[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY:
SOLUTIONS FOR THE U.S. BUILDING SECTOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-64
[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
42-621 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Energy
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, BILL FLORES, Texas
Massachusetts RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 78
Witnesses
Carl Elefante, Past President, American Institute of Architects.. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Steven Nadel, Executive Director, American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy.............................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Curtis J. Zimmermann, Ph.D., Manager, Government Liaison, BASF
Corporation.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Answers to submitted questions............................... 103
Tim Keane, International Vice President at Large, International
Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers.... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Arn McIntyre, President, McIntyre Builders, Inc., on behalf of
the National Association of Home Builders...................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 107
Elizabeth R. Beardsley, Senior Policy Counsel, U.S. Green
Building Counsel............................................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Submitted Material
Letter of September 20, 2019, from Dr. Lucas Joppa, Chief
Environmental Officer, Microsoft, to Mr. Pallone, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 80
Letter, undated, from Kara Saul Rinaldi, President and CEO,
AnnDyl Policy Group, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by
Mr. Rush....................................................... 82
Letter of September 19, 2019, from Jeremy L. Susac, Vice
President of Government Affairs, Sunstreet Energy Group, to Mr.
Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Rush......................... 87
Statement of the American Public Gas Association, September 20,
2019, submitted by Mr. Rush.................................... 89
Letter of September 20, 2019, from George H. Lowe, Vice
President, Governmental Affairs and Public Policy, American Gas
Association, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush.. 94
Statement of the International Code Council, September 20, 2019,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 96
Information on making energy-efficient buildings safe for birds,
submitted by Mr. Griffith \1\
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20190920/109973/
HHRG-116-IF03-20190920-SD010.pdf.
BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: SOLUTIONS FOR THE U.S. BUILDING
SECTOR
----------
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Bobby L. Rush (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, McNerney,
Tonko, Loebsack, Butterfield, Welch, Schrader, Kennedy, Veasey,
Kuster, Kelly, Barragan, O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Pallone
(ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Latta,
Rodgers, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Walberg,
Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Jean
Fruci, Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Catherine
Giljohann, FERC Detailee; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Omar Guzman-Toro,
Policy Analyst; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member Service
Coordinator; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director,
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator;
Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; John Marshall,
Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Meghan
Mullon, Staff Assistant; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia
Roberts, Press Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Rebecca
Tomilchik, Staff Assistant; Tuley Wright, Energy and
Environment Policy Advisor; Peter Kielty, Minority General
Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy, and
Environment and Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy
Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative
Clerk; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff
Member, Environment and Climate Change.
Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to
order.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the
purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
I want to thank you all for joining us this morning for
this important hearing entitled ``Building a 100 Percent Clean
Energy Economy: Solutions for the U.S. Building Sector.''
This hearing is part of a series that we will be holding in
this subcommittee and in other subcommittees to highlight areas
where we can achieve significant emissions reductions in order
to achieve a 100 percent clean energy economy by 2050, as
Chairman Tonko and I proposed back in July.
As we know, the building sector is responsible for an
estimated 40 percent of energy consumed and greenhouse gas
emissions that are produced nationwide. In the same time, there
are numerous opportunities for reducing these emissions through
technology advances, efficiency sufficient standards, and
innovative programs such as Energy Star, Smart Metering, and
others that are on the drawing boards.
Additionally, there are tremendous employment opportunities
for putting Americans to work in my district and in every
district in our Nation. These are good-paying, quality
retrofitting jobs that can not be exported. In fact, earlier
this week, E4TheFuture released its 2019 energy efficiency jobs
in America report which show that the energy efficiency sector
added more jobs than any other energy sector for the second
straight year. The study noted that there are over 2.3 million
Americans currently employed in energy efficiency sector
including more than 89,000 jobs in the State of Illinois and
over 5,000 jobs in my district on the South Side of Chicago.
While it is important for Congress to provide resources and
establish policies to guide actions in these areas of energy
efficiency, as my bill, H.R. 1315, the Blue to Green Collar Job
bill does. It is also critical that the Federal Government sets
the example through its action. You can't lead where you don't
go.
There are literally thousands of federally owned office
buildings, courthouses, post offices, and the likes that must
be retrofitted in order to save millions, if not billions, of
dollars annually in energy savings. My staff is working on
legislation that would ensure that the Federal Energy
Management Program, or FEMP, must ensure that minority business
owners and entrepreneurs are able to participate in this
multibillion-dollar, tax-funded program.
It is way past the time for the Department of Energy to
work within these contracts so that these good old boys
networks are not the only entities receiving these lucrative,
government-backed contracts.
Tackling this issue are making our homes, our schools, and
our business more energy efficient, will save money, put people
back to work, and expand the American middle class. It will
help us to address the severe issue of climate change also.
So I welcome each of these distinguished panelists to
today's hearing. I look forward to engaging them on the best
ways to an achieve each of these objectives.
It is now my distinct honor, privilege to welcome my friend
and my colleague from the great Midwestern State of Michigan,
the ranking member, Fred Upton, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush
I want to thank you all for joining us this morning for
this important hearing entitled: Building a 100 Percent Clean
Economy: Solutions for the U.S. Building Sector.
This hearing is part of a series that we will be holding in
this subcommittee and others to highlight areas where we can
achieve significant emissions reductions in order to realize a
100 percent clean energy economy by 2050 as Chairman Pallone,
Chairman Tonko, and I proposed back in July.
As we know, the building sector is responsible for an
estimated 40 percent of energy consumed and greenhouse gas
emissions produced nationwide.
Yet, there are enormous opportunities for reducing these
emissions through technological advances, efficiency
initiatives, and innovative programs, such as Energy Star,
smart metering, and others.
Additionally, there are tremendous employment opportunities
for putting people to work, in my district and in communities
nationwide, in good paying, quality retrofitting jobs that
cannot be exported.
In fact, earlier this week E4TheFuture released its 2019
Energy Efficiency Jobs in America report which showed that the
energy efficiency sector added more jobs than any other energy
sector--for the second straight year, I might add.
The study noted that there are over 2.3 million Americans
currently employed in the energy efficiency sector, including
more than 89,000 jobs in the State of Illinois, and over 5,000
employed in my district on the Southside of Chicago.
While it is important for Congress to provide resources and
establish policies to guide action in the area of efficiency
initiatives, as my Blue Collar and Green Collar Jobs bill does,
it is also critical that the Federal Government sets the
example through its actions.
There are literally thousands of federally owned office
buildings, courthouses, post offices and the like that must be
retrofitted in order to save millions, if not billions, of
dollars in energy savings.
My staff is working on legislation that would make certain
that the Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP, would
ensure that minority business owners and entrepreneurs are able
to participate in this multibillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded
program.
It is past time for the Department of Energy to open up
these contracts so that the same participants of the ``good old
boys'' networks are not the only entities receiving these
lucrative, government-backed deals.
Tackling this issue of making our homes, schools, and
businesses more energy efficient will save money, put people
back to work, and help us to address the severe issue of
climate change.
So I welcome each of our distinguished panelists to today's
hearing and I look forward to engaging them on the best ways to
achieve each of these objectives.
I would now like to welcome my friend and colleague from
the great State of Michigan, Ranking Member Upton, for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are close
friends for sure. But I also want to thank our witnesses for
appearing before us today.
But before we begin, I just want to call our attention to a
legislative matter that does require the full committee's
attention.
As you know, the Pipeline Safety Act is about to expire in
another week and a half, and we should remind everyone that
this is a reauthorization bill that we have consistently passed
with unanimous consent under Republican majorities. I am
troubled that we are not yet at a point where we can say that
we have a bipartisan agreement to move forward to full
committee. We owe it to our constituents to do better. So I
would hope that we could work together on this bill in the
short couple days ahead.
Turning to the subject at hand, I want to use today's
hearing to focus on real-world solutions to improve the
performance and environmental sustainability of our homes and
our commercial buildings. Thanks to innovation and
technological advancements, we are making great strides to
reduce energy consumption and enhance building performance, but
we still have room for improvement.
So as we consider clean energy solutions for the building
sector at the Federal level, we have to recognize that these
high performance, or green technologies, are often more
expensive to design, build, and maintain. And as policymakers,
we need to take this into account, especially as we are
confronted with declining rates of home ownership, increasing
rental prices and high vacancy rates in any many Americans.
I believe that cleaner solutions for the building sector
must meet three core objectives. They have to be affordable,
cost effective, and they must be driven by consumer demand
rather than government mandates. Housing affordability is my
number one concern. It has been reported that housing
affordability is near a 10-year low, and public polling
confirms 80 percent of Americans think housing affordability
is, in fact, in a crisis.
With a large and growing share of American households
having difficulty finding housing that they can afford, this
committee should be focused on ways to make housing less
expensive rather than piling on more rags and driving up the
cost.
I am also concerned about the cost effectiveness of some of
the proposals such as those with net-zero or carbon-free
mandates. We need to be honest about the performance tradeoffs,
the higher up-front cost, and number of years it will take to
pay back the difference. We have to look at the life cycle of
the products and the building itself before jumping to a ``one
size fits all'' regulation that does, in fact, pick technology
winners and losers.
Finally, I just believe that clean building solutions must
be consumer driven in order to be successful. Consumers know
what they want, they know what they don't like. And they
question about government telling them what they can and cannot
have. Americans demand high performance, cost effectiveness,
and, most importantly, plenty of options to choose what works
best for them. Experience has shown that consumers are turned
off by expensive mandates, but they are more open to properly
placed incentives.
And as you think about clean solutions for the building
sector, I would challenge everyone to think about clean
building solutions that really do add value to their homes.
With that, I look forward to the hearing. I also want to
have a special welcome to Arn McIntyre, who has traveled from,
yes, the great State of Michigan to be with us today. He has
got a great perspective. He is a custom home builder, a leader
in energy efficiency and environmentally friendly design, State
of Michigan building inspector, and he provides research and
consulting business in the building sector as a whole.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses for appearing
before us today. Before we begin, I would like to call
attention to a legislative matter that requires this
committee's attention. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Pipeline
Safety Act is about to expire at the end of this month. We
should remind everyone that this is a reauthorization bill that
we have consistently passed with unanimous consent under
Republican majorities. However, I am troubled by what appears
to be a lack of willingness to work on a bipartisan basis this
time around. We owe it to our constituents to do better, which
is why Republicans are asking you to please, come back to the
table and work with us so we can get this bill in shape for a
full committee markup.
Now, turning to the subject at hand. I would like to use
today's hearing to focus on real world solutions to improve the
performance and environmental sustainability of our homes and
commercial buildings. Thanks to innovation and technological
advancements, we are making great strides to reduce energy
consumption and enhance building performance--but we still have
room for improvement.
