[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS
OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S RUSH TO GREEN POLICIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, MANUFACTURING, AND CRITICAL MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-28
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-477 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Chair DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
------
Professional Staff
NATE HODSON, Staff Director
SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chairman
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama Ranking Member
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Chair JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia RAUL RUIZ, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
(ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, opening statement........................................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Witnesses
Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute................ 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions............................... 297
Ashley Nunes, Ph.D., Director, Federal Policy, Climate and
Energy, Breakthrough Institute................................. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Trevor Higgins, Senior Vice President, Energy and Environment,
Center for American Progress................................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Answers to submitted questions............................... 300
Daniel R. Simmons, Principal, Simmons Energy and Environmental
Strategies..................................................... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Answers to submitted questions............................... 302
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 114
Report, ``The Economic and Strategic Importance of Domestic
Mineral Production,'' Institute for Energy Research, April
2023\1\
Article of April 25, 2023, ``Benita Kayembe takes hard look at
hidden human cost of electric cars,'' by Alvin Powell, Harvard
Gazette........................................................ 116
Article of June 18, 2021, ``The Dark Side of Solar Power,'' by
Atalay Atasu, Serasu Duran, and Luk N. Van Wassenhove, Harvard
Business Review................................................ 120
Fact sheet, ``2023 Mining Facts,'' National Mining Association,
April 2023..................................................... 130
Article of July 4, 2022, ``Electrification won't break the grid,
it will make it smarter,'' by Sam Calisch and Cora Wyent,
Rewiring America............................................... 134
Article of May 5, 2022, ``Exporting oil and gas does not create
energy independence, electrification does,'' by Sam Calisch,
Rewiring America............................................... 147
Report, ``Driving Cleaner: Electric Cars and Pickups Beat
Gasoline on Lifetime Global Warming Emissions,'' by David
Reichmuth, Jessica Dunn, and Don Anair, Union of Concerned
Scientists, July 2022\1\
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20230426/115807/HHRG-118-IF18-20230426-SD095.pdf.
Blog post of March 20, 2023, ``Today's Electric Vehicles Can
Greatly Reduce Emissions From Driving,'' by David Reichmuth,
Union of Concerned Scientists.................................. 157
Blog post of November 1, 2022, ``Are There Enough Materials to
Manufacture All the Electric Vehicles Needed?,'' by Jessica
Dunn, Union of Concerned Scientists............................ 164
Blog post of February 22, 2023, ``How Much Land Would it Require
to Get Most of Our Electricity from Wind and Solar?,'' by Steve
Clemmer, Union of Concerned Scientists......................... 170
Blog post of December 22, 2022, ``Challenges and Opportunities in
Mining Materials for Energy Storage Lithium-ion Batteries,'' by
Charlie Hoffs, Union of Concerned Scientists................... 177
Blog post of December 12, 2022, ``What Happens to Wind Turbine
Blades at the End of Their Life Cycle?,'' by Charlie Hoffs,
Union of Concerned Scientists.................................. 191
Blog post of October 19, 2022, ``Solar Panels Should Be Reused
and Recycled. Here's How,'' by Charlie Hoffs, Union of
Concerned Scientists........................................... 198
Fact sheet, ``Building a Sustainable Mineral Supply Chain For a
Clean Energy Economy,'' Earthjustice........................... 206
Fact sheet, ``Electric Vehicle Factsheet,'' Zero Emission
Transportation Association..................................... 208
Report, ``Clean Energy Boom: The 142,016 (and Counting) New Clean
Energy Jobs Across the United States,'' Climate Power, March
31, 2023....................................................... 214
Report, ``The Clean Energy Boom in House Republican Districts,''
Climate Power, 2023............................................ 225
Article of January 24, 2023, ``Big Winners from Biden's climate
law: Republicans who voted against it,'' by Kelsey Tamborrino
and Josh Siegel, Politico...................................... 232
Article of March 7, 2023, ``Want to Electrify Everything? Train
More Electricians--Quickly,'' by Carolyn Fortuna, Clean
Technica....................................................... 245
Report, ``Mobilizing for a zero carbon America: Jobs, jobs, jobs,
and more jobs; A Jobs and Employment Study Report,'' by Saul
Griffith, et al., Rewiring America, July 29, 2020\1\
Blog post of July 27, 2022, ``Are EV Batteries Recyclable?,'' by
Jessica Dunn, Union of Concerned Scientists.................... 251
Blog post of October 7, 2022, ``Battery State of Health--What is
it? Why is it Important?,'' by Jessica Dunn, Union of Concerned
Scientists..................................................... 257
Blog post of September 20, 2022, ``California's Progress Toward
Recycling--Policy for EV Batteries,'' by Jessica Dunn, Union of
Concerned Scientists........................................... 264
Blog post of February 3, 2023, ``What Can We Learn From the EU
Battery Law?,'' by Jessica Dunn, Union of Concerned Scientists. 270
Blog post of February 27, 2023, ``Guiding Principles for EV
Battery Recycling Policy,'' by Jessica Dunn, Union of Concerned
Scientists..................................................... 278
Blog post of March 29, 2023, ``Why Do We Need EV Battery
Recycling Policy?,'' by Jessica Dunn, Union of Concerned
Scientists..................................................... 285
Blog post of November 21, 2022, ``Why New DOE Battery Recycling
and Repurposing Investments Are Crucial to The Future of EVs,''
by Jessica Dunn, Union of Concerned Scientists................. 292
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20230426/115807/HHRG-118-IF18-20230426-SD095.pdf.
EXPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS
OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S RUSH TO GREEN POLICIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and
Critical Materials,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Johnson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Johnson, Carter, Palmer,
Crenshaw, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, Pfluger,
Miller-Meeks, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex officio), Tonko
(subcommittee ranking member), DeGette, Schakowsky, Sarbanes,
Ruiz, Barragan, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Walberg, Pence, Castor, and
Dingell.
Staff present: Sarah Alexander, Professional Staff Member,
Energy and Environment; Kate Arey, Digital Director; Jerry
Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; Sydney Greene,
Director of Operations; Sean Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter
Kielty, General Counsel; Emily King, Member Services Director;
Elise Krekorian, Professional Staff Member, Energy; Mary
Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Jacob McCurdy,
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief
Counsel, Energy; Kaitlyn Peterson, Clerk, Energy and
Environment; Carla Rafael, Senior Staff Assistant; Emma
Schultheis, Staff Assistant; Olivia Shields, Communications
Director; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member,
Energy; Dray Thorne, Director of Information Technology; Camden
Burke, Intern; Timia Crisp, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Member; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and
General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director;
Caitlin Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment,
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials; Kylea Rogers, Minority
Policy Analyst; Medha Surampudy, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Rebecca Tomilchik, Minority Junior Professional Staff
Member; Tuley Wright, Minority Staff Director, Energy, Climate,
and Grid Security; and C.J. Young, Minority Deputy
Communications Director.
Mr. Johnson. The subcommittee will now come to order.
The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for the
purpose of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Well, good morning and welcome to today's hearing entitled
``Exposing the Environmental, Human Rights, and National
Security Risks of the Biden Administration's Rush to Green
Policies.''
Since day one, President Biden has put Americans at risk by
pushing a whole-of-government climate agenda that increases
energy costs, undermines consumer choice, and strengthens
America's adversaries, especially China and Russia.
This drastic and burdensome policy agenda also appears
disconnected from his stated climate goals, in that many of the
so-called green energy technologies have significant
environmental impacts.
Even worse, this forced march to green is far from over.
For instance, I am deeply concerned with the EPA's recent
announcement on proposed standards for light- and medium-duty
vehicles that would force the electrification of two-thirds of
our domestic car market.
Now, I have nothing against electric vehicles. I want to
make that clear. But Americans deserve the right and the
ability to choose an affordable car that meets their needs
rather than being forced to pay more because of a Government
mandate.
Democrats and the Biden administration don't want to
examine the true cost of these policy choices to the
environment, human rights, and national security in the United
States and around the world.
In any other line of work, the failure to discuss risks
honestly and transparently would be malpractice. We should not
be reckless with America's energy future, and today's hearing
presents an opportunity to take a more holistic, transparent
approach.
So if we want to look at risks to the environment, we need
to look at the deployment of renewable energy technologies that
require clearing a significant amount of land. The National
Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that solar panels need 5
acres of land to generate 1 megawatt of energy, and wind
turbines need 35 acres. To put that in context, you need 30
times the amount of land covered in solar panels to equal the
capacity of one natural gas-fired power plant.
Rural communities across the country are voicing concerns
with solar and wind operations popping up near their
neighborhoods. In Ohio alone, more than 10 counties banned
utility-scale solar and wind energy facilities last year.
Achieving President Biden's renewable energy goals would
ignore the concerns posed by many of my constituents and others
across the country, but that is not all. These same renewable
energy technologies pose risks to Americans at the end-of-life
stage. The International Renewable Energy Agency projects that
global solar panel waste could reach 78 million tons by 2050,
with anywhere from 7.5 million and 10 million tons of waste in
need of disposal just in the United States. The sheer amount of
waste, some of which the EPA considers to be hazardous, is
deeply troubling and begs the question of whether existing
landfill capacity will be overwhelmed.
And let's consider human rights. The supply chain of
critical materials essential for solar wind and EV batteries is
tainted with forced labor, slavery, and child abuses. All you
got to do is look at this poster, these posters behind me. It
gives you a perspective of what is going on in the Congo.
Both the State Department and the Department of Labor have
acknowledged violations with more than 40,000 children engaging
in artisanal and small-scale mining, digging for cobalt with
their bare hands in the Congo, as well as thousands of members
of the Uyghur Muslim community forced into labor in China.
We cannot be morally selective. It is our duty to ensure
that American energy supply chains do not rely on slavery or
child labor. We should also prioritize American national
security rather than handing Federal subsidies and American
taxpayer dollars to Chinese companies. China controls 50 to 70
percent of lithium and cobalt refining, key inputs for EV
batteries, as well as 90 percent of global refining capacity
for rare earth elements.
Until we increase U.S. capacity for critical mineral
extraction and refining, increasing our reliance on renewable
energy and EVs will only benefit China, a country openly
seeking to destabilization.
So let me clear: Our goal today is to better understand the
serious challenges presented by various energy technologies and
their real-life impacts on American consumers. This
conversation is especially needed given the speed with which
this administration is insisting, with calls for 100 percent
EVs and 100 percent wind and solar.
Solar and wind energy and other renewable sources can and
should be a part of our energy mix, but not the only part.
Energy security and reliability derive from a diverse energy
mix. We should not force a rapid transition to entirely
intermittent, nondispatchable, unreliable sources of energy.
So I urge proponents of this agenda to ask themselves, why
are we doing this? Will the American people suffer under
inflation, pay less or more for their necessities and
transportation? Will their standard of living improve or
decline? What will their lives look like when this so-called
transition is complete? It is time that we prioritize them, the
people, when we measure success with America's energy and
environmental policy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Johnson. With that, I recognize the ranking member for
his 5 minutes opening comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am always grateful whenever this subcommittee can
convene. However, I find the approach from my Republican
colleagues this morning regrettable. First and foremost, this
hearing's premise completely fails to recognize the underlying
reason why the United States and, frankly, the world is
pursuing a clean energy transition.
The combustion of fossil fuels is the overwhelming driver
of greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for climate
change. We know the consequences of unmitigated climate change
will be significant. It will harm our environment, public
health, our economy and national security.
Just yesterday, EPA released a new report which found that
climate change is expected to increase incidences of asthma, of
Lyme disease, and emergency room visits for our American
children.
This is merely the latest data point in a large body of
scientific literature that is clear. If we do not respond to
climate change effectively, we will be a poorer, sicker, and
less competitive nation.
And while my Republican colleagues are suggesting we are
rushing toward a clean energy transition, I question whether
they support the transition at all on any timeline. It does not
sound like they do.
So if people take issue with my support for urgency in
transforming our economy to one with less pollution, this
urgency is because the scientific community is telling us that
we must rapidly and drastically reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
But I am not naive. I appreciate that doing anything on the
scale on which science tells us is necessary will have, indeed,
challenges, and I am not afraid to have honest discussions
about what those challenges are and how we can, in fact,
overcome them.
We need clean energy infrastructure to be able to be built
faster. We need to take a long-term view of our critical
mineral needs and find ways to meet those needs ethically and
sustainably.
I would love the opportunity to work across the aisle to
solve these challenges and enable the United States to
experience the economic boom that will come from dominating
global clean energy industries. Unfortunately, today we are
going to hear a lot of complaints about clean energy
technologies and very few solutions. It honestly does not sound
like Republicans even want to do anything about China's lead in
these critical industries.
House Democrats, on the other hand, are supporting policies
that will enable the American business community to make the
United States the global leader. Many of these efforts were
enacted last Congress in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
And thanks to those incentives included in those given bits
of legislation, the private sector is already responding. There
have been announcements for hundreds of billions of dollars to
build manufacturing facilities, to develop domestic supply
chains for solar, for wind, for EVs, semiconductors and
batteries, including the production, processing, and recycling
of critical minerals. In addition to responding to the real and
urgent threat of climate change, these investments will result
in millions of new, well-paying American jobs.
So we have two options: We can keep complaining, pretending
or hoping the energy transition is not going to be necessary or
happen and believing that, to the extent it is, it will
exclusively benefit China, or we can do something about it. We
can support American businesses that want to build the clean
energy economy here in the United States and export those
American-made technologies all over the world.
I think the choice is clear. Evidently, our colleagues in
the majority do not. This week, they will vote to repeal key
provisions from the IRA, including incentives that are widely
supported by the private sector. I believe in American
ingenuity. We have the best researchers, entrepreneurs, and
skilled workforce in the world.
And certainly, within our DNA is that pioneer spirit. I am
confident we can outcompete China and every other country to be
the world leader in the clean energy industries that will not
only be part of addressing climate change but will also
dominate the global economy in the decades to come. I do wish
my Republican colleagues shared my confidence in American
businesses' and workers' ability to compete. And while
Republicans are seemingly content to cede control of these
critical industries to China without a fight, Democrats will
continue to support the development of domestic supply chains
and empower American companies to innovate solutions.
As we move forward, I hope we will have an opportunity to
move past the criticisms of clean energy and work together on
actual policy solutions that will help us overcome the
challenges of transforming our economy and accelerating the
clean energy transition. The health, the economy, the national
security of future generations depends on us getting this
right.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Tonko. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield
back.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
And I now recognize the Chair of the full committee, Chair
Rodgers, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for holding this
important hearing to expose the risk of the Biden
administration's rush-to-green agenda.
And I want to just start where the ranking member stopped.
We must get this right. And I want to emphasize America has led
the world in reducing carbon emissions with clean, reliable,
affordable energy, while having the highest environmental and
labor standards in the world, and that is the record we want to
build upon.
