[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                               


 
 BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR AN EQUITABLE, 
                          LOW-CARBON RECOVERY

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-124
                           
                           
         [GRAPHIC(S) 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 
 55-870             WASHINGTON : 2024                   
                        
                        
                        
                        

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12

                               Witnesses

Devashree Saha, Ph.D., Senior Associate, World Resources 
  Institute......................................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   176
Lonnie R. Stephenson, International President, International 
  Brotherhood of Electrical Workers..............................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   183
Denise Fairchild, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Emerald Cities Collaborative...................................    44
    Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   185
Michelle Michot Foss, Ph.D., Fellow in Energy and Minerals, Baker 
  Institute for Public Policy, Center for Energy Studies, Rice 
  University.....................................................    52
    Prepared statement...........................................    54
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   189

                           Submitted Material

Letter to Ms. Pelosi, et al., from Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox, 
  President and CEO, the Evangelical Environmental Network, et 
  al., submitted by Mr. Tonko....................................   105
Letter of September 15, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, from 
  Coalition of Communities, Environmental Groups, and Researchers 
  Regarding Critical Minerals, submitted by Mr. Tonko............   109
Letter of September 16, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from Paul 
  Billings, National Senior Vice President, Public Policy, 
  American Lung Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko \1\
Report on ``Environmental Remediation and Infrastructure Policies 
  Supporting Workers and Communities in Transition,'' Resources 
  for the Future and the Environmental Defense Fund, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko \2\

----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
  also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD005.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
  also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD008.pdf.
Report on ``Economic Development Policies to Enable Fairness for 
  Workers and Communities in Transition,'' Resources for the 
  Future and the Environmental Defense Fund, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko \3\
Report from World Resources Institute, ``America's New Climate 
  Economy: A Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of 
  Climate Policy in the United State'', submitted by Mr. Tonko 
  \4\
Letter of September 15, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from Clean 
  Transportation Stimulus Coalition, submitted by Mr. Tonko......   115
Letter of September 15, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from 
  Michele Roberts, National Co-Coordinator and Jessica Ennis, 
  Legislative, Director for Climate and Energy, Earthjustice, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko \5\
Report of September 2020, ``Job Creation Estimates Through 
  Proposed Economic Stimulus Measures'', Political, from Robert 
  Pollin, Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Co-
  Director and Shouvik Chakraborty, Assistant Research Professor, 
  PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko \6\
Article of May 18, 2018, Final List of Critical Minerals, Federal 
  Register, submitted by Mr. Tonko \7\
Letter of September 16, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, by 
  Abigail Ross Hopper, Esq., President and CEO, Solar Energy 
  Industries Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko.................   123
Article of May 21, 2019, ``China Raises Threat of Rare-Earths 
  Cutoff to U.S.,'' cents Keith Johnson, Senior Staff Writer and 
  Elias Groll, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy, Twitter, submitted 
  by Mr. Tonko \8\
Article of December 2, 2018, ``China Has a Secret Weapon in the 
  Race to Dominate Electric Cars,'' by Jack Farchy and Hayley 
  Warren, Bloomberg, submitted by Mr. Tonko......................   126
Article of May 25, 2020, ``U.S. Falters in Bid to Replace Chinese 
  Rare Earths,'' by Keith Johnson and Elias Groll, Foreign 
  Policy, Twitter, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................   135
Report of April 2020, ``Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply 
  Chain: A Situational White Paper,'' from the Department of 
  Energy, submitted by Mr. Tonko \9\

----------
\3\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
  also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD007.pdf.
\4\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
  also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD010.pdf.
\5\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
  also available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD004.pdf.
\6\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD009.pdf.
\7\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD011.pdf.
\8\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD012.pdf.
\9\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD015.pdf.
Report on ``A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable 
  Supplies of Critical Materials,'' Department of Commerce, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko \10\
Articled of December 20, 2017, ``Presidential Executive Order on 
  a Federal Strategy and Reliable Supplies of Critical 
  Minerals,'' Executive Order from President Donald J. Trump, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   142
 Article on ``Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon 
  future,'' by Benjamin K. Sovacool, et al., AAAS, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko......................................................   152
Map, Nuclear Plants in all Regions of the Country Have Announced 
  Premature Retirements, Exelon, submitted by Mr. Tonko..........   157
Document on H.R. 4447, 6270, and 8319, submitted by Mr. Tonko....   158

----------
\10\ The information has been retained in committee files and 
  also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200916/111008/HHRG-116-IF18-20200916-SD016.pdf.


 BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR AN EQUITABLE, 
                          LOW-CARBON RECOVERY

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, 
Barragan, Blunt Rochester, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, 
McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus 
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, 
Long, Flores, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer, 
Junior Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief 
Counsel; Perry Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk; Rick Kessler, 
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; 
Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, Press 
Secretary; Joe Orlando, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital 
Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Nikki Roy, Policy 
Coordinator; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Mike 
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Minority 
Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and Climate Change; Tiffany 
Haverly, Minority Communications Director; Peter Kielty, 
Minority General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff 
Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and 
Environment and Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy 
Chief Counsel, Energy; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, 
Health; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; Peter Spencer, 
Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment and 
Climate Change; and Callie Strock, Minority Press Secretary.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order.
    And today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled 
Building a 100 Percent Clean Economy: ``Opportunities for an 
Equitable Low Carbon Recovery.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via video conferencing. As part of our 
hearing, microphones will be set on mute for purposes of 
eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members and 
witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each time 
you choose to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca ``Becky'' 
Tomilchik at the email address we provided to staff. All 
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of 
the hearing, and I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    When we began the 100 Percent Clean Economy hearing series, 
we set out to identify the challenges and the opportunities for 
our Nation to achieve scientifically necessary pollution 
reduction targets. Over the past year we have heard from 
experts about how to achieve these goals while strengthening 
our economy, creating new jobs and industries, modernizing our 
infrastructure, and addressing historic environmental 
injustices, all while transitioning every sector to a low-
carbon future.
    When we began this work, we had a pretty good idea that 
wildfires, hurricanes, and extreme heat, all exacerbated by our 
changing climate, were serious threats to Americans' lives and 
our near- and long-term economic outlook, but we had no way of 
foreseeing the COVID-19 pandemic. Closures due to COVID-19 have 
led to manufacturing reductions, supply chain disruptions, and 
increased installation of clean energy and energy efficiency 
technologies. Prior to COVID-19, clean energy sectors were 
adding jobs at twice the rate of overall U.S. employment. Today 
over one half a million clean energy workers have lost their 
jobs.
    And, undoubtedly, the pandemic has shed light on systemic 
inequities. Many of the people that have been most likely to 
lose their lives to COVID are most likely to be unemployed 
because of it, more likely to experience harmful pollution in 
their communities, and most at risk to the dangers caused by 
climate change.
    It has never been more obvious that our collective climate 
response, future economic prosperity, and commitment to 
building a more just and equitable society are intertwined. As 
we continue to consider how these goals should be achieved, 
given our current circumstances, I believe it is imperative 
that we start with targeting Federal investments to ensure that 
an economic recovery and clean energy transition will benefit 
workers and frontline communities while delivering a healthier 
and more resilient environment for all Americans.
    Throughout the 116th Congress, this subcommittee has heard 
many ideas to do just that. Programs in the committee's 
jurisdiction can support the creation of American jobs, 
especially in labor-intensive sectors like construction and 
manufacturing. This isn't some unrealistic dream. There are 
real and existing programs that can be leveraged. We just need 
to increase the scale of our ambition and the depth of our 
commitment. This includes investments to modernize the grid, 
retrofit buildings, manufacture clean vehicles, develop a 
modern energy workforce, and research innovative technologies.
    These efforts can also make us more resilient to unforeseen 
disruptions like COVID. For example, building domestic, low-
carbon manufacturing capacity can shorten supply chains, while 
creating new jobs in emerging industries. These were ideas 
included in our comprehensive climate plan last year. And they 
make just as much sense today, given their climate and economic 
benefits.
    And it may surprise some people, but in recent years, we 
have worked on a bipartisan basis on many important components 
of such a plan to support redevelopment of brownfields, 
remediation of Superfund sites, and improvements to water 
systems. These types of programs can be at the heart of our 
Nation's recovery to put people to work modernizing and 
climatizing our infrastructure while reducing pollution, 
especially in frontline communities.
    Putting Americans back to work should be a top priority, 
but that is not the only important metric. We need to ensure 
that the jobs we are creating are of high quality. We need to 
create a support system for workforce development and training 
that isn't just putting people into transitional jobs but into 
long-term careers. We need to make strategic and sustained 
investments to develop new industries that will employ 
Americans for decades to come, and we need to make certain that 
these investments reach all communities.
    While the need for action is as urgent as ever, we can be 
confident that this approach can have a meaningful impact. Much 
of the clean energy progress made in the past decade can trace 
its origins back to the historic investments of the Recovery 
Act. The cost of solar, wind, LEDs, and lithium-ion batteries 
have declined at an unthinkable rate, supported by those 
investments and incentives. Those investments created jobs 
while having long-term benefits: technology breakthroughs from 
ARPA-E, deployment of smart meters, and the first carbon 
capture demonstration projects to name just a few.
    We are approaching 200,000 COVID deaths, and meanwhile, 
millions are unemployed, and we continue to see terrifying 
images of wildfires from the West and hurricanes from the Gulf. 
At our first hearing of the 116th Congress, I suggested that we 
wore at an inflection point. And how our committee responds in 
this moment will define our Nation for the next one-half 
century and beyond. This is truer today than ever before. And I 
look forward to today's discussion of the tremendous 
opportunities available to put Americans back to work in the 
short term while realizing the long-term benefits of a cleaner, 
more resilient, more competitive, and more just economy.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    When we began the 100% Clean Economy hearing series, we set 
out to identify the challenges and opportunities for our nation 
to achieve scientifically necessary pollution reduction 
targets.
    Over the past year, we have heard from experts about how to 
achieve these goals while strengthening our economy, creating 
new jobs and industries, modernizing our infrastructure, and 
addressing historic environmental injustices, all while 
transitioning every sector to a low-carbon future.
    When we began this work, we had a pretty good idea that 
wildfires, hurricanes, and extreme heat--all exacerbated by our 
changing climate--were serious threats to Americans' lives and 
our near- and long-term economic outlook.
    But we had no way of foreseeing the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Closures due to COVID-19 have led to manufacturing 
reductions, supply chain disruptions, and decreased 
installation of clean energy and energy efficiency 
technologies.
    Prior to COVID-19, clean energy sectors were adding jobs at 
twice the rate of overall U.S. employment.
    Today over half a million clean energy workers have lost 
their jobs.
    And undoubtedly, the pandemic has shed light on systemic 
inequities.
    Many of the people that have been most likely to lose their 
lives to COVID are also more likely to be unemployed because of 
it, more likely to experience harmful pollution in their 
communities, and most at risk to the dangers caused by climate 
change.
    It has never been more obvious that our collective climate 
response, future economic prosperity, and commitment to 
building a more just and equitable society are intertwined.
    As we continue to consider how these goals should be 
achieved given our current circumstances, I believe it starts 
with targeting Federal investments to ensure that an economic 
recovery and clean energy transition will benefit workers and 
frontline communities, while delivering a healthier and more 
resilient environment for all Americans.
    Throughout the 116th Congress, this Subcommittee has heard 
many ideas to do just that.
    Programs in the Committee's jurisdiction can support the 
creation of American jobs, especiallyin labor-intensive sectors 
like construction and manufacturing.
    This isn't some unrealistic dream. There are real and 
existing programs that can be leveraged.
    We just need to increase the scale of our ambition and the 
depth of our commitment.
    This includes investments to modernize the grid, retrofit 
buildings, manufacture clean vehicles,develop a modern energy 
workforce, and research innovative technologies.
    These efforts can also make us more resilient to unforeseen 
disruptions, like COVID.
    For example, building domestic, low-carbon manufacturing 
capacity can shorten supply chains while creating new jobs in 
emerging industries.
    These were ideas included in our comprehensive climate plan 
last year, and they make just as much sense today given their 
climate and economic benefits.
    And it may surprise some people, but in recent years, we've 
worked on a bipartisan basis on many important components of 
such a plan- to support redevelopment of brownfields, 
remediation of Superfund sites, and improvements to water 
systems.
    These types of programs can be at the heart of our nation's 
recovery to put people to work modernizing and climatizing our 
infrastructure while reducing pollution, especially in 
frontline communities.
    Putting Americans back to work should be a top priority, 
but that is not the only important metric.
    We need to ensure that the jobs we are creating are of a 
high quality.
    We need to create a support system for workforce 
development and training that isn't just putting people into 
transitional jobs, but into long-term careers.
    We need to make strategic and sustained investments to 
develop new industries that will employ Americans for decades 
to come.
    And we need to make sure these investments reach all 
communities.
    While the need for action is as urgent as ever, we can be 
confident that this approach can have a meaningful impact.
    Much of the clean energy progress made in the past decade 
can trace its origins back to the historic investments of the 
Recovery Act.
    The costs of solar, wind, LEDs, and lithium-ion batteries 
have declined at an unthinkable rate, supported by those 
investments and incentives.
    Those investments created jobs while having long-term 
benefits-technology breakthroughs from ARPA-E, deployment of 
smart meters, and the first carbon capture demonstration 
projects, to name just a few.
    We are approaching 200,000 COVID deaths, and meanwhile 
millions are unemployed, and we continue to see terrifying 
images of wildfires from the west and hurricanes from the gulf.
    At our first hearing of the 116th Congress, I suggested 
that we were at an inflection point, and how our Committee 
responds in this moment will define our nation for the next 
half century and beyond.
    This is truer today than ever before.
    I look forward to today's discussion of the tremendous 
opportunities available to put Americans back to work in the 
short-term while realizing the long-term benefits of a cleaner, 
more resilient, more competitive, and more just economy.