As we consider clean energy solutions for the building
sector at the Federal level, we must recognize that these high-
performance, or ``green'' technologies are often much more
expensive to design, build, and maintain. As policymakers, we
need to take this into account, especially as we are confronted
with declining rates of homeownership, increasing rental
prices, and high vacancy rates in many American cities.
I firmly believe that cleaner solutions for the building
sector must meet three core objectives. They must be
affordable, they must be cost effective, and they must be
driven by consumer demand, rather than government mandates.
Housing affordability is my number one concern. It has been
reported that housing affordability is near a 10-year low and
public polling confirms 80 percent of Americans thinks housing
affordability is in a crisis. With a large and growing share of
American households having difficulty finding housing they can
afford, this committee should be focused on ways to make
housing less expensive, rather than piling on more regulations
and driving up costs.
I am also concerned about the cost-effectiveness of some of
the proposals, such as those with ``net zero'' or ``carbon
free'' mandates. We must be honest about the performance trade-
offs, the higher upfront costs, and the number of years it will
take to payback the difference. We must also look at the
lifecycle of the product and the building itself before jumping
to a one-sized-fits-all regulation that picks technology
winners and losers.
Finally, I believe that clean building solutions must be
consumer-driven in order to be successful. Consumers know what
they want, and they do not like the Government telling them
what they can and cannot have. Americans demand high
performance, cost-effectiveness, and most importantly, plenty
of options to choose what works best for them. Experience has
shown that consumers are turned off by expensive mandates, but
they are more open to properly placed incentives. As we think
about clean solutions for the building sector, I would
challenge everyone to think about clean building solutions that
truly add value to homes.
With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses to
learn more about the types of clean building solutions that
consumers are excited to purchase. I would also like to offer a
special welcome to Arn McIntyre who traveled from the great
State of Michigan to be with us today. Mr. McIntyre has a very
interesting perspective: he is a custom homebuilder, a leader
in energy-efficient and environmentally friendly design, a
State of Michigan building inspector, and he provides research
and consulting to the building industry as a whole.
As I mentioned in the beginning, I plan to spend today's
hearing focusing on affordability, cost-effectiveness, and
consumers. I look forward to a constructive conversation, and
at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the esteemed chairman of the full committee, my
friend from the great State of New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5
minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
Today's hearing is the committee's second this week and
third in a series of ongoing hearings as we work to achieve 100
percent clean economy by 2050.
On Wednesday, the Environment and Climate Change
Subcommittee examined the challenges in the industrial sector,
and today this subcommittee will review the U.S. building
sector. We will discuss policies to reduce pollution and save
money by making our buildings more efficient.
Residential and commercial buildings are responsible for
nearly 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution, more than any other
sector. And this is not only attributable to electricity
consumption but also to the use of fossil fuels and furnaces,
hot water heaters, and other building equipment and appliances.
Roughly half of building floor space in U.S. is heated by
fossil fueled fired systems.
In developing a 100 percent clean economy by 2050 is not
going to be easy, but it is absolutely necessary. And there are
policies and solutions in the building sector that can help us
reach that goal. Reducing pollution from buildings is tied to
the power sector in how we produce electricity. Buildings
account for 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and
that means making them 100 percent clean, requires
transitioning the power sector to clean, no carbon resources,
like renewables and nuclear power.
And perhaps the quickest and easiest way to reduce building
emissions is by improving building efficiency. Existing energy
efficiency measures have shown the ability dramatically reduced
building energy use and the associated operating cost for
heating, cooling, and lighting. Yet there is much more we can
do accelerate and broaden the adoption of these technologies:
Adhering to strong building energy codes, updating Federal
minimum energy efficiency standards for building equipment and
appliances, and bolstering Federal support for programs to
weatherize homes can all make a huge impact.
Unfortunately, President Trump is stifling this effort to
both save money and reduce carbon pollution. His administration
has refused to finalized or update efficiency standards for
more than a dozen consumer products. At the same time, he is
rolling back efficiency standards for light bulbs, allowing
inefficient products to stay on the market for years. And this
wastes energy and costs consumers more money.
And as we explore ways to reduce carbon pollution from the
building sector, we have to improve the energy performance of
existing buildings that will likely still be in use in 2050.
So the upfront costs of retrofitting remain a barrier we
must address. This committee has already taken--already acted
by passing a bill authored by Chairman Tonko and Rush to
increase funding for DOE's weatherization assistance program.
We passed legislation by Representative Kelly to provide funds
for public building efficiency upgrades, and we passed
Representative's Stanton and Veasey's bill to reauthorize the
energy efficiency and conservation block grant program. And
these are all going to help, but we still need to do a lot more
to meet the 2050 goal.
There are several interesting ideas that I look forward to
exploring today, including performance standards for existing
buildings, innovative smart building controls, use of net zero
building materials and designs, and electrification of heating
and cooling systems.
States have often been leaders on this issue. My home State
of New Jersey has a draft energy master plan that calls for the
electrifying the building sector by 2050 and reducing the
reliance on natural gas for heating homes and buildings. And
other States are making similar progress. But the Federal
Government must also lead efforts to decarbonize commercial and
residential buildings across the country. Making existing
buildings more energy efficient can create jobs in every
community around the country. Over 2 million Americans work in
energy efficiency, and it is the fastest growing energy sector
in the whole country.
So the widespread need for this work also creates
opportunities to invest in worker training and address local
unemployment in vulnerable communities. Increasing Federal
investment in energy efficiency will spur job growth in
community development that will impact every State and
district. And reducing building emissions will help us address
the climate crisis, obviously. It will also lower energy bills
and make the buildings we live and work in more comfortable,
safer, and healthier.
So I look forward to the testimony from our panel of
witnesses today as we look to find solutions that will work for
all of us.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, unless somebody else wants--
there is not much time back.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today's hearing is the committee's second this week and
third in a series of ongoing hearings as we work to achieve a
100 percent clean economy by 2050. On Wednesday, the
Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee examined the
challenges in the industrial sector, and today this
subcommittee will review the U.S. building sector. We will
discuss policies to reduce pollution and save money by making
our buildings more efficient.
Residential and commercial buildings are responsible for
nearly 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution--more than any other
sector. This is not only attributable to electricity
consumption, but also to the use of fossil fuels in furnaces,
hot water heaters and other building equipment and appliances.
Roughly half of building floor space in the U.S. is heated by
fossil fuel-fired systems.
Developing a 100 percent clean economy by 2050 is not going
to be easy, but it is absolutely necessary and there are
policies and solutions in the building sector that can help us
reach that goal.
Reducing pollution from buildings is tied to the power
sector and how we produce electricity. Buildings account for 70
percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and that means making
them 100 percent clean requires transitioning the power sector
to clean, no-carbon resources, like renewables and nuclear
power.
Perhaps the quickest and easiest way to reduce building
emissions is by improving building efficiency. Existing energy
efficiency measures have shown the ability to dramatically
reduce building energy use and the associated operating costs
for heating, cooling, and lighting. Yet there is much more we
can do to accelerate and broaden the adoption of these
technologies. Adhering to strong building energy codes,
updating Federal minimum energy efficiency standards for
building equipment and appliances, and bolstering Federal
support for programs to weatherize homes can all make a huge
impact.
Unfortunately, President Trump is stifling this effort to
both save money and reduce carbon pollution. His administration
has refused to finalize or update efficiency standards for more
than a dozen consumer products. At the same time, he is rolling
back efficiency standards for lightbulbs, allowing inefficient
products to stay on the market for years. This wastes energy
and costs consumers more money.
As we explore ways to reduce carbon pollution from the
building sector we must: improve the energy performance of
existing buildings that will likely still be in use in 2050.
The upfront costs of retrofitting remain a barrier we must
address. This committee has already acted by passing a bill,
authored by Chairmen Tonko and Rush, to increase funding for
DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program. We passed legislation
by Representative Kelly to provide funds for public building
efficiency upgrades. And we've passed Representatives Stanton
and Veasey's bill to reauthorize the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant Program. These will help, but we will
need to do a lot more to meet the 2050 goal.
There are several interesting ideas that I look forward to
exploring today, including performance standards for existing
buildings, innovative smart building controls, the use of net-
zero building materials and designs, and electrification of
heating and cooling systems.
States have often been leaders on this issue. My State of
New Jersey has a draft ``Energy Master Plan'' that calls for
electrifying the building sector by 2050 and reducing the
reliance on natural gas for heating homes and buildings. Other
States are making similar progress. But the Federal Government
must also lead similar efforts to decarbonize commercial and
residential buildings across the country.
Making existing buildings more energy efficient can creates
jobs in every community across the country. Over 2 million
Americans work in energy efficiency, and it is the fastest
growing energy sector in the country. The widespread need for
this work also creates opportunities to invest in worker
training and address local unemployment in vulnerable
communities. Increasing Federal investment in energy efficiency
will spur job growth and community development that will impact
every State and district.
Reducing building emissions will help us address the
climate crisis. It will also lower energy bills and make the
buildings we live and work in more comfortable, safer and
healthier. I look forward to the testimony from our panel of
witnesses today as we look to find solutions that will work for
all of us.
Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back.
Members, want to take just a moment for personal privilege
before we entertain our--and listen to our witnesses.
Some 15 years ago, I hired a young man on my staff who has
been very involved to me such a remarkable and effective,
brilliant young man. And a few days ago, he informed me that he
would be leaving my staff to go to the private sector.
And I must note, and this was a few weeks after he got
married. So he married a wise woman. She made him leave in
order to go make some more money. But notwithstanding that, I
just really wish--this man has meant so much to me, and to each
and every one of you, I hope. And on his last--this is his last
hearing before, in this subcommittee. Would you please join me
in giving John Marshall a big round of applause as----
[Applause.]
I would now like to welcome our witnesses for today's
hearing. Mr. Carl Elefante is the 2018 AIA president, and that
is the American Institute of Architects. He is here. Welcome,
Mr. Elefante.
Mr. Steven Nadel is the executive director of the American
Council for Energy Efficiency Economy. Welcome, Mr. Nadel.
Dr. Curtis Zimmermann is the manager of--government
liaison, rather, for BASF Corporation. Welcome, Mr. Zimmermann.
And now I would also take at a moment to especially welcome
to this hearing and acknowledge someone from my home district
in Chicago, Mr. Timothy Keane, who is the international vice
president at large for the International Association of Heat
and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. Welcome, Mr. Keane, my
friend.
Mr. Arn McIntyre, who is the president of McIntyre
Builders, Inc., on behalf of the National Association of Home
Builders.
And lastly Ms. Elizabeth Beardsley, who is the senior
policy counsel for the U.S. Green Building Council.
I want to thank you all for joining us here today. And we
look forward to your testimony.
Before we begin, a part of our ritual is that there is a
lighting system before you. And the light will initially be
green at the start of your opening statement. The light will
turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. Please begin to
wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will turn red
when your time is expired, and then a siren will go off if you
don't adhere to that time.
