surprisingly, a lot of advancements that 
we make in technologies today, we create new materials. And so, 
that is one of things we did. Also recycle, reuse, we do all of 
this. R&D is certainly good.
    And if I can just respond to Ms. Zichal's point about the 
cybersecurity.
    Mr. Bucshon. My time has expired. I apologize.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. 
DeGette, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to 
all of our witnesses today.
    I am the chair of the Oversight and Investigation 
Subcommittee of this hearing. And we had a hearing a while ago 
about the failure of the Texas grid that oil--or coal, gas, and 
nuclear power lost twice as much power to the extreme cold as 
renewable energy sources. And major power companies are warning 
that gas supplies in Texas and the Gulf are still ill-prepared 
to handle cold weather conditions.
    I am sorry that our colleague Mr. McKinley isn't still here 
in the room, because he made a little comment about my State of 
Colorado. He said that we already have snow there. That is 
true, we already have three ski areas open, just FYI to 
everybody. But I also want to tell my colleague Mr. McKinley we 
have zero offshore wind sources in Colorado that are powering 
the, as far as I know, that are powering the ski areas.
    But despite that, though, Mr. Hardy, your company does 
operate offshore wind turbines in extremely cold winter 
environments, don't you?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. The majority of our projects are built in 
the North Atlantic off the coast of the U.K., Denmark.
    Ms. DeGette. And it is cold up there.
    Mr. Hardy. Harsh, harsh conditions.
    Ms. DeGette. Harsh.
    And what happens to offshore wind turbines when there is a 
major cold front?
    Mr. Hardy. The turbines are designed to operate in those 
environments, and we haven't had any significant issues with 
any reliability.
    Ms. DeGette. So let's say you had a situation where 
electric resource supplies were strained. Could offshore wind 
actually help in severe weather conditions?
    Mr. Hardy. It absolutely can.
    Ms. DeGette. Why is that?
    Mr. Hardy. Because the turbines actually perform in those 
environments, the wind is free. As we have talked about before, 
usually when the storms come, the wind is blowing. It if 
reaches too high, then they need to protect themselves. But in 
general, in those cold winters is when the wind blows the most, 
and that is when we produce the most power. And so, it is 
specifically up in the northeast when these production-scale, 
utility-scale projects are on board we will actually offset the 
need for natural gas for heating in the northeast.
    Ms. DeGette. And is it expensive to winterize offshore wind 
turbines?
    Mr. Hardy. It is a standard part of the package.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. So it is not extra money, really? OK.
    Let me ask you about your turbine capacity factor, which is 
the ratio of actual output to the maximum possible output. How 
would you compare the capacity factor of offshore wind to other 
resources like onshore wind and fossil fuel generation?
    Mr. Hardy. Offshore wind has the highest capacity factor of 
all renewable energy. It can today, with the latest technology, 
exceed 60 percent capacity factor, whereas onshore solar is 
probably less than half of that and onshore wind is somewhere 
in between.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. How has the capacity factor for offshore 
wind improved with advances in technology in the past decade?
    Mr. Hardy. It is a combination of the site conditions. 
Where we are putting these turbines, 15 miles offshore--someone 
asked the question earlier, 15 to 20 miles offshore--the winds 
blow stronger and more consistently there, so that is part of 
it. And then the turbines are designed to capture that 
consistently.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Sort of a different issue, Mr. Hardy. I 
understand that Ørsted is pilot testing the production 
of hydrogen utilizing the electricity generated by some of its 
offshore wind turbines. Can you just briefly explain that 
process and what we could use the hydrogen for? I saw that the 
other day. I was very intrigued.
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. Green hydrogen produced by green electrons 
is an important aspect in the energy transition. With this 
green hydrogen you can make green fuels to power the hard-to-
abate energy markets like ship fuels, airplane fuels, et 
cetera. You can also use the green hydrogen mixed with nitrogen 
to make green ammonia for fertilizers, green hydrogen as an 
additive to natural gas to green existing capacity. The way it 
works is the electrons, you split water and you create hydrogen 
from clean water through electrolysis.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. So why would you make hydrogen with the 
wind turbines rather than generating electricity?
    Mr. Hardy. Sometimes you can use hydrogen because of the 
location and the cost for transmission. And it is just an 
augmented way to go through the energy transition.
    Ms. DeGette. It just helps you transition to a cleaner 
energy source. Is that right?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Great.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Walberg, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 
panel for being with us today.
    Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, let me first add to my 
colleagues' concerns as well that I am disappointed that at a 
time when we are facing rapidly rising energy prices, steep 
home heating costs, global supply shortages, and skyrocketing 
gas prices, this committee is choosing to prioritize President 
Biden's antifossil-fuel agenda over ensuring that we can meet 
basic needs of American families during the coming winter 
months. And we do have them in Michigan.
    Frankly, it is a little mind boggling to me how even after 
witnessing what is happening in Europe, where millions of 
families won't be able to afford to heat their homes this 
winter and are entirely reliant on Russian gas, we are 
continuing down this self-destructive path. The Wall Street 
Journal put it best earlier this week when it said Putin must 
be amazed at his strategic luck.
    Now, turning to offshore wind, there seems to be many 
benefits to exploring this technology, but I am deeply 
concerned with this rush-to-green agenda, which would require 
the build out of 30,000 megawatts by 2030. My colleagues have 
mentioned some of the issues with rushing this build out. The 
one that hits home for me is the impact to recreational and 
commercial fishing and its supported livelihoods and 
industries. The Great Lakes provides commercial fishermen with 
an annual average harvest of nearly 50 million pounds. And in 
my district, Lake Erie supports the largest commercial fishery 
with its abundance of walleye and yellow perch. I know from 
experience.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record this 
letter from the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, 
RODA, a coalition of fishing industry associations with an 
interest in improving the compatibility offshore wind 
development with their businesses.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Walberg. RODA announced its intent to sue the Biden 
administration earlier this week over its failure to comply 
with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in its approval of 
the Vineyard Wind 1 project, and this letter highlights some of 
their concerns.
    Mr. Menezes, you have extensive experience examining 
offshore wind projects. It seems to me like when the hype 
starts building for these types of projects and everyone is 
trying to get a piece of the pie, some of the entities that 
have legitimate interest are left by the wayside until the last 
minute, when it is too late. How do we ensure voices like RODA 
are heard and at the appropriate time are given due 
consideration?
    Mr. Menezes. Excellent question. I know when we established 
the consortium we set it up with the intent that all 
stakeholders would be heard. You have to hear from everyone. 
You have to give everybody a voice. And you have to build in 
enough time in the process. Other than that, you end up in 
court. And we know that is not necessarily a good outcome.
    Mr. Walberg. And that is where it is going right now, as it 
appears.
    So let me ask you, Mr. Menezes, in their filing the 
commercial fishing groups lay out evidence that this Vineyard 
Wind project will have severe long-term impacts on commercial 
fishing operations. The Army Corps of Engineers even says that, 
and I quote, ``due to the placement of turbines, it is likely 
the entire 76,000-acre area will be abandoned by fisheries due 
to difficulties with navigation.''
    I am curious, what kind of processes did you have in place 
as Under Secretary of Energy to consider not only the economic 
impacts but the safety risks of vessels navigating around these 
turbines, particularly during storms and cold weather events 
when ice builds up on turbine blades?
    And if you have time to respond to Ms. Zichal's statements 
that you wish to, take the time.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I was going to say, so our process was 
very comprehensive. I was very much interested in offshore 
wind. I am an offshore platform guy from Louisiana. So I know 
if you are going to have platforms offshore for oil and gas, 
you ought to be able to site platforms offshore for wind, just 
generally.
    So we had a top-to-bottom, thorough evaluation of this. We 
had regular meetings with all the stakeholders on this. We 
heard--and we knew these were not going to be pleasant 
hearings--or meetings, rather--but we heard from the fisheries, 
we heard from all the interested parties.
    You didn't always like what you heard, but had you to make 
sure that you had a fair process for everybody to hear. That is 
why we were, frankly, excited about the consortium, because we 
thought that, if you will, we can have a federally created and 
funded consortium led by a State agency, right? Because the 
States have big issues. But to make sure that you had a 
process, you had to put them all in the room together. Now, you 
can't always reach resolution, to be sure.
