[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE PARIS: FILLING THE LEADERSHIP VOID CAUSED BY FEDERAL
INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-11
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-534 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
SCOTT H. PETERS, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California Ranking Member
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILLY LONG, Missouri
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois BILL FLORES, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JERRY McNERNEY, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, prepared statement................................ 80
Witnesses
Carla Frisch, Principal, Rocky Mountain Institute................ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 171
Samuel Thernstrom, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Energy
Innovation Reform Project...................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answers to submitted questions............................... 173
Nathan E. Hultman, Ph.D., Director, Center for Global
Sustainability, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to submitted questions............................... 179
Andrew Light, Ph.D., Distinguished Senior Fellow, World Resource
Institute...................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 184
Submitted Material
Article of December 19, 2018, ``Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions
in the Elctric Power Sector,'' by Jesse D. Jenkins, et al.,
Joule, submitted by Mr. Tonko.................................. 81
Report of the World Resources Institute, ``Tracking Progress of
the 2020 Climate Turning Point,'' by Mengpin Ge, et al.,
February 2019,bmitted by Mr. Tonko\1\
Report, Executive Summary of ``Fulfilling America's Pledge: How
States, Cities, and Businesses Are Leading the United States to
a Low-Carbon Future,'' Bloomberg Philanthropies, submitted by
Mr. Tonko...................................................... 93
U.S.A. First Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris
Agreement, submitted by Mr. Tonko.............................. 121
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20190228/108973/
HHRG-116-IF18-20190228-SD007.pdf.
Letter of February 27, 2019, from Stephen Eule, Vice President
for Climate & Technology, Global Energy Institute, U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.... 126
Paris Agreement, English Text, United Nations 2015, submitted by
Mr. Tonko...................................................... 136
Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord, June 1,
2017, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................... 162
WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE PARIS: FILLING THE LEADERSHIP VOID CAUSED BY FEDERAL
INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters,
Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, DeGette, Schakowsky,
Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson,
Long, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci,
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Waverly Gordon, Deputy
Chief Counsel; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff Member;
Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin J.
Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Mike Bloomquist, Minority
Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel,
Environment; Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Margaret
Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kielty,
Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel,
Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief
Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Staff Assistant; and
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for 5 minutes
for the purpose of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
In late 2015, driven by American leadership, the world came
together to acknowledge the threat of climate change and make
plans for cooperative global efforts in mitigation, adaptation,
and finance.
The purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit
global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius.
The ingenuity of the Paris Agreement is that it builds from the
bottom up. It does not dictate specific reductions or remedies.
Each country sets its own target, submits a Nationally
Determined Contribution, or NDC, to achieve those targets,
reports on their emissions, and, hopefully, increases their
ambition over time.
The United States, for example, committed to reduce its
emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. This
achievable commitment was based on a plan that included a
number of actions: adopting fuel economy standards for light-
and heavy-duty vehicles, cutting carbon pollution from new and
existing power plants, reducing methane emissions, addressing
building sector efficiency, and developing new alternatives to
HFCs.
Today, despite the obvious and growing threat posed by the
climate crisis, many of these policies are being delayed or
undone by the Trump administration. The Rhodium Group's
``Taking Stock 2018'' report found that U.S. emissions under
current policy are heading toward 12 to 20 percent below 2005
levels in 2025, well short of the U.S. target.
In June of 2017, President Trump announced his intent to
withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, although
it is important to note that this cannot be done formally until
November of 2020.
Still, as time goes by, I know that many of his supporters,
possibly including some in this room, will come to regret this
decision. President Trump may not understand the importance of
international climate cooperation, but thousands of others,
including States, cities, businesses, and universities have
stepped up and said, ``We are still in.''
If you add them all up, these non-Federal actors would have
the third largest economy in the world. And their commitments
are not just lip service. They are taking tangible steps and
filling America's leadership void through organizations such as
the United States Climate Alliance and the Climate Mayors
coalition.
Last year, California even organized the Global Climate
Action Summit with world leaders and garnered a new round of
commitments.
To support these efforts, the climate organization
America's Pledge has sought to compile and quantify subnational
actions. According to their ``Fulfilling America's Pledge''
report, these actions could meet about two-thirds of what is
needed for America's commitment.
While these efforts are keeping our targets within reach,
they are not enough. More must be done. We need Federal
policies and we need real leadership.
While President Trump has pulled America's seat at the
table, other countries, including China and India, continue to
write the international rules on emissions monitoring,
reporting, and transparency, and work towards achieving their
NDCs.
I have heard some spurious arguments from Members in the
past about the Paris Agreement and the commitments of other
countries. But people must understand what we give up by
walking away.
If those Members do not trust these other countries, that
is an important reason to stay in and fight for stronger
reporting and transparency rules. And if Members really want
other countries to set bolder targets, the United States should
not set such a poor example and hurt our credibility.
At our last hearing, I was pleased to hear a new bipartisan
consensus around the realities of climate change. America's NDC
is a voluntary, nonbinding commitment. If anyone thinks it is
too difficult to achieve, they should say so and push for a
different target.
But if we agree that climate change is a problem, there is
no reason to support the President's withdrawal. Our
subcommittee members also seem to agree that energy innovation
is an important part of any climate solution.
In this vein, I want to remind my colleagues of the
announcement that coincided with Paris under the banner of
``Mission Innovation.'' Twenty countries committed to doubling
their clean energy R&D investment over 5 years, which will be
bolstered by private sector commitments.
I hope we can expect those calling for more innovation to
also support that initiative. Global problems require global
cooperation. We accept this when it comes to countless
security, health, and economic issues, and we know that climate
change impacts all of these areas, and more.
We cannot hide from the mantle and the accompanying
responsibility of being the greatest nation on Earth. The
United States must lead. Others will be guided by our example.
I said in our first climate hearing that we are behind, but
it is not too late. We are still in Paris and there is still
time to reach America's 2025 target.
But that takes Congress getting serious. It means pushing
back on administration actions that take us in the wrong
direction and it means putting forward new policies that will
accelerate clean-energy deployment and reduce climate
pollution.
Thank you all for being here this morning. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses. Before we introduce them, I will
recognize Mr. Shimkus, our Republican leader on the
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, for 5 minutes
with his opening statement.
Welcome.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
In late 2015, driven by American leadership, the world came
together to acknowledge the threat of climate change and make
plans for cooperative, global efforts in mitigation,
adaptation, and finance. The purpose is to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to limit global temperature increase to well
below 2 degrees Celsius.
The ingenuity of the Paris Agreement is that it builds from
the bottom-up. It does not dictate specific reductions or
remedies.
Each country sets their own targets, submits a Nationally
Determined Contribution, or NDC, to achieve those targets,
reports on their emissions, and hopefully increases their
ambition over time.
The United States, for example, committed to reduce its
emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels in 2025.
This achievable commitment was based on a plan that
included a number of actions: adopting fuel economy standards
for light- and heavy-duty vehicles, cutting carbon pollution
from new and existing power plants, reducing methane emissions,
addressing building sector efficiency, and developing new
alternatives to HFCs.
Today, despite the obvious and growing threat posed by the
climate crisis, many of these policies are being delayed or
undone by the Trump administration. The Rhodium Group's
``Taking Stock 2018'' report found that U.S. emissions under
current policy are heading towards 12 to 20 percent below 2005
levels in 2025, well-short of the U.S. target.
In June 2017, President Trump announced his intent to
withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, although
it is important to note that this cannot be done formally until
November 2020.
Still, as time goes by, I know that many of his supporters,
possibly including some in this room, will come to regret this
decision.
President Trump may not understand the importance of
international climate cooperation, but thousands of others,
including States, cities, businesses, and universities have
stepped up and said, ``We're still in.''
If you add them all up, these non-Federal actors would have
the third largest economy in the world.
And their commitments are not just lip service. They are
taking tangible steps and filling America's leadership void
through organizations such as the U.S. Climate Alliance and the
Climate Mayors coalition. Last year, California even organized
the Global Climate Action Summit with world leaders and
garnered a new round of commitments.
To support these efforts, the climate organization
America's Pledge has sought to compile and quantify subnational
actions. According to their ``Fulfilling America's Pledge''
report, these actions could meet about two-thirds of what is
needed for America's commitment. While these efforts are
keeping our targets within reach, they are not enough. More
must be done. We need Federal policies and real leadership.
While President Trump has pulled America's seat at the
table, other countries, including China and India, continue to
write the international rules on emissions monitoring,
reporting, and transparency, and work towards achieving their
NDCs. I have heard some spurious arguments from Members in the
past about the Paris Agreement and the commitments of other
countries.
But people must understand what we give up by walking away.
If those Members do not trust these other countries, that
is an important reason to stay in and fight for stronger
reporting and transparency rules.
And if Members really want other countries to set bolder
targets, the U.S. should not set such a poor example and hurt
our credibility.
At our last hearing, I was pleased to hear a new,
bipartisan consensus around the realities of climate change.
America's NDC is a voluntary, nonbinding commitment. If
anyone thinks it is too difficult to achieve, they should say
so, and push for a different target. But if we agree that
climate change is a problem, there is no reason to support the
President's withdrawal.
Our subcommittee members also seem to agree that energy
innovation is an important part of any climate solution.
In this vein, I want to remind my colleagues of the
announcement that coincided with Paris under the banner of
``Mission Innovation.'' 20 countries committed to doubling
their clean energy R&D investments over 5 years, which will be
bolstered by private sector commitments. I hope we can expect
those calling for more innovation to also support this
initiative. Global problems require global cooperation. We
accept this when it comes to countless security, health, and
economic issues. And we know that climate change impacts all of
these areas, and more.
We cannot hide from the mantle--and the accompanying
responsibility--of being the greatest nation on Earth. The
United States must lead. Others will be guided by our example.
I said in our first climate hearing that we are behind, but
it is not too late. We are still in Paris, and there is still
time to reach America's 2025 target. But that takes Congress
getting serious. It means pushing back on administration
actions that take us in the wrong direction.
And it means putting forward new policies that will
accelerate clean energy deployment and reduce climate
pollution.
Thank you all for being here this morning. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a useful
purpose of the hearing this morning will be to learn more about
the technologies and actions that are expected to accelerate
the reduction of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
I am not sure all of these actions will be viable or cost
effective. I am also not sure that all these actions will be in
the best interests of the United States, especially if they end
up putting us in an economic or strategic disadvantage to our
global competitors.
But it is important to gather this information for the
committee's future consideration. Another purpose of this
hearing, as you have indicated, is to examine the importance of
the United States staying in the Paris Agreement, which
President Obama formally accepted in late 2016, from which
President Trump announced less than 10 months later in June
2017 that the United States would withdraw under the terms of
the agreement.
Fair points may be made about what the Paris Agreement
represents in terms of a broad-based international cooperation,
but that is not really the issue here.
The issue is how the Obama administration made expensive
commitments that would bind U.S. action without broad-based
support from congressional policymakers. The commitments, the
financial pledges, and the costly burdens from implementing
regulations that will be needed to meet our obligations were
not submitted to or approved by Congress.
Without that national political buy-in on such a
complicated policy that would affect all sectors of the U.S.
economy and people's daily lives, it is no wonder the new
administration would change course.
The consumer cost and competitive harm the commitments pose
to the Nation deserve close and careful attention and approval
from policymakers. And this is not a U.S. problem alone. While
other developed nations may be, quote, unquote, ``staying in''
the agreement so far, they are not actually following through
on their promises.
The Climate Action Tracker, a European consortium of
research organizations, found that nations' commitments will
not meet the actual goals in the Paris Agreement, and the
Washington Post reported on this research last October. Most
major nations are making few if any efforts to meet their
goals.
The European Climate Action Network, another think tank,
reported last summer that all European Union countries are off
target. No single country in Europe is performing sufficiently
to meet the Paris Agreement goals and those that have been
making the most progress on their promises did not make any
large commitments in the first place.
At the same time, we have the United Nations Gap Report
released this past November which assessed the situation and
reported that all these countries will have at least to triple
their efforts to meet the Paris Agreement's basic goals, if not
increase their goals fivefold to meet the more stringent
temperature targets. I am not sure that is going to go so well.
In France, we have witnessed the Paris riots, which were
sparked over government's climate-related proposal to increase
gasoline taxes on the rural French.