    And, with that, I now recognize Mr. Shimkus, our ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change 
for 5 minutes.
    Representative, please, your opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For any community to be prosperous and healthy, it takes 
energy. I think there is no dispute on this committee that 
promoting economic recovery, growing an economy, building and 
spreading prosperity, themes of today's hearing, require that 
energy be both affordable and reliable. The American people 
overwhelmingly agree. Recent polling found Americans prioritize 
affordability and reliability over emissions reduction. The 
same poll found 50 percent of people could not afford an 
electricity bill increase of $15 or more, including 25 percent 
who said that they could not afford an increase of any amount.
    Higher energy costs also disproportionately hurt the poor 
more than the rich because low-income families spend a higher 
percentage of their income on those bills. The burden of higher 
energy costs is even more acute in communities of color. A 
study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
found that, on average, Black, Hispanic, and Native American 
households spend a much larger portion of their income on 
energy bills than White, non-Hispanic households.
    It is our responsibility as policymakers to closely examine 
the costs, the effectiveness, and other impacts of the 
environmental policies that affect energy. Failure to do this, 
especially when addressing climate change risks, harm to public 
health and hurts most of those who can afford it the least. 
Let's not lose sight of that today as we consider a low-carbon 
recovery that aims to benefit all Americans.
    This is a laudable goal, but I think we should look very 
carefully and cautiously at any measures that rush towards a 
national energy transition that results in new insecurities and 
other problems. On August 14th and 15th last month, for the 
first time since its energy crisis in 2001, California's grid 
operator had to institute rolling blackouts for some two 
million people. This was because the state supply of 
electricity could not meet demand during the later hours of the 
day. This is when the sun sets and the State's estimated 12 
gigawatts of utility-scale solar no longer provides power to 
the grid. And so, the grid operator has to draw upon other 
power sources if they are available. The immediate cause of 
this crisis was the unexpected drop-off in wind energy and a 
loss of power plant, coupled with limited electricity 
availability for import as the heat wave hit other Western 
States.
    But the chronic cause of the crisis in California is its 
increasing reliance on wind and solar, driven up by the State's 
mandate that 60 percent of its electricity must come from 
renewables by 2030, up from about 36 percent today. This rush 
to green in California is driving out baseload generation, 
including clean nuclear energy, and locking in a system that 
its own authorities warn is more vulnerable to supply 
disruption and that charges among the highest electricity rates 
in the Nation.
    Tellingly, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which 
represents 20 percent of the State's carbon-free energy and a 
thousand high-paying jobs is scheduled to begin shutting down 
in four years. That State's overcapacity of solar and wind 
forced regulators to curtail Diablo's output, making it 
uneconomical, even though nuclear offers equally clean but far 
more reliable power than wind and solar.
    I don't think we want to impose California's green new 
normal on the rest of the Nation. But what else are we failing 
to consider as we look at clean economy policies, especially 
policies that drive toward the mandatory reliance on renewables 
and electrification?
    One witness today, Dr. Michot Foss, from Rice University's 
Baker Institute, will offer some important considerations that 
will help us understand more fully where these clean economy 
policies that depend on renewables and electrification are 
going. She will speak to the energy and economic security risks 
we face concerning the materials that will be needed for 
building out complex green energy systems. These include the 
critical minerals and raw materials for batteries and for 
components for wind and solar as well as other systems and 
machines that make up our Nation's energy and transportation 
infrastructure.
    A growing dependence on critical minerals in these new 
energy systems raises serious supply chain, national security, 
and economic security and environmental issues that have not 
received the attention they deserve. After 50 years of national 
energy policies that sought to protect America's energy 
security, it would be a shame to reverse all those gains we 
have made because we didn't confront the hard questions that 
proposed energy transitions raise. We can begin asking those 
questions this morning.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to an informative 
hearing.
    With that, I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    For any community to be prosperous and healthy, it takes 
energy.
    I think there's no dispute on this Committee that promoting 
economic recovery, growing an economy, building and spreading 
prosperity-themes of today's hearing- requires that energy be 
both affordable and reliable.
    The American people overwhelmingly agree. Recent polling 
found Americans prioritize affordability and reliability over 
emissions reductions. The same poll found 50 percent of people 
``could not afford an electricity bill increase of $15 or 
less--including 25 percent who said they could not afford an 
increase of any amount.''
    Higher energy costs also disproportionately hurt the poor 
more than the rich because low-income families spend a higher 
percentage of their income on those bills. The burden of higher 
energy costs is even more acute in communities of color. A 
study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
found that, on average, Black, Hispanic, and Native American 
households spend a much larger portion of their income on 
energy bills than White non-Hispanic households.
    It's our responsibility as policymakers to closely examine 
the costs, effectiveness, and other impacts of environmental 
policies that affect energy. Failure to do this, especially 
when addressing climate change, risks harm to public health and 
hurts most to those who can afford it least.
    Let's not lose sight of that today as we consider a ``low-
carbon recovery'' that aims to benefit all Americans. This is a 
laudable goal. But I think we should look very carefully and 
cautiously at any measures that rush towards a national energy 
transition that results in new insecurities and other problems.
    On August 14th and 15th last month, for the first time 
since its energy crisis in 2001, California's grid operator had 
to institute rolling blackouts for some two million people.
    This was because the state's supply of electricity could 
not meet demand during the later hours of the day. This is when 
the sun sets and the state's estimated 12 gigawatts of utility 
scale solar no longer provides power to the grid, and so the 
grid operator has to draw upon other power sources, if they are 
available.
    The immediate cause of the crisis was the unexpected drop 
off in wind energy and loss of a power plant, coupled with 
limited electricity available for import as a heat wave hit 
other Western states.
    But the chronic cause of the crisis is California's 
increasing reliance on wind and solar, driven by the state's 
mandate that 60 percent of its electricity must come from 
renewables by 2030, up from about 36 percent today.
    This rush to green in California is driving out baseload 
generation, including clean nuclear generation, and locking in 
a system that its own authorities warn is more vulnerable to 
supply disruptions and that charges among the highest 
electricity rates in the nation.
    Tellingly, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which 
represents 20 percent of the state's carbon free energy and a 
thousand high-paying jobs, is scheduled to begin shutting down 
in four years. The state's overcapacity of solar and wind 
forced regulators to curtail Diablo's output, making it 
uneconomical, even though nuclear offers equally clean, but far 
more reliable power than wind and solar.
    I don't think we want to impose California's ``Green New 
Normal'' on the rest of the nation. But what else are we 
failing to consider as we look at clean economy policies, 
especially policies that drive towards a mandatory reliance on 
renewables and electrification?
    One witness today, Dr. Michelle Michot (Mee-show) Foss from 
Rice University's Baker Institute, will offer some important 
considerations that will help us understand more fully where 
these clean economy policies that depend on renewables and 
electrification are going.
    She will speak to the energy and economic security risks we 
face concerning materials that will be needed for building out 
complex ``green'' energy systems. These include the critical 
minerals and raw materials for batteries and the components for 
wind and solar, as well as the other systems and machines that 
make up our nation's energy and transportation infrastructure.
    A growing dependence on critical minerals in these new 
energy systems raise serious supply chain, national security, 
economic security, and environmental issues that have not 
received the attention they deserve.
    After fifty years of national energy policies that sought 
to protect America's energy security, it would be a shame to 
reverse all the gains we have made because we didn't confront 
the hard questions that proposed energy transitions raise.
    We can begin asking those questions this morning.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to an informative 
hearing.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes now Mr. Pallone, the Chair of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Today's hearing is the latest in the committee's series on 
building 100 percent clean economy, which becomes even more 
crucial to the future of our country and our planet by the day. 
The images and the stories from the wildfires that are 
engulfing large parts of California, Oregon, and Washington are 
devastating. The destruction of homes and businesses and the 
loss of life is heartbreaking. And the fires are producing some 
of the worst air quality in the world.
    And these fires are climate fires, and it was disheartening 
to watch the President on the ground in California earlier this 
week where he once again fully denied scientific facts. 2020 is 
on track to be one of the two hottest years, if not the hottest 
year, on record.
    On the East and Gulf Coasts, it has been a record-breaking 
Atlantic hurricane season. For the first time in recorded 
history, 18 tropical storms have formed before October. And now 
Hurricane Sally is predicted to drop about 30 inches of rain on 
part of the Gulf Coast.
    Unfortunately, this is all a preview of what is in store 
for the future if we don't take bold, decisive action to combat 
the climate crisis. And now as the COVID-19 pandemic has 
changed the economic landscape, the path to 100 percent clean 
looks difference today than it did last year, but the science 
based target of transitioning to 100 percent clean economy by 
no later than 2050, which we adopted last year, is still 
important. In fact, we really need to move much faster. And 
achieving that goal remains critical if we are to avoid the 
most damaging and costly consequences of climate change.
    Now, in January, our committee released a draft of the 
CLEAN Future Act, which outlined tools to put the United States 
on the path to 100 percent clean economy, and today we will 
look at how those tools and others can help our economy recover 
stronger and cleaner than it was before the pandemic.
    Over the last seven months, nearly 200,000 Americans have 
died and nearly 3.4 million Americans have permanently lost 
their jobs, and less than half of the 22 million jobs lost 
since February have been recovered. Even worse, job growth has 
slowed with each passing month. And this crisis has not hit all 
Americans equally. Communities of color have been 
disproportionately affected by the health and economic impacts 
of the pandemic. These are the same communities that have 
endured disproportionate exposure to air and water pollution 
for far too long. As we begin to recover from the current 
crisis, we have an opportunity and an obligation to build a 
fair, better future for these communities and for all 
Americans.
    So today we will examine the role of the Federal Government 
in enabling such a recovery, a recovery that not only jump-
starts the economy but one that centers on equitable, inclusive 
climate action. A recent report from the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission offers a startling view of the economic 
costs of climate inaction. The report found that climate-
related extreme weather events will wreak havoc on our 
financial systems, undermining long-term economic growth. And 
that dire warning builds on the Federal Government's prior 
estimates that climate change could cut U.S. gross domestic 
product by ten percent by the end of the century.
    These figures are alarming. But they simply confirm what we 
already know, that the climate crisis is real, it is 
devastating, and it is unfolding before our very eyes. The 
public health, economic, and climate crisis are all happening 
simultaneously. And we have no choice but to tackle all of 
these challenging head-on as we rebuild. We cannot recreate the 
problems--or I should say we should not recreate the problems 
of the past but instead create a future that is cleaner, more 
equitable, and more inclusive.
    An ambitious recovery effort focused on climate action will 
give us the tools to build back better and stronger and create 
millions of new, good-paying jobs. And I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses about how Federal support can 
reinvigorate our economy and put us on a path to a cleaner, 
more equitable future.
    I just want to thank Chairman Tonko and also our Ranking 
Member Shimkus, Greg. This hearing is very important and, 
obviously, we spent a lot of time on climate change both in the 
subcommittee and the full committee, and we need to continue to 
do so as a committee.
    So thanks again, Paul.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today's hearing is the latest in the Committee's series on 
building a 100 percent clean economy, which becomes even more 
crucial to the future of our nation and our planet by the day.
    The images and the stories from the wildfires that are 
engulfing large parts of California, Oregon and Washington are 
devastating. The destruction of homes and businesses and the 
loss of life is heartbreaking, and the fires are producing some 
of the worst air quality in the world.
    These fires are climate fires, and it was disheartening to 
watch the President on the ground in California earlier this 
week, once again, fully deny scientific fact.
    2020 is on track to be one of the two hottest years--if not 
the hottest year--on record. On the east and Gulf coasts, it's 
been a record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season. For the first 
time in recorded history, 18 tropical storms have formed before 
October, and now Hurricane Sally is predicted to drop about 30 
inches of rain on parts of the Gulf Coast.
    Unfortunately, this is all a preview of what's in store for 
the future if we don't take bold, decisive action to combat the 
climate crisis.
    And now, as the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the economic 
landscape, the path to 100 percent clean looks different today 
than it did last year. But the science-based target of 
transitioning to a 100 percent clean economy by no later than 
2050, which we adopted last year, must remain the same. 
Achieving that goal remains critical if we are to avoid the 
most damaging and costly consequences of climate change.
    In January, our Committee released a draft of the CLEAN 
Future Act, which outlined tools to put the United States on 
the path to a 100 percent clean economy. Today, we will look at 
how those tools, and others, can help our economy recover 
stronger and cleaner than it was before the pandemic.
    Over the last seven months nearly 200,000 Americans have 
died, nearly 3.4 million Americans have permanently lost their 
jobs, and less than half of the 22 million jobs lost since 
February have been recovered. Even worse, job growth has slowed 
with each passing month.
    This crisis has not hit all Americans equally. Communities 
of color have been disproportionately affected by the health 
and economic impacts of the pandemic. These are the same 
communities that have endured disproportionate exposure to air 
and water pollution for far too long. As we begin to recover 
from the current crisis, we have an opportunity and an 
obligation to build a fairer, better future for these 
communities and for all Americans.
    Today we'll examine the role of the Federal Government in 
enabling such a recovery - a recovery that not only jumpstarts 
the economy, but one that centers on equitable, inclusive 
climate action.
    A recent report from the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission offers a startling view of the economic costs of 
climate inaction. The report found that climate-related extreme 
weather events will wreak havoc on our financial systems, 
undermining long-term economic growth. That dire warning builds 
on the federal government's prior estimates that climate change 
could cut U.S. gross domestic product by ten percent by the end 
of the century.
    These figures are alarming, but they simply confirm what we 
already know: that the climate crisis is real. It is 
devastating. And it is unfolding before our very eyes.
    The public health, economic, and climate crises are all 
happening simultaneously, and we have no choice but to tackle 
all these challenges head-on as we rebuild. We must not 
recreate the problems of the past, but instead create a future 
that is cleaner, more equitable, and more inclusive.
    An ambitious recovery effort focused on climate action will 
give us the tools to build back better and stronger, and create 
millions of new, good-paying jobs. I look forward to hearing 
from our witnesses about how federal support can reinvigorate 
our economy and put us on the path to a cleaner, more equitable 
future.

    Mr. Pallone. I can't hear Paul.
    Mr. Tonko. I can teach myself here.
    The Chair will now recognize Representative Walden, ranking 
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Greg, before you take the floor here, let me extend my 
condolences to you and other members of this subcommittee who 
have witnessed and absorbed some terrific damage in your 
districts. I am sure the entire subcommittee shares its 
thoughts and its concerns with you, and let's go forward and 
make certain we can do the best in response to that damage that 
has occurred in your area.
    Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you for your 
thoughts and prayers, especially for my constituents and those 
of Kurt Schrader as well who have lost everything. This hit the 
poorest of the poor. Those with the least were wiped out the 
most, and so we have got a lot of recovery. It is a long road 
back. So, I appreciate that.
    And today's hearing does come as Oregon and much of the 
West, California and Washington, have suffered from these 
horrific and devastating wildfires, kind of hitting us all, all 
at once. In Oregon, more than 40,000 people are displaced, 
lives have been lost, thousands of homes have been destroyed, 
and an area the size of Rhode Island has burned. Our hearts go 
out to those impacted by these catastrophic fires.
    Sadly, our Federal forests have lacked proper management 
for years, resulting in our Federal forests becoming 
tinderboxes. We got nearly 63 million acres of national 
forestlands the Forest Service has determined need active 
management and thinning to get them back in balance with 
nature. So that is something we, I think, should all be able to 
agree upon, because when these fires come, the emissions are 
just extraordinary. And by the way, upwards of 70 percent of 
carbon emissions come after the fires are out from the decaying 
material left behind.
    Proper forest management reduces fire risks, lowers carbon 
emissions from fires, and it creates good jobs. It also allows 
us to utilize our natural resources in a sustainable way to 
protect and grow our communities and our forests.
    Today's hearing is also relevant in the wake of 
California's most recent rolling blackouts, affecting hundreds 
of thousands of people in the middle of both a heat wave and a 
pandemic. There is a lot we can do as a Nation to improve 
reliability and resilience of our electric grid, and I think 
that is good bipartisan work.
    Mr. Chairman, you referenced it in your statements as well.
    We have to prioritize energy security and affordability for 
consumers, as Mr. Shimkus said, and use experience and science 
as our guide for our energy policy. We share the goal of a 
clean economy. Republicans put consumers and innovation first 
as we balance many complicated issues impacting our economy, 
our environment, and national security.
    Regrettably, California's current energy crisis was 
predictable, and it was avoidable. California policymakers 
ignored the scientists and the engineers who maintained the 
electric grid and, instead, mandated their version of a Green 
New Deal. California forced the retirement of the most stable 
baseload nuclear natural gas-fired power generation without a 
reliable backup option in place. California regulators, I 
believe, failed in the most basic responsibility, and that is 
ensuring adequate electric generation is available whenever and 
wherever needed.
    So, as a result, hundreds of thousands of Californians were 
forced to endure rolling outages when they needed their 
electricity the most, and, in fact, had the Bonneville Power 
Administration not been able to ramp up hydropower regeneration 
on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, it would have been even 
worse. If California, the world's fifth largest economy, cannot 
keep the lights on during a heat wave, that is a serious 
warning for anyone considering placing these mandates on the 
rest of the Nation.
    I would also like to highlight another major challenge we 
must confront, and that is the growing reliance on foreign-
sourced critical minerals which serve as raw ingredients to 
manufacture all kinds of electronics, batteries, solar panels, 
and windmills. These critical minerals are largely controlled 
by China and mined beyond our borders now and without our high 
environmental and worker safety standards. This is a supply 
chain issue I hope the committee will look at and those of our 
colleagues on other committees.
    The U.S. has an extraordinary abundance of these very same 
mineral resources, both onshore and offshore. We are the 
world's number one producer of oil and gas and a leading 
producer of coal. These traditional energy resources have 
powered our Nation's economy and strengthened our hand 
diplomatically. Today we are more energy secure than ever in 
the history of the United States. Millions of people have good 
jobs in the energy industry, and our businesses and consumers 
have some of the lowest and most stable energy prices anywhere 
in the world.
    Despite our abundance energy resources, though, we do rely 
on other countries for dozens of other vital minerals. We are 
100 percent net-import reliant on some minerals used in many 
electronics, batteries, solar panels, and windmills. If the 
vision is to power the Nation on these technologies alone, we 
could be in serious trouble if we don't deal with the supply 
chain issue.
    As we have learned from this pandemic, our reliance on 
foreign, especially Chinese, supply chains is a strategic 
vulnerability. Given our innovative strength and the progress 
we have made to become energy secure, it would be 
unconscionable to sacrifice these gains for a Green New Deal 
fantasy that bans hydraulic fracturing and discards decades of 
progress. So, let's learn from the mistakes of the past and not 
move too quickly without a full understanding of the facts and 
science.
    Is transitioning to 100 percent renewables and electric 
vehicles a good idea if it means we are going to be 100 percent 
dependent on China for the minerals to produce them? Do 
Americans want to transition to 100 percent renewables if it 
means rolling blackouts? These are the issues that I know the 
committee takes seriously.
    We need to have a serious solutions-oriented discussion 
about dealing with climate change. We all want affordable, 
clean, and reliable energy options. The question is, what is 
the best way to get there?
    So, Mr. Chairman, thanks for the hearing. I look forward to 
the testimony. I will be going back and forth because I am 
dealing with the emergency in my district in real time.
    But I yield back and thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Today's hearing comes as my home state of Oregon and much 
of the west reels from devastating wildfires. In Oregon over 
40,000 people are displaced, lives have been lost, thousands of 
homes have been destroyed, and an area the size of Rhode Island 
has burned. Our hearts go out to all those impacted by these 
catastrophic fires.
    Sadly, our federal forests have lacked proper management 
for years, resulting in our federal forests becoming 
tinderboxes, with nearly 63 million acres of national forest 
the Forest Service has determined needs fire prevention 
treatment. This is something we should all be able to agree on.
    Proper forest management reduces fire risk, lowers carbon 
emissions from fire and creates good jobs. It also allows us to 
utilize our natural resources in a sustainable way to protect 
and grow our communities and our forests.
    Today's hearing is also relevant in the wake of 
California's most recent rolling blackouts, affecting hundreds 
of thousands of people in themiddle of both a heat wave and 
pandemic. There is a lot we can do as a nation to improve the 
reliability and resilience of our electric grid.
    We have to prioritize energy security and affordability for 
consumers and use experience and science as our guide for our 
energy policy. We share the goal of a clean economy. 
Republicans put consumers and innovation first, as we balance 
many complicated issues impacting our economy, our environment, 
and our national security.
    Regrettably, California's current energy crisis was 
predictable and it was avoidable. California policy makers 
ignored the scientists and the engineers who maintain the 
electric grid and instead mandated their version of the Green 
New Deal. California forced the retirement of the most stable 
base-load nuclear and natural gas fired power generation, 
without a reliable backup option in place.
    California regulators, I believe, failed in their most 
basic responsibility--ensuring adequate electric generation is 
available whenever and wherever it is needed.
    As a result, hundreds of thousands of Californians were 
forced to endure rolling outages, when they needed their 
electricity the most. In fact, had the Bonneville Power 
Administration not been able to ramp up hydropower generation 
on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, it would have been even 
worse.
    If California--the world's fifth largest economy--can't 
keep the lights on during a heatwave, that is a serious warning 
for anyone considering placing these mandates on the rest of 
the nation.
    I'd also like to highlight another major challenge we must 
confront: growing reliance on foreign sourced critical 
minerals, which serve as raw ingredients to manufacture all 
kinds of electronics, batteries, solar panels, and windmills. 
These critical minerals are largely controlled by China and 
mined beyond our borders and without our high environmental and 
worker safety standards. This is a supply chain issue I hope 
the Committee will look at.
    The U.S. has an extraordinary abundance of mineral 
resources, both onshore and offshore. We're the world's number 
one producer of oil and gas, and a leading producer of coal. 
These traditional energy resources have powered our nation's 
economy and strengthened our hand diplomatically.
    Today, we are more energy secure than ever in the history 
of the United States. Millions of people have good jobs in the 
energy industry,and our businesses and consumers have some of 
the lowest and most stable energy prices anywhere in the world.
    Despite our abundant energy resources, we rely on other 
countries for dozens of other vital minerals. We are 100% net 
import reliant on some minerals used in many electronics, 
batteries, solar panels, and windmills. If the vision is to 
power the nation on these technologies alone, we may be in 
serious trouble.
    As we have learned from this pandemic, our reliance on 
foreign and especially Chinese supply chains is a strategic 
vulnerability. Given our innovative strength and the progress 
we've made to become energy secure, it would be unconscionable 
to sacrifice these gains for a Green New Deal fantasy that bans 
hydraulic fracturing and discards decades of progress. Let's 
learn from the mistakes of the past--and not move too quickly 
without a full understanding of the facts.
    Is transitioning to 100% renewables and electric vehicles a 
good idea if it means we are going to be 100% dependent on 
China for the materials to produce them? Do Americans want to 
transition to 100% renewables if it means rolling electricity 
blackouts? These are the issues I know the Committee takes 
seriously.
    We need to have a serious, solutions-oriented discussion 
about dealing with climate change. We all want clean, 
affordable, and reliable energy options. The question is, what 
is the best way to get there?
    So, Mister Chairman, thanks for the hearing. I look forward 
to it.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written open statements shall be 
made part of the record.
    I now will introduce the witnesses for today's hearing. 
First, we have Dr. Devashree Saha, Ph.D., senior associate with 
the World Resources Institute; Mr. Lonnie R. Stephenson, 
international president of the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, IBEW; Dr. Denise Fairchild, Ph.D., 
president and chief executive officer, Emerald Cities 
Collaborative; and, finally, Dr. Michot Foss, Ph.D., fellow in 
energy and minerals, Baker Institute for Public Policy at the 
Center for Energy Studies of Rice University.
    I will now recognize Dr. Saha for 5 minutes to provide an 
opening statement. Welcome again.

