[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE: SUPPLY CHAIN
SOLUTIONS FOR A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HYBRID JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-57
[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
56-893 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
JEFFERY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia, opening statement...................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Witnesses
Ethan Zindler, Head of Americas, Bloombergnef.................... 17
Prepared Statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Roxanne Brown, International Vice President at Large, USW........ 26
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
Answers to submitted questions............................... 209
Jackson Switzer, Ph.D., Senior Director of Business Development,
Redwood Materials.............................................. 37
Prepared Statement........................................... 39
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Lucian Pugliaresi, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation,
Inc............................................................ 44
Prepared Statement........................................... 46
Answers to submitted questions............................... 216
Submitted Material
Letter of November 15, 2021, from James Litinsky, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, MP Materials Corp., to Mr. Pallone, et
al., submitted by McKinley..................................... 123
Letter from Bud Albright, President and CEO, U.S. Nuclear
Industry, United States Nuclear Industry Council, to Mr. Tonko,
et al., submitted by Mr. McKinley.............................. 130
Letter of November 16, 2021, from Rich Nolan, President and CEO,
National Mining Association, to Mr. Rush, et al., submitted by
Mr. McKinley................................................... 132
Report of the Future of the United States Climate Policy is
Digital ``How Digital Tools and Platforms can Revolutionize
U.S. Climate Policy,'' Digital Climate Alliance, submitted by
Mr. Tonko \2\
----------
\1\ Mr. Zindler and Mr. Switzer did not answer submitted
questions for the record by the time of publications.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20211116/114231/HHRG-117-IF18-20211116-SD006.pdf.
Report by Nikos Tsafos, et al., ``Reshore, Reroute, Rebalance: A
U.S. Strategy for Clean Energy Supply Chains,'' Center for
Strategic and International Studies, May 2021, submitted by Mr.
Tonko \3\
Report by Sarsh Ladislaw, et al., ``Industrial Policy, Trade, and
Clean Energy Supply Chains,'' Center for Strategic and
Internatioanl Studies and Bloomberg NEF, February 2021,
submitted by Mr. Tonko \4\
Letter of November 12, 2021, from Cathy McMorris Rodgers, et al.,
House Energy and Commerce Republican Members, to Mr. Pallone,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 137
Article of November 8, 2021, ``Germany's Economy, Once Europe's
Engine, Is Holding It Back,'' by Tom Fairless, the Wall Street
Journal, submitted by Mr. McKinley............................. 143
Article of September 20, 2021, ``The Need to Examine the Life
Cycles of All Energy Sources: A Closer Look at Renewable-Energy
Disposal,'' by Andrew R. Wheeler, the Heritage Foundation,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 153
Article of November 8, 2021, ``Low pay, abusive conditions rife
at Congolese cobalt mines,'' by Jael Holzman, GreenWire,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 166
Report by Mark P. Mills, Senior Follow, Mines, Minerals, and
``Green Energy:'' A Reality Check, the Manhattan Institute,
July 2020, submitted by Mr. McKinley........................... 171
Letter of October 28, 2021, from Jennifer Granholm, to Mrs.
Rodgers, submitted by Mr. McKinley............................. 191
Letter of October 14, 2021, from Mrs. Rodgers, et al., to
Jennifer Granholm, submitted by Mr. McKinley................... 193
Article ``U.K. Power Prices Soar Above 2,000 Pounds on Low
Winds,'' by Jesper Starn and Rachel Morison, Yahoo Finance,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 198
Report of ``Creating a Domestic U.S. Supply Chain for Clean
Energy Technology,'' by Mike Williams and Trevor Sutton, Center
for American Progress, October 4, 2021, by Mr. Tonko........... 200
----------
\3\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20211116/114231/HHRG-117-IF18-20211116-SD008.pdf.
\4\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20211116/114231/HHRG-117-IF18-20211116-SD009.pdf.
SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE: SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS FOR A CLEAN ENERGY
ECONOMY
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
joint with the Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Paul Tonko (chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and
Climate Change), presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette,
Schakowsky, Sarbanes, Clarke, Peters, Dingell, Barragan,
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex-
officio); McKinley, Johnson, Mullin, Hudson, Carter, Duncan,
Palmer, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers (ex-officio). Rush,
Peters, Doyle, McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, DeGette,
Butterfield, Matsui, Castor, Welch, Schrader, Kuster, Barragan,
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio);
Upton (Subcommittee on Energy ranking member), Burgess, Latta,
McKinley (Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy ranking
member), Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg,
Duncan, Palmer, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Joyce.
Staff present: Adam Fischer, Professional Staff Member;
Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach
Kahan, Deputy Director Outreach and Member Service; Rick
Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Press Assistant; Brendan Larkin,
Policy Coordinator; Tyler O'Connor, Energy Counsel; Kaitlyn
Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Nikki Roy,
Policy Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications,
Outreach, and Member Services; Medha Surampudy, Professional
Staff Member; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst;Michael
Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and
Commerce, Energy, Environment; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy
Chief Counsel for Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff
Director; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director; Mary
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; Peter
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; and
Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change and the Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order.
Today the subcommittees are holding a hearing entitled,
``Securing America's Future: Supply Chain Solutions for a Clean
Energy Economy.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, 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 inadvertent
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to
unmute your microphone each time you choose to speak. Please
note that, once you unmute your microphone, anything that is
said in Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers in the
committee room, and subject to be heard by the live stream and
C-SPAN.
Since members are participating from different locations at
today's hearing, all recognition of members, such as for
questions, will be in the order of full committee seniority.
Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik
at the email address where--we have provided to staff. All
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
the hearing.
Before we get started I want to recognize that Friday was
the last day for the committee's long-serving chief
environmental counsel, Jackie, Jacqueline Cohen. Jackie is a
tremendous public servant, and was instrumental to the
development and enactment of numerous historic environmental
laws, including TSCA reform, which I remember well, and
reauthorization of the drinking water SRF. And hopefully, the
Build Back Better Act will soon be added to that list. I want
to express my gratitude for her years of service, and wish
Jackie and her family the best.
We wish you well, and we are going to truly miss you,
Jackie. So godspeed.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
The Biden Administration and Democratic members of this
committee have proposed ambitious climate targets: at least 50
percent economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions reductions from
2005 levels by the year 2030; at least half of new vehicle
sales are electric by 2030; and a carbon-free electricity
system by 2035; as well as the policies that will ensure these
targets are met.
Achieving these goals will require serious commitments and
immediate action. It will also require building an immense
amount of new infrastructure and manufacturing capacity.
Production of clean energy technologies, including wind
turbines, solar panels, batteries, advanced vehicles, charging
equipment, and electric appliances will need to be ramped up
significantly. And we will need low-emissions construction
materials, like that of steel and cement, to support clean
energy deployment.
The sustainable economy of the future will definitely need
to be built and manufactured. The question that remains to be
seen is whether it will be manufactured by Americans.
In recent years we have heard bipartisan concerns about our
increasing reliance on China and other foreign competitors for
clean energy technologies. This is especially true of certain
critical minerals. Today, some foreign sources of lithium,
cobalt, and nickel involved--involve environmentally harmful
practices, and unsafe and unethical labor practices and
conditions.
In order for the United States to fully seize the
opportunities of the clean energy economy, we need to develop
our own resilient supply chains. This may include domestic
sources of critical minerals, as well as processing,
manufacturing, and recycling capabilities. Ambitious climate
action requires nothing less than fundamental changes to our
economy and our energy system.
Any change on this scale will have its challenges. I
acknowledge that. These challenges, including the need to
develop domestic supply chains, are not reasons not to act, but
rather, reasons to discuss how to best overcome these issues in
a way that benefits America's workers and her entrepreneurs.
Members of Congress have two options: use this as an excuse
to oppose our domestic energy transition, and guarantee that
our foreign competitors dominate the global economy of the
future; or we can do something about it. We can support Federal
policies that will enable American workers to benefit from the
transition, ensuring that we are researching, developing, and
deploying the next generation of clean energy technologies
right here, in the United States, and exporting them around the
world.
This effort is already underway in Congress. Last year I
worked with Congressman Curtis on a Science Committee bill to
authorize a battery and critical mineral recycling research
program at DoE, which was enacted in the Energy Act of 2020.
These R&D efforts can make batteries more recyclable, and
future breakthroughs could support development of alternative
materials and chemistries that are less reliant on critical
minerals.
And yesterday, President Biden signed the bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law. This bill
included billions of dollars to support the development of
domestic clean energy supply chains, particularly for battery
manufacturing.
And similarly, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would
refresh the 48C tax credit for investment in clean energy
manufacturing facilities.
Our committee's title of Build Back Better includes
billions of dollars for DoE grant and loan programs that will
support manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, charging
equipment, and other innovative technologies and their
components, as well as financial assistance to decarbonize
energy-intensive manufacturing. These investments will help
revitalize American manufacturing, making us less dependent on
foreign nations with inadequate worker and environmental
protections.
But this alone will not be sufficient. We must also enhance
the recycling and reuse of critical minerals and these clean
energy systems.
In Europe, more than 60 percent of the lithium in the
economy is recovered through recycling. Today only five percent
of lithium ion batteries are recycled in the United States. For
comparison, the U.S. recycles 97 percent of traditional lead
acid batteries. Recycling policies and investments, as those
proposed in the Clean Future Act, would reduce our reliance on
foreign nations resource extraction, growing our own supply of
these minerals, while creating American jobs.
As we will hear today from Dr. Switzer, there is a strong
business case for this work. We know trillions of dollars will
be invested in clean energy in the years ahead, and supporting
every stage of clean energy technology development will indeed
be necessary to position the United States to be the leader of
the global clean energy economy.
By understanding the future needs and challenges of this
transition, Congress can develop Federal policies that will
enable us to rebuild resilient, domestic clean energy
technology supply chains, and support millions of American
manufacturing jobs.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony, and I do hope
this might be an area where we can work together to support
emerging American industries, while reducing our reliance on
foreign materials and products.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
The Biden Administration and Democratic members of this
Committee have proposed ambitious climate targets--at least 50%
economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions reductions from 2005
levels by 2030, at least half of new vehicles sales are
electric by 2030, and a carbon-free electricity system by
2035--as well as the policies that will ensure these targets
are met.
Achieving these goals will require serious commitment and
immediate action.
It will also require building an immense amount of new
infrastructure and manufacturing capacity.
Production of clean energy technologies, including wind
turbines, solar panels, batteries, advanced vehicles, charging
equipment, and electric appliances, will need to be ramped up
significantly.
And we will need low-emissions construction materials, like
steel and cement, to support clean energy deployment.
The sustainable economy of the future will need to be built
and manufactured.
The question that remains to be seen is whether it will be
manufactured by Americans.
In recent years, we have heard bipartisan concerns about
our increasing reliance on China and other foreign competitors
for clean energy technologies.
This is especially true of certain critical minerals.
Today, some foreign sources of lithium, cobalt, and nickel
involve environmentally harmful practices and unsafe and
unethical labor conditions.
In order for the United States to fully seize the
opportunities of the clean energy economy, we need to develop
our own resilient supply chains.
This may include domestic sources of critical minerals, as
well as processing, manufacturing, and recycling capabilities.
Ambitious climate action requires nothing less than
fundamental changes to our economy and our energy system.
Any change on this scale will have its challenges. I
acknowledge that.
These challenges, including the need to develop domestic
supply chains, are not reasons not to act, but rather reasons
to discuss how to best overcome these issues in a way that
benefits America's workers and entrepreneurs.
Members of Congress have two options: Use this as an excuse
to oppose our domestic energy transition and guarantee that our
foreign competitors dominate the global economy of the future,
or do something about it.
We can support Federal policies that will enable American
workers to benefit from the transition, ensuring that we are
researching, developing, and deploying the next generation of
clean energy technologies in the United States, and exporting
them around the world.
This effort is already underway in Congress.
Last year, I worked with Congressman Curtis on a Science
Committee bill to authorize a battery and critical mineral
recycling research program at DOE, which was enacted in the
Energy Act of 2020.
These R&D efforts can make batteries more recyclable, and
future breakthroughs could support development of alternative
materials and chemistries that are less reliant on critical
minerals.
And yesterday President Biden signed the bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law.
This bill included billions of dollars to support the
development of domestic clean energy supply chains,
particularly for battery manufacturing.
And similarly, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would
refresh the 48-C tax credit for investment in clean energy
manufacturing facilities.
Our Committee's title of Build Back Better includes
billions of dollars for DOE grant and loan programs that will
support manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, charging
equipment, and other innovative technologies and their
components, as well as financial assistance to decarbonize
energy-intensive manufacturing.
These investments will help revitalize American
manufacturing, making us less dependent on foreign nations with
inadequate worker and environmental protections.
But this alone will not be sufficient.
We must also enhance the recycling and reuse of critical
minerals and these clean energy systems.
In Europe, more than 60% of the lithium in the economy is
recovered through recycling.
Today, only 5% of lithium-ion batteries are recycled in the
United States. For comparison, the U.S. recycles 97% of
traditional lead-acid batteries.
Recycling policies and investments, as proposed in the
CLEAN Future Act, would reduce our reliance on foreign nations'
resource extraction, growing our own supply of these minerals,
while creating American jobs.
As we will hear today from Dr. Switzer, there is a strong
business case for this work.
We know trillions of dollars will be invested in clean
energy in the years ahead, and supporting every stage of clean
energy technology development will be necessary to position the
United States to be the leader of the global clean energy
economy.
By understanding the future needs and challenges of this
transition, Congress can develop Federal policies that will
enable us to build resilient, domestic clean energy technology
supply chains and support millions of American manufacturing
jobs.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony, and I hope this
might be an area where we can work together to support emerging
American industries while reducing our reliance on foreign
materials and products.
Mr. Tonko. With that I now recognize the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Representative David McKinley, for 5 minutes, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here, in the United
States, inflation is at a 30-year high, and energy prices are
the highest they have been in seven years. At the same time,
Europe and countries like China are experiencing blackouts and
energy rationing. They simply don't have enough capacity to
meet the needs, the demands. According to the IEA, the
International Energy Agency, global energy demand is expected
still to increase five percent this year, four percent next
year and there on after.
Unfortunately, in its rush to meet our dependence--to
lessen our dependence on reliable fossil fuels and nuclear in
the near term, renewables simply can't keep up with the demand.
So let's take a step back. Rather than this rush to 100
percent renewable energy by 2030 or 2035, wouldn't it make more
sense for the United States to invest in carbon capture, and
use fossil fuels as a bridge over the next several decades,
until we can build out our renewables?
According to NETL, the U.S. is on the brink of capturing
carbon in a cost-effective manner. And in so doing, fossil
fuels will have zero emissions, just like wind, solar, nuclear.
And the U.S., in the meantime, can be developing a long-term
strategy for developing our critical minerals and acquiring
them, working--developing a long-term solution on our supply
chain.
So--but put this in perspective. The World Bank Group and
the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimate the
demand for mineral production, critical minerals, could
increase by 500 to 1,000 percent by the year 2050. Where are we
going to get these materials?
Even the Administration's own environmental justice report
has said--they published earlier this year--said no additional
mining. But the United States is entirely too dependent on
China and other nations for the minerals needed for renewables.
For example, according to the NMA, the National Mining
Association, the United States still imports 76 percent of its
cobalt and 100 percent of its graphite from countries like
China and the Congo, places with systemic and significant human
rights issues.
But this Administration seems more interested in pursuing
an anti-fossil fuel agenda by restricting mining in places like
Arizona and Minnesota. Remember, just last year, in this very
room, former Energy Secretary Moniz said--told us the United
States should be mining more, not less.
So, Mr. Chairman, think about what you are doing here. We
are restricting mining in America to acquire these critical
minerals that we need for renewables, but you don't like
getting them from China or Congo, yet demand is clearly
outpacing capacity. I have to say you can't have your cake and
eat it, too.
I look forward to today's discussion, and I hope that we
can come up with a sensible, common-sense approach in this--and
adult conversation, as we go through this. We need to find some
solutions with this, and I don't think this rush is going to be
productive.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here in the U.S. inflation is at a
30-year high; and energy prices are the highest in seven years.
Meanwhile, Europe and countries like China are experiencing
blackouts and energy rationing. They simply don't have enough
capacity to meet the demand. And according to the international
energy agency global energy demand is expected to increase: 5%
this year; and 4% in 2022.
Unfortunately, in a rush to less our dependence on reliable
fossil fuels and nuclear. In the meantime renewables simply
can't keep up with that demand. So, let's take a step back.
Rather than rush to 100% renewable energy, wouldn't it make
more sense for the U.S. to invest in carbon capture and use
fossil fuels as a bridge for the next several decades until we
can build out renewables?
According to NETL, the US is on the brink of capturing
carbon in a cost-effective manner. In doing so, fossil fuels
can have zero emissions--just like wind, solar, and hydro - and
the U.S. can develop a longterm strategy for acquiring critical
minerals.
So, let's put this in perspective - the World Bank Group
and Center for Strategic and International Studies estimate the
demand for minerals production could increase by 500% to 1000%
by 2050. Where are we going to get these materials?
Even the administration's own environmental justice report
says``no additional mining.''
But the US is entirely too dependent on China and other
nations for the minerals needed for renewables. For example,
according to the National Mining Association, the US Imports
76% of its cobalt, and 100% of its graphite, From countries
like China and the Congo, places with significant human rights
issues.
But this administration seems more interested in pursuing
an anti-fossil fuel agenda by restricting mining in places like
Arizona or Minnesota. Remember, just last year former Energy
Secretary Moniz told this committee the US should be mining
more, not less.
Mr. Chairman, think about what you're doing. Restricting
mining in America to acquire the minerals needed for
renewables, but you don't like getting them from China or the
Congo. Yet, demand for energy is clearly outpacing capacity.
I have to say--you can't have your cake and eat it too. I
look forward to today's discussion. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Mr. McKinley. So I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Rush, chair of the Subcommittee on
Energy, for 5 minutes, Mr. Chair, for your opening statement.
[Pause.]
Voice. Ask him to unmute.
Mr. Tonko. Chairman Rush, can you please unmute?
[Pause.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so very much. Good
morning to you, and to all the witnesses, and to the other
member of the subcommittees, of the joint subcommittees. I
would like first to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working really
closely with me and with my entire staff at the Energy
Subcommittee to make today's joint hearing possible.
As we have heard time and time again in my subcommittee,
the clean energy transition represents both a challenge and an
opportunity. It will be a difficult test, but one that we can
achieve to get to net-zero emissions by 2050.
That said, the clean energy transition also represents an
enormous opportunity, and it will enable us to move energy
production from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to right
back here at home, and to ensure that our clean energy
workforce better mirrors the tremendous diversity of America,
and also to make energy more affordable for all Americans.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are way behind in our efforts.
According to DoE, the United States only produced three percent
of the world's solar panels last year, and relied upon imports
for roughly 40 percent of the average onshore wind project.
Rather than despairing, though, Mr. Chairman, these facts
should inspire us to action. Rather than surrendering to a
tepid reaction, we must vigorously commit to a robust, take-no-
prisoners type of absolute action strategy.
The reality is that we have to compare our clean energy
supply chain to the traditional fossil supply chain that we are
suffering under today. Despite years of hearing about energy
independence from the past Administration, according to the EIA
in August, we still relying on crude imports for nearly 40
percent of the oil that was produced and processed in American
refineries.
At a time when volatility in energy prices is causing so
many consumers pain, we need to speed up the pace at which we
make investments in the clean energy supply chain. And any vote
to keep our dependence on fossil fuels is a vote to keep
America's energy prices volatile, and to expose Americans to
unnecessary economic uncertainty.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as many of my colleagues know, I am
passionate about ensuring that the next energy generation
economy does not replicate the mistakes of the old one. E2
released a report a few months ago, clearly showing that fossil
energy has disproportionately excluded Black and Brown workers,
along with women of all colors. The clean energy industry has
yet to do significantly better. Mr. Chairman, this is totally
disgraceful and unacceptable.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's
discussion about the clean energy supply chain.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby Rush
Good morning. I would first like to thank my friend,
Chairman Paul Tonko of the Environment and Climate Change
Subcommittee, for working so closely with me and my staff at
the Energy Subcommittee to make today's joint hearing possible.
As we have heard time and time again in my subcommittee,
the clean energy transition represents both a challenge and an
opportunity. It will undeniably be a difficult task--but one we
can achieve--to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. But the
clean energy transition also represents an enormous
opportunity: it will enable us to move energy production from
foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to right here at home, to
ensure that our clean energy workforce better mirrors the
tremendous diversity of America, and to make energy more
affordable for all Americans.
Frankly, at present, we are behind in our efforts.
According to the Department of Energy, the United States only
produced 3 percent of the world's solar panels last year and
relied upon imports for roughly 40 percent of the average
onshore wind project. Rather than despair, these facts should
inspire us to action. Rather than swear off the clean energy
supply chain altogether, we must commit to building it out.
The reality is that we have to compare our clean energy
supply chain to the traditional fossil supply chain we have
today. Despite years of hearing about energy independence from
the Trump Administration, according to the Energy Information
Administration, in August, we still relied on crude imports for
nearly 40 percent of the oil that was processed in American
refineries.
At a time when volatility in energy prices is causing so
many consumers pain, we need to speed up the pace at which we
make investments in the clean energy supply chain--any vote to
keep our dependence on fossil fuels is a vote to keep
American's energy prices volatile and to expose Americans to
unnecessary uncertainty.
Finally, as many of my colleagues know, I am passionate
about ensuring that the next generation energy economy does not
replicate the mistakes of the old one. A report from E2
released a few months ago clearly shows that fossil industries
have disproportionately excluded Black and Brown workers, along
with women of all colors. The clean energy industry has yet to
do significantly better. It is simply disgraceful. America's
clean energy workforce must look like America, and any
opportunity for us to invest in the clean energy supply chain
must be partnered with efforts to improve the diversity of the
sector. I know that with determination and commitment, we can
achieve all of these goals.
With that said, I am looking forward to today's discussion
about the clean energy supply chain, and with that, I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. And with that I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir.
The gentleman yields back. Now the Chair recognizes
Representative Upton, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Energy, for 5 minutes, Mr. Chair, for your opening statement,
please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our
witnesses for appearing before us today.
I have to say America's economy is in trouble. Under
President Biden, inflation is surging to record levels, driving
up household bills and wiping out savings. Yes, we are in an
energy crisis. The average price for a gallon of gas in my
Michigan district is over $3.40, the price at the pump has
nearly doubled from last year.
We are also in a supply chain crisis, we know that.
Shipping backlogs and trucker shortages reveal how critically
dependent we are on imports from China and other parts of Asia.
Congestion in U.S. ports is also hurting American small
businesses and farmers, who depend on a smooth supply chain to
send their goods to market. American families and businesses
are stuck in the middle on shipping delays and supply chain
disruptions.
The worldwide semiconductor chip shortage, and the
cascading impact across hundreds of industries--thousands of
industries--proves what is at stake when we become overly
dependent upon China and overseas manufacturers. As a result of
the chip shortage, the Americans--consumers are paying record
amounts for new cars, and electronics, and appliances, while
dealerships and stores struggle to maintain their inventory.
I am concerned that we are also dependent on China for
nearly 90 percent of the critical minerals and materials that
are required for some clean energy technologies like wind
turbines, solar power panels, batteries.
When it comes to energy, we want to make sure that the
supply chain is here, in the U.S., so that our electric bills
do not spike simply because of supply chain issues.
In March I introduced the Securing America's Critical
Minerals Supply Act to require DoE to address our energy supply
chain vulnerabilities, and encourage domestic production and
processing.
And over the last decade-and-a-half, the U.S. has emerged
as the world's leading producer of oil and gas, and a global
energy superpower. After decades of relying on the Middle East
for energy imports, the U.S. became a net exporter, a--in 2019,
and that is because of the work here, in this committee.
America's shale revolution enabled the U.S. to create hundreds
of thousands of jobs to undertake a clean energy transition,
while at the same time household energy prices dropped to the
lowest levels in recent history. America benefitted, and we got
used to $2 gasoline and cheap electricity. And those folks now
are thinking, why should we have to pay more?
Mr. Chairman, I plan to use today's hearing to explore what
is at stake, and what steps Congress ought to take to
strengthen our supply chain and address the energy crisis.
Last week the Energy and Commerce Republicans wrote to
request hearings on the energy crisis, and preparations for the
upcoming winter. It is here. We have serious concerns about
rapidly rising energy prices and the negative impact that the
price increases are having on the U.S. economy, inflation, and
household bills.
We are deeply concerned that the Administration's anti-
fossil fuel agenda is significantly contributing to the energy
crisis. Revoking pipeline permits; threatening punitive
regulations and taxes, such as the proposed natural gas tax in
the Build Back Better plan discourages U.S. production. Even
more alarming, the Administration is asking OPEC and Russia to
drill more, while threatening U.S. workers with a ban on
exports, or artificially flooding the domestic market with oil
from SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
This committee needs to conduct oversight over DoE's
handling of the energy crisis to understand better its actions,
and what steps Congress may need to take ahead of the upcoming
winter.
We also should investigate how regulations may be causing
or contributing to energy price increases, and whether the
Administration's potential shutdown of Michigan's Line 5
pipeline--this is a pipeline that goes from Canada through
Michigan to a refinery in Southeast Michigan--will increase
prices even further.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing and working
with you to schedule additional hearings in the future to
examine the energy crisis.
[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. America's economy is in trouble.