In Germany, according to news reports last week, a climate
law to get the nation back on track with its Paris emission
goals by 2030 has been threatening to break up the coalition
government in Germany. Germany, of course, has turned away from
nuclear energy and increased coal production as well as
emissions over the past 5 years.
Finally, as we discussed in our hearing three weeks ago,
there is a developing--there is the developing world, which is
participating in this agreement but will produce almost all the
growth in future carbon dioxide emissions as billions of people
understandably seek access to affordable energy.
The plain fact here is goals of the international climate
agreements, which are to move towards lower-emitting systems in
energy, transportation, industry, agriculture are not going to
work unless there is sufficient affordable technology to deploy
on a massive scale.
You cannot get there in a meaningful way with wind and
solar without undermining industrial capacity and economic
well-being.
So I will continue to say, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to
addressing climate change let us take action. But let us be
smart and pragmatic about it. We should focus on realistic
solutions to prepare for the future and on policies that work
for the American people.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Thank you Chairman Tonko. I think a useful purpose of the
hearing this morning will be to learn about technologies and
actions that are expected to accelerate the reduction of U.S.
carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm not sure all these actions will be viable or cost
effective. I am also not sure that all these actions will be in
the best interest of the United States, especially if they end
up putting us at an economic or strategic disadvantage to our
global competitors. But it is important to gather this
information for the committee's future consideration.
Another purpose of this hearing--as you have indicated--is
to examine the importance of the United States staying in the
Paris Agreement, which President Obama formally accepted in
late August 2016, and from which President Trump announced less
than ten months later, in June 2017, that the United States
would withdraw-under the terms of the agreement.
Fair points may be made about what the Paris Agreement
represents in terms of broad-based international cooperation.
But that is not really the issue here.
The issue here is how the Obama administration made
expensive commitments that would bind U.S. action without
broad-based support from Congressional policy makers. The
commitments, the financing pledges, and the costly and
burdensome implementing regulations that would be needed to
meet our obligations were not submitted to or approved by the
Congress.
Without that national political buy-in on such a
complicated policy that would affect all sectors of the U.S.
economy, and people's daily lives, it is no wonder a new
administration would change course. The consumer costs and
competitive harm the commitments posed to the Nation, deserved
close and careful attention and approval from policy makers.
And this is not a U.S. problem alone. While other developed
nations may be ``staying in'' the Agreement so far, they are
not actually following through on their promises.
The Climate Action Tracker, a European consortium of
research organizations, found that nations' commitments will
not meet the actual goals in the Paris Agreement. And as the
Washington Post reported on this research last October, most
major nations are making few, if any efforts to meet their
goals.
The European Climate Action Network, another think tank,
reported last summer that all European Union countries are off
target: No single country in Europe is performing sufficiently
to meet Paris Agreement goals. And those that have been making
the most progress on their promises, did not make large
commitments in the first place.
At the same time, we have the United Nations Emissions Gap
Report, released this past November, which assessed the
situation and reported that all these countries will have to at
least triple their efforts to meet the Paris Agreement's basic
goals--if not increase their goals five-fold to meet more
stringent temperature targets. I'm not sure that is going to go
so well.
In France, we have witnessed the Paris riots, which were
sparked over the government's climate-related proposal to
increase gasoline taxes on the rural French.
In Germany, according to news reports last week, a climate
law to get the nation back on track with its Paris emissions
goals by 2030 has been threatening to break up the coalition
government. Germany, of course, has turned away from nuclear
energy and increased coal production, as well as emissions,
over the past 5 years.
Finally, as we discussed in our hearing three weeks ago,
there is the developing world, which is participating in the
Agreement, but will produce almost all the growth in future
carbon dioxide emissions as billions of people understandably
seek access to affordable energy.
The plain fact here is, goals of the international climate
agreements, which are to move towards lower emitting systems in
energy, transportation, industry, agriculture are not going to
work unless there is sufficient, affordable technology to
deploy at a massive scale. You cannot get there in a meaningful
way with wind and solar without undermining industrial capacity
and economic well-being.
So I will continue to say: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to
addressing climate change, let's take action, but let's be
smart and pragmatic about it. We should focus on realistic
solutions to prepare for the future, and on policies that work
for the American public.
Mr. Shimkus. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Leader, and the gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
Mr. Pallone?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not sure I want to criticize Mr. Shimkus because he is
probably more of an ally on this than many on the other side of
the aisle. But I do want to take--I do take somewhat offense,
John, to the fact that when you talk about these other
countries that are--that continue to adhere or want to adhere
to the Paris Agreement, at least they are trying.
I mean, sure, it is true that, you know, Macron tries
something and he gets resistance. Sure, it is true that the
chancellor in Germany tries something and they meet resistance.
I am not arguing that. I think we all know that. We read the
news.
But at least they are saying that the Paris Agreement as a
goal makes sense and that they would like to try to reach those
goals. The reason that I am so critical and will continue to be
of our President is because he says the opposite. He says, ``I
don't want to meet the goals. I want to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement.''
He is not making any attempt to move forward to address
climate change. In fact, he is moving in the opposite
direction. The initiatives like the Clean Power Plan and the
fuel efficiency standards that were put in place under
President Obama he wants to scrap.
So I think it is a little disingenuous, I guess, to
criticize other countries that are trying to meet the Paris
goals and leaders that are trying to meet the Paris goals.
Sure, they are going to--you know, they are going to have a
hard time. There are going to be those that push back. They are
going to have pitfalls. But they are at least trying.
The problem here is that our President is saying the
opposite. He said, I don't want to do that--I don't care. You
know, I am going to move in the opposite direction.
And I think that is what is really bad is just abrogation
of American leadership that goes along with saying you are
going to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
But in any case, I know I am criticizing you but I don't
mean to do it too hard because you are probably the best friend
we have.
Anyway, I wanted to thank Chairman Tonko for scheduling
this hearing as the committee continues to discuss the growing
crisis of climate change and the ways that we can combat it.
For the last 2 years, President Trump, his administration,
and Republicans here in Congress have repeatedly pushed actions
and policies that would only make the crisis worse.
We are here today to discuss one of these actions.
President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement
is unjustified and dangerously shortsighted. It abdicates U.S.
leadership on global climate action--an issue where America has
always been a leader--and breaks our promise to all nations who
joined the historic agreement.
I believe the Trump administration's retreat puts the
health and safety of our communities at great risk and
seriously jeopardizes our future security. It also puts our
economic future at great risk as the world embarks on a major
transition to a low-carbon economy.
President Trump now wants to pull us out of that agreement.
The Paris Agreement--an agreement reached by nearly 200
nations--was an important unified stand in the fight against
our changing climate.
It sets a strong foundation for action that will accelerate
the shift to a clean-energy economy and puts us on the path to
a safer healthier planet for generations to come.
It is also our best hope of mobilizing the global action
needed to avoid catastrophic changes to our environment and the
Paris Agreement represents a significant departure from past
efforts to secure international cooperation on climate change.
It allows each nation to design its own emission reduction
strategy that is best suited to the unique circumstances of its
society and economy.
Importantly, the Paris Agreement applies to all parties to
the Convention, including India and China. It also includes
critical transparency and accountability measures to ensure
countries are meeting their emissions reduction goals and have
the flexibility to make any necessary adjustments to stay on
track.
The Obama administration's plan to meet the goals of this
agreement were reasonable, achievable, and balanced. It
provided a framework in reducing U.S. emissions while also
growing our economy.
More energy-efficient appliances, buildings, and vehicles
result in lower costs for consumers and keep our manufacturing
industries competitive globally, all while lowering emissions
of harmful air pollutants.
The plan also calls for controlling methane emissions from
the oil and gas sector, which was a long-overdue and sensible
step, and so too was curbing carbon emissions from the power
sector under the Clean Power Plan.
In fact, the reductions required by the Clean Power Plan
were so reasonable that most of the power sector is now meeting
them. And, yet, the Trump administration has methodically
stalled or rolled back all these initiatives.
The administration's actions reflect a determination to
lock in fossil fuel dependence for consumers, reversing
meaningful progress and setting the planet on a dangerous
course.
The good news is that the rest of world and many States,
cities, and businesses here in the United States have rejected
the Trump administration's retreat on climate change.
They have declared, ``We are still in.'' They are leading
the way to cleaner energy, greater energy efficiency, lower
consumer costs, more resilient communities, and new
technologies and business.
While each individual contribution by these non-Federal
actors may be small, together they add up to significant
emission reductions and, just as importantly, their experience
lays the foundation for future progress.
I am going to sum up by saying the time for action to avoid
the worst effects of climate change is growing short, but at a
minimum, the U.S. must fulfill its commitments that we made in
the Paris Agreement.
And the Federal Government shouldn't just stand on the
sidelines. We have to show we are still committed to the global
agreement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I want to thank Chairman Tonko for scheduling this
hearing--as the committee continues to discuss the growing
crisis of climate change, and the ways that we can combat it.
For the last 2 years President Trump, his administration and
Republicans here in Congress have repeatedly pushed actions and
policies that would only make the crisis worse.
We are here today to discuss one of those actions.
President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement
is unjustified and dangerously shortsighted. It abdicates U.S.
leadership on global climate action--an issue where America has
always been a leader--and breaks our promise to all nations who
joined the historic agreement. I believe the Trump
administration's retreat puts the health and safety of our
communities at great risk, and seriously jeopardizes our future
security. It also puts our economic future at great risk as the
world embarks on a major transition to a low-carbon economy.
President Trump now wants to pull us out of that agreement.
The Paris Agreement -an agreement reached by nearly 200
nations--was an important, unified stand in the fight against
our changing climate. It sets a strong foundation for action
that will accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy, and
puts us on the path to a safer, healthier planet for
generations to come. It is also our best hope of mobilizing the
global action needed to avoid catastrophic changes to our
environment.
The Paris Agreement represents a significant departure from
past efforts to secure international cooperation on climate
change. It allows each nation to design its own emission
reduction strategy -that is best suited to the unique
circumstances of its society and economy. Importantly, the
Paris Agreement applies to all parties to the Convention -
including India and China. It also includes critical
transparency and accountability measures, to ensure countries
are meeting their emissions reduction goals and have the
flexibility to make any necessary adjustments to stay on track.
The Obama administration's plan to meet the goals of this
agreement were reasonable, achievable and balanced. It provided
a framework in reducing U.S. emissions, while also growing our
economy. More energy efficient appliances, buildings and
vehicles result in lower costs for consumers and keep our
manufacturing industries competitive globally, all while
lowering emissions of harmful air pollutants.
The plan also called for controlling methane emissions from
the oil and gas sector, which was a long-overdue and sensible
step. So too was curbing carbon emissions from the power sector
under the Clean Power Plan. In fact, the reductions required by
the Clean Power Plan were so reasonable that most of the power
sector is now meeting them.
Yet, the Trump administration has methodically stalled or
rolled back all these initiatives. This administration's
actions reflect a determination to lock-in fossil fuel
dependence for consumers, reversing meaningful progress and
setting the planet on a dangerous course.
The good news is that the rest of world and many States,
cities, and businesses here in the United States have rejected
the Trump administration's retreat on climate change. They have
declared: ``We are still in.'' They are leading the way to
cleaner energy, greater energy efficiency, lower consumer
costs, more resilient communities, and new technologies and
businesses.
While each individual contribution by these non-Federal
actors may be small, together they add up to significant
emission reductions. And, just as important, their experience
lays the foundation for further progress. But make no mistake,
meaningful future climate action needs Federal leadership to be
successful. We cannot assume State, local, and private-sector
initiatives will be enough to effectively limit global
temperature increases.
We have the tools and technology to replace fossil fuel
dominance with clean energy, but we need to deploy them faster.
But, we will also need new technologies and infrastructure to
achieve the deeper de-carbonization of the economy that will
ensure our long-term safety and prosperity. We have a lot of
work to do.
The time for action to avoid the worst effects of climate
change is growing short, but we still have time to act. At a
minimum, the Unites States must fulfill the commitments we made
to the world in the Paris Agreement. The Federal Government
simply cannot stand on the sidelines--we must show that we are
still committed to this global agreement.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. And Chairman Pallone yields back.
OK. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, Republican leader
of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
Mr. Walden?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, my friend. Thanks for having this
hearing as well. I think it is important to point out a couple
of things right out of the gate.
The U.S. is still a part of the Paris Agreements--Paris
Accords--and will be until 2020. The Trump administration
negotiators were credited recently with helping forge a
multinational agreement on how to measure emissions so that all
countries that are involved would have some higher level of
confidence that each other were actually reducing the emissions
they said they were and they got international credit for that.