Mr. Elefante, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CARL ELEFANTE, PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF ARCHITECTS; STEVEN NADEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY; CURTIS J. ZIMMERMANN,
Ph.D., MANAGER, GOVERNMENT LIAISON, BASF CORPORATION; TIM
KEANE, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT AT LARGE, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ALLIED WORKERS;
ARN McINTYRE, PRESIDENT, McINTYRE BUILDERS, INC., ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; AND ELIZABETH R.
BEARDSLEY, SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNSEL
STATEMENT OF CARL ELEFANTE
Mr. Elefante. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and
members of the subcommittee. My name is Carl Elefante, as you
already know. I am the immediate past president of the American
Institute of Architects, known as AIA.
Thank you for this opportunity to share what AIA and its
more than 94,000 members are doing to make the Nation's
buildings more energy efficient. For more than 160 years, the
AIA's mission has remained constant: To advance our Nation's
quality of life and to protect the public's health, safety, and
welfare. AIA's founders helped lead the fight for the then-
novel concept of fire codes. Today it is unimaginable that any
building would be constructed without following them.
Right now we are at a similar inflection point when it
comes to the built world: Specifically the necessary role of
buildings to fight climate disruption. Buildings account for 75
percent of the electricity used in the United States and 28
percent of methane use.
Overall, buildings represent 39 percent of the Nation's
primary energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce the
impact of buildings on our environment and to make our
communities healthy, secure, and resilient, AIA supports your
goal of net zero emissions for the buildings by 2050.
To achieve your goal, we are focused on four imperatives.
First, net-zero carbon building design; second, net-zero carbon
renovation and retrofit; third, net-zero carbon construction
and materials; and fourth renewable energy use in buildings.
Success of these initiatives will require a holistic
integrated approach and long-term commitment to incorporate
these strategies into the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the Nation's buildings. Ultimately in the
decades ahead, we want them to be as fundamental to the
construction of buildings as fire and life safety codes are
today.
Why? Because the threat posed by climate disruptions to our
homes, cities, Nation, and planet require that we fundamentally
reexamine how we develop and adapt the built world.
To cite one example and one that receives too little
attention today, it is important to rapidly accelerate the
retrofitting of existing buildings. It is estimated that in
order to meet 2050 emissions targets, among other actions, 75
percent of the existing commercial and institutional building
stock, 54 million square feet--billion square feet--excuse me--
needs to be renovated or retrofitted that is, on average,
nearly 2 billion square feet per year.
For context, that is about four times current rates which,
by the way, are at an all-time high. That is a prime example
that highlights the magnitude of the challenge. But as
architects, facing big challenges is our day job.
We know that appropriate standards of design and
construction can be utilized to combat climate disruption. We
also know that partnership with business, civic, and elected
leaders is the surest path to success.
The Nation's architects, engineers, developers, building
product manufacturers, and others have the technical expertise
needed to contribute to the fight of climate disruption.
However, we can do more in partnership with you and your
colleagues at the Federal, State, and local levels who share
your vision and our passion to transform the built environment.
Together we can make a different. Together we can assure
that buildings help achieve dramatic reductions in energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate disruption.
AIA looks forward to working with you, this subcommittee,
and Congress to make our Nation's buildings part of the
solution to climate disruption through the power of design.
Again, thank you to the subcommittee for this opportunity.
I look forward to your questions and our discussion this
morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Elefante follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.004
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. Steven Nadel, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN NADEL
Mr. Nadel. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
other members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify here today.
My organization, the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, otherwise known as ACEEE, was founded in
1980 by researchers at universities and National Laboratories.
We produce more than 30 reports and other research products
each year on energy saving technologies, programs, and
policies.
Earlier this week, ACEEE released a major report entitled
Halfway There: Energy Efficiency Can Cut Energy Use and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in half by 2050. This report shows how
energy efficiency can make a large contribution toward reaching
long-term climate goals while also saving consumers and
businesses money, providing jobs, improving comfort, and
reducing the health impacts associated with indoor air
pollution.
Specifically, our analysis included 11 different efficiency
opportunities which five address the building sector. Improved
appliances and equipment, zero-energy new buildings, smart
buildings, building retrofits, and electrifying existing
buildings.
Overall, we estimate that the 11 opportunities can reduce
2050 U.S. energy use by about 50 percent, cut it in half, and
also reduce carbon dioxide emissions, in this case by 57
percent, in total reducing greenhouse gases by about 50 percent
once we include the non CO2 greenhouse gases.
The building sector accounts for nearly 40 percent of U.S.
energy use in emissions. We found from our five buildings
measures that 2050 building sector energy use could be reduced
by a little over 50 percent. No single measure dominates the
savings. The overall savings require the combined effect of
many different measures as shown in Figure 1 in my written
testimony. And we are going to try to show it on the screen,
but I guess that didn't work. So we will--very good. Thanks.
[Slide shown.]
In addition, we conducted a policy analysis looking at
policies to implement each of the efficiency opportunities we
analyzed. Our policy analysis found a path for achieving about
90 percent of the efficiency opportunity we identified. A
little bit more than 90 percent for commercial buildings; a
little bit less for homes because of the difficulty convincing
people to retrofit their homes. The allocation of savings by
policy is shown in Figure 2 of my written testimony, which I
believe--yes, thank you very much, which shows up there.
[Slide shown.]
Let me talk now a little bit more about some of the
policies, starting with new construction. As the law of whole
states, when you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop
digging. In order to address climate change, one of the first
priorities is to stop building inefficient homes and buildings
and instead build them as efficiently as possible.
While substantial progress has been made, multiple
organizations are all targeting adoption of codes by 2030 that
will move towards zero-energy--or zero-carbon new homes and
buildings when the energy use is summed over the course of an
entire year.
Such buildings typically combine high levels of energy
efficiency, reduce loads about 70 percent below typical new
buildings, with on-site renewable energy systems to provide the
remaining energy. And where there it is not sufficient on-site
renewable energy, off-site renewable energy can be used.
In order to encourage movement towards these types of
buildings, we recommend a variety of steps. First, adopt H.R.
3962 introduced by Representatives McKinley and Welch. This
includes provisions promoting regular updates of building codes
as well as a variety of other provisions. It will not require
zero-energy codes but it set up a process that will further
study code improvements.
Two, we recommend going beyond McKinley-Welch provisions.
And for DOE to assist cities and States in adopting improved
codes as well as conducting additional research.
Third, we recommend providing tax incentives for zero-
energy homes and buildings with the incentives eventually
phasing out as market share becomes substantial.
And fourth, we recommend requiring that new Federal
buildings as of a future date be zero-energy buildings. In this
way, the Federal Government can be a leader.
While these things may cost a little bit more, citations I
provided in my full written testimony show how they are highly
cost effective in terms of the energy savings we will pay back
the higher cost in just a few years.
The second area we recommend is doing more on appliances
and equipment, building on the appliance and equipment
standards program and also tax incentives to encourage the best
equipment. In the interest of time, I won't go into details
there, because I wanted to get to improvements to existing
buildings, which are very important. Many of the buildings that
will be standing in 2050 have already been built, and we need
to make them much more efficient.
Some of the things we should do is have the Federal
Government, again, lead by example. When buildings go through
major renovations, do deep energy retrofits. Likewise,
Department of Energy can do more to work with cities and States
on energy use benchmarking and retrofit programs. And we also
recommend expanding retrofit programs including the
weatherization assistance program for low- and moderate-income
families as well as adoption of the HOMES Act that
Representatives McKinley and Welch have introduced.
In my written testimony I provide a few examples of
crosscutting policies as well. And I am happy to answer
questions about those as well. But since my time is up, I,
therefore, look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.010
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Nadel.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Zimmermann. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS J. ZIMMERMANN
Dr. Zimmermann. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Upton, and members of the committee. I am Curtis Zimmermann,
manager and government liaison of BASF Corporation. We truly
appreciate the opportunity to----
Mr. Rush. Will you please speak more directly into the
microphone.
Dr. Zimmermann. I am sorry?
Mr. Rush. Would you please speak more directly into the
microphone.
Dr. Zimmermann. BASF Corporation is headquartered in
Florham Park, New Jersey. We operate over 100 sites in 30
States and including several represented by members of this
subcommittee. And BASF employs 20,000 people in North America.
We are the largest chemical company globally providing a wide
range of chemistry solutions for all sectors of the economy. At
BASF, we create chemistry for a sustainable solution including
a number of solutions for the built environment.
I provided detailed examples of our chemistry innovations
used in sustainable construction in my written statement, so
I'll highlight just a few today as BASF products and materials
contribute to the efficiency and sustainability for the built
environmental across the U.S., including our own buildings.
First, BASF corporate headquarter's building is one of the
largest sustainable buildings in the State of New Jersey.
Opened in May 2012, the 325,000 square foot building features a
number of BASF products and chemistries that lower its energy
consumption prolong its service life. Designed to achieve lead
platinum standard in featuring high-efficiency HVAC, lighting,
glass, and office equipment, our building uses much less energy
than a conventionally designed building.
In addition to a number of water saving features and the
use of recycled materials, it has a 30 percent improvement in
indoor air quality, and more than half of the energy used for
building is supplied by renewable sources.
Many of our facilities have also undergone major roofing
upgrades utilizing our spray polyurethane foam technology. The
seamless and monolithic application of the spray foam can be
applied directly over an existing roof. This not only improves
the efficiency and during of roof but also lowers labor and
maintenance costs.
Additionally, our facility in Huntsville, Alabama, has
twice been awarded the air pollution control achievement award
by the city. In 2017, the site performed an LED lighting
upgrade that saved 1 million kilowatt hours. And in 2018, it
achieved platinum level 0 waste validation from UL. Currently
the only manufacturing facility in the southeast to do so.
More importantly, however, is the sustainability solutions
that our products provide for for customers. For example, our
HP+ Wall system embodies a new way to build homes. This
innovative wall works as a system and features two types of
insulating foam, spray polyurethane foam and graphite enhanced
polystyrene foam called NEOPOR. In addition to its superior
insulating performance, the design capacity of the wall is up
to 130 percent greater than the design capacity of a standard
wall making HP Plus Wall stronger than those on typical houses.
Because of its structural performance, this wall system can
reduce the amount of lumber needed by up to 25 percent.
This innovation delivers efficiency and resilience so that
our customers, who are builders, can better serve their
customers, the home buyer.
This brings me to my last point, and that is innovation and
technology deployment into the built environment. Embracing new
ways to design, build, and construct homes, buildings, and
infrastructure will further deliver efficiencies and
sustainability across this important sector.
By 2050, the world is expected to hold 9 billion people who
will not only need food and clean water but will also need
shelter. How do we construct the buildings of the future that
meet the demands and growing population while conserving our
limited resources? What is the role of government in the
process?