Under President Biden, inflation is surging to record levels,
driving up household bills and wiping out savings. We are in an
energy crisis. The average price for a gallon of gasoline in
Michigan is $3.40! The price at the pump has almost doubled
from last year.
We are also in a supply chain crisis. Shipping backlogs and
trucker shortages reveal how critically dependent we are on
imports from China and other parts of Asia. The congestion in
U.S. ports is also hurting American small businesses and
farmers who depend on smooth supply chains to send their goods
to market. American families and businesses are stuck in the
middle - while the bills pile up, they are forced to wait on
shipping delays and supply chain disruptions.
The world-wide semiconductor chip shortage and the
cascading impact across hundreds of industries proves what's at
stake when we become overly dependent on China and overseas
manufacturers. As a result of the chip shortage, American
consumers are paying record amounts for new cars and
electronics while dealerships and stores struggle to maintain
inventory.
I am concerned that we are also dependent on China for
nearly 90% of critical minerals and materials that are required
for some clean energy technologies, like wind turbines, solar
panels, and batteries. When it comes to energy, we want to make
sure the supply chain is here in the United States, so our
electricity bills do not spike because of supply chain issues.
In March of this year, I introduced the ``Securing America's
Critical Minerals Supply Act'' to require DOE to address our
energy supply chain vulnerabilities and encourage domestic
production and processing.
Over the last decade-and-a-half, the U.S. has emerged as
the world's leading producer of oil and gas and a global energy
superpower. After decades of relying on the Middle East for
energy imports, the U.S. became a net exporter in 2019.
America's Shale Revolution enabled the U.S. to create hundreds
of thousands of jobs and undertake a clean energy transition -
while at the same time, householdenergy prices dropped to the
lowest levels in recent history. Americans got used to $2
gasoline and cheap electricity - and they are thinking, why
should we have to pay more?
Mr. Chairman, I plan to use today's hearing to explore
what's at stake and what steps Congress could take to
strengthen our supply chains and address the energy crisis.
Last week, Energy and Commerce Republicans wrote to request
hearings on the energy crisis and preparations for the upcoming
winter. We have serious concerns about rapidly rising energy
prices and the negative impacts these price increases are
having on the U.S. economy, inflation, and household bills.
We are also deeply concerned that the Administration's
anti-fossil fuel agenda is significantly contributing to this
energy crisis. Revoking pipeline permits and threatening
punitive regulations and taxes--such as the proposed natural
gas tax in the Democrats' ``Build Back Better" plan--
discourages U.S. production. Even more alarming, the
Administration is asking OPEC and Russia to drill more, while
threatening U.S. workers with a ban on exports, or artificially
flooding the domestic market with oil from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
This Committee must conduct oversight over DOE's handling
of the energy crisis to understand better its actions and what
steps Congress may need to take ahead of the upcoming winter.
We also should investigate how regulations may be causing or
contributing to energy price increases, and whether the
Administration's potential shutdown of Michigan's Line 5
pipeline will increase energy prices evenfurther.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing and working
with you to schedule additional hearings in the future to
examine the energy crisis. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Chair Pallone, who is the chair of the full
committee.
And you recognized, Mr. Chairman, for 5 minutes for your
opening statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Chairman Rush,
also, for convening this important joint subcommittee hearing
this morning on supply chain solutions for a clean energy
economy.
This committee and the Biden Administration are committed
to the clean energy transition, and to ambitious
decarbonization goals, including a goal of generating 100
percent clean electricity by 2035.
Now, the clean energy transition is underway across the
world. Last year annual renewable capacity additions increased
by 45 percent worldwide, and that was despite the pressures and
challenges of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Domestically, the
Energy Information Administration projects the share of
renewables in the electricity generation mix to double by 2050.
And this is a huge industry that is only getting bigger.
Unfortunately, we are not fully prepared right now to meet
this growing demand, and I am concerned that we risk falling
behind other countries as they invest in the industries of the
future. As an example, today China dominates the production and
the assembly of solar photovoltaic modules. China controls over
70 percent of the solar PV module assembly, while over the last
year the United States produced only three percent of the
modules sold globally. China also has over 75 percent of global
cell fabrication capacity, a crucial stage in the battery
manufacturing process. In the meantime, the United States has
less than ten percent of the market share for capacity across
major battery components and cell fabrication.
With skyrocketing projections for electric vehicle
adoption, and the growing necessity of energy storage
solutions, this is an industry guaranteed to boom. And as we
look ahead, the question is whether we want the United States
to lead or follow in the clean energy transition. And I
strongly believe that we must lead that transition, so we no
longer have to rely on other countries' clean energy supply
chains.
It is becoming increasingly clear that key components
needed for clean energy technologies are sourced from countries
with unacceptable labor and environmental practices. Now,
fortunately, the Biden Administration has taken decisive action
to halt the import of some goods sourced from countries that
violate fundamental human rights. But we can and we must do
more.
It is also important to remember that the fossil fuel
industry faces some of these same problems. Extraction
processes and labor concerns have plagued the traditional
energy supply chain for decades. We must build a clean energy
economy that tackles the climate crisis by eliminating the
historic polluting and poor labor practices of the
international fossil fuel industry.
Now, this is one of the many reasons it is critical that
Congress pass the Build Back Better Act, which invests heavily
in our clean energy future. It includes investments in the
deployment of innovative technologies and American
manufacturing of zero-emission transportation technologies.
This important funding will increase demand for clean energy
domestically, while also supporting the development of clean
energy supply chains right here, in the United States.
And as we develop these supply chains, it is vital we focus
not only on the manufacture of products and technologies, but
also on what happens to those goods at the end of their useful
lifetime. In the coming decades, as batteries and wind turbines
and solar panels reach the end of their lives, we must manage
their disposal and recycling in a way that is safe and
economically beneficial. Creating circular supply chains that
enable collection and re-use of these technologies at the end
of their useful lifetimes will not only reduce waste, but also
reduce cost and the amount of material needed for the clean
energy transition.
So for our nation's future, it is crucial that we support
this industry. A strong domestic clean energy industry will
ensure we are able to meet our own clean energy goals, and
provide millions of jobs for Americans. It will also ensure
that, as the world transitions to clean energy, the United
States is not left behind. We must work to build these
industries here, and we must be competitive, and we must not
miss this enormous opportunity for our nation's economy and the
global climate.
I did want to mention also, before I yield back, Mr.
Chairman, I wanted to thank, as you mentioned, Jacquelyn Cohen
for her tremendous contributions to this committee over the
last 12 years. As Chairman Tonko mentioned, she played an
instrumental role in the passage of the landmark Lautenberg
Chemical Safety Act, which modernized the Toxic Substances
Control Act for the first time in 40 years. And over the last
12 years Jacqueline's fingerprints are certainly found on any
bill that became law out of our Environment and Climate Change
Subcommittee. She had a particular passion for ensuring that
all Americans have access to safe drinking water, and for
protecting and strengthening the Safe Drinking Water Act. And
she is really going to be missed, and I wish her the best in
her future endeavors.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I thank Chairmen Tonko and Rush for convening this
important joint subcommittee hearing this morning on supply
chain solutions for a clean energy economy.
This Committee and the Biden Administration are committed
to the clean energy transition and to ambitious decarbonization
goals, including a goal of generating 100 percent clean
electricity by 2035.
The clean energy transition is underway across the world.
Last year, annual renewable capacity additions increased by 45
percent worldwide, and that was despite the pressures and
challenges of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Domestically, the
Energy Information
Administration projects the share of renewables in the
electricity generation mix to double by 2050.
This is a huge industry that's only getting bigger.
Unfortunately, we are not fully prepared right now to meet this
growing demand, and I am concerned that we risk falling behind
other countries as they invest in the industries of the future.
As an example, today China dominates the production and the
assembly of solar photovoltaic modules. China controls over 70
percent of solar PV module assembly while, over the last year,
the United States produced only three percent of the modules
sold globally. China also has over 75 percent of global cell
fabrication capacity, a crucial stage in the battery
manufacturing process. In the meantime, the United States has
less than ten percent of the market share for capacity across
major battery components and cell fabrication.
With skyrocketing projections for electric vehicle adoption
and the growing necessity of energy storage solutions, this is
an industry guaranteed to boom. As we look ahead, the question
is whether we want the United States to lead or follow in the
clean energy transition.
I strongly believe that we must lead that transition, so we
no longer have to rely on other countries' clean energy supply
chains. It is becoming increasingly clear that key components
needed for clean energy technologies are sourced from countries
with unacceptable labor and environmental practices.
Fortunately, the Biden Administration has taken decisive
action to halt the import of some goods sourced from countries
that violate fundamental human rights. But we can and must do
more.
It is also important to remember that the fossil fuel
industry faces some of these same problems. Extraction
processes and labor concerns have plagued the traditional
energy supply chain for decades. We must build a clean energy
economy that tackles the climate crisis by eliminating the
historic polluting and poor labor practices of the
international fossil fuel industry.
This is one of the many reasons it is critical that
Congress pass the Build Back Better Act which invests heavily
in our clean energy future. It includes investments in the
development of innovative technologies and American
manufacturing of zero emission transportation technologies.
This important funding will increase demand for clean energy
domestically, while also supporting the development of clean
energy supply chains right here in the United States.
As we develop these supply chains, it's vital we focus not
only on the manufacturing of products and technologies, but
also on what happens to these goods at the end of their useful
lifetime. In the coming decades, as batteries, wind turbines,
and solar panels reach the end of their lives, we must manage
their disposal and recycling in a way that is safe and
economically beneficial. Creating circular supply chains that
enable collection and reuse of these technologies at the end of
their useful lifetimes will not only reduce waste, but also
reduce costs and the amount of material needed for the clean
energy transition.
For our nation's future it is crucial that we support this
industry. A strong domestic clean energy industry will ensure
we are able to meet our own clean energy goals and provide
millions of jobs for Americans. It will also ensure that, as
the world transitions to clean energy, the United States is not
left behind. We must work to build these industries here. We
must be competitive, and we must not miss this enormous
opportunity for our nation's economy and the global climate.
I too would like to thank Jacqueline Cohen for her
tremendous contributions to this Committee over the last 12
years. As Chairman Tonko mentioned, she played an instrumental
role in the passage of the landmark Lautenberg Chemical Safety
Act--which modernized the Toxic Substances Control Act for the
first time in 40 years.
Over the last 12 years, her fingerprints are certainly
found on any bill that became law out of our Environment and
Climate Change Subcommittee. She has a particular passion for
ensuring that all Americans have access to safe drinking water
and for protecting and strengthening the Safe Drinking Water
Act. She is going to be missed and I wish her the best in her
future endeavors.
Mr. Pallone. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The Chairman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Rodgers, who serves as ranking member
of the full committee.
Mrs. Rodgers, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please, for
your opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Record inflation, spiking prices, empty store shelves and
car lots, growing risk of blackouts: families are learning what
failing energy and economic policies feel like. Global supply
chain disruptions and demand shocks from the COVID pandemic
have taken a toll.
Now the Administration is making this crisis worse with its
reckless inflationary spending and an anti-American energy
agenda: shutting down pipelines, banning oil and gas lease
sales, imposing new energy taxes, and systematically shutting
down American energy.
Unbelievably, President Biden is even considering shutting
down a major--another major energy infrastructure project,
Michigan's Line 5 pipeline, right before winter. Closing Line 5
would cost thousands of jobs, and increase the price of heating
fuels like propane, which are already in short supply across
the nation. This is threatening people's livelihoods.
We have requested hearings with the Secretary of Energy so
that we can examine this immediate crisis, especially the
surging costs right before winter.
This oversight should also question what the rush to green
regulatory agenda means for supplies and affordability of
energy. Policies to make sure people have access to affordable,
reliable energy must remain central to this committee's work,
and that is especially true for today's hearing. We must
recognize the amazing value of our existing energy
infrastructure for economic growth, and ensuring that people
have a chance for a better life and strengthening national
security. Energy security is national and financial security.
We have witnessed the wide-ranging benefits of the American
energy renaissance brought about by the shale revolution,
lifting people out of poverty, raising the standard of living
to the highest level ever. This has revitalized communities,
created hundreds of billions of dollars of jobs in economic
activity, and thousands of new jobs. It has provided strong
security benefits in America, and lowered carbon emissions more
than any other nation in the world, more than the next 12
combined. We win the future by building on the foundations of
this energy infrastructure, not by destroying it.
This rush to green radical agenda attacks American energy,
mandates expansion of weather-dependent wind and solar and
massive electrification. This vision is to replace our energy
infrastructure at a pace and scale that defies historical
experience. To say that it is possible is divorced from
reality. It will lead to higher cost, less reliable energy. It
will create energy poverty, and reduce our quality of life.
This is why Republicans have repeatedly raised concerns
about the economic and security dangers of the rush to green.
The World Bank estimates renewable mandates will increase
global demand for certain critical minerals 500 percent over
current rates--that is a lot of mining and processing--and
massive growth in our domestic mining and industrial
infrastructure. New mandates will require more reliance on
foreign supplies of minerals and materials. That means a
dangerous dependence upon China and its use of slave labor and
abusive practices in the renewable and EV supply chains.
All of us should be asking how do Americans benefit, if
President Biden trades our strategic advantage in energy
infrastructure for more dependence on China supply chains? We
should never let that happen.
So how do we develop our own secure supplies for these
minerals? Accelerate the mining, processing, and permitting.
The International Energy Agency concluded in a recent report
that it takes more than 16 years to bring a mine from discovery
to initial production. How does that timeline fit with the
2020, 2035, 2050, whatever mandate, from the Biden
Administration? I hope we can get some answers today.
Radical green mandates seek to replace extraction of energy
minerals, oil, gas, coal, and uranium with extraction of non-
energy minerals of lithium, cobalt, rare Earths in magnets and
batteries. I am all for increasing our domestic supply of
critical minerals, but the reality is keep-it-in-the-ground
movements apply to fossil fuels and critical minerals. This
drive to renewables has a host of land use, disposal, and
environmental costs beyond greenhouse gas emissions.
We need a smart strategic approach, rooted in reality, to
secure a cleaner energy future. We should be using our abundant
resources and American ingenuity and creativity. That is the
American way. That means shale, gas, hydropower, and, of
course, nuclear energy. It is oddly absent from today's
hearing.
We must lead, lead the American way, protect people's
livelihoods, and ensure that we continue to raise the standard
of living.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Record inflation, spiking prices, empty store shelves and
car lots, growing risks of blackouts, families are learning
what failing energy and economic policies feel like. Global
supply chain disruptions and demand shocks from the Covid
pandemic have been bad enough.
The Administration is making this crisis worse with its
reckless inflationary spending and an anti-American energy
agenda. Killing pipelines, limiting oil and gas lease sales,
imposing new energy taxes, and talking relentlessly about
ending American use of fossil energy. Unbelievably, President
Biden is even considering closing another major energy
infrastructure project, Michigan's Line 5 pipeline, right
before winter. Closing Line 5 could kill thousands of jobs and
increase the price of heating fuels, like propane, which are
already in short supply across the nation. This is threatening
people's livelihoods.
Committee Republicans have requested hearings with the
Secretary of Energy, so we can examine the immediate crisis,
especially surging costs expected this winter. This oversight
should also question what the rush-to-green regulatory agenda
means for the supply and affordability of energy. Policies to
make sure people have access to affordable, reliable energy
must remain central to this Committee's work.
And that is especially true for today's hearing.
We must recognize the amazing value of our existing energy
system for economic growth and ensure people have the chance
for a better life, and for strengthening geopolitical security.
Energy security IS national and financial security.
We have witnessed the wide-ranging benefits of the American
energy renaissance brought about by the shale revolution. This
has revitalized communities, created hundreds of billions of
dollars in economic activity, and thousands of new jobs. It has
provided strong security benefits in America and lowered carbon
emissions more than any other nation on earth. We win the
future by building on the foundations of this energy system-not
by destroying it.
This ``rush to green,'' radical agenda attacks fossil fuel
use and mandates expansion of weather-dependent wind and solar,
and massive electrification. The vision is to replace our
fossil energy systems at a pace and scale that defies
historical experience. To say it's possible is to be divorced
from reality.This will lead to higher costs and less reliable
energy. This is why Republicans have repeatedly raised concerns
about the economic and security dangers of the rush to green.
The World Bank estimates renewable policies will increase
global demand for certain critical minerals 500% over current
rates.
That's a lot of mining and processing to keep prices down.
Absent massive growth in our domestic mining and industrial
infrastructure, new mandates will require more reliance on
foreign supplies of minerals and materials. That means a
dangerous dependence upon China, and its use of slave labor and
abusive practices in the renewable and EV supply chains.
All of us should be asking: how do Americans benefit if
President Biden trades our strategic advantage in fossil energy
for more dependence on Chinese supply chains? We should not let
that happen.
So how do we develop our own secure supplies of these
minerals, accelerate the mining, processing, and permitting?
The International Energy Agency concluded in a recent report
that it takes more than 16 years to bring a mine from discovery
to initial production.
How does that timeline fit in with the, by 2030, by 2035,
by 2050 taglines from the Biden Administration and the Left?
I'm hopeful we can get some answers today. Radical green
policies seek to replace extraction of energy minerals-oil,
gas, coal, and uranium-with extraction of non-energy minerals--
the lithium, cobalt, rare earths in magnets and batteries.
I am all for increasing our domestic supply of critical
minerals, but the reality is, ``keep it in the ground''
movements apply to fossil fuels and critical minerals. This
drive to renewables also has a host of land use, disposal, and
environmental costs beyond greenhouse gas emissions. How does
that fit into our environmental priorities?
We need a smart, approach-rooted in reality--to secure a
cleaner energy future. We should be using our abundant
resources and American know-how. That means shale gas,
hydropower, and of course nuclear energy, something oddly
absent from this hearing on clean energy.
We can do it right if we reject radical visions that
deprive us of the benefits of American resources, that stifle
innovation with mandates, and that undermine affordable,
reliable energy. This is about protecting people's livelihoods
and ensuring they can raise their standard of living. I hope we
can discuss this morning what is needed to get this right today
and in the future.
Mrs. Rodgers. I yield back
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, all members' written opening statements shall be made
part of the record.
I now move to introduce the witnesses for today's hearing.
We will be beginning with Mr. Ethan Zindler, head of
Americas, Bloomberg NEF. He will be followed by Ms. Roxanne
Brown, international vice president at large with the United
Steelworkers, to be followed by Dr. Jackson Switzer, senior
director of business development of Redwood Materials, and
then, finally, Mr. Lucian Pugliaresi, president of Energy
Policy Research Foundation, Inc.
And I welcome all of our witnesses today, and thank you for
your time and your information that you will share. At this
time the Chair will recognize each witness for 5 minutes to
provide his or her opening statement.
Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
system. In front of our witnesses is a series of lights. The
light will initially be green. The light will turn yellow when
you have one minute remaining. Please begin to wrap up your
testimony at that point. And the light will turn red when your
time has expired.
So we begin now by recognizing Mr. Zindler for 5 minutes to
provide an opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF ETHAN ZINDLER, HEAD OF AMERICAS, BLOOMBERGNEF;
ROXANNE BROWN, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT AT LARGE, UNITED
STEELWORKERS; JACKSON SWITZER, PH.D., SENIOR DIRECTOR OF
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, REDWOOD MATERIALS; AND LUCIAN PUGLIARESI,
PRESIDENT, ENERGY POLICY RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC. (EPRINC)
STATEMENT OF ETHAN ZINDLER
Mr. Zindler. There we go. Good morning, and thank you for
this opportunity, Chairman Tonko, and Chairman Rush, and
Ranking Members Upton and McKinley.
I am here today in my role as an analyst at BloombergNEF, a
division of financial information provider Bloomberg L.P. Our
group provides investors, utilities, oil majors, policymakers,
and others with data and insights on the energy world, and
other sectors of the global economy undergoing fundamental
rapid transformation. My remarks today represent my views
alone, not the corporate positions of Bloomberg L.P., and, of
course, they do not represent specific investment advice.
Progress in the energy industry and transportation industry
used to be measured in decades. Its sheer scale meant that the
adoption of fuels or technologies was, by definition, slow and
laborious. Today, however, how the world generates, delivers,
and consumes energy are all not only being transformed
radically, but also very rapidly. Both around the world and
here, in the U.S., clean energy technologies are no longer at
the margins, but very much at the center of change.
In 2020, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass accounted for
12 percent of global electricity production. That was up from 9
percent in 2018, and just four percent in 2011. Two-fifths of
global power came from zero-carbon sources, including nuclear
power. In the U.S., the wind and solar share of power
generation has doubled in a decade, and 20 percent of our power
in 2020 came from all renewable sources, including hydro. The
vast majority of new capacity added to the grid in the last two
years has been wind and solar.
A similar transformation is underway in road
transportation, albeit at an earlier stage. In 2015, consumers
purchased about half-a-million electric vehicles, worldwide.
This year we are on track to see at least 5 million EVs sold,
and EVs' share versus internal combustion engine cars has
nearly tripled since 2019, to 7.2 percent in the first half of
2021.
Government policies, most notably in China and the EU, have
boosted EV sales, but public acceptance and outright enthusiasm
for EVs is growing, as well. The cars run quieter, they
generally require less maintenance, and they have fewer moving
parts. They offer outstanding acceleration, and anybody who has
driven one will tell you they are also a lot of fun to drive.
Clean energy's growth has, of course, created major
economic development opportunities. Our firm, BloombergNEF, has
tracked over $4 trillion invested in this space since 2004. But
far more lucrative opportunities lie ahead. Renewable power
projects alone will track no less than $10 trillion through
2050, our firm projects. Grid expansions and upgrades will top
about $11 billion. Charging infrastructure will need at least
$600 billion in the next 20 years.
With this fundamental transformation underway, the question
is which companies and which countries stand to reap the most
economic benefits. Despite its extraordinary resources, most
notably its human resources, today the U.S. is not positioned
to lead in these rapidly-expanding segments of the global
economy. The reasons why are detailed in several reports that I
shared with the committee, and that we produced with the Center
for Strategic and International Studies. But here are a couple
of quick takeaways.
When it comes to manufacturing solar PV equipment, the U.S.
today is, effectively, a bit player, despite being the second-
largest demand market for such equipment. Chinese companies
dominate virtually every segment of the manufacturing value
chain for silicon PV modules.
In wind turbine production, the story is a bit more
complex, in part because these are such specialized pieces of
equipment, and partly because they are expensive to ship.
When it comes to electric vehicles, the most critical and
costly component is the battery. In terms of volume, the U.S.
today is a laggard in the final assembly of such batteries, and
in the production of battery components. China and South Korea
are primary suppliers, with Europe coming on very quickly.
What specific policies could trigger U.S. clean energy
manufacturing growth? For clues, it is worth examining the
challenges and successes Germany, India, and, particularly,
China have achieved.
In our research with CSIS, we found that, to attract the
private investment required to scale manufacturing, equipment-
makers must believe that significant local demand exists for
their products, both in the short and the long term. I raise
this point because, in the context of China, which is not only
the largest supplier of clean energy goods on Earth by far, but
the largest demand market for such equipment, as well, there
has been a lot of attention paid to how China subsidizes
manufacturing of clean energy equipment by making low or zero-
interest loans available. While that is certainly true, China
has also created significant demand for clean energy goods and
services by offering higher tariffs for zero-carbon power, or
offering rebates for the purchases of electric vehicles.
I am going to close real quick by just offering one final
comment.
Before today, Congress has legislation that can send the
very signals that are required to trigger a U.S. clean energy
manufacturing scale-up. The infrastructure bill passed the
other day marked an important step in this direction, with its
support for transmission, EV charging, and other technologies,
including carbon capture and nuclear power. But it is the
currently pending Build Back Better legislation that stands to
make a far bigger impact in this area. By focusing both on the
supply and demand side of the clean energy equation, the bill
has the potential to unleash an unprecedented wave of
investment and manufacturing capacity on U.S. soil.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zindler follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Well, we thank you, Mr. Zindler and, again,
welcome.
And now we welcome Ms. Brown.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF ROXANNE BROWN
Ms. Brown. Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers,
Chairman Tonko, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member McKinley, Ranking
Member Upton, and members of the subcommittees, my name is
Roxanne Brown, and I am proud to serve as international vice
president at large for the United Steelworkers Union. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today at this important hearing
to discuss supply chains for the clean energy economy.
As the largest industrial union in North America, USW
members make the products, components, subcomponents, and raw
materials that underpin our manufacturing economy now, and
which will be necessary to build the clean energy economy.
Manufacturing is where much of the economic benefit will lie
for communities and workers, as new technologies are deployed,
and as we rebuild our nation's infrastructure. It can and must
be a driver of the creation and retention of good, family-
supporting union jobs throughout the economy.
But I have to be honest. Not everyone is looking forward to
the transition of the U.S. and global economy to a clean energy
one. American manufacturing workers have a great deal of
skepticism about what this will mean for their jobs, for them,
and for their communities. That skepticism is well-founded,
after so many decades of policy-making have left manufacturing
communities hollowed out.
Our union has been having the green jobs conversation with
our members for almost 20 years now. And for many of them, that
promise has not been realized. We have so many examples of USW
members working in clean energy supply chains who have lost
jobs, instead of those jobs flourishing. Whether it is our
members at Rotek in Aurora, Ohio, who, ten years ago, made a
higher share of large diameter bearings for onshore wind, but
were impacted by foreign-made bearings coming into the market,
or our members at Corning and PPG Industries, who made glass
for solar panels at one time, but couldn't compete, once
China's industrial policies sought to dominate the global
market.