I think part of what we are after is, again, pursuing an
agenda of U.S. innovation, conservation, adaptation, and
preparation. We can lead the world in this space and we should.
We just don't want to repeat the mistakes that others have made
in their laboratory work, if you will, trying to tackle this
issue.
They have had riots on the streets in France since November
as consumers said the direction France went with the high cost
of gasoline was more than they were willing to bear. We need to
keep consumers in mind in this discussion.
We are ready to work on developing policies, in fact, I
would say, build on the policies that we developed over the
last several Congresses in this space to make sure that we have
an electric grid that is reliable and secure and has the
capacity to be able to feed into renewable energy.
We have been big advocates for battery storage enhancement
and, indeed, in my district there is a partnership between
NextEra and PGE to have one of the biggest battery storage
energy sectors in the United States. It is the biggest, it is
the first, and they will link renewable energy into battery
storage to help bring more firm baseload power to the grid.
That will replace energy now generated from coal.
Our country invests in these national labs that help
develop this technology, and there is more work to be done
there. You know, we have learned over the years how these
policies rapidly transform the Nation's electricity system from
a system designed for the economical and reliably dispatch of
power to a system focused on meeting Federal emissions caps can
have unintended consequences.
This rapid transformation, which Congress opposed, would
have driven out major sources of affordable energy, threatened
reliability and security, and driven up consumer electricity
bills.
To achieve the goals, I think we could all find some common
ground along. We also have to make sure that we don't encourage
unintended consequences that could affect consumers negatively
to the point that they riot in the streets, as they are doing
in France, as well as put the grid in peril.
We learned that even with the economically harmful impact
of these and other policies targeting the fuels we use and cars
we drive, the goals proposed by the Paris Agreement still could
not be met.
The policies, according to the administration's own
estimates, would get maybe 60 percent of the way there, and I
am talking about the Obama administration now.
Even Secretary Kerry noted at the time of the negotiations
that, if the United States or even all the developed world cut
their CO2 emissions to zero, it would still not
offset the emissions coming from the rest of the world.
So, again, we can be a leader in developing new
technologies that we should sell to the rest of the world to
reduce their emissions. We have got to be smart about how we do
this.
In short, commitments in Paris were made without a clear
plan to meet those promises, without a full view of the cost,
and certainly not a plan that had broad bipartisan support in
Congress.
That is what we would like to see developed here, Mr.
Chairman, is a bipartisan plan, going forward. This focus on
U.S. commitments to the Paris Agreement is the centerpiece for
our Nation's climate policy. It kind of misses the point of
what we should focus on if we want to make a difference in
global emissions while strengthening the economy.
We should not lock ourselves into a narrow vision of what
is possible. We must consider the realities of global energy
systems and the need for affordable reliable energy access
around the world.
We are fortunate in America to have electrified nearly
every home and business in the country. There are many parts of
the world that seek electricity for the first time. They will
not be denied that. So let us work with them to figure out how
to do it in an environmentally sensitive way.
Let us continue to work, as we have done in past
Congresses, to reduce barriers to innovation, enable the United
States to deploy new technologies to drive economic engines of
the future and make realistic headway in curbing emissions from
advanced carbon capture to nuclear technology to innovative
hydropower solutions.
And we also have to look at things I care passionately
about in my district in Oregon. The IPCC report going back to
2007 says sustainable forest management would help. We had 68
million tons of carbon emissions for the fires in California
last year alone.
Now, not all those are forests--I get that--but there is a
lot of work that has been pointed out we could do to reduce the
excess fuel load in our forests that reduce emissions of more
than just carbon--the other poisons that go up at the time--if
we could come together in a bipartisan way on that.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as we
always do and thank you for having this hearing, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was struck by the title of this
hearing. For the past six months Paris has seen continuous
protests that began over ill-conceived policies designed to
meet obligations under the Paris Agreement. Regular people are
taking to the streets to oppose heavy handed regulation and
taxation that threatened economic prosperity and cripple their
ability to provide for their loved ones. So, I am not sure if
the title was intentional but we should remember Paris and the
Yellow Vests when debating policies that have real, every day
impacts on hard working Americans.
As you know, Republicans are ready and willing to work with
you on policies to address climate change risks. We have a
growing record of bipartisan legislation in this area that is
helping to drive implementation of cleaner technologies-and
more can be done. But we should all be wary of resurrecting
policies that are economically and technologically unworkable
for the American public.
A central theme of today's hearing concerns actions that
will help the Nation meet the U.S. commitments in the Paris
Agreement under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change. Some of these actions, on their own merits, may be
worth additional examination and I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses about them.
However, we should not forget the serious questions
concerning costs, effectiveness, and feasibility of the U.S.
commitments made by the Obama administration under the Paris
Agreement 3 years ago.
In a number of committee hearings in the runup to the Paris
negotiations, we examined closely the costs and impacts of the
Clean Power Plan and related EPA standards that were the
central policy for electric sector emissions reductions.
We learned how these policies sought to rapidly transform
the Nation's electricity system--from a system designed for the
economical and reliable dispatch of power to a system focused
on meeting Federal emission caps. This radical transformation,
which Congress opposed, would have driven out major sources of
affordable energy, threatened reliability and security, and
driven up consumer utility bills.
We learned that, even with the economically harmful impact
of these and other policies targeting the fuels we use and cars
we drive, the goals proposed for the Paris Agreement still
could not be met. The policies, according to the
administration's own estimates, could get maybe 60 percent of
the way there. Even Secretary of State Kerry noted during the
Paris negotiations that if the United States, or even all of
the developed world, cut their CO2 emissions to
zero, it would still not offset the emissions coming from the
rest of the world.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Secretary Kerry stated: ``The fact is, even if every single
American biked to work or carpooled to school, and used only solar
panels to power their homes--if we each planted a dozen trees--if we
somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions--guess
what? That still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution
coming from the rest of the world. If all industrialized nations went
down to zero emissions, it wouldn't be enough--not when more than 65
percent of the world's carbon pollution comes from the developing
world. No matter how much half the world does to clean up its act--if
similar steps aren't taken by the rest of the world, the Earth still
has a problem.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, commitments in Paris were made without a clear
plan to meet those promises, without a full view of the costs,
and certainly not a plan that had broad bipartisan support of
Congress.
This focus on U.S. commitments in the Paris Agreement as a
centerpiece of our Nation's climate policy misses the point on
what we should focus on if we want to make a difference in
global emissions while strengthening our economy.
We should not lock ourselves in to a narrow vision of what
is possible. We must consider the realities of global energy
systems and the need for affordable, reliable energy access
around the world.
Let's continue the work we have been doing in the past few
Congresses that will reduce the barriers to innovation and
enable the United States to deploy new technologies to drive
our economic engines of the future and make realistic headway
in curbing emissions, from advanced carbon capture to nuclear
technology to innovative hydropower.
We must also improve forest management to reduce the risk
of catastrophic wildfires that choke communities in Oregon with
smoke and fill our atmosphere with untold pollutants. Better
managing our forests reduces the risk of these catastrophic
fires and the toxic emissions they put into the atmosphere. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that
sustainably managing our forests will create the longest
sustained carbon mitigation benefit. Congress should follow the
science on forest management.
As we've said before, we are ready to begin the process of
finding commonsense, bipartisan solutions to climate change.
Instead of extreme agendas like the Green New Deal or looking
backwards to unworkable policies that increase energy costs,
limit innovation, and stifle economic growth, we should focus
on the proven success demonstrated in the tremendous
economical, security, and environmental benefits created
through America's energy innovation over the past decade.
We want America's innovators to continue to develop the
next technologies that will improve the environment and create
jobs here at home. We want a healthy environment for our
children, and future generations. We want our constituents and
all Americans to have jobs and the opportunity to provide for
their families. These are not mutually exclusive principles,
and they are embedded in our approach to confronting climate
risks. Let us work on them together.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and the Republican leader yields
back.
As Chair, I remind Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made
part of the record.
Now we welcome the witnesses to this subcommittee hearing.
I thank them for taking the time and sharing their intellect
with us.
Let me introduce our panel. First, we have Ms. Carla
Frisch, principal with the Rocky Mountain Institute; then Mr.
Samuel Thornstrom--Thernstrom, I am sorry--chief executive
officer of the Energy and Innovation Reform Project; Mr. Nathan
Hultman, director of the Center for Global Sustainability,
associate professor at the University of Maryland School of
Public Policy; and Mr. Andrew Light, distinguished senior
fellow, World Resources Institute.
We thank, again, all of our witnesses for joining us today.
We look forward to your testimony and thank you for sharing
time with the subcommittee.
At this time, I will now recognize each witness for 5
minutes to provide his or her opening statement. Before we
begin, I would like to explain the lighting system. In front of
our witnesses is a series of lights.
The light will initially be green at the start of your
opening statement. The light will turn yellow when you have 1
minute left. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that
point and the light will turn red when your time has expired.
So we will begin with Ms. Frisch. You are recognized for 5
minutes, and welcome.
STATEMENTS OF CARLA FRISCH, PRINCIPAL, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
INSTITUTE; SAMUEL THERNSTROM, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ENERGY INNOVATION REFORM PROJECT; NATHAN E. HULTMAN,
PH.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY, SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; ANDREW LIGHT, PH.D.,
DISTINGUISHED SENIOR FELLOW, WORLD RESOURCE INSTITUTE
STATEMENT OF CARLA FRISCH
Ms. Frisch. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to
testify and for your leadership in focusing on climate change.
I am a principal at the nonprofit nonpartisan Rocky
Mountain Institute, where we work on market-based low-carbon
solutions.
Cities, States, and businesses and others have been working
to address climate and the environment for decades. But in the
past 2 years, they have scaled up their efforts and come
together more formally and, in part, that connects back to the
announcement of the intent to leave the Paris Agreement.
Within 72 hours from that announcement, a very diverse
coalition of over 1,200 States, cities, businesses,
universities, counties, Tribes, faith-based organizations,
hospitals, and others came together, and today that coalition
is more than 3,600 members.
Their leaders have committed to reduce their emissions, not
only because it is good for the climate but because it advances
the interests of their citizens, their consumers, and their
shareholders.
Are these commitments meaningful? America's Pledge set out
to find that out. Rocky Mountain Institute worked on analysis
which found that given existing commitments, the U.S. is,
roughly, two-thirds of the way towards meeting the original
commitment in Paris and broader engagement has the potential to
put us within striking distance of the Paris Agreement.
That means scaling high-impact near-term climate
strategies. But even since we published the report progress has
been made. In the last three weeks alone, five gigawatts of
coal retirements have been announced, and also in the
electricity space more than 100 companies, including many
Fortune 500 companies, have committed to 100 percent renewable
energy and they are following through on those commitments and
taking advantage of the lower technology costs of solar and
wind, which continue to fall. Cities are doing that, too.
That clean electricity is powering clean electric
transportation. Late last year, we passed the 1 million
electric vehicles sold mark in the U.S. and sales have grown
since then, and one-third of our public buses are on track to
become emissions-free, which could significantly improve health
and air quality and also reduce costs for transit authorities,
and that in part is driven by lower battery costs, as Ranking
Member Walden mentioned.
That clean electricity is also powering homes and
businesses. Using electricity to heat our homes and water is
more efficient than using natural gas and burning that natural
gas directly on site.
It improves indoor air quality and it reduces greenhouse
gas emissions. And acknowledging that potential, New York State
has required their electric utilities achieve a portion of
their energy efficiency savings through deployment of efficient
electric heat pumps.
So if we continue to scale and focus on these two
priorities, rapidly cleaning up electricity production and
using that clean electricity in our homes, businesses, and
transportation systems, we could address up to 70 percent of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
And the Nation's rural electric co-ops have taken notice of
that, and they are moving forward to focus on cost-effective
beneficial electrification. States that have taken climate
actions like these find that they are benefitting their
economies and strengthening their community.
Through the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance 21 Governors
have come together to lead on climate change including many
recently elected Governors. Their climate policies have
attracted billions in investment and have helped support more
than 1.6 million clean-energy and energy-efficiency jobs.
Together, coalitions like these are demonstrating in real
time how to deliver cost-effective climate action from the
ground up.
Despite this tremendous progress, we need faster action. To
avoid the worst impacts of climate change and get back on track
for IPCC, we need action from all levels of government and
participation from civil society.