 STATEMENTS OF DEVASHREE SAHA, PH.D., SENIOR ASSOCIATE, WORLD 
   RESOURCES INSTITUTE; LONNIE R. STEPHENSON, INTERNATIONAL 
  PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 
(IBEW); DENISE FAIRCHILD, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
 OFFICER, EMERALD CITIES COLLABORATIVE; MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS, 
   PH.D., FELLOW IN ENERGY AND MINERALS, BAKER INSTITUTE FOR 
   PUBLIC POLICY, CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES, RICE UNIVERSITY

               STATEMENT OF DEVASHREE SAHA, PH.D.

    Dr. Saha. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and other members of the subcommittee. My name is 
Devashree Saha, and I am a senior associate at World Resources 
Institute. Thank you for this opportunity.
    This year has been like none other, and I am sure all of 
you here agree with me on that. We are witnessing the impacts 
of COVID-19, an economic recession with millions of Americans 
unemployed, a rising racial and social justice movement, and 
the direct effects of climate change with historic wildfires 
raging on the West Coast.
    With all these intersecting crises, I want to talk about 
the important role that clean energy and other low-carbon 
technologies can play in enabling an economic recovery that 
benefits all Americans, that increases stability in the 
financial markets, and puts the United States on the path to 
100 percent clean economy.
    A new analysis by WRI reviewed the latest economic and 
policy literature, and it clearly concluded that better 
economic growth and better climate go hand in hand. They are 
not incompatible. My written testimony has more details, but I 
want to highlight three key findings from our report.
    First, strong climate action and investments in low-carbon 
infrastructure can be effective in stimulating jobs and 
economic activity as part of the recovery process and also 
ensure our long-term competitiveness and growth.
    Clean energy is already a major U.S. employer. It supports 
3.6 million American workers, and these are jobs this which are 
well-distributed all over the country and, prior to COVID-19, 
had been growing at a much faster pace than overall employment. 
With today's high unemployment level, investments in these 
technologies can create more jobs than similar level of 
investment in carbon-intensive sectors of the U.S. economy.
    Let me give you one example. $1 million spent on clean 
energy generates about seven to eight full-time equivalent jobs 
per year. A similar level of investment in fossil fuel 
technology generates only two to three jobs. There are other 
economic benefits. The domestic and global clean tech market is 
booming. It has been growing significantly in the last decade. 
The U.S. advanced energy industry generated $238 billion in 
revenues in 2018. This is only about 14--15 percent off the 
global total, but the sector's 11 percent growth in 2018 was 
almost four times the growth of the U.S. economy. In short, 
America can improve its manufacturing competitiveness by 
building a domestic market for low-carbon technologies and 
tapping into foreign markets.
    The second key finding is that delaying action on climate 
will further expose the United States to costly damages from 
climate impacts, air pollution, and other public health crises, 
as well as create instability in the financial markets, which 
is why it is so heartening to see that the financial sector is 
increasing the ability to recognize the risks associated with 
climate change and also realize the significant opportunities 
that emerge from climate action.
    As Chairman Pallone said, the Commodities Futures Trading 
Commission put out a report which warned that climate change 
poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial 
system, and it has recommended that enacting a carbon price is 
the most important step that the U.S. needs to take now. And it 
is significant that the report and its findings have been 
endorsed by some of the largest banks, asset manager and 
owners, Big Agriculture, including Cargill as well as a major 
oil company, which brings me to the third and final finding.
    The investments needed for the low-carbon transition are 
significant, but the returns in economic opportunities, 
improved public health, and avoided climate catastrophes will 
far exceed the costs. America stands to benefit economically 
from taking strong climate action, which is why it is well past 
time for Congress to enact comprehensive climate legislation to 
accelerate America's transition to a clean, thriving economy.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Saha follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Saha.
    Mr. Stephenson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF LONNIE R. STEPHENSON

    Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and members of the House Energy and Commerce 
Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change. Thank you 
for inviting in me to participate in this morning's hearing.
    My name is Lonnie Stephenson. I have the honor of serving 
as the International President of the International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers. The IBEW is the largest energy union in 
the world. We represent more than 775,000 members in the United 
States, U.S. territories, and Canada who work in a variety of 
energy-related fields, including utilities, construction, 
telecommunication, broadcasting, manufacturing, and 
transportation.
    IBEW members are working on the front lines of the climate 
change. We are proud to be building and maintaining the zero- 
and no-carbon power generation sources from large-scale solar 
installations in the deserts of California to offshore wind 
farms off the coast of Rhode Island.
    Our inside wiremen regularly retrofit older buildings with 
modern energy efficiency techniques that significantly reduce 
energy usage and lowers energy prices for consumers. In recent 
weeks, the IBEW outside linemen from all around the country 
have been deployed in response to the power outages caused by 
the severe weather events, such as Hurricane Laura, Tropical 
Storm Isaias, the Midwest derecho windstorm, and now the 
wildfires that are threatening the communities along the West 
Coast.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a terrible toll on 
America's workers and labor unions. The Bureau of Labor stats 
reported earlier this month that 13.6 million Americans are 
currently out of work, more than double since February. This 
includes tens of thousands of IBEW members who have lost work 
due to the temporary shutdowns or are victims of the sharp 
decline in the economic activity. Further troubling are the 2.1 
million Americans who have permanently lost their jobs since 
this spring.
    At the same time, the climate crisis is real and urgent and 
poses a threat to our Nation's long-term prosperity. The 
Federal Government needs to develop a plan to mitigate the 
impacts of climate change and responsibility--and responsibly 
reduce emissions to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
    For these reasons the IBEW supports Congress developing a 
stimulus plan that would create over a million family-
supported, union-friendly jobs to rebuild our Nation's 
infrastructure, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate 
the impacts of climate change. In my written testimony, I 
address three areas of importance of the IBEW members in a low-
carbon economy: labor standards, baseload generation, and 
manufacturing.
    For our members, all the workers--all the workers, it is 
critical that Congress--labor standards to make sure that--to a 
future low-carbon stimulus legislation. Labor standards, such 
as prevailing wages, project labor agreements, and requiring 
employers to respect workers' rights to join a union, are some 
of the best policy tools available to ensure that our green 
economy will create family-supported jobs and provide equity 
for all workers.
    Supporting baseload generation, including coal, gas, and 
nuclear generation is key to maintaining the security and 
reliability of our Nation's electric grid. Robust Federal 
investments in carbon capture and advanced nuclear technology 
will be critical to lower emissions and ensuring the 
reliability and preserving jobs.
    The IBEW views the low-carbon economy as America's best 
opportunity to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector. A large 
percentage of green jobs in the low-carbon economy will come 
from manufacturing, whether here or overseas. Congress must 
take advantage of this opportunity and support the domestic 
manufacturing and American workers who will build the green 
products and the future before this sector is dominated by 
China or other foreign competitors.
    Finally, I want to recognize and share the exciting 
partnership that the IBEW has started recently with the AFL-CIO 
and the Energy Futures Initiative, which was started by former 
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Our initiative of labor-energy 
partnership will be developing State, regional, and national 
analysis that will focus on the intersection of job quality, 
equity, and climate change.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
look forward to taking your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Stephenson. Thank you for 
your leadership with the IBEW.
    With that, we will now move to Dr. Fairchild.
    Doctor, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.

              STATEMENT OF DENISE FAIRCHILD, PH.D.

    Dr. Fairchild. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and the 
distinguished members of this committee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to talk to you today about how to build 100 percent 
clean economy with both low-carbon and an equitable focus. My 
name is Denise Fairchild. I am the president and CEO of Emerald 
Cities Collaborative, and we are a national nonprofit 
organization with a triple bottom-line mission: to green our 
cities, build our communities, and strengthen our democracy 
through equity and inclusion.
    Since I am on the clock and I am not sure how you guys get 
this down to 5 minutes, I would like to start with my bottom 
line. We have a triple pandemic that we are dealing with. This 
is a pandemic of our environment and climate, our economy, and 
justice.
    So, if we are going to make a difference, we have to have 
large-scale investments to, one, not just modernize our grid 
but decentralize it, decentralize our energy, food, and water 
infrastructure, to eliminate energy waste, to mitigate and also 
adapt to extreme weather, and to put the economy back into the 
hands of our communities, local, urban, and rural communities.
    We need to scale a climate economy that ensures a just 
transition, high road jobs and business opportunities in order 
for our current workers and our future workers to move from the 
fossil fuel sector into the new clean economy.
    We need to break systemic barriers to jobs and business 
opportunities that are faced by low-income communities, Black, 
indigenous and people of color. We need a flexible energy 
block-grant program that will fund and develop local energy, 
clean energy infrastructure. We need at least one percent of an 
investment to ensure that the capacity of low-income workers, 
frontline workers can compete in this new economy, as well as 
our businesses. And then we need to develop investment capital 
to fund a community-driven and -owned energy food and water 
sector.
    So who are we? Emerald Cities was founded ten years ago 
when we had the last economic crisis. And it was really a 
coalition. We are a coalition of community business, labor, and 
sustainability organizations to build a high road economy that 
worked at the intersection of environment, economy, and equity. 
I am a witness to the possibilities of a justice-centered 
economy. We have retrofitted billions of dollars of public 
buildings to save energy, waste, money, and carbon emissions. 
We have created greener and healthier homes for low-income 
communities of color. We put Black and Brown youth into union 
apprenticeship programs. We created family wage jobs and 
minority contracting opportunities in rebuilding the 
infrastructure and the food sector.
    We remain committed to a carbon-free economy, rebuilding 
our middle class, and connecting disadvantaged communities to 
this new economy. But there is a lot more to be done and to do 
this time around. We learned a lot in ten years, and we are in 
a different place today than we were ten years ago. In the 
energy sector, we know that ARRA, the ARRA climate recovery got 
us to the starting blocks, but these investments funded only 
short-term jobs, not years. They did not get us off fossil 
fuels. They did not mitigate our energy vulnerabilities to 
blackouts and brownouts, and it did not democratize our energy 
sector to benefit everyone.
    Our food sector is failing us. Not only is it energy 
intensive but COVID exposed the deficiencies of our current 
centralized food system. Our food supply chain fell apart. 
Farmers were dumping milk, destroying food products they 
couldn't get to market. At the same time, people, the market, 
waited hours in line at food banks. Our water infrastructure is 
drowning us from floods, hurricanes, rising rivers, seas, and 
our new normal.
    Inequity, we know that low-income communities of color are 
last to get clean infrastructure investments and are 
underrepresented in the clean economy. We will reproduce income 
inequalities, wealth inequalities if we do not get rid of the 
structural impediments to high-wage careers and business 
opportunities for low-income Black, indigenous, and communities 
of color.
    We have seen this work take place. It is happening all 
around the country. What we need, however, is a real 
commitment, a political will to not bounce back but to bounce 
forward, to be a 100 percent renewable and generative economy, 
to invest first in communities most impacted by climate, to 
create shorter supply chains that narrow the gap between 
producers and consumers, to use the best in our technologies to 
decentralize and create a distributive infrastructure that 
increase redundancy and minimizes the disruptions that we are 
facing and to democratize our economy to the high road with 
labor and community standards.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward to 
the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Fairchild follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Mr. Tonko. Ms. Fairchild, you did that in 5 minutes. So 
thank you.
    Dr. Fairchild. I had about ten minutes more though.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you.
    And we now move to Dr. Michot Foss.
    You are recognized, Doctor, for 5 minutes, please.
    Staff. I think she is muted, Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. You will have to unmute yourself, Doctor.
    Dr. Michot Foss. Got it. Technology accomplished.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome.

            STATEMENT OF MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS, PH.D.