Earlier this year, USW member Joe Wrona testified before
the Senate Finance Committee about how his plant announced
efforts to expand into the solar supply chain, only to close
less than a decade later, in part because of China's dominance
in the industry.
This regrettable history does not have to continue into the
future. For this transition to be successful, manufacturing
workers and their communities must be the leaders of these--of
this transition, not the victims of it. We have an opportunity
to reverse what has happened in manufacturing sectors across
the United States supply chain, and we--and have our members,
you know, believe our union, believe Congress, believe the
Administration when we all say that manufacturing will be the
driver of the clean energy economy.
The policy environment is creating some opportunities, as
we will see, once this infrastructure bill that was signed
tomorrow is implemented--yesterday, was implemented. But more
can be done to ensure both economic and environmental
sustainability as we move towards a clean energy economy. Our
union is committed to seeing both of these things through. But
if we do one, and not the other, then we don't succeed. My
written testimony details the policy pieces our union believes
are necessary to help achieve both of these goals, but I would
like to highlight a few.
First, policymakers must consider the broad suite of clean
energy technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and
battery storage, and develop strategies for the supply chain
for each of them. This should also include supply chains for
building materials for energy efficiency, carbon management
like utilization and direct air capture, batteries and charging
stations for electric vehicles, and emerging fuels like
hydrogen.
Second, secure domestic supply chains will only grow if
intentional choices are made to develop sound industrial
policy, and a strategy for investing in the manufacture of
these technologies. This is what other countries are doing, and
it is necessary for us to compete globally.
Finally, a foundational bedrock of investing in
manufacturing is Buy America policy. It creates demand for
manufacturing and materials, and provides certainty to
companies, which is necessary when those companies take risks
to retool and make materials for new technologies. Taxpayers
overwhelmingly support their dollars being spent to create jobs
here in the United States.
Our union looks forward to working with you to make our
vision a reality for manufacturing workers. I have spent a lot
of time over the last 15 years testifying, and speaking on
panels about the hope of the clean energy economy for my
members and, really, for domestic industry. And it has been too
long to be having this conversation. We have a real opportunity
right now to make our goals and our vision about what the
domestic manufacturing can do for the clean energy sector a
reality, and we look forward to working with you to get that
done. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Brown. And now we move to Dr.
Switzer.
Again, welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
STATEMENT OF JACKSON SWITZER
Dr. Switzer. Thank you. Chairmen Rush and Tonko, Ranking
Members McKinley and Upton, members of the House Energy and
Commerce Subcommittees on Energy, Environment, and Climate
Change, thank you for the invitation to testify at today's
hearing.
My name is Jackson Switzer. I am the senior director for
business development at Redwood Materials. Prior to joining
Redwood, I spent over seven years at Albemarle Corporation, the
world's largest lithium mining and refining company. I have a
technical background, with a doctorate in chemical engineering
from Georgia Tech, and a bachelor's degree in chemistry from
the University of Alabama.
Representative Scalise, I don't see you here, and no
offense to your alma mater, but Roll Tide.
Redwood Materials was founded by Tesla co-founder and
longtime chief technology officer, JB Straubel, in 2017. JB
founded Redwood to transform the battery supply chain, making
it more sustainable, faster, and less costly. We aim to do this
by offering large-scale domestic sources of battery materials
that can go directly to U.S. battery manufacturers, like our
partners, Panasonic and Ford. Our battery materials will be
produced from recycled batteries, augmented with sustainably-
mined material.
By 2030, Redwood intends to produce enough material to
supply over six million electric vehicles, annually. We feel
that quickly ramping a domestic battery material supply chain,
using the highest possible percent of local, recycled raw
materials, is the best way we can help meet the U.S.'s clean
energy goals.
As Ethan at Bloomberg highlighted, our world is rapidly
transitioning to electric vehicles. EVs are projected to
account for nearly 100 percent of new cars sold in 2040. Ford,
General Motors, and Stellantis have each made declarations to
go all-in on electrifying their fleets over the next decade.
And EV manufacturers Tesla and Rivian plan to exponentially
ramp production. This expanding demand for EVs presents an
opportunity for the U.S. economy, particularly the automotive
sector, which accounts for roughly three percent of our
nation's GDP.
Building out domestic EV battery and materials
manufacturing capabilities can help position our country as a
competitive international player in the global automotive
space. Central and critical to this is establishing U.S.
leadership across the battery supply chain.
The two battery materials we are focused on at Redwood are
cathode materials and copper foils, which together make up
nearly 65 percent of the cost of a battery, and, therefore,
have major consequences to EV manufacturing.
Cathode materials have a long and complex supply chain
today that involves mining and refining metal ores on multiple
continents. Often, these materials travel greater than 50,000
miles before reaching an EV in the U.S. In total, the U.S.
cathode demand is expected to increase by 600 percent over the
decade. If the supply chain is left as is, to keep pace the
U.S. would need to import greater than 2 million tons of
cathode materials through 2030. This also translates to a lost
economic value of over $85 billion U.S.
However, there is tremendous opportunity to generate our
own supply of these materials over time, here in the U.S.
Cathode material elements like lithium, cobalt, and nickel are
infinitely recyclable. Copper foil supply chain is similarly
dominated by other countries, particularly by Chile, Peru, and
China. If its supply chain is left as is, the U.S. would need
to import greater than 800,000 metric tons of copper foil
through 2030, with another lost of economic value of greater
than $13 billion.
Interestingly, the U.S. currently exports about the same
amount annually, 800,000 metric tons of copper scrap, to Asia
each year. This actually presents a tremendous opportunity for
copper foil manufacturing within our country, capturing a
valuable resource that we are currently exporting. The supply
chain localization opportunity here is enormous.
We are confident Redwood Materials can be part of the
solution.
Look, the transportation to electric transportation and
clean energy is coming. As a nation, we must ask ourselves if
we want to create the infrastructure and jobs to support that
shift here in the United States, or will we allow other nations
to develop the manufacturing capacity overseas, as has happened
with most of the clean energy economy to date. Redwood
Materials is committed to localizing the battery material
supply chain to the U.S., but we are just one of many
innovative American companies developing cutting-edge
technologies that support electrification.
Implementing the right policies now is critical to helping
these companies drastically and quickly scale their production
in America. Policies like the Battery Manufacturing and
Recycling Grant Program, which was spearheaded by
Representative Doyle, and included in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will help launch
innovative solutions to strengthen the supply chain.
Reinstituting the 48C tax credits to support clean energy
manufacturing, as proposed in the Build Back Better Act, will
also help companies invest in the United States and create
high-quality jobs.
In closing, creating a circular supply chain for electric
vehicles and clean energy products in the United States is a
win-win, allowing our country to counteract an important
environmental risk, while creating economic security, tens of
thousands of jobs, bolstering our supply chain, and ensuring
that the billions of dollars that will be invested in the
battery industry land here in the U.S.
Thank you to both subcommittees for holding this important
hearing. I look forward to the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Switzer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Switzer.
We now move to Mr. Pugliaresi.
Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF LUCIAN PUGLIARESI
Mr. Pugliaresi. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Chairman Rush,
Chairman Pallone, Ranking Members McKinley, Rodgers, and Upton.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to give my views on
today's topic.
My name is Lucian Pugliaresi. I am president of the Energy
Policy Research Foundation. I have personally worked on a broad
range of energy security issues, both in and out of government,
since the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo.
I would like to make just a few brief points to summarize
my testimony. I hope the members will get a chance to look at
some of the figures we put together there.
The energy system is highly complex. It is interconnected
regionally and globally in ways that are not always apparent.
The transition presents a new set of supply and price risks for
consumers and manufacturers.
Achieving net zero in the developed world--I am talking
about the OECD--is a prodigious and, actually, unlikely task.
And even if we do that, we will only eliminate 20 percent of
global emissions, versus a range of business-as-usual forecasts
for 2050. It is--everything is about the developing world:
Asia-Pacific, Africa.
Regulatory programs, as well as private-sector commitments
to accelerate the energy transition, whether it is mandates,
targets, financial, or Federal procurement guidelines, create
uncertainty and financial risks that will limit needed
investments in a broad range of legacy fuels, particularly oil
and gas.
While most of the escalation in energy prices can be tied
to dislocations in oil and gas supply chains, largely from the
COVID pandemic, recently-announced policy decisions, such as
the halt on leasing on Federal lands, the cancellation of the
Keystone Pipeline, the potential cancellation of Line 5 and
bringing Canadian crude oil to the United States, rising
regulatory requirements, and permitting delays are all
threatening North American oil and gas production. We undermine
this strategic asset at our peril.
Oil and gas production is going to be needed throughout the
transition. Today, after government support, we have put tens
of billions of dollars into wind and solar. But if you look at
its contribution to primary energy supply in the U.S., it only
represents four percent. In fact, wind and solar today still
require vast sums of Federal support in the form of production
tax credits. And today, the oil and gas development in the U.S.
still generates large revenues to the Federal Government. This
is the fundamentals of the marketplace. This doesn't represent
the values of these two fuels, it just tells us how society
values these two technologies.
The current energy crisis in Europe is a cautionary tale,
and we should learn from it. I have my colleague from London
here with me today, and he has been briefing us on the
situation there. The European crisis has its roots in policies
that sought rapid decarbonization without accounting for the
associated supply risks.
Policy initiatives which seek to accelerate the U.S.
transition to a fully renewable energy complex before these
technologies are cost effective will have global implications.
And we are going to cede our energy security to China, Russia,
and the Middle East. They will all gain positional advantage if
we don't do this right.
The transition will create unprecedented new demands, and
add new energy security threats to existing ones. We are,
essentially, trading a secure, independent energy complex for
one with new and poorly-understood risks. I recommend you
look--we issued a chart of the week by one of our senior
researchers, Max Pyziur, and there is an interesting statistic
in there: a smart battery phone uses three grams of lithium, a
Tesla uses 140 pounds. Think about the requirements, as we
accelerate electric vehicles in the U.S.
Investment and adaptation should be part of our discussion,
going forward.
And finally, and most importantly, policy measures should
be robust against uncertainty. We have a long list of things we
have done with Congress and past administrations, which sounded
like a good idea at the time. But the world changed. So one of
the things I hope the committee will take under consideration,
however we proceed with these measures, that we think about
strategies that hold up against a broad range of uncertainties.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pugliaresi follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Mr. Pugliaresi.
We now move to member questions, and I will start by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
When we discuss clean energy goals, they can often be
difficult to wrap our heads around. But Mr. Zindler, I am
hoping you can help give us a better sense of the scale of our
national, or even global energy transition. Can you give us any
estimates on how much investment is required, necessary to
achieve an ambitious emissions reduction goal?
[Pause.]
Mr. Tonko. Can you activate your mike? Thanks.
[Pause.]
Mr. Tonko. No.
[Pause.]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Ms. Brown to the rescue.
Mr. Zindler [continue]. Ms. Brown for a minute.
The--first, just a comment, I--if I could just make one
quick comment, which is that I heard a lot about--talking about
how this is some kind of a rush, that we are--that this is a
policy that is a rush. Only here in the U.S. is this viewed as
a rush.
There are ten countries already which get more than 25
percent of their power from wind and solar today, and these are
not tiny countries. There are countries like UK and Spain and
Portugal and Germany. They have already--or Uruguay. They are
not all in Europe, where we have seen this kind of transition
already underway. So there is nothing particularly, actually,
new. If anything, we are well behind on a transition that is
taking place around the globe.
We have been seeing about 500 billion--Mr. Chairman, to
your question--we have been seeing about $500 billion a year
invested in what we would call energy transition technologies,
overall. That number, basically, has to double to start to get
where we need to go, in terms of trying to achieve some of the
net-zero targets that have been declared.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And can you give us a sense of what
that means, in terms of manufacturing, or critical mineral
needs?
Like, how many more solar panels, wind turbines, and
batteries are necessary, are needed in a world where those
targets are achieved?
Mr. Zindler. Well, I mean, we have been consistently seeing
the demand for solar rise each year, anywhere from 10 to 20
percent, depending on which year you are talking about, mainly
because the technologies, I would point out, are, in many parts
of the world right now, the lowest-cost option. And that is,
really, what is proliferating a lot of the growth.
So we expect, for the U.S. to try and hit its clean energy
goals, the ones that have been declared, to try and get to zero
percent carbon by 2035, we need to go from building about 40
gigawatts a year to building about 80 per year in the United
States, which mean about a, roughly, doubling in the investment
in the short run, but, obviously, the costs have been coming
down, so that will reduce that somewhat.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And based on today's testimony, it
seems, for at least some technologies and components, are not
currently U.S. firms positioned to fully take advantage of
these massive emerging markets (sic). The Build Back Better Act
would help change that. Any comments about what might be
inspirational with the Build Back Better Act?
Mr. Zindler. So, I mean, for our work that we did for the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, we tried to
look at some of the successful industrial policies in other
parts of the world.
And as I noted in my testimony, China--you--any one of
these sectors, but if you--particularly, we looked at the
electric vehicle sector about ten years ago--put together a
plan in which they determined that they wanted to be the
world's largest producer of electric vehicles, and the largest
consumer of them, as well. And they set about creating both
supply and demand-side policies to support that.
We do not have long-term certainty at the moment about what
the demand for electric vehicles will be, just to give one
example. The corporate average fuel economy standards, which
are certainly being, you know, are--have been revised, but are
constantly being challenged, provide some additional certainty
to automakers. And we have certainly seen these declarations
from Stellantis, from Ford, from GM that they plan to do EVs.
But I would say that, if you were to press them, many of
them would not say that the U.S. is the primary market that
they think will be the demand market, because there is a lot
more certainty from Europe and other parts of the world.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I will move over to Ms. Brown
now.
And when we talk about climate jobs, we often think about
construction jobs being--building transmission lines,
installing EV charging stations, or retrofitting buildings.
Could you share for the subcommittees where you see the biggest
opportunities for clean energy manufacturing jobs?
Ms. Brown. Absolutely, and thank you so much for the
question, Mr. Chairman.
You know, everywhere, in a nutshell, everywhere. When you
think about the types of clean energy technologies that we are
talking about, whether it is onshore or offshore wind, there is
a significant amount of steel that is required for both of
those technologies. If we are talking about solar, the glass
that is needed for solar panels, the aluminum, the copper that
is needed for solar panels, are all made by steelworker
members. If we are talking about energy efficiency,
manufacturing facilities won't only benefit from those
technologies, but can actually make those technologies, and
steelworker members actually make energy efficiency
technologies.
So for us, it is--the possibilities are endless, and vast,
and really stretch across each of these technologies, and I
think we are just waiting to do the work.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. We will now recognize Mr.
McKinley, Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
ranking member.
And Representative McKinley, you are recognized for 5
minutes for your questions.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you and thank you, again, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you for the panel. It is interesting to see, you
know, some of the perspectives, and we could learn from this.
But I would like to address my questions primarily to Mr.
Pugliaresi.
Mr. Pugliaresi. Pugliaresi, yes.
Mr. McKinley. Pugliaresi. And speaking for the
Administration in Scotland, John Kerry said there that the
United States should eliminate the use of coal by 2030, period.
And he reinforced how other fossil fuels--oil, gas--would be
eliminated by 2035. And as you point out in your testimony,
that is going to result in an expedited shift to renewables in
the next few years--we could do the count until 2030--and that
is going to require large quantities of critical minerals.
But the U.S. still imports the vast majority of its mineral
needs for renewables, and is entirely relying on foreign
nations for some of them that I talked about in my opening
statement. So do you believe that America will be able to
supply itself the critical minerals needed by 2030 and by 2035?
Mr. Pugliaresi. No one who----
Mr. McKinley. Use your mike, please.
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes. No one who understands how we do
permitting, how we go through the development, the NEPA
reviews, believes that that is even possible. It is just not
going to happen.
And in fact, I think the biggest--if you look--the biggest
concern we have with the power sector is, if you push it too
fast, it is going to become very brittle. It is going to become
brittle because the fuels we use are going to be much more
narrow, and we are going to be also subject to more complex
systems, which are subject to failure modes that we don't even
fully understand yet.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. The administration has been
focused on this need to increase the domestic supply chain, and
I think we have had a good dialogue, and we understand the need
for that to be addressed for renewables. But that, as I pointed
out in my opening remarks, that is going to require a lot--a
significant increase in domestic mining, processing, and
manufacturing. And we know that China, right now, is the lead
firm--nation that processes the bulk of these renewables. And
then they ship them around the country, around the world.
And we said before, the U.S. is going to need--to meet the
demand, we are going to need 500 to 1,000 percent more minerals
than we have today. So do you believe that the current
permitting process will allow the United States to increase its
domestic processing of critical minerals?
Mr. Pugliaresi. You can bet that is not going to happen.
You don't--I mean, it is--we have the process--look, you just
look at the scale problems that we face. We have been working
on wind and solar for 30 or 40 years, and we have had grandiose
plans. But, as I pointed out, deploying it is something else.
It still only represents four percent of primary energy.
Mr. McKinley. Then why isn't Congress and the
Administration--why aren't they listening to you?
We--if it can't happen, you----
Mr. Pugliaresi. I actually----
Mr. McKinley. I mean, seriously. You know, it is a--get out
of this politics, and just the reality. I am a civil engineer,
I am a licensed civil engineer. I deal in facts. I don't
understand why we are letting emotion get into this, rather
than the facts that you are pointing out.
We just simply can't get there now, and that was why I was
making--in my opening remarks, saying, ``Give us time, we are
going to get there, but I would like to have this fossil fuel--
the use of fossil fuels to bridge until we can get those things
taken care of.''
But in the meantime, we are dealing with--and then there is
the last question I would like to ask, is having to do with
critical minerals, again.
What are the labor and environmental benefits if we process
these critical minerals in the United States, as compared to
what they are doing in China and elsewhere?
How--because we have been concerned about environmental
justice, and I have understood some of the components of that.
But what are we doing now?
If we bring this back home, are we going to improve--and it
should, hopefully, increase the environmental benefits by
producing them here. Can you elaborate a little bit on that?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Clearly, we have an enormous number of
environmental standards that all industry has to adhere to. So
the--from a global point of view, it will be produced in a much
cleaner, responsible way.
And--but it also is going to require a scale. I think we
really don't appreciate the scale of the problem before us. I
mean, people talk about Denmark. There are five million people
in Denmark. There are 300 million people in Indonesia, and they
all want an air conditioner. And they don't want to spend a lot
of money for their power. So the real dilemma for us is we have
to have--we have to let our technology mature, so that it is
cost effective, so that the American consumers don't see
escalating costs as we try to wrench the system before the
technology is ready to be deployed.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Pugliaresi, I can't agree with you more.
Thank you for testifying here, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Chairman Rush of the Subcommittee on Energy.
Chairman Rush, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the
comments that struck me this morning, Mr. Chairman, was coming
from Mr. Zindler, his testimony.
Mr. Zindler, you stated that the clean energy provisions of
the Build Back Better Act, which this subcommittee--these
subcommittees helped to write, stand to make the biggest impact
in expanding the clean energy supply chain. Would you explain
how passing the BBB will establish and grow the domestic clean
energy supply chain?
Mr. Zindler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, yes, I would be
happy to respond to that.
But can I--I do want to just come back on a couple of
things, a comment that has been made twice about wind and solar
only providing four percent of primary energy in the United
States. I will just state a basic fact. Wind and solar is used
for electricity purposes. We don't put wind turbines on our
cars. We get--energy is not just electricity. The electricity
sector is 40 percent of our energy usage. So to say that it is
only four percent of total energy is correct, but it is ten
percent of power, and it was 0 percent, basically, 15 years
ago, ten years ago, even. So I just want to clarify that,
because that is not really a fundamentally accurate way to
depict this, unless someone here would like to put, you know,
wind turbines on cars soon.
Now, to the question about what is in the Build Back Better
legislation, I think what is critical in there is that it looks
at this from both the supply and a demand side. I talked about
the China example earlier. If you look at the support that the
Build Back Better bill provides, it both provides incentives to
consumers to buy EVs, it provides incentives--pardon, tax
credits--for those to build wind and solar. But it also has
supply-side supports in the form of tax credits for specific
segments of the manufacturing value chain, overall, which
will--which could help to ensure that, as the market scales,
the manufacturing takes place more within the U.S. than it
would elsewhere.
Mr. Rush. Can you--Ms. Brown, can you talk about whether
the United Steelworkers sees, in terms of the impact on job
creation from a build-out of the clean energy supply chain, and
could we see the--can you tell us again what is the expected
impact that job creation for Black and Brown workers under the
Build Back Better Act?
Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question, Chairman Rush. I
just want to actually echo something that Mr. Zindler said, in
terms of just the tax pieces that are included in Build Back
Better.
For the first time, there are actual requirements attached
to clean energy taxes that, you know, make it a requirement to
use and source domestically-produced materials for any clean
energy projects. That is something that our union has been
working really hard to do, really, since 2006, with the
Production Tax Credit and the Investment Tax Credits. For the
first time, we were able to work with the Senate Finance
Committee to achieve that. That is huge.
I can't emphasize what a boon that is for the supply chain,
when it comes to sourcing the iron, the steel, or the other
manufactured goods, whether it is cement or other manufactured
goods that go into these clean energy projects. That, if it is
able to stick, is something that is critically important to
Steelworker members.
The other thing that I will say is there is significant
money in the BBB to repurpose brownfields, and a lot of the
brownfields are in Black and Brown communities, to your
question, Chairman Rush. And I want to point to a real-world
example in Baltimore here, just up the street from us here, in
Washington, D.C., on the former ground of the Bethlehem Steel
Sparrows Point facility.
That was the Beast of the East. That is what our union used
to call that facility. It employed 50,000 steel workers at one
point, making steel. That facility closed in 2012. No more
steel, basic steel, was made in the State of Maryland with the
closure of that facility.
Recently, work--our union worked with U.S. Wind to bring
steel back to Maryland, and Sparrows Point Steel was born. And
they are going to be fabricating monopiles for the offshore
wind industry at this facility in Baltimore. At the end, 500
jobs will be created. That is a community that has been
devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs. It is a Black and
Brown community. It is a community that has been dying for
investment.
Those are the types of things that the Build Back Better
will help to do, and we are eager to see that happen.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Chairman Rush yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Upton, Subcommittee on Energy Ranking
Member. I recognize him for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an
important hearing. Energy is on the minds of every--all of our
constituents.
And I--Mr. Pugliaresi, I am looking at a story that I know
you haven't seen, but it is something you are aware of. The UK
power prices soar about--above 2,000 pounds on low winds.
Britain is set to end the use of coal within three years, and
make power generation free of fossil fuel by 2035. But for now
it falls back on high-emission coal when wind drops or demand
increases. Wind generation on Monday this week was meeting just
six percent of total demand, national grid data shows, while
gas contributed 55 percent and coal 2 percent, which is one of
the reasons why the cost is so much higher.
And I just know, as we try to put U.S. costs compared to
Europe, in Europe they are paying about 5 to $8 a gallon for
gasoline, and their electric rates are already 2 to 3 times
higher than what we pay in Michigan.
I support renewable fuels, always have, but it is part of
the all-of-the-above strategy, and you have got to have
something there for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun
doesn't shine, which is exactly what happened in England this
last week.
So what do we do about that? What do we do about these
surging gas prices that are practically double where they were
a year ago?
And what signals should we be sending to American consumers
across the country to--whether it is encouraging more domestic
energy supplies, and trying to get control of some of these
gasoline prices?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Right. First, in terms of the power sector,
we have--we are completely technology agnostic. But it is
really important to understand that intermittent electricity is
not the same product as baseload electricity. It doesn't have
the same value because, when you turn the switch, it might not
be there.
I actually asked Chairman Chatterjee once, ``Why don't we
have everybody bid firm power? At least we would have some
price discovery.'' We would find out what--you know, what --
because we have these levelized cost estimates, but we really
need to understand what it means to integrate these
intermittent fuels into our power system.
We have data out of Japan now that suggests they accelerate
dramatically once you get past 30 percent of the grid. So some
of our technology is just not ready yet. We don't have good
backup systems, like batteries. So--and Germany is a classic
case. One of the reasons gas demand is spiking in Germany is
they shut down their coal facilities, they pulled back on the
nuclear plants, and they ended up with a very brittle system,
which was not able to deal with uncertainties in the power
demand.
Mr. Upton. So I am going to--want to raise what I will call
a Michigan issue, but it is probably more of a Midwestern
issue, if you look at it, and that is Line 5, and
I don't know how familiar you are with that. But for those
that are watching this hearing, Line 5 is a pipeline that was
built under the Straits of Mackinac, connecting the lower and
upper peninsulas in the 1950s. It contains not only propane
going to the north to help heat the Upper Peninsula, there is
electric lines, as well as crude oil that is--goes down to a
Marathon refineries in Michigan here, down in the southeast
corner of the state.
That refinery, as I understand it, produces about 15
million gallons of fuel a day. Michigan's consumption is about
10 million. There are efforts to eliminate the--or to shut down
that pipeline. It needs to be replaced. There is work that has
been done, starting with Governor Snyder back a number of years
ago with Enbridge, the pipeline company, to try and do that.
There is a--the Biden Administration is considering closing
the pipeline, as I understand it, as they look at treaty
obligations between Canada and the U.S. What would happen to
energy prices if that pipeline gets shut down?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So, as you know, Michigan, I think, gets
about 750,000 gallons a day of propane. It gets, probably--I
think I had some data on this, I saw 400--it is 14.7 million
gallons a day of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
So this is, actually, a more serious problem than we
understand, because the reason we have this valuable strategic
asset, this whole North American production platform, is
because we solve a whole bunch of very complicated
transportation issues every year to allow the platform to be
efficient, to grow, and to put us as the largest oil and gas
producer in the world.