This hearing is about having an honest conversation on how
the rushed agenda of the Biden administration poses serious
environmental risk, because it empowers the world's dirtiest
polluter, China. It makes America dependent on supply chains
that use slave and child labor. It increases poverty, and it
threatens our national security.
Since day one in office, President Biden has waged a war on
affordability and availability of American manufacturing and
energy. It began with the cancellation of the Keystone XL
Pipeline, the green-lighting of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, and
the moratorium on energy production on Federal lands. Those
early decisions strengthened OPEC, including Russia,
undermining American energy security as Russia attacked
Ukraine. And it also increased our reliance on our adversaries,
like China. The President has ordered agencies to slow walk
permits to modernize natural gas infrastructure, which would
expand U.S. LNG exports, despite record high energy prices for
Americans and dangerous supply shortages in Europe.
Today, fingerprints of this rush-to-green agenda can be
found on virtually every energy and environmental policy and
initiative launched by the administration. This
administration's goal is 100 percent wind and solar and 100
percent EVs. This is a radical and an aggressive agenda that
rewards environmental special interests at the expense of
reliable, affordable, and clean energy for the American people.
Look no further than the California example. Just 1 week after
announcing his plans to ban gas cars and force people to buy
EVs, Governor Newsom pleaded with people not to charge their
cars to prevent energy blackouts.
The Biden administration is attempting to force an
unrealistic, expensive transition on the American people, from
the cars that we drive to the stoves we use to feed our
families. This administration is divorced from reality for what
it means for America's future. They are downplaying important
questions about the environmental, human rights, and national
security risk behind rushing to deploy massive amounts of wind,
solar, and battery energy.
I am also concerned that many of these decisions are
empowering Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party's anti-
America campaign. China controls more than 90 percent of the
critical minerals that are used to make wind turbines, solar
panels, and batteries for electric vehicles and grid storage.
China pollutes more than any other major nation, and it has one
of the worst environmental and human rights records, which
permeates throughout its supply chains. China is committing
genocide and forcing millions of ethnic minority Muslims into
slave labor. China controls mineral mines in countries like the
Congo, where children are forced to work in inhumane
conditions. And, of course, China is one of our greatest
geopolitical adversaries.
President Biden has opened the door to allow China to
undermine our energy security. Throwing hundreds of billions of
dollars in subsidies and tax credits at renewable technologies
and EVs is not going to change this reality, and it will only
further empower China. This must be reversed, and that is why
the Republicans plan to keep building off of our work on H.R.
1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.
Americans, we are at a crossroads. We can choose a path of
economic growth, human rights, prosperity, energy security and
embrace American energy dominance and innovation to reduce
emissions, or we can continue down a path of more reliance on
China, less energy affordability and reliability. This later
path won't reduce emissions, and it sacrifices American values
to achieve a political goal. It will result in overreliance
upon wind, solar, and batteries that will increase pollution
and require more land for energy production, increase our
dependence on critical minerals from nations with much weaker
environmental and human rights standards, and it will
strengthen China while compromising our energy security and
independence.
The choices that we make don't just affect this generation.
They are about building a stronger future for our children and
our grandchildren for decades to come.
And I would like to thank our witnesses for being here
today, appearing before us, and I look forward to your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone,
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This week, we are seeing just how far House Republicans
will go to put the interests of polluters over the American
people. Republicans are manufacturing a debt crisis to justify
the need for their irresponsible and extreme Default on America
Act.
Speaker McCarthy's bill will raise costs for American
families, kick millions of people off their health insurance,
reverse the progress we have made to combat the worsening
climate crisis, and undermine our efforts to lead the world in
a transition to a clean energy economy, all so Republicans can
provide huge giveaways to billionaires and big corporations.
House Republicans are holding the American economy hostage
so they can do the bidding of Big Oil and Gas, increase energy
costs for working families, and set American workers up to be
left behind as they abandon our homegrown clean energy economy.
A key part of the Republican Default on America Act is H.R.
1, which repeals large portions of the historic climate
provisions Democrats delivered with the Inflation Reduction Act
last year. The Republican bill would repeal the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund, which is deploying clean energy projects all
across the country.
It would repeal the Methane Emissions Reduction Program,
which curbs methane leaks from the oil and gas industry,
protecting people's health and ensuring polluters, not
taxpayers, pay for their wasted methane.
It repeals the $4.5 billion Home Electrification Rebate
Program designed to lower families' energy bills, and it
repeals tax credits for electric vehicles, critical minerals
for batteries, domestic battery manufacturing, and solar and
wind production.
Republicans want to repeal all these provisions even though
the Inflation Reduction Act is already making a big difference.
Since its passage, about $28 billion in new domestic
manufacturing investments focused on EVs, batteries, and solar
have been announced. Companies have announced $242 billion in
new clean power capital investments.
And many of the States leading the Nation in these
investments are States that committee Republicans represent.
Georgia tops the list at 15 billion, followed by Tennessee at
10.9 billion, Michigan at 7.2 billion, South Carolina at 6.2,
Texas at 5.1 billion and Ohio at 4.8 billion.
The investments from the Inflation Reduction Act have led
to more than 142,000 clean energy jobs being created across the
Nation. And those are impressive results, considering the
Inflation Reduction Act has not even been law for a year. And
yet, House Republicans now want to reverse this program so they
can continue to put polluters over people.
It is clear Republicans don't have any real interest in
diversifying our energy resources. Last week, at a bipartisan
nuclear energy hearing, every witness supported the nuclear tax
credit, praising it as a way to support our diversified energy
mix. But that very same tax credit is now on the chopping block
in the Republicans' Default on America Act.
This hearing also makes it clear that Republicans are not
interested in being productive and offering real solutions that
help us meet our climate goals and ensure that we outcompete
the rest of the world in the clean energy transition. After
all, the world is transitioning and we must continue on the
path, and Democrats have set us on this path.
There are certainly challenges that we must continue to
address in this transition, but that is exactly what we have
done. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directed the
Environmental Protection Agency to develop best practices for
battery recycling and voluntary battery labeling guidelines.
These are two critical components of strengthening our critical
mineral supply chains for clean energy development.
The law also allocated $6 billion for battery processing,
manufacturing, and recycling. It also expanded the Department
of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program to include projects that
increase supply of domestically produced critical minerals. And
these are important investments that help us meet our climate
goals while also supporting the onshoring of crucial clean
energy supplies.
Democrats delivered real solutions, and not one Republican
on this committee voted for either the Inflation Reduction Act
or the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
So I welcome a productive conversation about strengthening
our national security and lowering energy costs by diversifying
our energy mix. In my view, these are bipartisan issues that we
can work on together. But that is extremely difficult to do so
when Republicans continue pushing their polluters-over-people
agenda. We simply cannot go back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Pallone. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
And I too want to thank our panelists for being with us
today. Thank you all for coming out.
Our first witness today is Mr. Mark Mills, a senior fellow
with the Manhattan Institute.
Sir, you are recognized for your 5-minute statement
STATEMENTS OF MARK P. MILLS, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN
INSTITUTE; ASHLEY NUNES, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, FEDERAL POLICY,
CLIMATE AND ENERGY, THE BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE; TREVOR HIGGINS,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, CENTER FOR
AMERICAN PROGRESS; AND DANIEL R. SIMMONS, PRINCIPAL, SIMMONS
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES
STATEMENT OF MARK P. MILLS
Mr. Mills. Good morning. Thank you to the committee and the
Members for the opportunity to testify.
It is clear from opening remarks that we are, indeed,
dealing with some high-stakes issues. So permit me to begin by
observing two facts that we do know about the future that are
indisputable.
First, that economic growth is the fundamental driver of
energy demand broadly, and second, that while periods of slow
growth and recessions are regrettably inevitable in all
societies, those periods always end, but any subsequent growth
can be stifled if energy supplies are inadequate or too
expensive or unreliable.
An energy supply itself is not as much about finding
resources as it is about building machines regardless of the
natural resources that are used, whether it is sun or wind or
water, oil, gas, oil, coal, uranium.
Those realities around machine building are what determines
costs and all the associated environmental, social, and
geopolitical impacts. And we know a lot about those impacts,
both the good and the bad, of course, associated with energy
machines that use hydrocarbons, because we have been using
those technologies at scale for a very long time and because
that is how roughly 85 percent of America's and the world's
energy is supplied.
We have learned a lot less about the impacts from wind,
solar, and battery technologies because they are relatively
new, frankly, and so far supply only a few percentage points of
overall energy for either America or the world.
The administration has a stated policy goal, as we all
know, to see America powered increasingly, eventually entirely,
by renewable energy. Look, I should stipulate that the future
will doubtless see far greater use of wind and solar and
electric cars if for no other reason than the sheer scale of
future energy demands and because developed countries like ours
are wealthy enough to pay higher costs.
However, there are a lot of misconceptions about the
realities of renewable energy at scale, especially if the goal
is to replace rather than supplement hydrocarbons. It begins
with a core reality that renewables aren't green. In fact, nor
are renewable technologies inherently cheaper nor
geopolitically more secure.
Renewable energy isn't green as a consequence of an
unavoidable feature of wind and solar resources: They have very
low energy density. That means, compared to using hydrocarbons,
one must build machinery that occupies roughly 10 times more of
the Earth's surface to deliver the same amount of energy to
society.
And since all life occupies the thin surface interface of
our planet, whether it is the land or the water, one of
humanity's greatest achievements has been the radical reduction
in the amount of that interface that we use to deliver
increasing quantities of food and fuel.
The inherent low energy density of renewables, which is
locked into the physics of those sources and machines, also
means that far more machinery must be fabricated to deliver the
same energy as is now supplied by hydrocarbon machines. That,
in turn, translates into a radical increase in global mining
and minerals processing to supply all the critical materials
needed to build renewable machinery.
So renewable plans proposed or underway will require,
according to the IEA and others, from a 400 percent to an 8,000
percent increase in mining of dozens of minerals, from copper
and nickel to aluminum, graphite, lithium. The IEA says the
world will need hundreds of new mines and very soon,
immediately. Given regulatory realities, we know those mines
won't be here. Almost none of the processing plants will be
here. Instead, most will be in emerging economies, and most
will be on or near the lands of indigenous people in areas that
are culturally and ecologically valuable and fragile.
And given machine realities, the engineering and physics of
machines, the huge jump in mining required will increase energy
use in that sector, thus offsetting a lot and, in fact, in some
cases all of the CO2 emissions that are saved by
later replacing hydrocarbons and power plants and cars.
Global mining today already accounts for about 40 percent
of worldwide industrial energy use. This is before the increase
in mining needed to build renewable machines. And it is an
energy system that is dominated by hydrocarbons and will be for
decades.
And it bears noting that renewable energy machines are like
all machines: They wear out. That means, of course, in the
future we will see megatons of worn-out hardware--trash--much
of it at unprecedented scale, because of the unprecedented
quantities of energy machinery needed. Some of it can't
actually be recycled, some not easily, much of it very
expensively.
And the huge land footprint and materials requirements of
renewable machinery, it shows up in the economics too. I know
there are claims of cost parity, but the fact is in every State
and every nation where there is a rising share of wind and
solar on grids, electricity costs have risen, not shrunk. EVs,
for similar reasons, are locked into inherently higher prices
because of greater use of underlying resources. Finally, the
claim that renewables are geopolitically superior is exposed by
the now well-known fact that China has a 40 to 80 percent
market share, as high as a 90 percent market share, in
producing or refining the energy materials that are needed to
build renewable machinery. That is a strategic dominance, I
should point out, that is over double OPEC's market share in
global oil production. Building assembly plants in the United
States for EVs and solar panels doesn't change that fact.
There is, however, one common claim for renewables that is
true: They create more jobs. That emerges directly from the
excess land, materials, and machinery needed to deliver the
same energy. The problem is that much of that work isn't in
America. And to the extent that it can be, any new jobs come at
a time, ironically, when our Nation doesn't necessarily need
more jobs as much as it needs more people willing and able to
fill the jobs we have, especially the skilled trades.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Mills.
Our next witness is Mr. Ashley Nunes, director of Federal
policy, climate, and energy at the Breakthrough Institute.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ASHLEY NUNES, Ph.D.
Dr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Ashley Nunes. I am a senior research associate
at Harvard Law School and the director for Federal policy,
climate, and energy at the Breakthrough Institute.
My work focuses on analyzing the cost-effectiveness of
emissions reduction efforts in the transportation sector. As
this committee is aware, transportation-related emissions have
steadily increased since the late 1990s, despite significant
Government spending on programs that promote emissions
reductions. This mismatch between intent and outcome highlights
the need for congressional scrutiny.
I will focus my testimony here on electric vehicles and
emissions reduction technology that this administration, its
predecessors, and Congress have heavily invested in.
I would like to make four key points: First, just because
technology like EVs can lower emissions doesn't mean that they
will. Our analysis shows that, without a significant change in
existing Government subsidy policy, EV adoption may not
meaningfully reduce emissions in the transportation sector.
Second, even with subsidies, EV adoption faces significant
and challenging cost barriers. EVs today are pricier than
gasoline-powered vehicles. And, more importantly, our analysis
of the EV market over the past 15 years shows that not only are
EV prices rising, but they are outpacing inflation and
outpacing price increases for internal-combustion-engine-
powered vehicles. Implicitly mandating EV adoption risks
hindering emissions reductions efforts and worsening existing
inequities in new vehicle ownership across America.
Third, the path to clean energy requires minerals from
numerous countries. Some of these countries are U.S. partners,
others less so. Although the Inflation Reduction Act supports
U.S. production and processing capability, IRA's benefits may
take years to fully bear fruit. In the meantime, local mineral
production limits and limited alternatives in lithium ion
battery chemistry suggest that EV costs will remain high for
American consumers.
Fourth and finally, there is reason for optimism. Although
reducing emissions is challenging, this challenge is not, in
Breakthrough's view, insurmountable. America can build better,
cleaner, and less mineral-intensive cars that consumers want to
buy and are, regardless of socioeconomic status, able to
afford. Government has a crucial role to play in supporting
this effort and, given the seriousness of climate change,
should do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Nunes follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
Our next witness is Mr. Daniel Simmons, principal at
Simmons Energy--OK. I am sorry. I skipped Mr. Higgins. I
apologize. Here we go.
Our next witness is Mr. Trevor Higgins, senior vice
president at the Center for American Progress.
You are recognized for 5 minutes. I had you on the list, I
just had the order reversed. I apologize, Mr. Higgins. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TREVOR HIGGINS
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member
Tonko, members of the subcommittee.
Last session, Congress enacted major components of
President Biden's Investing in America agenda, including the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science
Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. These pieces of
legislation represent the largest investment in climate action
in U.S. history, and they really changed the paradigm that we
are operating in. The United States now has a fighting chance
to cut greenhouse gas emissions to half of peak levels by 2030.
The groundbreaking legislation is already at work today,
and it is growing the economy by investing in the middle class.