It is not possible to solve the climate crisis without
State, city, and business action. It is also not possible to
solve the climate crisis without strong and sustained Federal
policy.
The good news is we don't have to start from scratch at the
Federal level. Federal reengagement can build on the great
momentum and hard work that States, cities, and businesses have
underway.
We have to have both to ensure that America continues to
set the standard for international leadership.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Frisch follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Frisch.
Next, we will move to Mr. Thernstrom. You are recognized,
sir, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL THERNSTROM
Mr. Thernstrom. I would like to thank the chairman, the
ranking member, and members of this subcommittee for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Energy Innovation Reform
Project.
The EIRP promotes public policies to accelerate the
development of advanced energy technologies to improve the
affordability, reliability, safety, and security of America's
energy supplies and our energy economy.
As Mr. Tonko and Mr. Walden both noted, President Trump
announced in June 2017 his intent to withdraw the U.S. from
Paris, but for procedural reasons the U.S. withdrawal cannot
take effect until November of 2020. So we are still in.
Whether one agrees or not with the President's decision, he
does have the authority to make it, and I tend to see his
decision as a reflection of the challenges in climate policy
that Paris tried to paper over. Resolving these challenges
should be the focus of our attention, and I think a number of
remarks today have already indicated that.
Our central challenge is that effective mitigation depends
upon the availability of commercially competitive clean energy
technologies more than it requires treaties or other
international agreements.
We are making great progress with this challenge, as other
witnesses will testify to, but much more remains to be done. If
we can develop these technologies, international agreements can
constructively contribute to their global dissemination.
If we do not develop them, nations are unlikely to meet
commitments made under international agreements and, in fact,
many nations are not on track to meet their Paris pledges,
suggesting that their ambitions exceed their abilities.
Aspirational international agreements may reflect worthy
ambitions. But domestic policy is where the decisive decisions
are made. Paris appropriately focused international attention
on each nation's domestic actions and that is where a
constructive conversation must occur.
Ultimately, the Paris Agreement was unworkable for the U.S.
because it was a substitute for, rather than the product of, a
domestic political consensus. Indeed, the lack of settled
domestic U.S. policy was among the reasons that Paris was an
agreement rather than a treaty.
Trying to make domestic policy in Paris rather than in
Washington was a mistake, I believe. It circumvented the role
of Congress and specifically ignored the importance of
implementing legislation and ensuring alignment between
America's domestic policy and our international commitments.
America cannot address a complex challenge like climate
change without bipartisan agreement on the way forward that is
enacted in Federal law.
After climate legislation failed in the Senate in 2009, the
Obama administration pursued its domestic policy goal through
the Clean Power Plan which was stayed by the Supreme Court. The
Trump administration is seeking to implement an alternative
regulation, which will certainly face judicial scrutiny of its
own.
This back and forth demonstrates the fragility of policy
made through regulations rather than law just as agreements are
poor substitutes for treaties.
Now, many climate advocates have despaired of enacting
bipartisan legislation and have consequently sought
alternatives. At EIRP, we believe that there is no substitute
for sound national policy embodied in law and so we work to
promote that.
The principal objective of Federal climate legislation
should be to promote innovation in a broad portfolio of clean
energy-related technologies and ensure their economical use
over time.
A focus on accelerating technology innovation in order to
drive down the cost of decarbonization while avoiding the zero-
sum politics of some popular climate proposals is a necessary
first step.
As a complement to innovation policies, clear and durable
environmental regulations would also permit innovators and
investors to cost effectively modernize America's energy
system. I do want to emphasize the importance of getting the
relationship between public policy and the private sector
right.
This will require a mix of regulatory reforms and public
and private investments that must be appropriate to the
complexity of the task, not the product of a formulaic or
ideological approach.
Also, as my written testimony emphasizes, the
decarbonization literature is very clear about the crucial
importance of developing a diverse mix of energy technologies
and resources rather than taking a narrow path that relies on
renewables alone.
Innovation initiatives must be designed to produce clean
energy that is both abundant and affordable. If clean energy is
too expensive or impractical in other respects, it won't be
used broadly or adopted sufficiently rapidly.
Our challenge today is to combat climate change in a manner
that strengthens America, our economy, and our international
leadership.
At EIRP, we believe that Federal policies to accelerate
energy innovation will be essential to pursuing those goals
harmoniously.
Thank you all very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thernstrom follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Thernstrom.
And now we will move to Mr. Hultman. Mr. Hultman, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN E. HULTMAN
Dr. Hultman. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to
testify here today on the essential role of subnational actors
in an overall comprehensive strategy to set American climate
policy on a path toward renewed and reinvigorated leadership.
I am the director of the Center for Global Sustainability
at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and
served as a lead author on the recent report, ``Fulfilling
America's Pledge: How States, Cities, and Businesses Are
Leading the United States to a Low-Carbon Future.''
It is an honor to share with the committee my perspective
on how subnational efforts in our country are driving progress
today and laying the groundwork for an effective comprehensive
American strategy to address climate and economic issues of
fundamental importance to our country.
My message today is in three parts. The first part answers
the essential question of what does it all add up to and
describes the significant impact resulting from accelerating
subnational climate actions in our country.
The second part illustrates how these actions can provide a
path to comprehensive American climate strategy that includes
diverse subnational actors as a basis to support and enhance
additional progress through new Federal action.
The third part underscores how subnational American
leadership combined with a reinvigorated Federal engagement can
catalyze global action to accelerate our ability to respond
effectively to the climate crisis.
In recent years, coalitions of subnational actors have
formed to enhance their own communities' interest in climate
action. These coalitions represent well over half the U.S.
population of over 173 million people and nearly 60 percent of
U.S. GDP and they are globally significant, representing the
equivalent of the world's third largest economy and the world's
fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter.
A key question, however, is whether these actions from
these groups will make a difference. The answer is yes. Our
study estimates that existing commitments from subnational
actors are already making a significant impact with additional
near-term reductions possible.
Without these subnational actions, we estimate that U.S.
emissions would grow slightly between now and 2025 and it is in
this context that the contribution from subnational actors
today is so important, turning that potential 3 percent growth
in emissions from today into a 17 percent reduction below 2005
levels by 2025.
And more is possible. Using the tools available to them
today, States, cities, and businesses could drive U.S.
emissions close to but not quite reaching the U.S.-Paris target
to, roughly, 24 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Such actions
could include more rapid expansion of renewables, reductions in
methane leakage, increased building energy efficiency,
accelerated coal power retirements, land sector policies, and a
variety of other approaches across sectors.
And, indeed, many of these actors are already stepping up
to do more, particularly after the recently mid-term elections.
So existing commitments are extraordinarily helpful, making
a real and meaningful difference today during a period of
Federal inaction. Nevertheless, even additional subnational
commitments will likely not be sufficient to get us fully on
track towards a long-term trajectory consistent with science-
driven climate goals if this work of subnational actors to
implement more ambitious climate actions does provide a basis
for accelerating economy wide climate action in the future.
For example, subnational actions could potentially deliver
accelerating emissions reductions across the U.S. economy,
increasing our decarbonization rate from, roughly, 1.6 percent
per year before 2025 to, roughly, 2.1 percent per year
thereafter.
This rate is close to the, roughly, 2.3 percent annually
needed to be consistent with long-term climate goals. But the
key currently missing boost to this activity would be broad
engagement by the U.S. Federal Government.
In this way, subnational actions are laying the groundwork
today for faster action under an essential comprehensive
approach that integrates the significant policy authorities
across our Federal system.
Subnational action can also impact climate outcomes by
influencing the international community. In climate change,
U.S. global leadership matters. We are the world's second
largest emitter and what we do here in many ways sets the tone
for the level of climate action globally and this, in turn, can
raise the chances of our global success in addressing this
immediate and growing challenge.
The fact that American subnational actors are still making
significant progress in reducing our own emissions is an
important signal to other countries that the U.S. is still
remaining engaged and delivering real change.
In summary, we have seen a groundswell of climate action
over recent years with leadership from all corners of America.
In doing so, these States, cities, businesses, and others have
also helped create the conditions for a strong Federal answer
to their own climate leadership.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hultman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Hultman.
And now to conclude, Mr. Light, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW LIGHT
Dr. Light. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and the members of the subcommittee for inviting me to
testify.
I am Andrew Light from the World Resources Institute and
also from George Mason University. I will address the
international implications and limits of U.S. non-Federal
action on climate change.
I previously served at the Department of State as one of
the senior officials working on the creation of the Paris
Agreement on climate change. I am going to touch on four points
summarized from my written testimony.
One, the Paris Agreement remains essential for
international cooperation on climate change. Two, other
countries continue to take ambitious steps to reduce their
emissions. Three, efforts by non-Federal actors have been
embraced internationally. However, fourth, reengagement by the
Federal Government is a geopolitical necessity.
First, let us start with Paris. While President Trump has
announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement, over
190 countries are still actively working to implement the
agreement's goals.
And I agree with your characterization, Chairman Tonko.
These targets were all done in-country. They were nationally
determined. They were not negotiated in Paris. They were not
determined by the Paris Agreement. That is very important.
Paris is a success because part--because the first set of
commitments under it achieved higher than expected ambition,
significantly improving projections of temperature savings over
prior estimates.
Moreover, parties are expected to make continual pledges of
increasing ambition over time to put the temperature goals of
the agreement within reach.
Second, the agreement fulfills a long-sought goal of the
last three presidential administrations, both Republican and
Democratic, of creating a set of common rules for all parties
on reporting transparency and review of their progress on
meeting their targets regardless of their development status.
So what about progress in other countries? I am going to
focus here on China and India because concerns about them were
raised in recent hearings before this subcommittee.
Both will need to do more. But under Paris, they are
demonstrating ample domestic ambition. China is leading the
world in renewable energy investment, committing to spend over
$360 billion through 2020, which is expected to create 13
million new jobs.
China launched a national emissions trading system for its
power sector, which will eventually become the largest in the
world. In 2017, the government halted or delayed over 150 coal
plants.
China remains the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide
but committed under Paris to peak emissions by 2030 at the
latest and experts argue that they could easily peak as early
as 2025.
India's Paris targets include a goal of 40 percent
electricity generation from nonfossil sources by 2030. Prior to
setting these target, Prime Minister Modi increased the
previous government's solar energy goal by himself by five
times to 100 gigawatts by 2022, adding 75 gigawatts of wind,
biomass, and small hydro, creating an estimated 330,000 new
jobs.
The number of planned coal plants has plummeted, shrinking
by a quarter in the first half of 2018. What about the
international impact of U.S. subnational action, which we have
heard about so far?
The groundswell of activity in the U.S. has been widely
embraced. German Chancellor Angela Merkel commented that it
emphasizes the support for the climate agreement across large
parts of the United States.
It is also spurring similar subnational coalitions abroad,
including in Japan. States have also increased their bilateral
programs. California initiated programs to work with China on
developing renewable energy and cooperating on zero-emissions
vehicles, energy storage, and grid modernization while the U.S.
stayed on the sidelines.
But there are limits to subnational action that require
Federal reengagement. Here are three reasons.
First, U.S. Federal leadership is absolutely necessary as
States and cities don't have a seat at the table in
international negotiations. Active participation is essential
to ensure that the Paris Agreement maintains elements that we
value, including maintaining the integrity of the currently
agreed-upon rules.
Secondly, States and cities do not have the capacity to
help prepare our strategic partners abroad for climate risks
threatening their safety which, in turn, threatens the American
people.
Make no mistake--climate-related security risks are
happening right now and they are getting worse. This conclusion
was unequivocal in last month's worldwide threat assessment of
the U.S. intelligence community.
Third, States and cities can't put sufficient pressure on
larger countries to embrace climate smart foreign development.
Take, for example, China's massive Belt and Road infrastructure
project worth $6 trillion that include 70 countries on three
continents.
It is, roughly, 46 times as large as the Marshall Plan.
Despite their domestic progress at home, from 2014 to 2017 93
percent of energy investments by China's Silk Road Fund and 95
percent of foreign energy investment by China's state-owned
enterprises were in fossil fuels.
The U.S. is not challenging China, given President Trump's
commitment to fossil fuels. No other countries can exert
pressure on China. This gap requires Federal reengagement in
Paris and in broader international climate efforts.
Let me close with a few suggestions to what Congress can do
to get the U.S. back into the international climate arena.