As an energy intensive company, BASF strives to be as
energy efficient as possible. BASF has made efforts to play a
leadership role by incorporating efficiency and sustainability
into our own buildings as well as providing those same
solutions for our customers.
The Federal Government, as the largest landlord in the
U.S., has an opportunity to do the same. Government can utilize
tools like energy savings performance contracts and undertake
deep efficiency upgrades in its own building stock.
For example, BASF has already supplied a hundred million
square feet of installed roofing formulations across many
Federal agencies, including NASA, Navy DOE, and DOD. We
appreciate these collaborations and hope that the government
buildings are not unnecessarily wasting money on energy costs
as that can detract from important mission-specific activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the
solutions BASF is providing for the built environment. There is
always more to do, and we look forward to working with you as
you consider ways to further promote efficiency and
sustainability across the important sector.
I look forward answering any questions. Thank you for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zimmermann follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.017
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Dr. Zimmermann.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Keane for 5 minutes for the
purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TIM KEANE
Mr. Keane. Good morning. My name is Tim Keane, and I am the
international vice president at large for the International
Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied workers.
And I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Energy Subcommittee today.
Since 1903, when our union was created, our members have
always been known by many names: Pipe covers, asbestos workers,
and now insulators. But we are and have always been the
original clean energy workers.
While the value of mechanical insulation has been known for
many years, it is often overlooked. I thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for today's hearing and for this opportunity to share with you
and your colleagues the importance of mechanical insulation.
To summarize my testimony, mechanical insulation is a
proven, energy-efficient technology that promotes our national
energy, economic, and environmental goals. Increased
utilization of mechanical insulation saves energy for
commercial buildings and industrial facilities that makes our
Nation more energy independent. The energy savings of
mechanical insulation also help our economy as our
manufacturing sector comes more competitive in the global
economy.
As a result of reduced fossil fuel energy consumption,
mechanical insulation also reduces carbon emissions. As the
House Energy and Commerce Committee and other congressional
committees work to develop clean energy legislation, the
insulators encourage your support for the following principles
that Insulators Union General President McCourt shared with the
congressional leadership last December.
The reality of climate change demands that we take
immediate action to reduce carbon emissions. Another important
reality is that our Nation will continue to require
considerable fossil energy to ensure reliable base load power
for today and tomorrow.
Our union does not discourage ambitious goals for a 100
percent clean energy economy, but our focus must be on what can
be achieved now. The insulators also encourage your support for
energy efficiency investments that have consistently enjoyed
strong bipartisan support.
Clean energy incentives should include both technologies
like mechanical insulation that are already available for
increased utilization and investments in research and
development to promote new clean energy technologies.
It is also imperative that clean energy legislation contain
bipartisan building trades labor standards, Davis-Bacon
prevailing wages, use of project labor agreements to ensure
that clean energy jobs are good jobs.
These labor standards recognize that clean energy
infrastructure should be built by the best trained and most
productive and safest construction workers. The insulators
support many specific legislative proposals to increase the use
of mechanical insulation that you can see in my written
statement.
Energy efficiency is often considered the fifth fuel behind
coal, oil and natural gas, nuclear and renewable energy, or for
this committee, energy efficiency should be considered the
first fuel. Because the cheapest and cleanest energy is energy
that is conserved.
As I conclude my testimony, I have focused on what the
insulators are doing to achieve a clean economy. But I also
want to recognize the important energy efficiency work that
other building trades unions perform. It is unfortunate that
some characterize building trades jobs as dirty or temporary
jobs.
The truth is that building trades unions and our
contractors invest 1.3 billion per year in our apprenticeship
programs that produce the best trained, safest and most
productive craft workers for long-term careers.
As Chairman Rush knows, one of the best apprenticeship
programs in the Nation is my home, Local 17, that is located in
Chairman Rush's district.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am looking forced to
continuing this important conversation as we work to build a
clean economy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keane follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.021
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks Mr. Keane.
And now the Chair recognizes Mr. McIntyre, who is
recognized for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ARN MCINTYRE
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Upton, members of the subcommittee.
I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the
National Association of Home Builders. I would like to share
our views regarding energy use within residential buildings and
solutions that encourage energy efficiency that are market-
driven and voluntary without jeopardizing housing
affordability.
My name is Arn McIntyre. I am a green builder from Grand
Rapids, Michigan. My company has focused on designing and
constructing high-performance homes for 25 years. Most notably,
my company built the first independently certified green home
in the State of Michigan in 2002. I also served as one of the
founding members of the committee that developed the first
national green building standard in 2008, the NGBS.
As long-time leaders in the drive to make new and existing
homes more efficient, one of the biggest challenges continues
to be balance and efficiency with housing affordability. As
energy efficiency standards become more stringent, home prices
increase for new home buyers. In fact, NHB estimates that if
the median new U.S. home price goes up a thousand dollars, more
than 127,000 households would be priced out of the market or
out of housing nationwide.
First and foremost, Congress must factor in housing
affordability when looking at solutions for a 100 percent clean
economy. According to a 2018 study, the Environmental
Information Administration, the residential sector uses
approximately 16 percent of the energy consumed in the United
States. That is residential sector. Because new homes account
for a small share of a total housing inventory, they use only a
small share of the annual consumption.
In contrast, there are 130 million homes built prior to
2010 that are much less energy efficient than today's new
homes. Therefore, in addition to housing affordability, any
efforts to address the energy consumption of homes must
prioritize the inefficiencies of existing homes over the higher
performing new homes.
I would also caution the committee against proposing
Federal mandates as a solution to building a 100 percent clean
economy. Mandating energy building codes are requiring builders
to reach net zero or near zero energy emissions, and usage is
extremely difficult, costly, and is not consumer driven.
Many have suggested that mandates are an answer to
improving residential energy efficiency in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. These are highly problematic and have unintended
consequences.
As a Michigan State licensed building inspector and home
energy rater, I am involved in the code process. To simply
mandate compliance with more stringent energy codes makes
little sense. Since the codes are developed at a national
level, many of the energy efficiency provisions are based on
national construction and cost savings which are of limited use
on a local level.
Further, because new construction is already highly
efficient requiring compliance with with more stringent energy
codes yields minimal overall benefits yet can impose
significant costs to new home contribution.
Finally, any Federal intrusion into the building codes
adoption process could have catastrophic impact on each State's
ability to implement codes that best fit their needs. Instead
of focusing on mandates to reach its clean economy goals,
Congress should support and facilitate voluntary above-code
programs. Unlike mandates, these are driven by the market and
recognized by consumers and result in veritable reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions.
Programs such as the ICC 700, the National Green Building
Standard, Lead, Energy Star, and DOE's Better Building program,
all have proven track records for reducing energy usage and
meeting other sustainability and high-performance goals.
Multiple options of flexibility allow us as builders to choose
the energy efficiency option that meets our individual needs
for the market.
In conclusion, I strongly urge Congress to promote
voluntary market-driven and viable green building intuitives in
lieu of mandates to meet energy efficiency goals. These types
of programs reduce lower total ownership costs through utility
savings as well as provide the flexibility of builders need to
construct homes that are cost effective, affordable, and meet
consumer demand.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here before you
today. I strongly recommend that Congress seriously consider
and address the housing affordability when exploring solutions
for a 100 percent clean economy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.030
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. McIntyre.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Beardsley for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH R. BEARDSLEY
Ms. Beardsley. Thank you, chairman. Thanks to the
leadership and members of the subcommittee. I am honored to
join you today on behalf of the U.S. Green Building Council, a
nonprofit organization. We are best known for our leadership in
energy and environmental design, lead green building system.
Through lead and other initiatives, we drive sustainable
and high-performing buildings that improve the quality of life
for all. We thank the subcommittee for this attention to
progress on buildings in support of the 100 by 50 goal.
While climate risks are ever more apparent and urgent, the
good news is that we can do this. The solution set is robust
and growing to meet the challenge. This is certainly true in
the building sector where we have much of the technology and
can start now.
Deep efficiency is possible and being achieved every day in
places like Texas where a recent story reported on a family
power bill being cut in half after they rebuilt to modern code
post Harvey.
We can deploy these cost-effective, commonsense solutions
and reduce emissions along the way while creating jobs. The
recent energy efficiency jobs in America report finds this to
be--this sector to be one of the Nation's biggest employers, as
noted by the chairman.
In fact, building technologies are getting so good,
available, and low cost that net zero is no longer merely an
aspiration but increasingly a reality. For example, this year
we recognized the Entergy office in Little Rock as the first
LEED Zero-certified building in the U.S., and others are in the
pipeline. In the New Buildings Institute net zero database
shows more than 600 buildings that are verified or emerging as
net-zero energy.
Net-zero buildings are on the rise because these high-
performing buildings are cost effective over their life cycle.
When you build or retrofit a building to utilize smart
technology, modern efficient heating and cool, highly insulated
envelops, and add on-site renewable energy, the results are
highly cost effective, resilient, and comfortable building.
Study after study shows that high-performing buildings are
valued in the commercial market with price and rent premiums,
improvement in net operating income, and (inaudible) times.
Just this week, a new report from U.S. GBC Massachusetts
showed that net-zero buildings can be built with little to no
additional cost, meaning pay back times were as short as a
year. And they found that existing office buildings retrofitted
to net energy with renewables can produce a return on their
investment in 5 to 6 years.
Now, as for single-family homes, the Rocky Mountain
Institute studied the incremental cost of building net-zero
homes in four U.S. locations. RMI found the cost to build a
zero-energy-ready home to be between 0.9 percent to 2.5 percent
over a comparable code home and concluded the cost increase is
modest, far less than consumers, builders, and policymakers
realize while predicting costs will continue declining over
time.
To put in perspective the benefits, the Discovery School
across the river in Arlington is in that net-zero-energy
school. With the money saved from utility bills, the school has
funded two additional full-time teachers this year. And in the
Federal space, the NREL campus in Colorado features a net-zero
building built at cost within the regional construction cost
average.
With these positive trends, we see many options for
bipartisan progress on a suite of approaches. Not every
building needs to be net zero, but we can aim to give everyone
the opportunity to benefit from modern building methods on new
buildings and retrofits to optimize energy efficiency.
Even when cost effective, improvements face other real and
perceived barriers that are hindering progress.
Policy has a critical role in accelerating implementation,
and a suite of approaches can best speed the rate of adoption
while enabling continued American innovation.
Our statement includes a wide range of measures for
consideration. To highlight a few, first, we should reestablish
and expand Federal agency targets for annual improvements and
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other key metrics, and
make needed changes to unlock the use of contracting mechanisms
that leverage private funds for public efficiency and renewable
projects.
Second, Federal agencies have a number of existing programs
providing funds to State and local governments used for
construction. These programs should ensure that Federally
funded buildings are highly efficient and resilient, protecting
Federal investment, and aligning outcomes with goals.
Additional programs could help feed States and cities in
improving public buildings.