    And the thing that we really learned and what is stark is 
these projects are out of sight and, if you will, out of mind. 
So nobody really asked the questions about endangered species. 
I mean, do we even have any out there? Do we know? Do we care, 
right? I mean it is just this out-of-sight thing.
    And so, unfortunately, if you will, for offshore wind, 
people get so excited by it initially, by the time you get into 
the process and everything, you realize that there are equities 
that have to be balanced. And so, that is what the witnesses 
have been talking about here today--that we experience there--
--
    Mr. Rush. I am requesting the witness bring his answers to 
a conclusion.
    The Chair----
    Mr. Walberg. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank all of the witnesses for being here today. This is an 
extremely important subject as we try to figure out what we do 
with this existential threat of climate crisis.
    Now in my home State of California, we are talking a lot 
about extreme weather events, as I believe the rest of the 
country, and that has been intensified by climate change, the 
threat of longer and more widespread wildfires, in our case, 
which deeply affects electricity reliability in the region, 
causing rolling blackouts that affect millions of households.
    For this reason I co-lead the POWER ON Act, which provides 
funding to make our electricity grid more resilient to extreme 
weather events. Similarly, supporting the development of 
offshore wind in our Nation can help combat the issue of energy 
reliability caused by climate change.
    I want to ask a question that was talked about a little bit 
before, but in more detail. Ms. Zichal, I was interested 
regarding the transmission of clean energy, in essence we 
always seem to find that to be quite a challenge, but 
especially with offshore platforms and things like that. We are 
talking, I believe, about a backbone offshore. How would that 
work? For instance, as existence right now I would say we have 
them in California or on the East Coast.
    Ms. Zichal. Thank you for your question.
    California, as I said earlier, really has an opportunity to 
be a global leader in floating offshore wind. But the fact that 
California's waters are so deep that they will require floating 
offshore wind turbines rather than the fixed-bottom turbines 
that are prevalent in the East Coast, the technologies are 
essentially identical except for their foundations.
    And, you know, as we look around the world, we see 80 
megawatts of floating offshore wind turbines that have been 
installed globally. There are three multiturbine floating 
projects: one in Scotland, one in Portugal, and one in the U.K. 
The New England Aqua Ventus project that is currently being 
permitted in the Gulf of Maine will be the first U.S. floating 
offshore wind project.
    So I do, I think--as we are starting this investment in 
offshore wind and beginning to take advantage of this 
technology, I think you are going to see not only, you know, 
projects that are going to focus on the fixed-bottom turbines, 
they are also going to utilize the floating offshore 
technology. A lot of that is due to the leadership role that 
California and the members there have played in really 
prioritizing and getting the Department of the Interior to move 
forward with leasing in Humboldt and Morro Bay, so thank you 
for your leadership there.
    Ms. Matsui. Absolutely.
    I wanted to ask Mr. Hardy a question. It is my 
understanding that General Electric last year initiated a novel 
wind turbine recycling program and that Ørsted has made 
a commitment to sustainably recycle its turbines.
    Mr. Hardy, how long do wind turbines last? And what is the 
protocol for ensuring they are recycled and repurposed? 
Additionally, is it possible to repower offshore wind turbines 
much as wind turbines are repowered for onshore wind projects?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. Thank you for your question.
    Wind turbines are designed to--most wind projects are 
designed for a 30-year life, but the technology actually will 
allow the turbines to probably run for longer than that. And at 
Ørsted, we take this industry very seriously, and we are 
the most sustainable energy company in the world. And we have 
made a commitment to recycle all the blades in all of our wind 
turbine projects from 2030 and beyond. And we have made a 
commitment to have a carbon-neutral supply chain by 2040 or 
sooner.
    And in our caught process, in the process of getting an 
approval to build an offshore wind farm, we have very detailed 
decommissioning plans that we have to submit to the regulators. 
So all of that is accounted for, and of course the steel and 
other components in these wind farms will be recycled.
    So I--the permitting process in Federal waters is very 
robust. It is taking longer than it should, but 2 to 3 years at 
least from the time we submit our application and a year or 
more ahead of that to do all the studies. And so, a lot of 
things go into making sure that these projects are sustainable 
out at sea for the long term, including fisheries and mammals 
and all kinds of other things.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Hardy.
    And I think I am out of time right now. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the 
panelists for being here today. It is a great hearing. I 
actually love the idea of wind and solar. In fact, I have liked 
it for a long time.
    South Carolina's home to the Clemson and Duke energy 
drivetrain facility where they actually test a lot of the 
turbines and the torque is put on them and the feasibility of 
it. Your company, Ørsted, has agreed to invest a good 
bit of money in South Carolina with the Nexans project for 
undersea cables for the transmission. It all works. But also 
know it is very costly. And I don't know that wind and solar 
projects actually are that feasible without a lot of Government 
subsidies that we see. So we have got to get beyond where the 
Government's supporting this industry.
    I remember John Kerry talking about--he is our climate 
czar, I think--talking about wind off the coast of Cape Cod a 
long time ago. That had to be in the early 2000s. How many wind 
turbines are off the coast of Cape Cod? None, zero. How many 
are off the coast of Malibu or Debby-Do in South Carolina, 
Hilton Head? None. I think we have seven off the coast of Rhode 
Island. We may see them. But I would ask anyone that is really 
interested in seeing wind turbines off the coast of their home 
State to go to Iowa or the panhandle of Texas.
    And don't just go during the daytime, when you see all 
those turbines out there and it looks real groovy because they 
are spinning and they are creating energy. Go at night. Go at 
night because what you are going to see is this massive red 
blob of safety lights that are on top of those turbines to keep 
the airplanes from flying into them. And I am not just talking 
about one. There are hundreds and hundreds of turbines, all 
blinking in unison, big red lights, and you tell me you want 
that off the coast of New Jersey, Mr. Chairman of the full 
committee. Tell me you want that off the coast of Miami or 
Malibu. You don't.
    So there is an issue there that is aesthetics that is often 
left out of this debate. I will go back to what I was saying: W 
don't have them off the coast of Cape Cod because John Kerry 
and his crowd didn't want them ultimately within sight of land.
    We have this debate about offshore drilling platforms, Mr. 
Menezes, which I support. We talk about South Carolina and we 
were trying to work on getting some energy development out 
there. People didn't want to see those platforms off the coast. 
But what we were talking about was well over the visible 
horizon. You wouldn't see them unless you got in a boat. And if 
you got in a boat taking a fishing run, go out there and see 
them and fish.
    The same thing is going happen with wind turbines. I think 
there are great fisheries, and there are some benefits for it. 
But the left keeps holding up Europe as a model and an example 
of, you know, clean energy and wind turbines offshore energy 
development. They are still as reliant on coal today as they 
were when they put those turbines off the coast, because coal 
and natural gas have to supplement it.
    And while I am talking about natural gas, let me tell you, 
we have the ability in this country to export natural gas to 
Europe to our friends to lesson their dependence on foreign 
sources of energy. We don't. We don't because now the President 
has green-lighted Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is coming from 
where? It is coming from Russia. They are bringing Russian gas 
to Europe.
    Europe is now reliant on Russia and Vladimir Putin to bring 
gas to Europe to meet their energy needs. Energy policy in 
Europe is a disaster. They are relying on Russian gas, which is 
dirtier. It burns dirtier and puts more emissions in the 
atmosphere that we don't like. When we talk about climate 
change and other things, Russian gas is dirty.
    We can't just talk about Europe burning Russian gas, 
because New England is burning Russian gas too. We won't run a 
pipeline from Bill Johnson's district in western Pennsylvania, 
the Marcellus Shale, right up to New England. We won't run it 
because they don't like pipelines. They kill pipelines. This 
administration kills pipelines in this country. They don't like 
pipelines in New England to bring cleaner-burning, U.S.-
produced natural gas, which we have an abundance of. But they 
will bring in an LNG ship from Russia to Boston's harbor and 
export--or import Russian LNG and burn dirty Russian gas.
    Who sells that gas? Vladimir Putin sells that gas. And he 
and his oligarchs end up benefiting from it. The hypocrisy is 
glaring on this when we have the gas here and we are trying to 
put wind turbines offshore and can't do it without government 
subsidies. It is unbelievable.