First, pass a resolution to support the Paris Agreement
that also explicitly supports current subnational action.
Second, double funding for clean energy and carbon removal
RD&D to catch up with China and make sure the money that you
have allocated is being spent.
And finally, for fiscal year 2019 you increase bilateral
environmental assistance to $776 million from $400 million.
These funds should be spent to help prepare countries for
climate change so that we can work together to create a safer
and more resilient world.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Light follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Light.
We now have concluded with opening statements and now move
to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask
questions of our witnesses, and I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
Many of my colleagues will want to discuss subnational
commitments, but I would like to start with some basics of the
agreement.
Dr. Light, I just want to clearly state what I believe I
heard you say in your just-delivered statement. Do you agree
that the United States and all other parties to the agreement
made voluntary mitigation contributions?
Dr. Light. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. So with that being said, when President Trump
talks about imposing draconian burdens on our country, is that
a fair criticism of the agreement itself?
Dr. Light. It is absolutely false, sir. I was at the table
when the agreement was being negotiated. There were no
draconian burdens that were put on the United States or any
other country.
Mr. Tonko. So then this is not a U.N. mandate that
undermines our sovereignty?
Dr. Light. Not at all.
Mr. Tonko. Our mitigation commitment was submitted based on
existing and planned United States policy. Is that correct?
Dr. Light. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. And, Dr. Light, one of the biggest achievements
of the agreement is the inclusion of large developing nations
such as China and India. Can you explain their commitments and
how they were brought to the table?
Dr. Light. Well, I think I sort of gave you a little bit of
an overview of what China and India are doing right now and we
can talk about, you know, what's going on in terms of emissions
recently with those countries and the United States.
But how they were brought to the table was a very
interesting story. The United States and China had historically
been the biggest adversaries in this process.
So if you go back decades to the original creation of the
framework convention in 1992, it was just an incredible fight
between large blocks of countries, mostly developed countries
on the one side, developing countries on the other side.
The developing countries said, you caused the problem,
essentially applying a kind of ``polluter pays'' mentality. It
is your responsibility to solve it. We shouldn't be required to
do anything.
But that is just not viable, as Representative Walden said.
You can't reduce emissions sufficiently only on the backs of
developed countries because the bulk of emissions now are from
developing countries. We tried with different measures to move
forward on this. But we could never get sufficient
participation from these other countries to move forward.
The Kyoto Protocol, for example, only had the participation
in terms of obligations to reduce emissions from less than 20
percent of emissions globally from the countries that had to
reduce their emissions.
The Paris Agreement--the countries that are committed to
the Paris Agreement now, until the U.S. leaves, covers 96
percent of global emissions. We worked with China behind the
scenes for over a year to make sure that we could bring them to
the table, that we would only stand next to them, as President
Obama did in November of 2014, with President Xi in Beijing--we
would only stand with them and while they were announcing the
top lines of their target if we thought their target was
respectable, and they did the same with us. And that created a
race to the top that brought countries along.
India is another story. Prime Minister Modi has long been a
climate champion, and what we did is we took--looked at his
domestic desire to try to move his country forward on a more
sustainable path. By himself he increased his own renewable
energy targets and then we worked with the Indian government to
make sure that their platform could be used to advance other
research and innovation programs that they wanted to create.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you for highlighting that.
Because these countries are in a different stage in their
development their time line may be longer than ours. But it is
clear that they are committed to taking action and pursuing
more sustainable development.
How is China working forward? Are they still on track to
peak with its emissions around 2030?
Dr. Light. That--no, sir. I believe they are actually going
to peak quite earlier than that. I mean, all estimate evidence
to date is that they will peak earlier.
They did have a 3 percent uptick in their emissions as far
as we can tell in 2018. The U.S. emissions also went up 3.4
percent in the same time period.
But there is lots of explanations for this having to do
with some stimulus in the Chinese economy--for example, a huge
boom in construction to try to create more apartments for
people, which are--20 percent of them are actually going empty
right now.
So there have been things like that that have moved along.
But if you look at the scale of Chinese emissions, it really
precipitously goes down as we get closer to the creation of the
Paris Agreement because that is when international pressure is
there. That is when the Chinese are starting to recognize that
they have a geopolitical advantage by becoming leaders on this
issue. The small countries--small island states--are just as
worried about China as they are worried about the emissions
coming from the United States. All those emissions are going to
cause sea level rise. They are going to harm them.
And so what we have seen is the Chinese respond to that.
But, as I said at the end of my testimony, there is a worry
here that the Chinese could still move forward with respect to
building out coal facilities in other countries unless someone
tries to pull them back to the table. No other country can do
that other than the United States.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Are there any other common misconceptions about the
agreement that you would like to clarify in a relative few
questions?
Dr. Light. Sure. One thing, and that is this. I have
heard--I understand the criticism that the current pledges
under the Paris Agreement--right now that parties are behind.
They don't--aren't sufficient to meet the 2 degrees Celsius
goal, let alone the goal of the agreement to try to even get
lower--get lower temperature response like 1.5 degrees.
We have to keep in mind that Paris was created as a
process. It is not just one shot, you make your pledge, and we
are done and we see how good we do.
It sets up a process so that parties have to come back to
the table at regular intervals to make regular new commitments
of increased ambition. That is going to be what is going to
help us to close the gap that some of you have articulated in
your opening statements.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Light.
I now recognize Leader Shimkus for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
Mr. Light, I appreciate your passion and, Mr. Hultman, I am
a believer in subnational activities. We are federalists,
especially on this side, and we believe in local control, local
government, and we want to keep encouraging those who want to
go in a direction.
But let me ask this question: What is--first of all, it can
be a short response--what is more binding, a treaty or an
agreement?
Ms. Frisch?
A treaty. Constitutionally, it is really, there's no--Mr.
Thernstrom?
Mr. Thernstrom. A treaty.
Mr. Shimkus. Treaty.
Mr. Hultman?
Dr. Hultman. Both a treaty and agreement have authority
under international law, and the Paris Agreement is something
that we can use to accomplish the goals----
Mr. Shimkus. OK. But for us and our Constitution and our
government, which is more binding? Which has political buy-in?
Which is vetted by the legislative branch?
Dr. Hultman. The Paris Agreement was formulated under the
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is----
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Let me--I just taught high school
government and history. I mean, I don't profess to be an expert
on the Constitution, but only a treaty gets voted on by the
legislative branch, and not even the House--the Senate.
Mr. Light, would you agree with that?
Dr. Light. That is true, sir. But----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, let me ask----
Dr. Light [continuing]. Depends on----
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Let me just ask--let me ask you
this question: Why didn't the Obama administration submit this
as a treaty?
Dr. Light. Because it was not a treaty. Because it was an
agreement under the treaty that we had already agreed to that
passed with unanimous support in the Senate, Republicans and
Democrats--the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
This was an agreement under that treaty that the Senate had
already ratified.
Mr. Shimkus. So, Mr. Thernstrom, you heard--in your
testimony you highlight the need for a national buy-in, and
maybe through the subnational groups you are going to build
that consensus, and we may be there.
There was actual shifting since this last time we had this
debate, and I think you can hear that on our side. Why is it
important for this decision to be vetted by a legislative body?
Mr. Thernstrom. As other witnesses have testified today,
the subnational actors certainly can take action in many
respects, but they have also all called upon the Federal
Government to use its resources, which are much greater than
those of subnational actors, in a coordinated fashion and,
obviously, we lack a political consensus in this country to
produce a Federal policy on clean energy innovation and
climate-related emissions.
And so, if we could reach that consensus--and I think this
committee is obviously the place to have that conversation--I
think everyone at the table here would agree that Federal
action--I think that is what I have heard from all witnesses,
is that Federal action could be much more effective than the
State and local action, and it is, obviously, that political
process that you are speaking of that would enable coordinated
and ambitious Federal action, and I hope that we can get there.
Mr. Shimkus. And we have this fight and this debate in our
committee all the time. Can a Federal agency do this? Do they
need more legislative language? How do you impart it? How do
you have the force of law?
So other than going through the legislative process and
binding us to the votes that we cast, we are going to be
whipsawed back and forth by administrations here and there and
we will not have a consistent national policy for the decades.
And I think we all agree.
I mean, if you look at the Climate Action Tracker, which I
used in my opening statement, even going to the Paris Accords
now you are plateauing.
Talk about--and my time is almost out so I only have a
minute left--Mr. Thernstrom, done poorly with all the different
aspects of energy use in this country, how could that affect
jobs and the economy and the cost?
Mr. Thernstrom. As my testimony, especially my written
testimony, indicates, I think climate protection is a very
important value for myself and for many Americans, most
Americans even.
But I think balancing climate concerns with the other
values in this space such as protecting, you know, affordable
energy sources for consumers is critical both to achieving the
political consensus that we have been calling for in this
exchange but also for the technologies to actually reach the
level of economic competitiveness that would allow them to
scale successfully into global markets and be used in
developing nations.
So I think keeping costs of clean low is crucial to both
political consensus, to durability of policy over the years, as
you suggest, and to acceptance within the global marketplace,
which is key to environmental performance.
Mr. Shimkus. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.
The House has called for at least three votes. The time
estimate for that is about 40 minutes. So what we are going to
do is move to Chairman Pallone for his questioning for 5
minutes. Then we will take a recess to go vote and we will come
back after that, 15 minutes after the last vote is called.
So Chairman Pallone?
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I had some questions to ask Mr.
Hultman, but Mr. Shimkus keeps making me veer from my
questions.
I just think this----
Mr. Shimkus. It is working.
Mr. Pallone. I don't mean to be so critical, Mr.
Thernstrom, but I just--this whole argument about treaties
versus agreements, look, the bottom line is it is very obvious
that the Paris Agreement sets up, as I think Mr. Light said,
essentially a voluntary process where the, you know, parties
are going to meet from time to time to see what they can
accomplish and, you know, I don't--I don't understand why in
the world the President felt it was necessary or suggesting to
withdraw to this process that is, you know, essentially
voluntary and, you know, my point is that President Trump is
the outlier here.
I haven't heard anyone on the Republican side--maybe I
shouldn't bring it up but I haven't heard any of them say they
think we should have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement.
To me, Trump is the outlier. He just wants to send a signal
that somehow we are not going to be part of this and move in
the opposite direction on climate change, which is probably
contrary to almost everybody in this room, regardless of being
a Democrat or Republican.
I mean, even his own daughter I remember at the time was,
like, you know, pleading with him, don't withdraw--this is a
voluntary agreement. I mean, I don't even know if anybody in
the White House agreed with him. Certainly, his family didn't.
So, you know, all this discussion about, you know, treaties
versus agreements I just--I just think it's, you know, largely
irrelevant. I don't mean to be disrespectful but I just think
that he was trying to send a signal that I am not going to move
on climate change--I don't believe that climate change is an
issue and I am going to try to kill everything we have done
under Obama to lead in that direction.
And he is an outlier. We should just recognize.
Unfortunately, he is the President. Let me ask Mr. Hultman, you
know, it is interesting that it is almost the opposite. You
know, Mr. Shimkus talked about, you know, France and other
countries that, you know, where the leaders are trying to move
forward and they are getting resistance.
I almost feel, based on what Ms. Frisch said, it is the
opposite here. Our leader is trying to move backward and the
business community and the grassroots are saying, no, don't do
that. It is sort of interesting in a way.
But what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Hultman, is this whole
issue with the--you know, with--well, you call them the
subnational or non-Federal actors. What is it that we can do to
make it easier for these subnational actors to take meaningful
action and live up to our Paris commitments? You sort of
suggested that they are--at some point they are going to have
their own limitations.
Is there something we could do maybe on a bipartisan basis
to make it easier for them to continue in that vein? Or what
kind of challenges will they face because of Federal inaction?
Dr. Hultman. There are a few things that I think can be
done now at the Federal level. And let me just pick up on your
previous comment that, yes, we are seeing this leadership and I
think this actually is an element that ties together some of
the comments that we have heard today from you all, that we are
building through this substantial, you know, set of leadership
across party lines in some cases some ideas and some strategies
for reducing emissions. We are----
Mr. Pallone. By the way, I have a lot of Republican mayors
and county legislators. There isn't a single one of them that
agrees with the President on Paris. Not one.
Dr. Hultman. And in many cases, as Carla also mentioned,
that a lot of these actors are doing these in response to
demands from their constituencies and being responsive and
trying to lead in the ways that they see being valuable for
their--for their organizations, for their jurisdictions.