    Dr. Michot Foss. Good morning. I am happy to help out with 
this hearing today. I am Dr. Michelle Michot Foss. I am a 
fellow in energy and minerals at Rice University's Baker 
Institute for Public Policy at the Center for Energy Studies.
    We can all agree that, whatever we do, especially when 
using scarce public resources, tax dollars, and natural 
resource endowments, we would like outcomes to be a net 
improvement. I am here to speak on the importance of nonfuel 
minerals for energy.
    Minerals and materials criticality includes the 
distribution of natural resources, minerals resources, their 
geology, relative abundance, proximity to markets, among other 
things. The quality of minerals matters. Not all quality works 
for specific applications. A significant hurdle today and going 
forward is access for development in countries and locations 
where minerals resources are extracted.
    A few facts and figures to add to what already has come up. 
Between 1984 and 2018, total tonnage output of nonfuel minerals 
increased more than two and a half times, exceeding what we 
have grown in energy. We know the demand will increase for 
alternative energy applications, and that material requirements 
will be higher. This is a logical function of lower energy 
densities.
    In 2018, the U.S. constituted 12 percent of global nonfuel 
minerals production. We at the Baker Institute are currently 
tracking 41 minerals, including basic metals like copper, 
minerals essential for catalysts and magnets like the rare 
earths, minerals for catalytic converters and hydrogen fuel 
cells like the platinum group, minerals that could be used for 
advanced batteries and solar PV like niobium, indium, and 
others. We are among the top ten producing countries for only a 
few. We are a large consumer, and so our demand exceeds what 
our domestic supply chains can serve.
    And, finally, advanced materials for high-performance 
electric power grids and equipment will expand our list of 
minerals. There is a lot going on in that space that we need to 
attend to.
    With respect to critical mineral security, in my view, we 
should consider the following. One is price risk. In recent 
years, the prices of traded energy and nonfuel minerals have 
converged. There are good reasons for this. Both of these are 
linked to GDP. Higher mineral prices means higher cost energy 
and vice versa. The next one to worry about is supply chains: 
mines to wheels or mines to plugs and beyond, including end of 
life. Internal--international shipments of lithium battery 
products already rival those of traditional fuels in global 
extent. Nearly 80 percent of battery manufacturing is located 
in China. All of the raw materials for that battery 
manufacturing are sourced well beyond China, as already 
mentioned. This largely explains why lithium batteries are 
cheap, by the way. It is the Chinese capacity.
    Supply chains for end of life, decommissioning, recycling, 
and disposal have their own ESG risks and uncertainties. 
Recycling could reduce raw material demand. Globally, we 
currently recycle less than lithium--less than five percent of 
lithium battery product.
    Environmental security, roughly 80 percent of the lithium-
based battery capacity in China is supported by nearly 3,000 
coal-fired power plants, the backbone of China's electric power 
grid. This means an output of CO2 emissions that 
rivals everything that we produce in our domestic oil and gas 
system, which we are in the process of lowering.
    Sulfur hexafluoride, I don't know if the committee has 
dealt with this. SF6 is an insulator for electric power switch 
gear and electronics. It has a more powerful GHD than carbon 
dioxide or methane. It does not decay in the atmosphere, and it 
will increase with electrification.
    Geopolitical risks, we have had long experience with oil 
import dependency. Our domestic petroleum and natural gas 
abundance has provided relief. Our import dependence for raw 
materials and alternative energy components, such as wind 
turbans and motors, solar PV and batteries, is very high. This 
presents a distinct security tradeoff in making a rapid shift 
away from our legacy energy fuels. Import dependence also 
affects our trade balance and represents a leakage of economic 
wealth from our country.
    With respect to mining and minerals processing, attention 
to ESG risks is growing. We believe that these can be done 
well. We think governance matters. And this is a subject that I 
hope we come back to. Mr. Walden basically referred to this in 
terms of our regulatory oversight.
    We submitted a brief with Missouri Science and Technology 
for the G20 meetings. We have five recommendations in those 
that I will share with you quickly. One is that we should 
include nonfuel minerals in G20 discussions. The second is that 
G20 members should fund research to develop a uniform mineral 
criticality index, that they should promote transparency of 
critical minerals, that members should engage relevant 
multilateral agencies to foster technical technological 
collaborations, and that we should commit to share best 
practices on mining and minerals processing.
    And we would like to mention the energy resource governance 
initiative that we have here in the U.S. and that we are 
sharing with other countries as an example.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Michot Foss follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Michot Foss.
    And thank you again to all of our witnesses. Thank you for 
sharing such great perspective and information with us. We will 
now move to member questions, and I will start by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    I will start by saying I don't think anyone believes the 
transition to a 100-percent clean economy will be easy. If it 
were, we wouldn't have had all of these hearings and sought 
expert testimony over the past 18 months.
    So I appreciate Dr. Michot Foss' testimony, and I will 
mention that I recently introduced a bipartisan bill to support 
our D&D to recycle and reuse critical materials from energy 
storage systems. I am happy to discuss that effort with any of 
my Republican colleagues because I truly believe it is critical 
that, when we identify a potential challenge, we must try to 
work together to overcome it.
    But this morning I want to focus on the opportunities. 
Let's see if we can identify some programs ripe for Federal 
investment which could support well-paying jobs, transition us 
to a cleaner economy, and indeed lead to more equitable 
outcomes for all Americans.
    So, Dr. Saha, are there opportunities for emissions 
reductions in domestic manufacturing if we support deployment 
of zero-emission school buses?
    Dr. Saha. Thank you.
    Yes, I think in any forthcoming economic recovery stimulus 
packages or infrastructure bill, focusing on a few key areas 
can lead to not only emission reductions potential but also 
economic benefits in terms of, you know, creating jobs, long-
term economic resilience. And earlier this year, WRI had 
identified five key areas. And one of them actually includes 
investing in public transit and transportation infrastructure, 
then also investing in manufacturing electric school and 
transit buses. They cannot only reduce operating and 
maintenance costs, reduce CO2 emissions, and avoid 
emissions of harmful local pollution, the negative health 
impacts, these can also create jobs, especially manufacturing 
jobs, and they can position the U.S. as a leader in the growing 
zero-emission vehicle market. So definitely the answer is yes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Stephenson, if Federal investments included strong 
labor standards, could IBEW members find job opportunities 
building and maintaining the network of charging stations that 
would be needed to support those given buses?
    Mr. Stephenson. Well, yes, there is no doubt there is going 
to have to be a huge infrastructure investment to install 
charging stations really across the country, not only for the 
buses but for other vehicles as well. And so it should provide 
many job opportunities, I think, hopefully for our members to 
install all those charging not only for along the highways but 
also in the homes and in the businesses and the schoolyards, 
wherever they have those buses. Obviously, we have to have 
charging stations for them to recharge.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Dr. Fairchild, in the communities in which you work, 
could--would deploying new clean buses and reducing tailpipe 
emissions from heavy duty vehicles check all the boxes we are 
discussing today?
    Dr. Fairchild. Oh, absolutely. As you know, there are 
frontline communities, communities of color live close to all 
carbon emission land uses. And it would be substantial, 
particularly mobile sources of air pollution if we were able to 
mitigate that and--but I also think that it is important if 
that we make those investments, those investments must be large 
enough so that not only can we get our union brothers and 
sisters back to work, but it has got to be enough so that they 
open up their opportunities for and create access for lower 
income communities of color to also be a part of those economic 
opportunities.
    Mr. Tonko. Great. So this isn't some unrealistic dream we 
are chasing. There really are Federal investments that could be 
made to support these three goals.
    Let's try to cover a couple more examples. Dr. Saha, your 
testimony mentions how grid investment, such as building high-
voltage transmission lines, can create jobs and other economic 
benefits. Is this also important infrastructure for 
decarbonizing our electricity sector?
    Dr. Saha. Yes. Absolutely, yes, especially when we keep in 
mind the context, right? We have a growing need to advance 
energy efficiency. We have to integrate increasing amounts of 
renewable energy onto the grid, and we have to keep basic new 
demands for electricity including from electrification of the 
transportation and building sectors. So definitely modernizing 
the electric grid infrastructure is not only an important 
investment opportunity but also critical for decarbonizing the 
power sector.
    I just want to quote one stat here that transmission 
investment ranging between $12 billion and $16 billion annually 
to 2030 could stimulate about $30 billion to $40 billion in 
annual economic activity and create 150,000 to 200,000 full-
time jobs each year.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Stephenson, my time has run out, but if you could 
just maybe perhaps with us in written form back to the 
committee how your members would benefit from a build-out of 
our Nation's transmission infrastructure, I think that would be 
important. You might even share it with my colleagues this 
morning. But my time is up.
    And we will now to move to recognize Mr. Shimkus, our 
subcommittee ranking member for 5 minutes to ask questions.
    Representative.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a great 
hearing.
    So, Lonnie, I want to go to you first, and, you know, I 
appreciate your work, especially in our push to finalize Yucca 
Mountain and really get the Federal Government to actually 
comply with the law. So, my thanks to that effort. And you know 
the high-quality and well-paid workforce, that would continue 
then go to Nevada to help finish that project.
    Now I understand that there is roughly 14,000 IBEW members 
that work at about 40 nuclear power plants around the country, 
and I have a, you know, a photo of the disposition of these 
nuclear power plants around the country. Some have closed. Some 
of them are planning to close. Some of them have been rolled 
back because of State activity. Your workers are in these 
plants. What are the benefits of the nuclear power across our 
country?
    Mr. Stephenson. Well, thank you, Representative Shimkus. It 
is always good to see another Illinoisan.
    Mr. Shimkus. And we got Dresden. In your testimony, you 
mentioned Dresden--
    Mr. Stephenson. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. --on the closure list now, too.
    Mr. Stephenson. Yes, both Dresden and Byron, two very 
productive power plants in Illinois. It is crucial that we keep 
them open.
    I think nuclear power is a huge piece of the puzzle, if you 
will. As we have talked, as we do the transition to the 
renewables, we still have to have strong reliable baseload and, 
of course, you know, nuclear zero emissions, when it comes to 
cleaning the emissions, and So with the current nuclear 
facilities that are there and the new technology, the new next 
generation of nuclear would be a great opportunity to make sure 
that we have reliable clean baseload to keep power running when 
the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining. So we think 
there is a huge opportunity for the nuclear industry and should 
be into the future.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. So, I would hope in our discussions we 
would work with the majority to try to make sure we somehow 
incentivize nuclear baseload because of zero-carbon emissions 
and the baseload, as everyone who has followed the grid, is 
critical. Really the whole deployment if we are going to 
transition, we need some solid, big numbers of electrons 
flowing on the grid while we move up and down the rest of the 
supply-and-demand chain through renewables.
    Let me go to Dr. Michot Foss.
    And I just, before I want to ask my questions, I want to 
make sure people look at page 5 and 6 of her testimony because 
she has, like dominant producer of battery chemistries and I am 
not going to go through it all but 28 of the 39 minerals that 
are needed in battery technology, the dominant producer is 
China. So, I could read this list, and know that 28 of the 39 
will be coming from China. So, this is the energy security 
portion of this discussion that we have to have. So, I wanted 
to make sure people take a look at that in my short time.
    Dr. Michot Foss when we talk about carbon-free emissions in 
these systems, are we really talking about ``clean energy?'' I 
am always having trouble with words, and how we use it - zero 
carbon, clean, there is a lot hidden in the way we parse out 
these things. In other words, when you consider the whole 
supply chain from the mine to the plug, how do these 
technologies stack up in terms of clean energy?
    Dr. Michot Foss. I don't know the definition of clean 
either. So, I will admit to that. I think everybody has got 
their own.
    But if what we are looking at is reducing measurable 
quantities of certain things, gases from, you know, emissions 
or even other things that we are concerned about, I think it 
is--you are--again, Mr. Walden's comment about governance, it 
is easier to do this when you have got good policies, good 
oversight, protections for workers, and protections for the 
environment.
    And I think the interesting thing, watching these debates 
in the United States, is the extent to which we know how 
difficult it would be to revitalize the mining industry, 
minerals processing in the United States or much less 
manufacturing for that matter, for everybody who would like to 
use manufacturing as a way of creating jobs and wealth around 
all of this. But yet we are the best positioned country to do 
that, us and other countries that also have difficulty dealing 
with public opposition to extractive businesses.
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me stop. My time is almost expired, but 
let me end with this in that there have been some people, a 
Senator friend of mine, who says the next energy revolution 
would not come from a mine. And I would beg to argue in that 
all of these precious minerals in that are coming from a mine. 
So mining is still going to be part of this debate, and energy 
security is important.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I ran over my time. I 
appreciate it.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. I thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Chairman Pallone of the full 
committee.
    Mr. Pallone you have 5 minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I wanted to ask Dr. Saha a question and then--and then go 
to a second question with Mr. Stephenson. So try to get both of 
them in.
    But, Dr. Saha, the transition to a low-carbon economy is 
more important today than ever before, and I mentioned in my 
opening remarks that we are facing three overlapping crises,--a 
pandemic, an economic collapse, and a climate emergency--and it 
is critical that we provide relief to communities battered by 
the COVID-19 pandemic and the destructive impacts of climate 
change.
    So I wanted to start by asking you about the role of the 
Federal Government in transitioning to what you describe as the 
new climate economy, especially given the crisis that we face. 
The pandemic has fundamentally altered our economy. But would 
you agree that reaching a net-zero emissions by 2050 is still 
as important as ever or maybe even earlier, as some have 
suggested, and, if so, in the absence of Federal leadership, 
will this transition happen fast enough and at sufficient scale 
to both meet our climate goals and provide the economic 
benefits you describe in your testimony?
    I know we could spend an hour or two on it. But if you 
could just take a couple of minutes, I would appreciate it.
    Dr. Saha. So, again, let me give you a little bit of 
context. Between 2005 and 2018, U.S. carbon emissions reduced 
by 12 percent, 12 percent. OK? And that is admirable. But we 
have to keep in mind that much of this decline came from fuel 
switching from coal to gas in the power sector. So this is what 
happened between 2005 and 2018.
    And now think about where we need to go. By 2050, we have 
to reduce net emissions to zero if we want to be on track for 
1.5 degree centigrade of warming. So this means that, from 2018 
to 2030, U.S. emissions will have to decrease more than twice 
as fast as they did during 2005 and 2018. So that means that we 
cannot simply leave things to market forces or on the shoulders 
of subnational governments and businesses. The effort to 
address climate change will require leadership from the Federal 
Government. Period.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks so much.
    Mr. Stephenson, the energy sector, like so many others, has 
been hit hard by the economic crisis, and I would like to hear 
your perspective on the role of Federal Government in 
revitalizing these sectors. Do you believe we can quickly 
recover the clean energy and energy efficiency jobs that have 
been lost, jobs that are vital to transitioning to a low-carbon 
economy? We have talked about that in previous hearings, you 
know, these jobs that we lost in clean energy and energy 
efficiency. So can we do that quickly, get them back, or are we 
going to need some significant Federal support and investment 
to accomplish that?
    Mr. Stephenson. Well, I think there is going to have to be 
some Federal support to accomplish that. As you know, as some 
of these jobs, our members have worked in coal generation, for 
example. Those are very good-paying jobs with good salaries and 
benefits. And as those jobs--you know, we start the transition, 
continue the transition into the renewables, those type of jobs 
are hard to replace because, you know, you might have 200 
people working at a coal generation plant. Then if you replace 
that with solar and wind, while there is a lot of job 
opportunities in the construction of all those, there are very 
few jobs really to maintain those.
    And so but we really need, you know, the just transition is 
a word you use. You know, you hear it all the time. How do we 
have a just transition, you know, from workers that are 
currently in those jobs or they have got, you know, jobs in the 
future that is going to pay them, you know, similar wages and 
benefits.RPTR MARTINEDTR HUMKE[11:04 a.m.]
    Mr. Pallone. I believe you testified about jobs in people 
that are actually working on renewables, you know, windmills 
and solar and all of that. Don't you think we are going to need 
some kind of Federal help to bring those back as well because--
    Mr. Stephenson. Absolutely. For example, there is not a 
solar panel that is manufactured in the United States. Why 
can't we bring back the manufacturing and manufacture those 
solar panels?
    Wind generation, same thing, we are not manufacturing here 
in the States. Why can't we bring that back and give that a 
boost to our economy by encouraging and bringing the 
opportunity to build those, you know, the renewables and do it 
here, do it here in the States and provide good quality jobs in 
those markets to provide those services.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Walden, full 
committee ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
    Representative Walden.
    Mr. Walden. Hey, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thanks again to our witnesses today.
    I have a quick yes or no question for all of our witnesses. 
In the Northwest, obviously, we rely on a lot of hydropower and 
their efforts to take out that hydropower, especially the Snake 
River Dams.
    And I just wondered, yes or no, do you or the organizations 
you represent support removal of the Snake River Dams and the 
hydropower it provides?
    I don't know who wants to answer.
    Mr. Stephenson. I will give you a quick answer. We need to 
have hydro again as a clean energy source and it need to be a 
part of the equation.
    Mr. Walden. All right.
    Ms. Fairchild?
    Dr. Fairchild. Taken a position on that.
    Mr. Walden. Has not? There is a lot of background noise, I 
am sorry. Has not taken a position?
    Dr. Fairchild. So we are a collaborative a position on 
that.
    Mr. Walden. OK. All right.
    Ms. Saha?
    Dr. Saha. Given that climate change is an existing shared 
threat, I think we need to allow the use of all possible tools, 
including hydropower, to emission tests as soon as possible.
    Mr. Walden. Yes, yes.
    Dr. Foss?
    Dr. Michot Foss. I would say that you would only take them 
out if you have a viable alternative.
    Mr. Walden. Yes, thank you.
    Did I get to everybody? Did I leave anybody out?
    Yes, I just would say for my friends in the South, BPA 
provided as much generation in California as they could within 
their transmission capabilities. Between the 14th and 19th of 
August, they sold 65,000 megawatt hours of hydropower and 
increased their peak hydropower levels by 50 percent and its 
load by 25 percent in the days leading up to those power grid 
issues.
    So, you know, what I endure out in my part of the world is 
a threat to the hydro system and a constant effort to try and 
reduce it and remove these dams. And, obviously, we have fish 
mitigation issues and all, enormous billion-dollar investments 
in trying to deal with some of that.
    But, on the other hand, we do have clean zero emission 
hydropower that is constantly under threat of renewable. And 