So it is going to have immediate regional effects, it is
going to spike prices. They are going to have to find more
truckers to move material. And there are very--as we know, we
have a shortage of drivers and truckers.
So I would--we have a PHSMA, you know, the Pipeline
Hazardous Material Safety Administration, it is----
Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired, but in--a one-word
answer would be ``catastrophic''?
Mr. Pugliaresi. It would be catastrophic.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Pugliaresi. And it would be very harmful to the
consumers, very harmful.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Upton yields back. The Chair now recognizes,
virtually, Representative Doyle, who happens to serve as chair
of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Mr. Doyle, welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we have seen
over the last year-and-a-half, we are too reliant on foreign
supply chains for a wide variety of products, even critically-
important products like semiconductors. As we continue to
recover from the pandemic, we should be investing in bringing
home manufacturing for as many supply chains as possible, but
especially for critical materials.
In the effort to create a cleaner future and build as
strong an economy as possible, I am a firm believer in using
all the tools at our disposal. That means a diverse portfolio
of renewables, nuclear, hydrogen, and carbon capture
technology.
And if you really want to make America truly energy
independent, we should focus on building out the domestic
supply chains for technologies that take advantage of fuel
sources that aren't reliant on volatile global price
fluctuations.
With the limitations of international supply chains on
display, and human rights violations in numerous major supplier
nations, investing in building a domestic supply chain for
clean energy technologies, as Mr. McKinley, Mrs. Dingell, and
Mr. Veasey and I did, through including our Battery Material
Processing and Component Manufacturing Act in the
Infrastructure and Jobs Act is critically important.
This is also an opportunity to invest in new, innovative
companies. Companies like Redwood and EOS Energy in my district
are creating new, innovative technologies to recycle materials,
build components, and pioneer new technologies. Building a
strong domestic supply chain for clean energy technologies will
create opportunities for American companies to lead the world,
create jobs, and make America a truly independent leader in a
cleaner future.
Let me first ask Mr. Switzer.
Can you explain how a grant program for battery
manufacturing, like we included in the infrastructure bill,
could help companies like yours expand your operations?
And how will that help impact the growth of the whole
supply chain?
Dr. Switzer. Sure, thank you, Representative Doyle. And,
you know, on behalf of Redwood Materials, we certainly
appreciate all of the work that you put in to that provision.
I think, you know, to use a word that someone else used, it
is just the scale of it all, the scale and the level of
investment that will be needed. You know, for our battery
materials facilities that we are planning to construct here, in
the U.S., you know, the total scale is going to be on the order
of several billion dollars. And that--you know, that alone
actually doesn't even completely solve the problem, right?
Like, we need several Redwood materials throughout the country
to, essentially, kind of build this supply chain for the
future.
So I think, you know, all of the provisions in the grants,
I think, will be put to good use to help stand up and
accelerate our efforts there.
Mr. Doyle. You know, it is my understanding that we can
recycle significant amounts of critical materials from used
batteries and from other scrap metals. What is the percentage
of the materials that we recover from a used battery?
And how much of the supply chain could come from recycled
material, if we had strong recycling programs?
Dr. Switzer. Sure. I think that is--you know, I think there
is a great point to make in there.
And first, you know, to answer your question, of the, you
know, recoverable percent of the battery materials, and the
end-of-life battery of, you know, nickel, and cobalt, and
lithium, we can actually recover and recycle and reuse greater
than 90 percent of those elements.
So it is--you know, it is--I think that is a key point, is
that it is not like we are extracting these minerals, and then
we use them once and they are gone. It is something that we--
you know, once they are extracted, and they are in a battery,
we can actually use them over and over again. And we can do
that here, in the U.S.
So I think that, you know, expanding, continually expanding
recycling efforts, as well as collection efforts, to make sure
that we collect those end-of-life batteries is absolutely
critical.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Brown, how can we ensure that, as we domesticate supply
chains, that these jobs are good-paying, union jobs, located in
areas that have lost manufacturing, or have been historically
disadvantaged?
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much for the question, Congressman
Doyle, and thank you. I have to say you have been such a
champion and a friend of our union's, and on this issue in
particular, going all the way back to Waxman-Markey with the
Inslee-Doyle provisions that sought to ensure domestic
competitiveness of the domestic industry. So thank you very
much.
You know, I would say, for our union and any labor
organization, the first thing we would say is to pass the PRO
Act. Protecting the Right to Organize Act is the first way that
we can make sure that the jobs that are created, our union
jobs.
Our experience, unfortunately, has been that a lot of clean
energy companies are very resistant to unions. And, you know,
our union and others have fought really hard, and have tried
for years to organize, and to make those jobs good union jobs.
You know, if you look at jobs in the energy sector, there--
or the manufacturing sector, there is a certain standard of
living associated with those jobs. On average, our members in
the steel or aluminum sector make, you know, $85,000-plus a
year, with benefits. It is not----
Mr. Doyle. Yes, I see my time has expired, and I hope----
Ms. Brown. I am sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Doyle [continue]. Take advantage of--I am a stickler
when I am the subcommittee chair about time, so I don't want to
break one of my own rules.
But thank you for your testimony, and I want to thank all
the members for their testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Chairman Doyle yields back. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Rodgers, full committee ranking member, for 5
minutes, please, to ask questions.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think it is
important that we take a step back, and really look at what
these policy mandates mean, what it is going to mean on
American families. I think we just heard the word
``catastrophic.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, you said at the very beginning, it is
difficult sometimes to get our head around this, that these are
ambitious energy goals. I would respond to that. The reason it
is difficult to get our head around it is because it is
divorced from reality. As Mr. McKinley said, we need to focus
on reality, we need to focus on the facts.
What the majority is promoting right now under--they say it
is a transition to a clean energy future. Yet the reality is it
is wind, solar, and electric batteries at the exclusion of
everything else. It is not technology neutral. You might want
to--you want--you include hydropower, for example, in your list
of renewables. Well, in Washington State, Governor Inslee is
working hard to tear out the dams in Washington State that
produce the clean, renewable, reliable, affordable electricity.
It is being threatened right now.
We would welcome a debate around American leadership in
reducing carbon emissions, but the frustration is that we are--
we seem to be focused solely on mandating wind, solar, and
batteries. And telling us to ``Trust us, just trust us,'' that
is why it is hard to get our head around it.
One person--well, and is it a clean transition, or are we
really focused on reducing carbon emissions? Let's get--let's
have the debate around reducing carbon emissions. Let's have
that debate, not mandating from Washington, D.C., the Federal
Government mandating what qualifies and what not. Let's have
really technology neutral.
I met with the Steelworkers last week in Spokane,
Steelworkers from Kaiser Aluminum. I am very proud of the work
that they do for helping of manufacturing of aircraft in the
United States of America, very proud of the work that they have
done to help reduce carbon emissions, the carbon intensity of
their products, their commitment to clean water.
You know what? They are fearful, though. They are fearful
of what is happening. They are fearful of China. They are
fearful about losing their jobs. They are fearful of the
current approach, that it is divorced from reality.
Mr. Pugliaresi, I wanted to ask you. Well, yes, and there
is the California model. Coming from Washington State, we seem
to be really wanting to focus on the California example, and I
am very concerned. California, they don't have reliability.
They don't have confidence that, when they need to heat their
homes, they are going to be able to heat their homes. And now
they are going to take the generators away that people were
buying to try to help keep their homes heated. So they don't
have reliability, they don't have affordability, they have the
highest gas prices in America.
You, in your testimony, you mentioned the example of
Germany. Germany has headed down this path, lots of mandates.
And what are they doing now? They are signing a pipeline with
Russia to get their gas.
I just--would you speak to affordable energy, the demand
for oil and gas globally, and what it is going to mean, when
the United States is shutting down American energy, and what
does that mean for global energy security reliance, and
especially on the people in the world that are living without
electricity today that need energy?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes. So the first thing, I think we sort of
forgot. Between 2010 and 2019, the United States provided 80
percent of the incremental world demand in petroleum. It was
quite a remarkable achievement. And the notion that somehow--
you know, and world demand for petroleum is back onto trend. We
are somewhere approaching 100 million barrels a day.
Now, at some point, we will use less petroleum. But that is
going to take a long time. And if we proceed with a strategy to
sort of disarm or to shut down our oil and gas production in
the U.S., it is just going to shift the production to somewhere
else, and it is going to shift it to the Middle East and
Russia. And that is going to impose a very high cost, and a
tremendous strategic loss for us. We have spent 40 years----
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
Mr. Pugliaresi [continue]. Becoming energy independent.
Mrs. Rodgers. Right, right.
Mr. Pugliaresi. We shouldn't give that up----
Mrs. Rodgers. That is right.
Mr. Pugliaresi [continue]. Until the replacement fuels are
ready to go.
Mrs. Rodgers. I completely agree, and it seems to be OK to
get our--you know, ask OPEC for more oil, but shut down
pipelines in America. This makes no sense.
Mr. Pugliaresi. It makes no sense.
Mrs. Rodgers. It is divorced from reality. Let's get
focused on the real goal of American leadership, reducing
carbon emissions, and continuing to lead the world in reducing
carbon emissions. Let's--that should be the goal, not wind,
solar, and batteries only.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative DeGette, who serves as chair of the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
Representative DeGette, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for questions, please.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
just hook on to what Mrs. McMorris Rodgers just asserted. Some
of us don't think we should just limit ourselves to wind and
solar, so we think that we need to--we do think that we need to
have the goal of reducing emissions.
But, you know, there is a lot of hyper-partisanship in this
committee and around Congress these days. And I think that is a
real shame. Because I think some of these issues that we are
talking about today, about supply chain and energy development
and minerals, that we can solve these in a bipartisan way that
still is environmentally sound.
And so I am going to channel my inner John Dingell for a
few minutes, and ask the witnesses if they can please answer
the following questions in a yes-or-no way. And I make it easy,
because the questions are drafted so you can do that.
The first one is, do you think we should do--be doing more
mining of the critical inputs needed for these technologies,
here in the U.S., while staying clear of critical water and
ecological resources, and respecting the rights of tribal
nations and other communities?
Mr. Zindler?
Mr. Zindler. Yes, if you want an independent----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Zindler [continue]. Energy independence.
Ms. DeGette. Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Dr. Switzer?
Dr. Switzer. I think it is a bit complicated. It is --you
know, it is hard to say that it is a really, like, a yes-or-no
question.
Ms. DeGette. OK, so you can't answer it. You don't--so do
you think it would be a good goal to mine these things here in
the U.S., while respecting the rights of tribes and others?
Dr. Switzer. I think that, in general, the world will need
more mining, but----
Ms. DeGette. OK, so what about you? Can you pronounce your
name for----
Mr. Pugliaresi. Pugliaresi.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Pugliaresi, what about you?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you. Now, should it be a goal of
Congress and the Administration within, say, five years, to do
most of the manufacturing required to produce our clean energy
here, in the U.S., or at least be partners upholding the same
high labor and environmental standards?
Mr. Zindler?
Mr. Zindler. Yes, it should be the goal.
Ms. DeGette. Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Dr. Switzer?
Dr. Switzer. I think our goal should be to transition to
clean energy, and then we should continually work in parallel
to bring that manufacturing here.
Ms. DeGette. I totally agree. Mr. Pugliaresi?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Now, should it be a matter of U.S. policy to
do the mining necessary for clean energy here, in the U.S. and
in countries upholding the same labor and--high labor and
environmental standards that we have here?
Mr. Zindler?
Mr. Zindler. Yes, assuming we have the resources here.
Ms. DeGette. Absolutely.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Dr. Switzer?
Dr. Switzer. I would also say yes, with the same caveat
around the resources and their economic viability.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Pugliaresi?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And should it be a matter of U.S. policy to
invest in technologies that reduce the amount of raw materials
that need to be extracted in the first place?
Mr. Zindler?
Mr. Zindler. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Dr. Switzer?
Dr. Switzer. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Pugliaresi?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. See, we can find agreement. I really
appreciate it, and I know it is--and Dr. Switzer, in fairness
to you, I know that it is not always a simple answer.
But in fact, I think we can all agree that our goal should
be to mine these materials as much as possible, economically
and practically in the U.S., or in places where the same high
environmental and labor standards that we have in the U.S. are
happening. And that is something that the Democrats agree with.
And I know it is something that my Republican colleagues agree
with.
So I look forward to working with my friends on the other
side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that these things
can happen, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Dr. Burgess, please, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder if I
might continue just for a moment in the yes-and-no variety of
questions, and we will just go down the list, as Chairwoman
DeGette was doing.
Would a real infrastructure bill have included a title on
mining, Mr. Zindler?
Mr. Zindler. I don't know, I am not a legislator.
Mr. Burgess. Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. I can't answer that in a yes or no.
Mr. Burgess. The answer is yes. But Dr. Switzer?
Dr. Switzer. I am the recycling guy.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Pugliaresi?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. All right. Well, thank you for that. And it is
important, because we do a lot of big policy things here, in
this committee. And we sometimes, I am afraid, lose sight of
the implications of that.
And Mr. Pugliaresi, you have provided us with a series of
very intriguing figures at the end of your written testimony.
And it seems to me, as I look at those, a recurrent theme
through that is the timeline from where we are now, roughly
2020, to 2050, which was where we purport to be at a zero-
carbon emission energy production. The amount of energy
required is going to go up by a lot. It varies, granted, but in
your figure 11 on the number of--required, it looks like it
could go up a bunch. Was that a fair statement?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes, particularly when you consider the
economic growth and the population growth we are going to see
throughout the Asia-Pacific and Africa, large regions which are
very energy short now, and, as economic growth takes place,
energy demand is going to accelerate.
Mr. Burgess. So, in order to account for that delta, where
we are now and what will be required in 2050--that is the year
that energy production is zero net carbon--is it possible to
accommodate that increase that is going to be required?
Is it possible to accommodate that with the traditional
renewable methods, wind, solar, geothermal?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Absolutely not. You cannot get the density
of power these countries need unless we have some major
breakthroughs in these technologies. And even if they are
possible, if they are costly, I can tell you they will not
adopt them.
Mr. Burgess. So there is a bill that Congress may be voting
on before the week is over called the Build Back Better Act.
And I had the occasion to spend 16 hours on the floor of the
House last Friday dealing with the rule to debate that bill.
And as best as I can determine, there is not one dollar in
the Build Back Better Act for research and deployment of new
nuclear technology. And it would seem to me, in order to
accommodate that delta of energy available and energy that is
going to be required, it seems to me that nuclear will have to
be part of that complement.
Mr. Pugliaresi. I couldn't agree more. Nuclear power is the
only dense, not--carbon-free fuel alternative that we really
have. All the other carbon-free alternatives are--you know, the
density of energy they provide is much, much too little to
achieve these goals in the developing world.
Mr. Burgess. Well, I do want to thank you for providing us,
I think, some significant facts in your testimony, and
certainly the cautionary tale of what has happened in Germany
with the too, too quick--the fragility that it has impacted
into the system by going too quickly, and abandoning the
traditional sources of energy.
Again, I believe that is a cautionary tale for us. And
being from Texas, we witnessed what fragility of your energy
supply looks like. We only have one week of winter in Texas,
but it was a bad one. You may have read about it, it was in all
the papers. So fragility in the system is something that I am
pretty sensitive to.
We heard on this committee years and years ago, without
energy life is cold, brutal, and short. And we kind of saw that
up close and personal. So would you worry about imparting that
kind of fragility into--and I am just talking about the United
States now--into the United States, with too rapid a
transition?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes, of course, you know, the power systems
are very complex. But integrating renewable intermittent
sources in which we don't have a very sophisticated or ample
system to back up this power is--we should move with extreme
caution.
Mr. Burgess. You know, one of the probably more frightening
things I have heard from a policy perspective--and granted, it
came from Senators, which is always concerning, but the desire
to abandon the United States being able to export crude oil, to
put the ban back on export of crude oil. That is the one policy
change in the last ten years that really, I think, has made a
difference, as far as making America energy independent. And I
really think we should be loathe to give up that independence.
Mr. Pugliaresi. So while we don't have a lot of time now,
the--if we were to begin to shut down U.S.--banned exports, we
would actually lose production and have higher prices.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes, virtually, Representative Schakowsky, who serves as
chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.
And so we recognize Chair Schakowsky now for 5 minutes, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, these are
difficult issues to deal with, because all of us, I think, want
to make sure that we have a sufficient energy supply. I think
all of us probably want to--definitely want to see more of a
supply chain here, in the United States.
But one of the things that has frustrated me the most--and,
Ms. Brown, I am going to ask you to respond to this concern of
mine--is that there seems to be this thing about making choices
between having enough energy, having enough good-paying jobs by
using the incumbent fuels and the incumbent manufacturing that
we have right now.
And my concern is, you know, we just came off of an
international report on how we are really at ground zero for
climate change, and the international conference discussing how
we are going to protect our planet, you know, into the future
for our children and grandchildren.
So I guess the--well, the question that I want to ask, is
this a choice between clean energy and good jobs?
And how are we going to make sure that, as we make this
transition, that we can guarantee--because we know--and you
actually mentioned in your testimony, and explained that many
workers are skeptical of the transition to clean energy. And
what is it that we can do to make sure that we don't have to
choose between the environment and these--and our energy
security and good jobs?
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much for that question,
Congresswoman, and a shout-out to the sign that is in the back,
there.
No. It is a false choice. And, you know, our former
president, Leo Gerard, you know, would say this all the time,
that we don't need to choose between good jobs and a good
environment. We can achieve both. And that, quite literally,
has been the work of our union, going back for more than 40
years, around economic and environmental sustainability. We
have always taken the position that it is partially our job to
make sure that the employers that our members work for, the
companies that they work for, are actually doing their part to
be good environmental stewards.
This goes all the way back to the first Clean Air Act up to
today, where we stand here, encouraging Congress to move
forward with good climate policy, but that you do it by putting
workers first, by focusing on domestic industry, by looking at
the existing capacity that we have here, in the United States,
in each of the sectors that helped to build this economy.
There is a lot of conversation here today about the auto
industry and EVs. Domestic industry and domestic workers were
such a big part of building that industry in this country. Our
members today remain a big part of the auto industry, and
bringing that into the future. We represent the largest workers
in the auto supply chain.
The entire domestic industry--steel, rubber, cement, glass,
aluminum, copper, we--I could, literally, go down the list, in
terms of all of the products that Steelworker members make. All
of those products can play a role in the U.S. clean energy
economy. In ten years the global market around clean energy
technologies will be $23 trillion. We should not cede the
capacity that we have here, in the United States, to other
nations that are racing to get that. We should be building on
what we have.
And so, you know, we just--we stand here, you know, we have
been here, like I said, for 40-plus years in this fight, and we
want to make sure that, as we do this, workers are at the
center.
Thank you for the question.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I appreciate that answer. I think
this idea that, unless we continue to do things as we have--and
certainly, there are many people that--we have to do a really
good job about a transition. But if we don't, I think we are in
real trouble, and I think that I am grateful that the workers
in these industries are part of the solution. So thank you very
much for your response.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Latta, the gentleman from Ohio, for 5
minutes, please.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks to our witnesses for being with us today.
And before we look to the future, I believe it is important
that it is--we acknowledge the real challenges that are
currently facing our energy producers, and the consequences
that will result from the recent political proposals to shut
down energy delivery systems in this country. And specifically,
I am referring to the operation of Line 5. And as my friend
from Michigan has already alluded to, Line 5 is essential to
the Midwest.
Earlier this month, after reading press reports from the
Biden Administration examining the consequences of shutting
down Line 5, I led a letter with 12 of my colleagues to
President Biden outlining our grave concerns with this possible
action.
Line 5 is essential to heating homes and operating
businesses, to our farming operations, and to the continued
economic vitality in northern Ohio. Terminating Line 5's
operation will exasperate shortages and price increases in home
heating fuels like natural gas and propane at a time when
Americans are facing inflationary challenges.
Thankfully, it appears the President read our letter,
because his White House has walked back their comments, and
have said they are no longer considering shutting down Line 5
at this time. We need to continue to make clear that we should
be working to improve the lives of hard-working Americans, and
not playing political games with their livelihoods or well-
being.
Mr. Pugliaresi, you state in your testimony other measures
under consideration, such as halting crude oil exports or
release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without a genuine
supply disruption, are likely to be counterproductive. What do
you mean by counterproductive, especially when we know that,
with the--we have the oil in the ground?
Shouldn't we be tapping into the SPR at this time?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So the question of the SPR is that it has
traditionally--and, in my own experience with it, it should be
for a true emergency, for a crisis that threatens national
security, or the economic security of the country. And if we
tend to use it as a kind of commodity adjuster, I think we are
going to diminish its reliability as an important source for
emergencies.
Unfortunately, the Congress has also looked at the
strategic reserve and, through a series of budget measures that
have been passed over the years to reduce its size--we have
generally not thought that was a good idea, but, you know, the
Congress will--proceeds with its will on this issue.
So once again, if we are going to reduce its size over
time, what we have remaining, we would suggest, be kept in
reserve for a true critical emergency.
Mr. Latta. Well, and again, when you think of the oil that
we have in the ground at this time, and being able to reduce
Saudi Arabia and Russia--I would say it is not a good time to
be using it.
And you also state one of the reasons the U.S. has achieved
energy independence is that production at the production
platform is efficient. How do you mean efficient?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So if you think about the United States, it
is a very large continental landmass. The notion that you could
solve our problems by banning exports is a kind of--not too
thoughtful, let's say. For example, a refiner in Hawaii may
want to purchase his crude from Indonesia. Well, a--an exporter
out of Texas may want to ship his light crude to more efficient
processing facility abroad.
But all of that, the fact that we solved this massive
transportation solution in the U.S., has ended up in the U.S.
being a net exporter. I don't--right now we may be a slight net
importer, but--and so we end up exporting some crude oil, but
we also end up exporting a lot more highly-valued petroleum
products. All of this allows the crude oil to be produced more
efficiently, and it also allows us to be one of the largest
refiners in the world. And that it--it is that efficient
platform which gives us the capacity to expand production over
time, and to deal with large variations in crude oil demand.
Mr. Latta. In my last 45 seconds I would like to switch
over to--on the nuclear side, because right now the U.S. is
importing over 80 percent of the uranium from other countries.
You know, what are the potential energy and security
challenges to the U.S. if we don't invest more in our own
domestic mining?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Well, you know, for uranium, of course, we
have a series of not just trade arrangements, but treaty
arrangements. I am sure you are well aware of those. But
probably, you know, if we can find ways to cost effectively
produce more here at home, we should do that. If there are
regulatory impediments that are prohibiting that, we would say,
OK, we should take a hard look at those, and see what we can do
to have a cost effective strategy for producing uranium, as
well.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes, virtually, the gentlelady from California.
Representative Matsui, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please, to ask questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
We know that we are at the crossroads of an economic and
technological transition. Support for clean energy deployment
keeps rising, and production costs continue dropping.
But as a person who is very interested in new technologies,
I know that increased production demand--increased demand does
not always translate into robust domestic production. And that
is why I am proud to champion the CHIPS Act, legislation to
strengthen the U.S. semiconductor industry, an industry which,
as you may know, has experienced a growing influence of foreign
companies.
To truly prepare for a clean energy future, I believe it is
crucial that we establish industrial leadership here, in the
United States, to secure our supply chain and bolster our
competitiveness in the 21st century.
Now, as we transition to a clean energy economy, we have
the opportunity to do what the fossil fuel industry never did,
to set out from the beginning to better protect the communities
and environments impacted by energy development. It is my
understanding that robust investments in a domestic circular
economy for critical minerals is crucial to establish the
sustainable supply chain.
Dr. Switzer, can critical mineral recycling help meet the
growing demand for these materials?
Dr. Switzer. Thank you. Yes, it most certainly can, and I
think--you know, one important--maybe, like, just an example to
highlight on recycling, in particular, and, you know, with
regards to cobalt, is there is often a lot of talk of cobalt
and cobalt mining.
But the really interesting thing with recycling is that,
you know, the batteries that we are putting on the road today
in the latest and greatest electric vehicles actually use much
less cobalt than the batteries that are coming off the road, or
that are coming out of, you know, cell phones and such. So we
can actually thrift that cobalt to recycle it, and use it to go
farther into--for using--for use in EVs, such that, you know,
Redwood Materials actually thinks----
Ms. Matsui. OK, can I ask you, Dr. Switzer----
Dr. Switzer. Yes? Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Matsui. What efforts should Congress prioritize to
support the establishment of more critical mineral recycling
facilities and better collection infrastructure?
Dr. Switzer. Yes, I think, you know, with regards to
consumer electronics, we certainly--we most certainly need to
improve our, you know, collection infrastructure, and that is
one of the things that Redwood Materials is working on.
But I also think, you know, further investment in things
like recycling technologies, recycling facilities, as well as,
you know, the refining and battery materials manufacturing side
of the industry is absolutely critical.
Ms. Matsui. OK, fine. Now, transportation is the most
polluting sector in our economy, making electric vehicle
adoption critical to improve air quality for our communities
and combat climate change.
Mr. Zindler, in your testimony you mentioned that, when it
comes to electric vehicles, the most critical and costly
component is the battery. Will domestic manufacturing of
lithium ion batteries accelerate domestic production and
adoption of EVs?