So we are seeing what I would argue we had to do anyway in
this country. We had to anyway leverage all of these levels of
government, leverage all of the leadership.
Think about what is going to work and not work in our
various kinds of situations and build from the ground up a
strategy that we can use then, stitched together at the Federal
level.
Mr. Pallone. Is there anything--because we are going to run
out of time----
Dr. Hultman. Yes.
Mr. Pallone [continuing]. Is there anything that we can do
to make it easier for them or challenges they are going to face
because of what we----
Dr. Hultman. I think it is important to make sure that
those States and cities which want to be leading and out ahead,
that from the Federal level we allow them to do so. I think
that is sort of first and foremost--do no harm. I would
highlight the State of California in particular, which is
trying to move forward on some of its regulatory actions.
Also, to make sure that we are as somebody--I think Andrew
mentioned--spending out the funds that have been allocated to
those jurisdictions--for example, weatherization efficiency.
That is helpful for low-income people, it is helpful for
building the basis for future reductions.
Mr. Pallone. I know we are running out of time but, Mr.
Chairman, is there something Mr. Light wanted to say?
Dr. Light. Thank you, sir. I just wanted to go back to one
thing you said at the top on the voluntary nature of the Paris
Agreement. Absolutely correct.
It is important to remember, though, that the rules on
transparency, on accountability, those are binding.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Dr. Light. That is the interesting combination we set here.
This is why this is not just a vacuous agreement and it doesn't
have force like a treaty.
Now, you know, Mr. Thernstrom said that innovation is the
key and treaties are not as important. I agree innovation is
totally important. But the important thing is that we need to
know whether other countries are actually fulfilling the
pledges that they are making publicly.
The only way we know that is if we actually have the rules
that we have agreed to under Paris that put developing and
developed countries on the same terrain of accountability.
Mr. Tonko. So we need to go vote. We will stand in recess
and return 15 minutes after the last vote is called.
With that, we are in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Tonko. We have our witnesses back at the table. We have
our next Member who chooses to question the witnesses here. So
I call the subcommittee back to order.
And now we will recognize the Republican leader of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. You are welcome.
Mr. Walden. And thanks to our witnesses for returning.
Sorry. When we have these votes on the floor, they are just
part of our constitutional responsibility as well.
So there has been some discussion this morning, I know,
about treaties versus agreements in the context of the Paris
Accords, and Mr. Thernstrom stated in his written testimony,
and I agree and I quote, ``The Paris Agreement could not
succeed since the agreement was a substitute for rather than
the product of a domestic political consensus,'' which I think
is a really important point.
The role of the Congress should not be circumvented in
addressing such sweeping policies that impact so many aspects
of our daily lives, from our utility bills to what we pay at
the pump to the livelihoods of American citizens.
And that is what I hope and I trust with our chairman that
we will be able to build here as a consensus--bipartisan
consensus. That is how big things get done. This is a big thing
that needs to get done.
Mr. Thernstrom, last November, Bill Gates was quoted at a
Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy event as saying, and I
quote, ``The `climate is easy to solve' group is our biggest
problem.'' ``The `climate is easy to solve' group is our
biggest problem.'' He said this in context of people who assume
that we have the current tools to address climate change and
should be able to do so rather easily.
Do you agree that this is not an easy problem to solve--
that we do not currently have all the technologies needed to
solve it?
Mr. Thernstrom. I very strongly agree with that, Mr.
Walden, and I think that the--consequently, as I said in my
statement earlier, I think the core focus of Federal policy
should be on driving energy technology innovation.
I do think that, obviously, as I said, we have made great
improvements----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Thernstrom [continuing]. In performance of clean energy
technologies. Prices are coming down and we see that in the
marketplace. There is a lot of adoption of those technologies,
as many witnesses here has testified. So I celebrate those
accomplishments.
But, clearly, if the technology was where we needed it to
be today----
Mr. Walden. We would be done.
Mr. Thernstrom [continuing]. We would be done. We wouldn't
need policy. And so I think all of the analysis that I have
seen suggests that we can make improvements today but to get to
where we need to be in the energy sector we need significant
innovation.
And even the utilities that I am aware of that are most
forward leaning on this--that have made the most ambitious
commitments to action all understand that this question is not
just about using today's technologies. It is about getting to
better ones and there is an important role for public policy in
that as well as for the private sector.
Mr. Walden. I was in a meeting yesterday with some leaders
from one of the world's largest oil companies and I asked them
the same sort of question about innovation in their space,
especially as it relates to methane capture and carbon capture
and sequestration.
And they started to tell me about some of the cutting-edge
technologies they are investing in to see what they can get
done, and that is where I think, as Americans, we are unique in
the construct that we believe in--the entrepreneurial spirit.
We believe in that innovation. We believe in that a couple
of guys in a garage in San Jose that do some weird stuff and
end up with a company named Apple or, in my context, a guy with
a waffle iron that developed a little shoe we know now as Nike.
You know, and I have great confidence we can do that here,
and from a positive standpoint. In fact, the study you
submitted in your testimony says that a bet exclusively on
today's apparent winners--solar, wind, and battery storage--
should be a mistake. Why do you think that?
Mr. Thernstrom. So the point of that--the point of that
study is to say that we can see--as I have said, I applaud the
success of renewable energy technologies in improving their
performance in recent years.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Thernstrom. But if you think about the question of how
you get to a clean energy system as a whole--not just to have
some incremental progress--all the analyses that I have seen
agree that having a diverse mix of fuel sources within the
energy system is really crucial to getting to--to maintaining
low cost as we reach for higher levels of decarbonization. So--
--
Mr. Walden. And should advanced nuclear be part of that
mix? Does it have to be?
Mr. Thernstrom. Absolutely. My organization is a strong
believer in investing in the full portfolio of technologies,
very much believe that advanced nuclear is part of that,
advanced carbon capture as well and many renewable
technologies. So we see value, as I say, in that full
portfolio.
Mr. Walden. And, I assume, hydropower?
Mr. Thernstrom. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden. We have studies from our own agencies saying we
can increase hydropower dramatically. Now, there are some price
points here, too. It is one thing to say you can do it. It is
another to say the market would accept that higher price in
some of these facilities. But we know that is carbon neutral.
Mr. Thernstrom. That is correct, sir. I know some advocates
are working very hard on figuring out how we can get more
productivity out of our existing hydropower resources and
things like that and I certainly applaud those efforts.
Mr. Walden. My time is expiring. I know we have focused
kind of on energy in this discussion. We need to do this on
manufacturing, what we can do to capture carbon. I have heard
of technologies that are being developed where you could sort
of drop powder in and--elementary level here--and it would
surround the molecules and pull it out, the carbon is taken
out. It would be fascinating to be able to get in that
discussion.
If we are going to add all these electric vehicles--I drive
a hybrid on both coasts--but, you know, that is going to be a
drain on the energy grid but it can also be a big storage
battery. I mean, I have heard of that discussion.
So anyway, I appreciate all our witnesses here today. Sorry
I have to come and go but, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
indulgence and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentleman yields back, and can I just
please encourage the witnesses to speak into the mic so that we
can all record well and hear well.
So with that, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. McEachin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me begin by
thanking you for calling this hearing and all of our witnesses
for sharing your expertise.
I also want to acknowledge my friends and constituents back
home who have worked hard to show that whatever the Trump
administration may say or do about the Paris Agreement,
Virginia is still in.
I know many others up here can say the same things about
their communities, their citizens and their friends back home.
Part of our job is to ensure that those folks are not alone, to
give them a Federal Government that supports and further builds
on their work instead of ignoring it or trying to thwart it.
I have tried to do my part. In the last Congress, I was
proud to introduce a bill that would have forced the Trump
administration to acknowledge over and over that the U.S.
withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is disastrously out of step
with the choice that all of our partners and allies around the
world are making.
So I think this hearing is a very important step and I hope
it helps to lay the groundwork for some of the concrete policy
changes we desperately need.
And with that, Mr. Light, I would like to ask you the
following. Some of my friends across the aisle oppose
aggressive climate action because they say the challenges we
face are bigger than our one country--we cannot solve them
alone.
I actually agree with that point. Other countries need to
pull their weight. But the outcome--collective action--is
exactly what the Paris Agreement was meant to achieve.
Can you explain how the imperative to influence other
countries makes climate action at the Federal level an absolute
necessity?
Dr. Light. Thank you, Representative McEachin, and I just
want to say I appreciate your leadership on the Paris climate
act on transportation and a host of other issues for helping
the country and helping the district and State.
I think that the--you know, that one of the things that has
been coming out here, and Representative Walden just mentioned
it, is sort of this idea that we shouldn't have moved forward
with Paris because there wasn't a bill that came out of
Congress to support the U.S. position.
And I think that this is wrong for a number of reasons that
you have just touched on.
So, first of all, President Obama did ask the Congress at
least three times in State of the Union speeches to bring
forward legislation so that he would have a commitment that he
could use to take and build a commitment under Paris.
We didn't get a law come out of Congress. But climate
change is moving on. The urgency was still there. The United
States had to act. The United States can't solve the problem
alone. But we are not going to be able to get the buy-in from
other countries unless the United States is there to move them
along, and I gave several examples of that in my testimony.
Secondly, we are losing the competitiveness race to China
and other countries. If you just take--the ISC had a study that
just looked at the pledges from developing countries alone
under Paris. That created a $23 trillion market in
transformations, in energy, and infrastructure abroad.
The United States has to compete with that and if we are
not part of Paris, if we are not part of these coalitions, we
are going to lose the race and other countries are going to
gobble up those markets and gobble up the jobs from that.
And so that is where you need the United States there to
cooperate and bring other countries along and also not to
suffer by appearing to be dragging everyone behind, which is
what we are doing now.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that.
Ms. Frisch, did I say that close? OK. You know, we always
talk about the States are laboratories for democracies--for
democracy. And you have stated that States with commitments to
climate have reduced their greenhouse emissions faster than the
rest of the country while growing their economies.
What have the last 2 years taught us about the economic
feasibility of large-scale action?
Ms. Frisch. And thank you for that question.
The initial States in the U.S. Climate Alliance not only
found that they were able to reduce their emissions faster than
the rest of the country but their economies grew faster than
the rest of the country. They are making commitments to reduce
emissions that also have all kinds of cobenefits like jobs and
technology.
And on the technology front, you mentioned the costs coming
down. We have seen that trend just continue to go and go, and
even one of the leaders of the second largest utility in the
U.S. said recently that by the early 2020s, which is not that
far from now, renewables plus storage--building that new will
be cheaper than continuing to operate existing coal and
existing nuclear.
So we have seen that trend over the past years and can look
forward to that in the future.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
Mr. Hultman, I am sorry. I just have a little bit of time
left. But can you explain what you mean when you say why the
experiences of State and local actors have actually helped ease
the way for systematic Federal action?
Dr. Hultman. Sure, and very briefly, Federal action can
fill in some of the gaps where city, State, and business action
can't, and we have a Federal system. There are different policy
levers that each level of government has.
What those city, States, and businesses are doing today is,
first of all, building out more efficiency and more renewables
in their contexts. That allows the Federal Government to take
that and build on it and, similarly, it helps drive down costs
of those technologies.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington
State. Representative McMorris Rodgers, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member. I appreciate everyone being here and sharing
your thoughts on the issues impacting our environment.
Clearly, the climate is changing and global industrial
activity is a contributing factor. I believe that we must play
a role in reducing carbon emissions and being good stewards of
our natural resources. Part of why I have fought for the
advancement of clean energy resources like hydropower, nuclear
energy, biomass, hydrogen fuel cells.
It is also why I have long advocated for active forest
management and reforms that we need to reduce the risk of
catastrophic fires like the ones that we experience regularly
in the West, and these decimate our carbon-capturing forests
and emit toxic smoke into the atmosphere.
I believe that these and other realistic market-based
solutions that incentivize use and investment in clean energy
resources are the answer, not the big government proposals that
harm our economy and force the American people to bear
unreasonable burdens.
Mr. Thernstrom, as you may know, I am a strong proponent of
hydropower as a piece of the comprehensive clean energy program
that we need. My home State of Washington is a large producer
of clean renewable reliable hydropower and I have supported
efforts to advance this clean energy both nationally and
internationally, I believe, that we should be doing.