It connects good-paying jobs and apprenticeship programs to
clean energy incentives for the first time. It builds supply
chains and domestic manufacturing that will equip America to
compete in the global energy economy for decades to come. It
cleans up air pollution that is concentrated in low-income
communities, and it cuts household energy costs in every region
of the country.
I will run through each of those four points very briefly.
First, jobs. The Inflation Reduction Act investments will
create 1.3 million jobs by 2030. Already today, even though we
are less than a year in--or just about a year in--we have seen
140,000 new clean energy jobs already promised and created.
Importantly, the full value of the revised clean
electricity tax credits are only available for project
developers who pay prevailing wages and employ people in
apprenticeship programs, ensuring that the clean energy economy
will be built with good jobs.
Second, manufacturing. The Investing in America agenda is
onshoring manufacturing and building resilient supply chains
already. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act's clean
electricity incentives depend on increasing proportions of
domestic content. There are new programs for manufacturing
investments in energy communities, in advanced industrial
facilities, automotive retooling and much more.
Advanced manufacturing tax incentives provide a long-term
investment signal for critical mineral processing and battery
production, and the structure of the tax credits for electric
vehicles depend on domestic assembly and domestic batteries.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Higgins, I apologize for interrupting you.
Can I get you to get a little closer to your microphone. I am
being told that it is not picking it up on TV.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. Is this better?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
Since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, companies
have announced $240 billion in new capital investments for at
least 190 new clean energy projects in 41 States, as documented
recently by Climate Power. A few examples include Tucson,
Arizona; Rochester, New York; and Florence County, South
Carolina, which are among those that have plans for 65 new
battery manufacturing sites.
Savannah, Georgia, and Montgomery, Alabama, are among the
cities with plans for 40 new or expanded EV manufacturing
facilities. Pensacola, Florida; Hutchinson, Kansas; and
Georgetown, Texas, among others, have plans for 34 expanded
wind and solar manufacturing plants.
These investments in U.S. industry will provide decades of
job opportunities for communities across the country. Repealing
the Inflation Reduction Act would pull the rug out from
underneath these investments that are helping the United States
to compete with China now.
Third, saving lives. Modeling from energy innovation shows
that pollution reductions from the Inflation Reduction Act's
clean energy investments would prevent up to 4,500 premature
deaths and nearly 120,000 asthma attacks annually by the end of
this decade.
Importantly, these pollution-related deaths will decline by
an even greater percentage in low-income communities and
communities of color because they are disproportionately
burdened by environmental harm and pollutants.
Fourth, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act would raise
household energy costs. IRA offers households up to $28,500 in
rebates and incentives if they choose to install clean
appliances in their homes or buy zero-emission vehicles. For
low-income houses, these rebates can cover 100 percent of
project costs.
Because running on electricity is generally more affordable
and less volatile than fossil fuels, home electrification can
save the average household up to $1,800, and switching to an EV
can save the average driver up to $2,600 a year. Even families
that don't take advantage of these programs will save on their
energy bills as the investments in affordable clean energy and
reduced fuel demand across the economy will actually lower the
price of natural gas. These clean energy investments deliver
more and more savings every year, which will be felt in every
region of the country, ranging from a 9 percent total energy
cost savings in New England to 12 percent in the Midwest and up
to 24 percent on the West Coast by the end of this decade.
Lastly, although the Inflation Reduction Act was passed
with uniform partisan opposition, it does bring benefits to all
Americans. In fact, more than half of the announced projects
and jobs created from IRA so far are in congressional districts
represented by Republican Members of Congress. Republican-
leaning States are estimated to receive an average of $4,200 in
IRA investments per capita, compared to $2,400 for Democratic-
leaning States. These investments aren't partisan. People in
all communities stand to benefit.
The Investing in America agenda is building a clean energy
economy that will create good-paying middle-class jobs, make
the U.S. competitive in the global economy, cut household
energy costs, and save lives.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today,
and I look forward to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Higgins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back, and I thank you.
And now we will now go to our final witness, Mr. Daniel
Simmons, principal at Simmons Energy--is it Simmons or Simons?
Mr. Simmons. Simmons.
Mr. Johnson. Simmons.
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Simmons Energy and Environmental Strategies.
You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. SIMMONS
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
And today I wanted to highlight the massive mineral and
material requirements of President Biden's energy goals as well
as offer a solution. And to that end, my friends at the
Institute for Energy Research have released this report this
week, ``The Economic and Strategic Importance of Domestic
Mineral Production,'' that really highlights the mineral
requirements as well as some of the challenge that we have in
meeting them to meet President Biden's net-zero agenda.
The challenge is that the net-zero energy economy that the
Biden administration wants requires massive amounts of minerals
and materials, far more than our current energy economy powered
mostly by coal, oil, and natural gas. For example, an EV
requires 6 times the mineral input of a conventional vehicle,
and an offshore wind facility requires 9 times as much material
inputs as a natural gas power plant of the same capacity.
The International Energy Agency's Sustainable Development
Scenario calls for a 42-fold increase in lithium demand, a 25-
fold increase in graphite demand, a 21-fold increase in cobalt
demand, a 19-fold increase in nickel demand, and a 7-fold
increase in rare earths, all by 2040, a mere 17 years from now.
The problem is that mining and material processing is far
more concentrated globally than oil production has been in at
least 50 years, and probably longer than that. In fact, China
is the world's largest processor of copper, nickel, cobalt,
lithium and rare earths, processing between 35 percent and 85
percent of these minerals. By comparison, the 13 members of
OPEC together only produce about 40 percent of the world's oil.
Worse, as we have discussed today, China has a terrible
human rights track record. The Biden administration and other
countries have sanctioned China over China's abuses against the
Uyghur people, for example. But these human rights abuses are
not just--we don't just see them in China.
For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo has more
cobalt resources than the rest of the world combined. However,
there is no clean supply chain of cobalt in the DRC, clean in
terms of human rights. Much of the DRC's cobalt is mined from
so-called artisanal miners, which include children, and are
paid just a few dollars a day for very dangerous work.
The problem with production in China and other places--
mineral production, that is--is not limited to modern-day
slavery and human rights abuses but also environmental
degradation. The German publication Deutsch Welle argues that
battery production, quote, ``causes radioactive earth dumps,
poisoned groundwater and indigenous population displacement,''
close quotes, in places such as China, the DRC, and Rwanda.
But there is a solution, and that is more mineral and
material production here in the United States. And to that, we
can look to the dramatic increase that we have seen in oil and
gas production as a model.
A decade ago, many people, including at the time President
Obama, said that more oil and gas drilling was not a strategy
to solve our energy challenge. He said it was a bumper sticker.
Well, he and the other experts at the time were proved wrong,
that it was not only possible, but we actually ended up
producing more oil in the last year, in the last decade, than
all other countries combined.
In fact, by some measures, globally, the United States has
produced about 90 percent of the new oil on the market over the
past decade. What that means is greater energy stability and
energy security for the United States and the world. Just
imagine what would have happened with Russia's oil going more
off the market than if the United States hadn't been there to
support oil and natural gas supplies globally.
And on top of that, even as we have increased our oil and
gas production, air quality has continued to increase in the
United States, and that is a fantastic success story. So just
as ``drill, baby, drill'' worked for oil and gas production,
``mine, baby, mine'' can work for minerals.
But one critical overlooked aspect of the shale revolution
is the value of non-Federal lands. The shale revolution really
occurred on State and private lands, because that is where
people could get access to the resources.
But in the case of mining, the Federal Government plays a
key role in permitting all new mines, and the Biden
administration has stifled almost all new mining development.
To name a few examples, the Biden administration has stymied
the development of the Twin Metals and Polymet mines in
Minnesota, Resolution and Rosemount mines in Arizona, and
Pebble Mine in Alaska. They have reduced access to the Ambler
Mining District also in Alaska. The Biden administration has
been more disposed towards lithium mines, such as Rhyolite
Ridge and Thacker Pass, but actual construction has only begun
on Thacker Pass.
If the Biden administration is serious about achieving its
net-zero goals, it will require massive amounts of new mineral
production. The Biden administration should, therefore, work to
dramatically increase domestic mining, because that avoids the
human rights issues abroad along with the poor environmental
standards. And when we produce those minerals here, we improve
our national security and, honestly, the national security of
the world.
Thank you for your opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. And I appreciate all
the witnesses for your statement. We will now begin
questioning, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Simmons, picking up right where you left off, does the
United States currently have the critical mineral extraction
and refining capacity to meet the Biden administration's
climate goals on the timeline and the scale that is being
proposed?
Mr. Simmons. The minerals are in the ground, there is no
doubt about that, but there is no way to access them,
especially with the Biden administration's policy towards
mining.
Mr. Johnson. OK. So we don't. We do not have the mineral
extraction and refining capacity in place right now.
So would it be accurate to say that, if we stay on the
Biden administration's path, we will increasingly rely on this
type of so-called artisanal mining in the Congo?
And I want to refer everyone to these posters again of the
children that are forced into labor and the slave labor that is
doing this work. Are we increasingly relying on this type of
forced labor abuses in China and elsewhere?
Mr. Simmons. Yes, without a doubt.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Mills, you mentioned in your testimony
that wind and solar have very low energy density and require 10
times more space to deliver the same amount of energy to our
people as a hydrocarbon facility.
Furthermore, wind and solar are intermittent,
nondispatchable energy sources that are unable to provide
baseload power 24/7, since they actively depend on the wind
blowing and the sun shining.
I want to go back and applaud our ranking member for
pointing out the literally billions and billions of dollars of
investments in these energy forms out of the Inflation
Reduction Act. He called them investments. I call them
irresponsible spending, because they are neither going to
improve reliability and resilience of our energy grid nor are
they going to improve the quality of life for the American
people.
So, Mr. Mills, what would a drastic expansion of solar and
wind projects mean for constituents like mine in the Midwest?
Mr. Mills. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have the data, because a
number of States have increased dramatically their use of wind
and solar on grids. Germany has, other countries in Europe. And
the track record there is unequivocal. The cost of residential
electricity goes up, and it goes up rather dramatically. It has
tripled in Germany, in Denmark and Sweden.
The overall ratio of every unit of increased wind and solar
on a grid leads to an overall increase essentially 1-to-1 in a
sort of percentage basis. In the United States in several
service territories, we have seen a 300 percent increase in the
residential cost of electricity.
Bear in mind this means that the wind and solar machines
that are going on the grid are going on at a discount, because
the subsidies are being paid by taxpayers elsewhere. And even
with that, costs have gone up.
I will just briefly note the reason for that is
operational.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Mills. When a wind turbine is blowing, the electricity
is cheap, but the operational realities mean electricity gets
more expensive.
Mr. Johnson. So, given what you just told us, does it make
sense to raze millions of acres of arable farmland and
Appalachian forests in favor of solar and wind farms? Would
that have an adverse impact on the environment?
Mr. Mills. Well, we used to have a very active
environmental movement that was very unhappy about excess land
use by civilization. So the question, to not be facetious,
answers itself.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Mills. We don't want to increase land use to deliver
the same amount of energy. It is not environmentally sensible
or green. We have to use land, but we should be trying to
minimize land use.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Mills, continuing with you, global
solar panel waste is projected to reach 78 million tons by
2050, with between 7.5 and 10 million tons generated in the
United States alone.
Now, the last time this committee met, many of you will
recall we discussed a number of politicians who vehemently
opposed proper permitted disposal of roughly 40,000 tons of
hazardous dirt.
I do wonder, if 40,000 tons is unacceptable, will the
biggest renewables proponents commit to accept 10 million tons
of hazardous, broken, retired solar panels at landfills in
their congressional districts?
So it does beg the question, Mr. Mills: Does the United
States have the existing landfill capacity to properly dispose
of these retired solar panels?
Mr. Mills. We have the land. It is a choice to use the land
for those purposes. And I think there is a naivete about the
quantity of land both for production and disposal.
The typical response, I should note, that is in everybody's
head and proposed by the IEA and others is that we will recycle
those materials instead of dispose of them. And it is
technically possible to recycle a lot. It is extraordinarily
expensive. And none of the models for future costs of wind,
solar, and batteries account for real-world costs of recycling
if that is mandated, which I suspect is what will happen.
Mr. Johnson. I yield back.
And I now yield to my colleague Mr. Tonko for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Higgins, I want to make sure the record is clear about
President Biden's policies in mandating a rush to clean energy.
Is there a Federal policy that mandates that 100 percent or,
for that matter, any percentage of our energy mix comes from
wind and solar resources?
Mr. Higgins. No, Mr. Tonko, there is no such mandate.
Mr. Tonko. So am I correct in assuming that the recent
increase in renewables has been driven by a mix of State
policies, of electricity markets, and voluntary decisions being
made by American businesses and consumers?
Mr. Higgins. That is right, including in response to the
energy cost changes, that wind and solar can be much cheaper.
Mr. Tonko. And similarly, am I correct in stating that
policies that seek to limit pollution from light-duty vehicles
are technology neutral? They are not mandating that 100 percent
of future vehicles are electric, are they?
Mr. Higgins. That is correct.
Mr. Tonko. So if this is not mandated, can you explain for
this subcommittee why auto makers are investing in facilities
to manufacture new EVs and batteries here in the U.S., and are
they responding to what they see as market and consumer trends?
Mr. Higgins. Yes, Representative Tonko, I think that is
right. Electric vehicles are popular. Surveys have shown from
Consumer Reports a 350 percent increase in consumer demand for
battery electric vehicles in the last 2 years. And 70 percent
of adults would consider buying or leasing an EV today, which
means that there are now approximately 45 EV-ready buyers for
every EV being manufactured.
And this is happening globally. And automakers know that,
in order to remain competitive in the global economy, they need
to make investments now to be ready to contest the investments
that China has already been making and that our other allies,
including Europe, are also interested in making to advance
their electric vehicle industry.
Mr. Tonko. I do hear from constituents that they in many
cases be on waiting lists and the like.
So in your testimony, you mentioned policy decisions made
in the Inflation Reduction Act are driving workforce
development and prevailing-wage jobs in clean energy.
Similarly, how are the voluntary incentives for EVs that
were included in the Inflation Reduction Act intended to send a
market signal to promote the domestic production of the entire
EV supply chain?
Mr. Higgins. The investments in the Inflation Reduction Act
and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act work to invest
across the entire supply chain for electric vehicles and
batteries in particular.
Just to mention a few, there are grants, loans, and tax
credits for investment in industrial capacity to extract
critical minerals, to refine the critical minerals, to build
battery cells, to assemble the cells into battery packs, to
retool automotive facilities, to build new automotive
facilities and to recycle batteries at the end of their life
cycle. That is just the capacity.
The Inflation Reduction Act also has investments that
support production at every one of those steps. IRA covers 10
percent of the costs of producing or processing critical
minerals in the United States. IRA pays $35 per kilowatt hour
for every battery cell produced in the United States. It
provides $10 per kilowatt for every battery pack assembled in
the United States. That alone is more than the difference in
price between Chinese and U.S. battery manufacturing, according
to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It is also enough to put EVs
and gas cars within price parity in the next 3 years.