    You know, I was on the Natural Resources Committee, and I 
filed some bills that deal with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 
endangered species, because condors and golden eagles and 
migratory birds of all sort, not just waterfowl, are killed 
every year by wind turbines. But we ignore that dirty fact. And 
we will expedite wind turbine permits to allow wind farms to be 
built in this country. And we will slow walk oil and gas 
development, stuff that works. And I got vilified because I 
just wanted to treat the wind industry fairly with the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but I got vilified by the outdoor 
environmental community.
    So Mr. Chairman, I like wind. I hope we get this. I don't 
mind seeing it offshore, but I don't have any property on the 
coast. There's a lot of aesthetic things we have to work out 
here. We have to do away with the subsidies and make sure that 
it is economically feasible. And we also have to factor into 
this that New England is burning Russian gas and won't put wind 
turbines off their----
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Duncan. It is crazy. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Castor of Florida for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the 
hearing.
    You know, anyone who is concerned about the rising cost and 
risks on American families and businesses should be pressing 
for ambitious investments in clean energy and public-private 
partnerships with clean energy companies.
    Solar power and wind power is a lot less expensive, has a 
much-reduced impact on the air we breathe. And when it comes to 
biodiversity, we have the biodiversity crisis. And unless we 
tackle climate change, that biodiversity crisis is going to get 
a whole lot worse.
    Talk about rising costs, because climate just this year we 
have had about 20 climate-fueled disasters. We have paid out 
over $109 billion already. So don't forget that part of the 
equation either.
    The good news is that here in America we are blessed with 
abundant offshore wind resources on the Atlantic Coast, off the 
Atlantic Coast and the Pacific Coast. These resources can help 
bring lower-cost, clean energy to millions of Americans. But we 
do have to build up the supply chains, as the witnesses have 
testified today.
    One element of it, I was excited to hear from Ørsted 
that a lot of the offshore vessels you are going to need are 
going to be built in shipyards around the country, including 
Port Tampa Bay. Is that still correct, Mr. Hardy?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Castor. Great.
    Well, a couple of years ago, Congresswoman Elaine Luria and 
Bobby Scott and Don McEachin, they invited me to Norfolk, to 
the Port of Virginia. And it was so interesting to see the port 
executives there, their excitement for the potential to grow 
their port businesses and jobs there because they really saw 
themselves as the place where the wind turbines could be 
assembled and the vessels could help build, especially in the 
mid-Atlantic, the new offshore wind areas.
    How is that going in that area? And then what do you see--
what do we need do to improve our port infrastructure around 
the country as we increase the supply chains and build out?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. There are a lot of big projects happening 
along the East Coast with respect to ports. We are involved in 
a project in Rhode Island, in Providence. We are cofunding in a 
kind of a public-private partnership with the State of 
Connecticut. The New London pier. We are making investments in 
New Jersey, at Paulsboro in the New Jersey wind port, in the 
Baltimore harbor, Tradepoint Atlantic making investments there 
for staging offshore wind. And some of our competitors or 
partners in the offshore wind space are making similar 
investments in other States. So there is quite a bit of 
infrastructure, one-time costs going into building up the 
capability of this industry.
    And I think it is important to recognize that, you know, 
this is a long-term play, a long-term solution. And we are 
making investments now that will make us competitive and less 
reliant on carbon fuels in the long term. We are not going to 
solve the 2021 winter crisis with offshore wind, but we might 
prevent a crisis in 2026 or 2029 if we invest now.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you.
    So you all have recommended a number of things already, 
extending tax credits for offshore wind. Ms. Zichal, you 
favored that, correct?
    Ms. Zichal. Yes.
    Ms. Castor. Along with reauthorizing the--expanding the DOE 
research and development demonstration of offshore wind 
technologies. Is that right?
    Ms. Zichal. That is correct.
    Ms. Castor. Developing a national offshore wind 
transmission plan?
    Ms. Zichal. Yes.
    Ms. Castor. Ensuring the U.S. Territories that don't get a 
lot of attention, the Territories can take advantage of the 
offshore wind. Is that another recommendation?
    Ms. Zichal. Yes.
    Ms. Castor. We talked about upgrading ports, coordinating 
the clean energy training programs to strengthen the diversity 
and inclusivity of the workforce. Is the clean energy and 
offshore wind industries--are they committed to doing that?
    Ms. Zichal. Yes.
    Ms. Castor. And then encouraging the Department of the 
Interior to take a regional approach to offshore wind leasing 
that minimizes the environmental impact. You discussed that a 
little bit already.
    Ms. Zichal. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. Castor. That is terrific, because that lines up with 
the major report issued last year from the Select Committee on 
the Climate Crisis, where we surveyed businesses and 
manufacturers, labor leaders all across America on what is our 
plan of action. And so I am glad that they are aligned there.
    In addition, I want to point out, I totally agree with you 
on the grid interconnections. And if anyone wants to move that 
forward, there is a bill 4027 of the Efficient Grid 
Interconnection Act that should help folks. But it has been 
good to see the great interest in this hearing today and good 
clean offshore wind resources.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Palmer, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank chairman.
    Mr. Menezes, based on--first of all, I want to address a 
comment by Mr. Hardy that the lifecycle for a turbine is 30 
years, when I think the functional lifecycle for a wind turbine 
is about 20. Well, I have got the reports here that would 
indicate otherwise. And I am not surprised that you would 
disagree. You are going to defend your industry.
    Mr. Menezes, based on what we are seeing from Europe, these 
massive offshore turbines, along that same line, there is a 
report from the Manhattan Institute that says after about 10 
years the average output of these newer offshore wind turbines 
was just over half of the initial output. We are already 
struggling with the disposing of current wind turbine blades to 
the point that we have resorted to burying them in landfills. 
And I have got an article here with a picture of a landfill in 
Wyoming, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record, 
without objection.
    Mr. Rush. So moved.
    Mr. Palmer. Thanks, sir.
    Mr. Rush. Without objection, rather.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Palmer. If we need to replace these machines every 10 
to 15 years, is offshore wind really as environmentally 
friendly as advertised?
    Mr. Menezes. Is that directed to me?
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Menezes. We saw this issue for some few years ago. And 
so, I know we turned our labs loose to try to figure this stuff 
out because it was filling up in our landfills. And we made 
special trips out there to NREL in particular to see if they 
could help, you know, with the problem. But it was a growing 
problem.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes. Well, when you talk about losing the 
output at the rate that has been reported, that also increases 
the cost of generating power through wind turbines. Isn't that 
also true, Mr.----
    Mr. Menezes. Absolutely.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes. The reason I bring this up is that we are 
already experiencing major energy poverty in the United States 
and particularly in Europe, as Europe has moved, more and more 
to renewables, they have seen a major increase in excess winter 
deaths because of energy policy.
    The household energy utility costs in Europe are way higher 
than the United States. And Germany has, I think, maybe the 
highest in the European Union. Great Britain is right behind 
them. And literally people are having to make decisions about 
how much money they can spend to keep their homes warm in the 
wintertime versus what they can spend on food and medicine. 
Isn't this--I ask, should the people who support renewable 
energy just wholesale, should those deaths we considered 
collateral damage?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, it is certainly one way to look at it. I 
will tell you one of the reasons for the high cost in Europe 
were they moved very early on high feed-in tariffs to build 
renewables. And they are still stuck with those higher-than-
market costs.
    So the citizens of Europe are burdened higher costs because 
of something the policymakers--decisions they made years ago, 
they are still bearing the high costs of feed-in tariffs to 
build renewables.
    Mr. Palmer. And it is interesting that they are having to 
back up these renewable energies, particularly the wind 
turbines for natural gas and now coal, because of what happened 
in the North Sea recently. We saw when those shut down or quit 
providing adequate output, they had to resort to natural gas. 
Natural gas prices spiked, which makes an energy poverty issue 
even greater. And they then reverted back to coal.
    And I am not against renewables, don't get me wrong. I 
worked for international industry companies, worked in 
environmental systems. I get it in terms of what we need to do. 