Mr. Zindler. So thank you for that question. I would say
this, that what we have seen in other parts of the world is
that, when there is a clear signal sent about long-term demand
for EVs, fairly quickly an ecosystem of battery production
crops up. And that happened in China, which, obviously, had a
sort of a history of producing batteries. But China, South
Korea, and now Europe very quickly is ramping up. And once
there is that signal sent, then very quickly you can see all
the various components of battery manufacturing sort of grouped
together. But until that signal is sent, you do a lot of
importing. And so I think a lot of what the market is waiting
for is a clear, clear signal on this.
And I would just point out one thing, which was mentioned
earlier, which is to say that the Administration has only
supported wind, solar, and batteries. Unfortunately,
Congressman Burgess has left, but I, just for the record, would
like to point out that there was $10 billion in funding for
hydrogen in the infrastructure bill; $6 billion in funding for
conventional nuclear reactors, which is critical if we want to
achieve decarbonization; $11 billion for carbon capture and
storage; and another $3.2 billion for advanced nuclear
reactors. So it was a bill that covered a lot of technologies
that certainly were not wind or solar or batteries, and it is
now law.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Quickly, one of the emissions comparisons
between a newly-manufactured battery and a recycled one--we
need to look at everything here.
Mr. Zindler. I am sorry, I didn't quite catch that
question----
Ms. Matsui. OK. What are the emissions comparisons between
a newly-manufactured battery and a recycled one?
Mr. Zindler. What are the nearest comparisons?
Ms. Matsui. No, emissions.
Mr. Zindler. Oh, the emissions comparison. Oh, I couldn't
tell you right off the top of my head. Maybe Dr. Switzer can
weigh in on that one.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Dr. Switzer. It is a drastic improvement, obviously,
because, you know, in a battery, you have got all of those
elements in one place that you need, typically at higher
concentrations than are in mined ores. It is a dramatic
improvement over mining.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, I really wanted to know between a
manufactured one and a recycled one, but I will leave that
question for someone else to ask.
I yield back, thank you.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome. The gentlelady yields
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Representative Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995, the Coalfields
Expressway was designated as ``a congressional high-priority
corridor.'' Coalfields Expressway, in my part of Virginia, is
not built. It is not close to being built. The Coalfields
Expressway opens up, as you might guess, the Virginia coal
fields, so we can shift our economy. But it is not built. It
opens up Dickinson and Buchanan Counties.
We haven't kept our promises from the past. And yet I hear
all kinds of laudatory comments today about last week's
infrastructure bill. The new money in that bill for highways
and bridges coming to all of Virginia is a few billion dollars,
at best. Coalfields Expressway will cost 30 billion-plus to
complete.
Now, we spent lots of money on new promises, and funding
rich folks to buy electric cars, and all kinds of charging
station money. And I checked. The cheapest electric car that I
could find was 39,999. A battery to replace a battery in a car
that starts to degrade around 65,000 miles, and is generally
guaranteed up to 100,000, but only--but that doesn't mean it is
at 100 percent, but to 100,000 miles--a new battery costs
between 5,000 and 15,000. Dickinson County, Coalfields
Expressway. According to an article in today's online news, the
Cardinal News, household income under 30,000.
Mass transit in rural counties is not an option. The folks
I represent can't afford an electric car. It doesn't matter how
wonderful it is. And when used ones come along, they are not
going to be able to afford those either, because just a new
battery will cost them 5,000 to $15,000.
I know there are a lot of good intentions. And sometimes I
think we live in two different worlds. Because Virginia has--in
Northern Virginia--has five of the wealthiest counties in the
country. But the part I represent, the whole area I represent,
29 different jurisdictions, including Blacksburg, Virginia and
Montgomery County, which has some wealth, and the Roanoke area
that has some wealth, the house--median household income is
about 48,000, a little over 48,000.
So, Dr. Switzer, I am all for your recycling. Can you bring
a plant to my area? Can you bring jobs to my area?
Dr. Switzer. I think there is a tremendous opportunity for,
one, domesticating the supply chain for--so for bringing plants
to the United States. I think those plants do come with
thousands of jobs.
Another point on the cost is, you know, the cost of----
Mr. Griffith. Will they come--but will they come to an area
that doesn't have a good highway system, and takes you about an
hour to get to an interstate?
You don't have to answer that question. It was a rhetorical
question. Let me get on to what I originally was going to talk
about before I got fired up about folks thinking all of this
was going to solve all the problems of the world.
Would it make sense for you all to build in an existing
plant, to expand an existing plant, or to retool an existing
plant that is already there? Would that make some sense for
you?
Dr. Switzer. Yes, we are evaluating all options, including,
you know, what we would call brownfield or existing plants.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. And what type of air
emissions and waste will your facilities produce, do you all
know?
Dr. Switzer. So we are targeting net zero. I mean, you
know, our mission is really around driving the reduction of
emissions, so we think we need to lead that space, and are
really targeting zero emissions, with as little to no waste,
re-purposing any waste, essentially, as byproducts that can be
sold into the market.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Pugliaresi, anything you want to add to
what I have had to say, and the questions I have asked Dr.
Switzer?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes. So I do think that one dilemma we face
is that, well, we have this aspirational goal. We need to move
to technologies that are actually more cost effective, cheaper
than what we are using now. Because, for large parts of our
national economy, if transition to the fuels of the future mean
their bills go way up, I think they are going to--we are going
to be very unhappy, because they are going to resist these
things.
Mr. Griffith. And when those fuel costs go up, it is going
to cost the people in my district a lot of money. And it is not
just a few pennies here and there, as some might feel, but it
is real pain.
I have to yield back. I appreciate all of you. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, who serves as chair of
the Select Committee on Climate, and I recognize the
representative for 5 minutes, please.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chair Tonko and Chair Rush.
Thank you to our witnesses. This is a very important topic,
because developing a low-carbon supply chain here, in America,
is how we are going to create new jobs, and reduce costs on
consumers, and boost our economy. It also has the side benefits
of improving public health and reducing harmful carbon
pollution.
The--I think the clean energy economy is the surest way to
reduce household energy costs over the long term, and ensure
reliable energy in the face of volatile fossil fuel markets. So
let's talk a little bit about that.
And it really is exciting for you all to be here and
talking about this the day after we signed this historic
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It was great to see the
bipartisan attendance there on the South Lawn yesterday. And
back home in Florida, folks are so excited to get to work now
on clean energy and resilience, and making sure that our kids
have a more livable planet.
But everyone across the globe is dealing with the
volatility in the fossil fuel markets, and uncertainty from the
ongoing pandemic, and that includes businesses and factories
making the products that we buy, especially when it comes to
all of the components that go into clean energy. These volatile
fossil fuel prices are yet another reason we should be moving
as quickly as possible to cheaper, cleaner energy.
So Mr. Switzer, given the impact of high fossil fuel prices
across the globe, wouldn't it--wouldn't benefit--wouldn't
businesses benefit by decoupling supply chains from
increasingly volatile fossil fuel markets?
Dr. Switzer. Yes, I think so. I think not only decoupling
them, but also localizing them to the United States.
Ms. Castor. Go into that in greater detail. I mean, this is
a big country. We have different resources all across the
country. The Biden Administration is focused on implementing
those kind of strategies. What advice would you give them
across this big, beautiful, diverse country?
Dr. Switzer. I think, you know, one of the things that has
brought this to light so recently is the semiconductor
situation, and, you know, kind of the havoc that it has wreaked
throughout the supply chain. And I think a lot of our partners
and--are starting to really evaluate kind of how their supply
chains are set up, and what the risk is across the supply
chain.
So we think that there is, you know, a certain degree of
supply chain security that can be had by localizing
manufacturing here, to the U.S. But we also think, you know,
coupled with that, there is, of course, jobs. And then, coupled
with that, there is the idea that we can reduce the cost by
doing so. So it seems like it would be a win-win, to us.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Zindler, would you like to add your views?
Mr. Zindler. Just--was a couple of quick thoughts, which is
just to point out the basic thing, which is that, you know,
renewable energy, effectively, has zero marginal cost. So, you
know, unless you know differently, you don't have to pay for
wind, and you don't have to pay for sun. So typically, in
competitive electricity markets, it is wind and solar that are
reducing the cost of electricity, not raising it.
When we think about some of the factors that have affected
the spikes in prices around the world, typically we are talking
about higher fossil fuel prices that have been contributing to
that, and some--frankly, some political actions from Vladimir
Putin and others that have had some real effects on that, as
well.
So I think it is just worth pointing that--making that one
basic point, because we have heard a lot about higher energy
costs, and there is no question that they are higher. But
actually, the electricity prices have not been going up as much
as gasoline prices. And part of that is because of renewables.
And the last thing I would point out is also, is we think
about the 800 million people who lack any electricity access in
the world right now. The lowest cost potential solution for
that is solar plus a battery. It is cheaper than a diesel
generator, and it is particularly cheaper now that diesel costs
are higher. And so the opportunities for export and for global
proliferation of these technologies remains, thanks to the
current conditions.
Ms. Castor. And we want America to be in the lead. We want
to build these industries, and improve our supply chains to
help the world in the transition to clean energy.
I am hopeful--I am out of time, but I am hopeful that the
Steelworkers can be an integral part of that, as well. So thank
you very much for appearing here today.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Johnson.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I might
point out that the cause of the uncertainty right now in energy
costs in America has more to do with the policies of this
Administration that is making it difficult for investors to
invest and producers to produce. And the only thing volatile
about fossil fuels is how efficiently and low cost they burn to
heat and fuel America's homes.
But, you know, as we sit here today, America is going
through an unprecedented energy and inflation crisis. And
unfortunately, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the committee
that has the authority and the power to do something about it,
is not rising to the occasion.
Just a couple of weeks ago, as reports predicting winter's
price spikes for gasoline, propane, and heating oil made
headlines, what did this committee do? It hosted a hearing on
offshore wind mills. You heard that right, windmills. Now we
are back here again, using our limited time and resources
discussing batteries, solar panels, and renewable power
projects, all of which dangerously rely on China for the
processing and manufacturing of critical components.
Friends, winter is here. If the United States Congress is
going to do something about this current energy crisis, it is
our job, as the Energy and Commerce Committee, to hold hearings
on it. Republicans have asked for hearings, Mr. Chairman, but
that call has gone unanswered by the majority. The hardworking
families we represent need to heat their homes, not be lectured
to by Democrats fresh off their Scotland trip, hobnobbing with
the international elite on how we must rush to a decarbonized,
green future.
So speaking of Europe, Mr. Pugliaresi, in your testimony
you mentioned Europe as a cautionary tale that we, as
policymakers here, should learn from. For example, it has been
widely reported that Germany is the country who has gone down
the rush to green path the furthest, resulting in German
citizens paying some of the highest prices for energy in the
entire world. Recently, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki,
in response to concerns about energy price spikes here at home,
said that we need to ``double down on our investment and our
focus on clean energy options.''
Mr. Pugliaresi, drawing on your expertise, studying
European energy policies, will my constituents and constituents
around this country pay more or less for electricity, gasoline,
and propane if Democrats double down on weather-dependent
renewables, while continuing this war on oil and gas production
here at home?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So thank you so much for that question.
Actually, just yesterday, Tudor Pickering issued a very
interesting report, and they showed that the price of
electricity was highly correlated to the penetration of
renewable fuels. Because even though, admittedly, wind and
solar can be quite cheap, integrating them into the power
system is not. And as the percentage rises in those systems, as
they have in Germany, and as they have in the UK, intermittent
sources are cheap when they are working. When they are not
working, they can provide system instability and rising costs,
because the fuels are so expensive to back them up.
Mr. Johnson. So the basic answer to your question is, if
they double down on this----
Mr. Pugliaresi. You are going to have----
Mr. Johnson [continue]. We can expect our constituents to
have higher prices.
Mr. Pugliaresi. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Pugliaresi, in 2019 the U.S. became
a net energy exporter, and achieved the most energy secure
position we could possibly be in. Energy prices were
affordable, and consumers benefited across the entire country.
Under the Biden Administration, gas prices have nearly doubled
since last year. Inflation is surging across the board, a major
factor being the energy cost to get products to market. And yet
Democrats want to keep America's abundant and affordable oil
and gas resources in the ground, raising taxes, and increasing
regulations.
What effect will this flawed Biden strategy have on energy
prices this winter, and looking ahead to next year?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So, you know, I am reluctant to blame the
short-term thing on all the measures that the Administration
has undertaken, but--because I think they are largely related
to the COVID pandemic.
But they are setting a set of expectations. And
expectations--even though expectations do show up in current
behavior, in storage ideas, how much money people are--you
know, how we are going to deal with supplies. And so I think
the mistake the Administration is making is they are creating
an expectation of pessimism regarding the U.S. capacity to
produce more oil and gas, the restrictions on Federal lands,
the hostility towards oil and gas, when it is the fundamental
fuel the world is continuing to use.
So I think they are sending the wrong signals, and those
are showing up in the marketplace, but it is hard to measure
them.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Thanks for the indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes, virtually, the gentleman from Maryland.
Representative Sarbanes, you are recognized, please, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity. And I want to thank the witnesses
who have joined us today.
I am very pleased to see this recognition that, in addition
to being a very critical step, obviously, in improving the
health of our environment, this ongoing transition to a clean
energy and renewable future, and the manufacturing that can go
with it, has the potential to be a real leading edge in
economic growth for the country.
Creating, deploying clean energy technologies offers a
really valuable opportunity for this to foster growth in
American manufacturing industries, which can help them thrive,
obviously, and to create jobs and rebuild the economy. This is
particularly true for communities like Baltimore, that I
represent, that were historically manufacturing hubs, and still
retain significant manufacturing resources.
Ms. Brown, could you speak to some of the specific ways
that developing renewable energy projects can provide jobs and
revitalize communities that used to be more active in
manufacturing?
In other words, thinking about how we reclaim some of these
manufacturing hubs with the clean energy jobs opportunities
that we are speaking about.
Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And
earlier I mentioned Sparrows Point Steel, which is the new
steel fabrication facility that is on the hallowed grounds of
the former Bethlehem Steel in Baltimore. And, you know, I think
how that project came together is actually a model for what can
be done, as we look at communities around the country that
really do need to be revitalized. That was a true partnership
between our union and U.S. Wind.
You know, I think there was a respect there, on the part of
U.S. Wind, for what that facility meant to our union, how
important it was to our DNA. But also, they saw the, you know,
the Baltimore area as one that really did need an infusion of
economic activity. And so we came together to work towards that
project really being developed, and we continue to work
together. We are going to work with them to attract the workers
for this facility so on the other side of it, again, you know,
we will have about 500 folks working at that facility, and they
will all be members of the Steelworkers Union. So that is a
model that we support.
Mr. Sarbanes. That is terrific. Let me talk a little bit
about this idea that, while we want to explore the
opportunities to restore manufacturing as we make these green
components of a clean energy future, that we want the
manufacturing process itself to also be green.
And maybe, Ms. Brown, you could speak to this, and also Mr.
Zindler. How do we ensure that the types of manufacturing that
we are talking about today are themselves low emissions, so we
are getting that green current, in a sense, to all aspects of
the operation?
Ms. Brown. I will speak quickly, so that we can get to Mr.
Zindler, but the Department of Energy plays a huge role here.
We have a huge feat to decarbonize the industrial sector,
broadly. And they are rich in resources and innovation to help
the industrial sector get there. And so we have worked with
them really closely over the years. We continue to work with
them now to identify the technologies like direct capture,
carbon capture, and others that, hopefully, policies will pull
forward to help decarbonize the industrial sector.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Mr. Zindler?
Mr. Zindler. If I understood, the question was around
making sure lower emissions around the manufacturing of clean
energy goods.
Mr. Sarbanes. Correct.
Mr. Zindler. Hard to answer that in 40 seconds. And I know
Dr. Switzer probably better. But I would just say that, in
particular, up the value chain, batteries, as we think about
it, and mining is probably an area for real focus, both from--
at the very beginning of life, and the very end of life, in
terms of recycling. And some of the policies that, frankly, are
not--which have not been adopted yet, I think are worth closer
consideration to incentivize that type of activity.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great, thanks very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Zindler, are you an economist?
Mr. Zindler. Am I a what?
Mr. Bucshon. An economist.
Mr. Zindler. I have been an energy industry analyst for 15
years.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, an economist, not a trained----
Mr. Zindler. I have----
Mr. Bucshon. You are an analyst. You are a journalist.
Mr. Zindler. I have an MBA. I don't know what you----
Mr. Bucshon. OK, so you are a----
Mr. Zindler. I don't have a Ph.D.
Mr. Bucshon. The reason I am asking is because you are
talking about a lot of economy stuff, and you are a journalist
that covers the--and commentator that covers----
Mr. Zindler. My firm----
Mr. Bucshon [continue]. The clean energy industry, correct?
Mr. Zindler. Could I answer the question?
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Mr. Zindler. My firm has been providing research to major
investors in clean energy----
Mr. Bucshon. OK.
Mr. Zindler [continue]. And all energy, including, I would
add, oil majors and others for 15 years.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, I just wanted to clarify that, since you
seem to be talking about the economy.
The other thing I want to say is all of us up here on the
dais represent different areas of the United States of America.
We don't represent Germany, France, England, or anywhere. So I
know there has been a lot of comments--I am not directing this
to you, I am just saying in general--about what other countries
are doing. I don't really care. I care about what the people in
southwest Indiana are doing. That is who I represent, just as
Morgan Griffith talked about Virginia. So I just want to
clarify that.
When I saw the hearing I thought we were going to be
talking about supply chain things that would help my
constituents, who are spending more of their money than ever
for Thanksgiving meals, Christmas presents, et cetera.
Unfortunately, again, we are focusing on creating supply chains
for wind and solar energy.
Don't get me wrong, I support that. I believe it is
important for private industry to continue innovating to
reliable--reliably, affordably, and sustainably to meet our
energy needs. And I am supportive of an all-of-the-above
technology, innovative process. However, at this time, my
constituents in Indiana are experiencing rising inflation,
paying gas prices at the pump that are nearly 70 percent higher
than last year, and seeing their energy bills increase just in
time for them to need to heat their homes in the winter. That
is what I am concerned about. This committee's attention needs
to be focused on those things.
And as it relates to the current energy crisis, COVID has
had a major effect, no doubt. But I am concerned that the
Administration's unfriendly policies toward domestic energy
producers and the--I mean, dramatically unrealistic goals--I
mean, I get it, but the elephant standing over in the corner of
the room is everybody in this room knows that these goals are
unrealistic and can't be accomplished. We all know that, right?
It is a political thing. It is trying to help certain
industries, because it is political. We all know this is
unrealistic timelines, I mean, we should just quit fooling
ourselves.
And also we are surrendering our energy future to foreign
countries, and hurting ratepayers at home, when the foreign
countries don't even like us.
And as we look for the supply chain of wind and solar, I
would be remiss if I didn't join my colleague in pointing out
that a more certain, reliable supply chain, if we opened our
lands to mining critical minerals and rare Earth elements in
environmentally safe--in an environmentally safe way, rather
than being dependent on child and slave labor--that is what it
is, that is the other elephant in the room--we all know what is
happening in China and other areas of the world. We look the
other way, because it is benefiting our green energy goals
here, in the United States.
And I do find it interesting the same people promoting this
massive expansion in demand for batteries, and a massive
expansion that has been talked about, are the same people
supporting the environmentalists who are shutting down our
ability to mine fossil fuels in this country. And if you don't
think their next step is going to be not allowing domestic
production of the minerals we need to expand our clean energy
goals as it relates to battery technology, you are fooling
yourself. It is just craziness.
So Mr. Pugliaresi, again--and I know we have gone over a
lot of this--I am further down here--but could you describe
again the extent in which our country is reliant upon foreign
countries like China to supply the key components needed to
build solar panels and wind turbines?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So yes. So if you look at some of the
critical components there in the charts, it is quite
interesting that the demand for these components accelerates
dramatically as we rely more on renewable technologies. And
that is not an area where we have an advantage right now. And
the area we do have an advantage is oil and gas. We are the
world's largest oil producer, the world's largest gas producer.
We are a dominant player. We can affect what happens to prices
if we ensure that the industry remains efficient and can
produce at capacity.
Mr. Bucshon. So let me say I have--I am intrigued by the
recycling situation--and this isn't a question for you, but
just--in my own office, years ago, I started--OK, what are we
going to do with all these solar panels, you know, when their
end of life--25 years, or whatever. You know they all go to
landfills right now, right? They have, like, all kinds of bad
metals in them, including lead and others. We just throw them--
in the United States, we throw them in a landfill. I think
everybody knows that.
So I started looking into, well, what are we going to do
about that? What does Europe do? Well, they recycle. And, you
know, they are trying to do that. And so I approached the
industry that produces them, potentially, in the United States,
and they were adamantly against recycling. Adamantly against
it. And you know why? They said, ``Because we can't compete
with China already. How are we going to compete if you force us
to put recycling in the life--in the entire life of our solar
panels, here in the U.S.?''
So we are looking the other way when it comes to recycling.
Everybody should look at just throwing all these things in
landfills, because that is what we are going to do. You know,
if we want--we are truly interested in this, let's quit being
hypocrites, and look at the entire life chain, or whatever you
want to call it, of renewable projects.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California. Mr. McNerney is
recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair, and I thank the
witnesses for your testimony this morning.
I also ask that the gentleman from Indiana please refrain
from speaking for me on the committee here in these hearings.
Today we are already in the era of disruptive climate
change. Decades of inaction have now required us to rapidly
decarbonize our economy, or else subject future years to
disaster after disaster.
And, you know, any Energy and Commerce hearing would not be
complete without one of the Republicans off-based California
bashing. Today I will thank the ranking member of the full
committee for that honor. But as we saw in February's winter
storm in Texas, having a domestic supply chain of fossil fuel
is not sufficient for energy resilience. Instead, it
demonstrated a need to rebuild our energy system based on
resilience.
And I agree again with my Republican colleagues that we
need to invest in nuclear energy, including advanced nuclear
energy, and that is why I voted for the bipartisan
infrastructure bill, which includes support for nuclear energy
innovation, funding to keep existing nuclear plants online, and
$6 billion for micro-reactors, small modular reactors, and
advanced nuclear reactors.
It is also why I support the Build Back Better Act, which
includes a nuclear energy tax credit and $500 million for high-
assay, low-enriched uranium, both of which are important
investments in our nuclear generation capability.
If my Republican colleagues want to walk the walk on
nuclear energy, they should have voted for the bipartisan
infrastructure bill, and they should vote for the Build Back
Better bill.
So I am very excited this morning to hear from Dr. Switzer
about how much our battery supply needs can be met by recycling
of battery--existing batteries.
Dr. Switzer, are there other battery chemistry and storage
technologies available that are less reliant on critical
minerals, or use more readily available material inputs?
Dr. Switzer. Thank you for the question. I would like to
answer your question, but just, you know, one kind of point of
clarification from a previous comment around the recycling of
solar panels is actually that Redwood Materials, you know, only
just recently announced that we are actually recycling solar
panels, in partnership with a company called ERI out of
California. So I do think that recycling of solar panels can be
done, and we can recover those minerals out of solar panels
economically.
Mr. McNerney. Good.
Dr. Switzer. With regards to battery chemistries and
reducing the reliance on any given mineral, I think that is
happening. There are a number of different battery chemistries
under development. Some are being commercialized today, and the
chemistries are constantly changing with respect to the
elements they contain.
And again, to a specific example, there would be cobalt and
the continuing reduction of cobalt in battery chemistries.
Mr. McNerney. What kind of Federal support is needed, then,
to diversify material inputs for grid scale batteries?
Dr. Switzer. I think continued investment and support of
not only kind of research, but also the manufacturing that
needs to happen here in the U.S. is critical. I think we can't
only focus on the front end of research. We have also got to
focus on the commercialization and manufacturing.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I am very pleased to see that the
U.S. has built on my early work in wind energy technology
development by creating a robust wind energy manufacturing
industry operating across more than 500 facilities. The
industry has now reached a point of maturity, where the early
wind turbines have reached the end of their operational lives.
Mr. Zindler, are there investments being made in
identifying new recycling processes or bases to recycle wind
turbine blades?
Mr. Zindler. There are, although, to be honest with you, I
can't recall exactly where at this point. Happy to follow up
with you afterwards.
Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you.
Ms. Brown, in your testimony you discussed mistakes the
U.S. solar energy made in--that resulted in offshoring of much
of the manufacturing. Are there lessons to be learned from the
onshore wind industry, which has a relatively robust domestic
manufacturing presence?
And how could these be applied to more nascent clean energy
industries?
Ms. Brown. Actually, thank you for the question,
Congressman, and it actually goes back to the remarks I made
earlier about the work that was done with the onshore wind
industry and our union. We, many years ago, worked with the
American--then-American Wind Energy Association to increase the
domestic content used in onshore wind, because at one point it
was abysmal.
And, you know, ultimately, after that work that we did
together, the percentages were upwards of 50 percent. But it
came with a partnership, and a willingness on their part to
make different investments. So I think that is a model, again,
that we can follow, is look at other technologies.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Representative Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr.
McNerney for his mentioning of nuclear power, and I agree with
him. I think we ought to take it up in a separate bill dealing
with the next generation of nuclear power, and not in a
socialist $3.5 trillion spending bill.