Third, we see many positive improvements in the private
sector. Financial incentives can help bring attention to these
potential savings, including to small business which may lack
technical capacity. Different financial models and ensuring
efficiency is properly valued can also break down barriers.
Transitioning our building sector to be high performing and
resource efficient is financially beneficial and is taking
place now throughout country.
The building sector could represent significant progress
towards the 100 by 50 goal. To accelerate this transformation,
an integrated set of strategies are called for.
I look forward to discussing more in the questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beardsley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2621.040
Mr. Rush. I want to thank all the witnesses. We have now
concluded opening statements, and we will now move to Member
questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of
our witnesses, and I will start by recognizing myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Keane, I want to thank you for your willingness here
this morning, and I appreciate your willingness to work with my
office to hold an energy efficiency job readiness fair early
next year in my district. My office will followup with you to
confirm the logistics. We are eager to work with Local 17
chapter of the insulators to provide you with hardworking,
qualified candidates to help swell the ranks of your union.
My office, Mr. Keane, received information regarding some
of the programs that you conduct in my district, including the
Same for all Community Development Program, the South Suburban
Highway to Construction Career Program, and the Chicago Women
in Trades Program.
Can you briefly summarize what each of these programs do
and how an interested candidate may enlist in each of these
programs and the impact of each of these programs on energy
efficiency?
Mr. Keane. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
When we go to these different sectors when we are doing our
reach out, OK, it is an umbrella. We try to hit as many places
as we can to make sure that we reach out to all communities.
With the Women Build Nations, that is a big movement for
our ladies in the trades to express how being a tradeswoman is.
As far as the reachouts to the different communities and the
different groups with Mrs. Ford, we want the communities to
know that we are there, that we are there for their people that
we offer not just jobs.
We offer careers. And we want to really, really bring it
home with our people all across the board, especially in
Illinois, in--Chairman Rush, in your district. We want to reach
out to the people. We want them to learn as they earn with an
apprenticeship.
And the big thing is, after their 5-year apprenticeship,
they were paid to learn for 5 years. And now they are going
into the job market with not just a job, Mr. Chairman, but a
career.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you very much.
Mr. Elefante, my offices will be partnering with the
National Laboratories, coupled with NSN and the Illinois
Institute of Technology, another organization in one of the
poorest neighbors in my city in the Englewood community to
develop affordable energy-efficient housing that can be used as
a national model.
I would like to followup with your organization, the AIA,
to work with these housing developments that will consist of
some of the most innovative energy efficiency designs possible.
We would like to work with you if I can followup with you and
get your organization to work with us. Would that be something
that you would be interested in?
Mr. Elefante. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
question.
Housing design has always, of course, been a really
important part of what we do. If you look at the statistics of
the building stock, housing is, you know, an enormous part of
it, 325 billion square feet of building in the United States of
America.
About 2 billion square feet of that is single-family
residential. The remaining 130-plus billion square feet is
somewhat equally divided between multifamily housing,
commercial, and institutional buildings. So each one of them is
an enormous sector.
Our work with affordable housing has shown that housing
affordability and energy efficiency are not oxymorons that
don't go together. But actually both can be achieved together.
So we would be happy to work with you to really demonstrate
that affordability and energy efficiency support each other.
The last thing I will say on it is to just simply say that
one of the things that I can say from my own work in the State
of Michigan, for example, is that you end up with an affordable
housing unit that then has very low utility bills, in the
nature of something like 20 percent. And that is a gift that
keeps on giving.
Mr. Rush. The Chair is out of time.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Upton for 5 minutes for the
purposes of questioning.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I know that we are
going to be pressed for time because of the votes that are
going to occur shortly, so let me just yield the first part of
my time Mr. Griffith from Virginia for----
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I appreciate you
yielding.
As many of you may have seen yesterday, led by some Cornell
Lab ornithology scientists, a report came out that the breeding
population of birds in the U.S. and Canada has dropped nearly
30 percent since 1970.
The good news is, as we are making buildings more
efficient, and particularly when we are dealing with glass, we
can make bird-safe buildings as well. Nearly a billion birds--
estimates range from anywhere from 100 million, 640 million to
a billion birds a year--collide with buildings and die.
Accordingly, I would ask--instead of going through all the
testimony, I would ask that we have unanimous consent to submit
reports on how we can have both energy-efficient and bird-safe
buildings. And I would mention that the American Bird
Conservancy has shouted out yesterday that one of the ways to
solve the problem is a bill that Mr. Quigley and I have
introduced. And Mr. Welch and I are currently working on an
amendment to his energy bill that would incorporate some of
this language.
Mr. Rush. Hearing no objections, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20190920/109973/
HHRG-116-IF03-20190920-SD010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Griffith. And I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, my friend.
Mr. McIntyre, State and local governments do, as we know,
play a very key role in the codes adoption process. And I
believe that it ought to stay that way because State and local
governments have a better handle on how nationally developed
codes are going to work in practice, particularly as you look
at north, south, east, and west.
Why is it so important to tailor codes to local conditions,
local market forces, and consumer demands?
Mr. McIntyre. Well, first----
Mr. Upton. Versus a one-size-fits-all?
Mr. McIntyre. First and foremost, our code process now is a
consensus code process, and it is a vigorous, consensus
driven--it is input from industry, input from code officials,
input from builders, input from associations. So it is driven
by consensus. Then that drafts the overall code or the national
code that then can go to the States, that the States can adopt
to their choosing. They can modify it for local conditions.
They can adjust it for local conditions. They can adopt it
statewide, as in the case of Michigan with modifications for
the State of Michigan, which are important to meet the needs of
the consumer and the market in our State. States also have the
choice, if they want, to add to that code, if they choose, as
other States have.
So having that flexibility as builders, the market, markets
are not the same across the country. They are not the same
within a State. Having the ability to adopt the code--and this
is the code officials in the industry that are--consensus that
are doing this at the State level, is very critical to have
that flexibility to deliver the product that the consumer is
demanding. That is the key. The consumer, if we want this to
scale, the key is developing a product, a house is a product,
developing a product that the consumer wants in the area that
the consumer wants it, and deliver that product to them cost
effectively, and it will go to scale. Having the ability to
adopt local codes or adjust to local codes is important for
that reason.
Mr. Upton. So as we all think about energy conservation,
how valuable would it--or is it done very much now where a new
buyer sitting down with a builder to actually see an audit as
to what the energy efficiency will be for that home, whether it
be glass, heating and cooling, water, electrical use, based on
the size of the----
Mr. McIntyre. Yes, you are referring to an energy audit?
Mr. Upton. Right.
Mr. McIntyre. Part of the value that we need, that the
consumer needs to realize, they have to see and realize what
they are going to get.
Mr. Upton. But is that done now?
Mr. McIntyre. It is starting to be done. We do it. The
folks that are building high-performance homes are doing it. We
are doing it voluntarily. We have a history of the houses we
built. We have built hundreds of houses that are high-forming
homes. Low HERS, ENERGY STAR, Energy Value Housing houses, we
have a record of what it costs to build them, what it costs
to--how they perform and to live in. And we can start showing
that to consumers, and then we can model, through software,
what the performance of their projected home is and give them
that, I will say, comfort level of how their house is going to
perform.
When a consumer comes through the door, 10 years ago--don't
ask me why that is going off.
Mr. Upton. Hopefully it is your wife.
Mr. McIntyre. Shut off.
Geez.
Mr. Upton. It is a robocall, but we are going to stop
those. We passed a bill to get that done.
Mr. McIntyre. When a consumer comes through the door, 10
years ago, they weren't looking for energy efficiency. Today,
when they come through our door, they are looking for it,
because they know we have the ability to deliver that value.
And that is what they ask for. So we show them that. We show
them some history, and then we're on our way to going down that
road with them.
Mr. Upton. My time is expired.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes
of an opening statement--questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
Our witnesses today have testified that more than half of
the residential and commercial buildings that will be standing
in 2050 have already been built. And as we look for ways to
achieve net-zero emissions by that year, we will have to find
effective ways to eliminate emissions from these existing
buildings. I am actually glad they will still be standing. I
like old buildings. I don't want to knock them down.
But my first question will be for either Mr. Nadel or Ms.
Beardsley or Mr. Elefante. We know that efficiency can go a
long way in decarbonizing existing buildings, but we need to do
more than just maximize efficiency. So just talk to us about
some policy levers we can pull today to reduce or eliminate
emissions from buildings beyond just improving the energy
efficiency.
And I will start with Mr. Nadel, if we could.
Mr. Nadel. Yes, there are a variety of policies that can be
pursued, and in particular, let me pick up on something that
Mr. Upton was asking about. Do we provide information to home
buyers on the energy efficiency of homes before they buy it?
For example, the city of Portland, Oregon, requires that when
you put a home on the market, you provide a 1 to 10 rating. It
is called the Home Energy Score. It is information that the
homeowner can consider as they buy the home, and particularly
since so many homeowners improve their homes right after buying
it. It can be a powerful incentive. So that would be one thing.
We do endorse the HOMES Act that Representatives McKinley
and Welch have introduced. How do we encourage people to make
those improvements? Likewise, improving--increasing the
Weatherization Assistance Program, particularly for low-
moderate income families, as well as in tax incentives. But let
me----
Mr. Pallone. Well, Mr. Beardsley, I guess--or Ms.
Beardsley. I am sorry.
Ms. Beardsley. Thank you, Chairman.
It is a great question because we talk a lot about energy
efficiency, and that is the core, but actually there are a lot
of other pieces to a high-performing green building that can
contribute to reducing emissions and reducing their energy use.
So if you think about water, so if we are connected to a
public water system, that takes energy to withdraw that water,
to treat it, to pump it to your house or your building. So if
you are conserving water in your building, that is also
reducing energy of the system at large. Similarly, if you are
using a landscape that is lower-water using or you are using
rain barrels or cisterns or other methods that are less
needing, potable water, that also reduces that energy.
And then on the material side, there are lots of choices
and innovation. This is a great area for the U.S. economy to
move ahead in different material options. And even with green
building, there is an intent to try to reduce construction
waste. So buildings are planned and built in such a way that
there is reduced waste and it is often reused in other ways or
recycled for other products down the road, rather than going to
a landfill or incinerator, and these all contribute to reducing
emissions.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Elefante?
Mr. Elefante. Thank you. I would just like to build on both
of those comments. First, to the benchmarking, the value of
data in this. And I would just remind everybody the importance
of the U.S. Energy Information Agency's database. Everything
that we do from any kind of a policy or program point of view,
we have to go back and really look at the data, understand what
the impact is. The importance of the work of that agency I just
wanted to underscore. We really need that data to understand
what our practices need to be.
And then just related to what Ms. Beardsley just said about
these other factors, I would just sort of put it out there to
be thinking about the associated benefits of energy efficiency,
and I particularly point to health benefits. We went to a
global energy efficiency conference last year, and really that
was the nature of that conversation.