then we watch as the nuclear facilities are getting shut down 
around the country, and I would tell you I am a big advocate--
and I know that both chairman are--for enhancing the electric 
grid, but it is darn near impossible to site expansion of 
electric grid, especially in the West. 55 percent of my 
district is Federal land. They have been trying to build the 
Boardman to Hemingway Line for quite a while from Idaho into my 
district. It is very controversial. And they are doing 
everything they can to avoid having it touch Federal ground 
because it is so difficult to get it permitted and approved. 
And so, of course, that raises you-know-what with private land 
owners who see their land then under a threat.
    So, expanding the grid to be able to manage the renewable 
energy and the grid itself is really problematic. Needs to 
happen, don't get me wrong. And my district is home to 
thousands of megawatts of wind power. And I don't know the 
current number on solar. But we have huge expansions going on 
in solar.
    We actually have great opportunity to expand geothermal, 
too. But a lot of that, again, is on Federal land. These are 
very controversial issues politically when you try to do 
anything on the Federal ground, but in the West, so much of our 
States is Federal, and it is something I think we have to 
address.
    One other question to Dr. Michot Foss. Let's start with 
some facts. Here in the U.S. we are blessed with a rich 
diversity of these energy sources. If you look at total energy 
consumption in 2019, 80 percent came from fossil, eight percent 
from nuclear, 11 percent from renewables, and the share of 
energy that comes from renewables is projected to grow in the 
years ahead. But if we just look at electricity generation, 
only 7 percent came from wind and less than two percent from 
solar.
    So, there are, obviously, efforts to ban the other fossil 
fuels along the way. But if we were to rapidly phase out use of 
fossil energy, how do we replace that 80 percent of our energy 
mix? Could you speak to that?
    Dr. Michot Foss. Not easily. It will take time, and I think 
that is the crux of the political conversation is the amount of 
time that it will take, especially if you want to repatriate 
manufacturing, repatriate jobs, build supply chains and do it 
at home as opposed to spending our dollars to acquire imported 
equipment and materials. You know, those are the issues, right. 
Worldwide, in fact, renewable energy is still only about 2 or 3 
percent.
    So rapid growth rates, everybody notices that, but still a 
very small proportion. It is hard to do. It takes a lot of 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Walden. I appreciate that. Because I do think that is 
the challenge. We all want to use the latest innovative 
technology with the least emissions, but getting from here to 
there is, I think, where the debate is, how quickly can you do 
it and not risk rolling blackouts or other issues.
    My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your thoughts 
on my district and your continued leadership on these issues.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative Peters, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to discuss a strategy that I haven't heard 
much about recently, but it is a fundamental component of any 
effective climate change mitigation policy, and that is the 
price on carbon. If we are going to save this plant, we need to 
change the behavior of every decision-maker throughout the 
economy, from the largest corporations to each of us 
individuals.
    And one of the best ways to incentivize this collective 
solution is to put a price on carbon either through a cap in 
trade like California has or through a carbon tax. Those of us 
who represented the United States at the UN Climate Conference 
COP25 in Madrid last year heard this over and over again from 
economists and heads of state alike, markets need clear pricing 
levels to transition to a low-carbon economy.
    Why? Because a price on carbon would incentivize producers 
and consumers of carbon intensive goods without any further 
government action to make better choices and to use less fossil 
fuel and to substitute lower carbon alternatives.
    We have talked at length in Congress about an ambitious 
multi-trillion dollar infrastructure initiative to fix our 
bridges and roads, expand broadband, upgrade the electrical 
grid, and more. Historically we funded those programs by 
raising the Federal gasoline tax. Now, we could raise that tax 
again, but at this point an upstream carbon tax makes much more 
sense.
    We are still providing funding through an energy levy, but 
we also continue incentivizing conservation and innovation in a 
technology neutral way that will reduce the generation of 
greenhouse gases.
    The double benefit of using a carbon tax for infrastructure 
is that it will fund Federal infrastructure investments and 
without any further government action will also induce carbon-
saving infrastructure investments in the private sector, 
building resilient communities, providing financial support for 
energy efficiency retrofits, building electrical charging 
infrastructure, among many other priorities.
    According to Senior Fellow Dallas Burtraw of Resources for 
the Future, quote, "Industry has many opportunities to reduce 
emissions, but firms can rarely act alone. Policies like carbon 
pricing and performance standards are essential to coordinate 
this effort. Deep mid-century decarbonization goals require 
private sector and government partnership."
    Now, some worry that a carbon tax is regressive, and you 
could say the same thing about the gasoline tax, which we have 
used for years; but most proposals in Congress for a carbon tax 
contemplate the refund of a large portion of the revenues to 
disadvantaged communities that don't have ready alternatives 
and can't afford increased energy prices.
    For instance, the Energy Innovation and Dividend Act, which 
I cosponsor, proposes a tax that protects low-income 
communities. But even in this divisive Congress, there are five 
bipartisan bills that put a price on carbon, and any one of 
them would be a game changer.
    With respect to disadvantaged communities, let's not 
discount the cost of not acting. People in low-income 
communities today are disproportionately exposed to air 
pollution that is linked to asthma, cancer, and other health 
issues. A price on carbon that slows the rate of climate change 
does the most good for the communities that are most harmed by 
climate change today.
    Now, a carbon tax is a necessary but not a sufficient 
solution. There are many issues that will require direct 
regulation. For instance, it is hard to imagine any scenario 
where economic incentives alone would prevent fugitive methane 
emissions or industrial agricultural emissions. So many of 
these ideas are laid out in the excellent work of the Select 
Committee on Climate Change.
    So with that, I would like to address my question to Dr. 
Saha from WRI. And I wanted to say that, I meant to start out 
by saying people haven't been talking about this. But here is a 
quote from your testimony today, which is "A carbon price is 
needed to embed climate change costs into economic decision-
making while providing clear incentives for the development and 
deployment of low-carbon technologies and shifts in operations 
to reduce carbon emissions.
    An economy-wide carbon price should be one of the central 
elements of a national climate policy and paired with 
complementary policies can be designed to help achieve net-zero 
emissions by mid-century."
    And that is on page 13. I certainly commend everyone to 
read that. But, Dr. Saha, can you talk about why it is 
important, in addition to these Federal investments we are 
talking about, to engage and incentivize the private sector in 
doing the right thing on climate?
    Dr. Saha. Yes, absolutely. WRI's position is that an 
economy-wide carbon price, whether it takes the form of cap in 
trade or carbon tax, has to be one of the most important tools 
in our toolbox and it can be designed in such a way that it can 
get the U.S. economy to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-
century, and at the same time, it can also build a prosperous 
economy that offers good jobs, minimizes impacts on families, 
and helps address environmental justice issues.
    And WRI also takes the position that while carbon pricing 
is necessary, it is not going to be a sufficient approach to 
achieve multiple climate goals and--
    Mr. Peters. My time has expired. I agree with that. I just 
want to put that on the table because we can't just focus on 
Federal investments, which are important, and Federal 
regulation on which we can agree. We have to incentivize the 
private sector to be part of this or it won't work.
    Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
    Mr. Peters. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Representative Peters. The gentleman 
yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Washington 
State. Representative Rodgers, you are recognized for 5 
minutes, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate the majority's focus today on equitable 
opportunities as a part of today's hearing title. What we have 
seen in the past from Democrat Congresses, as well as the 
administration, has been more of, I think, an insistence on 
massive government subsidies and top-down mandates that, 
unfortunately, pick winners and losers.
    When we think about policies to advance clean energy 
solutions to lower emissions, it should be technology neutral 
and allow private sector innovation to occur, free from the 
government mandates and without having to compete on unequal 
grounds.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues on this 
committee, Republicans and Democrats, to really identify the 
solutions that are going to lower emissions but do it free from 
the government mandates and really make it more equitable.
    As we consider policies to promote renewable energy 
technologies compared to other energy solutions, it is critical 
that we examine their entire life cycle and the impact their 
manufacturing components and materials have on the environment.
    Dr. Michot Foss mentions in her testimony that nearly 80 
percent of lithium battery manufacturing capability for 
electric vehicles is in China, whose grid is overwhelming 
powered by coal-fired plants. A similar percentage of global 
supply for solar panels also originates in China.
    Dr. Michot Foss, how should we consider the impact of the 
manufacturing process on these renewable technologies and the 
impact that they are having on the environment when we are 
evaluating their efficacy for reducing emissions globally, 
especially coming from high emission countries like China, and 
how do we mitigate these issues?
    Dr. Michot Foss. I would have to say that one of my biggest 
concerns is that if you try to accelerate by any means, either 
market incentives or direct policy interventions, subsidies, 
whatever, the process of speeding up the integration of certain 
technologies that we don't produce ourselves, the components of 
which we don't produce ourselves, all we are doing effectively 
is shifting our emissions abroad.
    Now, we have been doing this for a really long time. All of 
the more developed countries have been doing this for a very 
long time. And so the net improvements that everybody hopes to 
gain in terms of whatever it is that we are after, reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions or achieving more equitable access to 
energy, universal access to energy, whatever the targets are, 
all become diminished if that is what we end up doing.
    This is a really difficult conversation with China. I think 
everybody has got to be honest about that. We are all hopeful, 
those of us who have studied the country for years, been there, 
that they will continue to make improvements in their own 
energy system. I mean, they are doing certain things. But they 
also have a very strong stand of self-determination and very 
little willingness, it seems, to engage in ways that I think 
others would like them to. So I think that has to be part of 
the conversation. It is part of the reality check on all of 
this.
    I would point to an example over the past few days, Angela 
Merkel in Germany got her reality check on this because the 
Germans would like to be very assertive and stronger in terms 
of what they are doing, and they would like to be able to meet 
their policy goals and policy targets.
    But it is meaningless if what they are doing is effectively 
having to rely on China for a lot of their inputs, and the 
Chinese are not willing to make the same types of commitments. 
I mean, that is where we are, I think, in the discussions.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, I appreciate that.
    We are also seeing issues arise at the end of these 
technology life cycles. According to some estimates, there will 
be 600,000 tons of waste of lithium batteries removed from EB 
by 2025, 78 million tons of solar panel waste by 2050. As we 
continue to compete with China in critical materials and 
manufacturing clean energy technology, recycling can help us 
reduce waste and increase our ability to compete.
    Dr. Michot Foss, some have said that recovering these raw 
materials from these devices remains impractical, especially 
since they are not made to come apart.
    Do you agree with that view? And how clear is it whether a 
profitable history will be borne at times to get clean energy 
from adding to an already growing pile of waste?
    Dr. Michot Foss. Well, do you want me to answer? Talk is 
over. Let me just say quickly there are a lot of ideas. There 
is good work that is being done on recapturing recycling. I 
gave you all the figure that we know or that we think we know, 
which is five percent with recovery of lithium batteries.
    I mean, it is really hard to track this stuff, very, very 
difficult. Lack of data, lack of information, lack of 
transparency, there are huge issues in tracking waste in 
general, but e-waste in particular.
    And then, frankly, when it comes to things like--and I am 
sure the other panelists, Dr. Saha, for instance, would be 
aware of this. That when it comes to recapturing and recycling 
or properly disposing of waste associated with renewable energy 
components, there is really an unwillingness to talk about that 
and engage on it, probably for a whole variety of reasons.
    But it is something that we have to own up to and we have 
to figure out. It is going to be part of the problem-solving in 
order to be able to move forward the right way.
    So it can be done. People have to be realistic about the 
timing and the cost and whether it is practical or not----
    Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentle lady yields back.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentle lady yields back. Thank you so 
much.
    And now the Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentle lady 
from California. Representative Barragan, you are up for 5 
minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you, Chair Tonko, for holding 
this important hearing.
    Our country cannot afford inaction on the climate crisis, 
which is no longer a far off threat in the future but is 
affecting us today. We can see with the unprecedented wildfires 
in my State of California and throughout the West Coast, which 
are endangering the health and safety of millions of people.
    We also have unprecedented opportunity to act by making a 
transformational green stimulus investment that delivers an 
economic recovery, puts people back to work, and serves as a 
down payment on building a more sustainable future that we can 
pass on to the next generation.
    Dr. Fairchild, I would like to start with you and talk a 
little bit about equity and clean energy jobs. I want to first 
start by thanking you for your past work in Los Angeles on 
community development and job training for underserved 
communities, like those that I represent.
    My district is the fourth poorest district in California. 
It is critical we center equity in any green stimulus 
investments we make so that the communities most in need of 
jobs can benefit.
    Can you discuss model programs or policies at the local and 
State level that we can adopt alongside green investments to 
make sure communities of color aren't left behind? And those 
are policies we can adopt on a Federal level.
    Dr. Fairchild. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, and LA 
is my home, so I am going to do as much as I can to help your 
district.
    We have a number of innovative programs. And, first, the 
thing that we have to recognize is that communities of color 
are underrepresented in the construction industry, we are 
underrepresented in the environmental sector, we are 
underrepresented in the energy sector, we are underrepresented 
in the water sector. And so that is a problem we have to 
address, but we have to address it at a number of different 
levels.
    The first is to create awareness among the next generation 
about the opportunities in the clean energy future. They 
understand a clean energy future and a clean economy is about 
their generation and their future opportunities, but they don't 
know the current pathways that are available to them.
    So ASIS, the ASIS program that we have in seven high 
schools in South and Southeast Los Angeles is actually training 
young people about, and giving them industry certified skill 
certificates in huge cells, in technology solid works and 
figuring out how to actually excite them about this career that 
is also a mission for them. So we really have to start from the 
middle school and to the high school level.
    We also need to work, and we have been working closely with 
many of our unit partners, with the Youth Build programs. 
Particularly in Los Angeles, we have got about a hundred black 
and brown youth in the ironwork apprenticeship program and 
building a solar farm in Lancaster.
    And then we are also working with small minority women and 
veteran owned contractors. We must invest in these contractors 
or in less than five years they will be out of business if we 
don't teach them about the new technologies that go with the 
clean energy.
    There is new software. There is new equipment and new 
materials, new building codes, and they are still dealing with 
legacy issues in terms of access to capital, as well as bonding 
and insurance.
    So this initiative really requires that level of 
investment.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you so much, Dr. Fairchild.
    Dr. Stephenson and Dr. Saha, over 490,000 clean energy 
workers remain jobless since the pandemic hit, including over 
84,000 workers in California. Can you describe the most 
effective policies and investments we can enact today to bring 
these jobs back?
    Mr. Stephenson. Thank you.
    Obviously, we have got to get the funding and get these 
things back up and running again. It is unfortunate, you know, 
that the pandemic has slowed down a lot of opportunities for 
our members to continue to work in the renewable energies. 
However, you know, there is still a lot of work going out 
there.
    We are still doing a lot of solar. We are still doing a lot 
of wind. But, you know, I just think that the drive to move 
into the renewables is going to move us in that direction I 
think naturally.
    Ms. Barragan. OK.
    Dr. Saha. And I would just add that there are few areas 
which can actually--their investment can be helpful. So, for 
instance, targeted expansion of energy efficiency and energy 
assistance programming can provide several benefits that can 
put people to work immediately in quality jobs. It can 
contribute in the future and also find relief to struggling 
households by eliminating energy costs.
    Similarly, investing in public transit and transportation 
infrastructure can create jobs, and economic growth investment 
in energy technologies, especially by extending the tax credits 
for these technologies, can be really helpful.
    So there are a few areas that I think Congress should be 
focusing attention on.
    Ms. Barragan. Great.
    Mr. Stephenson, IBEW represents--oh, I apologize. I believe 
I am over my time.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I--I had, of course, a lot more 
questions, a very important hearing. Thank you for holding it. 
And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you for participating. The gentle 
lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia. 
Representative McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Well, it was only a matter of time. The democratic 
leadership simply can't let a crisis go to waste. Now, what do 
I mean by that? Let's go back. I am aware of any industrialized 
nation, any other in the world, that has hijacked this 
healthcare crisis as an excuse to fundamentally transform their 
energy mix. But that is exactly what is happening here.
    Now, even China, we talk about China, and its focus on 
renewables. That is true. But at the same time, they are 
investing--they are putting, if you look at this headline, they 
are talking about putting an investment in coal-fired power 
plants that is equal to or better than the renewables. They are 
going to be producing enough coal-fired prevalency equivalent 
of all of the Eastern European Union. So there is where we are.
    Now, if we are trying to represent we are sensitive to 
people losing their jobs, where was that compassion over the 
years as the coal industry, all across America--in 26 States, 
we mine coal. What happened to them when they lost a very 
similar number of jobs with it?
    What about towns like Hazard, Kentucky; Gillette, Wyoming; 
or Welch, West Virginia? Welch, West Virginia, is an example. 
It only has 1,700 people. There are no other job opportunities 
in Welch, West Virginia, and they are sitting there with a 
poverty rate of 27 percent. There are only 1,700 people living 
in the town. It has got a 35 percent minority population.
    But, yet, if we fulfill this mission of going to a hundred 
percent renewables, what happens to Welch, West Virginia, or 
Hazard, Kentucky, or Gillette, Wyoming? I think we have a moral 
obligation to protect them.
    But let me switch my question now to Dr. Foss because I 
have been listening to this diatribe from the other side on 
this for now for close to ten years.
    Dr. Foss, can you assure the American public that if our 
country does indeed achieve a hundred percent renewables, once 
we reach that hundred percent, that we will have no more 
wildfires, no more hurricanes, no more droughts, and the oceans 
won't rise? Can you say yes or no?
    Dr. Michot Foss. I don't think anybody could make that 
claim.
    Mr. McKinley. Well, that is what they are doing. They are 
saying that we have got to do this so we can achieve, we won't 