But we have heard a lot about the infrastructure bill just
signed into law by President Biden yesterday. But I believe
that the Tax Cut and Jobs Act created more jobs because it did
it through private dollars and tax savings, incentivized
innovation and development in the private sector, versus
spending American tax dollars, $1.2 trillion in American tax
dollars, to try to create jobs with government money.
Let's follow the science and the facts. Let's not use
manipulated computer models, or hockey sticks, or unrealistic
timelines. The United States of America, without being mandated
to comply with wealth redistribution treaties and accords
coming out of Kyoto or Paris, has actually lowered its carbon
emissions below the targets that were set by those accords. And
they didn't do it because they were mandated; they did it
because American innovation and technology--why and how?
Innovation, period.
The problem with these accords and treaties, including the
recent climate summit in Glasgow, is less about what was in
those treaties and accords and more about who wasn't there, and
who wasn't party to that, and that is China and Russia, period.
Mr. Chairman, if we are really serious about global
climate, instead of further hurting the American economy,
American families paying much higher prices at the pump and in
their utility bills, and attempting to kill the robust and
thriving American energy industry--well, it was thriving before
Joe Biden became President Joe Biden--we should hold a hearing
on the true polluters, China and Russia, and massive emitters
of carbon that were not present and part of these accords.
If the world wants to really address global carbon
emissions that many believe are contributing to climate change,
how do we do that when China can continue to pump carbon at
higher and higher levels through, what, 2030, 2035? And
Democrats want to penalize American industries and require
average American families to pay more to heat and cool their
homes, to drive their kids to school, or drive their car to
attend their worship service at their church.
America needs and Americans demand a 24/7, 365 baseload
power supply.
Now, Ms. Brown represents the United Steelworkers, and in
order to make steel, and refine aluminum, and manufacture
titanium products, these industries require huge amounts of
power generation, huge. The smelters run on a heck of a lot of
power, and it has to be always on, and always available,
because you don't want that puppy to cool.
Mr. Chairman, we need a hearing on nuclear power, and how
it will play a part in the energy security and in our energy
future, especially when you think in terms of that 24/7, 365
reliability.
And Ms. Brown, this is rhetorical: Have the Steelworkers
thought in terms of 24/7, 365 baseload power powering furnaces
to smelt iron into steel?
You see, you say in your testimony that a transition to a
clean energy economy can and will, with government support,
will ensure the preeminence of American manufacturing sector
for the rest of the 21st century. You went through a list of
United Steelworkers--and you represent steel, glass, rubber,
paper, concrete. But the manufacturing of all these requires
tremendous energy usage. I understand that your members want to
manufacture the clean energy components, and I want to
manufacture them here, as well, because I believe they are part
of the future. And I would much rather manufacture them here
than have China or somewhere else manufacture them.
But right now China does, as well as they mine most of the
rare Earth minerals that make it all possible, because they
control the mineral rights and do the mining. China can do all
this much cheaper than here, in the United States, because they
don't have to pay union wages, and they operate state-owned
entities.
We did a hearing on legislation to address the future of
nuclear power, the next generation, because, guess what? That
is another area that China is beating us, is in the future of
nuclear technology.
Let me end with this, and my time. Socialism controls and
pushes its version of the future onto a populace. Free markets
create the renovation and investments. Let's unleash the
American ingenuity and innovation, and create our own energy
future.
I believe, as many Republicans do, that wind and solar and
hydrogen, and all these emerging technologies, ought to be part
of the energy matrix. We truly believe that. And we believe--
because we have seen it--that the American economy, the
innovators and entrepreneurs, will create these products. They
will, if there is a market for it, and if they truly believe in
it. It shouldn't be a socialist government pushing that down.
We can do that, while we continue doing what we have done
over the last 20 years, and that is lower America's carbon
emissions without being held hostage to these accords that
punish the United States, and punish the United States
manufacturers, punish our energy sector, punish moms and dads
by paying higher prices at the pump, higher prices for their
utilities to heat and cool their homes, and we allow our
adversaries to continue unfettered. And that is not fair to
America.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We now recognize,
virtually, the gentlelady from New York, former vice chair of
the full committee, standing Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Representative Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
our ranking members for holding today's hearing on the
importance of strengthening our domestic supply chains and
investing in clean energy--in a clean energy economy.
And to our witnesses, who have graciously joined us today,
allow me to thank you for your testimony.
As a nation, we will not address the existential threat of
climate change with a singular solution. Rather, we will need
to utilize all the tools in our arsenal, especially bold
investments and advancements in renewable energy. I believe it
is important we continue to build out this industry, and I am
happy to see the Biden Administration's plan to expand the
country's wind energy output to 110 gigawatts by 2050.
I strongly believe that we--me and my constituents in
Brooklyn--have a prime opportunity to ensure that the
Administration achieves this crucial goal, while tackling the
climate crisis. So in Brooklyn we have the opportunity to--an
ability to lead the nation when it comes to offshore wind
production. Already, plans are in place to build a new wind
turbine assembly plant in the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal to
expand offshore wind farms in Long Island, which will generate
a total of 3.3 gigawatts of energy per year, enough to power
more than 1.8 million homes.
We talk all the time about bringing forth a Green New Deal,
and how important it is that we create new green jobs and the
clean energy economy. Well, now is the time. And bold
investments in offshore wind is a big part of how we do it.
So, Ms. Brown, the Federal Government has several tools,
including the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, the
Department of the Interior's offshore leasing process that
support the financing or permitting of offshore wind projects.
Do you think the Federal Government can or should use those
programs to ensure that federally-supported projects are making
investments and building a domestic offshore wind supply chain?
Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and
absolutely.
But I also think there needs to be some additional work
done. There is not enough done to actually connect the dots
between what is domestically available, when it comes to
offshore wind, and that work needs to be done.
There was a video, actually, that our president sent around
to a few of us the other day that really lays out the
tremendous array of components that go into an offshore
turbine. And we really need to do a full-scale scope-out of
what is domestically available, so that we can then connect
those domestic producers to those projects. That is the work
that our union is focused on right now, to make sure that we
are identifying the supply chain, and that we are connecting
that supply chain, whether they are in Ohio, or Virginia, or
South Carolina, or Georgia, or wherever they are in this
country, to the projects that are being created in Long Island,
and Maryland, and other places around the country.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
Mr. Zindler, in your testimony you detail some of the
complexities associated with wind turbine production. Can you
elaborate on the current state of our domestic manufacturing
capabilities, as well as their potential?
Mr. Zindler. So, for onshore wind turbines, at the moment,
there is only six countries in the world that can produce every
component of a wind turbine, and the U.S. is one of them.
And so, for the final wind turbines that have been built
onshore--and I am focusing on onshore, because we basically
built almost nothing offshore--the U.S. primarily meets its own
demand with our own supply for the final turbine. However,
there is a considerable portion, typically, of these turbines--
maybe 30, 40 percent--that consist of components that are often
imported, including from places like China.
So, you know, it is a more localized supply chain.
Certainly, in the solar industry, it has been. But it is not
fully, 100 percent U.S.-made, typically, for a typical wind
turbine that gets installed.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Ms. Brown, given a well-trained workforce is critical to
the development of a competitive supply chain, what measures is
the USW taking to ensure that its members are prepared for the
clean-energy jobs of today and tomorrow?
And is there a role for the Federal Government to further
support those workforce development efforts?
Ms. Brown. Thank you again for the question. I will reverse
my response.
Yes, there is a huge role for the Federal Government to
support workforce training programs, absolutely. We have to
make sure that, as we are looking at where to make the
investments in specific communities--we have talked a lot about
Baltimore--there are other communities around the country,
rural areas. As we are making investments in these communities
to bring manufacturing or whatever, that we are then also
lining that up with workforce training in those communities.
In terms of our union, you know, we are not a building
trades union, so we don't run a hiring hall, but we do work
really closely with our employers to make sure that there is
consistent on-the-job training, as these technologies are being
advanced and created.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I appreciate your
indulgence.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Representative Walberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we may sound like a
broken record here, but that is only because the majority
continues to ignore the reality that there is an energy crisis
raging across our country and in my state of Michigan right
now. Gas prices are soaring by 80 percent, heating bills are
projected to be nearly 60 percent more expensive this winter,
and supplies are waning, and that is a big deal for Michigan in
the winter.
Our President admitted that he has no solutions, and our
Energy Secretary, our former governor in Michigan, laughed. She
laughed at American families struggling to afford to heat their
home or drive their cars.
This hearing is supposed to be about the supply chain
challenges of a zero-carbon economy. How about instead we first
focus on the supply chain crisis of the current energy economy?
Mr. Pugliaresi, I am sure you have read the recent reports
that the Biden Administration is considering shutting down Line
5, as Michigan Governor Whitmer is attempting to do in court.
Some reports are saying the decision may solely be based on
political pressures. That is a scary thought.
You have decades of experience in dealing with energy
security issues at the highest level of government. In your
opinion, what would be the impact of a Line 5 shutdown, as it
relates to our national energy strategy?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So, in my view, that is two--first, it is a
horrible idea. Let's just get that out there, it is a horrible
idea.
Mr. Walberg. And unnecessary.
Mr. Pugliaresi. It is very unnecessary. And also, it is--I
don't believe--of course, I don't want to speak on legal
matters, but the pipeline and Hazardous Materials and Safety
Administration is responsible for this.
This is a regulatory matter to be handled under treaty
between the United States and Canada, and it is in this manner
for a good reason. We view the construction of pipelines as
part of the sort of foundation, you know, infrastructure within
the U.S., and it should not be affected by short-term political
whims.
I really think, you know, we went through this period of
low oil prices and low gasoline prices, and, in a sense, we
have--we sort of forgot how valuable all the investments in
infrastructure and the revolution we had in technologies that
made us such a large oil and gas producer.
Mr. Walberg. And it had a positive impact, didn't it? And--
--
Mr. Pugliaresi. It had an enormous impact. It is one of the
main reasons our emissions of carbon are declining, so--have
declined so rapidly over the last ten years.
Mr. Walberg. Far cleaner petroleum resources coming from
our suppliers, both Canada and the United States, as opposed to
Russia, isn't it?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Absolutely.
Mr. Walberg. In your testimony you state that the public
support for clean energy transition will hinge on the
availability of reliable and affordable energy, which remains
the lifeblood of our economy and our national security, and
that cutting off production of legacy fuels will backfire
horribly and erode public support for a clean energy
transmission.
In your opinion, will shutting down existing safe and
reliable oil and gas pipelines increase or decrease public
support for a clean energy transition? Why or why not?
Mr. Pugliaresi. They will dramatically decrease it, because
the public is not prepared and unwilling to pay the very high
prices of a transition program which is--accelerates so quickly
that it raises the cost of power and, you know, energy,
generally.
Mr. Walberg. It is a pocketbook issue, isn't it?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes, there is a pocketbook issue. There
will be no--there is no political support for this, I can
assure you.
I mean, remember, four pillars of modern civilization still
do not have a cost-effective alternative, from a--from fossil
fuels: steel, cement, plastics, and fertilizer.
Mr. Walberg. Yes. So I guess what I am hearing you say is
that, by cutting off existing pipelines, this will actually
undermine a clean energy transition, as was the case in
Germany. Am I correct?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes, I believe we are going to see a great
deal of public dissatisfaction with the winter crisis
throughout the European continent. And it is already creating a
lot of political divisions, and a lot of political turmoil.
Mr. Walberg. To what degree do you think political
decisions to shut down oil and gas infrastructure will impact
energy prices, moving forward, as we recover from the COVID-19
pandemic?
Mr. Pugliaresi. If we undermine our ability to efficiently
produce, transport, and distribute traditional legacy fuels
such as oil and gas, gasoline, propane, it is going to have a
very negative political impact, because the American public is
used to the reliability and the resilience of the system.
Mr. Walberg. And the pocketbook issue comes back.
Mr. Pugliaresi. It is a pocketbook issue.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Soto. [Presiding] The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes Representative Peters for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question for
Mr. Zindler.
You know, different technologies have different demands for
critical materials. We are talking about a lot of electric
cars, which will take a lot of batteries, obviously. We are
talking about using battery storage for--to deal with the
intermittency of renewable energy. And I am wondering whether
we should be making strategic decisions about which nascent
technologies to support, given the amount of critical minerals
they demand.
So in particular, should we be looking more aggressively at
hydrogen for large vehicles, for buses?
Should we be looking more aggressively at things like
advanced nuclear for power generation, because we may not be
able to get all the batteries that we need for storage?
What do you think about the direction we should be taking,
with respect to that scarcity?
Mr. Zindler. So it is a good question. And, you know, we
used to hear a lot more about it an all-of-the-above energy
strategy, I think, than we do now, even--frankly, even from
Republicans. And yet it does seem like that--we really have
major challenges in the short and the long term, if we think
about this transition.
And longer term, you potentially do need technologies like
advanced nuclear reactors. You need technologies like hydrogen
to be used in various ways. And, like I said earlier, that is
why, at least to me, it is encouraging that some of these are
well supported in the infrastructure bill that passed recently.
But you also need to support technologies that are more viable
today.
But as Mr. Pugliaresi points out, I mean, you know, these
industrial processes, there is no easy fix. And this is why
hydrogen, for instance, or advanced nuclear, is important to
try to find ways to decarbonize those areas, as well.
But in addition, there should be support for the
technologies that are viable today. And I would note, really,
that they are viable. And for--we can pretend that there isn't
competition here, but the reality is that the number of
electric vehicles that are being sold around the world has been
surging, particularly this year. And I would argue that it is
not just because there is policy support, though there has been
that, but it is also because, ultimately, these are superior
products.
So you can bury your head in the sand and say, ``We just
like internal combustion engine vehicles,'' but eventually
there will be a transition.
Mr. Peters. You are starting to address a different point.
I mean, obviously, my concern grows out of the popularity of
electric vehicles, out of the commitment of our--laudable
commitment of our automakers to sell only electric vehicles--
California, only electric vehicles after 2035, so it is our
only emission-free vehicle. So I just think--I suspect we
should be giving some thought to the effect of--scarcity of
battery technology doesn't change, in particular.
Let me also ask you--so critical minerals are, obviously, a
complex problem. In addition to the potential of onshoring
recycling, it seems like we should be working with our allies
to develop new mines and factories for clean energy
technologies in more favorable locations, like when we utilized
the U.S. Export-Import Bank to help develop the world's
liquefied natural gas market.
Can the U.S. collaborate with its allies to create more
secure and sustainable supply chains for critical minerals and
low-carbon technologies?
In other words, if we can't have it here, onshore it, can
we friend-shore it?
Mr. Zindler. I think the answer is yes. And, I mean, if you
look at where the production of a lot of these elements are,
they--both where they are, and where they could be, it is a
pretty heterogeneous group of countries.
But where you look--if you look at where a lot of the
refining of the elements takes place, the majority of it is in
China. And so that is one area where you could say you would
immediately potentially want to diversify, so that you have a
greater--less reliance on these elements making a stop in China
before they proceed along the value chain. And that certainly
is, potentially, an area that our foreign development agencies
could look at.
But the refining itself, to be clear, is something that
could also be done in the United States. That is not contingent
on a local resource of something under the ground.
Mr. Peters. All right. Thank you very much for being here.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Carter for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here today. We appreciate your indulgence. I know it
has been a long day, thus far, but we are almost home.
Mr. Pugliaresi, I want to ask you, this hearing today comes
at a most appropriate time, because we are suffering from
supply chain issues in our country. And, you know, whereas I
think we can resolve these in the near term, I think it is a
different story about the long term, and particularly when it
relates to--when we are talking about supply chain of critical
minerals.
And I know we have spoken about that today, you have, but
I--you know, if all this were to go through, all these
priorities, and these--with the Green New Deal and everything,
you know, knowing how dependent we are on China, knowing how
dependent we are on other countries to get these minerals, and
knowing how long it takes to be able to get them here in this
country if we were to be able to process them and to be able to
get minerals here, what is the repercussions, both politically
and economically, if we become so dependent on China for our
critical minerals, if we were almost completely dependent on
them for this?
Mr. Pugliaresi. We are all going to suffer a strategic loss
if we--if the components we need to transition to the fuels or
the technologies of the future, or in--you know, regions in--
which are unfriendly or subject to disruption.
If you think about the traditional way we thought about
energy security, we were vulnerable in the petroleum--from
petroleum, due to a concentration of low-cost reserves in
unstable parts of the world, right? That imposed two risks on
us. One, a few folks could get together and lower production
and extract wealth from the United States; or two, right, there
could be a major disruption. It doesn't even have to be state
actor. It could just be acts of terrorism.
But we were so dependent on that. And the emergence of the
U.S. as a major oil producer in the world has virtually
eliminated this problem. Yes, other players can do things, and
this is the problem, if we try to transition too fast and too
deep with these alternative, these alternative fuels.
Mr. Carter. Thank you for mentioning that. I often cite
just what you said. You are old enough, I am old enough to
remember the late 1970s, when we were dependent on other
countries, particularly in the Middle East, for our energy
needs, and we knew it, but we realized it when gasoline got up
to be $5 or $6 a gallon. And we did something about it. We set
out to become energy independent, and we achieved that. We even
achieved energy dominance.
And I remember our former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo,
saying that it was such a tool in his tool chest, when he could
go worldwide, knowing that we had energy dominance, it gave us
something that other people didn't have, and that we could
utilize on a foreign playing field, if you will, and how
important that was.
I want to get to something else, because I am really
interested in this, and that is just how clean some of this
stuff is. When we talk about clean energy, what about the
waste?
And the title of today's hearing is, ``Clean Energy
Economy.'' But in your testimony you mention the high cost of
materials and commodities needed to build enough clean energy
projects that could replace the output of a natural gas plant.
In fact, according to the Manhattan Institute, the energy
equivalent of 100 barrels of oil, as used in the process, is to
fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one
battery of--one barrel of oil.
How much cleaner are wind, solar, and battery technology,
when they require so much more in terms of materials processing
and land?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Right. So one of the problems is we have
kind of a unidimensional view towards the environment.
Everything is focused on carbon emissions, and we forget about
all the other things we need to worry about, which is land
disturbance, how much land we are going to need, how much power
and energy needs to be made to fabricate the steel for the
windmills.
And I would like to thank Mark Mills for his excellent
analysis of this problem, because there are no free lunches.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. And I appreciate you mentioning
this. I represent South Georgia, a very rural area, and I have
been--I have visited some counties where the state and Federal
Government are offering tax incentives for them to switch for--
from farmland to solar farms.
And let me preface and say, look, I am a big clean energy
advocate. I am very proud that I was just--I just received an
award, as a conservative clean energy person of the year in
Georgia, and I take it very seriously, and I am all for clean
energy. But I also want to be accurate, and I also want to make
sure we understand.
But I was--what I was saying is some of these counties, we
are using up ag land for solar farms, and some of the counties
have even put moratoriums on it now, because all of the ag land
is being turned into solar farms.
Mr. Pugliaresi. Well, if we are using a set of price
signals which don't reflect the actual costs of production, and
the actual value of the products, we are going to have these
distortions. And so we should be cautious and careful about the
pace at which we do these things.
Mr. Carter. Again, I thank you all for being here. I just
want to make clear--and I am a strong advocate for clean
energy, but I want us to be--go with our eyes open on it, and
make sure we understand just how clean it is.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Soto. The gentleman's time has expired. Next the Chair
recognizes Representative Dingell for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank both of
our chairmen for holding today's important joint hearing on
domestic supply chains for clean energy. This hearing couldn't
come at a more critical time, as we look towards the future and
American competitiveness.
We have seen over the last two years how a global pandemic
can negatively impact our domestic supply chains, and we cannot
afford to be caught flat-footed as we embark on this
transformational shift to a clean economy. That is important
for both American prosperity, but also for our national
security.
And I just want to say I need to get to my questions pretty
fast, because I care deeply about electric vehicles, but I am
hearing my colleagues, who I have a great deal of respect for,
make comments about clean air energy. I remember when Michigan
went to renewable resources, how everybody was so worried about
wind and solar, and how expensive it was going to be. And it
has turned out to be far less expensive than anybody thought,
and less than gas and oil.
And the Secretary of Energy is my friend, and I just have
to--she is not laughing at anybody having to pay increased
costs for anything. I think the--her comment was taken out of
context. We all care about Line 5. We care about energy supply
in the State of Michigan, but we also care about the Great
Lakes, and what would happen in an oil spill. It is a far more
complicated subject than a one-minute sound bite in our
committee, and maybe we could get to that someday in committee.
But having said that, I would like to focus on the critical
mineral supply chains needed to support electric vehicles, and
how innovative companies are rethinking clean energy supply
chains.
First of all, Mr. Zindler, in your expert opinion, do we
currently have the robust domestic supply chains for critical
minerals and processing needed to lead the world in the
development, production, and deployment of electric vehicles to
meet the President's 2030 EV goal? Yes or no?
Mr. Zindler. No.
Mrs. Dingell. I agree with you.
Mr. Zindler. No.
Mrs. Dingell. We don't have the supply chain needed, which
is why I would like to explore the recent partnership announced
between Redwood Materials and Ford.
So the recent collaboration between Redwood Materials and
Ford--and, by the way, I agree with my--I am not old, but I am
seasoned. I remember sitting in lines, and our dependency upon
foreign oil, and we never want to get that way again. And China
is making too many of our batteries, but we have the resources
to do it here, and protect our own national security.
So Dr. Switzer, the recent collaboration between Redwood
Materials and Ford to make electric vehicles more sustainable
and affordable for America represents a partnership between an
emerging--American company that are rethinking clean energy
supply chains, and encouraging large companies, namely the
automakers, to do the same. So can you speak on the innovative
business models you are pursuing, for instance, on how Redwood
is centering its business around circulatory, for those that--
the domestic supply chain, and how the industry is reacting to
this approach?
Dr. Switzer. Yes, sure, thank you for the question, and
highlighting our recent partnership with Ford Motor Company.
You know, they have been very exciting to work with, as they
really are forward-leaning, in terms of the electrification of
their fleet.
When we talk about our partnership with Ford, it really is,
you know--it encompasses all of what you said, as in
circularity. We are interested in how do we, you know, collect
and recycle Ford's end-of-life batteries from their electric
vehicles they place on the market?
But not only how do we collect and recycle those. It is
important that we also refine and then re-manufacture those
into battery materials that Ford can use, here in the U.S.,
wherever their plants are.
Mrs. Dingell. So can you--because I am going to run out of
time already--talk about how that increases efficiencies in
battery manufacturing, and how that helps us in American
production?
Dr. Switzer. Yes, I think that is a key point of it all, is
that--you know, there has been a lot of talk today about how,
you know, domestic manufacturing can't compete, whereas, as we
would actually maybe contend the opposite. And I think that is
why Ford is so interested, is that--you know, we think that, by
bringing these material--this material manufacturing into the
U.S., we can actually drive costs down, and help reduce the
cost of the battery, which is the single most expensive
component of an EV.
Mrs. Dingell. I am out of time. I may, Mr. Chairman, with
permission, do some questions for the record, and thank the
witnesses, and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Soto. The gentlelady yields back, and questions will be
submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]**********COMMITTEE
INSERT**********
Mr. Soto. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes
to ask questions.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses.
I recently arrived back from Glasgow, Scotland, where I
attended COP. And I know what you are thinking. A Republican,
right? Attended COP?
I had many fascinating conversations over there, and one of
those fascinating conversations with--was with the president of
Scottish Power. And he started our conversation by saying, ``We
are 100 percent renewable.'' And having run a utility before I
couldn't let that go. I had to ask him more questions.
``Well, what do you mean?''
He said, ``Well, we have so much wind. We don't know--you
know, we have more wind than we can possibly use,'' and they
have built an infrastructure around Scotland for--to capture
the wind.
And so I asked the next logical question, which is, ``What
happens when the wind doesn't blow?''
And he said, ``Oh, we have to import power, and it is
usually from natural gas.'' And then he went on three or four
more times to reiterate that he was 100 percent renewable, and
didn't see that, at least in my mind, which was the catch to
his claim.
The next day I had a conversation to speak with an
organization that works in Scotland to balance power. So they
take power coming in, and make sure that the power going out is
equal. They actually pay homes to not use power, so that they
can make it equal. And I brought up this because it was
haunting me all day, this baseload issue, right, if you have
got this much wind.
And the gentleman I talked to said, ``You know, I haven't
heard the word 'baseload' in five years.'' It is not even part
of their conversation.
And so, as far as I know, it is a fact that we don't have
the technology to store this type of renewable at scale. I get
that we can do it, but at scale.
It is also a fact that their nation is dependent on outside
energy from outside of their borders.
And it is also a fact that this vulnerability leads to
unstable prices and uncertainty. As a matter of fact, I had a
conversation where we learned of one woman who has a home --
several hundred square feet--that was paying $1,000 U.S. for
her utility bill. And we actually saw in that room, where they
were balancing power, that power had doubled, tripled, and
quadrupled as they became dependent on the natural gas coming
into their system. I call this, the emperor has no clothes
moment, something that happens, I think, a lot in these
discussions.
There is other the emperor has no clothes moments, and one
of those, to me, is the demonization of fossil fuels. It makes
us feel good to shut down pipelines like the Keystone Pipeline.
But the reality of it is, I believe, shutting down the Keystone
Pipeline increases greenhouse gas emissions, because we simply
use fuel from dirtier sources, or we truck that fuel in. As a
matter of fact, in Glasgow they were joking that we should name
the Keystone Pipeline Nord Stream III, and we could get it
approved and passed.
Another elephant-in-the-room moment is the moratorium on
Federal leases, which makes us dependent on China for critical
minerals. We have talked about that today.