And I would just kind of remind everybody that thinking
about these associated benefits to the kind of central goals
here are actually the kind of win-win that really helps drive
the market and really helps articulate the value of these
energy-efficient goals that we are seeking.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta for
questioning.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our
witnesses for appearing before us today.
Through this hearing today, it is my desire that we will
continue to focus on improving energy efficiency, which should
be a bipartisan issue. One of the most successful programs for
promoting energy efficiency and benefit customers,
manufacturers, and the environment is the ENERGY STAR program.
The ENERGY STAR program is a voluntary program run by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.
It allows manufacturers to obtain ENERGY STAR labeling for
products. Its specific energy savings guidelines are met,
benefiting consumers that are looking to purchase high-
efficiency energy products.
I believe that one way we can improve the energy efficiency
in the building sector is to strengthen this important program.
That is why I introduced the bipartisan H.R. 2104, the Energy
Star Program Integrity Act, along with my good friend, the
gentleman from Vermont. This bill fixes a gap in the Federal
law by prohibiting the pursuit of private litigation against
manufacturers who comply with corrective compliance measures
that were approved by the EPA. This will ensure the ENERGY STAR
program will operate as intended by maintaining robust,
voluntary participation by the manufacturers.
If I could start my questioning with you, Dr. Zimmermann,
and also, I do have a BASF plant in my district in Whitehouse,
Ohio, and which I have visited on many occasions. And it is my
understanding that BASF Corporation has sought out the ENERGY
STAR label for many of its products. Would you go into some
detail about these products and how they help create more
energy-efficient homes and buildings?
Dr. Zimmermann. Thank you for the question, Mr.
Congressman. BASF has a variety of products right now that do
enhance energy efficiency, such as spray polyurethane foam,
which is a very good example of that. These products bring not
only reduced energy utilization, but they also provide
resilience as well through water barrier protection and also
barrier wrap protection. These are very good products.
Other products we have like our Green Sense Concrete, these
are not just product names; it is more of a philosophy around
developing cement formulations that can really utilize local
ingredients that reduce the carbon footprint so they are used
in place. A great example of that is Portland cement can be
replaced with recyclable material, locally found material,
again, leading to a reduced carbon footprint in the application
of those materials.
A variety of other products, again, from an ENERGY STAR
perspective, you know, greatly reduce the energy of
manufacturing, the carbon footprint, the greenhouse gas
emissions during both manufacturing and use as well.
Mr. Latta. So it is very important for your company to
participate in the ENERGY STAR program?
Dr. Zimmermann. It is very important, and also, we utilize
our own products in our own facilities to ensure that they are
running energy efficient.
Mr. Latta. Do you think there is a merit in strengthening
the voluntary programs like ENERGY STAR so that more companies
can continue to innovate with energy-efficient products?
Dr. Zimmermann. Companies like BASF will continue to
innovate products for more energy efficiency because we have
incentive to do that. We certainly don't want to waste energy,
because it costs money. I think strengthening the program that
allows for more voluntary adoption would be very good for
manufacturers.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. McIntyre, let me turn my questions, if I may. In your
testimony, you specifically cite the ENERGY STAR program is a
successful program with a proven track record in reducing
energy usage in part due to its voluntary nature. Would you
explain to us why this program is so popular in the
homebuilding industry?
Mr. McIntyre. Well, the ENERGY STAR program is one of
several, and it is--I will say it is somewhat the pinnacle of a
high-performance home. That can be argued to a degree, but the
point is, when a consumer comes through your door, they are--
for the most part, they want a performing home. They don't know
what that means necessarily. You have got to explain that to
them to a degree. And you have a HERS-rated home. You have an
ENERGY STAR home. You have green homes that you can do.
We spend the time to go through and explain to them what
the difference in performance is and how you get there, the
system's approach, how you address the envelope, how you
address the air sealant, how you address mechanical systems.
Then we give them the option. We tell them we HERS rate every
home. HERS rating is an energy rating. It is a miles-per-gallon
sticker for your home. We tell them we rate every home. Here is
where our homes generally score. That starts to give them the
feel that, OK, the confidence. We show them some of the energy
simulations, if they want to get to that level of detail. And
then we offer to certify the home for ENERGY STAR, and we also
offer green building programs if they want.
And about 25 to maybe 30 percent of our customers will want
to go for the ENERGY STAR certification. Right now, we are a
small homebuilder. We used to be a lot bigger, but we scaled
back at the recession and kind of like it that way now, but--
right now, we have one ENERGY STAR home in certification, two
of them in process. That is probably the max we would have at
any one time being built, but we leave it up to the consumer to
make that choice.
Mr. Rush. Mr. McIntyre, will you bring your comments to a
close?
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much to the witness.
And, Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
I want to remind Members that between 10:15 and 10:30,
there are votes expected on the floor.
So, with that, I want to recognize now Mr. McNerney for 5
minutes for questioning.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses
this morning. Very interesting testimony.
So let's take a hypothetical 50-year-old home somewhere on
the coast of California, maybe 2,000 square foot. What is the
payback time for retrofitting that for energy efficiency?
Ms. Beardsley, if you would like to take that.
Ms. Beardsley. Thank you for the question. It really
depends on, you know, what the fuel rates are, what fuel they
are currently using, what the options are in that. But
generally, the paybacks, as we have seen in some of these
studies, can be very small. You know, it could be a couple of
years to maybe 7 to 10 years, but I can answer in detail on the
record.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. McIntyre, it looks like you want to say
something.
Mr. McIntyre. No, I just wondered if that was a general
question or--I concur to a degree of what Ms. Beardsley just
said. It depends on what you are doing to it, the types of
retrofits you are doing and how far you are going with it. But
what is important, that is a key piece to the value that we
talked about. As consumers start to see that return, whether it
is in their energy bills or whether it is in their gas bills or
electric bills, they start to see that return, that value, then
they start incurring more--they will pay more. They will do
more as they see that value.
And it is a key to get them to understand that. Once you
get the market to start understanding that, they know there is
true payback there, then the market will take over and start
driving it, which it is starting to do.
Mr. McNerney. So, Mr. Nadel, could you give me some idea of
how much regional variation there would be in that answer? You
know, is there a huge difference between, say, Michigan and
California in terms of payback?
Mr. Nadel. There definitely will be regional variation.
Paybacks tend to be quicker in colder climates like Michigan.
California is a very diverse State, where you are talking the
Sierras or you are talking, you know, the desert, but it will
vary. On the other hand, in California, they use a lot less--
they use a lot less energy to begin with.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Again, Mr. Nadel, can time-shifting of energy requirements
for homes be realistic, say, to sync better with renewable
energy?
Mr. Nadel. Definitely there are opportunities to shift the
time that energy is used, particularly, you know, if you add a
little thermal mass to the home or include a modest amount of
storage. California, as I am sure you well know, is moving to
time-of-use rates, and we expect a lot more of that happening
in California.
Mr. McNerney. Well, one of the frequently cited concerns
with regard to electrification is the operating costs. Is there
a way to restructure utility billing to sort of levelize that
problem?
Mr. Nadel. I mean, I think the general trend is to have
time-of-use rates so that the rate varies, depending on the
cost to produce. But then as you are designing the retrofits,
as you are doing electrification, you need to add a little bit
of storage and think about it; how can you do more of your
heating and cooling during those off-peak times and glide
through the times when the period is high? And, yes, that can
be done.
Mr. McNerney. All right. In the interest of time, I am
going to yield back early, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. McMorris Rodgers for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As many of you know, I am proud of how eastern Washington
has been leading the country in clean energy solutions such as
clean, renewable, reliable, affordable hydropower. As we
discuss ways to increase building efficiency, I also wanted to
highlight a way that we are leading, and that is cross-
laminated timber. CLT is strong, sustainable, and a renewable
low-carbon building material, and it has the potential to
significantly increase the energy efficiency of buildings.
There are two CLT manufacturers in the United States and
they are both right now in eastern Washington. Vaagen Timbers
in Colville and Katerra in Spokane Valley. In Spokane, Avista
Utilities is working to develop an eco district center in our
community that will be--that will include one of the most
sustainable buildings in the country using cross-laminated
timber. And later on today, Katerra is unveiling its new state-
of-the-art factory, which will produce the highest volume of
CLT in North America.
These eastern Washington companies are on the cutting edge
of building a more efficient and sustainable future. I am
excited about what the potential of new and innovative building
materials and processes such as CLT have: economic growth for
rural communities, a cleaner environment, stronger buildings,
and better forest management.
So it really is--it is a rural job solution. It is a timber
solution, but it is also better forest management solution, but
it also is part of the carbon solution.
Mr. Elefante, do you agree that the properties of CLT
mainly in strength, flexibility, sustainability, and ability to
sequester carbon make it an ideal material to build more
energy-efficient midlevel buildings?
Mr. Elefante. So I think that the most important thing
about CLTs is they indicate what an innovative future would
look like where we consider carbon sequestration as one of the
factors. I talked about the four things that we in the building
sector understand that we must do. One of them is essentially
embodied carbon which, you know, the CLT technology is a
terrific example of not just looking for products that are more
energy efficient, but actually have this additional benefit of
actually sequestering carbon in the actual material itself.
There is a lot of innovation happening in that area. I would
say that at this point, the CLT technology is kind of the
poster child of just how many layers of benefit can come from
looking at that sort of innovation.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
I wanted to move on to another important issue in eastern
Washington, and that is housing affordability. Like many areas
in the country, we are experiencing a serious crisis in
affordable housing. We have consistently heard about the desire
to mandate net-zero buildings across the country. I have
concerns about how this is going to impact housing costs and
how it might only add to the current affordability crisis that
we are in. It is going to be difficult for me to support any
legislation that would make it more difficult to find
affordable housing as a result of additional government
mandates.
Mr. McIntyre, given your experience building green homes,
how much more would it cost to go to net zero?
Mr. McIntyre. Well, one of the key items with net zero, the
first thing to get to net zero is you got to optimize the
envelope. You got to reduce your load. That is done a number of
ways. It is done by the shape of the structure, the
configuration of the structure. It doesn't matter how you build
it or what you build it out of; it is just a simple shape. And
then it is the materials you build it out of to reduce the
load. But I think it is a pretty fair statement to say that to
get to net zero, it is going to require renewables or something
to that effect, and that is where the additional cost really
comes in at this point.
To get to an optimized home from, I will say, a standard-
built home, you are talking a few thousand dollars, $5,000 to
$15,000, in that range. It could be as high as 20. When you go
to net zero, now we are looking at renewables of some sort.
I personally just put in a 12-kilowatt system on our farm,
and I did that work all myself, and I did it because it makes
sense now because we have net metering. There are tax
incentives. And the cost of solars come down because it is
scaled much more than it was 15, 20 years ago.