have wildfires in the West. Those wildfires are horrible. But 
don't try to tell me as an engineer that this is the first time 
we have had wildfires.
    Go back through your record and look at some in the past. 
They are horrible right now, I understand that. But the idea is 
being perpetrated to the American public that if we go to a 
hundred percent renewables, we will stop the wildfires, we will 
stop the hurricanes, we won't have that hurricane season on the 
East Coast anymore, we won't have droughts.
    Thank you for your answer on that.
    Let me go to a second question then. So I think you touched 
close to it. I want to understand, because by 2035 we are going 
to be--the democratic leadership is trying to go to 2035, there 
will be 100 percent carbon-free emissions at power plants. So 
my question is, that means we are going to rely on renewables, 
which is--eventually that is fine. We want to be at renewables 
eventually, but we need this bridge of using out fossil fuels 
to bridge to that.
    So my question is, by 2035, will we have enough 
domestically produced--domestically, and that is the operative 
word--domestically produced critical minerals to produce 100 
percent of our power generation with renewable resources in 
just the next 10 years, 15 years? Do you think that we can do 
that?
    Dr. Michot Foss. The issue, of course, is not just the raw 
material supply, but also the manufacturing capacity.
    Mr. McKinley. Can you amplify more on that, if you could, 
please? I have got a minute. I want people to understand that I 
know the goal is aspirational. But when they put it in a 
statute by 2035, are we going to be able to achieve that?
    And the fact is, what effect is that going to have on 
droughts, wildfires? And there is none, as I can understand.
    Dr. Michot Foss. You are asking a tough one. I mean, you 
know, the problem is this. There is a lot of uncertainty, and I 
think people want to do things that they feel provide us humans 
with some control, and I think that is understandable. I think 
the political debate is what makes the most sense given the----
    Mr. McKinley. Or what gets them the most votes when they 
gin up their bases, and that is what this is all about, ginning 
up your liberal base to attack fossil fuels.
    Dr. Michot Foss. I am not privy to the strategies of----
    Mr. McKinley. All right. Mr. Chairman, I have ran out of 
time on this. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you for your questions.
    And now the Chair will recognize the gentle lady from 
Delaware, the great State of Delaware as she would say. We 
recognize Representative Blunt Rochester, please, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling 
this important hearing, and thank you to all of the witnesses 
for your testimony here today.
    As has been said, our Nation is facing a plethora of crises 
right now, the COVID-19 pandemic, all-time high unemployment 
numbers, and climate change. On top of that, the systemic 
racism that is deeply woven into the fabric of our society 
exacerbates these crises for people of color.
    Watching the wildfires in the West that my colleagues 
shared with us earlier and knowing that we are simultaneously 
bracing for the worst hurricane season in decades, the urgency 
to address climate change couldn't be any clearer. We don't 
know if we will avoid a wildfire, as was just said, but we can 
mitigate them. There are some things that are uncertain, but 
what is certain, we can and we must act, which is why I am 
proud of Delaware's Attorney General, Kathy Jennings.
    Earlier this month she filed a suit on behalf of our State 
against the fossil fuel industry for its role in exacerbating 
climate change and the damage it has caused to Delaware's 
environment. We must act swiftly and boldly.
    Right now we have an unprecedented opportunity to build our 
economy back in a cleaner, healthier, stronger, and more 
equitable way. And we need jobs that are not only helping us to 
fight climate change but also create family-sustaining wages 
and are accessible to all Americans.
    Dr. Fairchild, in your testimony, you described the need 
for equity first strategies to address ongoing climate crisis, 
and I agree.
    Can you elaborate on why it is so important for the Federal 
Government to prioritize investment in environmental justice 
communities?
    Dr. Fairchild. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
    Well, first of all, communities of color are, as you all 
know, the first and most impacted by climate change, and they 
are most impacted by the effects of COVID, are most effected by 
the challenges of inequities in justice.
    So if we are going to--an equity first strategy basically 
says we support the most vulnerable, release the best first, 
then everybody benefits because that investment is going to 
have a multiplier effect. And I think there is a number of 
particular things that I have been hearing today that is 
missing the boat.
    But number one, we have to have energy security defined in 
a different way. When we have a blackout or a brownout, what 
happens to folks that are in home healthcare situations, in 
critical facilities, people that are in public housing? We had 
a huge hurricane in New York City.
    Folks lost--the last folks to get back on the energy grid 
were the public housing residents. I am talking about folks 
that are on the 10th, 15th, and 20th floors that couldn't even 
get up and down.
    So we have to figure out how we invest first in critical 
facilities, how we invest in energy strategies for affordable 
multifamily housing, which is the most difficult building stock 
to retrofit. We have got to create community level jobs for our 
contractors to retrofit buildings and residential and small 
commercial buildings that will be left out into energy ghettos 
if, in fact, we don't go in there and retrofit these folks to 
contribute to a clean energy future and then create green and 
happy homes.
    And I have seen a bipartisan bill on both sides of the 
House that really talks about retrofitting our schools where 
our vulnerable communities are.
    So these are sort of equity first type of strategies that I 
would like to be considered.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Dr. Fairchild, and thank 
you also for your efforts about expanding and diversifying the 
building and contracting work force.
    And on that, Dr. Saha, I chaired the House Bipartisan 
Future Work Caucus, which we just started, and I launched 
earlier this year. And with many industries evolving or 
disappearing as a result of the pandemic, it is more important 
than ever to create high-paying jobs with varying minimum 
educational requirements.
    How can the clean energy industry combat educational 
disparities?
    Dr. Saha. Yes. So right now I think as we are sort of 
moving towards a low-carbon transition, we have to make sure 
that the jobs that are going to be created in the new climate 
economy are well-paying jobs, they provide access to people 
from all communities, and they come, you know, with benefits, 
and they are accessible to pretty much everyone.
    So in terms of that, I think it is really incumbent on the 
clean energy, you know, the private sector working in 
partnership with policymakers and, you know, universities and 
education institutions to understand what are the skills that 
are going to be needed in this new industry, what are the gaps 
that need to be addressed, and work towards making sure that 
these challenges are being addressed.
    Otherwise, I think we will perpetrate many of the 
inequalities and inequities that the currency has seen, and we 
cannot replicate those again.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Doctor.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio. 
Representative Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member Shimkus, for holding this hearing today and to our 
panelists for offering their valuable perspectives.
    You know, noted economist Thomas Sowell once said, ``there 
are no solutions, only tradeoffs.'' So I am afraid that as the 
majority continues to hold hearing after hearing on their goal 
of replacing fossil fuels with a green economy.
    My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to 
admit the advantages America will have to forego in order to 
realize their green goals. As members of this subcommittee, it 
is our duty to dive deeper on these sweeping policy proposals 
that would fundamentally restructure America's energy economy. 
I would argue that it would fundamentally weaken America's 
energy economy.
    Americans deserve to know the full scope of economic, 
environmental, and geopolitical costs of some of these much 
discussed proposals, like massively scaling up wind and solar 
or tremendously increasing the use of batteries. If this 
subcommittee won't look into it, who will?
    For example, the testimony today reveals that these 
sweeping proposals to rapidly shift to green energy would 
likely result in American dependence on long, fragile supply 
chains moving through lands controlled by our adversaries. But 
I have to ask you, is this what we really want for America?
    We should welcome innovation in helping America produce 
cleaner and more abundant energy, as we always have; but a 
policy change as fundamental as restructuring our energy 
economy and potentially seeding our energy independence must be 
discussed with clear eyes and a true appreciation for the costs 
and risks in doing so.
    So, Dr. Michot Foss, we have witnessed a shell revolution 
in the United States, which I have seen firsthand in eastern 
and southeastern Ohio. And it has made America the global 
energy leader, strengthening our geopolitical hand, as well as 
spurring our economy.
    Domestic demand will continue to rise for critical minerals 
and crucial rare metals for use in electrical components. But, 
unfortunately, America is dangerously dependent on these 
materials being mined and processed abroad.
    What do we need to do, Dr. Michot Foss, what do we need to 
do to get America on a firm footing with these materials like 
we have seen with natural gas production?
    Dr. Michot Foss. Well, I think, first of all, what the 
committee could do is consider that our natural resource 
endowments are not unsubstantial.
    The question is, are we willing to access our own resources 
and bring them into the market? We are still never going to be 
able to supply everything that everybody would want to use for 
any of the applications that we have been talking about today.
    So we still will need trade access for those. But I think 
what we could do is we could look at our own backyard and see 
what we are willing to do and how we would be willing to do it, 
with what kind of guidance and what our expectations are in 
terms of performance of the industry.
    No business is perfect. I mean, none of the things that we 
have talked about today are going to be completely free of 
problems and challenges and other things.
    But in your point about our domestic oil and gas 
businesses, I think anybody who has studied those over time has 
seen what the industry can do to improve technologies, to 
reduce its own emissions, to be more efficient.
    The mining industry and minerals processes could do the 
same. We would have expectations about how they perform. They 
need to be able to gain access to the resources for development 
and build the logistics in order to deliver them.
    And I can tell you that in talking with any of the 
industries that we visit with, whether it is automakers who are 
trying to step up their commitments to electric vehicles, or 
people who are trying to plan wind and solar projects, 
distributor generation, think about new grid expansions and 
improvements, or whatever, all of those folks would like to 
have more domestic content in their businesses. And some of 
them are making major obligations to that.
    So that is something you all have to think about because I 
think before you spend money trying to promote the application, 
you need to think about the inputs and how the inputs are going 
to be provided.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you very much.
    I did have a second question. I will submit it for the 
record, Mr. Chairman. But I will yield my time now.
    Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome to do that. So thank you so 
much. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Illinois who 
serves as Chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and 
Commerce, Representative Schakowsky. You are recognized, 
Representative, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member, for this important hearing.
    You know, we started 2020 watching the horrifying wildfires 
in Australia that took millions and millions of acres, and now 
as we speak, of course, we are seeing that happening on the 
West Coast and the devastation. So let me also just give my 
condolences and my concern to my colleagues and, of course, 
their constituents that are facing so many challenges and even 
death right now.
    And I really appreciate the effort that everyone is making 
right now, particularly our firefighters going into harm's way, 
and also the weather occurrences that are happening in the East 
and the multiple, you know, challenges that we have there.
    And so I wanted to talk about something that is happening 
in Illinois. The Federal Government is investing in a program 
in Chicago that we call Brownfields to Brightfields, and this 
program converts old industrial facilities into solar 
brightfields, and it also creates good paying jobs and the 
benefits to the community around the city.
    So there are so many ways that our local communities can 
provide good jobs, but I wanted to talk right now to President 
Stephenson. You know what, the subheading of this hearing today 
is "Opportunities for an Equitable, Low-Carbon Recovery." And I 
don't know that everyone would necessarily suspect that a big 
part of that could be talking about unions, and I wanted to 
explore that a little bit with you.
    As a dues-paying, currently, union member myself--I have 
continued to pay my do you see even as I am here in Congress--
it seems to me that this is a really important factor, that--in 
fact, I was a big supporter--I am a big supporter of the PRO 
Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize, if we want to 
rebuild a middle class even as we make our country more green.
    So I wanted to ask you, how does union, in your view, 
really fit into this discussion about how we build a more 
equitable and job secure future?
    Mr. Stephenson. Well, thank you, Representative Schakowsky, 
and, again as a fellow Illinoisan, it is great to see you.
    You know, we think it is very important as we move forward 
with the renewable energies and the new technologies that are 
going to come out of that, that those are good paying, good 
quality jobs, union jobs, that can provide--that those workers 
can adequately work and provide for their families.
    And we in the, you know, building trades and in the 
construction trades, we all have recognized--and we talked 
about the communities that have been underrepresented or been 
the ones that have been directly affected by climate change, 
and we have all across the building trades really increased our 
efforts to attract and get more women and people of color into 
our programs because we know that--and we have training 
programs all across the United States.
    In every State we have got training programs that is 
already there and privately paid for between us and our 
contractors.
    And so we have the opportunity to, as these new 
technologies and jobs come out is get--have the training 
available to train new workers to come in with the specific 
skills they need to be able to, you know, go out and maybe it 
is a wind tech.
    Somebody that is taking care of those wind turbines, or, 
you know, in the solar. There is maintenance jobs that also, 
like you said, hopefully we can get back to where we are 
manufacturing some of those products as well, and that would 
provide great opportunities for jobs in areas where they really 
need them.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So bringing jobs home and also good union 
jobs.
    Dr. Fairchild, you heard what our president of the union 
has said. How important is it to make sure that there is 
reaching out to the communities that really need the help?
    Dr. Fairchild. It is essential. I think we need to rebuild 
the middle class if we rebuild our labor unions. But we do have 
to really find a better way to get people of color into unions, 
especially the IBEW.
    And, by the way, amazing relationships with IBEW and they 
are opening up their apprenticeship programs, but these are 
hard tests for young people to pass.
    So we have to have intensive boot camps to figure out how 
to pass these tests, and HVAC and electrical trades and other 
trades.
    So there is a lot of work to be done, but that is the work 
that we need to do.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, I 
believe is next, Mr. Flores. Or do we have Representative Long 
with us?
    Mr. Long. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. We do?
    Mr. Long. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Mr. Long, I am sorry we lost you there for a 
minute. You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Foss, from your testimony it is clear that 
critical materials play a significant role in a transition to 
clean energy, and the U.S. is becoming more dependent on these 
minerals by the day.
    Even though America has trillions of dollars in mineral 
reserves, we are 100 percent relying on importing more than a 
dozen key minerals. Most of these minerals come from China and 
other countries around the world that don't share our values 
and don't play by our rules.
    This is especially clear with respect to environmental 
standards where these countries are far less concerned about 
environmental impact of their processes to extract these 
critical minerals.
    I see from your testimony that you are working with 
Missouri Science and Technology in Rolla, Missouri, and crafted 
recommendations for the upcoming G20 hearing related to these 
topics. Can you explain the current conditions of our domestic 
mining industry?
    Dr. Michot Foss. Well, our domestic mining industry has 
faded just as a lot of our domestic industries have, 
manufacturing. And that is a consequence of both commodity 
markets and pressures from commodity markets, lower cost 
sources abroad, and partly due to governance in those exporting 
countries, producing in exporting countries.
    And also because we, in protecting people, in protecting 
the environment, it made our costs higher, and that is 
something that is a tradeoff. We made it easier for competitors 
to supply raw materials who don't have the same obligations 
over their industries that we do.
    Mr. Long. OK. Well, we have critical materials right here 
at home, especially on Federal lands so the reason, why can't 
we produce American.
    Dr. Michot Foss. It takes a really long time to permit a 
new mining facility. It can take a really long time to open one 
that has already been in operation and is being recommissioned.
    I think the point came up earlier, dealing with Federal 
lands is very difficult. Not much of what I think people would 
pursue would be on private lands, so we don't have, you know, a 
more flexible arrangement there. It is not that scrutiny is a 
bad thing.
    Scrutiny is a good thing. If processes could be 
streamlined, if there was more certainty around the permitting 
process for new facilities, if there were ways of being able to 
build better consensus among different groups about access and 
how mining operations would be conducted in different 
locations, along with all of the supporting infrastructure, 
then I think we would be in better shape.
    I often feel that what we really need to do is just 
revisit--if we are serious about this, we need to just revisit 
the entire scope of how regulation is as it pertains to the 
mining in the United States to see where improvements can be 
made in order to be able to generate more of a----
    Mr. Long. I think we are serious about it, and I would say 
to import 12 minerals, you know, it is not a good thing.
    So the third domestic environmental permitting process hurt 
our international competitiveness in this area.
    Dr. Michot Foss. I think that certainly what it has done is 
it has made our industry clean and safe. It has contributed to 
that. I think people have learned how to adapt.
    Just like every other business, the mining industry has 
acquired new practices. There is a lot more that can be done to 
make mining safe and to make it clean. I mentioned that 
earlier, we have got emerging ideas and emerging practices that 
we ought to be the leader in because we are the best place with 
our rules, our laws, and our transparency to be able to 
implement some of the things that people talk about, greener 
mining, climate friendly mining, you know, things that actually 
do a better job of protecting mineworkers.
    We are deploying new technologies to reduce the human 
interface. I mean, this is happening in all basic industries. 
One way to make mining safer is to have fewer mineworkers. I 
mean, this is a reality in the business in terms of being able 
to move things forward. Better thinking, better management over 
permitting, licensing, compliance, and other things I think 
would help.
    Mr. Long. You hit on permitting there at the end, and that 
was going to be my next question, but I will submit it for the 
record since I am out of time, as far as the permitting process 
and fixing that to be more competitive in our global markets.
    And thank you for being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    Next we recognize the gentle lady from California, 
Representative Matsui, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
really very important hearing. I think it is really critical 
that we recognize that this is not a one-off deal. Climate 
change is happening, certainly in California, Oregon, and 
Washington State, but also throughout the country, whether it 
is fires or whether it is tremendous hurricanes. This is 
impacting the entire country, so this hearing is really quite 
important.
    You know, I believe we need to chart a path forward that 
addresses not only immediacy and gravity of the climate crisis 
but recognize that costs to inaction are not borne equally by 
all Americans. Moving toward a clean energy will create new and 
lasting economic opportunities for helping really to alleviate 
some of the disproportionate impacts harming frontline 
communities.
    Now, over the last several weeks, more than 700 wildfires 
have been burning throughout California. If you look at a map 
of California and the West Coast, you see these little icons of 
just fires going on all over.
    This is including the second and third largest in our 