So we remain locked in a tug of war of words and ideology.
I don't believe it needs to be that way. In fact, it is clear
to me that, no matter your answer, renewables, emerging
technologies like new nuclear, hydrogen, or fossil fuels, they
all lack one major component, and that is innovation. Every
single one of those lacks innovation that it needs to be.
As a matter of fact, no matter who you talk to, when they
say we are going to be carbon neutral by 2050, or we are going
to cut that in half by 2030, they all put a little asterisk by
it that says, ``We don't know how to get there yet,'' and we
are lacking serious innovation in these three areas.
So I asked myself and, in the few moments that we have, I
would like to ask you, and I will start with Mr. Pugliaresi,
what are the barriers to innovation right now, and what is
keeping us from breaking through some of these barriers in
innovation?
Mr. Pugliaresi. First, you know, I think we sort of looked
at what was happening with our iPhones, and silicon, and chips,
and we said, ``Well, we should be able to do this for energy.''
But in fact, these are a much harder problem. They bump against
some fundamental problems of physics. And so we are going to
have to invest a lot in research and development to make sure
that the technologies we deploy are cost effective.
My biggest concern, from an energy security point of view,
is that we begin to deploy technologies that are not actually
ready to be cost effective, are not resilient enough, because
we--our aspirational goals kind of exceed our sort of pragmatic
views of the world.
Mr. Curtis. We have also just heard recently about
lifecycle costs, right, that we don't always look at lifecycle
cost.
Mr. Zindler, I can tell that you have had a lot of good
answers throughout this hearing, and I can tell there have been
a lot of things you have wanted to respond to. I would love you
to respond to this innovation gap, right?
And if we are not careful, this turns into a, you know, a
Republican-Democrat fight. But I don't think innovation needs
to be.
What are our barriers to innovation, in your mind?
Mr. Zindler. Well, I will try and be really quick, because
I know we are at time.
But first, thank you for a really thoughtful question, and
for your time in going to Glasgow. And I think you pinpoint a
real challenge, which is long-term, long-duration storage is an
issue, and it is one that we don't have solved now, and it is
one that we need to invest in over the long haul.
Certainly, batteries that can provide--lithium ion
batteries can provide, you know, short discharges, and help
with cars and everything, but that is an area where we need to
focus.
Mr. Curtis. And I am going to cut you off, because the
Chair is going to cut me off, and I know we are out a time.
Let me also suggest a level playing field and permanency,
so that corporations can invest, knowing that they have got
permanency.
And I hear your gavel, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Soto. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Veasey for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. With
electric vehicles poised to grow tremendously--and we are
looking at here, and in Fort Worth, we are on the short list
for a large electric vehicle company that is thinking about
actually moving their headquarters here.
We, obviously, need to take seriously the sourcing of these
materials, and not just, you know, gloss over them, and pretend
like it is not a problem. But it is also critical that we are
thinking and preparing for what to do with the materials at the
end of their life.
Earlier this summer, with Representative Doyle, we
introduced H.R. 4864, the Battery Material Processing and
Component Manufacturing Act. And this bill makes billions of
dollars of investments in building a domestic battery supply
chain by focusing on material processing, component
manufacturing, and recycling. I worked with my colleagues, and
was pleased to have the bill included as part of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was signed into
law. The Department of Energy will now have the authority and
resources to collaborate with the private sector on how to
responsibly produce and process battery materials, but also
invest in infrastructure needed to manufacture and recycle
batteries here, in the U.S.
We heard today from Dr. Switzer about the importance of
creating a closed-loop domestic supply chain for batteries, and
I would like to give him the opportunity to add anything else
he would like to on the importance of this type of
collaboration.
Dr. Switzer, given your experience at Redwood working to
build a domestic battery business, what further steps does
Congress need to do to support and facilitate businesses like
yours in building domestic battery manufacturing?
Dr. Switzer. Thank you. I think, to start off with,
conversations like this are a great place to, I think, bring
everyone to that kind of level playing field, and to the same
level of kind of education and awareness of the issues.
I think there has been, in terms of, you know, creating
that closed-loop supply chain, there has been a ton of
announcements and investment around the electrification of our
automotive fleet. You know, the Big Three have all, really,
leaned forward and said, ``We are going to go electric,'' and I
think that is a huge step.
And you know, in front of that, there has been a lot of
investment in battery manufacturing, and a lot of announcements
of battery manufacturers coming to the U.S. But I think in
front of that is where we really need to focus. And in front of
that is the battery material supply chain, along with, coupled
with, the recycling supply chain that needs to kind of close
that circle such that, you know, once the materials are here in
the U.S., they stay here in the U.S., and can be re-
manufactured, essentially, an infinite number of times to
produce new batteries over time.
Mr. Veasey. No, yes, yes, thank you very much.
And before my next question, I just want to say, Ms. Brown,
thank you, in your opening comments, for really projecting some
reality into this conversation. I thought that that was very
much needed. And I am going to move over to my state of Texas.
Many people on this call know, because I have talked about
it a lot, that we are--not only are we the leaders when it
comes to producing oil and gas, but we are also the leaders
when it comes to wind energy in this country. We are showing
the rest of the world and the rest of the country on exactly
how you can wind, and no one can argue that.
And we have quite a bit of solar power, as well, but we
often have a problem with matching generation with load. Energy
storage technologies will be a key part of shifting energy when
it is cheaply generated to when there is demand on the grid.
Another provision in the infrastructure bill just signed
into law would establish a demonstration project for second-
life applications of EV batteries--aggregated energy storage
installations on the grid. It is estimated that lithium ion
battery packs in EVs may retain about 70 percent of their
storage capacity at the end of the battery service life to the
vehicle. Mr. Zindler, can you speak about how recycling EV
batteries for use on the grid might complement the deployment
of clean energy, particularly in a state like Texas?
Mr. Zindler. It is a good point, and it is a good question.
So yes, we have started to see some of the recycling of some
EVs to be used for storage.
My understanding is it is a little less--so what you might
traditionally think of as on the grid, but in the so-called
behind-the-meter sense. That is, in people's homes and
businesses, where they want backup power in the case of
outages. And I think there has been something like 40 or 50,000
of these systems sold in California, in particular, because of
all the outages they have had around wildfires. So the demand
for residential storage is definitely growing, and there is a
potential that these batteries can be used in that application.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. Tonko. [Presiding] The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Let's see, Mr. Pence, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Pence. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairs
Tonko and Rush, and Ranking Members McKinley and Upton, for
holding this hearing today, and thank you all for being here. I
found it very informative, just to be here and listen to what
you all had to say.
Mr. Pugliaresi, I know that you share my concern that
Hoosiers and all Americans are struggling to keep pace with
rising energy prices. That is really all I heard back last
week, when I was out in the district. It is the number-one
issue, the inflation and--particularly having spent an entire
career in the petroleum distribution industry, they put their
price right out there, so everybody knows whether the price
went up, and they are really getting out of control, and
affecting manufacturers, transportation industry.
I agree with you that the Biden Administration policies,
such as a halt on oil and gas leasing on Federal lands,
duplicative emission regulations, and the war on pipeline
projects, such as the Keystone XL, have undermined our energy
independence and contributed to a global energy crisis, because
crude oil is an international product movement.
While I support an all-of-the-above approach, like my peers
have all talked about today, this hearing has only further
proved that oil and gas remain necessary to maintain energy
independence, particularly when we don't have the storage
technology at this time to really move it forward in an
expeditious way. And I hope my colleagues are listening to what
a number of the folks have testified about today.
You know, here is where I am going, sir. Innovation has
been a hallmark of the petroleum industry ever since I--my
family was involved in it. And it--should we just abandon
support of the oil industry at this time, when they have shown
so much improvement in the environment, in cleanups, and things
like that?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So, you know, I think one way to look upon
it is that these legacy fuels, particularly oil and gas, they
provide--they are extremely valuable. And we know that because
they are--they generate large sums of revenue directly to the
Federal Government.
You take our leasing system between 2005 and 2015. Over
$110 billion flowed directly to the Federal treasury. A lot of
it was distributed back to the states. In that same period, we
probably spent over $50 billion for grants and production tax
credits for wind and solar. I am not saying it is a bad idea,
but I am saying this gives us a signal in the marketplace, in
the valuation of this commodity within our system.
We have a lot of extra economic value, if you like, showing
up. It is because consumers want it, it has the characteristics
that they need. And that is not the case yet for wind and
solar. It is competitive. I am told it is competitive, but we
will know more when we see the industry, the wind and solar
industry, say, OK, let's give--we don't need the tax credits
any more, we don't need the production credits--
Mr. Pence. You are right, you are--
Mr. Pugliaresi [continue]. We are ready to bid on land
values in the--on public lands, just like the oil and gas
industry.
Mr. Pence. Well, and not only the lease revenues of 110
over a 5-year period, but also motor fuel taxes on a Federal
level are about 51 billion a year, and you could at least
double that for the impact between motor fuel for state taxes
and then sales tax. And that is a lot of income that would
disappear out of the system.
But back to why would we not continue to support or enable
the industry to innovate and improve technologically, like they
have for so many years, is that something we are not talking
about now?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Apparently not. But the real question is
the pace at which we transition to these fuels of the future.
And the most troubling aspect of a lot of policy discussions,
and some policies, is that we are abandoning these high-valued
fuels before we really have cost-effective substitutes. And
that is a prescription for a lot of problems.
Mr. Pence. Yes, sir, and thank you for that. You know, I am
really concerned about the average consumer in the Indiana
district that I represent--of course, across the State of
Indiana. And I appreciate that we do figure out to do an all-
of-the-above without hammering and doing it at the expense of
the constituents that I represent.
So thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from California.
Representative Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, for holding this
important hearing on supply chain solutions for the clean
energy economy. It is important that we work toward having a
robust, clean energy supply chain that is not dependent on
countries with poor labor and environmental standards,
especially rivals like China.
Mr. Zindler, this year we have seen the importance that
ports and investing in ports and freight infrastructure has on
keeping goods moving efficiently throughout our country. How
are ports important for supporting our clean energy supply
chain?
And how can investing in domestic clean energy
manufacturing create jobs that uplift ports and surrounding
communities?
Mr. Zindler. I apologize, I had a little trouble hearing
that. Could--would you mind repeating the last--very quickly,
just the last bit?
Ms. Barragan. So how are ports important for supporting our
clean energy supply chain?
And how can investing in domestic clean energy
manufacturing create jobs that uplift ports and surrounding
communities?
Mr. Zindler. OK. So in the short run, ports are
tremendously important. And one of the reasons we have seen a
squeeze on pricing in the cost of solar equipment and other
areas of clean energy is for the same reason we have seen
around other things that are putting inflationary pressure on,
which is that--the ability to get stuff into the U.S. has been
challenged.
Longer term, I guess my honest answer would be that, if you
build more domestic manufacturing, you wouldn't need to import
as much. There is, of course, the potential that eventually the
U.S. could export. But I think we are a long way from getting
there.
Ms. Barragan. OK, thank you for that.
Ms. Brown, in December of 2020 a community labor coalition,
including the United Steelworkers Local 675, joined with the
electric bus manufacturer, Proterra, to announce a community
benefits agreement to support union jobs in their
manufacturing, with at least 50 percent from disadvantaged
communities. This shows the promise of a clean energy economy
that we are aspiring to.
What policies can create the conditions for these types of
community benefit agreements throughout the country for energy
manufacturing?
Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. We
are really proud of that, again, partnership. I keep using that
word today, ``partnership,'' between our union and Proterra and
the community to achieve that community benefit partnership.
You know, and I think it really goes back to tying really
high-value standards to our policies. You know, we talked
earlier about domestic content requirements, but tying labor
standards to our policies also help to ensure these types of
arrangements and agreements. And so that is really where we
focus, is strengthening our policies by layering on stronger
standards.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Switzer, there is a lot of untapped potential for
recycling the critical minerals used in electric vehicles, both
in production and when they reach the end of their useful life.
What are the right requirements and incentives to ensure we are
not burying critical minerals in landfills and scrap yards,
given the need will be so great?
Dr. Switzer. Yes, thank you. I think, you know, I think,
one, supporting the battery recycling industry as it stands up,
and as it demonstrates that we can think of these batteries
coming out of vehicles not as not as liabilities, but rather as
actually assets that have value that can then be reused and
manufactured into new battery materials.
And to your question on ports, I would, you know, just
second the comments around, as we stand up the recycling
industry here in the U.S., and as we stand up the battery
materials industry here, in the U.S., we will be less reliant
on importing material. And I think that is critical, going
forward.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, and thank you to our
witnesses today for being here.
We have to look ahead, and we need to look at the future.
And, you know, there has been just so much talk about, you
know, worrying about concerns in other countries, not looking
at the concern right here in our own backyard of what is
happening to our communities that are either communities of
color, low-income communities that are living next to these
fossil fuel burning sites, the health impact it is having, and
nobody is putting a value on human life, and what is happening
in our communities. So I do thank the chairman for the hearing
today, and we have got to make sure we continue to build on the
infrastructure bill, and passing the Build Back Better.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Representative Palmer.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk a
little bit about supply chain. And, obviously, our supply chain
consists of rail, and truck, and shipping, airfreight, but it
also consists of pipelines. I just want to know how much sense
it makes to shut down Line 5 in Michigan, and potentially the
pipeline into Missouri providing natural gas that, I think,
originated from Mercatus--not Mercatus, from the Marcellus
shale formation.
Does that make sense, Mr. Pugliaresi?
Mr. Pugliaresi. No, as we have discussed previously, there
are enormous strategic and direct economic benefits from having
the entire North American production platform as efficient and
as cost effective and as safe as possible. And we lose those
benefits when we try to make that platform less efficient.
Mr. Palmer. Let's talk about how it is going to impact
people, though. A lot of what we discuss here is just kind of
politics, and technical, and I am not sure if--how many people
really reflect on how it actually impacts people.
But we are on pace to face the biggest surge in electricity
costs since the Obama Administration, and it is a direct result
of the Biden Administration's policies. And I kind of think
that maybe they learned it from the Obama Administration, since
he served as Vice President in that Administration. It is going
to be the costliest winter on--in decades, I think, maybe, but
certainly in years, for households that are not only going to
be hit with high household utility bills, but they are going to
get hit with much higher costs at the pump.
As a matter of fact, there was a Canadian study that showed
that, when you take into account gasoline prices plus the
increase in household energy costs, that we are talking - the
bottom quintile, the lowest 20 percent of household incomes,
paying almost 19 percent of their household income, just on
energy. That is going to have a devastating impact on a lot of
lives.
And one of my big concerns--and here is a study from
Northwestern University Department of Economics on how
inexpensive heating reduces winter mortality. And I brought
this up in the committee before, and I have yet to hear from
one of my colleagues across the aisle express the same concerns
that I do about the number of people who are going to die this
winter because they can't afford to adequately heat their
homes. We know it is a scandal in Europe.
Mr. Zindler mentioned all these nations that have gone to
renewables, and I looked at the ones who have gone to solar and
wind, and there is 30 nations that--and most of them in
Europe--as a matter of fact, I think all of them are in
Europe--that are reporting excess winter deaths, and the United
Kingdom is sixth. And they had 9,700 people die last winter
because, you know, they had respiratory issues, they had
cardiovascular issues, and that really, really hurt people when
they can't afford to adequately heat their homes.
Are you aware of that, Mr. Pugliaresi?
Mr. Pugliaresi. I don't have the recent data on the deaths,
but let me just say, for large segments of the American
population, rising energy prices are devastating, because it
does become a large percentage of their income.
We did a webinar on the Transportation Climate Initiative
and, in fact, it was--you know, sort of the Northeast states.
And a primary concern from state legislators was, well, we are
interested in this, but we don't want to see low-income
families hurt.
Mr. Palmer. Well, it is really going to hurt people in the
Northwest. I looked at Vermont, and the people in the lowest
quintile, their average household income is less than $28,000,
18.3 percent--I mean, in that--they pay 18.3 percent of their
total income. That is 7 times more than the people in the top
20 percent of household incomes in Vermont.This is going to
have a devastating impact on people living in those colder
climates.
And I am going to get into some other stuff later on, but
when you combine this with inflation that we are already
experiencing, and the fact that energy costs are the most
inflationary component of the economy, we are, literally,
condemning some people to death. And I just think that there is
a cost that is not being calculated here that, apparently, my
colleagues across the aisle are not that concerned about, but I
certainly am, and I am going to speak up for those people.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Representative Soto, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The challenge. Climate
change is an existential threat to the human race. In Florida
we are facing intensifying hurricanes, rising seas, and the
hottest years on record. But there is hope.
The goal? Reduce greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2030,
and get to net zero by 2050.
The way we are going to do it? A hundred percent clean
electricity by twenty-thirty-five.
We are at 40 percent right now. Nuclear, 20 percent.
Renewables, 20 percent. The fact that people are saying we
can't get the other way with 60 percent--yes, we can, and 50
percent electric vehicles by 2030.
And Congress is leading the way, with the Build Back Better
infrastructure package, which has billions for electric vehicle
infrastructure and clean energy. I want to thank both
Representatives Upton and McKinley for joining the Senate, and
making this a bipartisan bill.
America must lead the way on this.
And I also want to thank Representative Curtis for joining
so many of the Democrats over at the COP. It shows that we can
work together in a bipartisan fashion.
There are other challenges expanding the clean energy
supply chain, which is what we are here for today: microchips;
rare Earth metals, which, by the way, we could utilize both
coal and coal ash to develop rare Earth metals, a great way to
help in this transition; we need to grow wind and solar by four
times what we have right now; we need next generation batteries
and modular nuclear; and yes, we need carbon capture, too.
We also must acknowledge the pain suffered by so many of
our constituents with rising gas prices. You know, in August,
NPR had a headline. Hurricane Ida hit an important oil and gas
hub in Louisiana, which will likely drive up gas prices. And
that is exactly what happened. Climate change supercharged a
hurricane that then incapacitated many of our refineries in
Louisiana, causing rising gas prices. Climate change is helping
cause this to happen. If we do nothing, it will happen again.
It will get worse.
And then inflation. A critical question and a critical
quote. Senator Rob Portman said yesterday, when we were at the
bipartisan infrastructure signing, that the bill represents
long-term investments in our nation's hard infrastructure
assets, create hundreds of thousands of jobs with the bill,
make us more efficient and competitive against countries like
China. It adds to the supply side of the economy, and will be
counter-inflationary. It will be counter-inflationary at a time
of rising inflation, and it does it all without raising taxes
on the American economy. That is from the good Senator from
Ohio, and I happen to agree with him.
The rest, who voted no, put party over country, and the
American people know it.
Also missing from the talking points of today, we had an
impressive 521,000 jobs in October. Unemployment is down to 4.6
percent, and in Florida it is under 5 percent, as well. COVID
cases are way down nationally, and children 5 to 11 can now be
finally vaccinated. So what is the headline? In short, jobs are
up, COVID cases are down, and children are safer.
Improving the supply chains are part of this critical
effort to combat climate change. So the big question for this
committee: Can we work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to
get this done? I know we can.
Mr. Zindler, the solar supply chain currently relies
heavily on other countries, including China, as we attempt to
build a domestic solar manufacturing supply chain. What are the
places we should target, and what parts of the supply chain are
easier to support and establish leadership?
Mr. Zindler. Thanks for the question.
The--first, as I said in my testimony, the U.S.,
essentially, at the moment, is a non-player in the production
of crystalline silicon modules. And the easiest part of the
value chain to address is the final assembly of those modules,
which is, literally, putting them together. But that is a
relatively low-value process, and can be kind of done anywhere.
The real value is further upstream, when you look at the
production of the cells, and the wafers, and even the
polysilicon production all the way at--near the beginning of
the process. And so that is--those are all areas which China is
clearly leading in, and those are areas that could be supported
further, and brought onto the U.S. shores with the right
policies.
Mr. Soto. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Representative Crenshaw, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Chair and ranking member for holding this important hearing.
I am going to state the obvious. To improve the so-called
green supply chain, you first need to fix the actual supply
chain. The former cannot exist without the latter, obviously.
And this supply chain crisis didn't come out of nowhere.
This is a self-inflicted wound, a direct result of bad
progressive policies. Mandates to overregulation, the tax on
American energy have compounded every single problem we are
facing today, from record-high inflation, to slow economic
growth, to shrinking labor force participation, and,
potentially, an energy crisis.
Policies have consequences. Locking down businesses, though
shown to have little impact on the trends of the pandemic, had
a huge impact on employment and economic growth and, yes,
supply chains. A year later, we are still dealing with that.
Vaccine mandates threaten to scare off employees in every
industry, from logistics to ports to shipping. The head of the
National Association of Wholesale Distributors put it this way:
``Thousands of valued employees will be forced out of their
jobs shortly before the holidays. The already compromised
supply chain will be under added pressure during the busiest
time of the year, and the already tight labor market will make
it immeasurably more difficult to replace laid-off employees,
compounding supply chain disruption.''
In California, where the bottleneck at our busiest port is
exacerbating this crisis, their version of the PRO Act, which
Democrats passed out of the House this year, and which bans
independent contracting, threatens to destroy the trucking
industry. Those truckers are freelance owner-operators, which
California outlawed by banning independent contracting.
Truckers sued California. But if they lose, their industry will
be decimated in the midst of this supply chain crisis.
It also seems as if President Biden is doing everything in
his power to make energy less affordable and harder to come by.
On day one President Biden shut down the Keystone Pipeline, of
course while also asking OPEC to increase their production.
The Democrat Party seems intent on nationalizing the failed
energy policies of California, where the price of electricity
has risen six times faster than the rest of the country. The
attack on oil and gas has put a chilling effect on investments
in new production to the benefit of global competitors like
Russia.
These policies impact the poorest Americans the worst. As
energy prices rise, more Americans sink into poverty. Every 10
percent increase in energy costs leads to 840,000 Americans
falling below the poverty line.
Now, instead of holding a hearing to examine how we can fix
the supply chain crisis, deal with skyrocketing energy costs
and unprecedented inflation, we are here to talk about the
clean energy supply chain. And this strikes me as a bit of a
joke, a joke because, in response to the worst supply chain
crisis in our lifetime, the President has offered an executive
order to move clean energy manufacturing back to the United
States.
Now, here is the problem. Every single component in wind
turbines, and solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries is
made with the raw materials that Democrats say are destroying
the planet. So which is it? It seems to me that, when Democrats
said they will create green jobs, they apparently mean green
jobs in China, because they will never allow the rare Earth
mining and refining and processing necessary to make those
things here.
Wind turbines are made with 75 percent steel, which is, at
its most basic, iron core plus carbon. They are made with
resin, which comes from natural gas. They are coated in
chemicals like PFAS.
The Democrats have made mining so politically toxic, that
we now only have seven remaining iron ore mines in the United
States, despite having three billion tons of iron ore in the
United States.
Democrats have turned natural gas into the enemy,
threatening to tax it out of existence in the reconciliation
bill, even though natural gas is the single largest reason for
carbon emission reductions in the United States. Solar panels
and batteries require critical minerals, but Democrats, even in
the Build Back Better Act, impose staggering royalties on both
new and existing hard rock mineral projects, despite the fact
that these minerals are crucial to the Biden Administration's
own clean energy goals.
Even if we could build all of these new renewable power
sources, we would need vast amounts of transmission lines and,
therefore, copper to transport it. In fact, experts estimate
copper demand will double by 2040. But guess what? The Democrat
reconciliation bill specifically shuts down the Resolution
Copper project in Arizona, which could supply up to 25 percent
of domestic copper demand, and provide almost 4,000 jobs.
And can we please stop pretending that we can meet the
demand for rare Earths by recycling more? The testimony
presented here today has already debunked that false narrative,
showing only a fraction of our needs could ever be met by
recycling, not to mention separating and recycling rare Earth
metals takes enormous amounts of heat, something impossible to
produce with renewable energy.
So my point is this: policies have consequences, and
progressive policies are hurting Americans. We can fix this by
giving businesses some breathing room, calling off the attacks
on American energy, and rescinding unconstitutional vaccine
mandates. But instead, we hear about the fantasy of green
supply chains that can never be built, ironically, because of
the barriers put in place by progressive policies.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Representative O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5
minutes, please, for questions.
Mr. O'Halleran. I want to thank the ranking members and the
chairmen for this hearing.
You know, it has been an interesting discussion today. But
if we are going to move forward, we have to move away from
these type of discussions and on to something that is more
recognizing of the future of our country and our world, and
where we are heading. Fear of change has a tremendously
negative effect on our public policy. We have to change, we
know we do.
I have heard a lot in the discussions today about the
concern for cost. I have that same concern. But it is also
costly in health care today. It is also costly in addressing
the--and recognizing the ongoing--the tremendous amount of
natural disasters that are occurring in our world.
Arizona has seen consequences of climate change, up close:
record wildfires, terrible droughts, extreme flooding. These
are all costly.
Now, the best way we can cut carbon emissions is to
encourage the development of clean energy. We should not be
restraining innovation. We should be investing in the future.
And we should also recognize that many, many lessons in
history has identified clearly that protectionism is not the
course to the future. Recognizing what we have done right is a
good idea. Recognizing that we should not move into the future
is a bad idea. And these investments in new American jobs and
economic activity around the country are needed. However,
bringing new energy sources online is not a simple switch. We
should recognize that also.
But we should plan for it. We should work together on this.
We shouldn't have these types of discussions, where it is one
side against the other side. We, as Americans, should learn
from what our businesses, great businesses in America, have
taught us: work together to find solutions that will work for
the common good of the American people.