So now that they are more affordable, it makes sense to do,
but they were still $18,000 for me and I installed all of it.
Actually, it was more like $20,000, and I installed it all.
That system quoted to me was about 40,000.
So the difference in cost really starts coming in the PV.
That is where getting to scale, getting that consumer
recognition, which is solar--we are starting to see we have net
metering in Michigan--and now we are seeing solar panels pop
up, small panels all over in yards and homesteads around
Michigan.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5
minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Upton. And thank you to the witnesses for being here today as
well. It has been a great discussion. I personally want to
thank my friend, Mr. Tonko, for letting me go ahead of him.
Thank you so much, Paul.
When it comes to tackling the climate crisis, we must be
committed to finding solutions that reduce emissions now and
that grow our economy and create new jobs in our communities,
and I think any investments in infrastructure across the
country must drive down the costs. For Iowans, where I am from,
particularly those in the rural communities, promote the
production and expansion of renewable energy sources and create
jobs.
I want to shift the focus a little bit to schools, if I
could. Today, we are specifically looking at ways to reduce
emissions and improve energy efficiency in the U.S. building
sector, but I recently introduced legislation to help achieve
this goal in our Nation's school buildings. This is the Renew
America's Schools Act. This bill, which has been included in
the LIFT America infrastructure proposal, would award $100
million over the course of 5 years to help schools modernize
and make critical energy-efficient upgrades to their
facilities. And to add to that, the legislation also sets aside
a percentage of funding to be used for educational programming
for students around the efficiency upgrades so they know what
this all means for them and for future generations. And they
can take that home to their parents as well, by the way. I
think that is a part of this that is really important.
This is a win-win for workers, students, and parents that
will help create jobs, reduce emissions, and produce long-term
cost savings for our schools due to increased energy
efficiency, all while providing our students with topnotch
learning environments and educating them about the importance
of clean and efficient energy technologies.
We know that the environment in which our students learn
and educators teach can have an immense impact on the quality
of education our children receive. My wife was a second grade
teacher for over 30 years. So she is very aware of that. And,
unfortunately, many of our Nation's schools are in a really sad
state of disrepair, as I think everyone here knows.
First, I would like to go to Ms. Beardsley for a couple of
questions. In your testimony, you highlighted some of the
advances being made both in new and existing school facilities.
First question: Can you elaborate on what you think are the
most effective upgrades that existing schools can make to their
facilities in order to significantly reduce emissions and
improve their efficiency in the short term?
Ms. Beardsley. Thank you, and I really appreciate your
sponsoring the schools bill. That is really important.
With existing schools, it is much like other existing
buildings. So the basics are improving the envelope and
upgrading the HVAC systems, the lighting. But, you know, with
schools, as you alluded to, with students, there is so much
research. Our Center for Green Schools has collected much of
this. We have done a State of Our Schools report a few years
ago, showing the State of the Nation's schools and the need for
this reinvestment in school infrastructure.
We know that students learn best when the indoor
environmental quality is very high, so CO2 levels and oxygen,
and also when there is daylight and there is connection with
nature. So schools are a really special environment, and they
are really important to not just the students, but the whole
community. So there is really a lot that can be done there to
increase efficiency, use it as a living laboratory, and really
help that connect with the community's schools.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. You have kind of answered the
second question, but you might want to add a little bit to
that. What are some of the most significant cobenefits that you
expect to see when schools make improvements to their
facilities outside of reduced emission and lower energy costs?
Ms. Beardsley. Right. So we would see, with the indoor
improved air quality, there would be improved conditions for
student learning. You may have better wellness, so reduced sick
days, and that includes the teachers as well, the staff. And
really, like having that benefit of increased connection with
nature and daylight, which has been proven to support learning.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
I do love going to brand-new schools that incorporate a lot
of the technologies we are talking about today, but I really
would like to see more of the older schools be able to do
exactly the same things and be upgraded.
Mr. Chairman, in schools throughout the country, buildings
often lack proper heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
systems. Energy costs for K-12 schools total approximately $8
billion annually nationwide, but according to the EPA, 2
billion of those dollars can be saved by improving energy
efficiency. This cost is equivalent to about 40 million new
textbooks or hiring an additional 50,000 teachers at current
salaries. We need to think about the opportunity costs there.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Mr. Upton, for
having this hearing, and thanks to the witnesses. And in
particular, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Tonko, for
letting me go before him.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes my friend from West Virginia, Mr.
McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Look, as a professional engineer, I have probably spent 50
years, nearly 50 years in the construction sector specifying a
lot of low energy--low use--low-energy use and high-efficiency
building. In fact, my company, about 15, 20 years ago, we were
some of the first designing LEED-certified buildings in this
country, and certainly in West Virginia. And we have tried to
do this, working with my fellow colleague from Vermont, we have
been able to try to get some accomplishments in energy
efficiency.
And I appreciate, Mr. Nadel, you are underscoring two of
our bills that we are working on, and I think that we can
advance those. But I guess I don't want it to be a ``but'' on
there, but there is a concern. And, Elizabeth, you were the
first--you have mentioned it now for the first time was indoor
air quality.
And I have been troubled as an engineer that we tend to
ignore that, the impact that indoor air quality is going to
have an effect on it, because it is really going to stress our
ability to get energy efficient--or, excuse me--energy
reductions costs. Because we know that typically a classroom
today, it may be, at best, it has one air turnover an hour,
maybe at best, but under ASHRAE standards, it wants us to go to
anywhere from 4 to 20 air changes an hour.
So we know we are going to be putting a lot more energy
into our buildings as a result of that to achieve good indoor
air quality so Little Johnny sitting there next to someone
sneezing or having some dis--whatever, in the carbon dioxide
buildup in that classroom is going to affect his or her health.
So I know we are going to have some impact on that.
So I am a little curious about how we might be able to
explain to people their energy demands are going to go up
because they are currently not meeting good air quality in our
classrooms. So I am curious to see how we might be able--so
that with full disclosure that people understand their energy
costs actually might go up, but their air quality is going to
improve and Little Johnny and his sister are going to be
healthier when they get out of that classroom.
Can you work with me a little bit on how we might be able
to get the public be more aware that we are going to challenge
energy for a while?
Ms. Beardsley. Yes. Thanks, Representative. And I do have
to mention that I am a frequent visitor to the beautiful Canaan
Valley of winter.
Yes, so with schools, again, as with other buildings, what
we promote is a whole building approach, and that is really
where you can get the most benefit and the most potential cost
savings. Even if you improve your air quality with increased
mechanical air changes in that example, if you are looking at
the whole building and you are upgrading your lighting, say you
are going from old incandescent up to LED, you are adding more
daylighting with better insulated windows, you are upgrading
your HVAC. If you really look at it as a whole systems
approach, that is where you can save money even at the same
time as you are increasing.
Mr. McKinley. You could I guess, but when you say it can be
offset with this air, I think it is important for people to
understand we are going to--if we do the proper air changes, we
are going to increase at least that component of it. I agree
with you on lighting and other elements to it. But I think we
need a full disclosure to make sure people are aware some
component might actually increase, but the rest of it we can
offset. It is an educational process we have to do with it.
So, Mr. Nadel, in the timeframe that unfortunately we got,
one of the most controversial parts we are getting pushback on
our legislation has to do with the introduction of the building
energy codes. From your perception, what is wrong with the 10-
year payback requirement?
Mr. Nadel. I think a 10-year payback is OK, if you have the
adequate financing. So, therefore, your loan payments, the
extra loan payments are less than the energy savings. In that
case, you get immediate positive cash flow. And with mortgage
rates today, typically that will be the case.
Mr. McKinley. So would you suggest we should stay the
course on this or should we give more flexibility to go beyond
10 years? What do you think we should do?
Mr. Nadel. I think staying the course is good but, yes,
maybe some flexibility. Interest rates go up and down. You
know, ultimately it should be, if you are going to recommend
anything rather than an arbitrary period, talk about immediate
positive cash flow and finance with the mortgage act, the then-
current mortgage rates, because that is going to be the key.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Nadel.
And just for all of you, I just hope we have more
discussion, Mr. Chairman, about indoor air quality, because we
think we know. That is an area that we need to pay a lot more
attention to.
Thank you. And I yield back my time.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
I want to remind Members that the votes have started, and
it is the intention of the Chair to recognize two more Members,
Mr. Tonko and Mr. Griffith. And if either one of them want to
yield some of their time, then I would certainly be willing to
grant that.
But the Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses.
Earlier this week, the Environment Subcommittee held a
hearing on industrial emissions. I would like to try to explore
how these sectors are interconnected, which demonstrates that
comprehensive action is necessary to decarbonize our economy.
In many cases, industrial products are difficult to
decarbonize, and this includes building and construction
materials like cement and steel. Unlike operational emissions,
embodied carbon emissions in buildings are locked in place from
day one. They cannot be reduced through retrofits or new
energy-efficient technologies.
So, Mr. Elefante, do you have any thoughts on the
challenges with embodied carbon?
Mr. Elefante. We don't have nearly enough time. This is
clearly, I would say, the challenge of 2019, to kind of get our
arms around what is an emerging challenge. There is actually a
lot of work. We have a summit coming up next week on this to
get building product manufacturers, contractors, and architects
and engineers together to essentially lay out the problem. That
is how early we are in this.
But I would also just point to actually some really
exciting work that is being done across many sectors--the CLTs
were mentioned earlier--to really address this. And I would
just kind of add one thought to this, which is that we have to
be thinking about embodied carbon as something looking forward.
You know, what is the carbon that we are going to spend from
this time forward rather than the carbon that we spent looking
backwards?
And when you do that, it sort of changes the lens on
embodied carbon, and the importance of material product
manufacturer and construction techniques as investments into
energy savings, then becomes the kind of formula. How much
carbon are you spending to create that efficiency? How long
does it take you to capture that efficiency back? A 2050
timeframe is probably long enough for us to be talking about a
formula that works.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And how can we encourage lower carbon
materials are a greater material efficiency for new
construction?
Mr. Elefante. There are a lot of ways, but I will point to
the one that I think is actually most important, and that is
the analogy of the Federal Government and it as a procurer of
green building services and green building products. I think
that the marketplace transformation that we witnessed was
actually begun in the nineties by the Federal Government
adopting new standards. And I would just underscore the
importance of the Federal purse as a procurer to help transform
the marketplace.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Ms. Beardsley, what do you think about this whole
phenomenon? Does LEED, the LEED incentivize these types of
cleaner materials and greater material of efficiency?
Ms. Beardsley. Yes, thank you. This is a great topic and
one that is getting a lot more attention. We have been working
on it and many of our members for quite a few years, and LEED
does incentivize by looking at the--there are credits and
points available if you reduce the whole impact of the
building, and that includes accounting for key materials.
And we now have the first LEED-certified steel plant, Big
River Steel in Arkansas, for example. So that type of facility
can look at its own operations and employ energy efficiency to
reduce the embodied carbon in its products.