State's history. The fires this year are even more disruptive 
than last, and we have just seen just the beginning of the 
season. So this is not the height of the destruction right now.
    The 2018 and 2019 fires cost more than $40 billion, and as 
the fire season goes longer and more severe, I am really 
concerned that the costs in terms of human life and economic 
damage will only grow.
    So, as I said before, this is not just California and the 
West Coast. It is coming all throughout the country. So this is 
a national problem, and it has huge economic downsides.
    So, Dr. Saha, can you describe what your research shows 
regarding the economic impacts of climate inaction in terms of 
the U.S. GDP?
    Dr. Saha. Thank you.
    I think that is a very important question because 
oftentimes when we debate about the merits of climate policy, 
we don't take into account the costs that are already being 
borne on the U.S. economy. And as I said in my oral testimony, 
the longer we delay taking action, the longer the United States 
is going to be vulnerable to increasing damages from climate 
catastrophe and air pollution and other impacts.
    And I think there is literature that says, emerging studies 
that have actually looked at how much climate inaction is going 
to shave off, you know, from U.S. GDP in case it fails to take 
action. And the impact on U.S. GDP is actually going to be 
quite significant.
    So, in that sense, I think it is really urgent that we 
understand the gravity of the situation and look at all 
technologies that can get us to a path of reducing emissions by 
2050.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
    And, you know, I am talking about wildfires and the fact 
that we have such significant air pollution that we can barely 
breathe, day is night, and it is just totally incredible; but 
we also have the aspects of flooding. In my district, 
Sacramento is the second most flooded town and urban are in 
this country, second to New Orleans.
    And climate change exacerbates the risk of extreme weather 
and flooding events which makes it more common even throughout 
the Midwest. Modernizing our water infrastructure has 
significant public safety implications and presents an 
opportunity to minimize our carbon footprint.
    Dr. Fairchild, what steps should we be taking to ensure our 
water infrastructure is climate resistant, resilient, and 
clean?
    Dr. Fairchild. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
    Well, I think there are two things I would like to bring 
into focus. One is how do we mitigate and slow carbon 
emissions; and then, secondly, how do we adapt to the fact that 
the climate change is here and the fires are here and how do we 
build an infrastructure to do both.
    On the one hand, our mitigation strategy in green 
infrastructure looks at watersheds, doing water management 
infrastructure, which is not the centralized water systems, but 
really how do we capture water.
    On school sites, for example, a lot of initiatives are 
helping to dig up our playgrounds and making permeable 
pavements, and we can do this to our streets to capture the 
water to prevent flooding so it goes into the aquifer.
    So there are a number of things, new technologies in 
coastal restoration and sort of ecological approaches to 
mitigation.
    I guess the more important part is the adaptation, besides 
the green infrastructure, which is a job generator, by the way, 
from landscaping to putting up free canopies to address urban 
heat islands, that we really need to figure out how to adapt to 
rising heat waves and temperatures in our communities by making 
our communities cooler.
    So I think that the water, energy, climate nexus is clear, 
and we need to recognize that these are water infrastructures, 
a huge energy consumer, but we also need to build an 
infrastructure to adapt to the floods that are taking place.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you very much for all of your work.
    And I see I have run out of time, so I yield back. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas. 
Representatives Flores, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding the hearing today.
    Dr. Michot Foss, I have a couple of questions for you, but 
let me start with this. The goal of this hearing is to 
determine how we can build a hundred percent clean economy with 
opportunities for a low-carbon recovery.
    But let me say this, that there are no equitable 
opportunities for recovery for hardworking Americans if the 
power is out at work or if the lights out at home or school for 
our Nation's kids.
    And California is an example of how to do this incorrectly. 
The California Green New Deal ignores the science of 
electricity physics, and it ignores market forces when setting 
power policy.
    Today their flawed policies are causing blackouts and 
brownouts, and last year they caused massive fires.
    California's Governor Newsom recently said that the failure 
to prevent blackouts was unacceptable, and he called for an 
investigation.
    Well, he won't have to look far because their problems are 
caused by their failed policies. The Wall Street Journal summed 
up this viewpoint in an editorial recently saying that 
California's blackouts were a warning to the rest of America 
about the risk of Green New Deal policies.
    In contrast, Texas is a great example about how to do it 
right. While oil and gas are both very important to Texas, our 
State is also a leader of renewable energy. In fact, renewable 
energy throughout Texas has helped to place our State ahead of 
all others in contributing to renewable energy production.
    According to an article that appeared in Green Tech Media 
in January, Texas accounted for more than a quarter of all 
corporate renewable energy deals signed in 2019 around the 
world. This phenomenal growth is driven by the successful 
market-based model adapted in Texas in the 1990s when Texas 
began to deregulate the power industry.
    The contrast between California and Texas clearly shows 
that policy solutions for a low-carbon economy should be based 
on real world strategies focused on conservation, innovation, 
adaptation, and market dynamics.
    It is also important to realize that policymakers need to 
pay close attention to the importance of baseload power 
generation. In this context we should heed the comments of Mr. 
Stephenson, the President of the IBEW, where he talks about his 
organization's support for preserving key baseload energy 
services, including natural gas, coal, and nuclear power.
    And as stated in his written testimony, the IBEW sees 
existing and advanced nuclear power as the cornerstone of low-
carbon future. His testimony also states that as the United 
States moves toward increasing reliance on renewable energy, 
such as solar and wind, the need for nuclearenergy's 
reliability, the country's only carbon-free source that can 
ensure around-the-clock generation, even during inclement 
weather, has become greater.
    Today's hearing, which explores the attributes of renewable 
energy, is a topic in which I have taken a keen personal 
interest. With regard to the moving toward carbon-neutral 
future, I have done more than talk about it. My residence is 
the largest producer of residential solar power in Brazos 
County, Texas, and during the hottest part of day, I will be 
feeding power back into our local grid.
    Overall, on an annual basis, I generate 40 percent of my 
own power. And since 2014, by careful energy usage management 
and converting to 100 percent LED lighting, we have reduced our 
gross electricity percentage by another 37 percent.
    Mr. Flores. The point that I want to make is that finding a 
lasting solution to any of our economic, environmental, and 
energy solutions requires us to use nothing less than all of 
the tools in our toolbox, and our solutions again need to focus 
on conservation, innovation, adaptation to market dynamics.
    So, again, Dr. Michot Foss, thank you for being here today 
and thank you for your blunt warnings regarding the severe 
economic security and environmental risk of relying on China to 
achieve our clean energy goals
    We as policymakers should also heed your comments regarding 
the fallacy of expanding pollution sources in China in order to 
meet our environmental objectives. In my opening statements, I 
discussed the contrast between the successes of Texas energy 
policy, which has reduced energy emissions, and that of 
California, which has experienced a number of shortcomings 
resulting in rolling blackouts and other issues.
    Can you speak to the difference in the way these two States 
approach incentivizing low-carbon energy production and 
reducing emissions while maintaining economic growth?
    Dr. Michot Foss. The most important difference is that we 
have an energy-only market, meaning electricity comes into the 
wholesale market on a full competitive basis. We have price 
caps that send price signals into the market that people 
respond to. Also renewable energy that has been developed, 
including probably yours at your household, Mr. Flores, have 
benefited from Federal tax supports. So there is that but one 
thing that we have done that--that is very difficult to do 
around the country is to build high-voltage transmission to 
carry renewable energy sources into the market. That was not 
easy. In fact, there is a lot to learn from that experience.
    Mr. Flores. OK. And my next question is this, and we may 
have to get to you answer it supplementally for me. We need to 
think about this beyond our borders and think globally. With 
respect to that, U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG, can ensure 
that global energy demand is met in a manner that minimizes 
greenhouse gas emissions while maximizing reliability and cost 
efficiency. So, based on your expertise, what are your thoughts 
on increasing LNG use and exports as a way to meet global 
energy, security, and environmental goals?
    Dr. Michot Foss. Mr. Chairman, should I answer?
    Mr. Tonko. Please do.
    Dr. Michot Foss. OK.
    Mr. Tonko. If you could do it quickly though.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Michot Foss. To the extent that, as was already pointed 
out by other panelists, natural gas has a lower carbon content 
fuel, then what we would be helping to do through our LNG 
exports is reducing carbon emissions in other locations around 
the world the same way that we achieved carbon emission 
reductions here. It is low-hanging fruit. It is something to 
think about.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Chairman, you are muted.
    Mr. Tonko. Sorry about that.
    The gentleman yielded back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative McNerney. You are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Chairman. I thank the 
ranking members, and I thank the witnesses. Interesting hearing 
this morning.
    So watching the members' questions, I observed that we 
are--both sides are talking past each other, and that is 
unfortunate. The climate is clearly changing. It may not be 
impacting Ohio just yet, but it will. It is imperative to 
reduce carbon emissions, but energy security is also important, 
and everyone recognizes that. The challenge is to reduce 
emissions while improving energy reliability. I believe that 
that is possible.
    And that is why I recently introduced H.R. 7975, the GREEN 
Workforce Act, which focuses on helping Americans train for and 
transition to careers in clean energy fields, providing them 
with the skills needed to develop and operate clean energy 
systems of the future.
    Mr. Stephenson, thank you for your testimony. By all 
accounts, we will need millions of new jobs in order to fully 
recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic. But while 
the energy sector saw incredible job growth over the past 
decade, the distribution of that growth has not been equitable 
and diverse. What can be done ensure that the historically 
underrepresented groups are not overlooked as the clean energy 
jobs are created?
    Mr. Stephenson. Yes, thank you for that question.
    As I kind of alluded to earlier, within IBEW, ourselves, we 
have developed what we call IBEW Strong and that is designed 
particularly to make sure that we are reaching out to 
communities that haven't been part of the--particularly on our 
construction side--of the IBEW, that we are embracing and 
bringing different communities, people that maybe didn't think 
they have a place in the IBEW. It is part of the training and 
education of our local unions, of our apprenticeship programs. 
We just partnered with our National Electrical Contractors 
Association, NECA, and they are taking on the same goal, is to 
make sure we are increasing our diversity and inclusion within 
our construction industry. And so that's a vital part of it.
    And as these new jobs are created, like I mentioned before, 
we have got training facilities all across the country. Every 
State, we have got training facilities. So we are in a position 
that we can, you know, bring these new workers into our 
programs, get them the training that they need to be 
successful, and lead the industry as these new technologies and 
new opportunities open up.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Dr. Saha, Dr. Fairchild, agriculture is the biggest 
economic sector in my district. In your testimony, you each 
highlighted the role of carbon farming in enhancing 
productivity, profitability, and resilience in the ag sector. 
Please describe the economic and climate benefits associated 
with improving soil health and sequestration.
    Dr. Saha first.
    Dr. Saha. Hi. So, Yes, so natural carbon capture in trees 
and agricultural soil actually lead to emission reductions. But 
they also have a lot of economic benefits in terms of enhancing 
productivity, profitability, and resilience in U.S. farms, 
forests, and rural communities. So one thing, one strategy is, 
you know, tree restoration, whether it is happening in forests 
or interspersed across, you know, nonforested rural landscape. 
That has, you know, one of the greatest potential to sequester 
carbon.
    Also things like improved soil management can enhance 
carbon storage in agriculture soils by reducing carbon losses 
or increasing carbon uptake, and these practices also provide 
other benefits, including reduced erosion or resilience to 
drought and in some cases increased eels (ph).
    So these can open up significant opportunity for rural 
farming communities to economically benefit from the adoption 
of improved soil management practices.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Ms. Fairchild.
    Dr. Fairchild. I want to speak to the probably the 
distribution and processing side of this which really accounts 
for as much as 25, 20 percent--26 percent of energy waste 
appeared energy emissions and what we are doing is building--
bringing the farmers closer to the markets by shortening the 
supply chain, working with anchor institutions, Eds and Meds, 
to buy sustainable foods and to buy locally.
    And we are--we are building now an 800,000 square foot 
sustainable food factory, hiring 250 union workers in 
sustainable foods, and at the same time buying within the 250-
mile food shed food products from farmers to--into that 
processing facility. So it addresses emission. It addresses 
jobs. It addresses business opportunities.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    All right. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
    Representative Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a very timely 
hearing. I want to thank all the panelists for being here. Bill 
Flores, great comments earlier.
    I would be remiss if I didn't address the wildfires out 
West and really point to the failure of the folks in Western 
States from actively managing the Nation's forests. These are 
resources that the taxpayers own in many, many instances, and 
we are seeing over the last few years very rampant while fires 
out there. We have to ask ourselves: Why? If you look at the 
fires last year in California, many were started from faulty 
transition lines arcing and sparking. This year we have seen 
lightning strikes. We have seen terrorism, ecoterrorists, and 
arsonists. We have also seen a gender reveal party start one of 
the largest fires in California. That is well beyond any sort 
of climate change that you are trying to blame these fires on.
    Let's look at what actually is causing the rampant 
wildfires to be as large and out of control as they are, and 
that is lack of forest management over a number of decades. 
That is prescribed burning. We need to, as a Nation, realize 
that a little bit of nuisance during the winter and spring wet 
months for a prescribed burning, the smoke that is going come 
from prescribed burns that take that fuel out of the way is 
much better than the rampant smoke that we are seeing all 
across the West now coming from the wildfires in many, many 
States. And it is not just California. It is Washington. It is 
Montana. It is Oregon where we have not actively managed these 
fires.
    We need to put in shading and firebreaks. We need to have 
prescribed burns. We need to manage the Nation's resources, and 
that is failure of many, many States and that is a policy, Mr. 
Chairman, I think we need to look at beyond climate change is 
look at how we manage the Nation's timber resources.
    And all the experts in the field of forestry will agree 
with me that you have got to take the fuel away or you are 
going to experience this, regardless of the cause, whether it 
is a lightning strike or a faulty transmission line.
    So, while I am talking about transmission lines, let's talk 
about what is going on in California this year that is pretty 
applicable to this hearing, and that is a 60-year failure of 
California energy structure to maintain and upgrade the 
transmission lines, the move toward renewable energy, which is 
intermittent. So, when you have really 100-plus days and a lot 
of demand, you see rolling brownouts and blackouts. That is 
going to happen when you go to a more renewable energy source.
    Let me tell you what does work, and that is fossil fuels 
and nuclear power. If we want to lower our carbon footprint, we 
need to put more emphasis on nuclear power. In fact, let me 
show you this graphic. And there is a lot of windmills on that. 
I don't know that you can see this, but let me read this 
graphic. It takes 2,077 2-megawatt wind generators to produce 
about nine million megawatt hours of electricity, 2,000 
windmills. The same energy can be produced by--one 1154-
megawatt nuclear power plant produces about the same amount of 
energy. This--the square footage, you could put all of that--
you know how much land it takes to put 2,000-something wind 
generators up? In less than 1 square mile footprint, you can 
have a nuclear power plant that is going to provide the same 
amount of low-carbon electricity generation. That is where we 
need to put our emphasis.
    Ms. Fairchild, you talked earlier about hydro. I think Ms. 
Matsui was asking about hydropower and reservoir and clean 
water. This is rhetorical, but when was the last time that 
California built a reservoir to hold the water that is coming 
out of the Sierra Nevadas that is flowing into the ocean every 
year? Instead of holding that water to use as clean drinking 
water or use for hydropower, we are going to stop any sort of 
hydropower development in California because of a smelt order, 
not thinking about the need of human beings in California.
    They need clean drinking water and the glaring need this 
year of good, stable, 24/7, 365 baseload power that is provided 
by nuclear power or hydro or fossil fuels that you are not 
going to get through renewables. And, look, I am all about 
renewables. I love it. I think it is groovy technology. I think 
it is part of the energy matrix. But we know what works, just 
like we know what works with active forest management of the 
resources that we have.
    It is interesting that these wildfires aren't rampant in 
Canada or Mexico, a very similar topography as what we see in 
California. But when we see these wildfires are out of control, 
then we understand why. It is because we have not actively 
managed our forest resources, and we have got to do that. That 
is a policy change.
    Mr. Chairman, I have 11 seconds. I want to thank you for 
this hearing.
    And I think California and the Nation really needs to 
address active forest management and look at good, stable, 365, 
24/7 baseload power supply generation that comes from fossil 
fuels, it comes from nuclear power, and upgrading our grid 
system to make sure that we don't have sparks that are causing 
a lot of fires in the past.
    With that, I will yield back.
    Dr. Fairchild. Congressman, I wanted to correct for the 
record. I did not make a--take a position on water, on water 
power. So just wanted to correct that.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. Recognized.
    So the gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr. 
Ruiz.
    Representative Ruiz, you are represented for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Ruiz. You know, as a Californian, it strikes me funny 
to hear a Republican from southern--South Carolina blame 
environmental laws for climate change and also recognizing that 
the vast majority of forest land in California is Federal land.
    Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Ruiz. No.
    I am Congressman Raul Ruiz. I represent California's 36th 
Congressional District, which includes 11 federally--I am 
sorry--got the wrong thing. I got all worked up after hearing 
that. One second.
    You know, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing. Today's hearing examines two of the most pressing 
issues facing Californians and my constituents right now: the 
massive economic toll of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 
devastating effects of climate change. Unemployment for my 
district remains above 13 percent, and small businesses from 
Hemet to Cathedral City have been contacting my office to share 
their specific hardships as a result of the pandemic.
    At the same time, wildfires have torched 3.5 million acres 
in California, three percent of the State's total area 
including the 30,000-acre Apple fire, which threatened the city 
of Banning in my district. As climate change worsens, these 
fires will only get worse, more intense, and more frequent. And 
it is hard to imagine a worse fire season than what we have 
seen so far this year. That is why it is so important that we 
use this opportunity to invest in industries that can reduce 
our carbon output while also putting Americans back to work.
    The daily high temperature in the Coachella Valley desert 
hasn't dropped below 100 degrees since June, and with more of 
my constituents at home during the day either because they are 