On top of that, IRA will pay 30 percent of the costs of
grid-scale battery deployment and an additional $3,750 for each
EV built predominantly with domestic batteries and critical
minerals.
So consumers across the world are interested in EVs and
automakers want to build them, and IRA is making sure that at
every stage in the supply chain that every stage will have a
home here in the United States.
Mr. Tonko. So, to be completely clear, many private
businesses then are seeing what their consumers are going to
want in the years ahead and are responding by positioning
themselves to take full advantage of the available Federal
incentives by investing in domestic manufacturing supply
chains.
So, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that the clean energy
transition will have its challenges. There are already major
investments underway to reduce our dependence on volatile
fossil fuel markets, lower cost for American consumers, create
millions of good-paying jobs, and reduce pollution, and those
investments are being led by the U.S. private sector.
So I hope we can work together on overcoming clean energy
challenges in the name of U.S. global competitiveness rather
than repealing incentives that are delivering hundreds of
billions of jobs and job-creating investments all across our
country.
With that, I thank you and yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the chairwoman of the whole
committee, Chair Rodgers, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mills, how green are wind, solar, and batteries when
compared to traditional energy resources that power America's
economy? And does China abide by the same environmental
standards that we do?
Mr. Mills. Well, Madam Chairwoman, we know that China does
not abide by the same standards. And as we also know, it is
relevant for the record the IEA has made a forecast of the
CO2 emissions reductions with respect to that one
feature of environment that will arise under ideal conditions
of fully spending all the IRA money and all the Infrastructure
Act money. If all of it is spent as planned and expected, it
reduces U.S. CO2 emissions by a gigaton. For the
record, China will increase its CO2 emissions by
that amount every 2 years for the next decade. So China's
expansion in coal wipes out the next 10 years of U.S.
CO2 emissions reductions.
The green label, of course, is meant to refer to only
carbon dioxide, as we all know. But green used to mean land
use, toxic chemicals, air pollution of all kinds, and water
pollution. In those metrics, there is nothing different about
renewable machines, wind, solar, and battery, than any other
kind of machines except they produce far more negative impacts
on the environment, in aggregate, than producing the same
amount of energy from hydrocarbon machines.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Simmons, a group of us recently traveled to Europe, and
we saw how similar rush-to-green policies harmed the security
of European countries. Shutting down coal, nuclear, supporting
a Nord Stream 2 Pipeline from Russia for their oil and natural
gas, and then Russia weaponized that energy against them.
I don't want to see that happen in America, and I am
concerned that the current approach by the Biden administration
will, in their rush to green, strengthen China and weaken
America's energy security.
As the former Assistant Secretary for DOE's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, you have firsthand
experience with the deployment of renewables and batteries for
electric vehicles and the electric grid.
What are you most concerned about with the Biden
administration's timelines and targets to electrify and
decarbon the economy? Do you believe that the administration
has adequate framework to balance the environmental, human
rights, and national security risk of climate-related policies?
Mr. Simmons. I am not aware that they have a framework that
balances that. I mean, if you look at the statements from, say,
Climate Envoy Kerry, I haven't seen any balancing that the
administration has focused on.
To Ranking Member Tonko's point are these mandates, and
generally they are not mandates technically, but they are de
facto mandates when it comes to mandating massive amounts of
EVs, because that is the only way you can meet the--it is the
only way you can meet EPA's upcoming GHG regulations for
vehicles.
And the problem is, is that those raw materials are
currently dependent on Chinese supply chains, and not just
like--we are not really talking about necessarily battery
packs. We are talking about the lithium, the cobalt, the
nickel, everything that goes into the battery packs. Those are
all dependent on Chinese supply chain, and that will not change
for years, no matter how many dollars are in the IRA. So I have
serious concerns, because I don't see a real framework from the
administration looking at all these issues.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Nunes, I have heard from some car companies that the
amount of raw materials in a large, fully electric car battery
could be used to produce dozens of hybrid cars. If that is
true, wouldn't hybrids reduce the battery supply chain's risk
that all electric cars are subject to?
Dr. Nunes. Congresswoman, if you look at the total amount
of minerals that are used in an electric vehicle battery pack,
they are orders of magnitude above the volume of minerals you
would need in a hybrid electric vehicle battery pack.
So the simple answer to your question is yes, you would be
able to build out multiple hybrid electric vehicle batteries
from a single EV battery.
Mrs. Rodgers. So wouldn't a hybrid vehicle be a better way
to save money and reduce overall emissions?
Dr. Nunes. I think if you look at the numbers, a hybrid
electric vehicle typically costs about 12 percent more than an
internal combustion engine and emits about 25 percent less
carbon dioxide. An EV typically costs you between 40 to 50
percent more than an internal combustion engine and is about 40
percent less polluting.
In terms of your dollar value, hybrid electric vehicles
offer you the most bang for your buck when it comes to
emissions reductions.
Mrs. Rodgers. So why isn't the administration encouraging
hybrid?
Dr. Nunes. I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the
administration.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. I just thought I would ask. Anyone else?
Anyway, I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. We now
recognize the ranking member of the entire committee, Mr.
Pallone from New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Later today, the House is expected to vote on the Default
on America Act, which repeals a number of significant
investments in our domestic clean energy industry enacted by
the Inflation Reduction Act.
In the energy and environment space, this bill seeks to
repeal programs designed to lower energy costs for American
consumers with still tremendous homegrown clean energy job
growth and would block critical investments in domestic
manufacturing designed to onshore clean energy production. In
my opinion, these misguided proposals play right into China's
hands.
So, Mr. Higgins, I hope you can help Members understand
each of these major deficiencies with the Default on America
Act. First, would repealing the Inflation Reduction Act
programs, like rebates for home efficiency upgrades or
incentives for solar, wind, or zero-emission transportation
technologies, lower energy costs for American families?
Mr. Higgins. No, Mr. Chairman. They would raise energy
costs for American families.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you for calling me Chairman, but I am
the ranking member. But anyway, that is what I thought you
would say.
So Republicans are claiming their proposals will reduce
energy costs while voting to repeal critical energy cost-saving
provisions that are already in law. That doesn't make sense to
me.
So, again, Mr. Higgins, can you please speak to how the
Inflation Reduction Act will strengthen domestic manufacturing
of clean energy technology?
Mr. Higgins. Absolutely. So, as I mentioned in my last
answer, there are investments up and down the battery supply
chain, but the same is true in other parts of the supply chain
for the clean energy economy.
There are incentives and requirements for any company who
is taking the clean electricity tax credits to have increasing
proportion of domestic content, including their steel, the
manufactured components that go into the wind turbines. At the
same time as we are creating that pool for new products, IRA is
investing in new manufacturing capacity and retooling existing
capacity and in specifically targeting investments to energy
communities that need the jobs.
Mr. Pallone. I agree that these policies in the Inflation
Reduction Act directly lead to incredible benefits on the
ground for Americans across the country, and, of course, these
investments help keep us competitive on the global stage since
China and other countries are already building the clean energy
future. And, in fact, this was our intent with the bill, to try
to, you know, make us more competitive with China.
But let me ask you this. Since the Inflation Reduction Act
was enacted, there have been historic announcements in the
clean energy sector, including more than 142,000 clean energy
jobs, and it is projected to create 9 million in total.
And I have a report here by the Climate Power on IRA
investments and jobs in districts all over the country,
including many Republican districts.
So I would ask the chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
to enter this into the record, if I could.
Mr. Joyce. Yes, thank you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Pallone. All right. Now, many of the jobs that we have
mentioned in the Inflation Reduction Act come from incentives
to onshore and reshore domestic manufacturing in the energy
space.
So, Mr. Higgins, can you speak to the benefits of onshoring
this work and how these benefits will result in more jobs and
clean energy access, particularly in energy communities?
Mr. Higgins. One of the interesting features of the tax
credits, including in the Inflation Reduction Act, is a 10
percent bonus credit for investments that happen in energy
communities. And the definition of that includes anyplace with
a brownfield site. It includes coal communities that have high
unemployment. It includes any community that has a
disproportionate amount of its employment coming from fossil
fuels.
And these communities often see ups and downs in their
employment, because fossil fuel markets, particularly with the
fracking boom, can be volatile or unreliable. And so, by
targeting investments in new clean energy construction and
manufacturing in these parts of the country, we are going to be
providing a pathway to a decade-long commitment to these
communities' economic success.
And this is creating an opportunity for the United States
to compete in the global clean energy economy of the 21st
century. China has for decades understood really what we all
understood, which is which technologies are going to be
important in the clean energy economy. But, unlike us, they
started investing in those decades ago. So we are playing
catchup now to make sure that we can have the competitive
American industry that we need for the next century.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I think you just made the case why we
should completely reject Republicans' rollbacks of the
Inflation Reduction Act, but thank you so much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. The gentleman yields.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make a point that apparently my colleagues
across the aisle don't get. China's objective is not to save
the planet from climate change. China's objective is to rule
the planet as the sole superpower. And anyone who does not
understand that I think contributes to the national security
risk that we are facing with China.
Mr. Mills, is clean energy clean?
Mr. Mills. By the definition of what we used to think
broadly in environmental domains, no, the answer is no. It is
no cleaner than, at best, any other form of energy.
Mr. Palmer. It potentially would be an environmental
disaster, because of the mining requirement, refining
requirement, by the way, which we don't do here. We have become
100 percent reliant on China for all of that. There is not a
single smelter for rare earth elements in the Western
Hemisphere that I know of. I think they are all in China except
maybe one.
Mr. Mills. Ninety percent of rare earth refining is in
China. If you mine rare earths in America, you send them
currently--and some are mined here--to China.
You know, it is worth pointing out for the record that the
environmental impacts of energy are, of course, universal,
right? I mean, we can't avoid that. These are machine issues.
But China has a dominance that was, as we know, planned for
two decades publicly, but they don't dominate what the world
uses for energy. Back to the 84 percent of all energy is
hydrocarbon-based.
And the world spent 5 to 10 trillion dollars in the last 2
decades avoiding hydrocarbons, and we still only get 3 percent
of all of our energy globally from wind and solar.
Mr. Palmer. I want to ask you another quick question, and I
am not sure you know the answer to this. But approximately, it
takes an enormous amount of cement and steel and plastic to
build a wind turbine. It takes an enormous amount to build
solar panels.
Are you aware that 50 percent of the world's steel
production is from China, over 60 percent of the cement, over
30 percent of the plastics? And we have just been talking about
rare earth elements. We are not even talking about the stuff
that we don't do here. And you can't produce any of that
without natural gas.
Mr. Mills. You would need to use natural gas, coal, and oil
to produce all those materials.
Mr. Palmer. So would you agree that this mad dash to
eliminate all hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas, first of
all, is, from a physics and engineering perspective, impossible
but, just from a rational sense, insane?
Mr. Mills. Well, it is actually physically impossible to do
it to the scales and timeframes that are being imagined. And we
have that from the IEA itself, which is pointing out that there
is no path to eliminating use of oil, gas, and coal in minerals
production and processing known for decades.
Mr. Palmer. Well, they also point out that, under no
scenario, we will be at net zero by 2050.
Mr. Mills. That is correct, sir. And Bill Gates testified
in a public speech that, even if we did achieve net zero, it
wouldn't change the climate modeling scenarios by a tiny
fraction of a percent
Mr. Palmer. Yes. I want to talk about the other issues with
renewables. And I am not against renewables. I just understand
that we are not going to have a sustainable economy with the
growth that we need for a country and the ability to help other
economies, emerging economies grow with 100 percent renewables.
It is not possible.
But I also point out that we need to be focused on next-gen
nuclear, because we had a very good hearing last week, and I
think we made some really good points.
But one of the problems with renewables, particularly in
this case turbines, is their life cycle is only about 25 years,
and you can't recycle the blades. And we have got some photos
here of landfills in Wyoming and Texas where we are having to
bury these things because we can't recycle them.
Would you consider that an environmental problem?
Mr. Mills. I think massive waste production that you can't
recycle is, by definition, an environmental problem. In theory,
you could eventually recycle them, but that theory is still in
the experimental stage. So right now, they are just trash.
Mr. Palmer. And enormously expensive. And we have a debt
crisis that is an existential threat to our national security
as well as the emergence of China as a superpower.
I also want to address this other issue of pollution over
people and just remind my colleagues that my kids and,
hopefully, my future grandkids breathe the same air that
everybody else does. We drink the same water. We live on the
same ground. And it is so disingenuous to use that kind of
phraseology to further divide people. And, hopefully, people
have enough common sense to realize that we all live on the
same area. We are breathing the same air, drinking the same
water.
And this idea that it somehow contributes or causes asthma,
I just remind you that even the CDC says we don't know what
causes asthma. And there are other things, most likely related
to the economic conditions of individuals who are suffering
from asthma, particularly kids, because of low household
income, poor housing, things like that, that we can solve with
a vibrant economy if we can get our debt crisis, our capital
crisis that has now been created because of the debt, under
control.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms.
DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I would respectfully say to my colleague across the aisle,
maybe your constituents don't live downwind from a refinery in
an economically depressed neighborhood, like my kids do, and
have a much higher percentage of asthma.
I would like to ask you some questions, Mr. Higgins, about
some of these policies that we are talking about today. Because
there seems to be this implication that we are having this
coercive rush-to-green policies, but, in fact, what we are
trying to do in the face of the climate crisis is play catchup
for decades of inaction, denial, and lack of coordination.
And all of the experts that I have seen say that we have to
slash our emissions and transition to clean energy as soon as
possible. It is existential.
So what I want to ask you is, if we just drift along and
don't do anything, are we going to have a further degradation
of our environment?
Mr. Higgins. Yes, Congresswoman. Climate investments from
IRA and IIJA are essential for giving us an opportunity to
stabilize climate change.
Ms. DeGette. And do you think that--do the experts that you
have reviewed, do they say that if we start to take aggressive
steps that we are going to be able to at least begin to bend
the curve on these extreme weather events and declined economic
productivity that impact health?
Mr. Higgins. Yes, the science is very clear that every
increment of emissions reduction is going to reduce the peak
warming and the date at which we can achieve stable global
temperatures.
Ms. DeGette. And what about the impact on developing
countries? If we are able to have a clear progress, are we
going to be able to have impact in the developing world?
Mr. Higgins. Yes. The developing world and poor parts of
even the developed world are more exposed to the impacts of
climate change. And they would be the first to benefit then
from emissions reductions technologies that start to slow the
pace of climate change and give us more time to adapt.
Ms. DeGette. Do we actually have--you heard some of your
colleagues on the panel say that we can't possibly have any
impact by 2050 and so why do it. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Higgins. No, I believe that is a false statement.
Ms. DeGette. Why do you believe that?
Mr. Higgins. Well, the International Panel on Climate
Change jut put out their recent Synthesis Report, which builds
on decades of science. And they were very clear that this
problem of climate change is caused by primarily fossil fuel
combustion, and it can be resolved by human action.