I think there are a few things you can do. You first give
industry the tools to use technology to do energy efficiency in
the manufacturing plants. Second, R&D to develop new
technologies, and that is kind of where the CLT came out of and
there is some really cool work at MIT right now on cement. And
then, third, encouraging building design and construction teams
to evaluate embodied carbon as they are making choices on
materials. And the Federal Government as a procurement body,
the Buy Clean California Act, there are a number of examples
where this is starting to take place.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We know the impact of buildings on overall emissions, but I
would like to focus specifically on direct emissions. Onsite
fossil fuel combustion in commercial and residential buildings
accounts for some 12 percent of our Nation's greenhouse gas
emissions.
Mr. Nadel, what opportunities and challenges do you see for
electrification through products like heat pumps?
Mr. Nadel. OK. Yes, heat pumps are dramatically improving.
There is a whole new set of cold climate heat pumps. It can
work better in places like your district. Still, most of the
available systems are ductless systems, but most homes have
ducts. I think we need more work on ducted cold climate heat
pumps to better adapt to existing homes. And I think the
Department of Energy and EPRI are doing a little bit, but much
more can and should be done to help refine these systems for
existing homes and the ducts they have.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The ranking member earlier yielded to me so that I could
talk about bird-safe buildings and how we can do that fairly
efficiently while we are making the buildings energy efficient.
So I will return the favor for my friend from Michigan to
another friend from Michigan, Mr. Walberg,
And I yield to Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentleman.
And I appreciate the fact that we have a gentleman from
Michigan here today who has extensive experience in what we are
talking about, including some--a demonstration home in my
district. Worked with the Emory school district, not far from
my house, that shows what can be done, but has a reality about
it of what it costs.
I represent many areas in my 7th District that are
extremely rural, and many of the net-zero technologies we
mentioned here today aren't exactly cheap or accessible in
Adrian, Michigan, and the surrounding areas. While I am for
efficiency, and 19 years ago my wife and I renovated and
restored completely our 1837 vintage farmhouse, and at that
time, what we did in air-conditioning, heating, electrical
systems, water systems, everything about that place was up to
date. That is 19 years ago. And so since then, we have been
attempting little by little to continue updating to standards,
but it takes time, and it is expensive.
So in your testimony, Mr. McIntyre, you mention that net-
zero building is extremely difficult, costly, and impractical
in many parts of the Nation. Could you elaborate further? Do
you have examples why this would be the case in States like
Michigan?
Mr. McIntyre. Well, a lot of what drives that is the
complexity of understanding. When you build a net-zero home or
you build a high-performance home--I won't necessarily go to
net zero--you build a high-performance home, you need to look
at the system of the home. You need to look at--build the house
as a system and understand the whole system. So the complexity
comes in understanding that.
The unintended consequences are when we don't understand
that and we put the wrong parts together, we put them together
the wrong way in the wrong climate, and we end up with issues.
We end up with air quality issues. We end up with moisture
issues, so on and so forth.
So that is a lot of what drives the difficulties is getting
the consumer and the industry further along. They have come a
long ways in the last 10, 15 years, further along in
understanding, on an education level, understanding the
complexity of the modern home and a high-performance home so we
don't end up with those serious, unintended consequences.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Zimmermann, how does customer demand influence the type
of products you sell?
Dr. Zimmermann. Certainly, customers are demanding more and
more resilient and sustainable products. They may specify that
they want to be able to prove that they have a reduced carbon
footprint, and we certainly take that into our product design.
Mr. Walberg. Do they know the specifics that they are
looking for or are they expecting somebody to tell them?
Dr. Zimmermann. I think it goes both ways, but certainly we
are market driven. The market instructs us in terms of what is
important to them for that particular building sector.
Mr. Walberg. Hence, it would be incumbent upon us in
government to make sure that we understand the market as well,
understand what is out there.
Dr. Zimmermann. I think there are a lot of technologies out
there we can take advantage of, and the more we can understand
what the needs are in the marketplace, the better we can
service the marketplace.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you.
I appreciate the courtesy. And I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I will take that last minute 20 real quick.
Dr. Zimmermann, if you could, does your company have a film
that they can add to a window or energy-efficiency film that
also is something that the birds can see?
Dr. Zimmermann. I am not aware of anything at this point in
time, but I would prefer to get back to you on that.
Mr. Griffith. If you would, because I know the products are
out there. Whether your company makes it or not, there are
products out there. And if you put it in when youare building
the building, the cost is nonexistent or minimal. If you wait
till later, of course, obviously it is much more expensive. But
with the report coming out yesterday that we have lost up to 30
percent of the birds in North America since 1970, it is
something that is high time we take a look at, particularly
when the cost is low.
Dr. Zimmermann. I do know we just recently discussed with
Terraforma One a unique concrete structure for Monarch
butterflies, including a habitat for them. Perhaps we have
something for birds as well. I am not aware.
Mr. Griffith. And there are lots of other things you can
do, and some of the material I submitted for the record has,
you know--and some people wouldn't like this but some do--
decorative mesh that you put around the building that lets the
light come in, but it makes it a barrier that birds can see so
they don't think they are flying into open space and crash into
a building and die. When The Guardian publication earlier this
year put out an estimate as high as a billion dollars, so it
is--I mean, a billion birds--it is a concern.
Dr. Zimmermann. I am happy to look into that.
Mr. Griffith. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Kuster for 1 minute.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Our votes have been called, but I want to commend the Chair
and all of you for being here. This is a win-win-win scenario
and a very bipartisan hearing, and we can save the planet, save
money, create jobs, and, it turns out, save the birds.
I am going to just dive right in. I am a proud cosponsor of
my friend Congressman Welch's bill on improving energy
efficiency. And my question is about the most cost-effective
energy efficiency technologies that can be deployed. And, in
particular, I am from a rural district. Is there anything in
particular about these technologies for rural communities and
homeowners that you would recommend?
Anybody can take it, and our time is short.
Mr. Nadel. I will start. Smart building controls can often
be some of the most cost-effective opportunities, particularly
in commercial buildings, but also there is some in residential.
But the other residential stuff vary very much from home to
home or building to building. That also brings into rural areas
the need sometimes for rural broadband, which is a whole big
issue but something that ultimately we need to address if we
are going get all the benefits to all of the U.S. and not just
the urban areas.
Ms. Kuster. And definitely, we are working on that as well.
By that, you mean smart technology so that homeowners and
business owners can control their energy efficiency and their
use?
Mr. Nadel. Often it means having sensors that help identify
when something is out of kilter and either automatically
adjusting or at least letting people know so that they don't
just go for years and years unaware of the problem.
Ms. Kuster. Any other quick ideas? Quickly.
Ms. Beardsley. First of all, weatherization, so definitely
getting better insulation in these buildings. And then,
secondly, making sure that there is availability of high-
efficiency products and that the workforce is trained so that
naturally as HVAC breaks down and needs to be replaced, it is
replaced with high efficiency.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Very helpful. I should have mentioned
cold and rural. So, thank you.
Mr. McIntyre, sure.
Mr. McIntyre. If I can just make a quick comment on that.
The quick analogy, in my perspective, is address the envelope
first, address the load of the building first, what the
building needs, and then address the efficiencies of what goes
into it.
If we put high-efficiency systems into a building that we
don't address the building, I have a simple analogy for that
that I tell customers regularly and I put in my presentations:
That is wasting energy more efficiently.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you. Having grown up in a very drafty
colonial, I can relate. Thank you very much. Thanks for your
time.
And thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now requests unanimous consent to enter
into the record five documents.
And, without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. That concludes the witnesses' questions, and I
would like to thank all of our witnesses for their
participation in today's hearing.
I must remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I
ask each witness to respond promptly to any such questions that
you may receive.
And at this time, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. This is the second climate
change hearing this week, and while Republicans are serious
about finding real solutions to address the real issues our
constituents are dealing with, Democrats continue to waste time
on politics, when we could be passing legislation that already
has bipartisan support into law. Let's change the narrative and
put progress before politics.
Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago, we highlighted seven bills
that are very close to the finish line, but they require you
and your Democrat colleagues to act. I am talking about
legislation to promote the development of carbon capture and
utilization projects; a bill to reduce wildfire risks through
active forest management; a bill to promote advanced nuclear
energy technology; a bill to cut energy use in Federal
buildings; a bill to remove hurdles to energy efficiency
improvements; and, a bill to boost R&D for carbon capture
technology development. These are just a few examples where
Democrats on the committees of jurisdiction and on the NDAA
Conference Committee could work with Republicans to reduce
emissions, promote clean energy, and conserve our natural
resources.
When it comes to ways to save energy and improve the
performance of the homes where we live and the buildings where
we work, Republicans have solutions that are affordable, cost
effective, and appealing to consumers. We don't need a Big
Government solution for everything. With a careful balance of
incentives and market-driven policies, consumers will choose
the products and services that work best for them.
When it comes to Federal buildings, Republicans support
public-private partnerships such Energy Savings Performance
Contracts, which offer an innovate solution for the Federal
Government to reduce energy consumption at little to no cost to
taxpayers.
In my home State of Oregon, we are on the leading edge of
developing an innovative new wood product, such as cross-
laminated timber, which could be a real game changer for
sustainable forest management and low carbon building design.
Cross laminated timber has the potential to substantially
reduce the carbon footprint of new buildings by replacing steel
and concrete with a manufactured wood product in certain
applications. These wood products not only sequester carbon,
they help us sustainably manage our forests to reduce the risk
of wildfire which, as we know in Oregon, contributes to poor
air quality and carbon emissions.
Mr. Chairman, rather than following New York and
California's example with a ``Green New Deal'' Federal mandate
for buildings, I urge you to work with Republicans on more
practical solutions. The costs imposed by these Green New Deal
policies fall disproportionally on low income and minority
families, many of whom are already forced by the housing crisis
to endure long commutes because they cannot find affordable
housing close to work. As a result, we end up with more cars on
the road and more GHG emissions. This is just one example of
the unintended consequences, and precisely why Republicans are
advocating a balanced approach that takes these issues into
account.
I believe we should encourage the development and use of
innovative new building materials such as cross-laminated
timber. We should also support the development of new
technologies that use less energy, but we need free markets and
consumer choice to drive that innovation. Bottom line--the
Federal Government could mandate that architects design
buildings certain ways, and mandate that builders build
structures certain ways; but if consumers cannot afford what
they are designing and building, it is all for nothing.
A top-down government mandate will only stifle growth and
make homes and buildings more expensive. I firmly believe we
can find common ground with solutions that are focused on
affordability, cost-effectiveness, and as always, consumers.
As I said on Wednesday, we are waiting at the table and are
ready to continue the work we started last Congress. Let's stay
focused on real solutions, and let's work together.
Thank you, I yield back.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]