unemployed or working remotely, air conditioners are working 
overtime and requiring more energy and more costs than ever. 
There is no better time to invest in harnessing solar energy to 
lower utility bills, reduce carbon emissions, and save our 
environment and our health from climate change.
    As of 2018, there were more than 2,300 individuals employed 
by solar energy companies in my district alone, and I believe 
that we can continue to grow this number and bring the promise 
of clean energy and secure unemployment to everyone. This is 
why I introduced H.R. 7849, the Renewable Energy Jobs Act, 
which would create a Federal grant to fund training programs 
that help people find good-paying jobs in renewable industries 
like wind and solar development.
    Ms. Saha, in your testimony, you describe how investment in 
clean energy industries can help put Americans back to work. 
Specifically you describe how every $1 million invested in 
renewable energy can generate 78 full-time equivalent jobs. Can 
you give this committee a better sense of what that that means 
and how investment translates into employment?
    Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
    Representative Ruiz, may I just take a few minutes to 
address something that--
    Mr. Ruiz. We only have 1-minute and 50 seconds left. So, if 
you can address it in ten seconds and then answer the question, 
that would be wonderful.
    Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
    We are hearing a lot of issues about how renewable energy 
is to blame for, you know, California's, you know, first 
rolling blackouts in 19 years. And I just want to say that that 
is a mischaracterization of the problem. So data shows that, 
right now, California's net electricity generation from one 
hydro renewable clean energy source is about 40 percent. Iowa 
has about 60 percent. So, clearly, the problem isn't the amount 
of renewable energy on the State's grid but what the State and 
its utilities are doing to balance its resources. So let's not 
blame renewable energy for rolling blackouts.
    Mr. Ruiz. It is interesting that that argument also 
coincides with cuts in forest management in the budgets that we 
have seen over the past this administration and also the answer 
to this climate change is more reliance on fossil fuels.
    Let me ask Mr. Stephenson a question, because I only have a 
few seconds. You know, we have worked closely with labor in 
making sure that labor has the ability to receive grant funding 
to train people in renewable energy jobs on-site. So how will 
investing in solar and wind energy development help create more 
job opportunities in places like the Coachella Valley where one 
of those large solar plants that we have been working on 
together help create more jobs?
    Mr. Stephenson. As the new jobs, new technologies continue 
to move forward, it is going to be new training. It is going to 
be needed, you know, bring in more workers in, into the 
industry and getting them trained on the--on solar and wind, 
what have you. So and we are a part of that is our training 
programs. Like I said, we are all over the country. So we are 
prepared to do that and assess to get the trained people to not 
only do those installs, but also retrofit is also an important 
part of that process.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
    I have run out of time. So I will yield it back to the 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. 
Representative Carter.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank all of you for participating in this. This is 
certainly something that is extremely important, extremely 
timely. There is no question about that.
    Dr. Foss, I want to start with you and ask you. When we 
discuss a transition to a low-carbon economy, we have to 
discuss the cost and the requirements that are associated with 
the supply chain. And certainly supply chains, as we know, are 
very important. I want to point out two examples of where 
supply chains are important.
    First of all, I am old enough and I suspect there are some 
other members on this call who are old enough to remember the 
late 1970s when we realized that we were too dependent on 
foreign countries, particularly the Middle East, for our energy 
needs, and we needed to have more energy independence.
    More recently, we have recognized that we are too dependent 
on other countries for our pharmaceutical needs. During this 
pandemic that we are experiencing right now, we understand that 
they are essential ingredients that we can't do without in 
order to--in order to manufacture some of our pharmaceuticals 
and in order to get those, we have to get them from other 
countries, and that is not a good position for us to be in.
    So I appreciate the fact that you have pointed out that we 
need to look at this in detail. We need to look at the supply 
chain and to look at the cost and the sources of these 
materials.
    I want to ask you, Dr. Foss. Do you believe that the energy 
policies that are being proposed really adequately factor in 
the requirements for mining for rare earth minerals, for the 
production of aggregates when we use--that are used in concrete 
and cement industries are the locations of where these minerals 
are mined?
    Dr. Michot Foss. No, sir, I don't.
    Mr. Carter. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate you being 
succinct about that because it is an important point, and 
certainly it is an important point for us to recognize this.
    You know, I live in what I consider to be one of the most 
beautiful areas in south Georgia. I represent the entire coast 
of Georgia. And if you look at that, you know, we have had a 
number of companies that have looked at mining, and we have got 
the Okefenokee Swamp, which is a great national treasure that 
all of us love and none of us want to see disrupted. Yet there 
are minerals there that could save us and help us in this 
country, but nobody wants it in their back yard, and I get it. 
I understand that, and that is one thing I think we have to 
take into consideration.
    You also mentioned, Dr. Foss, in your testimony how the 
United States was ranked 12th overall in nonfuel mineral 
production. We know that many of these critical minerals are 
mined in poor conditions in areas like the Republic of the 
Congo, or they are used for strategic advantage by the 
Japanese--or by the Chinese--excuse me--and that they use them, 
just like I mentioned earlier, that we are witnessing right now 
that they are using the pharmaceuticals to their advantage. We 
understand that that is not a good position for us to be in, 
and we should not be in that position.
    How important is it for us to factor into the supply chain 
questions when we are planning for future energy investments?
    Dr. Michot Foss. First of all, let me quickly correct the 
record. I had a cut-and-paste error in the testimony. We 
represent 12 percent of the global nonfuel mineral output, but 
we might as well be 12th when it comes to the things we don't 
produce sufficient amounts of.
    So we have talked about--we put governance on the table, 
which is what you are talking about again, responsible mining 
and minerals production, responsible energy production from any 
source; it doesn't matter where it comes from, what the 
technology is. Best practice, that is another phrase. What is 
best practice? We have lots of engineering standards that are 
used, widely used, and indicative of best practice.
    The huge difference is that, in our country, for better or 
worse, when projects are proposed of any sort, any type of 
industrial project, they undergo tremendous amounts of 
scrutiny. We have laws and rules to protect people, property, 
and the larger environment, and we have transparency. And if 
something happens, we know about it.
    And what we would like to see is we would like to see a 
level playing field and see these kinds of things adopted, 
these kinds of values and practices adopted in other countries 
that are going to supply the global economy.
    Mr. Carter. Great. Well, I am out of time.
    Dr. Foss, thank you very much.
    And thank everyone who has participated in this today.
    It has been a very good hearing, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. I thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the full 
committee, Representative Clarke, from my home State of New 
York.
    Represent Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank 
our ranking member for convening today's hearing at such a 
critical time for our country.
    As has been stated by numerous of my colleagues, we 
currently stand at the intersection of multiple crises: a 
public health crisis, an economic crisis, a crisis over 
longstanding racial injustice, and a climate crisis that 
threatens our very existence on this planet,
    Now, as we look toward an economic recovery, we must 
address the deep-seated and interrelated issues with 
comprehensive solutions that put our country on the path to a 
more resilient and equitable future.
    In my district in Brooklyn, we know the importance of 
resilience all too well. We have felt the impacts of climate 
change firsthand from Superstorm Sandy to summer heat waves 
that disrupt our power supply. And as our Nation experiences 
record fires out West and a record hurricane season down South, 
we know that resilience must be a primary consideration in all 
of our efforts to build a better future.
    So I would like to begin by focusing on the idea of 
resilience starting with Dr. Saha.
    Dr. Saha, in your testimony, you describe the importance of 
rebuilding a low-carbon economy that is resilient to future 
shocks from climate change and other crises. You also describe 
the importance of ensuring that decarbonization policies and 
technologies benefit all communities and not just those with 
the most resources.
    Can you please expand on the need for what you refer to as 
climate-smart investments and how these investments in smarter, 
low-carbon technologies can start to build an economy that is 
simultaneously more resilient, competitive, and inclusive?
    Dr. Saha. Absolutely.
    I think as we think about the benefits of transitioning to 
a low-carbon economy, we have to keep front and center issues 
of resiliency and equity because these are issues that are 
going to determine whether our climate policies are going to be 
effective in the long run as well.
    So one of the things in terms of resiliency, let me, you 
know, give you an example from rural communities in this 
country. So plenty of research has shown that rural households 
suffer from a higher energy burden compared to their urban 
counterparts. So investments in things like energy efficiency 
can actually address that challenge that is being faced by 
rural communities, things like it can save them hundreds of 
dollars annually on utility bills. So, at a time when low 
income communities, whether in urban USA or in rural 
communities, are suffering from, you know, unemployment issues, 
thing like saving money on their utility bills is actually 
speaking to the whole resiliency issue.
    So that is, you know, just one example that, you know, I 
would like to highlight.
    Ms. Clarke. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Dr. Saha.
    Dr. Fairchild, your organization, Emerald Cities, works to 
build resilience in communities that are on the front lines of 
climate change, including communities in New York City who were 
impacted by Superstorm Sandy. You also mentioned in your 
testimony the importance of climate equity and how we need to 
bounce forward and not bounce back.
    Can you please discuss the importance of building 
resilience in communities that you work with and how these 
efforts go hand in hand with investments in clean energy and 
climate equity?
    Dr. Fairchild. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
    And I was born and raised in Brooklyn and Queens. So I am 
homegirl.
    The essence of resilience is that there is at least 
minimally issues of redundancy. If the central energy grid goes 
down, people still have the ability to turn on their lights, to 
cook, and to plug in their iPhones. The same with the food 
system, as in COVID, when the food central distribution system 
falls down, where do we get our food from? So we are doing 
things like, for example, just in Brooklyn, the Armory is 
actually--and this is what frontline communities are organized 
to do--putting solar on top of the Armory that would feed clean 
energy, renewable energy to the surrounding neighborhoods. I 
believe it is about 2 kilowatts, 2 megawatts of clean energy 
that is being produced. Folks are looking for micro grids, 
community energy districts that will allow them to be resilient 
in the case of--so we don't see a Puerto Rico, where the whole 
city, whole county goes black because there is no backup 
generation, no energy.
    So how do we build these decentralized energy 
infrastructures, decentralized food infrastructure that allows 
us to be resilient in the case of extreme whether?
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    This is a very good hearing. Look forward to much further 
consideration and conversation as we move forward to advance 
our Nation with clean energy future. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I have to note that all roads lead to 
Brooklyn, according to--
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, they do, sir.
    Mr. Tonko. So the gentle lady yields back.
    And I now recognize the gentle lady from Michigan, 
Representative Dingell, you are represented for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Thanks for holding 
this hearing. As my other colleagues having said, it's a great 
hearing.
    And thank you to all of the witnesses, who I know by the 
time you get to somebody like me, you will be glad when this is 
over.
    But today's hearing is incredibly important as we find 
ourselves confronting multiple intersecting crises. No State, 
no community, no sector of our economy has been spared from 
COVID-19, and the public health and economic impacts have been 
devastating, and tragically this crisis is only getting worse.
    But the parallels to the climate crisis are unmistakable. 
The human and economic toll of unmitigated climate change 
aren't a distant inevitably. They are here and wreaking havoc 
on our communities. If you just look at the headlines this 
week: The West is on fire. Hurricane Sally is pounding the 
Southern States, and scientists believe two major Antarctic 
glaciers are on the verge of breaking free.
    This is what climate change looks like, but we have got 
time to work together and to act boldly. It is time to reboot 
our economy and create a cleaner, more inclusive future for all 
Americans. And I hope that all of us can work together to 
summon the courage to act with the urgency that we need to 
tackle the climate crisis and come together on a way forward.
    It is always good to see my brothers and sisters in labor 
at the table. I think they are a very important voice. Mr. 
Stephenson, your testimony discusses how Congress and this 
committee in particular can revive American manufacturing. I 
think that is critical.
    Can you please expand on how manufacturing policy, coupled 
with major public investments, can support America's middle 
class while addressing the climate crisis? It is not either/or 
but especially in the context of today's economic downturn.
    Mr. Stephenson. Yes. Thank you.
    And it is critical that all the jobs that could be created 
or should be created as we continue to move into a more carbon 
neutral or renewable energy source; there is lots of 
manufacturing jobs that could be out there. And that is going 
to not only, you know, when you go into the auto industry and 
converting to more electric vehicles and all the building, the 
manufacturing of the batteries that we have already talked 
about, the solar panels, the wind turbans. If we could truly 
manufacture that here in States, it would create hundreds of 
thousands of good-paying, quality jobs for Americans in this 
country.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
    And your testimony also expressed support for a national 
climate bank, much like the one that I have introduced this 
session. That program, the Clean Energy and Sustainable 
Accelerator, was included in the infrastructure bill that 
passed the House in June and is also in the Clean Economy Jobs 
and Innovation Act that was introduced yesterday. With $20 
billion in funding, the accelerator would finance and stimulate 
private investment in low and zero carbon technologies and 
infrastructure, creating millions of new jobs.
    Mr. Stephenson, can you tell us how Federal investment and 
climate action would help mobilize private investment and why 
attaching strong labor protections to recovery spending would 
benefit Americans workers?
    Mr. Stephenson. Yes. Again, you know, with the investment 
of the United States Government in moving this, you know, these 
initiatives forward, we have more people stepping up, 
entrepreneurs that are looking at getting involved, even small 
business people that could participate in this as we are, you 
know, continuing to build the infrastructure that is needed. 
Like I said, we have all the materials to provide for the 
services for the manufacturing. There are just multiple ways 
that investment would help encourage and build those companies, 
those employers, and their workers.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    The Clean Energy and Sustainable Accelerator also includes 
designated funding for one of my top priorities, which is 
accelerating the electrification of vehicles and fleets.
    Dr. Saha, your testimony discusses the importance of 
electrifying vehicles and expanding EV infrastructure. Can you 
please elaborate on the benefits of investing in transportation 
electrification? What scale of investment is needed to truly 
move the needle on electrification to realize both its economic 
and climate benefits?
    Dr. Saha. Absolutely. Let me just say that transportation 
is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the 
United States. So we need a comprehensive set of policies that 
addresses vehicles, fuels, infrastructure, as well as mobility 
options. So, in terms of infrastructure, I think Congress needs 
to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle charging 
network that anticipates and enables the transition to 100 
percent zero emission vehicle fleet.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time is up but I would like to request 
unanimous consent to submit a report by the Political Economy 
Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst 
on the job creation estimates for various economic stimulus 
proposals, showing the benefits of a recovery based on the 
principles of the thrive resolution.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. I would like to--I believe that completes the 
list of colleagues who wanted to ask questions of our 
witnesses.
    With that, I would certainly thank our witnesses for 
joining us for today's hearing. I thank you for your time, for 
your patience, and certainly for your input. It has been a very 
valuable hearing.
    And I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, 
they have ten business days by which to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by our witnesses.
    I ask that our witnesses please respond promptly to any 
such questions that you may receive.
    I now have a long list of requests for unanimous consent to 
enter into the record. So allow me to just run through this 
list.
    A letter from the Evangelical Environmental Network;a 
letter from the coalition of communities, environmental groups, 
and researchers regarding critical minerals;a letter from the 
American Lung Association and accompanying report entitled 
``The Road to Clean Air: Benefits of a Nationwide Transition to 
Electric Vehicles''; a report from Resources For the Future and 
the Environmental Defense Fund entitled ``Environmental 
Remediation and Infrastructure Policies Supporting Workers and 
Communities in Transition''; a report from Resources for the 
Future and the Environmental Defense Fund entitled ``Economic 
Development Policies to Enable Fairness For Workers and 
Communities in Transition'';a report from World Resources 
Institute entitled ``America's New Climate Economy: A 
Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy 
in the United States''; a letter from Clean Transportation 
Stimulus Coalition; a letter from Earthjustice and an 
accompanying report entitled ``Equitable and Just National 
Climate Platform''; a report from the Political Economy 
Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst entitled ``Job Creation Estimates through Proposed 
Economic Stimulus Measures''; a letter from the Solar Energy 
Industries Association; a Federal registered final list of 
critical minerals; a May 2019 Foreign Policy article entitled 
``China Raises Threat of Rare-Earths Cutoff to the United 
States''; a December 2018 Bloomberg article entitled ``China 
Has a Secret Weapon in the Race to Dominate Electric Cars''; a 
May 2020 Foreign Policy article entitled ``U.S. Falters in Bid 
to Replace Chinese Rare-Earths''; a report from the Department 
of Energy entitled ``Critical Materials Rare-Earth Supply 
Chain: A Situational White Paper''; a report from the 
Department of Commerce entitled ``The Federal Strategy to 
Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.''
    Mr. Shimkus.
    Mr. Tonko. Do we have a problem with that one?
    Mr. Shimkus. No, no, sir.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. A December 2017 executive order from Donald 
J. Trump entitled ``Presidential Executive Order on a Federal 
Strategy and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals''; a 
January 2020 AAAS article, AAAS article, entitled ``Sustainable 
Minerals and Metals for a Low-Carbon Future''; and, finally, 
the announcement from Exelon entitled ``Nuclear Plants in All 
Regions of the Country Have Announced Premature Retirement
    With that, I now request unanimous consent to enter these 
items into the record.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the right to object. 
I am not going to object. I want to take this time to thank the 
panelists. They did a great job.
    It is virtually this is always challenging, but you took a 
lot of great questions, and I think it was a very good hearing.
    So I will not object, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
having it.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. I share your sentiments totally. We thank 
you for your participation and cooperation on the other side of 
the aisle.
    And, without that objection to request for unanimous 
consent, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Tonko. And at this time, the subcommittee is 
adjourned.I21Thank you, everyone.
    [Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]