With the role that Washington State plays in hydropower
energy production and the overall role that hydropower plays in
the United States, I just wanted to get your thoughts on how
hydropower can grow as a power resource on the international
level.
You note in your papers that there may be geological limits
to current expansion of hydropower but you see promising
technological advances that would increase its usefulness as a
clean baseload power source.
I just wanted you to discuss that a little bit further and
also hear what you think the United States needs to do to
remain a prominent player in the hydropower arena
internationally.
Mr. Thernstrom. Thank you very much for that question,
Congresswoman, and I should say at first that I don't actually
consider myself an expert on hydropower. So take my answers for
what they are worth. I study it in the context of innovation
and clean energy technologies, broadly.
I do believe that hydropower has a very important role to
play in this, particularly because it is a renewable resource--
energy resource--that is also firm, that it is dispatchable
mostly when you need it.
Obviously, weather conditions can affect the status of
reservoirs and dams and therefore the ability to dispatch that
power indefinitely.
But, fundamentally, hydropower can be considered a firm
resource and therefore plays a crucial role in a reliable low-
cost clean energy system. So I applaud the role of hydropower.
The question is, of course, how much more can we get out of
our hydropower resources. There are limitations on the
geography for where new hydropower can be developed and,
obviously, there are questions of community opposition in some
places.
I know many environmental advocates are interested in how
we can get more power out of existing resources that we have,
so without building new dams, repower those and get more
productivity out of that, and I certainly think that is a very
strong place to start with that question.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. You may be aware that last year
this committee passed legislation to expedite the 2-year
licensing process for pumped storage hydropower. As we are
focusing on innovation I think we should also be focusing on
identifying the regulatory barriers to implementing advanced
technologies. What role do you see regulatory reform playing in
serving our efforts to speed up clean technology deployment?
Mr. Thernstrom. Again, thank you for that excellent
question. I do think that there are many instances in the
hydropower space and within--with many of these other
technologies where existing regulatory structures are an
impediment to the adoption and rapid use of these
technologies--that we can make them--we can make it easier for
businesses, for utilities, for States that want to be leaders
on this to actually move forward with that by looking at the
regulatory barriers that we have now.
I applaud that hydro bill. I think we see similar efforts
in other areas with other technologies to try to make it easier
to build advanced nuclear reactors, to test new fuel cycles, to
build carbon capture, to move carbon dioxide through pipelines
and inject it underground.
Across the suite of technologies we see there are
regulatory barriers to the adoption of clean energy that I
think this Congress should be looking at and trying to lower in
every instance.
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes. Only 3 percent of the dams actually
produce hydroelectricity in America, and we could double that
without building a new dam. But, unfortunately, it takes 10
years on average to relicense one of those dams. So there is
more to be done.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Thernstrom. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
Representative McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the Chair and I thank the
witnesses this morning.
Mr. Light, Mr. Latta, my colleague, and I cochair the Grid
Innovation Caucus, and I am committed to modernizing the grid
to keep up with the demands that the electoral system is going
to be seeing in the future.
What do you think needs to be done to educate the
ratepayers and the PUCs and the policymakers and the consumers
about having utilities adopt this technology?
Dr. Light. Well, I think this is an excellent example of
where--again, I am all in favor of doing work on RD&D, on
innovative technologies, on battery storage, on, you know,
small nuclear.
We need to--this is an all of the above--all forms of clean
energy have to be deployed to meet these larger targets. That
is an excellent example of where we have got a problem right
now that we solve. We can't move forward on those until we do
grid modernization.
Mr. McNerney. And we have to educate the different
stakeholders.
Dr. Light. And we have--and we are going to have to----
Exactly. We have to educate the stakeholders that there is
a market out there to be had. This transition is better for
them. It avoids longer-term risks.
It also, at the end of the day, will lower their
electricity rates and this requires programs out there--not
draconian regulations of any sort but programs out there that
help people to understand the opportunities before them.
Mr. McNerney. And investments as well.
Mr. Thernstrom, thanks for coming in this morning. And I
appreciate your comments about the need for innovation.
What Federal policy do you--what Federal policy do we need
to encourage the adoption or--and acceleration of clean energy
technology? What Federal policies are we going to need?
Mr. Thernstrom. Well, obviously, there isn't a simple
answer to that question. It is a complex range of things. As
you know from our previous conversations, sir, I believe in a
mix of policies that could be knitted together in one coherent
package.
But, broadly speaking, I think it is important to have
technology push--that is, investments in innovation in the full
suite of technology spaces--renewables, efficiency, carbon
capture, nuclear, hydro.
Across the board, we need to invest in advancing those
technologies. I do think in the long run there needs to be
demand pull as well. We need to know what the rules of the road
are going to be in the power sector.
We have a state of flux, let us say, in what the regulatory
requirements will be and I think this committee is the place to
think about what the long-term rules of the road will be for
the power----
Mr. McNerney. It sounds like you are advocating for
consistent long-term policy.
Mr. Thernstrom. That is right. I do think----
Mr. McNerney. And I think everybody here would agree with
that. So----
Mr. Thernstrom. I think that is crucial that----
Mr. McNerney. But, I mean, the problem is getting a
bipartisan agreement on that. So it is going to take pain on
both sides if we are going to get there.
And we are--OK. Enough said.
Mr. Thernstrom. Well, I agree with you on that point, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Hultman, I am working on legislation to
improve our understanding of stratospheric composition and
aerosol interactions.
Now, would this research be helpful in establishing a
baseline of current conditions that is needed before any NGO
engineering deployment could be considered?
Dr. Hultman. Thank you for the question, and I want to
distinguish two pieces of this question.
One is that in the broad science of climate change we
definitely know enough to take actions today of the kind we
have been talking about I think that are being taken both at
the subnational level and maybe bringing some of those ideas to
the Federal.
That said, there are some significant uncertainties about
how human interference or human contribution to a
geoengineering approach to climate change would actually work,
and this was highlighted in the National Research Council
report of a couple of years ago that really called for some
necessary investments in understanding the scientific elements
of a geoengineering strategy. So the short answer is yes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, that was the only answer.
Thanks. Anybody can answer this one. In order to address
climate change we are going to have to move rapidly in reducing
our carbon emissions and removing carbon from the atmosphere.
What are the most promising technologies right now that we
have out there to do that? Whoever wants to take that question.
Ms. Frisch. I think the most promising technologies that we
have out there are the ones that can help prevent emitting that
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the first place.
So those are ready to go and being deployed in those
spaces. But as the other panelists have said, we have to bring
every single technology to bear on the solution--to bear on
this problem to be able to get on track and reduce emissions as
quickly as we need to.
Mr. McNerney. I saw an article--I think it was in the New
York Times--about a promising technology in Switzerland to
remove carbon cheaply. I mean, there must be some really good
technology out there that we need to look into and encourage.
Ms. Frisch. Right. I read that article, too, and I think
the key there was that it is in the R&D phases and the costs
need to come down. So we should definitely be encouraging that
while we are deploying the technology that we already have.
Mr. McNerney. Right.
Mr. Thernstrom. If I may, I would just agree with Ms.
Frisch that I think halting emissions from existing sources
first and developing, say, carbon capture technologies that
would facilitate the development of carbon removal in the long
term, that is the pathway we need to take.
Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia,
Representative McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And this subject is long overdue to having a conversation
on this because there--obviously, there are storm clouds on the
horizon.
Around the world there is still a voracious appetite for
the use of fossil fuels and they are predicted by the next few
years that the global increase--its consumption of fossil fuels
by up to 16 percent.
So the idea of how we are going to deal with that issue is
complex. America could very well lead the way and we have in
decarbonizing and lowering our emissions--CO2
emissions down to 16, 18 percent--21 percent by some standards.
But yet China and India have markedly a continued increase.
So what is it, the number of--China is up 290 percent in this
decade, and India 235 percent.
So the thing that I am perplexed about is that we can go
about--American continuing to lead and make our reductions
where--again, up to 20 percent. We have already begun complying
with the Kyoto and the Paris Accord by making reductions.
But the rest of the world isn't, and so as a result, we are
going to be the ones that suffer with this. We are still going
to have--across the globe you are going to have climate change.
We are still going to see the oceans rise, temperatures again
increase.
Miami is going to be under water and all that--we have done
everything. We have complied totally with it. So the thing that
bothers me the most about this is that we are asking people,
other nations of the world, to implement reductions in their
emissions but we are not giving them the tools to do it. There
is no technology that is economically feasible out there right
now.
So the fact that, Mr. Thernstrom, we have been working
together, quite frankly, so with all disclosure here to try to
figure out what is a solution to give--empower these other
countries to implement something that is cost effective and
because if we don't and they continue to burn fossil fuels, we
are still going to have a water problem.
We are still going to have droughts. We are still going to
have severe weather all around the globe. Maybe not in America
but around the world is going to suffer.
So I think if we--if the primary cause is how we capture
carbon, I think we need to have the innovation and we have to
move it up first. Do the innovation first.
Show that what the technology, and then we can export it to
the rest of the world and make it so that it is affordable for
them to do it because they are still going to use carbon.
We--I think we have the responsibility to lead the way in
doing this. But let us make sure that we don't put the reverse
in--we don't put a hammer approach. Let us use the innovation
first and then go to implement the policies then to follow back
with that.
So if they don't have the--Mr. Thernstrom, if we don't have
the technology yet, what are you suggesting? What now--what
could we do? I know last year we passed 45Q to be able--that
was a major step to show how we might be able to do that to
develop that in carbon capture.
What are--what are some of the thoughts that you would have
how we might do the innovation first? Unfortunately, we lost
one of our Members here that I know has an interest in
innovation.
But give me a little bit more on your spin.
Mr. Thernstrom. Thank you, sir, and thank you for your
leadership on this question. I guess I would start my answer to
that question by you ended, with 45Q as an example of both what
I think can be done that is constructively but also what more
needs to be done.
So full disclosure, I was up here advocating for 45Q
passage for almost more years that I can remember--I think it
was seven or eight. I think 45Q was a very important step
forward.
At the same time, we are actually seeing very few projects
are being built so far because of 45Q, although I still have
high hopes that more will come.
The reason for that is that 45Q is one lever within a very
complex energy system. And so what I keep saying to you and
others is that, if we want big outcomes from big energy
systems, we need big inputs.
And that is why I think it is important for the members of
this committee to come together around some consensus about
what policy proposals would be.
As you know, another theme of mine is that the innovation
needs of different technology families are distinct. So my
answer to you is what we need to do for fossil decarbonization
is different than what we need to do to advance nuclear and
that is different from what we need to do for solar.
And I would encourage you and other members of this
committee to look at the specific needs of those technologies,
have policy responses that are tailored to them but which are
comprehensive and ambitious rather than just these one-off
small ball type approaches. That is how we will get to big
outcomes in the energy system that we all----
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of
Delaware, Representative Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
so much to the panel.
I am very happy to be joining you here at this hearing
because as I jumped out of the room for a minute I had to meet
with students, our Delaware Civil Air Patrol Cadets, and I
thought about the significance of this conversation and how
important it is not just to my State and our country but to the
planet.
And I want to start by saying I am pleased to say that my
home State of Delaware wasted no time joining the U.S. Climate
Alliance and I believe it is encouraging to see so many local
governments and communities stepping up to act on climate
change.
Local officials are on the front lines of protecting our
communities. But they need that Federal support. And I am
concerned that a piecemeal approach may create an uneven
playing field where some communities may take meaningful steps
and look out for their most disadvantaged citizens while others
may not.
And, as you know, climate change is already affecting
communities across the United States and those communities will
only intensify over time.
So I would love it if you could talk a little bit, Mr.
Hultman and Ms. Frisch, have you seen any successful examples
of local climate action addressing the unique challenges faced
by disadvantaged communities? And what lessons can be learned
at the Federal level from those case studies, again, examples
of local climate action in disadvantaged communities?
Dr. Hultman. So I will give two quick examples, and I think
Ms. Frisch probably has some others because she has been
working in--across different kinds of technologies in this
space.
But, very briefly, there are two areas that I would look at
and this does tap into our conversation about the simultaneity
of deploying new technology but also doing innovation with, you
know, as necessary.
A third thing that we can imagine as part of that is jobs
and economy, and I think that, for example, there has been a
lot of new work, as we are talking about students and sort of
new training, in looking at, for example, solar and wind
installers, right. Like, that is an area where you can, with
some technical training, you know, people can actually learn
the toolkit.