Ms. DeGette. Now, do we have the technology right now to
get to zero percent carbon by 2050?
Mr. Higgins. We have the technology right now to
substantially cut and to reach net-zero-greenhouse gasses by
2050. And it is important to note that the Inflation Reduction
Act investments are not exclusively in any one technology.
There are investments in nuclear, biofuels, carbon capture and
sequestration in addition to wind and solar.
Ms. DeGette. Right. We are not mandating that we get to
zero percent with wind and solar. Is that right?
Mr. Higgins. That is absolutely correct.
Ms. DeGette. It is source neutral.
Mr. Higgins. That is right.
Ms. DeGette. And that is what we are going to need to do to
get to zero percent by 2050.
Mr. Higgins. That is right. In fact, the new tax credits
changed the paradigm for the way our fiscal subsidies are
produced so that they are not technology specific. By 2025, the
Federal Tax Code will reward any technology that can be zero
emission.
Ms. DeGette. And again, I want to ask, so if we are able to
do that, to get to close to or at zero by 2050, the scientists
believe that is actually going to have an impact?
Mr. Higgins. Yes. That would be--it would put us likely
within range to constrain global warming to 1.5 degrees with
limited overshoot, which is very important. And if we cannot
reach net zero by mid-century, it is unlikely that we will be
able to contain the pace of climate change this century.
Ms. DeGette. Now, I keep hearing my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle talk about critical minerals. Frankly, we are
all concerned about the human rights issues. So what do we need
to do to try to get independent of some of those, the
production in some of those countries?
Mr. Higgins. As many have already testified, China today
refines the majority of the critical mineral supply in the
world. It is their operations that are the principal driver for
critical minerals mines throughout the world, including those
with abhorrent labor abuses. And----
Ms. DeGette. So what do we need to do? I have got 10
seconds.
Mr. Higgins. The Inflation Reduction Act invests in
creating an American supply chain and processing capacity. And
we will be able to better leverage, with our democratic allies,
a regime that we can control and enforce better human rights.
Ms. DeGette. Countries like Australia, right?
Mr. Higgins. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson [presiding]. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania for 5
minutes.
Mr. Joyce. First, I want to thank Chairman Johnson and
Ranking Member Tonko for holding today's hearing. Over the past
few years, we have heard from the Biden administration
preaching about the wonders of renewables. But, unfortunately,
the rush to adopt green technology from wind and solar to
electric vehicles and electric stoves has significant drawbacks
for my constituents and hardworking families across the United
States.
Our Nation has led the world in emission reduction, not
because we have transitioned our energy generation to wind and
solar but because we created new ways to harness the resources,
the resources that are under the feet of my constituents.
Natural gas production from places like Pennsylvania has
reclaimed American energy dominance while cutting our
greenhouse emissions by 17 percent from 2005 to 2021, according
to the EPA.
We cannot let Government policies, written with a
misunderstanding of the real world, abandon the hard-earned
advantages that our Nation has and directly will harm our
constituents.
One example is the Department of Energy's proposed
efficiency standards for distribution transformers. Utilities
and electric co-ops in my district in Pennsylvania are already
experiencing a critical shortage of grid components. To make
matters worse, DOE's role would upend a fully domestic supply
chain for the main steel component in distribution transformers
to achieve an efficiency increase of just 0.29 percent, less
than 1 percent. This rule would leave us reliant on foreign
imports, create an even more acute supply crisis for critical
grid components, and sacrifice family-sustaining jobs in
Pennsylvania.
Another example of poorly conceived Government policy is
the Biden administration's push for electric vehicle adoption.
In my district, EVs simply cannot fulfill the needs of my
constituents. They can't tow the distances that they are needed
to tow. They can't maintain the charge at extreme temperatures
or recharge fast enough to keep hardworking Pennsylvanians on
the job.
That is why I introduced H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice
in Vehicle Purchases Act, to prevent the EPA Administrator from
granting a waiver allowing California's ban on internal
combustion engine sales by 2035. Although starting in
California, once adopted, this regulation will spread across
the Nation, disrupting the entire American auto market and
ultimately limit what my constituents are able to buy.
President Biden has made it clear that he wants to force
Americans to buy electric vehicles. This policy will harm
working- and middle-class families by making cars more
expensive and less capable. Only by taking Government's thumb
off of the scale and letting the free market decide will
Americans get the efficient and affordable transportation that
they need and that they want.
My first question is for you, Dr. Nunes: The International
Energy Administration projects that EV adoption at 15 percent
by 2030, but President Biden is trying to mandate 67 percent
adoption by 2032. Is it realistic to expect a 53 percent
increase in this rate between 2030 and 2032, just in 2 years?
Dr. Nunes. My sense is that it would be challenging, to say
the least. I also think it is important to distinguish between
EV sales versus a total number of--you know, there is a lot of
focus on how many EVs we are actually selling versus looking at
what the propulsion profile is of the national fleet.
If you look at markets like Norway--which is something we
hear quite a lot about--Norway sells a lot of electric cars. At
the same time that you see increases in the number of electric
cars, you are also seeing an increase in the total number of
cars on the road, and that is not a good thing.
What that suggests is that the majority of people are
buying electric cars as second or third vehicles. They are not
trading in their gasoline-powered vehicles.
Mr. Joyce. But isn't that economically challenging for the
middle- and the working-class Americans to be able to afford a
second or third vehicle? Is that even plausible?
Dr. Nunes. Well, I think if you look at the distribution of
who actually owns electric cars, they are skewed towards high-
income earners.
Mr. Joyce. And that skew is very concerning for someone who
represents working-class people throughout Pennsylvania.
Are Americans, particularly families, ready to give up
their primary, their workhorse car with an internal combustion
engine for an EV? Those who can only afford one EV, one
vehicle, are they going to turn that over?
Dr. Nunes. I think that in order for an electric vehicle to
become the de facto choice for middle- and low-income
Americans, these vehicles would need to boost significantly
larger range and interior space requirements.
Mr. Joyce. Which they don't have right now. And in your
earlier testimony, you said they cost between 40 and 50 percent
more. These aren't costs that my constituents can afford right
know.
Dr. Nunes, since 2005, auto sales have fluctuated. Do you
feel that the current regulatory environment is going to be
able to produce the EVs that are necessary?
Dr. Nunes. I think that, while there is, you know,
considerable reason for optimism when it comes to producing
vehicles, there would be significant challenges associated with
meeting the EPA's de facto emission standards.
Mr. Joyce. I think this committee recognizes those
challenges. My time has expired. I thank you for the candid
conversation.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman Ms. Schakowsky for
5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So today we are likely to see a vote on what Democrats are
calling the Default on America Act, which, among other things,
I would say, despite my colleagues' objection to that, that
puts politics over people, which has really been the tradition
in the United States, that people who breathe air in certain
communities are much more likely to get sick, and those more
polluting places are often put into low-income communities.
And one of the things that this legislation would do is to
eliminate the Inflation Reduction Act, which does actually have
in it the High Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Grant Program.
And I wanted to talk to you about that, Mr. Higgins.
What would be the consequence, then, if that program would
be eliminated, both to private-sector investors and, of course,
to everyday consumers who have seen or will see a decrease in
their energy costs?
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Representative. Yes, the Home
Electrification Rebates Program is I think going to be an
excellent program that offers low-income households up to 100
percent of the costs of replacing their fossil fuel furnace or
gas stove, if they choose, with a high-efficiency electric
alternative. And that is one of the many ways that we can make
sure we are reaching every household.
The bill also includes tax credits for heat pumps for
higher-income households. It includes training for contractors.
It includes manufacturing support for companies to produce the
heat pumps. And this way we are approaching the problem of how
do you improve indoor air quality and reduce the fossil fuel
demand of the housing sector by addressing all of the elements
of the supply chain and the consumer experience.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you for that. The IRA also includes
tax credits to encourage workforce development, apprenticeship
programs and other things to expand the workforce.
I would also note that right now 650,000 unfilled jobs are
out there right now. And so what can we do to make sure that we
expand the workforce, helping workers and certainly helping us
address the climate?
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. Yes, the Inflation Reduction Act is
both driving gains in job growth in clean energy industries but
also improving job quality by, as you mentioned, tying
incentives across eight different tax credits to prevailing
wage requirements and apprenticeship requirements. And this
will support the quality of the job as well as train the
workers that we need.
There is also a new advisory board in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act that is meant to identify places where
there are skills gaps. And that could be an area for Congress
to focus on over the next decade and making sure that we will
have the highly skilled technical labor that we need to build
the clean energy economy.
Ms. Schakowsky. Can you talk a little bit more about
training programs? We know that there are a lot of people who
need to work. There is the need for the workers. What are we
going to do to train the workers to be there?
Mr. Higgins. One of the interesting aspects of the
Inflation Reduction Act is that it includes funding for
disadvantaged communities specifically to make sure that they
have training opportunities for taking advantage of the
investments that will be happening in their communities.
So through the equitable and--Climate Justice Block Grants
program as well as through Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, there
can be opportunities to support training directly.
I also think that there's room for more intervention of
Congress personally. There were proposals in earlier processes,
including the House-passed version of Build Back Better, that
didn't ultimately be enacted. I think these types of
investments and other interventions would be a very helpful way
to make sure that we are developing the workforce that we need
to remain competitive.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Allen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, you know, I don't know where asthma comes from. I
happened to be born with it, so--but I have dealt with it for a
long, long time.
And yes, this important hearing, you know, the thing that
we are not doing is nobody has given me a number of what it is
going to cost to meet all these goals. In other words, how much
are the American people going to have to sacrifice?
Now, we lead the world in reduction of carbon emissions,
there is no question about that, and overwhelmingly lead the
world. We have spent a lot of treasure to the extent with $31.5
trillion and growing every second debt in this country.
The markets are very volatile right now, the financial
markets, because of this Government spending and because of
this debt. In fact, you are seeing chairmen of major financial
institutions in this country say that, if you don't get your
fiscal house in order, that is the greatest existential threat
to this country, because if we become a Third World country,
yes, we might be clean but, you know, we won't be the country
we are. And debt will do that.
You know, the potential threats to our national security we
have talked about with these new policies are not fully
understood, and I hope that today we can learn more about them.
Right now there is a push towards transitioning our energy
to be dependent solely on renewables. And, of course,
personally I am from an all-in approach. We need to be energy
dominant again.
The reality is that many of these favored technologies
require critical materials that we are relying on from other
countries, predominantly China and others whose mining
industries are largely controlled by the CCP. We should not be
dependent on our adversaries for these critical materials.
If we are going to dramatically increase deployment of
green technologies and electric vehicles, we must look at
domestic remedies. I have not heard one remedy here today to do
that. Nothing is being done to that. We can't get permits to
mine today.
Mr. Mills, you noted that the United States is 100 percent
reliant on imports of 17 critical minerals and heavily
dependent on other countries for 28 of the 50 critical minerals
identified by the United States Geological Survey. China
specifically is the top producer for most of those critical
materials.
What are the national security risks associated with
relying almost entirely on critical mineral inputs from other
countries, predominantly China?
Mr. Mills. Well, Congressman, as you well know, the
dependence on other countries for things that are critical is a
geopolitical risk by definition. With all due respect to the
Congress of the United States, we are now fully 70 years, 70
years into hearings about critical mineral dependencies. It
began shortly after World War I, ironically, escalated after
World War II, and for the last 20 years or 30 years, in my
experience with the Congress, there have been dozens of studies
and reports, hearings, legislations dedicated to solving the
critical mineral problems.
It is only solved one way. It is environmental regulations
have to be modified to encourage mining and refining of
minerals. That has never been done yet. We have done the
opposite. We have increased our strategic dependencies.
So as you say, sir, we get 100 percent of 17 critical
minerals through imports. Another 20 we import about 50 to 80
percent of what our needs are, and we will increase those needs
by orders of magnitude with these plans to build assembly
plants here, not mines.
Mr. Allen. Right. And, Mr. Simmons, what can we do to
ensure that we are not relying on China for critical mineral
inputs?
Mr. Simmons. Well, what that means is a massive increase in
the amount of mining in the United States. That means that new
mines actually get permitted. There is one new mine, to my
knowledge, which is Thacker Pass in Nevada, that is a lithium
mine. The Biden administration deserves credit--let's give them
kudos--that that is now moving forward. That is fantastic, but
we need much, much more. We need 42 times--the world needs 42
times as much lithium as we are currently producing today. That
is going to come from a lot of different places.
Mr. Allen. And are we getting significant price
fluctuations as well as far as trying to move in this
direction?
Mr. Simmons. There is--I mean, we have had all kinds of
price fluctuations, but overall we have seen price increases, a
lot of energy inflation over the past few years, and that is
only going to get worse unless we have more production.
Mr. Allen. Yes. And, of course, the war on fossil fuel has
created tremendous input costs to every business, which is
affecting our ability to grow our economy.
Thank you so much.
And I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes my friend and colleague Mr. Ruiz
for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
As I pull up my questions here, I want to give a very
special shout-out to constituents, school board members from
Imperial Valley in Eastern Riverside County for being here.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Ruiz, turn your microphone around.
There you go.
Mr. Ruiz. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing.
My district, California's 25th District, produces the most
renewable energy on Federal land in the Nation. And I also must
say that climate change is real. Pollution is real. And it
affects the underserved, marginalized, underresourced
communities more than it does the others.
And there are challenges to shifting to a clean energy
future, but I see them as opportunities, opportunities to
expand the positive impacts of clean energy. I see them as
opportunities that recent legislation has provided to help us
overcome these challenges with solutions.
As it has been mentioned by me in numerous committee
hearings, litium batteries are a critical component of electric
vehicles. But they are also an obvious solution to securing our
clean energy future, while also providing the grid reliability
that we need. Unlocking the potential that lithium batteries
have to offer in a safe and responsible way will have an
enormous impact on our national security, economy, and energy
independence.
In my district, the Salton Sea region in the Imperial
Valley, we have a massive supply of raw materials that can
power our clean energy future. The Salton Sea area has the
fifth largest deposit of lithium in the world, and it has the
potential to supply the lithium needed not only for electric
vehicles but also the batteries that can make our electric
grids resilient.
We speak about supply chains. Extracting lithium, producing
batteries that benefit the people in the district is a good
supply chain. Taking the time to invest in responsible methods
of extracting lithium is critical to the well-being of our
local communities.
Mr. Higgins, could you speak to why investing in high
environmental standards for domestic mining or extraction is
necessary to ensure the safety of our communities and how it
will strengthen our supply chains in the long term?
Mr. Higgins. Absolutely. Thank you, Representative Ruiz.
The Inflation Reduction Act makes the process of finding
mining opportunities that actually win support of local
communities easier, in my opinion, by supporting 10 percent of
the costs of extracting lithium, by providing a billion dollars
for properly staffing the Federal Government to conduct
environmental reviews. And the Salton Sea, in particular, is of
interest because it potentially provides opportunities to
resolve multiple problems at once, including the toxic dust
that is coming off of the Salton Sea. And the trick will be, as
you have articulated, doing this in a way that actually
benefits the communities.