I have heard the witnesses today. This transition requires
a careful, long-term planning process that we must ensure that
we are equipped to handle increased demand, and this means
investments in grid modernization. That is what we are trying
to do.
And this also is a national security issue. We can't rely
on China to build our nation's energy infrastructure. That is
just the wrong way to go. We need reliable supply chains, and
we need to recognize the need of the American people, their
health, their safety, their future, the cost of energy in our
country. We need to come together to do that, though.
Dr. Switzer, securing our energy infrastructure remains a
top priority. In our opinion--your opinion, I should say, how
would producing clean energy components in America help protect
our energy infrastructure from attack, versus the current path
of buying these components from other countries?
Dr. Switzer. Thank you for the question. I think, you know,
investing and building out this battery supply chain here in
the United States will serve several benefits.
One is that it will provide stability. I think it will also
provide supply chain security.
Two is that I think we have to realize that these
investments are happening, and they are going to happen
elsewhere if we don't invest here in the U.S. They are going to
happen not only in China, they are happening in Europe. They
could easily also happen in Canada. I think there is a
tremendous opportunity for us to leverage, and kind of be
proactive in seeking to build that supply chain here, in the
U.S.
And then lastly, you know, along with this, I think we
can't underestimate the number of jobs that come along with
this industry that aren't necessarily tied to a particular
resource that are almost location agnostic.
So those are the reasons why I think it is very important
for us to focus on building this supply chain here, in the U.S.
Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Chairman, I am really concerned about
the direction that we have taken in the past. Not this
committee necessarily, but our country, as to hold back on
recognizing the future, hold back on not creating the changes
necessary, and try to protect the ongoing mistakes that we have
made over time in not recognizing. Many corporations and
businesses in this country have failed, because they have
failed to adapt to an ever-changing environment, and that is
what we live in, an ever-changing environment.
And we need to make this change. We need to do it together.
And we need to also recognize that we have wasted so much time
that some of the reasons why we are in a position we are with
China and other countries is because we have failed to act fast
enough.
Thank you, and I yield.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you----
Mr. Tonko. Representative Armstrong, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Technology and research R&D, we will support that. But if
you think, when the government gets involved in picking and
winners and losers we do a good job, we don't. We never have.
It doesn't matter if it is in clean energy, or banking, or
health care, or tech, or oil and gas, or anything else. So we
need to be able to deal with this, and we need to be able to
deal with the short-term problems and the long-term solutions.
We can produce rare Earth metal here, we can mine it. We
can produce more and more of these products that we use for
renewable energy. But we can't get it done in the timelines
that are being put out, and we can't do it done (sic), because
we continue to have hearings, and will continue to move
forward, but we don't talk about the barriers that exist.
We talk about infrastructure build-out for batteries, or
technology that is going to replace lithium for long-term
storage. When that happens, that will rival the microchip as to
what happens with our economy. I agree with that. But we are
not there, and we don't know when it exists.
And we don't have to go very far to look at how these
things work. I will go on with what my friend, Mr. Crenshaw,
said. We have been talking about the supply chain, our current
supply chain and the issues we have with it, in my office since
I got here. And actually, long before, in the state Senate. We
are seeing today that ports along the West Coast is a problem
years in the making that have only been exasperated by policies
and programs pushed by the majority. Before we can consider the
policies necessary to support massive expansion and build-out
of supply chain specifically for renewables, we have to
continue to face the problems we have in our current supply
chain.
And the first thing we need to understand is supply chains
are not linear and independent, not, they never have been. A
change in input or output at any other point in the process
will cause distortions that quickly and easily spread to the
other networks. We know this.
North Dakota is the geographic center in North America, and
we care very much about what happens at ports. Take trucking.
Trucks haul more than 70 percent of our domestic cargo
shipments. Companies, large and small, have been pleading for
years to help address the fact that we cannot hire enough truck
drivers to meet the ever-increasing demand.
Making things worse are inflexible hours of service and
other regulatory requirements that don't accurately reflect the
needs of modern logistics. But don't worry, they don't make the
roads any safer.
Should we shoehorn massive new, renewable supply chains
into a system that already has difficulty meeting current
demands to move goods from point A to B?
And the House majority's PRO Act only looks to further
complicate this picture, particularly when you are trying to
on-source things, and keep our costs low, at a reasonable level
with an international community.
Unless this Administration and the majority change course,
our supply chains will be made less reliable, less affordable,
and more prone to disruption in the short term. And we cannot
solve our long-term problems if we don't take care of what is
going on in the short term.
Mr. Pugliaresi, your testimony states that financial data
does not support the claim that oil and gas companies are
holding stranded assets. Can you explain that?
Mr. Pugliaresi. Yes. So we have got a little help from
Professor Tice with this one. But if you look at investment-
grade bonds, particularly in the sort of oil and gas companies,
the shape of those--what we call the yield curve, it suggests
that these are the most--these tend to be the very, very
conservative investors. The shape of the yield curve suggests
that these assets are not viewed as risky.
I will keep it as simple as possible, but I really think
this is an important point, because you hear a lot of
commentary that, oh, oil and gas assets are going to be
stranded. Well, and they will be stranded if people are going
to plan to stop using them. I accept that. But, in fact, what
we learned from the bond market is that is not what the market
believes. The market believes those assets are quite valuable.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you agree that the greater risk to secure
and affordable energy and, thus--I mean, essentially, our
entire economy at this point in time--are policy decisions that
disincentivize capital allocation to traditional fuel supplies
and production?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So I am really--we are very much concerned
about the ESG guidelines, which abdicate to financial
institutions decisions about what prominent and valuable fuels
they should invest in or not invest in.
I actually think this is a risk for the financial
companies, because they are going to own this. If this goes
belly-up for them, and there is a crisis, and they--and the
sort of blame is on them, they are going to own this. And I
really think this abdication by the government--the government
should set the standards for what kinds of environmental
controls we are going to have or not have, and that the banks
should be--care about their shareholders.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I actually agree with you. I think
eventually what ends up happening with the ESG portfolios is
very much that, where they end up making their money, and where
they come back, because that is how the market will react to
it.
And with that I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes, virtually, the gentlelady from Washington State.
Representative Schrier, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for questions, please.
Ms. Schrier. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you to our witnesses. I have been listening attentively,
because I am extremely interested in our transition to clean
energy production and storage, and a broad rollout of electric
vehicles. I am also interested in how we can make this
transition to domestic sourcing and manufacturing truly work.
And I look at the nations that are currently leading in
mineral sourcing, and the production of solar panels and
batteries, and an increasing reliance on those countries is not
in our country's best interest, nor is it in the planet's best
interest. And that is one of the reasons why the U.S. needs to
take a leading role in sourcing and manufacturing for our own
economy, for the environmental stewardship that we need, and
also for ethical working conditions, so we can establish our
leadership position in the world.
Now, onshoring sourcing and manufacturing, it is going to
create family-wage jobs. And by sourcing materials here and
recycling them, we won't need to depend on dirty mining in
China or child labor in Africa.
Now, earlier in this hearing you answered Ms. DeGette's
question about the necessity of mining here in the U.S., and
you pretty much all agreed that it would be necessary to some
degree or another. But even though mining is cleaner in the
United States, minimizing the amount of mining that we need to
do makes it even cleaner. And so, to minimize mining, we are
going to need a robust recycling infrastructure of lithium,
cobalt, copper, other elements, right here at home.
And so, Dr. Switzer, I have some questions for you. I would
love to dive into this topic a little bit more.
First, just a lay of the land. Can you tell me what the
current is state of recycling of these materials, like, from
phones, computers, solar panels, lithium batteries, televisions
right here in the U.S.?
Dr. Switzer. Sure. So, you know, at Redwood Materials, I
think I can highlight that we were founded in 2017 and, you
know, already today, it has been a period of rapid innovation.
We are recycling enough materials for roughly 45,000 vehicles a
year, and that is in short order. And I think, over time, we
will continue to expand that.
The key advantage of recycling is it is not something that
is depleted over time, it is something that actually grows over
time. So, as more vehicles are placed onto the market, that
recycling resource only becomes greater and greater.
You know, today we are able to recover, you know, roughly,
let's say, in terms of the nickel, and cobalt, copper, and
lithium, way greater than 90 percent. I would go upwards of 95
to 98 percent of those elements we can actually recover and
reuse from the batteries.
And that is not to mention----You know, another thing that
was mentioned, just to highlight, was copper. Copper we
actually export from the United States today. We export roughly
800,000 tons of scrap copper from the United States today, when
there is a drastic opportunity to build a copper foil
manufacturing supply chain for batteries that consumes some of
that copper we are giving away today.
Ms. Schrier. I really appreciate your noting the issue of
copper, and how we are exporting it and shoring up other
economies instead of our own.
I also--I am intrigued. You said earlier today that right
now your capability is enough for 45,000 cars. You are looking
at a capability of six million cars in the future. I guess the
other question is, yes, you can extract 90 percent back. But
what about--how many of those batteries are coming back to you?
How many--I mean, how many of these things are ending up in
a recycling facility, as opposed to in the trash?
I just want to make sure we have the infrastructure
everywhere, so that we consistently get 90 percent out.
Dr. Switzer. I think, in terms of EVs, we will certainly
get the batteries back. I mean, these are--you know, we are
seeing OEMs like Ford take--really, take interest in how to get
those batteries back, because they recognize the inherent value
in them.
I think where the challenge comes is in consumer
electronics. You know, today, if any of us have a cell phone
or, you know, a laptop battery that we need to recycle, it is
not easy to figure out what to do with it, where to take it,
who to give it to. And it gets even more complicated when you
talk about consumer electronics devices with batteries that
aren't designed to be removed. Things like electric
toothbrushes, you know, how do we recycle those?
So those are some of the challenges that we are trying to
tackle. And to highlight, though, is that we really do need to
focus and build out that collection infrastructure, so that it
is easy for folks to turn those batteries back in, so that we
can recycle them and extract the valuable metals contained
therein.
Ms. Schrier. I appreciate your saying that, because
sometimes we have to pay to get them recycled, or wait for a
big drop-off day in our neighborhood to get them recycled. And
so I just know that, as a Member of Congress, I am excited to
work with you and with the industry to make sure that it is
easy, and that we can get all of that material back, and limit
how much extraction we have to do here at home.
Thank you very much, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize a
member from the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
virtually, being Representative Blunt Rochester.
The gentlelady from Delaware, you are recognized for 5
minutes, please.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and chairs,
and ranking members, and to the witnesses for your testimony
today and your patience.
As the founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Future of
Work Caucus, one of the areas I have been focusing on is what
we can learn from the pandemic's ongoing impacts on our
economy, and how we can build an economic future that is more
resilient, sustainable, and equitable for all Americans.
We are in the midst of a climate crisis, and the need to
transition to clean energy has never been more necessary. Not
only is this transition essential to protect human health and
the environment, but it is also an enormous opportunity to
strengthen our domestic supply chains and grow onshore,
renewable energy manufacturing.
Last 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. These
bills take crucial steps to stabilize our supply chains by
providing financial support to develop, diversify, and expand
our domestic supply chains.
The Building Resilient Supply Chains Act would establish a
supply chain resiliency and crisis response office within the
Department of Commerce that would help address shortages of
critical goods and services, industrial equipment, and
manufacturing technologies.
Mr. Zindler, why is it so important for the United States
to invest in programs aimed at securing and fortifying our
supply chains, especially for clean energy technologies?
Mr. Zindler. Well, to be honest with you, I am an energy
industry analyst, not a policymaker, so that is really a
decision for all of you to make.
But I can just sort of tell you the facts, which is that,
at the moment, that if, you know, the U.S., you know, is going
to install roughly 30 gigawatts of solar capacity this year,
and I am guessing 80/90 percent of it will be imported goods,
so--and that market is poised to grow, and so the question is
whether or not U.S. policymakers are--that is something you
want, or if that is something you would like to adjust.
So the reality of it is that, for these strategic areas,
you know, there is a lot of imported goods that are being
installed every year.
The one difference I would make is that, you know, once you
do install the equipment, it is here. It is not like oil that
you burn, and then it is gone. You know, you have the assets
locally. You may have gotten them from abroad, but they end up
here permanently.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And we appreciate your
facts.
Representatives Malinowski and Kinzinger and I took
important steps in crafting this to try to stabilize our supply
chains, while strengthening our national and economic security.
And during the pandemic we saw those vulnerabilities. How can a
heavy reliance on foreign goods pose a threat to our economic
and national security?
And how can a greater focus on onshoring clean energy
supply chains support national security?
Mr. Zindler. Well, again, I would leave that to all of you,
ultimately.
But, you know, realistically, you know, having the closer
access to the supplies strikes me as a good way to ensure that,
if you need to continue to manufacture new automobiles that are
electric, that you have that stuff locally, if you do
everything from the mining to the refining, et cetera, here,
domestically.
But I would just caveat that slightly in saying that I know
there has been a lot of talk about energy security and energy
independence. To me, it is more about--I guess security is
probably the better term because, you know, we live in a big
world, in which a lot of the most important energy components
and elements we need are in other countries. But a number of
those are our friends, and we shouldn't necessarily shut that
off in an effort to just have domestic mining or manufacturing,
for that matter.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. And I want to shift to Ms. Brown
quickly.
First of all, thank you so much for your testimony, and
talking about the history of those kind of fits and starts and
hopes for us moving in this direction. You mentioned--when
Representative Rush was talking, you talked a little bit, as
well, about those communities that historically have been left
out. Can you talk about how they will benefit from or
contribute to this transition?
Ms. Brown. Absolutely, and thank you for the question. You
know, I think there was a--with the infrastructure bill that
was passed and signed into law yesterday, you know, there is a
big climate and resiliency component of that bill. And a lot of
equity actually was built into the crafting of that bill. And I
think we will see some direct benefits in the way of
transportation and, you know, making communities more
resilient, and also investment in a lot of these communities,
because there is money to drive specific investment to attract
businesses to these areas.
But I also go back to what I mentioned earlier, in terms of
Black and Brown communities. The best economic engine and
vehicle to getting to the middle class is a union job. And so,
as we are building out the clean energy economy, we have got to
make sure that those jobs are our union jobs.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back, and I believe that
concludes all of the members from either the--either of the
subcommittees.
Oh, I am sorry. Virtually?
OK, virtually, we are joined by Representative Mullin from
Oklahoma.
Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. So, Representative, you are recognized for 5
minutes, please.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, and I am sorry about jumping in here
just real late, but, as you guys can understand, we are running
back and forth.
You know, I--my question is pretty easy, I guess, and I
have to follow it up with maybe some follow-up questions. But
many people, you know, in this committee would like to see all
the--you know, all the fossil fuels done away with, as of
yesterday. But can someone help explain how natural gas is a
necessity, or is necessary as a bridge fuel for the transition?
And I kind of leave that open for whoever wants to grab
that question.
Mr. Zindler. I will jump in first, and just note that this
great decarbonization we have seen of the power sector has been
driven by two factors, which is renewables and by cheap natural
gas. And the fracking revolution, or whatever you want to call
it, the technological advances there have contributed
enormously to moving us away from coal. We were 40 percent of
our power generation from coal just ten years ago, and now we
are down to about 20 percent. And gas has played an enormous
role in decarbonizing the power sector. That is where we are
today.
The question is where do we go in the future, and whether
or not you could continue to have that much gas on the system,
and try and get to some kind of decarbonization goal, where you
actually address the climate crisis.
Mr. Mullin. You know, well, it was ten years ago where we
were seeing natural gas as the clean energy. And when you start
seeing what is happening in Germany, and as they are
transitioning, you know, to renewables, you are seeing they
also have an increase on their dependency on natural gas to
offset it. Because the last time that I checked, we were really
having a hard time figuring out how to store renewables, and be
able to meet high-pitch demands when we are facing peak hours.
For instance, in California, the reason why they have
rolling blackouts is during peak hours you see that sometimes
solar comes offline, especially in the valley. Solar will come
offline around 7:00, 8:00 in the summer, when it is still 116
degrees, and people are at home, and there is no way to meet
that demand if you don't have on-demand energy--for instance,
natural gas or nuclear.
So my question goes back. How do we make that transition
without natural gas or nuclear still being part of the
portfolio?
Mr. Pugliaresi. So maybe I could address this. You know,
when you look at California, the so-called duck curve, we do
not have anything else--and when we use these intermittent fuel
sources, or these intermittent technologies, when we--when the
sun goes down--and sometimes it is combined with not just with
losing the sun, but the wind--you need dense, massive power to
bring up the power system as the--as we get into nighttime. And
there is no alternative, other than natural gas or some other
alternative fossil fuel.
Mr. Mullin. Right, right.
Mr. Pugliaresi. And until we have, at scale, these
alternatives, this is what we are going to have to do.
Mr. Zindler. I want to jump in, because I also feel like
there has been a kind of repeated mischaracterization of what
has gone on in Germany.
The reality in Germany is that they very quickly decided to
close all their nuclear power plants. And that is what has
created, in my view, the biggest squeeze on the market there,
and the greater reliance on natural gas, and the higher power
prices. It has certainly been--they have pushed for renewables
for years, but----
Mr. Mullin. Well, sir----
Mr. Zindler. In my view----
Mr. Mullin. Sir, reclaiming my time here----
Mr. Zindler [continue]. The ill-conceived idea about
nuclear is----
Mr. Mullin. To reclaim my time here----
Mr. Zindler [continue]. Really what triggered----
Mr. Mullin. [continue]. When you start looking at what is
happening, we are wanting to do away with nuclear, too. So if
we are going to--if we are trying to end nuclear, then you are
going to have to have natural gas to fill that gap.
And so we are running down the exact same path that Germany
has, and we are running down it thinking that we are going to
have a different result. And I don't see that happening. I see
this being the definition of insanity.
Mr. Zindler. Sir, with respect, I agree with you that 20
percent of our power is from nuclear energy, and that is zero
carbon, and shutting that down would be madness if you want to
address climate change.
Mr. Mullin. So do you think we should----
Mr. Zindler. But if you look at the--could I--just let me
finish, please.
Mr. Mullin. Yes, but let me----
Mr. Zindler. The infrastructure bill----
Mr. Mullin [continue]. We should----
Mr. Zindler [continue]. $6 billion to keep those nuclear
reactors----
Mr. Mullin. Sir, hold on a second. Reclaiming my time here,
I just want to get back to you. So and--we are--so let's find
some common ground here.
You agree with me on nuclear. So do you think we should
increase our--decrease our nuclear facilities, then, rather
than shutting them down, like a lot of people on this committee
is wanting to do?
Mr. Zindler. I think, like I said a moment ago, closing the
existing nuclear reactors in the United States, if you want to
achieve decarbonization, does not make any sense.
Mr. Mullin. Do you think we should open more?
Mr. Zindler. I think it is a technology that should be
invested in.
And again, if you look at the infrastructure bill, there
are billions of dollars to support advanced nuclear reactors.
Mr. Mullin. I appreciate it. I yield back my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Brown, I am informed, I believe, that you need to be
released because of schedule.
Ms. Brown. Yes, I have a four-year-old who is not
interested in supply chains, but is interested in me picking
her up from school. So----
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, look, we have one more witness, and I
am informed that he has no questions of you. So let me just
thank you in advance for the insight you have provided, and for
the value added you have expressed that the United Steelworkers
will bring to the path going forward.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. And thank you for your participation today.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, and thank you for generously excusing
me. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. OK. All the best to the four-year-old.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Now we will--I believe all of the members of the
Subcommittees on Environment and Climate Change and Energy have
been recognized. And so now, waived on, we have the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Representative Doyle--Representative Joyce,
excuse me.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Joyce. First I want to thank you, Chairman Tonko and
Chairman Rush, for allowing me to waive on to this joint
subcommittee hearing today, and I want to thank the witnesses
for appearing.
As we have heard from many of my colleagues today, America
is in the midst of an energy crisis of our own making. Just a
year ago our nation was energy independent. And for the first
time since 1952, America was a net energy exporter. Now the
Biden Administration's policies have allowed American energy
and the production of it to falter. And unfortunately, prices
are skyrocketing. The President is even resorting to asking
OPEC to increase production.
On Monday morning, at my home in Pennsylvania, there was
already snow on the ground. And this week the lows are in the
twenties. Winter is coming, and my constituents need to heat
their homes. To do that, they are paying 274 percent more for
natural gas, and over 500 percent more for propane from just a
year ago. Americans are now, literally, paying the price for
the Biden Administration's failed energy policies.
What Americans truly need is affordable and reliable
baseload power. If my colleagues across the aisle are committed
to clean energy, then we need to invest in clean diesel fuel,
nuclear, and hydroelectric power. We need to invest in
innovative technologies that take advantage of the energy
reserves that are beneath our feet, so that we can keep our
coal and our much-needed natural gas power lines online. We
need to find incentives to industry to improve the grid, and
develop greater efficiencies, instead of punishing them with
taxes and penalties. We need to end the war on liquid fuels,
and recognize the progress that is--that has been made and
continues to be made on emission standards.
Meanwhile, many of these new proclaimed green energy fixes
to our economy are, in fact, harmful to the environment,
though--through their use of toxins and hazardous chemicals.
For example, the batteries in electric vehicles are notoriously
dangerous, and incredibly difficult to dispose of.
Dr. Switzer, my first question is for you. Isn't it true
that currently, even when fully discharged, electric vehicle
batteries can still have enough electricity remaining in the
battery to kill the workers that are handling them?
Dr. Switzer. Thank you for the question. I would say that,
if it is fully discharged, then I think, theoretically, it has
no electricity remaining. But I think we have also proven that
you can scale and handle these batteries safely to recover the
valuable elements contained inside.
Mr. Joyce. But the potential of a battery to say that it
has been fully discharged, and thus have remaining electricity
in it, could potentially harm the workers who are dealing with
those batteries, correct?
Dr. Switzer. I think that there will be, of course, the
need for safe--for training on how to handle these batteries
safely.
Mr. Joyce. And I think that safety is--definitely needs to
be addressed, given the danger in handling, transporting, and
recycling electric vehicle batteries.
How will recyclers be paid enough to cover the costs
incurred as these batteries become more prolific in the scrap
yards?
Dr. Switzer. I think we are working with more and more
partners. But with scale I think we will tilt things one way.
But I also think that the--it is not necessarily--we don't
see it as that we have to be paid to recycle these batteries.
You know, we see it, actually, quite the opposite, such that we
will be returning value to the supply chain because of the
value within the battery.
Mr. Tonko. Isn't there a potential of leaching hazardous
chemicals from these batteries into our environment?
Dr. Switzer. I think, you know, there is potential, if done
completely the wrong way, but I think what has been shown by us
and by others is that it can actually be done very safely, and
at very high yields.
Mr. Tonko. Lastly, there seem to be sufficient markets for
electric vehicle batteries. How and when will these markets
continue to develop?
Dr. Switzer. I think the markets--I think what we will see
is, as I mentioned before, is that these end-of-life electric
vehicle batteries won't be viewed as liabilities, but rather as
assets. And, you know, even as Redwood Materials--we will,
essentially, be competing with others, because they will see
value in these, and they will be--we will, essentially, be
competing to return value to the supply chain, to get access to
these batteries to recycle them.
Mr. Joyce. Currently, I see the value in the resources that
are under the feet of my constituents. I see the importance of
being able to maintain those energy sources to provide
efficient and cost-effective ways for Americans to heat in this
upcoming winter.
First of all, thank you for your summary answers. And I
secondly want to thank Chairman Rush and Chairman Tonko for
allowing me to waive on to this important hearing. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome, Representative Joyce. And
that concludes, I believe, the list of colleagues who wanted to
question our witnesses.
Let me thank our witness panel. You have been great in
providing insight and answering questions that will prove
useful as we move forward with policy development. So I thank
you kindly for all of that commitment, and your patience.
I remind members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
have ten business days by which to submit additional questions
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. And I ask only
that our witnesses respond promptly to any such questions that
you may receive.
With that, before we adjourn, I have a request for
unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the
record:a letter from the MP Materials Corporation;we have a
letter from the United States Nuclear Industry Council;we have
a letter from the National Mining Association;we have a report
from the Digital Climate Alliance;we have a report from the
Center for American Progress entitled, ``Creating a Domestic
U.S. Supply Chain for Clean Energy Technology''; we have a
report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies
entitled, ``Reshore, Reroute, and Rebalance: A U.S. Strategy
for Clean Energy Supply Chains.''
I also have a request for a report from CSIS and
BloombergNEF entitled, ``Industrial Policy, Trade, and Clean
Energy Supply Claims''; we have a letter from House Energy and
Commerce Republican members to Chairman Pallone; we have an
article from The Wall Street Journal entitled, ``Germany's
Economy, Once Europe's Engine, is Holding it Back''; we have a
backgrounder from the Heritage Foundation, ``The Need to
Examine the Life Cycles of All Energy Sources: A Closer Look at
Renewable Energy Disposal''; we also include an article from
Greenwire entitled, ``Low Pay, Abusive Conditions Rife at
Congolese Cobalt Mines''; we have a report from the Manhattan
Institute entitled, ``Mines, Minerals, and Green Energy: A
Reality Check.''
I have a letter from Energy and Commerce Republican members
to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm; we have a letter from
Secretary Granholm to Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers; and
finally, an article from Yahoo Finance entitled, ``UK Power
Prices Soar Above 2,000 on Low Winds.''
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. And with that, that brings to a conclusion our
subcommittee's meeting and hearing. And with that, we adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 2:52 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]