They can take sort of construction skills and apply it and
be able to move forward with a career in this new and
exciting--new and exciting area.
A second area that is also quite useful, which has often
partnerships across Federal, State, and local government is
thinking about efficiency in weatherization and those are
things that save everybody money and are particularly valuable
for those populations that are lower income.
And also, you know, there are a lot of benefits too in
terms of emissions, but primarily they are also helpful to the
people who live in those spaces.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
Ms. Frisch?
Ms. Frisch. Thank you for the question, and two additional
examples are in clean electricity production and clean public
transportation that can significantly reduce air emissions,
which cause all kinds of problems like asthma and can actually
reduce the length of people's lives.
And one of the great things about the subnational action
that you mentioned with cities, States, and businesses is that
it is inherently local and those people's voices are coming to
the table and they will talk with their policy makers and make
policies that really work for them in those communities.
And I think what we are learning from that is the lesson
we've always known that it is good to be reminded of--that it
really is about bringing people together. And for climate
action in the U.S., I mean, let's face it, the way we often do
Federal policy the Federal Government lags behind public
opinion and we are seeing this wave of public opinion about
climate ready to go and it is crashing on us now.
So we are happy that you and members of the subcommittee
are really taking this seriously.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
Mr. Light, my next question is for you and it is based on
the testimony that you gave. You had a statistic that really
jumped out at me that China is investing ten times more than
the United States in research and development.
Can you talk about the potential consequences of that
discrepancy in funding? I actually lived in China for 4 years
and I saw it first-hand. So if you could talk a little bit
about that.
Dr. Light. It means that they are going to win the markets
that have been created by the Paris Agreement. I mean, we can
talk about, you know, whether the United States should have
moved forward and the status of our pledge and whether
agreement versus treaty and all that kind of stuff.
And in the meantime, China and the EU, Canada, other
countries, are jumping ahead and grabbing the markets that were
created by the fact the rest of the world is worried about
climate change, they want to do something, and the prices are
plummeting so it actually is affordable for them to move to
solar power and other things.
Otherwise, the prime minister of India would not be moving
full force into this. If it was too expensive he wouldn't do
it.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
I also wanted to ask a question about the impact of the
$600 million going unspent that you talked about in your
testimony. Can you briefly--ten seconds.
Dr. Light. Sure. You all have allocated--the last
Congress--put money into ARPA-E--into the Bureau of Energy
Efficiency and Research. NRDC has a very interesting analysis
of this that is linked to in my testimony. That money is not
being spent. It is not going forward there and I think that
this is something where oversight from this committee is
directly appropriate to make sure that money goes out the door
and it goes in programs that are not driven by ideology--that
are driven by where is the place that we can put money in the
near term that is going to get us the biggest bang in terms of
something we can put out there and compete with these other
countries that are already way ahead of us.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the representative from the State
of New York--Brooklyn, Yvette Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
our panelists for really lending your expertise to us today as
we grapple with this issue.
I represent Brooklyn, as our chairman introduced me, where
in 2012 we saw the impact of climate change first hand when
Superstorm Sandy devastated my district and, going forward,
will only get worse.
I brought with me a map showing how sea level rise is an
existential threat to New York City. Right there. And I wanted
to talk about the flooded areas on the map are real
communities.
We are talking about inundation of homes in communities
like Gerritson Beach and Sheepshead Bay and all of our subway
lines, quite frankly.
As the President claims, there is a national emergency on
the southern border, he is ignoring what I believe is a
national emergency in his own back yard and in the absence of
Federal leadership, what should cities like mine be doing to
increase our climate resiliency and prepare for the impact of
sea level rise? And I would like to extend that the entire
panel.
Ms. Frisch. Thank you for that question, and New York has
been a leader in working on resilience, particularly after
Superstorm Sandy and making some of the infrastructure, raising
it up so it is above sea level rise in the planning.
And that is a lesson that many communities across the U.S.
are taking is that they need to evaluate what are those
vulnerabilities and make a plan to address those
vulnerabilities.
Ms. Clarke. Does anyone else want to answer?
Dr. Hultman. I mean, you know, community resilience is
something everybody wants, and I think that is something that
is a point of agreement across a lot of different kinds of
communities and leaders in those communities.
There are steps that can be taken today in a diversity of
kinds of communities, and New York--I think I will echo Ms.
Frisch's comment--has been leading in thinking about
integrating, for example, first response with kind of weather
understanding and how to kind of integrate those different ways
to think about near-term action to respond to natural hazards
or disasters.
But that also has to be coupled with a longer-term planning
process that does involve different kinds of stakeholders in
that--in those community groups.
And looking at New York's example, looking at other places
around the country as different places, we talked a lot about
emissions today and responding to climate through emissions. So
I appreciate your comment about thinking of climate as a much
broader set of issues affecting us today.
Those same studies of city, State, and business actions
that are happening on emissions we can also see a lot of the
same things happening on resilience, and I think this is a
moment where we can use those experiments, we can use those
understandings that are developing to better inform policy.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. It is an emerging industry that has to
look at climate change holistically and I think that looking at
this from a piecemeal perspective disadvantages us
tremendously. So opponents of climate change legislation argue
that the cost of sort of building out a green economy is simply
too high. But they ignore the cost of inaction.
You talked about raising homes. It is extremely expensive
to have to retrofit old housing stock in order to raise them,
and just to address the whole resiliency issue.
How do we put a price tag on the damage sea level rise will
continue to inflict on communities like mine?
Dr. Light. So I think that the National Climate Assessment
just submitted to Congress this last past fall and I was--I
worked on the national climate assessment on the chapter on
mitigation. Look at that. I think the price figures are already
there.
So in the higher emission scenarios, you are looking at sea
level rise threatening a trillion dollars of assets both public
and private in the United States.
If that is not enough to motivate something to be put into
the next infrastructure bill, which is, we hope, coming down
the pike, I am not exactly sure what is.
And in terms of what New York City needs to do and other
cities like that, I would sort of say investment in natural
infrastructure. We have known this from Superstorm Sandy. We
have known this.
The most effective way and the most cost effective way and
the way that you can actually get lots of jobs created in your
districts is by having people enhance natural infrastructure
and not only just trying to build sea walls which are always
going to be based on difficult propositions in the future.
I think the more that Congress can do to make it possible
for States to form cross-border alliances to achieve those
kinds of things, because sea level rise is not going to respect
the State boundaries, the better you are going to see a good
outcome.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. My time has run out. I have several
other questions but this is to be continued and I thank you
once again for all of your insight and expertise today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois,
Representative Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
panel. I am sorry that I missed most of it--not all of it--and
I really appreciate all of your participation.
So, first, I want to make a few remarks dealing with
innovation. It seems to me that saying that we should focus on
innovation rather than ambitious Federal or international
climate goals is a false choice.
Over the past several decades, we have seen industry claim
time and time again that various Federal rules and standards
are overly burdensome--and maybe sometimes that is the case--
but that they will put American companies out of business.
The auto industry told us that, quote, ``We just do not
have the technology to comply,'' end quote, with tailpipe
standards, for example. We heard that requirements for
reformulation of gasoline would result in, quote, ``major
supply disruptions,'' unquote.
But these claims were not proven true and, in fact, history
has shown that strong Federal regulation and goals actually
help drive further innovation.
The Clean Air Act is a perfect example of that. It used
regulatory standards to drive technology, technological
innovation, and pollution controls.
The act recognizes that usually costs that--that it usually
costs less to dump pollution for free than to clean it up. So
businesses generally don't control pollution absent
requirements.
Once an air pollution standard is in place, American
industry gets to work and meets the challenge, and along the
way we develop more effective and less expensive pollution
control technologies.
Not only is our air cleaner, we also export the technology,
it seems to me, that having to meet certain standards helps us
develop the technologies that we can export around the world.
So not only is our air cleaner, we have seen that happen
over and over again. So I would really like any of you who want
to comment on the balance of regulation and technology, and I
would be interested if anyone on this panel actually believes
that regulation in and of itself drives down innovation.
And so I would love to hear about that. Anyone, go ahead. I
only have 2 minutes.
Dr. Hultman. Thank you for the question. I will try to keep
mine brief so if the others want to chime in they are free.
Your comment about not being a choice between deployment
today and innovation I think is absolutely correct. I also
agree that your phrasing of thinking about what policy driving
the deployment of technology is an absolutely essential part
which Mr. Thernstrom even referred to, of pulling technologies
into the market, and many times we need that impetus to drive
down or drive the technology deployment, which therefore drives
down the technology costs.
And I will want to kind of return to one point that has
been made in a couple of ways. But we have seen--we are in the
middle of a revolution in energy costs right now--the costs for
solar and wind and, frankly, other technologies have dropped
precipitously over the last decade. Even in the last 7 or 8
years we have seen, you know, solar costs drop by something
like 70-plus percent.
So those costs are dropping and they are dropping not least
because innovation is happening but also that there has been
deployment across a multitude of States, cities, businesses
and, frankly, other countries.
Ms. Frisch. Thank you for the many participants from
Illinois and we are still a coalition.
So to answer your question, analysis has shown that
technology push plus from the policy pull including the
regulations that you are talking about can actually get us
further than either of the two. So think of one plus one equals
three.
You have to have both you only get so far with the
technology push. You have to have the policy pull to move
along.
So as far as the Federal role, there is really an important
role to make the priority clear so then the market can follow
and get the progress and the benefits that you are talking
about.
Ms. Schakowsky. I think, clearly, and predictability is
really important but it seems to me, I know we are talking
about--oops, we will discuss it later offline.
Ms. Frisch. Would love to.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. I believe Mr. Light had a quick comment to make.
Dr. Light. Very quick. Very concrete example.
The conversation we were just having about 45Q that Mr.
McKinley started was a great example of where--we have got a
regulation. The incentive has created through 45Q--that is
supposed to help the technology like direct air capture go from
this exploratory phase, way too expensive to be deployable to
get something there.
But the price is not there. And so but if you combine the
innovation side on direct air capture with 45Q and then you put
it in a State like California which has got a carbon market, so
you got policy innovation, then you are talking about combined
price that stars to make a technology like that feasible and
profitable.
That is the way they all three work together. The idea
that, you know, we have got to sort of choose one path or
another is just false.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. I believe that concludes
all the Members who were choosing to be recognized.
I again thank the panel for their participation today and
enduring the recess that required our absence for votes.
I now request unanimous consent to enter the following into
the record: a report entitled ``Getting to Zero Carbon
Emissions in the Electric Power Sector'' by Jesse Jenkins; the
report entitled ``Tracking Progress of the 2020 Climate Turning
Point'' by the World Resources Institute, the executive summary
of the report entitled ``Fulfilling America's Pledge: How
States, Cities, and Businesses Are Leading the United States to
a Low-Carbon Future'' by America's Pledge; the first United
States Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris
Agreement; a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the text
of the Paris Agreement; and President Trump's statement on the
administration's intended withdrawal from the agreement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The World Resources Institute report has been retained in
committee files and also is available at http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20190228/108973/HHRG-116-IF18-20190228-SD007.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so request unanimous consent there.
Without objection, so ordered. And, again, thank you to our
panel. I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions
for the record to be answered by the witnesses who have
appeared.
I ask each of our witnesses to please respond promptly to
any such questions that you may receive.
And at this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Debbie Dingell
Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member Shimkus, for
holding this important hearing today to discuss the urgent
threat from climate change we all face and the Federal inaction
from this administration that puts us all at risk.
We know sea levels are rising.
We know average temperatures are warming.
We know ice is disappearing at alarming rates.
And we know extreme weather is intensifying and becoming
more frequent--from stronger hurricanes to colder winters. We
have seen this firsthand across the Midwest and Michigan with
the bitter cold polar vortex this year.
The international community recognizes climate change as
the generation threat that it is and multiple scientific
reports have called on the need to act over the next decade to
mitigate serious harms to our economy, environment, and way of
life.
The Fourth National Climate Assessment--prepared for the
President and by scientists across 13 government agencies--
makes it clear:
Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in
the history of modern civilization.
And yet, this administration choses to do nothing.
Since the administration withdrew the United States from
the Paris Agreement, cities and States, like Ann Arbor and
Michigan, have been forced to rise up in the absence of needed
Federal leadership on the world's stage.
I am encouraged and inspired to see cities, States, and
businesses acting, but the will of one city, one county, one
State, or even one country will not be enough to meet the
challenge ahead.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]