And approaching this in a thoughtful way that wins the
support of local communities that considers the water impacts
and evaluates all of the issues is really the only path forward
to making sure that the critical mineral extraction here in the
United States is different from the critical mineral extraction
we have heard concerns about across the world.
We are proud of our labor standards. We are proud of our
environmental standards. We can address these challenges all at
the same time.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Indeed the Inflation Reduction Act passed into law last
year is a critical first step in the shift towards clean
energy, and we are already beginning to see those investments
produce results in the form of jobs and health benefits.
Hundreds of thousands of well-paying, long-term clean energy
jobs have already been created.
In my district the Crimson Energy Storage in Blythe is
currently the second largest energy storage project in the
world, constructed by union labor, including the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW, powering vital medical
equipment, electric vehicles, and so much more.
Additionally, studies have shown the Inflation Reduction
Act is not only good for our constituents' wallets but also
good for their health.
So, Mr. Higgins, can you elaborate on the health benefits
specifically for low-income communities and communities of
color as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act?
Mr. Higgins. Now, harmful air pollution is
disproportionately concentrated in Black and Brown communities.
Of the 13 million people of color who live in areas with
failing grades for ozone and particulate pollution, over 9
million are Hispanic in this country. There are more than 1.8
million Latinos who live just within a half a mile of high-
emitting industrial facilities and oil refineries.
So the burdens of the fossil fuel economy are not evenly
distributed across our country.
Mr. Ruiz. It won't. They are not. And, in fact, the medical
literature and recent research shows that individuals living
near high-polluted or in high-polluted cities and areas live on
average 10 years less than if you lived in an area that didn't
suffer from high pollution.
And as an emergency physician, I can say there are
countries faced with a climate crisis that is affecting the
well-being of our constituents, and we must offer solutions,
not just continuing to give them the same outdated medicine
that is doing more harm than good. We need to put people above
politics and take care of people.
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Balderson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. I appreciate
your time.
Thank you, panel, for being here today.
Mr. Simmons, in your testimony you emphasize that the sheer
size of U.S. oil and natural gas production, combined with its
excellent environmental standards, means that U.S. production
disproportionately reduces the environmental harms of oil and
gas production on a global scale.
The Biden administration has taken multiple actions to
curtail oil and gas production in the United States and instead
expand renewable energy projects such as solar and wind. If the
United States were to transition entirely to renewable energy
sources, what would be the impact on global emissions?
Mr. Simmons. I don't think I can do that calculation in my
head. That would be--that would be difficult.
The question is, you know, the United States has a very
good environmental track record. We have dramatically increased
our oil and gas production and continue to improve the
environment, lower overall criteria air pollutants, as well as
lower carbon dioxide emissions. We have seen that with higher
production.
So when that gets shifted overseas, it means higher
emissions overseas of pollution even though there would be
less, you know, production of oil and natural gas here in the
United States.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Followup for you then. Currently
electric vehicles account for just 1 percent of the 250 million
vehicles, SUVs, and light-duty trucks on the road in America.
In addition to the major concerns we have outlined with
sourcing the critical minerals needed to produce these
vehicles, I want to discuss the national security risk
associated with the strain that will be placed on the
electrical grid.
A recent PGM report found their service area, which
includes my district, is facing an increase where the pace of
retirement to the closure of generation resources could well
outpace the replacement of that generation with new renewable
sources. The report notes this could force the PGM region to
fall below the level of reserves needed to maintain reliability
by 2030.
Do you have concerns with the increased demand on the
electrical grid if the EPA's vehicle emission standards
proposal which would force electric vehicles to account for 67
percent of new light-duty vehicle sales by 2032 were to go into
effect?
Mr. Simmons. Certainly. You know, when I was at the
Department of Energy, we had this conversation, and I talked
with the staff and asked them, OK, like with this dramatic
increase, with a dramatic increase in EV, what happens to the
grid? And the answer was, well, we have built that much
capacity, we have built that much of the grid before, we can do
it again, which is certainly true.
But that was certainly true in a regulatory environment of
the Seventies, of the Eighties, not necessarily in today's
regulatory environment where the Biden administration just
signed off on TransWest Express, a long-distance transmission
line.
It took 15 years, 15 years to permit that. That is
ridiculous by any standard, and it also means that there is
just no way that the grid can handle that kind of increase.
Mr. Balderson. Well, you have kind of touched on it a
little bit, but the national security risk of losing the
greater reliability also.
Mr. Simmons. Oh, certainly, certainly. I mean, any--one of
the reasons that we have strong national security is because we
have a strong energy economy. We have incredibly reliable
energy here in the United States. When that goes down, that
harms the economy, harms the national security.
Mr. Balderson. Amen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my remaining time to you.
Mr. Johnson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Balderson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Mills, I want to go back to you to wrap up a couple of
questions that I didn't get to earlier.
You had mentioned in your testimony when you consider all
of the talk of society reusing and recycling. Can you explain
how low-energy dense renewables and electrification of the
economy could increase the material in landfills?
Mr. Mills. Well, Mr. Chairman, it distills to a simple
physics fact. The low density of wind and sun, the amount of
energy you get per square mile per machine, translates into
roughly a tenfold increase in land use but, more critically, a
threefold increase in machine use and then roughly a 10- to 50-
fold increase in----
Mr. Johnson. So there is a lot of that material?
Mr. Mills. A lot of material. And, eventually, it is
recyclable in principle, but as the IEA has pointed out, the
build-out phase for the next 20 years of the proposed energy
transition will not produce materials available for recycling
because they are not worn out yet.
So we are going to have to have a massive expansion in
global mining. The mining is not going to happen here. Our
standards have driven the mines into Africa, into Asia, into
South America.
And I just want to make a point for the record. I too care
about the poor neighborhoods. What we are doing is exporting
our pollution that we caused by our mandates in spending to
other nations where people are affirmatively poorer and are
less able to defend themselves from the predations of the kinds
of mining that is done predominantly by Chinese-owned firms.
Mr. Johnson. Got you.
Assuming these levels of increased waste will grow
exponentially, do you envision permitting new landfill capacity
for this kind of waste to be any easier or quicker?
Mr. Mills. Well, this is another category where we know the
question----
Mr. Johnson. Kind of a rhetorical question because that is
one we have to answer, right?
Mr. Mills. Congress and the States. Regulatory reform has
not come to general environmental domains, which will dictate
both construction mining, manufacturing permitting, refining,
and waste disposal.
Mr. Johnson. Got you.
OK. I yield back to Mr. Balderson, and Balderson yields
back.
I now recognize the gentlelady, my colleague Ms. Barragan
from California, for 5 minutes.
I am sorry. Mr. Sarbanes, I did not see you down there. I
apologize.
I recognize Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. Sorry about that.
Mr. Johnson. You were stealthy.
Mr. Sarbanes. I was stealthy.
So I have to say I am a little bewildered by why some of my
colleagues are so concerned at the pace at which we are trying
to incentivize and adopt these green technologies. I mean,
certainly the public appreciates us moving quickly and
deliberately in that direction. The majority of Americans agree
that climate change needs to be addressed now--not 10 years
from now or 100 years from now, but now.
And Democrats and the Biden administration have worked very
hard to respond to that, to the public's desire to expediently
address climate change, and that included our passage of the
historic Inflation Reduction Act in the last Congress.
The bill, as we have been saying, recognizes that America
can be a leader in our global green energy transition, and
together with the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act that we passed and President Biden's nine Executive orders
on climate and interagency efforts to strengthen energy and
environmental regulations, it really sets us up well to meet
this moment, I believe.
These are successes that are going to create new jobs. They
are going to strengthen our domestic clean energy production.
They are going to make meaningful advances in addressing
climate change.
So, Mr. Higgins, you have spoken to it already. I would
like you to come back and maybe put a punctuation mark, if you
could, on what the climate implications are of the clean energy
transition that the Democrats and the Biden administration are
supporting through actions like investments in the Inflation
Reduction Act.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Representative Sarbanes.
The climate investments from the Inflation Reduction Act,
coupled with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, are
projected by themselves to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
up to 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which is great. It
is not quite enough, though, by themselves. What is important
is that these investments are also enabling further action.
They are changing the economics of clean energy. They are
changing their affordability for households. They are
supporting planning by the States. And together with the full
suite of Federal Executive actions and State actions, they
put--these investments put within reach the 50 percent goal
that President Biden has set.
They also changed the economics and the politics of global
diplomacy on clean energy, and this makes it possible to push
the whole world forward to meet the greenhouse gas emission
reductions that we need to have a shot at stabilizing global
temperatures at 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that.
I have to say when we passed that Inflation Reduction Act,
it was the first time in a long time that I did not feel
powerless or feel that we were powerless in the face of climate
change coming at us. There is a path forward now, and hopefully
we will get there in time before this sort of tipping point
escapes us for good.
But these are dramatic changes that can bring us to a new
place and, I think, have given many people a sense of hope
instead of despair in the face of what we are seeing with a
warming planet.
So while Democrats and the Biden administration are working
to build on the successes of last Congress, doing that very
deliberately--and I commend the administration for those
efforts--some of my colleagues have been suggesting that we
slow the progress down, that we revert back to responding not
to the public's desires but, unfortunately, to some of the
wealthy special interests of the oil and gas lobby, which has
just had an incredible impact, chokehold, stranglehold on our
policy when it comes to energy for decades and decades in a way
that I think really compromised our Nation and its prosperity,
frankly.
Mr. Higgins, again, can you explain how our recent actions
to quickly, decisively address the climate crisis can address
Americans' pressing environmental and economic concerns and
have benefits that simply can't be matched at all by the
proposed rollbacks that we saw in the energy bill that the
Republicans brought to the floor or even a slower, more
piecemeal approach than that?
Mr. Higgins. I think one of the great insights of the
investment-led approach here is that climate action is not
divorced from people's lived experience, nor is it something
that happens just to future generations. And investing to make
clean energy more affordable and available brings benefits to
people in their everyday lives today, and that means saving
4,500 lives by 2030 from reduced air pollution. It means
cutting household energy costs. It means creating already more
than 140,000 jobs.
These are benefits that people will understand and
experience, and it will--not only are the benefits worthwhile
themselves, it will also build, I think, a better understanding
of why addressing climate change is beneficial today and
tomorrow.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Iowa,
Mariannette Miller-Meeks, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I am going to start out today by actually lauding
renewables, but I also want to acknowledge that sometimes we
forget, and especially this administration, that renewables are
more than just wind and solar.
My friend from the great State of Utah, Mr. Curtis, has
some of the most abundant geothermal resources in the world.
Like much of the Pacific Northwest, Chairwoman Rodgers has
abundant hydropower in the 5th District of Washington State.
And in Iowa, the corn State, which is an energy State, we are
proud to have abundant ethanol and biodiesel.
Ethanol's use is widespread. More than 98 percent of
gasoline in the U.S. contains some ethanol and is an option for
low-carbon liquid fuels. In 2022, ethanol supported more than
57,000 jobs across Iowa, generated $3.5 billion of income for
Iowans and accounted for nearly $7.2 billion of the State's
economy and is, in fact, a renewable energy source. And if we
don't grow corn in Iowa or the United States, it will be grown
in Brazil or in South America, and they will cut down rain
forests in order to plant more corn.
So, Dr. Nunes, like many of my Republican colleagues, I
have concerns about the war President Biden has waged on liquid
fuels. There are approximately 300 million passenger vehicles
in the United States. That does not include logistical
transport.
And for a single 100-mile charge for an electric vehicle,
that is 30 kilowatt hours. Do the math on how much energy it
would take to get a single 100-mile charge and if we could, in
fact, do that.
The Biden administration's recent proposals, including its
set proposal, which creates a new and statutorily unauthorized
program to incorporate electric vehicles into the renewable
fuel standard program, as well as its market-commandeering
standards for light- and medium-drive vehicles, are a
deliberate attempt to prop up electric vehicles at the expense
of American consumers and Iowa ethanol. And I say this having
driven a Honda Civic hybrid for 20 years, two of them.
How will these proposals increase costs for American
families?
Dr. Nunes. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
I think if you look at the EPA's own numbers regarding the
improvements in fuel economy that you would need to achieve to
comply with the regulatory standards, we are talking, at least
for internal combustion engines, about thousands of dollars. In
the absence of selling electric vehicles, the price of
conventional vehicles would, at a minimum, go up by about
$2,000, at a minimum.
You could presumably sell electric vehicles to comply with
the standard. However, here two challenges persist: The
economics of building electric cars are challenging, to say the
least. And even when you sell cars at $50,000 or $60,000, we
have numerous OEMs that don't make profit off those vehicles.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And they are powered by what?
Dr. Nunes. Well, of course, it would depend on which State
you live in. But, you know, by and large, it depends on the
cleanliness of the grid--some coal, some gas, some renewables.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. So, Mr. Simmons, the International
Energy Agency estimated that the demand for lithium will
increase by 43 times in the next 20 years, but the United
States produces less than 2 percent of the global lithium
supply.
And because my time is running out, have all of you heard
of Blood Diamonds?
OK. Well, there is another analogy now, and that is Cobalt
Red. And, you know, the climate-friendly--I beg to differ with
one of the witnesses--of mining for cobalt, mining for rare
earth is anything but environmentally friendly and also not
labor friendly.
Does the United States have reserves, Mr. Simmons, to meet
the expected lithium demand?
Mr. Simmons. We don't necessarily have enough to meet the
global demand. We have a decent amount of reserves in places
such as Rhyolite Ridge, Thacker Pass. We have large amounts of
lithium reserves. The question is being able to access those
reserves and whether the Biden administration will continue to
stand in the way.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And is solely relying on allies to make
up production and refining deficits a sustainable long-term
strategy? And is it environmentally and labor friendly?
Mr. Simmons. I mean, when the United States has some of the
best environmental and labor standards in the world, anytime we
are exporting that, we are exporting lower environmental, lower
labor standards.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Barragan, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having
this.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
I think, you know, it is--I don't disagree that there
should be a conversation about challenges that we need to face
to be able to transition to a 100 percent clean energy economy,
but I don't think that we should also just say, ``Well, it is
too much of a challenge, so let's just not do anything and
let's have no action on climate or environmental justice.''
And I think that is why we saw President Biden and
Democrats in Congress pass bills like the infrastructure law
and the Inflation Reduction Act to bring clean energy
manufacturing jobs to America and to invest in things like
batteries and recycling.
So I think that there are solutions that we can work on,
but just to say, ``Oh, we are just not going to do this because
it is too hard'' is not the way to go.
There has been a lot of talk today about national security.
I want to remind folks that the U.S. defense and intelligence
leaders agree that climate change is a national security risk.
It's a threat to the U.S. national security. It is not a future
threat. It is a threat that is happening today. And climate
change is affecting global stability, military readiness,
creating humanitarian crises, and is increasing the risk of
war.