But I grew up dirt poor. I mean, we heated our house with a 
coal heater that sat in the kitchen with a pipe that went 
outside through the wall. So I understand what is like to live 
in an inadequately heated home. There are millions of Americans 
that are suffering that as well. And this headlong rush into 
renewables is not only going to cost us a lot of money, it is 
going to cost us a lot of dead people. And I think that needs 
to be a major consideration. Would you agree, Mr. Menezes?
    Mr. Menezes. I think it is a major concern we should 
consider.
    Mr. Palmer. I agree with you. And I would also like to 
point out that the lifecycle for natural gas production is 
about 60 years, and for nuclear is 80 years. And with the onset 
of Next Gen nuclear, which is being pushed by a number of 
people, including Bill Gates, I think the lifecycle on that end 
would be much longer and in terms of emissions and greenhouse 
gases is zero.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from----
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I failed to ask permission to 
enter one other document into the record, if I may, without 
objection.
    Mr. Rush. So ordered.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Schrader, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate this panel and this hearing today.
    A lot of conflicts, so I couldn't sit in the whole time. 
Welcome, Mr. Hardy. Thank you for being here, an Oregonian by 
connection, at the very least, for quite some time. And I look 
forward to you coming back at some point. That would be very 
good.
    Mr. Hardy. One of my 11 States, yes.
    Mr. Schrader. To Ms. Zichal and Mr. Hardy, actually a lot 
of discussion in my home State of Oregon about offshore wind. 
And some excitement and some concern at the same time.
    My local fishermen have engaged me and BOEM and a lot of 
local partners along the coast with the process and some of the 
things that have gone on. We have had some folks in the wave 
energy space also try and acknowledge opportunities there. And 
the concern has become not all through the fault of BOEM, 
because they are a reactive agency. They basically, if someone 
applies for a lease, they then go through their processes and 
try it and do the right thing as per their regulatory framework 
that is established.
    But there is no opportunity for either Vestas or whoever to 
get some certainty up front about, is this a suitable area for 
our leasing? What does the local community think about it? And 
from my standpoint, more importantly, what do my fishermen and 
fisherwomen think about it? That is a big deal. So it is really 
important that, I think, we develop some sort of process.
    Maybe you have had experience with your leases in other 
parts of the country and your projects in other parts of the 
country to how we go about engaging the fishermen, engaging the 
local communities that aren't necessarily governmental 
agencies. BOEM's framework, you have to be a governmental 
agency to get on any of the task force. So how should we build 
opportunity in for the local input on the Pacific Coast?
    Ms. Zichal and maybe Mr. Hardy and Mr. Menezes.
    Ms. Zichal. First, thank you for your question.
    For starters, I think as an industry we absolutely believe 
that fisheries and offshore winds can coexist. And BOEM's 
current offshore winds leasing process does consider other uses 
when they are leasing and permitting offshore wind projects, 
and those do include commercial and recreational fisheries. It 
is not to say that it is the perfect process, and it is 
certainly one I think we as an industry would like to engage 
with you and discuss further.
    But from what we have seen to date, the BOEM process itself 
does allow for the input from fishing communities. And it also 
allows us to think differently about and to hear from the 
industry directly. You know, are there areas that we should 
think differently about turbine spacing and layouts and make 
modifications to that? And in fact, it is not all that 
different from what we do when we are doing onshore wind and 
thinking about what we were talking about earlier, migratory 
birds or, you know, when you are trying to site a new oil and 
gas facility and dealing with a lesser prairie chicken or 
another endangered species.
    There are existing programs within the agencies to make 
sure that there is the right feedback mechanism. Do we have it 
perfect? Probably not. But it is something we would love an 
opportunity to work with you on.
    Mr. Schrader. Mr. Hardy?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. I agree with most or all of what Ms. Zichal 
said. I think that the current programs do--the commercial 
fishermen and recreational fishermen do have a voice. I think 
it is a misstatement to say they don't. I think companies like 
Ørsted, we have a marine affairs organization that is 
10-plus people that are dedicated to this, plus third-party 
consultants that we hire. We talk to recreational and 
commercial fishers on all of our projects.
    As Ms. Zichal alluded to, we have made compromises already 
on layouts to create a larger one by 1 nautical square mile. If 
we were purely doing this in our own interest, we would have 
those turbines kind of more densely packed, but we opened up 
the design so that the commercial fishermen could fish within 
the wind farms and could transit them in a safe manner. We have 
also come up with other compensatory programs for the fishermen 
for lost gear, for lost catch, et cetera. And we are working 
with NOAA's fishery data to try to coexist with the commercial 
fishermen. So it is a part of our program.
    Mr. Schrader. So is there some of the things that we would 
want to engage with and make conditions of approval perhaps as 
we get into that, where there is an opportunity to have those 
discussions?
    Mr. Hardy. Just quickly, I think if we could have 
prealigned programs where the fisheries knew what they would 
get and we knew what it would cost us, that would be helpful. 
Right now it is quite bilateral.
    Mr. Schrader. Mr. Menezes, do you have any----
    Mr. Menezes. Well thank you for the question. Again while 
at the Department we----
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman's 
time has expired.
    Mr. Schrader. Oh, my bad. Sorry.
    Mr. Menezes. I apologize.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all 
of those who are testifying today.
    My goal as a Congresswoman is to provide the most reliable 
and affordable energy to my constituents, and also to increase 
jobs in the United States. And I believe in an all-of-the-above 
energy policy: Whatever works, whatever's reliable, whatever's 
affordable, I don't really care what the source is, as long as 
that is what happens in the end for our constituents.
    I have three questions, all for Mr. Menezes. The first one 
is, as you know, the Biden administration is planning to have 
30,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy, which I calculate 
would need 3,000 offshore wind turbines by 2030. That is just 9 
years from now. Do you think that is realistic?
    Mr. Menezes. Based on my own personal experience, and what 
I think I have even heard today, I do not believe it is 
realistic.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    My second question to you, sir, is in March of this year we 
had testimony from former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. And 
in that I asked him a question and he answered that each 
offshore wind turbine takes 1 ton of rare earth mineral. And I 
assume that he was talking about the neodymium that is used in 
the maintenance for the wind turbines. My understanding is that 
most of those wind turbine magnets are made in China. Is that 
your belief?
    And I also have a followup question. I just saw recently, 
September 24, the Biden administration actually is doing an 
investigation into the effects of imports of neodymium magnets 
on U.S. national security, because so many of them are produced 
offshore.
    So my next question is, how fast, assuming the United 
States decided to start making them on our own and processing 
the material, how fast could we do that? Could we do it in the 
9-year time period?
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you for that. That is very challenging 
question. I will tell you that I am not entirely sure if the 
magnets themselves are made in China, but certainly the rare 
earths are produced in China. And what we have seen is we have 
pushed offshore lot of the critical materials being made in 
other countries. It was something that the past administration 
was comfortable with, and so other countries really built that 
up.
    We would have to build up, you know, the ability to be able 
to process to first mine to the extent that they need to be 
mined, to the extent that we can get them out of coal ash, 
there are rare earth elements there. We need processes in 
place, and that is going to take a long time just to get the 
permitting in place.
    In my testimony, I talked about it takes 7 years just to 
get a battery storage facility on a solar plant permitted in 
California. So it will be a very difficult stretch. It is a 
goal we should all seek, however.
    I think that it is important for national security that we 
realize that we have to produce our own critical minerals and 
materials. And I earlier gave you the facts about how we are 
overdependent on imports for this for our own national security 
reasons in addition for breaking technology like these magnets 
that power those high-powered offshore turbines.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Menezes. And I also 
think that James Strong would probably appreciate the jobs 
coming to the United States instead of our foreign countries 
and often our adversaries.
    My last question is, do you think this rush to push 
offshore wind turbines--which I am not opposed to, I am just 
talking about the timing of it and all the incentives, which 
will push away other energy sources--will that lead to 
unreliability, possibly unreliability and higher costs for our 
constituents in America?
    Mr. Menezes. So what the witnesses have been talking about 
today is the fact that we are going to have these offshore wind 
turbines offshore. We are going to have to have basically 
gathering lines to come in and funnel in, and certain, you 
know, some will be high-voltage--not all--undersea cables. They 
have to tie into our existing bulk power system in locations. 
You simply not--you can't connect every single turbine out 
there to come into the bulk power system, and we don't have any 
offshore bulk power system lines out there right now.