So if we want to talk about national security, we need to
talk about it in the greater sense as well that climate change
is posing.
Today, as I was preparing for the hearing, I was
repeating--reviewing the Republican memo that claims that clean
energy technologies are being forced on Americans. They are
being forced on Americans.
What is being forced on Americans in my district and many
other districts is things like urban oil drilling, things that
have forced my constituents to live next to homes where they
have pump jacks, where they are having air pollution, where
they are suffering health impacts. And in many parts of our
country, fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure continue to
pollute low-income communities and communities of color.
Mr. Higgins, is clean energy being forced on environmental
communities, or are we choosing to install solar panels and
transition to zero emissions because its better for our health
and our environment?
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Representative Barragan.
Yes, clean electricity and other points of energy are
better for our health and environment, and the investments
offered in the Inflation Reduction Act are estimated to save up
to 4,500 lives by the end of the decade and avoid nearly
120,000 asthma attacks annually.
This is--as you noted, these pollution components are not
borne equally across the country. They are concentrated in
communities of color and low-income communities. And the
investments in the Inflation Reduction Act make it possible for
those communities to choose a different path. It is not a
mandate. Nothing is being forced, but we are seeing how
investments can make ever greater opportunities for clean
energy available to the United States.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
The rights of foreign workers mining critical minerals is a
serious issue and one that House Democrats want to address, but
my Republican colleagues in this committee were less concerned
about worker safety just a month ago when they passed a bill
that exempted refineries that used highly toxic hydrofluoric
acid from doing a hazard assessment or an assessment of safer
technology options.
The United Steelworkers wrote this committee in opposition
to this reckless bill, and their concerns were dismissed. While
Republicans raise worker safety issues only when it suits their
argument, Democrats are leading the way with solutions to
create good-paying clean-energy jobs that uplift communities.
Mr. Higgins, how does the Inflation Reduction Act move us
toward more responsible and sustainable energy jobs and energy
supply chains?
Mr. Higgins. I am very excited about the first-time-ever
idea in the Inflation Reduction Act, TEI, clean energy
incentives, to requirements for apprenticeship programs and
prevailing wages. This is going to make sure that the job
quality of the clean energy economy is much higher and is going
to provide real job communities for whole careers for people.
Ms. Barragan. All right. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here. This is an extremely
important subject.
You know, I too believe that there is a rush to green. Now,
let me preface my remarks by saying that I believe in climate
change. I believe it is real. I do believe it is cyclical.
I have taken an active role in this discussion. I have
advocated to be on the Select Committee for Climate Change last
session. I was on that committee, and I am Chair--or Cochair of
the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus. I am a member of the
Conservative Climate Caucus. I have traveled to Europe with the
Conservative Climate Caucus to learn as much as I can about
this issue.
But one thing that I get frustrated with is that I don't
feel like that we often look at the full cycle, and I always
want to make that motion whenever I am describing it, because
it is a cycle.
And we can take more important parts of that cycle,
particularly when it is over with. And what do you do with the
lithium ion batteries after it is over with? What do you do
with the windmills and the blades after it is over with, and
all of this stuff?
And I will be quite honest with you, I have biomass in my--
and I represent south Georgia. I have a lot of timber, a lot of
forestry, and biomass is something I am very interested in. I
get it. I understand how people would think, ``Well, you are
burning something. How can that be good?'' But if you look at
the full cycle, you will see that our forests serve as carbon
sinks.
And it is carbon neutral by the end of the full cycle, and
people just--that is what really frustrates me about this.
In our State of Georgia, we are doing our part. We are in
the top 10 now in solar energy. We have got nuclear reactors
that are fixing to come online, the first in over--in many
decades that have come online in this country. And we have
got--in my district, the largest economic development project
in the history of our State is being built there by Hyundai, an
EV plant, a $5.5 billion investment that is going to create
over 8,100 jobs. We are excited about that. We have got a
battery plant. SK batteries is coming there at that time.
But, again, I am concerned about the total cycle, the full
cycle, because I don't think people look at it, and I get
frustrated because, as you all know, China puts out more
hydrocarbons than the entire world combined, and they are the
worst polluter out there. And yet, people always want to point
towards us. Here in the United States in the last decade we
have decreased our carbon emissions more than the next 12
countries combined while still growing our economy. And I do
believe in an all-of-the-above type energy strategy. I believe
that fossil fuel is a natural gas.
And you all all know this, so I am just talking to myself
here, because this is a preacher preaching to the choir. I get
it.
Mr. Mills, I want to ask you a question. As of today, only
5 percent--5 percent--of lithium ion batteries for electric
vehicles are recycled, compared to 99.3 percent of lead acid
batteries for traditional gas-powered vehicles.
Since electric vehicles rely on lithium ion batteries--
which are considered hazardous waste, by the way--what is the
best way for us to address the end-of-the-life disposal issues
with electric vehicles?
Mr. Mills. Well, that is the--there is no easy answer to
that because batteries are mechanically and electrically
complex machines. Each one weighs about a thousand pounds, has
thousands of components, chemicals, electronic pieces, cooling
systems. Though they are typically dismantled by hand, it takes
1 to 2 days for one technician to transmission a single lithium
ion battery. It is not just chemically hazardous, it is
electrically hazardous.
And then you could technically recycle them, in all the
studies that have been done to show that you can eventually get
there. It would be very expensive. There is no path to cheap
recycling of lithium ion batteries. There is technically a path
for us to get there, but they won't be available for recycling
until cars wear out.
Mr. Carter. What about the blades on windmills?
Mr. Mills. There is no path now. There has been one
announcement that recycle resins made for batteries--for wind
turbine blades. For now, they are trash.
Mr. Carter. OK. You get what I am getting at, though?
Mr. Mills. Yes.
Mr. Carter. The full cycle, it is just we don't look at
that.
I want to shift real quick. Mr. Simmons, you mentioned that
one solution to the human rights issues that we know happens,
like in Congo where we are getting some of these critical
minerals, is to increase critical mineral production and
refinery in the United States.
How can such an expansion occur under the Biden
administration's current policies?
Mr. Simmons. Under current policies, it can't.
Mr. Carter. Exactly. Again, folks, we have got to look at
the total picture here. We have got to look at the full cycle.
I know it doesn't do me any good to keep doing this, but I am
just telling you, we are not looking at it from its totality.
Mr. Chairman--and if you all ever want to see time fly,
come here and get 5 minutes, and you will see time fly. Thank
you all.
And I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crenshaw for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for being here.
So the title of this hearing is ``Exposing the
Environmental, Human Rights, and National Security Risks of the
Biden Administration's Rush to Green Policies.'' It is an
important title. I want to unpack that for a second.
Environmental risks. Mr. Mills, you have got some great
data in your testimony. You talked about the amount of material
excavation needed for the equivalent amount of energy for
quote/unquote ``green energy'' versus your more standard,
reliable energy sources such as natural gas. It also goes into
the amount of land needed, hundreds of times more land space
needed for the equivalent amount of energy compared to
traditional energy sources that actually turn on when you need
them.
So talking about environmental risks, that part of the
conversation just gets ignored, which is why I am glad we are
doing this hearing to expose that.
Human rights. A basic human right might be to turn the air-
conditioning on when it is really hot, to be able to turn the
heat on when it is really cold. Energy security should be a
basic human right, at least in modern times, a basic human
right. It hasn't been for thousands of years.
We finally made it one, and now we want to destroy it all
and claim that the energy sources that have given us all of the
modern amenities that we have today are to blame for--and are
racist and are hurting people of color and hurting the
disenfranchised.
Now, what will hurt the poor, what will hurt people of
color, what will hurt the disenfranchised in our country would
be energy insecurity. That will actually hurt them.
And we can see the results. I mean, look at California and
its rush to green energy. Seventy percent higher costs for
their energy than the rest of the country. I wonder how the
poor feel about that.
In Germany, in their rush to get rid of their nuclear
plants and basically deindustrialize, they have 300 percent
higher energy costs. They have had to resort to burning coal
and wood, which has far more carbon emissions.
So I will add that to the environmental destruction of
rushing to green energy. It actually has the potential, as we
see in Germany, of increasing carbon emissions. That is what is
actually happening.
And national security risks. Well, if you--if the lights
don't turn on, that is, obviously, a national security risk. I
don't think I need to flesh that out too much.
Mr. Mills, maybe I will start with some of your really
interesting data points that you have in your testimony. I like
this one: ``Analyses show that manufacturing a single battery,
one capable of holding energy that is equivalent to one barrel
of oil, entails processes that use the energy equivalent of 100
barrels of oil.''
Do you want to comment on that and then some of the other
data points that you have as far as materials needed, land
space needed, things like this, that show that the input for
these types of power production types are not what people say?
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Congressman.
One of the things that is ignored generally in the debate--
but the IEA should be commended for publishing excellent
studies on this, as has the World Bank and many other
international organizations--the underlying infrastructures
required to make the minerals and materials and transport them
are all hydrocarbon-based coal, oil, and gas.
The industries themselves that produce minerals consume 40
percent of all of the world's industrial energy. And there is
no path to replace coal, oil, and gas at scale globally in the
industrial sector. What that means is, when you produce the
electric car, you are consuming oil and gas and coal before the
car is delivered to your driveway, and therefore you are
causing CO2 emissions. We actually don't have a good
number to know exactly how much it is. We know what the range
is.
And I will commend Volkswagen and Volvo for publishing
studies that illuminate that. And they point out that, when you
take that into account, you radically reduce the ostensible,
you know, dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions. And,
in fact, in some cases, as they pointed out, you can wipe out
all the CO2 emissions for not burning gasoline.
So when I was in Norway recently, which buys the most
electric cars per capita at the moment, they pointed out that
everybody bought a Tesla--a lot of Teslas, they are very
popular there, nice car, well made, beautiful engineering--what
you have already done is exported somewhere between 15 to 20
tons of CO2 when you buy that one car. And you do
cut CO2 emissions as you drive the vehicle on that
hydropower grid. If you drive it on an American grid or a
German grid or a British grid, you reduce the CO2
emissions eventually, but only by about 15 to 20 percent.
So it is ignored in the emissions calculations. It is
ignored in the geopolitics. It is also ignored in the cost
calculations, because the increased cost of hydrocarbons
increases the cost of solar power.
Mr. Crenshaw. And that is what we are talking about.
In my last 10 seconds, I will say, look, everything we are
referring to here is a cost-benefit analysis. What is the
benefit you are getting for the cost that you are incurring on
people who can probably afford to pay it the least?
So that is what this discussion is about. That is why
Republicans push for nuclear energy, right? It is reliable, and
it is clean. We push for natural gas exports because it is
reliable, it has an actual chance of displacing foreign coal,
and an actual chance of reducing carbon emissions globally in a
very massive way. And we should be exporting more of it and
encouraging more of it, not less of it.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs.
Dingell for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Here is a reality: The climate crisis is real, and it is
going to impact every aspect of our daily lives. The longer we
wait to address this threat, the more expensive and complex it
is going to become to mitigate it.
So I am listening to all of my colleagues, and when you
just talk about--I am going totally off script here. But when
you talk about how much it costs now, but we have got to invest
in alternative ways, so it eliminates both the cost and the
amount of carbon emissions.
I am a car girl. I care about the auto industry. I am going
to talk about the auto industry today, and I am going to tell
you, I am participating in this hearing as a Democrat from Ann
Arbor who did not support the Green New Deal because it was
important to bring everybody to the table, and I went through
sheer, unadulterated hell as I worked to bring everybody
together. But, as Mr. Higgins knows, I did bring everybody
together. And making sure that the auto industry stays
competitive and its workforce is protected is an intense
priority for me, so that is what I am going to focus on.
But we are already behind other countries, and that is a
problem. China is beating us at technology. The last quarter in
Europe, the alternative population--propulsion vehicles beat
the sales of internal combustion engines. We are a global--we
are competing in a global marketplace. I want to see American
innovation and technology selling in the world and selling
here, and that is the reality that we are competing with.
It is an economic security issue, it is an energy security
issue, and it is a national security issue. And as I have these
discussions, there isn't anybody up here that doesn't know--
somebody said the cheapest car is $70,000. The OEMs--and the
other companies are too--are working as we go into mass
production to make those vehicles. When I was with the
President at the Detroit Auto Show, Mary Barra, the CEO of GM,
showed a vehicle that will be 20-some thousand dollars, which
is what the cost of an ICE is. The other companies are going to
bring those costs down as we go into more production.
But, as we all know, the U.S. transportation sector
accounts for roughly 30 percent of our greenhouse gas
emissions. If we are to meet our climate goals, we have to
rapidly shift to either electric vehicles or another--I am not
against hydrogen or other powered vehicles, and I say that to
everybody when we are talking about it.
And as Mr. Higgins knows, we brought--we didn't include the
OEMs. We brought the environmentalists and the labor units
together to talk about where we needed to go. People could
sense that it was doable and we should target--target--50
percent sales of vehicles by the year 2030.
If you talk to GM and Ford--they are very much competing
with each other too--they know that if they are going to
compete in an international marketplace, they have to do this
because they want to sell their vehicles not only here but
around the world. And China is beating us.
And I am already out of time.
Mr. Higgins, I want to ask you, if we sit back and do
nothing to prepare and support this growing industry, what do
we risk? What will our auto industry look like 20 years from
now if we don't support the EV industry or transition to other
vehicles and support our workers through this critical
transition?
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for your leadership on these issues,
Representative Dingell. And I think what you were able to
contribute to with the Inflation Reduction Act has completely
flipped the paradigm for investment in the auto industry.
The United States automakers were behind on EVs. China has
invested for decades in consolidating manufacturing capacity
for advanced technologies, including the batteries and the cars
themselves, and the automakers in the United States were not
prepared to compete. But with the investments included in the
Inflation Reduction Act, it is now possible to invest in
everything from the critical minerals, to the batteries
themselves, to the vehicles and make it so that of the 32
vehicles that are now eligible for the tax credit, the
overwhelming majority are produced American brands.
Mr. Johnson. I think the gentlelady yielded back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Fulcher, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to those of you on the panel for coming and
speaking today.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have sometimes got dueling
committees, but the content of the testimony has been very,
very good, and I am very thankful you are willing to do this.
Mr. Simmons, I wanted to just point out a couple of things
and then just talk to you for a minute.
Idaho has got the largest deposit of antimony in the world
that is not under Chinese control. And, of course, that is used
in key defense and clean energy technologies. And right now
antimony partially comes from--as processed in China as well as
Russia. And both antimony and cobalt are listed as materials of
interest by the Defense Logistics Agency, and DoD has concerns
about the stockpile of antimony that is running out in the near
future leading to potential ammunition shortages.
I know you have touched on this, but just for the record
and for part of this dialogue, Mr. Simmons, could you share
what are the national security benefits of buying locally
produced critical minerals domestically or in allied countries
with reliable partners?