    So we are talking about basic wires. We have got to feed 
in. We have got to figure out where we can do it, and it is 
where the interconnection comes in, is where you want to make 
sure that the grid is sufficiently flexible to take what is 
going to be a large amount of megawatts, if all of this gets 
built, into our grid. So that is going to be shoving off a lot 
of existing power right now. And so we have to make sure that 
we get all the engineers together and we make sure that we have 
all the grid operators there, in addition to having the 
policies in place to get these things in at the right place so 
that we can actually handle what is going to be a large amount 
of offshore wind.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, 
Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for hosting 
this important hearing.
    Offshore wind is good for workers, it is good for the 
economy, and it is especially good for our planet. Meeting 
President Biden's goal of creating 30 gigawatts of offshore 
wind power by 2030 could create more than 80,000 good-paying 
jobs for workers, generate $25 billion annually in economic 
output, and all while reducing our carbon emissions and saving 
our planet. So that is just the first step.
    According to research by Environment America, offshore wind 
could more than meet the New England region's future needs. 
Presently, offshore wind makes up a tiny fraction of power 
generation in New England. Today, Granite Staters are bracing 
themselves for another cold winter, which likely will bring 
unusually expensive electricity and heating bills due to 
increased natural gas prices.
    During the coldest days of the year in New England, natural 
gas supplies constrain because families need extra gas to heat 
their homes and power generators need extra gas to generate 
electricity. So this means natural gas power plants pay a 
premium for gas that they need to generate power. Ultimately, 
these costs get passed along to ratepayers in higher 
electricity bills. And to make matters worse, the North 
American Electricity Reliability Commission has warned of 
potential winter outages in New England due to constraints on 
natural gas supply.
    So, Mr. Hardy, I want to emphasize the point raised by my 
colleague, Ms. DeGette. Can you operate offshore wind turbines 
in cold weather conditions when natural gas supplies in New 
England are constrained?
    Mr. Hardy. Absolutely. And, in fact, in the winter months, 
as I explained earlier, is when the wind blows the hardest and 
we will be able to produce the most electricity.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. And as a followup, since the source 
of fuel for wind turbines is free, should New England 
ratepayers expect to pay less for electricity as offshore wind 
is built out in our region?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. Maybe I just take 1 second and explain the 
economics of an offshore wind farm. We commit to a price and we 
sell that power up front, and then that price is locked in. So 
we take the risk. If the turbines aren't as reliable or the 
wind doesn't blow as much, that doesn't affect the ratepayers. 
We are taking the risk. And we have an incentive, of course, to 
sell as much power as possible, so we are motivated to keep the 
turbines as reliable and high-performing as possible.
    So I think that the answer to your question is that, you 
know, this should reduce consumers' costs for power and heating 
in the winters in New England.
    Ms. Kuster. Great.
    Now, one of the big challenges we have heard about today 
are interconnection queues or developing the infrastructure 
necessary to plug offshore wind farms into the electricity 
transmission system. I think there are two solutions. First, 
plug in at existing interconnection points, and that could 
lower costs for ratepayers and save time required to build new 
transmission infrastructure. My office has heard from fossil 
power generators that want to give up their interconnection 
point but don't currently have a business case for doing so.
    Ms. Zichal, should FERC consider market structures that 
would help retiring fossil fuel power generators turn over 
their interconnection point to offshore wind?
    Ms. Zichal. Thank you for your question. I think I would 
start by saying that we at American Clean Power Association are 
happy that the FERC has taken the first step towards reforming 
its transmission planning and interconnection rules, and we 
feel that this is going to go a long way toward ensuring that 
generators can most effectively integrate onto the grid.
    Part of the long-term solution is to plan for the upgrades 
needed to integrate future generation as part of a transmission 
system rather than just relying on individual generators to 
fund major upgrades that everyone benefits from.
    So, bottom line, I think there is more work to do, but the 
decisions by the FERC initially are moving us in the right 
direction.
    Ms. Kuster. So I think you anticipated my second choice, 
the Federal Government to take a preplanned approach to 
interconnection, building out the necessary underwater 
transmission infrastructure ahead of new offshore wind 
development. Analysis by the Brattle Group on the New York 
offshore wind market found this preplanned approach could lower 
costs and risks associated with developing new offshore.
    My time is out, but I will follow up. And if you have any 
more information for the record on that, I would be very 
grateful. Thank you.
    And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, 
Mr. Armstrong, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And being from the geographic center of North America, 
offshore energy is something that doesn't necessarily directly 
relate to my constituents. However, cheap, reliable, and 
affordable energy in the winter is obviously something we care 
very much about.
    And I appreciate the eagerness of my colleagues to be 
engaged in development of domestic energy, but I have to point 
out once again that we are not having an honest conversation 
about the timelines for the massive deployment of intermittent 
distributed generation and the numerous legal, bureaucratic, 
and supply chain issues that are going to complicate this 
process.
    We know that President Biden announced a goal of deploying 
30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, and on paper and a 
Tweet, that may seem attainable. However, once you break it 
down, 30 gigawatts is a massive undertaking that the current 
system is not designed to handle.
    The only operational offshore wind farm in the U.S. is the 
Block Island Wind Farm. It is a 30-megawatt, 5-turbine project 
that took years to design and plan and construct, and that is 
just one project. And even assuming the second one will take 
less time than the first one, if we put that in perspective, to 
scale up the Block Island project to the levels pushed by 
President Biden, you would need a thousand projects of the same 
size, or roughly 5,000 new turbines. All of this would need to 
be completed within the next 8 years, meaning that we would 
have to build more than 1.5 new offshore turbines every day 
starting on January 1.
    As if that is not enough of a challenge, simply based on 
the availability of materials, labor, installation vessels, and 
port infrastructure, there is no consideration about how the 
transmission will be developed and numerous obstacles, 
including local opposition, siting concerns, activist 
environmental litigation, and never-ending permitting process 
for all energy projects. Even if you account for technological 
improvement and increased efficiency, the fact is that this 
committee continues to ignore the nuts and bolts of deploying 
any form of generation or transmission, let alone distributed 
energy sources.
    So, Mr. Menezes, in your testimony, you touched on the 
failed Cape Wind project and recent actions in Maine to ban 
offshore wind in State waters. But these aren't the only 
examples of local communities rejecting utilitarian 
infrastructure, are they?
    Mr. Menezes. No. One was old and one was new, so that I 
kind of framed it that way.
    Mr. Armstrong. And whether it is a wind project in Thousand 
Islands in New York or a transmission line supplying 
electricity generated from a hydropower project in Canada, 
people generally don't like massive energy infrastructure in 
their back yards, particularly wealthy communities who have 
houses on the beach or the coast.
    So do you think in order to meet President Biden's goal of 
deploying 30 gigawatts offshore in 9 years is feasible, without 
substantially curtailing the ability of State, local 
governments, and individuals to object to generation and 
transmission projects?
    Mr. Menezes. I do not believe it is feasible. It is just 
numbers that they put up.
    Mr. Armstrong. What about litigation reform? I mean, Ms. 
Zichal, you mentioned lesser prairie chicken. Well, if you care 
about the bifurcation of the habitat, you don't care what is 
bifurcating the habitat. You just care that it is being 
bifurcated. And I have said this continuously, if you think it 
is hard to put an oil and gas pipeline in eastern Montana, try 
putting a transmission line in a highly--in a densely pop--we 
have taught--the oil and gas industry have taught people how to 
slow down these projects, and, I think, more importantly, you 
don't have to stop them at the place they occur. Eventually 
along that line somewhere, there is a bottleneck, and you don't 
have to beat it in any particular spot; You just have to beat 
it in one spot.
    So I guess that would be the same question. Do you think we 
can deploy these types of infrastructure projects without 
having significant litigation reform, one, and, two, 
significantly curtailing local municipalities' ability to 
stop--or to weigh in on these projects?
    Ms. Zichal. Well, I would say where you see roadblocks and 
impossibilities because of regulatory hurdles, I see 
opportunity. I think that we have tremendous opportunity in 
this country to harness the Saudi Arabia of winds, create jobs, 
and drive down greenhouse gas emissions.
    Mr. Armstrong. I don't disagree with any of that, but--and 
I am going to go to Mr. Menezes. I was a very big fan of 
President Trump's 57 nationwide permits legislation, which 
continually gets opposed. I just don't think we can do it 
without significant regulatory and litigation reform. And I 
think we need to be honest with the American people about what 
the problems are with getting these--listen, it doesn't matter 
if it is a gas pipeline, it doesn't matter if it is a 
transmission line, it doesn't matter what the--it can be a 
cloverleaf for a highway. If we don't solve this problem, we 
continue to have these hearings and we continue to put these 
pie-in-the-sky deadlines in place that just simply are 
unattainable, and we have to deal with the litigation and 
permitting reform.
    And, with that, I would just let you close with my exactly 
zero seconds left.
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you very much for the question.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Barragan, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding this 
important hearing on offshore wind, which has great potential 
to help our country reach 100 percent clean energy while 
creating good-paying union jobs along our coast.
    Ms. Zichal, one barrier to offshore wind is the lengthy 
amount of time it is expected to take to build an offshore wind 
farm, which could be 5 to 10 years. The climate crisis means we 
must move as fast as possible. What are the most meaningful 
steps the Federal Government can take to shorten this length of 
time so we can connect the clean energy to our grid faster?
    Ms. Zichal. Great. Thank you for your question. The 
encouraging thing is I think between the steps that have been 
taken by the Biden administration plus the good legislation 
that has been proposed in the bipartisan infrastructure 
framework as well as the Build Back Better legislation, we have 
got the core components there. And, you know, first and 
foremost is we just as an industry need certainty and 
predictability in the permitting process.
    Second, you know, we--the tax credits and the direct-pay 
options are crucially important as we think about the future 
and where we need to go.
    And the last piece of this, I think, is around the 
manufacturing--the domestic manufacturing incentives. We have 
spent a lot of time today talking about the jobs and the 
opportunities that we have to grow this industry and create 
jobs, and those manufacturing credits, I think, would be very 
crucial to us, not only being able to build these projects but 
having a higher and higher degree of domestic content in the 
projects themselves.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Hardy, while offshore wind won't cause an oil spill 
like we are living with in southern California, it will expand 
maritime activity at our ports, oceans, and coastal 
communities. How are you working with communities to advance 
environmental justice and address frontline community impacts?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. Thank you. As I have said a number of 
times, we are the world's leader, and we are trying to build 
this industry sustainable and for the long term. And so when we 
think about, you know, what we need to do to stand up this 
industry in the U.S., we think about supply chain, we think 
about training and we think about the port infrastructure and 
we think about the workers that we will need. And so we have 
got specific initiatives to bring the opportunities to all 
Americans to participate in this industry.
    And one specific example of something that we did in New 
Jersey, we invested $11 million in Zeem Solutions, which is an 
electric truck initiative, to convert drayage trucks at the 
Port of Newark into electric trucks and to build a charging 
station for those trucks with offshore wind.
    The communities around the Port of Newark are particularly 
susceptible to the pollution, just like many other communities 
in port locations. So we think that that could be used as a 
model for other initiatives that we could do both on the East 
Coast and West Coast.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. And thanks for bringing that 
up in particular. I represent the Port of Los Angeles, so 
anything we can do around the ports is something important to 
me. I am a firm believer that offshore wind will bring clean 
power to our coastal communities, reducing local air pollution 
from burning fossil fuels in California and other coastal 
States.
    Ms. Zichal, as we look to develop offshore wind off the 
West Coast, what kind of port infrastructure upgrades are 
needed at our West Coast ports? I know you touched a little bit 
about the East Coast, so I wanted to get your input about the 
West Coast ports. And will this be an additional source of job 
creation?
    Ms. Zichal. So, for starters, I think there is great 
opportunity for port revitalization, and it very well fits 
within the broader goals of, you know, a just and fair energy 
transition. You know, the kinds of investments in port 
communities, whether you are on the East or West Coast--and 
even though we are talking about a different kind of technology 
for the West Coast, I still think you are going to see a lot of 
those same opportunities for port revitalization and the same 
kind of investments Mr. Hardy was speaking to.
    And not only, you know, is that great from an economic 
perspective, but these port communities for a long time have 
been the underserved communities that have been struggling with 
some of the worst air pollution challenges. And with these 
opportunities, not only are we addressing the economic piece of 
the puzzle, we are also addressing the environmental and public 
health components as well.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    And right on time, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State 
of Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    The gentleman doesn't respond. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. So, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are in a 
series of votes. Dr. Joyce is actually en route back from the 
floor back to here, so he should be here in about 2 minutes. He 
walks fast.
    Mr. Rush. Well, I am going to proceed. The gentlelady from 
Delaware, Ms. Blunt Rochester, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
so much to the witnesses and our Ranking Member Upton.
    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory calculated that 
the offshore wind industry could provide over 2,000 gigawatts 
of energy a year. That is almost double the amount of energy 
our country uses annually. Additionally, a recent University of 
Delaware report estimates that the offshore wind industry has 
the capacity to generate up to $109 billion of economic 
development over the next 10 years.
    Not only does the offshore wind industry have the potential 
to address the ongoing crisis, but it also has the potential to 
create good-paying union jobs, health--quality of health, and a 
more equitable economy.
    This February, I introduced H.R. 862, the Climate Action 
Planning for Ports Act of 2021, which would reduce the impacts 
of pollution around our Nation's ports.
    As Ms. Barragan mentioned, ports are often adjacent to low-
income communities and communities of color, groups that 
disproportionately bear the brunt of pollution and climate 
impacts.
    And so I do want to follow up a little bit more with Mr. 
Hardy and Ms. Zichal. I wanted to come at it from the benefits 
for the communities, and if we could speak a little bit about 
that. And also I wanted to touch on the chairman's comment 
about diversifying the industry as well. I know the question 
was asked, and the answers were kind of vague, and I would love 
to hear from a union perspective as well as you, Mr. Hardy and 
Ms. Zichal.
    So I will turn it to you, Mr. Hardy, if you could just talk 
about ports but also about diversifying the industry.
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. Thank you for your leadership on this 
important topic.
    As a company ranked three times the world's most 
sustainable energy company, we share your values. As I said 
many times, we are trying to build this industry in a 
sustainable way, and the intersection between port communities 
and offshore wind presents an opportunity for positive change. 
As I mentioned just in the answer to the last conversation, we 
have made a big investment, $11 million investment with Zeem in 
the Port of Newark, but not just to train--not just to 
transition those drayage trucks into electric but also to 
create training and certification programs and job 
opportunities for the local residents of the Newark area and 
the port communities.
    Likewise, in Maryland we just announced a zero-emission 
operation and maintenance hub, where we will host our CTVs, our 
crew transport vessels, to service our Skipjack 1 project. And 
again, we will be working there to train folks to enter this 
sector and we will be targeting folks from disadvantaged 
communities. And we have set aside specific funds for 
attracting and recruiting people into this industry, and we are 
very committed to trying to make it an equitable transition.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I would love to follow up with you as 
well as Mr. Strong. I think the issue of affordability, 
reliability, and equity are all intertwined in this 
conversation.
    And, Ms. Zichal, earlier this month I introduced two 
bipartisan pieces of legislation with Representatives 
Malinowski and Kinzinger, H.R. 5495, the Building Resilient 
Supply Chains Act, and H.R. 5492, the Manufacturing Economy and 
National Security Act. I could speak on and on about what we 
hope to accomplish with that, but I want to ask you, if we 
don't swiftly act to promote the domestic production of wind 
turbines, how will that impact our global competitiveness?
    Ms. Zichal. Well, for starters, I think that a lot of the 
policies that are currently being discussed are going to help 
solve for these things, whether that is the manufacturing tax 
credits or the requirements around domestic content. I think a 
lot of--there are a lot of good ideas that are currently out 
there in the mix, and hopefully before the end of the year we 
will get across the finish line.
    At the same time, what I think is so important about this 
opportunity is this is the first--I have been working on 
climate policy for two decades, and this is the first time we 
have actually been talking about not just an energy transition 
but an energy and justice, you know, energy and environmental 
justice transition. This is something our industry takes very, 
very seriously. We spend a lot of time one-on-one with our 
board members looking at what our potential best practices 
across the industry rather than just by a company-by-company 
basis. So I think there is great room for improvement, and it 
is something we would love to work together on.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I would love to work together with you 
on that as well, and I thank you.
    And I yield back 1 second.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady does yield back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Carter, for 5 minutes.
    There is no response from Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Joyce from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. First, I want to thank Chairman Rush for 
allowing me to waive on to this subcommittee hearing today, and 
thank all of you witnesses for appearing.
    As we begin this next decade, American energy needs will 
only continue to grow. Consistent and stable energy prices are 
critical to our economy, with manufacturing using over 30 
percent of the Nation's power and every American depending on 
the grid to heat and to cool their homes.
    As we have heard today, American energy prices are the 
highest that they have been for years. Any American who goes to 
the pump or looks at their utility bill has already discovered 
this very sad reality. That is why it is vital for our Nation 
and our constituents to have access to all available energy 
sources--all. Offshore wind is not a source that can supply our 
businesses and power our homes.
    By building a grid that is dependent on wind power, we 
leave ourselves at the mercy of Mother Nature. We have seen 
this. We have seen it in the United Kingdom, where their 
overreliance on wind for 25 percent of their power has led to 
volatile prices when wind output dropped by over two-thirds. 
Fortunately, they had the wherewithal to restart a coal power 
plant to fill that needed gap. There is no reason why we should 
allow this sort of situation to ever occur in the United 
States.
    My first question is for you, Mr. Menezes. As the Biden 
administration looks to achieve its goal of deploying 30,000 
megawatts of offshore wind power by 2030, just how many 
windmills are we talking about?
    Mr. Menezes. I think we said we were talking about 3,000? 
Two thousand. Two thousand turbines, which is a lot.
    Mr. Joyce. From a geographic point of view, what is this 
going to look like on our coasts? Can we expect to see wind 
turbines off of every shore up and down the East Coast, the 
West Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, to be sure, there are, you know, plans 
or studies looking at trying to put as much offshore wind as we 
can on our eastern seaboard. We testified earlier Gulf of 
Mexico's wind zone is great. But to be sure, if it works, if we 
can figure out ways to get it going in some areas, I think you 
can expect it to be utilized in other areas.
    Mr. Joyce. So the answer is all coasts, East, West, and 
perhaps even the Gulf of Mexico.
    If we are concerned about being environmentally friendly, I 
don't understand how building thousands of windmills in 
hundreds of different ocean habitats allows that to occur. 
Instead of endangering ecosystems on the sea floor and in the 
sky, there are other established and other affordable options.
    For example, 1,154 megawatts of nuclear power plant 
typically uses 50 acres of land. Not only does it inhabit far 
less space, but it provides the necessary baseload power 
through all types of weather at all times of the year.
    Moving on to discuss the physical footprint of what this 
administration's offshore wind energy goal would mean, the real 
question is, would this even be possible? The red tape in the 
energy industry has gotten out of hand. In terms of offshore 
power specifically, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management gives 
a timeline that would occur over 10 years for a single project 
to be planned, permitted, and built--one project.
    Mr. Menezes, in this regulation of environment, would the 
construction of that many offshore windmills even be possible?
    Mr. Menezes. Not within the timeframe announced.
    Mr. Joyce. So the goals to have this amount of wind power 
by 2030, from your perspective, is not attainable?
    Mr. Menezes. Correct.
    Mr. Joyce. Overregulation is both expensive and, 
unfortunately, it is a job killer. I hope to work with my 
colleagues on reforms that will allow our Nation to have safe 
and stable energy prices moving forward and to utilize the 
necessary energy that is under the feet and has already been 
developed here in the United States.
    I again would like to thank Chairman Rush for allowing me 
to waive on to this important hearing, and I waive my remaining 
30 seconds back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    Miss Rice, I sincerely apologize to you. The order should 
have been reversed. So if you would, Miss Rice, you are 
recognized for questioning the witnesses.
    Miss Rice. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
for allowing me to waive on to this very important hearing.
    As we have heard from our witnesses, it is critical that we 
ensure a skilled labor pool is ready to work in this emerging 
industry. I am very proud of the workforce development efforts 
already underway at Stony Brook University and Farmingdale 
State College in my home State of New York. These institutions 
are partnering with the State to establish a new and innovative 
offshore wind training institute which will train 2,500 workers 
as part of the largest public investment in offshore wind 
workforce development by any State in the country. The 
institute has already begun teaching its first class of 
students, and I have heard nothing but positive feedback so 
far.
    Ms. Zichal and Mr. Hardy, to what extent are developers 
working with academic institutions to coordinate training 
programs and curricula so the offshore wind labor pool is well 
matched with the demand for skilled workers in manufacturing, 
construction, maintenance, repair, and all the other jobs that 
are going to flow from this emerging industry?
    Ms. Zichal. Well, the issue that you are pointing out is 
something that we in the industry think about every day, which 
is, we see true opportunity and we see the offshore wind 
industry as something that is very much at the beginning of 
taking off. And in order to do that, we recognize we are going 
to need to have a skilled, trained workforce. You know, when 
you even contemplate what it would take to, you know, build an 
offshore wind turbine, it is very different than an onshore 
wind facility.
    So we are spending a lot of time working directly with 
labor unions. We are working with Congress in trying to find 
new programs. We are thinking outside the box about where might 
we create some new public-private-sector partnerships to 
advance training for the offshore wind workforce that we are 
going to need.
    And again, it is not just about the turbines itself. It is 
about, you know, the entire supply chain, so building the core 
components that go into the wind turbines as well as, you know, 
building the ships and all of the technology that it is going 
to need to support them.
    Miss Rice. Mr. Hardy?
    Mr. Hardy. Yes. We, you know, want this next generation--we 
want this industry to be the next generation of good-paying 
green jobs, and we want those to be accessible to all. So that 
is why we are partnering with community colleges and technical 
programs. I think you alluded to the $10 million seed funding 
that we esta--that we helped fund the National Offshore Wind 
Training Center on Long Island, New York. We also have a 10-
year $1.5 million scholarship with the New Jersey Institute of 
Technology to fund precollege STEM programs and scholarships 
for STEM students. In Maryland we are sponsoring a $10 million 
STEM scholarship and workforce development program.
    And we are really supportive of Congressman Keating's 
legislation to provide Federal grants and enhance the suite of 
offshore wind training programs available. His legislation is 
called the Offshore Wind Jobs and Opportunities Act, H.R. 998.
    So, in general, we are aligned, I think, on trying to 
partner with technical and community colleges to train the 
workforce. We also do quite a bit with universities on 
research: Rutgers, URI, and others, Stony Brook, and others, to 
name a few.
    Miss Rice. Well, thank you so much for leading the way in 
that department.
    And I want to thank all the witnesses. I have to go run and 
vote.
    And, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now understands that Mr. Carter has returned.
    Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    The Chair understands that the----
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chair, he is unavailable, if you would 
proceed with the order.
    Mr. Rush. All right. Mrs. Trahan, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Trahan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter, I see you entered into the room.
    Mrs. Trahan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As a Bay Stater and a Massachusetts representative, I am 
excited to speak with you all about the Vineyard Wind project, 
the Nation's first utility-scale offshore wind energy project 
15 miles off the coast of Massachusetts. The project will 
generate renewable, affordable energy for over 400,000 homes 
and businesses while reducing carbon emissions by over 1.6 
million tons per year.
    I want to ask a few questions related to what I am seeing 
on the ground in the State. As many of my colleagues have 
mentioned today, we must ensure that the offshore wind industry 
is creating stable union jobs for all people, regardless of 
race and gender.
    Vineyard Wind and stakeholders throughout the State have 
been working on a project labor agreement. One challenge I hear 
about is that the majority of building trade union members in 
Massachusetts are white, while most of the minority-owned 
contractors in the Boston area are nonunion. My understanding 
is that this speaks to a larger challenge regarding equity in 
the offshore wind workforce.
    Mr. Strong, can you speak to USW's efforts to diversify the 
union jobs across the offshore wind supply chain?
    Mr. Strong. Well, again, my--thank you for the question, 
Congresslady.
    My experience has been with US Wind. When we started that 
conversation a couple of years ago, obviously we talked about 
the roles of minority workers. That is a foundation of our 
union, being diversified. They are committed. They have hired 
personnel to work with the minority business enterprise. They 
are working with the other groups to promote the hiring and the 
use of minority workers and businesses.
    One of the oldest communities that we have that is located 
where Bethlehem Steel was, is Turner Point Station, is 
predominantly African-American. They support the project 
because they know that there are opportunities for those 
workers in that community to get the good-paying union jobs. 
That is why they come there at that facility.
    But this has been part of our conversation with US Wind, 
and they are committed to making sure that minorities have 
access to these jobs and that they are also committed to making 
sure that minority businesses are included in their contracts.
    Mrs. Trahan. Great. I appreciate that. I mean, that is 
exactly what we need when we say Build Back Better.
    Typically, we think of offshore wind investment as the 
physical construction of majestic turbines in the ocean, but 
what we are seeing in Massachusetts is that investments span 
beyond that basic construction.
    For example, Vineyard Winds is investing $3 million to 
research and deploy innovative technologies to further 
safeguard marine mammals. They are providing a $50,000 grant to 
the New Bedford Port Authority for developing publicly owned 
port facilities, and they have committed to investing $10 
million in projects to accelerate the development of the 
offshore wind supply chain and infrastructure in Massachusetts.
    Mr. Hardy, can you speak to the ways these broader offshore 
wind power supply chain investments help Americans?
    Mr. Hardy. Absolutely. Thank you for your question. As we 
have talked about numerous times throughout the day, this is a 
brand-new industry, and although maybe people don't realize how 
different it is from onshore wind, the supply chain is 
completely different. The turbines look the same, but they are 
actually quite a bit larger. They are built to different 
specifications, et cetera. And so the build out of the supply 
chain across all of the U.S. will create tremendous number of 
jobs.
    And as you alluded to with Vineyard Winds project, which 
isn't our project, there's a number of other job creations that 
happen as part of this industry. We have talked about port 
revitalization and port infrastructure, vessels. We talked 
about onshore construction of the manufacturing facilities, of 
the onshore substations, and then the offshore construction 
jobs and the offshore long-term, 30-plus-year operation and 
maintenance jobs, which an offshore maintenance technician is a 
six-figure job, typically.
    So these are not, you know, minimum-wage, low-cost jobs. 
These are highly advanced, good-paying, middle-class jobs as we 
build out this industry.
    Mrs. Trahan. Well, I appreciate that.
    And my time is ticking down, but I just want to thank the 
committee. I want to thank the chairman for allowing me to 
waive on. I am always happy to share what we are learning from 
the offshore wind industry in Massachusetts and certainly learn 
from the expert panel of witnesses.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Carter, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 
for being here. I know it has been a long day, so I will try to 
wrap this up very quickly.
    Mr. Menezes, you have been very busy. I know you testified 
before the Climate Change Committee yesterday, and I appreciate 
your efforts in doing that. And yesterday, we had the 
opportunity to discuss the proposed CEP plan that is in the 
reconciliation bill, and I know that you had some strong 
feelings on it, as do I. And I think you would agree that it 
would be detrimental to investments in other energy solutions 
if it were to pass, and it would essentially just negate a lot 
of all the progress that we have made.
    I am from the State of Georgia, of course, and we take our 
renewable energy and clean energy very seriously. In fact, 
solar energy has been growing in our State, and we are in the 
top 10 now, expect to be in the top 7 in the use of solar 
energy. We have nuclear reactors under construction at Plant 
Vogtle, as you are well aware, the only nuclear reactors under 
construction in the country right now. It is baseline reliable 
energy, and over time it will be affordable energy, and that is 
certainly something that is important.
    Just wanted to ask you, I know that you mentioned in your 
testimony about Denmark and their successful acceptance and the 
adoption of wind energy because they had local buy-in and local 
ownership. Considering this, what role do you think that States 
and local communities should have in deciding offshore wind 
projects in their areas?
    And I mention this because I have the honor and privilege 
of representing the entire coast of Georgia, and they are, of 
course, oppo--I say there are some who are opposed to offshore 
drilling but also to offshore wind projects. And my question is 
simple: What do you think the local communities--should they 
have a voice in this or should they not?
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you for the question. I think we all 
agree here that the States should have a role and so, you know, 
the local municipalities, et cetera. Nobody is trying to deny 
anybody from a process. What I think what we are seeing, 
though, like in Maine--just take Maine. Maine is very 
supportive, the Governor is very supportive, but they are 
banning instate water, so that is 3 miles out, I think, is what 
Maine is, so that pushes everything out in Federal waters. I 
don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with that. That 
takes the States and munis out, except--municipalities--except 
when you need to come onshore.
    So we have to figure out a way where somewhere along the 
eastern seaboard we are going to have to just physically bring 
the power in. So there will probably be another round there 
that might more involve reliability councils, you know, the 
utilities, you know, the public utility commissioners to make 
sure that the bulk power system can handle this fairly enormous 
amount of power that is going to come in. And so there you are 
going to have another probably round of stakeholders to go 
through to see where you can interconnect, who bears those 
costs, who does upgrades, you know, those kinds of issues that 
we were talking about.
    Mr. Carter. Can you elaborate on that? I am not sure I am 
following you. You mean that you would put it all together 
outside the 3-mile----
    Mr. Menezes. No. So the way that you place the turbines, 
you know, they can't really all be bunched up. Of course, it is 
a huge coast, so in some respects, they will be close together. 
But even as our NREL lab shows, you position them in certain 
positions to make sure that you take advantage of, you know, 
the wind in certain distances.
    My point on that is, as I had said earlier, you are not 
going to have a line going into the coast from every single 
turbine.
    Mr. Carter. Right.
    Mr. Menezes. You are going to have like these gathering 
systems, sort of like we do right now, you know, with natural 
gas. And so all this electricity will be brought in, and they 
are going to be either into HD--you know, high-voltage lines, 
rather, or maybe not quite that much. But the fact is they have 
got to make landfall and they have got to tie into the bulk 
power system. So, right now, we have interconnections that 
where other power right now is feeding into the grid.
    So I think what we have talked about this morning was you 
identify those places along the bulk power system where you can 
interconnect, and when that decision is made, then you have the 
gathering systems, you know, the gathering lines, you know, 
that bring the power in, you know, and then you need to bring 
it onshore, you need to get it into the bulk power system. And 
that is where FERC and that is where BOEM and the others that 
we have come in.
    So you have pushed it further out into Federal waters, so 
it takes it out of the State's hands.
    Mr. Carter. And it becomes more expensive as well?
    Mr. Menezes. One would probably--that would be my view 
likely, because you are not as close.
    Mr. Carter. Right.
    Mr. Menezes. You are just further out.
    Mr. Carter. Right. OK. OK, well, you know, it is a concern. 
I mean, everybody wants renewable and clean energy, but they 
just don't want wind turbines in sight.
    Mr. Menezes. You know what, you made a great point about 
the CEP, because we have been asked about the 10-year program.
    Mr. Carter. Right.
    Mr. Menezes. If the CEP passes, the Clean Electricity 
Performance project, it pushes the utilities from really 
investing in offshore wind. They are not going to have the time 
to comply with the CEP to really do the investments and to make 
the modifications on the grid necessary to bring in offshore 
wind. It is going to be outside the CEP window.
    So this is an example of technology, that if that CEP is 
adopted in the reconciliation package, you are not going to get 
a lot of support when the utilities are going to be building 
solar. That is really all they are willing--there is going to 
be some wind, but it won't be offshore wind.
    Mr. Carter. Right. OK. Well, thank you.
    I am out of time, and I will yield back. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    Seeing no more Members with questions, the Chair is 
announcing that this concludes the witness questioning.
    And I would like to thank our witnesses for your 
considerable participation in today's hearing. You have really 
invested a lot of sacrificial time in this hearing, and I 
really appreciate it, and the members of the subcommittee 
really appreciate it.
    That said, I want to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit 
additional questions for the record to be answered by the 
witnesses who have appeared before us today. And I also ask 
each witness to respond promptly to any such questions that you 
may receive.
    Before we adjourn, I would request unanimous consent to 
enter the agreed-upon list of documents into the subcommittee's 
records.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. At this time, the subcommittee does hereby stand 
adjourned. The subcommittee is adjourned.
    Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 2:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
  
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]