Mr. Simmons. Sure. There are--with so many of the minerals
that have been identified as critical minerals by the USGS, one
of the aspects of whether or not those minerals are used for
defense purposes, many of them are, and whenever we have--and
it is critically important that we get those from trusted
partners. Unfortunately, for many, we don't, which means that
if there is conflict that we will be unable to obtain those
resources of the quantities that we need.
And, especially, we will not be able to obtain them in any,
like, economically significant quantities. You maybe could--you
know, DoD can have stockpiles of certain things for their
purposes. But in terms of the economy as a whole, we will not
have access to a whole bunch of critical resources.
Mr. Fulcher. Well, we are in a struggle in my State of
trying to get access to some of that. The good news is, I
guess, we have got it. The bad news is we are fighting
ourselves to be able to get responsible access to it.
So thank you for your comments, and we will be potentially
accessing your expertise in this battle as we move forward.
I am going to shift to Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills, I am from the Pacific Northwest. Thank you for
your testimony. In our part of the country, we are experiencing
a significant amount of growth, and the need for more power is
very, very evident. As you pointed out in your testimony, not
all power is created the same, if you will. If we are talking
solar and wind, it is roughly 3,400 megawatts per year. If it
is natural gas, it is only 800 megawatts per year. And that is
that density that I think I heard you talk about.
Northwest Power Council said replacing 3,400 average
megawatts of existing hydropower and nuclear would require
5,500 megawatts of new wind and solar as well as 2,000
megawatts of natural gas.
Again, I know you have touched on this, but for the sake of
our conversation, why are we doing what we are doing? Why the
drive towards this low-density energy sources?
Mr. Mills. Well, that is a political and psychological
question as opposed to an engineering and physics question. But
we all know the answer is that the pursuit of avoiding
hydrocarbons, lowering carbon dioxide emissions, is what this
is all about, but the consequence of that is ignoring the
hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions in the total fuel
cycle, also ignoring the scale of infrastructure required, not
just land use, but we are on a path to try and replicate
Germany.
Germany did not eliminate is original grid. What they did
is they doubled the size of the grid over the last 20 years.
Even if it was electric, consumption only went up 10 percent.
That is, in a nutshell, why they have had very little carbon
dioxide emission savings, but have seen their electric costs
for consumers triple.
This is the path that we want to emulate, which I think is
a bad path. It is not an observation about political
objectives. It is an observation about economic consequences.
Mr. Fulcher. That is, unfortunately, the reality. And I
thank you for your expertise in sharing that.
Just as a matter of record on our side, we have got a
wealth of hydro, geothermal, and nuclear available. It is just
the question is, are we going to commonsense utilize that.
So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
And now I would like to take a moment of personal privilege
before I go to our next questioner and recognize some high
school students from Shadyside, Ohio.
Thank you all for being in our Nation's Capital today.
Thanks for coming down to the hearing.
And with that, the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
You know, Washington is a really strange place because on
the day that the House will vote on the Republicans' Default on
America Act, a bill that clearly will increase energy and
electric bills for American families and businesses, my
Republican colleagues are, once again, boosting corporations
that have been responsible for fueling inflation and gouging
consumers.
We are not going to allow them to raise costs on Americans
families by repealing the Inflation Reduction Act so that
fossil fuel companies can continue to pollute and wreak havoc,
and I will give you an example.
The Florida Utility Service Commission just last month
approved huge price spikes on Floridians. In my neck of the
woods, Tampa Electric Company customers can expect their energy
bills to increase by about 10 percent starting this month. The
average customer's bill will have risen 62 percent from 2019,
from $99.53 to $161.13. Duke Energy got a 15 percent increase.
FP&L, Florida Power & Light, 10 percent. Ouch.
Why? Because they rely on gas overwhelming. Seventy-five
percent of electricity production in the so-called Sunshine
State comes from gas.
So the Inflation Reduction Act is really giving us hope
right now. We are the Sunshine State, and we should be a leader
in lower-cost solar power. But the IRA now is just starting to
work and lower costs. Clean energy, solar technology, EVs,
cars, and trucks are creating a lot of made-in-America jobs
too.
Mr. Higgins, you highlighted this in your testimony. Since
the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, we have seen the
creation of over 142,000 jobs and over $240 billion in new
investment in American communities. And then when we are
talking about China--a lot of that has been a topic of
conversation here today--it makes no sense for Republicans to
roll back critical new policies that help domestically or
allied-sourced critical minerals for batteries, domestic
battery manufacturing, and solar and wind energy production.
China still holds most of the world's capacity for litium ion
battery sales, with nearly 75 percent being manufactured in
China.
So the House Republicans rush to reverse these key
mechanisms in the Inflation Reduction Act to end reliance on
supply chains originating in China. It just doesn't make any
sense.
And, Mr. Higgins, you have highlighted all of these
private-sector investments now. We are just getting started.
Talk a little bit about the announced construction of domestic
solar manufacturing facilities. I am very interested, coming
from the Sunshine State, in domestic manufacturing capacity.
What does that mean for us?
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Representative Castor.
The story of solar manufacturing in the United States is
actually an interesting one because this is a technology that
really largely originated here, including support from the
National Labs, but we lost the manufacturing capacity advantage
to China because of their subsidies. But now for the first
time, with the Inflation Reduction Act, investments in new
manufacturing capacity as well as the incentives for energy
deployment to achieve ever higher levels of domestic content
are going to change the paradigm. And they are already leading
to new manufacturing facilities for wind turbines and for solar
panels as well as for batteries and cars, as you mentioned. And
bringing those industries here to the United States allows us
better control over the supply chain issues that have been
addressed at today's hearing and equips the United States to
compete on the global energy economy of the 21st century.
Ms. Castor. So if Republicans are successful in passing
their Default on America Act, and then they have another
attempt at the end of the week to undo the Biden
administration's 2-year pause on new solar tariffs, what does
that mean for jobs in this sector?
Mr. Higgins. So there will be up to a million jobs created,
thanks to the investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, by
2030. But that already has led to over 140,000 jobs already
happening just in the last year. And repealing----
Ms. Castor. Well, these companies--yes, repealing, what
does that--go ahead.
Mr. Higgins. Right. Repealing the Inflation Reduction Act
would not only raise household energy costs and worsen air
pollution, it would pull the rug out from underneath these
jobs. And it would mean that more than $240 billion in private
investment that has already happened making America competitive
with China would be lost. It would play right into China's
hands. And, in my opinion, it would be a devastating and
unacceptable mistake to repeal and revoke these investments in
the American economy just as we are getting started.
Ms. Castor. It is downright un-American. I think we need to
stick on the patriotic course and keep the Inflation Reduction
Act working for American families and businesses.
Thanks so much.
Mr. Johnson. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for
allowing me to waive on today to this hearing.
And thanks to the panel for being here.
I also--I wish my sister from Michigan were still here. She
would be not surprised to hear that I agreed with her on some
things and disagreed with her on other things. Coming from the
motor--I still call it the motor capital of the world,
Michigan, we are concerned about energy. We are concerned about
innovation. We are concerned about jobs.
And let me quickly state anything that has been said about
the IRA is all picking out of the air. It hasn't been fully
implemented yet, thank God. Maybe we can turn it back and we
could go the right direction in the process.
Michigan is made up of autoworkers. Automakers have a great
history of innovating to meet consumer demand and market
trends, and that includes innovation around electric vehicles.
Nobody is against electric vehicles if they work and if the
consumer wants them.
But recently there has been a dramatic and forced--and that
is part of the IRA--shift toward only EVs. And, sadly, some of
our American nameplates have hunkered down and said, ``We don't
see any hope. The Government is going that way, so we are going
to do it whether it makes sense or not.'' Unions have sold out
their members, and we know for a fact that they are going to
lose jobs.
Just talking with a dealer on Monday, he told me that, for
a fact, the only reason the auto industry or the manufacturers
are going forward with their arm behind their back is the fact
that it looks like the writing on the wall and they have got to
do it, hunker down, unless somebody with some common sense
says, ``Wait a second. Let's let the engineers and let's let
the consumers decide what they want and what they need.''
We have cleaned up significantly our world. What we do here
will just put us behind other polluters that aren't going to
clean up their world, like China, and common sense says that is
not a good direction.
Consumers aren't asking for it. Six percent, as of most
recent reports, of car sales have been electric, and most of
those have been only, as we have talked about today, for second
and third cars. They are not for the necessary transportation
they have beyond what they are doing day-to-day work. And for
the middle-income person, that is not their car of choice.
Dr. Nunes, you have said, and all indications suggest, that
EVs will need substantially greater range at significantly
lower costs before most American consumers will adopt them as
their primary vehicle. The most popular selling vehicles in
America today are SUVs and trucks. Just come to my district
that crosses from Lake Michigan to Lake Erie, and you will see
that.
Do the EVs on the market today meet the size and range
needs of American consumers?
Dr. Nunes. They do not, Congressman. We estimate that the
price of EVs would need to go down by about 10 to 15 thousand
dollars, while at the same time the range would need to go up
by approximately 50 percent.
Mr. Walberg. So they are for wealthier buyers at this point
in time.
Dr. Nunes. All the current indications suggest that they
cater to upper-income Americans.
Mr. Walberg. Will greater production of EVs necessarily
lead to lower costs?
Dr. Nunes. Historically, the idea behind increasing
production volume has been that, if you increase production,
prices invariably drop. That is not what we are currently
seeing on the market. What we are seeing is an increase in
price in inflation-adjusted dollars over time.
Mr. Walberg. Let me ask another set of questions, Dr.
Nunes. Just yesterday, GM announced that it would end
production of the Chevy Bolt, arguably an electric vehicle
considered to be the cheapest EV available in the United States
today.
In your testimony, you mention that the number of miles
driven with an EV significantly influences any emissions
advantage over gas-powered cars. If a wealthy family purchases
an EV--it won't be a Bolt now but an EV as a second or third
car--how many miles would it have to be driven to reach parity
with an internal combustion engine, in terms of a carbon
footprint?
Dr. Nunes. Depending on whether or not the vehicle is
purchased as a second car or is used to replace a second car,
you may need to hold onto that vehicle for upwards of 10 years.
Mr. Walberg. And upwards of 10 years, then I would suggest,
from what I have heard, that the resale value of that car,
specifically in concerns about the battery and the cost of
replacing a battery--and shortly after 10 years, that could be
likely--could that be a significant inhibitor for anyone
wanting to purchase an EV and then turning it over to their
kids following that?
Dr. Nunes. It very well might. You know, as the
Congresswoman mentioned earlier, that, you know, we have cheap
cars on the market, cheap EVs on the market. We certainly do.
In 2022, the cheapest EV on the market cost about $27,000.
It is important to remember that there were just 12,000 units
sold out of over 700,000 EVs.
Mr. Walberg. And the battery replacement--I guess my time
has run out. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you for the
panel.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Pfluger, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your
leadership in this very, very important topic. And thank you
all for your time today.
I will get right to it. My concern is that we are throwing
away the resources that this country has been so abundantly
blessed with, that we are not just enriching the Chinese
Communist Party but that we are also adding to the human rights
violations in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
which I am sure has been discussed already today here.
After reading Cobalt Red, you know, how do we have policies
that are ignoring the resources that we have here? In the name
of something that should be good, we ignore doing what we are
supposed to be doing here.
So, Mr. Simmons, I will start with you. And just talking
about the Institute for Energy Research's newest paper, ``The
Economic and Strategic Importance of Domestic Mineral
Production,'' which I think provides a realistic analysis of
the challenge transitioning rapidly toward critical mineral-
intensive technologies, and it touches on how the
administration is working hard to incentivize or actually force
electrification.
Mining companies are not increasing investment levels that
would be needed to meet the projected demand, especially here.
So what policies, if enacted right now today, would get us to
the point where we don't hand the Chinese Communist Party these
major wins and we do it here near-shoring for that mining?
Mr. Simmons. We need massive permitting reform. H.R. 1 was
a good step in that direction, but we need far more to be able
to require that the administration, you know, permits new mines
in the United States.
It is incredibly--like, these are very capital-intensive
projects. And the regulatory risk is such that it is, like,
very long timelines. That needs to be shortened if we are going
to be producing the minerals that we need here in the United
States instead of continuing to import them, especially from
places like China.
Mr. Pfluger. I mean, the quantity of critical minerals that
is needed in an electric vehicle is massively different than in
these devices, than we have seen in tablets.
So, Mr. Mills, Secretary Granholm recently talked about the
fact that the U.S. can learn from China and what they are doing
when it comes to clean energy technologies, which I was blown
away at.
Is China the standard for green energy?
Mr. Mills. We are the standard for building the
infrastructure to export the critical minerals for green energy
machines to the rest of the world. They are net importers, you
know, I am sure, Congressman, of gasoline and oil, which fuel
our economy.
It is a hydrocarbon-based economy. And manufacturing,
assembling cells, battery cells, and battery packs in America,
assembling solar panels in America doesn't change the fact that
today, for a very long time, probably at least a decade or
more, the solar modules themselves are fabricated on coal grids
in China, 90 percent of the world's solar modules, because it
is a very energy-intensive process to turn sand into silica and
from there into a PV cell. The same is true for the chemicals.
So what we are doing is building a dependency in the supply
chain on China and not--despite the incentives in the act,
there is zero evidence that it is resulting in a rush to mine
not only in America but globally.
The global mining industry's total investments to produce
the minerals needed has been declining for years and is still
declining and, according to the latest data, will be one-tenth
of what is needed to fuel our ambitions over the next decade.
It takes an average of 16 years to open a mine. Sixteen
years is easy arithmetic to do from today. And those mines are
not being opened en masse. The mining industry is
consolidating, not investing in new production. I think they
know something, would be my guess.
Mr. Pfluger. What I am hearing each of you say is that this
rush to electrification not only is unrealistic, but it is also
emboldening places like China, where if you really look at the
life cycle of emissions of an electric vehicle, they are
actually way worse than anything else that we actually have
right now.
Mr. Mills. Absolutely correct. It is also emboldening
countries like Chile to announce they want to form nationalized
lithium industries and form a lithium cartel in South America,
which will have pricing power over lithium greater than OPEC's
pricing power on oil.
Mr. Pfluger. What will this dependency do to our national
security, any of you?
Mr. Mills. Well, it is not good, let's just say. And it is
hard to actually predict the specific, because they are
reshuffling our resource dependencies. And most of the resource
dependency shuffling is going to nations that are not our
friends. Some of it is going to Canada, my homeland. Some of it
is going to Australia, which is good, and good for them. But
most of it is going to unfriendly places.
Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for
holding this hearing. It is very important that we maintain the
resources we have, that we actually look at something that is
sustainable, and this is completely unsustainable.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
Seeing that there are no other Members to ask questions, I
ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents
included in the staff hearing documents list. Without
objection, that will be the order.
And I remind Members that they have 10 business days to
submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to
respond to the questions promptly.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. You
have all been very informative. Thank you.
Members should submit their questions by the close of
business on May 10th.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT